ERayR Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 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"? PaddyRead the Proclamation on the Family.
CV75 Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 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.
Paddy Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 Read the Proclamation on the Family.ERayRI 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 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
california boy Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 ERayRI 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. PaddyPaddy, 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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...PaddyThat sounds more like a bishopric mis-step then a change in Church policy then.
nicolasconnault Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 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 wife2. Not sure what a "fallout" would be, but if it's as bad as it sounds, I'd say it definitely hasn't happened3. 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 meetings4. 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.
nicolasconnault Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 what are the laws in Australia concerning a religion Officially voicing support or opposing legislation?Also, would Australia "hate speech" laws be applicable?I don't know about laws, but public scrutiny is a big issue here. Any perceived faux-pas leads to immediate attention by the media and has potential for greatly harming the Church's respectability and public image. That may seem trivial, but it would significantly hamper missionary success and could even lead many members to become confused or to leave entirely. This is especially the case in a nation that generally has very little or no idea about the Church. We are still in the infancy of building a positive public image here, it's probably too risky to take a stand on political matters. This is just my opinion, though. Some here will say that the true Church wouldn't be afraid of what the media says. Sure, but its members will be, whether they should or not.
california boy Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 1. I'm aware of it, and so is my wife2. Not sure what a "fallout" would be, but if it's as bad as it sounds, I'd say it definitely hasn't happened3. 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 meetings4. 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.Thanks for your observations. I realize that there are still many people throughout the world that are unaware of the church. Even in California, there were many that were unfamiliar with the church. However after prop 8, I would say you would have to be deaf, blind and a hermit to not know the involvement of the church in prop 8. Unfortunately the only thing many people may know about the church is that they perceive it to be anti-gay.
nicolasconnault Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Thanks for your observations. I realize that there are still many people throughout the world that are unaware of the church. Even in California, there were many that were unfamiliar with the church. However after prop 8, I would say you would have to be deaf, blind and a hermit to not know the involvement of the church in prop 8. Unfortunately the only thing many people may know about the church is that they perceive it to be anti-gay.This may not be so bad.... At least when they learn about the more positive things being said about the Church, they will be pleasantly surprised instead of merely mildly interested
LDSToronto Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 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 memberPersons are to express their personal viewThe church does not take a stand on Same Sex MarriageMembers are not to lobby other members to their point of viewThe 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?I live in Canada. Back in 2003/2004, then we had our vote to legalize SSM, the church took the exact same stance, almost verbatim. The reason give was that the church didn't want to be seen as influencing a foreign government as this would not be looked upon favourably by countries such as China.Personally, I find it cowardly. Either the church stands for right, or it doesn't.H.
nicolasconnault Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I live in Canada. Back in 2003/2004, then we had our vote to legalize SSM, the church took the exact same stance, almost verbatim. The reason give was that the church didn't want to be seen as influencing a foreign government as this would not be looked upon favourably by countries such as China.Personally, I find it cowardly. Either the church stands for right, or it doesn't.If you had all the facts and knew the future, perhaps you might be justified in saying this. Anyway the purpose of the Church is not to stand for right, it is to save souls. If the occasional withdrawal from political matters leads to more souls being saved, then I believe the Lord is entitled to choose that course of action. I choose to trust the Lord and his anointed prophets. They know better than I.
LDSToronto Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Anyway the purpose of the Church is not to stand for right, it is to save souls. Well, that's an interesting take on things, because I'm pretty sure I've been told that I need to stand for truth and light... So if I have to stand for truth and light, but the church doesn't, that's kind of wierd, isn't it?H.
nicolasconnault Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Well, that's an interesting take on things, because I'm pretty sure I've been told that I need to stand for truth and light... So if I have to stand for truth and light, but the church doesn't, that's kind of wierd, isn't it?It would be weird if the Church was a person. But the Church isn't. Therefore the Church doesn't need to be baptised or keep the word of wisdom, for example.
california boy Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Just a little update. Looks like another state has approved civil unions. The governor of Illinois just signed it into law.Illinois gets civil union
Jeff K. Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Seems to me that no one will ever be completely happy with what the church does. If they do nothing, they are cowardly, if they do something they are bigots. Maybe it isn't what the church does so much as our attitudes towards what the church does. In some actions they may err, in some they may not, but in the end we must acknowledge that they hold the keys to salvation and are doing their best to lead all mankind there. Personally Prop 8 was not a failure in California, it has exposed the rifts in society that needed to be exposed. It has also shown that the so called "nice" minority is neither nice nor without its own type of mindless bigotry. Better to expose such things now.In either case, the church cannot and will not win in the minds of some, they will find a reason to be angry at it, or disappointed in it, or somehow find it wanting. Mainly because that is what they want.
Jeff K. Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Just a little update. Looks like another state has approved civil unions. The governor of Illinois just signed it into law.Illinois gets civil unionCivil unions have not been the issue and Prop 8 has nothing to do with civil unions. It is the question of the definition of marriage.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.