AP Report on last night's Prop 8 fireside ....

[_Sethbag]

I actually wonder what the leaders and members will think if Prop 8 fails. If it doesn't pass, will that mean anything to them? Will it get them into hunker down/siege mentality mode, or will they feel somewhat chagrined? It's really odd to me, the church seems to have been trying very hard in recent years to "fit in" better, now if they put up such public efforts on Prop 8 and it fails, are they going to look around them and feel a little uneasy? They've been trying to fit in in terms of mainstream America I think, and if they fail here, it looks like the only people they'll be fitting in with are the James Dobsons and the Southern Baptist Conventions of this country - people who really don't like the church at all. What an odd place to be.

Oh well, that assumes that the proposition fails. Who knows, maybe the church will succeed in getting enough votes out to tip the balance. Score one for the black hats, I suppose.

[_rcrocket]

See link below. in my opinion, trying to pass a consitutional amendment to discriminate against gays and lesbians is NOT "the work of the Lord" (as claimed by Russell Ballard), but the farthest thing from it.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7Ee ... gD93MT0601

Why?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The church has their bases covered. If Prop 8 passes it is because it was the Lord's will. If it fails, it is because of the wickedness of the world not heeding to the words of the prophet. The wicked always outnumber the faithful. If it passes, it is faith promoting. If it fails it is faith promoting.

[_TAK]

This will be 1978 all over again except this time the stakes are much higher.

I predict that 20 year down the road, the LDS position will stick out like a sore thumb. By that time, anyone under 40 in the Church will consider the position to be an embarrassment and "the opinions of man". It will start to impact baptisms and LDS political leaders will find themselves awkwardly defending their position. Other universities will stop interacting with BYU and some will withdraw from sports competitions. BYU professors will be blackballed from conferences and the will not be invited to speak. Extreme right wing organizations will begin to align themselves more readily with the Church.

The Church will, in a few years, be forced to chose between gutting itself theologically or become a backwater church.

The LDS Church will not survive this fight in any recognizable form. Surely the brethren recognize this and hence the effort and money.

Excellent point and I would agree.

[_asbestosman]

They've been trying to fit in in terms of mainstream America I think, and if they fail here, it looks like the only people they'll be fitting in with are the James Dobsons and the Southern Baptist Conventions of this country - people who really don't like the church at all. What an odd place to be.

It is my understanding that the Catholic church also strongly opposes gay marriage, so perhaps the LDS position isn't all that lonely.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

See link below. in my opinion, trying to pass a consitutional amendment to discriminate against gays and lesbians is NOT "the work of the Lord" (as claimed by Russell Ballard), but the farthest thing from it.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7Ee ... gD93MT0601

Why?

I can't imagine the good Lord, who "inspired" the U.S. Constitution, wanting to amend a state constitution to deny a basic civil and legal right from an entire group of folks because they have chosen to live their lives a certain way.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Yeah, well I don't consider apostates or unbelievers a good judge of what is and is not the work of the Lord. Man knowing a master he never served and all that.

Based on this ignorant statement, I'm pretty certain you know little of God and how He works.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

No, I think God wanted them not to have the Priesthood until a day in 1978 and then changed it.

I wonder what God was thinking when Elijah Abel received both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods ....

[_The Nehor]

This will be 1978 all over again except this time the stakes are much higher.

I predict that 20 year down the road, the LDS position will stick out like a sore thumb. By that time, anyone under 40 in the Church will consider the position to be an embarrassment and "the opinions of man". It will start to impact baptisms and LDS political leaders will find themselves awkwardly defending their position. Other universities will stop interacting with BYU and some will withdraw from sports competitions. BYU professors will be blackballed from conferences and the will not be invited to speak. Extreme right wing organizations will begin to align themselves more readily with the Church.

The Church will, in a few years, be forced to chose between gutting itself theologically or become a backwater church.

The LDS Church will not survive this fight in any recognizable form. Surely the brethren recognize this and hence the effort and money.

You may be right in one way. This is more like polygamy then 1978. So our choice is to gut ourselves theologically (not going to happen) or become a backwater church shunned by society (been there, done that, we'll survive it again). We survived people attacking us and fighting us and driving us from place to place. Do you really think a couple of PC gits looking down at us will destroy the Church? If we've become that soft then we deserve to die.

[_rcrocket]

I can't imagine the good Lord, who "inspired" the U.S. Constitution, wanting to amend a state constitution to deny a basic civil and legal right from an entire group of folks because they have chosen to live their lives a certain way.

Marriage is not a basic civil right, except as noted below. Or, it has been held to be a civil right but the government has a compelling state interest to limit access to it.

Thus far, the states have asserted moral grounds to control access to marriage. A huge majority of states in the union have made the moral decision that homosexual marriages are contrary to state interest. Legislating morality is common, and I could cite numerous examples where actions between consenting adults are subject to criminal sanction. So far, no state adopts the libertarian view that there should be no regulation.

California and Mass are the exceptions. The Marriage Act case holds that marriage is a civil right that springs from the right to privacy, a provision added to the constitution two decades ago.

Both presidential candidates opposed gay marriage. So did Pres. Clinton.

In terms of the "Lord," making this decision, well, I think that if St. Paul were around expressing his views, he'd be pulling out the abomination card.

I am a libertarian but I fully support and understand the position of the coalitiion.]