Posted on 04/25/2006 11:31:45 AM PDT by Utah Girl
An LDS official and 49 religious leaders from around the country have signed a letter that calls for a U.S. constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Members of Utah's gay and lesbian community called the letter, written on behalf of the Religious Coalition for Marriage, a political "distraction" and hurtful.
Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, signed on behalf of the LDS Church. The letter is intended to help sway the U.S. Senate, which is expected to vote in June on a resolution that calls for the marriage amendment.
The LDS Church joined other religious bodies and leaders in signing the letter "to protect and preserve the institution of marriage between a man and a woman," according to a church statement on its Web site at www.lds.org.
The statement went on to advise LDS Church members to be civil and respectful of each other when participating in public debate on moral, social and political issues that can become "divisive."
LDS Church spokesman Dale Bills declined comment Monday. Bills referred questions to the church's statement on its Web site.
While only one of 50 signatures on the letter was an LDS leader, 16 were Catholic bishops and archbishops.
The large turnout for the Catholic Church follows a vote last month by the Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to reaffirm its support of a federal marriage amendment. In 2003 the committee issued the statement, "Promote, Preserve, Protect Marriage."
The LDS Church has previously aired its opinion on marriage in the document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Read publicly in 1995 by LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, the proclamation says, "Marriage between a man and a woman is essential to his eternal plan" and that children should be reared by a father and mother.
The recent letter from religious leaders is posted at www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org. The letter is intended to sway the Senate in favor of the resolution for the "Marriage Protection Amendment."
The resolution calls for a constitutional amendment that would provide a national definition of marriage. The Senate is expected to vote a second time on the resolution June 6. The resolution passed the House but failed once before in the Senate. Approval by the Senate would send the resolution to voters for a final say.
"We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society," the letter reads.
Signatures on the letter include leaders from the Baptist, Episcopal, Greek Orthodox and Lutheran churches, two rabbis and officials from religious groups like Focus on the Family, led by founder James Dobson. A complete list of signers is posted on the Web site for the Religious Coalition for Marriage.
A federal amendment would echo what took place in Utah in 2004, when 66 percent of voters passed Amendment 3, which changed the Utah Constitution to specifically ban gay marriages.
Utah's only gay state senator, Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, said the recent letter is an attempt by Republicans to rescue their "pitiful" place in the polls right now by pandering to their right-wing, religious-fundamentalist base.
"Honestly, that's what this is about," McCoy said Monday. "This is an attempt at electoral distraction."
McCoy added that for every church represented on the letter, there is a faction of that church that believes the exact opposite.
Inactive LDS members Millie and Gary Watts co-chair Family Fellowship, a support and education group for an estimated 1,700 LDS families with gay and lesbian members. The Watts are parents of six children, including a gay son and lesbian daughter.
"I feel badly that the (LDS) church has to again re-emphasize its belief that marriage is between a man and a woman," Millie Watts said. "It hurts. It may unite other families, but it hurts my family."
Rather than frown upon gay relationships, Watts would like to see society and its churches spend more time on encouraging monogamy and helping to fortify relationships, gay or otherwise.
Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, said she wasn't surprised by the recent letter. "I wish that we would pay more attention to helping people than hurting people," she said.
Larabee said the letter contributes toward gay and lesbian people not being treated equally. "If you alter the Constitution," she added, "you're not going to have equality."
It was "revealed" to JS in 1831. He didn't practice it until 1843, but some sources say 1833.
All depends if you're talking about time [LDS say "no" here"], once upon a time [obviously yes, from the original leaders on down], or eternity [another "yes"--something LDS common folk don't want non-LDS common folk to understand].
In other words, LDS believe in past-tense polygamy, future-tense spiritual polygamy. They just frown on present-tense polygamy.
Me too! It's fascinating to watch the interplay between the husband and three wives, which strikes me as realistic. The wives never have enough of his time or attention; he's struggling to earn enough to support three households and to satisfy each wife.
When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it might be driven by the LDS' strong objections to the show. According to my lapsed-LDS neighbor, the church prophets (if that's the right word) have put out a call to all Mormons to write to HBO protesting the show.
Mr. Cat and I are addicted to this show. I believe it about the call to arms to write HBO. I had an email from an LDS friend of mine all about it. I don't have the heart to tell her that we like it!
HBO won't care about protests but they DO care about ratings. Don't ya love the symbolism at the opening when they are all sitting at the table on a "planet"?
btw, I love the "affair" with his first wife! The whole show makes my head spin!
Recently saw a documentary on one of the polygamous groups that live on a compound....I believe the show is modeled after this group. Anyway, they interviewed many of the women and men and it comes VERY close to "Big Love".
"Do they bug ya?"
Only when they're marching down the street in leather chaps with a sparkler sticking out of their butt shouting "I'm normal, respect me"!
Pray tell. Please answer: Contrary to what Jesus said ("At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven"--Matthew 22:30), do not LDS believe that since "families are forever"--in other words, intact forever, that LDS folks are "still practicing" polygamy in eternity right now? Yes or no?
Since eternity knows no time boundaries, how can polygamy be a past doctrine, a future-tense doctrine, and a present-tense spiritual doctrine [since polygamous folks live in eternity co-adjacent to us in another dimension] and still it is somehow almost "anathema" on the present-tense physical/social level?
How many thousands of women have been sealed to LDS men "for eternity?" And, does this sealing still go on even among those inside the LDS church?
I'm glad I'm not the only one! I can't wait to find out how Bill's going to deal with Roman. Can't post any more right now, though--gotta go to work (sigh).
Most excellent question, Colofornian.
LDS know the only reason polygamy isn't practiced now. It wasn't any "revelation" either!
I've heard Utah is 70% LDS. So, Mr. McCoy was not elected without the help of LDS voters. It'd be interesting to find what his level of support was among LDS.
Plural marriage has been outlawed in the church for over 100 years and is an excommunicable offense today. Bring yourself up to date and please let wisdom and knowledge replace your shallow and illfounded attempt at religious humor.
But, if you're an LDS in eternity taking to yourself additional wives who were "sealed" to you for eternity, it's not only something that will not get you excommunicated from your degree of glory, it's actually something prominently practiced in that spiritual dimension by LDS men-turned-gods [like Joseph, Brigham, and all the rest of the now-deceased polygamous general authorities], right?
The founder of your religion, and writer of your canon books was an ardent polygamist. And that's less than 170 years ago...hardly a blink in religious history.
135 years without polygamy isn't a very long time at all.
Small "o" orthodox Christians however have for 2,000 years frowned on polygamy...forbidding it expressly for Church leadership in the Bible (I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6) and historically forbidding it even for lay persons from the 4th Century onwards....meaning Smith could not have held any leadership post in any Church--nor even membership there for the last 1600 years or so. How can one breaking the New Testament command on polygamy--and firmly teaching others do do so too--be considered a true prophet?
It's actually less than 120 years since the edict came down. Also, remember that polygamous families weren't banned from the church; just the official act itself. So LDS polygamous families were still widely intact well into the 1900s--less than a century ago. I mean there's an awful lot of baby boomers whose grandparents were born within polygamous families...so that's not so long ago.
Many others have written about "less official" LDS polygamous marriage rites that were conducted on a case by case basis, though not publicly condoned, in the 1890s and on into the 20th century.
Thanks for the comments. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have worked hard to pass initiatives across America to preserve marriage to be between a man and a woman. We have worked in conjunction with our friends and neighbors and with other faiths who have the goal: to preserve traditional marriage.
There are places in Utah where it is still practiced. There are Mormon sects that still do it (although not officially.)
...did I EVER say anything was wrong with polygamy? I was making a joke.
Now get over yourself.
OOOO! Wow! I didn't know that. Thank you so much for that information.
Is there any other laws of left wing political correctness I should be observing now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.