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.

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.

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???)

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…

“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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.