Interesting events, DDD. Thanks for posting that.

I wonder how I would react if I were a church leader in California right now? There is no way I could support that movement. I am sure there are leaders there that feel the same way.

You want my little theory? This isn't Monson at all. Probably not Eyring or Uctdorf, either.

My guess is that somebody in the twelve with sufficient muscle and momentum is encouraging the First Presidency to sign the letters and pass out the memorandums that would have been quashed under President Hinckley's direction while the new guy is still cutting his teeth on the mantle.

As if Monson is a greenhorn and still finding his sea-legs?

This is a continuation of 2000. Hinckley signed off on that, didn't he?

My father-in-law lived in California during the last time around, and was asked by the Stake President to donate money to the cause. He's a pretty conservative guy, but was against the proposition. He said he would think about it, but did not end up donating. The SP never followed up and nothing more was done.

There must be church leaders in CA who are against this. I'd be interested to see how they're handling this.

Why is everybody discounting the possibility that Jesus Christ himself inspired his prophet, seer and revelator, Thomas S. Monson, to take this course of action?

Because that possibility's a given.

I don't buy that for a second. President Monson isn't holed up in a downtown apartment being nursed through his Benson-esque senile dementia. He's aware of and behind this action.

I think that allows them to feel more comfortable about criticizing this.

How could Christ be behind this, didn't he teach us to love one another?

This is being dreamed up by those old men in downtown SLC just because they hate gay people.

Wouldn't it just be so much easier for the LDS church to open their arms and embrace homosexuality, look at all of the people the church would have instantly join the ranks because they love homosexuals.

After that they could petition to reinstate polygamy because how could two men plugging each other be worse than a man and 27 women? Than we could move onto the men and women who want to marry children and have sex with them, what could possibly be wrong with that, after all what happens behind closed doors is nobody elses business, right? And the argument that it is bad for society, well...... Throw that one out because how could two homosexuals possibly benefit society if they can't reproduce?

Next we move onto brothers and sisters marrying each other, or mothers marrying sons and Fathers marrying daughters, after all they could possibly love each other, now what is wrong with that?

This is just getting started, but tell me where any of this is any worse than two homosexuals marrying each other? You can't because it is all morally wrong, but hey who is the LDS church to teach and preach morality?

Next thing you know we will have one guy marrying 25 women!