Close Topic Options

Mormons And The Federal Marriage Amendment

Last Sunday, every Branch and Ward within the US heard their Bishops and Branch Presidents reading a letter from the First Presidency that said the following:

If you read carefully the letter, the First Presidency does not directly tell the members to support the amendment, they just urge to "Express themselves" in the matter but it is more than obvious what's the Church's position on the matter. Also, notice : "A man" and "A woman" leaving no room whatsoever for any type of Plural Marriage issues.

Now, with so many issues going on within the Church...do you think it is extremely important for the Church to get involved in this political issue?

Also, do you think that may be is is a huge concern of the brethren? Just imagine if gay marriages are legal within the US Constitution and also Plural Marriage. It will cause such chaos within the Church members. Those who are gay and want to marry would definitely challenge the Church on the issue and then those who wants to practise Plural Marriage would ask: Well, now it is legal...what is the issue now of not able to practise it? It would cause lots of controversies and I do not think the Church is ready to deal with all these changing times and issues. That's why I think they made this letter as an urgent move.

What are your thoughts?

I found the comment of this person that pretty much defines my own. Please read the whole comment:

Source 9

Edited: JB on 25th Nov, 2012 - 6:05pm

Amendment Marriage Federal The Mormons

I don't believe that the government should have any say, whatsoever, in defining marriage. Of course marriage is of prime importance. I also believe that homosexual marriage is completely wrong. But when the government begins to define anything, then by necessity, they define that thing in ways that are advantageous to some, and disadvantageous to many others.

I agree with the quote about the many in-depth issues that the members of the Church could be involved in. There are so many things that are so very important, that the Church just stands back and watches, with mild exhortations that the members should be involved in our communities.

So, just how many homosexual marriages will there be? Will it be 0.5% of the marriages performed in a given year? 1%? 5%? Would it get as high as 10%?

Actually, despite the claims of Kinsey that about 10% of men are homosexual, actual, detailed studies have shown the real numbers are probably about 2 - 3% of the general population of the US. Now, how big a percentage of homosexuals want to get married? If one half of homosexual men want to get married, that would mean that maybe 1.5% of the marriages in a year would be homosexual. Perhaps a higher percentage would be lesbian.

Real life shows that a very small percentage of practicing homosexual men develop long term relationships. A high percentage of lesbians do develop long term relationships. But the numbers still won't work out to be a very large proportion of society involved in homosexual/lesbian marriage.

At the same time, something like 70% of babies born to African-Americans are born out of wedlock. African-American young men think it is degrading to work in a McDonald's or Wendy's, so they never take an entry level job.

Within the Church, about 24% of all marriages performed within the Temple end up in divorce. The only religious group with a higher rate of divorce is Baptists. Even atheists have more success in marriage than the Church.

An amendment to the Constitution defining marriage should be so far down the list of moral / spiritual issues that it shouldn't even be a consideration. We have much bigger fish to fry in our communities. I think that divorce is a far worse threat to the institution of marriage than homosexuals.

Mormons And The Federal Marriage Amendment Studies Doctrine Mormon

I just checked lds.org and the title of the article that deals with this issue says:

https://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,...3442-12,00.html

So even though the Brethren have not directly said so on the letter, the title of this article by lds.org reafirms the Church's position.

It is also interesting that on July 7th 2004 in another statement the Church said the following:

https://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,...1-19733,00.html

And I thought the Church does not get involved in Political matters, they may want to say it's a "moral" issue but the truth is that it is a Political move right on election time.



Edited: LDS_forever on 30th May, 2006 - 10:58pm

Amendment Marriage Federal The Mormons

CHURCH LEADER SPEAKS AT THE U.S. CAPITOL TO PROTECT MARRIAGE
See https://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,...1-23503,00.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, joined other religious leaders Monday in Washington, D.C., to speak in support of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. "The sanctity of marriage and family constitutes the spiritual undergirding of lasting and successful societies," he said.

Amendment Marriage Federal The Mormons

Here is an interesting news clip to show how far the Church will go with this:

Notice the use of the word 'Foe' in the report. You are foe because you disagree?

Mormons And The Federal Marriage Amendment

Here is the text of his letter.

---

LDS authority and gay marriage
Jeffrey Nielsen



The leaders of my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently spoke out against gay marriage and asked members to encourage their U.S. senators to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage.

As a member, I sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as LDS general authorities; however, I reject the premise that they are thereby immune from thoughtful questioning or benevolent criticism. A perfect God does not require blind obedience, nor does He need unthinking loyalty. Freedom of conscience is a divine blessing, and our privilege to express it is a moral imperative.

When the church hierarchy speaks on a public issue and requests that members follow, it is difficult indeed if an individual feels the content of their message would make bad law and is unethical as well. I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral.

Currently the preponderance of scientific research strongly suggests that same-sex attraction is biologically based. Therefore, it is as natural as a heterosexual orientation, even if rare. It seems it might be caused by environmental conditions in the mother's womb, before birth, triggering the DNA to give the fetus a homosexual orientation. Neither the mother nor the child has any choice in the matter; it is a completely natural process.

Truly, God would be unjust if He were the creator of a biological process that produced such uncommon, yet perfectly natural results, and then condemned the innocent person to a life of guilt, while denying him or her the ordinary privileges and fulfillment of the deep longing in all of us for family and a committed, loving relationship.

Even if the scientific evidence does not yet establish this beyond reasonable doubt, it seems that virtuous moderation and loving kindness require us to exercise caution before making constitutionally binding discrimination against a whole class of people based only on fear and superstition. In fact, when we examine the statements opposing gay marriage, we find few reasonable arguments. It is not enough to claim that we should oppose gay marriage because historically it has never been recognized. This is the fallacy of appealing to tradition, which was also used to fight against civil rights and equal treatment of women.

Further, to say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear. Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim. How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.

Ultimately, any appeal to religious authority to create law is misplaced. Our Founding Fathers were inspired by their study of history to separate constitutional authority from religious belief, recognizing as they did the potential for tyranny in unchecked religious influence. In our pluralistic democracy, attempting to restrict an individual's rights and privileges based upon a religious claim is a dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers' wise insight, and it should be unacceptable to all Americans.

As for the statement by church leaders that God has ordained marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, I find it quite troubling. It sidesteps the role of polygamy in past and future church teachings. It seems to me that if church leaders at one point in time, not very long ago, told members that the union of one man with several women was important for eternal salvation, but now leads them to believe that God only recognizes the union of one man to one woman, then some explanation is required. (I am not endorsing polygamy.)

God is not the author of incoherence or injustice, but we humans often are. We in the LDS Church must be more honest about our history, including the past and future practice of polygamy in our official doctrine. This will be difficult, for it will reveal that we have been less than truthful in our public relations, and it will show our inconsistency with current statements opposing gay marriage. We can no longer afford to teach only what is useful and hope people won't discover what is true. In this day of easy Internet access, a person can find more real history of the LDS Church in 30 minutes online than the same person would in a lifetime studying approved church materials.

This is not right. Too many individuals have suffered a loss of faith when they were forced to choose between the truth or their family after innocently discovering the discrepancy between genuine history and the official story of the church.

We need to trust the membership of the church and treat them as adults, as equals. We are a church of brothers and sisters, not one of the few privileged leaders and the many subordinate followers.

There might be a diversity of roles and responsibilities from prophet to Sunday School teacher, but we are all peers with one another and equally irreplaceable in God's thoughts and affections.

---
Jeffrey Nielsen is an organizational consultant and teaches philosophy at Brigham Young University. He is the author of the book, The Myth of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations (Davies-Black Publishing).

---

I am sure that he knew, when his letter was published that his time at BYU would be short. The big question now is whether or not he will lose his temple recommend, or even his membership in the Church.

Mormons The Federal Marriage Amendment

I actually agree with everything he said save for this part:

I do not agree with homosexuality or its 'natural beginnings' to any degree and therefore cannot side with this, but that is not the subject of this Thread. However, he does say something that I often discuss with my wife, and he wrote it as though I was speaking too:

Nighthawk, maybe you should invite him for comments?

Mormons The Federal Marriage Amendment Mormon Doctrine Studies

Just to add my $0.02 worth.

The Nielsen letter was rather well done, though I don't agree with homosexuality being a biological issue. He mentions in the news article that he "probably shouldn't have" associated himself with BYU specifically, and that may have been his downfall.

He also mentions that his wife disagrees with his views. I would bet that home life for Bro. Nielsen is rather strained these days.

Just as in a related thread about arrests on the BYU campus, this guy went against BYU policy, which is don't do or say anything against current official church positions, whether doctrinal, procedural, or political, apparently. And I'm sure he's in for lots of personal priesthood interview time, etc.

I tend to agree that if any sort of gay marriage law is approved, it will certainly open the door to other forms of marriage, I.e. plural marriage, and the church will have to deal with those issues. The Brethren have spent so many years opposing plural marriage in the harshest possible way, that to reverse themselves because the law changes would definitely be a challenge for church leadership. For instance, would past offenders who had been excommunicated have to be reinstated? Would Mormon Fundamentalists suddenly wield a lot of power, politically and within the church? How many official statements, documents, curriculum, etc. would have to be revised, reprinted, etc.?

We certainly live in interesting times. I believe more than ever that we need to have our "conduit" open for our own personal revelation in the coming years. Things are going to get tricky. Will not the very elite be deceived?