In the News: “LDS Church wades into California traditional marriage case”

4 Responses to In the News: “LDS Church wades into California traditional marriage case”

1. Max Power says:

   February 25, 2008 at 11:46 pm

   There is no official church involvement in pushing the constitutional amendment yet.

   I hope it remains that way. If members want to do it of their own free choice, that’s fine by me. But, even though I am a fully active, fairly conservative member of the church, I don’t agree with the policy of denying the rights of married couples to committed, gay couples. I’d hate to get to the point where I had issues with my membership over something political like this.

   The article about the Danzig couple in the previous post here on NL had this statement in it:
   “There is room in the [LDS] Church for honest disagreement regarding church positions,” LDS Spokesman Scott Trotter said. “Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders.”

   What consititutes “open opposition”? Is open opposition only when I march in a gay rights parade, or when I tell my bishop that I won’t participate in the door-to-door canvassing (if that were to happen again) because I disagree with the political position? Open Opposition is very murkey water.

   Reply
2. Tito says:

   February 26, 2008 at 6:50 am

   I don’t believe marriage is a “right.” I do believe there are certain social benefits that are granted with marriage that are rights and that gay couples should have access to, but that doesn’t mean marriage itself is a right. Those benefits could be granted with domestic partnership laws.

   And I would suggest that privately disagreeing or even privately discussing concerns/opposing ideas with Church leaders is fine, or even refusing to participate in door-to-door canvassing, but when you start publishing op-eds in opposition to the Church, I think that pretty clearly constitutes “open opposition.”

   Reply
3. Max Power says:

   February 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm

   It’s easy to say what is clearly open opposition to the church. My concern is the unclear parts. How disagreeable to a position can I be before it’s too much?

   Reply
4. Socal says:

   February 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm

   I agree with the position that BYU took in response to Jeffrey Nielsen. If we he publicly writes an op-ed piece publicly opposing the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage then he should not expect to remained employed at a Church university. I can also respect the point-of-view that if a member of the Church orchestra also writes an op-ed piece, they may be asked to not participate in the official church orchestra. This is where I have a problem, though, when church officials begin to harass or openly question over and over again someone’s loyalty the church based on one opinion piece. Can we not disagree on an issue without it getting to the point where the word excommunication gets thrown around. If what this brother is saying is true and I don’t have any reason to doubt his version of the story, I don’t blame him for asking that his name be removed rather than having to go through the humiliation of a church disciplinary process. While I do not know all the facts surrounding the case, it does bother me that some ecclesiastical leaders feel the need to threaten the removal of one’s membership because he or she disagreed with one position the church has taken on one issue. To me, open defiance, refers to openly trying to destroy the Church or to directly advocate for other to engage in conduct that will affect their eternal well-being. This does not appear to have risen to that level. In my opinion, that is the only justification for excommunication of an intellectual nature.

   Reply