2009
Extinguishing the Lights Along the Shore: One Man Speaks against Prop 8 in an LDS Meeting
b&w lighthouse by john curley, shared under a creative commons license.
I loved to sing as a Mormon. I sucked, but I didn’t suck so bad that I couldn’t do a public performance on occasion. I particularly loved singing in small, 4-man choirs. I was usually the baritone.
One of my favorite hymns to sing this way was Brightly Beams Our Father’s Mercy (lyrics and mp3: warning, LDS Church site). It describes a dramatic scene: a storm-tossed sea, sailors on the verge of being overcome, hoping desperately to land, and behold: you stand in a protected harbor, and by holding your lantern high you guide the half-drowned souls to safety. Here are some of the lyrics:
1. Brightly beams our Father’s mercy
From his lighthouse evermore,
But to us he gives the keeping
Of the lights along the shore.[Chorus]
Let the lower lights be burning;
Send a gleam across the wave.
Some poor fainting, struggling seaman
You may rescue, you may save.…
3. Trim your feeble lamp, my brother;
Some poor sailor, tempest-tossed,
Trying now to make the harbor,
In the darkness may be lost.
If you buy into the LDS Church’s totalizing world view, with its strict but loving Father God, (as I once did) then the story described above, while filled with danger and darkness, is a noble one. But let’s say that your conscience dictates that you shouldn’t work actively to deprive a minority of their rights, and you attempt to shine forth your light on that subject. Here is one such example:
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.
This, my friends, is the institutional Church’s attitude towards the truth. Todd is a brave soul–it’s a shame that you actually have to be brave to voice your personal opinion in an LDS service on a political position that Church leaders on the one hand have said is yours freely to choose, and that you won’t be disciplined for. Note that the Church shouldn’t be upset about using the pulpit to voice his feelings on Prop 8: I witnessed LDS authorities do that when I attended a pre-election Prop 8 rally and organizational meeting via satellite broadcast from LDS HQ last year.
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.
The LDS Church defends a particular narrative, and guides all comers towards it. I don’t deny that many have found safe harbor there. But what if you’re trying to land nearby, or even to sail away from it?
Then the Mormon Church is a shipwrecker, shining a false light from its tower, actively seeking to destroy the lamps held by its members. And the saddest thing is that the metaphor crosses into reality at this point, and lives are lost in those dark waters as the lights go out.
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.
John, welcome to my world!
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Andrew has it exactly right. Thanks for that.
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.
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
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.
[...] Remy posted an interesting blog/video where a man, speaking about his concern with the Church’s practice and policy during [...]
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.
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.
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…
What a selfish waste of everyone else’s time in this video! He surely knew that about a hundred families had set aside half a day to get ready, travel, and meet to worship in the way the name on the building promises. No matter to him — HE is going to tie up everyone’s time with his counter agenda, depriving the rest of the group of the few minutes of the week they came to hear testimony and uplift.
.
Thanks for posting this: I’m going to refer others to this attempted hijacking by another someone who can’t abide that people indepentently come to different/better conclusions than he has. It’ll help us to remember who opposes us.
manaen, sounds a lot like the selfish waste of time LDS missionaries regularly impose, in the name of truth, upon others who are trying to go about their daily lives.
John, How is this a lot like LDS missionaries? Missionaries ask to share their message, generally in a personal setting, and they move on when declined; this speaker did not ask, tried to impose his unwanted message in an open meeting assembled for a different purpose, and persisted in trying to impose it when declined.
Missionaries don’t ask before they come knocking on people’s doors.
FWIW, I’d say that most testimony meetings are far bigger wastes of time than someone speaking from their conscience. If the audience was annoyed that they spent half a day prepping for a meeting where they heard something that made them uncomfortable–that’s their problem (it’s the whole beam/mote thing, right???)
A standard street or door approach to a polite person is probably comparable to the length of time. And people impose unwanted messages quite frequently in testimony meeting. I had a lot of friends who were repulsed by the pro-Prop 8 messages that were being spoken at them for much much longer, and who had to endure them.
Jana,
.
Cart/horse: missionaries knock on doors to do the asking and they stop talking and leave when the answer is “No” — unlike the speaker in this video.
.
FWIW, as explained in Moroni and frequently over the pulpit, testimony meetings are for sharing *testimonies*. Your implied distinction between testimony and “speaking from their conscience” is an innovation I’ll have to consider. My understanding is that the point of a testimony meeting, is to speak one’s conscience/testimony about Christ’s atonement, the restored gospel, the fruits of these in one’s life, and other related things. I have seen bishops correct folks when they go on with the infamous travelogues, etc. however this video is the first time I’ve seen someone shrug off this correction and plow ahead with his own irrelevant-to-the-purpose-for-which-the-people-in-the-congregation-came agenda.
.
It’s not a matter of prepping half a day and then feeling uncomfortable. (Frequently, I’ve been grateful for a testimony that caused me to feel uncomfortable enough with some deficiency in my life to work on it). Instead, there are at least a couple of problems with what this speaker did: he attempted to thwart the spiritual growth that the congregants came to help each other have through sharing their testimonies and, beyond thwarting growth, he attempted to replace things which the Spirit confirms with a message that I and many others have had the Spirit warn is wrong. This is a problem for the people who came to this meeting, but not in the sense that theirs is the blame. IMO, the mote/beam analogy of relative faults fails in that the video’s speaker attempted to do wrong and the congregation had no fault in coming for the stated purpose of the meeting, rather they had met to help each other overcome weaknesses by testifying of help they had received.
.
I agree that we should have open discussions of issues like Prop 8 and that these frequently will be uncomfortable for the participants. I’ve spent many hours IRL and on-line in these discussions and it looks like I’ll log many more. I do not agree that a meeting for another purpose should be hijacked by one person in an attempt to impose such a discussion. Otherwise, would it be other people’s problem, not this speaker’s, if he were to take the mike at a funeral, at a graduation, or at a rock concert, or read his remarks in a sales meeting or a mortgage closing, even if other people there disagreed with him? If you don’t believe so, would you say that it’s your problem if someone were to start posting sections of the D&C in this blog?
manaen, the person in question is a member of a ward/church community. This action takes place within that complex and deep framework. He’s not some random dude who just stepped into the Church on fast Sunday.
There’s a pretty clear division in opinion here. I and many folks here at Mind on Fire experienced the Church as a socially coercive space, and have some sense of what struggles this person went through to get to this point and empathize with where they’re coming from. There is nothing flip about what he’s doing. This is not an outsider coming in to complain–this is definitely an insider’s final act of separation, and obviously not one they made easily.
I imagine you have a positive experience of the Church. I can understand why you would be offended by this direct and invasive criticism of your community.
I’ll do slight flip-flop.
What I posted in #32 I think is still more, rather than less valid in my view. But I can identify with John’s point: “this is definitely an insider’s final act of separation, and obviously not one they (he) made easily.” I can identify with this because his comment reminded me of what I did which was similar in a “final act of separation” or rather, out of desperation. I won’t go into the details, but ‘stories’ were circulating and it became too much to bear. So, in a Fast and Testimony meeting I stood at the pulpit and said what I thought of certain (many) member’s gossip about and against me (without mentioning any names) and how unacceptable it was and should be, let alone for LDSs; then walked away from the pulpit, through the chapel, out the door, and I never went back to that ward. Soon after that I even moved out of the area. The ‘happy’ (for lack of a better description) ending is that ‘what goes around, comes around’ and after almost twenty years major cracks started appearing in the ‘stories’ and I heard that I was now being considered exonerated in the minds of many of those former members. Small consolation after all of the damage to my family situation and reputation.
But what I do remember is that after I made my ‘speech’ I felt like I was some kind of a nut — out of my mind to make it; I became very embarrassed of what I did more than what I said (because *what* I said was the truth). Hence, I can identify with this guy somewhat IF, for him the Prop 8 issue for some reason cuts very close to the bone.
Paul, thank you for sharing. I had a similar issue with my in-laws years ago that I’m not sure has completely healed. It sounds like a horrible thing that could happen in all kinds of social environments, inside and outside of the Church. I’m glad your reputation is being restored, however slowly.
Thank you for posting so many opinions on such a critical issue such as prop 8
I am Doing very well these days without the church
the link to the original video no longer works as someone has had it removed, so it has been re-posted on youtube…here is the link
http://youtu.be/Ia8VSo6OXMU