I’m sure by now our readers know about the First Presidency letter to be read in church this coming Sunday. I don’t want to get into any debates on this post about the letter itself, or gay marriage. My question is– what do you plan to do when the letter is read this Sunday? Do you plan to be in church? If you support the stance of the letter, I’m guessing that you won’t do much in the meeting itself, but will you actually take action based on it? And if you don’t support the letter, will you walk out? Wear a rainbow ribbon pin to church? Any other ideas? And if you’re in a ward where there is any protest or discussion on Sunday, could you report back here? As for me, I’m still undecided whether to attend, and if so, whether to walk out or not.
45 Responses to “This coming Sunday, June 29, in California….”
Comments are currently closed.
I hope that people of conscience will attend church that day and that they will stand and walk out when the letter is read aloud.
If you don’t plan to ever return to church, then walking out sends a clear message. Your point is made, you don’t want to be part of the community any longer, and the symbolism of walking out has meaning.
…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.
While I don’t think the state should be involved in marriage at all, marriage is tightly wound into our legal code at this point and it seems silly to change the traditional definition of marriage. I like the maintain the meaning of words and our society has a serious problem with assigning multiple definitions to words. Take the words sex or love, liberal or conservative for example. These words have seriously been perverted over the years. If gays want legal status, let them call their social arrangement something other than marriage. Personally, I would like to see the state completely remove themselves from marriage and leave it fully up to individuals and their ecclesiastical authorities/non-authorities. Of course that will make us all more equal in the eyes of the law. This is a problem for some.
Just a reminder that this thread is for how you plan to react to the letter, if at all, not about whether or not you support gay marriage, or this particular amendment. Plenty of other threads in other places, like mormonmatters.org.
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.
i would like to believe that, were i still in the church, i would attend church on sunday dressed in black with a rainbow pin on my lapel, that i would stand up and very deliberately walk out as the letter was read and yes, never return. i’d really like to believe that i could live by my conscience so fiercely and honestly. but considering that i sat idly by while hearing the first letter read in ‘04, that instead of taking a stand i instead bolted to the bathroom in secrecy minutes after the letter was read so that i could cry in private, and only prayed, attended the temple and read scriptures on my own without ever discussing with anyone else this issue that tortured my sleep for months, i have the uncomfortable feeling that i would do nothing.
paula, given the trouble that the danzigs experienced for their letters to the editor, are you concerned about the effects that your own letter might have upon your standing in the church? (i’m not being rhetorical or obtuse; i am genuinely curious if people have fear about this issue.)
Chandelle, I’m not sure whether I’m naive, or just exhausted by all this junk. I don’t think I’ll get in trouble because I’m not prominent at all– not in the church orchestra, don’t work for BYU or the church or anything like that. And other than the fact that it would bother my mother, I don’t care much about what the church would do at this point. I did sit quietly through all the stuff about Prop 22 back in 2000, and have regretted that for a long time. (I’m also a genealogy geek, and I guess I’d hate it if some of my mormon genealogy helpers and friends decided they didn’t like me any more, but other than that, anyone who wants to shun me over the letter probably isn’t worth worrying about.)
Walking out is really negative and disruptive. It just seems contrary to the spirit of the gospel and sacrament meeting in general.
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.
No, I wouldn’t walk out or anything else “showy” but actually I’m pretty comfortable with sitting there while disagreeing, mainly because I’m certain that I am surrounded by dozens of other disagreeing folks and that there will certainly be discussion in the other meetings. We’ve had some rather lively and respectful exchanges in SS and RS over much less noteworthy letters!
I don’t know where to buy rainbow ribbons either. I should ask the folks who told me about their plans. They’re not in my ward. I think that you could make something appropriate with several different colors of ribbons arranged along a pin. Very crafty and appropriate.
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.
An excellent letter, Paula. I like the way you’ve pointed out the irony in the situation.
Thank you Michael, I am a little taken aback by how totally the commentators ignore anything I said in the letter– but that’s fine, since they’re fighting among themselves rather than attacking me. I am very happy that I sent the letter. Last time, during Prop 22, I was new to the area, and didn’t say anything through the whole ordeal. It feels much better to speak out.
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.
Paula, if you wanted something a little more permanent to declare your position against the proposition, there are a lot of lapel pins at Over the Rainbow.
(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.)
When the letter is read, I will gladly sustain the living prophets of this age by staying in my seat and agreeing with their counsel.
An invitation to show up or walk out on June 29th
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/11291/1484
I want to go and walk out when it’s read but the kiddos have chicken pox so I’m stuck at home this Sunday.
is this letter going to be read everywhere or just in California
I think it is just going to be read in California. It was addressed to church leaders there only.
DH went to Sacrament Meeting here in the SF Bay Area. The letter was read. No one protested. No one said a word in opposition. No one walked out.
it wasn’t read in my ward (CA).
cchrissyy, are you in California? I didn’t go this morning, so I don’t know about my ward.
I wore a rainbow ribbon pinned to my dress today. I counted 8 raised eyebrows and had an exceptionally funny (successful) temple recommend interview as well. Fun times at LW 1st ward!
Paula,
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.
Julie, good for you! Did anyone actually mention the ribbon?
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.
It’s painfully obvious that most members prefer to refrain from creating even a slight ripple in the self-satisfaction and self-righteousness of their respective wards. While before the reading of the letter there were many posts in the Bloggernackle criticizing the letter and discussing how they would protest against it, in fact, nothing happened. Most LDS will continue to work for the repeal of freedoms for those they perceive as “other” while those who view it as evil or at least wrongheaded will do nothing.
Not in living in California, but if I did, I would have listened to the letter and fully supported it. People can make their own choices, we have freeedom to do that, but that doesn’t mean the institution of marriage should be changed.
Adding to my previous points — probably the most important thing to keep in mind for those reading this forum: Those of us who are LDS have the opportunity a few times a year to raise our hands and sustain our church presidency as prophets. If we sustain them, we will sustain their instructions and counsel. No one is forced to sustain them; it must come from our own free will and agency.
>Most LDS will continue to work for the repeal of freedoms for those
>they perceive as “other” while those who view it as evil or at least
>wrongheaded will do nothing.
>CBiden,above.
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.’”
We can sustain someone as a prophet without believing that every bit of advice or counsel they give is God-breathed.
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews,and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>Then they came for me - and by that time no one was left to speak up.
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.
“Whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brethern, that you do unto me”.
This is a defining issue of our times. The decisions we make shape our society for ourselves and our children. It is not about hate, nor denying rights, nor persecuting others - it is about upholding that which is right. It doesn’t mean those who oppose same gender marriage are perfect themselves, but it means that they are willing to say this is a line society cannot cross. I believe a letter from the First Presidency of the church is more than mere opinion.
So, Bill, for you, “when the Prophet speaks, the thinking is done”? That’s a valid belief, but not one that is shared by all members of the church. I suppose that it partly has to do with when and where one first learned about the church. That wasn’t part of the thinking in the Utah town where I grew up, but it is an idea that’s become more common in the past 30 years or so. So, we understand where you’re coming from, but and you’ve stated what you would do if you were in California. This post isn’t the place to discuss whether or not it’s appropriate to disagree with a memo from the First Presidency.
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.
Paula: Regarding the California letter — I don’t know if it’s as cut and dry as the “thinking is done for me” — rather let’s say that in this case — or any other letter or decision from church leaders — we always have the right to personal inspiration if we are in doubt.
Thanks, Paula.
I don’t doubt anyone’s sincerity in many of the posts I have read above on this topic. However, I feel strongly that “whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brethren..” needs to include upholding that which right and trying to help others to know truth that will lead to real happiness. What is more charitable — to pretend that same-sex marriage is fine with no negative consequences — or to try to help others understand there is a better way? I fall with the latter.
I’m always bemused by the fact that those who espouse tolerance are loathe to extend it to others if they disagree with them.
“needs to include upholding that which right and trying to help others to know truth that will lead to real happiness.”
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.”
Paula’s letter to the editor notes a good point, that there is real irony in the church’s objection to the the court doing its constitutional job. Because the letter will be relegated to the Trib’s archive soon, I’ll include it here.
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.
With all due respect, I do NOT espouse tolerance for the practice being discussed on this forum. Codifying and legitimizing same-gender marriage will lead to no good thing, for those directly involved, and society in general. Society has the right to set limits — if not, why have any laws or any standards at all?
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?
Hey Bill, relax! I’m with you on this one.
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?
Folks, this thread isn’t meant to start debating whether or not same sex marriage is ok or not, or whether you think it’s ok to disagree with the First Presidency on this or not. If you plan to support the memo, it’s ok, tell us what you plan to do. But comments that are too far off the subject will be deleted.
Well, I don’t live in California, and this letter wasn’t read at our ward. . .actually, I don’t think people would have cared one way or the other if it was read, and if people walked out of the meeting–there are a lot of halfway-members in the branch. But for Young Womens’ meeting, I said the closing prayer, and I said this:
“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.
The whole consern is based on whether the First Presidency should speak on matter such as this. Are they prophets? If no, than there is no reason to follow any logic arguement further.
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.