116 responses so far ↓

• 1 Chandelle // Sep 12, 2009 at 5:41 pm

  Beautifully written.

• 2 G // Sep 12, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  Not knowing anything about ether man, I must admit a certain sympathy for the bishop. If he was caught completely unawares by this man’s remarks than I can only imagine the delimma he faced, the cognitive tearing between his visible leadership role and letting
  a ‘member of his flock’ speak their peace and their light.
  He was a cog. A tool caught in the mechanism and unsure what to do when things went against the programing.
  That’s my first gut response to this clip…

  On the other hand, I am highly curious as to details about the setting, particularly to know if the bishop was acting under directions as to what to do if this particular situation came up etc…
  (I could very easily loose my sympathy quite quickly.)

  hmmm…
  actually… upon further thought… I think the bishops actions are just, IF NOT MORE, reprehensible if he was caught off guard….
  turning the mic off on someone…
  yah, whether he’s a tool or just an ass, that sucks.

• 3 Dana Dahl // Sep 12, 2009 at 6:19 pm

  After 37 years of attending monthly sacrament meetings I think that one presentation would qualify as the most inspiring testimony I’ve ever seen.

  What he’s had the courage to do and publish is something that I believe will open the doors of dissent for many who have been offended or pressured to accept the cruel and manipulative edicts by the LDS church.

  Many devout LDS supporters who come to this and other sites claim that the church does not punish those with a different opinion than the leaders.

  For those who have been to LDS testimony meetings you may recognize some of the themes that are often proclaimed from the pulpit and as far as I’ve ever seen, never shut down:

  We went to a ward in another state and the church is the same wherever you go-therefore the church is true.

  My cat vomited in the shape of Joseph Smiths head-therefore the church is true.

  I found a dollar in my sweater-therefore the church is true.

  I prayed that my dog would get unstuck from another dog and five minutes later she was-therefore the church is true…and we’re having puppies!!!

  I am running for County Sherrif and would like your support-therefore the church is true.

  I went on a mission but didn’t baptize anyone but strenghtened my testimony-therefore the church is true.

  I almost got a flat tire but I prayed and got to the gas station before it went flat- therefore the church is true.

  But a guy gets up and gives a heartfelt and sincere and well thought out response to a mandate that the LDS church is promoting and he’s cut off.

  For those claiming the church does not punish or quell those with a difference of opinion, what do you say now?

• 4 Molly // Sep 12, 2009 at 6:24 pm

  Censorship + viral video = awkward PR situation.

  Who did the taping? Did this guy arrange to be taped ahead of time because he suspected he would be censored?

• 5 Holden Caulfield // Sep 12, 2009 at 6:49 pm

  I wore my gay pride t shirt today to play in our ward’s softball game. My wife said she is going to leave me at home next week……but me and my t shirt will be there. I pitch so my shirt gets a lot of airtime.

• 6 Lessie // Sep 12, 2009 at 7:46 pm

  Wow. I kept watching this thinking, “Unitarians wouldn’t stand for that kind of censorship.” We may not all agree, but you get your say, by god. Seeing things like this makes me glad I’m no longer affiliated in any way.

• 7 amelia // Sep 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm

  hell, he’s brave just for wearing a beard.

  thanks for sharing that john. it does me good to know that there are those out there who have the courage to stand up and speak their conscience in the LDS church.

  and it’s truly sad that he was shut down, whether impulsively or by instruction. but i’m glad he kept going, no mic withstanding.

• 8 Chocolate-feathered-kitten-pillow // Sep 12, 2009 at 9:24 pm

  So a local leader of an organization tries to stop someone from saying something negative about the organization at one of the organization’s meetings taking place in one of the organization’s buildings.

  How scandalous.

  Let he who has never censored a comment on his own blog cast the first stone.

• 9 GKB // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  I suspect that if a supporter of Prop 8 had shown up at a gathering of gays and their supporters, and surprised them with a tirade against against gay marriage they would have shouted him down and most likely attacked him.

  Can’t happen? But it did. Gay rights supporters attacked Christian protesters in San Francisco.

  Can’t happen? A Prop 8 supporter was attacked and bloodied in Modesto.

  Can’t happen? An LDS chapel was firebombed and sprayed anti Prop 8 slogans in my neighborhood.

  This guy had the microphone turned off. What Nazi’s those Mormons are.

• 10 John // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:19 pm

  GKB, gays had the right to marry in CA until Mormons worked hard to deprive them of that right.

  Pillow, I guarantee you’ll find freer speech here than any Mormon church. It’s laughable to even compare the two. Also, since you brought it up, xJane and I have a pretty good record of not censoring comments—we even let most trollish comments pass.

• 11 Molly // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:33 pm

  KGB,

  This was a testimony meeting — essentially an open mic forum — and not a protest. The whole point of this meeting is that you can say whatever you like. If that only includes messages approved by the bretheren, then the year inside that chapel is Nineteen Eighty-Four.

  The larger point is the message it sends to every member of that ward. What is a child watching that supposed to think? Ward members saw that calm, rational dissent will lead to being silenced and rejected. Having a controversial opinion means you will be cut off. Voicing objection in a civil manner means you will be run off. This bishop now rules through fear, not love and respect.

  Plenty of staunch Mormons are reacting with total dismay to this video. What harm could there have been in just letting the man speak his peace, especially as he wasn’t shouting or being disruptive in anything other than failing to parrot the party line? Isn’t the chilling effect on discussion too high a price for silencing a dissenter at one dumb meeting that people were probably sleeping through anyway?

• 12 John // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:42 pm

  GKB, clarification: I’m not saying that justifies any kind of violence by anyone. But you and pillow missed my main point:

  “And even if you can argue that the Church has every right to constrain what is said across its pulpits, the truth is that it does not value any member’s voice of conscience that contradicts or criticizes its doctrines, policies or leaders in any venue.”

  This bothers me because I entered into Mormonism with the understanding that it claimed to support genuine truth-seeking. In retrospect it only seems to do this with investigators moving towards Mormonism; once you’re in, any seeking that leads away from the core, no matter how sincere, is maybe barely tolerated, but is generally dismissed, contained, quieted or suppressed. That said, there are rare and compassionate individuals who encourage seeking, even if it leads away. But they tend not to reflect the voice of the institutional Church.

  And Pillow:

  “So a local leader of an organization tries to stop someone from saying something negative about the organization at one of the organization’s meetings taking place in one of the organization’s buildings.”

  This is perfect! It demonstrates how wide the divide on the value of truth-seeking is between Mormonism and other institutions. In Lessie’s UU Church and in my own Quaker meeting, outright criticism of the institution is tolerated, even encouraged as part of the process of improving said organization. A soft-spoken, well-mannered critique like Todd’s would be welcomed, even not uncommon in many congregations. I can’t even imagine a critique like his, no matter how much others disagreed with it, being suppressed on the spot in that manner, in a Quaker meeting. It would be considered a violation of his right to speak his truth, even if most members disagreed.

• 13 John // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:50 pm

  Molly, I think if you follow the link back to YouTube, you can find further links and more info about the background of the video.

  G, your initial statement reflects much of how I approach my critique of the Church. I usually see the individuals as doing the work of the greater institution, and try to aim my anger at the Church, and not the local leaders, who I believe are often conflicted.

  And Dana, great examples that I’m sure many of us have experienced as well. Definitely shows some of the hypocrisy of how Todd’s case was handled.

• 14 John // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:58 pm

  Molly, this is a gem:

  “then the year inside that chapel is Nineteen Eighty-Four”

  This sums up so much of the Orwellian nature of the Church: the doublespeak: “men have the priesthood because they are not as naturally nurturing as women” and “sacred, not secret!”, and Big Brother is watching (Strengthening Church Members Committee, temple recommend interviews, etc.)

• 15 Kelly Ann // Sep 12, 2009 at 11:00 pm

  Wow, it is hard to respond to this.

  All I have to say is that I have recently been impressed with my stake’s effort to encourage those to speak their peace. The stake president taught a special 5th hour presentation about the pamphlet “God so loveth his children” in the ward I have been attending. He invited a member who has not attended church since the election to share her perspective regarding Prop8. The subject was handled with care and tact for which I was genuinely impressed. I have been grateful that the local leadership (even if not the general) recognizes the impact of this issue. They are trying to reach out to everyone affected by the issue whether they didn’t support Prop8 or did.

  So while I am still perturbed by the area authorities bringing Prop8 into the church, and my experience with some local conservative issues, I do have to say that a lot of people are trying to counter some aspects. It has brought a lot of people in my very liberal community together and has made me more comfortable going back to church.

• 16 John // Sep 12, 2009 at 11:18 pm

  Kelly Ann:

  “I have been grateful that the local leadership (even if not the general) recognizes the impact of this issue.”

  This is an important distinction, and thank you for pointing it out. For all of the power at the center of the Church, there still is some autonomy at the local level, and I always appreciated it when Bishops in particular used this tiny bit of wiggle room to promote understanding and some measure of equality. Unfortunately, some leaders take it the other way, and come down even harder than the GAs.

• 17 Craig // Sep 12, 2009 at 11:48 pm

  I am very distressed that when anyone criticises the church or expresses their own belief that there exists some problem, inevitably people immediately attack the speaker and try to invalidate their belief, their right to speak their belief, and the concept that criticism is EVER valid.

  While I agree that the bishop was within the legal rights and of the organisation to control information and suppress free speech, it is incredibly disgusting that it ever takes place. Any person and any organisation which needs to suppress ideas and censor speech is only doing so because they fears the truth – and that is very telling.

  @GKB

  Those instances, if true, are still isolated and not indicative of the movement for equality as a whole in any useful or accurate way. Comparing a rich, powerful, incredibly influential church which seeks to take away MY human rights is in no way analogous with those who protest against that tyranny, nor even the very, very few individuals who have used illegal or violent actions to protest and fight back against institutionalised homophobia and violence. I am personally offended that you compare the church’s actions to a few isolated incidents as if those incidents typified the fight against oppression, and the desire of the church to control me, deprive me of my rights, and force a religious agenda upon secular society were in any way equal valid or proportional to my demanding my human rights and civil equality.

  This man is a hero, and vilification of him, his motives, or his right to speak out against discrimination is sinister to the core.

• 18 Craig // Sep 13, 2009 at 12:11 am

  I apologise for the grammatical errors. I just got back from one bitch-ass party

• 19 Craig // Sep 13, 2009 at 12:41 am

  I feel the need to elaborate further – I apologise if this seems overly melodramatic or critical.

  @GKB

  I am confused and saddened by your over-the-top parody of our arguments. No one here mentioned Nazis, nor made any comparison to fascist regimes or National Socialism. I feel your characterisation is based neither on facts nor on reality, but rather on an emotional, knee-jerk response to our rightful criticism of the Mormon church. Many of us here have been ostracised and shamefully handled because we dared to speak out and challenge abuses which we have personally experienced. This is a very personal and emotional issue, and your response is disrespectful of our experiences, of the truth this man spoke, and of the intense harm many here have spent years trying to overcome.

  Many here are uniquely and incredibly qualified to criticise the church in this way, and while I think you didn’t mean to be so insensitive, I want you to know that this issue goes far beyond a abstract discussion. My entire life has been affected by the way the Mormon church treats homosexuality, the way it suppress truth & criticism, and the way it promotes incredibly damaging mores of heteronormativity.

  @Pillow

  I am similarly unsure as to why you responded as you did. As John already pointed out, this blog is amazingly open and non-censoring, a fact I find most admirable. Your argument is a common logical fallacy called a straw man – where you set up and then attack an argument which was not made nor in any way but superficially portrays the point which is being made.

  The argument is simply that a church which censors its members is hiding something. And what is in this case being hidden is the fact that the church’s actions are unchristlike to an incredible degree (based on the commonly held concept of “christlike” being loving, accepting, and tolerant), and that the arguments which the church has used to oppose gay marriage are completely and utterly fallacious. The church has lied and is now covering its collective ass. This video is simply further evidence of that fact.

  I respect the right of any Mormon to believe whatever the choose, but I will not allow spurious attacks and logical fallacies to distract from the issue at hand. That is admittedly an audacious statement, but I feel justified because the LdS church’s actions in this matter have resulted in me having fewer, more limited rights and literally being afraid for my livelihood, my right to shelter, and in some circumstances my right to life.

  The actions of the church have had not only a huge impact in California, but perhaps even more so here in Utah where those of us who are LGBTQ have in some cases fewer rights than blacks did before the end of segregation. We live in an intolerable condition and arguments which support the church, or arguments which seek to tear down our own arguments supporting equality are those which can be accurately compared to those which sought to perpetuate racial segregation. In fact the selfsame arguments being utilised to oppose gay equality were used to oppose interracial marriage, and even used to daemonise monogamous heterosexual marriage in the days before polygamy was discarded.

  The hypocrisy is simply astounding.

• 20 Craig // Sep 13, 2009 at 12:43 am

  My last (long) comment may or may not have been flagged as spam or whatnot.

• 21 GKB // Sep 13, 2009 at 4:01 am

  My point is not to suggest that any of the particpants here support violence.

  My point is that the behaviors on display in this instance speaker/bishop are lauded or condemned by the existing bias of those watching the video.

  For some, this fellow is a principled speak-truth-to-power opponent of Prop 8 and the Bishop is some sort of Morgbot hack for turning off the microphone.

  For me, I see rather boorish behavior and a lack of principle. I see someone who preplanned a provocation and filmed it with the intent to publicize the results. I think every Mormon or former Mormon here knows that testimony meetings are supposed to be open-microphone opportunities for faith-promoting stories and testimonies. To deliberately politicalize the meeting pro…or con on a specific issue is inapproptiate.

  From what I can tell, this fellow was allowed to say his piece for nearly four minutes without interference. This is about the length of a typical testimony. With paper in hand and no sign of stopping, the microphone was turned off. I think he was given plenty of latitude.

  I do believe that had the roles been reveresed, and a pro-Prop 8 supporter had spoken their truth-to-power in an anti-8 partisan setting…the results would have been significantly more hostile than seen on the video.

  I recall the McCarthy-like campaign of retribution after the election. Opponents of Prop 8 proactively attempted to stigmatize and punish those who had supported Prop 8. Employment, careers, businesses were exposed, threatened and punished. It was a campaign of intimidation…pure and simple. The message was clear — oppose gay rights and we will expose you and hurt you.

  Do all of you condemn that behavior as much as you condemn a Bishop who turns off a microphone after allowing four minutes of off-topic provocation?

  To some extent, John, you acted in a provocative manner at your council. Wearing a shirt emblazoned with a Prop 8 political statement is sort of an in-your-face statement. Your supporters loved it. You probibly fancied yourself as making your own version of a principled speak-truth-to-power gesture. And from what I can tell, you were still treated with respect and kindness in spite of your act. (I don’t know…I was not there.)

  I’ll be honest, I thought is was a rather crass and classless act from a fellow who says he wants the LDS Church to take seriously his membership, his spiritual views, and his position on a serious public policy matter. I recognize your right to wear or say whatever you want to whomever you want. However, this sort of stunt (Like reading and recording political rant at a testimony meeting) is not always a substanative, meaningful act that results in respectful or serious discourse. I think it hardens the lines of mistrust and suspicion. I think it plays to the home crowd and confirms to the other side of the debate that serious accomodation is not possible.

• 22 John // Sep 13, 2009 at 8:39 am

  GKB, I’m pressed for time, so just a couple of quick comments:

  - I didn’t support the intimidation tactics. I believe in both non-violence and confrontation, and it can be tricky to navigate the two, but I believe this crossed the line. I can understand the anger behind the actions but I don’t condone them. (I did support, however, the research into the donation sources that uncovered the amount of total LDS contributions).

  - I’ll talk specifically about my choice to wear the shirt in the next day or three.

  - I appreciate your presence here. You’re asking challenging questions in a fairly civil manner. This helps me to examine my motives and my methods, and keeps me honest and on my toes.

  I use this as a platform to speak primarily to a mixed crowd that contains atheists, secular humanists, feminists, gay rights activists and those who feel disenchanted or disenfranchised with their religious communities. While communicating in a way that builds on and speaks to the needs of this community, I want to make sure that I avoid committing the same offenses that I often point out in public officials and institutions like the LDS Church.

  That said, we’ll have to agree to disagree on how we characterize Todd. I can understand what it feels like to one who cares deeply about the institution being criticized, but it takes incredible courage to stand up to one’s primary community and support network to speak truth, especially when one knows that ostracism will result. By comparison, my past week has been a cakewalk.

• 23 Jana // Sep 13, 2009 at 11:58 am

  You are such a sweetie. Thank you for honoring me this way and for not complaining all those nights that I was at practice rather than at home with you!

• 24 Jana // Sep 13, 2009 at 11:59 am

  (woops–just left that comment on the wrong thread. I am tired, people). John, maybe you can reroute the above comment??

• 25 Mike // Sep 13, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  I admire him for speaking his mind. I wish he’d done it without reading a statement. That would have been more consistent with the tradition followed in the meetings, and might have been less likely to resulted in the bishop stopping him as quickly as he did.

• 26 Shelly! // Sep 13, 2009 at 8:24 pm

  Urgh…I have mixed feelings on this one. And I have to say that my mixed feelings and tired brain may not help my commenting…

  Am I impressed that someone stood up and voiced opposition to the Prop8 agenda by the church? Absolutely. And grateful. I wish more members felt empowered in this way.

  The written statement and the video tape make me feel like he was out more to prove a point rather than share the feelings of his spirit.

  My feelings on this were compounded when I read his blog (a quick search for Todd Whitaker and “Mormon” led me to it) and read through is plans to divorce himself from the church is such a public way.

  Just as the bishop would have gained more respect by just letting Todd finish, Todd would have gained more of my respect by testifying not grandstanding.

  I guess – and perhaps I’ll get hit hard for this – that I’m a little surprised that we’re all outraged that the bishop turned off his mic. Would public discourse and open dialogue be better? Absolutely! But the LDS Church has never made a claim to have the open honest relationship that the Quakers or the UUs have. That is why many of us turn to those institutions post-Mormonism.

  I guess in short – I agree with GKB. This time…

• 27 Kelly Ann // Sep 13, 2009 at 8:29 pm

  John, yes, some can take it the other way. But the ability for Bishops and Stake Presidents to respond positively does exist.

  I’ve recently made the decision to go back to church even though Prop8 toppled my testimony. I have told the stake president and my bishop my views without any recourse as I have been “hopping” (my term for inactivity) over the past year. It has been harder for me to have the courage to express other dissenting opinions, but I no longer plan on keeping quiet. I can’t, if I am going to find peace at church, which thankfully for me, I have. However, you should realize that I have a fairly quiet personality so that even when I begin Sunday School comments with I disagree … it actually doesn’t create that much of a stir. That and my ward is composed of far more vocal bloggers who teach some of the classes (like Lynette of ZD)

• 28 xJane // Sep 13, 2009 at 8:36 pm

  This is an interesting microcosm of the kinds of religion I’ve been exposed to: God loves you if you think the right way, otherwise, you’ll be vilified by those you thought to be your siblings.

  It definitely seems to be that the gentleman in question planned this to be filmed because he knew there would be opposition. He probably also went out of his way to put his thoughts down in a respectful and ordered fashion, rather than simply getting up in front of a crowd and winging it. I, for one, can fault him for neither.

• 29 John // Sep 13, 2009 at 8:49 pm

  Shelly, I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, it’s not this one Bishop’s action in isolation that bothers me, but that his action symbolizes and represents the Church’s attitude towards truth-telling and truth-seeking.

  “And even if you can argue that the Church has every right to constrain what is said across its pulpits, the truth is that it does not value any member’s voice of conscience that contradicts or criticizes its doctrines, policies or leaders in any venue.”

  And this is in contradiction to how the Church was presented to me when I was preparing to join it.

• 30 Molly // Sep 13, 2009 at 10:26 pm

  KGB,

  Since you don’t seem to have read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

  Check it out some time. It’s pretty good.

• 31 Gwennaëlle // Sep 14, 2009 at 12:44 am

  I have very mixed feelings about all this prop8 thing. One thing I want to say though. I gave a talk in sacrament meeting yesterday and the same thing happened to me.
  and no. I am not talking about the bishop standing up to tell me something about my talk, I am talking about the microphone not being straight in front of my mouth and therefore people not being able to hear me!
  Look at the begining of the video, the microphone is slightly on the side but not too much. When the bishop stands up there is a movement and the microphone gets totally out of the way. It is pretty easy to notice it when you speak.
  I understand that this guy must have been so emotionnal that he did not even notice but I doubt the bishop had anything to do with it. take a look at the following speaker. The first thing he does is put it back in front of him.

• 32 Paul // Sep 14, 2009 at 3:18 am

  He spoke because he was invited to speak. It was an invitation, and he was no doubt given a topic about which to speak. It was also a trust that was granted to him — a trust that he would speak words of faith, etc, and not words that would be confrontational knowing full well what the church’s stand is on Prop 8. But he violated that trust. It doesn’t matter who is right — him or the church — what is to be realized here is that he violated a trust and he had no right to do that. It was a cheap shot — having someone videotape him for the obvious reason to make this video public and to embarrass the church. I think his actions where dispicable, regardless of my or anyone else’s position regarding Prop 8.

• 33 Chandelle // Sep 14, 2009 at 5:51 am

  “The written statement and the video tape make me feel like he was out more to prove a point rather than share the feelings of his spirit.”

  Just to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, I know that I, personally, could never give a meaningful speech without writing it down first. Every time I was asked to speak in church, I wrote down my thoughts exactly as I wanted them to come out. I’m just not effective if allowed to speak freely. And most people I’ve ever seen speak in church also have their words written down.

  As for the videotape, I have a few thoughts about that. First, he had to know that he wasn’t going to be allowed to speak. I’ve seen speech suppressed in church more times than I can count, though it’s more frequently in classes versus over the pulpit in SM. I can imagine why he’d want some proof of what happened to him. Secondly, if he has children he might want this as a record for them. I preserved all of the documents and my writings from our time exiting the church – for our kids, so they’d know what our experience was like. What an amazing thing for his family to have – a blatant witness that the Church is not supportive of individual thought.

  And of course, he wants to share his experience with others. Perhaps the quieter amongst us would not wish for that, but others do. John, here, is planning (I hope!) to give us an insider’s view of the excommunication process. People want to know about these things. More than that, people have a right to know about these things. People should know how they will be handled if they choose to speak freely.

  I found his speech quite moderate. I even laughed a little bit because it has the tone of a typical SM talk – i.e., boring, slow, sleepy. If you weren’t fully awake, or if you were secretly Twittering, you might not be completely aware of what he’s saying!

  If he “broke a trust” by saying something true, that says something about the Church, not the speaker.

  Nevertheless, I have compassion for the situation the Bishop faced by this confrontation – and also for individuals in the congregation. It couldn’t have been an easy or pleasant situation. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t good or right.

• 34 GKB // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:06 am

  John said: “And this is in contradiction to how the Church was presented to me when I was preparing to join it.”

  I am surprised by this statement. It implies sort of a bait-and-switch on the part of the institutional Church regarding what it presented itself to John. I confess almost complete amazement that he could have been mislead or misinformed to such a large degree.

  I am a convert to Mormonism. I joined when I was an adult and had already served in the military. I completely turned around from a foundational belief in atheism. I served a mission for the Church. I have been a happy, content Latter Day Saint for over 30 years.

  As I turned from atheism, it was fully and absolutely evident to me what I was accepting in Mormonism. I did not know every detail, but the absolutism of the Church itself and the absolutism in the spiritual history as told in the Bible, New Testament, and Book of Mormon was completely evident. I was joining a largely fundamental and conservative religion.

  Readers on this blog may completely reject Mormonism on every level. (That’s your right.) However, I don’t see how anyone could believe that Mormonism is a universalist, liberal religion.

  The spirit of Mormonism that was presented to me was the same as in the Bible…an absolute truth that is to be followed with complete and total devotion. I think that it is obvious, open, and foundational.

  – God lives. We are his creations.

  – God rules. We must obey.

  – God is the final and absolute arbiter and revealer of truth.

  – We must seek and accept God’s absolute truth.

  – We are God’s literal children.

  – God loves us and sets requirements for our eternal return to him.

  – All commandments come from Jesus Christ.

  – Jesus is the Christ. We must accept him and obey his commandments.

  – Jesus speaks his Gospel and commandments through prophets.

  – Jesus has established one true Church on the earth.

  – Redemption is through Jesus Christ’s atonement.

  – Our right to the atonement is given through obedience.

  – If we accept and live the Gospel, we will be rewarded with eternal life.

  – If we reject the Gospel we will lose eternal life and reap punishment.

  – We are commanded to love others as God loves us.

  Now…this all may be religion that you personally reject and condemn…but this is Classic Mormonism.

  “Truth seeking” in LDS theology is directed toward the person discovering, converting, and following religion as God has revealed it. Open-ended discovery wherein members mold and modify doctrine is not consistent with the LDS approach.

  With no disrespect to John, I can’t imagine that he was presented a universalist/liberal version of Mormonism that is so far removed from the fundamentalist/doctrinally conservative religion I was presented.

• 35 Jana // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:15 am

  Though I think this was brave, it seems to me the wrong venue for his protest.

• 36 John // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:33 am

  Chandelle, your last comment was perfect–it says all that I’d like to say about Todd’s choice of venue and message, and about empathy for the leader. Thanks.

• 37 John // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:41 am

  GKB, of course the sincere members don’t think they’re involved in a bait and switch. But someone like me experiences it that way, as a betrayal of trust. I’m talking about how I and others experience this. I acknowledged the absolutism, but could accept this because I trusted the Church and its methods of truth-finding and its leaders. In my experience, this trust was fundamentally betrayed. My experience is that the Church cares more about image than truth. I am in no way isolated in this experience.

  I don’t expect you to understand my experience of betrayal, but I can certainly empathize with yours of trust in your leaders, your doctrine, your institution.

• 38 GKB // Sep 14, 2009 at 8:15 am

  John: I appreciate the respectful exchange. My wonderment is not so much a criticism of you…but curiosity about what you may have been taught that would lead you to view Mormonism as anything but the fundamentalist/conservative religion it is.

  I consider myself a sincere seeker of truth. I will respect that you are sincere as well.

  With that said, I am interested in the manner in which you believe Mormonism betrayed your trust.

  For me, the Church has been pretty transparent and consistent in its truth-finding approach and truth-finding agenda for the entire time I have been a Latter Day Saint.

  Perhaps you have changed more than the Church in regards to what you consider the truth and how to find it?

  Is it possible that there is a little bit of presentism is a view that the Church has betrayed you?

  As to the Church being more concerned with image than truth. I find that to be an interesting observation.

  If the Church were more interested in image than truth, I don’ think that this tiny religion would take such a public stand on a controversial issue. I think that if the church were worried about image more than truth, it would do a lot more pandering to popular trends and fads. Now, the LDS Church does manage its image and brands itself…no doubt. But, I don’t think the Church fundamentally misrepresents who and what it is. I think the Church pursues agendas that reflect its sincere view of the ‘truth.’

  I think the issue here is that the many simply can’t accept that the Church and its members have come to view truth differently than they do…therefore they project insincere motives and behaviors. I think this is a classic oppositional mindset.

• 39 Eric // Sep 14, 2009 at 10:47 am

  Nine times out of ten I probably agree with John on posts. This one though I struggle with…

  My issue with this is the choice of venue for this protest. I do not know whether this was during a testimony sacrament meeting or a regular sacrament meeting. Either way a protest is inappropriate in this venue. I think it is on par with Kanye West taking the microphone away from Taylor Swift last night or Joe Wilson yelling “You Lie” in the middle of the Presidents address to Congress. Sure you can do it but you look a little ridiculous and you take away from the experience for people who are not the object of your protest.

  I do not identify as Mormon any more and have no intention to return but I do have respect for all religions. The people assembled there that day came for a renewal of their faith, and had their religious experience hijacked by somebody with an agenda. While I may agree with his agenda it was inappropriate for him to violate the congregation’s religious experience that way.

  The Bishop could have handled that many different ways, Turning off the microphone was probably not the best way, but ler’s take a look at how it got to that point.

  1. If it was a testimony meeting then he should not have had a prepared statement to give. Much less an accomplice videotaping. This is often times a very powerful spiritual experience that the bishop was trying to protect.

  2. If this was a standard sacrament meeting and he(Todd) was invited to speak he would have been given a topic and asked to speak on that topic. Which he would have agreed to if he was on the program. In that case he had lied and intended to hijack what is considered a sacred event for the Mormon faithful for his own agenda. In which case the bishop was trying to control the damage.

  Either way the bishop and the congregation were thrust into a no-win scenario. I used this analogy with my wife last night, it is like going to a vegetarian’s house for dinner and sprinkling bacon bits all-over everyone’s salad because you think it tastes better. Sure it may taste better, but that makes you asshole. The Bishop could have found a better way to handle the situation, but lest we forget the bishop is volunteer clergy. He has not been trained for many of the roles he inhabits which often times include conflict management, counseling, financial advising, etc…

  There have been Mormons that speak out and find appropriate venues to do so:

  http://www.prop8films.org/Blog/2009/02/mormon-filmmaker-becomes-friends-with-gay-priest.html

  I realize that this post is about the institutional issue that the church does not really support open dialogue about this issue, I agree that they don’t and that it is a problem. I believe that supporting Prop 8, while maybe not illegal was unethical. I wish more mormons that support gay marriage felt free to express their opinion.

  But equating a bishops actions in sacrament with the Churches suppression of dissenting opinions is not an apples to apples argument.

  It pains me to say this but I kind of agree with GKB

• 40 GKB // Sep 14, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  “It pains me to say this but I kind of agree with GKB

  LOL…its not like you’re agreeing with Satan.

  However, you might just discover yourself humming “Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam.” because you are feeling the gravitational pull caused by ‘kind of’ agreeing with a Mormon.

  Cheers!

• 41 Eric // Sep 14, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  @ GKB Let’s not get all crazy here

• 42 John // Sep 14, 2009 at 2:31 pm

  Eric, no need to apologize! I see this as a complex subject/situation, and I’m not sure I see a clear cut right or wrong in it. I’m not even condemning the Bishop’s actions, though I fit him into the lighthouse metaphor in an unflattering way. But I’m glad with the discussion that resulted.

• 43 Shelly! // Sep 14, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  John – Eric and I are both glad for the discussion! We sat and chatted about it last night for a good chunk of time – always refreshing to have new material to stir around in our heads.

  GKB – how ever did you know? My kids are so sick of the humming….
  PS – thank you for eloquently arguing the other side for me…you helped put my brain ramblings into words

• 44 Molly // Sep 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  @Eric — True, the individual bishop made that choice. But will it become an apples to apples argument depending on how the church reacts? What action will that bishop’s Stake President or Area Authorities take in the matter? If they do nothing, does that seem to officially condone those actions, thus silently encouraging other bishops to do the same thing? Taking some action, if only issuing a statement that all members in good standing are entitled to bear their testimonies as they see fit provided that they behave in an orderly and respectful fashion, could go a long way in reversing the chilling effect this could have on honest discussion.

• 45 hep // Sep 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  Amen brother John. Well said, once again.
  Please continue holding your candle to light the darkness.

• 46 GKB // Sep 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  Molly: (#44)

  You react as if the Bishop did something worthy of correction. Personally, I think he did fine.

  Testimony meeting is not an open forum for preaching alternative beliefs or beefs with the Church. It is really that simple.

  Also worthy of consideration are the things the Bishop did that were (IMHO) correct.

  The Bishop seemed quite gentle. He allowed four or five minutes of counter testimony before he stood up.

  He gently placed his hand on Mr. Whitiker’s shoulder and respectfully whispered to him. (He did not posture, threaten, raise his voice, humiliate, deride, insult…he simply whispered that his time was over.)

  He even gave Mr. Whitiker a gentle pat on the shoulder as he finished his request.

  He then allowed Mr. Whitiker the dignity of wrapping his comments up without the microphone on.

  When Mr. Whitiker was done, the Bishop closed the meeting without a rebuttal, criticism, or insult.

  I think the Bishop acted in a manner that was appropriate in respect to the purpose of the meeting, the congregation, the rights of the Church, and the dignity of Mr. Whitiker.

• 47 Chandelle // Sep 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm

  “‘Truth seeking’ in LDS theology is directed toward the person discovering, converting, and following religion as God has revealed it. Open-ended discovery wherein members mold and modify doctrine is not consistent with the LDS approach.”

  GKB, just wanted to say, I agree 100% with your characterization of the Church, and I’ve never seen it expressed so well. I don’t believe there is, nor that there should be, “big tent” Mormonism. (That doesn’t mean that I don’t hurt for my friends who are put outside the tent.) As a member, I had a hard-line view of what Mormonism is and what it is not, and ultimately it was that hard line, that strict interpretation, that caused me to leave. Since then, I’ve had countless well-meaning friends try to convince me that there’s more room for interpretation in Mormonism than I have experienced or believe there to be. You perfectly described my experience and I believe you’ve come closer than anything I’ve ever read in describing what the Church really is about.

• 48 Eric // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:46 pm

  @Molly, IMHO the crux of this problem is that to many people are hoping that this could have lead to an honest conversation and discovery of truth. That would be great… but organized religion is NOT about the search for truth. It never has been nor will it ever be. Organized religion is about hope. It helps people find and have hope that is so strong and powerful to them that it becomes like a truth. For the most part that is a very good thing.

  A sacrament meeting in an LDS church is not an open forum for discussion and truth finding. That is not what the people are there to do. The bishop in this case could have reacted in many ways but to remain true to his job(calling) none of the things he could have condoned or supported what Todd did. Similarly Catholic Mass is not on open forum for an honest discovery of truth. These are places for a renewal of your faith if you are a believer.

  This is why I struggle with this issue as presented. I don’t think the bishop did anything wrong, I don’t believe Todd is wrong to feel passionately about this issue. I think it was disrespectful for Todd to choose the venue he chose to make his stand, forcing the bishop to make a difficult decision on how to handle the situation.

  Organized, dogmatic, theologically based religions are not forums for truth. The are forums for faith and hope. I think that is the definition that we need to understand. If you want truth you need to step away from religion and engage logic and science. But trying to frame this discussion as an opportunity for open and honest dialogue within an organized religion is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

• 49 John // Sep 14, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  Eric, the problem is that a totalizing religion like Mormonism does not represent itself the way you just did (except as a fallback position when on the defensive). The institution wants to have it both ways: “we teach objective truth, AND we preach faith and hope.” They can’t have it both ways.

• 50 Eric // Sep 14, 2009 at 8:16 pm

  @John, I agree 100% and that is the difficulty with this issue. I do not agree with any organized religion on their tenets of “truth”. Truth is not found in religion regardless of what they say (Note to self I need to blog about this). So hoping for an honest dialogue about truth from religion is like squeezing a lemon and hoping that orange juice comes out. Religion is the realm of hope and faith, Science is the realm of logic and and reason. From hope and faith you get belief, from logic and reason you get truth.

• 51 GKB // Sep 14, 2009 at 8:50 pm

  Eric (#48) “Organized, dogmatic, theologically based religions are not forums for truth. “

  These types of religious approaches/communities may not be forums for truth as you visualize it. Nor are their methodologies for finding truth nessesarily the approach for discover truth the manner you approve of. And, they may not be the sort of discussion/debate forums you trust.

  With all due respect, you may be projecting your own subjective dogmatism onto religious approaches that happen to disagree with.

  John (#49) ““The institution [LDS Church] wants to have it both ways: “we teach objective truth, AND we preach faith and hope.” They can’t have it both ways.”"

  Mormonism believes that truth is absolute…and that happiness comes through faith and hope in understanding and following truth. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:31. I suspect that you believe this statement is true…you just don’t think that Mormonism is the truth.

  Thus (with no disrespect intended) I suggest that John is being equally subjective in what constitutes truth, how truth is discovered, and which truths led to real faith and hope.

  As a former atheist, I’ve seen that humanism is just another faith system that is as prone to insular thinking, subjectivity, agendas, moralizing, etc.

  Mormons are sometimes guilty of pious absolutism when it comes to judging people of other faiths. Believe me, humanists, secularists, and atheists can be just as pious in their judgementalism.

  It is that whole pot/kettle and mote/beam thing.

• 52 Craig // Sep 14, 2009 at 11:24 pm

  @GKB

  I started writing a response, but it turned out to be too long, so I’m posting it on my own blog.

  For now I’ll just say that you’re badly mischaracterising atheism, and promoting false ideas about what it means to reject religion and religious faith.

  You seem here to be saying atheism is equal to humanism. While many atheists ascribe to some form of (secular) humanism, they’re two entirely different things, and are not to be confused.

  Furthermore, I find it quite odd when religionists try to characterise atheism or secularism or any other belief or belief system which is not religious as just another type of religion or faith – such an argument seems to be trying to invalidate atheism’s critique of religion, and unsuccessfully at that.

  Religious faith is fundamentally based on the idea that there are truths which are not objectively verifiable through any natural, observable, or scientific means. Atheism (especially the type adhered to in our society) & secularism completely reject the whole concept of religion and faith as inherently false or at best unverifiable. The truth claims of Mormonism (and every single other religion, ever) cannot be backed up with any sort objective reality or facts. And in fact, many of the truth claims of any religion are in contradiction with reality, and are therefore false.

  I am not discounting that many people find important and, for them, useful things in religion. They find solace, comfort, hope, community, etc., but it is entirely false to argue that religion offers truth in any way that is comparable to non-theism, or that atheists and secularists just have a different kind of “faith”. Atheistic, secular belief in science is not faith, it is reality, and a rejection of the entire concept of faith.

• 53 Craig // Sep 14, 2009 at 11:26 pm

  “It is that whole pot/kettle and mote/beam thing.”

  Oh, and (obviously) I disagree with that statement as well.

  Those statements have to do with hypocrisy on the part of the criticiser. I, as an atheist, criticise beliefs which are not based in reality, especially when those beliefs motivate people to harm others, infringe on other’s rights, or cause people to ignore or otherwise discount reality and science.

  That is not hypocritical because I don’t do what I criticise, therefore have no beams in my ocular cavities. I substantiate my beliefs, and if I’m shown that I’m wrong, and given convincing evidence, will change that belief. That is, to me, the essence of atheism’s critique of religion – that even when a belief is shown to be wrong or harmful, or both, it is often impervious to scrutiny, critique, or change.

• 54 Paul // Sep 15, 2009 at 1:06 am

  GKB: “Mormonism believes that truth is absolute“

  It does?

  “And atruth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;”

  “All truth is independent in that asphere in which God has placed it, to bact for itself”

  I would doubt very much that every LDS authority thinks that *all* truth is so simplistic so as to affirm that *all* truth is absolute. When you attempt to define truth it necessitates some constraints of qualification, e.g., historical contextualization .

• 55 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 4:41 am

  Craig: Thanks for the comments.

  I do loosely align atheism, secularism, and humanism into the same general quadrant of the belief universe. They are each different but share some core similarities when it comes to their derived moral conclusions.

  What I always find amusing is when those who don’t believe in religion start talking like religionists when declaring that other don’t have “truth.” I hear in those sorts of statements, the same sort of arrogance and elitism that these same folks so dispise in religion.

  While the scientific method may be useful in some minds for disproving religion…it is pretty useless for proving any sort of moral code. Yet, those who reject religion are prone to being moral iconoclasts in attempts to impose their own subjective, and unprovable moral codes.

  I fail to see a substanative difference between a non-religionist who belittles and looks down upon religionists because they (the non-religionist) has the ‘truth.’ and a religionist who does the exact same thing. This is even more true when it comes to the imposition of moral codes.

• 56 Chandelle // Sep 15, 2009 at 5:58 am

  “I do loosely align atheism, secularism, and humanism into the same general quadrant of the belief universe. They are each different but share some core similarities when it comes to their derived moral conclusions.”

  But there are no “derived moral conclusions” in atheism. Atheism is not a moral code, as religion can be argued to be. Atheism is a negative. It’s an absence. It’s the claim that gods do not exist or at least that one does not believe in gods. Full stop. Whatever morals one applies to oneself after that statement must come from other sources. Atheism cannot be compared to religion because it just doesn’t have a prescription for conduct.

  As for me, I define myself as an atheist, because I don’t believe in any gods. I also don’t believe in an afterlife or in divine authority. That’s all I can say about atheism.

  As for ethics and morality, I find myself inspired by many different traditions. I love the Quakers’ pacifism; I enjoy Buddhism’s famous lists. I read a lot of existentialist work. I try to conduct myself ethically. Atheism has nothing to do with any of that, outside of allowing me to explore ideas that defy religious faith or lack the seal of religious authority.

  I don’t believe that atheism and humanism can be aligned. If you visit a humanist website, you’ll see a lot of very clearly defined ideals and proclamations. Atheism doesn’t have ideals and its only proclamation is that gods don’t exist. Even support of science doesn’t need to be included in an atheist’s creed.

• 57 Chandelle // Sep 15, 2009 at 6:02 am

  “What I always find amusing is when those who don’t believe in religion start talking like religionists when declaring that other don’t have ‘truth.’ I hear in those sorts of statements, the same sort of arrogance and elitism that these same folks so dispise [sic] in religion.”

  This is true, however, and I agree with you. But this doesn’t stem from atheism as a “belief system.” Atheism doesn’t have a “system,” though its single statement could, perhaps, be described as a “belief.” The sort of arrogance of which you speak is just human nature, my friend, and it transcends faith or rationalism.

• 58 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 6:56 am

  GKB, every time I get ready to respond to your broad assessments of atheism, secularism, humanism and the scientific method, I find that Craig and Chandelle are have beaten me to it.

  I do want to add one thing. I agree with Chandelle that arrogance (and by extension dogmatism) is part of the human condition. One reason why I like the US government system is because it begins with a pessimistic view of humans, and sets up checks and balances to keep power from concentrating in any one place. I see the social structures underlying the scientific method similarly–it’s not perfect, and there is still plenty of room for ego, arrogance, corruption, and big mistakes, but it’s a system where everything is meant to be challenged and questioned. Everything is openly published and available broadly, even if the topics get esoteric at times. Even if the application suffers at time, the entire method is all about checking each other’s work, and openness and transparency. It’s served us very well as a truth-seeking mechanism, and over the past four centuries, religion and theism as a whole have had to change their assertions of objective reality to conform to science, rather than the other way around. There didn’t used to be the separation of faith and reason that Eric eloquently described above.

  As far as objective truth-seeking is concerned, the scientific method and community have served me well. Mormonism has its moments where it embraces this. And it was after years of applying Alma’s seed experiment (I kept trying because my negative results just had to be wrong) that I finally realized that I was conducting the experiment right, and that I should accept my results.

• 59 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:10 am

  Chandelle:

  Please excuse me for being less than clear. There is no derived moral system from atheism. You are correct. I was attempting to observe that for some reason there seems to be an alignment of moral beliefs that are often shared by atheists, secularists, and humanists. I realize that is an overgeneralization…but that is often what I see. I don’t know where these commonalities come from but the derive from some shared source.

  My other point was simple. I don’t know that the moral codes I sense from these progressive thinkers has any more authority than a religionist’s moral code. Yet, often some progressive non-religionists seem to be as dogmatic and convinced of the ‘truth’ of their moral bearings as do some religionists.

  When a non-religionist tells me that my moral codes are immoral…I ask based on what? Ususally, the answer appears to me to be as subjective and unprovable as my moral beliefs seem to them.

  How can you ‘prove’ any moral belief?

• 60 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:28 am

  GKB, in a secular society such as ours (I use secular in the sense that it is a society that acknowledges multiple belief systems, and doesn’t presume the primacy of any one), we sometimes do ok building on a common denominator set of shared values. It might start with something nebulous, like a respect for “truth” or life or basic rights. We can then agree to definitions of what that value might entail.

  This is kind of alluded to in my argument in this post, that the Church purports to have respect for the truth, but I see inconsistencies between what it says and how it acts. People have responded by saying that the Church approaches truth seeking and dialog among its members in a particular way that is consistent with a certain methodology. I can say that the general approach is flawed because it works towards a forgone conclusion. You can say that mine is flawed because it falls to the same problems I accuse the church of having. But we have the foundation for a rational discussion.

• 61 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:35 am

  This is classic, John.

  You speak of “the truth” the same way the Mormons do. Only its your version of the “truth.”

  You’re no better or worse than the Mormons. You’re exactly the same. You just don’t realize it.

  You’re just as ideologically stubborn as the Mormons. You just don’t realize it.

  You’re just as close-minded as the Mormons. Just on a different end of the spectrum. You just don’t realize it.

  Oh, that you should be surprised that the church suppresses views contrary to its doctrine. News flash, John: That’s the church’s job. I endow you with a big DUH for that one.

  Then you say that the church shines a “false light.” Well, I say you, John, YOU shine a false light. Does just saying it make it so? No, it doesn’t.

  You don’t realize how much of a hypocrite you have really turned into, John. You want to be allowed to believe the way you want to believe and use all the institutional power you can muster to effect “change,” yet you begrudge other groups for doing the same. Oh, but that’s okay, because you have the “real” truth.

  Riiiiiiiight.

• 62 hep // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:50 am

  James, too many words, too little original thought.

• 63 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 am

  John:

  What I am suggesting is that in our pluralistic society, your “light,’ ‘truth,’ and ‘morals’ have no more authority than do mine.

  Yet, with all due respect, you persist in accusing the LDS Church and its members as not having a respect for truth. Your rhetoric (again with respect) is often pious and judgemental. You come across to me as judgemental and with much of the assumed air of superiority as many in your camp accuse Mormons of.

  As such, I sometimes find such posturing on matters of truth and morals to rings a little hollow.

  In the matter of Todd Whitiker getting up and dressing down the Mormons on Prop 8…what moral basis does he have to do so — other than his own subjective moral opinion? Upon what non-subjective basis does the LDS Church have the moral responsibility to allow him the pulpit to do such a thing — other than it fits with some liberal, universalist sensitivity? There is no subjective basis to presume that the LDS Church was offensive or incorrect…just personal opinions. In other words, outsiders telling someone else how to mind their business and using a completely subjective standard to do so.

  That’s my opninon…feel free to disagree.

• 64 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:55 am

  One man’s prophet is another man’s pariah….

• 65 Chandelle // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:02 am

  “I was attempting to observe that for some reason there seems to be an alignment of moral beliefs that are often shared by atheists, secularists, and humanists. I realize that is an overgeneralization…but that is often what I see. I don’t know where these commonalities come from but the derive from some shared source.”

  Morality, by its very nature, is subjective. However, countless religionists claim that their moral authority comes from a god, and therefore is more “real.”

  For example, I have a relative who truly believes that we would be killing each other in the streets without God. She has asked me, more than once, why I don’t just steal what I want, why I wouldn’t kill someone, why I have sexual ethics. She honestly cannot comprehend why a person would behave ethically or why a person would even have morals without the promise of punishment or reward from a higher power. She does not understand how morality or an ethical code can arise independently of religious authority or divine revelation. To her, morality is only “real” if it’s been directed by a religious institution, speaking for God.

  GKB, I believe that you see a moral alignment amongst secularists, rationalists, humanists and atheists because we’re human beings. We have a moral alignment with religionists, too. Humans, generally, share a pretty basic moral code. Don’t steal. Don’t lie. Don’t murder. Care for the sick and poor. Don’t be greedy. Don’t transgress against your lover. And so on. Extremely basic stuff, here! Almost nobody has an outlandish, surprising or unexpected moral code. In the end, we all believe in the same things, as far as how people should behave. If you look beyond atheists, secularists, rationalists, naturalists and humanists as a “shared source,” you should see that you, as a religionist, are also part of this group – you know, humanity.

• 66 Andrew S // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:04 am

  HIGH FIVE to Chandelle.

  I got to this from Craig’s blog, but she said everything I would say.

  Responding to GKB 59:

  I think that any perceived alignment of moral codes is accidental. It is not intrinsic to atheism (unlike a formal religion, where moral codes are prescribed from whatever authority and become the *normative* morals for the group). Rather, if many atheists happen to be “rationalist” or “secularist,” then that correlation would naturally bring forth shared values. However, atheism doesn’t demand that its members be rationalist or secularist or humanist or anything else.

  I would like atheism to theism. Theism tells us nothing, except SOMEWHERE there’s a god involved in WHATEVER belief system they have. But you can’t guess a Muslim from a Hindu, if they just say they are a theist. And there’s a world of difference.

  Similarly, atheism tells us nothing, except in WHATEVER belief system they have, it’s not dependent on a god. But you get a whole different perspective from an absurdist existentialist vs. a rational secular humanist.

  As an absurdist, I’ll take your second claim on. This will probably be different than what humanists or whomever might say. But such is atheism — there is no normative statement on positions.

  If positions are subjective (which I grant they are), this does not mean they are all equal. Rather, we can evaluate them — subjectively, of course — based on subjective criteria. This is something we already do. Pain is bad because it is SUBJECTIVELY FELT TO BE BAD. The universe doesn’t care about pain — it is just something that we FEEL through our senses and determine it to be bad. And yet, most of us recognize and understand that pain is bad though it is not objectively so. It is bad because humans purport it to be bad.

  Similarly, if someone is trying to show you that a subjective moral code is “worse” than another, then what they are trying to do is hit upon a shared value that you and they may have and show how one moral code reaches that value and one does not. This isn’t an objective process — or at least, if it is, we don’t care about it. Rather, it depends on humans and human subjective experience.

  So rationalists think they are “right” because they think people value reason, and so they try to show that reason would lead to x, y, z conclusion. They fail in their gambit because many people don’t value reason THAT highly — or more precisely (most people won’t say “I don’t value reason), they have a different DEFINITION of reason that INCLUDES subjective experiences like promptings of the spirit.

  Do we have anything that suggests reason is objectively better? Perhaps not. We can show all of the ‘assets’ on our side (and try to hide the liabilities) but in the end, even this evaluation is a subjective process — you have to “value” the assets as highly as we do.

  I think the religious do the same. They (and some atheists) try to claim that their belief is “objectively grounded” however that is (religions usually through God), but to me this is a punt. They simply subjectively feel their positions are objectively true. What I try to do these days is recognize that when I feel my positions are objectively true, I try to analyze how much I am tainted by my subjective lens of the world.

• 67 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:05 am

  GKB and James, I usually try to critique the church on the basis of hypocrisy, rather than coming straight from a moral argument. So my question usually is, the Church claims X; do its actions and teachings conform to X? This is used in the marriage debate, for example. The Church claimed to support domestic rights in California, but refused to support measures introduced in Utah.

  I didn’t do it as successfully here, but my general assertion is that the Church claims to respect truth-seeking, but places pretty strong social restrictions on methods and acceptable outcomes. For example, the Church is pretty supportive of trial and error and even discussion among its members as long as the outcome leads to conversion or reinforcement of an established set of values and doctrines. I find this hypocritical, not measured against my own relative moral values, but in the context of rational debate in our society.

• 68 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:17 am

  (The Gay Rights movement) is pretty supportive of trial and error and even discussion among its members as long as the outcome leads to conversion or reinforcement of an established set of values and doctrines.

  It goes both ways, John.

  The Gay Rights movement won’t rest until it gets what it wants: public opinion agreeing with it.

  Please tell me how that is any different than what the church is doing.

• 69 Chandelle // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:21 am

  “The Gay Rights movement won’t rest until it gets what it wants: public opinion agreeing with it.”

  I call bullshit, sir. The “Gay Rights movement” just wants one thing. Rights. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard someone say, “I don’t care if you approve of me, I don’t want you to ‘tolerate’ me, I just want my rights to be equal to yours.”

  (Umm…major threadjack anyway so I’ll just leave it at that.)

• 70 Molly // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:21 am

  @Eric “organized religion is NOT about the search for truth. It never has been nor will it ever be.”

  No wonder I lost interest. I’m more interested in learning and growing than just signing my brain over to a nice comforting system that does all the thinking for me and tells me to ignore the man behind the curtain.

  I guess there is no room for people like me after all. I’d always suspected it. Just never expected to hear it from an insider.

• 71 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:36 am

  Chandelle, even “rights” (ie, institutional rights, such as the right to obtain a marriage license from a government entity) are subject to personal and public opinion.

  Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

• 72 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:39 am

  James, in the United States, rights are much more complex than that. There is a fundamental set that is expressly shielded from majority rule. The debate is often over whether or not something claimed is a right or not. I feel that the right for two consenting adults to marry falls under this set of protected rights.

• 73 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:41 am

  The general tone is heating up here a bit, and I know we’re touching on some sensitive issues. I’m not singling anyone out. Please remember that your words will be read by fellow human beings who likely care deeply and have been impacted heavily by the subjects under discussion. Encouraging some compassion here. Thanks, and peace.

• 74 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:44 am

  Andrew (#66), high-five to *you!* We’re making similar arguments, but yours are much better prepared. Thank you.

• 75 Chandelle // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:45 am

  High-fives all around!

• 76 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:48 am

  “I feel that the right for two consenting adults to marry falls under this set of protected rights.”

  Exactly, John. That is your opinion. The church happens to disagree with your opinion. That’s the point.

  You express your opinion as “truth,” just as the church does. So that makes you no better (and no worse) than the church, in that sense.

  You don’t have a monopoly on the truth, John. Neither does the church. Yet both parties claim to. They only thing we have is a monopoly over our opinions, and the only thing any of us can ever do is try and persuade those on the other side to change their opinion, using whatever tactics we deem necessary.

  That’s why your “lights along the shore” analogy fell completely flat and hypocritical to me, as did your wearing of the t-shirt to the excommunication proceedings, which you have yet to explain. I look forward to hearing your reasoning on that.

  Much love

  James

• 77 Chandelle // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:59 am

  “You don’t have a monopoly on the truth, John. Neither does the church. Yet both parties claim to.”

  I don’t want to speak for John, but I have been reading his work for a long time, and I don’t think he’s ever claimed to have a monopoly on the truth or even to *have* the truth. He’s only said that he’s seeking the truth and that he’s open to the truth, and that he wants the truth. This does divide him from the Church, which unequivocally claims to have The Truth, and that others truths are not as true as their Truth, and that seeking after other truths is apostasy.

• 78 xJane // Sep 15, 2009 at 9:04 am

  James—if all rights are simply opinion, what is stopping me from depriving those around me of their right to exist? At some point, some rights have to be fundamental, whether they come from an allegedly Divine source or are rationally come to by argument and by learning from what hasn’t worked in the past. John’s “lights” shine in the darkness for many of us—not because they are his lights, but because they are lights: goals toward which we strive and illuminations in the darkness of humanity’s struggle with denial of rights to the “other”.

• 79 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 9:12 am

  “James—if all rights are simply opinion, what is stopping me from depriving those around me of their right to exist?”

  It’s called the law.

  Rights are enumerated by the constitution and by the laws of the land.

  Some rights are fundamental, yes. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, all that.

  Thing is, it’s still your opinion that the right to marry whoever you want is a “fundamental” right. That “right” has not been established in most states. In some states, yes, in others, no.

  So, your “light” continues to be a matter of public debate, whether you acknowledge it or not. Calling it “light” and “truth” is only an ideological ploy used by both sides.

• 80 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 9:43 am

  xjane:

  In a democracy, rights are defined by the majority and codified into law by that majority. Even our constitutional rights are a representation of the majority. The constitution is amendable.

  Even the fundamental rights that James refers to are subject to voter change.

  John’s rhetoric about ‘lights’ and ‘truth’ are reflections of his own, personal beliefs. I respect his right to have them and express them. However, they are not absolute. He gets a vote…just like you and me. Collectively, we decide what is considered moral law. Almost every law we have is based upon our society’s collective sense of right and wrong.

  Chandelle:

  With all due respect, John tosses around his standard of ‘truth’ a pretty fair degree. (At least while I have been visiting.) It is evident that he believes that he has a greater truth than Mormonism. He believes that the LDS Church fails in seeking truth, he believes that the LDS Church supresses truth, and he believes that the LDS model for finding truth is flawed. (Is that a fair characterization.) I am merely suggesting that John speaks from his own, subjective and insular view when he makes such declarations.

  John:

  Hypocricy to me is to say one thing and do another. For example…If I say that I am against gay sex and I get caught in an airport bathroom soliciting gay sex — I am a hypocrite.

  Simply because someone disagrees with you does not make them a hypocrits.

  LDS testimony meetings are for faith-promoting stories and witnessing. Pure and simple. The LDS Church does not advertise them as anything else. LDS classes are for the same purpose. Our meetings have spiritual agendas that seek to re-enforce a specific spiritual objective that supports Mormonism. It is completely consistent with the LDS view of God’s absolute truth.

  Thus, when the LDS Church prevents political criticism in a testimony meeting…the Church is NOT being hypocritical. It is being completely consistent with it stated objectives.

• 81 xJane // Sep 15, 2009 at 10:05 am

  James & GKB re: fundamental (or constitutional rights)

  Legal rights are a separate issue; yes one check on everyone running around killing everyone else is the law.

  James: As to the “pursuit of happiness” being a fundamental right—there is a broad spectrum of things that could fall under it. I could argue, for example, that my right to marry my lover is part of my right to pursue happiness.

  GKB: while constitutional rights are always subject to vote, the morality of giving and taking away rights based upon vote is highly suspect. If I were to rely upon the goodwill of the majority, as a woman, I might still not have a vote in this country. But instead, women stood up to the majority who refused them rights and declared that they had rights—rights not enumerated in the constitution but rights none the less.

• 82 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 10:13 am

  xJane,

  I could argue that wanting to steal your nice plasma TV is a pursuit of my own happiness, but that doesn’t make it legal.

  You’re right that it covers a broad spectrum of things. But that’s precisely why have constitutions and courts, because no one can agree on what that broad spectrum does (and does not) cover.

• 83 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 10:22 am

  xJane: “…the morality of giving and taking away rights based upon vote is highly suspect.

  Do you have a better system? Or, would you presume to impose a single groups moral worldview on everyone else?

• 84 Matt E. // Sep 15, 2009 at 11:01 am

  “The Bishop in this video did not hold up a light. He ran through the darkness, knocked the lamp out of the hands of a man engaged in a selfless gesture, and stamped it under his heel until the flame went out. “

  Very interesting thread.

  John, the above quote is beneath someone who berates others for their failure to prize truth.

• 85 Eric // Sep 15, 2009 at 11:38 am

  Rights, Truth, Belief, Reason… what we have going on here is the setting for the very democracy most if not all of us live in… Tricky stuff isn’t it. This is what makes me profoundly in awe of what the American Founding Fathers pulled off when writing the Constitution. Not only did they come up with a document/government that they all could agree with, but one that could be adapted to address the unforeseen issues that the country would have to tackle.

  The brilliance was that the majority is not able to trounce the rights of the minority, and that it can be reshaped as is necessary to protect the rights of all citizens.

  Further, As far as can tell this is not a non -religionist vs. religionist issue.

  Religion of any kind does not seek truth. Religion seeks and provides a belief system. Those that subscribe to a particular belief system treat their beliefs as truths in many cases. believing something strongly does not make it a truth/fact, it makes it a conviction. Which is good and noble… for that individual.

  Science through logic and reason discerns facts. In science we postulate a theory. It remains a theory until it is proven at which point it becomes a law. E.G. Newton’s laws of motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

  In a religion it is not permissible to question the dogma of the religion. Often when you do you are told to have faith or at worst excluded from the body religious. There are numerous examples of religion having to adjust their dogma based on proof of scientific laws which had previously been considered untrue/heresy by religion. e.g. the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe.

  Personally I have no dogma. I don’t believe any religion. I cannot say that God does not exist, because I cannot prove that, by the same token I cannot prove that God does exist. That is fine by me for I do not require a belief in God for hope. I believe religion is a great institution for those that choose it as their vehicle for hope, and in that all religions are the same.

  If you are looking for belief look to religion if you are looking for truth look to science, it is very simple.

• 86 Andrew S // Sep 15, 2009 at 11:58 am

  While I was away, there were several comments, so I won’t get to them all, but I’ll make a few comments.

  Our government isn’t purely “majority rule.” No, this is why our government has checks and balances, and in particular a judicial system where laws implemented elsewhere (Congress, referenda) can be determined to see if they are constitutional.

  In California, after Prop 22, the judiciary did its job In re marriage cases. It found Prop 22 to be unconstitutional according to the California legal system, which stated that 1) marriage was a fundamental right and 2) discrimination by sexual orientation is impermissible.

  What Prop 8 did was show how the legal system can turn against again. California basically decided to amend the constitution so that marriage is *not* a fundamental right. Now, it’s only a fundamental right for one man, one woman. So, the court in CA cannot overturn CA constitution cannot be unconstitutional. (The real question is: why does CA’s legal system allow constitutional amendments with only a simple majority. People were hoping that the CA Supreme Court would have seen that Prop 8 was not an amendment, but a revision…which requires more than a simple majority. This failed, and so we are here today.)

  Obviously, the legal system can still change. In any year, they can try to amend the constitution again. That’s why continuing the fight (on both sides is important). This shouldn’t be controversial. I guess I haven’t read enough into the arguments to realize where the controversy is.

  I’m guessing the controversy is…how can both sides think they are right? This is due to a subjective evaluation of consequences and premises. Obviously, many people for Prop 8 feel that the legalization of gay marriage would have brought adverse effects either to religious freedom or to the institution of marriage. People against prop 8 disagreed, and furthermore felt that the banning of gay marriage entrenched discrimination in the government. The only way one can win over the other is if a side is able to appeal to enough people to persuade them to their version of premises and consequences.

  The simple passage of time can do this, in many cases. For example, if x is more effective than y at predicting how things will turn out, people will see over time that x is more effective (over time) and will be persuaded by it. Gay marriage advocates believe that over time, things will be shown that there is no adverse effect (or rather, whatever effect that does happen shouldn’t be considered adverse), and gay marriage opponents believe the opposite. Nothing controversial here, still.

• 87 Andrew S // Sep 15, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  now, re Eric in 84:

  (this is a long one…but all of my comments have been, haha)

  What you say is unfair. If you define religion as that which seeks its own belief system, then nearly everything becomes its own religion. Secular humanism does not seek truth; it seeks its own belief system that treats its beliefs as truth. Rationalism does not seek truth; it seeks its own belief system that treats its beliefs as truths. (Note: atheism and theism are not belief systems or religion. They aren’t “systems.” They are umbrellas of other systems.)

  Really, I think the distinction needs to be different. I fully believe that all of the things I’ve mentioned as belief systems ARE belief systems (e.g., the various religions AND secular humanism, rationalism, etc,). But that doesn’t make them religions, so I think your definition of a religion is inadequate. Religions, IMO, have to make certain *kind* of belief claims. These *kinds* of claims are not made by nonreligious belief systems.

  Continuing on, you have a loaded definition of science…in which case you betray your belief system (which, by your definition, is a religion). Your implicit claim is that facts are derived through logic and reason. (I think science actually derives facts through empirical data, not through logic and reason, but whatever). But who’s to say that facts cannot also be derived from spiritual experience? Who’s to say that reason can’t include spiritual experience. The fact that you presumably do not believe that reason/logic includes these things is a betrayer of your belief system — which is different from other’s belief systems. By *your* classification of religions, your belief systems becomes a religion. (I don’t buy your classification, so I don’t think you are making a religion out of it, BUT LET’S JUST GO WITH YOUR CLASSIFICATION.)

  In your case, anyone could say you aren’t seeking truth. After all, you’re just seeking your belief system (which holds that logic and reason find truth). But if you were seeking truth, you might have to admit that spiritual experiences and revelation are sources of truth. Not to say that you’d have these things, but you wouldn’t be able to categorically rule these out.

  That’s just one place where I think your definition of science is loaded, incorrect, and laced with evidence of your belief system. It is about empirical data gathering through the scientific method, not about reason/logic.

  But secondly, you mischaracterize how science works. A theory is a fundamentally different beast from a law…it’s not like a theory “graduates” at some point and becomes a law. Rather, Newton has both a THEORY of mechanics AND LAWS of mechanics. And both are relevant in separate ways (even if not quite precise in scope). To spell out the difference, *theories* explain empirical observations. *Laws* describe that observation.

  So, one of the *laws* of motion describes that an object at rest doggone stays at rest. But the *theory* of newtonian mechanics attempts to explain how that law is.

  The facts are the empirical observations. But where science differs from other methods of knowledge gathering is in how it EXPLAINS and DESCRIBES the observations. Where science “scores points” against religion (when it does), is that its explanation and description better describes the observations than the religion does.

  But this doesn’t mean that science has “facts” and religion doesn’t. Because religion would also say that there are some facts (e.g., empirical observations) that science cannot and does not describe or explain, because science is methodologically naturalist. This methodological naturalism means it cannot say, “God did it.” And some people believe that the descriptions and explanations that science does come up with are so good that there is no need to say, “God did it.” But this does not mean that science is “fact and truth” and religion is belief

• 88 Craig // Sep 15, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  The hypocrisy in the church comes not from it having beliefs I disagree with, but rather that it makes certain claims, and then acts completely contrary to those claims. The claim it makes that it is not anti-gay is a lie. The church has systematically opposed ALL rights for gays wherever it could, excommunicates people for being gay, has a long history of emotionally, mentally and physically abusing gays. It’s claim that it is”protecting” marriage from unspecified threats to it is a red herring. There is no threat to marriage which comes from equality for LBGT persons. The church has lied about the supposed threats to religious liberties in order to convince people to oppose gay rights. It knows it has lied, and still purports to be an ethical institution with absolutely good morals.

  The church is supremely hypocritical on the issues of general honesty and historical accuracy.

  Now as to why gays should be able to have rights – 1) we’re humans too 2) there is no unbiased, non-bigoted reason to withhold rights from an entire minority group. It’s true that there’s nothing inherently right about civil or human rights. As a species we’ve invented our own moral code and set of ethics because of shared human subjective experience. The universe does indeed not care one way or the other. It has no lasting effect.

  But within the shared ethics of humanity it makes absolutely no sense to deprive me of rights simply because I have a penis and so do the people I am able to be attracted to and love. The separation of heterosexuals from the rest of humanity is a totally arbitrary delineation that really only happened because heterosexuals are in the majority (or at least perceived to be) and have cultural mores acting on them.

  But to argue that my rights are any less fundamental or worthwhile than a straight person’s is supremely dehumanising to me, and comes from a place of supreme ethnocentrism and undeserved moral superiority, and self-righteousness.

  American constitutional rights are just a subset of ethical human rights. They’re not some magic list, not even the best list, and certainly not the end-all of what should be guaranteed to other humans.

  My argument is of course based on the idea that all humans are equal in that we’re all in the same situation here. Those who are rich and powerful don’t deserve to be nor do those who are poor, hungry, and deprived. Social striation is artificial. It is subjectively wrong to give one group of humans privileged and power over another because of superficial differences. But it’s subjective in a way that approaches objectivity. If suffering is in any wrong, if fairness matters at all, ever, if oppression and exploitation and discrimination are in any way bad, then lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexed, and queer rights and equality are as objective ethical and moral as it gets. Denying us total and complete equality comes from the same source as sexism and oppression of women, and of racism and the oppression of racial minorities. You cannot separate out gay rights from the rights of all other minorities or oppressed groups. Either we all somehow deserve complete equality or we don’t – but there really is no room in between.

  And by that same logic, Mormonism, and every group, religious or not, which fights against complete equality for sexual minorities, is fighting against the concept of human equality and fairness. No matter how one couches it, Mormonism supports oppression, discrimination, and institutionalised dishonesty and those are things it purports to abhor, and is therefore supremely hypocritical.

• 89 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  Eric:

  Thanks for the observations.

  I accept the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. as a source of reliable truth. As such, I believe in Adam and Eve, the great flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the golden plates, the first vision, the resurrection happened, and the atonement took place. I believe that a second coming is…well…coming. To me, these are truths, not dogmas.etc.

  I understand that to someone who believes in the scientific method that these truths are naive
  and unsupported by the facts and evidence we have at hand.

  Along with these truths, I hold to doctrines, moral codes, and commandments that are beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove at this time — God exists, Jesus is the Christ, I am his child, good and evil exist, sin is real, redemption is real, we have spirits and souls, there are commandments that constitute the foundation of morality, I will be resurrected, the LDS Church is God’s Church, faith and miracles are real. To me, these are more than dogmas, they are eternal truths as literal as any scientific fact.

  (I express this not with the intention of preaching to you or attempting to convince you.)

  My point is to suggest that the scientific method has no capacity to determine many of the ‘truths’ I mention above. For example, the scientific method cannot in any determine what is right or wrong…or evil or good.

  When it comes to gay rights — the topic that sparked this commentary thread. How does the scientific method determine if gay marriage is good or bad…evil or good? How does the scientific method determine what is an appropriate expectation for someone to walk up to a pulpit in and LDS Church and offer and oppositional point of view? By what right do I have to support the silencing that voice of for John to declare silencing that voice to be immoral?

  I suggest that the scientific method…which is the means by most non-religionists use to reject religion can not reasonably be used to determine truths of morality with any degree of morality.

• 90 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  Craig (#87), beautifully written.

  GKB, I don’t think that anyone is claiming that the scientific method is some kind foundation for morality. In fact, if you look closely at Craig, Chandelle’s and Andrew S’s arguments, you’ll see that it’s the opposite.

• 91 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm

  Once again, Craig, you fail to understand the enumeration and application of “rights” through modern government, more specifically the United States government and the specific governments of her individual states.

  Until you do, I imagine you’re always going to be frustrated.

  As for your claims of the “church” physically abusing gay people and excommunicating gays just because they are gay, well, both claims are pretty ridiculous. I’d love to see evidence of physical abuse against the gay community.

  Furthermore, I’ve never heard tell of someone being excommunicated because they were gay. Having gay sex etc., yes, but just purely being attracted to someone of the same sex, no.

• 92 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  James, do you have any inkling about the history of how the Church has approached its gay members? Do you know anything about the instances of suicide among gay Mormons? I ask this sincerely, because you’re showing incredible insensitivity at the moment. This is not theoretical for gay members and former members of the church. Being gay and Mormon is a hugely traumatic experience. Please keep that in mind in your discussion. You’re not just talking to words on a screen.

• 93 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 1:51 pm

  Craig: “claim it makes that it is not anti-gay is a lie.”

  Call for reference: Please provide a reference where the Church has made such a claim in the manner you describe.

  In my mind the Church has always made its position on homosexuality pretty clear and open. Human sexuality as it relates to marriage, morality, behavior, etc. is fairly complex. I think the Church has been clear in the recent history of political campaigns regarding what its position is regarding our view of traditional marriage, same-gender marriage, the morality of homosexual acts, our concern for those who are dealing with this issue — including family.

  I think that a fair and honest representation of the Church’s position on this range of issues deserves better than oversimplified generalizations.

  If you have any statement where the Church has declared itself to be ‘not anti-gay’ please share. I think you will find that any such statement does not cover the range if issues you address.

• 94 James // Sep 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  Yes, John, I’ve read the stories about suicide among gay members and I’ve read all the Boyd K Packer quotes and all the suggestions about getting married and that it’s a disease, etc etc etc.

  I have gay friends who have left the church. I have gay friends who are still in the church.

  Just because I’m not gay and I’m happen to be an active mormon doesn’t mean I’m ignorant to the history behind the issue, John.

  Either way, that has nothing to do with my point.

  Craig specifically mentioned two things that I don’t believe to be true:

  1. That the church (the institution) has “physically abused” gay people.

  and

  2. That the church has excommunicated gay people just for being gay.

  That has nothing to do with whatever “history” you are talking about. That is addressing what I believe to be false information that Craig is spreading about the church.

  If Craig has specific examples, I’m all ears and would consider them. But until then, I consider both points to be baseless attacks on the church that only serve to cloud the issue.

• 95 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  James, if you have friends who have struggled with the issue, then you know how difficult this is for some of them. It has nothing to do with your point but everything to do with the forum and the individuals involved.

  The last two requests from you and GKB for examples and references were appropriate and much more civil in tone. Thank you both.

• 96 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  I am attempting in all of my posts to be civil and respectful. I fully recognize that I am the visitor to a passionate community of those who are opposed to Mormonism. If I have failed to succeed in being polite, please let me know.

  I am striving to strike a balance between being bold in defending my views without being disrespectful and insulting. However, I realize that to merely believe some of the things I do is offensive to some. (Can’t help that.)

  If we reach a point where my comments are not wanted, and John asks me to leave, I will respect that request.

• 97 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:45 pm

  I’d also like to nuance one of James’ requests. I am fairly certain that at some time in the past, in some LDS council, someone who is gay has been excommunicated. Since the facts and reasons for excommunication are not publicized, I would expect that any reference would be an official Church policy statement to the effect that having same-sex attraction is cause for excommunication. Not just some anecdotal case.

• 98 Eric // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  GKB (88), I have not rejected religion. I do not believe that science and religion can coexist. My point is that in religion “truths” as you have described them are no more than convictions, or strong beliefs. In fairness I probably err in my choice of words by truth I mean fact. The way you use the word is appropriate as well as the statements you have made are your truths and are true to the belief system you have chosen. They provide you with the hope you are looking for. Which is noble and worthy, I would do nothing to dissuade you from your beliefs.

  Andrew S (86), Secular humanism, Rationalism, are belief systems as well and by association not necessarily models for discerning fact. Science however discerns fact through Logic and Reason. e.g. an apple falls to the ground I must therefore reason that there is a relationship between the earth and the apple. I therefore use logic to prove the relationship between the earth and the apple and through that process collect empirical data to support my claim.

  Reason and Logic do not always apply to spiritual experiences. For example Noah and the Ark. Logic and Reason do not support the creation of an ark and even more so the collection of 2 or 7 of each animal on the face of the earth which would have been billions as we would have had to include insects and birds, pinnipeds, freshwater fish, including the migration which would have been improbable. It is a great story that many use as a powerful spiritual experience, but not one that you can use logic and reason to support.

  My point is simply that you do not get verifiable facts from religion/belief systems, personal subjective truths I will grant you. Science provides us with verifiable facts based on empirical data. Both fields are noble and glorious and praiseworthy, however one does not replace the other. They are not the same thing, they are not even comparable, they are aims to different destinations.

• 99 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm

  GKB, I find your tone to be civil and respectful, if challenging. You’re doing fine.

• 100 Andrew S // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  re GKB in 88:

  The way I see it is like thus: the scientific method does not determine if gay marriage is right or wrong. The scientific method doesn’t determine any of these things you mentioned in that paragraph relating to it.

  Most non-religionists do not use the scientific method to determine morality or to reject certain morality codes. Rather, they use other steps.

  They use ideas about empirical evidence gathering to test against the claims of a particular religion that have to do with empirical evidence. So, rather than the morality aspects, we can look at data about history, or about papyri, and we can analyze whether what Joseph Smith said are the best DESCRIPTIONS and EXPLANATIONS. In many cases, they end up lacking.

  For you, it’s different. You find that these are the best descriptions and explanations, and part of the reason (I believe) is because your set of tools includes things like spiritual experience, revelation, prophecy. So, presumably, you use these tools to establish personal credibility for the Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.,

  This is fine…as far as you are concerned.

  The problem is it isn’t necessarily fine as far as anyone else is concerned. Because 1) someone may not receive the same spiritual witness, and 2) we have not ascertained whether “spiritual witness” is even the best explanation or description of what is happening (to be honest, we haven’t ascertained whether “it’s all in your head” is either. So, again, depending on the vantage, there’s disagreement).

  So, at the very least, I can say that the problem with Mormonism and other religions is that their claims are not self-evidently the best explanations and descriptions for empirical data, nor are they self-evidently the best ways to find best explanations and descriptions. Moroni’s Promise may work for you, but it may not work for me. Interestingly enough, Moroni’s Promise may work for the Muslim who wonders if the Quran is true. So, it establishes subjective experience, firstly, but this subjective experience doesn’t establish anything objective. (To be fair, lack of subjective experience or different experience doesn’t establish anything objective either.) However, when we take repeatable, reliable approaches to the BoA papyri (and to various apologists’ explanations and defenses), or to other aspects of various religions, this is where we can determine if we should reject or accept religion — if that is the criteria we value.

  but keep in mind even that isn’t necessary. It is simply sufficient. Rather, most people could counter the subjective experience claim and thusly reject religion (as, presumably, you do for every other religion…they just don’t feel true to you.)

  So, when people try to say that gay marriage should be legalized (or even the opposite), they are trying to do at least two things. 1) Show that their position (and how they derived it) should be taken as credible and 2) Show that the other person’s position (and how they derived it) should not be taken as credible.

  If someone is using the scientific method, then what they are trying to do is show that repeatable, reliable gathering of evidence and development of explanations and descriptions fares far better than explanations and descriptions from spiritual experience (which can differ by person or not even be indicative of any objective truth). This does not make gay marriage credible or incredible, but it does suggest that arguments based on religious foundations of marriage and the family should not be seen as credible because religious foundations have already been suspect.

• 101 John // Sep 15, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  Eric, just a side note: I find it fascinating that people from both “sides” have tried to pigeonhole (at least so it seems to me) as being on the opposite side. Way to march to the beat of your own drummer.

• 102 Eric // Sep 15, 2009 at 3:00 pm

  John, welcome to my world!

• 103 Andrew S // Sep 15, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  re 98:

  Eric, again, I still disagree with your characterization of science. Science doesn’t derive facts from logic and reason. It derives explanations and descriptions about empirical data based on testing, retesting, and evidence gathering about hypotheses (e.g., the use of the scientific method). Reason is a type of THOUGHT that is described by rules called logic.

  Let me give an example when one can use reason and logic, but not be scientific.

  “1) If Jesus were not Lord, he would be liar or lunatic.
  2) Jesus was not a liar nor lunatic
  3) Jesus was Lord.”

  This is a logically VALID statement. You come through this through deductive reasoning, and if we could trust the premises, the conclusion would indeed follow from them. Yet, it is not scientific, nor is it even logically sound? Why, because the premises 1 and 2 are not known (2), or they are false (1). However, through evidence gathering, we could perhaps gather evidence about (2), and test an assertion that Jesus were a liar or a lunatic. If someone does x, they are a liar. Find out of Jesus did x. Retest, etc.,

  It is only through this process of using empirical data (that is, experience data) and testing our assumptions and hypotheses against it that we can even hope to come to something scientifically. Reason and logic are not “real” enough to do it alone.

  So, let’s talk about facts. The facts are the empirical data. They exist. The problem is we don’t know how to EXPLAIN and DESCRIBE these data. So, that there are numerous numerous animals is a fact. It is empirically known. But how do we explain and describe it?

  Many people offer ideas and hypotheses, and try to provide explanations. One such: 6000~ years ago, a deity who cannot be discerned or interviewed for further questions plopped all kinds of animals as they are today. That’s why things are diverse.

  Now, assume that one isn’t logically fallacious (which, that does happen too, but still), one could craft a logically valid, reasonable argument…but the premises could simply be untrue. In this case, we can’t even TEST the God figure. So, we don’t. Science is therefore methodologically naturalist.

  But what we can do is test the time line, test if animal remains are present for that timeline, etc., We look at empirical data to find that, SOMEHOW, there is this genetic code and it changes over time…and when it changes, animals change. And this change has been going on for quite a while. So, at this point, we have several ideas EXPLAINING how this change over time occurs. We call it the “theory of evolution” and it includes natural selection, genetic drift, and different parts.

  To summarize the important points, science didn’t deduce the fact of evolution from logic and reason. No, rather, this fact existed already. The empirical evidence has always been here. What science has done is provided a way for us to test hypotheses about that data to come up with predictive explanations and descriptions that can be tweaked as we find new empirical evidence (that is, new facts, or overlooked facts).

  Logic and reason quite simply are not powerful enough tools for you to brandish them about so. After all, most people use logic and reason — even in religions. But since they may not be using empirical data, we don’t know if the arguments, however valid they may be (and some arguments admittedly are invalid and fallacious) are sound.

  Reason and logic most certainly can apply to spiritual ideas.

  If I don’t follow God, he will kill me.
  I do not want to be killed.
  I should follow God.

  Completely logical. Completely reasonable. The question is…why should we find God to be a true implied premise? Why should we find the premises sound (that not following God leads to death)? We can’t say anything further until we start looking at empirical data and testing our hypotheses to determine if they hold up.

  What you’re saying is that there’s a dearth of empirical data to support this. But this isn’t the same as saying there is no logic or reason to it. Logic and reason don’t need empirical data. Logic and reason are internal. As long as something is internally consistent, it doesn’t matter if it is empirical or not.

  Next, you are denying some empirical data you may have: that being subjective experience. Logic and reason can’t say anything regarding whether following subjective experiences like a spiritual experience is advisable or not. But when we test hypotheses repeatedly, we can determine if spiritual experiences are are the best explanation or description of what’s happening, or if they are not.

• 104 Craig // Sep 15, 2009 at 3:35 pm

  First of all, I don’t believe there is a meaningful difference between official doctrine, cultural doctrine, and no difference between secret but sanctioned practises and ideas, and publicly sanctioned practises. Having an official, stated policy in not only not necessary for a practise to be commonplace, but with controversial topics like homosexuality, it is common for the church to specifically NOT spell out its policies in a public manner. If the only evidence you accept of an institution’s wrongdoing must come from the institution itself, there’s a distinct problem there.

  I do not claim that the church is currently engaged in physically abusing gay people, but it is a fact that it has a history of such actions. From the 1970s through even to the mid 90s gay members were, as part of church-condoned “treatments” to “cure” them of homosexuality subjected to both aversion and reparative therapy. One technique which was commonly used was shocking people’s genitals while showing them arousing pictures in order to “teach” them to not be aroused by homosexual imagery. It is and was a despicable practise, and was sanctioned by the church, if not openly or officially. And even after shock therapy was discontinued, aversion therapy was used pain or smell aversion techniques to induce vomiting to discourage gay feelings and thoughts. I personally have talked with people who experienced both those types of abuse – and it was systematic and happened to many thousands.

  http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/byu_electroshock_aversion_therapy

  http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=adams_23_1&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secularhumanism.org%2Flib%2Flist.php%3Fpublication%3Dfi

  In the Boyd Packer pamphlet “For Young Men Only” which is still printed and officially distrubited, and given to missionaries (I got one in 2003) he advocates violence against gays in order to “defend” yourself. In “To the One”, a talk I also got in 2003 from the mission, homosexuality is set up as a curable disease, says that gays are sexual predators.

  http://www.affirmation.org/news/2000_46.shtml

  The church did in the past (though it no longer openly does, and hopefully doesn’t at all) excommunicate and discipline people based solely on the accusation (whether true or not) that they were gay. People were kicked out of BYU for the same reasons. This is historical fact.

  And while I don’t have the time to search out many specific instances of people being excommunicated or kicked out of BYU for being gay (and not having sex), it does still happen, though not nearly so much as in the past.

  http://www.utahstories.com/byu_gay.htm
  The way the church treats its gay members has somewhat improved over the ensuing decades, but in many cases, the abuse is simply more subtle or discreet. While I personally wasn’t subjected to physical abuse, I was subjected to intense emotional and psychological abuse.

  Here are some articles/sites which reference the church’s claim to not be anti-gay/is not hostile towards gays.

  http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes

  http://www.ldsapology.org/PressInformation.htm

  And in a statement to the Salt Lake Tribune, Elder L. Whitney Clayton, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Presidency of the Seventy is quoted as saying the following, “we consider this to be a moral issue,” Clayton said. “We’re not anti-gay, we’re pro marriage between a man and a woman.”

  http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/californias-prop-8-lds-leader-calls-for-healing-the-gay-marriage-rift/

• 105 Eric // Sep 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  Andrew S (103) I am not claim that logic and reason cannot be applied outside of science. However logic and reason are the beginning of the process for scientific thought. I am not sure what you are trying to prove, if not my point both examples of logical reasoning are based on hypotheses that cannot be tested or proven there is no basis for those arguments. Religion attempts to use logic and reasoning often but when the logic is challenged or proof is demanded we are asked to have faith and trust in God. This is the realm of hope and belief. I hope that Jesus is Lord so that I might be saved and go to the heaven described by his disciples. However I cannot prove that he even existed therefore any empirical data for the argument that Jesus is Lord is suspect at best. If I am a believer I do not need to rely on proof, I have faith, and hope that these things are true and therefore I believe… and for most that is good enough.

  Logic and Reason are not enough to establish fact and I apologize if I made it seem as though that is what I meant. They are however the root of the Scientific process.

  Finally none of this is what this thread is about and I feel like I have semi-hijacked it.

  The reason I brought any of this up is that in a religious service where Todd Whitaker chose to protest the church’s stance on prop 8 is not, and should not be a forum for fact finding. It is a forum for the renewal of faith for those assembled.

  My point was that what Todd Whitaker did was disrespectful to the people assembled there. If he wants to protest he should find the appropriate forum for it and not violate the spiritual experience of the parishioners in their service.

  They argument here seemed to me initially to be that there was a missed opportunity for an open dialogue about prop 8. My contention was that the opportunity for open dialogue is not in the middle of a worship service.

• 106 GKB // Sep 15, 2009 at 5:10 pm

  Andrew:

  I think the statements you cited about the Church not being anti-gay are exactly what I stated they’d be.

  The Church does not simply declare that they are not anti-gay, and leave such a broad statement out there. The Church has made its overall position on homosexuality clear. I don’t think the Church is (as you implied is being hypocritical are deceptive.)

  We want to protect the traditional values of marriage in all of its forms…including assuring that marriage be between a man and a woman. We consider homosexual acts to be a violation of the law of chastity. We do not excommunicate those with same sex attractions simply because they have those attractions. We encourage Christian attitudes toward people of all orientations. We do not advocate violence or stigmatizing of anyone. The Church takes a stand that gays should rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

  I think that the Church has provided a detailed, nuanced view that goes far beyond your simplistic caricature.

• 107 Andrew S // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  re Eric @ 105:

  Logic and reason are the beginning of the process for anything. The problem is in the axioms, premises, and data gathered for each thing.

  So, no, religion doesn’t come into conflict (often) with logic and reason. The fact there are apologists are people making LOGICAL arguments.

  No, the problem is that religions oftentimes come against empirical, testable, repeatable data. Or that their axioms and premises are challenged.

  What I’m trying to say is that you do a great disservice to your own argument when you mischaracterize what science is and is not, and when you mischaracterize what religion is and is not.

  If you want to make a claim about whether religious premises are empirically true, go ahead. But this does not make them illogical or irrational. Especially to believes who do incorporate faith and spiritual experiences and therefore do have personal empirical data (however misconstrued) to back up their religious premises.

  As far as the fast/testimony meeting, the big disconnect is this. Is the fast/testimony meeting about bearing one’s testimony…or is it only about bearing an orthodox, faithpromoting testimony? You can argue either way. Obviously, the bishop decided in this case that it is not a place for anyone to bear testimony. Only a place for SPECIFIC testimonies and SPECIFIC content to be said. The church has the right to determine that if they wish, but some people will be turned off by such executive censorship.

• 108 Andrew S // Sep 15, 2009 at 7:58 pm

  re 106 GKB:

  I think you addressed Craig instead of me.

  But I’ll address.

  The church’s position on homosexuality has evolved over time. Right now they are in a marginally better position than at any time at history…now, they recognize the *possibility* that homosexuality could be inborn and unchangeable, and they recognize that only homosexual acts are against the law of chastity, so to speak.

  But you yourself point out the hypocrisy yourself in the latter part of your comment:

  The Church takes a stand that gays should rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches

  This is what they said. However, in Utah, when the five bills of the “Common Ground” initiative — including a bill for fair housing and job protection — went to the legislature, the church said not one thing in support of this package. This is in contrast to Prop 8, where the church had a letter read and had local stakes develop and pursue action plans to vote against gay rights. Additionally, the church has never formally supported campaigns against divorce, so its track record on supporting traditional marriage (as opposed to simply opposing gay marriage rights) is suspect.

  The church does not advocate violence or stigmatization, you say. But this is only a mere “anymore,” since the church’s past is filled with electroshock therapy for homosexuals.

  Quite simply, the church speaks and acts out of both sides of its mouth. The church’s position is nuanced, alright. But it’s not nuanced in a good way. Rather, it’s nuanced in a duplicitous way that demonstrates that the church is very good at politicking and saying expedient things (like saying they support non-marriage rights), and then doing nothing to advance these causes while doing quite a bit to deny rights.

• 109 Craig // Sep 15, 2009 at 8:11 pm

  Andrew has it exactly right. Thanks for that.

• 110 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:16 am

  So…where do you all stand on censorship and intimidation when it comes to gays targeting non-gays?

  Take the case of Buju Banton, an apparently homophobic performer who has had a concert cancelled in Salt Lake City because of publicity and threats of boycotts by gay activist.

  http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13344476

  Let’s agree this fellow is terrible. Even so, do you condone censorship in this case? Do you agree that those who are opposed to homosexuality should be punished and denied the right to pursue employment when it may not have anything to do with gay issues?

  There are now reports that gay-rights groups are seeking to obtain and publish the names of petition signers in Washington State over gay-rights voter initiatives. Given the deliberate intimidation campaigns instigated by gay-rights activists in California…do you support the chilling effects of voter intimidation in Washington?

  How do these actions measure up against an LDS Bishop turning off the microphone on an off-topic…and long-winded…speaker at an LDS religious service?

  Do everyone have the same passion about the free speech and the open pursuit of rights and truth in these cases?

  I’d be interested in hearing where all of you draw your own personal lines on these sorts of matters.

• 111 Andrew S // Sep 16, 2009 at 8:02 am

  GKB:

  Well, in my comment 107, I wrote that I fully acknowledge that the church has every right to determine what is allowed in its meetings. It has free will…but as you should be aware, it is not free to choose the consequences.

  These are the kinds of consequences. Don’t have free speech: there will be people cheesed off. Do have free speech: there will be other people cheesed off. You pick which one you’re comfortable with. The church has consistently chosen against “the one” and instead for “the ninety nine.” They are free to do that. But what are the consequences?

  In the case you mentioned with the musician, I don’t feel strongly either for or against censorship. In fact, Buju Banton was not denied the right to pursue employment. He fully utilized the right to pursue employment — but this pursuit does not equal guaranteed achievement at any place. Rather, the club decided that it didn’t want to accept the potential consequences of keeping Banton’s concert. Banton could go anywhere else that would accept him and deal with those consequences and all would be fine. Heck, Banton could even *sue* for wrongful termination/contract breach/whatever. That’s the cool thing about the courts.

  Really, if anything, I would have more to say for the gay rights activists, because their actions have consequences too. They obviously are enough to give you a distasteful impression of them, so THAT hurts the gay rights cause.

  Regarding voter intimidation…the thing is that both gay rights activists and gay rights opponents are doing completely, 100% legal things. So really, I can’t say anything about what gay rights activists are doing without pointing out that they are simply bringing fire with the fire that has been used against them — in California, playing fire with the tremendous ground effort of several churches, including the LDS church, with ad campaigns, etc.,

  Personally, I believe both sides should be ashamed of themselves and the tactics they have used. But they all have the right to do these things. I just think that, when they do certain things, they HURT THEIR OWN CAUSES.

  Would you not agree? Don’t you bring up the example of “voter intimidation” because you perceive it has weakened the gay rights’ cause?

  Similarly for many people here with the church censoring the guy in F+T meeting.

  How’s that for my position? Personally, I engage in less censorship, not more. I’ve had some pretty wild discussions on my blog, but I try not to censor unless it’s a spammerbot with crazy links or unintelligible spam English. The worst that’ll happen to you is, if you’re a new time poster, I have to approve your first message (which I will do if you’re not a crazy spammer robot). This might take a few hours depending on if I’m at a computer.

  So that’s my personal stance. I believe that for my site, open dialogue, even if it gets awkward and frustrating, is worth it. But I’ll tell you what: I also don’t try to do stuff that would explicitly invite awkward and frustrating dialogue that I’m not prepared to handle. So, when the church cuts off a guy’s mic in F+T meeting, are they prepared to handle the backlash? After all, they are free to choose…but not free to choose the consequences

• 112 Craig // Sep 16, 2009 at 10:47 am

  This musician is a disgusting person who promotes extreme violence. I think it is perfectly acceptable for that musician to be cancelled from performances based on the fact that he openly advocates the murder of gays.

  I don’t believe in censorship at all, and this is not censorship. He’s still allowed to make his music, release it, and even perform it in places which will let him. Free speech rights don’t give one the right to be employed anywhere they want, or say anything they want without consequence. It means that the government cannot arrest you or silence you. That’s all.

  The situation is in no way similar to the situation at the LdS church where a member wished to express his testimony during a testimony meeting. And while I think the bishop acted unethically, he didn’t act illegally. And neither party was advocating for the murder of the other.

  I am a very strong advocate for free-speech rights for all, no matter how strongly I disagree, but there has to be a line drawn when people incite their followers/fans to murder and violence. That kind of speech crosses the line because it infringes on my rights and my safety.

• 113 ‘I really think it would be best if you ended your remarks at this point?’ at Mormon Matters // Sep 24, 2009 at 10:47 am

  [...] Remy posted an interesting blog/video where a man, speaking about his concern with the Church’s practice and policy during [...]

• 114 Douglas Hunter // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:10 pm

  I realize this comment is late in the game but . . . .

  “And even if you can argue that the Church has every right to constrain what is said across its pulpits, the truth is that it does not value any member’s voice of conscience that contradicts or criticizes its doctrines, policies or leaders in any venue.”

  It appears to me that the leadership has drawn a strict line when it comes to criticizing leaders and doctrines etc. And in most situations I agree that simple criticism is problematic, for a number of reasons. Thus it’s not so much a matter of criticism as it is a matter of being critically & Spiritually engaged with the doctrine, and policy and the leadership of the church. When we find ourselves in disagreement I think the most powerful thing we can do is lead by example. We can be models of faithful mormons following the spiritual / ethical imperatives of the religion in a way that we feel is best, even if that leads to a certain type of conflict.

  I think the video is interesting but the man making the statement is speaking economically, and politically. He’s taking about sums of money and civil rights. In order to be effective our opposition to the churches involvement in things such as Prop. 8 we need to speak with our poetic, spiritual and ethical voices, rather than making logical arguments about why we believe a certain way. Embrace weakness, embrace empathy, be comfortable rejecting naive notions of truth with a “T”.

  “I was joining a largely fundamental and conservative religion.”

  No, you were joining a largely fundamental and conservative religious culture. there is a huge difference between the predominant culture of American Mormons and Mormonism’s theological content and potential. Viewing Mormonism in terms of liberal / conservative labels is problematic because neither label really applies that well when dealing with scripture and doctrine. The division becomes descriptive at the point one enters culture.

• 115 Cliff // Oct 2, 2009 at 8:36 pm

  A few weeks ago, at their request, I spoke at a Unitarian Church on the subject of Mormonism. Just prior to my speaking, the my church was denounced by a man who was helping run the service. He then left for my remarks and returned when I had finished speaking. True, I was allowed to speak, but I didn’t find this to be particularly welcoming or polite. The strange thing is that they contacted me and asked me to come. The others at the meeting were very nice.

• 116 Cara // Jan 21, 2010 at 10:49 pm

  You are all amazing. It took me awhile to digest each post, but absolutely amazing points.

  What a great dialogue.

  I feel 10 times more stupid now, after reading the words of intelligent individuals. Honestly, I’m amazed that there is a place on the internet where people don’t end up calling each other horrible names after a discussion. It exists!! There is a God! (jk)

  No sarcasm intended, unless specified…

Leave a Comment