What If The Church Had Issued The Following Pre-Prop 8 Vote?

[Bikeemikey]

*** This is a re-post of a closed thread - at the time there were other threads debating similar SSM questions... I hope the timing of this is a little better ***

This is a rushed and poorly crafted attempt at a letter the Church could have issued a few years ago as an alternative method of engaging the US govt. and people on the question of SSM, specifically during the pre-election California Prop 8 issue.

This is obviously a hypothetical.

I am curious to see what peoples responses are to the kind of ideas i have expressed in this hypothetical statement. It is a position that I find to be more inline with my personal sense of liberty and politics, though I am not sure how I would have reacted had there been a response from the Church along these lines.

I would appreciate thoughts and feedback on the different ideas expressed, rather than responses to the full body of content collectively... there may be one or two ideas that people can relate to with out relating to every idea expressed.

I have also included a very simple poll that allows you compare your response to the actual church response in during the California Prop 8 issue. Please share you reasons for how you voted.

A hypothetical statement the Church could have made:

In our recent history the LDS church and community has been the subject of active discrimination by the government of the USA. These violations have directly limited our religious freedoms and violated the sacred right to religious and other freedom that all Americans fundamentally believe are essential to liberty. At that time the highest courts of the United States sided with the govt, and the tyranny of the majority, over their duty to protect religious freedom and liberty. This was done in an attempt to assert a principle of moral right, commonly held at the time, on the Mormon church and community.

At this time, as a Church, we must side with our fellow brothers and Sisters in the LGBT community who are seeking to have their rights to conscience and belief respected and upheld by the US govt, what ever the disposition of populist majority may be. While we as a church fundamentally disagree with the practice of homosexuality, and within our church community will not engage in the practice of gay marriage, we fundamentally believe in the free exercise of religion and conscience and stand with those seeking to have such freedoms protected by the Govt. We are willing to support our fellow Americans in the pursuit of their freedoms, though we must again emphasize that our support of freedom from govt. coercion is under no circumstance a religious endorsement of SSM or homosexuality. We also request an understanding from our homosexual countrymen, that as a church and community only God is able to change our religious dictates and moral conscience, and that they respect our rights to practice with out fear of legal compulsion or force, just as we respect theirs.

The church could have also added:

Furthermore, as marriage is a term of religious preponderance, we encourage the US govt. to entirely do away with the regulation of the term and the harnessing of benefits issued by the govt. to the concept of marriage. The current relationship between state entitlements and marriage reduces the capacity of religious institutions to freely express their sacred understanding of marriage without wading into the hostile political debate regarding individual rights and entitlements. The conflation of scared religious ceremonies with govt. benefits does a disservice to both religion and govt.

The Church may have also added:

Though the LDS church, at this time, has totally discontinued the practice of polygamy, we respectfully request that the Govt. of the USA issue and official apology to the LDS church and community for the violations and freedoms and the restriction of religious practice that was forced on the early LDS saints. These violations included forcible detention of LDS members and the forfeiture of property. We call on the supreme court to over-turn the Reynolds vs. USA ruling and once again take up their sacred constitutional duty to protect American freedoms and liberty.

[Bikeemikey]

I guess we will see whether Questing Beast's thread or this thread get shut down first... Looks like we both posted a thread with SSM content at the same time :-(

[Tacenda]

I put modified, because I'm in the camp of not allowing polygamy to become legal, almost. But do wonder if it were legalized would therer be less child/wife abuse or even abuse of any kind, if it were not underground any longer. So, up in the air about that issue. The rest of the letter was perfect, if only....

[CV75]

I think the approach is too whiny. I also think its gets into too many cans of worms that have nothing to do with and can only detract from the message of the Gospel or the actual Prop 8 issue.

Also, I don’t think the Church’s support of “the free exercise of religion and conscience” includes any exercise that undermines the very source of the free exercise of religion and conscience (the family).

[Calm]

I guess we will see whether Questing Beast's thread or this thread get shut down first... Looks like we both posted a thread with SSM content at the same time :-(

His first sentence guarantees a shutdown, but yours is a hypothetical so probably won't last long either...(just guessing from past calls, don't have any personal line to the mods otherwise)

[Bikeemikey]

I put modified, because I'm in the camp of not allowing polygamy to become legal, almost. But do wonder if it were legalized would therer be less child/wife abuse or even abuse of any kind, if it were not underground any longer. So, up in the air about that issue. The rest of the letter was perfect, if only....

I also voted modified as I would be concerned about certain portions of it.

I don't have an issue with the legal practice of polygamy... those marriages that are currently abusive or based on coercion would still illegal and likely easier to monitor.

[Bikeemikey]

His first sentence guarantees a shutdown, but yours is a hypothetical so probably won't last long either...(just guessing from past calls, don't have any personal line to the mods otherwise)

When there are so many voices talking about what they didn't like about prop 8 it is hard to get to what they would have preferred with out the hypothetical .. we will see where it goes.

[Bikeemikey]

I think the approach is too whiny. I also think its gets into too many cans of worms that have nothing to do with and can only detract from the message of the Gospel or the actual Prop 8 issue.

Also, I don’t think the Church’s support of “the free exercise of religion and conscience” includes any exercise that undermines the very source of the free exercise of religion and conscience (the family).

Thats an interesting assertion at the end... that the free exercise of religion is linked to the family. I had not thought about it in that manner before.

As for the first point...

I think the problem for many of those who didn't like the Prop 8 response was that it seemed to whiny... and that it opened to many cans of worms that distracted from the message of the gospel.

Interesting that both sentiments were generated but for opposite styles of response.

[Stone holm]

I think the approach is too whiny. I also think its gets into too many cans of worms that have nothing to do with and can only detract from the message of the Gospel or the actual Prop 8 issue.

Also, I don’t think the Church’s support of “the free exercise of religion and conscience” includes any exercise that undermines the very source of the free exercise of religion and conscience (the family).

One could argue that Prop 8 does just that, in fact one of the conservative justices was concerned about the impact it would have on families formed by same sex couples during the interim period. This argument depends on your definition of family.

[CASteinman]

We have had this before. Why are we doing it again? Don't we have enough discussion of this topic?

[ERayR]

One could argue that Prop 8 does just that, in fact one of the conservative justices was concerned about the impact it would have on families formed by same sex couples during the interim period. This argument depends on your definition of family.

I thought God had defined family a long time ago. My memory banks pull up something about an Adam, an Eve and some little Adams and Eves, Isn't that in there somewhere? The problem comes when people start redefining for economic and political reasons and to cover our own appetites.

[Stone holm]

I thought God had defined family a long time ago. My memory banks pull up something about an Adam, an Eve and some little Adams and Eves, Isn't that in there somewhere? The problem comes when people start redefining for economic and political reasons and to cover our own appetites.

So Joseph Smith was hearing wrong when he heard Adam and Eve and Eliza? And of course the Jewish folklorists were wrong when they went Adam and Lilith oops Eve? Am so confused by all this black and white semantics...can I be transported back to the 1950's where all we were concerned about was killing Communists and making money.

[CASteinman]

Why are there some members of the Church with such a huge appetite to defy God and the Prophets?

[Avatar4321]

Why are there some members of the Church with such a huge appetite to defy God and the Prophets?

Pride. Pride is the great stumbling block of the Church

[CASteinman]

A Prophecy

A couple of years ago as my jet plane soared in the air gaining altitude, the voice of the stewardess came clearly over the loudspeaker: “We are moving into a storm area. We shall skirt the danger, but there may be some turbulence. Be sure your seat belts are securely fastened.”

And, as a leader of the Church and in a measure being responsible for youth and their well-being, I raise my voice to say to you: “You are in a hazardous area and period. Tighten your belts, hold on, and you can survive the turbulence.”

I have interviewed thousands of young people and many seem to flounder. Some give excuses for their errors and indulge in unwarranted rationalizations. I hope I may be able to clarify at least in some areas the stand of the God of heaven and his church on some vital issues.

First, let us pause to remind ourselves that we are the spiritual children of God, and that we are his supreme creation. In each of us there is the potentiality to become a God—pure, holy, true, influential, powerful, independent of earthly forces. We learn from the scriptures that we each have eternal existence, that we were in the beginning with God (see Abr. 3:22). That understanding gives to us a unique sense of man’s dignity.

But there are false teachers everywhere, using speech and pornographic literature, magazines, radio, TV, street talk—spreading damnable heresies which break down moral standards, and this to gratify the lust of the flesh.

Lucifer in his diabolical scheming deceives the unwary and uses every tool at his command. Seldom does one go to a convention, a club meeting, a party, or a social gathering without hearing vulgarity, obscenity, and suggestive stories.

Peter cautioned us: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”.

And the Savior said that the very elect would be deceived by Lucifer if it were possible. He will use his logic to confuse and his rationalizations to destroy. He will shade meanings, open doors an inch at a time, and lead from purest white through all the shades of gray to the darkest black.

So I wish today to help define meanings of words and acts for you young people, to fortify you against error, anguish, pain, and sorrow.

...

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.

Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which Can be defiled.

James said:“A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.” (James 1:8, 12–16.)

This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome.

This is a most unpleasant subject to dwell upon, but I am pressed to speak of it boldly so that no youth in the Church will ever have any question in his mind as to the illicit and diabolical nature of this perverse program. Again, Lucifer deceives and prompts logic and rationalization which will destroy men and women and make them servants of Satan forever. Paul told Timothy:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3–4; See also Moses 5:50–55.)

“God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be “that way”? Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility.

And now, my dear brothers and sisters, I have spoken frankly and boldly against the sins of the day. Even though I dislike such a subject, I believe it necessary to warn the youth against the onslaught of the arch tempter who, with his army of emissaries and all the tools at his command, would destroy all the youth of Zion, largely through deception, misrepresentation, and lies.

“Be wise in the days of your probation,” said Mormon, “strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God”

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[CV75]

Thats an interesting assertion at the end... that the free exercise of religion is linked to the family. I had not thought about it in that manner before.

Regarding the free exercise of religion being linked to the family: God sets a standard of morality. The highest value sustaining that standard is love. The highest expression of love is found in family relationships that perpetuate love, morality, humanity and families. The free exercise of religion is a moral standard promulgated by God through His children on earth most fundamentally and effectively in precept and in practice through marriage and family.

As for the first point...

I think the problem for many of those who didn't like the Prop 8 response was that it seemed to whiny... and that it opened to many cans of worms that distracted from the message of the gospel.

Interesting that both sentiments were generated but for opposite styles of response.

I agree; interesting but not unexpected or surprising—we all display our subjectivity in our assessment of and response to things.

[Lightbearer]

A Prophecy

An excellent response to the SSM crowd who tries to force their perverted lifestyles on the Church and God's prophets. We cannot compromise, because we cannot make our own laws (of God) and this is a moral issue. This is not just any church, it is not a political movement, it is the Kingdom of God and as such God calls the shots not some political hack that panders to the weaknesses of the flesh.

[CV75]

One could argue that Prop 8 does just that, in fact one of the conservative justices was concerned about the impact it would have on families formed by same sex couples during the interim period. This argument depends on your definition of family.

Yes, the argument runs both ways (see above), and the Church used a very clear definition of marriage and family for the purposes of its position on Prop 8.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CV75

[Bikeemikey]

A Prophecy

I have always liked that talk/prophecy... I think it captures well the churches position on the issue, though i am unsure as to the weight to give some of the more flowery language expressed in the guise of historical fact.

I just don't see my proposal for an alternative response as in any way undermining Kimball's words.

I do not see the govt as the bulwark against moral decay or the enforcer of correct "personal action". It is possible to be entirely opposed to homosexuality actions and homosexual marriage while also be entirely in support of homosexuals receiving equal access to marriage as hetrosexuals. This is because one set of oppositions occurs in a moral and religious framework and the other set of support occurs in a political and govt frame work.

I see limited conflict between the position of my opening statement and Kimballs words.

[Bikeemikey]

An excellent response to the SSM crowd who tries to force their perverted lifestyles on the Church and God's prophets. We cannot compromise, because we cannot make our own laws (of God) and this is a moral issue. This is not just any church, it is not a political movement, it is the Kingdom of God and as such God calls the shots not some political hack that panders to the weaknesses of the flesh.

Our church is not currently at risk of changing... what is your post in response to?

You a making a religious response to a political request.

As communities we can and do make our own laws.

As a religious community we do not, God makes out laws.

As a church we can not compromise, as a community and Govt we can.

As such there is no conflict in supporting laws allowing for access to same sex marriage in the govt sphere while at the same time denying access to SSM in our religious sphere.

I do not like big govt and do not want to give even a fraction of an inch in letting the Govt engage more moral legislation than absolutely necessary.

[CASteinman]

I just don't see my proposal for an alternative response as in any way undermining Kimball's words.

I don't see it as undermining either. To me it is more an example of what he is talking about when he describes how the adversary would redefine things.

I do not see the govt as the bulwark against moral decay or the enforcer of correct "personal action".

But that is what Government does. It has almost no choice in this matter.

It is possible to be entirely opposed to homosexuality actions and homosexual marriage while also be entirely in support of homosexuals receiving equal access to marriage as hetrosexuals.

I don't believe that it actually is possible except under bizarre conditions of mental instability such as multiple personalities where one person (it seems) may legitimately hold entirely opposing views. (I have heard of cases where one personality would be saintly and virginal and the other would be a bar hound and having one night stands -- and the two personalities abhorring the behavior of the other. )

But this is not normal people. For normal people you cannot be entirely opposed to something and then support it. Because that support automatically makes you not entirely opposed to it.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Lightbearer]

Our church is not currently at risk of changing... what is your post in response to?

You a making a religious response to a political request.

As communities we can and do make our own laws.

As a religious community we do not, God makes out laws.

As a church we can not compromise, as a community and Govt we can.

As such there is no conflict in supporting laws allowing for access to same sex marriage in the govt sphere while at the same time denying access to SSM in our religious sphere.

I do not like big govt and do not want to give even a fraction of an inch in letting the Govt engage more moral legislation than absolutely necessary.

The problem here is that when political laws cross into moral or religious territory I do not seperate my religous beliefs from my political on a moral issue. We fought this fight 30 years ago with the so called "Equal Rights Amendment" and some of the exact same problems (such as SSM) were at issue. Who said we must shelve our religious beliefs in order to participate in politics? The legislate morality issue is an old one and a lame one. I cannot think of any law that is not connected to morality in one way or another. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believe I should stand as witness of God in all times and all places, the voting booth not excluded.

[go_utes01]

Our church is not currently at risk of changing... what is your post in response to?

You a making a religious response to a political request.

As communities we can and do make our own laws.

As a religious community we do not, God makes out laws.

As a church we can not compromise, as a community and Govt we can.

As such there is no conflict in supporting laws allowing for access to same sex marriage in the govt sphere while at the same time denying access to SSM in our religious sphere.

I do not like big govt and do not want to give even a fraction of an inch in letting the Govt engage more moral legislation than absolutely necessary.

You realize allowing the government to regulate homosexual as well as heterosexual marriage does not decrease the size of government, right? As one that is wary of big government, I am against the government playing any role in defining, regulating, permitting, and/or validating any of my personal relationships. As long as there is no abuse, consenting adults should be allowed to form whatever relationships they choose and regulate those relationships via contract (the government would play its familiar and legitimate role of enforcing those contracts), and allow communities/religions perform whatever ceremonies they want.

[CASteinman]

You realize allowing the government to regulate homosexual as well as heterosexual marriage does not decrease the size of government, right?

It doesn't increase it either. It is a non-factor.

[CASteinman]

I am against the government playing any role in defining, regulating, permitting, and/or validating any of my personal relationships. As long as there is no abuse, consenting adults should be allowed to form whatever relationships they choose and regulate those relationships via contract (the government would play its familiar and legitimate role of enforcing those contracts), and allow communities/religions perform whatever ceremonies they want.

This is a popular libertarian argument. But it undermines marriages and sound family structures. Government has a legitimate interest in the core unit of society.