Nov

19

The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8’s slim passage into law (52.5% to 47.5%). Exit polls showed the proposition was supported by 7 of 10 Black voters, a majority of Latino voters, and by people with children under the age of 18 still at home. Clearly, it was supported by all people who believed marriage is a special and protected institution.

Many supporters of Proposition 8 were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and they worked hard to promote their cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage.

Many of those who opposed Proposition 8 reacted to the defeat by accusing Mormon of hatred. However, Mormons simply believe that marriage was instituted by God and that should be between a man and a woman and used legal means to defend their belief (and they were not the only one, or the only church involved, by the way).

On the other hand, some of the demonstrations against the Church by supporter of gay marriage seem to be motivated by hatred and they single out the Mormon Church.

These are a few pictures taken outside the Mormon temple that illustrate well this point.

Challenges to our faith are not new. Nor are they likely to go away anytime soon. But, as Elder Hales reminds us,

True disciples of Christ see opportunity in the midst of opposition. We can take advantage of such opportunities in many ways: a kind letter to the editor, a conversation with a friend, a comment on a blog, or a reassuring word to one who has made a disparaging comment. We can answer with love those who have been influenced by misinformation and prejudice – who are ‘kept from the truth because they know not where to find it’ (D&C 123:12). I assure you that to answer our accusers in this way is never weakness. It is Christian courage in action.

There are several lessons that can be learned from the current unrest:

Tolerance is not agreement and should not be a one way street. However, we must still remain tolerant of those who are intolerant of us.

Recognize the adversary at work here - making good seem bad and evil seem good.

We can only be disciples of Christ when we respond to adversity in a Christlike manner. To do less opens our actions to the influence of the adversary and hurts us even more.

We should never take for granted the opportunities we have to gather together in worship. We should never put off the opportunity to attend the temple. For these valuable things can be disrupted and possibly even closed to us - if not permanently, then at least on a temporary basis.

Pray. Often. Don’t forget to include those who are set against you.

Nov

17

Yesterday I was attending my Sunday school class in my ward (Portuguese speaking ward) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) and it was mentioned a time when, in Brazil, a school teacher had asked the students to present themselves by telling their names, interests, which church they were attending, and a few other things.

That story, to all people present, seemed to come not from another country and time, but from another world. We were all very aware of the situation in the US, where teachers would never have the courage to do that. What a different world that was!

I know that in the past people had discriminated others because of religion, and we all agree that a state religion is not good for freedom, but I wonder if people realize that currently all religions are discriminated in public schools, with the exception of the church of irreligiosity, that is presented as the only truth.

If sponsoring only one religion is bad in public schools, why can’t we make all religions welcomed in our schools, instead of completely banning them?

M. J. Sobran wrote :

“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52)

The plan is clear. The following talk by Mormon Apostle Elder Maxwell, given several years ago is really prophetic and illuminates what we are facing and what are the challenges of the future for true disciples of Jesus Christ.

Nov

6

According to CNN,

Thousands protested California’s same-sex marriage ban in West Hollywood Wednesday night. Californians passed the measure 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent in Tuesday’s general election, countering a state Supreme Court ruling in May that said the state constitution guarantees gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Passage of Proposition 8 sent protesters into the streets of Los Angeles on Wednesday.

This clearly shows how the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in the US.

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life - family, identity, intimacy and equality - stirs fervent and deep feelings.

There is the hope that in the future all parties involved in this issue will act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility. However, I do not expect that this will always happen, unfortunately.

I know that many have criticized the Mormon Church and other organization for supporting Proposition 8. It is important to understand that this issue for the Mormon Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage - a union between a man and a woman and has nothing to do with bigotry.

It is also important to be clear that the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage does not mean that the church condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians, including their rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights.

The only ting that the Church is concerned about is that those rights do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

For more information about the position of the Mormon Church on this topic you may read

Church Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Votes

Oct

31

Dee Garrett discusses the Civil Rights battle that she went through and how it doesn’t compare to the same sex marriage battle going on today. She mentions how same-sex marriage has an influence - a negative influence - on children.

Oct

29

In the debate about proposition 8, (gay rights and the proposed same-sex marriage) there is one point that is of the greatest importance but that is always overlooked by the proponents of same-sex marriage:  children needs.

Research shows that children need two parents and that there are specific benefits coming from having a mother and a father instead than two mothers or two fathers.

In short, we believe that a central question in the so-called same-sex marriage debate is whether or not we collectively and legally want to promote a culture of parenting founded on parents rights or one grounded in children’s needs (Marquardt, 2006; Sugrue, 2006). From our vantage point, just because a parent desires it, does not mean a child needs it. (Carrol, J. and Dollahite, D., 2008, Who’s my daddy? in What’s the Harm? University Press of America).

According to Carroll and Dollahite,

Similar to other aspects of family-wellbeing in the United States (e.g., economic prosperity), father-child relationships today are marked by two contrasting trends that lead to strikingly divergent life experiences for men and their children. On the one hand, many American children are growing up with high levels of connection to their fathers as they benefit from a culture that has historically high expectations for men’s involvement in the everyday lives of their children…

However, despite increased norms for father involvement, the last generation has also witnessed the rise of ambiguous fatherhood in America. Many of the historical supports that have traditionally preserved men’s involvement in their children’s lives have been eroding for a large portion of contemporary families. Historically high rates of non-marital cohabitation, out-of-wedlock childbirth, and marital divorce (McLanahan, 2004) have dramatically altered the landscape of fathering, leaving unprecedented numbers of children growing up with uncertain or non-existent relationships with their fathers. While these demographic trends have changed family life in general within the United States, these contextual changes have been particularly grim for father-child relationships which have been found to be more sensitive than mother-child relationships to contextual forces and supports (Doherty et al., 1998; Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006).

This negative trend toward ambiguous fatherhood would get a tremendous impulse if same-sex marriage is approved. These are the conclusions from the same book chapter:

1. A change in the definition of marriage will inherently alter the definition of parenthood in our society.
2. Our collective and legal definitions of fatherhood should be based on the generative needs of children. Simply put, our primary concern should be children’s needs, not adults’ rights or desires.
3. The overwhelming conclusion of more than two decades of social science research on father-child relationships is that father involvement is extremely sensitive to contextual factors. In particular, research shows that for most men, marriage and fatherhood are a package deal. Thus, fathering outside of the context of a committed marriage relationship that involves shared residential living with a child is a fragile arrangement at best for fostering generative father-child relationships.
4. As a social institution, marriage has traditionally been defined so as to provide a natural mechanism to provide for the widely held cultural ideal that children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be raised by the father and mother who gave them life. This persistent core value of kin altruism is at the center of our society’s definition of marriage and parenthood.
Grounded in these perspectives, it is our contention that providing legal sanction of same-sex partnerships would increase the number of children raised in settings of ambiguous fatherhood; thus exposing a greater number of children to the risks of poor or non-existent father involvement.

The negative consequences would not only occur in direct ways but also in indirect ways. In fact,

Children raised by same-sex couples will inherently experience ambiguous father-child relationships due to the fact that they, by definition, lack a marriage between a child’s two biological parents. In short, same-sex parenting requires the intentional disregard for kin altruism as the entitlement of children and the best environment to foster the best interests of children.

The above quote refers to direct ways in which same-sex marriage will foster ambiguous parenthood. But even among heterosexual men the legalization of same-sex marriage would foster the rise of ambiguous fatherhood:

Instruction and policy in various public settings (e.g., educational, political, judicial) would be required to advocate the equality of all social arrangements for the rearing of children even though a large body of social science research belies this idea. Altering the legal definition of marriage would further erode the societal recognition that fathers matter to children. As this occurs, two primary mechanisms will increase the ambiguity of fatherhood for children, men and society.

First, the rise of a “self-defined parenting paradigm” that equates single-mothers and lesbian couples with two biological parents in meeting the developmental needs of children threatens to further disenfranchise men from family life and weakens social norms discouraging divorce and non-marital childbearing…

A second way that the legalization of same-sex partnerships would further the rise of ambiguous fatherhood is that it would support a retreat from fatherhood altogether among some American men. One aspect of a self-defined parenting ideology in society is the option of not being a parent at all. If fathering is not a cultural ideal, the potential exists for an increase in men who live outside marriage and parenthood altogether. Given the data on the negative social consequences of a large number of unmarried men (e.g., higher rates of crime and other anti-social behavior), we should be very cautious about a parenting culture that suggests that men can be viewed as “sperm donors” who’s only essential “parenting role” is conception and then women can do it alone, either as single parents or as a lesbian couple. The loss of a cultural ideal for men to become responsible fathers could lead to increased numbers of men and children who live in non-generative contexts.

Oct

14

These are a couple of very good videos about the importance of voting yes for proposition 8.

Young adults from California discuss their involvement in preserving traditional marriage.


Elder David A. Bednar and a group of young adults from California discuss Proposition 8.

Oct

13

Until 1977, California did not explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but court decisions, and some statutes assumed as much. In 1977, the legislature amended Civil Code section 4100  to read that marriage is “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman”. In 2000, voters passed with 61% of the vote, ballot initiative Proposition 22, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. However, other laws have been passed by the legislature (since 1999) which recognize domestic partnerships and afford them some of the rights of marriage.

However, earlier this year, four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage. On November 4, Californians will vote on an amendment to the state constitution that says “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” These are the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000.

Because this is a moral issue, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) is encouraging all Californians to vote for Proposition 8.

Members of the many churches and organizations that are participating in the Protect Marriage Coalition, including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are calling friends, family and fellow citizens in California to urge support of Proposition 8 to defend traditional marriage.

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 sacrament meetings in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”

This video is from Next Gingrich:

There are two great videos and more information at:

LDS Media Talk

In the first video young adults from California discuss their involvement in preserving traditional marriage.

In the second video there are segments from a Church broadcast to Californian Church members addressing the Church’s doctrine of marriage and the Protect Marriage Coalition.

Finally these are two good videos from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

Oct

9

Yesterday a friend told me that he found something interesting about me at this website:

newyorktimesbestsellerlist.org

If we scroll down we can find one very nice video about the conversion story of brother Ott Dameron (my good neighbor)

and my own conversion story. The funny thing for my friend was that they titled my video by saying

Watch The founder of More Good Foundation, from Italy:

I have been working for the More Good Foundation from the beginning, and I am still doing it, but the real founder is David Neeleman, the famous Mormon, the same person who founded JetBlue and now Azul, in Brazil.

In any case, the website also call the Prophet, president Gordon B. Hinckley,

Revered President Hinckley…

We do not call “reverend” our prophets, but what is important is that they provided a great link to a very good video, where President Hinckley shares his testimony

Oct

8

It is a very troubling time for the US economy. This is a recent comment from the “money expert” Suze Orman:

We have built an entire economy on lies and deceit…It’s like building a home or an entire building on a sinkhole. You have a foundation, supposedly. But a little crack, if something goes wrong — a little earthquake, a tremor — and it starts to open, everything starts to fall down and … that is exactly what has happened in the United States of America.

Suze says the current financial downturn started all the way at the top of banks, mortgage companies and brokerage firms.

There was greed at the top — serious greed…When you have stocks, you have individual companies that want to make money. And CEOs want to make more money because the more money they make, the more their compensation is, the more their stock price goes up.

These companies made money by selling investments like mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, Suze says (link to full article)

But is there a relationship between faith and church attendance and losing our homes? It probably depends on where we go to church and also how well we listen when we are there. According to an article on Time there may be some connection:

Has the so-called Prosperity gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants — and hence, victims — of the current financial crisis? That’s what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of Pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California at Riverside, he realized that Prosperity’s central promise — that God will “make a way” for poor people to enjoy the better things in life — had developed an additional, dangerous expression during the subprime-lending boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe “God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house.” The results, he says, “were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers.”

I am sure that among Pentecostal and other religious groups not all were “turning parishioners into prey for greedy brokers”, but I am glad that in the Mormon church, Mormon Prophets have always been clear about avoiding debts and living within our means. Those Mormons who did or do otherwise cannot blame their leaders, but only themselves, because this message of frugality has been preached over and over again. However, I believe that most members of the Mormon church have followed the inspired counsels of their leaders and are ready for the troubles. It is a blessing to have leaders that are inspired and that receive revelations for out times.

This is a link to the videos of the last Mormon General Conference

Oct

2

I like Glenn Beck and his style on TV. He is a Mormon, and he does not conceal it. Not all Mormons act and talk like him and he is a relatively new convert to the Mormon Church. Once in a while he even use words that probably would not fit well a Mormon missionary, but overall I think he is doing a good job on TV.

This is an excerpt from his commentary on CNN, about America’s chilling future (he is writing as if he was in the future, but his comments are to be applied to the present).

Looking back now, it’s pretty obvious that our trust in government declined at about the same rate as our partisanship increased. People became so concerned about getting their party into power at any cost that the truth didn’t even seem to matter anymore.

That’s probably one of the reasons why George Washington hated the idea of political parties so much. Here’s what he said about them in his 1796 farewell speech:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

I know that George had a habit for using big words, so allow me to translate into 2008 English: Political parties that put their own success over that of the country’s will be the death of America…..

The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them.

This is what the American people should really do. I hope it is not too late. The way the Americans will respond to this crisis will have consequences globally. In Brazil they use to say that if in the US people sneeze, they get a flu.

keep looking »

Blogroll

WP Themes