Latest Proposition 8 Poll

[_mentalgymnast]

In other words's, why do you think that the LDS church is so involved in this Prop. 8 contest? What is the deep down real motivation to put themselves on the line on this one? Is it a strictly homophobic agenda that's propelling them to do what they're doing? Is it strictly the effect that the church feels that legalizing same sex marriage partnerships would ultimately have on the traditional family? Or is is something more than either one or both of these? If so, what is it that is REALLY being discussed behind closed doors in SL?

I think that a number of religious organizations, including the LDS church are looking at issues coming down the pike where accommodations would have to be made to conform with state regulations that would interfere or disrupt private religious practice[s].

So you are saying that what the LDS church and other churches really fear is that their right to religious freedom would be infringed upon by allowing the right for homosexuals to marry. I wonder what accommodations you are thinking of, what infringment of private religious practices.

No, I don't see this as a credible argument. Freedom of religion has no credible relationship with the gay marriage situation. You aren't going to have to marry anyone in an LDS temple that can't get married there now. You can still teach that homosexual behavior is wrong in God's eyes and restrict them from doing whatever you want in your church. Nobody is going to take that away from you. Instead, it is you who wants to take away marriage, to guard it as a legally protected religious symbol for one class and segment of society. That's what it boils down to.

L. Whitney Clayton of the church's quorum of the seventy in a recent interview said that in reality we don't know what the ramifications are of SSM. He said that "time will tell" what those ramifications are. Apparently the church would just as well not go down what they consider to be a slippery slope in this matter that they see as being, at its roots, a moral matter.

In this article:

http://www.sltrib.com/LDS%20News/ci_10797630

...the following information is given:

...Catholic Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco wrote LDS President Thomas S. Monson enlisting LDS support for the amendment. Niederauer had a good relationship with LDS leaders developed during his 11 years as bishop of Salt Lake City, and Latter-day Saints enthusiastically jumped on board.
The LDS First Presidency announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read in every Mormon congregation. Since then, California LDS leaders have prompted members to sign up volunteers, raise money...

The catalyst in the church's involvement in the Prop.8 initiative seems to be the Catholic Church's entreaty to help out. It may be that from this point on the church felt it necessary to show moral support to Niederauer and the Catholic church's efforts, rather than basically wimping out and saying...nah, that's alright, you guys can go it alone. So in reality, my guess is that the church really does support the individual member's right to choose their own stance on this issue. They (the church) were to some extent obligated to jump on the bandwagon of Prop. 8 support as an institution. What the individual members think about Prop. 8 will ultimately be decided at the voting booth.

Two links that may be of interest:

http://mormonsformarriage.com/

and a little humor:

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_10798657

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Exactly. In twenty years, we'll all look back and laugh about these shrill, ill-informed prophecies that Mormons will be forced to perform gay temple weddings at gunpoint. Nobody's going to take away Mormons' rights if Prop 8 fails. And if anybody tries, I will gladly advocate for you just as I have done for homosexuals.

Like I said, the church may see this as being a slippery slope. Whether or not gay temple weddings would be held at gunpoint is highly doubtful. But, there could be other ramifications that at this point may be difficult to ascertain.

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

L. Whitney Clayton of the church's quorum of the seventy in a recent interview said that in reality we don't know what the ramifications are of SSM. He said that "time will tell" what those ramifications are.

We don't know? We don't know? What is the use of having a prophet if all we can get out of SLCentral is "we don't know"?

[_The Dude]

Like I said, the church may see this as being a slippery slope.

Sure, but a slippery slope to what? A vague worry about where it might lead does not stack up to justifying a system of second class recognition for homosexual relationships. Your arguments are getting weaker with each round, MG.

So another question: what happens after it passes or doesn't pass. If it doesn't pass, I guess the heterophiles will try again in a couple of years. And if the ammendment does pass, what does it take for opponents to repeal it? Is California trapped in a continual battle no matter what happens? It seems so, given the passion of both sides.

[_mentalgymnast]

L. Whitney Clayton of the church's quorum of the seventy in a recent interview said that in reality we don't know what the ramifications are of SSM. He said that "time will tell" what those ramifications are.

We don't know? We don't know? What is the use of having a prophet if all we can get out of SLCentral is "we don't know"?

Harmony, where do you get off telling the brethren what they should and shouldn't know? You don't know what they do or do not know and to what degree on a spectrum of knowledge that they do or don't. Elder Clayton may know more than he lets on. He may not. There may be others in the presiding councils that do. There may not. You just don't know. And neither do I.

As I said earlier, I think the church is involved in the Prop. 8 challenge in California, at least partially, because of the invitation from the Catholic Church to help in the cause. The fact is, is that there are many members of the church that are voting in opposition to the amendment because of their own moral compass. In the end, everyone votes either for or against the proposition based on their own moral compass and the input they receive from others...including their ecclesiastical leaders.

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

Harmony, where do you get off telling the brethren what they should and shouldn't know?

Where did I say that?

You don't know what they do or do not know and to what degree on a spectrum of knowledge that they do or don't. Elder Clayton may know more than he lets on. He may not. There may be others in the presiding councils that do. There may not. You just don't know. And neither do I.

Well, someone should tell Elder Clayton, because he says he doesn't know. So if he doesn't know, how is anyone else supposed to know what the Brethren know?

As I said earlier, I think the church is involved in the Prop. 8 challenge in California, at least partially, because of the invitation from the Catholic Church to help in the cause. The fact is, is that there are many members of the church that are voting in opposition to the amendment because of their own moral compass. In the end, everyone votes either for or against the proposition based on their own moral compass and the input they receive from others...including their ecclesiastical leaders.

Regards,
MG

Thank God for the private vote.

[_mentalgymnast]

Sure, but a slippery slope to what? A vague worry about where it might lead does not stack up to justifying a system of second class recognition for homosexual relationships. Your arguments are getting weaker with each round, MG.

As I mentioned to Harmony, we don't no how much they do or don't know. We can only know what we hear them say publicly. If they feel that the slippery slope may lead towards consequences which will impact the three fold mission of the church in a negative manner, then they are going to feel an obligation to not take any chances. Better safe than sorry. The objective of keeping the mission and forward progress of the church operative and alive without roadblocks that would inhibit that mission is at the forefront of their minds. Or at least it makes sense to me to think that this is so.

Regards,
MG

[_Calculus Crusader]

As I've written elsewhere:

The right to gay "marriage" must be written in invisible ink to the left of the emanation of the penumbra (next to the right to abortion on demand) 'cuz I do not see it.

The judiciary cannot legitimately act as a superlegislature and leftists cannot legitimately use the judiciary to subvert the democratic process in the absence of a clear constitutional warrant. If gays want to "marry" then they can get up off their lazy posteriors and do the hard work of passing an amendment; they are not entitled to official recognition for their "marriages," their delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

[_mentalgymnast]

Harmony, where do you get off telling the brethren what they should and shouldn't know?

Where did I say that?

Indirectly you're criticizing the brethren for not coming right out and telling us specifically what will happen down the road if Prop. 8 doesn't pass. You're saying that a prophet (SL central) is of no use unless he is sharing with you the exact knowledge and information that would meet your personal expectations. This is unfair and unrealistic.

Regards,
MG

[_Brackite]

"I do expect the church to face a high cost - both externally and internally - for its prominent part in the campaign," said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a "prophetic imperative" to speak out against gay marriage.

"The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity," Mauss said. "In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders."

Robert Rees, a former LDS bishop in California, says he has not witnessed this much divisiveness in the church over a political issue in the last 50 years.

Whatever the vote's outcome, Rees says, "it will take considerable humility, charity and forgiveness to heal the wounds caused by this initiative."

It really has gone overboard, and I think Mauss is right.

Hello RayA,

I do think that the Leadership of the LDS Church's strong support of Proposition 8, has gone a bit over board. However, it does look like that the Leadership of the LDS Church has let up a little bit, on not having Utah LDS Members supporting Proposition 8 anymore through Phone work.

Please Check Out and See:

Utah LDS volunteers won't be used for Prop. 8 phone campaign:
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/slc/st ... d787510447