Make no mistake; there is clarity and unity about this issue among the prophets of God. With all the recent (and intense and direct!) talk of the need for us to be unified as a Church, I wish there was a way to communicate how important I have felt it is for us as members of the Church to stand with our leaders and respond to their invitation however we can. Their position is unequivocal and very, very clear. This is a call to action, perhaps unprecedented, with the potential to impact generations to come.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
As part of their desire to support us in defending traditional marriage however we can, they have created a new website, preservingmarriage.org. Take a look and spread the word!
Even if you are not of my faith, I invite you to consider this issue carefully. In my meager attempt to 'do what I can,' over the next while, I will share some of my thoughts on this topic and why I feel so strongly that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. There are many, many reasons beyond just my faith, even as that certainly has played a role in my position on this issue.
I have a renewed desire to do all I can to sustain, support, and protect marriage as it has always been -- between a man and a woman. I invite you to do the same.
Posts
18 comments:
Do you know if the church leaders received a prophecy on this issue?
anonymous,
I'm not sure what you mean by receiving a prophecy, but I believe they are speaking with the power of prophecy and revelation when they talk about the plan of God and how central marriage is to that plan. I also am struck by the warning in the Proclamation that states that the disintegration of the family as defined by God (which, of course, could come from other things as well as SSM) will bring upon us calamities and problems foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
I personally don't need to know all the details of what they know, have seen, etc. I have felt the Spirit confirm their teachings about the plan of salvation and about this issue. And they are completely unified as a body on this issue. I don't need any more than that to believe they are acting as prophets, seers, and revelators.
I hope that answers your questions. :)
great response to the question! i second your comments!
I think anonymous's question is a good one, and I appreciate your response, but I have a few questions. When the priesthood was granted to blacks some time ago, didn't that come as the result of a revelation? And wasn't it announced churchwide? Did that, too, not matter? When does it matter whether or not there is a revelation?
It seems that if you don't personally know all the details of what they know, have seen, etc., you must seek to know all of the information relative to the issue and make a personal decision based upon study and prayer and proper living. You suggest that you have done that and have felt that the Spirit confirmed their teachings. In my case, I too have listened to the authorities of the Church, read what they have had to say, and considered prayerfully the entire issue, but I have come to the opposite conclusion. I still have questions and concerns about their arguments and observations. I think it's appropriate to ask the question: have they had a revelation?
Doesn't the declaration and the pronouncement of a revelation and having it sustained count for anything?
I have to respectfully disagree with anonymous # 2. The church has never said anything but that it does not agree with gay marriage. It has never sat idly by waiting to make an announcement about whether the church supports or opposes it. It has always been known church wide that while we respect the decisions of gays, we do not accept gay marriage as being legal or approved of God. Since the doctrine has always been clear, why would the church need more revelation?
The Proclamation to the World on Family was clarified with this quote: "This proclamation is a declaration and reaffirmation of doctrines and practices that prophets have stated repeatedly throughout the history of the Church." Proclamation. We don't have to have the whole church "decide" that the leaders had a revelation. They either had it or didn't and us deciding one way or the other doesn't change the facts. I agree that we should seek the Lord's Council, but not to decide whether the leaders have had revelation, but rather for us to know how our lives should reflect the revelation we know they have. Anyway, that's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
djinn,
Even all those variations don't disprove the rule. Exceptions to anything will always exist, but, imo, the law doesn't exist to protect every variation that exists.
The 'norm' is and has always been marriage between a man and a woman.
As to following the prophets, there is much more to this for me now than just that. I have my own concerns as a citizen and that is a key reason I am supporting prop 8. I know some will dismiss my concerns, but like I said elsewhere, that is what this is all about. We each act and vote based on what we believe to be the best course for the country, for rights, for children, for families, for lots of reasons. I believe that on the whole, this is the best course -- to preserve marriage between a man and a woman.
Obviously, your views differ. Isn't democracy grand?
Whoa. Lots to catch up on here.
Anonymous, I am sorry I hadn't gotten to your comment yet. Yes, the priesthood revelation came to the whole Church. It was framed specifically as a revelation.
And yet, I don't believe that is the only way revelation will come or be made clear to us, although I think the Proclamation is pretty close to that magnitude of revelation. It was formalized, signed by all 15 prophets and apostles, and framed in the sense of WARNING, which prophets really don't do that often.
But there is more in my mind. We have consistent and repeated teachings about the doctrine of marriage. There is little doubt where they stand.
In my view, prophets don't have to give a formal revelation (although again, to me the Proclamation is basically that anyway) to be speaking by prophecy and revelation.
One of my favorite quotes on this is from Pres. Eyring, and it's something that has impacted me a lot when trying to discern prophetic revelation:
The Apostle Paul wrote, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). One of the ways we may know that the warning is from the Lord is that the law of witnesses, authorized witnesses, has been invoked. When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention....
My attention is riveted, and I believe it is clear that what they are teaching is revelation. It really is that simple to me.
I will also add that eight years ago, when I walked precincts in CA, I was doing it more on faith. I now have had eight years to think about this (and I have spent considerable time pondering and discussing and chewing on this issue). I no longer support these efforts just because the prophets say to, but because I have come to understand for myself why this is so important. It ties into something else Pres. Eyring said:
Sometimes we will receive counsel that we cannot understand or that seems not to apply to us, even after careful prayer and thought. Don’t discard the counsel, but hold it close. If someone you trusted handed you what appeared to be nothing more than sand with the promise that it contained gold, you might wisely hold it in your hand awhile, shaking it gently. Every time I have done that with counsel from a prophet, after a time the gold flakes have begun to appear, and I have been grateful.
When I first acted on the prophetic counsel, I didn't quite understand why. I still can sense that I don't completely get it all, but I have come to see more gold, more wisdom, more amazing foresight, as I have held onto and followed their counsel.
And even as I have come to feel some very real concerns as a citizen, and that is influencing my decision to be involved, I also feel very deeply the roots of my faith in my actions, and that in part by simply starting with trust and moving forward to more understanding. Still a process, but it has built over the time I have held onto that counsel.
I hope that helps you understand more where I am coming from on this.
djinn,
Uh, welcome to my blog. :) I wasn't ignoring your comments. I just haven't been home.
No, I don't believe polygamy was a mistake. But make careful note -- even in our doctrine, marriage between ONE man and ONE woman is the rule. Polygamy was the exception.
I posted this elsewhere, and I'm sure you have seen it, but it's worth posting again.
I guess to me one of the best answers to this is from Elder Oaks (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction) when he was asked about polyamy in our history:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The emphasis that has been placed in this conversation on traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been consistent throughout. Do you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the United States and around the world the Church is known for once supporting a very untraditional marriage arrangement — that is, polygamy?
ELDER OAKS: I see irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the 19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God.
When that duty was lifted, they were directed to conform to the law of the land, which forbad polygamy and which had been held constitutional. When they were told to refrain from plural marriage, there were probably some who were unhappy, but I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get back into the mainstream of western civilization, which had been marriage between a man and a woman. In short, if you start with the assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded, then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don’t start with that assumption, you see a profound irony.
As an honest question, why does marriage between a man and a woman need preserving? Do you think it will spontaneously disappear without legal restrictions?
To me, we are preserving it from being more or less than between a man and a woman. That is the doctrinal rule, that is the societal rule (again, exceptions don't discount or disprove that the rule exists).
I don't think anything will spontaneously happen. But I do think that we really aren't sure WHAT will happen and I'm not comfortable with the idea of engaging in such a social and political and legal experiment.
And, if you let me have my LDS hat on for a minute, marriage between a man and a woman is also just simply fundamental to the plan of God. I feel duty bound to protect it.
But as I have said elsewhere, there is more than just my faith driving me on this issue.
If you read our other standard works, it's pretty clear that one wife is the rule.
But at some point, the point to me is that our current prophets take this stand, so the patterns of the past are not really relevant in my mind.
Post a Comment