126 replies to this topic

[keithb]

Paddy, on 01 February 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

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

If the church really does stand up for this principle, then they should stand for it and let the world be damned for opposing them. However, the evidence presented in this thread suggests a type of wishy-washy behavior that is very unbecoming of a church claiming to be the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. I mean, if the church really believes political intervention in favor of a moral principle is the will of God, why not apply it equally in all situations? Instead, it seems like the church only applies this principle when it is politically expedient for them to do so -- which is hardly a sentiment that I think even early church leaders (many of whom suffered crossing the plains to Utah) would sustain.

[nicolasconnault]

keithb, on 01 February 2011 - 03:54 AM, said:

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.



If the church really does stand up for this principle, then they should stand for it and let the world be damned for opposing them. However, the evidence presented in this thread suggests a type of wishy-washy behavior that is very unbecoming of a church claiming to be the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. I mean, if the church really believes political intervention in favor of a moral principle is the will of God, why not apply it equally in all situations? Instead, it seems like the church only applies this principle when it is politically expedient for them to do so -- which is hardly a sentiment that I think even early church leaders (many of whom suffered crossing the plains to Utah) would sustain.

I'll have to quote myself to answer you:

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.

This principle is applicable even for missionary work in wards and branches: sometimes a particular course of action that seems to harmonise with a particular gospel principle is actually counter-productive and would lead to less people joining the Church and coming unto Christ. Leaders who listen to the Holy Ghost will receive revelation regarding the best possible course of action, and they will take it even if it causes some members to point a finger of scorn and accuse them of cowardice.

This is precisely what happened when Joseph left the Saints in Nauvoo, promising them safety as long as he was away. His behaviour was construed as cowardice by many saints.

Edited by nicolasconnault, 01 February 2011 - 04:08 AM.

[Paddy]

keithb, on 01 February 2011 - 03:54 AM, said:

If the church really does stand up for this principle, then they should stand for it and let the world be damned for opposing them. However, the evidence presented in this thread suggests a type of wishy-washy behavior that is very unbecoming of a church claiming to be the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. I mean, if the church really believes political intervention in favor of a moral principle is the will of God, why not apply it equally in all situations? Instead, it seems like the church only applies this principle when it is politically expedient for them to do so -- which is hardly a sentiment that I think even early church leaders (many of whom suffered crossing the plains to Utah) would sustain.

I would agree with you on one point and that is that the church should have a consistent policy SSM, which from what I understood from last Sunday was not the case. However I think it only right (and moral, ethical, whatever) that the church does not apply it in equally in every situation. For example in a country that persecutes/discriminates gay members of society. If the government of the country wanted to pass a SSM law to help protect its marginalised citizens then I think it only right to support a SSM law (or at least remain neutral to it)to support that protection.

This is obviously an extreme example and I don't want to turn this into a political debate. I am simply using it as an example of when the church might be morally bound under an extenuating circumstance to not oppose SSM. Similar to the church's policy on abortion which seems to strike a decent balance morally?

Thoughts..??

Paddy

[Jeff K.]

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.

No, it has always been about how marriage is defined, nothing more, the church is very clear on that, perhaps you missed the memo?

[Pa Pa]

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?

We don't need to be commanded to do what is right.

[Paddy]

Pa Pa, on 01 February 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

We don't need to be commanded to do what is right.

Sometimes we do sometimes we dont. What do you think is right?

[Zeta-Flux]

Most of the points in the letter seem to be the usual points that the church makes.  Don't use the church for political purposes.  etc...  The only thing that doesn't quite fit is the statement that the church has no official position on Same Sex Marriage.  I'd probably guess either that is what the area authority thought and is simply mistaken or he just expressed it poorly in his email.  At any rate, an area authority does not have the authority to change the position of the church, or override what higher authorities have taught.  And it is the First Presidency who has opposed Same Sex Marriage.  We can read their *official* words on the *official* church website (and not the private communication from a lower authority).  For example: http://beta-newsroom...ion-of-marriage

[semlogo]

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

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.

Really?

[Jason]

keithb, on 01 February 2011 - 03:54 AM, said:

If the church really does stand up for this principle, then they should stand for it and let the world be damned for opposing them. However, the evidence presented in this thread suggests a type of wishy-washy behavior that is very unbecoming of a church claiming to be the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth.

What evidence?  As far as I can see the text of the e-mail in question hasn't appeared in this thread.  All we have is what the OP remembers hearing.
Calling the Church "wishy-washy" without knowing what was actually said seems prejudicial.

[Jason]

Nicolasconnault is correct - the primary mission of the Church is to save souls, not to stand for what's right.  If standing for what's right gets in the way of saving souls then we'll stop doing it.  
I am reminded of Mormon being forbidden to preach among the Nephites.

[Pa Pa]

Paddy, on 01 February 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

Sometimes we do sometimes we dont. What do you think is right?

#
Doctrine and Covenants 58:26

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

[keithb]

nicolasconnault, on 01 February 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:

The purpose of the Church is not to stand for right . . .

Wow

Edited by keithb, 01 February 2011 - 09:52 AM.

[keithb]

Paddy, on 01 February 2011 - 04:17 AM, said:

I would agree with you on one point and that is that the church should have a consistent policy SSM, which from what I understood from last Sunday was not the case. However I think it only right (and moral, ethical, whatever) that the church does not apply it in equally in every situation. For example in a country that persecutes/discriminates gay members of society. If the government of the country wanted to pass a SSM law to help protect its marginalised citizens then I think it only right to support a SSM law (or at least remain neutral to it)to support that protection.

This is obviously an extreme example and I don't want to turn this into a political debate. I am simply using it as an example of when the church might be morally bound under an extenuating circumstance to not oppose SSM. Similar to the church's policy on abortion which seems to strike a decent balance morally?

Thoughts..??

Paddy

So, in other words, the church expects a universal application of its principles to the lives of its members (no slacking on the law of tithing, for example) but allows itself the luxury of a non-universal application of those principles to its interactions with the world.

I understand now.

[keithb]

Jason, on 01 February 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

Nicolasconnault is correct - the primary mission of the Church is to save souls, not to stand for what's right.  If standing for what's right gets in the way of saving souls then we'll stop doing it.  
I am reminded of Mormon being forbidden to preach among the Nephites.

Yet another vote that the church doesn't have to stand up for what is right.

Wow.

[california boy]

Jeff K., on 01 February 2011 - 05:11 AM, said:

No, it has always been about how marriage is defined, nothing more, the church is very clear on that, perhaps you missed the memo?

I think you ignored the most important part of my post  here it is again with ME in bold.  Maybe you won't miss it this time.

Quote

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.

I realize there are those in the church who like you feel they are fighting for a definition of marriage and that definition is more important to them than equality under the law when it comes to marriage.

[Jason]

keithb, on 01 February 2011 - 09:58 AM, said:

Yet another vote that the church doesn't have to stand up for what is right.

Wow.

It's a matter of priorities.  
God the Father wants us all to do right and return to Him, but His priority is that we be allowed to choose, so He doesn't force us to do right, and allows much evil and suffering to exist.

[sjdawg]

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.

Good thinking.  We should always base our doctrinal positions on the current political landscape.

[sjdawg]

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.

Actually, it would just be nice if the Church had one position and stuck with it openly and honestly.

Edited by sjdawg, 01 February 2011 - 10:22 AM.

[Walden]

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?

Seems to me that the LDS church has learned from past mistakes with regards to their public image (prop eight) and has taken measures to alter their strategy. The church is certainly savvy when it comes to public image, and like any other strong organization or corporation, it behooves them to continually review their image and message and alter it accordingly to attract the largest audience, without of course alienating their base.

It appears they've done exactly that with this new, kinder, gentler approach regarding SSM.

Edited by Walden, 01 February 2011 - 10:18 AM.

[sjdawg]

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?

+1.  Well said