Me too. Thank you.

Ray: I still have reservations about the issue – especially with regard to most of the arguments for the Proposition (which, I repeat, include some really stupid, ludicrous ones), but that doesn’t over-ride my belief that these men really are prophets, seers and revelators.

Ditto.

Nathan: So even more important that not watching the movie is the growth he is experiencing by learning how to discern good from evil.

Yes. The same could be said for me as I grapple with Prop. 8, although rather than framing it in terms of discerning good from evil I’m framing it in terms of discerning which of my two heads should take the lead.

Speaking of which, JimD, I’ll take your advice. After all, two heads are better than one. Even if one is named Kaimi.

And that brings us to the conclusion of this thread. We’ve hit 100, and it’s time for me to make dinner. Thanks to all for participating.

There is one thing that was missed in the comments. The thirteen year-old son is too focused on whether or not he can watch the movie, but eventually what he needs to learn is why his mother is so concerned about the movies he watches. The actually movie is not so critical as is the reason why she doesn’t want him to watch it. At some point he is going to have to decide for himself which movies he should watch and which he shouldn’t, whether or not he gets to watch this one. So even more important that not watching the movie is the growth he is experiencing by learning how to discern good from evil.

I have always been open minded and have never had a problem with SSM. When the church came out with their position, it made me stop and think. I don’t think the important issue here is how you actually vote, but that the church has finally taken a stand. At some point the church has to take a position. And now they have. The question is, are we on the same page? I’m still working on that.

If Brigham Young said it, then it must be true. No question.

Well, I wouldn’t lose my head over it.

However, I recognize that the Church leaders did not fight civil unions at all. They did not fight civil benefit legislation at all. They aren’t fighting to criminalize homosexual activity. In fact, their official stance regarding homosexuality is more liberal than it has ever been. So, I’m left to ask why they are so adamant about gay marriage in CA.

I believe it has to be related to their status as prophets and seers. I can see very clear and compelling reasons why legalizing gay marriage and the attendant legal possibilities could have disastrous effects on society – especially in the way that sexual exploration could be encouraged and taught within public schools. I am not confident that such will be the case, but I certainly can envision it as a very reasonable conclusion. Given that fact, if I credit those whom I believe are prophets and apostles with any degree of ability to read the signs of the times and warn of future results of current actions, I am forced to consider that they might be correct in such an uncharacteristic mobilization.

Finally, our leaders were born within one generation of the near destruction of the Church – largely for daring to teach and practice a sexual code that differed from the societal norm. They understand that such a thing can happen in ways that a relative young buck like me simply doesn’t. It’s academic to me; their fathers and grandfathers were exiled and jailed as a result, and their temples were threatened directly. Calling concerns that something similar might happen in the future if we end up as the only entity fighting new societal sexual standards ridiculous and alarmist is not paying attention to our actual history. How can our leaders have any confidence that gay marriage won’t end up being the future polygamy – the weapon used to try to destroy the Church – especially if that weapon can be constructed and wielded by 5-9 individuals and not the will of the people?

I can’t fault the prophets and apostles for believing the legalization of gay marriage will lead to results that will be devastating to our society, even as I love my gay friends and want them to enjoy every civil right I enjoy. If I truly do accept them as prophets and seers, I must spend time and effort trying first to understand why their position might be the correct one – not automatically assuming it can’t be right. Since I can see very reasonable justifications, I believe I should follow their counsel in this case – realizing that the voice of the people should be the deciding factor for issues of sexual morality and the law.

I still have reservations about the issue – especially with regard to most of the arguments for the Proposition (which, I repeat, include some really stupid, ludicrous ones), but that doesn’t over-ride my belief that these men really are prophets, seers and revelators.

Queno and bbell, the lack of a letter directed to stake presidents and bishops in Washington state did not prevent some bishops from ripping a copy off the internet to read to their congregations, no doubt to great satisfaction by some and perplexing looks by others.

Should personal revelation trump prophetic counsel? I believe that depends on the revelation and the counsel, and that a decision to break stride should never be considered without extreme carefulness and humility.

Just a thought or two piggybacking off of this comment…..Were a decision to ‘break stride’ felt to have come via revelation, then the question is, what does that mean? From what I understand about personal revelation, it’s simply that — personal. It has its limits within the bounds of one’s personal life and journey. What concerns me is when people take personal revelation and generalize that for everyone else. “I don’t feel good about this, therefore the prophets must be wrong [implication is that they are wrong for everyone].” There is an order to how revelation works, and I don’t think that is it. :)

I fully believe that God takes us from where we are and helps us take our next steps toward growth and progression, and that may all look a little different for each of us. The leaders have acknowledged that there would be those who might not agree, and to me to this point have seemed to give people some measure of space to work through that. This is a hard, complex issue. But to me honestly struggling with the issue and not being sure if one could do anything at this point to support it is a whole lot different than coming out full force against the prophets, and using personal revelation as the justification for that. I just don’t think it works that way.

I think of Pres Eyring’s talk from this summer’s Ensign about safety in counsel. He compared counsel that we feel doesn’t fit (yet?) to sand that has the promise of gold. Rather than dismiss it as completely useless, he invites us to hold that counsel in our hands, and that we might discover gold flakes over time.

That is what this issue has been like for me. I started holding the sand in 2000. I didn’t ever really question the leaders’ position, but I didn’t really understand it, either. But I trusted them. Over the past eight years, I feel I have come to understand it so much better, and the pinnacle of that understanding came when I attended the broadcast done recently (portions of it are on YouTube). The question was asked what we have been promised with this. We have been promised the joy of knowing that we are defending the plan of salvation and possibly helping generations to come. I also think we could be helping stem the tide of calamities that could come if God’s plan is threatened (a la the Proclamation). Even there, they call upon citizens and govt officials everywhere to help promote measures that support the family as defined by prophets.

One more thought — I can understand people being concerned about the way the Church’s understanding about homosexuality has changed and grown over time. I think it’s important to consider, though, that in the end, their position is based not on sorting out all the details of homosexuality, but on the fundamental truths of the plan of salvation. No matter what, marriage between man and woman has always been a fundamental element of that plan, since the beginning of time (even in times of polygamy, the relationships were still heterosexual). And teaching and upholding that plan is a key part of the role of prophets. That and testifying of Christ. It doesn’t get much more basic than that. So I think as we weigh out their teachings, it’s important to consider how fundamental the teachings are. If they are musing about something like man on the moon (not really central to the plan of salvation) that’s one thing. If they are teaching about Christ or the plan, that’s wholly another. At least that is how I see it.

That line of questioning is incredibly compelling for the natural man. I’m not saying the question should never be asked, but I am saying it’s probably harder for me to ask it with pure intent than it is for the head honchos to keep their biases to a respectable minimum.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the directive is alloyed somewhat with “personal beliefs/cultural DNA.” But I’ve decided to give my leaders, rather than myself, the benefit of the doubt.

As for compromises, I’m sure you’ll come up with something. I have a close friend who will vote no on Prop 8., yet is obeying the directive to talk to non-members about the importance of voting yes. If I lived in California I would choose a different course, but I respect my friend for thoughtfully balancing her inner resolution with her outward obligation, per the letter.