Proclamation, Gay Marriage and Constitutional Amendment

[MikeWaters]

I find it a bit disappointing that the Proclamation basically offers zero guidance to those saints (and their families) who struggle with same sex attraction. Why?

This sentence is so vague, that it gives almost no direction: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

What is an essential characteristic? Meaning that if someone did not have a gender, he would be screwed?

I see nothing in that document that gives any guidance on what the laws of the land ought to be. We can say that we have *now* been given guidance--that there ought to be an amendment (can someone provide me a link to the language of the amendment?). Why weren't the words included in the news release? What if the language of the amendment is changed, are they going to issue a new press release, instructing us on whether our support is still warranted?

The church played footsie with the issue in the state of Utah. They were coy, until they finally came down and basically endorsed the proposition. Why the coyness?

Battles are best fought with prepared soldiers. It seems to me that the preparation has been very slight. Good soldiers go and die whether the cause is right or not, whether the plan is good or not, and whether it makes a difference or not. I wish the brethren would jump into this and very clearly articulate their reasoning, including addressing some of the concerns that I and others have. Some will argue that this is just a test of faith. Perhaps. But the church I know is one that advocates that we study things out before acting. And that is the unsatisfying part to me. How unstudied this all feels.

[MikeWaters]

Having read the letter again, the First Presidency doesn't even tell us which view to take.

"We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate."

One of my first impressions is that there tend to be unintended consequences when you change something that is very vital and important (e.g. the Constitution). So I would want to hear about the unitended consequences of such an amendment, before I would even consider supporting it.

So that is my opinion that I will express. "Changing the constitution is a grave matter, and I wouldn't expect you or anyone to make any changes without weeks or months of careful study and consideration."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I find it a bit disappointing that the Proclamation basically offers zero guidance to those saints (and their families) who struggle with same sex attraction. Why?

This sentence is so vague, that it gives almost no direction: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

What is an essential characteristic? Meaning that if someone did not have a gender, he would be screwed?

Do you truly find 'zero' guidance in the proclamation? I find it reasonably clear. There is no answer to your question becasue the point of the proclamation's statement is that everyone has a gender. No one is that doens't have a gender.

If you find it unstudied, then study. Here is the wikipedia link to the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

You'll see the langugae is relatively simpole, although it raises many questions, as would any potential amendment of a substantive nature. (I also think that polygamy would not necessarily be prohibited by this language, as All-American suggested elsewhere).

SOme also believe it may not prohibit civil unions on a state by state basis.

SO read up, but also pray about it. THen do what you truly believe is right.

[MikeWaters]

The article states that it is unclear whether the amendment would prohibit states from having civil unions.

I want an amendment that unambiguously would allow civil unions to be enacted by states, should they choose.

I have no idea what "institution" conservatives are protecting by fighting civil unions. Seems like a form of cruelty and bigotry to me.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have no idea what "institution" conservatives are protecting by fighting civil unions. Seems like a form of cruelty and bigotry to me.

Civil unions, or marriage, or in whatever equal form these relationships are finally recognized, are the attempt of a number of gay men and women to start living MORE responsibly.

Mike, there is nothing special about the word 'marriage.' A rose by any other name... the LDS church sees gay marriage as an assault on the FAMILY. Changing the name to 'civil union,' if it was a genuinely equal institution, would make it no less an assault on family.

Good luck changing the church from within. I hope your letters do some good.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Creekster

1. I don't try to reconsile it. Either you believe that we have a living prophet who gives us counsel for our time, and that sometimes it changes, or you don't. If you don't, then it is situational ethics and there is no intellectual defense for it beyond self interest and the politics of our time. Alternatively if you think that we recieve inspired direction then the whys and wherefores (while we CERTAINLY should study them) are not as important as faith and obedience. I'm not trying to tell you what to think or how to act, I'm just asking you to be consistent.

You are misrepresenting my viewpoint here. I do believe that we receive counsel from the prophet. What I don't believe is that every word from the prophet's mouth is counsel or that the prophet is always correct (infallible). In fact, no Mormon should, given that the prophets have said they are not infallible. We are required to study out each issue and ponder it before we act. I am in the process of doing so. To this point, I cannot accept the urging of the church to support a constitutional amendment (the language of which could still easily be altered). The prophet has not made this a matter of doctrine. Rather, it has been issued as an opinion of the First Presidency that Mormons should support the amendment. I feel free to disregard opinions.

Originally Posted by Creekster

2. If this letter is indefensible in light of other fomer prophets practicing polygamy, as you seem to suggest, then so is the manifesto. Again, either these are inspired changes or they are not. If they are uninspired then they are irrelevant and there is no rational reason to follow them. If they are inspired then it is, IMO, a cop out to pretend that there is some method for ascertaining which ones they really mean and which ones we can intuit we are free to ignore.

You are setting up another false dichotomy here. I don't need to accept Sunday's letter as being valid simply because I accept the Manifesto as being valid. The Manifesto was canon of the church. It was adopted by the church and incorporated into church scripture. Are you placing that on the level of a letter urging members to support an amendment whose language is not even set in stone yet? The amendment has made it out of a Senate committee with a 10-8 approval vote. Once it hits the floor of the Senate, I can guarantee you it will face several amedments before it is finally voted on by the entire body. You appear to be failing to make the distinction between doctrine and opinion/policy. Doctrine=manifesto. Letter on Sunday=opinion.

Originally Posted by Creekster

3. Finally, what is the point of your question about what these men would think if they didn't know who signed it? The Lord has required MANY hard things of his people in every dispensation that no one would do unless they were asked to do so by the prophet, the spirit, and angel or God himself. A dozen examples of this leap readily to mind. It is precisely the impremature of authority that gives these things their weight. Even if all those men would be horrified in a vacuum, each of them would obey in context.

The point is to demonstrate the pure irony/hypocrisy of the latest position. For over 150 years Mormons have felt that their rights were destroyed at the hands of an oppressive majority. Are we now attempting to become a part of another oppressive majority? As I stated when I began this thread, the Plan of Salvation is one of agency and choice. Some things need to be legislated to preserve order. Others should be left up to our discretion. As Mormons who have suffered at the hands of oppression, I would think the church would err on the side of caution and choose agency over legislation wherever possible. While the church may today be part of a majority, tomorrow they may not be, and when that day comes, today's actions will make our complaints sound awfully hollow.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Robin

Civil unions, or marriage, or in whatever equal form these relationships are finally recognized, are the attempt of a number of gay men and women to start living MORE responsibly.

Mike, there is nothing special about the word 'marriage.' A rose by any other name... the LDS church sees gay marriage as an assault on the FAMILY. Changing the name to 'civil union,' if it was a genuinely equal institution, would make it no less an assault on family.

Good luck changing the church from within. I hope your letters do some good.

Agreed. How frequently do LDS members complain that the activist judiciary frequently interprets things in manners that were not intended and arrives at incomprehensible results? I tend to think it happens far less than most LDS members do, but I recognize that any new amendment takes several decades before we actually understand its impact on law.

Anyone saying today that this amendment would not prohibit civil unions does not have a clue how the judiciary works. The short answer: WE DON'T KNOW, and we won't know for several years after it passes (which, incidentally, isn't going to happen anyways).

[MikeWaters]

As Mormons who have suffered at the hands of oppression,

It is clear that our institutional memory is very, very short.

Which is not surprising, since we rarely discuss things like polygamy. I do not recall ever hearing any sort of discussion on polygamy at church. Other than a passing reference.

[tooblue]

Maybe, just maybe the decision to set aside the practice of polygamy really had more to do with obeying the will of the Lord and less to do with the persecution suffered.

Then perhaps we could let go of this whole notion of hypocrasy ... There is nothing hypocritical in obeying the will of the Lord. Furthermore, when a Bishop is instructed to read a letter from the prophet and first presidency, from the pulpit, he is acting as the voice of the Lord: D&C 1:38

Such an event is substantially different than a hypothetical shoot the breeze with Gordon B. Hinckley around the dinner table discussion.

[MikeWaters]

However, there is something hypocritical about arguing that polygamists shouldn't be imprisoned, and then later when you no longer practice polygamy, argue that polygamists should indeed be in prison.

Yes, I've heard the counter argument. Polygamy wasn't originally illegal, now it is. And on further examination, the same person will admit there was a "gray period" where the church was not obeying the law. And then the argument ends when the person says "yes there may be some hypocrisy, but I don't see how talking about it is useful."

And that is where all brain function ceases.