Wednesday, March 4, 2009

And so it continues

This was posted on Queers United today. Can anybody confirm the accuracy of this? It certainly seems completely plausible. If true, it appears to be initiated by local church members In Nauvoo rather than by LDS church headquarters - although no doubt spurred on by the actions the church took in California with proposition 8.

I have to wonder where else this type of thing is occurring where members feel empowered to utilize the church (ward web sites, bulletins, announcements in meetings, etc.) to further a political cause. Was proposition 8 an anomaly with a return to political neutrality? Or was proposition 8 only the beginning of a new direction the church is taking in taking a more active role in battling what it perceives to be moral issues?

Mormon Machine Working Against Civil Unions in Illinois

The following official email was just sent out (via the LDS Church website) to all the members of the Nauvoo 3rd Ward, as approved by Kristy Combs, ward website administrator, and by Bishop Chris Church of the Nauvoo 3rd Ward. (Because it was sent through the LDS website, it required the authorization of a bishop or higher.)

"This message has been authorized for sending by Bishop Church.

The Civil Union Bill (HB 2234) has been scheduled for a hearing in the Youth and Family Committee this week on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield. If the bill is voted out of committee, it becomes eligible for a vote before the full Illinois House of Representatives. This bill will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage. As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise. It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (An individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another's bathrooms and locker rooms.What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?). Furthermore, while the bill legalizes civil unions, it will be used in the courts to show discrimination and will ultimately lead to court mandated same-sex marriages.

To help defeat this bill, please call your state representative and state senator and ask that they support traditional marriage and vote against the civil unions bill. If you are unsure who your legislators are, please see the link at the end of this email.

Also, please take a moment and call the following members of the Youth and Family Committee to encourage them to vote no on this bill. We need 4 votes to keep it from passing out of the committee. And - as always, please pass this on to all who believe in protecting our families and our children. If you are interested in attending the hearing, it will be held on Thursday, March 5th at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield in Room 122B of the Capitol Building (I can give you directions to the Capitol Building if needed).

Members of the Youth and Family Committee:

Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) (Greg Harris is also the sponsor of this bill, but he needs to hear your opposition to this bill)

Rep. LaShawn K. Ford (D-Chicago)

Rep. Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago)
Republican Spokesperson

Rep. William D. Burns (D-Chicago)

Rep. Michael P. McAuliffe (R-Chicago)

Rep. Al Riley (D-Matteson)

Rep. Dave Winters (R-Rockford)

Directions for identifying your legislators:

You can use the following link to identify your state legislators and
their contact information: (and enter your 9
digit zip code). If this link doesn't work, you can use the general
link and then click on " legislator lookup" near the
bottom of the page, then click on "by zip+4". Type in your zip code,
and you'll see a list of your legislators. You want your state
senator and state representative as they will be the ones voting on
the bill.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sister Combs"
Please do the opposite of this action alert by the church and tell your legislators you support the HB2234 the civil unions bill.


Grant Haws said...

It seems to me that the atmosphere in the church is moving towards Prop 8 being the start of a new political involvement by the church. Obviously, only church headquarters really knows what the move of the church will officially be...but I think Prop 8 emboldened members to use the church as a vehicle to this sort of thing.

To me the irony is that members say that there is a coming storm and that the members will be persecuted...when it is them doing the bullying. It seems they are hoping for self-fulfilling prophecies.

"What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?" >>>Yeah, I am really angry about this tactic used by crazy conservatives.

Robert said...

Heaven help us. Really, Heaven, help us. please

Max Power said...

Good Lord, what's going on here? Are the Saints trying to get kicked out of Nauvoo again?

Anonymous said...

HERE is the REAL story:,5143,705288882,00.html
Your post is inaccurate- the Church is NOT doing what you have reported. Thanks. Duck

Abelard Enigma said...

Thank you Duck for the link to the Deseret News article. It confirms what I stated in my post where I said "it appears to be initiated by local church members In Nauvoo rather than by LDS church headquarter"

Although, I still expect the local members felt empowered to take this action because of the church's involvement in prop 8 in California.

I also think it disingenuous of the church headquarters to completely absolve itself in this matter. A bishop is an official representative of the church. Even though the email was only sent to a single congregation - it still came from an official representative of the church. With proposition 8, the letter urging support was only read to California congregations.

The church is responsible for the actions of their official representatives. For example, if a bishop does something illegal in his dealings as a bishop - the church is held legally responsible, not just the local ward or stake. Plus, there is nothing in the Deseret News article that indicates that the church disagrees with the actions of this bishop or that he was reprimanded. In fact, the church gave implicit support when it stated that he is "free to express his own views." If a bishop were to send an email espousing racial inequality I doubt the church would sit back and say "he's entitled to his own opinion."

Beck said...

Is not your point that Prop. 8 has empowered members to take this issue on in future propositions or amendments in other states? And turning a blind eye or saying little to stop it is like condoning such empowerment?

The answers are obviously affirmative.

Superstar said...

In the cases of Peter Danzig or Jeffrey Nielsen, who wrote editorials criticizing the church for its political involvement in gay rights initiatives, their freedom to express views led to excommunication or withdrawal from the church.

At the time, Church Spokesman Scott Trotter said, "Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders."

A church spokesman made statements that the LDS Church doesn't completely oppose civil unions, yet when this Illinois leader rallied his congregation to oppose them, giving public groups and media the impression Temple Square was behind the actions, his right to free speech was defended.

This gives tacit approval to what he has written as being what the church would like to see done in the matter.

I suppose, following these actions logically, it could be said that the church spokesman was only trying to quell public outcry at during the Prop 8 ruckus when he said LDS Church leaders don't oppose civil unions. From their actions here, it seems that they actually do oppose them but are afraid to seem self-contradictory if they now say so.