[Archaea]

a poster offered this perspective on the case, not without merit.

There are also always two sides to a story. I don't know all of the details here but the story is rife with "advocacy journalism" with language designed to elicit synmpathy for Danzig and disgust and contempt for the LDS church. Those who know the history of the Salt Lake Tribune won't find this particularly surprising. If you'll look closely in the article amonst the inflammatory language, though, you will also note that it was Danzigs threat to publish his recitation of the Church's "abuses" rather than his letter of support for Jeffery Nielson that got him a warning about a disciplinary council. Even he (Danzig) admitted his language was over the top and not appropriate.

Also in the article is this:

"Shifting approaches: Between June 2006 and December 2007, the LDS Church came out with several statements acknowledging homosexuality may be inborn and difficult to change, even with much effort and prayer. It was exactly the position Danzig had been defending."

So the Church has adopted essentially what Danzig apparently wanted to see. So if Danzig was hoping the Church would adopt "exactly the position" it has stated "between June 2007 and December 2007," why is Danzig trumpeting his criticism of and departure from the LDS Church in February 2008?

Also note the following:

"Many committed Mormons, including philosophers, psychologists and some politicians, disagree with the church on the Federal Marriage Amendment, said Nielsen, who now teaches at Utah Valley State College and Westminster College. Several members wrote letters to The Tribune defending Nielsen and sharing his view. He is unaware of disciplinary action taken against any of those letter writers."

This is pretty true, but it destroys Danzig's accusation that he is being singled out for standing up for Nielson. Clearly there is more to this than is in the story.

The last part is a plug for "Family Fellowship, a support group for the LDS families with gay and lesbian children." This group's stated position from their website is that same-sex marriage is "the next logical step." That homosexuality "must be seen in a different moral perspective." That the Church is "repressive" and is a "stumbling block on the path leading to self-acceptance."

Again, without denying that there can be heavy-handedness at times in the church, clearly there is more to the story than this one-sided portrayal. And going public with one's pet grievances does not necessarily put that person on some sort of untouchable high moral plain.