Not yesterday but the sunday before I had a really interesting experiance in Church. It was something I never thought I would experiance. Saturday I got a call from the primary presidency telling me that we wouldn't be having sharing time on Sunday (Andy and I teach the Valiant 10,11, and 12 year old boys) instead we will be having a meeting with everybody in the chapel again. So like 2 sacraments.
We go to Church and teach our lesson then head to this meeting. The bishop stands up and conducts the meeting. It is all about how we need to do everything in our power to stop gay marriages. We had had discussions on it in Sacrament before however they were not getting the response they wanted I guess. We were asked to donate our time and means (aka Money). This request was straight from the Prophet. The thursday before our entire stake leaders met with the stake president who had spoken to the higher Church authorities and told everyone to have this meeting. That is a lot to ask a Bishop to do in my opinion. Ask everybody in their wards to donate money. WOW! Our bishop is probably one of the most polite, calm people in the world and his wife is one of the most outspoken people in the world. As he was up there talking about it she just couldn't keep her mouth shut!
It was a great thing too, in my opinion. She said when he came home and told her what was going on she got kind of upset and wondered why it was such a big deal. We discuss it and remind everybody in Sacrament, we don't need to have a huge meeting about it telling everyone they have to give up their hard earned money. Then her husband explained how it doesn't matter if the bill doesn't pass, it doesn't matter if it gets overturned AGAIN, the main thing is our Prophet asked us to and more or less in his opinion this is a matter of faith and following the prophet. Very well said!
Obviously there are reasons that the church doesn't want gay marriages to happen. The biggest being marraige is ordained of God between a man and a women. If women were meant to be with other women they would be able to procreate together, the same with men. It's like sticking an American plug into a european outlet, it just isn't what is supposed to happen.
I don't have any problem with homosexuals, I grew up around them. They are wonderful people! The problem is if they get the right to marry it opens up a whole new can of worms. This world is already going the wrong direction, the least we can do is try to slow down the process. America is only the promised land if we are a land that fears God. For some reason, I think we are failing to do that at this point in time.
Anyway, I just thought it was kind of strange to have the church asking us to donate not to the church, but to a coalition of churches to try to stop the insanity. All I could think about was "This is how it must have felt to be in one of those old meetings where Joseph Smith was telling everyone how they had to help by giving of their time and money." I was thrown back into the olden days. So there's my story. I will probably write more about my feelings to come.
If you want to see the website it is www.Protectmarriage.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Wow. That is crazy stuff. That is an interesting way of looking at it, I hadn't thought about the similarities between Joseph back in the days...it's true. We aren't asked to do a whole lot more than 10%. That's really cool what your Bishop said.
Hmmmm. . .
How do you feel about energy convertors and plug adapters? Do you believe that marriage is solely for procreation? If you do, then why have you and Andy been married for one year and not yet had any children? What about people that marry after childbearing years, or people that marry but are incapable of having children? Do you think that those marriages should be outlawed too? I feel very strongly that marriage is about companionship, not procreation. If a woman prefers the companionship of another woman; or a man prefers the companionship of another man, who are we to say that it is unacceptable?
What can of worms does gay marriage open up? And how does a little more love in the world (whether between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman) cause any harm or turn the world "in the wrong direction?" I think that if we want to turn the world in the right direction we should focus more on protecting the planet, ensuring access to healthcare, education, creating a better economy, and decreasing poverty rather than prohibiting declarations of love, fidelity, and life-long companionship between two consenting adults.
I love you anyway; even if you think differently than me :)
I am glad that you love me anyway. :) Here is my problem with gay marriages. First, if women were supposed to be with women I think we would have both parts. I don't think that marriage is for only procreaction (obviously), however I do believe that children deserve to be reared in a home that has the opportunity to have both a male and female presence.
I know that there is a lot of divorce in this country, and I don't agree with that either. (Some times it is for the best, and sometimes it isn't...but if the children aren't old enough to understand it can be really hard on them). Yes, there are times when someone is forced to be reared with a single parent because of death, that sucks too. But at least that child was able to have a little normalicy for a while.
My sister in law is a teacher and one of the other teachers in her school has a child being raised by two mothers. This teacher told all her kids to think of a nickname for her that just they wanted to call her (the teacher). This little girl asked if she could think about it for a while. Obviously, the teacher said yes... The next day the girl came in and asked if she could call her (the teacher) mommy. In my opinion that means she doesn't really understand the concept of what a mother is. She is being raised by two women and now every important women in her life is her mother. Kinda strange and just a little messed up in my opinion.
We all know that I am not opposed to "gay tendencies". Obviously since I have kissed more girls than a lot of people have guys. But I do believe that if we were intended on having children with someone of the same sex then we would have the right parts to be able to do that. If you want to love each other, please, be my guest. The problem with marriage is, then they have the right to adopt, be foster parents, etc. and I don't really think the same morals are taught in those homes.
If this were strictly about loving each other or even getting tax cuts I would care less. But it's not, it affects the lives of unborn children. That is my biggest problem with same sex marriage.
The other problem I have with this is the fact that it was denyed by 61% of the state of California two years ago (not exactly sure on the date) but then the California Supreme Court came in and overturned it. That's messed up! What happened to this country being run by the people? It was obviously a majority vote but a panel of a few judges went in and changed the vote of the majority. There is my other main problem with it. It's not what the majority of the people voted for.
But yes there are other, bigger problems in this world and when they are on my ballot I will vote in favor of what I believe needs to be done there as well. :)
I still love you too Diane :) Please comment again with other thoughts.
When the LDS church gets there own definition straight then I will lend creadence to their position D&C 132 is still cannon and says
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
Yet 1995 proclimation to the family says marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Either remove D&C 132 as cannon or their have not decided their offical position.
Make up your mind mind LDS and then I mihgt listen to what you have to say
Bravo Diane, Bravo.
Maybe you should check out the back of your D&C and read the Declarations that have been made. They are restated their postion plenty of times.
As for the church not getting in ivolved in politics, I agree to an extent. This isn't really political as much as it is a moral issue. As well as the LDS church is not the only church that is standing up for their morals. EVERY christian church out here in California is having constant meetings on how to stop this. We have only had the meetings once and they just repeat whats going on every sunday. Other churches around here are having huge meetings with different Pastors and Priests all speaking on the issue about every other week.
This isn't just the LDS church saying any of this, however it is different that they have stood up and said something about it.
Brandi there are a few problems with your claim. First of all the end of the D&C. The manifesto was sustained in general conference in 1890. It was a requirement of the US government to abolish polygamy to achieve statehood.
1890 was a show as polygamisy marriages continued for at least 14 years. Hence the second manifeston of 1904.
Polygmay was only abolished for LDS in the US. They established colonies in Mexica and Alberta Canada in order to preserve the pratice. These groups were a part of SLC lead LDS till 1930 or so, then they branched off and became what eventually became known as the FLDS.
Modern day, if eternal polygamy isn't a doctrine then why can a man be sealed to multiple women in the temple, but a woman one man.
Also in the sealing ceremony you covenant to live the "New and everlasting covenant" They do not law out what exactly that is because that is located in D&C 132. If you get sealed in the temple you agree to follow ALL of D&C 132 which includes polygamy in the celestial kingdom.
Just because they told the members to stop does not mean they ever officially denounced it. They were forced to by the US government.
"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? " - EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO
as included in D&C official declaration 1
Also not all churches in California are pushing for Prop 8 to pass. just as many are rallying against it.
I think your major objection is just the label. Fine lets get the goverment out of marriage all together. Give everyone a civil union.
You also have issues with children and gay's being able to adopt. Would you rather a child live their childhood in an orphanage or live a life loved by twon fathers and two mothers?
I agree the dynamic of same sex parents is different, but a loving household will bring healthy children whatever the sex of the parents.
Also the government is not in place to fall to the whim of the majority, they are there to protect the rights of the minority. Laws should not restrict freedoms but define the areas and extend them.
However if you really think majority rule is the way to go what will be your position when prop 8 is defeated in Nov and gays are officially on CA state law allowed to marry?
Post a Comment