Prop 8 and passive-aggressiveness

[OrangeUte]

Is it just me, or is the church really very passive aggressive in fighting for prop-8? If my stake president (whom i work with is being accurate), Pres. Monson has been attributed with calling this issue our "gettysburgh"...

1. We are supposed to campaign for the passage of Prop-8, but not to use the church's name or facilities for our work.

2. When "proselytizing" for the cause, we are just "educating" or "polling" the public.

3. The Church has not met with the lds gay group Affirmation, which seems to claim that homosexuality is not a lifestyle or temptation, but a matter of genetics and biology, but will meet with the group Evergreen International, which works to help those lds overcome homosexual behavior. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10521489

4. The GA who spoke to Evergreen William Walker (never heard of him) didn't even use the words "same sex attraction" or homosexuality, but he did say "wickedness never was happiness".

i wish that the church would just come out and say what the mean. it is very clear that they believe homosexuality is a sin and will lead to destruction of our society. i would still disagree with the church's position for reasons i and many others here have already articulated, but i would respect the church for saying what they mean instead of spinning.

the longer this passive aggressive approach goes on, the more it becomes clear that the church is not authentic and true to itself, and is really more about spin and smoke and mirrors.

[il Padrino Ute]

Cue Seattle Ute 4,3,2....

[Jim Swarthout]

I couldn't agree with you more OU.

[MikeWaters]

this goes back to the whole conception of what a sinner is. In the church we believe some people are sinners, some are not. Whereas in some denominations, all people are sinners.

Per the church, gays are sinners, and incapable of leading the lives of a decent, moral person.

So the idea that gay parents could raise a kid in a good decent way is impossible. What it comes down to is the church thinks these gays are despicable people, but not worthy of lynching, or acting illegally or aggressively against.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

i wish that the church would just come out and say what the mean. it is very clear that they believe homosexuality is a sin and will lead to destruction of our society. i would still disagree with the church's position for reasons i and many others here have already articulated, but i would respect the church for saying what they mean instead of spinning.

the longer this passive aggressive approach goes on, the more it becomes clear that the church is not authentic and true to itself, and is really more about spin and smoke and mirrors.

The LDS Church has a long history of cowardice like this. I will grant the courage of their convictions to my ancestors who suffered persecutions in Missouri and Nauvoo and came across the wild and untamed country to Salt Lake. (Necessity is as much the mother of courage as of invention, isn't it.) But since the Mormons settled Salt Lake they don't even seem to have the courage to stand up and forcefully articulate a belief (unlike some of the rest of us), and have been shown amenable to changing a belief as soon as the going gets too tough. And consider, Mormonism exists in a country that enshrines in its founding document and protects by force of law Mormonism's right to believe whatever that is right and good or nonsensical that it may choose to believe. They have no guts is the simple answer to your quandry. Contemporary LDS leaders are gutless.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

i wish that the church would just come out and say what the mean. it is very clear that they believe homosexuality is a sin and will lead to destruction of our society. i would still disagree with the church's position for reasons i and many others here have already articulated, but i would respect the church for saying what they mean instead of spinning.

the longer this passive aggressive approach goes on, the more it becomes clear that the church is not authentic and true to itself, and is really more about spin and smoke and mirrors.

Could it be that the dissonance and inconsistency you see reflects some level of division in the leadership of the church (at both local and central levels) on this issue? Or at the least, varying levels of passion regarding the cause? Or could it be due to the fact that it is promoted as a "moral" issue, yet it forces one to make some awkward and paradoxical judgments in the process?

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Could it be that the dissonance and inconsistency you see reflects some level of division in the leadership of the church (at both local and central levels) on this issue? Or at the least, varying levels of passion regarding the cause? Or could it be due to the fact that it is promoted as a "moral" issue, yet it forces one to make some awkward and paradoxical judgments in the process?

for me, i would feel and respond the same whether it was announced form the pulpit in general conference or not. i'm just wired this way. even if it was president monson telling me to go and do, i still wouldn't go and do if i felt it was wrong. i don't feel like i'm put in a position of making an awkward or paradoxical judgment as to any moral issue here, although i think that the church wants me to feel that way.

authority figures lose credibility with me as soon as they spin or side-step what they are trying to say in order to make it more palatable to the target of comments or action. unfortunately, that is the result of the church leaders actions in this instance on me - both locally and at the central level.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

for me, i would feel and respond the same whether it was announced form the pulpit in general conference or not. i'm just wired this way. even if it was president monson telling me to go and do, i still wouldn't go and do if i felt it was wrong. i don't feel like i'm put in a position of making an awkward or paradoxical judgment as to any moral issue here, although i think that the church wants me to feel that way.

authority figures lose credibility with me as soon as they spin or side-step what they are trying to say in order to make it more palatable to the target of comments or action. unfortunately, that is the result of the church leaders actions in this instance on me - both locally and at the central level.

Well, that's not quite what I meant. Put more simply, perhaps the argument is muddled and inconsistent because they are making the wrong argument. IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The LDS Church has a long history of cowardice like this. I will grant the courage of their convictions to my ancestors who suffered persecutions in Missouri and Nauvoo and came across the wild and untamed country to Salt Lake. (Necessity is as much the mother of courage as of invention, isn't it.) But since the Mormons settled Salt Lake they don't even seem to have the courage to stand up and forcefully articulate a belief (unlike some of the rest of us), and have been shown amenable to changing a belief as soon as the going gets too tough. And consider, Mormonism exists in a country that enshrines in its founding document and protects by force of law Mormonism's right to believe whatever that is right and good or nonsensical that it may choose to believe. They have no guts is the simple answer to your quandry. Contemporary LDS leaders are gutless.

It seems to me that the logical conclusion of your oft-repeated "chickenshit" argument would be the church not taking on the issue at all.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well, that's not quite what a meant. Put more simply, perhaps the argument is muddled and inconsistent because they are making the wrong argument. IMO.

now that i can agree with.