Gays Lesbians Attack LDS L.A. Temple

[Brian King]

Rant mode on*
This election cycle was a disaster for my positions. I ended up being in the minority on every single vote. My fellow citizens voted to change the relationship between medical professionals and patients now allowing and requiring medical professionals to prescribe and to fill lethal prescriptions. Times are hard and my fellow citizens voted an insane tax hikes to go to mass transit. The same system who’s 1998 ten year plan is ten years behind and millions and millions of dollars over budget. I drive on our roads everyday for a living often stuck in traffic while the car pool lane is under utilized, yet my fellow citizens voted down the idea of opening up those carpool lanes during off peak hours. My selection for governor was again beat but at least this cycle the Democrats did not have to magically find hundreds of uncounted ballots during the third recount after losing the prior counts, winning by a whole 137 votes. This year the gap was larger so at least it did not take a bunch of court cases and weeks to find out that I once again lost. My vote for president and vice president also did not pan out with the selection of President elect Obama and Biden.

So I wonder if I took to the streets, if like some did in Michigan I entered buildings to disrupt shock and bash those that were assembled legally, if I went out and confronted those that opposed my views with the intent of provoking physical violence would I be justified and supported by those now doing the screaming about rights.

I would have some more respect for these that feel that they must protest by confrontation if they confronted those that would challenge their courage and sincerity. Remember when the animal rights protestors would throw paint on the old ladies wearing their fur wraps, I wondered why those brave protestors never went to the rallies at Sturgis and threw paint on all the leather clad motorcycle enthusiasts. I see and read about these protestors (especially that Michigan church situation) and wonder if they will do the same to the local mosque? It is easy to scream, to throw a tantrum but they are doing more harm to their supposed cause than good. I guarantee that they are not convincing anyone that voted against their cause to reevaluate their vote. They are trying to suppress opposing views and in my opinion it stinks.

I now have yet one more thing to pray about. Living here in the Seattle area I now and then have to drive miles out of my way to avoid some illegal street protest. I believe in the right to burn the flag but at the same time do it in front of me and I may dot the eye of the burner and am willing take my lumps in court for doing so. Knowing this about my temperament I do everything I can to avoid these situations. Come to my church or home and confront in the hopes of provoking violence may well produce the desired results, I pray that I can be left in the peace that I am seeking and I pray that those doing the screaming find the peace that they demonstrate desperate need of. In the mean time I vote, and the screamers, those that protest to shock, to oppress opposing views and carry out cowardly confrontations only steel my resolve to combat them as long as I am able, LOL and I am very able.

Rant mode off*

Warmest regards
Brian King

 

[Ray]

If I've understood things correctly, you seem to be missing the point. At no point is Bob saying that members of the church cannot vote. What he is saying that the church shouldn't be allowed to tell people how to vote. To me there's a world of difference there: do the people decide themselves or is someone telling them how to vote.

I'm certain that you and Bob have read the letter sent by the first presidency of the church. I'm certain that you understand that members of the church are always advised to prayfully consider issues and make their own choices. Besides, Bob might be intentionally ignoring the fact that Churches have the legal right to speak out on issues; and he seems to intentionally not separating the activities of the individual members of the church and the official church activity *(which was what, a short letter, perhaps)

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Look up the answers yourself. And be specific whether you are reporting the Church's official activities and expenditures versus the individual member's expenditures and activities.

And as you already know, churches have a right to speak on issues.

Ray, I know the answers.

At the urging of church President Thomas Monson, Mormons contributed more than $15 million to fund the deceitful advertising campaign that resulted in a small majority of Californians supporting Prop 8. In comparison, they spent peanuts on similar messures in other states. The people of California rightfully feel rather indignant.

1998: LDS Church donated $1.1 million to oppose gay marriage proposals in Hawaii and Alaska

1999: With the help of Mormons in the state, California passes Proposition 22, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman

Feb. 25, 2000 Stuart Matis, a homosexual LDS returned missionary, shoots himself on steps of LDS chapel in Los Altos, Calif, to symbolize the pain the church's efforts were causing its gay members

In 2006, the LDS Church joined a national religious coalition to push an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson was among 50 prominent Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish leaders who signed a petition explaining why they see a need for such a constitutional amendment.


Current California law deals only with civil marriage. It does not affect religious rites or institutions.

In a statement to be read in California churches Sunday, LDS President Thomas S. Monson, with his counselors in the governing First Presidency, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, say Mormon teachings on the issue "are unequivocal."

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for his children," the statement says.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will participate with a "broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations" to promote the amendment, which will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.

"Do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time," the statement says.

That last line sounds like an order.

As to why the LDS is the primary target, "The final tally shows that as much as 70 percent of Prop 8 funding from individuals came from Mormons."
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/10/25/mormons-have-donated-40-of-prop-8-funding/

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm certain that you and Bob have read the letter sent by the first presidency of the church. I'm certain that you understand that members of the church are always advised to prayfully consider issues and make their own choices. Besides, Bob might be intentionally ignoring the fact that Churches have the legal right to speak out on issues; and he seems to intentionally not separating the activities of the individual members of the church and the official church activity *(which was what, a short letter, perhaps)

From http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

According to IRS law,

Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.​

From IRS Publication 1828 Page 5,

Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

​

Was the letter of the law violated?

We have spoken with experts on this matter, and the answer is unclear.

The Mormon Church is not only a 501(c)(3), it is also a church, which grants them special rights. They are still prohibited from direct involvement in campaigns for a specific political office as well direct lobbying of legislators.

 

[Ray]

Ray, I know the answers.



That last line sounds like an order.

Aha, I've got it, you quote the last line, which to you sounds like an order. Of course, you didn't quote the last line, you only quoted part of the last line. And if you only quote part of something, you could change the meaning of it.

Here is the last line:
"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman"

Clearly a request. I would not accuse you of slanting anything intentionally, because I assume you have integrity.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I haven't located a link to the full letter at this time, so what I bolded was what was in the bit I quoted. I try to include links to the full articles when I can to allow fullk disclosure, while complying with Fair-Use policy.

Thank you for posting the full sentence. If you have a link to the full letter, I'd like to read it in it's entirety if possible.

 

[Ray]

... no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. ...

Mr. Hubbard note these words: any candidate for public office

if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation

Mr. Hubbard note this word: substantial. I can attest to the fact that there the substantial part of the activities of the Church of Jesus Christ rest in 3 areas: 1) Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 2) Perfect the Saints. 3). Redeem the dead.

 

[Ray]

I haven't located a link to the full letter at this time, so what I bolded was what was in the bit I quoted. I try to include links to the full articles when I can to allow fullk disclosure, while complying with Fair-Use policy.

Thank you for posting the full sentence. If you have a link to the full letter, I'd like to read it in it's entirety if possible.

Bob, try www.lds.org I've included the text of the letter (hopefully not a copyright infringement).

The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

 

[Brian King]

TimoS wrote:

“If I've understood things correctly, you seem to be missing the point. At no point is Bob saying that members of the church cannot vote. What he is saying that the church shouldn't be allowed to tell people how to vote. To me there's a world of difference there: do the people decide themselves or is someone telling them how to vote.”

I am sorry Timo but I read Bob’s posts and see the protests differently. California went for Obama and voted for him in a large majority. I was saddened to see that nationally Obama also received a majority (a slim majority but a majority none the less) from the Catholics and other organized religious faiths. In many churches the congregations were urged to support Obama and his campaign. Are these churches also being protested for getting involved in politics? Is the IRS going to investigate the good Reverend Wright and his church for example? Is any religious leader and group that opinioned on any of the politics up for scrutiny and physical attack or just those that opinioned in ways that some disagree with? How about Unions, are they being protested for urging their members to vote a certain way and requiring contributions go to certain campaigns? Nope, they just investigate and protest and confront with violence those that disagree and oppose the results that they desired. So much for can’t we all get along and change is coming with the election of Obama. Me, I have no problem with violence and confrontations and on my dark days I look forward to the days when violence is called for. Those that are pushing and bashing and confronting may be letting Pandora out of the box.

I heard some wonder what the streets would look like and read articles claiming riots if Obama lost the election. The violence demonstrated in California and other places over this issue show that those fears might not be so far fetched. Why bother to have elections at all if the results are ignored and violence is used instead of ballots?

Warmest regards
Brian King

P.S. Ray, thanks for the link and your calm and logical postings.

 

[Brian S]

Thanks Ray and Brian for speaking on the behalf of the rational!!!

 

[TimoS]

Are these churches also being protested for getting involved in politics?

If they aren't, maybe they should be. Although we in Finland have a state religion, I wouldn't like it one bit if they actively urged people to vote for certain people/party. Now, if I was living in the USA, where I gather you don't have a state religion, I would like it even less for church to tell anybody who to vote for (or against).

 

[Twin Fist]

The mormans didnt cause it to go down in flames, the numbers clearly showed that the blacks who came out in record numbers to vote for the Obamasiah also dont think too much of the right for gays to marry. THAT caused the ban to pass.

yet they are not protesting in black areas are they?

cuz they KNOW they would get thier *** busted if they try.

 

[MA-Caver]

The Mormons didn't cause it to go down in flames, the numbers clearly showed that the blacks who came out in record numbers to vote for the Obama also don't think too much of the right for gays to marry. THAT caused the ban to pass.

Thanks for that... it was one of the other articles that I included in the OP.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3295255.story But I don't think it was the THAT exclusive but definitely a contributing factor.

From my understanding after talking with several LDS friends on this matter... members contributed to the campaign against prop 8 not the church itself. The church speaks it's mind like all the others (Catholic, Baptists -- which are strongly outspoken in my part of the country -- and so on)... laying it all on a single doorstep is wrong. There were a lot of contributors to the passing of the ban.

My thing is the way the protest had gone. Defacing property, damaging it, threats and again (dunno why this is over looked when it's the most extreme act)... swerving their cars at children. What does THAT say about the rationale of the protesters?? I think I could probably excuse just about everything else... except THAT! There is NO EXCUSE for jeopardizing the lives of children no matter how angry you are and no matter how many rights have been taken away, no excuse what-so-ever ... NONE!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Thank you Ray for posting the letter. I didn't think to look at the LDS site.

Right now, and in the lead up to this, -both- sides haven't shown their best faces. There have been alot of misunderstandings, and flat out lies put out.

As I said prior however, the LDS is being focused on as one of the primary targets, because the LDS has reportedly provided be it directly or indirectly, 70% of the funding for the anti equal rights side of this particular fight.

Gays within the black and latino community failed to fight against the messure in significant numbers to turn the tide. They in part had the opinion that the race issue was more importent and the sexual one not important in comparison, according to some articles I've seen.

But, in looking at the hundreds of pages and opinions I've seen, there is one importent facet I havent found yet.

A clear understanding of how 2 men getting marrying will somehow drastically degrade the values, etc of a religiously performed ceremony done under the laws and tenets of the Mormon, Catholic or any church that doesn't accept same-sex relations.

If I were to say, marry Caver, besides shocking the hell out of him, and me, would that act suddenly somehow lessen Ray or Twin Fists marriage (if they were married) to women? Would it invalidate or somehow harm their relationship with their gods? Would it cause their children (again if they had them) to be cast eternally into a lake of liquid pokemon?

Point blank, explain to me how, allowing Mr. George Takai, or Ellen, or John from Accounting to have the same rights, privilages, and responsibilities as you have somehow directly effects you degrades you, diminishes you, or otherwise harms you.

Because, other than "I don't like it" and "I disapprove of it" and "It grosses me out" I can't see any valid reasons.

Oh, I don't count the "God doesn't like it" part. There are many gods out there. They don't all agree on the matter either.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If they aren't, maybe they should be. Although we in Finland have a state religion, I wouldn't like it one bit if they actively urged people to vote for certain people/party. Now, if I was living in the USA, where I gather you don't have a state religion, I would like it even less for church to tell anybody who to vote for (or against).

We do. Our politicians worship money, and require us to make special offerings of mandatory contributions every payday to the priesthood of the IRS.
For those who say it isn't a religion, I offer that it's rules are impossible to get right, you're almost guaranteed damnation, and it's higher ups are untouchable. All that's missing is some wine and a cookie once a week.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Mr. Hubbard note these words: any candidate for public office
[/b]Mr. Hubbard note this word: substantial. I can attest to the fact that there the substantial part of the activities of the Church of Jesus Christ rest in 3 areas: 1) Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 2) Perfect the Saints. 3). Redeem the dead.

I did notice the wording, it was also part of why they say "may have" and not "did" in regards to violation determination.

Regarding #3, Baptism of the Dead? Is that is the Baptism by Proxy system where the LDS has repeatedly been asked by the Jewish Church to stop proxy-baptisms of Holocaust victims? An activity that other groups such as the Catholic Church also finds, odd and questionable?

Seems like there is a case here of a powerful group forcing their beliefs on others who believe differently and want to live differently. Much like the idea of allowing non-Mormon homosexuals to marry and have the transferable and transportable rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

I'd protest any group that wanted to force their beliefs on me. Have in fact, our archives here are full of those protests.

 

[Twin Fist]

from your link Bob:

Vicarious baptism does not mean that the decedent is forced to accept the ordinance performed for him or her or that the deceased becomes a member of the LDS Church; it merely means that the decedent has the option to accept the ordinance and the benefits which the Latter-day Saints claim baptism provides. (See Exaltation (Mormonism).)
While members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider it a great service to perform vicarious ordinances for the deceased, some non-members have taken offense. To be sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-Mormons that are not related to Church members, the Church in recent years has published a general policy of only performing temple ordinances for direct ancestors of Church members.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The articles from the Jewish and Catholics seem to indicate it's an ongoing concern, not an older one.

Doesn't bother me, I've been baptised in at least 4 faiths, I figure I'm a shoe in for cloud front property.

 

[Ray]

Regarding #3, Baptism of the Dead? Is that is the Baptism by Proxy system where the LDS has repeatedly been asked by the Jewish Church to stop proxy-baptisms of Holocaust victims? An activity that other groups such as the Catholic Church also finds, odd and questionable?

Seems like there is a case here of a powerful group forcing their beliefs on others who believe differently and want to live differently. Much like the idea of allowing non-Mormon homosexuals to marry and have the transferable and transportable rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

I'd protest any group that wanted to force their beliefs on me. Have in fact, our archives here are full of those protests.

Mental exercise: If I have the desire to have my dead mother baptized, then is that my right? If it upsets my one living brother, is it still my right? If I wish to perform a pagan rite, or a santeria rite, what's the big deal? It's something I did, not my mother, not my brother.

Now, If I start looking at my ancestors farther back, perhaps I'm jewish and I perform the proxy rite for my jewish ancestors, then even if some of my distant relatives are upset; it's still something I did--I didn't dig up any material from a dead relative, I haven't done anything except a little paperwork on the roles of the church and a very brief rite.

 

[Twin Fist]

The articles from the Jewish and Catholics seem to indicate it's an ongoing concern, not an older one.

Doesn't bother me, I've been baptised in at least 4 faiths, I figure I'm a shoe in for cloud front property.

talk about covering your bases.............