It was an interesting day yesterday.
I spent the bulk of it researching Proposition 8, the involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this battle and reading the entire Constitution and all Amendments. In the middle of that, a good friend of mine contacted me about his decision to possibly leave the Church. He lives in Canada. The first he heard of the Proposition 8 issue was the day after the USA voted in Obama and Proposition 8 in California. He has done some research on his end. He has asked questions. He has received no answers. While he was doing all that, a friend from his ward emailed him, curious about why he had been missing from Church. He told her the truth – that he could not and would not attend church while the questions were unanswered because, at this point, he was in opposition with the prophet of the Church. He shared with me some of what was going on and I found myself getting pulled into the debate. I responded with fierceness that surprised me. I spent the rest of the day responding to a person who would never receive my response. It was more of an exercise for me. With my friend’s permission, I am reposting the long-winded email from his friend. My response (equally as long-winded, I admit) is in BIG BOLD RED letters.
~~~~~~~~~~
Wow, I didn’t know what to say when I first read your email. I’m sorry that this has caused such a conflict to your conscience and I’m also sorry that the Bishop didn’t know how to answer you. Sometimes, when you are in leadership, you are afraid to offend and by not saying anything it sometimes makes it worse. Eh? What the? He is put in a position of leadership TO HAVE THE ANSWERS or to get them resolved immediately. Bishops are not “afraid to offend”. He is human and he didn’t know the answer. He admitted such and referred him onward. That is cool. But COME ON! Afraid to offend???
I don’t know if I have the right answer but I do have some thoughts for you. I hope what I have to say helps and doesn’t make the situation worse. I feel that Satan’s best tools is to use our own words against us to confuse the situation. After living in the states, I can honestly say, it is a different world there. When we use our perspective on how it is in Canada and transfer that to how it is in the states, it doesn’t work. It is the wild west still in a lot of ways and they have to fight for everything there. What does that mean??? Are we the wild west because a portion of our population is fighting for their rights??? do you not have a gay population in Canada? Do you not think that gay population would put up the same fight if your government were to dictate their rights to them? In researching Canada’s policy on gay marriages, I discovered On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the approval of the Civil Marriage Act. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada‘s population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas.[2] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999. The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin’s Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative motion to examine the matter again. This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years. So, there in Canada, your gay population is already able to get married legally. Do you not think that they would revolt if you took away that right again?
I have taken a few moments to familiarize myself with some of what prop 8 is, and the churches official stand on it. From what I can understand, ( this is just my opinion) the church made a choice to get involved in this matter because it is a matter of church that state is now trying to be involved in. From what I understand, gay couples can have the same rights as unwed straight couples and that is their constitutional right to choose who they sleep with. The problem is that by wanting to change the definition of marriage the government is getting involved in church and god. It may not seem like that, but because marriage began on this earth with Adam and Eve, before any form of government, it is a religious act. Why is it religious? If Adam and Eve were here before any form of government, it would also be before any form of formal religion. And if marriage is, as you say yourself here, “ordained of God between a man and a woman” why was polygamy okay? SO because marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman we have to defend that.
On the surface it may seem, just as you said, that we are trying to take away the rights of others and whom they choose to marry. Unfortunately that is all Satan wants us to see. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps it is Satan that is getting you to believe that it is okay to take away the rights of people to choose whom they marry? What did the people say when the government told the original church leaders that they were not able to choose whom they married beyond one wife? Was that Satan too? What he doesn’t want us to see is the underlying changes and effects on our families that this will have. How does a man marrying another man, for instance, change or effect YOUR family? Give me a clear, concise answer of how YOUR eternal marriage will be changed or of any less value if that woman marries another woman? In Mass. the only other state with same sex marriage laws, I believe Hawaii and Connecticut also have legalized gay marriages, in addition to YOUR ENTIRE COUNTRY. they have taken a parents rights away to be informed as to when their children will be taught same sex orientation material and they also will not allow you to have your child not be taught these things. It wouldn’t be a problem if my child was taught that. She has already been taught about ALL aspects of sexuality and same-gender attraction by HER MOTHER in HER HOME where the education should begin. The problem is that parents are not giving a loving, compassionate education to their children about ANY aspects of sexuality, let alone homosexuality. All that is being passed on is that sex is dirty and bad and homosexuality is evil and you will go to hell if you are gay. In the United States of America, hate crimes against homosexuals is on an all-time high. They are not safe right now and that is because our religions and now our government are teaching that these people are evil. They are treating them as second-class citizens. Parents are teaching hatred, not compassion. This law also opens up the doors for the government to regulate others things within religion, such as our laws on morality and the church could be put in a situation where we have to allow gay people to be baptized duh. They are already able to be baptized AND receive the priesthood. They cannot receive a temple recommend, as far as I have heard. According to the Church headquarters, gay people are supposed to be treated with compassion. They are supposed to be able to attend church without hassle and live a good life like any other celibate SINGLE person – they just don’t get to get married. and receive the priesthood and go to the temple. BECAUSE they will be following the LAW of the land and there would be no criteria to exclude them from those ordinances. The whole basis of family that was designed by God could be under minded if we allow minority groups and the governments who try to please them a voice strong enough to change what was set forth from God at the beginning of time. Feeling redundant, but I choose to reiterate. “From the beginning of time” you say? Why, then, were the early Mormons allowed to marry more than one woman? In fact, as I have studied the Bible – Mormons say the true meaning of which has been lost in translation, I know, but this book is the common thread throughout Christianity – never does God say that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Yes, in Genesis 2:24, it does talk about “cleaving unto his wife” but… did you also know that cleave means to rip apart? Semantics, I know. That Bible, the book that we say is at the heart of the beginning of all religions, was written by man at God’s direction. The Mormons say that they believe in the Bible in as far as it has been translated correctly. Why are they able to accept that Genesis 2:24 has been translated correctly?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my rights to teach my children what I feel is proper and moral to be taken away because the law dictates that this is normal behaviour and must be taught as such. What will it hurt your child to know that homosexuality is normal? If, as many Mormons believe, homosexuality is a CHOICE, couldn’t your child as easily choose to NOT be homosexual as they could CHOOSE to be heterosexual? How would educating your child about homosexuality corrupt your child or take away your rights? You have every right to teach your child in your home about homosexuality and how you view it. You have every right to teach your child what your church believes about homosexuality. You have every right to share with your child your views on whether it is good, bad, right, wrong, evil or indifferent whether or not it is taught in the school system. You SHOULD be teaching your children these concepts and giving them ALL the information so they can make a healthy, informed “choice” about anything they are confronted with. As far as your question regarding section 134, I believe that the church got involved this time because the government was trying to get involved in something that is religious. As I read that section, particularly vs 4 and 6, it clearly states that …”human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man: and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns…” Because marriage and family are spiritual concerns, I feel that Pre. Monson did not go against anything in this section of doctrine. Also because this law will then open the gate to the government dictating what our religious rights and responsibilities will be in the name of equality and civil rights.
We are also taught (section 109) that in the last days the Constitution will hang by a thread. And you are SO right. I actually took the time to read through the Constitution AND all 27 amendments today. Guess what. There is nothing in there declaring who can marry whom or how many of them they can marry. What is happening here is that certain groups are fighting to AMEND the constitution to take away the rights of some of our people. THEY ARE WANTING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO READ THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. They are wanting to change the Constitution. Does the implication of those words sink in, at all? The Constitution will hang by a thread because amendments are being suggested that TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS of a population. These people, these religions, want the highest level of legal documentation for the USA to state that gays do not have the right to marry. We are in the last days, the things that the founding fathers set up in righteousness will be tested in the name of equality and civil rights. Do not underestimate the lengths that the adversary will go to, to bring down the Lords elect. Exactly! The founding fathers set up the Constitution as they saw fit back then with what limited vision they had of the future. It was divinely driven, I fully believe. They had God on their side. However, they could not see all that would be coming in the future. Thus, it has been amended TWENTY-SEVEN times since it was originally created. And, in those 27 changes, there has NEVER been an amendment that has taken away the rights of a group. Granted, we did take away the right to get drunk, but that was overturned quickly. The other Amendments have been created to further the unification of the nation. They have given rights where none had been before. And, back then, the founding fathers did not see a need for the government to declare that marriage was between one man and one woman because it is NOT a governmental issue – which is what the Supreme Court declared when they overturned the vote of 2000 to take away the rights of gays to marry. The Supreme Court said that it was illegal for any faction of people to declare that another group of people cannot marry. To have the religions request the government to become involved in such an issue is preposterous and unconstitutional. Division between religion and state means just that. The whole reason this is even up for debate is because the religions got involved in what was originally an issue between the people and their government. I would like you to take some time to think about why this has bothered you so much. The actual entity of the church just didn’t throw money at this situation. It was us, the members, who chose to stand up and have a voice, shine their light in the darkness. If pre. Monson whipped out a check book to the fast offering fund and wrote and check and said have this stopped, that would be one thing, but he didn’t. Not as far as you can prove, you are right. He didn’t do that. HOWEVER, the First Presidency did send down an official declaration to be read at pulpit on June 29, 2008 of all California wards. This letter stated: “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time…” While he did not write out a check from the fast offering funds himself, he strongly urged all Mormons to do just that. And any Mormons who have been in opposition of this have been taken to Bishop’s court. He encouraged us to be politically active, as the church always has. I really think that you may need to take a step back and examine why this struck you so hard. And please remember, that as much as the prophet is supposed to be the most righteous man on earth he is still a man, with all the weakness of the flesh. He is held to the same laws as you and I. The Lord is no respecter of persons. I am a little concerned about this statement. He is no respecter of persons? What does that mean, exactly? I am hearing you say that the prophet is ONLY a man, and therefore subject to being human – being flawed. As I read this last little bit, it sounds as though you are making excuses for his actions, somehow. That, somehow, if the prophet has done something to tick off another human that it is okay and God has nothing to do with that??? Having once been a member of the Church, I know they teach that the Prophet is the mouth-piece of God and that the First Presidency will not lead you astray. Therefore, how can you say what you have said here? So if you are still mad at the prophet, that may be something that you need to think about too.
If we are looking for fault, we will always find it. The saviour left his perfect church in the hands of not so perfect men. Truly… these comments, when read without emotional filters on, imply that the church is being ran by men, not God and that, perhaps, these men could screw up. If your religion teaches truth, God would never let that happen. It sounds as though you are saying that the hands holding this church are not perfect and make mistakes. It sounds as though you are implying that the Presidency – and therefore the entire church membership – involvement with Proposition 8 could have been a human decision, rather than a Godly decision. Whether it was man or God that made the decision to instruct the people to support Prop 8 with their “means and time” it doesn’t matter, so why do you bring that into this? The Church was 40% of the financial support of the over $75 million that went into the campaign for Prop 8. They were the highest contributing group of all supporters. God or man, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints threw over THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS toward a legal issue which takes away the rights of an entire sector of people. Couldn’t that $30mil been used to something more productive? Couldn’t it have been used to help the hundreds of homeless here in Utah instead? Couldn’t it have been used to help the homeless in California? Couldn’t it have been used toward bringing our nation together, rather than dividing it? The church involved themselves in something that was an issue between the people and the government. They stepped up and declared that a significant portion of the American population are second class citizens who should be denied their rights. I really think that Satan has found a soft spot in you that he is trying to exploit. And you are using guilt to wield your power over him in the name of the church. How does that make you any better than Satan? And you are letting him. You are ready to leave the church because we were trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. As I understand it, he is pondering leaving the church because the church is unable to provide a clear, concise answer as to why the church is involved in taking away the rights of others. I truly hope that nothing I have said offends you, but I know that Satan works the hardest on us when are progressing. Don’t let him knock you down. Don’t let him take away all you have worked toward. Don’t let him take away the eternal reward, that he will NEVER get. Don’t let him win. Pray and pray and pray then reread section 134 and pray again. I know when we let the spirit guide us we can have a better understanding of what is being taught.
I hope this helped. It’s only my thoughts. Don’t stay away, you will regret the years that you will lose. Let me know if there is anything else i can do.
Take care,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, indeed, my friend. Do take care. There are wicked forces at play right now in the world and I am not all together certain about where I will find their headquarters.
