It wasn’t a request. You were being coerced into donating money/time to Prop 8 because of the threat of social retribution.

You’re misinterpreting my words here– which means you’re one of the ones I was talking about when I said “you just don’t get it.” What I meant was, devotion to the Lord’s church is not something you just give when its convenient, comfortable or conducive to your own sentiments. When you “go in” you should “go all in”. When you covenant to obey the Lord and profess belief that the prophet is his representative on earth, there isn’t room for “Ooh, I don’t like that, that’s just unfair, I won’t do that…” In context of the request, such behavior would have been hypocrisy.

My obedience wasn’t coerced and there wouldn’t have been any social retribution. I’ve known the SP for years– he’s a very good man– and our minds are on the same page in the big scheme of things: This was between me and the Lord. Had I excused myself from making the contribution, nothing more would have been said on the matter. I can’t speak for other members, but I have no fear of being called out on the carpet.

I don’t expect you to agree with my motivations, Nick. I do expect you not to accuse me of being dishonest. Rather than trying to understand my motivations, you’re cramming them into your own convenient perception. If you were being honest, you’d try a little harder to understand.

That is, what I do is always under my motivation. The Church is certainly capable of trying to influence my actions, and generally tries to influence me to be a better person than I naturally am, but has never had some sort of shadowy authoritarian power over me such that I lose my individual motivation as it is subsumed by the Church’s desires.

Your words, David:

the worst part about being asked by the Church to do something is you really can’t say no– and if you do, you just don’t get it

It wasn’t a request. You were being coerced into donating money/time to Prop 8 because of the threat of social retribution.

Because of the authoritarian nature of the church, you can’t really distinguish between individual motivations and the motivations of the church: when the church tells you to do something, you do something.

When the church tells its members to donate money/time to Prop 8, that money/time becomes the church’s. There’s really no distinction to be made.

Since California already had civil unions, and since civil-unions had all the things they wanted in terms of those contracts/etc, then they didn’t really need same-sex marriage for those automatic things, did they?

Another counter-point is that so few gays really want to enter into a marriage or a civil union. They are a tiny minority within a minority. The “Will and Grace” type of homosexual is the “front office”, a public face that gains sympathy. The reality for most homosexuals is still different. It’s still mainly about libertinism. Look at their parades and demonstrations.

I wonder how many of the California anti-8 demonstrators were already in a civil union. How many homosexuals who voted for Prop 8 were in, or wanted to be in a civil union or marriage? A very small percentage I’d bet.

I still say it’s not about unions or marriage or civil rights at all. That’s a cover story. That’s a Hegelian Dialectic in play. It’s really about getting society’s approval, an approval that goes beyond tolerance and recognition.

They say homosexuality isn’t a choice (and like many, I don’t agree 100% with that). But I believe one of the goals of the pro-gay crowd is to remove all social taboo so that a homosexual lifestyle can be seen as a choice in future generations. The signs for it have already been appearing (“lesbian chic” has been around a while), so it’s not far off.

As seen in the protests, the real hatred is on the pro-gay side. They are trying to force the conscience of everyone else to concur with them. The pro-gay/anti-8 crowd is the side trying to remove freedom of conscience by coercing others into agreeing with them.

And with the assaults and destruction of property going on, and the threats of violence (“burn down their churches”) it’s apparent that they are willing to use violence.

You guys still have it backwards.

All the things you cite were all _internal_ verbalizations, from a church to its members. Nothing left the sphere of church until individual members excercised their own political and individual religious _rights_.

The motivations of an individual for what they vote for, and how they exercise their rights in the electoral sphere are a matter of conscience, and therefore no one else’s business.

The only hate and discrimination I see is against a church exercising its religion, and against individuals exercising their consitutional rights.

Nick, that blog post backs up my point. It was all internal church-to-member communication. Nothing went outside the church except individual members exercising their rights. If members got involved at the instigation of the church, so what? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, because money and time were spent on the individual level. The church spent no tithing money on it. The church donated no money that might have come from people against Prop 8.

Lamonte, the only intolerance I see in this matter is against Mormons and members of other churches.

If anyone deserves a law-suit it’s the anti-8 crowd for harassing people and trying to deprive them of their civil and political rights to peaceably participate in the election process. That elderly lady who was assaulted on TV should have a good lawsuit against those who attacked her. And what they did to her should also be classified as a hate crime and a civil rights violation.

Seth is correct, I was later assured by the SP that tithing records were not looked at and it was only through counsel with the bishops and prayer that led them to approach the donors and for what amount.

Maybe I’m missing something, but my particular case was an example of verbal exhortation to an individual member– how is it contrary to the quote you’re brandishing, Nick? It wasn’t a command, it was a request, to which I complied.

“They previously asked for, and received, tolerance.” Do you really believe that? Yes, there is certainly less venom in the discourse about gays than there used to be but to suggest that it has even come close to tolerance is just wishful thinking.

“The church has taken no _actions_ in regards to Prop 8.” We might have difference of opinion as to what defines an action by the church. My feeling is that when the church sends a letter to wards and stakes in California (see atached) and asks that it be read to the congregants over the pulpit, that constitutes an action. Especially in our church, where essentially every undertaking of the church is done through the “exhortations” of the church leaders, I think the intention of the church leadership is clear.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

But I believe there was later clarification from his leaders to the effect that tithing records were not being analyzed to come up with recommended donation figures.