I know this much: having spoken with certain leaders of the church regarding this very issue, the marriage amendment is seen as being a fairly important battle in the struggle to save the family.
A story regarding following the prophet: As a general president of the Sunday School, then "Brother" Russell M. Nelson was invited to attend a meeting of the Seventy in the temple, in which meeting President Kimball spoke. Among other things, he urged the seventy to undertake what measures they could to become familiar with and associate with those in Communist China, where the church was not allowed, even to the extent of learning Mandarin. Brother Nelson responded by hiring a Mandarin tutor, despite the fact that the direction was neither doctrine nor policy, nor was it even directed to him, a special guest at that assembly. His limited experience in Mandarin came in handy one day when a Chinese doctor sat next to him at a lecture at the University of Utah. Being able to give only a few phrases in Mandarin, he was nevertheless able to begin a cordial relationship with this doctor which resulted in visiting the campus of universities in Shanghai and Beijing. One doctor who observed Dr. Nelson's mannerisms became convinced that Dr. Nelson's church was the truth. He moved his entire family to Toronto and were all converted and sealed in the temple one year after baptism. What's more, once he had been ordained a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, his relationship with the Chinese (including one high profile surgery upon a famous Chinese opera star after he was set apart) enabled positive visits as an ambassador of the church, which went a long way in securing the rights of worship for members in Hong Kong. All of this came about, according to Elder Nelson, because of a willingness to follow the counsel of the prophet, even when it seemingly did not apply to him. I'm not saying we should sell our houses to support the amendment. It would be wise to remember where this urging is coming from, however. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I speak as one who sees the church as a great tool for good, with potential to do even more good. If you ask your average Mormon, or any other member of the Christian right, "What are the big issues of the day?" You will find that Gay Marriage ranks far higher on the list than it really deserves. Statements like this recent one solidify the undeserved position of this small issue in the minds of many. It is like Archaea often points out -- statistically, gay marriage should be a non-issue. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction of people who are even interested. And yet, in spite of a world AIDS epidemic, genocide, political corruption in our own house and abroad, starvation, disease, etc. The church comes out with this statement. The MX missile comparison seems apt to me. Anyhow, since I really had nothing new to contribute to this conversation, but simply wanted to thank Mike for voicing an opinion which so closely resembles my own, I will now step out. My contribution is too easily mistaken as 'polemics against the church,' even when that isn't what I intend. The issue is too important to distract you with that, so I will remove on easy target from the debate. Cheers, R. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
To answer the above point, I would ask what is the source of the test you have laid out for something to be doctrine. Was the test you are using sustained, given to members in written form and required? I see where you are coming from, but I think you are erecting much too high a hurdle with your doctrinal test. What do you imagine the purpose of these letters is? They are to let us know what the prophet would like us to do. It is one of the benefits of having a living prophet. There are many things that we SHOULD do that do not have a specific corresponding question in the temple recommend interview that fall generally under sustaining the prophet and our other leaders. I agree with you and others completely that you are free to disregard the counsel of the prophet. I do it myself sometimes, but I think you see my point that I object to what I percieve to be attempts to cloak these choices with the notion that such counsel is given with the implicit understanding that the prophet is sharing non-doctrinal opinions that carry no more weight than your opinion or mine. Quote:
Quote:
2. If this letter is indefensible in light of other fomer prophets practicing polygamy, as you seem to suggest, then so is the manifesto. Again, either these are inspired changes or they are not. If they are uninspired then they are irrelevant and there is no rational reason to follow them. If they are inspired then it is, IMO, a cop out to pretend that there is some method for ascertaining which ones they really mean and which ones we can intuit we are free to ignore. 3. Finally, what is the point of your question about what these men would think if they didn't know who signed it? The Lord has required MANY hard things of his people in every dispensation that no one would do unless they were asked to do so by the prophet, the spirit, and angel or God himself. A dozen examples of this leap readily to mind. It is precisely the impremature of authority that gives these things their weight. Even if all those men would be horrified in a vacuum, each of them would obey in context. |
Quote:
Not much to tell. The branch in Shanghai at the time was my family and another family. We usually just had a small sacrament service in our living room. I just remember Elder Nelson was there, and then he stayed for dinner. |
Utah Dan is IMO exactly right about this issue. IN many respects I am not excited about substantive amendments. I will follow the prophet on this issue, however. For me, it is that simple.
The MX example, btw, is misleading. Here is the church's statement on the MX: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q= mx%20missile$xhitlist_x=Simple$xhitlist_s=relevanc e-weight$xhitlist_d=$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C 0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$ xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef No action was requested of the membership, and it was not linked to a specific fundamnetal issue in the church. Was the letter read on Sunday doctrinal? Perhaps not; in fact, it didn't even ask us to express a specific viewpoint. Instead, it asked us to express ourselves but it made it clear what the prophet thought about it. Was the proclamation on the family doctrinal? absolutley, IMO. Is the family and its importance central to the gospel? Hard to question this, again IMO. This being true, I find it difficult to question a prohpet of God when he tells me that the constiutitonal amendment should be supported and draws the basis for this support from a document such as the proclamation on the family. Each of us cna choose our own path, of course, but within my own experience the family is being heavily and successfully attacked on all sides and while I personally may not have reached the same posiiton without guidance of the prohphet, I iwll follow him on such a fundamentally important social and religious issue. If the prophet thinks this will help protect the family, then I will support it. For me, it is that simple. |
Here's a thought. It will probably sound ridiculous to a lot of you here, but I'll throw it out anyway.
Marriage is defined as being between one man and one women. Polygamy is the state of multiple marriages between one man and one woman; i.e., the marriage relationship is between one man and one woman, but multiple relationships exist. That could be the way the Church considers the issue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.