According to the LDS Church's “Handbook 2,” only the governing First Presidency can speak on official behalf of the church in regard to a measure such as Proposition 2.
One will not find a statement, anywhere, in opposition to Proposition 2 that actually bears the imprimatur of the First Presidency, nor any specific citation of such by other church personnel. Technically and logically, then, the very notion of “church opposition to Proposition 2” is a hoax — one that is having a significant influence on church members.
Whether the First Presidency actually is opposed to Proposition 2 is irrelevant. (Besides, what God thinks, finally, is what matters.) The issue, rather, is:1. Why won’t the Saints insist upon explicit invocation of required authority, as specified by the church’s own policy and scripture? 2. Why would the First Presidency not openly identify itself and expressly invoke its own authority in regard to Proposition 2? Why the “plausible deniability”?
Unless these questions are answered satisfactorily and I see a valid demonstration that God has in fact rescinded his own Doctrine and Covenants Section 89 as it pertains to “wholesome herbs” used independently, prudently and thankfully, I will vote in favor of Proposition 2
Mark Terran, Salt Lake City
