http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/15/what_i_wish_i_d_said_on_larry Comments On: What I Wish I'd Said on Larry King Last Night by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:45:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Aaron]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:51:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by jerry]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:08:49 -0800 The Stranger Posted by RobotRevolution]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:21:29 -0800 The Stranger
http://208.179.165.174/lds/Mormon.pdf

(For a more thorough explanation of what it is...
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac…)
Posted by hum_dinger10]]> Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:34:51 -0800 The Stranger
The church firmly believes in the practice of Baptism for the Dead, but this practice is not carried out exactly as you have described. We firmly believe that, "The law of agency is inviolate in this world and the world to come. Thus, those served by proxy have the right to accept or reject the ordinances" (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Baptism_for…). Just because someone is baptized by proxy does not mean that they are automatically branded with a "Mormon" stamp on their forehead . . . we believe that the baptism is performed so that that individual has the opportunity in the afterlife to accept the baptism if they so choose.

And, in reference to your comment about the Holocaust victims, it may interest you to see what the church is really doing in regards to the victims of the Holocaust. You can read it here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/…

Or, if you're not interesting in taking a few moments and clicking over, I'll just quote the article for you.

"The Church stands by its word. It has no intention of performing baptisms or other rites in its temples for Holocaust victims, except in the very rare instances where such people may have living descendants who are members of the Church. Such exceptions were noted and agreed to in 1995. The understanding reached in 1995 determined that the Church would remove Holocaust names from its public database immediately, which the Church has done. It further said that Jewish groups would provide to the Church any names that reappeared on the database so the Church could remove them. The Church cannot understand why Mr. Michel has refused now to provide those names to the Church so the Church can maintain the spirit of that 1995 understanding.

The media advisory also claimed that Church leaders had refused to meet and “broke off negotiations in July. “ This is absolutely false. Church leaders met with Mr. Michel in New York on 3 November, along with representatives of other respected Jewish community organizations. The Church’s written response to Mr. Michel and to that meeting is found here [http://newsroom.lds.org/Static%20Files/N…]. It did not receive a reply.

Church leaders and members empathize with the depth of feeling of all Jews regarding the Holocaust. Such regard and empathy have motivated the Church to remain in talks about this subject for so many years. However, with his press conference, Mr. Michel seems to have unilaterally terminated those discussions and has presumably rejected the proposals set forth in the Church’s 6 November 2008 letter. Those steps by Mr. Michel on behalf of the American Gathering were both unnecessary and unfortunate, and belie the long and valued mutual regard that has existed in the past years."
Posted by Esther Perry]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:11:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Greg]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:57:39 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dHNvFf8G…
Posted by setya]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:20:29 -0800 The Stranger
If you want to make them think twice before going any farther, than wage real war. Quit going half-way.

My suggestion: Put an initiative on the ballot to prohibit any organization from "baptism by proxy" or its legal equivalent. In the seagull shrine this refers to a practice of having one of their members baptize, for example, another living person, perhaps a family member who is not a member, thereby putting their name on their mecca genealogical list as well as making them "eligible" for mormon heavan. They do the same thing with dead people. All of this is done without the permission of the living person or family of the deceased. They have no right to subject anyone to their practices without that person's permission. or that of the family of a deceased.

The jewish community has protested this practice for years. The mormons have been baptizing and "registering" the jewish deceased of the holocaust without permission and never carried out any agreement to either stop or "undo" it. Years from now there will be records showing that everyone [except gays?] killed in the holocaust was a mormon. It wouldn't be hard to get a majority to vote that this cannot be done without permission.
Posted by Thominaz]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:50:39 -0800 The Stranger http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

There are two statements, one of them was paraphrased but the other's word for word, by a Mormon spokesman which really get me where he say's that they are not in favor of civil unions in all cases -he's talking about efforts to improve the quality of life of LGBT citizens in Utah.
Posted by Austin_gay]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:29:13 -0800 The Stranger I must confess. I have used an article of yours a few times here at a university in Germany. It was a "Dear Abby" article about the sister who wants to bring the S&M slave to the Xmas dinner table and the other one was about the woman suddenly giving his coworker a blowjob after him saying that his grandmother had just died and should she tell her husband. It's fun as students try to discern how this article is "classworthy" of the course "American Newspapers" but it is. I can't believe I get paid sometimes to teach students other words for sperm. Thanks, dude and keep on keepin on!
Posted by Englischlehrer]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:26:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Marisa, Straight Vanilla Soccer Mom]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:17 -0800 The Stranger
Your summation of the LDS newsroom statement is one of those statements that helps to propagate ignorance and instills hate and fear toward the LDS church . . . and, as I keep saying, when you're fighting the fight of intolerance, the last thing people want to see is hypocrisy.

You said that, "what the [LDS Newsroom] quote basically says is that their [the LDS] people should have the right to vote their religion into any constitution." That's quite a summation.

Here's the best way I can lay it out for you and everyone else . . . People voluntarily attend the LDS Church and become members. The Church has specific doctrines that disagree with same-sex marriage. The Church asks its members to support the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Some members will have already felt strongly about this issue and would have already supported the campaign regardless of the direction of the church. Some may not have felt strongly about this issue and will have either taken the church's counsel or used their agency to decide what they want to do. Others still will have decided that they do NOT support the Yes on 8 campaign and choose not to donate or vote the way the Church asked. The church can definitely advocate a certain stance on an issue. The church itself did not spend money toward the campaign. The LDS church did not create the proposition in the first place.

I do not see anything undemocratic about this process. Not to get too long-winded, but if there was a religion out there who's main basis of faith was that a homosexual lifestyle was the most supreme form of existence . . . and then this religion advocated supporting the No on 8 campaign, and encouraged their members to vote accordingly, would there have been an issue with the separation of church and state for this religion? I doubt it because the members there would have already understood this position, they would have voluntarily joined this religion because of this and other doctrines that they already agreed with.

The LDS church has always had this stance on same-sex marriage. Most members should have been aware of this. When asked to support this ballot, some members did, others didn't. The church did not regulate voting ballots of members and members themselves did not vote for this Prop out of fear of church reprisal. The Church did not cross the line between church and state.

Now, as a quick side note, I do understand that there is a possible excommunication of a man in Nebraska for his involvement in supporting the No on 8 campaign. First of all, I would like to point out that a disciplinary council is usually not a first step in dealing with such issues. I don't want to speculate on this man or his life, but just remember that the LDS church always keeps clergy confidence and most times when someone's membership has been called into question, they will tell everyone that it was for unjustified, minimal reasons and the church, in keeping the confidence, will not outline the full reasoning of the excommunication. Also, the purpose of excommunication is not meant to forever tarnish an individual. The reason this happens every once in a while is to give someone a chance to realize that they can't continue as a member of the church while living contrary to the LDS belief system. Once someone is excommunicated, they are highly encouraged to return, repent and be re-baptized if it is their desire to come back.

I would definitely appreciate it if we could discuss the acceptance of all people without targeting groups, slandering their way of life, and spreading ignorance.
Posted by Esther Perry]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:22:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by jayme]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:58:42 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Zach]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:26:35 -0800 The Stranger
I assume that if they actually hated the protesters from Saturday, they would have kicked out all the folks "loitering" on the balcony and tables who weren't actually shopping or eating food court items. They're picky about signs for a reason.
Posted by Mickymse]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:03:29 -0800 The Stranger
I feel horrible for people seeking a same sex marriage that have faith.
Posted by Kane]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:29:06 -0800 The Stranger
You can look for two girls or two guys on a license, that's easy. How do you look for people who laugh at religion as mumbo jumbo, revoke their "marriages" and force them into civil unions? A little silly to call everyone listed as married in California.
Posted by Kane]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:51:33 -0800 The Stranger
There are people who are against you. And they will never be persuaded, no matter how logical your arguments nor eloquent your presentation.

And there are those in the middle, who are open to learning the facts. To these folks, Dan came across as level-headed, with some very valid points to make. To these folks, the ministers, and Tony Perkins, came across like the morons they really are. They didn't have any logic behind any of their arguments. It sounded to me like when my mom would say, "Because I'm the mommy, and I said so, and that's the end of it."

So even though I screamed at the TV when Tony was speaking, I'm glad Dan was in the chair and not me. Good on you, Dan! Let's keep giving Tony and the other preachers the opportunity to show how bigoted and moronic (or Mormonic???) they really are.


Posted by VenturaBob]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:00:29 -0800 The Stranger Posted by alion]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:46:05 -0800 The Stranger
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0…

Don
Posted by Don]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:19:55 -0800 The Stranger Posted by idaho]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:45:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by scott]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:23:12 -0800 The Stranger
I guess that's what happens when all you have left to do is cry fucking victim. Stop hiding behind cancerous hate and judgement. Stop using the church. Get some fucking balls and start paying attention to the goddamn world and the people that live in it.
@32, yes.

Posted by 4f...sake]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:10:41 -0800 The Stranger cnn.com with no luck. Hopefully someone out there has a way to get it on the web.

Good for you Dan for working so hard on making your valid views known. You never know who you may have caused to think or reconsider after those debates.
Posted by Paul]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:22:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by jayme]]> Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:40:58 -0800 The Stranger