Angry thoughts
So my lovely friend, Krista, sent me an email asking about my thoughts about this article- Mormon leader: Religious Freedom at Risk
And here's what I sent her.
Growing up in the LDS faith it was constantly drilled into me that I was part of a special people, and that as such there were dark forces out there constantly working against me. I was indoctrinated with tales of terrible, horrible things that happened to those that came before me and told that they were commited only because of the victims religious affiliations. So it comes as no suprise to me to hear that a LDS leader claim such a paranoid, self deluding and idiotic statement.
Why should people find it odd that the LDS church leaders would try to recolor the present to show them in a more sympathtic light when that's exactly what they've done to their past? What LDS youth could not tell you about the massacure of the early "saints" (as the mormon pioneers are called) at Huan's Mill? And then how many of them would know about the atrocities commited by the prophet sanctioned Danites?
Reading this article I feel nothing but disgust at LDS leaders complete inability at recognizing anyone else in the role of victim. And the utter audacity at the use of quotation marks around the words, civil rights. Reading through this article Dallin H. Oaks comes across as nothing more than a petulant child who can't comprehend why his viewpoint of the world isn't shared by everyone.
So far, public backlash against the LDS church's stance and support for prop 8 has basically ammounted to little more than bad feelings and a few broken windows. And yet, Oaks feels completely comfortable comparing this to the horrible bombings, lynchings and physical assults to african americans. This would be like me comparing how the bitchy lady at work trying to get me fired to the horrible genocide of jewish people by Hitler during WWII and actuallly MEANING it.
And what is on the other side? What rightous cause has the people of this church "suffered" so much for? Marrage. The right to become two people in the eyes of the LAW. Isn't it funny that during the "civil rights era" that Oaks was so eager to relate to, that marriage between interatial couples was discriminated against? But we should probably avoid thinking about things like that, just like we're supposed to avoid thinking about anything that would put "The Church" in a bad light. After all, that sort of thing is The Adversary's doing.
So what does that mean when you consider that fact that basically, logic is the work of Satan? Besides pushing your religion back to the dark ages, it also helps explain this article to people who actually DO know better.
And here's what I sent her.
Growing up in the LDS faith it was constantly drilled into me that I was part of a special people, and that as such there were dark forces out there constantly working against me. I was indoctrinated with tales of terrible, horrible things that happened to those that came before me and told that they were commited only because of the victims religious affiliations. So it comes as no suprise to me to hear that a LDS leader claim such a paranoid, self deluding and idiotic statement.
Why should people find it odd that the LDS church leaders would try to recolor the present to show them in a more sympathtic light when that's exactly what they've done to their past? What LDS youth could not tell you about the massacure of the early "saints" (as the mormon pioneers are called) at Huan's Mill? And then how many of them would know about the atrocities commited by the prophet sanctioned Danites?
Reading this article I feel nothing but disgust at LDS leaders complete inability at recognizing anyone else in the role of victim. And the utter audacity at the use of quotation marks around the words, civil rights. Reading through this article Dallin H. Oaks comes across as nothing more than a petulant child who can't comprehend why his viewpoint of the world isn't shared by everyone.
So far, public backlash against the LDS church's stance and support for prop 8 has basically ammounted to little more than bad feelings and a few broken windows. And yet, Oaks feels completely comfortable comparing this to the horrible bombings, lynchings and physical assults to african americans. This would be like me comparing how the bitchy lady at work trying to get me fired to the horrible genocide of jewish people by Hitler during WWII and actuallly MEANING it.
And what is on the other side? What rightous cause has the people of this church "suffered" so much for? Marrage. The right to become two people in the eyes of the LAW. Isn't it funny that during the "civil rights era" that Oaks was so eager to relate to, that marriage between interatial couples was discriminated against? But we should probably avoid thinking about things like that, just like we're supposed to avoid thinking about anything that would put "The Church" in a bad light. After all, that sort of thing is The Adversary's doing.
So what does that mean when you consider that fact that basically, logic is the work of Satan? Besides pushing your religion back to the dark ages, it also helps explain this article to people who actually DO know better.