The Divine Institute of Marriage

Posted by: Andee / Category: , , ,


My blood boiled when I read this... 

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/). 

That is right... the supreme court.  The supreme court made the decision because it's immoral to turn someone's rights away because of their sexual orientation.  Marriage is important to society.  To ALL of society.  How dare anyone, especially a church, pick and choose who gets to get married and who doesn't.  Bigots.

On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.” 

If you want your members to practice "traditional" marriage, fine.  You don't have any right to go out of your way to take away rights from people that are not even members of your church.  How arrogant can one organization really be?  How long are people going to sit back and let their church leaders decide what they should and shouldn't believe about homosexuality and gay marriage?  

Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed. 

Because God forbid people make a decision on their own.  God forbid they let other people live their lives they way they should be able to in the United States of America.  Close-minded  assholes.


The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference. 

What are the negatice consequences of gay marriage?  Do tell... What is it they think will happen?  All their kids will "turn" gay because the law changed?  Don't even get me started on how horrible this statement is:  "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches."  How exactly will getting equal medical care, fair housing and employment rights, probate rights infringe on the "integrity of the family" or anyone else's constitutional rights?  How is it okay for you to then infringe on other's constitutional rights and freedoms?

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.  

Really?  Sexual morality?  Was that before or after Joseph Smith lied to his wife, Emma, about his other polygamous wives whom he married behind her back?  How about the two 14 year old girls he married?  Where is the sexual morality?  

Oh, and if intimate relations are only proper between a husband and a wife, how is it that the church practiced polyamy for decades?  Hypocrites.

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people. 

Oh, no.  Not hostile at all.  They just want to take away rights  to live their lives as equals.  No hostility there.  In the previous paragraph they called homosexuality immoral.  How is that not hostile?

As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility. 

Oh, so church members get to decide their level of involvement?  How about instead of that, they get to make up their own mind about the whole issue?  You know... freedom to think for themselves...  I am SICK that I used to call myself a Mormon.

Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.

Oh, Gee... thank you so much.  What ever would I do without your lovely bigoted document?  Are you going to tell me how I should think and what I should do about it?  Oh, goody!  

Oh, and when the church starts telling the truth, being honest with investigators and members alike about the history of the church, and deals openly with issues like polygamy and the Book of Abraham they can then preach about morals.  Until then, they should shut up and play pretend that they have any to begin with.

The Divine Institution of Marriage 

Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” [1] Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” [2] 

Marriage is sacred and ordained by God?  Says you.  What about people who don't agree with you.  What about the freedom of religion?  What if a person doesn't believe in God at all?  Why should they have to follow your rules and beliefs on what is or isn't ordained by God?  

In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage: 

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. 

I will tell you what children are entitled to...

Children are entitled to grow up in a country that accepts them for who they are. Children deserve to have a world where everyone has the same rights.  They deserve the right to make decisions for themselves on what is and isn't essential to the God they believe in.  They deserve open and honest answers to their questions from their parent or parents regardless of who those parents are.  Children deserve a better world than what we had, and the church is taking a giant step back.

The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [3] 

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose?  Oh, goody.  That means I get to be pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen in heaven too?  Lucky me for being a girl.

We can't expect much different from the church here.  They certainly use gender to determine everything in their religion.  The "magical" priesthood is for men only.  Women can't hold positions over men.  Women can't ask their husbands their super-secret temple name, but they give their husband theirs.  Oh, and they can only go to the highest level of heaven if they are pulled through by-you guessed it-a man.

Sexist much?

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. [4] Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” [5]

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to YOUR plan of salvation.  Again, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot and should not speak for everyone.  

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I believe that marriage is a committment  from two people that they love each other very much and they want to spend the rest of their lives together.  They want to devote the rest of their lives to the other person.  If children are brought into the world, fine... but that isn't the purpose of marriage.  Sorry.

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage. 

Ahh, since when are we defining new forms of marriage?  Marriage is when two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.  Not too difficult to understand, is it?  

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. [6] This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said: 

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. [7] 

The church is trying to say that kids raised in "traditional families" are more likely to be productive members of society.  I can't disagree more.  Do you think someone is going to turn to a life of crime because their parents were gay?  Do you think that they will go on some mall shooting rampage because they had two mothers?  Give me a break!  

Parents are parents.  There are good parents there are bad parents.  There are good kids, there are bad kids.  How many kids in juvie right now have gay or lesbian parents?  Probably less than the number that have straight parents, right?It has nothing at all to do with the sexuality or gender of the parents... it has to do with the parents responsibility and ability to raise a loving member of society.

Duh.

Popenoe explained that: 

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. [8] 

One for independence, the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support?  Nice, I guess.  But I don't see how a same sex couple couldn't do this the same way a "traditional" couple would.  Just because two men (for example) are raising a child together doesn't mean that they are both the same or that they have the same parenting style.  Wake up and smell the coffee... oh, thats right, God doesn't want us to drink coffee.

It *is* possible that a loving child can turn into a loving adult with two parents of the same gender.  It's hard for most bigots to believe, but its true!

Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. [9] In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother. 

Challenges to Marriage and Family 

Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). [10] Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. [11] At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women. 

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with abortion.  NOTHING.  What the hell was that about?

Oh, and again, you assume that everyone wants to live by the Latter-day Saint rules.  We don't.  Those who have left are quite happy thinking for themselves for the first times in their lives.  It's amazing when you take a step back and see the arrogant and egotistical Mormon leaders for who they really are.  It makes my skin crawl.

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition. 

This is not a radical change, but if it was, it's a positive change.

This is a way to ensure equal rights for everyone.  

By the way, I find it hilarious that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fighting to keep marriage between one man and one woman because they fought tooth and nail to keep polyamy.  They were shunned for their untraditional views on marriage, and now they are doing it to someone else.

Classy.

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.  

Again, how is this a "threat" to you?  How does this weaken your marriage?  Your arguments are thin.

In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.

You know, I remember a time when the church claimed they would never get involved in politics.  Does anyone else remember that?  Were they lying?  Shocking. 

Call me crazy, but if any organization begins to get involved in political events or causes, they should have to pay taxes like everyone else.  Just saying.

The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated. 

Why does the church feel that gay or lesbian couples will have no moral values?  How stupid is that?

Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. [12]  

Mark my words.  Twenty years from now, the church will be pretending they had nothing to do with this event.  They won't mention it, they won't talk about it, and they will pretend that they were loving and accepting of everyone.  They did the same thing with polygamy, and the same thing with racism.  They certainly love to pretend that they never practiced racism, don't they?

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.  

Equal rights belong to everyone.  More and more judges are seeing that.  I think the slim margin won't be slim for long.

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved. 

There is an agreement across America on what marriage is?  Really?  Last I checked people were waking up every day to realize that their slim view on homosexuality and marriage deserved a little tweaking.  

Lets put this into a real statement of truth...

"In sum, there is a very stong agreement of old white men and bigots across America."

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom 

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.  

I love how they put "tolerance" in quotes.  As if it's a made-up word they don't like.

Again my little preachers, this might be a sin to you, and a transgression to you, but there are millions of people out there who disagree.  They don't have to live by your rules, and they shouldn'tbe forced to.

If you don't like it.  Don't partake in it.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.  

Homosexuality isn't going anywhere.  Homosexuality might be something *you* consider a sin, but it's not something that everyone else considers a sin.  You are trying to force your morals on everyone else.  

Maybe that is the wrong way to put it.  They are deciding what should be moral and immoral for everyone else.  I certainly know many gay and lesbian people who have more morals than any Mormon Church authority... 

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained, 

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15] 

The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.  

You are limiting their civil rights, but you love them?  Eh? Sorry, what?

You wouldn't know love if it crawled up your ass and bit you.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [16]  

The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always been a fan of keeping others down.  It started with women, and the practice of polygamy, it then turned to racism when they wouldn't let men of color hold the priesthood.

Contrary to what these old white guys think, most people believe church and state should be seperate and stay seperate.


The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.  

The Catholic Church?  The same Catholic Church you used to speak out against as the great and abominable church?  The whore of the earth?

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. [17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18]  

If you don't give everyone equal rights, you should have to pay taxes.  Sorry.  You stop being a church and "of God" once you start picking and choosing who gets to be in your church and who doesn't.  It turns you from a church to a private club.  It's stupid.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the reason the church FINALLY allowed blacks to hold the priesthood?  I doubt it had anything to do with revelation.  It had more to do with the fact that the United States was ready to take way the tax exempt status of the racist church.  

"What?  We have to pay taxes on our billions of dollars??!!?!  Wait! I am getting revelation!"

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished. 

You wouldn't know religious freedom if it bit you in the ass either.

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society? 

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.  

How exactly is allowing two people who love each other the right to marry going to erode your marriage?  That paragraph is a lot of words that don't really add up to a reason or explanation of your thought.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.  

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring. 

Oh, so it's for the children.

Good God! These people are out of their minds!  

I wouldn't like to let my children live in a world where men like the leaders in the Mormon Church get to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't.  

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children? 

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality. 

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue. 

The Sanctity of Marriage 

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society. 

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.

I have to be honest.  I couldn't finish reading this mindless drivel.  It actually hurts my brain.

I have to wonder how the Church leaders would feel if a group decided that what they were doing was immoral and changed their right to be married.  No more temple marriages, no more kneeling at the altar.  How would they feel about that? Yet, they have no trouble barking orders at everyone else.

Andee


7 comments:

  1. Demand More Says:

    Seriously!!!!! I agree to all the above in bold and all the other crap makes me want to puke. I HATE when people do hateful things and claim it is in Gods name. GAWD!

    And isn't it supposed to be a FREE country? Arg! I am so glad to not be in the morg right now.

  1. Andee Says:

    Thanks for the comment!

    Yeah, I am pretty much mad at myself for not resigning yet... I am ashamed that they consider me a member of their bigoted organization.

    You are right... there are tons of people that do horrible things in the name of God, and the church is included in that. Makes me sick.

  1. veggiedude Says:

    There is only one way to protect marriage. Outlaw divorce. Of course, no one wants to do that - not even the extremists. Tells me how much they really care about it.

  1. [kɹeɪ̯ɡ̊] Says:

    Resigning is pretty easy. Just sent in a letter to both your Bishop and Membership records, and then make sure you call Membership records a month later to confirm that they've removed your name and sent you a letter confirming that.

    Of course, as far as I'm aware, they'll always count us in their membership statistics. They only remove dead members from their rolls, not excommunicated or resigned ones (and certainly not inactive ones). They love to pad their statistics to make their church look bigger and more important.

  1. Andee Says:

    Thanks for the comments!!!

    I have read on how to resign, and I actually helped my Mom do it. I am debating on if I want to force the church to get rid of me. I would love to have my little meeting with the men who feel they have the right to judge my moral character. I would walk in, flip them off, hand them my resignation letter, and leave. Nothing they could do.

    I go back and forth all the time. I don't think I have done anything wrong to be excommunicated. If they want me out, they will have to explain why. Then, I will be able to write about it and share it with the internet at large.

    Andee

  1. [kɹeɪ̯ɡ̊] Says:

    Ooh yeah, I would have loved to get excommunicated, but it would have hurt my parents too much to do it that way, so I decided to do it the easy way.

    Good luck with that though. I'm kinda jealous.

  1. Andee Says:

    You are a good person to worry about your family like that. I know it is really going to... piss off some members of my family. I don't think they will be hurt, just annoyed.

    I am not going anywhere until I get listened to. At least, that is what I am hoping for. Someone needs to stand up and scream "BULLSHIT!" I am not afraid to be that person. I haven't been the first to do it, and I won't be the last... but I will be damned if I stand back and let them think it's okay to treat people like this.

    There are times when I really think about this and wonder if these guys are pure evil. Monson really gives me the heebie-jeebies. I liked Hinkley, he lied in the press many times, but he was likeable... Monson seems like an arrogant asshole. Just looking at his photo makes my blood pressure rise.

    Sorry, I had to rant. :)
    Andee