Brethren toning down political opposition to gay marriage?

[_Runtu]

One thing you can feel hopeful for, Rollo, is that if the analysts and third party consultants ever run their equations and supporting SSM comes up as promising a statistically significant gain in image that will translate to monetary gains, then the Church will become SSM friendly. But it's unlikely that there will be a material benefit to the Church taking such a position for several years if ever.

It's always about the image and the bottom line.

[_Gadianton]

BC,

The Brethren are only anti-gay due to personal prejudice. They do sustain the common understanding of doctrine and scripture because that's what they believe is doctrine, but if it weren't for their prejudice, they could easily change the doctrine IF it would benefit them materially. The next generation of GAs will be less prejudice.

But I agree with you that given membership beliefs and the small favor they have with conservatives, it would be many years in the future if ever, that the Church could ever reverse the SSM doctrine, because it would have to be materially beneficial to do so. And that's just not in the cards.

[_Runtu]

BC,

The Brethren are only anti-gay due to personal prejudice. They do sustain the common understanding of doctrine and scripture because that's what they believe is doctrine, but if it weren't for their prejudice, they could easily change the doctrine IF it would benefit them materially. The next generation of GAs will be less prejudice.

But I agree with you that given membership beliefs and the small favor they have with conservatives, it would be many years in the future if ever, that the Church could ever reverse the SSM doctrine, because it would have to be materially beneficial to do so. And that's just not in the cards.

Generally, that's how it works. Doctrines, policies, and emphases change in response to the bottom line.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

One thing you can feel hopeful for, Rollo, is that if the analysts and third party consultants ever run their equations and supporting SSM comes up as promising a statistically significant gain in image that will translate to monetary gains, then the Church will become SSM friendly. But it's unlikely that there will be a material benefit to the Church taking such a position for several years if ever.

I tend to agree. I think the Brethren directed the Church to take such an active role in the Prop. 8 fight because it was the popular thing to do in CA and they thought they could win (and did). They haven't taken nearly as active a role anywhere else because of the negatives (even though, supposedly, God's doctrine "against" gay marriage is the same everywhere and the Church should fight for that doctrine regardless of the odds against winning), and, of course, the backlash in CA caused the Brethren to back off considerably from future fights. The CA fight was a debacle, and the Church knows it.

I do hope you're right -- when the negatives become too great (especially the monetary negatives) the Church will (hopefully) rethink its stand, and, even if the Church never recognizes gay marriage as a religious sacrament, will accept civil gay marriage as a fundamental civil right. I just hope it happens in my lifetime. If not, then at least I've taught my passel of children that there should never be prejudice of any kind, including against gays and lesbians, and that the Church's political position against civil gay marriage is wrong, plain and simple.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Typical Packer -- there is no way to control this "gorilla" (a word Dallin Oaks used many years ago to describe Packer).

I missed this! Do you have a link?

I mixed up my animals -- Oaks described Packer as a "grizzly bear," not a "gorilla." Here is a link to a newspaper article where Steve Benson related that Oaks told him of Packer: " You can't stage manage a grizzly bear."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=9 ... 25,3482141

[_Tarski]

I think it's interesting that they refer to Heavenly Father as "the Creator".

Ironically, in Momonism, Elohim didn't create anything of significant originality. He merely followed the pattern of infnite gods and infnite worlds before him.
He is not a creator.

He should be refered to as "The Copier".

[_Fence Sitter]

Ironically, in Momonism, Elohim didn't create anything of significant originality. He merely followed the pattern of infnite gods and infnite worlds before him.
He is not a creator.

He should be refered to as "The Copier".

Or Supreme Master Mason

[_Fence Sitter]

I tend to agree. I think the Brethren directed the Church to take such an active role in the Prop. 8 fight because it was the popular thing to do in CA and they thought they could win (and did). They haven't taken nearly as active a role anywhere else because of the negatives (even though, supposedly, God's doctrine "against" gay marriage is the same everywhere and the Church should fight for that doctrine regardless of the odds against winning), and, of course, the backlash in CA caused the Brethren to back off considerably from future fights. The CA fight was a debacle, and the Church knows it.

I do hope you're right -- when the negatives become too great (especially the monetary negatives) the Church will (hopefully) rethink its stand, and, even if the Church never recognizes gay marriage as a religious sacrament, will accept civil gay marriage as a fundamental civil right. I just hope it happens in my lifetime. If not, then at least I've taught my passel of children that there should never be prejudice of any kind, including against gays and lesbians, and that the Church's political position against civil gay marriage is wrong, plain and simple.

It also indicates that the Church thinks they have lost the battle on legislating sexual behavior. Why are they not involved is trying to pass anti-sodomy laws or enforcing the ones that are now ignored?