126 replies to this topic

[nicolasconnault]

frankenstein, on 31 January 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

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]

nicolasconnault, on 31 January 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

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.

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]

california boy, on 31 January 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

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]

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

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?

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]

LDSToronto, on 31 January 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

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]

nicolasconnault, on 31 January 2011 - 08:01 PM, said:

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]

LDSToronto, on 31 January 2011 - 08:07 PM, said:

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]

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.]

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.]

california boy, on 31 January 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

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

Civil 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.

[frankenstein]

Jeff K., on 31 January 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  

seems the complaint, if any here, is about consistency or the lack thereof.

[california boy]

Jeff K., on 31 January 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

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.

If this is a change in policy, I certainly am not complaining.  I feel it is a much better position for the church to take rather than becoming a political pac on ballot issues.

[california boy]

Jeff K., on 31 January 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

Civil 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.

It has never been about a definition of marriage for me.  It has been about equality.  This law while not perfect is certainly a step in the right direction.

[nicolasconnault]

california boy, on 01 February 2011 - 12:50 AM, said:

It has never been about a definition of marriage for me.  It has been about equality.  This law while not perfect is certainly a step in the right direction.

Equality is another ambiguous word that needs careful definition. What does it mean to be equal? Is equality in all things a desirable goal? What is typically included in the goal of equality?

[keithb]

nicolasconnault, on 31 January 2011 - 08:23 PM, said:

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.

This is exactly what I've been saying for years now! The church isn't bound by things like morals or ethics.  They aren't here to "stand for something". In fact, "Standing for Something" isn't even a phrase that would typically enter the speech of anyone in the leadership of the church, past or present.  

After all, this is GOD'S CHURCH, and it's not like HE'S overly concerned by things like morals, ethics, and protecting righteous principles, now is he?

[Paddy]

frankenstein, on 31 January 2011 - 11:01 PM, said:

seems the complaint, if any here, is about consistency or the lack thereof.

To me this is the heart of the issue and the reason I started this tread. It seems pretty clear that the church has a policy on what marriage is. This is not in dispute. However it does not seem to have a consistent policy on what marriage isn't (there is probably a better way to say that??).

I think it is reasonable to suggest that most members of the church would would oppose SSM. This to me is the natural flow on from the Proclamation to the Family. However without a consistent policy on SSM what happens if someone does actively agrees with it? The statement that was read at my Ward on Sunday seem to suggest that this would be OK. Is it OK...??

Paddy

[nicolasconnault]

keithb, on 01 February 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

This is exactly what I've been saying for years now! The church isn't bound by things like morals or ethics.  They aren't here to "stand for something". In fact, "Standing for Something" isn't even a phrase that would typically enter the speech of anyone in the leadership of the church, past or present.  

After all, this is GOD'S CHURCH, and it's not like HE'S overly concerned by things like morals, ethics, and protecting righteous principles, now is he?

Your sarcasm doesn't improve the argument. Now you're equating "The Church" with the individuals that form its leadership. That is still an inadequate equation.

[Paddy]

LDSToronto, on 31 January 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

Personally, I find it cowardly. Either the church stands for right, or it doesn't.

Its funny because in a round about way my wife said the same thing to me. She sees thing very black and white though. (she is OK with me writing this!!) However I think that the church can employ different strategies but I think the policy should be consistent. I don't think it too much to state to the membership that it fundamentally opposes SSM as a policy, yet in Australia we prefer the membership to express their on personal view in the SSM debate and leave the church out of it. To say that the church takes no stance on the SSM issue leaves it very open and confusing.

Paddy

[Paddy]

keithb, on 01 February 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

This is exactly what I've been saying for years now! The church isn't bound by things like morals or ethics.  They aren't here to "stand for something". In fact, "Standing for Something" isn't even a phrase that would typically enter the speech of anyone in the leadership of the church, past or present.  

After all, this is GOD'S CHURCH, and it's not like HE'S overly concerned by things like morals, ethics, and protecting righteous principles, now is he?

Keithb

I appreciate your comments but don't you think that your projecting a bit...?? I think the church is doing fine "standing for something". The church stands on many issues and gets it right almost all of the time. This suggests to me that it is God's church with a healthy dose of humanity.

I would be interested to hear some constructive thoughts on how you would stand on this issue...?

Paddy

[keithb]

nicolasconnault, on 01 February 2011 - 03:21 AM, said:

Your sarcasm doesn't improve the argument. Now you're equating "The Church" with the individuals that form its leadership. That is still an inadequate equation.

Okay, so let me get this straight: you're really going to defend the viewpoint that the LORD'S TRUE CHURCH, as an institution, doesn't have to stand up for morality and righteousness. You're really going to defend that position?

Wow.