Proclamation, Gay Marriage and Constitutional Amendment

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

As to your last question, it could be. What do I know? If the purpose of the letter is, as many supporters have suggested here, to get Mormons involved in civics, then any letter would accomplish that task. The amendment isn't going to pass, so I can't imagine the purpose is to get it to pass (or it is already a lost cause).

As to geographics, here is why it is important. I am not disputing that marriage, according to God, should be between a man and a woman. I am suggesting that the appropriate path to take to accomplish that goal is through persuasion and missionary efforts, not through a constitutional amendment.

Opposing the course the church has adopted to accomplish a task is not the same as opposing the underlying purpose of the adopted course. If the course the church is proposing was required or doctrinal, then everyone would be required to do something similar. My remark about geography isn't to be taken as asking everyone in the world to write a US Senator. It is a question as to why everyone in the world hasn't been asked to push their country for a similar proposition. The fact that only a few countries have been asked to do something on this issue leads me to conclude that this approach has been deemed advisable here, but not elsewhere (which means it can hardly be construed as doctrinal).

I disagree with their analysis that this is a good course of action to take.

But what is 'their' analysis? You are disagreeing with your conjecture about what their analysis is. That is an argument you better be able to win, btw. ;-) Without knowing what their analysis is, how can you reach any conclusion about why they did or did not make a simialr request (and assuming their is such a beast in any given country) in other countries? Moreover, who is 'they?' If 'they' is the leadership of this useful and fulfilling club you are in, then I see your point. IF 'they' is God's mouthpiece on earth, it seems you are taking a difficult to reconcile stance. And yes, I appreciate their are positions in between (perhaps) and these have been discussed, but I am sure you see my point.

At least we agree that for THIS amendment, geography is not at issue, as only those in the US make a difference herre.

Moreover, everyone IS required to do something simialr. That is, required to support the family, and to support politcal policies that support the family. This has long been the policy of the church.

As toi my last question, you evade it coimpletely. You are a bright guy. Do you mean to tell me that you think after having read the prophet's letter, that you truly believe it is a reasonable contruction of the letter that the prohpet is asking for ANY action, even if it is opposed tot he amendment? Really, is that how you read that letter? If so, what does the reference to the Proclamation mean?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

But what is 'their' analysis? You are disagreeing with your conjecture about what their analysis is. That is an argument you better be able to win, btw. ;-) Without knowing what their analysis is, how can you reach any conclusion about why they did or did not make a simialr request (and assuming their is such a beast in any given country) in other countries? Moreover, who is 'they?' If 'they' is the leadership of this useful and fulfilling club you are in, then I see your point. IF 'they' is God's mouthpiece on earth, it seems you are taking a difficult to reconcile stance. And yes, I appreciate their are positions in between (perhaps) and these have been discussed, but I am sure you see my point.

At least we agree that for THIS amendment, geography is not at issue, as only those in the US make a difference herre.

Moreover, everyone IS required to do something simialr. That is, required to support the family, and to support politcal policies that support the family. This has long been the policy of the church.

As toi my last question, you evade it coimpletely. You are a bright guy. Do you mean to tell me that you think after having read the prophet's letter, that you truly believe it is a reasonable contruction of the letter that the prohpet is asking for ANY action, even if it is opposed tot he amendment? Really, is that how you read that letter? If so, what does the reference to the Proclamation mean?

This is all starting to feel very repetitive.

Again, it just comes down to whether or not taking political action to legislatively define what is a family is appropriate or not. You claim that supporting political policies that support the family has long been the policy of the church. Let me ask you this: if that is true, should we support ANY policy that would support the family? Presumably there are a lot of things that could be done to protect families.

Should we imprison adulterers? Why not, if you would say no? What about just making adultery illegal? Should divorce be illegal? Each of these would "protect the family." Point being, legislating our moral issues is a very dangerous game to play.

In terms of explaining how geography fits into defining doctrine, I think we have already gone over that way too much for it to be interesting to anyone.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

This is all starting to feel very repetitive.

Again, it just comes down to whether or not taking political action to legislatively define what is a family is appropriate or not. You claim that supporting political policies that support the family has long been the policy of the church. Let me ask you this: if that is true, should be support ANY policy that would support the family? Presumably there are a lot of things that could be done to protect families.

Should we imprison adulterers? Why not, if you would say no? What about just making adultery illegal? Should divorce be illegal? Each of these would "protect the family." Point being, legislating our moral issues is a very dangerous game to play.

In terms of explaining how geography fits into defining doctrine, I think we have already gone over that way too much for it to be interesting to anyone.

Nothing here I really don't agree with, especially about this exchange being non-interesting to anyone else (and maybe not even to us; I suspect we both may have a stubborn streak that could use some work).

OTOH, you never did answer my question. ;-)

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Robin

1. One honors the calling with respect.
2. One sustains the prophet by acknowleging the legitimacy of his calling as the president of the church.

Point 2 is really 1A.

You sustain through actions that in turn support the individual, not merely offering meaningless acknowledgment.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

But doesn't the geography actually matter? Not your error regarding geography, but the actual fact that this letter only applies to a certain geographic population?

The church took an identical stance in Canada when the Canadian gov moved to legalize same sex marriage. Therefore your point about geography is not valid.

The church has responded in identical fashion to this very issue in many different countries. The only thing that seperates the church's response to this issue in those countries verses the US is time.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Nothing here I really don't agree with, especially about this exchange being non-interesting to anyone else (and maybe not even to us; I suspect we both may have a stubborn streak that could use some work).

OTOH, you never did answer my question. ;-)

Oh yeah, sorry about that.

I don't really know the answer to your question. My initial reaction was that they wanted us to support the measure. The language, after closer scrutiny, is very craftily worded, however. I suppose there could be several reasons for this:

1. The church did not want to say "support this amendment" for fear that the language of this amendment could change and become something the church would not support (but they would be on record asking for support).

2. They want civic involvement, one way or another, and feel that most Mormons, when asked, would favor the amendment anyways, resulting in a response along the lines of what they wanted without actually saying the words.

3. Not specifically asking for support was merely an oversight (doubtful, since I am sure this letter was vetted at many levels). OTOH, the extensive vetting could have led to several drafts by several people, resulting in odd language at the end.

4. The church is concerned about its tax status, and wants to be able to say later that they weren't asking for specific action on this issue (which would be duplicitous if you assume they actually do want specific action on this issue). I find this to be unlikely.

In short, I don't have a clue.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Oh yeah, sorry about that.

I don't really know the answer to your question. My initial reaction was that they wanted us to support the measure. The language, after closer scrutiny, is very craftily worded, however. I suppose there could be several reasons for this:

1. The church did not want to say "support this amendment" for fear that the language of this amendment could change and become something the church would not support (but they would be on record asking for support).

2. They want civic involvement, one way or another, and feel that most Mormons, when asked, would favor the amendment anyways, resulting in a response along the lines of what they wanted without actually saying the words.

3. Not specifically asking for support was merely an oversight (doubtful, since I am sure this letter was vetted at many levels). OTOH, the extensive vetting could have led to several drafts by several people, resulting in odd language at the end.

4. The church is concerned about its tax status, and wants to be able to say later that they weren't asking for specific action on this issue (which would be duplicitous if you assume they actually do want specific action on this issue). I find this to be unlikely.

In short, I don't have a clue.

Even though I am sure we lost the interest of everyone else a long time ago, at least some good has come from this: I got promoted to being a member!

Take that, loser junior members!!!

[Robin]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Point 2 is really 1A.

You sustain through actions that in turn support the individual, not merely offering meaningless acknowledgment.

Right, but meaningful actions are a matter of personal intentention, right?

I mean how many people really need a lime-Jello caserole after delivering a baby? But in the mind of many a relief society president, that gesture is meaningful service.

If Mike thinks that he is honoring and obeying and sustaining the leaders of the church by sending them his letter rather than agreeing with them, then who is anyone here to challenge his intent?

[creekster]

I sat here reading your (Hoyacoug's) reposnse and had to ask myself if this was really rwoth another message, but what the heck, eh?

Your answer was good, it just wasn't an answer to my question. My question was not why the church didn't tell us what to say, but my question was whether you believe the prophet doesn't care what you say, or whether you think the context fo the letter is sufficiently clear to discern that he wants one to support the amendment, given the refernce to the proclamation on the family. (Of your choices, btw, I lean to 1 and maybe 4, but definely not 3. 2 I think is unlikley but I suppose not impossible.)

Iow, you again evaded the question. That's ok, as nothing about anything either of us could say would persuade the other at this point, but I suspect you knew you had answered a diffeent question and I just wanted you to know I knew it too.

[tooblue]

I only wish to make a distinction ... The Lord will judge Mike's intent.