Homosexual marriage...

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by All-American

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.

This surgery you were talking about happened in '88 I believe. I was living in Shanghai at the time, and Elder Nelson came to Church in our house (branch of two families) and had dinner with us. My first time meeting an apostle.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That is a statement of breath taking stupidity, even for you Robin. The church doesn't direct its members to invest in fighting poverty and hunger? INSTEAD, it directs us to self identify as anti-gay?

I can at least respect that Mike thinks that government corruption and other things are bigger issues (even though I would say that deterioration of family is at the root of all the problems he listed) that deserve more attention. You're comment is just polemics directed at the church which is why it is hard to have a conversation with you about these things.

It is nice to see that the honeymoon (even if it only existed in my mind) is over. Sorry for being SO STUPID Dan, even for ME. Me try to be smarter some day be smart. *grunt* *fart* *sniff*

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.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Stick It In Him

This surgery you were talking about happened in '88 I believe. I was living in Shanghai at the time, and Elder Nelson came to Church in our house (branch of two families) and had dinner with us. My first time meeting an apostle.

Wow, really? Do tell.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I don't think it is a tight rope at all. Does this letter have any of the distinguishing features of doctrine? Was it sustained? Was it distributed to the members in written form? Is what it says a requirement? If so, they chose odd language given the use of the word "urge" instead of "must." This is no different than any other letter read from the pulpit. I don't understand how it attains the level of doctrine for you or others.

I don't think I've ever been told I "must" do anything. I'm invited to do a certain thing and then I do it or I don't. I'm certainly not perfectly obedient or even close, but I am not under any illusions that my compliance it optional when I disobey.

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.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

To flip the question, how do you distinguish this letter from the letter to write represenatives asking for no guns in churches or schools? Or asking for opposition to the MX missile?

I don't think I do unless there is some distinction between those letters (which I am not too familiar with) and this most recent one. In each case, those with authority tell us what they think is right and invite us to act on that.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

How do you reconcile the fact that, if doctrine, this letter would make what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruf, John Taylor and others illegal? What would their reaction have been to this letter if they didn't know who signed it 135 years ago?

1. I don't try to reconsile it. Either you believe that we have a living prophet who gives us counsel for our time, and that sometimes it changes, or you don't. If you don't, then it is situational ethics and there is no intellectual defense for it beyond self interest and the politics of our time. Alternatively if you think that we recieve inspired direction then the whys and wherefores (while we CERTAINLY should study them) are not as important as faith and obedience. I'm not trying to tell you what to think or how to act, I'm just asking you to be consistent.

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.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by All-American

Wow, really? Do tell.

I actually dont remember too much about it. I was eight years old at the time. I had heard that he was performing the surgery on a famous Chinese general, but I could be wrong.

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.

[creekster]

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.

[All-American]

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by All-American

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 seems, to me, to be the way the Church considers the issue.

COUld be, but I don't think this is where the church is going. I think the prophet's goal is to get as many people exalted as possible. He 'sees' the future in this country with and without an amendment (or with or without the results of a vote on the amendment; the fact that the vote goes one way or another or with a certain margin of loss or victory might be a 'butterfly effect' type thing in and of itself that will lead to other steps that might be important) and so asks us to support the amendment. The gosepl is eternal and will exist with or without political structures on earth. I think the prophet is trying to create the political envrionment that, within the present climate and near term time frame, will most help the kingdom to grow. Over time, many things will change and many factors will push one way or another with respect to these issues or similar issues, such as polygamy. The prohpet is not sayuing that polygamy is always gone or was a mistake, he is merely saying that he urges us to support a political act that he believes supports the position taken in the proclamation on the family.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by creekster

COUld be, but I don't think this is where the church is going. I think the prophet's goal is to get as many people exalted as possible. He 'sees' the future in this country with and without an amendment (or with or without the results of a vote on the amendment; the fact that the vote goes one way or another or with a certain margin of loss or victory might be a 'butterfly effect' type thing in and of itself that will lead to other steps that might be important) and so asks us to support the amendment. The gosepl is eternal and will exist with or without political structures on earth. I think the prophet is trying to create the political envrionment that, within the present climate and near term time frame, will most help the kingdom to grow. Over time, many things will change and many factors will push one way or another with respect to these issues or similar issues, such as polygamy. The prohpet is not sayuing that polygamy is always gone or was a mistake, he is merely saying that he urges us to support a political act that he believes supports the position taken in the proclamation on the family.

That's a lot closer to what I believe, too, to be honest.