Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.What impresses me most is that the Church gives its members flexibility about this issue. It acknowledges that not all members would support the amendment and it seems to be fine with that. Instead of demanding that Church members support the amendment, it grants Church members their varying influences on their votes, and only asks mutual understanding and acceptance, not conformity.
While it would have been nice to have this kind of statement before the election while the debates were actually going on, I'm really glad for it now. Although (as the article states) the debate on the issue is not over, I hope that moving forward this will allow Latter-Day Saints to discuss the topic more openly and respectfully, without accusing each other of wrong doing simply because their politics "are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances."
3 comments:
I found this part to be of particular interest:
"Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
(I had to look up what probate rights were.)
I wonder how much of church's stance is based on "the integrity of the traditional family" and how much of it is based on "the constitutional right of churches."
Bryant,
After the last couples months here in California I can't help but feel that your quote is just talk. Church members in California were strongly pressured to donate time and money. Strong rhetoric was used from the highest Church leaders and local leaders that not donating time and money was to go against God. Many members were approached silently to donate specific amounts of money. Stakes were given quotas to fill by Salt Lake (According to my Stake Pres, we were asked to donate $64,000). Several church members were released from their callings or had their temple recommends suspended for being unwilling to promote Prop 8.
The statement is simply legalistic BS. I'm reminded of the Clinton sex scandal for some reason.
Russ,
according to memos between leaders that were leaked recently, the church actually does object to any rights for same-sex couples.. they just allow them as a bargaining chip in bannin ssm.
Loyd and Russ, thanks for your comments. I know I've said this in private to both of you, but I especially like discussions with the two of you because you can both talk intelligently despite being loyal to your respective view points. It's an interesting dynamic that I find constructive for those of us that don't find ourselves at either end of the political spectrum.
As far as the press release goes, I admit that it is kind of problematic because of the timing. If the statements in this press release had been made before the elections some LDS people would have adjusted their positions on the topic. Instead it's only after we've already given our support to the amendment that we're told that we weren't obligated to support it in the first place. The press release in general, both about the political freedom of the Saints and the rights of the homosexuals, ends up with a feeling of damage control. Like we've won our political agenda, so now we're just trying to make friends with the people we've offended (in and out of the Church).
However, even given the timing of the press release, I think it needs to be taken at face value for a couple of reasons.
First, is that the general authorities deserve the benefit of the doubt as far as their own motives go. It might seem like this press release contradicts some previous ones about Proposition 8, but consider that there are likely differing opinions about this issue among the general authorities themselves. The support for Proposition 8 has come mostly from a (very vocal) minority of the general leadership of the Church, and I think it's reasonable to think that there are leaders with differing opinions that have been less vocal to avoid the appearance of contention among the leadership. In fact, I find it more likely that the most recent press release comes from different individuals (who have probably always found it acceptable to have differing political views) than that it came from the same individuals who are now changing their story to manipulate the situation. Regardless of how the viewpoints break down among the leadership, I think it's important that we assume good intentions of the leadership, "not questioning other people's motives" (to quote our future vice-president). I believe that the leaders of the Church are good men and women who each are trying to do what they believe to be right. They're not Christ himself, but they are striving in their imperfect ways to do his will. I think it's right for us to believe that they mean what they say, and that it's not "just talk".
The second reason is simply that the Saints should have been mature enough to come to some of these conclusions on their own. They should have been able to have different political views without being contentious or insulting or manipulative to each other. That might be hard to see since previous press releases seemed to demand support of the amendment, but as I mentioned before there are probably varying viewpoints among the leadership. There have certainly been varying statements about the correct behavior of the Church as it relates to the government. I admit that this is hard for the Saints because we only hear one voice (at a time) out of the leadership, but we should learn to reconcile all of the things we hear from the Church instead of just latching on to the most recent or popular statement and ignoring all statements or teachings with different viewpoints. The Church is just a body of believers, and contentions about this have been introduced at all levels of the organization and we should take responsibility for them at all levels. We shouldn't have to wait for a press release from the top level of the Church to tell us that it's OK to disagree if we can do it respectfully. We need to learn to take individual responsibility for our behavior and to behave as individual members of the body of Christ, not as a mob that blames all of their actions, good or bad, on the leadership.
I think the third reason is the most important, and it is why I posted this excerpt from the press release in the first place: It's simply more productive to accept this press release at face value. If the Saints will accept that it is OK for them to have different political opinions, even in the rare case that the Church takes an official stance, then we can expect that in the future there won't be as much contention or insulting or manipulation. While that doesn't excuse those who have acted rudely or abused their power, it does give hope that such won't be the case in the future. Even this issue will continue to be debated and will likely resurface for votes even in places where it has already been voted on, and if we can remember that political conformity is not required of the Saints, then we can hope that future debates will be more open, honest, and respectful.
Post a Comment