Are The Leaders Becoming More Bold?

[tonie]

Yesterday, a letter from the First Presidency was read. The topic was politics. An interesting statement was included at the close of the letter:

 

"The Church also affirms its Constitutional right of free expression on political and social issues."

 

The Church has consistantly maintained a right to speak out on "moral issues"; many LDS maintain that same sex marriage issue the Church spoke out about were "moral issue" and not political. The inclusion of "political" seems a new stance.  Something appears to have embolden the Leaders of the Church to now feel safe in speaking directly and specifically on political issues.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yesterday, a letter from the First Presidency was read. The topic was politics. An interesting statement was included at the close of the letter:

 

"The Church also affirms its Constitutional right of free expression on political and social issues."

 

The Church has consistantly maintained a right to speak out on "moral issues"; many LDS maintain that same sex marriage issue the Church spoke out about were "moral issue" and not political. The inclusion of "political" seems a new stance.  Something appears to have embolden the Leaders of the Church to now feel safe in speaking directly and specifically on political issues.

A moral issue can be -- and nearly always is -- social and/or political at the same time. The statement does nothing more than recognize this obvious fact.

 

Nothing really new here.

 

If you remember people in the Church saying that same-sex marriage is a moral and not a political issue, they were either mistaken or you misunderstood them.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

With the mayor of Houston moving to subpoena the sermons of local pastors, private organizations being required to provide services their members don't believe in, and federal agents placing moles in Muslim congregations, the affirmation of our First Amendment rights is timely.

[Scott Lloyd]

With the mayor of Houston moving to subpoena the sermons of local pastors, private organizations being required to provide services their members don't believe in, and federal agents placing moles in Muslim congregations, the affirmation of our First Amendment rights is timely.

Timely, yes. And perhaps the directness with which this is being expressed over the pulpit is new.

 

But the Church has always asserted its First Amendment rights.

[tonie]

A moral issue can be -- and nearly always is -- social and/or political at the same time. The statement does nothing more than recognize this obvious fact.

 

Nothing really new here.

 

If you remember people in the Church saying that same-sex marriage is a moral and not a political issue, they were either mistaken or you misunderstood them.

 

LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8

Elder Clayton says leaders 'grateful for the sacrifice'

 

"Elder Clayton said the church didn't consider the vote a political issue but a moral issue, and that whether the church will become involved to the same extent on future moral questions "depends on the issue and the time.""

[Scott Lloyd]

LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8

Elder Clayton says leaders 'grateful for the sacrifice'

 

"Elder Clayton said the church didn't consider the vote a political issue but a moral issue, and that whether the church will become involved to the same extent on future moral questions "depends on the issue and the time.""

 

This is a paraphrase; I would like to see a direct quotation so that the wording he used could be evaluated.

 

In any event, I'm thinking that his meaning is that the Church's involvement is motivated by morality not politics. Again, it would be mistaken to deny that it is a political -- as well as a moral -- issue.

[ERayR]

Yesterday, a letter from the First Presidency was read. The topic was politics. An interesting statement was included at the close of the letter:

 

"The Church also affirms its Constitutional right of free expression on political and social issues."

 

The Church has consistantly maintained a right to speak out on "moral issues"; many LDS maintain that same sex marriage issue the Church spoke out about were "moral issue" and not political. The inclusion of "political" seems a new stance.  Something appears to have embolden the Leaders of the Church to now feel safe in speaking directly and specifically on political issues.

 

The letter is the standard letter read every election time that I can remember.

[cinepro]

LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8

Elder Clayton says leaders 'grateful for the sacrifice'

 

"Elder Clayton said the church didn't consider the vote a political issue but a moral issue, and that whether the church will become involved to the same extent on future moral questions "depends on the issue and the time.""

 

 

Okay, I hate to open this can of worms, but something about that statement strikes me as really odd.

 

If we could rate things on a morality scale from 1 -> 10, with 10 being the most "moral", and 1 being the least moral, how would we rate two gay couples, one of whom has committed to long-term monogamy and companionship in a "marriage", and a couple that hasn't made such a commitment?  Is there nothing that is more "moral" about a committed monogamous gay relationship?  Even if we rate uncommitted gay relationships as a "1", and committed, monogamous relationships as a "1.5", isn't that still making the world slightly better?

 

Sure, the ideal is a faithful heterosexual marriage sealed in the Temple (a "10"), but it isn't a choice between gay couples and heterosexual marriages.  It's a choice between unmarried gay couples and married gay couples.  Isn't the latter better for society, even if only incrementally?

Edited October 27, 2014 by cinepro

[Damien the Leper]

A moral issue can be -- and nearly always is -- social and/or political at the same time. The statement does nothing more than recognize this obvious fact.

 

Nothing really new here.

 

If you remember people in the Church saying that same-sex marriage is a moral and not a political issue, they were either mistaken or you misunderstood them.

I absolutely agree with what you've said, Scott. Well stated.

[Scott Lloyd]

I absolutely agree with what you've said, Scott. Well stated.

Thank you, Valentinus.

[Guest]

When I first read the thread title, I thought it read..."Are the leaders becoming more bald". I was going to give a one word reply; yes!

[KevinG]

Okay, I hate to open this can of worms, 

 

That would be a first...  (ducks and runs)

[Kenngo1969]

A related issue is the oft-repeated complaint that no one should try to "legislate morality."  Some dude named Elder Dallin H. Oaks (what does he know about law, right? ) says that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. 

[The Nehor]

Isn't that the standard boilerplate we get every election season?

[tonie]

Isn't that the standard boilerplate we get every election season?

 

Not really. Mostly boilerplate standard language, the inclusion of "political" seems to be a new addition.

[Avatar4321]

Seems as bold as ever to me

[Damien the Leper]

Thank you, Valentinus.

Of course. We don't always disagree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course. We don't always disagree.

Indeed not.

[cdowis]

Something appears to have embolden the Leaders of the Church to now feel safe in speaking directly and specifically on political issues.

 

I don't think they are saying what you think they are saying.  I see no change here, but you, "reading between the lines", see a significant change.  I see "political" here meaning social policy which have a basis in morality.

 

Move on, nothing to see here.

[Jeanne]

I am hoping the BOLD somewhere means the same as HONEST.  And yes, which is nice.

[california boy]

Okay, I hate to open this can of worms, but something about that statement strikes me as really odd.

 

If we could rate things on a morality scale from 1 -> 10, with 10 being the most "moral", and 1 being the least moral, how would we rate two gay couples, one of whom has committed to long-term monogamy and companionship in a "marriage", and a couple that hasn't made such a commitment?  Is there nothing that is more "moral" about a committed monogamous gay relationship?  Even if we rate uncommitted gay relationships as a "1", and committed, monogamous relationships as a "1.5", isn't that still making the world slightly better?

 

Sure, the ideal is a faithful heterosexual marriage sealed in the Temple (a "10"), but it isn't a choice between gay couples and heterosexual marriages.  It's a choice between unmarried gay couples and married gay couples.  Isn't the latter better for society, even if only incrementally?

 

I completely agree with you.  I have never had a good answer from anyone explaining why forcing a gay couple to shack up together is more moral than allowing them to be in a committed married relationship.  

[california boy]

This is a paraphrase; I would like to see a direct quotation so that the wording he used could be evaluated.

 

In any event, I'm thinking that his meaning is that the Church's involvement is motivated by morality not politics. Again, it would be mistaken to deny that it is a political -- as well as a moral -- issue.

I agree with you that it is a political issue.  Still not sure what makes preventing gay couples from marrying is a moral issue.  But hey, agreeing you with half of your statement is way more than my usual take on your staements.  Progress.  

[Storm Rider]

I completely agree with you.  I have never had a good answer from anyone explaining why forcing a gay couple to shack up together is more moral than allowing them to be in a committed married relationship.  

 

A marriage is a religious rite; a civil union is achieved by several methods.  If two individuals are committed and their actions reflect a that commitment to one another - who is condemning them?  For those who choose an irregular living standard what does it matter what those silly regular people say?  Is this argument specious are or you really more interesting in forcing all those regular people to admit that you are married just like them?

[california boy]

LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8

Elder Clayton says leaders 'grateful for the sacrifice'

 

"Elder Clayton said the church didn't consider the vote a political issue but a moral issue, and that whether the church will become involved to the same extent on future moral questions "depends on the issue and the time.""

 

 

It has been only 6 years since Elder Clayton made those statements about Prop 8.  It is really interesting to read what he said in todays perspective.  And even more interesting to read some of the comments people left at the time.  Some ended up being quite prophetic.

 

I-1000 in WA

Why didn't the church tell me how to vote on the assisted suicide prop in WA? Why didn't they ask me to place calls and give $. Isn't this a moral--not a political--issue?

I just can't figure out how to vote unless the church tells me.

 

 

The issue that Cinepro brought up.  How does the church decide what is a moral issue that need political involvement and what isn't.

 

Nihilist

Too bad! Unfortunately, too many people look at this as "gross" or as a moral issue. Morality is not the monopoly of one group. Some of the most moral people I have met have been gay and some of the most immoral people I have met have been pious christians.

Give it a decade and it will change.

It took less than a decade.

 

Rational Individual

LOL Mormonism. They keep continuing to make themselves look bad. Just keep to yourselves and stop pushing your beliefs on everyone else. I don't care who or what you believe in, you have every right to, but just leave it out of politics please.

 

The political fall out worldwide for the church has not been good.

 

California non-attending member

The Church has marked a new low in dealing with the homosexual brothers and sisters in the fold. It is a sad day in California for those who want to be loved and love and want to put the official sanction of marriage on that love. A sad day for tolerance. It is the first amendment that I am aware that takes rights from people. Sad.

 

 

Indeed, it is the first time a proposition took away someone's civil rights.  It took 5 years for the courts to correct this vote of the majority taking away the civil rights of the minority.

 

The clock is ticking

While the LDS church was instramental in winning prop # 8, the vote while in their favor really fortold of the future. 30 years ago, you wouldn't have had 5% of the populace voting against this proposition. Now there were roughly 47% of the populace voting agianst it. If this continues (and it likely will) then in the next 30 years, 80% of the populcace will be voting for issues directly against the LDS church's "Moral" issues.

So the clock is ticking and time is running out. Soon the LDS church will again know what it feels like to be the minority and to have others beliefs shoved down your throat.

What comes around goes around...that what you sow..ye shall reap.

 

 

It is taken way less than 30 years for the majority of the population to support gay marriage. 

 

Jake

I'm glad people got out and voted yesterday and voiced their opinions. Our forefathers would be proud. However, how can we justify the oppression of one group of people, no matter how small the population. All people in our country are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of age, race, sexual preference, etc...

I am a member of the church, but I feel like we are making a mistake once again, just as we did when we oppressed the African-American population so mindlessly.

 

 

The courts ended up agreeing with this poster.

 

Last Straw

It saddens me as someone who is a return missionary to see the church that I served and grew up in so heavily supportive of a cause focused on something that is discriminatory no matter how it's "justified." I voted no, and upon learning of the millions of dollars of contributions, I am heavily weighing having my name removed from the records of the church and withdrawing my membership. I can no longer feel at home in an organization that focuses on eliminating other people's rights. If any church should have been sympathetic to homosexuals and marriage rights it should have been this one. They too had their own marriage practices banned by the government, and now they are spearheading the movement to do it to others. It makes me sick to my stomach.

 

 

A feeling that seems to be growing among members, not diminishing.

 

Anonymous

You can hide your hatred behind your religion as long as you like, it's a long held tradition of every controlling entity. 

You can flex the financial muscle of your religion as much as you like, it's a long held tradition of every business entity

You cannot take away civil rights. The courts will overturn this discrimination as illegal. Again.

Perhaps Mormons might consider the persecution of your their own people and ponder how that relates. 

Minority rights cannot be determined by the majority and will always be protected by the courts. 

Otherwise A black man could never have been elected President last night, I am sure that upsets Mormons greatly.

 

 

The courts ended up agreeing with him.  I wonder why the churches legal department or at least Dallin Oaks did not see this coming.  It seems pretty fundamental even to this poster.

 

I wonder how many members feel the same way about Prop 8 as they did when this article was posted.  

 

Edited October 30, 2014 by california boy

[california boy]

A marriage is a religious rite; a civil union is achieved by several methods.  If two individuals are committed and their actions reflect a that commitment to one another - who is condemning them?  For those who choose an irregular living standard what does it matter what those silly regular people say?  Is this argument specious are or you really more interesting in forcing all those regular people to admit that you are married just like them?

Is marriage ALWAYS a religious rite?  Would you encourage only those who are religious to marry?  Would you tell straight couples who are not religious to not marry?   Really?

 

Even though I live in a state where gay marriage is legal, actually I could care less about marrying my partner.  What I care about is that all Americans get the civli rights they are entitled to in the constitution.