I am completely against when on fast Sunday some "saint" takes it upon him or herself to save us all by announcing from the pulpit some political or ethical view in an attempt to educate us all of the "right way". I have always been a strong advocate of the simple testimony where you get up and say what you think/believe about Jesus, Joseph Smith, The Scriptures, and the Church but it is about bearing witness and not telling stories. You can imagine how I felt when the Bishop called a special meeting during the third hour of church and asked every family to have one adult go. He has called these before and they are usually more of an airing of grievances instead of a gospel based discussion. I was the lucky one in our family and was disappointed when the Bishop spoke for a few minutes and then turned it over to a visiting member to talk about Arizona Proposition 102. I figured it to be a blasphemous waste of my time and a clear violation of separation of church and state then I found out more about it and would like to pass it on to all those out there. This especially has an effect on residents of Arizona, California, and Florida since all of these states are now facing this issue with similar propositions.
Proposition 102 is not an anti-gay piece of legislation. It is simply the definition of what marriage is and that is that marriage is the legal joining of a man and woman in matrimony. What surprised me at first was that they were actually taking a stand on this in church and telling us that we needed to vote a certain way. At first I thought that maybe it was just my crazy bishop doing crazy stuff like he always does but after sitting through the meeting and speaking with a couple people including my dad(former bishop), my primary team teaching companion(son of stake pres.), and a couple other people it seems that this was actually spoken of through several wards and stakes. My team teaching companion also told me that his dad had been part of a conference call with some general authorities and all the stake presidents here in Arizona asking them to not only stress the importance of voting Yes on this proposition but also announcing that the church was joining a group of other religions to spear head the effort on supporting this proposition. They also asked each stake to find members willing to donate at least a lump sum of $10,000 per stake. After thinking about it I understand that the church has already taken a stand on this subject in The Family, A Proclamation to the World where it states,"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God". When it comes to tax cuts, health care reform, and educational benefits the church is hands off but when the definition of the divine order of marriage comes up in politics and government it is nice to see the church step up and make the stand I feel the Lord would want us to.
The reason that I am writing this post is not to tell everyone to vote yes on the proposition but to send this out there and get every ones opinion on how this was presented to us. Do you think that it is right for them to call a meeting during the regular block to announce this and petition for it? or do you think that there was a better way? Any other comments or questions are more than welcome as well. I have also posted some links below to look up more information if you are interested.
I think your point is well taken Edgar. In Sacrament, every November, is read the same first presidency statement about not taking an official stand on things or using church buildings for political endorsements, and this would seem to be a blatant hypocritical stance on that. I have wondered how and if these actions can be reconciled.
ReplyDeleteHere is my best guess and people can lynch me for saying it. All those other issues that the church seems to stay out of politically are not matters of religion. Marriage, as it was originally instituted before the government saw a way to tax us through it, was strictly a religious practice.
What the church might be fighting for in a sense is for the government to keep it as close to the way things were as they can. What does it mean if gay marriage is allowed? Does the church have to allow gay people into their faith and to be married in the temples? Not yet, but it might. If the government can continue to edge its way into things that started out as church practices then they might be able to get an upper hand on religion.
Think of it this way. In the past the church was persecuted and was hindered because of the practice of polygamy. The government arrested members of the church for practicing their religious right or marriage as they viewed it. In other words, the government disallowed freedom to practice marriage as we saw it. They took control over a religious practice in that sense. Now, if this changes, what else will go? Will we have to allow gay marriage in our church or face some crime for being discriminatory. It may sound ridiculous but it isn't the first time our liberties as Saints have been threatened, and it is the first time that our liberties as Americans have been compromised.
The church does have a history of fighting back politically speaking. The only time that I have found that to be the case is when their liberties as a people and as an organization have been compromised.
Perhaps one could make the argument that gay marriage is not infringing on our rights as Mormons. I say that is hasn't yet infringed on those rights, but it very well could. The prophets and apostles are seers and perhaps we don't know all the implications of what this could mean. I will certainly not be donating money to the cause but I do feel that we are members should take a stand for that which we know is right and stand against those things we know are wrong.
Separation of church and state simply means that the church shouldn't control the state, and the state shouldn't control the church, not that they can't be seen as influences on the consciences of its citizens or members.
I don't feel that third hour is only time that this meeting could have been held, or the only venue. Here in Utah we have meetings at peoples houses to discuss those kinds of things and it isn't done on the Sabbath day.