"The Prophet has some words for you..."

So...when the Prophet gives us counsel...what do YOU do? I was intrigued, amazed, appauled, and inquisitive by the remarks made by a BYU Professor concerning recent counsel of the Prophet...this was further magnified by how he started his comments with, "The leaders of MY church..." I believe that everyone can have and express their own opinions (AOF #11)...I just found it so interesting that these comments came from an "active" member of the Church...How can you "sustain" one moment, and "reject" in another? Where does faith in our Prophet fall with free-agency and free-thought? Do you live your life by the Gospel, or try to tailor the Gospel to fit your life?

LDS authority and gay marriage Jeffrey Nielsen

The leaders of my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently spoke out against gay marriage and asked members to encourage their U.S. senators to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage. As a member, I sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as LDS general authorities; however, I reject the premise that they are thereby immune from thoughtful questioning or benevolent criticism. A perfect God does not require blind obedience, nor does He need unthinking loyalty. Freedom of conscience is a divine blessing, and our privilege to express it is a moral imperative. When the church hierarchy speaks on a public issue and requests that members follow, it is difficult indeed if an individual feels the content of their message would make bad law and is unethical as well. I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral. Currently the preponderance of scientific research strongly suggests that same-sex attraction is biologically based. Therefore, it is as natural as a heterosexual orientation, even if rare. It seems it might be caused by environmental conditions in the mother's womb, before birth, triggering the DNA to give the fetus a homosexual orientation. Neither the mother nor the child has any choice in the matter; it is a completely natural process. Truly, God would be unjust if He were the creator of a biological process that produced such uncommon, yet perfectly natural results, and then condemned the innocent person to a life of guilt, while denying him or her the ordinary privileges and fulfillment of the deep longing in all of us for family and a committed, loving relationship. Even if the scientific evidence does not yet establish this beyond reasonable doubt, it seems that virtuous moderation and loving kindness require us to exercise caution before making constitutionally binding discrimination against a whole class of people based only on fear and superstition. In fact, when we examine the statements opposing gay marriage, we find few reasonable arguments. It is not enough to claim that we should oppose gay marriage because historically it has never been recognized. This is the fallacy of appealing to tradition, which was also used to fight against civil rights and equal treatment of women. Further, to say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear. Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim. How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage. Ultimately, any appeal to religious authority to create law is misplaced. Our Founding Fathers were inspired by their study of history to separate constitutional authority from religious belief, recognizing as they did the potential for tyranny in unchecked religious influence. In our pluralistic democracy, attempting to restrict an individual's rights and privileges based upon a religious claim is a dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers' wise insight, and it should be unacceptable to all Americans. As for the statement by church leaders that God has ordained marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, I find it quite troubling. It sidesteps the role of polygamy in past and future church teachings. It seems to me that if church leaders at one point in time, not very long ago, told members that the union of one man with several women was important for eternal salvation, but now leads them to believe that God only recognizes the union of one man to one woman, then some explanation is required. (I am not endorsing polygamy.) God is not the author of incoherence or injustice, but we humans often are. We in the LDS Church must be more honest about our history, including the past and future practice of polygamy in our official doctrine. This will be difficult, for it will reveal that we have been less than truthful in our public relations, and it will show our inconsistency with current statements opposing gay marriage. We can no longer afford to teach only what is useful and hope people won't discover what is true. In this day of easy Internet access, a person can find more real history of the LDS Church in 30 minutes online than the same person would in a lifetime studying approved church materials. This is not right. Too many individuals have suffered a loss of faith when they were forced to choose between the truth or their family after innocently discovering the discrepancy between genuine history and the official story of the church. We need to trust the membership of the church and treat them as adults, as equals. We are a church of brothers and sisters, not one of the few privileged leaders and the many subordinate followers. There might be a diversity of roles and responsibilities from prophet to Sunday School teacher, but we are all peers with one another and equally irreplaceable in God's thoughts and affections.

In today's paper, there's more...
Nielsen has more questions

Opposition to same-sex marriage isn't the only LDS Church stand Jeffrey Nielsen questions. The part-time Brigham Young University instructor, who will not be rehired for contradicting church statements, said he wants to address other moral and social issues. He urges church leaders to:
* Commission BYU scientists to investigate the nature of the current scientific understanding of same-sex attraction.
* State clearly the the church's position on the past denial of priesthood to blacks.
* Clarify the nature of polygamous teachings in the church, both past and future.
* Reveal "real membership numbers" and churchwide activity rates.
* Allow worthiness interviews between church leaders and teenage members to occur only in the presence of a parent or guardian.
* Permit nonmember or non-tithe-paying parents to attend their children's LDS temple weddings.

I believe in everyone's right to make their own decisions and choices, and that no one is to be the judge of anyone but God. I personally believe we have a living Prophet for a reason (MANY reasons...), and while I believe everyone has their "free-agency," I wish those that call themselves "members" would try to live what they claim to believe, by having faith in our leaders (Prophet) who is on the "watch tower" guiding our lives, and stop worrying about what the world promotes as ideal.

Again...do you live your life by the Gospel, or do you tailor the Gospel to fit your life?

(Since I refuse to only have material listed "one-sidedly," please read S'mee's comments on her blog, knotinthestring.blogspot.com , "Did You Write?", posted on June 5th 2006...REALLY good stuff!!)