Proclamation, Gay Marriage and Constitutional Amendment

[Archaea]

Inaction is okay but I did infuse something Mike talked about, if somebody rose up to gather signatures in support of the amendment, that he would consider reporting the activity to the IRS.

First, I doubt Mike understands that the IRS would do very little, but why such a visceral reaction by any member against the Church stance.

Second, inaction makes sense, because I don't believe it will do any good. If people want to write a letter so be it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by livecoug

It IS part of the temple reccomend interview.. do you honor and sustain the prophet? how is it not?

That rodent is ugly, but the pancake makes it cute. Maybe I should give that a try.

I think that to honor and sustain means:

1. One honors the calling with respect.
2. One sustains the prophet by acknowleging the legitimacy of his calling as the president of the church.

No one should obey any falible being in contradiction to the dictates of his or her own conscience. An honest disagreement with the prophet can still be voiced in a respectful way that honors the importance of the calling. Likewise, one need not give up the belief that the prophet is the legit mortal head of the church just because one disagrees with him

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Inaction is okay but I did infuse something Mike talked about, if somebody rose up to gather signatures in support of the amendment, that he would consider reporting the activity to the IRS.

First, I doubt Mike understands that the IRS would do very little, but why such a visceral reaction by any member against the Church stance.

Second, inaction makes sense, because I don't believe it will do any good. If people want to write a letter so be it.

What is wrong with honoring and obeying and sustaining the law? If the church takes actions that violate its nonprofit status, I would think that it would be in the members interest to report just as if they had witnessed any other violation of the law. Don't you think?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Robin

What is wrong with honoring and obeying and sustaining the law? If the church takes actions that violate its nonprofit status, I would think that it would be in the members interest to report just as if they had witnessed any other violation of the law. Don't you think?

The Church observes the law.

It does not promote candidates, which the political advocacy provisions of the nonprofit exempt status apply to.

The Church may lawrfully, even under its exempt status, support laws that apply morality.

IOW, it's one thing for the Church to support a candidate; it's another to support changes in specific legislation.

So Mike's actions would be futile and his report would not uphold the law because no law would be broken.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Again you are overstating things here. First of all, your description of the letter is off. It wasn't read worldwide. It was read inside the US. It hasn't been equally applied to every country or to every member (also a good indication it isn't vital to our salvation).

As for the temple recommend, yes, I view it as a benchmark of how I am doing. If I am worthy to enter the temple here (which is the closest we can come to mimicking the Celestial Kingdom) then I feel pretty good about my chances. The question I ask isn't, "will they take the recommend away" but rather, "will I continue to be able to truthfully answer each question and still get a recommend." Here, I feel good saying yes.

You're right, it wasn't worldwide. It was in the US. Where do you live again?

You are also assuming that the oinly purpose of the letter is to make the amendment be passed by 2/3 in the senate. I have no idea if this is the case. Maybe there are other reasons the Prophet feels this is so important. Maybe what he sees as a possible future is started becasue someone is politicized by this event and becomes active in the future; maybe a closer vote will casue some organization to shift its strategy and this will result in a dfiferent future. I really have no idea. As I have said (and btw, before suggesting that I have failed to read earlier posts, you should also make sure you have read mine, given that I made it relatively clear that left to my own devices I would not be likely to even support the amendment, let alone write a letter urging its passage in the senate, nor do I think that the amendment is likely to be passed) I am not sure what the ultimate purpose is or what the prophet sees that makes him think this is important. I do know that he felt it wa simportant enough to casue it to be read nationwide in the nation affected by the vote, and I do know that he urges me to act. I am very comfortable in doing so. It is my choice to do so. The prophet is gathering people to assist him in an effort he feels is important to the family in the USA and I choose to assist as asked. Your choice, apprently, will be different.

(btw two; you attributed a series of numbered paragrphs to me in a prior post. While I have no problem with that, I would point out they were actually atuhored by UtahDan. Does this error mean your reposnse was wrong? Just curious.)

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

You're right, it wasn't worldwide. It was in the US. Where do you live again?

You are also assuming that the oinly purpose of the letter is to make the amendment be passed by 2/3 in the senate. I have no idea if this is the case. Maybe there are other reasons the Prophet feels this is so important. Maybe what he sees as a possible future is started becasue someone is politicized by this event and becomes active in the future; maybe a closer vote will casue some organization to shift its strategy and this will result in a dfiferent future. I really have no idea. As I have said (and btw, before suggesting that I have failed to read earlier posts, you should also make sure you have read mine, given that I made it relatively clear that left to my own devices I would not be likely to even support the amendment, let alone write a letter urging its passage in the senate, nor do I think that the amendment is likely to be passed) I am not sure what the ultimate purpose is or what the prophet sees that makes him think this is important. I do know that he felt it wa simportant enough to casue it to be read nationwide in the nation affected by the vote, and I do know that he urges me to act. I am very comfortable in doing so. It is my choice to do so. The prophet is gathering people to assist him in an effort he feels is important to the family in the USA and I choose to assist as asked. Your choice, apprently, will be different.

(btw two; you attributed a series of numbered paragrphs to me in a prior post. While I have no problem with that, I would point out they were actually atuhored by UtahDan. Does this error mean your reposnse was wrong? Just curious.)

You have made a valid point unintentionally: I live in DC. As such, I have no voting federal representatives!

Looks like I am absolved of responsibility here!



As to the incorrect attribution, I am not sure what you mean about my response being wrong. Right response, wrong person.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

As to the incorrect attribution, I am not sure what you mean about my response being wrong. Right response, wrong person.

It was an apparently ineffective way to suggest that just as your incorrect attribution made no difference to your argument, neither did my error reagrding geography make a difference to mine (although I understand you might disagree, which disagreement is undercut by your crack about you having no voting representative, but at this point we have reached a level of meaningless argument that only a couple of lawyers could enjoy).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

It was an apparently ineffective way to suggest that just as your incorrect attribution made no difference to your argument, neither did my error reagrding geography make a difference to mine (although I understand you might disagree, which disagreement is undercut by your crack about you having no voting representative, but at this point we have reached a level of meaningless argument that only a couple of lawyers could enjoy).

But doesn't the geography actually matter? Not your error regarding geography, but the actual fact that this letter only applies to a certain geographic population?

How many points of doctrine can you come up with (since many, you included I think, are claiming this letter is a matter of doctrine) that only apply to people based on geography?

As for my "crack" about no voting representatives, wasn't it obviously TIC? I thought the blue winking face following the "crack" would make that clear enough.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

But doesn't the geography actually matter? Not your error regarding geography, but the actual fact that this letter only applies to a certain geographic population?

How many points of doctrine can you come up with (since many, you included I think, are claiming this letter is a matter of doctrine) that only apply to people based on geography?

As for my "crack" about no voting representatives, wasn't it obviously TIC? I thought the blue winking face following the "crack" would make that clear enough.

Geography does not matter. Should the prophet urge members in Belgium to wirte Bbarbara Boxer?

Of course it was TIC, which is why I called it a 'crack.' The point made, however, is that one without a stake in this nation's political situation has no reason to be involvbed, especially if the prophet has some other reason in mind (or is simply responsindg himself to some sort of inspired direction)
besides simple adoption by the senate.

Is it doctrine? Perhaps, but which doctrine? Is wirting your senator doctrine? No, and I have never claimed it was. Is the proclamation on the family? It is without question based on doctrine and I don't see a meaningful difference between its contents and doctrinal expositions about family by prior prophets or the scritpures. Is all doctrine circumscribed by the literal content of the temple recommend interview? Only indirectly at best, and certainly not for someone of a clever disposition. Supporting the prophet when he asks for support for the family is the doctrine involved, IMO, and that is not geographically limited. The nature of the support requested is so limited, but only becasue the problem he seeks to address is so limited. If the prophet asks church members living adjacent to a disaster area to provide service to that area based on the principles of charity does that mean the request must be non-doctrinally based given that it doens't extend to members living on other continents?

Let me ask you this: Do you truly believe that the fact that the letter doen't ask you to take a specirfic position (as I pointed out in one of my ealriest posts about the letter) means that opposing the amendment is consistent with the letter's purpose?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Geography does not matter. Should the prophet urge members in Belgium to wirte Bbarbara Boxer?

Of course it was TIC, which is why I called it a 'crack.' The point made, however, is that one without a stake in this nation's political situation has no reason to be involvbed, especially if the prophet has some other reason in mind (or is simply responsindg himself to some sort of inspired direction)
besides simple adoption by the senate.

Is it doctrine? Perhaps, but which doctrine? Is wirting your senator doctrine? No, and I have never claimed it was. Is the proclamation on the family? It is without question based on doctrine and I don't see a meaningful difference between its contents and doctrinal expositions about family by prior prophets or the scritpures. Is all doctrine circumscribed by the literal content of the temple recommend interview? Only indirectly at best, and certainly not for someone of a clever disposition. Supporting the prophet when he asks for support for the family is the doctrine involved, IMO, and that is not geographically limited. The nature of the support requested is so limited, but only becasue the problem he seeks to address is so limited. If the prophet asks church members living adjacent to a disaster area to provide service to that area based on the principles of charity does that mean the request must be non-doctrinally based given that it doens't extend to members living on other continents?

Let me ask you this: Do you truly believe that the fact that the letter doen't ask you to take a specirfic position (as I pointed out in one of my ealriest posts about the letter) means that opposing the amendment is consistent with the letter's purpose?

As to your last question, it could be. What do I know? If the purpose of the letter is, as many supporters have suggested here, to get Mormons involved in civics, then any letter would accomplish that task. The amendment isn't going to pass, so I can't imagine the purpose is to get it to pass (or it is already a lost cause).

As to geographics, here is why it is important. I am not disputing that marriage, according to God, should be between a man and a woman. I am suggesting that the appropriate path to take to accomplish that goal is through persuasion and missionary efforts, not through a constitutional amendment.

Opposing the course the church has adopted to accomplish a task is not the same as opposing the underlying purpose of the adopted course. If the course the church is proposing was required or doctrinal, then everyone would be required to do something similar. My remark about geography isn't to be taken as asking everyone in the world to write a US Senator. It is a question as to why everyone in the world hasn't been asked to push their country for a similar proposition. The fact that only a few countries have been asked to do something on this issue leads me to conclude that this approach has been deemed advisable here, but not elsewhere (which means it can hardly be construed as doctrinal).

I disagree with their analysis that this is a good course of action to take.