Homosexual marriage...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by 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.

The MX missile is another great example of a policy the church asked us to support in letters to federal representatives. At the state level, as I mentioned earlier, they asked us to write and demand guns not be allowed in churches (something most Republicans in Utah opposed).

Was the guns in church issue a matter of doctrine? If so, how many Mormons found themselves on the wrong side of that issue with the church who are now saying we must follow the prophet on this issue?

Matters of policy are just that: policy. I feel very confident I will never be asked in a temple recommend interview if I wrote my senators or not, or if I supported the amendment or not. In fact, I am a bit shocked to see how many people are accepting this push as a matter of doctrine. Perhaps a refresher course on what constitutes canon of the church is needed?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Matters of policy are just that: policy. I feel very confident I will never be asked in a temple recommend interview if I wrote my senators or not, or if I supported the amendment or not. In fact, I am a bit shocked to see how many people are accepting this push as a matter of doctrine. Perhaps a refresher course on what constitutes canon of the church is needed?

That may be a worthy endeavor. The Proclamation to the World: doctrine or policy?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That may be a worthy endeavor. The Proclamation to the World: doctrine or policy?

I am not referring to the Proclamation. Nowhere in the Proclamation does it say we need to legislate the definition of marriage. I am referring to those who are suggesting the latest church statement is doctrine.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

Except for your tithing dollars.

Originally Posted by 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...

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

And this is the crux of it. I appreciate your sentiments here. These public statements by the first presidency are one of the strongest tools the church has for directing the personal culture of individual members of the church. Instead of cultivating a people who feel personally empowered and invested in solving the problems of poverty, hunger, etc., LDS instead identify themselves as anti-gay marriage.

I imagine it had to be a particularly difficult announcement for the significant number of gay Mormons and their families.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I am not referring to the Proclamation. Nowhere in the Proclamation does it say we need to legislate the definition of marriage. I am referring to those who are suggesting the latest church statement is doctrine.

That is quiet a tight rope you are walking. I think you concede that the Proclamation is doctrine, but when the same folks who issued the proclamation say "and therefore we should...." do "X", you draw the line and say that is policy. How are you able to distinguish them?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Robin

And this is the crux of it. I appreciate your sentiments here. These public statements by the first presidency are one of the strongest tools the church has for directing the personal culture of individual members of the church. Instead of cultivating a people who feel personally empowered and invested in solving the problems of poverty, hunger, etc., LDS instead identify themselves as anti-gay marriage.

I imagine it had to be a particularly difficult announcement for the significant number of gay Mormons and their families.

That is a statement of breath taking stupidity, even for you Robin. The church doesn't direct its members to invest in fighting poverty and hunger? INSTEAD, it directs us to self identify as anti-gay?

I can at least respect that Mike thinks that government corruption and other things are bigger issues (even though I would say that deterioration of family is at the root of all the problems he listed) that deserve more attention. You're comment is just polemics directed at the church which is why it is hard to have a conversation with you about these things.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That is quiet a tight rope you are walking. I think you concede that the Proclamation is doctrine, but when the same folks who issued the proclamation say "and therefore we should...." do "X", you draw the line and say that is policy. How are you able to distinguish them?

I don't think it is a tight rope at all. Does this letter have any of the distinguishing features of doctrine? Was it sustained? Was it distributed to the members in written form? Is what it says a requirement? If so, they chose odd language given the use of the word "urge" instead of "must."

This is no different than any other letter read from the pulpit. I don't understand how it attains the level of doctrine for you or others.

To flip the question, how do you distinguish this letter from the letter to write represenatives asking for no guns in churches or schools? Or asking for opposition to the MX missile?

How do you reconcile the fact that, if doctrine, this letter would make what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruf, John Taylor and others illegal? What would their reaction have been to this letter if they didn't know who signed it 135 years ago?

[JohnnyLingo]

Hey Mikey, is it true that Robin once wanted you to leave the church with him?

[Colly Wolly]

Am I correct in observing that the people on this board that are up in arms over this have loyalties to BYU, and those backing the letter have loyalties to the U?

I maybe way off base in that observation, but if I am correct this is very amusing and slightly ironic.

[All-American]

I know this much: having spoken with certain leaders of the church regarding this very issue, the marriage amendment is seen as being a fairly important battle in the struggle to save the family.

A story regarding following the prophet: As a general president of the Sunday School, then "Brother" Russell M. Nelson was invited to attend a meeting of the Seventy in the temple, in which meeting President Kimball spoke. Among other things, he urged the seventy to undertake what measures they could to become familiar with and associate with those in Communist China, where the church was not allowed, even to the extent of learning Mandarin. Brother Nelson responded by hiring a Mandarin tutor, despite the fact that the direction was neither doctrine nor policy, nor was it even directed to him, a special guest at that assembly.

His limited experience in Mandarin came in handy one day when a Chinese doctor sat next to him at a lecture at the University of Utah. Being able to give only a few phrases in Mandarin, he was nevertheless able to begin a cordial relationship with this doctor which resulted in visiting the campus of universities in Shanghai and Beijing. One doctor who observed Dr. Nelson's mannerisms became convinced that Dr. Nelson's church was the truth. He moved his entire family to Toronto and were all converted and sealed in the temple one year after baptism. What's more, once he had been ordained a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, his relationship with the Chinese (including one high profile surgery upon a famous Chinese opera star after he was set apart) enabled positive visits as an ambassador of the church, which went a long way in securing the rights of worship for members in Hong Kong.

All of this came about, according to Elder Nelson, because of a willingness to follow the counsel of the prophet, even when it seemingly did not apply to him.

I'm not saying we should sell our houses to support the amendment. It would be wise to remember where this urging is coming from, however.