This post will remain at the forefront of our site until 5 Nov. 2008. However, we will continue to post new articles in the meantime, so don’t forget to scroll down and see what’s new!
On 4 Nov. 2008, California citizens will vote on whether to add a new amendment to the state constitution. Only fourteen words long, if Proposition 8 passes, the amendment will read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”1
Why would we bother to bring this up on an LDS philosophy website? Because the First Presidency said to members in California last June, “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”2
We’re a very small website with a very small readership, and we may not make a huge difference when compared to other venues. But when the prophet speaks, we’re covenant-bound to hearken. So we’ve decided that in addition to our regular articles, from now until the vote on November 4, we will place links and information on this page to help members of the Church become more informed and better able to fulfill the prophet’s call to “do all you can” to help this legislation pass.
Articles
First Presidency letter
The Divine Institution of Marriage
ProtectMarriage.com
Some actual consequences
Videos
Church broadcast to LDS California citizens living out-of-state (4:05)
Prop 8 consequences foreshadowed in Massachusetts (6:49)
Bloggers
Connor Boyack on Prop 8
A Modest Lifestyle Proposal, a satire. What if the arguments for the homosexual lifestyle were used to promote eating disorders? New
A Modest Agenda Proposal, part 2 of a satire. New
Notes
1. Molly Hennessy-Fiske, “Opponents of gay marriage see hope in ballot measure,” Los Angeles Times, 16 May 2008.
2. First Presidency, “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families, First Presidency letter, 29 Jun. 2008.
Jeff Thayne
Nathan Richardson
7 Comments
October 13, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Thank you for taking your covenants seriously and not fighting against the prophet like some other Mormon-themed blogs do.
October 13, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I think we need to let this messages in some forums and yes we need to do all we can..and tell friends about this Article…..and yes some blogs fight a lot against the Prophet. But this web Its awesome, and have respect.
October 14, 2008 at 11:45 am
Nodymb1, I know what you mean. I’ve been perusing the net for the last week or so, and it makes me sad how many Latter-day Saints so casually dismiss the united counsel of the fifteen prophets, seers, and revelators. Some posts are breathtaking with how cavalierly the Church member discounts the prophets’ words as mere opinion.
I really hope such people reevaluate where they stand, because that is very shaky ground to be on. If we don’t follow the prophets when they give clear directives, then when do we follow them? It reminds me of when Spencer W. Kimball said, “Even in the Church, many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterday’s prophets and mentally stone the living ones” (source).
October 14, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Thank you Nathan and Jeff. We are fighting a battle here in California as real as anything I have ever seen. We have to bring our pro–Prop 8 signs in every night because of the certain theft during the night. So much for tolerance! We know that what we are fighting for is what the Lord wants us to do. The focus is on defining marriage being between a man and a woman. It is not an anti-gay crusade. All we want is for the sanctity of marriage between and a woman to be honored.
October 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Here is a very helpful site that explains some common concerns and misconceptions about Prop 8. One of the best ones I’ve come across.
http://www.truthaboutprop8.com/Fact-Fiction.html
Let me know what you guys think!!!
October 21, 2008 at 12:28 am
Jeff and Nathan,
First, let me say that I am in support of passing Proposition 8 and I am in support of Church members assisting in this effort.
One little thing, though, that I think should be clarified — and I would encourage you to make this correction in the post, but it’s up to you.
The First Presidency message that you are referring to was for Latter-day Saints in California only. This is significant. It means that non-California residents were not asked to do all they can and to donate of their means and time to support the amendment. It also means that non-California residents are not “covenant-bound to hearken.” I think when you say this you are saying too much — more than the Brethren are. If the First Presidency intended for these instructions to be to all church members, they would have given them to all church members. (Unless when you say “we,” you are referring to simply yourselves and you are both California residents; even then, you may be misleading people, especially those not of our faith.)
That being said, it certainly is appropriate for non-California residents to help out in certain ways. But we ought to refrain from suggesting that non-California Latter-day Saints are “covenant-bound” to do so. Or give others the impression that this is the case.
October 22, 2008 at 5:50 pm
[...] California Marriage Amendment Latter-day Saint Philosopher – October 13, 2008 [...]