BYU student gives her reason for voting Obama.

[Fiannan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAkdHzpX ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is even funnier but with a hard-hitting message.

[George Alabaster]

George, I said nothing about taking away freedom to choose...free agency. You are hyperventilating for nothing. If Hannah wants to embrace the concept of homosexuality in marriage that is her perogative. That choice unfortunately has consequences...consequences for the rest of the Americans in this country like electing a liberal and Marxist for a president. And I might add a president among other things who believes in late term abortion and IF the baby happens to survive the abortion Obama wholeheartedly believes in simply allowing that baby to DIE! That is yet a discussion for another day.

There is a reason the LDS Church was involved in Proposition 8 in California regarding two sodomites getting married (sorry but let's call a spade a spade). The reason MORALITY. Hannah seemed to have missed that point when she made her video. She is NOT in line with the LDS Gospel Doctrine on the subject, nor is she in agreement with the Lord's law on the matter. She can think, feel, act, any way she wants...but it doesn't mean her actions or thoughts are either appropriate or in agreement with the Lord. Betcha she will leave the LDS faith because of it too. I give her 2 years at the most. There again is will be HER choice.

blondenblueeyed,

I'm not sure how you can say that, she isn't the one having homosexual sex. Unless you think that you will be punished for the actions of other people. Here is a thought experiment: What if all the homosexuals left the country and gathered on their own island. They legalized gay marriage and lived happy lives together. Do you think that you would still be punished for their sins? If the answer is yes, then isn't the issue the fact that God recognizes national boundaries and judges people based on national laws rather than their own actions?

George

[jbalm]

I'm not sure how you can say that, she isn't the one having homosexual sex. Unless you think that you will be punished for the actions of other people. Here is a thought experiment: What if all the homosexuals left the country and gathered on their own island. They legalized gay marriage and lived happy lives together. Do you think that you would still be punished for their sins? If the answer is yes, then isn't the issue the fact that God recognizes national boundaries and judges people based on national laws rather than their own actions?

George

Actually, it would mean the opposite.

[George Alabaster]

Actually, it would mean the opposite.

I'm not sure I understand, jbalm.

[jbalm]

Maybe either you or I misread what you wrote. Not to insult, but it isn't the most clearly written post.

[skmo]

My vote on homosexuality is that I prefer to have the government neutral on it since it's not in the Constitution. Had God wanted it to be so, it would have been. Since it's a matter of law, I prefer to know and follow the legal law of the land in earthly matters, and the Law of God in spiritual matters. I will teach and testify all I can to show why homosexuality is a sin, but I won't rob a person of their free agency. Since the Constitution does not have that power either, I do not propose to give it to them.

This is referring to national matters. I'm all for California passing whatever laws they seem disposed to. The only national intervention should come if it crosses constitutionality, not that SCOTUS cares abotu that any more...

And I would hope this girl get a whole ration of crap from her classmates, roomates, strangers on campus for being an idiot.

[karend77]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAkdHzpX ... re=related

This is even funnier but with a hard-hitting message.

OK Fiannan, I am a G rating kind of gal and that link was PG-13 ...are we going to need ratings on our video links now

[freedomforall]

Okay everyone, take a breather. This will help.

[shadow]

My vote on homosexuality is that I prefer to have the government neutral on it since it's not in the Constitution. Had God wanted it to be so, it would have been.

We run into the problem of the Constitution only being fit for a moral people. Government (the people) will not be neutral when immorality in it's various forms runs rampant. Laws are then passed to slow the progress of society's downward fall. Yes, amen to the Constitution. I realize the libertarians will disagree.


Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies. -John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams

[George Alabaster]

We run into the problem of the Constitution only being fit for a moral people.

Who's idea of morality? Which religion?

[jbalm]

We run into the problem of the Constitution only being fit for a moral people.

Who's idea of morality? Which religion?

The morality of the founders.

Not specific to any religion. Just general, Judeo-Christian concepts of morality.

[George Alabaster]

We run into the problem of the Constitution only being fit for a moral people.

Who's idea of morality? Which religion?

The morality of the founders.

Not specific to any religion. Just general, Judeo-Christian concepts of morality.

Which founders? Not all of them were Christians. And if you specify Judeo-Christian, you marginalize Americans who might be something else.

George

[freedomforall]

We run into the problem of the Constitution only being fit for a moral people.

Who's idea of morality? Which religion?

Morality based on the attributes of Christ. The Constitution was written akin to scripture so that people living by the laws of God would have no problem with living under the law of the Constitution.

The Savior Himself will be using the same form of Constitutional law when He reigns for a thousand years. And yes, there will be many sects at that time. The main thing is that they all will bow and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God our Savior.

[skmo]

The Savior also said to love your neighbor as yourself. If my homosexual friend follows his religion, is faithful to his partner, obeys the New Testament to the best of his ability, obeys the laws of the land, I will not judge him to be a bad person becuase he has a different sexual preference than my religion says he should have. This country was built on a principle of religious tolerance and freedom, and God will judge in those matters. The morals of our society are changing, and not for the better. However, we apply these laws with the Constitution as we have it. Until such time as we get new leadership (Second Coming) we have what we have to rule ourselves.

I will not judge others as more sinful than I just because their sins are different than mine are. If their sin hurts another, they can be held responsible for that, however a person's choices are their own. Our laws govern our society, not our religion.

[freedomforall]

The Savior also said to love your neighbor as yourself. If my homosexual friend follows his religion, is faithful to his partner, obeys the New Testament to the best of his ability, obeys the laws of the land, I will not judge him to be a bad person becuase he has a different sexual preference than my religion says he should have. This country was built on a principle of religious tolerance and freedom, and God will judge in those matters. The morals of our society are changing, and not for the better. However, we apply these laws with the Constitution as we have it. Until such time as we get new leadership (Second Coming) we have what we have to rule ourselves.

I will not judge others as more sinful than I just because their sins are different than mine are. If their sin hurts another, they can be held responsible for that, however a person's choices are their own. Our laws govern our society, not our religion.

When Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery, and he told her to sin no more...was he being tolerant or was he warning her?

[skmo]

Yes.

[lolainhertwenties]

What the hell is happening to the lords church. Are you serious. It is her right to believe what she will politically as long as she does not infringe upon my rights, but she is Mormon, and I have a responsibility to purge out evil like this from the church.

I only glanced at this thread with mild interest, but this post really sums up the modern Church: it is a club for the "righteous" (in quotes because it is the people who consider themselves righteous, not who necessarily are).

We're getting right back to the situation that Christ pointed to with "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." He didn't mean the "righteous" as in those who need no repentance, but rather the hypocrites of the day who simply believed they needed no repentance.

Christ also said that someday he would purge his Church, but unless you happen to be Jesus Chris himself, then that is not your role and it would not be an act of real righteousness, but rather of false righteousness.

Shouldn't we listen to what the girl has to say? She is dressed modestly and has no facial jewelry. Aren't those the signs of righteousness that we are to look for?

If she would have had a nose piercing or a sleeveless blouse on we know whatever her message we should ignore it for the outward appearance of a man or woman is what counts the most.

"If she would have had a nose piercing or a sleeveless blouse on we know whatever her message we should ignore it for the outward appearance of a man or woman is what counts the most."

Like someone's opinion is less valuable because they don't live up to "church standards" or rather "church culture's standards".

Goodness no wonder people leave the church.

[skmo]

Our laws are not the same as our commandments. Our God-inspired Constitution guarantees us religious freedom. As such, our religious principles are for each individual to choose and obey. Our laws are established through a specific form, and we don't have the legal right to declare whiich sins should be laws as a minority religion. We have federal laws to decide what governs the whole country, and local laws to decide what we do in our backyards. This process is getting perverted, but I see no need ot add more federal laws to make up for that.

[shadow]

This process is getting perverted, but I see no need ot add more federal laws to make up for that.

Would you add or change laws to validate immorality?

[freedomforall]

Our laws are not the same as our commandments. Our God-inspired Constitution guarantees us religious freedom. As such, our religious principles are for each individual to choose and obey. Our laws are established through a specific form, and we don't have the legal right to declare whiich sins should be laws as a minority religion. We have federal laws to decide what governs the whole country, and local laws to decide what we do in our backyards. This process is getting perverted, but I see no need ot add more federal laws to make up for that.

I would say that the people living in the City of Enoch didn't have to worry about the laws of the land. That's all the difference in the world. Increased sin requires more laws, not that they get enforced. Increased righteousness need not be governed by every law that can be conceived.
But when sin is tolerated it becomes embraced at some point. That's why we have more sin today. If people knew that if they kill another human being, they would be fried or shot do you think there would be so much murder? If people knew if they stole from others their hand would be removed would they steal? If people lived the commandments of God would there be so much open evil acts among us? Would there be adult shops everywhere selling their wares? Would people be so "sue" happy? It's gone way beyond tolerance, evil demands to be recognized and allowed to run rampant.

[skmo]

I would say that the people living in the City of Enoch didn't have to worry about the laws of the land. That's all the difference in the world. Increased sin requires more laws, not that they get enforced. Increased righteousness need not be governed by every law that can be conceived.
But when sin is tolerated it becomes embraced at some point. That's why we have more sin today. If people knew that if they kill another human being, they would be fried or shot do you think there would be so much murder? If people knew if they stole from others their hand would be removed would they steal? If people lived the commandments of God would there be so much open evil acts among us? Would there be adult shops everywhere selling their wares? Would people be so "sue" happy? It's gone way beyond tolerance, evil demands to be recognized and allowed to run rampant.

We are not Enoch. Never will be. I don't know how many people Enoch had, but it wasn't 300 million. We have to live within the framework of laws we have. It would be nice if our elected leaders would follow the law, but until such time as things get bad enough that people demand a change or change is forced upon them by some other means, we have to deal the best we can with what we have. Forcing a national law on people because it fits my religion is as much tyranny as many other things happening today. I don't propose to add to that. I would have our leaders follow the Constitution, govern only where needed, and allow the PEOPLE and the STATES the rights they are given under the law. We can't form good law by breaking the law we have. It's being done every day, and it's failing.

[skmo]

This process is getting perverted, but I see no need ot add more federal laws to make up for that.

Would you add or change laws to validate immorality?

No. I would neither try to validate nor invalidate morality with laws. I would have the government do its prescribed function: Provide for the common defense, promote the general welafe, and secure the blessings of liberty. In other words, use government to secure life, liberty, and property. Nothing more. That I leave to each individual. Or at the highest level, each state. That's what the law says, and we uphold the laws in our religion.

[blondenblueeyed]

George, I didn't accuse Hannah of commiting any sins. Why do you continue to re-direct the comments? Homosexuality is against GOD's LAW and that LAW is found in the scriptures and the talks and directions of the prophets. If Hannah wants to embrace sodomite marriage
then her belief is in direct contradiction of GOD's LAW as well as a direct contradiction of the LDS doctrine and instructions from the prophets. Sorry but there is no way to skirt around the issue of homosexuality. The ACT is a SIN.

My comment regarding Hannah leaving the LDS church because of her believing sodomite marriage is acceptable in GOD's eyes is my own opinion. I've seen this type of thing MANY, MANY times in the past. Hannah appears to be headed in that same direction. Case and point, a few months ago we had such a female openly state in our gospel doctrine class she thought there was nothing wrong with same sex marriage . When it was pointed out that homosexuality was against nature and against GOD's Law she left in a huff and asked for her name to be taken off the church membership rolls. No one accused her of sinning just tried to respectfully point out her thinking error.

[jonesde]

My vote on homosexuality is that I prefer to have the government neutral on it since it's not in the Constitution. Had God wanted it to be so, it would have been.

We run into the problem of the Constitution only being fit for a moral people. Government (the people) will not be neutral when immorality in it's various forms runs rampant. Laws are then passed to slow the progress of society's downward fall. Yes, amen to the Constitution. I realize the libertarians will disagree.


Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies. -John Adams

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams

These are interesting ideas, but:

1. Why is the US Constitution written to limit the power of those in government if it's "only fit for a moral people"? My reading of the Constitution, and the commentary on it of the day, seems clear on the point that it was designed to facilitate a peaceful society in spite of expectations of immoral and corrupted people. If it were not so, there would be no need for three branches of government or separation of church and state.

2. History shows that religion is more often an excuse for violence than a source of peace. You should read "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker if you're interested in this topic. Of course this is because of corruption of true religion, but I'd say that describes the majority of LDS people these days too...

[hopeNlove]

The separation of church and state is not in the constitution....

The Separation Of Church and State

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. The Religion Topic Page addresses this issue in much greater detail.

agree that history has shown that people use religion as an excuse for violence.

I agree with you blondenblueeyed...

George, I didn't accuse Hannah of commiting any sins. Why do you continue to re-direct the comments? Homosexuality is against GOD's LAW and that LAW is found in the scriptures and the talks and directions of the prophets. If Hannah wants to embrace sodomite marriage
then her belief is in direct contradiction of GOD's LAW as well as a direct contradiction of the LDS doctrine and instructions from the prophets. Sorry but there is no way to skirt around the issue of homosexuality. The ACT is a SIN.

My comment regarding Hannah leaving the LDS church because of her believing sodomite marriage is acceptable in GOD's eyes is my own opinion. I've seen this type of thing MANY, MANY times in the past. Hannah appears to be headed in that same direction. Case and point, a few months ago we had such a female openly state in our gospel doctrine class she thought there was nothing wrong with same sex marriage . When it was pointed out that homosexuality was against nature and against GOD's Law she left in a huff and asked for her name to be taken off the church membership rolls. No one accused her of sinning just tried to respectfully point out her thinking error.