ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/gdm.200003

Internet Message Format | 2000-03-12 | 162KB

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Needless death.
Date: 01 Mar 2000 12:51:20 -0700

Scott Matis, 30, committed suicide the morning of Friday, 25 Feb 2000, in
the chapel of the Santa Clara Stake Center, in Santa Clara, CA.  He was a
gay Mormon, who wrote the letter found at

http://www.freeourfamilies.org/prop22/mormon_letter.htm

------------------------
[Excerpt from this web page.]

The entire premise of the Church's argument, however, is that if I were to
fulfill the measure of my creation, fall in love with a man, and desire to
commit my love to him through marriage, then suddenly I become
anti-family. My union somehow will weaken families. Which family, Ryan? My
family? Your family? Whose family am I supposed to destroy? When placed in
this context, it seems so absurdly silly.

However, this is exactly the intent behind the Knight Initiative.

This is precisely why you will not see a church member who has a gay son
or daughter placing signs on his or her lawn. These members will not be
walking around their neighborhoods. These members will ache every time a
gay debate ensues in the chapel halls. These members know the intent of
their children's hearts. They know the goodness of their spirit. They see
the goodness in their children's gay friends. They see and experience
homophobia on a personal basis, and they collectively mourn the Church's
involvement in the Knight Initiative. I wish that I could shout this
message from the rooftops, but alas, I sit alone in my room typing
wondering what will happen next.

----------------------

There will be a service tomorrow in Santa Clara, and Friday, at the Orem
Cemetery at 11:00 am.

His suicide note includes references to the difficulty of being gay within
the mormon community, as well as the negative effects of the continuing
pro Prop 22 efforts in church meetings he attended.

(Footnote: Stuart committed suicide in his Stake Center in Santa Clara,
California on Friday, February 25th, 2000. His suicide note mentioned that
he hoped that his death would help bring some attention to this travesty.)

[according to a friend] This is confirmed.  This can be sent anywhere.




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Stuart Matis, editorials
Date: 02 Mar 2000 11:31:59 -0700

[Sorry I got the name wrong yesterday, his name was Stuart, not Scott.  He
went to the same mission that I did some 25 years ago.  We were not there
at the same time as he is younger by 14 years.  I feel a little affinity
with Stuart, because he must have had some similar cultural experiences as
I did in Italy.  I can not identify with all the suffering that he lived
trough, because I am Heterosexual, but I recently went through a fairly
amicable divorce and depression at times has been difficult.  I can not
imagine what it would be like to be faithful LDS and Gay.

I have many friends that are gay, and known others that did what the
church taught them to repent of their feelings, get married, have children
and everything would be ok.  I have also listened to the feelings of
children and former spouses of these gay people that followed the church's
council and got married, trying to fix their gayness.

It is heart breaking to here these women, tell how for years they would
try to seduce their husbands as best they could, even begging them to make
love to them.  The feelings of despair, and rejection as their husband
seemed disinterested.  The damage to these poor women's self esteem, and
the anger once they found out that they had married a gay man, and that
the church used them as a guinea pig in a lame attempt to reverse
biological urges!

Is the church about family values when it comes to Prop 22?

NO!  The church is about conformity, narrow-minded conformity, of a
worldview of the 1950's that never really existed!

Just this week the Utah Legislature passed a bill that the only sex
education that can now be taught in Utah schools is abstinence!

Well in the heat of the moment, when a teenager starts touching sexual
body parts, and things continue, and they choose human urges over ride
their instructions on abstinence, what happens next???  Unprotected sex,
and the risk of pregnancy is what will be going on in the back seat of
car!!!  After all if abstinence is based on a religious, they are smart
enough to know they can repent of what ever they do sexually, it is all
done behind closed doors of the bishops office, is what will cross their
mind, if anything, other than "this feel great", crosses their mind!

Do teenagers assume that their parents are practicing abstinence for 3
years between the birth of children or after the last child?  Surely
teenagers will hear about birth control, do we now want them to learn
about it from other teenagers?  After 4 years of teenagers teaching
teenagers about birth control, how accurate is the information going to
be?

This is an example of how Utah/Mormon culture view traditional sex, so how
messed up are their views on homosexuality!

Voting for Prop 22, where the ONLY legal marriage is between one man and
ONE women, stomps on the graves of our pioneer ancestors that went to
prison in acts of civil disobedience to allow for non-mainstream
marriages!!!

Of the 70 year period that polygamy was practiced it was only somewhat
legal for 10 of those years, 1852 - 1862.  Even when they went to Mexico
and Canada after 1890, it was illegal in those countries!

No legislation is going to alter the urges of Homosexual people any more
than passing prop 22 is going to make me feel attracted to men instead of
women!  But if allowing gay persons to marry, removes the social stigma,
and allows gay people come out earlier and not feel pressured to hid it
and feel pressured to marry someone of the opposite sex just to conform to
Mormon pious views of sex, then that vote is in reality PRO FAMILY!

Being Pro Family, means to favor all stable family relationships, not just
those in the majority.  Gay people are going to do what they want to do,
whether we label it as legal or not.  But why not have them go with what
they feel from the very start, in stead if messing up the lives of their
spouses and children, by pretending to be something they are not, because
of social pressure from a religious myopic view of sex!

I was just going to introduce for a paragraph or two, before presenting
the following editorial, but this debate is so bass ackwards!]

-----------------------


Hi all.

Stuart Matis, who was in the Italy Rome mission with me and is a cousin of
my friend Greg, died last Friday. I have attached a letter he recently
wrote to BYU's Daily Universe (printed 2/21), and a follow up letter from
another cousin (2/28). Food for thought.



http://newsnet.byu.edu/noframes/show_story.cfm?number=7940&year=current

Dear Editor:

I am gay. I am also LDS. My first same-sex attraction occurred when I was
seven, and for the next 25 years, I have never been attracted to women. I
realized the significance of my sexuality when I was around thirteen, and
for the next two decades, I traveled down a tortuous path of internalized
homophobia, immense self-hatred, depression and suicidal thoughts. Despite
the calluses on my knees, frequent trips to the temple, fasts and devotion
to my mission and church callings such as elders' quorum president, I
continually failed to attenuate my homosexuality.

I came out last year. My bishop and my father each gave me a blessing
inspired by the spirit that proclaimed that I was indeed gay and that I
would remain gay. Thus, I read a recent letter to the editor with great
regret. The author compared my friends and me to murderers, Satanists,
prostitutes, pedophiles and partakers of bestiality. Imagine having to
live with this rhetoric constantly being spewed at you.

My aunt is a psychiatrist in Ogden and has worked with over 1,000 gay
Latter-day Saints. Because of her work with these church members, she has
been forced by necessity to specialize in homosexuality, depression and
suicide.

I implore the students at BYU to re-assess their homophobic feelings. Seek
to understand first before you make comments. We have the same needs as
you. We desire to love and be loved. We desire to live our lives with
happiness. We are not a threat to you or your families. We are your sons,
daughters, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers and friends, and most
importantly, we are all children of God.

Stuart Matis

Santa Clara, Calif.



http://newsnet.byu.edu/noframes/show_story.cfm?number=8101&year=current

Dear Editor:

I would like to respond to the letter last week that began "I am gay. I am
also LDS." The author of that letter was my cousin. Like most Latter-day
Saints, I used to think that being gay meant that you had earned yourself
a one-way ticket to hell and that you obviously had to choose this for
yourself.

I found out in December that my cousin was gay. Understandably, it turned
my world upside down. He was very active in the church, he served a
mission, he graduated from BYU and he frequently went to the temple.

The fact is, he didn't choose to be gay. Why would he choose something
that would have made his life that much harder? He struggled over this
part of himself. In his 32 years of living, not once did he do anything
that would have cost him his membership in the church.

So why do I tell you about him? Because he felt so much self-hatred,
because he realized he would never marry, because his life was more
difficult than we'll ever understand, that he decided to end his life
Friday morning. In his suicide note, my cousin said he ended his life
because he was gay.

Please stop yourself from jumping all over the issue, thinking that you
completely understand these people, when you have not even talked to them.



I have a testimony in the prophet and the brethren, and believe in
everything they say. But I think as members, we are far from perfect. We
are so quick to judge, we are so quick to assume that issues are black and
white, and that everything else falls by the wayside.

Please reach out to those who need your help. I wish that I had done that
for my cousin, but it's too late for that. The best I can do is tell
others to do the same.

I don't condone homosexuality and I don't agree with it, but I do realize
that this is something people struggle with. I don't know what Christ
would do when it comes to these people, but he wouldn't condemn them, and
he wouldn't turn his back on them.

In a school that is Christ-centered, maybe we can make a conscious effort
to do the same.


Ryan Shattuck

Hollister, Calif.


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 06 Mar 2000 00:14:15 -0700

[From the front page of the Salt Lake Trib]
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: gdm

For Some, Mormon Stance on Gay Issue Creates a Crisis of Conscience

Sunday, March 5,

2000

BY DAN EGAN

THE SALT LAKE

TRIBUNE

TRACY, Calif.

-- It's dinner time, and Alan and Yvette Hansen's home is a quintessential
picture of Mormon domesticity.

Toddlers scoot from their seats and romp about, pushing a toy vacuum
cleaner and toting around dolls.

"My name is James!" shouts a 4-year-old who sneaks away from the dinner
table while his mother tries to coax a sibling into taking medication for
an ear infection. "My -- name -- is -- Jaaames!!!" "James," replies Yvette
Hansen, 31, holding an eye dropper over her squirming daughter. "Use your
inside voice, please." Inside voices.

That is an admonishment Alan and Yvette Hansen have been hearing
themselves. The couple have been speaking out against California's
controversial "Proposition 22" -- perhaps louder than they should,
according to their leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

The Mormon church and many of its roughly 740,000 members in California
are on a crusade to pass Tuesday's ballot initiative, which would ban
recognition of gay marriages in the state. The Hansens, who describe
themselves as good Mormons, have a problem with that.

And now they have a problem with their church.

"I obviously believe God doesn't want me to vote 'yes,' he wants me to
vote 'no,' " says Alan Hansen, who opposes the initiative on grounds it
could lead to discrimination against homosexuals and a loss of rights for
children of gays.

He also makes it clear he has a problem with his church's support of the
measure, and because of that, he says, church leaders have slapped him
with an "informal probation." It is not his opposition that is the
problem, says Hansen's ecclesiastical leader, Manteca Stake President Rex
Brown.

"People certainly are free to say whatever they'd like to say in regards
to Proposition 22," Brown says. "The real issue is speaking out against
the church." Brown would not comment on Hansen's status in the church,
citing church policy on confidentiality.

While a majority of California Mormons appear to support both Proposition
22 and their church's unabashed support for it, the Hansens do not stand
alone. Many are eager to whisper to the news media that all is not well
among the rank and file. Resentment, they say, roils because the church's
fund-raising and aggressive campaigning for Proposition 22 are forcing
them to choose between supporting their church leaders or their homosexual
family members and friends.

Just last week, a 32-year-old gay Mormon man put a gun to his head and
pulled the trigger on the steps of a Mormon chapel in Northern California.
He was profoundly opposed to Proposition 22, though his family insists the
suicide was not politically motivated.

Others disagree, but hardly any who are opposed to the church's official
position will allow their names to be used in newspaper stories. They say
they fear repercussions and note that when documents were leaked last
summer that outlined Mormon leadership's fund-raising strategies for the
campaign, leaders "were all but beating the bushes to get the squealer to
come out." The chill that has since spread across California's Mormon
landscape has created such a bitter climate that some say they no longer
feel free even to privately express their opposition to a measure they
believe is discriminatory.

"The issue is so sensitive," says one member of a Southern California
ward. "It's just pretty doggone touchy and people don't want to betray
themselves to somebody who might report them. In ways, it's like what I
imagined it was like living in Russia, where people acted as the eyes and
ears of government." So they bite their lips or speak in hushed tones, and
most always insist their names not be used for publication.

But not 30-year-old Alan Hansen. He is practically clanging cymbals.

"This is the first time I've found myself left of center. I'm a pretty
conservative guy," says the marketing manager for an Internet start-up
company in San Jose. The Hansens live in the little city of Tracy, located
about 60 miles east of the San Francisco Bay Area. "[But] many think the
church is not on the moral high ground here." Hansen insists he is not
attacking the church, he is simply criticizing its stance on Proposition
22.

He and his wife say they are happily heterosexual, and he says this is the
first time he has found himself crossways with his church, which spent
more than $1 million in similar, successful ballot initiatives recently
held in Alaska and Hawaii.

While church headquarters in Utah reportedly has not given a dime to the
California cause, local leaders have for nearly a year prodded members to
write checks in support of the campaign. Their donations are not
considered tithing, nor are they tax-deductible.

It's impossible to say how much of the estimated $8 million raised so far
for the Yes on 22 campaign has come from Mormons because individual
contributors do not list church affiliation on campaign finance forms. The
Mormon church is joined in its campaign by other religious organizations,
including the Catholic Church, which has given more than $300,000, and the
California Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God and several
Muslim and Protestant denominations.

Anti-Gay or Pro-Family? The LDS battle is being waged with more than
money. Each Sunday, letters of support are read to California wards, and
members are entreated to canvass neighborhoods and put Yes on Proposition
22 signs in their yards.

"The ecclesiastical pressure has been enormous," says one former bishop,
who continues to hold a high church leadership position in the Bay Area.
"We've never seen anything like this." Even LDS Church President Gordon B.
Hinckley has weighed in.

"We regard it as not only our right, but our duty to oppose those forces
which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society," Hinckley said last
fall. "Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints
are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from
forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred
institution." At the same time, Hinckley says the church will continue "to
love and honor them [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God." The LDS
Church rarely wades into stormy political waters. But, Hinckley and other
leaders say, this is a moral issue, and it calls for political activism.

Gay rights advocates question why the church picked Proposition 22 instead
of loads of other legislation -- child welfare or domestic abuse laws, for
example -- that could reinforce the fabric of families.

"They [homosexuals] feel like this is in their face and is really
anti-gay," says Gary Watts, a Utah Mormon and father of two gay children.
He is co-chair of Family Fellowship, a support group for Mormon parents of
gays and lesbians. "Up until I became familiar with the issue about 11
years ago, I probably would be there with everybody else [supporting
Proposition 22]. Unless you . . . know someone who is gay or lesbian, it's
very easy to demean them." Gay marriage is not currently allowed in
California or any other state. Proposition 22 simply ensures that
California will not have to recognize gay marriages that might some day be
sanctioned in other states. Advocates of the measure note that dozens of
states as well as Congress have passed similar measures, and they argue
nothing will change for gay couples. They say the initiative is merely a
chance to reaffirm their position on marriage.

Opponents say there is nothing positive about a 'yes' vote.

They call the issue a "wedge" intended to nudge the state's gay population
to the fringe. They contend Proposition 22 could lead to a host of lost
rights, including health benefits, hospital visitation privileges, and,
most importantly for the Hansens, cause harm to children of homosexuals in
areas like inheritances, custodial rights and medical benefits.

It is a personal issue for the Hansens, who have been foster parents to
five children. They are in the process of adopting 4-year-old Jessica so
she will become legal sister to James and Nicholas, 2, their biological
children. They worry Proposition 22 could push homosexual parents out of
the the picture at a time when California needs all the parents it can
get.

"We need to protect anybody who is willing to take extraordinary steps to
take care of kids," says Alan Hansen.

And, say the Hansens, sexuality is not a factor in determining who is a
good parent.

"As foster parents, we've seen plenty of married people in traditional
families raising their kids badly. We've raised their kids for them," adds
Yvette Hansen. "I don't care what [homosexuals] do in their bedroom. If
it's a sin, it's between them and God." "Is it more important," presses
Alan Hansen, "to call someone a sinner than it is to protect children?"

Politicking at the Pulpit: The Hansens' quiet convictions bubbled into the
public recently after Alan Hansen wrote a letter to the local newspaper
criticizing both the proposition and the Mormon church's stumping at the
pulpit.

"When I attend church, I go there hoping to get close to God. I go to
study the life of Jesus and to learn to live like him. I go to repent of
my sins and rededicate myself to righteous living. I go to church to
improve myself," he wrote in a letter to the editor that appeared in the
Tracy Press.

"When my church tells me how to vote or where to spend my political
dollars, it takes away from my opportunity to worship and consider God in
my life." While Hansen is not surprised those words ruffled church
leadership, he contends they should be willing to tolerate his dissent.
After all, he notes, the church has entered the political debate. And he
is just debating those politics.

"The church told members we don't have to vote 'yes,' " Hansen told a
reporter for the Tracy Press. "Well, that means I can vote 'no,' and I can
talk about my reasons." Others are also starting to speak out.

"I'm disappointed that we are supporting a proposition that is so
divisive, that causes parents who have homosexual children to be really
put in a situation of having to choose between the church and their
family," says Richard Rands, a Mormon who lives in the Bay Area.

"This is such a divisive issue for families, which is very ironic because
families are at the core of the church's concern here," says Rands' wife,
Janet.

Other local church leaders acknowledge the issue is at the root of some
discord, but they say support for the measure and the church's position on
it have been overwhelming.

"When the prophet [Hinckley] speaks, we listen," says Brent Newbold, a
Mormon bishop and owner of a dry cleaning store in the Sacramento area.
"It's caused people to make a decision -- [to state] where they stand."
And, says Newbold, nine out of 10 in his ward stand by their church.

At least one woman in his ward, however, quit attending because of the
church's position.

"I don't call her in and give her a hard time," says Newbold. "Hopefully,
she'll come back." But a steady trickle of Californians may be leaving the
church permanently because of the issue. Kathy Worthington, a Utah
gay-rights activist who is coordinating a drop-out campaign, claims she
has been in contact with more than 300 people who want to stop being
Mormon.

A former Mormon herself, Worthington says she has copies of more than 100
notarized letters sent to church headquarters by people who are trying to
sever their ties with their religion because of Proposition 22.

"This [issue] seems to be the last straw for a lot of people," she says.

Church spokesman Michael Purdy said he could not provide information
regarding Worthington's assertion.

But Janet Rands has seen enough to know that some harm already has been
done.

"I don't think anyone sat down with the intention of driving people away,
but I do see that," says Rands, a psychologist. "The sad thing is, this
affects their kids, a generation who won't be learning their Bible songs,
who won't be reading the Book of Mormon." That could include the Hansen
children.

Alan Hansen, a lifelong Mormon who served a mission in Japan and was born
while his parents attended church-owned Brigham Young University, says he
has been stripped of his teaching position in the church for being so
outspoken on the issue and could face harsher penalties.

"The bishop has said I need to make a public apology for my comments," he
says. "I haven't said anything that is not the truth, and a person should
not be punished for telling the truth." His wife frets he may be on the
road to excommunication, but he's not so scared that he will stop lobbying
for an issue he holds sacred.

"I was asked -- if it came down to [my position on] Proposition 22 v. my
church membership, which would I choose," he says. "I'd choose both.

"If I couldn't choose, it would be out of my hands. It wouldn't be my
choice."

⌐ Copyright 2000, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine
is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No
material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The
Salt Lake Tribune.


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Letter to President Hinckley
Date: 06 Mar 2000 22:04:48 -0700

[A friend of mine sent this to me today, I forward it to be forwarded to
anyone that lives in California and is LDS!]

Letter to President Hinckley

I'm mailing the following letter to President Hinckley this morning.  You
have my permission to distribute this letter where you will.

==========

Deana Marie Holmes
 1857 South 500 East #A
 Salt Lake City, UT 84105
 [phone]
 [e-mail]





March 5, 2000


President Gordon B. Hinckley
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Dear President Hinckley:

I have wanted to write to you about this previously, but have felt  as if
any letter I  might write to you would not be answered or  simply be
brushed off as not  important in what you consider to  be "the greater
scheme of things."  However,  after reading  about Alan Hansen in today's
Salt Lake Tribune, I realized that I   could no longer remain silent.

What disturbed me the most about the whole article, even more  than the
Church's fervent and avid support of Proposition 22, is  this quote from
the article:

Others disagree, but hardly any who are opposed to the  church's  official
position will allow their names to be used in  newspaper  stories. They
say they fear repercussions and  note that when  documents were leaked
last summer that  outlined Mormon  leadership's fund-raising strategies
for the  campaign, leaders  "were all but beating the bushes to get the
squealer to come out."



The chill that has since spread across California's Mormon   landscape has
created such a bitter climate that some say  they  no longer feel free
even to privately express their  opposition to a  measure they believe is
discriminatory.


"The issue is so sensitive," says one member of a Southern   California
ward. "It's just pretty doggone touchy and people don't   want to betray
themselves to somebody who might report them. In   ways, it's like what I
imagined it was like living in Russia, where   people acted as the eyes
and ears of government."


So they bite their lips or speak in hushed tones, and most  always  insist
their names not be used for publication.


I confess to you, President Hinckley, that I have been one of  those
people who  has talked in hushed whispers and among  confidantes about
what I feel is wrong  about the Church's  support of Proposition 22.  Even
before Brother Hansen was   brought in for discipline, it was abundantly
clear that if one  spoke out, there would  be negative consequences to
such  speaking.  I am embarrassed that I have been  so fearful. I have
not been afraid to speak out on other issues, but until today I   was
afraid to write you a letter to tell you that as a member, I  object to
what has  been going on with Proposition 22. After  reading about the
struggle of Brother  Hansen to understand why  he is being punished for
standing for something, I now  regret  that I have remained silent and I
repent.

I should have written to you a long time ago and told you that I  object
strenuously  to the Church leadership using its influence to  strong-arm
Church members into  donating their time, talents  and financial resources
to this Proposition 22  campaign.   Church members would have been better
served by their  leadership  asking them to donate their money, energy and
time  to more concrete efforts to  better family situations, such as
improved living conditions for children and health  insurance  coverage
for all families.

It does not speak well of a religious organization in a free society  when
its   members are fearful of speaking out because of the  possible
consequences.  This  is particularly true when it is not  simply a moral
issue but a political issue at stake.  It is simply not  right that
members of the Church should feel muzzled and unable   to express their
political opinions because their viewpoint is not  the one favored  by the
leaders of the Church.  The corrosive  effects of  this can be seen in the
 overwhelming dominance of  one party in the political life of Utah.

President David O. McKay said the following in General  Conference in
April  1950:

This principle of free agency and the right of each individual to  be
free not only to think but also to act within bounds that  grant to  every
one else the same privilege, are sometimes  violated even by  churches
that claim to teach the doctrine of  Jesus Christ. The  attitude of any
organization toward this  principle of freedom is a  pretty good index to
its nearness to  the teachings of Christ or to  those of the Evil One.
[...]



He who thus tramples underfoot one of God's greatest gifts to   man, who
would deny another the right to think and worship as  he  pleases
propagates error and makes his own church in  that  regard as far as he
represents it a propagator of evil.



President Hinckley, I know you believe the Church leadership  has a moral
right  to speak about issues of the day.  I urge you:   Please make it
clear that members  have this right to speak as  wellùeven if the position
the member takes is not the  position  of the Church.  Members should not
be disciplined for openly  discussing  their political opinions as has
happened here.

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely yours,

Deana Marie Holmes

=======================================


[From the front page of the Salt Lake Trib]

For Some, Mormon Stance on Gay Issue Creates a Crisis of Conscience

Sunday, March 5,

2000

BY DAN EGAN

THE SALT LAKE

TRIBUNE

TRACY, Calif.

-- It's dinner time, and Alan and Yvette Hansen's home is a quintessential
picture of Mormon domesticity.

Toddlers scoot from their seats and romp about, pushing a toy vacuum
cleaner and toting around dolls.

"My name is James!" shouts a 4-year-old who sneaks away from the dinner
table while his mother tries to coax a sibling into taking medication for
an ear infection. "My -- name -- is -- Jaaames!!!" "James," replies Yvette
Hansen, 31, holding an eye dropper over her squirming daughter. "Use your
inside voice, please." Inside voices.

That is an admonishment Alan and Yvette Hansen have been hearing
themselves. The couple have been speaking out against California's
controversial "Proposition 22" -- perhaps louder than they should,
according to their leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

The Mormon church and many of its roughly 740,000 members in California
are on a crusade to pass Tuesday's ballot initiative, which would ban
recognition of gay marriages in the state. The Hansens, who describe
themselves as good Mormons, have a problem with that.

And now they have a problem with their church.

"I obviously believe God doesn't want me to vote 'yes,' he wants me to
vote 'no,' " says Alan Hansen, who opposes the initiative on grounds it
could lead to discrimination against homosexuals and a loss of rights for
children of gays.

He also makes it clear he has a problem with his church's support of the
measure, and because of that, he says, church leaders have slapped him
with an "informal probation." It is not his opposition that is the
problem, says Hansen's ecclesiastical leader, Manteca Stake President Rex
Brown.

"People certainly are free to say whatever they'd like to say in regards
to Proposition 22," Brown says. "The real issue is speaking out against
the church." Brown would not comment on Hansen's status in the church,
citing church policy on confidentiality.

While a majority of California Mormons appear to support both Proposition
22 and their church's unabashed support for it, the Hansens do not stand
alone. Many are eager to whisper to the news media that all is not well
among the rank and file. Resentment, they say, roils because the church's
fund-raising and aggressive campaigning for Proposition 22 are forcing
them to choose between supporting their church leaders or their homosexual
family members and friends.

Just last week, a 32-year-old gay Mormon man put a gun to his head and
pulled the trigger on the steps of a Mormon chapel in Northern California.
He was profoundly opposed to Proposition 22, though his family insists the
suicide was not politically motivated.

Others disagree, but hardly any who are opposed to the church's official
position will allow their names to be used in newspaper stories. They say
they fear repercussions and note that when documents were leaked last
summer that outlined Mormon leadership's fund-raising strategies for the
campaign, leaders "were all but beating the bushes to get the squealer to
come out." The chill that has since spread across California's Mormon
landscape has created such a bitter climate that some say they no longer
feel free even to privately express their opposition to a measure they
believe is discriminatory.

"The issue is so sensitive," says one member of a Southern California
ward. "It's just pretty doggone touchy and people don't want to betray
themselves to somebody who might report them. In ways, it's like what I
imagined it was like living in Russia, where people acted as the eyes and
ears of government." So they bite their lips or speak in hushed tones, and
most always insist their names not be used for publication.

But not 30-year-old Alan Hansen. He is practically clanging cymbals.

"This is the first time I've found myself left of center. I'm a pretty
conservative guy," says the marketing manager for an Internet start-up
company in San Jose. The Hansens live in the little city of Tracy, located
about 60 miles east of the San Francisco Bay Area. "[But] many think the
church is not on the moral high ground here." Hansen insists he is not
attacking the church, he is simply criticizing its stance on Proposition
22.

He and his wife say they are happily heterosexual, and he says this is the
first time he has found himself crossways with his church, which spent
more than $1 million in similar, successful ballot initiatives recently
held in Alaska and Hawaii.

While church headquarters in Utah reportedly has not given a dime to the
California cause, local leaders have for nearly a year prodded members to
write checks in support of the campaign. Their donations are not
considered tithing, nor are they tax-deductible.

It's impossible to say how much of the estimated $8 million raised so far
for the Yes on 22 campaign has come from Mormons because individual
contributors do not list church affiliation on campaign finance forms. The
Mormon church is joined in its campaign by other religious organizations,
including the Catholic Church, which has given more than $300,000, and the
California Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God and several
Muslim and Protestant denominations.

Anti-Gay or Pro-Family? The LDS battle is being waged with more than
money. Each Sunday, letters of support are read to California wards, and
members are entreated to canvass neighborhoods and put Yes on Proposition
22 signs in their yards.

"The ecclesiastical pressure has been enormous," says one former bishop,
who continues to hold a high church leadership position in the Bay Area.
"We've never seen anything like this." Even LDS Church President Gordon B.
Hinckley has weighed in.

"We regard it as not only our right, but our duty to oppose those forces
which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society," Hinckley said last
fall. "Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints
are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from
forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred
institution." At the same time, Hinckley says the church will continue "to
love and honor them [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God." The LDS
Church rarely wades into stormy political waters. But, Hinckley and other
leaders say, this is a moral issue, and it calls for political activism.

Gay rights advocates question why the church picked Proposition 22 instead
of loads of other legislation -- child welfare or domestic abuse laws, for
example -- that could reinforce the fabric of families.

"They [homosexuals] feel like this is in their face and is really
anti-gay," says Gary Watts, a Utah Mormon and father of two gay children.
He is co-chair of Family Fellowship, a support group for Mormon parents of
gays and lesbians. "Up until I became familiar with the issue about 11
years ago, I probably would be there with everybody else [supporting
Proposition 22]. Unless you . . . know someone who is gay or lesbian, it's
very easy to demean them." Gay marriage is not currently allowed in
California or any other state. Proposition 22 simply ensures that
California will not have to recognize gay marriages that might some day be
sanctioned in other states. Advocates of the measure note that dozens of
states as well as Congress have passed similar measures, and they argue
nothing will change for gay couples. They say the initiative is merely a
chance to reaffirm their position on marriage.

Opponents say there is nothing positive about a 'yes' vote.

They call the issue a "wedge" intended to nudge the state's gay population
to the fringe. They contend Proposition 22 could lead to a host of lost
rights, including health benefits, hospital visitation privileges, and,
most importantly for the Hansens, cause harm to children of homosexuals in
areas like inheritances, custodial rights and medical benefits.

It is a personal issue for the Hansens, who have been foster parents to
five children. They are in the process of adopting 4-year-old Jessica so
she will become legal sister to James and Nicholas, 2, their biological
children. They worry Proposition 22 could push homosexual parents out of
the the picture at a time when California needs all the parents it can
get.

"We need to protect anybody who is willing to take extraordinary steps to
take care of kids," says Alan Hansen.

And, say the Hansens, sexuality is not a factor in determining who is a
good parent.

"As foster parents, we've seen plenty of married people in traditional
families raising their kids badly. We've raised their kids for them," adds
Yvette Hansen. "I don't care what [homosexuals] do in their bedroom. If
it's a sin, it's between them and God." "Is it more important," presses
Alan Hansen, "to call someone a sinner than it is to protect children?"

Politicking at the Pulpit: The Hansens' quiet convictions bubbled into the
public recently after Alan Hansen wrote a letter to the local newspaper
criticizing both the proposition and the Mormon church's stumping at the
pulpit.

"When I attend church, I go there hoping to get close to God. I go to
study the life of Jesus and to learn to live like him. I go to repent of
my sins and rededicate myself to righteous living. I go to church to
improve myself," he wrote in a letter to the editor that appeared in the
Tracy Press.

"When my church tells me how to vote or where to spend my political
dollars, it takes away from my opportunity to worship and consider God in
my life." While Hansen is not surprised those words ruffled church
leadership, he contends they should be willing to tolerate his dissent.
After all, he notes, the church has entered the political debate. And he
is just debating those politics.

"The church told members we don't have to vote 'yes,' " Hansen told a
reporter for the Tracy Press. "Well, that means I can vote 'no,' and I can
talk about my reasons." Others are also starting to speak out.

"I'm disappointed that we are supporting a proposition that is so
divisive, that causes parents who have homosexual children to be really
put in a situation of having to choose between the church and their
family," says Richard Rands, a Mormon who lives in the Bay Area.

"This is such a divisive issue for families, which is very ironic because
families are at the core of the church's concern here," says Rands' wife,
Janet.

Other local church leaders acknowledge the issue is at the root of some
discord, but they say support for the measure and the church's position on
it have been overwhelming.

"When the prophet [Hinckley] speaks, we listen," says Brent Newbold, a
Mormon bishop and owner of a dry cleaning store in the Sacramento area.
"It's caused people to make a decision -- [to state] where they stand."
And, says Newbold, nine out of 10 in his ward stand by their church.

At least one woman in his ward, however, quit attending because of the
church's position.

"I don't call her in and give her a hard time," says Newbold. "Hopefully,
she'll come back." But a steady trickle of Californians may be leaving the
church permanently because of the issue. Kathy Worthington, a Utah
gay-rights activist who is coordinating a drop-out campaign, claims she
has been in contact with more than 300 people who want to stop being
Mormon.

A former Mormon herself, Worthington says she has copies of more than 100
notarized letters sent to church headquarters by people who are trying to
sever their ties with their religion because of Proposition 22.

"This [issue] seems to be the last straw for a lot of people," she says.

Church spokesman Michael Purdy said he could not provide information
regarding Worthington's assertion.

But Janet Rands has seen enough to know that some harm already has been
done.

"I don't think anyone sat down with the intention of driving people away,
but I do see that," says Rands, a psychologist. "The sad thing is, this
affects their kids, a generation who won't be learning their Bible songs,
who won't be reading the Book of Mormon." That could include the Hansen
children.

Alan Hansen, a lifelong Mormon who served a mission in Japan and was born
while his parents attended church-owned Brigham Young University, says he
has been stripped of his teaching position in the church for being so
outspoken on the issue and could face harsher penalties.

"The bishop has said I need to make a public apology for my comments," he
says. "I haven't said anything that is not the truth, and a person should
not be punished for telling the truth." His wife frets he may be on the
road to excommunication, but he's not so scared that he will stop lobbying
for an issue he holds sacred.

"I was asked -- if it came down to [my position on] Proposition 22 v. my
church membership, which would I choose," he says. "I'd choose both.

"If I couldn't choose, it would be out of my hands. It wouldn't be my
choice."

⌐ Copyright 2000, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine
is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No
material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The
Salt Lake Tribune.


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Persecuted...don't see much today.
Date: 09 Mar 2000 01:52:45 -0700

LDSWorld-Gems News Extra

President Gordon B. Hinckley

Notes from the "Question and Answer" session

The National Press Club, Washington D.C., March 8, 2000 (NOTE that these
are notes only - a summary of what was said. The questions were written by

the attendees at the luncheon and asked to Pres. Hinckley by the
oderator.)

What is the Church's stand on Politics?

Pres. Hinckley explained that the Church becomes involved only in matters
that are harmful to the Church or its beliefs.

...

Opinion about George W. Bush's appearance at Bob Jones University We've
been persecuted throughout our history, but don't see much today. We just
move forward with a smile on our face.

============

Let any people enjoy peace and quiet, unmolested, undisturbed, never be
persecuted for their religion, and they are very likely to neglect their
duty, to become cold and indifferent, and lose their faith. Discourses of
Brigham Young, p.346 7:42.

I expected when I came into this church, that I should be persecuted and
proscribed. I expected that the people would be persecuted.  John Taylor,
The Gospel Kingdom, p.369-370

Prophets of All Ages Persecuted by Self-Righteous. Parley P. Pratt, A
Voice of Warning, p.149

Every time they persecute and try to overcome this people, they elevate
us,
weaken their own hands, and strengthen the hands and arms of this people.

Discourses of Brigham Young, p.351

VERILY I say unto you, concerning your brethren who have been afflicted,
and persecuted, and cast out from the land of their inheritance-- D&C
101:1

Why Prophets Are Persecuted
1. Prophets are persecuted because they testified of Christ.
2. Prophets are persecuted because there are false churches.
3. Prophets are persecuted as a form of false worship.
4. Prophets are persecuted because they reveal the wickedness and
abominations of the people.
5. Prophets are persecuted and slain as a witness against the wicked and
ungodly.
6. Prophets are persecuted to test their integrity to make sure of their
allegiance to that Lord whose they are.
Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.33, 34, 36, 38 and 39


... And if they persecute you, so persecuted they the prophets and
righteous men that were before you. For all this there is a reward in
heaven.  D&C 127:4

The Followers of Christ to Be Persecuted.  LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous
Work and a Wonder, Ch.28, p.393

Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for
theirs
is the kingdom of heaven.  Matthew 5:10

Our Church knows full well what it means to be misjudged, scoffed at, and
persecuted. It can appreciate, too, in full value, tolerance, and a sense
of justice and fair play.  David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p.580

And again, there was another church which denied the Christ; and they did
persecute the true church of Christ, because of their humility and their
belief in Christ; and they did despise them because of the many miracles
which were wrought among them.  4 Nephi 1:29

So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that
light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and
though
I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was

true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all
manner of evil against me for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why

persecute me for telling the truth?  Joseph Smith History 1:25

Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and
shall
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Matthew 5:11

I say the same now. Let us alone, and we will send Elders to the uttermost

parts of the earth, and gather out Israel, wherever they are; and if you
persecute us, we will do it the quicker, because we are naturally dull
when
let alone, and are disposed to take a little sleep, a little slumber, and
a
little rest. If you let us alone, we will do it a little more leisurely;
but if you persecute us, we will sit up nights to preach the Gospel.
Discourses of Brigham Young, p.351 - p.3522:320.

But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute
[you], delivering [you] up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being
brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.  Luke 21:12

To be persecuted for righteousness' sake in a great cause where truth and
virtue and honor are at stake is God-like. Always there have been martyrs
to every great cause. The great harm that may come from persecution is not
from the persecution itself but from the possible effect it may have upon
the persecuted who may thereby be deterred in their zeal for the
righteousness of their cause. Much of that persecution comes from lack of
understanding, for men are prone to oppose that which they do not
comprehend. Some of it comes from men intent upon evil. But from whatever
cause, persecution seems to be so universal against those engaged in a
righteous cause that the Master warns us, "Woe unto you, when all men
shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."
(Luke 6:26.)

May youth everywhere remember that warning when you are hissed and scoffed
at because you refuse to compromise your standards of abstinence, honesty,
and morality in order to win the applause of the crowd. If you stand
firmly for the right, despite the jeers of the crowd or even physical
violence, you shall be crowned with the blessedness of eternal joy.
Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, p.347-348

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for
so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.  Matthew 5:12

To the young men who may be disheartened by false attacks upon the Saints,

and to the missionaries in the world, who are driven and persecuted, I
wish
to say: have no fear; slacken not your labors for the truth; live as
becometh Saints. You are in the right way, and the Lord will not let your
efforts fail. This Church stands in no danger from opposition and
persecution from without. There is more to fear in carelessness, sin and
indifference, from within; more danger that the individual will fail in
doing right and in conforming his life to the revealed doctrines of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If we do the right, all will be well, the
God
of our fathers will sustain us, and every opposition will tend only to the

further spread of the knowledge of truth. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel
Doctrine,
p.413 Improvement Era, Vol. 6, June, 1903, p. 625.

And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being
persecuted, we suffer it: 1 Corinthians 4:12

In another great event in Mormon history, several hundred men marched from
Ohio to give military relief to the persecuted Saints in Zion--western
Missouri. But when the men of Zion's Camp approached their intended
destination, the Prophet Joseph Smith disbanded them. According to its
ostensible purpose, the expedition was a failure. But most of the men who
were to lead the Church for the next half-century, including those who
would take the Saints across the plains and colonize the Intermountain
West, came to know the Prophet Joseph and received their formative
leadership training in the march of Zion's Camp.  Dallin H. Oaks, Pure in
Heart, p.119


But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily

I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the

Son of man be come.  Matthew 10:23

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than
his
lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they
have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.  John 15:20

It takes faith to withstand the secular society. We who seek to serve in
this day and time are, for instance, asked to be more loving at a time
when the love of many waxes cold. We are asked to be more merciful, even
as the Saints are persecuted. We are asked to be more holy as the world
ripens in iniquity.  Neal A. Maxwell,  Men and Women of Christ, p.106 -
p.107

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes:
and
[some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye
scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:
Matthew
23:34

The false religion that is in the world, is what raises this "hue and
cry,"
misguides the people, and opposes itself against the Kingdom of God on the

earth. Now if we would only fall in with the wicked all would be right,
and
then no person would wish to persecute us. Discourses of Brigham Young,
p.349 2:181.

For ye shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be
your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before

you.  3 Nephi 12:12

December 16, 1838 To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in
Caldwell county, and all the Saints who are scattered abroad, who are
persecuted, and made desolate, and who are afflicted in divers manners for

Christ's sake and the Gospel's, by the hands of a cruel mob and the
tyrannical disposition of the authorities of this state; and whose perils
are greatly augmented by the wickedness and corruption of false brethren,
greeting: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838 39,
p.122

Who can justly say aught against Joseph Smith? I was as well acquainted
with him, as any man. I do not believe that his father and mother knew him

any better than I did. I do not think that a man lives on the earth that
knew him any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ
excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth. I am his
witness. He was persecuted for the same reason that any other righteous
person has been or is persecuted at the present day. Discourses of Brigham

Young, p.459 - p.460 9:332.

The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the
Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection
guaranteed
in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the
president of the United States would not say, "Your cause is just, but I
can do nothing for you," a governor issue exterminating orders, or judges
say, "The men ought to have the protection of law, but it won't please the

mob; the men must die, anyhow, to satisfy the clamor of the rabble; they
must be hung, or Missouri be damned to all eternity." Executive writs
could
be issued when they ought to be, and not be made instruments of cruelty to

oppress the innocent, and persecute men whose religion is unpopular.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843 44, p.327

President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chapter II Corinthians. My object is
to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay.
I,
like Paul have been in perils, 2 and oftener than anyone in this
generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should
be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my
brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has
constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly
so
humble as if I were not persecuted.  Ehat & Cook, Words, History of the
Church, 6:408-12: 26 May 1844 (Sunday Morning), p.373

No sooner was this made known, and published abroad, and people began to
listen and obey the heavenly summons, than opposition began to rage, and
the people, even in this favored land, began to persecute their neighbors
and friends for entertaining religious opinions differing from their own
Discourses of Brigham Young, p.109 2:171.

THE FOLLY OF PERSECUTION. I say to the world, to every sect under heaven,
if you ever obtain any blessings in the eternal worlds from anybody at
all,
it will be from the God the Latter-day Saints worship, for God made us
all;
whether we are Methodists, Baptists, Mormons or anything else we are all
the children of one parent. Then why should we persecute one another
because of our religion? It is folly in the highest degree. We live in a
land and under a constitution which guarantees the right to worship God
according to the dictates of conscience to every sect, party, name and
denomination under heaven, then why should we be so narrow-minded as to
hate or seek to persecute or kill our neighbor because he differs from us
in religion? The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p.192 JD 17:193-194,
October 7, 1874.

Joseph, our Prophet, was hunted and driven, arrested and persecuted, and
although no law was ever made in these United States that would bear
against him, for he never broke a law, yet to my certain knowledge he was
defendant in forty-six lawsuits, and every time Mr. Priest was at the head

of and led the band or mob who hunted and persecuted him. And when Joseph
and Hyrum were slain in Carthage jail, the mob, painted like Indians, was
led by a preacher. Discourses of Brigham Young, p.466 14:199.

[Commentary, polygamy was never legal in any state where Joseph Smith
lived.  Joseph Smith was tried and convicted of money digging]

Persecution Follows Revelation I do not believe there ever was a people
who
were guided by revelation, or acknowledged of the Lord as his people, who
were not hated and persecuted by the wicked and the corrupt, and perhaps
no
people were ever more persecuted than this people would be if it were in
the power of the enemy today to persecute us as it was in the power of
Nero
and the Romans to persecute the Saints in their day. There never was a
time
when it was more fixed and determined in the heart of the wicked to fight
against and destroy the kingdom from the earth than now, and their failure

will be due only to the impossibility of the task they have undertaken.
And
this is an evidence to everyone that God's Priesthood is here, that many
of
the Saints are magnifying their calling and honoring the Priesthood and
also the Lord, both with their lives and with their substance, which are
his.  Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.46 Deseret Weekly News, Vol. 24,

p. 708, 1875.

[Commentary, when President Hinkley was asked by a reporter, shortly after

assuming office, if he received revelations, he replied that he got warm
feelings in answer to prays, he did not claim to receive Revelations like
other prophets had in the past.  He recently published a book that did not

quote any LDS scriptures or unique LDS teachings.  This could be why he is

not feeling any persecution.]

We are far removed from the days of our forefathers who were persecuted
for their peculiar beliefs. Some of us seem to want to share their reward
but are ofttimes afraid to stand up for principles that are controversial
in our generation. We need not solicit persecution, but neither should we
remain silent in the presence of overwhelming evils, for this makes
cowards of men. We should not go out of the path of duty to pick up a
cross there is no need to bear, but neither should we sidestep a cross
that clearly lies within the path of duty. Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson,
p.292-293 (CR October 1964, Improvement Era 67 [December 1964]: 1067.)

The gates of hell shall not prevail against us. Now, Latter-day Saints,
how
is it with us? We have received the gospel. We have received the kingdom
of
God, established on the earth. We have had trouble; we have been
persecuted. We were driven from Ohio; we were driven from Missouri; we
were
driven from Nauvoo; and once we were driven for a time from this beautiful

city [Salt Lake City]. Many have lost thousands of dollars; lost their
homes and all they had, and some of the brethren have seen their wives and

children lay down their lives because of the hardships they had to
experience during these changes, these persecutions, these revolutions,
and
these drivings. The people have looked with astonishment at the
willingness
of the Latter-day Saints to suffer these things. Why do we do this? Why do

we adhere to these principles that have caused us at times so much grief
and sacrifice? What is it that enables us to endure these persecutions and

still rejoice? It is because we have had revelations from the Almighty;
because He has spoken to us in our souls and has given to us the Holy
Ghost, which is a principle of revelation wherever it exists and is
promised to every man, as in the days of the former Apostles, who will
believe, repent of his sins and be immersed in water for the remission of
them by those who have the authority from the Lord to administer this
ordinance. Jesus, when He was among the children of men, said that He
would
build His church upon this principle of revelation and the gates of hell
should not prevail against it. Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.124-125 (6
April 1900, CR, pp. 2-3.)

============







Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 09 Mar 2000 03:11:33 -0700

Notes from the "Question and Answer" session
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: gdm

The National Press Club, Washington D.C., March 8, 2000 (NOTE that these
are notes only - a summary of what was said. The questions were written by

the attendees at the luncheon and asked to Pres. Hinckley by the
oderator.)


The spiritual leader of the Mormon church, the Yes-on-22 campaign's major
source of money and volunteers, showed no inclination Wednesday to seek a
rollback of gay rights in California.

"I don't think it signals a more active political posture" for the church,
Gordon B. Hinckley said at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "We
are not anti-gay. We are pro-family."

------------------

For Some, Mormon Stance on Gay Issue Creates a Crisis of Conscience
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Sunday, March 5, 2000
BY DAN EGAN

...
"The ecclesiastical pressure has been enormous," says one former bishop,
who continues to hold a high church leadership position in the Bay Area.
"We've never seen anything like this." Even LDS Church President Gordon B.
Hinckley has weighed in.

"We regard it as not only our right, but our duty to oppose those forces
which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society," Hinckley said last
fall. "Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints
are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from
forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred
institution." At the same time, Hinckley says the church will continue "to
love and honor them [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God." The LDS
Church rarely wades into stormy political waters. But, Hinckley and other
leaders say, this is a moral issue, and it calls for political activism.

------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, February 6, 2000

Mormon Church: The Powerful Force Behind Proposition 22

DON LATTIN

Politics does make strange bedfellows, especially when you add sex,
religion and a little historical perspective.

One of the delicious ironies of the current political campaign concerns
the role of the Mormon church in the California Defense of Marriage
crusade, also known as the "Knight Initiative.'' Proposition 22 states, in
its entirely, that "only marriage between a man and woman is valid or
recognized in California.'' It is on the March 7 ballot as a rear-guard
action against persistent attempts to legitimize same-sex marriage in
church and state.

If one takes a somewhat longer view, the most notorious sexual outlaws in
American history are not today's gay rights' crusaders, but the founding
fathers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or the Mormon
church.

Joseph Smith Jr., the original Mormon prophet, was fomenting a radical
revolution in American religion and sexuality when he was imprisoned in an
Illinois jail and assassinated by a mob in the summer of 1844.  He was
also running for president and controlled an armed militia of
approximately 3,500 men.

During his lifetime, Smith publicly denied allegations of widespread
polygamy in his sect.  Today, it's widely acknowledged that Smith took at
least 28 wives, including the spouses and teenage daughters of his Mormon
brethren.  His successor, Brigham Young, brought the persecuted polygamous
sect to the Utah wilderness and for decades continued the practice of
"plural marriage'' in open defiance of Congress.  Officially, the church
ended the practice of polygamy in 1890, as a condition to get Utah
admitted to the union as a state.

-------------------
[Commentary, it is interesting that this article takes what Mormons would
consider a negative slat, but ironically accepts the churches whitewashed
and false version of history that sanctioned polygamy ended in 1890!

See a new web page added by permission:

http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/postman.htm

That deals extensively with post 1890 polygamy]
-------------------


[Commentary, The old excuse of why we do not live section 132 today is
that it is against the law of the land.  Yet the church, instead of
struggling to try to get the laws changed so that we can live our
religions to it's fullest like our ancestors did, the church works to see
that the law does NOT allow marriage of anything but ONE man and ONE
women!!!

How can this match with our history?]

---

LDS Representative Tells Vermont Legislature to Amend Constitution
(Opponents testify before Legislature)
Boston Globe (AP) 13Jan00 N1
By Ross Sneyd: Associated Press

MONTPELIER, VERMONT -- In the wake of last month's Vermont Supreme Court
decision that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same benefits
enjoyed by married couples, the Vermont legislature held hearings what
legislation should be enacted to implement the decision. Opponents of
same-sex marriage, including the LDS Church, testified before the
Vermont House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, arguing that the
legislature should either ignore the decision or try to enact a
constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The LDS Church was represented by Burlington lawyer Thomas McCormick,
who helped write a brief to the Vermont Supreme Court for its recent
decision, now called the Baker decision. McCormick told the Judiciary
committee that he thinks the best way to respond was to seek an
amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between one
man and one woman.

McCormick told the committee that he thinks permitting same-sex
marriages will lead to other forms of marriage. "What is going to mean
if you redefine marriage today that says, yes, the very attractive
couples in the Baker case can be married? What are you going to say
tomorrow when three or more people want to get married? If you say yes
to same-sex couples, what do you say to two sisters or two brothers who
want to be married?"

http://www.burstnet.com/ads/ad6305a-map.cgi

From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/013/region/Opponents_testify_before_Legis:.
shtml

=============================

Talk about polygamy!  There is no true philosopher on the face of the
earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out
according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the
raising of healthy, robust children!  A person possessing a moderate
knowledge of physiology, or who has paid attention to his own nature and
the nature of the gentler sex, can readily understand this.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.317, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870

=============================
Of all men upon the face of the earth, we are the most favoured; we have
the fulness of the everlasting Gospel, the keys of revelation and
exaltation, the privilege of making our own rules and regulations, and are
not opposed by anybody.  No king, prince, potentate, or dominion, has
rightful authority to crush and oppress us.  We breathe the free air, we
have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy us our
position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed
race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live
all their days under the dominion of one wife.  They ought to be ashamed
of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their
practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who
so much better understand the social relations.  Journal of Discourses,
Vol.3, p.290 - p.291, George Albert Smith, April 6, 1856

======================

We have another example in the three Hebrew children, who refused to bow
down to a golden image that had been set up.  Shall we call it monogamy?
[Laughter.]

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.33 - p.34 - p.35 - p.36, John Taylor,
March 5th, 1882

===========================

The Bible is the foundation of most of the criminal laws of Christendom.
Point out in the Bible where polygamy is a crime, and then you may say we
have no right to embrace it as part of our religious creed, and pretend it
as part of our constitutional rights.  If we embrace murder, stealing,
robbing, cheating our neighbour, as a part of our religious rights, then
the Constitution will condemn us.  Not so with polygamy.  If we should
embrace adultery in our religious creed, then we may be condemned as
criminals by the laws of God and man; but when it comes to polygamy, which
is not condemned by the Bible any more than monogamy, and embrace that as
a part and portion of our creed, the Constitution gives us an undeniable
right of worshipping God in this respect as in all others.  Congress have
no more constitutional right to pass a law against polygamy that they ave
to pass a law against monogamy, or against a man living in celibacy.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.361, Orson Pratt, July 24, 1859

=======================

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of
Heaven among men.  Such a system was commenced by the founders of the
Roman empire.  That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by
wandering brigands.  When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was
evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with
their neighbours, depended upon introducing females into their body
politic, so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbours.
The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one
man.  Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of
monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged.  Thus this monogamic order of
marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine
institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.9, p.322, Brigham Young, July 6, 1862

============================

Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations
which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the
faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles,
which must so far exceed those of monogamy, as the conditions
responsibilities and power of increase are greater.  This is my view and
testimony in relation to this matter.  I believe it is a doctrine that
should be taught and understood.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

===================

The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of
marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by
the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine
law, but upon physiological and scientific principles.  In the latter
view, the wives are even more benefitted, if possible, than the husband
physically.  But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes,
and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are
immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than
in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage
covenant.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

=====================

I don't often say anything in regard to plural marriage; but there has
been a great deal said about the misery of women in that order.  Well, if
in monogamy women do not have any trouble, if it were all serene in that
order of marriage--no cause of difference of feeling or of jealousy--then
there might be some cause for this hue and cry.  People imagine, you know,
that in a man's family where there are several wives, they must be very
jealous of one another--that they must tear each other's hair and all that
kind of thing.  Well, as I have said, if there was never any jealousy, or
any feelings of unhappiness in monogamic families, then they might say
something.  I have had a little experience both ways, and though not a
woman, yet I am bold to bear my testimony that there is more happiness in
the number of families living in plural marriage, than there is in an
equal number of families in the other condition.  And I speak from my own
experience in regard to these matters.  I think I lived as happily in
monogamy as anybody, and I think, too, that I live as happily in plural
marriage as anybody else.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.24, p.320, Daniel H. Wells, October 28th, 1883

===========================

... and no better time have I had in thirty years of married life than
when I had three wives given me of God, and occupying but one habitation.
The power of God was in that home; the spirit of peace was there, the
spirit of intelligence was there; and we had our ever present testimony
that God recognised the patriarchal order, that which had been practiced
by His servants ages and ages ago and revealed to us in the dispensation
of the fullness of times; and although two of these have gone behind the
veil, they went there with a consciousness of having done their duty in
this life, and that they would meet in the life beyond those who agreed
with them in practice and in faith; from this condition came the
discipline of life, the power of self-restraint, a tender regard for each
others' feelings, and a sort of jealousy for each others' rights, all
tempered by the consideration that relations meant to be enduring claimed
more love and interest and soul than did monogamy under its best
conditions.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.124, Henry W. Naisbitt, March 8, 1885

======================

But it is a most difficult thing to get these Latter-day Saints to
understand the principles that are as plain as the noonday sun--that they
should receive readily, and why?  Because, as I have said, they are heirs
of the traditions of centuries that have come down through the dark ages.
It is a wonderful thing to do what we have done respecting woman.  Look at
what monogamy has done.  Look at its effects; trace its influence from the
death of the Apostles, or soon afterwards, down to this the nineteenth
century, and what do we behold?  Why, in every generation a large
percentage of our sisters has been consigned either to that nameless
condition of which it is a shame to speak, or have died without ever
knowing the joys of maternity.  When I think of it, when I read the
history of the boasted civilization of the Greeks and the Romans, and
think of the boasted civilization of our day, inherited from these
nations, and witness its effects, I wonder how man, standing up in the
face of heaven, dare look at woman and talk about being her protector.
Read the history of the sex and of the frightful evils which have been
brought upon our sitters through man's accursed traditions and evils.  If
it were to be told to another people differently situated to us, with
different traditions to us, they could not believe that intelligent man
would entertain for one moment, or that women themselves, in view of what
their sex has suffered, would cherish and cling to the wretched traditions
that have prevailed in christendom and to a certain extent yet prevail in
our midst.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.197 - p.198 - p.199, George Q. Cannon,
April 6, 1879

======================

Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your
Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for
yourselves, that your minds may be divested of false traditions and early
impressions that are untrue.  Those who are acquainted with the history of
the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule
and monogamy the exception.  Since the founding of the Roman empire
monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that.
The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and
made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among
them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all
Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and
whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New
World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions
both national and religious.  Polygamy did not have its origin with Joseph
Smith, but it existed from the beginning.  So far as I am concerned as an
individual, I did not ask for it; I never desired it; and if I ever had a
trial of my faith in the world, it was when Joseph Smith revealed that
doctrine to me; and I had to pray incessantly and exercise faith before
the Lord until He revealed to me the truth, and I was satisfied.  I say
this at the present time for the satisfaction of both saint and sinner.
Now, here are the commandments of the Lord, and here are the wishes of
wicked men, which shall we obey?  It is the Lord and them for it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.127 - p.128, Brigham Young, June 18, 1865

==========================

Do you see anything very bad in this?  Just ask yourselves, historians,
when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth?  When those
buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not
steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a
man should have but one woman.  And this started monogamy and the downfall
of the plurality system.  In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over
Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less.  This was the rise,
start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was
there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have
but one wife.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.12, p.261, Brigham Young, August 9th, 1868

===========================

Some want to destroy "the twin relics--slavery and polygamy"--and
establish monogamy, with a brothel on every corner of each block in this
city.  This reminds me of what I was told the President of the United
States said to a gentleman who is a preacher and a member of Congress.  He
took our President to task for not destroying both "the twins" together,
that is, polygamy as well as slavery.  After he had laid the whole matter
before the President in an elaborate manner, showing him the necessity of
destroying this people who believed in polygamy, the President said "It
makes me think of a little circumstance that happened with me in my
younger days.  I was ploughing a piece of newly cleared land, by and bye I
came to a big log; I could not plow over it, for it was too high, and it
was so heavy I could not move it out of the way, and so wet I could not
burn it; I stood and looked at it and studied it, and finally concluded to
plow around it."  It looks as if they were trying to plow around
Mormonism.  They and the Lord for it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.306, Brigham Young, June 4, 1864

======================

There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons, who suppose that they
believe the Bible, that Christ, when he came, did away with plural
marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and there are
certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of the
subject, one of which is found in Paul's first epistle to Timothy (3 chap.
2 v.), where Paul says:  "A bishop should be blameless, the husband of one
wife."  The friends of monogamy render it in this way:  "A bishop should
be blameless, the husband of but one wife."  That would imply that any one
but a bishop might have more.  But they will say, "We mean a bishop should
be blameless, the husband of one wife only."  Well, that would also admit
of the construction that other people might have more than one.  I
understand it to mean that a bishop must be a married man.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.38, George Albert Smith, October 8, 1869

========================

I will say a few words on a subject which has been mentioned here--that
is, celestial marriage.  God has given a revelation to seal for time and
for eternity, just as he did in days of old.  In our own days he has
commanded his people to receive the New and Everlasting Covenant, and he
has said, "If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned."  We have
received it.  What is the result of it?  I look at the world, or that
small portion of it which believes in monogamy.  It is only a small
portion of the human family who do believe in it, for from nine to ten of
the twelve hundred millions that live on the earth believe in and practice
polygamy.  Well, what is the result?  Right in our land the doctrine and
practice of plurality of wives tend to the preservation of life.  Do you
know it?  Do you see it?  What is our duty?  To preserve life or destroy
it?  Can any of you answer?  Why yes, it is to perpetuate and preserve
life.  But what principle do we see prevailing in our own land?  What is
that of which, in the East, West, North and South, ministers in their
pulpits complain, and against which both gentlemen and ladies lecture?  It
is against taking life.  They say, "Cease the destruction of pre-natal
life!"  Our doctrine and practice make and preserve life; theirs destroy
it.  Which is the best, saying nothing about revelation, which is the best
in a moral point of view, to preserve or to destroy the life which God
designs to bring upon the earth.  Just look at it and decide for
yourselves.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.14, p.43, Brigham Young, May 8, 1870

======================

Now, if in this respect a Bishop had proved himself a wise and discreet
father and husband, a man who knew how to rule well his own family, this
was a qualification recommending him as a suitable person to be trusted
with the office of a Bishop.  And how much more suitable would he be for
that position if he were perfectly able to govern two or more wives, and
to rear their children in the fear of God?  The very fact that a Bishop
must be the husband of one wife, it we admit the correctness of the views
of our Christian friends in this regard (which, however, we do not by any
means) the logical inference is, that any other officer or member in the
Church but a Bishop was at liberty to have more than one wife.  For if he
intended it to be a general prohibition, why should he confine it to the
Bishop, why did he not make it general?  It is sheer sophistry on the part
of our sectarian friends and groundless assertion that monogamy, to the
exclusion of polygamy was introduced into Europe by the primitive
Christians; for that system of marriage was introduced prior to the
establishment of Christianity in Europe, by the Roman empire, and became
the form of marriage in early times when, as history alleges, men were
more numerous in Rome than women.  And the earlier settlers of Rome were
political refugees, renegades and scape-graces from surrounding nations,
and were under the necessity of making raids upon their neighbors to
procure wives; and it became a matter of necessity and for mutual
protection, to limit the number to one.  It was the Roman state that
limited the number of a man's wives to one, and not the Christian church;
and this being done, it was perpetuated.  And history teaches us that
under that monogamic system, Rome became the most licentious of all
nations.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.297 - p.298 - p.299 - p.300, Erastus
Snow, October 7, 1882

====================

We were not sent here to manifest the fruits of the flesh but those of the
spirit; and if the hearts of any wives of the elders of Israel are
breaking, by reason of their husbands' conduct, may God have mercy on such
husbands, for knowing better, they sin against light in transgressing
their covenants.  The allegiance of a wife in this Church is not due to an
unfaithful, deceiving or cruel husband.  And he who regards his wife as
the creature of his sinful pleasure, made and given to gratify his fallen
nature is unworthy of a wife or to be the father of children.  Were I to
seek to find happiness in the marriage relation, I should expect to find
it most abundant, perfect and pure in Utah, notwithstanding all that is
said to the contrary.  And this conclusion is reached after years of
observation here and abroad.  Nowhere exists so great confidence between
husbands and wives as in Utah.  Nowhere is sexual impurity regarded with
greater disgust, or chastity esteemed more highly.  Philosophers,
preachers and moralists may insist on the enforcement of Roman instituted
monogamy, but its practice throughout the Christian world is fraught with
all manner of deceivableness, of iniquity and sexual abominations.  Better
practice what we preach and preach what we practice, leaving no room for
distrust; for, as between man and wife, where confidence dies, there you
may dig the grave of love.  Destroy one and the other cannot exist.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.315, Moses Thatcher, August 28, 1885

======================

Now, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its great zeal to
establish and maintain monogamy upon this American continent, and to
strike a blow at the patriarchal order of marriage, believed in by the
Latter-day Saints, in its decision in the Reynolds' case announced the
doctrine that religion consists in thought and matters of faith and
concerning matters of faith, and not actions, and the government is
restrained by the terms of the Constitution from any efforts to curtail
this freedom and liberty.  Wonderful doctrine!  A wonderful strain of
judicial thought to announce to the world, this wonderful doctrine that
the government should not attempt to restrain the exercise of thought, or
the exercise of faith!  I would like somebody, that knows how to defend
this doctrine, to tell me how any one man, or any set of men on the earth
could go to work and catch a thought and chain it up and imprison it, or
stop its flight, or root it out of the heart, or restrain it, or do away
with it.  Let them go to and try to chain the lightning, stop the sun from
shining, stop the rains from descending and the mist from arising from the
ocean, and when they have done this, they may talk about restraining men's
faith, and exercising control over the thoughts and faith of the people.
The fathers who framed our Constitution were not such dunces, I am happy
to say, as Attorney-General Devens, who put that nonsensical language and
doctrine into the mouths of the chief justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States--the fathers who framed our Constitution, I say, were not
such dunces, they did not attempt to place constitutional restrictions
upon the law-making power from any effort at making law for the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  And
the exercise of religion implies something more than mere faith and
thought.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.24, p.74 - p.75, Erastus Snow, April 6, 1883

====================

Let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this
subject--that is, the reason why God has established polygamy under the
present circumstances among this people.  If all the inhabitants of the
earth, at the present time, were righteous before God, and both males and
females were faithful in keeping His commandments, and the numbers of the
sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal, there would be no
necessity for any such institution.  Every righteous man could have his
wife and there would be no overplus of females.  But what are the facts in
relation to this matter?  Since old Pagan Rome and Greece--worshippers of
idols--passed a law confining man to one wife, there has been a great
surplus of females who have had no possible chance of getting married.
You may think this a strange statement, but it is a fact that those
nations were the founders of what is termed monogamy.  All other nations,
with few exceptions, had followed the Scriptural plan of having more wives
than one.  These nations, however, were very powerful and when
Christianity came to them, especially the Roman nation, it had to bow to
their mandates and customs, hence the Christians gradually adopted the
monogamic system.  The consequence was that a great many marriageable
ladies of those days, and of all generations from that time to the
present, have not had the privilege of husbands, as the one-wife system
has been established by law among the nations descended from the great
Roman empire--namely, the nations of modern Europe and the American
States.  This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the
foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most
revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans, for
as God has implanted, for a wise purpose, certain feelings in the breasts
of females as well as the males, the gratification of which is necessary
to health and happiness, and which can only be accomplished legitimately
in the married state, myriads of those who have been deprived of the
privilege of entering that state, rather than be deprived of the
gratification of those feelings altogether, have, in despair, given way to
wickedness and licentiousness; hence the whoredoms and prostitution among
the nations of the earth, where the "Mother of Harlots" has her seat.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.194 - p.195, Orson Pratt, October 7, 1869

=========================

It is necessary that this principle should be practiced under the auspices
and control of the Priesthood.  God has placed that Priesthood in the
Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this is a
principle which, if not practiced in the greatest holiness and purity,
might lead men into great sin, therefore the Priesthood is the more
necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this principle.
There might be circumstances and situations in which it would not be
wisdom in the mind of God for His people to practice this principle, but
so long as a people are guided by the Priesthood and revelations of God,
there is no danger of evil arising therefrom.  If we, as a people, had
attempted to practice this principle without revelation, it is likely that
we should have been led into grievous sins, and the condemnation of God
would have rested upon us; but the Church waited until the proper time
came, and then the people practiced it according to the mind and will of
God, making a sacrifice of their own feelings in so doing.  But the
history of the world goes to prove that the practice of this principle,
even by nations ignorant of the Gospel, has resulted in greater good to
them than the practice of monogamy or the one-wife system in the so-called
Christian nations.  To-day, Christendom holds itself and its institutions
aloft as a pattern for all men to follow.  If you travel throughout the
United States and through the nations of Europe in which Christianity
prevails, and talk with the people about their institutions, they will
boast of them as being the most permanent, indestructive and progressive
of any institutions existing upon the earth; yet it is a fact well known
to historians, that the Christian nations of Europe are the youngest
nations on the globe.  Where are the nations that have existed from time
immemorial?  They are not to be found in Christian monogamic Europe, but
in Asia, among the polygamic races--China, Japan, Hindostan and the
various races of that vast continent.  Those nations, from the most remote
times, practiced plural marriage handed down to them by their forefathers.
 Although they are looked upon by the nations of Europe as semi-civilized,
you will not find among them woman prostituted, debased and degraded as
she is through Christendom.  She may be treated coldly and degraded, but
among them, except where the Christian element prevails to a large extent,
she is not debased and polluted, as she is among the so-called Christian
nations.  It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of
which we have record have been monogamic.  Rome, with her arts, sciences
and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory
faded.  She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that
system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook
her.  The strongest sayings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament were
levelled against the dreadful corruptions practiced in Rome and wherever
the Romans held sway.  The leaven of their institutions had worked its way
into the Jewish nation, Jewry or Palestine being then a Roman province,
and governed by Roman officers, who brought with them their wicked
institutions, and Jesus denounced the practices which prevailed there.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.201 - p.202, George Q. Cannon, October 9,
1869

=========================

A great amount of this "fuss and feathers" that we have to-day is simply a
political ruse in the interest of party politics.  What for?  Why, the
brethren have told you.  Mormonism is very unpopular, and if they can only
do something that will be in opposition to Mormonism it will satisfy the
howling priests throughout the land, and a great many of their flocks.  As
was remarked by one of the brethren, when Jesus was crucified, Pilate and
Herod could be made friends.  When Mormonism is to be opposed, all men, or
at least a great many men, can unite in opposing it.  And they want to go
before the people and tell them that they have rooted out slavery, and now
they are after Mormonism, and wont you religious fanatics join in?  No,
excuse me, I mean, you pure and holy religious people, who are so humble
and posses so much of the spirit that dwelt in the lowly Jesus, wont you
help us to do this thing--wont you vote for us because we are doing this
thing?  Why, bless your souls, they would not hesitate to sweep us off the
face of the earth to get elected.  That is their feeling.  They care
nothing about human rights, liberty, or life, if they can bring about the
results desired.  They would despoil, destroy and overthrow this people to
accomplish their own end.  Well, the other party, it is true, would not be
very well suited about it, but they would not care to see it politically.
However, it is for us to do the best we can.  We have got to put our trust
in the living God.  We might ask--Will they derive any benefit from any
course taken against the Latter-day Saints?  No!  a thousand times no!!  I
tell you that the hand of God will be upon them for it, and every people,
be it this nation, or any other nation, that shall lift up their hands
against Zion shall be wasted away; and those that want to try it let them
try it, and it is them and their God for it.  But it is for us to fear
God, to keep his commandments; we can afford to do right whether other
people can or not.  Respect all men in their rights, in their position,
and in their privileges, politically and socially, and protect them in the
same; but be not partakers of their evil deeds, of their crimes, nor their
iniquities, that you have heard spoken about here to-day.  We do not want
them to force upon us their drinking saloons, their drunkenness, their
gambling, their debauchery and lasciviousness.  We do not want these
adjuncts of civilization.  We do not want them to force upon us that
institution of monogamy called the social evil.  We will be after them; we
will form ourselves into police and hunt them out and drag them from their
dens of infamy and expose them to the world.  We wont have their meanness,
with their feoticides and infanticides, forced upon us.  And you, sisters,
don't allow yourselves to become contaminated by rusting against their
polluted skirts.  Keep from them!  Let them wallow in their infamy, and
let us protect the right, and be for God and his Christ, for honor, for
truth, for virtue, purity and chastity, and for the building up of the
kingdom of God.  Amen.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.320 - p.321, John Taylor, October 6th,
1879

============================

Of course, this is the general view taken of it by Christian nations, as
shown in their acts and in their laws regulating it.  Although the Roman
Catholic Church prohibits intercourse with the sexes to sacred orders,
they being, according to the rites of the church forbidden to marry.  And
however much some may doubt the iniquity of their holy vows, it is a
matter too well known to call in question.  The more general sentiment of
Christians recognizes the purity and uprightness of marriage of a man to
one woman; and they quote the following words of the Apostle Paul to
testify to it, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but
whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."  But the majority of modern
Christians consider that for a man to marry more than one wife while she
lives and is his wife is sin.  Now I will undertake to say respecting the
two conditions of marriage, single and plural, that where the duties and
obligations are the same, and the husband is equally honorable, just and
virtuous, faithful and true to his wives and children, that there is not
necessarily any greater impurity existing between such a man and his
plural family, than between a man and his single family; that there is not
necessarily a defilement of the marriage bed, that there is not
necessarily defilement of the body or spirit.  When the institution of
marriage is founded in religious sentiment and is confirmed by the
enduring love of husband, wives and children, and the responsibilities
attending that relationship, as we find it in many of the ancient
worthies, there is not necessarily any defilement in plural marriage.
There was not necessarily defilement in father Abraham and other ancient
patriarchs and prophets who took to themselves a second or a third or a
fourth wife, any more than there was in those who confined themselves to
one wife.  Nor have I ever heard from any creature--and I have read and
heard much and reflected much, because our institution of marriage has
invited discussion and reflection upon this subject.  I have never yet
heard an argument that, to my mind, appeared sound against the marriage of
an honorable man to two women any more than to one.  And the only argument
that has ever been presented that has had a semblance of soundness is the
generally admitted fact of the near equality of the sexes which would seem
to foreshadow the general purpose and design of providence that one man
should have only one wife.  I have never heard an argument relating to the
physical effects of the institution, nor as relating to the state of
society that could not be applied just as appropriately to monogamy.  The
opposers of plural marriage make many declarations against us which are
untrue, which they do not understand because they accept the reports of
certain persons who give way to a lying spirit, and misrepresent and belie
people far better than themselves.  The selfishness and weakness of human
nature, the evils which manifest themselves from time to time between
families and between husband and wife, and between wives and children are
quoted as evils greatly to be deplored as growing out of this system.  I
will only say in regard to this, that those best acquainted with the inner
workings of the system among the Latter-day Saints throughout all of their
settlements, if they testify honestly and truthfully as to the result of
their careful observations extending over a period of over thirty
years--the time that this system of plural marriage has been practised by
us in these mountains, they would, in effect, say, that there is less
discontent, less strife and fewer family broils and less divorce, and less
casting off wives and casting upon the community of children without care,
than would be found in the same number of monogamic families.  And I may
here say, that statistics will bear me out in making this assertion.  To
those who are not posted in the matter this may appear incredible; and the
majority of the christian world would think it impossible judging from
their standpoint; and what they see and hear among themselves, and judging
by the spirit by which they are animated, they would, I admit, pronounce
this a thing impossible.  But it is simply because they are not imbued
with the faith of the Latter-day Saints, and this being the case they
cannot understand the motives that prompt us to enter into this
relationship.  They cannot comprehend the spirit that governs us, the
devout God-fearing spirit of self-sacrifice which leads us onward to all
that is noble, forbearing and long-suffering, that teaches us to love one
another and to be charitable to all men, and which teaches us that the
relationships which we make through the marriage covenant are but the
foundation of eternal glory and exaltation in the worlds to come; and it
also teaches us that the glories of the future that open up before us are
greatly dependent upon the faithfulness of our relationships and
associations in this life; and that a man must be found capable to
properly govern and guide his family and preserve in time the wives and
children that are given to him, leading them in the way of life and
salvation, and rearing his children in all that is pure and praiseworthy,
so that he can receive them in the morning of the first resurrection,
there to have the Father confirm upon him his wives and children, the
foundation of his individual kingdom which will exist for ever and ever.
The outside world cannot comprehend this, and simply because they cannot
believe it.  It is this same religious sentiment that prompts women and
the best of women, the most devout women, women of the purest motive and
character to enter into this sacred relationship, and to cause them to
determine in their own minds that they would sooner be associated with a
man who has proven himself a man of integrity, a man of strict virtue and
honor, who can be relied upon by God and man--they would rather trust
themselves with such a man than to be the only wife of a man devoid of
these qualifications, a man who, perhaps, for the want of such high
motives would be the victim of many vices, of whoredom, of concubinage or
illicit intercourse with the sexes, and defile himself and destroy the
confidence of his family in him, or he would perhaps indulge in
drunkenness and other kindred vices which would be the means of producing
the same result.  And such has been the experience of many women in
monogamy.  And I do not say that the weaknesses of mankind do not manifest
themselves in plural families; I do not say that there are not some who
may be urged on by fleshy lust, but if there are it results in their
making shipwreck of their faith and becoming, in time, a lasting disgrace
to themselves.  But where there is one example of this kind, under our
polygamic system, there are at least two under the monogamic order that
might be cited, who make shipwreck of their faith, who sacrifice their
honor, and whose family send forth a wail of grief for the loss of
confidence in husband and father.  Adultery, fornication, whoredom, God
will judge; every form of licentiousness He has condemned in His word from
the beginning of the world to the present.  And if follies are manifested
by some who profess to be Latter-day Saints in this direction, so we may
cite similar weakness manifested by ancient men of God; not, however, to
justify such cases but merely as examples of human weaknesses.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.226 - p.227 - p.228, Erastus Snow,
February 26th, 1882



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 10 Mar 2000 00:39:31 -0700

Notes from the "Question and Answer" session
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: gdm

The National Press Club, Washington D.C., March 8, 2000 (NOTE that these
are notes only - a summary of what was said. The questions were written by

the attendees at the luncheon and asked to Pres. Hinckley by the
oderator.)



The spiritual leader of the Mormon church, the Yes-on-22 campaign's major
source of money and volunteers, showed no inclination Wednesday to seek a
rollback of gay rights in California.

"I don't think it signals a more active political posture" for the church,
Gordon B. Hinckley said at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "We
are not anti-gay. We are pro-family."

------------------

For Some, Mormon Stance on Gay Issue Creates a Crisis of Conscience
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Sunday, March 5, 2000
BY DAN EGAN

...
"The ecclesiastical pressure has been enormous," says one former bishop,
who continues to hold a high church leadership position in the Bay Area.
"We've never seen anything like this." Even LDS Church President Gordon B.
Hinckley has weighed in.

"We regard it as not only our right, but our duty to oppose those forces
which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society," Hinckley said last
fall. "Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints
are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from
forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred
institution." At the same time, Hinckley says the church will continue "to
love and honor them [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God." The LDS
Church rarely wades into stormy political waters. But, Hinckley and other
leaders say, this is a moral issue, and it calls for political activism.

------------------------

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, February 6, 2000

Mormon Church: The Powerful Force Behind Proposition 22

DON LATTIN

Politics does make strange bedfellows, especially when you add sex,
religion and a little historical perspective.

One of the delicious ironies of the current political campaign concerns
the role of the Mormon church in the California Defense of Marriage
crusade, also known as the "Knight Initiative.'' Proposition 22 states, in
its entirely, that "only marriage between a man and woman is valid or
recognized in California.'' It is on the March 7 ballot as a rear-guard
action against persistent attempts to legitimize same-sex marriage in
church and state.

If one takes a somewhat longer view, the most notorious sexual outlaws in
American history are not today's gay rights' crusaders, but the founding
fathers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or the Mormon
church.

Joseph Smith Jr., the original Mormon prophet, was fomenting a radical
revolution in American religion and sexuality when he was imprisoned in an
Illinois jail and assassinated by a mob in the summer of 1844.  He was
also running for president and controlled an armed militia of
approximately 3,500 men.

During his lifetime, Smith publicly denied allegations of widespread
polygamy in his sect.  Today, it's widely acknowledged that Smith took at
least 28 wives, including the spouses and teenage daughters of his Mormon
brethren.  His successor, Brigham Young, brought the persecuted polygamous
sect to the Utah wilderness and for decades continued the practice of
"plural marriage'' in open defiance of Congress.  Officially, the church
ended the practice of polygamy in 1890, as a condition to get Utah
admitted to the union as a state.

----

[Commentary, it is interesting that this article takes what Mormons would
consider a negative slat, but ironically accepts the churches whitewashed
and false version of history that sanctioned polygamy ended in 1890!

See a new web page added by permission:

http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/postman.htm

That deals extensively with post 1890 polygamy]

-------------------

[Commentary, The old excuse of why we do not live section 132 today is
that it is against the law of the land.  Yet the church, instead of
struggling to try to get the laws changed so that we can live our
religions to it's fullest like our ancestors did, the church works to see
that the law does NOT allow marriage of anything but ONE man and ONE
women!!!

How can this match with our history?]

---

LDS Representative Tells Vermont Legislature to Amend Constitution
(Opponents testify before Legislature)
Boston Globe (AP) 13Jan00 N1
By Ross Sneyd: Associated Press

MONTPELIER, VERMONT -- In the wake of last month's Vermont Supreme Court
decision that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same benefits
enjoyed by married couples, the Vermont legislature held hearings what
legislation should be enacted to implement the decision. Opponents of
same-sex marriage, including the LDS Church, testified before the
Vermont House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, arguing that the
legislature should either ignore the decision or try to enact a
constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The LDS Church was represented by Burlington lawyer Thomas McCormick,
who helped write a brief to the Vermont Supreme Court for its recent
decision, now called the Baker decision. McCormick told the Judiciary
committee that he thinks the best way to respond was to seek an
amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between one
man and one woman.

McCormick told the committee that he thinks permitting same-sex
marriages will lead to other forms of marriage. "What is going to mean
if you redefine marriage today that says, yes, the very attractive
couples in the Baker case can be married? What are you going to say
tomorrow when three or more people want to get married? If you say yes
to same-sex couples, what do you say to two sisters or two brothers who
want to be married?"

http://www.burstnet.com/ads/ad6305a-map.cgi

From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/013/region/Opponents_testify_before_Legis:.
shtml

=============================

Talk about polygamy!  There is no true philosopher on the face of the
earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out
according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the
raising of healthy, robust children!  A person possessing a moderate
knowledge of physiology, or who has paid attention to his own nature and
the nature of the gentler sex, can readily understand this.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.317, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870

=============================

Of all men upon the face of the earth, we are the most favoured; we have
the fulness of the everlasting Gospel, the keys of revelation and
exaltation, the privilege of making our own rules and regulations, and are
not opposed by anybody.  No king, prince, potentate, or dominion, has
rightful authority to crush and oppress us.  We breathe the free air, we
have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they envy us our
position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed
race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live
all their days under the dominion of one wife.  They ought to be ashamed
of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their
practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who
so much better understand the social relations.  Journal of Discourses,
Vol.3, p.290 - p.291, George Albert Smith, April 6, 1856

======================

We have another example in the three Hebrew children, who refused to bow
down to a golden image that had been set up.  Shall we call it monogamy?
[Laughter.]

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.33 - p.34 - p.35 - p.36, John Taylor,
March 5th, 1882

===========================

The Bible is the foundation of most of the criminal laws of Christendom.
Point out in the Bible where polygamy is a crime, and then you may say we
have no right to embrace it as part of our religious creed, and pretend it
as part of our constitutional rights.  If we embrace murder, stealing,
robbing, cheating our neighbour, as a part of our religious rights, then
the Constitution will condemn us.  Not so with polygamy.  If we should
embrace adultery in our religious creed, then we may be condemned as
criminals by the laws of God and man; but when it comes to polygamy, which
is not condemned by the Bible any more than monogamy, and embrace that as
a part and portion of our creed, the Constitution gives us an undeniable
right of worshipping God in this respect as in all others.  Congress have
no more constitutional right to pass a law against polygamy that they ave
to pass a law against monogamy, or against a man living in celibacy.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.361, Orson Pratt, July 24, 1859

=======================

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of
Heaven among men.  Such a system was commenced by the founders of the
Roman empire.  That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by
wandering brigands.  When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was
evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with
their neighbours, depended upon introducing females into their body
politic, so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbours.
The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one
man.  Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of
monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged.  Thus this monogamic order of
marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine
institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.9, p.322, Brigham Young, July 6, 1862

============================

Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations
which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the
faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles,
which must so far exceed those of monogamy, as the conditions
responsibilities and power of increase are greater.  This is my view and
testimony in relation to this matter.  I believe it is a doctrine that
should be taught and understood.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

===================

The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of
marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by
the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine
law, but upon physiological and scientific principles.  In the latter
view, the wives are even more benefitted, if possible, than the husband
physically.  But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes,
and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are
immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than
in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage
covenant.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.30, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878

=====================

I don't often say anything in regard to plural marriage; but there has
been a great deal said about the misery of women in that order.  Well, if
in monogamy women do not have any trouble, if it were all serene in that
order of marriage--no cause of difference of feeling or of jealousy--then
there might be some cause for this hue and cry.  People imagine, you know,
that in a man's family where there are several wives, they must be very
jealous of one another--that they must tear each other's hair and all that
kind of thing.  Well, as I have said, if there was never any jealousy, or
any feelings of unhappiness in monogamic families, then they might say
something.  I have had a little experience both ways, and though not a
woman, yet I am bold to bear my testimony that there is more happiness in
the number of families living in plural marriage, than there is in an
equal number of families in the other condition.  And I speak from my own
experience in regard to these matters.  I think I lived as happily in
monogamy as anybody, and I think, too, that I live as happily in plural
marriage as anybody else.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.24, p.320, Daniel H. Wells, October 28th, 1883

===========================

... and no better time have I had in thirty years of married life than
when I had three wives given me of God, and occupying but one habitation.
The power of God was in that home; the spirit of peace was there, the
spirit of intelligence was there; and we had our ever present testimony
that God recognised the patriarchal order, that which had been practiced
by His servants ages and ages ago and revealed to us in the dispensation
of the fullness of times; and although two of these have gone behind the
veil, they went there with a consciousness of having done their duty in
this life, and that they would meet in the life beyond those who agreed
with them in practice and in faith; from this condition came the
discipline of life, the power of self-restraint, a tender regard for each
others' feelings, and a sort of jealousy for each others' rights, all
tempered by the consideration that relations meant to be enduring claimed
more love and interest and soul than did monogamy under its best
conditions.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.124, Henry W. Naisbitt, March 8, 1885

======================

But it is a most difficult thing to get these Latter-day Saints to
understand the principles that are as plain as the noonday sun--that they
should receive readily, and why?  Because, as I have said, they are heirs
of the traditions of centuries that have come down through the dark ages.
It is a wonderful thing to do what we have done respecting woman.  Look at
what monogamy has done.  Look at its effects; trace its influence from the
death of the Apostles, or soon afterwards, down to this the nineteenth
century, and what do we behold?  Why, in every generation a large
percentage of our sisters has been consigned either to that nameless
condition of which it is a shame to speak, or have died without ever
knowing the joys of maternity.  When I think of it, when I read the
history of the boasted civilization of the Greeks and the Romans, and
think of the boasted civilization of our day, inherited from these
nations, and witness its effects, I wonder how man, standing up in the
face of heaven, dare look at woman and talk about being her protector.
Read the history of the sex and of the frightful evils which have been
brought upon our sitters through man's accursed traditions and evils.  If
it were to be told to another people differently situated to us, with
different traditions to us, they could not believe that intelligent man
would entertain for one moment, or that women themselves, in view of what
their sex has suffered, would cherish and cling to the wretched traditions
that have prevailed in christendom and to a certain extent yet prevail in
our midst.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.197 - p.198 - p.199, George Q. Cannon,
April 6, 1879

======================

Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your
Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for
yourselves, that your minds may be divested of false traditions and early
impressions that are untrue.  Those who are acquainted with the history of
the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule
and monogamy the exception.  Since the founding of the Roman empire
monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that.
The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and
made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among
them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all
Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and
whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New
World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions
both national and religious.  Polygamy did not have its origin with Joseph
Smith, but it existed from the beginning.  So far as I am concerned as an
individual, I did not ask for it; I never desired it; and if I ever had a
trial of my faith in the world, it was when Joseph Smith revealed that
doctrine to me; and I had to pray incessantly and exercise faith before
the Lord until He revealed to me the truth, and I was satisfied.  I say
this at the present time for the satisfaction of both saint and sinner.
Now, here are the commandments of the Lord, and here are the wishes of
wicked men, which shall we obey?  It is the Lord and them for it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.127 - p.128, Brigham Young, June 18, 1865

==========================

Do you see anything very bad in this?  Just ask yourselves, historians,
when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth?  When those
buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not
steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a
man should have but one woman.  And this started monogamy and the downfall
of the plurality system.  In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over
Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less.  This was the rise,
start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was
there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have
but one wife.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.12, p.261, Brigham Young, August 9th, 1868

===========================

Some want to destroy "the twin relics--slavery and polygamy"--and
establish monogamy, with a brothel on every corner of each block in this
city.  This reminds me of what I was told the President of the United
States said to a gentleman who is a preacher and a member of Congress.  He
took our President to task for not destroying both "the twins" together,
that is, polygamy as well as slavery.  After he had laid the whole matter
before the President in an elaborate manner, showing him the necessity of
destroying this people who believed in polygamy, the President said "It
makes me think of a little circumstance that happened with me in my
younger days.  I was ploughing a piece of newly cleared land, by and bye I
came to a big log; I could not plow over it, for it was too high, and it
was so heavy I could not move it out of the way, and so wet I could not
burn it; I stood and looked at it and studied it, and finally concluded to
plow around it."  It looks as if they were trying to plow around
Mormonism.  They and the Lord for it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.306, Brigham Young, June 4, 1864

======================

There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons, who suppose that they
believe the Bible, that Christ, when he came, did away with plural
marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and there are
certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of the
subject, one of which is found in Paul's first epistle to Timothy (3 chap.
2 v.), where Paul says:  "A bishop should be blameless, the husband of one
wife."  The friends of monogamy render it in this way:  "A bishop should
be blameless, the husband of but one wife."  That would imply that any one
but a bishop might have more.  But they will say, "We mean a bishop should
be blameless, the husband of one wife only."  Well, that would also admit
of the construction that other people might have more than one.  I
understand it to mean that a bishop must be a married man.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.38, George Albert Smith, October 8, 1869

========================

I will say a few words on a subject which has been mentioned here--that
is, celestial marriage.  God has given a revelation to seal for time and
for eternity, just as he did in days of old.  In our own days he has
commanded his people to receive the New and Everlasting Covenant, and he
has said, "If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned."  We have
received it.  What is the result of it?  I look at the world, or that
small portion of it which believes in monogamy.  It is only a small
portion of the human family who do believe in it, for from nine to ten of
the twelve hundred millions that live on the earth believe in and practice
polygamy.  Well, what is the result?  Right in our land the doctrine and
practice of plurality of wives tend to the preservation of life.  Do you
know it?  Do you see it?  What is our duty?  To preserve life or destroy
it?  Can any of you answer?  Why yes, it is to perpetuate and preserve
life.  But what principle do we see prevailing in our own land?  What is
that of which, in the East, West, North and South, ministers in their
pulpits complain, and against which both gentlemen and ladies lecture?  It
is against taking life.  They say, "Cease the destruction of pre-natal
life!"  Our doctrine and practice make and preserve life; theirs destroy
it.  Which is the best, saying nothing about revelation, which is the best
in a moral point of view, to preserve or to destroy the life which God
designs to bring upon the earth.  Just look at it and decide for
yourselves.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.14, p.43, Brigham Young, May 8, 1870

======================

Now, if in this respect a Bishop had proved himself a wise and discreet
father and husband, a man who knew how to rule well his own family, this
was a qualification recommending him as a suitable person to be trusted
with the office of a Bishop.  And how much more suitable would he be for
that position if he were perfectly able to govern two or more wives, and
to rear their children in the fear of God?  The very fact that a Bishop
must be the husband of one wife, it we admit the correctness of the views
of our Christian friends in this regard (which, however, we do not by any
means) the logical inference is, that any other officer or member in the
Church but a Bishop was at liberty to have more than one wife.  For if he
intended it to be a general prohibition, why should he confine it to the
Bishop, why did he not make it general?  It is sheer sophistry on the part
of our sectarian friends and groundless assertion that monogamy, to the
exclusion of polygamy was introduced into Europe by the primitive
Christians; for that system of marriage was introduced prior to the
establishment of Christianity in Europe, by the Roman empire, and became
the form of marriage in early times when, as history alleges, men were
more numerous in Rome than women.  And the earlier settlers of Rome were
political refugees, renegades and scape-graces from surrounding nations,
and were under the necessity of making raids upon their neighbors to
procure wives; and it became a matter of necessity and for mutual
protection, to limit the number to one.  It was the Roman state that
limited the number of a man's wives to one, and not the Christian church;
and this being done, it was perpetuated.  And history teaches us that
under that monogamic system, Rome became the most licentious of all
nations.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.297 - p.298 - p.299 - p.300, Erastus
Snow, October 7, 1882

====================

We were not sent here to manifest the fruits of the flesh but those of the
spirit; and if the hearts of any wives of the elders of Israel are
breaking, by reason of their husbands' conduct, may God have mercy on such
husbands, for knowing better, they sin against light in transgressing
their covenants.  The allegiance of a wife in this Church is not due to an
unfaithful, deceiving or cruel husband.  And he who regards his wife as
the creature of his sinful pleasure, made and given to gratify his fallen
nature is unworthy of a wife or to be the father of children.  Were I to
seek to find happiness in the marriage relation, I should expect to find
it most abundant, perfect and pure in Utah, notwithstanding all that is
said to the contrary.  And this conclusion is reached after years of
observation here and abroad.  Nowhere exists so great confidence between
husbands and wives as in Utah.  Nowhere is sexual impurity regarded with
greater disgust, or chastity esteemed more highly.  Philosophers,
preachers and moralists may insist on the enforcement of Roman instituted
monogamy, but its practice throughout the Christian world is fraught with
all manner of deceivableness, of iniquity and sexual abominations.  Better
practice what we preach and preach what we practice, leaving no room for
distrust; for, as between man and wife, where confidence dies, there you
may dig the grave of love.  Destroy one and the other cannot exist.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.26, p.315, Moses Thatcher, August 28, 1885

======================

Now, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its great zeal to
establish and maintain monogamy upon this American continent, and to
strike a blow at the patriarchal order of marriage, believed in by the
Latter-day Saints, in its decision in the Reynolds' case announced the
doctrine that religion consists in thought and matters of faith and
concerning matters of faith, and not actions, and the government is
restrained by the terms of the Constitution from any efforts to curtail
this freedom and liberty.  Wonderful doctrine!  A wonderful strain of
judicial thought to announce to the world, this wonderful doctrine that
the government should not attempt to restrain the exercise of thought, or
the exercise of faith!  I would like somebody, that knows how to defend
this doctrine, to tell me how any one man, or any set of men on the earth
could go to work and catch a thought and chain it up and imprison it, or
stop its flight, or root it out of the heart, or restrain it, or do away
with it.  Let them go to and try to chain the lightning, stop the sun from
shining, stop the rains from descending and the mist from arising from the
ocean, and when they have done this, they may talk about restraining men's
faith, and exercising control over the thoughts and faith of the people.
The fathers who framed our Constitution were not such dunces, I am happy
to say, as Attorney-General Devens, who put that nonsensical language and
doctrine into the mouths of the chief justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States--the fathers who framed our Constitution, I say, were not
such dunces, they did not attempt to place constitutional restrictions
upon the law-making power from any effort at making law for the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  And
the exercise of religion implies something more than mere faith and
thought.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.24, p.74 - p.75, Erastus Snow, April 6, 1883

====================

Let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this
subject--that is, the reason why God has established polygamy under the
present circumstances among this people.  If all the inhabitants of the
earth, at the present time, were righteous before God, and both males and
females were faithful in keeping His commandments, and the numbers of the
sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal, there would be no
necessity for any such institution.  Every righteous man could have his
wife and there would be no overplus of females.  But what are the facts in
relation to this matter?  Since old Pagan Rome and Greece--worshippers of
idols--passed a law confining man to one wife, there has been a great
surplus of females who have had no possible chance of getting married.
You may think this a strange statement, but it is a fact that those
nations were the founders of what is termed monogamy.  All other nations,
with few exceptions, had followed the Scriptural plan of having more wives
than one.  These nations, however, were very powerful and when
Christianity came to them, especially the Roman nation, it had to bow to
their mandates and customs, hence the Christians gradually adopted the
monogamic system.  The consequence was that a great many marriageable
ladies of those days, and of all generations from that time to the
present, have not had the privilege of husbands, as the one-wife system
has been established by law among the nations descended from the great
Roman empire--namely, the nations of modern Europe and the American
States.  This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the
foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most
revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans, for
as God has implanted, for a wise purpose, certain feelings in the breasts
of females as well as the males, the gratification of which is necessary
to health and happiness, and which can only be accomplished legitimately
in the married state, myriads of those who have been deprived of the
privilege of entering that state, rather than be deprived of the
gratification of those feelings altogether, have, in despair, given way to
wickedness and licentiousness; hence the whoredoms and prostitution among
the nations of the earth, where the "Mother of Harlots" has her seat.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.194 - p.195, Orson Pratt, October 7, 1869

=========================

It is necessary that this principle should be practiced under the auspices
and control of the Priesthood.  God has placed that Priesthood in the
Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this is a
principle which, if not practiced in the greatest holiness and purity,
might lead men into great sin, therefore the Priesthood is the more
necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this principle.
There might be circumstances and situations in which it would not be
wisdom in the mind of God for His people to practice this principle, but
so long as a people are guided by the Priesthood and revelations of God,
there is no danger of evil arising therefrom.  If we, as a people, had
attempted to practice this principle without revelation, it is likely that
we should have been led into grievous sins, and the condemnation of God
would have rested upon us; but the Church waited until the proper time
came, and then the people practiced it according to the mind and will of
God, making a sacrifice of their own feelings in so doing.  But the
history of the world goes to prove that the practice of this principle,
even by nations ignorant of the Gospel, has resulted in greater good to
them than the practice of monogamy or the one-wife system in the so-called
Christian nations.  To-day, Christendom holds itself and its institutions
aloft as a pattern for all men to follow.  If you travel throughout the
United States and through the nations of Europe in which Christianity
prevails, and talk with the people about their institutions, they will
boast of them as being the most permanent, indestructive and progressive
of any institutions existing upon the earth; yet it is a fact well known
to historians, that the Christian nations of Europe are the youngest
nations on the globe.  Where are the nations that have existed from time
immemorial?  They are not to be found in Christian monogamic Europe, but
in Asia, among the polygamic races--China, Japan, Hindostan and the
various races of that vast continent.  Those nations, from the most remote
times, practiced plural marriage handed down to them by their forefathers.
 Although they are looked upon by the nations of Europe as semi-civilized,
you will not find among them woman prostituted, debased and degraded as
she is through Christendom.  She may be treated coldly and degraded, but
among them, except where the Christian element prevails to a large extent,
she is not debased and polluted, as she is among the so-called Christian
nations.  It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of
which we have record have been monogamic.  Rome, with her arts, sciences
and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory
faded.  She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that
system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook
her.  The strongest sayings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament were
levelled against the dreadful corruptions practiced in Rome and wherever
the Romans held sway.  The leaven of their institutions had worked its way
into the Jewish nation, Jewry or Palestine being then a Roman province,
and governed by Roman officers, who brought with them their wicked
institutions, and Jesus denounced the practices which prevailed there.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.201 - p.202, George Q. Cannon, October 9,
1869

=========================

A great amount of this "fuss and feathers" that we have to-day is simply a
political ruse in the interest of party politics.  What for?  Why, the
brethren have told you.  Mormonism is very unpopular, and if they can only
do something that will be in opposition to Mormonism it will satisfy the
howling priests throughout the land, and a great many of their flocks.  As
was remarked by one of the brethren, when Jesus was crucified, Pilate and
Herod could be made friends.  When Mormonism is to be opposed, all men, or
at least a great many men, can unite in opposing it.  And they want to go
before the people and tell them that they have rooted out slavery, and now
they are after Mormonism, and wont you religious fanatics join in?  No,
excuse me, I mean, you pure and holy religious people, who are so humble
and posses so much of the spirit that dwelt in the lowly Jesus, wont you
help us to do this thing--wont you vote for us because we are doing this
thing?  Why, bless your souls, they would not hesitate to sweep us off the
face of the earth to get elected.  That is their feeling.  They care
nothing about human rights, liberty, or life, if they can bring about the
results desired.  They would despoil, destroy and overthrow this people to
accomplish their own end.  Well, the other party, it is true, would not be
very well suited about it, but they would not care to see it politically.
However, it is for us to do the best we can.  We have got to put our trust
in the living God.  We might ask--Will they derive any benefit from any
course taken against the Latter-day Saints?  No!  a thousand times no!!  I
tell you that the hand of God will be upon them for it, and every people,
be it this nation, or any other nation, that shall lift up their hands
against Zion shall be wasted away; and those that want to try it let them
try it, and it is them and their God for it.  But it is for us to fear
God, to keep his commandments; we can afford to do right whether other
people can or not.  Respect all men in their rights, in their position,
and in their privileges, politically and socially, and protect them in the
same; but be not partakers of their evil deeds, of their crimes, nor their
iniquities, that you have heard spoken about here to-day.  We do not want
them to force upon us their drinking saloons, their drunkenness, their
gambling, their debauchery and lasciviousness.  We do not want these
adjuncts of civilization.  We do not want them to force upon us that
institution of monogamy called the social evil.  We will be after them; we
will form ourselves into police and hunt them out and drag them from their
dens of infamy and expose them to the world.  We wont have their meanness,
with their feoticides and infanticides, forced upon us.  And you, sisters,
don't allow yourselves to become contaminated by rusting against their
polluted skirts.  Keep from them!  Let them wallow in their infamy, and
let us protect the right, and be for God and his Christ, for honor, for
truth, for virtue, purity and chastity, and for the building up of the
kingdom of God.  Amen.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.320 - p.321, John Taylor, October 6th,
1879

============================

Of course, this is the general view taken of it by Christian nations, as
shown in their acts and in their laws regulating it.  Although the Roman
Catholic Church prohibits intercourse with the sexes to sacred orders,
they being, according to the rites of the church forbidden to marry.  And
however much some may doubt the iniquity of their holy vows, it is a
matter too well known to call in question.  The more general sentiment of
Christians recognizes the purity and uprightness of marriage of a man to
one woman; and they quote the following words of the Apostle Paul to
testify to it, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but
whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."  But the majority of modern
Christians consider that for a man to marry more than one wife while she
lives and is his wife is sin.  Now I will undertake to say respecting the
two conditions of marriage, single and plural, that where the duties and
obligations are the same, and the husband is equally honorable, just and
virtuous, faithful and true to his wives and children, that there is not
necessarily any greater impurity existing between such a man and his
plural family, than between a man and his single family; that there is not
necessarily a defilement of the marriage bed, that there is not
necessarily defilement of the body or spirit.  When the institution of
marriage is founded in religious sentiment and is confirmed by the
enduring love of husband, wives and children, and the responsibilities
attending that relationship, as we find it in many of the ancient
worthies, there is not necessarily any defilement in plural marriage.
There was not necessarily defilement in father Abraham and other ancient
patriarchs and prophets who took to themselves a second or a third or a
fourth wife, any more than there was in those who confined themselves to
one wife.  Nor have I ever heard from any creature--and I have read and
heard much and reflected much, because our institution of marriage has
invited discussion and reflection upon this subject.  I have never yet
heard an argument that, to my mind, appeared sound against the marriage of
an honorable man to two women any more than to one.  And the only argument
that has ever been presented that has had a semblance of soundness is the
generally admitted fact of the near equality of the sexes which would seem
to foreshadow the general purpose and design of providence that one man
should have only one wife.  I have never heard an argument relating to the
physical effects of the institution, nor as relating to the state of
society that could not be applied just as appropriately to monogamy.  The
opposers of plural marriage make many declarations against us which are
untrue, which they do not understand because they accept the reports of
certain persons who give way to a lying spirit, and misrepresent and belie
people far better than themselves.  The selfishness and weakness of human
nature, the evils which manifest themselves from time to time between
families and between husband and wife, and between wives and children are
quoted as evils greatly to be deplored as growing out of this system.  I
will only say in regard to this, that those best acquainted with the inner
workings of the system among the Latter-day Saints throughout all of their
settlements, if they testify honestly and truthfully as to the result of
their careful observations extending over a period of over thirty
years--the time that this system of plural marriage has been practised by
us in these mountains, they would, in effect, say, that there is less
discontent, less strife and fewer family broils and less divorce, and less
casting off wives and casting upon the community of children without care,
than would be found in the same number of monogamic families.  And I may
here say, that statistics will bear me out in making this assertion.  To
those who are not posted in the matter this may appear incredible; and the
majority of the christian world would think it impossible judging from
their standpoint; and what they see and hear among themselves, and judging
by the spirit by which they are animated, they would, I admit, pronounce
this a thing impossible.  But it is simply because they are not imbued
with the faith of the Latter-day Saints, and this being the case they
cannot understand the motives that prompt us to enter into this
relationship.  They cannot comprehend the spirit that governs us, the
devout God-fearing spirit of self-sacrifice which leads us onward to all
that is noble, forbearing and long-suffering, that teaches us to love one
another and to be charitable to all men, and which teaches us that the
relationships which we make through the marriage covenant are but the
foundation of eternal glory and exaltation in the worlds to come; and it
also teaches us that the glories of the future that open up before us are
greatly dependent upon the faithfulness of our relationships and
associations in this life; and that a man must be found capable to
properly govern and guide his family and preserve in time the wives and
children that are given to him, leading them in the way of life and
salvation, and rearing his children in all that is pure and praiseworthy,
so that he can receive them in the morning of the first resurrection,
there to have the Father confirm upon him his wives and children, the
foundation of his individual kingdom which will exist for ever and ever.
The outside world cannot comprehend this, and simply because they cannot
believe it.  It is this same religious sentiment that prompts women and
the best of women, the most devout women, women of the purest motive and
character to enter into this sacred relationship, and to cause them to
determine in their own minds that they would sooner be associated with a
man who has proven himself a man of integrity, a man of strict virtue and
honor, who can be relied upon by God and man--they would rather trust
themselves with such a man than to be the only wife of a man devoid of
these qualifications, a man who, perhaps, for the want of such high
motives would be the victim of many vices, of whoredom, of concubinage or
illicit intercourse with the sexes, and defile himself and destroy the
confidence of his family in him, or he would perhaps indulge in
drunkenness and other kindred vices which would be the means of producing
the same result.  And such has been the experience of many women in
monogamy.  And I do not say that the weaknesses of mankind do not manifest
themselves in plural families; I do not say that there are not some who
may be urged on by fleshy lust, but if there are it results in their
making shipwreck of their faith and becoming, in time, a lasting disgrace
to themselves.  But where there is one example of this kind, under our
polygamic system, there are at least two under the monogamic order that
might be cited, who make shipwreck of their faith, who sacrifice their
honor, and whose family send forth a wail of grief for the loss of
confidence in husband and father.  Adultery, fornication, whoredom, God
will judge; every form of licentiousness He has condemned in His word from
the beginning of the world to the present.  And if follies are manifested
by some who profess to be Latter-day Saints in this direction, so we may
cite similar weakness manifested by ancient men of God; not, however, to
justify such cases but merely as examples of human weaknesses.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.226 - p.227 - p.228, Erastus Snow,
February 26th, 1882



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 10 Mar 2000 00:46:33 -0700

Persecution Follows Revelation I do not believe there ever was a people
who
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: gdm

were guided by revelation, or acknowledged of the Lord as his people, who
were not hated and persecuted by the wicked and the corrupt, and perhaps
no

people were ever more persecuted than this people would be if it were in
the power of the enemy today to persecute us as it was in the power of
Nero

and the Romans to persecute the Saints in their day. There never was a
time

when it was more fixed and determined in the heart of the wicked to fight
against and destroy the kingdom from the earth than now, and their failure

will be due only to the impossibility of the task they have undertaken.
And

this is an evidence to everyone that God's Priesthood is here, that many
of

the Saints are magnifying their calling and honoring the Priesthood and
also the Lord, both with their lives and with their substance, which are
his.  Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.46 Deseret Weekly News, Vol. 24,

p. 708, 1875.

[Commentary, when President Hinkley was asked by a reporter, shortly after

assuming office, if he received revelations, he replied that he got warm
feelings in answer to prays, he did not claim to receive Revelations like
other prophets had in the past.  He recently published a book that did not

quote any LDS scriptures or unique LDS teachings.  This could be why he is

not feeling any persecution.]

[I did not do a good job of quoting this from memory so here is the quote
followed by the source and the entire text.]

Q Mormons refer to you as prophet and revelator. I'm curious: What do you
consider to be the scope of your prophetic calling and access to the
divine?

A In the first place, we have a great deal of revelation that was
accumulated over the years. We don't need very much revelation. We just
need to pay more attention to what we have. But there comes a time when we

need revelation on something. We pray about it. We fast about it. We go to

the Lord about it.

And there comes a perception, an understanding, of what we ought to do.

And it's very real. And it works.

---------


HEAD OF MORMON CHURCH TACKLES TOUGH QUESTIONS LEADER TALKS ABOUT DISSENT,
WOMEN'S ROLES, MEMBERSHIP AS CHURCH GROWS WORLDWIDE

Published: Saturday, March 22, 1997

Section: Front

Page: 21A

BY RICHARD SCHEININ, Mercury News Religion and Ethics Writer

WHEN Gordon B. Hinckley walks into a room full of Mormon believers, they
typically break into song: ''We thank thee, Oh God, for a prophet.'' For
this is how the world's 9.7 million Mormons regard Hinckley: as God's
living prophet on Earth.

Ordained two years ago as 15th president of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, Hinckley, 86, visited Santa Clara this week to give a
speech on Mormonism's global expansion.

Born in the United States early in the 19th century, Mormonism now has
more
adherents outside this country than in it. As it expands worldwide, the
Mormon Church strains to train new leaders and build new facilities.

''Our greatest problem is growth, but what a wonderful problem to have,''
Hinckley said.

In an interview, he was willing to talk about difficult topics --
intellectual dissent in the church, women's issues. But it was always with

a deft hand: Are Mormon women happy with their lot? Of course: ''You ask
my
wife!''

Q Is there still something fundamentally American about the Mormon Church?

A The church originated here because there was a climate of freedom of
worship. . . . Now, America occupies a place in our theology, yes. But
we're not an American church, we're a world church. All of the local
congregations in the church are presided over by local men. The leaders in

Japan are Japanese. People in Australia are Australians.

Q But doesn't the character of the church change as it expands globally?

A No. . . . We make some little adjustments once in a while in
organization, but the doctrine remains the same. And no matter where we
go,
that same doctrine is taught. And we have no difficulty adjusting to
cultures . . .

in other lands. . . .

We don't get ourselves involved in politics. We believe in honoring,
obeying and sustaining the law wherever we go. Cultures are not a big
barrier.

People are the same everywhere. . . . We're all sons and daughters of God,

and we respond in very much the same way to the truths which are taught
us.

Q Do you like becoming a part of the mainstream?

A Well, I don't know that we're any more of the mainstream now than we
were
a hundred years ago! But let me say this: We recognize the good in all
churches. To those of other churches we simply say, ''You bring all the
good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it.'' . . . Yes,
(Mormonism) is getting more widely accepted, because this is an age of
information.

The truth gets around faster and better.

Q Critics question the church's membership statistics: They say lots of
people come to one or two meetings, then fall away, but remain on the
rolls.

A I was looking at our missionary report this morning. It indicates that
there's a (worldwide) retention rate of 80 to 85 percent. Now, we lose
some.

Every big organization does. But I think we have less of a loss of people
than other churches. Because we're a church of activity. . . . The work is

all done by the local people. The butcher, the baker, the
candlestick-maker.

They're active. They carry the work forward in these local units
(congregations, known as ''wards'') of which there are some 23,000 across
the world. And it's work that develops faith.

Q Last week in Los Angeles, you said Mormon women are ''satisfied and
happy.'' But women are not allowed to join the priesthood. Are there some
women who would like to join it?

A Oh, I think so. We have a few, yes. A handful. But I think by and large
the women of this church are very happy with their present status. They
have their own organization: 3.9 million members across the world. It's
the
largest women's organization that I know of, anywhere. They have their own

officers, their own presidency, their own board. And those officers sit on

other boards and committees of the church where they make a definite
contribution. They're a happy lot. You ask my wife!

Q How long have you been married?

A Sixty years. . . . Twenty-five grandchildren. Eighteen
great-grandchildren, yes.

Q Another common public perception: People say the church doesn't have
room
for intellectuals and dissidents.

A I categorically deny that. The fact is that the church fosters
education.

We maintain the largest church-sponsored university in America with 27,000

students. We believe in education. It's a fundamental part of our
doctrine.

We encourage our people to be educated. . . . This church grew out of
intellectual curiosity.

We don't have any trouble with that problem. Now, once in a while we get
somebody who stands up, fights the church, tries to tear it down, this way

and the other, and we take action. But that's very seldom. Really, those
are remote cases.

Q I understand the church is filing a brief opposing the state of Hawaii's

recognition of same-sex marriage.

A We're opposed to same-sex marriage. The matter's under review by the
legislature now. We don't know what the outcome will be. But we've been
actively involved as part of a broad coalition . . . including the
Catholics, in opposing same-sex marriage.

Q Mormons refer to you as prophet and revelator. I'm curious: What do you
consider to be the scope of your prophetic calling and access to the
divine?

A In the first place, we have a great deal of revelation that was
accumulated over the years. We don't need very much revelation. We just
need to pay more attention to what we have. But there comes a time when we

need revelation on something. We pray about it. We fast about it. We go to

the Lord about it.

And there comes a perception, an understanding, of what we ought to do.

And it's very real. And it works.

Copyright 1997, The San Jose Mercury News. Unauthorized reproduction
prohibited.


The San Jose Mercury News archives are stored on a SAVE (tm) newspaper
library system from MediaStream, Inc., a Knight-Ridder Inc. company.



Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Pope in Historic Plea to Pardon Church Sins
Date: 13 Mar 2000 13:26:21 -0700

[Commentary below]

Pope in Historic Plea to Pardon Church Sins

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - In one of the most significant acts of his
papacy, Pope John Paul asked forgiveness on Sunday for the many past sins
of his Church, including its treatment of Jews, heretics, women and native
peoples.

It was the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that one of
its leaders has sought such a sweeping pardon.

Wearing the purple vestments of Lenten mourning and speaking at the heart
of Catholicism in St Peter's Basilica, the Pope and his top cardinals
listed the many past sins of their Church, grouped into seven categories.

``We forgive and we ask for forgiveness,'' the Pope said in his homily
during the unprecedented ceremony, held on the Catholic Church's ``Day of
Forgiveness'' for the 2000 Holy Year.

There was great curiosity before the ceremony about how specific the Pope
would be when speaking of the Jews.

The prayer for forgiveness for sins against Jews, which was read by
Cardinal Edward Cassidy, said in part:

``Let us pray that, in recalling the sufferings endured by the people of
Israel throughout history, Christians will acknowledge the sins committed
by not a few of their number against the people of the Covenant....''

The Pope then added in his own words: ``We are deeply saddened by the
behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children
of yours (the Jews) to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to
commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.''

There was no specific reference to the Holocaust, in which the Nazis
killed some six million Jews.

Last week Italian Jews called on the Pope, who visits Jerusalem later this
month, to be as specific as possible about the Holocaust during Sunday's
mass.

But Rabbi David Rosen, head of the Jerusalem office of the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith, said expectations that the Pope would say more
were perhaps ``a little unrealistic.''

Rosen, a prominent figure in Catholic-Jewish relations, told Reuters the
inclusion of a request for forgiveness from Jews in a Roman Catholic
liturgy in St Peter's was ``a significant step.''

In a major document in 1998, the Vatican apologized for Catholics who had
failed to help Jews against Nazi persecution and acknowledged centuries of
preaching of contempt for Jews.

A DIRTY LAUNDRY LIST OF SINS

``We ask forgiveness for the divisions among Christians, for the use of
violence that some Christians used in the service of the truth and for the
behavior of diffidence and hostility sometimes used toward followers of
other religions,'' the Pope said in his homily before the prayers.

The words ``violence in the service of truth'' is a much-used reference to
the treatment of heretics during the Inquisition, the Crusades, and forced
conversions of native peoples.

``For the role that each one of us has had, with his behavior, in these
evils, contributing to a disfigurement of the face of the Church, we
humbly ask forgiveness,'' he said.

The seven categories of forgiveness were general sins, sins in the service
of truth, sins against Christian unity, against the Jews, against respect
for love, peace and cultures, against the dignity of women and minorities,
and against human rights.

There was no reference to homosexuals, who had asked to be included in the
list of those asked for forgiveness.

The prayer for forgiveness from women and minorities said Christians had
been ``guilty of attitudes of rejection and exclusion, consenting to acts
of discrimination on the basis of racial and ethnic differences.''

The prayer for forgiveness for human rights abuses said Christians had not
recognized Christ in the poor, the persecuted and imprisoned and had too
often committed ``acts of injustice by trusting in wealth and power.''

Referring to abortion, he said Christians had not defended the defenseless
``especially in the first stages of life.''

The Pope said Christians had ``violated the rights of ethnic groups and
peoples and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions.''
A prayer mentioned sins against gypsies.

The Pope has said often that Catholics should see the start of the
millennium as an ideal opportunity to seek forgiveness for past sins,
including those of the Church as a community.

He has called this a necessary ``purification of memory'' in order for the
Church to move forward.

The Pope also said Christians were ready to forgive others for the abuse
suffered by Christians over the centuries.

[Commentary: While the mistakes of the Mormon church pails in comparison,
to the atrocities committed by the catholic church in the name of
religion, it would be nice if we could be so forth coming about our past
mistakes.

The largest of which is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, where the majority
of the plaques at the site constructed mostly from funds by the LDS
church, do not mention WHO did the killing!]

See this excellent article "Bad Things Happen In The Passive Voice" :

http://www.fiber.net/users/mikey/LDS/lies.html

Excerpt:

In 1990, 28 miles north of St. George off Utah Highway 18, leaders of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the state of Utah, along
with descendants of the victims, dedicated a major monument to the
Mountain Meadows Massacre. The memorial is a broad tablet of white granite
made of several panels set into a hillside above a valley. Although it has
many words, none say who put it up. In fact, no words tell who did
anything; the key verb is in the passive voice:

IN MEMORIAM

In the valley below, between September 7 and 11, 1857, a company of more
than 120 Arkansas emigrants led by Capt. John T. Baker and Capt. Alexander
Fancher was attacked while en route to California. The event is known in
history as the Mountain Meadows Massacre....


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

-