Tolerance: IT'S A TRAP!

Tweet

We are but men. We are but women. We are not gods. But yet, so many of us like to pretend that we are--or at least that we speak on behalf of one.

During this portion of history that will, indeed, be put into the books, I'm afraid The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be labeled as being on the "wrong side of history." 

During today's speech at the LDS Church's annual conference, Church authority Boyd K. Packer had this to say:

"The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequences that result from the violation of God's law of chastity....Tolerance is a virtue, but, like all virtues, when exaggerated it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the tolerance trap so that we are not swallowed up in it." 

Well, darn. And just when the LDS church was getting all lovey-dovey with all of us immoral folk, what with its totally tolerant website mormonsandgays.org. But here's what's irking me: Faithful followers of the Church are lapping this up. They'll fight tooth and nail for the words of one man who's source material comes from prayer. 

Which, by the way, anyone can do. And anyone who accepts the answers of the prayers of another man over the answers one gets from one's own prayers is not a person at all. That follower is pawn in someone else's scheme. 

But back to the quote. 

So Packer, who will most likely be the next prophet of the LDS faith, is grasping at what remains of intolerance in our nation. He's telling his followers to heed his words over those of Jesus. Don't tolerate. It's a trap. Love one another? No. It's a tolerance trap. 

And Packer's words should totally be believed, because he's been on the right side of history for as long as he's had authority, correct? 

Well, let's take a look at a quote from a 1977 talk he gave at BYU.

"Plan, young people, to marry into your own race. This counsel is good, and I hope our branch presidents are listening and paying attention."

Out of context, you say? Well, please, allow me to further enlighten you.

"We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our caucasians to marry caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, 'Well, I know of exceptions.' I do too, and they've been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, 'I can show you local church leaders, or perhaps even general leaders, who have married out of their race.' I say, 'Yes--exceptions.' Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman's near-scriptural statement, 'We'd like to follow the rule first, and then we'll take care of the exceptions.'"

This was only four years before I was born, and just barely before the LDS faith decided black people were OK after all. It's not that long ago. 

Packer is just another man who thinks he is ordained to speak on God's behalf because someone told him he is. He thinks any dream or feeling he has is the will and word of God because he holds an authoritative role in the Church. The very words he spoke in 1977 are disgusting and would not be backed up by any reputable member of the LDS faith today. 

Yet, he still speaks. And people will still follow. And families will be torn apart because the gay child is "immoral." Families will not tolerate the immoral children because it's a trap. 

Hopefully, 30 years from now, someone will write an article and cite Packer's quote from this day and look at it with as much disgust as any normal human looks at his 1977 quote. For a man who preaches from the highest tiers of the LDS hierarchy, he sure does seem to think Jesus just wasn't quite correct.

Until that time when the leaders of the LDS faith can follow the words of Jesus over their own misguided "feelings," I urge each and one of you to take the advice of authority figures with a grain of salt. They are but men. And until there is footage of God speaking face-to-face with one of these men, then your relationship with God is just as valid. And if your God is telling you to hate your fellow man, then maybe you should consider if that's even God at all. 

Do You Believe in Magic Underwear? - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson may have his own personal views on life
and religion, but he's also capable of respect for others'
beliefs. Also, he edits and contributes to The Skewed Review.
Editor's note: The images in this article are provided
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons unless otherwise
noted.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS | ACTIVISM | RELIGION

In a recent article posted on this website, I declared my somewhat wavering and very multifaceted beliefs when it comes to organized religions.

Is it possible that our creator takes an active role in our day-to-day lives? Of course it is. If I made a little diorama out of troll dolls and Barbies, and suddenly it came to life, I sure as shart would pay attention to it every day.

Is it also possible that our creator ignores us? Uh, yeah. If I made a little diorama out of troll dolls and Barbies, and suddenly it came to life, and suddenly I got interested in the latest episode of "The Real Housewives of New Jersey," then obviously there's something wrong with me because who pays attention to Bravo TV when your toys just came to life? But my intense ADHD would mean I stopped paying attention to my anthropomorphic plastic playthings. So yes, our creator could be paying us little or no attention due to something far more interesting.

And is it possible we were created by accident? Um, hello, totally! If I made a little diorama out of troll dolls and Barbies and then moved to New Jersey, then who's to say it didn't come to life? It could have come to life and I wouldn't have even realized it.

Of these three theories, one of them could possibly include my making little rules for my Barbies and trolls. Let's say I want all my little Barbies to always stand on tip-toes (ha! Like they have a choice!) and I want all my little trolls to wear funny hats to acknowledge me. Silly, I know, but is it that much different from what we perceive as organized religion?

Did that Barbie just move?? Am I God yet?

OK, here's the funny thing about his article. It's not even about that. It's about Cher. I just wanted to get my daily diorama fix out of the way.

So, Cher recently tweeted that potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney wears "magic underwear." Now for those of you who don't know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints allows its faithful adult members to take endowments out in their sacred temples. Part of those endowments includes wearing sacred garments that remind them of the promises they made to their maker.

So essentially, if I were God, I would want my little trolls and Barbies to wear something that reminded them daily of their promise to love and obey me.

OK, to prove that you acknowledge me as your creator, I want you all to twirl around three times each day and say "I'm a little teapot, short and stout!" Why? Because as your creator, I have really, really low self-esteem and I need to be constantly validated in order to be happy. Now do it!

In all actuality, virtually every religion practices this. Go ahead. Name a religion that doesn't utilize wearing some sort of article of clothing or jewelry that's a reminder of the faith. Jews? Yup. Catholics? For sure. Wiccans? Uh, you better believe it (and if you don't, just look it up. Find me a Wiccan who isn't all about the pentacle).

For Mormons, it's that sacred undergarment. In a way, it's a more humble way of acknowledging one's faith since it's literally so personal that nobody else sees it.

Now, do I agree that those who aren't allowed to wear the sacred clothes aren't worthy of being in God's house? That's a different article entirely. So let's get back to Cher.

When I search Wikimedia Commons for "Cher," this is literally the only image that pops up. So, yup. Here's Cher.

So, verbatim, Cher's tweet said, "I Feel if he doesn't get all his DUCKS IN A ROW we'll b forced 2 listen 2Uncaring Richy Rich! The whitest man in MAGIC UNDERWEAR in the WH."

Not to be redundant, but here's a screen grab of what I just typed out--only straight from Twitter.

Now, I don't follow Cher on Twitter because she can't spell and her grammar is horrible. And if you know me, then you'll understand how spelling and grammar errors give me aneurysms. I was tracking down this tweet and I found another where she referred to Mitt Romney's car as the "car elavator." I think this was a reference to his whole dog transportation scandal that happened like, 40 years ago. But whatever. The spelling of "elevator" is what irked me.

In the "magic underwear" tweet, she's referring to Obama getting said ducks in said row, and "Richy Rich" is Mitt Romney. "WH" is the White House, I suppose.

I couldn't help but screen grab some more tweets. Here's just a few of the more legible gems courtesy of Cher.

Here's my point. All religions have structure. Some have more structure than others, obviously. But it's a bit weird that anyone would single out Mormons' use of a sacred garment as an attack against them--especially Cher. She's such an advocate for gay rights and is the proud mother of a transgender son. What would she say if someone were to attack Chaz Bono by saying something about his genitalia?

Can she disagree with Mitt Romney? Yes! Hell, we all can! But we, as a nation, have come too far to keep attacking people for their religious views and especially for their religious practices. Does Cher run around calling Rabbis idiots for wearing kippahs? She would need to in order to stay consistent.

I guess in a way she's staying consistent in that she's calling Mitt Romney the "whitest man," seeing as how she's pretty damn white herself. So maybe my argument that Cher's hypocrisy isn't Kantian is a fallacy. She's obviously a self-hating caucasian. So I guess she can bash religions all willy-nilly whenever she pleases as well.

Please let me reiterate a point. I don't agree with any one religion, and I certainly don't agree with many religious practices. However, I would also never go around demeaning a particular religion's practice unless it absolutely hurt me in a very personal way. And guess what? Someone's underwear has never hurt me, and I'm guessing it never hurt Cher, either.

I can tell by your underwear that you're against health care reform!

I'm not a Republican, but in my Internet search for all things Cher, I came across this graphic. I'm only leaving you with this image because I found it hilarious--not because I agree with it in any shape or form. Just enjoy.

YEAH! Next time you buy music CDs, you just remember that!  Thank you, Saberpoint.blogspot.com for this lovely rendition of Cher that will surely stay with us every time we buy music CDs. I know the next time I buy music CDs, I will totally remember that Cher hates Republicans. This will definitely affect my collection of music CDs!