Prop. 8 armageddon?

[SeattleUte]

Apart from the rights or wrongs of being gay or gay marriage, have any of you considered that your leaders may be right in that if gay marriage becomes accepted, legalized and normalized, this would be a serious set back, if not a death blow, to the LDS Church? I'm not sure this has been addressed here really.

I can see where they're coming from. Moreover, I'm sure that an LDS Church led by people lke 3D and Waters would not be a religion organization to reckon with.

[Clark Addison]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Apart from the rights or wrongs of being gay or gay marriage, have any of you considered that your leaders may be right in that if gay marriage becomes accepted, legalized and normalized, this would be a serious set back, if not a death blow, to the LDS Church?

No leader has said that.

[Dan]

... I mostly lurk here these days, but when I read your posts you always seem to pose false question after false question. Pray tell, which leaders have said failure of prop 8 would be the death blow to the church, let alone a serious set back to the church. A serious set back to the morals of mankind and society, but not specifically to the church itself. Individual members may indirectly desensitize over time, but the church itself would not be destroyed any more than it was destroyed, say, in the late 1800s when the government was coming down hard on it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Dan

... I mostly lurk here these days, but when I read your posts you always seem to pose false question after false question. Pray tell, which leaders have said failure of prop 8 would be the death blow to the church, let alone a serious set back to the church. A serious set back to the morals of mankind and society, but not specifically to the church itself. Individual members may indirectly desensitize over time, but the church itself would not be destroyed any more than it was destroyed, say, in the late 1800s when the government was coming down hard on it.

are civil unions for gays a "serious set back to the morals of mankind and society."

It seems to me, that if Mormons are going to get angry about gays, they ought to be angry at God for creating good, kind people that have no sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Dan

... I mostly lurk here these days, but when I read your posts you always seem to pose false question after false question. Pray tell, which leaders have said failure of prop 8 would be the death blow to the church, let alone a serious set back to the church. A serious set back to the morals of mankind and society, but not specifically to the church itself. Individual members may indirectly desensitize over time, but the church itself would not be destroyed any more than it was destroyed, say, in the late 1800s when the government was coming down hard on it.

They call the Prop. 8 fight "our Gettysburg." In American popular imagination and mythology Gettysburg is considered "the union's" armaggedon. Had the battle been lost, Lincoln may have lost the election, indeed the Gettysburg address was the kick-off to his re-election campaign, which was going to be tough. Lee had invaded the north, had brought his army north of DC, to Pennsylvania, after winning every other major preceding battle!

Because of Gettysburg's outcome Lincoln was able to convince northern states the blood letting must go on. This, like his re-election victory against the incompetent general and converted pacifist McLellan, was far from assured.

Are LDS leaders ignorant of the analogy they have created (possibly, given their inherent disdain for history), or do they mean it that Prop. 8 is LDS armaggedon as much as Gettysburg was an American armaggedon?

Here's why I think they may be onto something. I thnk the LDS Church's whole appeal, its branding, its very goodwill, is asssociated with its distinct social conservatism, the fact that it lives in a time capsul, from its extraoridarily uncomprimising ideal of sexual morality to its magic world view. Anything that devalues that outlook in our society, that makes it less appealing or out to be immoral, devalues the LDS Church, devalues its very essesence, strikes at its heart.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Here's why I think they may be onto something. I thnk the LDS Church's whole appeal, its branding, its very goodwill, is asssociated with its distinct social conservatism, the fact that it lives in a time capsul, from its extraoridarily uncomprimising ideal of sexual morality to its magic world view. Anything that devalues that outlook in our society, that makes it less appealing or out to be immoral, devalues the LDS Church, devalues its very essesence, strikes at its heart.

Do you realize what a fool you are making of yourself on this board? I love you, my fellow Ute, but please stop doing this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Captain Hyperbole strikes again!

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Captain Hyperbole strikes again!

Kind of like, "Prop. 8 is our Gettsyburg?" Is that what you mean by "hyperbole"?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Kind of like, "Prop. 8 is our Gettsyburg?" Is that what you mean by "hyperbole"?

Yes, I would consider that to be hyperbole. As is your "death knell" comment. I would imagine you would have considered polygamy to be the death knell of the church. Ditto for the priesthood ban. This too shall pass.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes, I would consider that to be hyperbole. As is your "death knell" comment. I would imagine you would have considered polygamy to be the death knell of the church. Ditto for the priesthood ban. This too shall pass.

Do you mean, for the Church, this issue will go the way of polygamy and the priesthood ban? That is, that the Church will come to accept gay sex within the bonds of marriage as permissible under the law of chastity?

I don't think so.

I think SU is indeed onto something, but not for the reason he identified. Here's why. Let's do a little thought experiment: The year is 2008 and the Church still has the ban on blacks and the Priesthood. What would the social status of the Church be? The rate of conversion? The likelihood that a rapidly progressing society would tolerate such an organization? Its tax-exempt status? Gone. Its public good will? Gone. Community support? Gone. Affiliation with the Boy Scouts (not even they would tolerate official racism)? Gone. BYU's tax-exempt status? Gone. And so forth. Project that out twenty years, to 2028, and the repercussions would be even more immense.

The same will be true with gay marriage and gay rights. The writing is on the wall. The end result is a given. Even if Prop. 8 passes, so what. Give it a decade (or less), and Californians will amend their constitution again. At some point, the Church's stance on gay sex and gay marriage will be so out of the mainstream, that it will be forced into a sort of exile. For now, many other religions stand with the Church, but they too will change policies and stances one by one. Once the Catholic Church changes, the end will be near.

Don't dismiss SU . . . I think he's uncovering the reason the leaders of the Church most fear gay marriage: it will make the Church a pariah in the centuries to come, reversing the hard fought gains in social acceptance.