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

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I will probably really step in it here, but what the heck

1. BY's Slavery

I think we are mixing different ideas up here. His interview with Horace Greely was most likely (I am guessing) meant to be read back East, to minimize the threat of Mormons in the minds of the readers, and that context is important. When he says a divine institution, does he mean that it is allowed by God because the race is cursed, but that sentiment is clarified because he personally has no use for it. His comments (for example, saying Utah is a free state but that slaves brought there should not be allowed to run away is walking the line of the key political issues of the day) are meant for a larger audience and are meant to allay fears that Mormons are a threat to anyone. Now this is not to say he was enlightened about race, but I think these particular quotes need to be read in the proper context. Saying that Slavery is bad for the soil may mean something else altogether. Could it mean that slavery encourages one crop mass farming that is not suitable for poor or depleted soils? Literally, IOW, it is bad for the soil? He is speaking as a farmer, we are not. Or, if figurative, Waters is going too far to paint him in a negative light, as he said slavery, not slaves, are bad for the soil.

Why do you have to engage in this conjecture and not just accept what he said at face value? His words are perfectly clear, and, as Waters noted, he said what he said as Union soldiers were pouring blood into American soil for the cause of freeing slaves. Brigham Young's words are obscene. They are as bad as anything a despot like Stalin ever said.

If, as Palegius convolutedly argues, he was playing word and political games and reckless about the moral content or consistency of his words, this does not exonerate him, particularly at that moment in history. The Civil War is our nation's civic atonement, and BY pissed on it. It was obscene.

Reading BY's words per their plain meaning, do you agree he was wrong?

Originally Posted by creekster

2. Waters.

I take Waters at his word. SU is playing a little game to try to further undermine the church and its image in our minds and now he is even trying to use Waters to that end. Maybe I'm wrong, but I will take that chance here because I find SU's version of Waters unpalatable.

How ironic that you yourself recognized the irony, indeed were the first to do so, yet refuse to believe Waters is really that skeptical, that that is really what he intended. Why? Are you more insightful than Waters, who wrote the post? How can you recognize the irony but not share our skepticism? It was that skepticism that made you recognize the irony.

How could any thinking person join the rank and file perception that LDS leaders are "always right." I can't say those words without smirking.

Originally Posted by creekster

3. Gay Marriage

I do not claim special insight into the prophet's position on this issue. But, if one assumes he is a seer and a prophet, as I do (SU and perhaps waters can stop reading) then it is possible, in my mind, that he sees something about the future for which this election (or perhaps this general time frame) is the turning point, the lynch pin, if you will. Maybe he knows that if it is not stopped now, further events will unfold that will result in our condemnation or, at the very least, will make spreading the work more difficult. Triple's silly construct that the vote will result in God punishing us is just that: silly. No one claims that. But choices have consequences, and we are talking about a state with more than 10% of the country's population (and a social trends and media leader) voting on an issue and perhaps the prophet sees the consequences in ways we don't. He has that right and that calling. I struggle to understand, but I think this is a possibility that must be allowed for as we consider this issue.

Given the history--LDS support of slavery, opposition to integration, condemnation of Brown v. Board of Education, practice of racial apartheid, teachings that poor and darker skinned peoples are being punished for pre-existence misdeeds, continuing relegation of women to second class status--why do you even begin to take what they say on the gay marriage issue at face value? Surely your professional training tells you how damning the history is to their credibility.