Sunday, September 28, 2008

Ranting

So IN CHURCH today I was told how to vote on Prop 102. Prop 102 in Arizona states that marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

Here's what I DON'T have a problem with:
  • The Church taking a moral stance.
  • Mormons, who have given this ample thought, voting yes on Prop 102.
  • People in general feeling differently from me. It's fine.
Here's what I DO have a problem with:
  • The Church taking a political stance: especially after saying they officially do not take a stance.
  • Mormons voting yes on Prop 102, for the sole reason that the Church told them so.
  • Being told in church that "they aren't telling us how to vote, but go vote yes on Prop 102." Contradictory? Out of line? In this Mormon Democrat blogger's opinion, yes.
  • Hearing fear tactics that are misleading. See this (fear tactics) but only if you then see this (a legal breakdown of the tactics).
  • Mormons taking a suggestion from the First Presidency and making it into Doctrine, capital "D". Again, in this Mormon Democrat blogger's opinion, it's not doctrine. Fortunately I was also at least told in today's (appalling) lesson at least, that we should ultimately vote on our conscience. I will.
Alrighty. Sorry if this offends, but it's my blog.

9 comments:

Nicole said...

Hi Kendahl, I find this most interesting because just today our bishop read a First Presidency message over the pulpit during sacrament meeting saying our leadership will not/should not instruct us on how to vote. Your teacher must not have gotten the message!

kendahl said...

I guess, sheesh. I think they're just keeping it hush hush officially, but they still turned around and told us how to vote. I know this has been happening in CA too. Also, I just got an email from my ward (they shouldn't be using my email information for political purposes) enlisting my help at a Yes on Prop 102 call center. Wow!

Hubers said...

I think you should have a conversation with your bishop. They shouldn't be using your email for political purposes.

I should make it clear that I do not agree with your stance. I also feel lucky that I don't have to vote on this.

One question I have about Arizona though is, does Arizona currently have the same discrimination laws that CA have for gay/lesbians?

I am eager to learn more.
Loves.

Nate and Kristen Millecam said...

HMMMMM....Interesting info provided which I thought was very insightful on how all to often we let fear rule our judgement. I suppose I'll add my two cents about what the church should and should not do on this issue. At the end of the day the church has taken a moral stance on homosexuality. My personal belief is that a prophet speaks for the Savior and Heavenly Father, and the Lord felt strong enough about this issue to have our prophet and the quorum of the 12 publish a document over a decade ago on this issue stating how marriage is defined. The proclomation on the family was sent out to government leaders, and multiple other institutions urging them to maintain certain family values which included its position on Marriage definitiion. Marriage defintion is a moral issue that unfortunately has been "politicized." Since the political process is how things are decided in this country, and the state is determining how it will define Marriage, then I believe the church should stand up for what it has published to government officials on how marriage is defined. I believe part of what makes democracy successful is strong institutions such as churches, charities, the press, ect. all having some influence in the political process (whether they intend to or not). Since the church is clear on where it stands on how marriage is defined, I want it to practice what it preaches by encouraging people not to define marriage in any platform(political or private) as a man and a man or woman and a woman. I don't how else you use your institution to support marriage definition of how you have defined it then educate people on the bill, explain what the church teaches(which I happen to believe what the Savior would teach), and tell people to vote their conscience. Our Bishop did a stellar job presenting it in this manner.

That being said I don't think anyone should be belitted, mistreated, or made to fear their way into a vote. If these tactics were used in your ward that is most regretable.

I myself voted against the Utah definition of Marriage as one man and one woman amendment back in 2005. Although I agreed with how the bill defined Marriage, I disagreed with the fine print which included discriminatory language denying basic civil rights to Homosexual and Lesbian couples. I happen to believe in agency very strongly, and my conscience would not allow anyone to be discriminated against for exercising their agency. I would have rather seen the Bill stick to the moral issue than make it a civil rights issue. Which begs the question, if Gay and Lesbian couples already have the same civil rights as regular couples(as your articles allude to) then why do they need the state to validate their relationship any further by defining it as a marriage?


Nate

kendahl said...

I'm glad that you were comfortable in your ward. I wasn't there, so I don't know how I would have felt by comparison. I think I was clear when I said that I don't have a problem with the church taking a moral stance, but I DO have a problem with their taking a political stance. Separation of church and state was non-existent in my ward today. I had to leave at the end.

I agree that it would be fine for the Church to educate people on the proposition in question. However, using tactics that were at best misleading, is pretty irresponsible. I have already linked them in my post, so take a look if you like. I really enjoyed the response link (by Morris Thurston).

kendahl said...

Summer,

I need to ask Ryan or another friend about discrimination laws in AZ, just to be sure. For now I don't know.

And yes, I will be contacting my bishop. I wrote an email back to the woman who sent it out saying that it was inappropriate for her to be using my private church information for political purposes.

She wrote back and said that she was truly sorry if she offended (I believe her), but that the only reason she emailed the whole ward in the first place was because the ward coordinators gave her permission on this issue only to use phone numbers and email to communicate about voter registration and assignments. My issue with that is: it's not just someone checking on whether or not I'm registered to vote, or whether or not I'm interested in an assignment. It's this: will I volunteer to work at the "Yes on 102" phone bank. Pretty specific. And PARTISAN. That's my point.

Hubers said...

Yes, I can see you point. And I too feel that using the church email (and phone system) is way out of line. (even for voter registration) I believe the church has made its stance and read a First Presidency letter over the pulpit. That should be the end of it.

I just copied this off my ward website membership list:
"Note: Information on this page is for Church use only and is not to be used for any commercial, business, or political purpose."

In my ward it was much like your friend Nicole's ward. Very appropriate, and to the point, and done in a single letter from the pulpit.

It sounds like some overzealous members in your ward have done some things that go against what the church would do. I don't think that the official church would ever use your information for such purposes.
I hope that you are not frustrated with the church because of what some people in your ward are doing. But I realize that it's hard to feel comfortable in our wards when things are not done appropriately.
I hope things pan out well and they correct their mistake!
(These are such sensitive issues that I'm sure it's hard for everyone not to get emotional over them. I feel emotional over them and I don't even get to vote on it!!!;-))
P.S. Keep me posted on what Ryan says the discrimination laws are.

kendahl said...

Hey Summer,
Ryan did know thankfully, and he said that AZ does NOT have the same protective discrimination laws as CA. Interesting, I didn't know that.

I'm glad you've been so understanding about all this. I know that I'm a minority in the Church with my views. I just want to be surrounded by more understanding folks like yourself :)

I'm not too worried about my ward. People can always make a difference if they are nice but firm, and that's my plan. I was kind to the person that emailed me, and I'm going to let my bishop know how I feel, but also in a loving way. I feel good about it :)

Brian Neesham said...

Hey you freaking liberal. I'm curious to hear what your bishop said. Call me if I don't talk to you first. Actually i'll probably call you while Vaughn is in the bath. I like what Nate said about agency and what not. You know how I feel about the CA law and being discriminatory, etc. I want to hear what your leadership said.

Solo.
p.s. I talked with Doug Harris today for like a hot one to tell him how V is a total spitball punk!!