I've thought long and hard about Prop. 8
 

and whether or not there will be any negative fallout on society. At the end of the day I still believe there will be, and I am so convinced that I even find myself astonished by people that can't fathom that result. It reminded me of prohibition, so I dug around a bit and found a quote from a talk by President Hinckley, which after reading it I wonder why does anyone who may not personally care one way or another whether gays can get married in California fight it so much? I just don't get fighting against the church over gay marriage of all things.


"In 1933 there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state.

I was on a mission, working in London, England, when I read the newspaper headlines that screamed, “Utah Kills Prohibition.”

President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel.

On this occasion I am not going to talk about the good or bad of Prohibition but rather of uncompromising loyalty to the Church.

How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position. And I am especially grateful to be able to say that among those who are loyal are men and women of achievement, of accomplishment, of education, of influence, of strength—highly intelligent and capable individuals.

Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.

Thank you, my dear brethren, you men of great strength and great fidelity and great faith and great loyalty.

Finally, loyalty to God our Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Every man in this Church is entitled to the knowledge that God is our Eternal Father and His Beloved Son is our Redeemer. The Savior gave the key by which we may have such knowledge. He declared, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17).

Judas Iscariot has gone down in history as the great betrayer, who sold his loyalty for 30 pieces of silver (see Matt. 26:15).

How many in our time, to quote the words of Paul, “crucify … the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” with profane and blasphemous language? (see Heb. 6:6).

You know of the profanity of the school grounds and the street. Avoid it. Never let it cross your lips. Show your loyalty to the God of heaven and to the Redeemer of the world by holding Their names sacred.

Pray to your Heavenly Father in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and always, under all circumstances, by the very nature of your lives show your loyalty and your love.

Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
Now is the time to show.
We ask it fearlessly:
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
(“Who’s on the Lord’s Side?” Hymns, no. 260)


May the blessings of heaven rest upon you and your families, my dear brethren. May each of us always be found to be true and faithful, men and boys of integrity and absolute loyalty, I pray in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen."

I think there are two main areas of concern about this one...although I could be wrong...this is just my opinion...


1. The Church has taken positions before on social issues (polygamy, blacks for example) and then later reversed its position....whether by revelation or from political pressure, nobody here can say for sure.
2. Church leaders are not perfect and there is no doctrine of infallibility. Therefore, the question is......is this gay marriage issue really God talking to everyone....or is it some older white guys in SLC who feel strongly about gays....just as old white guys in SLC felt strongly about blacks/interracial relationships/etc in the 50s and 60s....and just as old white guys in SLC felt strongly about plural marriage when the saints came to Utah....all of which at one time was the will of God, but then all of a sudden was no longer the will of God.

I think some here are simply skipping a step and fast forwarding to the point wherein this gay marriage thing will no longer be the cause of all our problems. In a few more years, there will be a new cause of all our problems. I will likely hop back on the train at that point.

I appreciate your post, though, and think it is a good quote by GBH.

Hinckley seems to imply that if you don't believe the church can be wrong when it's leaders take a stand on something, then the church is a fraud. So if you don't think the church is a fraud, you must join it when it makes political stands.

I will agree that loyalty is a great virtue. But history tells us that loyalty to some causes is unwarranted. See the Holocaust as an extreme example. Or the loyalty to the Japanese Emperor as God on Earth, leading to unspeakable carnage.

I think loyalty is most often borne of fear rather than love, especially in fascist regimes.

I can see that viewpoint, but at the same time, I am assuming that most of us here have already sustained those leaders, and so is it not then incumbent on us to follow through on that. Suppose the church is wrong, and gay marriage doesn't change a thing, was it really still okay to stand out in blatant opposition to church leadership...and what if they are right, and it is a big deal? It just seems to me that since no one really KNOWS what will happen, that erring on the side of obedience and loyalty in the face of the unknown would be the more appropriate course of action.

BDB, that would be assuming that there is a topic with an unknown answer and on a message board with as many smart people posting on it like cougarguard, that isn't possible. :)

I have thought about this. But it goes against my conscience. This one just doesnt pass the sniff test for me.

I figure that of all the things we do wrong in life, sincerely followings ones conscience (but incorrectly so), will not be a huge deal.

Remember, I am not preventing anyone from doing what they think is right. I am not out campaigning against Prop 8. And I certainly am not calling people in their homes trying to pressure them. I am simply staying on the sidelines during this possession. I will get back in the game after the next first down. Admittedly not a valiant approach, but it is the best I can do on this one, since I am conflicted.

As a procedural comment, I dont dig the ward calling me to encourage me to follow the Prophet. I dont want calls at the end of the year reminding me to obey the word of wisdom or to forgive others, either. Once it is spoken at Church, in GC, and in the Ensign, that is good enough. Don't call me and get me to sign a list.

BDB, on a side note, you going to UW?

I don't know. I'm still trying to decide. I would like to, but I never really got around to securing myself a ticket, or booking a flight. Are you going?

Absolutely. Will definitely be in attendance. Going to buy tickets there.

If you do attend, let's meet up for a bit beforehand and talk about gay marriage.

Don't do it BDB. He extended the same invite to me and it did not turn out well.

I don't want to talk to you about gay marriage. Last time I discussed a controversial topic with someone in person he yelled the f-word at me.

You must have been talking to IndyCoug. He used that same word towards me today.

No, I was talking to a ute about Collie's post-game remarks. I told him that I couldn't understand why he was getting so worked up about something a kid said over the radio in Utah. He then said that as a member of the church he was embarrassed by Collie's remarks, and I told him that was a ridiculous statement, and if he wanted to fret about how fb players are representing the church he should concern himself more with the pre-game remarks made by what's his name on the Utah team. That's when he shouted the f-word at me and hung up the phone. I extended the olive branch a few days later, but admittedly the friendship has remained strained every since the incident.

The closest you and I have ever come to arguing in person is deciding which Delta Devil cheerleader was the funkiest.

I couldn't say this better myself, it is so similar to how I feel about this issue. Well said DDD.

I thought about this, and I disagree. You've already promised to follow church leadership, now you're backing out and saying you know better. I actually do think that's a big deal, a really big deal. You made a promise.

A few things that you seem to keep misunderstanding:

1. I have never said I know better. I keep saying that I do not know enough. So I am not going to act until I know more....or at the very least until I can feel a spiritual peace and then act on faith.

2. I have never once promised to follow Church leadership. To what exactly are you referring? When did I make this promise? When did you?

We sustain our leaders. That is not a promise to obey every thing they say. It is simply a sustaining. It is also recognizing the FP as prophets, seers, and revelators....which I definitely do. At no time do we claim that these men cannot make mistakes or are perfect.

The Gospel requires much from all of us. You sustain the prophet. He has counseled to not delay marriage. Why are you delaying marriage? Probably because you dont want to get married until it feels right. yet you promised to obey.....there are some who would say that delaying marriage is a big deal...a really big deal.

If you are doing any sinning in your life, you are violating that which you promised not to do. I dont see this Prop 8 as much different than any other "sin" of omission. I dont even see it as a sin. As you stated, the Church isnt even organizing it. And they are not lobbying me. So it seems that we would all agree that this is all purely voluntary.

Yep. If opposition to gay marriage has become a fundamental, core belief of our religion, then the Brethren would add a question about it to the temple recommend interview.

Until that happens, nobody who opposes Proposition 8 is being asked to give up full membership in the Church. Maybe it's those who think this issue is a required component of being a good Church member who are "missing the mark" here.

BDB's post raises another issue altogether.....I guess there is the notion that as members of the Church, we have promised to simply obey all Church leaders. Or perhaps the important ones? I don't know....we sustain all our leaders...so when a crazy EQP calls you up and asks you to help move, you are backing out of a promise if you choose to not help move?

I do not necessarily lump BDB into that group...or even imply that BDB is part of that camp. In fairness, she has not had a chance to clarify, so I do not want to cast her comments in a false light. Just saying that her post raises the interesting issue.

Seems to me that the church can tell me that in order to belong as a member i have to believe in (1) the divinity of Jesus Christ; and (2) that priesthood power was restored, including keys of continuing revelation, through joseph smith. Other than that, i don't see what the church can tell me i have to believe exactly. Obviously, the church can discipline and revoke membership where conduct is not in keeping with church teachings, or is harmful to the image of the church, etc (i have no problem with that). however, that the church, or its members, would expect me to believe in anything other than (1) or (2), just because the leaders that i support and sustain say so, is offensive to me as a man of "accomplishment" and "intellect" that the church seems so happy to have in its membership roles as long as they are followers of what is expected.

This is my opinion. I believe that when you sustain the church leaders, that's your chance to decide whether or not you're going to follow his counsel. You don't have the option of picking and choosing after that. I will also venture to say that the same stands for local leaders, so long as they are not opposition to the general church leadership.

I don't believe in selectively sustaining church leadership. If that's the way it works, why even bother sustaining them at all? What would be the point? I never raised my hand to sustain them with the idea that I was only going to support church leadership when I feel like it, or only so long as they do things my way.

Everybody screws up, but you should at least do your best to minimize the screw ups, and I'm doing my best.

Bingo!!!

You get it, unfortunately there are meny in here who don't.

Just as GBH said in your quote above, there is no room for gray areas in the Lords church, it's all black or white, either you are for God or you are against him. God is the one who has said that Homosexuality is an abomination, now man says that God is wrong.

Slippery slope trying to compare this to the LDS stance long ago on blacks, I can't seem to recall the good books telling us that God is against black people, yet there it is written about homosexuality being wrong.

Hate the sin not the sinner, and not allowing sinners to get a strangle hold on society is not about hating them, just not tolerating their actions, and letting them be given equal stature to Gods eternal plan for families.

Flame away but if you truly sustain the brethren in SLC you know that what they are saying is true concering this matter, and that Gods house is an house of order.

I did not like the old man [Elder Pelatiah Brown] being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 5:3

Sorry, but I just don't buy off on this argument that sustaining leaders equals unequivacal obedience to their direction. Joseph Smith even said teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves. It is up to me to discern whether to follow counsel or not.

I would not have followed the counsel re: ERA, and I will not follow the counsel here. It isn't my responsibility to follow and hope that the church isn't wrong, but feel safe because I know if they are wrong, then the church's PR machine will clean up the mess. No, I will exercise my own discretion.

Agreed, I don't feel like exercising my free agency will be the worst thing I face come judgment day. Anyway, does anyone know what would happen (course of action taken) if someone raises their hand in opposition to a sustaining?

I didn't know that gays were being given equal stature by the government in the plan of salvation. This is where you miss the point. Nobody is saying that the church has to sanction and perform gay temple sealings, but that seems to be the argument that you are making - i.e. That is the next step in this decline towards sodom and gomorah that prop 8 represents.

Again,no good reason given how this impacts the safety and sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

I'm not following along with what the church is asking, and frankly I expect to not be considered disloyal for exercising that discretion.

By the way, the history of the church quote above is superb.

You believe these things because you are not insane.

Yikes. I lose the option of choosing for myself?

No thanks.

That plan sounds vaguely familiar......and surely I will do it...that one soul shall not be lost....

You are, of course, correct. I'm tempted to do one of my posts where I list Church leader after Church leader who speaks against the nonsense that to sustain means to agree with.

Wow. Just wow.

I actually strongly considered that plan. Which is of course the reason I tan so well.

would you feel the same way about your righteous priesthood-holding husband when married?

Hahahaha! Wow - that actually made me laugh out loud!

That was brilliant, wasn't it?

Old, white guys = Apostles and prophet?
 

I get it.

So, to you it's a social vs. moral issue?
 

It's a moral issue for me. How is homosexuality viewed by God? Ok or not OK?

What does 'sustain' mean to you?
 

When you agree, sustain? When you don't, change the definition?

Show me one scripture that
 

references 'free' agency. You can't even get that one right. So I'm going to trust your thoughts on gay marriage? :twisted:

So..........
 

is both heterosexual marriage and gay marriage 'ordained' of God and he thinks both are proper?

everybody else probably has ex ute on ignore, and i'm getting close to that myself.

exie, you're pretty good at raising questions - that's easy to do. but, why don't you actually contribute something to the conversation instead of only taking a self-righteous and questioning position.

for starters, how is it harmful to society to have homosexuals marry? remember, this is an issue of allowing a group of people to have certain legal rights - it is not about whether homosexuality is considered a sin by the LDS church and/or other religions.