Unfortunate Wording In Church Reaction

[jwhitlock]

Is the SCOTUS announcement really a surprise to anyone? 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.

The societal pendulum has swung...one can either hop on or stand in firm opposition and be crushed under the weight of society’s judgment as it casts those in opposition in an ever increasing role of insignificance.

For those who doubt my assertions…perhaps they might ask themselves this question… Would the LDS church knowing what it now knows…repeat their opposition of Prop 8 again if they could roll back time? For those who say yes they would…I would ask then why didn’t they jump head first into the equal marriage measures that were in play in Maryland, Maine, Washington, and Minnesota during the last election? Instead of doing so, the church sat on the sidelines and watched as these 4 states passed equal marriage laws.

There you have it.

Follow the wisdom of the world, or be pushed into insignificance. If anyone doubts the validity of prophecies of the last days, just read above. It's not hard to understand why such polarization occurs when the world moves quickly away from righteous principles. Sad to see that some members of the church are moving with the world, giving into misplaced demands for "equality" that are really nothing more than attempts to find happiness in wickedness.

[USU78]

It crates problem.

All the better to warehouse them . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

Am I to assume that based on your response, it is appropriate to "read into" or "put word in the mouth of another"?

I'm only giving you feedback on you your statement is coming across. You are welcome to clarify your point or contradict my perception. I notice that, given the opportunity, you have yet to do so, and I thus feel justified in the supposition that you feel faith groups ought to keep quiet in the public square, regardless of the issue.

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.

Aware that there are some brilliant legal minds within the Quorum of the Twelve itself, to say nothing of whomever the Church consulted in formulating its statement. I find your criticism about the statement lacking reason and being un-educated to lack merit itself.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

All the better to warehouse them . . .

Nice :-)

Get those new amazon warehouse robots on it.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm only giving you feedback on you your statement is coming across. You are welcome to clarify your point or contradict my perception. I notice that, given the opportunity, you have yet to do so, and I thus feel justified in the supposition that you feel faith groups ought to keep quiet in the public square, regardless of the issue.

Aware that there are some brilliant legal minds within the Quorum of the Twelve itself, to say nothing of whomever the Church consulted in formulating its statement. I find your criticism about the statement lacking reason and being un-educated to lack merit itself.

One judge does not a quorum of brilliant legal minds make.

[Mark Beesley]

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.

Are you concerned that members in Canada, New Zealand, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, England, and other English-speaking countries will be confused as to what the term "our" is intended to convey? I personally don't think non-American LDS are that dumb.

Edited to add: To the extent that the Church's statement may confuse some non-LDS journalist,s leading them to conclude that "our" was intended to convey a worldwide set, I will concede that many, many journalists are, indeed, dumb.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Mark Beesley

[Avatar4321]

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?

What exactly have they zeroed in on? There is nothing in that statement that indicated we are bitter about anything.

[jwhitlock]

I find the parts of the statement concerning Constitutional processes to lack reason and to be un-educated.

Oh brother. This is ridiculous.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

The notion that, because they administer a church that transcends national boundaries the Church leaders forfeit their standing as constituents of the United States is not self-evident to me. Your argument still strikes me as petty quibbling.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Yep, let's make sure that our elected reprehensibles have all the power they want. The state certainly deserves to do anything it wants unopposed.

There are some real gems coming out of this thread.

[USU78]

One judge does not a quorum of brilliant legal minds make.

That may be one of the most naive . . . or one of the silliest statements I've heard in a good month. Just what do you think the Church does with its legal matters? Run a craigslist ad for a 1099 part-time person each time a legal issue arises? Think, mon . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

One judge does not a quorum of brilliant legal minds make.

I didn't say the entire quorum had a legal background.

I had in mind specifically Elder Quentin L. Cook and Elder D. Todd Christofferson as well as Elder Oaks.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

Are you concerned that members in Canada, New Zealand, Scotland, Australia, South Africa, England, and other English-speaking countries will be confused as to what the term "our" is intended to convey? I personally don't think non-American LDS are that dumb.

I am a non-American member (currently live in the usa) and can assure you it is actually the great intelligence of the churches non-American membership that cause them to find the on going pejorative use of "our" very unsettling.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Storm Rider]

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.

This is a scary thought. When elected officials refuse to represent their constituency, the people are supposed to grin and bear it? The referendum process is one of two choices the people have when government decides it is too important to listen to the people; the other is to wait and vote. Of course, the way I see things voting has brought the best that we have to offer in the country to the fore and we only vote against the greater evil.

[Bikeemikey]

That may be one of the most naive . . . or one of the silliest statements I've heard in a good month. Just what do you think the Church does with its legal matters? Run a craigslist ad for a 1099 part-time person each time a legal issue arises? Think, mon . . .

Of course the church has a large number of extremely professional lawyers conducting their legal affairs... Said lawyers also happen to not be members of the quorum of the 12.

[Scott Lloyd]

That may be one of the most naive . . . or one of the silliest statements I've heard in a good month. Just what do you think the Church does with its legal matters? Run a craigslist ad for a 1099 part-time person each time a legal issue arises? Think, mon . . .

Indeed.

I was trying to point out that within its own ranks the Quorum of the Twelve has individuals capable of comprehending legal issues, and thus it is fatuous to claim the statement from the leadership of the Church is "uneducated."

It should be noted that Elder Oaks is a former clerk to a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and that Elder Christofferson was a clerk to federal judge John J. Scirica who presided at the Watergate hearings. This more than qualifies them to comprehend issues of federal law, it seems to me.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I am a non-American member (currently live in the usa) and can assure you it is actually the great intelligence of the churches non-American membership that cause them to find the on going pejorative use of "our" very unsettling.

So what were you trying to accomplish then, when you told me you "live in Vermont"?

Moreover, why should we believe you speak for "the Church's non-American membership" in your rather odd opinion that U.S. citizens referring to the government of the United States with the pronoun "our" is "pejorative"?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Of course the church has a large number of extremely professional lawyers conducting their legal affairs... Said lawyers also happen to not be members of the quorum of the 12.

So . . . these extremely professional lawyers . . . they just sit in back offices and think great thoughts and write position papers nobody ever reads, huh? Is that your position? You think the Quorum members are incapable of reading a briefing from the legal department?

[USU78]

So what were you trying to accomplish then, when you told me you "live in Vermont"?

"As Vermont goes, so goes the nation."

Except when it doesn't.

[Mark Beesley]

I am a non-American member (currently live in the usa) and can assure you it is actually the great intelligence of the churches non-American membership that cause them to find the on going pejorative use of "our" very unsettling.

I've kinda gotta raise my eyebrows at the assertion of "great intelligence" from someone who is unfamiliar with the appropriate possessive form of the word "church." It may lend some understanding as to why the word "our" is found to be "unsettling."

[Storm Rider]

Marriage is a religious ordinance or sacrament and government has no business being involved or entering into those holy grounds. Alternatively, connective rights i.e. if I marry then I get to share my spouses insurance, inheritance, etc. are the rights of government and poorly made laws should be corrected. Governments should stick to civil unions. It may be splitting hairs to some, but I see the way out of the quagmire of moral questions is to correct the problems we have with connective rights and rephrase the issue into who can enter into a civil union, which is everyone and anyone that has reached the age of majority, and who cannot, children for example. To continue to allow the legal system to use the term "marriage" opens the door to the government knocking on the doors of religion and demand religions change their doctrine to accommodate the rule of equality under the law.

[jim_mason]

I'm only giving you feedback on you your statement is coming across. You are welcome to clarify your point or contradict my perception. I notice that, given the opportunity, you have yet to do so, and I thus feel justified in the supposition that you feel faith groups ought to keep quiet in the public square, regardless of the issue.

And I am only giving my feedback on how the Church statement comes across. The Church is welcome clarigy its position. Notably, this current statement, is a second statement issued by the Church - regarding the will of the people and the judiciary - wherein the statement comes across as hostility to Constitutional process; thus I feel justified in the supposition that the Church is opposed to the judiciary adjudicating the Constitutionality of laws.

Aware that there are some brilliant legal minds within the Quorum of the Twelve itself, to say nothing of whomever the Church consulted in formulating its statement. I find your criticism about the statement lacking reason and being un-educated to lack merit itself.

May I then offer the supposition that, you too are opposed to the judiciary adjudicating on the Constitutionality of laws? I have no reason to believe that newsroom statement was written by any of the many Lawyers who comprise the leadership of the Church. I have reason to believe a "news release" is a news release, written and edited by people who are uneducated in Constitutional processes. Had the "new release" had "Official Statement" (not everything in the newsroom is labeled "Official Statement") then I would have reason to beleive the Leadership of the Church was directly involved writting the statement.

At present, having the same training and degree many of the Leadership I have no reason to believe the Leadership would make a comment that, in opinion, opposes the Constitition. And it is evident that I am not alone in my supposition of how the statement comes across.

[jwhitlock]

I am a non-American member (currently live in the usa) and can assure you it is actually the great intelligence of the churches non-American membership that cause them to find the on going pejorative use of "our" very unsettling.

In other words, you speak for all non-American members of the church in this case.

RIght. Good luck with that.

[Bikeemikey]

The notion that, because they administer a church that transcends national boundaries the Church leaders forfeit their standing as constituents of the United States is not self-evident to me. Your argument still strikes me as petty quibbling.

I don't think they forfeit their standing as USA constituents. In fact my concern is the opposite - that they are not able to separate their USA standing in determining if the topic at hand is USA specific or church wide issue.

Right after i got home from my mission a closing prayer in general conference prayed for the freedom fighters in Iraq (this was 2002). I was at my home stake in New Zealand. There was a huge outcry over the prayer - almost everyone at the conference broadcast was so insulted by the American specific tone of what was a church wide general conference.

[Bikeemikey]

In other words, you speak for all non-American members of the church in this case.

RIght. Good luck with that.

Your just being silly.

I can only comment on my experience and that of those I know.