Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[wuapinmon]

If the church were to exercise such limited discretion, what harms would result, apart from inconsistency with current doctrine/teaching? If no other material harms would result, and the status quo is unjust, shouldn't we think about modifying the doctrine? Don't you think this an area that can benefit from prophetic inspiration over blind yet consistent application?

This is where you and I find common ground, brother. I don't want to play a Summon Indy card here, but I'd love for the Lord to liveth a little and get some PUBLIC prophetic inspiration. I was called to serve as a branch president five days before my 20th birthday. I remember thinking, "how am I going to have inspiration for my branch?" I was overwhelmed. I sat in my office reading the scriptures trying to figure out something, anything. I clearly recall feeling like the heavens were shut to me. Is this how the prophet feels? Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ. Has Thomas S. Monson communed with God? We spouted Amos 3:7 sin cesar as missionaries, but I really think that that scripture is taken out of context in the Church, and that it's not as easy as it sounds. This is the Church of "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God...." Seriously, what happened to that Spirit? As soon as Oliver or Sidney started asking about it, we got "Study it out in your mind." Which has worked for me, but it's a far cry from asking God if we lack wisdom.

The branch was closed, permanently, 23 days after my installation as the branch president.

[creekster]

I agree with what the Church is doing, but they're probably doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

If you're going to speculate why not give them the benefit of the doubt? IS this revealing your bias through which I should read your opinions?

[RobinFinderson]

The Church via the Articles of Faith have never required people to obey unjust or immoral laws. This has been true since at least Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and there are many contemporary examples ranging from Civil Rights (the Church, at the time, was strongly against civil disobedience on AoF grounds, but has since flipped a 180), polygamy, and the Helmuth Hubener case. The fact that the church doesn't punish 'illegals' might tell folks something profound about US immigration policy. Maybe this is one of those cases where the prophet has laid out some clear revelation, but only for those with ears to hear.

[BigFatMeanie]

This is twice that you have taken umbrage to something that I have said. The first time wasn't as nice or as soft as this one. I appreciate the tone of this one better.

No, just once. I don't count this one as "taking umbrage" at anything you said. Just pointing out to you how others may perceive you. As you have experienced, when I take umbrage there is no question about it.

[Solon]

IIRC, President Monson referred to the Prop 8 battle as "our Gettysburg".

And just exactly how reliable is that story?

I don't know about Gettysburg, but I had a conversation this morning with my brother-in-law, who is in a bishopric in Santa Barbara county in California.

This brother-in-law told me that in Fall 2008 his stake president stood in his ward and said something along the lines of, "Brothers and Sisters, the Prophet has just called you to action. This is your pioneer trek, and the prophet has just called you to push your handcarts to Utah. It will take a lot of time, effort, and money. Are you prepared to follow him?"

(To which I replied, "Twenty-five years from now, times will have changed and I can just take the train to Utah.")

That's some pretty black-and-white rhetoric. Maybe not "it's our Gettysburg" rhetoric, but pretty striking.

Also, it bears noting that this was a stake president's comments, not something from an apostle or first presidency member.

By the way, my brother-in-law worked very hard for the passage of prop. 8, so this is coming from a sympathetic source. He genuinely felt like he was called by the prophet to canvass the neighborhood in support of the bill, and that any LDS who did not lend their efforts (let alone those who might have opposed it), were deliberately ignoring prophetic admonition.

Sorry to resurrect a long-dead and well-hashed topic. Just an anecdote to share. We don't need to get into the nitty-gritty details of the debate all over again. I just thought it was a really interesting story.

[LA Ute]

I don't know about Gettysburg, but I had a conversation this morning with my brother-in-law, who is in a bishopric in Santa Barbara county in California.

This brother-in-law told me that in Fall 2008 his stake president stood in his ward and said something along the lines of, "Brothers and Sisters, the Prophet has just called you to action. This is your pioneer trek, and the prophet has just called you to push your handcarts to Utah. It will take a lot of time, effort, and money. Are you prepared to follow him?"

(To which I replied, "Twenty-five years from now, times will have changed and I can just take the train to Utah.")

That's some pretty black-and-white rhetoric. Maybe not "it's our Gettysburg" rhetoric, but pretty striking.

Also, it bears noting that this was a stake president's comments, not something from an apostle or first presidency member.

By the way, my brother-in-law worked very hard for the passage of prop. 8, so this is coming from a sympathetic source. He genuinely felt like he was called by the prophet to canvass the neighborhood in support of the bill, and that any LDS who did not lend their efforts (let alone those who might have opposed it), were deliberately ignoring prophetic admonition.

Sorry to resurrect a long-dead and well-hashed topic. Just an anecdote to share. We don't need to get into the nitty-gritty details of the debate all over again. I just thought it was a really interesting story.

The Gettysburg comparison was made by a Seventy. Not sure which one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

More like "our Bay of Pigs"

Bingo

[Eddie]

Round and round we go....

You are recognizing that they are gay. You are telling them two things:

1. Live your life celebate and have full membership.

2. Try and fight through a hetero marraige and hope it doesn't fail.

Neither of those sound like a "Plan of Happiness" to me.

How ludicrous is it to tell someone to live the law of chastity and then not allow them to marry?

It looks like this debate may have ended, and I probably should've just let it die.

But for some reason the thought occurs to me that nothing is as simple or black & white as we want it to be at times.

For instance, what if instead of talking about someone who is sexually attracted to a person of the same gender we were talking about someone who is sexually attracted to children.

Do you feel the same way about their happiness or would you tell them that their choices are to either live a celebate lifestyle or fight through an adult relationship?

Is it still ludicrous to tell a person that they can't marry the person they are attracted to?

[Mrs. Funk]

It looks like this debate may have ended, and I probably should've just let it die.

But for some reason the thought occurs to me that nothing is as simple or black & white as we want it to be at times.

For instance, what if instead of talking about someone who is sexually attracted to a person of the same gender we were talking about someone who is sexually attracted to children.

Do you feel the same way about their happiness or would you tell them that their choices are to either live a celebate lifestyle or fight through an adult relationship?

Is it still ludicrous to tell a person that they can't marry the person they are attracted to?

I don't have a great deal to add to this debate, but your analogy is fundamentally inapplicable. Two adult persons of the same gender can engage in consensual sexual conduct. A child cannot consent to sex. Your analogy is an entirely different issue altogether.

[Eddie]

I don't have a great deal to add to this debate, but your analogy is fundamentally inapplicable. Two adult persons of the same gender can engage in consensual sexual conduct. A child cannot consent to sex. Your analogy is an entirely different issue altogether.

Yes - there is a difference in the legalities, maturity, ability to form relationships, etc. But no difference in the fundamental question.


It is implied that a person who is sexually attracted to a person of the same gender cannot be happy unless they have a fullfilling sexual relationship with a spouse of their same gender.

So I'm simply asking - does this mean that someone who is sexually attracted to children cannot ever be happy?

Which comes back to - if you believe in the Happiness part of the Great Plan of Happiness do you have to also believe that we will never have attractions/desires/whatever that are contrary to The Plan?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes - there is a difference in the legalities, maturity, ability to form relationships, etc. But no difference in the fundamental question.

There is a huge difference in the two situations. Children can't give consent. Asked and answered.

So I'm simply asking - does this mean that someone who is sexually attracted to children cannot ever be happy?

Yes.

[Mrs. Funk]

There is a huge difference in the two situations. Children can't give consent. Asked and answered.



Yes.

What he said.

[Indy Coug]

Is happiness (or at least what you believe to be happiness) in this life the ultimate criterion of whether or not something is appropriate/acceptable?

[Moliere]

There is a huge difference in the two situations. Children can't give consent. Asked and answered.

The church's defined age of accountability (consent) is 8 years old

:stirthepot:

[Mrs. Funk]

The church's defined age of accountability (consent) is 8 years old

:stirthepot:

Accountability ≠ sexual consent. Next, please.