FP instructs CA members: "protect marriage"

[_Jason Bourne]

A FP letter to members in California (to be read in sacrament meeting on Pride Day) was recently posted to Mormon Matters.

See http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/21/news-flash-lds-church-will-be-actively-opposing-gay-marriage-in-california-this-november/

This really should not be a surprise at all.

[_Jason Bourne]

Trevor,

The church doesn't really care that much about protecting marriage. Sure, they are homophobic, but they also have greater concerns involving finances and so on. What they do care about, is being recognized as part of a larger "Christian" crusade against something. Anything.

No you are clearly wrong and blinded by cynicism. It is clear the Church cares about marriage and this position is absolutely not new at all.

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't think tax-exempt organizations should be involved in political advocacy. The CoJCoLDS is far from alone on this front, though. The common reply is that this is different because it is a moral issue. Well, all political issues involve moral considerations. That's a justification for involvement in any political issue.

So Church members cannot be encouraged to practice free speech and exercise their rights on issues like these?

Why should a Church be silent? Why cannot they express their views on issues they consider critical to society? Why do the secularist seek to silence religions?

[_The Nehor]

"Lord Krishna's teachings on the position of eating beef are unequivocal. Cows are the sacred pinnacle of spiritual development, and their slaughter for food is immoral and blasphemous. Cows are entitled to live lives unmolested by human beings. We ask that Hindus give of their means, and their time, to see that the constitutional amendment banning the slaughter for meat of cattle is passed. Our bovine overlords must be protected."

I wonder how the First Presidency would respond to such an attempt by Hindus to pass a constitutional amendment enshrining some religious principle of theirs into law that binds the rest of us? For some reason I can imagine the Christian outrage over being dictated to in this way.

I imagine they would fight it. Just as others can fight the Church's influence. However neither do I expect the Hindus in your scenario to roll over and play dead because someone said, "But that's religious."

I also suspect the Hindus would appeal to vegetarians and vegans and try to show that not eating beef would also help with the obesity epidemic etc. Now that I think about it would such a ban be so bad?

Gay marriage is also not just a religious issue (though for many involved this is their primary motivation).

[_Jason Bourne]

The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

Is it right for any religious sect to seek to have it's theological teachings enforced on others who do not believe in the sect's myths and beliefs?

Further, what if a true believing animal rights folks got organized like these churches and tried to legislate their dietary rules for the rest of us? You know, for the sake of the animals.

"Lord Krishna's teachings on the position of eating beef are unequivocal. Cows are the sacred pinnacle of spiritual development, and their slaughter for food is immoral and blasphemous. Cows are entitled to live lives unmolested by human beings. We ask that Hindus give of their means, and their time, to see that the constitutional amendment banning the slaughter for meat of cattle is passed. Our bovine overlords must be protected."

I wonder how the First Presidency would respond to such an attempt by Hindus to pass a constitutional amendment enshrining some religious principle of theirs into law that binds the rest of us? For some reason I can imagine the Christian outrage over being dictated to in this way.

Secularist attempt to impose their will on the religious as much as they think the religious do.

Nobody lives in a void. We all have opinions and views that we believe are the correct way and will attempt to influence what society looks like based on those views. You are no different then the religious person on this. Nobody is.

[_asbestosman]

The Dude is such a "looser"!

Looser than what?

Nobody lives in a void. We all have opinions and views that we believe are the correct way and will attempt to influence what society looks like based on those views. You are no different then the religious person on this. Nobody is.

True we all attempt to influence what society looks like based on our views. For example, some may disagree with laws against animal cruelty even though we have forced our views on others just as Sethbag's hypothetical Hindus might attempt to do. That said, I think The Dude brought up something to consider--are the reasons accessible to all? In the case of animal cruelty, I think the answer is yes even though all may not agree with the reasoning behind it. In the case of what God says or doesn't say, there is more doubt as to whether it is accessible to all.

I also question the safety of a government that does not have significant protections for it's citizens agains the tyrrany of the majority opinion (I think the majority of us have a minority opinion in something). But then what sort of things should be protected from being changed by majority opinion? Deciding that is, I suppose yet another problem of opinion so we are essentially back at square one. That said, I think most of us try to use the Golden Rule (or similar) as a guide and most of us want to limit how much the majority can impose upon us. I think that having the government specially recognize monogamous heterosexual relationships and nothing else is problematic and indeed caused problems for the church in the past. I think, therefore, that the logical position to take would be to keep the government out of defining what adult relationships are or are not legitimate and merely concern itself with children and parents.



Also, from the letter:

The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

So then why doesn't the church attempt to get legislation passed to force single pregnant women to give up their children for adoption? Also, why doesn't the church make it illegal for couples to be together for a long time without children, or illegal to remain celebate?

[_The Dude]

The Dude is such a "looser"!

Looser than what?

See this Will? Your lame inside joke is confusing to people. They probably think you are being nasty again.

Also, from the letter:

The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

So then why doesn't the church attempt to get legislation passed to force single pregnant women to give up their children for adoption? Also, why doesn't the church make it illegal for couples to be together for a long time without children, or illegal to remain celebate?

Yes! Why doesn't the church follow its teachings to their logical conclusions? Why give single mothers a free pass but stomp the homosexuals who might want to adopt (or very well don't want anything to do with kids!), when entitling children to a bond of marriage is the motivating concern. Tell women that they cannot divorce until they have a new father lined up to take over the job of the old dad -- the kids are entitled to the bond of marriage, after all.

I think the church should simply encourage people to get out and vote their consciences. You know, the church already does enough to mold their consciences with the teaching/repetition of correct principles, now please let individuals synthesize a position they feel good about and vote accordingly. Since the church also teaches "love thy neighbor", there may well be some members who think gay marriage is the most correct thing to do in God's eyes.

[_Scottie]

This letter is unnecessary.

The LDS masses are already brainwashed into believing that Jesus cries every time gay rights advance.

"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE!!"

[_Moniker]

What I find quite ironic about the MAD board's thread on this matter is their wailing about minority rights and eager for majority rule. How they defame their ancestors by uttering these words. So indoctrinated to see right ideology that they are incapable of recognizing that it goes against their own self interest of being accepted for their own deviant views on marriage.

[_Scottie]

What I find quite ironic about the MAD board's thread on this matter is their wailing about minority rights and eager for majority rule. How they defame their ancestors by uttering these words. So indoctrinated to see right ideology that they are incapable of recognizing that it goes against their own self interest of being accepted for their own deviant views on marriage.

<in my best valley girl voice> * sigh * That is SOOOOO in the past!! Why can't everyone just move on already???

What I'm waiting for is for gay rights to advance to the point where the government passes legislation that gays should have all the rights that everyone else has or else lose your tax exempt status. Boy, can you imagine how quickly the current prophet will be getting revelation on how the "test" that God has been giving the gay members is now over and how they are now welcome in the temple?