http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1091832.html

Fifty-one percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed ban; 42 percent support it; and 7 percent are undecided.

While voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, the statute that banned gay marriage in 2000, the new poll suggests a “reluctance by Californians to tinker with the constitution,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.

“Older voters, especially, are more reticent about changing the constitution where younger folks are more in favor of allowing same-sex marriage,” DiCamillo.

The highest percentage of respondents who opposed Proposition 8 in the poll were 18- to 29-year-olds (55 percent) and 50- to 64-year-olds (57 percent).

The latter demographic, DiCamillo said, “are people who grew up in the ’60s and early ’70s and they may be a little more tolerant to differences in lifestyles.”

I would prefer it if he would communicate to me in a more reliable form, since my emotions seem to be very unreliable to me

Boy, so do I! I think it’s fair to say that ALL of us can have trouble at times with identifying the still small voice. Jeff posted some great thoughts on that. It’s something that must be learned and it comes easier to some more than others. There have been times when I felt like I wasn’t “getting any reception” even when I was trying to receive it, but as I look back I can’t help but feel He wanted me to work out some of my own answers and learn some things that way- take some leaps of faith I guess you could say. Hanging in there and continuing to at least hope and desire for his guidance proved to be the best course for me. God bless you in your struggle.

Sorry for the long reply, but I hope this helps:

One frequent misunderstanding is that Holy Ghost communicates through our emotions. Emotions, indeed, can be very unreliable. I can actually find very little in the scriptures about the Holy Ghost communicating through emotions; we often experience Joy when we receive communications from the Holy Ghost, but the Joy is a “fruit” or a result of the communication, not necessarily the communication itself. This misconception is usually attached to the Lord’s instruction to Oliver Cowdery: “If it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.” This scripture has led some critics of the church to believe we operate under the epistemology of indigestion, and that we rely entirely on emotional sensations for our experience of the Spirit.

A favorite scripture comes to mind, that helps clarify this misunderstanding:

And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, which shall fill your soul with joy

Thus, when I sense that I ought to be kind to someone, I can know that is the Spirit. If I sense as though I ought to attend church, listen to the prophet, etc., that is the Spirit. The challenge is that we most often use the word “feel” to describe these moral invitations from the Spirit, which is the same word we use to describe emotions. Thus, we too often conflate the two. That is, we know the presence of the Spirit not by physical sensations, but by His invitations to do good. Brigham Young reported a message he received from Joseph Smith after his death, in which he was instructed to teach the saints that

They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits—it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their hearts, and their whole desire will be to do good.

In conclusion, it is clear that revelation via the Holy Spirit is much more than merely a physical or emotional sensation, but it changes our very desires and habits of thought. We think differently when we experience the Holy Ghost, and it is often in our thoughts that new understandings of the world are opened to us. The “sudden strokes of ideas … presented to our minds” are the cognitive components of revelation, and we can recognize their divine source by the accompanying changes in our hearts and our desires.

The constitutional amendment at hand has absolutely nothing to do with denying consenting adults the freedom to be in a relationship. If the amendment passes, homosexuals can remain together in civil unions without any problem. This contrasts the outlawing of polygamy, where not only was the union not granted legal sanction, but polygamous relationships were outlawed as well.

One problem I see with this argument is that homosexual relationships have not always been legal. Wasn’t it only a couple years ago that the Supreme court overturned a texas law against sodomy?
While the sequence of events have been different, I see huge similarities between the persecution of LDS over polygamy and the persecution of gays over their sexual behavior.
So, this amendment is not designed to deprive gays their right to engage in any private relationship they choose…It still fits into a pattern similar to that which was used against the LDS. Namely, using the governement to enforce the norms of one group upon another.

Also, though each of us can receive personal revelation for our own lives, none of us have authority to receive or give instructions for the church as a whole. God’s kingdom is one of order.

Recently, an Apostle explained:

When it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.

Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. … We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God.

That is the best I can provide today. I hope it helps!

That is one of the great beauties of the Gospel: it requires us to humble ourselves and receive instructions from a wiser, higher moral authority than ourselves. This humbling process is always difficult. I wish you luck, Brandon!

A brief scan of Christian history will show that human reason is fallible. We are not perfect. This is why God sends messengers to the earth, to inform us of His will. The Great Apostasy is largely the result of Saints who forsook reliance on divine revelation in favor of reason and philosophy. One of the blessings of the Restoration is that revelation through prophets is once again on the earth; revelation can now serve as a corrective for human reason again.

Many scholars have shown that all reason is based upon unprovable premises. Most rational arguments, for example, take the form of a syllogism: if a, then b. b. therefore a. This logical argument presumes that the premise “if a, then b” is true. To use logic to prove that requires a new premise, etc. Eventually, something is going to have to be taken on faith. Reason rests on faith.

Faith, in essence, is trust, but my fav definition of faith is fidelity. Who is more trustworthy, worthy of our faith, than the Author of our Salvation? As Nephi said, “Let us be faithful to Him.”

Since you argue, then, that the Church should be permissive of homosexual marriage, I wonder how you might defend any line being drawn at all? What, for example, is to prevent a man from marrying his couch? Or a newt? Or a cybernetic automaton?

This is not a real argument. A homosexual marriage/relationship is between two consenting adults. The examples you gave do not meet the same criteria. Either way, I wouldn’t care if someone wanted to marry a newt (except, how does a newt consent to the relationship?). This argument also implies that homosexual relationships are subhuman (due to sexual deviency?). My experience in life leads me to believe that is false.

It has been argued here that the persecution of polygamy was different because polygamy wasn’t a redefinition of marriage (because it involved men and women). I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that all of the people who were fighting against it thought it WAS a redefinition of marriage and a sexual perversion. This seems to be very similar to what is going on today with gay marriage. I am definetly opposed to the government forcing the church to accept gay marriage. I just don’t want to force gays to get (or not get) married the way I want them to.

As per the church being involved at all, I think we should remember the following line from the Proclamation:

The church is simply doing its part in this promotion. So should we.

I just think this should be done through individual ministry and not through legislation, which by its nature imposses my will and world view upon my fellow citizens. I would ask each of us to imagine that the tables have been turned upon us. How would we feel if the majority of our nation believed that marriage between a man and women was immoral and wrong and therefore attepmpted to ban straight marriage? We would be outraged. Why? Because we don’t want other people trying to tell us our business. To answer Jeff’s question about how I draw a line between personal and political. I just try to imagine if the same thing was done to me, how would I feel. Since I don’t want anyone else trying to define marriage to me, I don’t feel I need to force my definition on them.

The constitutional amendment at hand as absolutely nothing to do with denying consenting adults the freedom to be in a relationship. If the amendment passes, homosexuals can remain together in civil unions without any problem. This contrasts the outlawing of polygamy, where not only was the union not granted legal sanction, but polygamous relationships were outlawed as well.

Polygamy was considered sexually deviant by the majority of Americans and they forced their will on the minority (mormons) through the government. Now the church, considering homosexuality to be sexually deviant, wants to use the government to force its will upon the minority (gays).

The Church has always, always had an interest in assuring that the government recognizing marriage being between a man and a woman. You’ll note that the Church never promotes marriage as being between “one man and one woman” (as some other Christian faiths do), allowing for polygamy to be included in the definition when God has commanded it.

As Carissa noted, this isn’t about sexual deviance. Homosexuality itself is not the subject of this proposition. Instead, the Church (along with others) is fighting to preserve the definition of marriage itself, as a social institution recognized by the government. Read the amicus brief posted in this comment to understand more of the Church’s reasons for being in this battle.

In this case, I wish the church would do unto others as we would’ve had them do unto us.

Since you argue, then, that the Church should be permissive of homosexual marriage, I wonder how you might defend any line being drawn at all? What, for example, is to prevent a man from marrying his couch? Or a newt? Or a cybernetic automaton? Regardless of the ideals we may share about the government having a limited (if not non-existent) role in marriage, the fact remains that it is very much involved right now. The question then becomes, how is it best and most appropriately involved? As I argued in the post, and as the amicus brief more eloquently explains, one of the reasons for government’s involvement in the marriage business is to encourage, promote, and defend the basic unit of society. Homosexual marriage, I believe, falls outside of this definition, and thus is not entitled to be called marriage, nor granted some of the same legal protections.

My parents attended a meeting the other night with some of the leading religious leaders in the area, discussing the Prop. 8 measure and what is at stake. A lawyer spoke to the group, making the case that this fight for the preservation of heterosexual marriage is a freedom of religion issue. As a defense for his argument he cited numerous cases of other countries where religious institutions were persecuted by law for refusing to bend to social policy. In countries were homosexual marriage was legal and socially acceptable, churches that would openly preach against it and refuse to marry homosexuals were sometimes persecuted through law, whether it be a revocation of legal protection, investigation of their finances, jail time or financial penalties, etc.

I would agree, and I believe as Carissa said in the previous comment: we may not feel the immediate and full effects of homosexual marriage (if it passes in CA), but there will certainly and eventually be negative effects down the road that will demonstrate the foresight of those we sustain as seers.

As per the church being involved at all, I think we should remember the following line from the Proclamation:

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

The church is simply doing its part in this promotion. So should we.

I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of how homosexuals calling themselves married would somehow affect my family

I don’t think of it so much in terms of how it would affect my family right now, but how it would affect future generations coming to the earth and the way the family operates, in general. I believe there are consequences that may not be immediately obvious to us now and I don’t have to claim to know exactly what they will be in order to have that opinion. The reasoning for my position is certainly influenced by prophetic counsel so I can understand why those who don’t trust or believe the counsel to be from God may not agree. We all have a right and a duty to vote our conscience. Hopefully we can respect each others’ opinions.

Do you think it is a good thing to follow God’s counsel?