126 replies to this topic

[CV75]

Paddy, on 29 January 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:

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"?

I don't have access to the message that was published, but I can say with confidence that the Church has not changed its policy on marriage being between a man and a woman. It appears that from what you say that the Church tactically is not taking a formal political stand as a direct voice in the political process as it did in CA or other places.

[Brade]

Lightbearer, on 30 January 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

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.

First, we're all sort of jumping to conclusions.  It'd be really nice to get some corroborating evidence that a letter was sent out and read that said "The Church does not take a stand on Same Sex Marriage".  I'm not calling Paddy a liar.  He may have misheard the statement.

Now, Lightbearer, you seem to have assumed here that the Church has taken a different approach ("Perhaps the reason for a different approach...").  You also said "So while the Church is still opposed to SSM...".  Here's what I'm curious about.  Suppose I said to you, "I am opposed to chocolate lollipops".  Then, while you're standing next to me, I turn to another person and say, "I do not take a stand on chocolate lollipops".  Does it seem like to you that in such a case the only difference between my statement to you and my statement to the other fellow is a difference of approach?

[rodheadlee]

nicolasconnault, on 30 January 2011 - 03:58 AM, said:

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.

I guess it's all in what you have experienced in your life. In my youth I have been on the receiving end of the abuse of power and authority by local police departments.

[nicolasconnault]

rodheadlee, on 30 January 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I guess it's all in what you have experienced in your life. In my youth I have been on the receiving end of the abuse of power and authority by local police departments.

Yes I suppose that such abuse can lead to difficulties for the operation of LDS temples. For example, France still does not have a temple. One of the reasons is that, for a very long time, French law required all public buildings to allow free entry to fire and police departments, and it was felt that some persons in government with strong anti-cult views would abuse that power and make temple worship impossible (don't quote me on this, I don't remember the details).

[frankenstein]

IF the statement is true "The Church does not take a stand" then the Church would do well to start watering the forest before the matches show up.  All it will take is a email to saying say "The LDS Church does not take a stand" to start a firestorm,  one of which would be the oft repeated "Oh look the LDS Church caved to political pressure again".  

IF the statement is true, then it seems entirely irresponsible and leaving the members hung out to dry to not provided some clarification.

i.e. "The Church does not take a stand because the Church is prohibited by Australian law from advocating for or against legislation. We, the 1st Presidency, call upon all members in their respective Countries to participate in shaping their Countries laws as they see fit"

[ERayR]

Paddy, on 29 January 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:

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

Read the Proclamation on the Family.

[CV75]

Brade, on 30 January 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Suppose I said to you, "I am opposed to chocolate lollipops".  Then, while you're standing next to me, I turn to another person and say, "I do not take a stand on chocolate lollipops".  Does it seem like to you that in such a case the only difference between my statement to you and my statement to the other fellow is a difference of approach?

To me, yes, if to say "I oppose" or "I support" required more nimble or expensive filing or reporting in order to be eligible to participate directly in the political process than I was effectively able to pull together (or if I was unable to participate on some other constitutional or legal or regulatory basis), and thus rendered ineligible to speak to the legislative process. I could say "I am opposed to chocolate lollipops" in one setting (moral discussion) and yet procedurally be prohibited from taking a stand on it in another (legislative process). I'm not familiar with how formally church and state are separated in Australia, but this might have something to do with it. Related to this, it may also not be culturally, socially or politically kosher in some environments for a person (the Church) to take a public stand on the broad public issues of chocolate lollipops (SSM) beyond promoting my opposition to my own circle of friends (official church materials).

[Bikeemikey]

Perhaps one of the reasons for the change in approach may be due to the Prop 8 results showing the method of the churches involvement in CA was "less effective".

Perhaps it is also about Australia have many more members in favor, or not opposed to, SSM. The church asking for Australian members to be involved in this debate in the way the CA members were might have a large negative back lash from both members and non-members.

In a lot of democracies around the world moral debate takes a big back seat to policy. New Zealand and Australia are examples of countries that have vastly different political climates to the US. In New Zealand the right to abortion will likely never be a subject of policial discussion ever again, this is a very similar setup to Australia.

SSM is essentially a moral debate and Australia and NZ don't really get into that.

You will find that most of the critical topics of political debate in the US are never even discussed, or of interest, to the voting citizens of many other democracies.

[nicolasconnault]

Bikeemikey, on 30 January 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

Perhaps one of the reasons for the change in approach may be due to the Prop 8 results showing the method of the churches involvement in CA was "less effective".

Perhaps it is also about Australia have many more members in favor, or not opposed to, SSM. The church asking for Australian members to be involved in this debate in the way the CA members were might have a large negative back lash from both members and non-members.

In a lot of democracies around the world moral debate takes a big back seat to policy. New Zealand and Australia are examples of countries that have vastly different political climates to the US. In New Zealand the right to abortion will likely never be a subject of policial discussion ever again, this is a very similar setup to Australia.

SSM is essentially a moral debate and Australia and NZ don't really get into that.

You will find that most of the critical topics of political debate in the US are never even discussed, or of interest, to the voting citizens of many other democracies.

There are some valid points in what you say. Having grown up in France, where public protests are nearly a daily occurrence, I was quite surprised to see a completely different, laid-back, laissez-faire attitude among Australians regarding any political issue not directly related to money. You just don't see Aussies doing public protests, I'm not even sure if it's "legal" to do so. I'm not sure if they find other ways to lobby governments, but in my experience many Australians are just too preoccupied with their sports, soapies and beer to care about moral issues.

[california boy]

Bikeemikey, on 30 January 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

SSM is essentially a moral debate and Australia and NZ don't really get into that.

You will find that most of the critical topics of political debate in the US are never even discussed, or of interest, to the voting citizens of many other democracies.

I served my mission in New Zealand. and I agree with your opinion.  Strangely they feel like the government does not have a right to dictate morality.  What people do between consenting adults is their own business.  While some may disagree with it, no one has a right to impose others own religious beliefs on others through the force of law.  A strange concept to some Americans.

[Paddy]

Bikeemikey, on 30 January 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

Perhaps one of the reasons for the change in approach may be due to the Prop 8 results showing the method of the churches involvement in CA was "less effective".

Perhaps it is also about Australia have many more members in favor, or not opposed to, SSM. The church asking for Australian members to be involved in this debate in the way the CA members were might have a large negative back lash from both members and non-members.

In a lot of democracies around the world moral debate takes a big back seat to policy. New Zealand and Australia are examples of countries that have vastly different political climates to the US. In New Zealand the right to abortion will likely never be a subject of policial discussion ever again, this is a very similar setup to Australia.

SSM is essentially a moral debate and Australia and NZ don't really get into that.

You will find that most of the critical topics of political debate in the US are never even discussed, or of interest, to the voting citizens of many other democracies.

Thanks for the comments...thats very insightful.

Edited by Paddy, 31 January 2011 - 02:42 AM.

[Paddy]

frankenstein, on 30 January 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

IF the statement is true "The Church does not take a stand" then the Church would do well to start watering the forest before the matches show up.  All it will take is a email to saying say "The LDS Church does not take a stand" to start a firestorm,  one of which would be the oft repeated "Oh look the LDS Church caved to political pressure again".  

IF the statement is true, then it seems entirely irresponsible and leaving the members hung out to dry to not provided some clarification.

i.e. "The Church does not take a stand because the Church is prohibited by Australian law from advocating for or against legislation. We, the 1st Presidency, call upon all members in their respective Countries to participate in shaping their Countries laws as they see fit"

That's the way I interpreted the consequence of the statement when it was made on Sunday. I wondered why the church took a stand in the Prop 8 campaign and not in Australia. I was looking for a statement to help inform my decision to support or not support the debate either way.

I think there is quite a difference between the church's policy about the definition of marriage (i.e. that it is between a man and a woman) and church's policy, or lack thereof, in opposing Same Sex Marriage.

Paddy

[Paddy]

ERayR, on 30 January 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

Read the Proclamation on the Family.

ERayR

I understand that the church has a policy on the definition of marriage. I am quite happy with that definition, I think it is clear and inspired. However I think there is a difference between that definition and a a policy opposing SSM. It seems clear that the church opposed SSM in the Prop 8 campaign but not they are stating that the church takes no stand on the issue. As some have already pointed out this might be because the church is maturing in its policy on SSM or that different political climates call for different policy. I am starting to warm to the idea that the church is simply adopting a different policy here in Australia. After the mess of Prop 8 it may even seem likely that the church is protecting its members as well.

Paddy

[Paddy]

A quick update... I found out that the statement that was read in the meeting was actually an email sent from the Area Presidency to the Bishops. It was not meant to be read verbatim, but was meant to be a guide to bishops in what to say in the meeting regarding SSM. Unfortunately the Bishop was away on Sunday and the Bishopric member read it out instead of using it as a guide.

I will see if the bishopric are willing to give me a copy of the email and I can confirm its contents...

Paddy

Edited by Paddy, 31 January 2011 - 03:05 AM.

[california boy]

Paddy, on 31 January 2011 - 02:58 AM, said:

ERayR

I understand that the church has a policy on the definition of marriage. I am quite happy with that definition, I think it is clear and inspired. However I think there is a difference between that definition and a a policy opposing SSM. It seems clear that the church opposed SSM in the Prop 8 campaign but not they are stating that the church takes no stand on the issue. As some have already pointed out this might be because the church is maturing in its policy on SSM or that different political climates call for different policy. I am starting to warm to the idea that the church is simply adopting a different policy here in Australia. After the mess of Prop 8 it may even seem likely that the church is protecting its members as well.

Paddy

Paddy, how aware are Australians of the churches involvement in Prop 8.  Has there been fall out in Australia over the churches political involvement?  Are most people aware pf the whole Prop 8 campaign and results?  Is the church thought of as being anti gay in Australia?

[nicolasconnault]

california boy, on 31 January 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

Paddy, how aware are Australians of the churches involvement in Prop 8.  Has there been fall out in Australia over the churches political involvement?  Are most people aware pf the whole Prop 8 campaign and results?  Is the church thought of as being anti gay in Australia?

I'm an Australian member. I could share with you my personal answers to these questions. However, since I haven't conducted any opinion poll here, you wouldn't be able to draw any justified conclusions from such a small sample size.

[frankenstein]

what are the laws in Australia concerning a religion Officially voicing support or opposing legislation?

Also, would Australia "hate speech" laws be applicable?

[california boy]

nicolasconnault, on 31 January 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

I'm an Australian member. I could share with you my personal answers to these questions. However, since I haven't conducted any opinion poll here, you wouldn't be able to draw any justified conclusions from such a small sample size.

I understand.  I would still like your personal observations.

[Jason]

Paddy, on 31 January 2011 - 03:05 AM, said:

A quick update... I found out that the statement that was read in the meeting was actually an email sent from the Area Presidency to the Bishops. It was not meant to be read verbatim, but was meant to be a guide to bishops in what to say in the meeting regarding SSM. Unfortunately the Bishop was away on Sunday and the Bishopric member read it out instead of using it as a guide.

I will see if the bishopric are willing to give me a copy of the email and I can confirm its contents...

Paddy

That sounds more like a bishopric mis-step then a change in Church policy then.

[nicolasconnault]

california boy, on 31 January 2011 - 10:36 AM, said:

1. how aware are Australians of the churches involvement in Prop 8.
2. Has there been fall out in Australia over the churches political involvement?
3. Are most people aware pf the whole Prop 8 campaign and results?
4. Is the church thought of as being anti gay in Australia?

1. I'm aware of it, and so is my wife
2. Not sure what a "fallout" would be, but if it's as bad as it sounds, I'd say it definitely hasn't happened
3. As you can guess from my answer to #1, I haven't the slightest clue. I've heard very, very people talk about it, and never during Church meetings
4. I have never heard of the Church spoken of in this way before. However, this doesn't mean much. I've rarely ever heard the Church being spoken about at all outside of immediate Church circles.

Just be aware that, even in the US, more than 50% of people don't have a clue about the LDS Church. The figure is much larger in Australia. Most people just couldn't care less about religion here.