Jason Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 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 Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 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 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.Actually, it would just be nice if the Church had one position and stuck with it openly and honestly.
Walden 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?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.
sjdawg Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 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
Jason Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Actually, it would just be nice if the Church had one position and stuck with it openly and honestly.Again, where is the actual text of the statement?Who wrote it and under what aurhority?
california boy Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 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.lds.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriageI agree with you. The email may very well have said "The church does not take a political stand on SSM". They still have a stand on SSM but are no longer going to take an active political role on this issue. This seems consistent with the churches actions since prop 8. Since the church participation in prop 8, they have not been politically involved in other states when this issue has come up other than advising members to vote against it like they have in this email.It is consistent with church policy to not get involved in issues politically. In fact, I would say it was atypical that the church did get involved politically in prop 8. That certainly did not turn out well for the church in my opinion. This issues is going to continue to come up politically for the next decade. Does anyone really want a battle like what happened in California every time it comes up for a vote? You can stand up for what is right without constantly being in a battle. The church does not politically get involved in any other points of doctrine. Do we condemn the church for not actively enforcing the Word of Wisdom through the ballot for example? Give the church a break.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Yet another vote that the church doesn't have to stand up for what is right.Wow.We are voting?...and of course it is.
Jeff K. Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 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.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.Definition is very important. Otherwise pedophilia is simply a May December romance. Civil union would have applied the same issues while preserving the ideal of marriage. You would destroy that for what you (securing the bold as you desired) want rather than what is right for families and marriage.
keithb Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 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.How does what you just said have anything at all to do with the church refusing to stick to their guns on SSM?
keithb Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Wow; what?Someone saying the church doesn't have to stand up for what they believe is right doesn't deserve a "wow' in your book?
california boy Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Definition is very important. Otherwise pedophilia is simply a May December romance. Civil union would have applied the same issues while preserving the ideal of marriage. You would destroy that for what you (securing the bold as you desired) want rather than what is right for families and marriage.I understand that you are one of those guys that do not understand the difference between consulting adults and are willing to compare gay marriage to a pedophilia. I personally find that lack of judgement disturbing.The fact that the most recent polls show more than 50% of Americans can understand the difference and are in favor of marriage equality.We have had countless threads on this issue. I clearly get that many Mormons do not believe in Marriage Equality. And for them, like you, the definition of marriage is more important than equality. I do however find that most Mormons do understand the concept of consenting adults. Perhaps this is a different thread.
Jason Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 How does what you just said have anything at all to do with the church refusing to stick to their guns on SSM?Well, first of all, I don't think the Church has refused to "stick to their guns". Again, where is the text of the letter mentioned in the OP so we can see what it actually said? Who wrote it and why?My point was that the Church's priority is not to "stand up for what is right", it's to save souls, and sometimes that requires not standing up for what is right in all circumstances. Again, Mormon was prohibited from "standing for what is right" and preaching to the Nephites.
Pahoran Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I understand that you are one of those guys that do not understand the difference between consulting adults and are willing to compare gay marriage to a pedophilia. I personally find that lack of judgement disturbing.The fact that the most recent polls show more than 50% of Americans can understand the difference and are in favor of marriage equality.We have had countless threads on this issue. I clearly get that many Mormons do not believe in Marriage Equality.And I clearly get that you have learned well from Darin, queen of MD&DB, how to pre-empt any discussion by the use of loaded language. What you fail to understand -- or perhaps prefer to ignore -- is that most of us are intelligent enough to realise that "marriage equality" is a mere slogan that is empty of meaning. "Equality" is just an attempt to make "We wannit!!!" sound more dignified.What you really need to "clearly get," CB, is this: to claim that "many Mormons do not believe in Marriage Equality" is false and prejudicial. It would be much more fair and accurate to admit that "many Mormons do not believe that Marriage Equality has anything to do with SSM."And once people have seen through the shell game, it's a bit hard to convince us that we're not seeing it.Regards,Pahoran
frankenstein Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 This ordeal and what LDStoronto mentioned raises several issues, which could easily be exploited by naysayersEven if the reason offered by LDStoronto is true - The Church does not want to appear to be interferring with governments, for China's sake, the whole situation is lacking. The Church could easily its posistion on marriage, followed or prefaced with the Church generic statement on politics i.e. encourage you to participate, not stating a party, etc. I can understand the greater good being to give a good impression to other governments.I don't think the Mormon example is applicable here, as I recall Mormon states "they were past feeling", and that they had been granted to so much in terms of Gospel knowledge.
Walden Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 What you fail to understand -- or perhaps prefer to ignore -- is that most of us are intelligent enough to realise that "marriage equality" is a mere slogan that is empty of meaning. "Equality" is just an attempt to make "We wannit!!!" sound more dignified.By this logic, I guess when women and blacks fought for "equality" in the 20th century, they were fighting for a slogan with empty meaning, and not the actual equal rights that granted them power to vote and live a life that is free from discrimination. I guess the fact that they did eventually win these rights was just a side-effect of their fight for the "slogan that is empty of meaning." Give me a break. I'm sure that if you were denied "equality" by the government, the word would be much more than just a "mere slogan that is empty of meaning."
Jason Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I don't think the Mormon example is applicable here, as I recall Mormon states "they were past feeling", and that they had been granted to so much in terms of Gospel knowledge.But eventually he was commanded to go forth and preach, and the Nephites were, if anything, even more "past feeling" at that point than they were when he wasn't preaching to them before.It's not clear exactly why Mormon was forbidden for a time, but I think it was because he would have been in danger, and he had a greater task to do in the future (namely, compile the Book of Mormon). So the value of having the Book of Mormon outweighed the value of having him "stand up for what is right" for a time. Again, priorities.
california boy Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 And I clearly get that you have learned well from Darin, queen of MD&DB, how to pre-empt any discussion by the use of loaded language. What you fail to understand -- or perhaps prefer to ignore -- is that most of us are intelligent enough to realise that "marriage equality" is a mere slogan that is empty of meaning. "Equality" is just an attempt to make "We wannit!!!" sound more dignified.What you really need to "clearly get," CB, is this: to claim that "many Mormons do not believe in Marriage Equality" is false and prejudicial. It would be much more fair and accurate to admit that "many Mormons do not believe that Marriage Equality has anything to do with SSM."And once people have seen through the shell game, it's a bit hard to convince us that we're not seeing it.Regards,PahoranI think it is safe to say that Darin and I do agree that Marriage Equality is far from a mere slogan that is empty of meaning for me and for many others fighting for equality on this issue. If you think otherwise, then you certainly don't understand the resolve that many have on correcting this issue. It is why this issue will not go away until that equality is reach. The fight for women's suffrage had been going on for almost 70 years before it was granted. Many of those that started that battle were long dead. It was hardly a meaningless slogan for them either. It took a civil war and another 100 years for blacks to receive equality. While you may not believe SSM is an equality issue, and many Mormons may agree with you, it doesn't mean that over 50% of Americans now believe it is. That number continues to grow. Your view continues to decline as it has consistently for the past decade.But yes, I am more than willing to say "many Mormons do not believe that Marriage Equality has anything to do with SSM."
Pahoran Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 By this logic, I guess when women and blacks fought for "equality" in the 20th century, they were fighting for a slogan with empty meaning, and not the actual equal rights that granted them power to vote and live a life that is free from discrimination. I guess the fact that they did eventually win these rights was just a side-effect of their fight for the "slogan that is empty of meaning."I'm sorry, by which logic is that?Certainly not mine.It is not my position that there is no such thing as equality. It is my position that "marriage equality" is a completely illegitimate attempt to make exactly the same kind of equivalence you are attempting to draw.Is that clear now?Give me a break.Certainly. Which leg?I'm sure that if you were denied "equality" by the government, the word would be much more than just a "mere slogan that is empty of meaning."Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. "Gays" are not "denied 'equality' by the government." They have exactly the same right to enter into marriage as anyone else. However, "gays" don't want to get married, because marriage is a mixed-sex institution; instead, they want to form relationships that are in no sense marriages, and then demand that the government legislatively pretend that those relationships are marriages.Regards,Pahoran
Jeff K. Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I understand that you are one of those guys that do not understand the difference between consulting adults and are willing to compare gay marriage to a pedophilia. I personally find that lack of judgement disturbing.The fact that the most recent polls show more than 50% of Americans can understand the difference and are in favor of marriage equality.We have had countless threads on this issue. I clearly get that many Mormons do not believe in Marriage Equality. And for them, like you, the definition of marriage is more important than equality. I do however find that most Mormons do understand the concept of consenting adults. Perhaps this is a different thread.And I clearly get that some Mormons cannot understand how changing a definition changes everything. And so they "avoid" the idea that something can be wrong by making it "not wrong". And when you believe any definition can be changed, then you also have to take into account that anything can be justified by definition, even May December romances that, if you change the definition, no longer means pedophilia. Those Mormons who believe that will eventually be led to justify anything and everything. They won't know what they stand for. Because the definition of what they stand for will be changed to something unrecognizable. I clearly get that some Mormons don't know this. They choose not to know this and they will eventually acquiese to almost any change California Boy. So while you harp on consenting adults, that does not mean consenting adults is synonymous with marriage it merely means that you have accepted a definition God does not accept. You of course will change more definitions when the need arises, and I am sure as the definitions change you will be in full support of those changes. Some of us though, indeed many of us choose not to go whichever way society deigns we should. You indeed are a stalwart, but for what we don't know.
Jeff K. Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 By this logic, I guess when women and blacks fought for "equality" in the 20th century, they were fighting for a slogan with empty meaning, and not the actual equal rights that granted them power to vote and live a life that is free from discrimination. I guess the fact that they did eventually win these rights was just a side-effect of their fight for the "slogan that is empty of meaning." Give me a break. I'm sure that if you were denied "equality" by the government, the word would be much more than just a "mere slogan that is empty of meaning."Race and gender have nothing to do with homosexuality. Indeed if you ask most African Americans they would be offended by the comparison. No one states that civil unions which engender all the same rights would be acceptable. Just don't try to change marriage. The fact you cannot see that reflects a certain willful blindness on your part and makes your position somewhat disengenuous.
Jaybear Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. "Gays" are not "denied 'equality' by the government." Actually, they are. In most states, only men are allowed to take a bride. I am sure you would complain bitterly if you were told that you could only marry someone that had a penis. The more relevant question is whether such discrimination is constitutional. Many courts have ruled that such disparate treatment violates the principle of "equal protection." Thus, your assertion that gays in asking for marital equality are using loaded language is simply false. That is exactly what they are asking for. But, speaking of loaded language, it must really drive you crazy to hear your side talk about "protecting the institution of marriage."BTW, calling Darin a queen is not cool.
Jason Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 "Gays" are not "denied 'equality' by the government." They have exactly the same right to enter into marriage as anyone else. However, "gays" don't want to get married, because marriage is a mixed-sex institution; instead, they want to form relationships that are in no sense marriages, and then demand that the government legislatively pretend that those relationships are marriages.Quoted for truth.If the state legislated that I could only marry a man (a somewhat less vulgar version of Jaybear's counter argument), and if human civilization had always dictated that only men could marry men, and if the very word "marriage" meant a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, then instead of trying to change what marriage meant, I would simply settle for calling my relationship with my wife something else. I might perhaps ask for the legal benefits that marriages have be granted to my wife and I, but that wouldn't require re-defining marriage.
semlogo Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 And I clearly get that you have learned well from Darin, queen of MD&DB, how to pre-empt any discussion by the use of loaded language. What you fail to understand -- or perhaps prefer to ignore -- is that most of us are intelligent enough to realise that "marriage equality" is a mere slogan that is empty of meaning. "Equality" is just an attempt to make "We wannit!!!" sound more dignified.What you really need to "clearly get," CB, is this: to claim that "many Mormons do not believe in Marriage Equality" is false and prejudicial. It would be much more fair and accurate to admit that "many Mormons do not believe that Marriage Equality has anything to do with SSM."And once people have seen through the shell game, it's a bit hard to convince us that we're not seeing it.Regards,PahoranInappropriate.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.