What I didn't like about the Church's newsroom release

[scottie]

This didn't sit too well with me (copied and pasted from the LDS.org release):

“In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he "was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ." In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.”

The issues I have:

1. Is the part I bolded strong enough of an argument/position to make mention of in their news release? That feels to me the Church is throwing up their hands saying, “Hey, we never told him to do that”, taking zero responsibilty (NOTE: I'm not saying they should take any responsiblity, but I don't like that they make a point of saying they weren't responsible). What Church member would have not taken what the Church encouraged us to do back then as to write in supporting the amendment? -- the Church is against same gender marriage; Church sends out a letter to be read from the pulpit asking its members to write to senators with their views re: the amendment; the members are then to interpret that as “I should say whatever I want about the amendment to my senator”?

2. If the Church was okay with us saying whatever we wanted to our senators, why did they send the letter out in the first place? I guess you could try saying the Church’s intent was to make sure senators knew how their constituents felt about the amendment, but do you really believe that was the intent? Maybe it was.

3. If the Church specifically did not request support or opposition to the amendment, is that indirectly saying the Church doesn’t have a position on same gender marriage? and therefore if I’m employed by the LDS Church (BYU professor, orchestra member, etc.) shouldn’t I be able to openly support SGM without any risk to my Church job/membership?

Bottom line for me is I wish the Church hadn't released that. And sorry to beat a dead horse.

[MikeWaters]

"Get politically involved in this issue, and we don't tell you which way to go, but if you get public with your involvement, and it isn't for a certain side of the issue, watch out."

That's a nice message to send to the members. It is the opposite of leadership.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"Get politically involved in this issue, and we don't tell you which way to go, but if you get public with your involvement, and it isn't for a certain side of the issue, watch out."

That's a nice message to send to the members. It is the opposite of leadership.

I didn't like that part either. Seemed pretty dishonest. Actually seemed pretty Tex-like, which scares me.

church member: "I can't do what the church wants me to do and support the marriage ammendment."

church/Tex: "Actually we didn't tell you to support the marriage ammendment. We just told you to be politically active about it."

church member: ?? scratches his head, "I could have sworn the church said to support marriage ammendment" goes back to search the archives and finds though the tone is obvious, it was technically never written that way...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I didn't like that part either. Seemed pretty dishonest. Actually seemed pretty Tex-like, which scares me.

I think you mean Cali-Coug-like.

[woot]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I didn't like that part either. Seemed pretty dishonest. Actually seemed pretty Tex-like, which scares me.

church member: "I can't do what the church wants me to do and support the marriage ammendment."

church/Tex: "Actually we didn't tell you to support the marriage ammendment. We just told you to be politically active about it."

church member: ?? scratches his head, "I could have sworn the church said to support marriage ammendment" goes back to search the archives and finds though the tone is obvious, it was technically never written that way...

So is it safe to say they handled it this way in order to retain tax-exempt status, or is this all the enthusiasm they can muster for that old "agency" thing?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"Get politically involved in this issue, and we don't tell you which way to go, but if you get public with your involvement, and it isn't for a certain side of the issue, watch out."

That's a nice message to send to the members. It is the opposite of leadership.

the world the prophet and the 12 apostles are up in the night and not very Christ-like and hypocrits? In addition, from what I remember, the Danzig's removed themselves from the church, not the other way around.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"Get politically involved in this issue, and we don't tell you which way to go, but if you get public with your involvement, and it isn't for a certain side of the issue, watch out."

That's a nice message to send to the members. It is the opposite of leadership.

You hit on the point that bothers me the most.

The church in that statement is taking the position that members were encouraged to write their senators and representatives to urge them to take a position on the marriage amendment, but that the position taken was not dictated by the church.

Clearly, the church, if their statement is true, was interested in seeing more political involvement by the members on the issue, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION THEY TOOK ON THE ISSUE.

So, what is the qualitative difference between writing a legislator, urging them to take a position AGAINST the church's position versus attempting to gain political support from others who live in your congressional district to uphold YOUR position by publishing an article in a newspaper?

Am I to accept that I can ask a public figure to take public action (legislation) on a position in opposition to the church's stance but I can't ask anyone else to agree with me in public?

If that is the case, what is my LDS representative supposed to do? Can he not say anything in opposition to the church's stance? If he can't, why am I being asked to write to him to urge him to do something the church will prohibit him from doing? And if the legislator CAN take a position publicly in opposition to the church's stance, why can't the Danzigs?

It is very disingenuous of the church to make the argument they are making in that press release.

[splitbamboo]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If that is the case, what is my LDS representative supposed to do? Can he not say anything in opposition to the church's stance?

I think he can. But in Danzig's case he tried to use his link to the Orchestra as a stick. In sense, an abuse of "power."

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You hit on the point that bothers me the most.

The church in that statement is taking the position that members were encouraged to write their senators and representatives to urge them to take a position on the marriage amendment, but that the position taken was not dictated by the church.

Clearly, the church, if their statement is true, was interested in seeing more political involvement by the members on the issue, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION THEY TOOK ON THE ISSUE.

So, what is the qualitative difference between writing a legislator, urging them to take a position AGAINST the church's position versus attempting to gain political support from others who live in your congressional district to uphold YOUR position by publishing an article in a newspaper?

Am I to accept that I can ask a public figure to take public action (legislation) on a position in opposition to the church's stance but I can't ask anyone else to agree with me in public?

If that is the case, what is my LDS representative supposed to do? Can he not say anything in opposition to the church's stance? If he can't, why am I being asked to write to him to urge him to do something the church will prohibit him from doing? And if the legislator CAN take a position publicly in opposition to the church's stance, why can't the Danzigs?

It is very disingenuous of the church to make the argument they are making in that press release.

Good post.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by scottie

This didn't sit too well with me (copied and pasted from the LDS.org release):

“In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he "was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ." In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.”

The issues I have:

1. Is the part I bolded strong enough of an argument/position to make mention of in their news release? That feels to me the Church is throwing up their hands saying, “Hey, we never told him to do that”, taking zero responsibilty (NOTE: I'm not saying they should take any responsiblity, but I don't like that they make a point of saying they weren't responsible). What Church member would have not taken what the Church encouraged us to do back then as to write in supporting the amendment? -- the Church is against same gender marriage; Church sends out a letter to be read from the pulpit asking its members to write to senators with their views re: the amendment; the members are then to interpret that as “I should say whatever I want about the amendment to my senator”?

I suspect its bolded for the benefit of the IRS. Otherwise they are a political advocacy group rather than a church. "Say what you feel (wink, nudge)"