LDS Church issues response to Prop. 8 vote

[funkymonkey]

LDS Church issues response to Prop. 8 vote

November 5th, 2008 @ 1:03pm

Statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Edited November 6, 2008 by funkymonkey
revised link

[Elgama]

What a great response thanks for posting it.

-Charley

[Guest Godless]

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

...........

...........

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

These two paragraphs definitely caught my attention when I read the statement. I have seen LDS members (and non-), on this site and elsewhere, contradict the spirit of respect and understanding that the first paragraph encourages. And the second paragraph seems to imply that those who voted against Prop 8 were not, in fact, contradicting the direct will of God. People should vote according to their conscience, and I hope that the people who voted yesterday did just that rather than unquestioningly following the counsel of the Church. To those who voted in favor of this legislation after much contemplation, objective research, and individual prayer, I commend you. And to those (if any) who voted against it after doing the same, I commend you as well.

We all have different experiences and situations that shape our ideas. The bretheren seem to realize this. It is my hope that someday more members of your church will come to the same realization and think before they jump on those who go against church council on issues such as this one.

[Elgama]

These two paragraphs definitely caught my attention when I read the statement. I have seen LDS members (and non-), on this site and elsewhere, contradict the spirit of respect and understanding that the first paragraph encourages. And the second paragraph seems to imply that those who voted against Prop 8 were not, in fact, contradicting the direct will of God. People should vote according to their conscience, and I hope that the people who voted yesterday did just that rather than unquestioningly following the counsel of the Church. To those who voted in favor of this legislation after much contemplation, objective research, and individual prayer, I commend you. And to those (if any) who voted against it after doing the same, I commend you as well.

We all have different experiences and situations that shape our ideas. The bretheren seem to realize this. It is my hope that someday more members of your church will come to the same realization and think before they jump on those who go against church council on issues such as this one.

They were what stuck out to me too. And I was very relieved to see them. Something about this statement for me is very President Monson, not that I know him except from 16 years of conference talks.

-Charley

[drjme]

David Nielson, with the Affirmation Gay and Lesbian Mormons, said, "I was disappointed to see it pass but not disheartened. This is a setback, but marriage equality is still going to happen."

Interesting Stance for an Mormon??

[Starfish]

These two paragraphs definitely caught my attention when I read the statement. I have seen LDS members (and non-), on this site and elsewhere, contradict the spirit of respect and understanding that the first paragraph encourages. And the second paragraph seems to imply that those who voted against Prop 8 were not, in fact, contradicting the direct will of God. People should vote according to their conscience, and I hope that the people who voted yesterday did just that rather than unquestioningly following the counsel of the Church. To those who voted in favor of this legislation after much contemplation, objective research, and individual prayer, I commend you. And to those (if any) who voted against it after doing the same, I commend you as well.

We all have different experiences and situations that shape our ideas. The bretheren seem to realize this. It is my hope that someday more members of your church will come to the same realization and think before they jump on those who go against church council on issues such as this one.

Of course we should treat EVERYONE with respect. If you look back over the many posts, you will see a lot of respectful posts. This forum is the most respectful forum I've been in. Never is rudeness justified. I don't think anyone ever advocated otherwise.

I cannot judge any LDS who voted against Prop 8. It's not my place. But I do object to public declarations by a member of our church against the counsel of our Prophet.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Starfish

[Misshalfway]

These two paragraphs definitely caught my attention when I read the statement. I have seen LDS members (and non-), on this site and elsewhere, contradict the spirit of respect and understanding that the first paragraph encourages. And the second paragraph seems to imply that those who voted against Prop 8 were not, in fact, contradicting the direct will of God. People should vote according to their conscience, and I hope that the people who voted yesterday did just that rather than unquestioningly following the counsel of the Church. To those who voted in favor of this legislation after much contemplation, objective research, and individual prayer, I commend you. And to those (if any) who voted against it after doing the same, I commend you as well.

We all have different experiences and situations that shape our ideas. The bretheren seem to realize this. It is my hope that someday more members of your church will come to the same realization and think before they jump on those who go against church council on issues such as this one.

I couldn't agree more with the two statements you sited from the church and appreciate your comments on them.

As I read the "Steve Young" thread and others, I was disheartened at some of the comments. Some didn't feel LDS at all to me, and I don't mean positions on the issues. And some seemed to miss the point of what it means to be LDS and to understand that everyone is in process and each process is individual and that the Lord allows for that and is over all of it.

Perhaps we can all learn from what happened in California and raise the bar with how we deal with our differences. President Hinckley has only been gone a short time and sometimes I wonder if we have already forgotten his admonition to be a little kinder and to stand a little taller.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Misshalfway

[Misshalfway]

I cannot judge any LDS who voted against Prop 8. It's not my place. But I do object to public declarations by a member of our church against the counsel of our Prophet.

I am trying to understand what you are saying here. You don't want to judge, yet you want to speak out against any declaration against the prophet?

Well, I guess I can understand this. It feels like the "As for me an my house...." sentiment. Something I support. But I worry with the "how" we stand up for what is right. Do we condemn others? Do we stoop to passionate name calling? Or do we listen carefully and apply understanding to an opposing position? Do we allow ourselves to look deeper and understand more fully where a person may be coming from and apply our creativity and intellect to finding solutions that work AND uphold morality? Or do we jump on the righteousness bandwagon and in our pride railroad anyone that appears less righteous than ourselves?

All I can do is my best. With regards to Prop 8,, I within my own sensibilities, can't escape the complication and emotionally charged muddiness of the issue. IMO, it takes a great deal of wisdom, more wisdom than many of us have, to sort through all the pieces and parts and find truth and then balance that with what it means to be American and to preserve the rights of all and what it means to uphold the moral foundations this country was built on.

We must fight for principle and against falsehoods, but not against people!! I think we forget this sometimes, and I mean ON THIS BOARD and even in our neighborhoods whether we speak of religion or Prop 8 or who just won the election and how any one of us might react to such an outcome.

America is about diversity in thought and position and the protections that make such diversity possible! In many ways, this is the essence of what it means to be LDS. And the best of Americans are the ones with moral fiber and deep moral character. And I think when two disagree, true character shows itself. Just being LDS doesn't make one loving. Just being American doesn't make one moral. The reason we are in this global mess is because too many in Washington and Wall street and the corporate and religious spheres have forgotten what it means to live for the good of all instead of the selfish interest of the one!!

And so what do we do here on this board in our discussions? How do we make our points and speak our minds? By tearing each other down? Casting our "holier than thou" judgments?

How do we meet someone who doesn't appear to be following the prophet? Shine a spot light on the deficits?? Is that what Father in Heaven does with our infinite failings? NO! He helps, encourages, and invites. He shares truth and lets us digest it how we will. He allows people to think and even make mistakes. And He leaves us better than how he found us. Do we do the same?

I think that Obama got it right when he said this:

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."

Perhaps we need to apply some of that here.

[Elphaba]

I am trying to understand what you are saying here. You don't want to judge, yet you want to speak out against any declaration against the prophet?

Well, I guess I can understand this. It feels like the "As for me an my house...." sentiment. Something I support. But I worry with the "how" we stand up for what is right. Do we condemn others? Do we stoop to passionate name calling? Or do we listen carefully and apply understanding to an opposing position? Do we allow ourselves to look deeper and understand more fully where a person may be coming from and apply our creativity and intellect to finding solutions that work AND uphold morality? Or do we jump on the righteousness bandwagon and in our pride railroad anyone that appears less righteous than ourselves?

All I can do is my best. With regards to Prop 8,, I within my own sensibilities, can't escape the complication and emotionally charged muddiness of the issue. IMO, it takes a great deal of wisdom, more wisdom than many of us have, to sort through all the pieces and parts and find truth and then balance that with what it means to be American and to preserve the rights of all and what it means to uphold the moral foundations this country was built on.

We must fight for principle and against falsehoods, but not against people!! I think we forget this sometimes, and I mean ON THIS BOARD and even in our neighborhoods whether we speak of religion or Prop 8 or who just won the election and how any one of us might react to such an outcome.

America is about diversity in thought and position and the protections that make such diversity possible! In many ways, this is the essence of what it means to be LDS. And the best of Americans are the ones with moral fiber and deep moral character. And I think when two disagree, true character shows itself. Just being LDS doesn't make one loving. Just being American doesn't make one moral. The reason we are in this global mess is because too many in Washington and Wall street and the corporate and religious spheres have forgotten what it means to live for the good of all instead of the selfish interest of the one!!

And so what do we do here on this board in our discussions? How do we make our points and speak our minds? By tearing each other down? Casting our "holier than thou" judgments?

How do we meet someone who doesn't appear to be following the prophet? Shine a spot light on the deficits?? Is that what Father in Heaven does with our infinite failings? NO! He helps, encourages, and invites. He shares truth and lets us digest it how we will. He allows people to think and even make mistakes. And He leaves us better than how he found us. Do we do the same?

I think that Obama got it right when he said this:

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."

Perhaps we need to apply some of that here.

I really needed someone to say this.

Elphaba

[Kyra]

Of course we should treat EVERYONE with respect. If you look back over the many posts, you will see a lot of respectful posts. This forum is the most respectful forum I've been in. Never is rudeness justified. I don't think anyone ever advocated otherwise.

I cannot judge any LDS who voted against Prop 8. It's not my place. But I do object to public declarations by a member of our church against the counsel of our Prophet.

Well said! :)

[Traveler]

Anything can be justified by saying that it is better than something that is absolutely horrible and obviously worse. The point many do not understand is that Prop 8 was not about what can be justified but rather what is the responsibility of government and society. There is nothing anti or judgmental in Prop 8. Its only purpose is to reaffirm that for human society to survive and exist we ought to recognize the importance of providing a deliberate environment that fosters children and families knowledgeable of the need in society to plan for a next generation.

The best environment for fostering children and families is the recognition that children are best off in a family defined by marriage that includes the biological mother and biological father of the children that have learned by their experiences in society to be loving and kind to each other – even to the point of sacrificing their individual passions, desires, wants and personal expatiations so that children can thrive and humanity continue for another generation. Why should any reasonable person want to change that understanding?

The Traveler

Edited November 6, 2008 by Traveler

[Guest Godless]

Anything can be justified by saying that it is better than something that is absolutely horrible and obviously worse. The point many do not understand is that Prop 8 was not about what can be justified but rather what is the responsibility of government and society. There is nothing anti or judgmental in Prop 8. Its only purpose is to reaffirm that for human society to survive and exist we ought to recognize the importance of providing a deliberate environment that fosters children and families knowledgeable of the need in society to plan for a next generation.

The best environment for fostering children and families is the recognition that children are best off in a family defined by marriage that includes the biological mother and biological father of the children that have learned by their experiences in society to be loving and kind to each other – even to the point of sacrificing their individual passions, desires, wants and personal expatiations so that children can thrive and humanity continue for another generation. Why should any reasonable person want to change that understanding?

The Traveler

I disagree with your views, but I thank you for presenting them in a respectful and intelligent manner.

The main problem that I've found in this debate is the inclination of a handful of people to question the motives of those who oppose the bill (admittedly, I may be a little guilty of the same, albeit in the other direction) rather than address the actual issues surrounding the bill. Many have said that this is a very respectful and civil board (and I'm inclined to agree, btw). However, this is the only board I post on where I've seen people's faith and loyalty to the church brought into question in regards to Prop 8. These attitudes are wrong and explicitly incompatible with the ideals of compassion and open-mindedness that I was taught to embrace by my LDS parents and leaders. So again, Traveler, I thank you for taking the high road by addressing the issue without placing judgement on those who disagree with you.

[Traveler]

I disagree with your views, but I thank you for presenting them in a respectful and intelligent manner.

The main problem that I've found in this debate is the inclination of a handful of people to question the motives of those who oppose the bill (admittedly, I may be a little guilty of the same, albeit in the other direction) rather than address the actual issues surrounding the bill. Many have said that this is a very respectful and civil board (and I'm inclined to agree, btw). However, this is the only board I post on where I've seen people's faith and loyalty to the church brought into question in regards to Prop 8. These attitudes are wrong and explicitly incompatible with the ideals of compassion and open-mindedness that I was taught to embrace by my LDS parents and leaders. So again, Traveler, I thank you for taking the high road by addressing the issue without placing judgement on those who disagree with you.

I do not think anybody is questioning some LDS standing for not supporting Prop 8. I believe questions are raised concerned why someone would want Prop 8 defeated.

It is hard for me to understand why someone with LDS ideals and beliefs concerning the sacredness of family wants to remove the protected status of children and the social environment they are forced to live and learn in because of their birth into a particular social setting.

I have been both concerned and upset over the treatment and demands brought to bear on the Boy Scouts of America by those that have an agenda beyond the scope upon which the BSA was founded. I do not want such forces brought to bear on families concerned about the unique status of children.

I know of no better way to draw a line than Prop 8.

The Traveler

Edited November 6, 2008 by Traveler

[Moksha]

President Hinckley has only been gone a short time and sometimes I wonder if we have already forgotten his admonition to be a little kinder and to stand a little taller.

That is one theme I will never tire hearing. Hope it will be reemphasized in General Conference in the future. :)

[Moksha]

I know of no better way to draw a line than Prop 8.

The Traveler

What about drawing a line for a circle that can include everybody?

[orrinjelo]

Hey, it's me again. Wow, I've never been troubled with an issue as much as this one. Let me give you the quick story: I don't understand WHY it would be bad if prop. 8 failed. I am pro-choice and consider myself an independent in politics. Now, I know the Church's stand, but if I am to agree with the Church, I need to know why and have my own reasons. I've got a few starter questions:

How is proposition 8 not refusing these people their rights?

Is civil union still in effect?

Is civil union in this case the same as marriage (in the eyes of the government)?

Can you verify this?:

"First of all, the failure to pass Proposition 8 will "inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty and free speech rights. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family." (Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage)

"If same-gender attraction is legalized, pastors, ministers, bishops, and others who refuse to perform these marriages in their churches will face the possibility of discrimination charges. Churches will no longer be tax-exempt if they do not comply with this law. Religious liberty and religious rights will be devastatingly affected in the long-term if same-gender marriage is legalized to immediately appease liberal attention in the short-term."

[DigitalShadow]

"If same-gender attraction is legalized, pastors, ministers, bishops, and others who refuse to perform these marriages in their churches will face the possibility of discrimination charges. Churches will no longer be tax-exempt if they do not comply with this law. Religious liberty and religious rights will be devastatingly affected in the long-term if same-gender marriage is legalized to immediately appease liberal attention in the short-term."

I don't see how that has any basis in reality, and furthermore I don't even think that is what "liberals" want. Churches can (and do) refuse to perform marriages based on whatever criterea they want. Why would a homosexual couple even want to get married by a church who thinks they are going to Hell and commiting a horrible sin on a regular basis? Frankly, this whole slippery slope argument about how the government is going to force religions to change their views is pure paranoid fantasy that is used to justify things like prop 8. The only real reason churches are in danger of losing their tax exempt status is becoming a political tool of a certain party which many churches are already dangerously close to.

[unixknight]

I don't see how that has any basis in reality, and furthermore I don't even think that is what "liberals" want. Churches can (and do) refuse to perform marriages based on whatever criterea they want. Why would a homosexual couple even want to get married by a church who thinks they are going to Hell and commiting a horrible sin on a regular basis? Frankly, this whole slippery slope argument about how the government is going to force religions to change their views is pure paranoid fantasy that is used to justify things like prop 8. The only real reason churches are in danger of losing their tax exempt status is becoming a political tool of a certain party which many churches are already dangerously close to.

Paranoid fantasy, eh?

In Sweden, there is a law being proposed that would compel pastors to perform gay weddings or lose their ability to perform marriages at all. A politician in CA has proposed a similar measure, and there is discussing in Massachusetts of revoking the tax exempt status of churches for not performing gay marriages, which are legal in that state.

Furthermore, Catholic private adoption agencies in San Francisco and in Massachusetts are having to close down because they will not place children with gay couples and are facing the wrath of the state for it.

And the LDS Church knows very well what happens when its own policies on marriage run afoul of the U.S. Government's. Anyone remember how polygamy ended? It was either that or the Church was to be disincorporated and the Temples seized.

So you'll have to forgive us if we're not so willing to believe that we would be left alone to conduct business as usual should the laws change.

Edited November 12, 2008 by unixknight

[a-train]

It was either that or the Church was to be disincorporated and the Temples seized.

The Church WAS disincorporated via the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The Supreme Court, in 1890, ultimately upheld the disincoporation in 136 US 1 wherein the court held:

That the acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah incorporating, continuing, or providing for the corporation known as the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,' and the ordinance of the so-called general assembly of the state of Deseret incorporating the Church of Jeses Christ of Latter- Day Saints, so far as the same may now have legal force and validity, are hereby disapproved and annulled, and the said corporation, in so far as it may now have, or pretend to have, any legal existence, is hereby dissolved;

The court order actually authorized the seizure of all real property and the bank holdings of the Church WERE seized until their release in 1893. The temples however, were simply not seized. I don't know why or what circumstances prevented it.

-a-train

[unixknight]

The Church WAS disincorporated via the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The Supreme Court, in 1890, ultimately upheld the disincoporation in 136 US 1 wherein the court held:

The court order actually authorized the seizure of all real property and the bank holdings of the Church WERE seized until their release in 1893. The temples however, were simply not seized. I don't know why or what circumstances prevented it.

-a-train

Wow... I did not know that. Thank you.

[Hemidakota]

The temples however, were simply not seized. I don't know why or what circumstances prevented it.

-a-train

1890 manifesto was issued after vision and revelation

Date: 11/15/97

Articles on this page may be used in conjunction with the Sunday School gospel doctrine course, lesson No. 43, Official Declaration—1 and Official Declaration—2. Information compiled by Gerry Avant Sources: Church News, Jan. 6, 1979; October 1988 and April 1995 general conference reports.

Doctrine and Covenants—Official Declaration 1 was issued by President Wilford Woodruff stating that the Church was "not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice. . . . "

The declaration is commonly known as "The Manifesto of 1890" or as "The Manifesto."

In it, President Woodruff stated: "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. . . . "

The declaration, dated Sept. 24, 1890, was sustained by unanimous vote by the Church Oct. 6, 1890. Its issuance came after years of persecution and hardship in which Latter-day Saints resisted what they saw as unconstitutional federal attempts to curb the practice of plural marriage.

In the years prior to the Manifesto, the Church suffered as a result of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, which included provisions aimed at destroying the Church as a political and economic entity. At the end of August 1890, President Woodruff received confirmation that the U.S. Government, in spite of an 1888 agreement promising that temples would not be disturbed, was going to confiscate them.

President Woodruff later explained that the Lord had shown him by revelation exactly what would take place if plural marriage did not cease. He was shown that the Church would suffer the "confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people. . . .

"The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. . . . " (See "Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto, Doctrine and Covenants—Declaration 1.)

[Hemidakota]

Humor from our local member:

[DigitalShadow]

Paranoid fantasy, eh?

In Sweden, there is a law being proposed that would compel pastors to perform gay weddings or lose their ability to perform marriages at all. A politician in CA has proposed a similar measure, and there is discussing in Massachusetts of revoking the tax exempt status of churches for not performing gay marriages, which are legal in that state.

Furthermore, Catholic private adoption agencies in San Francisco and in Massachusetts are having to close down because they will not place children with gay couples and are facing the wrath of the state for it.

And the LDS Church knows very well what happens when its own policies on marriage run afoul of the U.S. Government's. Anyone remember how polygamy ended? It was either that or the Church was to be disincorporated and the Temples seized.

So you'll have to forgive us if we're not so willing to believe that we would be left alone to conduct business as usual should the laws change.

First, I would like the point out that Sweden is far different from the US and the vast majority of people are not religious at all there so I really don't think there is much point in comparing things that happen there to the United states where the solid majority is Christian.

Second, I admit that perhaps I have assumed too much of my own view exists in the majority of "liberals." Personally I think churches should be free to be as exclusionist as they desire as long as they don't hurt anyone, but I also don't really consider myself liberal or conservative anyway.

I still think there is an unhealthy level of paranoia amoung religious conservatives lately, but I will concede that it is not quite as unfounded as I initially thought (but it is close).