An interesting tidbit from this article on Prop 8.
"Let's illuminate both sides of the dilemma using only quotes from this year's major party candidates for president:
1. "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason."
2. "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. ... To say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."
This would certainly clarify the difference between candidates, if only both statements had not been made by Barack Obama. "
Prop 8 was discussed in Church on Sunday during Sunday School (as directed, by my understanding, by the Stake Pres. and the First Presidency). Boy did it polarize the ward. Most of the people who were vocal were either against Prop 8 or the Church's involvement. I only know of the Church becoming involved in 2 other things--the ERA and Prohibition. You guys know of anything else? A letter was read asking Church members to get involved, and then a meeting was announced after Church. About 20 (if that) people were at that meeting. The Church's policy is to only get involved in matters like these if they affect the greater morality of society. I'm trying to figure this all out. I personally support the Church in their involvement with this matter, but I feel like I'll really need to do some explaining to others. It's really important to me to know your own thoughts and feelings on 1) Prop 8 and 2) the Church' s involvement with it.
5 comments:
The following is written by James:
I find this issue intriguing in so many ways. First, I know the church has an official stance on political neutrality, which more or less they define as not supporting any one party, candidate, or platform. They do, however, "Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church." So in this issue they have spoken up. (I do want to know how they define political platform). But, Elder Wickman in a press conference on the matter has said, "Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens." So how much we choose to get involved seems to be our choice.
Second, why has the Church chosen to become involved in the CA cases? Why not Canada? Europe? Massachusetts? To this question I have not answer.
Third, the Church has in my opinion evolved, or better put, more clearly, defined the official doctrine on homosexuality. Elder Oaks and Wickman held a press conference on homosexuality and the Church. See it here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
The whole article is fascinating if you are interested in the matter, but more applicable to Prop 8 is the later portion of the press release where they say:
"Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.
A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given."
Ultimately, the feeling I get from the matter is that Jesus feels that the institution of marriage (between a man and wife) is significantly at risk because of this attempt at redefinition. In my opinion, the Church is not speaking out in the political arena to assert our belief that homosexuality is wrong (there are more appropriate venues for that, general conference, etc.) but rather they are speaking out to preserve marriage, one of the most sacred and holy institutions of all eternity. It is imperative for me to make that distinction. They in no way condone acting on homosexuality tendencies, while at the same time recognizing that same sex attraction is a trial to be overcome just as anger, an affinity for alcohol, a desire to steal, or other temptations. It seems that the Church does not try to assert its moral beliefs into the political arena, but when its ability or freedom to practice those beliefs is threatened it steps up to defend its institutions when Jesus deems necessary.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I really found the Press Conference fascinating, and this article by Elder Oaks is also good.
Elder Oaks devo: Religious Values and Public Policy
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4bd89209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
vote obama!
The Church HAS in fact been involved before in a very similar way concerning the same topic in California.
From the site you reference in your post, I assume it was Prop 22 in 2000. That's the year I got home from Peru so I wasn't very involved. From what I remember, it was a letter from the First Presidency encouraging members to be active in helping Prop 22 pass (states that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman).
I know my family and several in their ward went door to door handing out pamphlets and posting signs (not sure if that was by assignment, or if it was from a more general "We encourage members to..." type of statement).
While the Church generally has a politically neutral stance, I think when something so sacred and fundamental to the gospel is threatened/challenged, they ENCOURAGE members to act.
In reading through the Proclamation, a few phrases that pop out to me are that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children", "The family is ordained of God", and the warning at the end about the disintegration of the family.
...and I can't remember if I had a point.
http://www.theguardrail.com/transcript_printable.htm
I don't know how Ben found this article but it is definitely worth reading.
So Dane, I would definitely be voting in favor of Proposition 8 if I lived in CA. I am relieved to hear that a vote is being taken again!
I guess you can only hope that the majority of people will vote against homosexual marriage. But I fear in my heart that the day will come when we will not be in the majority. It makes me ill to think of living in a society that is so far gone from God's commandments. But it is coming fast.
I am glad the church is taking a stand. Elder Oaks talked about a constitutional amendment declaring marriage as between man and a woman. That would be incredible! But it would require the majority of Americans to get off their duffs and stand up for their beliefs. I think the media force is so cunning. It persuades people that everybody else must be agreeing with whatever the media says. It gives little tidbits very persuasively, but how often do they speak truth?
I support the church's involvement 100% and although I would be scared of bad reactions from others against me, I would be compelled to raise my voice and share my opinion where appropriate. I cannot stand by while man-woman marriage, which I hold most dear, is turned into a farce.
And while I feel very passionately about this, I also want to express that I feel compassion for those struggling against homoesexual tendencies. I can't imagine the difficulties, but my compassion does not lead me to accept those lifestyles. Hope I've made sense and been helpful Dane.
WOW! Everything you ever wanted to know on the subject, published today:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
we are on vacation, and will not be thinking about anything of any importance for another two weeks!!!
we look forward to looking into these sources a bit more tho
Post a Comment