posted
This is not one of those science vs faith debates I have going on, but nevertheless I wondered if anybody else was having that problem.
Here is the background of the problem:
1: There is a marriage amendment coming to the floor of congress this month that up until recently I was very much opposed to.
2: At church 2 weeks ago I was read a letter from the first presidency (the prophet and his 2 councelors) asking the membership of the church to support this bill.
3: I fully support my prophet and believe he is God's spokesman here on earth of that I do not question. I am very aware of the stipulations that a prophet is only the prophet when speaking as such, but anyway you swing it, a letter to the church requesting an action has God's stamp of approval as far as Mormons are concerned.
I am being asked by a power I consider greater than I, to support a piece of legislation up until now I believed was the wrong thing for righteous intents.
I believe what makes this country work was that by tolerating the lifestyles of others, I could have my own lifestyle tolerated.
I am reminded of a time in American history where Mormons were persecuted because of their definition of marriage and driven from their homes, striped of their citezenship, and treated terribly by those who thought some of their ideas were evil and that Mormons would destroy the fabric of Christian/American culture. I can't help but feel that perhaps the persecuted have become the persecutors. (coincidentally laws against polygamy are still on the books even as homosexuals crusade for their marital rights)
Yet a source that I believe to be 100% true has asked me to reevaluate my beliefs on this subject. Is it right to hesitate to vote ones convictions in this country for fear of infringing on the rights of others? Ill be brunt, I do not believe homosexuality is a force for good in this nation. I do believe it is a faulty lifestyle, that does more harm then good. Yet believing that, do I have the right to try to supress it, in order to sustain a society that is more in line with my own belief system? Do I have that right sometimes, if not always, or never at all?
I firmly believed that homosexuals think that they are doing right, and I ought not to force them (by utilizing a majority vote) to live as I personally choose to live.
Are there any other Mormons who feel this way, and how have you come to terms with the request to support this constitutional ammendment?
For those of you who do not believe in Mormonism, how would you react in this situation were you in my shoes. I don't know, I know I am not the only one who feels this way, and yet I have yet to meet another Mormon in Utah actively talking about this dilemma, outside the usual "I already thought gay marriage was bad, the prophet has just confirmed that God agrees with me."
I know I can pray about this request of me and gain divine confirmation of its authenticity, yet I have always liked having a rational reason for doing what I do.
Thank you for any advice, suggestions, civil criticisms you feel are worth submitting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am very aware of the stipulations that a prophet is only the prophet when speaking as such, but anyway you swing it, a letter to the church requesting an action has God's stamp of approval as far as Mormons are concerned.
I don't know nearly enough about Mormon doctrine to truly comment, but, if this letter is not written as prophecy, is it meant to supplant the carefully considered non-revelation-based conclusions of the members?
It sounds like this letter wasn't saying, "God has declared that this amendment is a good thing" but rather something like "the amendment is proper because of reasons 1, 2, and 3."
After considering it prayerfully and comparing your existing reasons for opposing the amendment, does it change your mind?
As to "God's stamp of approval," isn't the prophet supposed to be very clear about which of his statements have "God's stamp of approval"? (This is based on my interpretation of your statement about when the prophet is a prophet.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a good question BB. The Catholic Church, unless the Pope or Council is speaking very specifically infallibly (something that happens only very rarely) does acknowledge that the faithful may follow their individual consciences.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage. One may argue that they should have that right, but that is another issue. The proposed amendment to the constitution would still permit states to legislate homosexual unions and thereby change the law and centuries of social practice. This is better than the anti-democratic practice of letting judges legislate. If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
I think you can you can support the marraige amendment as a pro-democracy measure, without violating any belief that you may have that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: After considering it prayerfully and comparing your existing reasons for opposing the amendment, does it change your mind?
Best advice I've ever heard Dag give, hands down (not that you don't give plenty of other good advice).
I've been struggling with similar questions for a long time. The difference is that for me, is that I've felt for the past year that neither SSM nor civil unions were the right thing to support (although I seemed to have the opposite experience as you in that most LDS younger people I talked to about it about year ago were completely fine with SSM). At the same time, I struggle with the thought of being part of imposing what is essentially a religious based morality on the population at large. It's a difficult position.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am in the same boat you are BB - and no, we are not unique, a good friend of mine called me about this very thing. I was not present to hear the letter read, so I do not know its exact contents. I would be disappointed if it was worded specifically "contact your local representatives in support of the ammendment being considered" because while the church holds official positions on certain issues, it has never pressured people to express their opinions in a certain way, which I think is right and proper. Unfortunately the full contents of the letter are not available on the church's website, simply a short press release about it. I would assume that the letter reiterated the church's opinion on homosexuality and marriage between a man and woman as divinely appointed and encouraged members to contact their local representatives with their opinions, but I really would like to read it. I suppose I'll have to get ahold of my bishop and ask if he can read it to me.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
There is in the MA state constitution, IMO.
EDIT: Therefore, in the case of MA, I believe the judges made the right ruling for MA in any case.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What a good question BB. The Catholic Church, unless the Pope or Council is speaking very specifically infallibly (something that happens only very rarely) does acknowledge that the faithful may follow their individual consciences.
Kate- This is typical of the Mormon church when it comes to which political parties, causes, candidates, etc to support. They are urged merely to follow their conscience and prayerfully consider before they vote. This is not the norm for the LDS Church to read a statement like this from the pulpit.
My first reaction is that this is to be treated as the word of God by the LDS followers. While not necessarily eternal doctrine (like the atonement of Christ for example), it does appear to be the official church position from the prophet. Which would in essence give it the "stamp of God" as it's been put.
Edit: Although without the actual text in front of me, I'm just going off BB's words.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
I tend to disagree on this. Typically, people in large groups don't make good decisions. I'm always reminded of the saying "None of us is as stupid as all of us."
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already gave an account of my struggle with it when I was a believing Mormon, but in case you missed it: http://tinyurl.com/fxgr4
I think it touches upon the relavant considerations. Basically, I felt that I should follow the prophet no matter what and force my own will into alignment with his.
Now that I no longer believe he speaks for God, I think of everything he says as just the opinion of one man due the same consideration I would give any other person's opinion.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
I'm sorry, Mig, but I think you're mistaken. No judges have suggested that there's a "right to homosexual marriage". What they have asserted is that there is a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Getting government out of the marriage business would do the trick just as well. But if the government allows some guy to marry me, and in fact gives benefits in such a case, bu denies my partner the same right because she's a woman, that's inequality. It's punitive.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: One may argue that they should have that right, but that is another issue. The proposed amendment to the constitution would still permit states to legislate homosexual unions and thereby change the law and centuries of social practice.
Again, Mig, you're mistaken. Not only would it bar states from doing anything of the sort, it would actually force states that have already instituted marriage equality, such as Massachussetts, and possible Maryland in a short while, to revoke their laws.
In terms of "centuries of social practice", legalizing inter-racial marriage changed the law and centuries of social practice. Allowing women to own property (let alone vote) changed the law and centuries of social practice.
This country, founded on respect for the individual, has a track record of eliminating inequities that had been enshrined in law and centuries of social practice when such have been brought to the attention of the courts and legislatures.
It was taken for granted that women should be subservient to their menfolk. All but servants. It was taken for granted that people of different races should not engage in miscegenation. Mixing the races -- ick! This is no different.
Religious reasons were given for keeping women from voting. Social reasons were given for keeping women from voting. Not too surprisingly, one of those was that it would damage the family unit. It's an oldie, but apparently a goodie.
People honestly didn't see why women should have the right to vote. They honestly didn't think that preventing women from voting was discriminatory towards women. All the excuses you hear today for why same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry are echoes of the excuses that were used to fight giving women the vote and the excuses that were used to fight recognition of interracial marriage.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: This is better than the anti-democratic practice of letting judges legislate.
You don't seem to understand how this country works, Mig. Judges don't legislate. They interpret. The question of whether judges are empowered to force the legislature to legislate according to the constitution was fought and finished while Thomas Jefferson was in office. That ship has sailed. Now, you can claim that the framers of the various constitutions "didn't mean it" when they spoke of equality under the law. You can point out that they never would have extended marriage to same-sex couples. But they also never would have extended the franchise to women or marriage rights to interracial couples.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
First, Mig, I want to point out that people who regularly refer to gays and lesbians as "homosexuals" generally betray their own bias.
Second of all, what you say sounds reasonable, but it's not really honest. When Californians tried to legalize same-sex marriage through a ballot initiative, opponents of same-sex marriage were very loud in their demands that it be left to the courts (!) and not to a vote.
Be honest, Mig, and admit that you would be as vociferous in your opposition to same-sex marriage if it was voted on in a referendum or legislated by a congress.
To go back to your mistaken claim above, this amendment would bar states from legislating same-sex marriage into existence. If the voters in a state wanted to create an amendment to their state constitution enshrining the right of same-sex couples to marry, this federal amendment would invalidate it.
If you didn't realize this, maybe you need to reevaluate your view on this amendment. It is absolutely a blow to state's rights and democracy, however much its supporters are trying to obscure that fact.
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I think you can you can support the marraige amendment as a pro-democracy measure, without violating any belief that you may have that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
On the contrary. This amendment should be viewed as anti-democratic, even by those who think same-sex marriage should not be permitted.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am very aware of the stipulations that a prophet is only the prophet when speaking as such, but anyway you swing it, a letter to the church requesting an action has God's stamp of approval as far as Mormons are concerned.
I don't know nearly enough about Mormon doctrine to truly comment, but, if this letter is not written as prophecy, is it meant to supplant the carefully considered non-revelation-based conclusions of the members?
It sounds like this letter wasn't saying, "God has declared that this amendment is a good thing" but rather something like "the amendment is proper because of reasons 1, 2, and 3."
After considering it prayerfully and comparing your existing reasons for opposing the amendment, does it change your mind?
As to "God's stamp of approval," isn't the prophet supposed to be very clear about which of his statements have "God's stamp of approval"? (This is based on my interpretation of your statement about when the prophet is a prophet.)
Thank you for your advice Dag. Here is alink to the complete text of the letter:
Thats from the horses mouth. Perhaps I am wrong but when they say the ammendment is designed to protect the family. And that they support any legislation that accomplishes this, and then exhorts leaders to pass these sorts of measures, and finally asks member to let their voices be heard, that they are in no uncertain terms supporting the ammendment.
This is my take on things. When the prophet says, "Thus saith the lord..." or the equivalent thats a pretty obvious mouthpiece of God statement. When the entire first presidency and the quorum of the twelve issue a letter that is to be read in the church where they so definitively lay out their feelings, they are in fact asking telling members of the church the Lords feelings on the subject.
Dag: your advice about prayer is probably the most wise thing I could do.
-----------
I am also aware that if I ultimately decide to not support this ammendment my membership in the church is by no means at stake, yet while its important that I decide to do things on my own, yet I believe in remaining humble enough to be instructed by a power I acknowledge greater than my own.
Thanks to all that have posted, I am glad there is are such useful people in this community.
enochville: I do not see myself as attempting to force my beliefs into a shape that somebody else dictates. But I do believe in a God who is all knowing, and I fully expect him to bestow enough of his knowledge to me so that I do not err.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
You can't use me as a standard. I'm Orthodox, but I'm also gay, and this impinges on me. I don't know how Esther and Rivka feel about it.
I know that same-sex marriage doesn't belong in Judaism. I feel exactly the same about the various liberal sects recognizing same-sex marriage that any other Orthodox Jew does. It's utterly invalid. But that's a religious status. The secular recognition of a family that exists de facto should be a no-brainer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a non-Mormon, it seems clear that you should follow the Prophet in this. Not that that is easy, (or that _I_ agree with it), but something like this seems pretty clear-cut.
quote:Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
I don't know how important this organization is, but there have been lots of prominent Orthodox Jews speaking in favor of the amendment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
You can't use me as a standard. I'm Orthodox, but I'm also gay, and this impinges on me. I don't know how Esther and Rivka feel about it.
I know that same-sex marriage doesn't belong in Judaism. I feel exactly the same about the various liberal sects recognizing same-sex marriage that any other Orthodox Jew does. It's utterly invalid. But that's a religious status. The secular recognition of a family that exists de facto should be a no-brainer.
I thought I saw one of them saying something somewhere, maybe not.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
As a non-Mormon, but as someone who can read, my comment about this letter is that if they wanted to say you have to support the amendment, they could easily have done so. The fact that they did not suggests that they were not, in fact, requiring you to support it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
If you honestly believe as a practical matter that the amendment will weaken or won't strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society, then it seems you are still within the dictates of the letter to oppose the amendment.
To use Bokonon's phrase on this, I think you can follow the prophet IF you truly believe the impact won't weaken families.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
posted
Thanks Amilia (I don't remember that link to the full text being there when I first read the news release more than a week ago). The letter is worded how I had expected. Personally, I do not think that the proposed ammendment is "designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society".
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ill be brunt, I do not believe homosexuality is a force for good in this nation. I do believe it is a faulty lifestyle, that does more harm then good.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: From the LDS letter:
quote:We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
If you honestly believe as a practical matter that the amendment will weaken or won't strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society, then it seems you are still within the dictates of the letter to oppose the amendment.
To use Bokonon's phrase on this, I think you can follow the prophet IF you truly believe the impact won't weaken families.
Again it is left up to the individual (who prayerfully considers his/her decision) to decide. I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God. We probably should not be suprised if that answer is coincidentally the same as the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve.
Bokonon's: Though I feel homosexuality is not good for society that does not mean I believe this particular ammendment is the right way to respond to it. Hence to difficulty of the issue.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: As a non-Mormon, it seems clear that you should follow the Prophet in this. Not that that is easy, (or that _I_ agree with it), but something like this seems pretty clear-cut.
-Bok
For me, (and from what it seems BlackBlade) it's not a question of following the prophet, that's a given. It's kind wanting to resolve the personal internal conflicting thoughts and feelings on the matter.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Dag, this seems to answer your question:
quote:Ill be brunt, I do not believe homosexuality is a force for good in this nation. I do believe it is a faulty lifestyle, that does more harm then good.
That was from the opening post.
-Bok
BB basically covered this, but thinking homosexuality does more harm than good does not necessarily mean that the amendment will do more good than harm.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its hard for me to imagine myself in your shoes. My Rabbi says that although the letter of Jewish law says homosexual relations between two men is wrong, that it shouldn't be pushed on everyone else. Even the Orthodox Jews on this board appear to have the same or similar thoughts on the subject.
I don't know how important this organization is, but there have been lots of prominent Orthodox Jews speaking in favor of the amendment.
Yup. We don't lack for homophobes. But then, none of us are required to subordinate our moral compasses to them. They don't claim infallibility, and if they did, we'd just laugh.
If you follow the link at the bottom of the page and read Rabbi Weinreb's article... well, let me just point out that Judaism doesn't recognize civil marriage of any kind. So he's being a little disingenuous. Just as Judaism "affirms marriage only between a man and woman", so too does it only affirm marriage between a Jew and a Jew, or a non-Jew and a non-Jew.
For Orthodox Jews to support this amendment because Jewish law doesn't recognize same-sex marriages is no different than supporting an amendment banning marriage between Jews and non-Jews. That particular ban, I might remind you, has been legislated in the past in certain places.
And when he writes:
quote:Observant Jews must have an attitude of empathy and understanding for individuals who say, "I have these urges, I can’t help them"
, I can't decide whether to laugh or to cry. Such an attitude is certainly not common in Orthodox circles, and I strongly suspect that it's not held by Rabbi Weinreb either.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God.
Does Mormon doctrine say that all questions submitted to God will be answered in prayer? (And I mean answer in a narrow sense here as in "receive an answer to the question asked.")
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God.
Does Mormon doctrine say that all questions submitted to God will be answered in prayer? (And I mean answer in a narrow sense here as in "receive an answer to the question asked.")
They will be answered. How and when is left to God's discretion.
To be a bit more specific without limiting God to my experiences. The answer comes both within certain parameters laid out in scripture yet often in a specific way as to be most meaningful to the individual obtaining it.
But everyone (Mormons, prophets in scripture)agrees that the answer will come.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Would you argue that there is a constitutional right to ANY marriage?
I see your point. There is a constitutional right to marriage between a man and a woman, at least there's well established constitutional law on this point. Other frequently cited examples of well-establsihed "constitutional rights" not expressly stated in the constitution are the right to travel and the provacy right.
But I don't think that these cases are the same as homosexual marriage, becuase these other rights are more clearly established in the culture and history. Plus there is zero case law that gives homosexuals any special protections or rights. To further refine my point, I think that the view that homosexual marriage is inappropriate is so firmly established in history and social custom, and without legal support, that a court can only impose the right via unsupported judicial fiat.
From starLisa:
quote: First, Mig, I want to point out that people who regularly refer to gays and lesbians as "homosexuals" generally betray their own bias.
I don't deny my bias on this issue. I do have strong views on this issue. But how does using the term homosexual betray any particualr bias?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: To use Bokonon's phrase on this, I think you can follow the prophet IF you truly believe the impact won't weaken families.
However, the prophet sent his represenative, Elder Nelson, to sign the docoument supporting the bill. They also went to the trouble of sending out a letter to be read throughout the entire church. This to me would imply substantial support for the ammendment by the Church.
It may not be this simple but the way I read it is: We have been stressing the subject matter for almost 10 years now, we support the ammendment, so if you believed what we've been teaching then supporting the ammendment is the right thing to do.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine all those who pray ought to get the same answer from the same God.
Does Mormon doctrine say that all questions submitted to God will be answered in prayer? (And I mean answer in a narrow sense here as in "receive an answer to the question asked.")
They will be answered. How and when is left to God's discretion.
To be a bit more specific without limiting God to my experiences. The answer comes both within certain parameters laid out in scripture yet often in a specific way as to be most meaningful to the individual obtaining it.
But everyone (Mormons, prophets in scripture)agrees that the answer will come.
So does this mean that doctrine provides for the possibility that you will not be answered before you must act on support or opposition for this amendment?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mig wrote: I don't deny my bias on this issue. I do have strong views on this issue. But how does using the term homosexual betray any particualr bias?
It's like calling blacks "Negros". It's not as bad as the n-word, but it's not what they want to be called, and it's offensive when you call them that.
Also, you claimed that this amendment wouldn't prevent states from legislating same-sex marriages. I pointed out that you're mistaken. But I note that you've ignored that.
Furthermore, you've repeated your claims about "social custom" in the face of the innumerable social customs that were done away with when people realized they were discriminatory in the past, and which even you (I hope) don't have a problem with. Interracial marriage and women being allowed to vote, for example.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Not to sound dismissive, but something tells me that if you pray, you will be in agreement.
(Though I understand that even getting this answer does not make it easy to digest immediately)
-Bok
I believe that, and yet I like to logically lay out the reasoning for doing something. From the letters reasoning does something such as "preserving the family which is the foundation of all society." Present a greater good that needs to be protected more so than the beliefs of a group people? I could be told by God "yes support this ammendment" and I would do it, yet I would not understand why I am doing it, to me this represents a problem.
I am reminded of a certain man named Nephi (readers of the homecoming saga will remember an equivalent incident in the first book) who was commanded to kill a man who was unconcious. Upon being unable to do something that violated his own beliefs (which God had given him) he was explained the very utilitarian view that killing this man would preserve a way for future generations to live in righteousness and by no other way could this be acheived.
Though I am not KILLING anyone, I would still like to know why I am WRONG in thinking the ammendment is the wrong way to respond to the gay marriage issue. Though I do not demand God to explain things to me, I very much prefer it.
Dag: Perhaps. I imagine if God was going to not answer you before requiring you to act it would be for the purpose of achieving some higher goal, i.e trying to teach you some lesson.
An example of this might be Abraham literally about to kill his son Isaac at the Lord's command and being stopped by God at that instant and then explaining why he had put Abraham through that ordeal.
Another example might be Jesus on the cross crying out to God, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" From my own understanding, Jesus did not foresee this act of his father and probably did not understand the motives behind it until later, later possibly being the instant after he had asked or after his actual death.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could be told by God "yes support this ammendment" and I would do it, yet I would not understand why I am doing it, to me this represents a problem.
I also think your support in such a situation would likely be very ineffectual.
quote:Dag: Perhaps. I imagine if God was going to not answer you before requiring you to act it would be for the purpose of achieving some higher goal, i.e trying to teach you some lesson.
Thank you for the answer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
For my take on it, the line in bold means that you can express yourself to your congressman in whatever way you feel. If you feel the amendment would not help towards the ultimate goal (strong families -> everyone coming unto Christ), then you can tell your Senator so without going against the prophet.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could be told by God "yes support this ammendment" and I would do it, yet I would not understand why I am doing it, to me this represents a problem.
I also think your support in such a situation would likely be very ineffectual.
quote:Dag: Perhaps. I imagine if God was going to not answer you before requiring you to act it would be for the purpose of achieving some higher goal, i.e trying to teach you some lesson.
Thank you for the answer.
sorry for the long edit in my previous post, in case you do not notice it Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to post something snarky, but on second thought, I guess I'll just stay out of this one. Consider yourself snarked, please.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I was going to post something snarky, but on second thought, I guess I'll just stay out of this one. Consider yourself snarked, please.
Good luck finding snarked in a dictionary. Remember KOM "civil criticisms" were invited. But your restraint is acknowledged
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a good question to ask yourself would be this:
In 1977, if you believed that blacks should hold the priesthood, would you have been wrong to hold that belief? If the answer to that question is "yes," if waiting that extra year made all the difference, then I think you have your answer here as well.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think a good question to ask yourself would be this:
In 1977, if you believed that blacks should hold the priesthood, would you have been wrong to hold that belief? If the answer to that question is "yes," if waiting that extra year made all the difference, then I think you have your answer here as well.
I see what you're getting at Tom, and I appreciate the question. I've been considering it. However, to me the circumstances of the two situations are too dissimilar to make it extremely useful to me.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious about this situation. The closest analogy I have would be if one of my mentors who I trusted knew more than I about a situation were to advise me to do X, I would do X. If they told me not to dig too much for answers why, I would trust them.
But that trust is part of a personal relationship built up over years and the fact that they know me and I am convinced that they have my best interests in mind when offering that type of advice.
When it comes to matters of faith or spirit, I consider myself to have a direct and personal relationship with God. Intercessors are not present. Spiritual advisors are, of course, welcome and I consider myself fortunate to have several people whose opinions I trust.
I have never once asked a person in that position how to vote on an issue.
If we had a discussion about it, I would ask their reasons for an opinion I didn't share. So that I could understand why they felt that way, and also to explore my own reasons a little more deeply.
I'm trying to put myself in the position of having a spiritual advisor whose word I would take on an issue unquestioningly. I'm struggling with it.
I say all that so that you know my mindset before I say what I have to say about the letter.
So...
In that frame of mind, I read the First President's letter.
I liked it.
It encouraged me (were I a follower) to tell my elected representatives exactly what I think. It tells me exactly what HE thinks about the issue.
The fact that my viewpoint and his don't coincide seems perfectly okay within the confines of that letter. All it really says is:
1) I think this. 2) We (myself and other leaders) have set forth our position on this repeatedly and you can find it in the referenced materials. 3) I urge you to write to your elected officials.
It doesn't say I have to write to support their position.
it doesn't say I'm a bad person if I disagree with them on this one.
So, I'm a free actor and they acknowledge that.
No problems!
If I were concerned about the variance between my position and theirs, I might try to enter into a discussion with the church leaders. But otherwise, I'll just take their position into account when I do what they urge me to do -- write to my elected officials.
I really think they're implying they'd be okay with me doing that even if I disagree with them.
I gather that would not be a socially acceptable position in the church, but if I can't take a letter from my church leaders literally, then I'd have some real problems with them.
But then, I'm not real good with authority figures.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
In short, this is it - 2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
1. Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
I thought it might help if we all knew what we were talking about. Wikipedia does a reasonable good job of analysing the legal implications of this Amendment.
posted
Nope, but it does say that if a civil union is allowed in one state, another state wouldn't have to honor it.
Marriages are honored that way (when couples move, they don't have to remarry in their new state).
It's possible that civil unions would be a patchwork of laws ranging from no law, a law meant only for heterosexuals, a law meant only for homosexuals, a law making it possible for friends to cover friends on their insurance, and so on...
I said this elsewhere, but this law basically doesn't resolve the real issues that started the whole effort by homosexuals to get recognition for their committed relationships in the first place.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: I do not see the proposed constitutional amendment as dependent on the morality of homosexuality. I believe in democracy, and I see judges who read into the constitution a right of homosexual marraige as threatening democracy. There is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage. One may argue that they should have that right, but that is another issue. The proposed amendment to the constitution would still permit states to legislate homosexual unions and thereby change the law and centuries of social practice. This is better than the anti-democratic practice of letting judges legislate. If homosexuals want the right to marry they should take their case to the people not to the courts.
I think you can you can support the marraige amendment as a pro-democracy measure, without violating any belief that you may have that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Of course, there is also no Constitutional right for heterosexual couples to marry either.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
