LDS rep goes radioactive
As the Prop. 8 collision diminishes in the Mormon church's rear-view mirror, the damage assessment continues. The Tribune offers a package of articles discussing the fallout that has followed the LDS-driven ban on gay marriage in California.
• Was the Mormon support for Proposition 8 a "PR fiasco?" LDS scholar Sarah Barringer Gordon of the University of Pennsylvania, says, yes:
The Olympics had this nice afterglow for Mormons and, boy, is that gone.• Want to read about suspected vandalism against Mormon institutions following the vote? Juan Becerra, FBI spokesman says it's not a coincidence:
There's been too much that has happened in a short period of time.• Will the LDS church's new political Death Star reputation reflect onto Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (and Gov. Jon Huntsman, for that matter). Charles Dunn, dean of the School of Government at Pat Robertson's Regent University, opines:
What the LDS Church just did in California and elsewhere, should help [Romney] because it sends a signal to evangelical Protestants that while we differ religiously, politically we are first cousins.Even the Deseret News' church-owned columnist Lee Benson weighs in, quoting "tithe-paying" Mormon pollster Gary Lawrence, who surveyed attitudes toward the LDS church — before Prop 8. In a nutshell, Lawrence understates:
We're not as popular as we think we are.
Of course, there's the old "any publicity is good publicity" theory, expounded by the same Gary Lawrence to the Tribune:
These protests will help us. It puts a spotlight on us. Which is worse -- antagonism or apathy? I believe apathy is our bigger enemy.
Second, despite what Dean Dunn over at Regent U. says, evangelicals will always take Mormon cash and volunteers for their joint causes — but they also will always to consider Mormons in the same godless camp as papists, Hare Krishnas and Druids.
By the way, has anybody seen President Thomas Monson?
15 Comments:
The very last paragraph is right on. The evangelicals see Mormons as Satan-worshiping heretics, and more importantly, competitors for adherents (and adherents' money).
The church's "success" in prop 8 set back any realistic hopes for a Mormon president by at least 50 years.
The only two way to explain the Prop 8 fiasco is to accept that in the wake of President Romneys failure to win the Rep. nomination, the church sold itself out to get in the good graces of the Evangelical crowd and that Monson, et al, completely bungled and mismanaged the operation.
Last I checked a majority of Californian's voted in favor of Prop 8. Sure some people are angry at the LDS church for it support of Prop. 8 but many are not. In fact a majority of Claifornian's voted with them. Similar measures passed easily in several other states. If the goal is for the LDS church to get everyone to like them better this does not accomplish that. Please keep the vote in perspective. There is a very vocal minority that is upset.
How is this a fiasco? Prop 8 passed. The tolerant gays are exposed for intolerance. People's true bigoted feelings towards Mormons come out (get it come out).
This is a win win for everyone.
Well, you could talk to missionaries in the field, they could tell you how this is a fiasco. You could also talk to tons of black people who still haven't forgiven the church for denying them the priesthood until 1978 and for fighting against the equal rights amendment. Every time the church wades into the political arena, it irrevocably turns a group of people against it. That is bad for a church that depends upon growth. This isn't even counting the ongoing Holocaust fiasco.
I just wonder if it's in the spirit of the consititution for the majority to take away the rights of the minority.
I also wonder if it's constitutional for the majority to impose or sanction their religios views on a minority.
So to me, even though the majority has expressed its will, it still does not make it constitutional.
This post has been removed by the author.
Whether the publicity is good or bad depends on the point of view of the person hearing it. Many will find the LDS position on same sex marriage to be correct, so the publicity that is received is positive to those people . Those opposed to Prop 8 will look at the Church negatively. Considering a large majority of Americans are opposed to same sex marriage means the overall publicity on this one issue is probably good. And the fact is that those who are liberal enough politically and socially to support same sex marriage probably have zero interest in the conservative views of religious institutions, including the LDS faith. So I think the hit is minimal at best.
Christ wasn't popular either....
They did crucify him.
Tommy upscrewed, for sure. Hinckley was a master at PR and a gifted con man. He wouldn't have handled the "church's" role in Prop 8 with the meat cleaver Monson did.
Secondly, others in this arena have stated that a boycott won't work. Wanna bet? It worked a little today. About 1 p.m. I loaded up my car with beer, wine, booze and mixes in Evanston and drove back to place the treasure in my rental locker. I spent nearly $600.00 in Wyoming. Zilch in Utah.
Next month I'll be in Reno where there is a huge liquor store with one of the largest selections of booze, wine and beer money can buy.
And I will happily spend my money there.
As much as possible I will not spend money in Utah, even though I live here.
This will continue as long as Utah remains a church/state, a theocracy, which it surely is.
Hey George. Nice work on the boycott. Way to break the law while you were at it. Let me know when you are coming back from Reno and I'll have the highway patrol stop you to congratulate you.
George - If you're willing to drive 80 miles just to get a beer, aren't you cutting off your nose to spite your face?
Not even Labatt's Blue is worth that sacrifice. LOL!
The question in my mind is this: if gays don't have the right to get married, does *anybody* have the same right. The point is not whether a majority voted for it or even cared about it. The point is that the right to assemble peaceably is inalienable, even by a majority who votes to eliminate it. I expect this to bear itself out in the courts.
Mormons gave up polygamy more than a century ago, but it's likely there are some who would like to revive it. It might even still be in practice secretly. If they wanted to revive that practice, they have surely buried it with their campaign against gay marriage.
It's so funny to watch some of you people rant and rave about Mormons’ views on gays.
Speaking as an LDS Mormon, I really don't care if it's publicity (good or bad). I don't care if Romney or any other Mormon is able to get himself elected President. Why should I care what the religion of my President is?
Some of you would have us change our stance on homosexuality in order to be more in line with the current views of the world.
Well I've got news for you. Very little of the population of California is Mormon. As a state more than 50% of Californian voters decided that it would be wrong to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate a group seeking special privileges.
I'd say that our views are in line with the current views of the world (or at least with California and that's hardly a conservative state).
Even if they weren't we still wouldn't change our views.
Go ahead and whine about it being a matter of civil rights. I just don't see it that way and so I will fight you in the political arena. I know you would like to impose your will upon the majority but it just doesn't work that way. We voted in California (and a number of other states) and we won.
Are you going to march in protest? Go ahead, this is America and you can do that. Are you going to vandalize our churches. Well, you are only hurting your own cause, so go ahead. We can repaint, repair, rebuild because every bit of damage you do to a building really does ten times the amount of damage to your cause. It mobilizes our people and our allies against you.
Some of you make the irrelevant point of saying that evangelicals see Mormons as Satan-worshiping heretics. Why should I care about that? I don't seek to join their churches and clearly they don’t seek to join mine if they are saying things like that. If they wish to learn about mine then I will gladly teach them and they can make up their own minds.
In the meantime, where we have common views we will be allies and that is good enough for now.
Fact: California is dominantly liberal. Obama and the Democrats won easily inside the state. Yet, the majority population of California still voted to maintain the true definition of marriage. The result? Bash the LDS Church. It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives, dems and repubs, mormons and non-mormons, all voted for the true definition of marriage. But, once again, the LDS Church has become an easy target for the ignorant.
George: After you proudly waste your paycheck on out-of-state booze, are you going to drive drunk back to Utah? Just head towards a wooded area please and away from our neighborhoods.
Anon 1:19: Stop acting educated. We all know you do not have a single black friend to discuss issues of priesthood. I know several black priesthood holders and their testimonies are stronger than most.
Anon 12:04: How does this hurt the chances of a Mormon Prez? We just proved our willingness to stand for what is right in the face of opposition, not back down, and yet still vote with majority of Californians, earning respect from many former foes. That is victory, my friend.
Anarchy seems to be the foundation of the current gay movement: We will not tolerate your political process or democratic vote unless it is in favor of our minority. And until then, we will march, scream, trespass, and protest.
Post a Comment
<< Home