Unfortunate Wording In Church Reaction

[Scott Lloyd]

In my opinion, the only statement the Church should given is

"We reaffirm, and are steadfast, in our belief in the Divine Institution of marriage, ordained by God, as being between a man and a woman."

The sentences about the judiciary, popular vote, the number of States left unphased by the ruling, should not have been given.

Hello, I am Jim, I have a testimony of the Gospel of Christ as presented by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I pay a full tithe (lest any one take my commentary as representing hostility towards the Church).

So you appear, then, to be among those who believe faith groups should keep silent on public issues, including those that pertain to morality (as this one does) and regardless of whether the faith group is capable of giving a reasoned and educated opinion (as the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ certainly is).

[ERayR]

Sheesh. That's not a valid excuse. People of the same time period have become righteous enough to make righteous judgments. They should have been more concerned with upholding what is good instead of condoning and upholding what is evil.

I am not trying to make excuses just giving the reason. The people (general population) have not become more righteous but have become more like Mormons nephtes.

[Mark Beesley]

Well now the news media has zeroed in on the first sentence in the Church response to SCOTUS dismissing the Prop 8 case for lack of standing, and we as Mormons have now self-branded ourselves as a bitter people doubting the efficacy of our system of government. Is anyone else appalled?

I found the Church's response to be reasonable, measured, and accurate. I found the Court's decision to be spineless.

All future initiatives in California should include a specific clause conferring standing on specific private people to defend them if the Governor and Attorney General elect not to do so.

(I'll have to look at this more closely, but I wonder how private attorney general statutes work to confer jurisdiction on private individuals and even let them recover substantial attorney fees for enforcing public laws where the public officials neglect to do so. Did someone forget to raise this as an argument in favor of standing in this particular case?)

[Bikeemikey]

Sheesh. That's not a valid excuse. People of the same time period have become righteous enough to make righteous judgments. They should have been more concerned with upholding what is good instead of condoning and upholding what is evil.

I believe govt should be harm focused and goods neutral.

Goods are the domain of religions, harm is the domain of govt.

I support the SCOTUS decision whilst being morally and religiously concerned about the rising trend of immorality.

[Bikeemikey]

I found the Church's response to be reasonable, measured, and accurate. I found the Court's decision to be spineless.

All future initiatives in California should include a specific clause conferring standing on specific private people to defend them if the Governor and Attorney General elect not to do so.

(I'll have to look at this more closely, but I wonder how private attorney general statutes work to confer jurisdiction on private individuals and even let them recover substantial attorney fees for enforcing public laws where the public officials neglect to do so. Did someone forget to raise this as an argument in favor of standing in this particular case?)

Rest assured the standing case was very well debated.

The fact is those present did not have standing.

[Erin15]

Society has been trending towards acceptance of equal marriage for everyone for some time...the younger generation, even among LDS youth, has embraced equality, the question of equal marriage rights for all is a no brainer and non-issue...only among older generations is there still strong opposition to equal marriage rights.

Even if every single person on the planet embraced an acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle and same sex marriage, it would change nothing.

Wicked behaviors are wicked behaviors regardless of mankind's opinion about them.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Erin15

[Ahab]

I am not trying to make excuses just giving the reason. The people (general population) have not become more righteous but have become more like Mormons nephtes.

If that good, yeah, I know, but it's still frustrating and I hate to see it when it happens.

[USU78]

Not surprisingly, I disagree starkly with Stone holm on this.

I see the statement as an astute assessment of the situation and am not overly concerned about a biased and jaundiced reading of it by some in the mass media.

When the story is already written, quotemining provides a modicum of respectability to a grossly tendentious malignancy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Reposted from another thread:

Unfortunately the Church response is again written from the pejorative position that all mormons are americans. The phrase "our democratic and judicial system" is not actually "our" system for most mormons.

Petty quibbling.

[Ahab]

I believe govt should be harm focused and goods neutral.

Goods are the domain of religions, harm is the domain of govt.

I support the SCOTUS decision whilst being morally and religiously concerned about the rising trend of immorality.

Immorality does harm to someone, whether it's only the person doing the immoral thing or the others who are affected by that person's immoral behavior. The problem is that some people don't see the harm immoral actions cause while they act as if their immoral choices are good, as if everything is good as long as someone believes it is good.

Some people just don't know what good is.

[Bikeemikey]

Petty quibbling.

I don't think so... This is not a church wide issue and it is not accurate to refer to the internal political quibbling of USA politics as if it was "our" entire churches concern.

A quick additional sentence stating this was addressing, saints in the USA for example could have avoided this.

This is not a church wide issue.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

This is not a church wide issue.

The church is concerned with what goes on all over the world, and not just in America, because the church is from all over the world.

[Bikeemikey]

Immorality does harm to someone, whether it's only the person doing the immoral thing or the others who are affected by that person's immoral behavior. The problem is that some people don't see the harm immoral actions cause while they act as if their immoral choices are good, as if everything is good as long as someone believes it is good.

Some people just don't know what good is.

Yep it does moral and-or religious harm - not necessarily physical harm. Govt is a temporal institution concerned with physical things. Temporal harm is wrapped up in the presence or absence of consent, not a higher moral judgement.

Religion is a higher institution concerned with spiritual things.

I do not believe harming oneself is not sufficient grounds for govt intervention.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well now the news media has zeroed in on the first sentence in the Church response to SCOTUS dismissing the Prop 8 case for lack of standing, and we as Mormons have now self-branded ourselves as a bitter people doubting the efficacy of our system of government. Is anyone else appalled?

Appalled at what...the people's right to vote and have it upheld. Now dictatorship's appall me. Edited June 26, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Johnnie Cake]

Even if every single person on the planet embraced an acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle and same sex marriage, it would change nothing.

Wicked behaviors are wicked behaviors regardless of mankind's opinion about them.

Church policies change....which is why we no longer stone bi-racial marriage. There was a time when the church was adamantly against bi-racial marriage both in and out of the temple...today thank goodness…it no longer frowns on this once evil practice. I don’t believe anyone who was alive at that time would have believed that the church could change…but society’s pendulum swung and the church policy against bi racial marriage swung with it.

We no longer stone? Tone down the inflammatory rhetoric or you will be out of yet another thread.

[tyler90az]

To me it seems like SCOTUS continued to support our "democracy" with this ruling. If they would have upheld Prop 8 referendum it would have been a blow to democracy. It would have taken away power from our elected representatives. In a sense allowing anything to go around the state elected officials. Which could wreak havoc in some cases in which the a state has to take care of its interests. The state officials would have essentially lost all power. America is a Republic and this puts emphasis on that fact.

[CV75]

Well now the news media has zeroed in on the first sentence in the Church response to SCOTUS dismissing the Prop 8 case for lack of standing, and we as Mormons have now self-branded ourselves as a bitter people doubting the efficacy of our system of government. Is anyone else appalled?

if the news media is zeroing in on the first sentence, they are the ones doing the branding. It would be interesting to see how the media reports the reaction of other churches supporting traditional mariage, as they have made similar statements.

I am not appalled so much as glad that the Church is communicating openly.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think so... This is not a church wide issue and it is not accurate to refer to the internal political quibbling of USA politics as if it was "our" entire churches concern.

A quick additional sentence stating this was addressing, saints in the USA for example could have avoided this.

This is not a church wide issue.

It's a Church-wide issue in the sense that the Church's stance on marriage and the family is a matter of doctrine, and its response to the events of today could properly be viewed as a model for Latter-day Saints wherever they live in being involved in government and public affairs.

Moreover, the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ is located in the United States of America and thus, the Church is, to a large extent, dependent on the just and righteous administration of the government of the United States for the Church's enjoyment of religious liberty and the preservation of a non-hostile environment in which to exist and function as a church. This ought to be a matter of concern to Church members wherever they live.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Mark Beesley]

Rest assured the standing case was very well debated.

The fact is those present did not have standing.

Can you refer me to any brief or any statement in the Court's opinion where the term "private attorney general" is used? It is a term of art, and if the issue was raised, those words will appear.

Rest assured, even the best attorneys and judges miss arguments.

[Tacenda]

It's a Church-wide issue in the sense that the Church's stance on marriage and the family is a matter of doctrine, and it's response to the events of today could properly be viewed as a model for Latter-day Saints wherever they live in being involved in government and public affairs.

Moreover, the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ is located in the United States of America and thus, the Church is, to a large extent dependent on the just and righteous administration of the government of the United States for the Church's enjoyment of religious liberty and the preservation of a non-hostile environment in which to exist and function as a church. This ought to be a matter of concern to Church members wherever they live.

This is all sounding too much like the Civil Rights situation in the 50's & 60's. Just saw this article here.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2013/06/lds-v-usa-mormonism-in-the-age-of-same-sex-marriage/#sthash.AXwIYxML.dpufthe

[jim_mason]

So you appear, then, to be among those who believe faith groups should keep silent on public issues, including those that pertain to morality (as this one does) and regardless of whether the faith group is capable of giving a reasoned and educated opinion (as the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ certainly is).

Am I to assume that based on your response, it is appropriate to "read into" or "put word in the mouth of another"? I will assume, that since you have attempted to deduce an opinion I did not express, that it is appropriate to do so in return.I will do with the Church statement:"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."So what the Church is saying is that it is opposed to the Judicial Branch adjudicating on the Constitutionality of Laws where the "will of the people" has passed a law. (Edmunds Tucker sound familiar? Congress, elected by the will of the people, thus acts a proxy for the will of the people.) All the Church needed to do was reaffirm it position on marriage. I find the parts of the statement concerning Constitutional processes to lack reason and to be un-educated.

[Bikeemikey]

It's a Church-wide issue in the sense that the Church's stance on marriage and the family is a matter of doctrine, and it's response to the events of today could properly be viewed as a model for Latter-day Saints wherever they live in being involved in government and public affairs.

Moreover, the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ is located in the United States of America and thus, the Church is, to a large extent dependent for its enjoyment of religious liberty on the just and righteous administration of the government of the United States. This ought to be a matter of concern to Church members wherever they live.

The church is very clear on its family position. The proclamation on the family is consistently referred to across the church regarding our views on the matter.

The statement today was mainly about the concerns regarding political issues in the USA.

In a global world our head quarters could change very easily.

Our church is not "dependent for its enjoyment of religious liberty on the just and righteous administration of the government of the United States".

Only saints in the USA are impacted by changes in the govt of the USA - your notion that American political imperialism is important for religious freedoms in other democracies around the world is naive and outdated.

The LDS church would be fully functional with a head quarters in New Zealand and a leadership made up of primarily New Zealanders.

[Bikeemikey]

Am I to assume that based on your response, it is appropriate to "read into" or "put word in the mouth of another"? I will assume, that since you have attempted to deduce an opinion I did not express, that it is appropriate to do so in return.I will do with the Church statement:"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."So what the Church is saying is that it is opposed to the Judicial Branch adjudicating on the Constitutionality of Laws where the "will of the people" has passed a law. (Edmunds Tucker sound familiar? Congress, elected by the will of the people, thus acts a proxy for the will of the people.) All the Church needed to do was reaffirm it position on marriage. I find the parts of the statement concerning Constitutional processes to lack reason and to be un-educated.

Could not agree more.

[Scott Lloyd]

The church is very clear on its family position. The proclamation on the family is consistently referred to across the church regarding our views on the matter.

The statement today was mainly about the concerns regarding political issues in the USA.

Issues that have a direct bearing on the strength of the traditional family and on sexual morality, which are vital issues within the Church. The Church has always reserved its right to speak up on public issues when they pertain to morality; this should be a surprise to no one.

In a global world our head quarters could change very easily.

But it hasn't, and it's not apt to. I don't see the relevance of this comment.

Our church is not "dependent for its enjoyment of religious liberty on the just and righteous administration of the government of the United States".

One need only reflect upon the oppression inflicted upon the Latter-day Saints in the 19th century with the acquiescence and sometimes the participation of civil governments to realize how fatuous this statement is.

Only saints in the USA are impacted by changes in the govt of the USA - your notion that American political imperialism is important for religious freedoms in other democracies around the world is naive and outdated.

I don't know where you live, but I'm detecting some anti-Americanism in that remark that is quite clearly coloring your expressed views.

The LDS church would be fully functional with a head quarters in New Zealand and a leadership made up of primarily New Zealanders.

In which case it would still be entirely right and proper for the Church to speak out on matters of vital interest. Changing the locale wouldn't alter that principle.

[Bikeemikey]

Issues that have a direct bearing on the strength of the traditional family and on sexual morality, which are vital issues within the Church. The Church has always reserved its right to speak up on public issues when they pertain to morality; this should be a surprise to no one.

But it hasn't, and it's not apt to. I don't see the relevance of this comment.

One need only reflect upon the oppression inflicted upon the Latter-day Saints in the 19th century with the acquiescence and sometimes the participation of civil governments to realize how fatuous this statement is.

I don't know where you live, but I'm detecting some anti-Americanism in that remark that is quite clearly coloring your expressed views.

In which case it would still be entirely right and proper for the Church to speak out on matters of vital interest. Changing the locale wouldn't alter that principle.

Scott,

You are obviously not aware of the broader context of the comments I am responding to.

I have no objection to the moral content of the statement - what I object to is the additional political content that is specific to US members but conveyed via "our" as if it applied to the whole church. Only a very narrow portion of the statement applied to he whole church.

As for your comment about the 19th century, of course American political decisions in the 1800s had a huge impact on the church - that was when 95% of all members lived in the USA (in fact in the same general community in the USA). Now we live in a global church where well over 50% of members live outside the USA - it is a shame much of the rhetoric and public statements haven't seemed to catchup with this change.

I live in Vermont.

I am all for the church speaking out on matters on vital import. I have stated this repeatedly.

A portion of the statement is fitting for the whole church, a portion is not.

Our church can not get away with making claims to "our" for things that only to apply tons minority subset of members. It crates problem.