Mormons and Proposition 8 - LA Times Excellent Editorial

I'll be honest.

I voted against Proposition 102 for the only reason that the State of Arizona wanted to define marriage, as being between one man and one woman. Even though I am painfully aware that society would never accept my marriages between myself and two beautiful and elect ladies, and with whom I have consumated those unions with children being born into this world, I cannot support the legal definition of marriage I voted against this last month.

I am reminded of Abraham, who lived on the outskirts of the five great cities, who was visited by, and prepared a meal for the three Gods who created this world. Yeah; the Bible teaches they were angels, but who amongst Mormonism can declare there was a being, raised in immortality BEFORE the Savior was resurrected? Abraham was visited by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael. Yeah. You, too can eat the fatted calf in your resurrected form; or if you prefer something light, eat fish, like the Savior did with His Apostles.

But, seriously. These cities were destroyed for not just homosexuality--they were bad. Read the BOOK OF JASHER. These people would humiliate and starve people to death, tempting them with food they could never buy. And the account in the Holy Scriptures differs greatly from the KJV. In the former, Lot NEVER wanted to give his Lords over to these wicked men, NOR his daughter! I really appreciated that passage when I read it! A father would never surrender his daughter to adultery; and I'm sure Lot was also aware who these beings were.

Where I'm leading to with this, is in Ms. Van Wagenen's article--even the headline--she asserts that Mormons should be accepting and sympathetic to homosexual unions because we are (and were, as a people), persecuted for our belief and practice of plural marriage.

First of all: I don't pray persecution upon anyone. Even my friends over there in the five great cities.

What I want to assert, is that Mormon saints were never persecuted for homosexual marriages. Never. It has always been plural marriage and other doctrines like Concecration, United Order and Adam-God, and that we are here upon this earth to (hopefully) one day ascend to godhood.

What proposition 8/102 defines, is solely the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, and for that sole purpose, am I opposed to them.

I am satisfied within my own heart, that my Priesthood unions between my lovely wives are acceptable in God's eyes. And I don't need anyone else's approval, BECAUSE I KNOW!

Blessings to you!

I believe that (Miss, Mrs, or Ms) Lola Van Wagenen has fallen for a false arguement by the homo rights movement, and this fallacy is the root of the disapproving tone of her article.

The attempted equation of polygyny, which is a form of marriage and family life fully accepted and approved by Our Father, and reprobate actions such as sodomy, is a gross mischaracterization of both activities. Loving polygyny leads to a full house of happy, loving children. "Playing in the mud", to describe the actual practices the reprobates engage in, leads to bypassing the bodies natural immune system, disease and death.

The homo lobby has engaged in many decades of falsehoods, mischaracterization, misinformation and calculated deceit. They have used the media to browbeat society into accepting a P.C. code of Orwellian logic, where anyone not accepting of them and their agenda is somehow "phobic", unlearned or backwards. This has led to an uninformed public being led by the nose into the current sad state of affairs, where to even suggest that being "gay" is an abomination, or could possibly be the cause of the diseases which only afflict those whose behaviour bypasses the natural immune system, is to be "guilty" of hate speech or ignorance.

I refuse to accept this dismal societal conditioning quietly. I love Our Fathers' children, even the reprobates, which is why I won't be silent and let them walk off a cliff without trying to tell them that the path they are on is dangerous. When P.C. is allowed to silence sane, logical people for fear of the opinions of others, the thought police have won.

I do not believe that the state should have any authority over marriage, nor over divorce. But I applaud and support the majority of the population in deciding (voting) to reject the homosexual lobby and their dangerous agenda. Note that anywhere sodomy is on the ballot it is soundly defeated, and that the only places it is legal are those areas where one or two judges or members of the legislature have decided they were above the will of the people and changed the law by fiat.

Nature shows that 'playing in the mud' does not lead to life (children) and does lead to infection by bypassing the immune system. I am not implying aids as a punishment by Our Father, that is ridiculous, I am saying that intravenous drug usage and anal sex are the two main causes of all sorts of infection. To support these activities as "normal", "morally neutral" or "worthy of passing on to my children as a viable alternate lifestyle" is a weak minded refusal to accept reality. And do not make the arguement that a thin film of latex does anything but delay the inevitable, even if you accept the 99% marketing slogan you are then reduced to playing russian roulette.

I do not write these comments in anger, nor do I begrudge anyone their viewpoint. I simply feel that the whole "gay is okay" movement has gotten so out of control that I must speak out. The homo agenda has pushed so far into our societal mindset that someone has just written a letter equating polygyny with sodomy and no one has refuted the basic premise of the arguement. Am I the only one who looks at this and sees something very wrong here?

My two cents,

King

When you buy into Government at the expense of God, you fall from Grace.

Just what the next year will bring will tell us all a lot.