A Response - Allegedly

The word allege is just an interesting one... It seems to be key in the news reporting business, allowing the reporter to make a statement, but to do so in such a way as to not stand behind it completely. Legally, it gives them a way out, in case they are wrong. According to WikiPedia - An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.

Anyway, I should like to make some allegations today, and provide a response to a comment which was made, based on those allegations.

First of all, let me set up the foundation for all of this...

I wrote a new post yesterday afternoon, in response to comments made by a top tier leader in the LDS Church. In a speech at one of the Church's schools, he compared the backlash to the Church's support of Proposition 8 to the persecution of Blacks in the Southern States, which I thought was kind of a stretch at least and at most just blatant hypocrisy given the Church's treatment of Blacks through-out it's history. The NAACP share my opinion on this too.

I received an interesting response to the posting however, which, as indicated before, I would like to address, however if you would like to view the original post, you can read it either on this blog by scrolling down to the post directly below, or you can view it in it's original spot, by clicking below...

Dude?!? Wrong Side!!

Alright, so below is the unaltered text, as posted by a commenter to that post....

Anonymous said...

Hello, I found your blog while researching prop 8 a while back. I've read your posts from time to time and I can't really say I understand them, not being LDS. All I can say is you've got some definite issues with Mormons. I am a Catholic transplant to Utah from Connecticut and I don't know much about mormonism, but from your blog posts, I take it I should look elsewhere for an unbiased opinion on them.

The reason I'm commenting is that ever since the prop 8 vote in California, I've never heard mormons maligned so much. I've read news stories about protests so filled with hate toward mormons I can't believe it.

I haven't totally figured out where I stand politically, but I seem to lean left of most Utahns I know. I personally don't see a problem with gays getting married and I don't think I'd go so far as to compare the backlash against mormons to persecution against blacks, but from what I've seen I certainly consider mormons victims of intimidation by the anti prop 8 movement.

I said I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but if the ability to marry is really a "right", I'm not sure it's one I feel the need to fight to defend. "Alleged civil right" sounds about right to me.

If the majority of Californians decide, which they did, to define marriage as hetero only, case closed in my book. Nobody's taking anybody's rights away, and nobody deserves the backlash I've seen.

You've got issues, dude. I won't pretend to understand them. Maybe I'd feel the same had I been mormon. But maybe you should spend more time working that out and less time bashing a church that you apparently still wish to be affiliated with on at least some level.

I started to write a response to this person, but something just wasn't feeling right about it, so I looked around a little more.

I use a service to log visits to my blogs. While I don't necessarily advertise that fact in my posts, if you scroll down, you'll see the little icon for StatCounter. I don't view them too much, but it's fun to see how many visitors I get and where they come from. It tracks IP addresses, service providers and all of that. Nothing nefarious, it's just the information which you computer attaches to any web page request prior to sending it.

Last night I didn't get any visits from Utah, and about 20 minutes before this comment was made the only person who visited was from Snowflake, Arizona...

So I looked up Snowflake, Arizona on Google, and learned a couple of things. The first thing I noticed was that the LDS Church showed up in a lot of the search results...

Snowflake looks to be a wonderful place. It was founded as a Mormon colony by some of the early pioneers to the West, and is now a small community with a population of about 5,000 people. It's largely white, and I would suspect that due to it's founding by Mormons and the recent building of a Mormon temple in the town itself, that the population is largely LDS.

I would like to allege that Mr. Anonymous (or Mrs.) is actually a member of the LDS Church who may or may not be from Snowflake. He claims to be from Salt Lake City, and he may well be, but I can't say for sure. If he follows this blog on the RSS feed, I guess technically he could read the post and leave a comment without leaving a trace, but I'd have to try it out myself sometime...

Anyway, I would allege that they felt the need to respond to my posting, but wanted to try and appear as an objective outside observer.

First, you don't have to try and be someone you're not to have a civil conversation with me. I don't hate members of the Church, and I don't even really hate the Church itself. I have issues with the way certain policies are implemented, how members who question things are treated, but I'm not going to attack you or anything like that.

Second, why lie? (allegedly) I actually did a post on this a week or so back as well. I really like the ideal of honesty. It's key in the LDS Church, and I would suspect all of the major world religions. But lying is why I take issue with the Church, because it isn't honest about it's past. Mormons in good standing are required to answer to the question of "Are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow man?" as part of the process to gain entry to the LDS temple. It's the question I can't answer, because right before it is a question about believing the LDS Church is the true church, and I can't honestly give the yes answer that question required.

Honesty is hugely important to me. I would argue that it's the glue that holds our civilization together.

Anyway, so by way of response to Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous comments with the alleged fact they they are likely a faithful member of the LDS Church who is trying to defend the Church...

Hello, I found your blog while researching prop 8 a while back. I've read your posts from time to time and I can't really say I understand them, not being LDS. All I can say is you've got some definite issues with Mormons. I am a Catholic transplant to Utah from Connecticut and I don't know much about mormonism, but from your blog posts, I take it I should look elsewhere for an unbiased opinion on them.

It's true, if this person is who I think it may be, they have been visiting on a fairly regular basis. I try and keep my LDS views off that other blog though, since most of those who read are not LDS. I don't hide the fact that I have issues with Mormons - that was pretty much why I started blogging.

I am a Catholic transplant to Utah from Connecticut and I don't know much about mormonism OK - that's the second time in the opening paragraph that you've talked about being not knowing much about Mormonism or understanding it. Certain relatives of mine use this technique when trying to manipulate, and as a missionary I was taught to as well... "Help me understand?", "Help me see things your way?". It's quite effective, at least until you figure out what the person is doing....

And lets entertain the statement you made that you are actually a Catholic... You don't know anything about Mormonism, but yet the fact that the LDS Church has taught in the past that the Catholic Church is "The great and abominable church" and "The whore of all the earth" didn't cause you any concern?!?! It's also interesting that this person is from Connecticut - the place Glenn Beck calls home - which could be just coincidence, but I suspect there may be more... Mr. Anonymous, if you're reading this, I think you know what I mean!!

I take it I should look elsewhere for an unbiased opinion on them. Ummmm.. It's not like I promote my blogs as unbiased opinions on Mormonism, in fact if you look at the top of this blog, I think it's pretty apparent that I'm not much of a fan of Mormonism at all.

This blog is my opinion though, and opinions are by their very nature biased - that's what an opinion is... My bias towards any facts which I may share. I think they were trying to make me feel guilty for not being objective or something like that.

Bottom line... If you're going to disagree with me, just be honest about it. OK?

Moving on..

The reason I'm commenting is that ever since the prop 8 vote in California, I've never heard mormons maligned so much. I've read news stories about protests so filled with hate toward mormons I can't believe it.

News stories... Well, now those are interesting. I received a news story by email during the period just prior to the election where Prop 8 was to be voted on. It was by a poor little relief society president who just wanted to go to the temple, but she couldn't because evil, gay loving protesters had blocked the road to the temple, and were screaming obscenities at her, and all she wanted to do was practice her religion, but they wouldn't even let her drive down the road to get into the temple, and she returned home in tears. In reality the protest in question actually took place on a Sunday (When the temple is CLOSED!!!) and the protesters were remarkably peaceful. No vandalism, no trespassing on the actual temple grounds. It seemed to me that the 'News Story' was just a fabrication to try and raise additional funds for the fight for Prop 8. But it was fabricated to support a cause which God wanted supported, so therefore lying is OK.

I haven't totally figured out where I stand politically, but I seem to lean left of most Utahns I know. I personally don't see a problem with gays getting married and I don't think I'd go so far as to compare the backlash against mormons to persecution against blacks, but from what I've seen I certainly consider mormons victims of intimidation by the anti prop 8 movement.

I think they're trying to appear like they're on my side... I seem to lean left of most Utahns I know. Well, that's not exactly hard with most of the State pledging allegiance to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis, but I think this may just be a ploy to act like you understand me. Every statement within that paragraph is pretty non-committal - well until the last one... "I certainly consider Mormons victims of intimidation by the anti prop 8 movement".

I said I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but if the ability to marry is really a "right", I'm not sure it's one I feel the need to fight to defend. "Alleged civil right" sounds about right to me.

I've heard stuff like this before... I'm not a "racist", but I believe that God put a curse on black people because they weren't valiant in the pre-existence. They could very well be kind of in the middle on this issue, but perhaps it would be more helpful for me to explain why I feel the need to defend gay marriage, and why I believe it is a civil right.

There are two sides to marriage. A religious angle and a civil angle. Religions are free to define their definition of marriage, and if it is close enough to the civil definition, then often then both can be met and taken care of at the same time.

This is why at this point in time, an LDS marriage in an LDS Temple is considered legal by the State of Utah, and other states within the union.

But lets look at polygamy, both as practiced currently by the FLDS Church, and in the past by the LDS Church itself. These marriages were recognized within the religious community, but not by the state, because bigamous unions do not meet the civil definition of marriage. While I find some aspects of polygamy disturbing, I feel that if the union is between consenting adults, that it should receive the same protections and recognition as any other marriage. It would be tricky when working out insurance rates and benefits like that, but from the stand point, of hospital visitation rights, inheritance and that kind of thing, I'm fully in favor of it.

I defend the right of same sex couple to marry to offer to them the same protections and benefits I receive in my marriage. If I am hospitalized, my wife will be permitted to visit me. If I die, then she has a claim on my property without excessive taxation. My insurance benefits at work cover both of us, and there are numerous other benefits I receive and have access to, because I have a marriage/civil union which is recognized by the State.

I don't understand how or why people are attracted to members of the same sex, but I do know that if a guy views other guys in the same way I view girls and he views girls in the same way I view guys, then asking or expecting him to change, isn't fair, right, or likely to happen. And by the same token, telling him that such an attraction is evil in the eyes of God, is simple inhumane.

If the majority of Californians decide, which they did, to define marriage as hetero only, case closed in my book. Nobody's taking anybody's rights away, and nobody deserves the backlash I've seen.

This was the paragraph that really got me thinking something wasn't quite what it should be. The standard Mormon response of late has been "Well, the majority of Californians voted for it, and it passed, so just deal with it."

Taking rights away... The whole thing with Prop 8 was taking rights away. The California Supreme Court released a decision which stated that under the Constitution of California, marriage between same sex partners was a fundamental right. Proposition 8 added a clause to Article 1 of the Constitution stating that marriage was to be defined as only being between a man and a woman. This action effectively ended the right of same sex couples to be married under the law. By it's very nature it was designed to take away this right.

And again a reference to the backlash...

I've dealt with this topic before, but perhaps now might be a good time to put all of my arguments on this in one place.

I'm only aware of 2 main forms of backlash. Boycotts of LDS Owned businesses and protests outside LDS Temples and LDS Houses of worship.

First the boycotts. When confronted with the accusation that it helped finance the campaign for prop 8, the Church was very quick to point out that it only donated money for a couple of plane tickets, and that all donations were donated directly by members of the Church to the campaign. It actually came out later that the Church has indeed donated more than simply this, and currently the National Organization on Marriage in California is being investigated as being a front for the LDS Church.

Members who donated funds did so because they were asked to by LDS Church leaders. Meetings were held throughout California and letters read from the pulpit in other States soliciting donations. This was a California issue, and yet people from Utah, Idaho, Nevada and other states were all asked to contribute as well.

So the Church asked members to donate, and then left them all swinging in the breeze, saying that they made their own decisions. Mormons don't make their own decisions if they have a leader telling them what to decide - that's my opinion, but it's been developed from years and years of observance.

Now, if you're a Mormon or even if you have conservative type friends, I am sure that in the past few years you've received emails from friends and family, referencing specific businesses which support gay rights and urging the recipient to first, pull any support from those businesses and second forward the email on to encourage others to do the same.

When I applied for a mortgage some years ago, my mortgage officer, a very active Mormon cautioned me on my use of All-State for insurance since they were the number one supporter of Gay Rights. He then mentioned that Ford and HP are major contributors as well.

Well folks, I don't use All-State any more, but that's due to other reasons, but I drive a Ford, and this post is being type on an HP machine, connecting to my home network, which consists of 3 HP computers in various forms, as well as an HP Printer.

So if it's OK for Mormons to recommend boycotts of Gay Rights supporting companies, why if members made "their own decisions" to lend to support to organizations which had the sole intention of squishing those right, wouldn't it be OK for people who disagree with that to pull support and encourage boycotts of LDS owned businesses?

Secondly, the protesting outside of LDS temples and meeting houses... Well, the LDS Temple is the symbol in LDS Culture of the perfect LDS marriage. It is also the symbol which the Church uses to promote itself. If you live in Utah, check out the billboards on I-15... There's the temple!! If you want to protest an organization, you don't do it at the local Walmart, you go to the place which represents the organization. By leaving their position of political neutrality and becoming involved in a political debate, the Church changed from a religious organization to a political one, and as such opened itself up to being protested against.

The Church also used it's meeting houses as a place where requests were read for donations to support the cause as I've already mentioned. In addition to this, Church meetinghouses, (In violation of Church policies that they not be used for political meetings) were used as local hubs from which to coordinate a vast volunteer effort to encourage the community to vote in favor of prop 8.

Anyway, I think I've beaten that topic to death...

You've got issues, dude. I won't pretend to understand them. Maybe I'd feel the same had I been mormon. But maybe you should spend more time working that out and less time bashing a church that you apparently still wish to be affiliated with on at least some level.

I think his/her use of the word dude was intended to sound condescending. Relatives of mine often do this as well... "Oh, look at you in your coooooool shoes." It's like the clueless business man who tries to relate to his kids by speaking with their vernacular... Oh I get texting... LOL, laugh out loud, WTF, why the face....

Anyway, again the commenter brings up that they might feel the same, had I been a mormon - why keep bringing that up? I learned a trick about lying when I was a kid... Don't give details. Human nature seems to teach us that if you're going to tell a lie, give as many details in support of your lie as you can. "I was late home from my girlfriends house because I lost track of time." is easier to believe than "So we were sitting on the couch, a book of mormon's width apart, and right as I was about to leave her dad asked me to come help him with a leaky faucet and you always tell me to be helpful, and I thought I had time, and then it took longer than I thought and.... " when in reality, the game of tonsil hockey and lets feel each other up was just too much fun to leave, and so I'm late!

Anyway, to finish it off, he/she suggests I spend my time working out my issues and less time bashing a church that I still want to be affiliated with....

Dude!! I think I've covered why I still attend, and I've been pretty open about the fact, that were I a single guy, I would have been gone a long time ago. The LDS Church is not just a fun club for Sunday. It's a whole lifestyle and encompasses you entire life, and affects everything you do. You can't just walk away. It's part of who you are and where you came from.

This blog is my attempt to deal with it.

But the part that confused me the most... bashing the church...? You claim to know nothing or at least very little about Mormonism, and yet feel sufficiently informed to know that I am bashing it?

I don't believe I have ever shared anything untrue or false about the LDS Church. Sure I've shared things they don't want to be public knowledge, and due to certain interactions, I've been left with a lot of hurt feelings and a pretty crappy taste in my mouth, but at the end of the day, I'm just curious as to why this person even cares! Oh no wait... If my alleged claims are correct, it would explain a whole lot.

Footnote: Having typed this all up earlier this morning, I decided to try and let Mr. Anonymous come clean - I seriously am a nice guy. I tried to be as civil as possible. But the doubts kept getting stronger. Finally, I asked a very good friend of mine, with more experience than I to review the comments and give me his honest opinion (Without sharing my initial suspicions with him.) He was kind enough to share his opinion as a comment, which I greatly appreciated.

Mr. Anonymous' response to that was I think right in line too!

You can see all those comments if you link over to the other blog. And I apologize for the language. It's never fun being caught!!

Dude?!? Wrong Side!!