General Conference - Fall 2010

[Duck Rodgers]

Were there any talks on food storage this time around? I've always thought the emphasis on that was genius, and surely there was a lot of people that have probably benefited that over the past 3 or 4 years, but I think we are getting even closer to the point when that advice is going to look even smarter unfortunately.

 

[sirkickyass]

Would gay marriage be such a thing? Not necessarily, in my opinion. I could see a situation where a "good Mormon" might feel opposed to gay marriage on a personal level, but because of their overall world view of how the law should operate, might vote in favor of gay marriage. (Reference point: I recently had a Jewish research student who said that's the way he, and most of his congregation, view the gay marriage situation.) Actually, wasn't Steve Young's wife (I forget her name) in that exact situation? I don't think she was kicked out of the church, or anything like that, because she was actively against Prop 8.

(quick search) Yep, here it is:
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=32216
https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4686916

Colton, it appears that the church isn't totally consistent on that issue however.

Here's an example of a particular mormon in Nebraska who was threatened with excommunication for actively opposing Proposition 8.

https://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/st...nication-from-LDS/6Cvu_py9FEOIv-LmCuK8pA.cspx

Looking through his personal website, it appears that the church delayed his disciplinary hearing and then ultimately acted as if he had never been informed they planned to excommunicate him after his case received some publicity.

His position seems somewhat reasonable to me, relying on passages of the Doctrine and Covenants.

One letter he wrote states:

Further, passage of Proposition 8 would deny marriage rights for gay and lesbian members of other faiths who perform gay marriages, such as Unitarians and Episcopalians, and others.


"We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." D&C 134:9

Colton, I'd be curious to know how you reconcile Prop 8-like activities with D&C 134:9.

That certainly seems to be the kind of basis of personal disagreement that you discussed previously.

Fundamentally I'm somewhat concerned about what I perceive as a radicalization of some church members on this issue and I think Packer's talk may be a symptom of this trend. Since they've been forced to defend the actions of the church on this point so publicly I wonder how much real room for dissent their is socially to say that the church did the wrong thing in this instance. In doing some quick research, several members or ex-members charge that they were disciplined or threatened by church leadership (usually at lower levels such as stake presidents) for being publicly against the church on this issue. As someone who's sort of in a constant flirtation with the idea of some level of casual church membership I'm wary of the kind of culture that seems on the verge of occasionally making this a de facto purity test.

 

[Archie Moses]

"We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." D&C 134:9

Kinda of ironic what the following scripture D&C 134:10 says, isn't it?

 

[sirkickyass]

"Supporting your leaders" means to me that (for example) when a bishop says something in church that isn't quite right (happened Sunday before last!), I either let it slide or else talk to the bishop privately about it. What I *shouldn't* do is complain to everyone else in the ward and their dog about how misinformed our bishop is.

But where do you stand on something a little closer to the issue here: Can members be allowed to participate in political activities that go against the religious views of the church's leadership?

Stated another way: Would it go too far to publicly campaign against a church position when the church has participated in a political affair?

 

[Archie Moses]

But where do you stand on something a little closer to the issue here: Can members be allowed to participate in political activities that go against the religious views of the church's leadership?

Kicky, the answer to the question is, no, they can not. It's actually another temple interview question.

6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

 

[sirkickyass]

Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

Sounds a lot like "Are you now or have you ever been ..."

Given that, is it fair to say that there is functionally a political litmus test to being in the church? Or is it ok to believe something different as long as you never talk about it, effectively putting you in political exile?

This may explain the odd John Birch Society splintering and semi-LDS takeover that I've been curious about for some time.

 

[TroutBum]

I stopped reading after that.

What is this filth? I am the Rapture, dammit.

 

[Bronco70]

I think, this time, the LDS Church is not being victimized here. They've taken their stance, they need to live with the criticism as well.

I don't disagree with any of this.

But you are essentially saying one side has a right to a voice, and the other doesn't (presumably because it is a big, bad, mean church that you don't agree with.)

 

[Bronco70]

...is it fair to say that there is functionally a political litmus test to being in the church? Or is it ok to believe something different as long as you never talk about it, effectively putting you in political exile?

Pardon me if I am interjecting w/o welcome, but I have always felt that, ultimately, I am accountable only to God. I am not in 100% agreement, all the time, with all church leadership. But should I be required to forfeit all the spiritual benefits of being affiliated with the church because of this? I'm pretty sure it isn't that cut and dry. I'm also pretty sure that God expects us to think for ourselves, and knows that there will be some dissension. Unfortunately, there are people who need their hand held every step of the way, so we have a system that accommodates them.

If I were only receiving from the church, and not contributing to it, I may feel that "all-or-nothing" was reasonable. But since I contribute a significant amount of time and money, I feel like I deserve some latitude, within reason.

Regarding members who may have been on the chopping block for being on the wrong side of prop 8, that would be a clear failure of the local leadership. I have heard, several times, and in an official setting, that the church does not wish to control my political leanings. Obviously, they encouraged support of prop 8 - but this is different than mandating it, IMO.

This all was probably worthless, as far as answering your question, but I wanted to get it off my chest anyway.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I don't disagree with any of this.

But you are essentially saying one side has a right to a voice, and the other doesn't (presumably because it is a big, bad, mean church that you don't agree with.)

I did no such thing, the LDS Church made it's stance clear with Packer's remarks and they have every right to do so. If you agree with what I said above, that the LDS Church is not being victimized, than why are you trying to play the victim claiming I'm trying to somehow remove your right to a voice?

Newsflash, it's the LDS Church that is actively trying to limit the actions of homosexuals. What did they ever do to the LDS church?

 

[colton]

Colton, it appears that the church isn't totally consistent on that issue however.

Here's an example of a particular mormon in Nebraska who was threatened with excommunication for actively opposing Proposition 8.

https://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/st...nication-from-LDS/6Cvu_py9FEOIv-LmCuK8pA.cspx

Looking through his personal website, it appears that the church delayed his disciplinary hearing and then ultimately acted as if he had never been informed they planned to excommunicate him after his case received some publicity.

Or perhaps that an authority higher than his stake president decided the stake president had been overstepping his authority.

His position seems somewhat reasonable to me, relying on passages of the Doctrine and Covenants.

I dunno... his political position may have some merits, but calling church leaders "bigots" doesn't seem like a very reasonable way to proceed for someone that is trying to not be excommunicated.

Colton, I'd be curious to know how you reconcile Prop 8-like activities with D&C 134:9.

That certainly seems to be the kind of basis of personal disagreement that you discussed previously.

I think it's answered by D&C 134:1, "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society." In other words, we have a responsibility to pass good laws (v. 1), but we shouldn't penalize people for not belonging to the church (v. 9). Seems consistent to me. Nowhere does that imply that we shouldn't use our own morals (religiously-founded or otherwise) to decide on what good laws are.

Fundamentally I'm somewhat concerned about what I perceive as a radicalization of some church members on this issue and I think Packer's talk may be a symptom of this trend. Since they've been forced to defend the actions of the church on this point so publicly I wonder how much real room for dissent their is socially to say that the church did the wrong thing in this instance. In doing some quick research, several members or ex-members charge that they were disciplined or threatened by church leadership (usually at lower levels such as stake presidents) for being publicly against the church on this issue. As someone who's sort of in a constant flirtation with the idea of some level of casual church membership I'm wary of the kind of culture that seems on the verge of occasionally making this a de facto purity test.

I agree that it's good to be concerned about that. And I could see how some (local) church leaders might feel that an LDS member supporting gay marriage efforts had crossed the line to where they are no longer sustaining (global) church leadership. But from my perspective, such a litmus test hasn't been implemented yet.

 

[colton]

But where do you stand on something a little closer to the issue here: Can members be allowed to participate in political activities that go against the religious views of the church's leadership?

Stated another way: Would it go too far to publicly campaign against a church position when the church has participated in a political affair?

It wouldn't surprise me that in a situation where the church has taken an official stand (and these are few and far between), members in opposition to that stand might well be asked to take a low profile.

For example, I understand (from my wife) that back 20-30 years ago, when the state lottery in Idaho was coming into existence, the church saw it as a moral issue (just like Prop 8) and said, "You shouldn't vote for the lottery". If a member had actively campaigned *for* the state lottery instead, I guess it wouldn't surprise me if the member were asked to take a lower profile. On the other hand, I've never heard of any situation where a member was excommunicated just for having an opinion, or even for voting for an issue. It would take active campaigning for something where the church has taken an official stand to the contrary.