The Gay Response To The First Presidency's Call
Not surprisingly, the gay community had no trouble figuring out what the First Presidency's letter meant. The Deseret News reports today that Utah gay and lesbian activists intend to use this weekend's "Utah Pride" celebration to oppose the Church's most recent call to support traditional marriage, between a man and a woman.
I find it ironic how many in the "bloggernacle" have wrung their hands so hard over the meaning and intent of the First Presidency's letter that they've essentially tied themselves into knots over this issue. The "Brethren's" meaning doesn't seem to be very lost on the gay pride community.
One final thought. I've always been intrigued by the use of the term pride in this context. It reminds me of the use of the word pride in another ancient context as well. But hey . . . what do Prophets, Seers, and Revelators know anyway?
In an e-mail to about 4,000 people on Tuesday, Jere Keys, coordinator of Utah Pride, asked those joining the Utah Pride Celebration to "send a message for fairness and equality" to their elected officials by expressing their opposition to a proposed federal marriage amendment to ban same-sex marriage.Let's not be coy here Jere. When you send an email to about 4,000 gay and lesbian activists saying jump, you too want them to jump just as high as you claim LDS members are jumping. Please--as if trying to communicate your message somehow vitiates the message!
The e-mail was in response to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency statement reaffirming its support of the proposed marriage amendment, which the Senate could debate and vote on next week.
"Let's not be coy, when the LDS Church says jump, thousands of Utahns ask 'how high?' " Keys' e-mail said.
The church's statement, which was to have been read Sunday to congregations throughout the United States, said in part, "We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate."
Keys said as many as 20,000 people could attend the annual Utah Pride Celebration in downtown Salt Lake City on Sunday and predicted more will watch the Pride Parade.So, it's ok for the gay and lesbian folk to "get involved" but not the LDS folk? Does the First Amendment only protect gay and lesbian activists and their message? I think not Jere.
"I think it is important that people get involved," he said. "There is a real difference that can be made. . . . We are a large and thriving community."
I find it ironic how many in the "bloggernacle" have wrung their hands so hard over the meaning and intent of the First Presidency's letter that they've essentially tied themselves into knots over this issue. The "Brethren's" meaning doesn't seem to be very lost on the gay pride community.
One final thought. I've always been intrigued by the use of the term pride in this context. It reminds me of the use of the word pride in another ancient context as well. But hey . . . what do Prophets, Seers, and Revelators know anyway?
posted by Guy Murray at 5:30 AM
7 Comments:
RT: Thanks for your comment. I intend to respond; but, I've got one of those days that are just jam packed at the office--so it will have to wait until later tonight.
I don't agree that the proclamation has many loopholes. While it does not say the word homosexuality it does say:
'We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.'
This is pretty clear to anyone who is not going out of their way to ignore what is said and create loopholes. Also there are many things of great significance in the Proclamation, doctrinal clarification on many levels. To characterise the PotF as being against homosexuality and nothing else is beyond my ability to understand.
I'm not as smart or as sophisticated as some, but my feeling is that the texts should be read as is, without forcing ambiguity. Clarity on what was said and it's intent will lead to less difficulty in the future.
Anyway, nice post Guy.
The text refers to 'powers of procreation' not just 'procreation'.
Anyway, thanks for the history lesson. I was not aware of that.
Nonetheless, "powers of procreation" is a loophole, in that it can be read narrowly or broadly. If they had instead used language like "sexual relations," the loophole would be closed.
I don't think the existence of these loopholes is deliberate; it's probably a result of the semi-bureaucratic process of producing these statements. But it is the case that the loopholes are there for people who want them.
RT: If you mean people are hoping to find loopholes in the anticipation of rationalizing not supporting the marriage amendment as the "Brethren" have counseled, I think I would agree with that statement.
I'm not sure I agree with your second point about the sophistication of the rationalization to be to ameliorate some future change in Church doctrine. I'm not a Church historian by any stretch; however, I've been around the Church for over half a century. I've heard statements supporting your suggestion that some earlier members, and even brethren held antagonistic views toward the real Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 60's. (Note I do not in any way consider gay rights movement to equate with this Civil Rights movement.)
Where I have trouble is with your seeming equation that the earlier opposition to the Civil Rights movement is or was on the same level as the Church's current opposition to gay marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong; but, I don't recall any unanimous statements or letters read in Sacrament meetings over the signature of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.
I also think the Church's opposition to gay marriage and lifestyle is deeply rooted in the laws of chastity, long a sacred covenant and critical commandment since the beginning of time.
So, I don't see any change coming toward homosexuality and its concurrent lifestyle in the same vein as there was a mellowing of Church leaders' attitudes toward the Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's.
Any document will contain a certain amount of ambiguity; but, I don't believe the "Brethren" purposefully try to craft documents setting forth official Church policy/doctrine that are ambiguous or misleading in any way. I believe they try to make their pronouncements as clear and plain as possible.
That said, I do agree with your analysis that if you look for the loopholes you are likely to find them; but, the plain and clear meaning of this particular letter I think is obvious. Of course reasonable minds differ.
Eric: Thanks. I think you and I are pretty much on the same page on this one.
Guy:
You're welcome.
RT:
I think 'powers of procreation' has always been used in the church to mean sexual relations. I think the unfortunate thing is in our politically correct times being tactful may be problematic. But I still think any misinterpreting the PotF on these lines is deliberate.
Post a Comment
<< Home