8: The Mormon Proposition Documentary
By Saintless. Filed in 8: The Mormon Proposition |
I’ve very much been looking forward to 8: The Mormon Proposition being premiered at Sundance next month. This documentary is by Reed Cowan, who you may remember as the guy that Rep. Chris Buttars talked to about “pig sex” about a year ago.
This is the trailer for it. The movie tells the story of LGBT people, seeking marriage equality, and documents the Mormon efforts to stop them. Although this could be seen by some as simply an attack on the Mormon religion, I think those people would be very mistaken. This is more than just speaking out against the wrongs done to the LGBT community by the Mormon Church. This is about the lives that have been destroyed by Prop 8, with the Mormon Church’s backing.
I have placed a lot of hope in this film. I hope that it does justice to the stories. I hope that it opens hearts and minds to the cruel injustice being served so many Americans. I hope that perhaps in the telling, that our allies, including family and friends, will join us in standing up for our rights. I hope that it pushes the cultural acceptance of LGBT individuals further.
Because the film is being shown at Sundance, several anti-gay groups, including the Westboro Baptist Church, will be here in Utah protesting the film. Westboro is the group of extremists who like to protest things, including a soldier’s funeral. They are a hate group, through and through. They will be holding signs and shouting things such as “God hates fags”.
Well, I was asked to join Jacob Whipple and Eric Ethington in organizing a counter-protest. We’re hoping to have a very strong presence for each showing of the film. We’ve just started the planning process, and right out our biggest objective is to find people willing to commit to helping. If you are interested, please contact Jacob Whipple on Facebook, or email him, and he’ll send you a list of times that we need volunteers.
More news will be forthcoming as we continue our plans. For now, if you have ANY ability to help out during January 21 – 30, please consider signing up!
Tags: Sundance, Westboro Baptist Church
Friday, December 18th 2009 at 12:14 pm |
I am so excited for this film too!! Everyone get out and let’s show these bigots what the Utah LGBT community is all about!
Friday, December 18th 2009 at 12:40 pm |
You are of course aware that the Catholic Church also supported Prop 8 and financially backed it as well right?
Friday, December 18th 2009 at 1:50 pm |
The sensationalist trailer, replete with out-of-context video clips and quotes, leaves little room for assuming much of anything else. There is a very fine line between documentary and propaganda. Reed Cowan, despite his journalistic training and experience, has chosen to cross it full force. Even if it turns out that the content is fair, the marketing is very dishonest.
Wednesday, December 23rd 2009 at 4:33 pm |
The LDS church did not draft the proposition, so it’s hardly “The Mormon Propsition”. The reason so many LDS people donated time and money to help is because they choose to act when they believe strongly in an idea or belief. They are no different than those people on the other side who were fighting for the right to marry. Both sides are just standing up for what they believe, so you can’t demonize the LDS church anymore than you can demonize the gay-rights championers. This film will just continue to serve up incorrect stereotypes and divide the nation even further around incorrect, hand-selected information. But hey, if you can’t win with straight truth, you may as well deceive in order to achieve your objective.
Tuesday, January 5th 2010 at 4:18 am |
There’s a lot of talk about “attacks” and “force” in this debate, so I’d just like to ask: is it all right for former members and nonmembers to place The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into a situation where it would be required by force of law to perform the sealing ordinance upon same-sex couples in its temples–despite the fact that, according to LDS belief, homosexual behavior is morally wrong and attempting to seal two same-sex partners would be considered an act of blasphemy and abomination?
And before you say, “Oh, but nobody would ever make the Church do that,” please consider that Affirmation, the largest active group of “gay and lesbian Mormons,” has been lobbying for just such a change in Church doctrine and policy for many years now. If same-sex marriage were to become nationwide law in the United States, this would be the next logical step for Affirmation.
Tuesday, January 5th 2010 at 2:30 pm |
Julia,
I can understand your worry. But, there’s a big difference between making gay marriage legal, and telling a church what to do. Churches have a lot of legal protections in place against that sort of thing. While church members may hope to get the church to change, the government won’t ever be forcing them to do any such thing.
Tuesday, January 5th 2010 at 2:38 pm |
Julia;
That fear is precisely what is holding back this movement so much. Churches leading (directly or indirectly) their members to think that they personally will be forced to change their beliefs just because something is now legal. But take a look at the difference, Proposition 8 was just that, a proposition, meaning a legally binding law that was worked into the government. Affirmation on the other hand is a branch-off of the LDS church. They are not tied to any government entity nor are they a lobbyist group. They have no wish, and have never attempted to FORCE the church to alter doctrine, rather they petition to the church to voluntarily change their stances. I don’t think you’re an idiot Julia, and you know as well as I do that Affirmation or any other group would be laughed out of the building if they ever attempted to force a religion by law to do anything.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 1:49 am |
Saintless,
That’s an interesting prognostication to make. One only need look at LDS history to realize that the government has in the past forced the LDS church to change its doctrines and practices or face some very drastic penalties. Both polygamy and blacks and the priesthood come to mind. To suggest the government won’t force a religion to change its doctrine and practices certainly isn’t based on the historical record.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 11:25 am |
Mike,
Really? I wasn’t aware that blacks in the priesthood happened because the government forced them to. I thought that it was a revelation to the church that the “tainted black race” was finally ready for priesthood, or something along those lines. Of course, I’m no expert at LDS doctrine, so maybe that’s not the case. Perhaps you can clarify which law forced the church’s hand?
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 11:29 am |
Mike;
I can quote most doctrine of the LDS church. Where ever has the government FORCED the Mormon church to do anything? In both cases you mentioned there was definitely cultural pressure to make the changes, but never any force of law.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 1:45 pm |
Saintless,
You are correct in both cases it was revelation cited for the change. Revelation that just happened to come after the government threatened some serious penalties if the Church didn’t stop the aforementioned practices. In the case of polygamy the church was told that Utah would be denied statehood, something that at the time the church was desperate to achieve. Also the government was to seize a large amount of the LDS Church’s assents including the temple if the practice was not stopped.
In the case of blacks and the priesthood, the church stood in jeopardy of loosing their tax exempt status if they did not stop the racially discriminating practice. This of course would have been devastating to the church, not only financially, but it also would have diminished the amount of privacy the church has with regard to its finances.
So call it perfectly timed revelation, cultural pressure, or whatever else you’d like. The fact remains that the federal government has in the past taken steps, or threatened to take steps, to get the LDS church to change its policies and doctrines.
Also by way of ethingtoneric’s question “Where ever has the government FORCED the Mormon church to do anything?” You may want to look up a little historical event known as the extermination order, which was authored and signed by the governor of Missouri.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 1:52 pm |
Mike, that’s really odd that you say that the LDS Church was threatened by losing tax exempt status if they didn’t let black people into the priesthood. Do you know something that this guy doesn’t?
Salt Lake Tribune
public forum
Distorted History
Thursday, April 5, 2001
It’s one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson (Forum, March 11) claims that the federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the church’s position regarding blacks and the priesthood.
We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.
BRUCE L. OLSEN
Public Affairs Department
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 2:29 pm |
Saintless,
I have to say your source is an interesting one. These are the same people who are claiming that both changes came about by revelation correct? Do you believe their claims with regard to it being revelation? I mean really what would you expect them to say?
Also isn’t this the same department within the church who denied giving any sort of financial backing to Prop 8 until the evidence was pretty overwhelming. As I recall the original statement by the public affairs department of the church was that support for Prop 8 was all voluntary time and money donated by the members themselves not the church. Do you believe them on this count? You certainly must admit, as of late their creditability has suffered a bit.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 2:41 pm |
Mike,
Oh, I definitely don’t think the LDS Church has a whole lot of credibility in many matters. But, I don’t believe that there was any threat by the IRS to take away the LDS Church’s tax exempt status. I do fully believe that social pressure caused that change, and not the government.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 2:48 pm |
Mike sounds like one of those “I know more than the Church” people. He’s been drinking from the Paul Mero applejuice for far too long.
If the Church had better lawyers 120 years ago,polygamy would still be legal.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 3:04 pm |
Whoa Bob slow down,
My only argument in this whole thing has been that the federal government has in the past tried to pressure the church into changing its practices; which in essence is pressuring them to change their doctrine.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 3:10 pm |
Mike,
If you were just arguing about the polygamy issue, there would be a discussion to be had. However, the priesthood issue just wasn’t about the government trying to get the LDS Church to change anything. And legalizing gay marriage would never have a legal effect on the Church’s anti-gay practices. So, I’m not sure where you’re really trying to go with this.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 3:58 pm |
Saintless,
Fair enough, let’s focus on the polygamy issue as it perhaps holds a more useful parallel to the current subject of gay marriage.
Most historians in and out of the LDS church are usually willing to concede that the federal government did in fact try to inflict punishment upon the church for its practice of polygamy. In other words, the federal government has in the past forced the LDS church, against their beliefs, to comply the types marriages that can and will be performed in LDS temples. How is it that you so sure it won’t happen again?
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 4:00 pm |
Mike,
How does that apply to the topic at hand? No one is trying to force the LDS Church through legal means to perform gay marriage.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 4:11 pm |
Saintless,
As I recall about 15 posts ago, Julia asked about the LDS church being forced to perform gay marriages in the temple to which you replied “the government won’t ever be forcing them to do any such thing.” My question the whole thread since your statement has been how are you so sure of such a strong pronouncement? No one is trying to force the LDS church currently, but you honestly can’t see a time when someone might if it is a legally recognized form of marriage?
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 4:13 pm |
Mike;
You actually have some valid points about the polygamy issue. But as Saintless stated earlier, if the church had better attorneys and the issues were as nationally publicized as they are today you have to admit things would have turned out differently. But as has also been stated, this has no relevancy on today’s topic. Without exception, every law that has allowed LGBT American citizens to be treated with equality have included specific language making it clear the law was in no way imposing new regulations or tenants upon religions.
This is the issue with this debate. Too many from the conservative standpoint want to make the debate about emotion, about social acceptance or religious freedom. None of these concerns have anything to do with the topic at hand. Rather this issue is all about LEGAL rights that individuals are being denied. The LDS church doesn’t want to perform gay marriage in the temple? Fine. But what does that have to do with a gay couple getting a marriage performed at the courthouse?
Oh and by the way, I’m very familiar with Missouri Governor Boggs’ extermination order. No where in the order does it include any language trying to change the religion, rather just the disgusting order to kill any of the religion’s adherents. Also, the State of Missouri later went back and offered full apologies for what it described as an “illegal” and “unconstitutional” order.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 4:19 pm |
The only thing I can add to what Eric said would be that religions already have protections in place from just that sort of thing. It would be unconstitutional for any law to try to order the LDS Church to perform gay marriage.
Wednesday, January 6th 2010 at 5:06 pm |
Outlawing a particular practice such as polygamy did indeed force the LDS church to stop the practice. But the church is not currently required to marry non-members, correct? Are openly gay people, who do not renounce their sexuality, allowed to stay in the church? Are non-church members allowed to become members if they are openly gay?
Let’s look at another legal state of being that is more parallel to being gay than being black (i.e. one is visibly apparent, one is not). Maybe this will allow the discussion to bear some fruit.
I’m an atheist. I can get a marriage license and be legally married with or without some form of clergy. I doubt very seriously that I could get an LDS priest (or whatever the title is) to marry me to another openly atheistic person, man or woman. The same would go for a Catholic priest, Baptist minister, or anyone who is offended by my stance that there is no God/are no gods. I would be astounded if you could provide actual proof of an atheist making a member of a church’s clergy/priesthood/etc marry them to anyone by force of law. Trick them, perhaps, but force them with full knowledge of said atheism? If you can provide proof of such an instance, then I think there might be merit to your argument that legalizing gay marriage would force a church to allow those people to marry.
Thursday, January 7th 2010 at 7:01 pm |
Robert;
That’s a really good point. The LDS church believes that all other religions are incorrect, ie.. Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists etc.. Now because those people follow a different faith, and do not adhere to the Mormon guidelines, the LDS church is under no obligation to marry them.
Now to direct this in a different view, because the church is under no such obligation the only time it would be required to marry individuals of the same sex would be if those individuals strictly follow all tenants of the faith. So unless the Mormon’s change their doctrine and no longer regard homosexuality as a sin, it is impossible for two homosexuals to completely follow LDS policy and guidelines; ergo: The LDS leadership is under no such requirement to perform a ceremony on their behalf.
Thursday, January 7th 2010 at 8:00 pm |
Robert and Eric,
Robert’s point is a good one as long as were talking about people who are denied entrance into the temple and temple marriage based on their lack of membership in the LDS Church. However allow me to suggest a scenario that could still prove to be problematic legally.
First, although the LDS Church does teach that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin, in recent years the church has made it fairly clear that being a homosexual will in no way affect your membership as long as you do not engage in the behavior. I have two friends who are openly gay and are in good standing in the church.
Now with that understanding there could still come a time where if gay marriage is made legal throughout the US and is federally recognized, gay members in good standing who wish to be wed in a legally prescribed manner in the temple could argue that they are being denied a right (legally recognized marriage in the temple) that the rest of the members of the church are given based on their sexual orientation. At that point I’m not certain what would stop federal or state governments from either requiring the LDS Church to perform all legally prescribed forms of marriage for members in good standing or deny the LDS Church the authority to perform any marriages.
Friday, January 8th 2010 at 8:41 pm |
Mike. No, again as you even stated: gay members are only in good standing if they DO NOT choose to embrace their orientation. So if they wanted to get married to someone of the same sex they would no longer be in good standing of following the faith’s rules. As such they would have no claim to the Church’s temple “blessings.”