My letter of support for the amendment - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 05-30-2006, 04:12 AM

The McKay biography has changed the way I view these things. I don't view the church as a monolith. I see where letters to the Apostles about Blacks and the Priesthood made a difference.

Many think of the church as a 100% top down organization. But in reality (or at least in the past), much good is brought about from the bottom up. Even in the latest Priesthood session, Pres. GBH says "I have received letters...."

Without those letters, he may never have addressed that particular topic. To say that letters ought not to written or sent (not sure if you are saying or not) is wrong IMO.

Now that I have re-read the letter from the First Presidency, it is clear that they want us to be active and engaged in the debate. But they did not stake out a particular position to advocate. Just the principle of defense of marriage.

I've already said that I don't support gay marriage. But I can support civil unions like unto marriage. I would want to know the implications of this admendment on civil unions before I would consider supporting it.

creekster · 05-30-2006, 04:41 AM

I liked the McKay book, but it certainly didn't affect me in any sort of fundamental way that would change my perception of my relationship to advice from the prophet.

You are correct that the letter did not specify a specific act, as I alluded to in another post, but it is sheer sophistry to assert that the purpose of the letter is simply to encourage you to be active on any side of the debate. No one, I believe, would ever expect you to take any act wiothout reasoning it out and, in this instance, praying about it. Having done so, follow the dictates of your conscience. No one would expect more including, if you are being sincere and truthful, the prophet.

UtahDan · 05-30-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The McKay biography has changed the way I view these things. I don't view the church as a monolith. I see where letters to the Apostles about Blacks and the Priesthood made a difference.

Many think of the church as a 100% top down organization. But in reality (or at least in the past), much good is brought about from the bottom up. Even in the latest Priesthood session, Pres. GBH says "I have received letters...."

Without those letters, he may never have addressed that particular topic. To say that letters ought not to written or sent (not sure if you are saying or not) is wrong IMO.

I agree with what you are saying here. I think, however, that it is one thing to send your tithing check in with a letter urging the First Presidency to change it to 11% and another to just send the letter letting them know you will not be sending the check until the change occurs.

I personally see nothing wrong with you petitioning the brethren to reconsider their position, however.

danimal · 06-01-2006, 04:52 AM

Not that I know you, but I'm a little surprised at your letter. I didn't expect you to end up asking to support the amendment. I am likely going to write to not support the amendment, though I do admit to having some ambivilant feelings about contradicting the church where their feelings have been made pretty clear.

MikeWaters · 06-01-2006, 04:58 AM

well, the letter is mostly provocation. I don't like the admendment, from what I know of it. But one feels the pull of the First Presidency letter. How does one balance these things?

How do I balance my belief in the Freedom of Religion (i.e. polygamy) versus a bureaucratically worded letter that may or may not represent something or another?

Interesting how the letter is in bullet form.

1. there is an amendment coming up for a vote.
2. we believe family is important, one man and one woman
3. express your views to your reps

The fascinating thing is they chose not to connect the dots. They never said the amendment represented their views in the Proclamation. They never say how exactly to express you views. This is absolutely not a coincidence.

I'm definitely not going to write a letter of support for the amendment.

danimal · 06-01-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

How do I balance my belief in the Freedom of Religion (i.e. polygamy) versus a bureaucratically worded letter that may or may not represent something or another?

I never know what to make of CHurch letters because they are so bureaucratically worded. I sometimes think they're more of an indication of the church's lawyers' diligence than a declaration of a position.

I'm not sure what to make of the bullet form and not connecting the dots either. Coincidence or not, I think it clears space for dissenting views.

SoCalCoug · 06-01-2006, 07:45 AM

As far as I'm concerned, without the letter from the First Presidency, I would not be in favor of the amendment. However, I do understand the position of the church, and I will probably vote in favor of it.

What I thought was truly unfortunate was that when they read the letter to the congregation at Sacrament meeting, my entire family was attending my parents' ward for my brother's missionary homecoming talk, including my gay brother, who hasn't attended church for several years. I wasn't thrilled about the timing. Nothing like a little anti-gay talk to warm him up to the church.

05-30-2006, 04:41 AM	#12
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	I liked the McKay book, but it certainly didn't affect me in any sort of fundamental way that would change my perception of my relationship to advice from the prophet. You are correct that the letter did not specify a specific act, as I alluded to in another post, but it is sheer sophistry to assert that the purpose of the letter is simply to encourage you to be active on any side of the debate. No one, I believe, would ever expect you to take any act wiothout reasoning it out and, in this instance, praying about it. Having done so, follow the dictates of your conscience. No one would expect more including, if you are being sincere and truthful, the prophet. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

06-01-2006, 04:52 AM	#14
danimal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Your mom's house Posts: 588	Not that I know you, but I'm a little surprised at your letter. I didn't expect you to end up asking to support the amendment. I am likely going to write to not support the amendment, though I do admit to having some ambivilant feelings about contradicting the church where their feelings have been made pretty clear. __________________ Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters. Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people? Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but...but it might work for us.

06-01-2006, 07:45 AM	#17
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	As far as I'm concerned, without the letter from the First Presidency, I would not be in favor of the amendment. However, I do understand the position of the church, and I will probably vote in favor of it. What I thought was truly unfortunate was that when they read the letter to the congregation at Sacrament meeting, my entire family was attending my parents' ward for my brother's missionary homecoming talk, including my gay brother, who hasn't attended church for several years. I wasn't thrilled about the timing. Nothing like a little anti-gay talk to warm him up to the church. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

05-30-2006, 04:12 AM	#11
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	The McKay biography has changed the way I view these things. I don't view the church as a monolith. I see where letters to the Apostles about Blacks and the Priesthood made a difference. Many think of the church as a 100% top down organization. But in reality (or at least in the past), much good is brought about from the bottom up. Even in the latest Priesthood session, Pres. GBH says "I have received letters...." Without those letters, he may never have addressed that particular topic. To say that letters ought not to written or sent (not sure if you are saying or not) is wrong IMO. Now that I have re-read the letter from the First Presidency, it is clear that they want us to be active and engaged in the debate. But they did not stake out a particular position to advocate. Just the principle of defense of marriage. I've already said that I don't support gay marriage. But I can support civil unions like unto marriage. I would want to know the implications of this admendment on civil unions before I would consider supporting it.

06-01-2006, 04:58 AM	#15
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	well, the letter is mostly provocation. I don't like the admendment, from what I know of it. But one feels the pull of the First Presidency letter. How does one balance these things? How do I balance my belief in the Freedom of Religion (i.e. polygamy) versus a bureaucratically worded letter that may or may not represent something or another? Interesting how the letter is in bullet form. 1. there is an amendment coming up for a vote. 2. we believe family is important, one man and one woman 3. express your views to your reps The fascinating thing is they chose not to connect the dots. They never said the amendment represented their views in the Proclamation. They never say how exactly to express you views. This is absolutely not a coincidence. I'm definitely not going to write a letter of support for the amendment.