126 replies to this topic

[Paddy]

Today was the fifth Sunday and we had a combined Priesthood and Relief Society class. The first 5 minutes were taken up by a letter that was sent by our Area Presidency regarding the Same Sex Marriage debate that will be addressed in the Australian parliament early this year.

The letter communicated some interesting points:

• Encouraged the members to write to our local member
  
• Persons are to express their personal view
  
• The church does not take a stand on Same Sex Marriage
  
• Members are not to lobby other members to their point of view
  
• The letter was not to be read in sacrament meeting. A separate meeting was to be held for the reading of the letter. Was not to be read from the pulpit. Should not take any more that 10-15 minutes.

I find this interesting in light of the Prop 8 campaign. The church seemed reasonably involved in promoting and encouraging members to be apposed to the legislation. Yet in Australia the church is not taking a particular stand.

The cynic in me finds this slightly underhanded and manipulative as I would expect the majority church membership to be apposed to Same Sex Marriage. The church is taking a neutral position yet knows that the membership will oppose it. The church then gets a result without the bad press.

The other point of interest is that (in my opinion) Australians generally do care about the Same Sex Marriage debate and most of the members would not think to be involved anyway.

On the other hand is the church now maturing in its policy? Is neutrality now the best way to approach this issue?

[CV75]

Paddy, on 29 January 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:

I find this interesting in light of the Prop 8 campaign.

It would seem reasonable that the Church use different tactics in light of different conditions, such as state or national legislation, different constitutions or different cultures, the particular political processes, the impact of evolving geopolitics, simple experience, and so forth, not to mention current revelation. The strategy (exercise the keys) remains the same.

[Duncan]

Complete guess here but maybe the church wants members involved in cleaning up the community after all the flooding?

[Paddy]

CV75, on 29 January 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

It would seem reasonable that the Church use different tactics in light of different conditions, such as state or national legislation, different constitutions or different cultures, the particular political processes, the impact of evolving geopolitics, simple experience, and so forth, not to mention current revelation. The strategy (exercise the keys) remains the same.

I would agree with the idea that the church would employ different tactics, however this seems a shift in policy. Does the church maintain that marriage should be between "a man and a women", or does the church "stake no stand on the issue"?

Paddy

[Paddy]

Duncan, on 29 January 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:

Complete guess here but maybe the church wants members involved in cleaning up the community after all the flooding?

This is pretty bad business. The floods have been terrible. The church members have been involved in the clean up as well as the wider community. The church has made the commitment to send all fast offering donated in February to the flood relief. Next week is a national fast day as well...

Great practical idea....

Paddy

Edited by Paddy, 29 January 2011 - 11:17 PM.

[nicolasconnault]

Paddy, I'm not sure what happened but our ward leaders gave us a message on temple attendance today, I was completely unaware of this SSM debate. Since this only seems to be delivered on fifth sundays, I wonder if we have to wait until the next one before we get it? It might be too late then.

[cinepro]

Quote

The church does not take a stand on Same Sex Marriage

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

[Paddy]

nicolasconnault, on 29 January 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

Paddy, I'm not sure what happened but our ward leaders gave us a message on temple attendance today, I was completely unaware of this SSM debate. Since this only seems to be delivered on fifth sundays, I wonder if we have to wait until the next one before we get it? It might be too late then.

We had our normal lesson. But a small amount of time was taken on this communication. I suspect some wards might be planning to deliver the communication outside normal class times?? I suspect you will get it soon...!!

Paddy

[Paddy]

cinepro, on 29 January 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

As soon as I heard what this was about I started listening more closely. I may be recalling it in hindsight, but I am almost 100% sure this is what it said. I actually asked the Bishopric member if I could get a copy of it but he promptly said no. I will see if I can get another look at it soon to confirm.

Paddy

[nicolasconnault]

cinepro, on 29 January 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

Perhaps the exact quote was "The church does not take a stand on Same Sex Marriage-related political debates"...

[california boy]

It is a difficult battle to fight as more and more people view this issue as one of civil rights rather than religious preference.  The news this week indicates that things are changing even faster than expected.

What is happening in Illinois
Clerks gear up for same-sex union paperwork

What is happening in Hawaii
Hawaii Senate approves same-sex civil unions


What is happening in Rhode Island
Rhode Island eyeing gay marriage legislation


What is happening in Montana
Gay couples argue for same rights as wedded people


What is happening in New York
Gay marriage supported by record number of New York voters

[Paddy]

nicolasconnault, on 29 January 2011 - 11:55 PM, said:

Perhaps the exact quote was "The church does not take a stand on Same Sex Marriage-related political debates"...

The church may not but it was pretty clear that the church was happy to have the members express their view as long as the church's name was kept out of it. That was made pretty clear.

Paddy

[Paddy]

california boy, on 30 January 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:

It is a difficult battle to fight as more and more people view this issue as one of civil rights rather than religious preference.

Thanks for the links....

I agree it is difficult to fight but the question is: What is the church's position on SSM? What side do we take in the fight if the church has no position?

Paddy

[california boy]

Paddy, on 30 January 2011 - 12:11 AM, said:

Thanks for the links....

I agree it is difficult to fight but the question is: What is the church's position on SSM? What side do we take in the fight if the church has no position?

Paddy

It certainly looks like a major policy change to me.  I wonder if the same directive will be given here in the United States?

[rodheadlee]

I have no problem with same sex union. I have a huge problem when the word marriage is tossed in there. Then the next step will be to squash our civil rights and try to make people/churches perform weddings they do not want to perform. I believe this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. When jack booted thugs try to make us do same sex weddings in the temple then the temples will start shutting down. It's my own opinion and I don't expect many to agree with me.

[nicolasconnault]

rodheadlee, on 30 January 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

I have no problem with same sex union. I have a huge problem when the word marriage is tossed in there. Then the next step will be to squash our civil rights and try to make people/churches perform weddings they do not want to perform. I believe this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. When jack booted thugs try to make us do same sex weddings in the temple then the temples will start shutting down. It's my own opinion and I don't expect many to agree with me.

Somehow I don't see this happening. It's obvious that the Church will never condone homosexual behaviour among its members, so why would "thugs" force the Church to perform same-sex marriages in the temples? The participants would not be able to have temple recommends in the first place. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but I don't think temples are considered as primary locations for civil unions. If someone really wants a same-sex marriage, there will plenty of celebrants willing to perform them before we get to the stage of governments forcing Mormon temples to perform SSMs.

[frankenstein]

you could always ask again to see the letter, and state that you are seeking clarification, that is, from what you remember the Church does not take a stand on the issue.

[Brade]

Quote

The church does not take a stand on Same Sex Marriage

[california boy]

rodheadlee, on 30 January 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

I have no problem with same sex union. I have a huge problem when the word marriage is tossed in there. Then the next step will be to squash our civil rights and try to make people/churches perform weddings they do not want to perform. I believe this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. When jack booted thugs try to make us do same sex weddings in the temple then the temples will start shutting down. It's my own opinion and I don't expect many to agree with me.

I for one agree with your statement.  While I feel that everyone should have the right to marry, I also would fight for the right of any church to defend their beliefs and not be forced or required to perform such weddings.  This is the law of the land in America.  

Some people get confused when a church opens up its churches or venues for public commercial use.  When they do that, they are placing those venues under discrimination laws.  Because the venue is used by the general public as a business, they are forced to rent that venue to anyone who wants to rent it.  It is where other churches have gotten in trouble.  It is why the church does not rent out its chapels or temples.  I don't see that policy changing in the future.  As long as they do not use their buildings for commercial use, under the law, they can not be forced to rent out anything to anyone they do not want using their buildings.  

No one in the United States has ever been forced to perform a marriage that conflicted with their beliefs.  The church was never forced to perform black marriages in its temples when they did not allow blacks to hold the priesthood.  It won't be forced to perform gay marriages when gay marriage becomes legal in the United States.

[Lightbearer]

Paddy, on 29 January 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:

I find this interesting in light of the Prop 8 campaign. The church seemed reasonably involved in promoting and encouraging members to be apposed to the legislation. Yet in Australia the church is not taking a particular stand.
...On the other hand is the church now maturing in its policy? Is neutrality now the best way to approach this issue?

Perhaps the reason for a different approach is because, the Church is headquartered in America, and it has never been Church policy to meddle in foreign affairs. I think the Church sees a legitamate reason why it can and should get involved in U.S. politics especially with moral issues being mingled with political ones. The Church has not changed it's stance, and NEVER will as long as God is at the helm. That does not mean it cannot use varied tactics with varied circumstances.
So while the Church is still opposed to SSM, it may of necessity need to keep a neutral stance when dealing with international politics. After all the entire missionary program in Australia could be shut down if it seemed if some Yanks seemed to be trying to meddle in their countries business. Fortunately the U.S. government cannot exile the Saints at least not in the 21st century.