If they are then they should seem to have the same latitude of any Judeo/Christian tradition prophet, from geopolitical to questions in medicine. Also they have the same back end promise, if the counsel is from God it will accomplish His purposes, if of men it will wither away. The cool thing is we always get to decide what we choose to do in relationship to the counsel.

“And Lord, thank You for the recent enlightened legislature in California, which made so many people happy. Amen.”

The only people in the class were my sister, some Stake teachers, and me. The teachers didn’t know about the legislature, so I told them about Prop 22, the new overturning law, etc. They didn’t react much when it came clear that I had thanked God for homosexual marriage.

My comment was directed at those who try to straddle the fence. I believe whole-heartedly that the Brethren have not jumped into this lightly. I think they knew full well the uproar it would cause in certain circles.

In all ages the prophets have been ridiculed, mocked, and ignored. Not only by the world at large, but by those who by covenant are members of the Lord’s church. Why would today be any different?

What is being proposed is a radical, harmful departure from the plan of salvation and one that I do not want to become a part of the society left behind for my children or any others’ children to inherit. I have no problem being intolerant of that which is harmful to me and others.

I am very surprised at the criticism being leveled at the first presidency for this. Have we forgotten who these men are and Who they speak for? Walk out of Sacrament Meeting or wear rainbow ribbons to protest? — it is your right and choice if you want to do so, but I highly recommend against it.

The sophistry of men is attempting to paint the whole issue as one of “fairness” and “civil rights” and “how does same-gender marriage threaten you?” Time to take a stand. Some lines must not be crossed, and if we don’t have the common sense or fortitude to stand for that, even if others call us “intolerant”, “backward”, “out of touch”, or “behind the times” — who are we then?

Yet Another John, there’s plenty of irony in the world for people across the spectrum to feel bemusement. You may feel it when noticing a person who aspires to tolerance but sometimes falls short. Others may feel it when noticing a person who claims to uphold the constitution but doesn’t like the outcome of judicial review. Only automatons are completely, utterly, boringly consistent. Thank goodness.

*-*-*

LDS and same-sex law
Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 06/24/2008 07:02:36 PM MDT

This coming Sunday a letter from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be read to the congregations in California asking members to support the proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in California, which will be on the ballot in November. The letter begins: “In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people.”

How I wish my church would not demonize and denigrate the constitutional processes of my country! I was always taught in church that our constitutional processes were divinely inspired. We have three branches of the government to provide checks and balances, and the judicial branch is one of those branches. Back in 2000, legal experts warned that Proposition 22 probably violated the state constitution, and now the California Supreme Court has examined the law and so ruled. That’s not “reversing the vote of the people”; it’s following the rule of law.

Paula Goodfellow
Encinitas, Calif.

Perhaps you would, but Jesus didn’t. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

cbiden, I know it doesn’t look as though anyone did much last Sunday, but I do know of at least two groups working to organize ways to express disapproval with the First Presidency memo. Whether they’ll actually get off the ground, or be effective I don’t know. When they actually get the sites up and going, I’ll provide links for them.

I’m not sure your point. I understand the lame old quotation, but in what way is it here applicable? That because we have a history of being a persecuted minority, that we should identify indiscriminately with all other persecuted minorities and advance their agenda? Really?

Uh, no.

I was happiest when the church busied itself with the saving of souls and more or less pretended the rest of the world didn’t exist. I long for those days.

No, I don’t think this is it at all. It is much more complicated. A healthy number of church members, probably a majority, will ignore this like they ignore most prophetic counsel, whether they agree with it or not, political or otherwise. Like home teaching and food storage. There will be some who will do what they are asked because they’ve been asked and they always do what they are asked. The issue is pretty much irrelevant. Whether they agree or disagree is irrelevant. They probably haven’t even thought about it much. Then there will be a handful who disagree, but will make an effort to do what Pres Monson asks anyway, because that’s how they are. There will be a group who think that the church is wrong on the issue or at least they disagree with the church involving itself in the matter. Some of those people will do nothing to aid the cause and just sit quietly, recognizing that of all the hills to die on, this one isn’t all that attractive or consequential, and the rest of those will try to find some dramatic way to show their disagreement, but not many and not effectively. Wearing a rainbow ribbon? Really. THEN, of course, there will be some who are in total sympathy with the church’s position and they’ll knock themselves out, but they would have anyway.

Not a one will characterize their action or inaction as working “for the repeal of freedoms for those they perceive as ‘other.’”

Thanks Steve– there were many things about the memo that was read in church that bothered me, but that criticism of judicial review leapt out at me. It was disappointing that few of the Trib comments dealt with that issue at all.

I really enjoyed your letter in the Trib. Thank you for so succinctly deflating the gripe that the court overruled California voters. Those voicing this criticism may disagree with the particular ruling, but I don’t think they appreciate the implications of their position. They’re essentially objecting to judicial review–a fundamental component of our legal system.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/11291/1484

(Also, in the interest of fairness I looked, but I didn’t see a source for pins representing the other perspective. I found buttons, but they appeared big, unattractive and unprofessional. Not at all what someone would want to wear at church. That source also had bug, unattractive & unprofessional pro-gay-marriage buttons too, but nothing suitable for church. Blech.)

And I found out that rainbow ribbon can be purchased at Michaels, at least some Michaels stores. It looks like this:
http://www.joann.com/joann/catalog.jsp?CATID=cat2093&PRODID=prd41376&_requestid=73196

That site is Joann’s so that’s probably another option if it’s not at the local Michael’s.

cchrissyy– The last time that this came up, during the Prop 22 campaign, our SP specifically forbade any discussion of it at church meetings. We were told that we were there only to learn what the church was doing locally, not to question it at all. He said that he’d had phone calls from people questioning it, so he’d heard it all, and there was not to be any negative talk at church about it. He’s not around now, so it may be different, but the experience last time was pretty bad.

It is like all those who resign their memberships, never to be heard from again. What good can they do outside the church to affect change?

Far better to remain in the church and in the meeting, and for successive weeks proudly wear a rainbow ribbon, to quietly show that you conscientiously disagree with the church’s involvement in this civil rights issue.

And it IS a civil rights issue. This time around it is not just a moral matter because the passage of the amendment will withdraw fundamental, established civil rights that gay and lesbian families currently enjoy. And it will quite literally write into the California constitution that it is permissible to discriminate against unpopular minorities. That is what the FP is asking church members to do.

I don’t know where to buy rainbow ribbons, if they are even manufactured, but if I lived in California, I would certainly wear one proudly to every church function.

SIngleSpeed, you mentioned one big problem with walking out– last time in California during Prop 22, you’d have had to walk out two or three times every Sunday. And your kids would have to walk out during YM/YW.

Here’s what I did:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9686052
Although there are many objectionable things about the FP letter, I decided to just focus on one.

Not sure yet if I will go to church on Sunday. I haven’t sent my bishop a copy of the letter to the editor. Perhaps I should.

…but what does walking out mean if you intend to come back the following sunday and, though it may not be announced over the pulpit, church policy remains the same as it was last week when you walked out?

do you walk out of every successive sacrament meeting when someone mentions it during a talk? What about if someone comments in sunday school about it? walk out again?

If I lived in california, I might write the first presidency a letter (copying my bishop and SP, of course, since my letter will get forwarded back to them anyway) and express why the message troubled me and why I did not intend to follow their advice. It wouldn’t accomplish much (it would probably just get me an uncomfortable bishop’s interview), but it would send a message.