Homosexual marriage...

[non sequitur]

I don't have a problem with the Church taking a stand on a social issue, but I do find it more than a little ironic that a church whose very foundation was built upon a perverted notion of marriage, is now making itself the spokesman for what comprises a socially acceptable marriage (kind of like Nathan Lane telling us what it means to be a "man"). Which is more socially a repugnant: a man with one male partner or a man with 30 female partners? If you're being intellectually honest, the answer is easy.

[shobeewan]

What is the difference between what the Church has done this week as opposed to when they released the Proclimation? They have not said anything different than the day they published the Proclimation. So, is the Proclimation a revelation?

Every conference we raise our hands sustaining these bretheren as Prophets Seer's and Revelators. Now in a matter of policy these Prophets, Seer's and Revelators explain that we should support legislation which condemns an action which is condemned multiple times throughout the scriptures.

Unfortunately for some on this board who believe otherwise the Church will never support in any way the homosexual lifestyle. You can give all of the social reasons that you want to, you can tell us how popular it is going to be and how much these poor individuals are suffering, but unfortunately it will not change the fact that God forbids it.

Is the Prophet a Prophet? I am not saying he is perfect but I believe he is who the Lord has chosen to lead his Church at this time. Question things all you want but I feel uncomfortable saying "the leaders of the Church are fallable so I won't listen to them in this issue." I don't believe the Prophet is here for us to follow his council when it is convenient for us.

[shobeewan]

how often does the Church make a political statement of this calibre? That alone should tell us how important this issue is to the leadership of the Church, and if you believe these men are the source from which we learn God's will then why do you have such a problem with it? I'm sorry but I just can't dismiss it as the ramblings of imperfect men.

[MikeWaters]

what does "a man and a woman" mean?

a = one ? It certainly is implied.

So now ironically, the church is beating the drum to forever outlaw the religious practice of polygamy.

Based on the principle of not being a complete freaking hypocrite, I cannot support this amendment. I didn't believe in my ancestors being thrown in prison for the exercise of their conscience, and I don't believe in contemporaries who practice polygamy being thrown in prison either. And I'll take it one step further. I think polygamy should be legal.

I would like the First Presidency to address this issue, and not skirt the question as they are prone to do when controversial questions are asked. "That is in the past." "We don't do that anymore." etc.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what does "a man and a woman" mean?

a = one ? It certainly is implied.

So now ironically, the church is beating the drum to forever outlaw the religious practice of polygamy.

Based on the principle of not being a complete freaking hypocrite, I cannot support this amendment. I didn't believe in my ancestors being thrown in prison for the exercise of their conscience, and I don't believe in contemporaries who practice polygamy being thrown in prison either. And I'll take it one step further. I think polygamy should be legal.

I would like the First Presidency to address this issue, and not skirt the question as they are prone to do when controversial questions are asked. "That is in the past." "We don't do that anymore." etc.

How would you like to see it addressed? I think the church has very candidly addressed the issue by saying we aren't sure about all the reasons. Are you waiting for there to be an intellectual explanation that satisfies you personally?

Look, we believe that we have a prophet of God on the earth and have had since Joseph Smith. We don't do anything without the prophet's say so; we don't make this stuff up.

In the 1830's the prophet instructed some members of the church to practice polygamy. I think it was hard as hell to do that. It certainly made us pariah's in our communities and we were considered barbarians at the time. But those early saints were obedient and followed the prophet. I am proud of my ancestors who had the faith to do that. They lived that law for 50+ years and it was NEVER easy.

Then in the 1890's, the prophet spoke again and told the saints that polygamy should cease. At that point it was hard as hell for them to stop. Families were incredibly disrupted as a result. It was unpopular and even some of the church leadership disagreed. But once again, people were obedient and (for the most part) followed the prophet. And once again, I am proud of my ancestors who had the faith to stop.

So now in our time, the prophet has told us that marriage should be between one man and one woman and in what is a very rare step for the church, is expending its own time and resources in that cause and is telling members to do the same. Obviously the prophet believes this is cruciallty important. It is not popular. People will say that we are intolerant or bigots or hypocrits if we try to follow the prophet.

I don't understand the whys and wherefores any more than you or anyone else does. I certainly don't condemn the choices anyone makes with respect to abiding the tenets of the church because I am far from perfect. I will say, however, that if you have the confidence to substitute your own judgment for that of the prophet then you are FAR more confident in yourself than I am in myself.

Hope that isn't too heavy handed, but I think that it is a point well taken that the road that this church has traveled, and the church in the BOM as well, is figuratively littered with the bodies of those who were waiting for a more satisfying explanation and decided that until they got one they couldn't obey. I think it is right to debate, disagree and question, but ultimately I think that the most important thing is to follow the prophet and be obedient if even if we don't understand why. Just my opinion.

[MikeWaters]

actually it *is* very popular to be opposed to gay marriage, as such legislation has passed in the majority (?) of states already. I'm not sure it has been voted down even once when put to a vote among the entire populace.

We know this absolutely will not pass in the Senate.

Again, the dictates of my conscience state that I will allow a man to practice his religion, as long as it does not impose on other people. That is why I am opposed to this. This is my interpretation of the Articles of Faith.

I will not be writing any of my elected officials in support of this. Neither will I contribute time nor money.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

actually it *is* very popular to be opposed to gay marriage, as such legislation has passed in the majority (?) of states already. I'm not sure it has been voted down even once when put to a vote among the entire populace.

We know this absolutely will not pass in the Senate.

Again, the dictates of my conscience state that I will allow a man to practice his religion, as long as it does not impose on other people. That is why I am opposed to this. This is my interpretation of the Articles of Faith.

I will not be writing any of my elected officials in support of this. Neither will I contribute time nor money.

That's ok, you can still vote for candidates whose platforms are in harmony with the teachings of the leaders of the Church right? ;-)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

actually it *is* very popular to be opposed to gay marriage, as such legislation has passed in the majority (?) of states already. I'm not sure it has been voted down even once when put to a vote among the entire populace.

We know this absolutely will not pass in the Senate.

Again, the dictates of my conscience state that I will allow a man to practice his religion, as long as it does not impose on other people. That is why I am opposed to this. This is my interpretation of the Articles of Faith.

I will not be writing any of my elected officials in support of this. Neither will I contribute time nor money.

Me either.

I do not view this as a matter of doctrine, as some have suggested above. The church doctrine is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It does not logically follow that church doctrine says that we must have a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.

This latest decision, as I understand it, is a church POLICY. The letter read in sacrament meeting did not ask us for a sustaining vote on the issue (as is done with matters of doctrine). The letter did not say we must support a constitutional amendment. It said we are "urged" to do so. In short, I fail to see how this is any more of a doctrine than the letter the church had read in sacrament meeting regarding guns in churches and schools.

I also cannot get over the irony that the amendment would make illegal certain actions of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and many others. Ironic? Hypocritical? I am not sure which word is more appropriate.

I couldn't be happier that we eliminated polygamy over 100 years ago. I certainly don't think I could have lived it. But let's not forget that Mormons were persecuted harshly for their strange marriage practices. In fact, I would imagine a similar amendment being proposed 100 years ago would have met with tremendous disapproval from the church. Is God the same yesterday, today and forever? If so, how is it that marriage today MUST be defined as being between only a man and a woman, but 150 years ago it HAD to include multiple wives? Part of me wonders if this amendment is an attempt to even further distance the church from its polygamist past.

Apart from the odd irony of the whole situation, I cannot support an amendment to the United States Constitution which singles out certain individuals and says they cannot marry people they love but others can. This issue is already governed by the states. Also ironic, given Republicans' love affair with federalism, that Republicans (with the help of the church) would want to circumvent federalism here.

I am opposed to homosexual marriage personally. I do not see how that in any way requires me to legislate against it.

[MikeWaters]

I could list a dozen other issues that are more important to me than gay marriage. I worry more about the corruption of our govt. than I do two dudes going to the justice of the peace.

This marriage issue will be around for a long time. And I'm not looking forward to the church being constantly embroiled in this issue.

Of all the things to agitate and fight for, why this? Freedom of religion, democracy, poverty/hunger/starvation/disease, etc.

To me this smacks of the MX missile, where SWK came out officially against it. Apparently he was worried that it would make Utah a possible target in a WWIII scenario (as it would be partially located in Utah). This official position seemed bizzare at the time, and still seems bizarre to this day.

We know that this amendment is not part of an eternal principle. Because if it were, it would mean that polygamy is a sin, and Joseph Smith was an adulterer. This amendment = MX missile. With no guiding reasoning or support. It is always easy to support. It is more difficult to question, IMO.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Again, the dictates of my conscience state that I will allow a man to practice his religion, as long as it does not impose on other people. That is why I am opposed to this. This is my interpretation of the Articles of Faith.

I would be the last person to tell you not to follow your conscience, Mike. I struggle with this issue and others as well.

I guess the question there is whether it does impose on other people. I'm just acknowledging that in my own case, I can't see far enough down the road to be confident that the prophet (who has obviously concluded that it does) is wrong. This is how I personally resolve these matters when I have a question, but recognize that others feel differently.

Also, you are probably correct to point out that it is popular in many quarters. Certainly it is not popular among those who overwhelmingly control media outlets and university campuses. But I think it is right to say that the majority of people will agree with the chruch on this one.