Doctrine and politics

[Tim]

Like most of us on this board, or at least those who participate in The Foyer, I probably spend more time than I should thinking about my religion, why I believe in it, what it means to me, and how it will fit into my future. I love reading and thinking about the historicity of scripture, the power structure within the Church, the need for a more progressive stance within the church, etc. I'm a Mormon Stories kind of person. Even though I'm not an academic and can only pretend to be as intelligent and educated as many of you here, I crave knowledge and constantly seek it out.

Last night I was lying in bed thinking about the Prop 8 ruling. I had just read the Church's statement on Judge Walker's ruling and it was on my mind. It bothered me to read it and I was lying in bed thinking about how much it bothered me. One of the great things I've discovered about marriage is that it gives me a safe environment to say something like, "this bothers me, and I want to identify why it bothers me," and then try and verbally work through why it bothers me. I don't think I ever really had the opportunity to experience that kind of therapeutic process before two months ago, at least not to this level, so it's just wonderful and something I'm so happy to have in my life. When I started talking about the Prop 8 ruling and the Church's statement on it, I was able to identify a concern that's been growing in me for years. Look at the statement from the Church: there's no signature on it, there's nothing on it that indicates that it came from the Prophet of God.

My concern is that we read these statements from the church about politics, we get letters in sacrament reading read to us, but then General Conference comes around and the Prophet of God says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. If this is such a pressing issue that the Church needs to make a press statement about its official position, why isn't it discussed clearly in General Conference? We get more of the same talks about the same topics. Why not discuss it openly if it's that big of an issue?

That leads to a different question: Is it really doctrine if you only read about it in a press release? Is it really doctrine if it's found on a web site but not mentioned in General Conference? Who writes these press releases, anyway? It's not signed by the First Presidency or President Monson. I've learned enough about the order of power within the church that I'm fairly confident that the Prophet had nothing to do with that press release yesterday. I can't imagine that yesterday someone came into President Monson's office, read him Judge Walker's ruling, and he immediately said "ISSUE A PRESS RELEASE!" This seems like something that would've been done by someone further down the ranks. And if that's the case, why should I care one bit about it if it didn't come from the Prophet? He's the only single individual whose power I recognize to speak on behalf of the Church.

The Prophet doesn't always have the power to control the members of the First Presidency and the Quorom of the 12. Reading about baseball baptisms in the 1960s taught me that. So I wonder: Who's responsible for the press releases? Can any of you really imagine President Monson saying what's been said about gay marriage? Try and reconcile his talks about kindness, love, charity, helping the downtrodden and unfortunate, peace, hope, etc., with the messages of condemnation of gay marriage. It just doesn't mesh! It's not him. That hasn't been his way of communicating, nor the philosophy he's shared over the last 40 years. So who is it that's driving the Church's position on gay marriage? Elder Oaks? That might be his thing. Elder Packer's a traditionalist. Elder Holland, maybe? Does it even matter?

I come back to my question above and would love to discuss it here, especially in the context of political matters. Is it really doctrine if you only ever hear about it in press releases? Does that matter?

[pellegrino]

I don't know that there was anything doctrinal in that press release. The only thing that resembles doctrine is the statement about marriage being the bedrock of society and that concept traces itself back to a document that was issued by the first presidency and the twelve, so in that case there was an official statement by all those who are sustained as prophets, seers . . .

That said, I wish that the church hadn't put their foot in the cow pie that this gay marriage debate is.

[Tim]

I don't know that there was anything doctrinal in that press release. The only thing that resembles doctrine is the statement about marriage being the bedrock of society and that concept traces itself back to a document that was issued by the first presidency and the twelve, so in that case there was an official statement by all those who are sustained as prophets, seers . . .

That said, I wish that the church hadn't put their foot in the cow pie that this gay marriage debate is.

Yet it'll be referred to as "the word of the Lord" by Mormons throughout.

[pellegrino]

Yet it'll be referred to as "the word of the Lord" by Mormons throughout.

another reason why I wish the church had stayed out of the debate.

[CardiacCoug]

I come back to my question above and would love to discuss it here, especially in the context of political matters. Is it really doctrine if you only ever hear about it in press releases? Does that matter?

To be fair, perhaps the major reason why General Conference talks don't address gay marriage is that these talks are supposed to be for a worldwide audience, including Church members who live in countries or states where gay marriage is settled law.

I like to think that another secondary reason is that at some subconscious level the anti-gay marriage rhetoric strikes even the LDS hierarchy as mean-spirited and illogical.

[pellegrino]

I like to think that another secondary reason is that at some subconscious level the anti-gay marriage rhetoric strikes even the LDS hierarchy as mean-spirited and illogical.

I'll agree that this is possible, but if true, then why oh, why did they pull out all the stops in 2008 to combat gay marriage? They created an environment that fosters the rhetoric and they've even spread much of the illogical arguments through official church avenues (how does gay marriage confuse children about traditional marriage any more than seeing a man smoke a cigarette confuse them about the word of wisdom?).

[byu71]

On the news tonight they said the church has been meeting with gay group reps talking about what they have in common. The gay spokesman said the talks have been good.

I don't know what all this means, but the real hardliners may have to retract a bit in the future. It might be like the immigrant thing. The church ends up with some softer statements that makes it tough on those who like to quote "the brethern" and what they meant.

[Moliere]

Look at the statement from the Church: there's no signature on it, there's nothing on it that indicates that it came from the Prophet of God.

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/first...california.pdf

My concern is that we read these statements from the church about politics, we get letters in sacrament reading read to us, but then General Conference comes around and the Prophet of God says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. If this is such a pressing issue that the Church needs to make a press statement about its official position, why isn't it discussed clearly in General Conference? We get more of the same talks about the same topics. Why not discuss it openly if it's that big of an issue?

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...004d82620aRCRD

I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

[Indy Coug]

[A whole bunch of stuff from President Hinckley]

[Sullyute]

Like most of us on this board, or at least those who participate in The Foyer, I probably spend more time than I should thinking about my religion, why I believe in it, what it means to me, and how it will fit into my future. I love reading and thinking about the historicity of scripture, the power structure within the Church, the need for a more progressive stance within the church, etc. I'm a Mormon Stories kind of person. Even though I'm not an academic and can only pretend to be as intelligent and educated as many of you here, I crave knowledge and constantly seek it out.

I loved your opening paragraph. This is what has drawn me to CUF. The ability for people to share their personal religious opinions, thoughts, and experiences. I really enjoy it when people are willing to open up and share. I think that it is a shame that church is not more conducive to this environment, especially elders quorum.

I honestly believe that the "Church" makes decisions on what they feel is best for the whole. What they feel is best may not alway be what is right or what each of the leaders agrees with. I am sure that if we were able to speak candidly with each of the apostles they would each have a very divergent opinion from one another on a multitude of subjects, including gay marriage.

It kind of makes you yearn for those good ol days when Orson Pratt and Brigham Young would argue opposing side of religious doctrine in public discourses.

[Spicy McHaggis]

They purposely blur the lines between policy and doctrine.
That way they have an out if something needs to change later. If a statement was made in conference that appears to be incorrect then we are told he was speaking as a man, not a prophet.

BY said blacks would never have the PH, it was doctrine. David O. MacKay said the PH ban was simply policy, not doctrine.

There are far too many instances where situations change. The so-called church has learned and doesn't get pidgeon holed into one view when it will most likely change at a later date.

One day gay marriage will be largely accepted, maybe not fully by the church but by society as a whole.

When is the last time we heard doctrine? It seems as if they would rather have the appologists discuss the hard issues, that way they can back away from the more strange 'doctrines' when the time comes.

[hopfrog]

I love the church's statement because it advocates intelligent discourse while at the same time stating absolutely their stand on marriage. If this had all happened when I was an extremely militant queer I would have cheered, anything that annoyed uptight homophobic bigots was cool with me. Now I see that as adolescent. I want to understand all sides and learn from all ideas and ideals. I find it fascinating that some think Judge Walker's being queer should have excluded him from this instance of his professional career; yet I would have been far more pleased had a heterosexual judge been the cause of this new media sensation.

The church having dialogue with the queer community is, for me, a magnificent thing. I feel, more and more, accepted in my religion by those who lead us in Salt Lake City, something I have never experienced in the past, certainly not at the time of my excommunication. The church is way cool.

[Ma'ake]

When is the last time we heard doctrine? It seems as if they would rather have the appologists discuss the hard issues, that way they can back away from the more strange 'doctrines' when the time comes.

"Thus sayeth the Lord..." was supposed to be the marker of doctrine, revelation, right?

The fundamentalist explanation is there hasn't really been any doctrine or revelation since John Taylor because Woodruff gave aways the priesthood keys when he capitulated to worldly forces (ie, federal government) via the Manifesto. The current church is effectively in apostacy, and that's why Mormons are more accepted today than they were during Nauvoo times.

That's the thing about religion - endless permutations and fodder for argument, twisting of positions, turn about.

[il Padrino Ute]

That's the thing about religion - endless permutations and fodder for argument, twisting of positions, turn about.

The same could be said about politics. Or football. Or pretty much anything else.

[Hazzard]

I've come to peace with the fact that 15 white senior citizen males living in the Intermountain West who can't make major doctrinal changes without unanimous consent aren't going to individually, let alone collectively, believe what a group of 30-something message board dudes believe on many issues -- doctrinal, political or otherwise. Prophetic mantle or not, those 15 guys are not going to wake up one morning with a different set of experiences and views than they already have.

A fun mental exercise is to envision 15 versions of my pioneer stock grandparents sitting around trying to create a doctrine or policy on gay marriage. What I believe to be the church's stance on gay marriage is WAY more liberal than the stance that would come out of that meeting.

The age/gender/ethnicity of the 15 apostles and prophets, combined with the condition of unanimity for major doctrinal and policy changes, ensures that the church's "official stance" on most issues is going to be, uh, the opposite of progressive.