In yesterday's Daily Universe, there was a letter to the editor regarding Proposition 8. I would like to comment on this letter. First of all, I understand that the paper tries to be unbiased on controversial issues that people write about. I know that they like to put both sides of the issue in the paper so people can see and express their honest opinions. However, I really feel that when someone writes something so obviously anti-Mormon, that they should not publish this piece. We are a private, church-run institution, and I don't feel that we should have to read crap that blatantly attacks what the church stands for. Proposition 8 is what will be voted for in November in California regarding same-sex marriages. The proposition would add a very clear definition of marriage. The definition would state that marriage only pertains to a man and a woman, not two members of the same sex. Here is a copy of what this person's letter said:
"I am appalled at the number of BYU students campaigning for the California initiative. The onslaught of flyers has left my stomach churning. I wish these students could see how voting for Proposition 8 simply hurts the Church. It hurts those men and women within the Church who struggle with same-sex attraction. It hurts our image. It turns people against the Church. Joseph Smith once said he teaches his people correct principles and allows them to govern themselves. We have been taught the correct principles regarding same-sex attraction and acting on those tendencies. Now let's try out a little agency and govern ourselves while allowing others to make their own decisions without government interference."
The first huge point that this writer has completely backwards is that voting for the proposition would hurt the church. If that were the case, the First Presidency of the Church would NOT be making such a clear, undeviating stance on this issue. They have plainly asked the members of the Church to fight for this proposition, and do everything they can to keep the definition of marriage legally defined as only between man and woman. It's not very often that the Church officially comes out and tells its members how to vote politically. So you know when they do, you had better take it seriously. Then, this author says that this proposition would hurt the members of the Church who struggle with same-sex attraction. I don't see how this could be possible. I understand that many members of the church do face this struggle, and my heart goes out to them. HOWEVER, if they are members of this church, they are not allowed to practice these tendencies. If someone in this church got married to someone else of the same sex, they would no longer be members of this church, they would be ex-communicated. So how does the Church enforcing something that it already enforces hurt anyone?
He then says that this would turn people against the Church and hurt our image. Since when do you think the leaders of this church, and God himself start caring about a popularity contest? There will be people against this church until Christ returns no matter what. The Lord does not make commandments to make everyone happy and suit their own personal wants . The Church is not a people-pleaser and does not change its principles based on fluctuating morals of society. We have a firm rock to hold onto that we know to be true regardless of how society changes and defines its morals. That is one of the great things about this church: it is true.
The last argument this author uses is that Joseph Smith taught that he only teaches correct principles and lets everyone govern themselves. While this is a true statement, it was also taken completely out of context. When Joseph Smith made this statement, he was being asked how it was that his community of saints were able to be so prosperous, happy, and thriving. Joseph Smith, not wanting to take credit for their actions, simply said that he taught them what was true, but they were the ones who decided to follow it and live righteously. I highly, highly doubt that if the saints were living like pigs, not following the commandments or listening to Joseph at all, he would have said the same thing. In fact, when they didn't live the commandments, he would rebuke them and teach them to live better than they were. He didn't stand by the wayside and throw up his hands saying "Well, I taught them and now they can just do whatever they want, it's up to them!" Going along with this is a very good quote from our Church's website regarding this issue:
"Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner."
If you would like to read more from this article, go to http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage.
This has just been something on my mind. While the letter might not sound like it's attacking or purposefully fighting against the church, I hope you can see how it really does undermine what the church stands for and is fighting for.
"I am appalled at the number of BYU students campaigning for the California initiative. The onslaught of flyers has left my stomach churning. I wish these students could see how voting for Proposition 8 simply hurts the Church. It hurts those men and women within the Church who struggle with same-sex attraction. It hurts our image. It turns people against the Church. Joseph Smith once said he teaches his people correct principles and allows them to govern themselves. We have been taught the correct principles regarding same-sex attraction and acting on those tendencies. Now let's try out a little agency and govern ourselves while allowing others to make their own decisions without government interference."
The first huge point that this writer has completely backwards is that voting for the proposition would hurt the church. If that were the case, the First Presidency of the Church would NOT be making such a clear, undeviating stance on this issue. They have plainly asked the members of the Church to fight for this proposition, and do everything they can to keep the definition of marriage legally defined as only between man and woman. It's not very often that the Church officially comes out and tells its members how to vote politically. So you know when they do, you had better take it seriously. Then, this author says that this proposition would hurt the members of the Church who struggle with same-sex attraction. I don't see how this could be possible. I understand that many members of the church do face this struggle, and my heart goes out to them. HOWEVER, if they are members of this church, they are not allowed to practice these tendencies. If someone in this church got married to someone else of the same sex, they would no longer be members of this church, they would be ex-communicated. So how does the Church enforcing something that it already enforces hurt anyone?
He then says that this would turn people against the Church and hurt our image. Since when do you think the leaders of this church, and God himself start caring about a popularity contest? There will be people against this church until Christ returns no matter what. The Lord does not make commandments to make everyone happy and suit their own personal wants . The Church is not a people-pleaser and does not change its principles based on fluctuating morals of society. We have a firm rock to hold onto that we know to be true regardless of how society changes and defines its morals. That is one of the great things about this church: it is true.
The last argument this author uses is that Joseph Smith taught that he only teaches correct principles and lets everyone govern themselves. While this is a true statement, it was also taken completely out of context. When Joseph Smith made this statement, he was being asked how it was that his community of saints were able to be so prosperous, happy, and thriving. Joseph Smith, not wanting to take credit for their actions, simply said that he taught them what was true, but they were the ones who decided to follow it and live righteously. I highly, highly doubt that if the saints were living like pigs, not following the commandments or listening to Joseph at all, he would have said the same thing. In fact, when they didn't live the commandments, he would rebuke them and teach them to live better than they were. He didn't stand by the wayside and throw up his hands saying "Well, I taught them and now they can just do whatever they want, it's up to them!" Going along with this is a very good quote from our Church's website regarding this issue:
"Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner."
If you would like to read more from this article, go to http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage.
This has just been something on my mind. While the letter might not sound like it's attacking or purposefully fighting against the church, I hope you can see how it really does undermine what the church stands for and is fighting for.
Comments