Monson: Gay Marriage Fight in CA 'Is Our Gettysburg'
 

I wonder if the church is going to step into this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071802580.html

The momentum is for acknowledged gays to be able to be in the military.

That's pretty much a tidal wave of public opinion.

And that protect marriage website acknowledges that support for Prop 8 is currently in the minority.

Also, the choice of words is interesting: "Gettysburgh."

Because it hearkens back to the civil war, and the fight against slavery, i.e. racial discrimination. (the church supported, at least in rhetoric, the Rebels in the South).

So just as we supported pro-slavery forces are we now fighting for the anti-gay forces at Gettysburg?

I know that is probably not what President Monson meant, if you asked him.

But words always betray.

Does anyone know if there is a transcript or news story on this 3 hour conference to see if the Gettysburg reference was actually used?

What are the prospects of the church prevailing in this fight. Are we just peeing in the wind here or is this close. I haven't followed closely enough to know. It would be hard for me to commit resources to something I knew to be a losing battle.

This story reports a poll showing the prop being defeated 42-51%, an improvement though from 40-54%. The pro-Prop 8 guy of course thinks the poll is flawed.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/fie...t-proposition/

I think the odds of Prop 8 succeeding are just south of zero. This leads me to the inevitable question: why do Ute fans contribute money to the football program?

Like going on a mission for two years in hopes that the gospel will sweep over the earth and convert a few percentage points of the world population?

Let me introduce you to some poetry:

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

1.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

2.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

3.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

4.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

5.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

6.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Copied from Poems of Alfred Tennyson,
J. E. Tilton and Company, Boston, 1870

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_..._Light_Brigade

I don't really respect the position that you fully agree with the church on the issue, but you don't want to commit any resources unless you think it will win. If in fact that is your position.

Gettysburg was the battle that stopped Lee's invasion of the north. Had the Union lost the battle, they probably would have lost the war. Since the Church is fighting a defensive battle here, comparisons to the Union forces is more accurate.

Except for:

1. the church supported the South (and by extension, slavery)
2. the church is fighting against the oppressed minority (as some would say) as well

But otherwise your comparison is quite apt.

So what happens when the Union loses at Gettysburg? That's where the metaphor fails I think. Are they saying that the Union then loses? I wonder what other battlefield metaphors will be used? "This is their Auschwitz". That's probably one that is not going to be used.

I wonder if the Prop loses in CA, will the church start to turn its eye to building literal Zion in Jackson County?

That might be an upside to this.

The next metaphor will probably be The Alamo. BTW, could you provide substantiation for the church's "support" of the South in the Civil War?

I'd at least consider moving away from coastlines.

Well, we know Monson is a racist and an anti-Semite, right?

Don't forget a homophobic bigot and notorious hothead.

Adam or SEIQ are better versed than me and know of (and remember) sources.

Basically the root of LDS support for the South was their resentment of the federal govt. and the perceived oppression at their hands.

I believe it was mostly "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" and not so much a complete consonance of philosophy with the South.

Well since you've now provided the reason why your Civil War analogy isn't a good one, why don't you stop using it now?

Well we disagree.

I think throwing out "Gettysburg" given the church's history is quite ironic.

My sense of it, and this is entirely non-scientific, is that the pro-prop 8 forces do nto have a great will to fight this battle and feel like it has been lost. I think the vote will be closer than the polls suggest, but I do tend to think it will lose.

this is a surprise to me as based on the last referendum and all the statements I had heard here, I though the pro- forces were favored.

Like I said, it is my non-scientific gut feeling about the issue. I talk to people that I talked to 8 years ago and they don't seem to have the fire in the belly anymore. There seems to be a certain feeling of gay marriage as a 'fait accompli" that I thinhk will be hard ot overcome.

I could esaily be wrong, and remeber, I am in the Bbay Area which almost surely skews my perception, but it is just my feeling.

btw, mike, have ther been threads or posts abotu the church's support of secession in the civil war? I did a quick search and didn't see nay. Do you recall a thread or post about this? I would like to read it.

I was curious too, as one of the reasons Mormons were kicked out of Missouri was they were considered anti-slavery.

I found this from Mike Quinn:

http://www.kued.org/productions/prom...ews/quinn.html

BY's pronouncements slavery pronouncements aside, Utah (speaking of the citizenry) did not share the South's cause. That England supported the confederacy didn't mean they were pro slavery. Utah's support the the south(if Quinn is correct) seems abviously motivated by a desire to be left alone by the federal government, which largely happened during the Civil WAr.

I didn't say that I fully agreed nor did I say that I would not pony up if asked. I said it would be hard for me to commit money to a lost cause. My position is that I am skeptical of it and glad I am not being forced to decide whether I would support it monetarily or not.

Yes, it is a curious thing that Lincoln is so revered by church members, when he was enemy #1 to the church at the time.

We don't talk about the church's support for the Confederacy in our manuals. We don't mention BY's support of slavery. It doesn't fit in with our perception of always being right.

Speaking of ironic . . .

I looked at that protectmarriage.com site - we've seen it before, and it's a joke. This time I clicked on the "Read More" link for point # 3 about how in countries where same-sex marriage is legalized, there has been an increase in out-of-wedlock births, and it led to this: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/F...rong_direction

Frankly, it's embarrassing that the church is supporting such a poorly-reasoned and illogical website, as protectmarriage.com. It really is laughable. You would think that since this is such a good cause, they'd be able to come up with something better. It may sway people who don't want to (or can't) put a lot of thought into it, but it's not going to convince intelligent people to support their cause.

If same-sex marriage is legalized in Texas, Farrah and I will divorce and have a child out of wedlock just to make a point that it harmed our marriage.

I think you should have Farrah waterboard you too, to demonstrate how waterboarding terrorists has hurt you.

We're in the intermediate phase of trasition from outright hatred to enlightenment. As usual, the LDS will be the last to continue hating after the mainstream has experienced enlightenment by and large.

Brigham Young's July, 1859 interview with the renowned newspaper editor Horace Greeley, makes Brigham's view of slavery pretty clear. I am unaware of any controversy regarding it, other than the SL Trib reprinted it in the early 90s (which is how I first came upon it). From the interview (capitalizations are in original):

H.G.: What is the position of your Church with respect to Slavery?

B.Y.: We consider it of Divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his decendants.

H.G.: Are there any slaves now held in this Territory?

B.Y.: There are.

H.G.: Do your Territorial laws uphold Slavery?

B.Y.: Those laws are printed--you can read them for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the states, we do not favor their escape from the service of those owners.

H.G.: Am I to infer that Utah, if admitted as a member of the Federal Union, will be a Slave State?

B.Y.: No; she will be a Free State. Slavery here would prove useless and unprofitable. I regard it generally as a curse to the masters. I myself hire many laborers and pay them fair wages; I could not afford to own them. I can do better than subject myself to an obligation to feed and clothe their families, to provide and care for them, in sickness and health. Utah is not adapted to Slave Labor.

I've always suspected Waters was a genius. I think the irony was clearly intentional.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the "twin relics of barbarism" that Lincoln's Republican party was committed to ending: slavery and polygamy.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/r1856.html

Talk about sycophantic . . .

This is what had surprised me a ltitle aboutthe supposed support fo rthe confederacy. Based on materials I had read from the period, even though the Republicans and the press waged a vigorous propaganda war agains these twin relics, the contemproary wirtings of mormons I had seen from the time period pledged abiding suport to the consitution and its sanctity. I didn't see a lot of States Rights stuff (at least not in the convetional sense), which was what the confederacy hung its hat on. I never have sutdied it systematically, however, but it did suprise me a litte bit.

When I think of Lincoln, I think of his good friend Orville Browning, who helped found the Republican Party. Oh yeah, I also remember that Browning sucessfully defended some of the members of the Carthage mob against murder charges in the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum.

Do you deny Waters' statement was terrific, including the irony?

Yes. Becasue if it is intended to be ironic and was not sincere, than his whole act here is largely inexcusable. It is a 'brillaince' founded in ridicule and misstatement that he should find embarassing. I think you are working too hard for this.

What does this mean? Surely you don't evaluate Lincoln's works through this prism alone?

No. It's just my lame attempt at being provocative.

SOrry, I was on my own self-righteous kick and missed it.