Well, OK Sunday came and went and we in California got the call. I suspect Bishops all over California read the First Presidency letter in Sacrament Meeting (though my Bishop told me he learned about the letter from my blog, and had to confirm with the Stake President before reading it–lost letter out there somewhere); however, my son who is visiting cousins up in Anacortes, WA sent me a text that the Bishop in the Anacortes ward also read the letter over the pulpit at Sacrament Meeting.
This brings up an interesting question. Should the letter be read in all Sacrament Meetings, only those in California, or world wide? It appears to be addressed specifically to California members; but, it would make sense to me that those who are so inclined in other parts of the world who wanted to donate at least money could certainly do so, and with the Brethren’s blessings. Did anyone else outside of California hear the letter in their Sacrament Meetings?
I’m pleased to report there were no theatrics, at least in our ward. No one got up and walked out while the Bishop read the letter. No one got up and held up a rainbow colored banner proclaiming gay rights from the back of the Chapel. But, I don’t know how it went elsewhere. I’d be curious to hear if there were any disruptions as called for by some.
I’m also pleased to report the known universe appears to have continued in its predetermined orbit(s), even after the reading of the First Presidency Letter. The sun appears to be setting once again in the West–all good signs. I’m looking forward to hearing, what’s next.
Update 7:50 p.m. Julie Smith has a related post up over at Times and Seasons.
I also spoke with my son this evening, who further informed me that not only was the letter read in Washingon, but the bishop indicated they should support the California Saints with donations and time where possible.
Messenger and Advocate 
June 29, 2008 at 6:44 pm
[Guy], I think it would be wrong for a leader outside CA to read it to his congregation just on principle–it wasn’t addressed to his congregation or sent to him through official channels.
As far as members acting, I think members outside CA should be careful. The Spirit may very well inspire them to do something, but I think it important to note that the FP could very easily have addressed that letter to the entire US (or entire world) and asked us to help, but they chose not to. I don’t know why, but it may be that they are concerned that if they create the impression that opposition to SSA in CA is coming from out of state, they will loose the goodwill of fence-sitters on this issue. That did happen (according to what I have read) with the ERA.
June 29, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Julie,
Well, that may be a distinction without a difference, since the letter has been published throughout the world in various blogs and in the media. I would think that individual members, or even non-members who wanted to be involved could do so on their own initiative. We need to keep in mind here that it’s not only the Mormon Church which supports this amendment. The Catholic Church, amongst a host of other Churches support this amendment.
I thought it interesting that the letter was apparently read in other venues besides California.
Thanks for your thoughts.
June 29, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I don’t know why, but it may be that they are concerned that if they create the impression that opposition to SSA in CA is coming from out of state, they will loose the goodwill of fence-sitters on this issue.
You mean, like from Utah?
June 29, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I live in Fremont, CA, and the letter was not read in my ward.
June 29, 2008 at 7:16 pm
[Guy], I think there is a difference worth maintaining between hearing something through official channels and hearing about something in the news. But, obviously, every Saint who follows the news will hear about it.
June 29, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Keri #4
Interesting. Any discussion or observations on why? Another lost letter perhaps?
Julie #5
So, you’re suggesting if CA Saints hear the letter other than through officials channels, there is less of an obligation?
June 29, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I don’t have any speculation as to why the letter wasn’t read. Lost mail sounds likely.
June 29, 2008 at 7:57 pm
it wasn’t read in my CA ward either.
June 29, 2008 at 8:41 pm
How can I help? What’s the next step? It was read in the Spanish Branch in which we are working, so I just understood words like matrimonio and the names of the First Presidency, but my husband, who knows the language, confirmed it, and I knew what it said. I will do all I can. This is a call to arms. Sort of like Moroni renting his coat. We live in the very last days – wow – what a time to be alive!
June 29, 2008 at 9:21 pm
After sacrament meeting in my singles ward in Northern Virginia the Bishop mentioned that there was a letter from the First Presidency to read and I braced myself (I’m definitely stuck in the middle on this issue), but it was just the “don’t ask people to open their scriptures with you or use visual aids when speaking in sacrament meeting” message. Anti-climactic, but relieving. I agree that the message was sent to California saints and shouldn’t be read elsewhere unless the FP specifically asks for it to be.
June 29, 2008 at 10:41 pm
We are so glad to know that it went well. It’s because Californian’s have faith that God won’t lead us astray as we listen to the Prophet who voice the will and the mind of God. We at Thoughtskoto are so ardent in asking our friends and relatives in california area to somehow help in this fight for right.
Someone should wave the standard of liberty like Moroni of Old did. Californians are asked to do the same till November. We rip our clothes and cast it there, now its your turn, and to consider we are just simple LDS, Asians, not Americans.
June 29, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Read without incident in Sacrament meeting in the Ojai California Ward. Interesting to note that we had quite a few visitors from out of state who just happened to be attending. I am not aware of any discussions after Sacrament. In Ward Council meeting before Sacrament there was mentioned two articles this week on the Church, one in the Los Angeles Times and one in USA Today. I didn’t see them but got the impression they were either favorable or neutral.
June 30, 2008 at 5:35 am
I live in WA state, and the letter was read here. Not much reaction, I heard no later discussion, either. The room was very quiet as it was read, but that soon passed. Our bishop said it was odd to have a letter rom SLC leaked to the media before it came through normal channels, but that was all. Husband, who is in the bishopric, said it was to be read across the US. I thought the letter was well written, made the dates, etc clearer to me. Wonder if the ward will act —we’re an apathetic bunch.
June 30, 2008 at 6:12 am
No, Guy, I don’t think there is less of an obligation. What I am concerned about is that if we get people used to hearing things through unofficial channels, we increase the propensity to spread false things. How hard would it be to forge a FP letter and put it on the net? Or think about the generals in the war in heaven quote. Or the problem distinguishing between “Well, a 70 told me once . . .” and the real deal.
Maybe this sounds hysterical, but we had a great apostasy largely because authorized leaders weren’t able to communicate with church members. Official communication is a precious thing and I don’t think we should trifle with it. If the letter says CA saints it should be read to ALL CA saints no one else. If it says ALL saints, it should be read to all of them. I think the FP has the right to decide to whom they want to address info and that we need to respect that. (I was recently appalled to learn of a bishop who was considering whether to read a FP letter–not this one–to the congregation. That isn’t his right.)
June 30, 2008 at 6:39 am
“(I was recently appalled to learn of a bishop who was considering whether to read a FP letter–not this one–to the congregation. That isn’t his right.)”
I’ve been asking about this because my ward has not heard several of the recent letters, per our bishop’s decision. I don’t know that it “isn’t his right” — it may very well be his right, if he feels a letter doesn’t apply to his individual ward.
June 30, 2008 at 6:41 am
I also find it troubling that a bishop outside of California read this to the ward.
My guess is that he thinks people who disregard the counsel think that the church leaders don’t know what they are talking about. But when he chose to overlook the part where it was addressed just to californians, he did the same thing.
When we embellish or add to astatement from the persident of the church, we are devaluing it.
Austin’s experience is comment # 10 is instructive. Some commenters on this thread view the California letter as a call to arms and a sign of the last days. And yet a letter from the FP about reverence in sacrament meeting doesn’t seem to be valued as much. Why?
June 30, 2008 at 7:33 am
Ardis, this CA letter says across the top “to be read in sac. mtg. June 29th.” I think it would be wrong for a bishop to decide not to follow that direction. If other letters don’t say that, that might be a different matter.
My gut is that it is a very dangerous thing for a bishop to decide that his ward doesn’t need to hear something that the FP wants them to hear.
(In the situation I mentioned above, the bishop wasn’t going to read it because he didn’t think the issue had ever come up in his ward. I knew for a fact that it had.)
June 30, 2008 at 7:38 am
I think the letter system of passing on information is a broken system, as it relies on the bishop checking either his mail, or his box at the stake center (which bishops never do unless they are housed in the stake center).
June 30, 2008 at 7:46 am
Julie, I’m not contradicting you. I don’t know either way — there is evidence, including the line you quote, to support both answers. That’s why I’m asking, hoping that some bishop with specific, formal knowledge will comment. I don’t feel comfortable declaring “This bishop is wrong!” without knowing for certain that your interpretation is correct.
June 30, 2008 at 7:46 am
I don’t know why that last came out “AEP,” but of course it’s me.
June 30, 2008 at 7:54 am
unofficial channels
As an absentee ballot-wielding expatriate Californian, unofficials channels are the only way to get the news from the home front sometimes.
June 30, 2008 at 8:55 am
Thanks for covering this, Guy. If the Mormons aren’t gonna bring in the water cannons in response to my dKos diaries, I guess I maybe need to consider moving on to greener – or at least seedier – pastures. So, in the spirit of choosing my battles more wisely:
Meet Rameumptom, Inc: Schubert-Flint
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/30/73912/1147/89/544016
Welcome one and all – and thanks again.
June 30, 2008 at 8:59 am
Guy, interesting nobody is citing an experience of people walking out or protesting in Sacrament meeting. I’d be interested to know if that happened in a SF, Berkeley or West Hollywood ward. Just curious. No letter read in my small-town ward in Colorado.
June 30, 2008 at 9:17 am
Guy,
You’re a very difficult man to figure out. On the one hand, you despise two Christian conservative sacred cows — Bush and his war, despite tacit approval for both from the Brethren — and yet support another, citing Brethren approval: the anti-SSM movement. You rail against the removal of rights from one group which rejects the “traditional family” — the FLDS — and yet want to limit the rights of gay families.
You certainly make life interesting for those of us who follow your blog… (smile).
June 30, 2008 at 10:18 am
Meet Rameumptom, Inc: Schubert-Flint
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/meet-rameumptom-inc-schubertfl.php
June 30, 2008 at 11:16 am
It was read without incident in my southern California ward. After reading, the bishop casually noted how great it is to have the right to vote, which seemed to imply that the act of voting for the amendment was all that the letter was calling for.
June 30, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Matt W.,
Official letters from Church HQ are sent to the bishop’s home address, not to the stake center.
That said, communicating by mail does have its problems. For one thing, the system is slow and inconsistent: I noticed that some bishops would receive letters weeks or months after others had received theirs. On top of that, postage costs must be considerable.
I wonder why the Church continues to rely on snail mail in the United States and Canada. It would be quicker and easier to post notices on an official website (password-protected as needed) and to alert bishops by e-mail to check the website. Alternatively, the Church could communicate with the local leaders via the same MLS system that is used to handle membership records and financial transactions.
June 30, 2008 at 1:43 pm
re: Keri #4
Since my son is gay, I read way too much gay-related stuff, but in one of my readings, I remember the story of a mom who knew the prop 22 letter was coming out and her gay son was going to be attending her sacrament meeting with her that week. She asked her kind bishop if he could postpone reading the letter for a week, so as not to make his rare visit to church a bad one because of the letter. He did postpone reading it.
p.s. personal note to Guy—I have only recently heard of your dad’s passing. Sorry to hear of that, he was a wonderful man. I remember him and your mom walking together and ALWAYS holding hands.
BTW-my wife still complains about your gospel doctrine lessons (25 years later?)–I loved them….She’s an iron rodder, me…not so much…
June 30, 2008 at 1:44 pm
#26 – There is a website where all the letters are posted. As of 3+ years ago our stake president had access. I’m not sure if it has been made available to all bishops yet.
June 30, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Perhaps I never received the letter motifying me of the website.
June 30, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Oops. Make that “notifying.”
June 30, 2008 at 2:14 pm
It got read yesterday in my Washington ward. Why, I have no idea- but read it was.
June 30, 2008 at 5:10 pm
[…] California Saints Got The Call Well, OK Sunday came and went and we in California got the call. I suspect Bishops all over California read the First […] […]
June 30, 2008 at 5:24 pm
It was read at my in-laws’ ward in central Washington too.
June 30, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I live in WA. We didn’t get the letter read, but the other ward did.
http://www.graceforgrace.com
June 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm
cchrissyy #8,
Thanks for your update.
Melanie #9,
I don’t know what is next; however, I suspect that each stake will have specific information they will pass along to the individual ward leaders. That’s how things worked with proposition 22. As for living in the last days, I think we’ve known that for sometime, given the signs of the times and the words of the prophets.
austin s #10,
We got the scriptures letter read a couple of weeks ago–who knows maybe your ward is a bit behind. I don’t know what the actual instruction was from the General Authorities to the Stake leaders and to the ward leaders about where the letter should be read. Clearly from comments the letter was read outside of California. Thanks for your comment.
Thoughtskoto #11
I’m not certain I agree with your analogy that this situation is akin to Moroni waiving the Title of Liberty, and I don’t see the First Presidency’s call here to be anything like that; but, it is a call and we all have to chose how we answer that call.
Brian #12
Nice to hear from you again. Hope things are going well in Ojai. Glad to hear the reading went without incident.
deb #13,
Thanks for your report and the information that the letter was to be read all across the U.S. I had not heard that before. Best of luck with your ward’s efforts; however, given that you are in WA, other than donating money, it is unclear how your ward might be involved, absent some trips to CA to walk precincts or distribute signs of some kind.
Julie # 14,
Certainly “official” communication is critical; however, I would think a forged First Presidency letter would result in an immediate response from the Church and placed immediately on the Church website. As for the reading of the letter, I’m not certain the letter itself restricts the reading only in CA; however, the instructions that accompanied the letter either verbally or otherwise may have been more explicit. I don’t really know. I also agree with you that if one serves as a Bishop, and the FP requests you read a letter from the pulpit, I don’t think you have any choice in the matter.
Ardis #15,
In my own (uninformed) opinion, I would think that if a Bishop was confronted with the situation you describe, the better course would be to read the letter, and perhaps then indicate in the Bishop’s view that perhaps it might not be as much an issue in his ward as it might in others. For example the letter about not asking members to open their scriptures while giving a Sacrament Meeting talk. Perhaps there are wards where that never, ever happens–but regardless I would think the letter should be read, and then the ward congratulated because they already follow that counsel–something along those lines.
Mark IV #16,
I don’t know. Again, I think it is unclear just from the four corners of the letter itself that it gives the specific instruction only to be read in CA. Clearly Bishops in other locations, particularly WA have been reading the letter.
Julie #17,
I think I’m pretty much in agreement with your comment here.
Matt #18,
Apparently there is a way of using the Internet from some of the other comments on this thread. Given the Internet age, electronic distribution clearly seems the best option.
Ardis #19
I would also like to hear the specific instructions, given to stake and ward leaders about this letter–CA only, entire U.S., North America, world wide? Very curious.
Peter LLC #21,
True, sometimes.
Geoff B #22,
I am pleased not to hear of any of these reports. I’m hoping that did not occur. I found the suggestion to be obnoxious and in poor taste on its face. To intentionally disrupt a religious observance, whether LDS or any other for a political point, is beyond good taste.
Ronan # 23
Well, I agree I may view certain moral issues differently than some. For one, however, I am not a “conservative Christian, in any sense of the modern understanding of that phrase. I do not share their theology or their ideology.
I disagree that the Brethren, acting as united and unanimous governing bodies of the Church tacitly or in any other way support George Bush–other than they support the office of the Presidency and would like to see him succeed as much as possible for the good of the country which acts as the cradle of the Restoration.
I further disagree that the Brethren, as I have described them support the Iraq war, or any other for that matter; however, if the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in conjunction issued a written proclamation supporting that or any other war, I confess I would need to make the choice about whether I would support their counsel–likely I would–but I would need to give it due consideration.
In short, there are, in my view, grand canyons of difference between the perception that likely does exist among many U.S. Mormons that the Brethren march lock step with the Republican Party–and the reality that they do not. There is no history of written teaching, doctrinal exposition, and proclamations by the Brethren in support of the war or this administration. Indeed, I find it my duty to oppose them both because I find them reprehensible to the very teachings I understand the Brethren to have taught over the years.
The rights Texas deprived the FLDS families are well established, fundamental core rights in American jurisprudence, i.e., rights objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed’.
Those were the types of rights Texas trampled on when they kidnapped over 400 children, and dispensed with their own due process requirements.
The rights the SSM movement advocate are not at all rights objectively and deeply rooted in our nation’s history. Gay marriage, historically, has never been a fundamental right in the United States, anywhere, and certainly not in CA. I’m sure you’ve already read what I have to say about that in my analysis post–but that’s where I’m coming from. In the FLDS case we’re talking about legitimate and well established constitutional rights. In SSM we’re talking about rights being made up as we go along. Yes, I realize many people differ with me–but there are many who also agree.
I do appreciate the fact you take some time to read what goes on over here, and that you take the time once in awhile to leave your thoughts. I’m also glad I can keep it somewhat interesting.
DCL #25,
Thanks for your report. Glad to hear there was no disruption in your ward. I’m curious about your interpretation that voting for the amendment alone, without financial or time commitment would be sufficient. I’m not suggesting that it would not be–but, I’d be curious to hear why you think it might, if you do.
PK #26,
I agree with your comment; but, it does sound like–from other comments–that the Church does utilize the Internet; as it should.
Brian Allen #27
Thanks for your comment. I am glad to hear of the compassion of the Bishop, and that the situation worked out well in that case. Thanks also for your comments about my Dad–I appreciate them.
Ken #28
Thanks for that information on the website. Makes sense.
PK # 29 & 30,
Are you a Bishop? Any insights you can share on the instructions given in terms of reading the letter?
tracy m # 31,
Thanks for your report. Did the Bishop in your ward say anything about why it was read in your WA ward?
John Taber #33,
Sounds like WA is well represented here. In fact the letter may have been read in more wards there than in CA–who knows?
ama #34,
Interesting–one ward yes, one not.
June 30, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I was released recently. (That’s why I have time to post here!)
June 30, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Chino Blanco #22,
Your comment got caught in the spam filter, probably because of the link. I just caught it, and set it free. I’m not sure I get your comment in its entirety. While I don’t agree with your suggestions of interrupting Sacrament Meetings, I’ve found your comments otherwise to be well written and thought out.
June 30, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Guy, I think the letter was asking members to do a bit more than just vote for the amendment. Just saying that my bishop’s comment immediately after reading the letter, something like “good thing we can all vote,” seemed anticlimactic. I was expecting something more like “in the coming weeks we will be announcing how our ward plans to implement these instructions,” instead of a simple reminder to vote.
In the event, I was personally relieved at the understatement.
June 30, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I came across this site randomly. I live in Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legal for a while, as you know.
Although I know wagering is sin, I bet that if you ask LDS in Mass–including the family of our ex-gov Romney–the truthful answer is that it has had no detrimental effect on families. On the contrary, the new law has cleaned up Boston a lot by normalizing gay relationships which would exist anyway, like it or not.
So don’t be selfish about legal rights that you get to take for granted: it is not very brotherly at all.
July 1, 2008 at 6:37 am
Guy,
Do you have any evidence of this?
July 1, 2008 at 6:43 am
Dan,
The way I have framed the comment, the burden of evidence of a similar proclamation and teachings in support of the war would be incumbent on those claiming the brethren support the war. Do you know of any such evidence? And, I’m not talking about Pres. Hinckely’s limited comments–I’m talking about united and unanimous written support by the quorums of the 12 and FP.
July 1, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Guy #38,
Thks for settin’ my #22 free. “Moving on to greener – or at least seedier – pastures” was meant to describe my new interest in learning more about ProtectMarriage.com and Schubert Flint Public Affairs.
I caught mention of Schubert-Flint over at Mormon Chronicles, and it led me to wonder why Prop 8 support is being run by hired guns whose previous battles were on behalf of Big Tobacco (against Prop 86) and Big War (in the guise of Move America Forward) – i.e., part of the gang willin’ to let others die for cheap smokes and cheap oil.
My small bit of resistance to this gang is to see that googling “Schubert Flint” leads to some useful info about these mercenary political parasites.
Sheesh, I was gonna just pop by and say ‘cheers’ for rescuin’ my comment, and now I’m venting again. Ugh.
July 2, 2008 at 8:20 am
[…] that have been going on in the Bloggernacle, or among others as they pertain to Latter-day Saints: California Saints Got The Call Messenger and Advocate – June 29, […]
July 3, 2008 at 7:03 am
Chino Blanco #43,
Well, it happened again–caught in the spam filter. I don’t know why, there wasn’t even a link. I’ll have to see if the filter has your IP listed for some reason. Anyway, blogs are what venting is for.
Happy 4th!
July 3, 2008 at 7:07 am
I might add, I’m supporting the FP and Q12 on this issue, not necessarily the political machinery that is behind it all. The fact they line up with the Brethren on this issue makes no difference to me. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t share theological or ideological views with many who are supporting this amendment. I support the FP and Q12–period, full stop. Nothing more, nothing less.
July 3, 2008 at 11:12 am
The fact is – I enjoy chattin’ with you, Guy. And the other fact is – I’m back at M&A because this discussion currently registers #2 in a Google blog search of “Schubert Flint” …
If you happen’d to catch my latest rant at:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/the-prop-8-atm-a-christmas-car.php
I’d just like to get explicit here about something that’s merely implied in that latest Schubert-Flint hit piece of mine: if I were a conservative Californian, I’d be a McClintock conservative (as opposed to a Doug Ose Republican) …
Because I’m a sucker for messages that make an attempt to appeal to my love for our country and Constitution, and resent messages that ask me to just suck it up and go with the flow because, you know, it’s such a well-funded message that I’d be a fool to resist or whatever. This is the latent Ron Paul supporter in me talkin’, but I’ve got real sympathies for what Paul brought to the GOP debates. I think he did the country a service by speaking up and staking claim to certain principles.
I disagree with but respect your position re supporting the FP and Q12. For what it’s worth, I don’t think our differences are the problem here. I’ve done made my appeal to an LDS community that I once called home. What bothers me now are those who’d play us off against each other for their own gain.
The reality is that I’m gonna win this political battle. Jeff Flint’s never been in a battle at this level. He knows how to prod Orrin Hatch into running a campaign past its due date, but he’s got no clue how to deal with the daylight we’re gonna shed on his operation. Politics is what it is and it ain’t beanbag.
And Mormonism is what it is – and deserves better than what Jeff Flint is capable of bringing as spokesman for y’all in California.
There is an aspect of cultural cringe that pisses me off here. You owe me and the rest of America no apology for being Mormon. I’m sorry to say that handing this contest over to Jeff rubs me the wrong way when I look at it through that lens.
I appreciated the opportunity your blog afforded me to rail against those anti-Mormon jokers in Nauvoo. I also appreciated the ‘nacle’s response to Cheney’s visit to BYU – it was a lively discussion. I know it may be too “inside baseball” to hold readers’ interest, but Flint deserves scrutiny from folks on all sides of this issue … mine, yours and Flint’s (point being, he’s a side unto himself in all this).
July 4, 2008 at 4:38 pm
late on this post, but…
The letter was read in my ward last sunday (the 29th). as I recall, it was addressed to those members in the U.S. outside of california, and I recall that it stated that members in california had the letter read to them the week before. But…it’s been five days since. Maybe my memory is not serving me well 🙂 I am wondering if there are any organized efforts going on with members in CA, and how those out of state can help.
July 8, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I was visiting San Diego where the letter was read without incident.
In my home ward (SF AREA) the letter was read, and then a joint RS/Priesthood meeting was held about it. This last (July 6) Sunday a member of the Stake Presidency went to every sacrament meeting and addressed the issue. Then, the Bishop again discussed it in both RS and Priesthood. I expect more this Sunday.
July 9, 2008 at 7:32 am
Guy,
Please email me. Thanks.
July 12, 2008 at 11:30 am
Guy wrote:
Just as it should be.
I am under no obligation to solve insoluble problems or implement world peace. Mine is a very small part of the process, and I greatly appreciate the precious counsel from the brethren, on those rare occasions when they are moved to speak.
August 1, 2008 at 11:07 am
hmm.. thank you very much. usefull information
August 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Guy,
can you please email me at Mayanelephant@yahoo.com. its friendly, i promise. i promise.
hope you are well.
Best,
September 6, 2008 at 8:15 pm
[…] Liberty, Marriage, Politics, Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage | My last two posts, here and here, now quite some time ago dealt with the First Presidency letter read in Sacrament meetings all over […]
October 25, 2014 at 6:43 pm
[…] in our home ward, while the bishop of the ward in which I serve had not yet received it. I have read reports that the letter was read in other states beside California, along with commentary that members in […]