THEY BASICALLY, SORT OF, KINDA, IN A WAY, IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A FUNNY ANGLE AND SQUINT YOUR EYES IN A ROOM THAT’S GOT POOR LIGHTING, ASKED FOR THE CHURCH’S SANCTION!
C’mon, Minty, you’ve got a weak argument. An intelligent legislature is one that wants to know if a certain measure is A: worth working for and B: would have the approval of the populace. They could gain those two points of knowledge by either looking at costly, time-consuming polls… or they could write a single letter to a single entity and get a single answer back within the hour.
Well it could fairly replace a poll if the Church reflected popular approval. I fear they asked for the church’s direction because they knew it would direct popular opinion. Some could look at it as a way of squashing dissenting Mormon views. Remember that many Mormons believed that the firing squad was necessary; the Mormon head office was asked to tell them that they were wrong.
And as has been mentioned it is not all that costly to have some public input sessions, where the Church could make it’s views known like everybody else. People can then decide how much weight to give it accordingly. Why is this so hard to understand?
Mmm, I’m going to have to disagree with that description. First, the Church was asked to clarify a point of doctrine; whether or not ‘blood atonement’ is considered necessary by the Church. It isn’t. Mormons are still free to think that firing squads and the shedding of blood is important; they just shouldn’t be under the false impression that it is Church doctrine. The Church doesn’t tell them whether or not they are wrong about blood atonement; it just tells them that they are mistaken in thinking that to be Church doctrine.
Second, very few Mormons, AFAIK, do believe that firing squads are necessary. (As above, I’ve never lived in Utah, but I’ve also never heard anyone say they did believe that, nor has anyone I’ve asked. I’ve heard a lot of folk beliefs, but this one is pretty rare, and usually comes up in anti-LDS literature or in urban legends about Mormons.)
LDS people think all kinds of things that aren’t official doctrine; the problem is when someone thinks that something is doctrine when it is not. Or vice versa. Otherwise, we’re perfectly free to have opinions all over the place without being squashed (and believe me, we do…). People can still complain about the idea of getting rid of firing squads; they just can’t claim that the Mormon Church is officially on their side.
As I said, I’m pretty convinced that the committee already knew what the situation was, and simply wished to circumvent protests based on the erroneous idea that the LDS Church stood by firing squads. I bet someone called up the Church Office and said, “Look, we know you’re not going to care about this, but a lot of people don’t know that, so why don’t we get it all down in writing nice and clear, and then the waters won’t get muddied with mistaken ideas?” Not a particularly good idea, perhaps, but certainly not asking for Church approval or sanction.
Finally, Monty, I and others have asked you before to cool down. I wish you would.
And I wish you would pull your head out, genie. In other words: keep your advice to yourself. It’s not welcome as you are in error now in your appraisal of me now and you were in error when you gave me that “advice” earlier. I’m perfectly cool.
Additionally genie: Books along with others have lied about me. They are not telling the truth. To hell with them. I will coddle their stunts. I view your “advice” as coddling. I see you blaming me for not coddling. Again, not interested in your so-called advice.
On this first point, I believe getting out official doctrine is the Church’s business. If they haven’t bothered to spell it out for their flock then why should the government ask them to?
Well I thought that was the reason why they asked the Church’s opinion in the first place. If there are so few then why the need to “circumvent protests” as you describe in the quote below.
That’s actually my read on the situation as well and it sure doesn’t replace a poll/public hearing, imo. Propriety would require soliciting many opinions on the law at the same time.
What fascinates me is the bias in the original article: “Mormon Church OKs change.” The Church responded to a query. As far as anyone can tell, the issue in front of the legislature has not been put to rest and therefore there may be more opinions solicited, and even perhaps some from other group leaders.
But “The Legislature asked for information” isn’t as “sexy” a story as “The Mormons are Running the Government.”
Church doctrine is pretty easily found; here is the online version. You can see that we have the scriptures, statements from the prophet, Church curricula, and magazines. However, you also kind of have to understand how the LDS Church works. We haven’t got a professional clergy, and lessons are taught by ordinary, and largely untrained, members of the congregation (I taught the teenage girls yesterday). There are manuals to teach the lessons, but they aren’t always precisely stuck to. It’s remarkably easy for a teacher to put in odd personal opinions. They aren’t supposed to, but it happens quite a bit anyway.
The Church does not spend a whole lot of time telling members what isn’t doctrine. So ‘blood atonement’ just hasn’t been mentioned in Church books, and some people have stuck to it anyway. It’s amazing what some people have stuck to, actually. I’m sure there are some few people who do think that issue is important, and there seem to be others (non-LDS, that is) who just think it’s something Mormons do believe and so bring it up a lot. Those are the people the Utah committee is likely to hear from. As I’m sure you know, a tiny but vocal minority can make itself heard pretty loudly when it wants to!
Here , by the way and in case you care, is the most basic text of LDS doctrine, called Gospel Principles. It’s used in Sunday School classes for new converts. IIRC, it was compiled by the man who is now President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley.
They ask for “clarification”, and the Mormon Church “clarifies” that they are against the change. If they would have decided not to proceed forward soley because of what one religious organization believes, how is that materially different from asking for an Official Mormon Seal of Approval™?
Well, if that what-if you postulated had actually happened, then you’d have a case. As it is, it didn’t, so it’s pretty well…what’s the word?..oh, yeah, irrelevant speculation.
Monty is probably right. If the Mormon Church was against something the Utah legislature wouldn’t even be considering it.
Thanks for the links genie but reading that stuff kinda creeps me out. Nothing stands out in the table of contents that would discuss blood atonement and I really can’t force myself to plod through it. If you have a link directly to the section discreditting blood atonement I’ll give it a look.
It is still inapproprtiate imho to request clarification of Church doctrine before moving on legislation. To us non-Mormons it sure smells like approval.
Let’s suppose for a minute that you are on the commission addressing this legislation. Some people have written letters indicating that they are certain that the shedding of blood is required according to LDS doctrine. You think it isn’t part of LDS doctrine but aren’t 100% sure. Whether or not it is against LDS doctrine is very important factor in determining the likelihood of the legislation passing. What do you do at this point?
Since you are so vociferous in your opposition to whats occurred I assume you aren’t going to ask the church leadership for their official position. Do you canvas numerous religious and secular organizations in Utah for their position even though, as a matter of course, it’s only the official LDS position which can kill this legislation? If you do so, knowing that the opinions of these other organizations aren’t influential, isn’t that an exercise just for show?
What if you do poll all of these groups and it comes back as: All others for, LDS church against? Even though church members don’t vote as one large monolithic block, let’s assume that for this hypothetical scenario that they are such is the weight of the official LDS position. Do you still attempt to get the legislation passed?
Grim_Beaker not to speak for minty and with all due respect: your “supposition” is exactly the case at hand and I have no doubt that minty green has considered it.
They could have looked it up in published doctrines themselves, they could have found out when they held public discussion, or they could have not given a shit about whether it was LDS doctrine or not. The only thing the government should worry about with the LDS is what kind of political power they will bring to bear on the legislation. That should come out during normal debate on the issue.
I have no doubt minty has considered it as well. Though that’s likely the case, IMO he hasn’t really addressed the practical realities of the situation. Yes, he may have very well opted to do what you have suggested (hold an open debate on the topic). This is fine as far as it goes in that it avoids the appearance of impropriety. However, in this case, it’s a pretty much substanceless maneuver (since only the official LDS position is really decisive). In any case I’d still like to hear from minty about how he would personally handle the realities of the situation (including the hypothetical situation of all the other groups being for the legislation and the church being against). Your input, though, is still appreciated.
Easy: Invite public comment. If the Church is interested in commenting, then they can comment along with everybody else. What I would not do is to single out a religious organization and seek its approval/authorization/moral authority/whatever to the exclusion of every other individual and organization in the state.