Mormon Corporate Advertising

I was checking my email and deleting spam when I saw the following advertisement:

That's right, the Mormon Church is advertising on Yahoo!

The ad is animated, fading in and out with these questions "What happens to my loved ones when they die?", "Should I fear death?", "Where do I go when I die?" superimposed over pictures of people with diverse ethnic backgrounds.

I have a few questions of my own...

1. Why the focus on death? My opinion: It appeals to the mysterious and unknown to invoke fear. One of the best ways to manipulate someone long term is to make them fearful. The second step is to convince that person that the church's ideas about death are the only way of escaping/defeating it.
2. Why is the Mormon Church advertising through this medium? My opinion: Churches are corporations; they maximize profits by reaching potential customers anyway they can. Here is a list of other corporations advertising with Yahoo! at the same time: LowerMyBills.com, Wealth Daily (Investment Company), Express (Clothing Company), Classmates (Social Networking Company), Chase (National Bank), NFIB (Small Business Lobbying Firm). If you compared the sales model of each of these corporations with the Mormon Church’s proselytizing program you'd find more parallels than differences. Probably the most glaring difference is that churches aren't subject to taxation.
3. Why the display of diversity? My opinion: In the US, the Mormon Church is overwhelmingly comprised of middle and upper middle class Caucasians. They want to appear more accepting to minority groups. However, this is going to be a hard sell to any non-Mormon who knows anything about the church's history: (1) Mormon's didn't allow Black men to hold positions of authority until 1978; (2) Women are still not permitted to hold authority; (3) the Mormon church does not support equal rights for women and (4) most recently, Mormon's political campaigns to take away and prevent equal rights for gays and lesbians.

The Gay Tax

This is an interesting article about the economic burdens of inequality.

Proponents of Prop 8 on Google Maps

This is a geographical list of Prop 8 Support donors. Prop. 8 is an amendment to the California State Constitution which bans same-sex marriage.

Fair? Petty?

There are a lot of emotions surrounding the idea of marriage. Honestly, I've never planned to enter into any type of union, but that's not the point. Being a typical libra I'm uncomfortable with inequality.

I brought my boyfriend to my parents house once after I came out (2004) and was politely asked to no do it again...and I've respected their wishes. I actually don't ever expect any partner I have (no matter how long we've been together) to be accepted in my parent's home.

My sister eloped with a non-Mormon in Hawaii and although emotions were strained with my family for a time they all attended their commitment ceremony in Hawaii. Also, her husband would not be excluded from family events based on their relationship.

Is it just me, or does that sound like a double standard?

Me, playing the part of myself, I think about the future and potential scenarios...

I have 4 unmarried siblings, how should I respond (or not respond) to invitations to their legally, socially and religiously endorced unions?

Should I set asside my ideals and principles about the issue, or should I try to level out the playing field in my own little world?

Should I only attend weddings when both parties support gay marriage 100% and the officiating entity does as well?


Is this fair? or is it just petty?

Blacklist

The following people have been blacklisted for their bigotted stance on issues of equality:

1. Thomas S. Monson (Leader of the Mormon Church)
2. Rick Warren (Evangelical Minister)
3. George Niederauer (San Francisco Catholic Archbishop)
4. Celestino Migliore (Catholic Archbishop)
5. William Donahue (President of the Catholic League)
6. James Dobson (Founder of Focus on the Family)
7. Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Paster)
8. Pat Robertson (Televangelist)
9. Dallin H. Oaks (Mormon Leader)
10. Lance B. Wickman (Mormon Leader)
11. Rush Limbaugh (American Radio Host)
12. George W. Bush (Former President of the US)
13. Dick Cheney (Former Vice President of the US)
14. Rick Santorum (Former US Senator)
15. Patrick Walker (Pastor of the Macedonia Baptist Church in Southeast Washington)
16. Elaine Donnelly (Crusader against gays in the military)
17. Army Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones (Army leader against gays in the military)
18. Steven Anderson (Fundamental Baptist Church Pastor in Tempe, Arizona)
19. Richard J. Malone (Bishop of Portland, OR)
20. Scott Lively (President of Abiding Truth Ministries)
21. John Hagee (Senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas)
22. Ted Haggard (American Evangelical Preacher)

Let me know about others that need to be added...I know there are lots more. I'd like to include those who are against civil rights in general...not just anti-gay persons/organizations.

In Reponse to Ignorance: Part VII

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,” is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would address those issues?
ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’ [Jacob: This is off topic. Yes, yes...we all ability to control what we do. What you describe is inequality. You can marry the opposite sex and don't have to repress your sexuality, but if someone else wishes to marry the same sex they have to repress theirs? Not everyone is Mormon. This is America, we're entitled to our beliefs and equal treatment under the law.]
Now, that’s not to say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not [Jacob: That's because some people think being bisexual is the same as being homosexual. This is untrue. People who are truly gay will not be able to be convinced that they're attracted to the opposite sex; people who only prefer the same sex might be deluded into thinking they can make a heterosexual relationship work, but this state is often not sustainable.]. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters.
ELDER OAKS: Amen to that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.
The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used [Jacob: This may be the official stance of the church, but there are local leaders who encourage therapy and even recommend specific psychologists and psychiatrists. Also, since Mormons preach so consistently that homosexuality is an abomination (a word often associated with hate), parents are motivated to subject their children to therapies that may not be safe.].

In Response to Ignorance: Part VI

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’
ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on [Jacob: I think the church needs to do a better job of communicating this to their members. Most Mormons I speak with believe the church has a stance on this, and that the stance is that people are not born gay (in other words, not nature)].
ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important [Jacob: You're right, everyone is control of their own actions...that is not the issue here. The real question why the Mormon church is supporting inititives that prevent people from being treated equally under the law. Let's try to stay on topic.]

In Response To Ignorance: PART V

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that.

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control [Jacob: Ok, that's a belief. I was hoping you'd use some facts to justify taking away people's rights.]. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God [Jacob: Belief.]. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ [Jacob: Belief.], which expresses the truth [Jacob: Not truth, a belief.] that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things[Jacob: Belief.]. That includes resisting temptation [Jacob: Belief.]. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities [Jacob: Being gay is not a physical or mental impairment.]. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny [Jacob: I'll let god decide what my Eternal destiny is, not you or your church.].

In Response To Ignorance: PART IV

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?

ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable [Jacob: Yes feelings are controllable...why should some people have to control their feelings and some not? If it isn't infringing on someone's rights, why should I have to control them? Because your church demands it?]. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal [Jacob: Stealing and being gay are totally different, robbing someone of their property infringes on someone's rights, having a consensual relationship does not.]. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol [Jacob: Being gay is not an addiction.]. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger [Jacob: Being gay is not a personality flaw.]. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal [Jacob: Anger may lead to actions that infringe on others rights, but anger is an emotion not an attribute of personal identity like being gay is.]

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior [Jacob: I've already addressed all this, let's move on.].

ELDER WICKMAN: One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior [Jacob: We can control our behavior, but that doesn't justify taking away people's rights. Why should your beliefs coerce my behavior? You are promoting discrimination, some people are allowed to be intimate with the person they love and others are not based on your beliefs.]

In Response To Ignorance: PART III

Here is Part III of the "In Response to Ignorance" series. This time Elder Wickman also chimes in on behalf of Mormons.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?

ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married [Jacob: Ok, this is Mormon Doctrine, it is unethical to hold others to your standards and vice versa.].

ELDER WICKMAN: We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are [Jacob: Good, you acknowledge that sexual orientation is an aspect of who we are.]. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one [Jacob: Well that's easy, sexual orientation is only a part of each of our identity. Still, it is unethical to bar someone from pursuing happiness when it does not infringe on other's rights. The saying goes, "Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn't have to do it." You were not required to ignore your sexuality. You do not understand the sacrifice that entails.].

What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible [Jacob: Once again, that's really easy for you to say. When are you going to talk about the facts you use to justify your political activity against gay marriage? You've stated beliefs, and gave some anecdotal evidence, where are your facts?].

In this life, such things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments [Jacob: That's true. What about those of us who don't believe in Mormonism?].

In Response To Ignorance: PART II

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?

ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression [Jacob: It's important to make the distinction between fact and beliefs. The phase, "gay behavior is a transgression" is a belief.]. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted [Jacob: We all have urges, that's true. We all have beliefs, you believe that opposite sex attraction is ordained of god, but that is only a belief, not a fact. If someone is attracted to the opposite sex, and gets married magically these "temptations" are ok. One minute sex is a sin, a couple of "I do's" later it's holy.]

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” [Jacob: Lots of examples of beliefs, where are the facts?]

I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior [Jacob: You're half right, it is both.]. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges [Jacob: Yes, my challenge is the oppression of a fundamentalist church. Just to be clear, being a member of the Mormon church is a choice. Membership in a church does not constitute more of a persons identity than their sexuality.].

Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with [Jacob: First fact, congratz.]. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing [Jacob: Yes, being coerced by Mormon society to be something other than yourself is very vexing, thanks for being so sympathetic.]. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized [Jacob: Common is a relative term, but you're right...it has become politicized and the Mormon churched has helped it become so.]. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question [Jacob: This is a plea based on personal beliefs and ideologies, not facts.].

General Statements to Elder Oaks and the Mormon Church: Beliefs do not constitute facts so keep them out of our laws.

In Response To Ignorance: PART I

This is my humble attempt to thrust some reality and facts into Mormon rhetoric relating to gay people.

The following is taken directly from the LDS website whether the Mormon leader, Dallin H. Oaks gave an interview answering questions from a Mormon Public Affairs person.

In Response To Ignorance: PART I

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?

ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle [Jacob: Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is an attribute of a person's identify. Making a middle-class income is a lifestyle, residing in a city or in the country is a lifestyle; being gay or straight is not.]. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle [Jacob: Elder Oaks fails to acknowledge the "unrelenting pressure" of the movement he belongs to.] to accept as normal what is not normal [Jacob: The idea of normal is very abstract. Every person on the planet has their own idea of "normal." In some people's opinions what the Mormons believe about god, heaven, marriage, the afterlife, etc. is abnormal.], and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable [Jacob: This is called free speech. People are still free to call anyone a bigot regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legal.]. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view [Jacob: The same laws that give you the right to condemn gays as sinners gives someone else the right to criticize those condemnations.] and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic. [Jacob: No one can legally silence you accept you. Since when does being labeled silence someone? You label gays as immoral, does that silence them?]” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful [Jacob: Just for the record, the plaintiff dropped the charges before this case ever went to court. Also, one incident does not represent a movement or the sentiments of an entire community. The gay community has no spokesperson. Gay people exist in every culture, race, religion and class. A single person does not represent the views or goals of the gay community.]Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle [Jacob: A hundred incidents doesn't necessarily represent a trend, you have only cited one. That is not a trend]. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach [Jacob: The initiatives you and your church support have written your own personal beliefs into law. There are many churches who affirm gay marriage, why should your beliefs matter more than theirs? You are not protecting religious freedom, you are destroying it.].

General statements to Elder Oaks and the Mormon church: You are free to believe what you want; you are free to say what you want, but writing your own beliefs into law goes outside of free speech.

A Mormon Who Doesn't Care

Here is a slightly humorous article by a Salt Lake Mormon who doesn't care if gay people get married; he has a very secular stance on what most Mormons consider to be a deeply religious issue.

It's so refreshing to hear from free thinkers in the Mormon community. Too often Mormon's let their church do the thinking for them.

Pro-Gay-Marriage Mormons

I never would have believed that there are a significant number of Mormons who oppose the church's promotion of Propositions 8 and 102 in California and Arizona respectively, until my email discussion with extended family.

Somehow, I found it easy to write off all Mormons as close-minded on the issue.

Apparently the church has become more and more divided on the subject, "Prop 8: California gay marriage fight divides LDS faithful."

Margaret Cho

I'm such a huge fan of Margaret Cho's. I have all her DVDs and admittedly have them memorizes as well, but for the first time ever I saw her live! So great!!! I was worried that with my high expectations she'd leave me disappointed, but she really delivered tonight!

Fight for Freedom

I remember being taught in grade school that when our country won the Revolutionary War we won our freedom, but the issue is far more complicated than that.

We are still waging the war of freedom. No matter who or where we are, we all play a role in this epic conflict. The victory that the original American colonies won against the British was important terrain on the path of freedom, but it only makes up a portion of the journey.

As a gay person, I feel my rights and freedoms frequently under attack. There's gay marriage, and then there isn't; civil unions one day, annulment the next. Our nation has been teetering back and forth on this issue for years now.

When this issue is stripped down to its core, what I usually find is widely accepted inequality based on holy sanction. In other words, god sanctions straight people's feelings therefore mine are invalid.

I know that many people's god doesn't validate my feelings, but my heart doesn't seem to care. My heart breaks just as much as anyone's. Love affects me in the same way as well, with all the irrational silliness that's been in poetry, books, stories, plays and movies since before recorded history.

Just like the oppressive monarchy we strove so diligently to separate ourselves from, we feel comfortable with imposing inequality on others because god said so.

Why was the king, king? Because god put him there.

Why did we leave the king's rule? Because religious freedom is important to us.

Why do straight people get more rights than gay people? Because god said so.

Why should gay and straight be equal? Because religious freedom is important to us!

Arizona votes down Marriage Amendment!

I'm so proud of my state! Arizona voters realized the ills of Proposition 107 which would have banned all unions similar to Marriage.

We actually do have equality?

One straight man's thought on gay rights: "One man, gay or straight can marry can marry one woman, gay or straight...there is no right that's taken away from you."

This was an opinion stated on the show Real Momentum during it's documentary of Gay republicans, "Elephant in the Room."

One Gay republican had rallied a small group of gay activists to appose a state amendment to ban gay marriage. While on a radio show, the host opposed this gay man's position by stating, "One man, gay or straight can marry can marry one woman, gay or straight...there is no right that's taken away from you."

My jaw dropped…I was confused at first, he was partially right; I could marry someone of the opposite sex just like a heterosexual person, but does that mean we’re equal?

Immediately I say, "No, not at all!"

Did this heterosexual imagine what this would sound like if the situation were reversed? What if gay was normal and hetero was the minority; gay was accepted, straight was not. "We have the same rights; you can marry anyone of the same sex you want."

I ask, "Does that sound equal to you?"

When will we be able to marry the person we wish? Only when silly ideas about equality and stereotypes have diminished

Marriage - A Step Backward?

I keep on hearing arguments from gay people who are against gay marriage.

At first I thought, "Are you crazy? You have to be kidding me!"

They say, "We don't need marriage...", "We want to be different...", "We don't need government sanction..."

My answers are,

"No one NEEDS marriage. Being different isn't all that great when you have no choice but to be different. Of course we don't need government to sanction our love, but we need them to grant us equality and rights."

The more I think about this intercultural conflict the more it reminds me of the feminist movement. No matter how unequal men and women are, there will always be those comfortable with that. They are happy, and I think that's beautiful; for them.

The problem comes into play when a person's choices are limited simply based on their sex, gender, and/or sexual orientation. Even if they wanted the same thing as a man or straight couple, they can't have it. It's all about the choices that are available.

We cannot have a completely free society unless the same opportunities are available to all!

Marriage Amendment

Two sides to the issue of adding an Amendment to the constitution

The pro-amendment portion gets 20 more seconds of air-time than the other, but I think its clear who I mostly agree with.