No Time

I can think of very few situations (emergency medical decisions being one) where you may not have as much time as you’d like. But when was that Prop 8 letter read–this summer? So I think people had plenty of time to ponder, pray, and fast about this one, and it was wrong for that commenter to suggest otherwise.

My brother, who moved from Los Angeles just before the Prop 8 wave struck, said that most of his friends were initially against it. But because the church approached the membership this summer, each one of them had time to reflect on the issue a great deal and ultimately switched their vote. My brother speculated that had this effort been initiated in, say, October, most of them would have likely not voted for the proposition.

I was deeply impressed that these people engaged the question so seriously, given that they’re primarily young professionals (many in the entertainment and media industries) in West LA. To me, this group has far more at stake socially and professionally than most who voted yes.

Yes, with respect to Proposition 8, it seems reasonable to me that folks had enough to time engage the matter seriously and without haste — at least when it came to casting their votes.

For the sake of this discussion, let me push the point a bit further, though. Once the church leadership came online with their guidance, how long did folks feel that they could pause before reacting in terms of providing money and support? Did folks feel that in order to respond properly they had to engage in supportive activities before they had a testimony if that was what they desired?

Mark,

Yes, I agree that it complicated. Your addition of historical consciousness is a welcome addition to the debate, as well.

I am interested in the idea that there might be circumstances in which we should act without spiritual confirmation on some major political or moral decision

Some have the default position — cherished by its holders, derided by some others — that when the Brethren issue a straightforward request, they will immediately begin to obey, even while they are going through a sometimes time-consuming process of learning to understand and getting a spiritual confirmation. That grows out of a prior conviction, perhaps accompanied by spiritual conviction, that the Brethren will not request anything improper.

Intersting that this comes up 30 years to the day after Jonestown Nov 18 1978, Just shutup and drink your kool-aid folks All is Well.

I do trust our leaders would not lead us astray and giving them the benefit of the doubt is something I always do but not jumping before you look. I am thinking more of the non SL based leaders but even Apostles don’t always have a full knowledge of the things they speak about. Many of our leaders in moments of candor say things that are just ridiculous. They are human just like the rest of us. On the Mormons PBS show Pres Packer was almost ashamed of some of the quoted attributed to him. He handled it well but he has been abrupt in times past and said things he doesn’t necessarily hold to today.

Mogget,

I agree with you that the knowledge that the leadership had to deliberate for a long time in order to formulate a position inspires confidence in that position.

The difficulty for me arises from seeing how the church’s own position on this issue is changing rapidly. Two years ago we had a ballot proposal in our state which would have approved civil unions. A letter was read from the pulpit opposing them. Now, apparently, the church is fine with civil unions. Or are we? I honestly don’t know. (It wouldn’t suprise me to learn that there are differences among church leaders on that point.) Even ten years ago, the idea of an officially approved Gay and Lesbian club on the campus of BYU would have sounded like a headline in a supermarket tabloid. I’m very hesitant to predict what the church will do next, because it continues to surprise me.

I’m very hesitant to predict what the church will do next, because it continues to surprise me.

Yes, your concern is well-taken. My thought at this point is that discomfort with a changing church position is pretty expected, but that it also arises because somewhere, somehow we’ve come to think that today’s divine guidance is eternally The Way It Is Going To Be. This, it seems to your humble historical-critical exegete and post author, is problematic.

By saying that I do not wish to imply that you are at fault for regarding things that way. I know from experience that it gets presented that way, and in very official venues. In fact, it is hard to imagine being told to invest time and money in an effort to defeat something because that is what God desires, and then to find out in a decade or so that it is acceptable at some level. I think we might look to the example of polygamy and OD 1 for some loosely relevant scenes within our history. In fact, when the results of the election were first in and the anger was running particularly hot, it occurred to me to point out that the NT reports that Gentile Christianity evoked similar angst. And yet, 2,000 years later no one cares because the situation has changed so dramatically. These things are, it seems to me, all historically and culturally conditioned. Today’s crisis is tomorrow’s odd bit of historical hysteria and all that.

So then, it remains a possibility that we could read changing church positions as divine navigation rather than something chiseled in stone. Here a hard left turn, there a slow right, and straight ahead for bit, perhaps. But you are right that an outlook such as this will not generate the sort of support that other approaches tend to yield.

Mogs

Yeah, I guess it’s one way to see the search for further light and knowledge in action. It would seem that God’s relationship with his church and with folks in general is actually rather more complicated than we normally allow.

In 2004 the Church came out in favor of a similar proposition in Utah (though that one also banned Civil Unions). President Hinckley addresses the 2000 California Vote in Priesthood session in General Conference. The members in Vermont where officially encouraged to fight the civil unions bill there.

Back in 2004 or 2005 when the Congress voted on a national Constitutional Amendment, there was a First Presidency letter encouraging members to call their Senators.

Elder Nelson was part of a group of religious leaders that made some very public comments about fight gay marriage a few years back (more of a response to MA).

This is nothing new.

Hello Anon,

Chris had given you some specifics. To his specifics, I will just add that I remember the matter coming up in 1990 or so. I also think it possible for a reasonable person who is familiar with the LDS doctrine of marriage and the socially conservative positions normally adopted by church leaders to draw some rather accurate conclusions, even in the absence of specific guidance.

I am, however, similarly interested in why/how California’s Proposition 8 gathered so much attention. Perhaps because this is Round 2 for California? I don’t know.

“To his specifics, I will just add that I remember the matter coming up in 1990 or so.”

I do not remember that far back.

(Were you old enough to be having adult conversations in 1990? –ed.)

Happy Birthday, Chris!

Hello Eric,

First, this thread is not open to debate the merits of various positions on Proposition 8.

Second, I think that perhaps it would be best if you took some time to consider what you’d really like to say and then articulate those thoughts in a fashion that will both advance your cause and show your personal qualities and intelligence in the most favorable possible light. Your recent effort lacks something in both regards.

Mogs

God often (in my experience, almost always) withholds revelation and expects us to reason through matters

Yes, I tend to agree that some level of reasoning is surely indicated. But we do have a significant number of our coreligionists who take a more robust view of the spiritual elements of decision making. Always interesting to watch it play out, though.