Apostle says it's okay to support gay marriage

[Sirocco]

The bottom line, for me, is this. I believe in freedom.

I believe in the kind of freedom that holds the fabric of the Kingdom of God together.
If people want freedom to do things that causes dysfunction in God's Kingdom, they forfeit being in it.
When a nation chooses to have freedoms that puts their own selfish desires over the will of Christ, they pay the price.

That's the thing about freedom... Freedom isn't free.

If we as a society tolerate that which Christ forbids, we are adulterers to Him.
And, when the salt loses its savor it is good for nothing but to be trodden under foot of men.

I'm all for loving the sinner, but there should be intolerance for that which is sin.

And who gets to decide these sins?

[jwharton]

The bottom line, for me, is this. I believe in freedom.

I believe in the kind of freedom that holds the fabric of the Kingdom of God together.
If people want freedom to do things that causes dysfunction in God's Kingdom, they forfeit being in it.
When a nation chooses to have freedoms that puts their own selfish desires over the will of Christ, they pay the price.

That's the thing about freedom... Freedom isn't free.

If we as a society tolerate that which Christ forbids, we are adulterers to Him.
And, when the salt loses its savor it is good for nothing but to be trodden under foot of men.

I'm all for loving the sinner, but there should be intolerance for that which is sin.

And who gets to decide these sins?

The officers of the Church are responsible to have fidelity to the commandments of God in these regards.
That's why I said if we turn aside from what God has ordained then our fidelity is being directed elsewhere.

This is a form of ecclesiastical adultery against God.

He has laid out His Law in His word and if we become deluded and choose that in which God abhors, then we forfeit our blessings through Him.

God made His mind and will quite clear on this subject.

[jdawg1012]

And who gets to decide these sins?

God. And God employs no servant at the judgement bar. And gay people aren't infringing on anyone's rights anymore than other groups seeking public accommodations, much like blacks were by eating at restaurants that said, "We don't serve negroes," after the civil rights act. That's why I support the God given freedom for gay people to civilly marry, but that any church or private organization (NOT public government agencies) doesn't have to pay one hoot.

But like I mentioned on the other thread. People like to try and take God's place to make people do their version of right "for their own good." God doesn't condone people taking His place in at the judgement bar. Someone else's contracts, such as marriage, are none of their business. It's always, "for the children" or "for God, on His behalf," because saying, "God allows it by virtue of granting agency for men and women to choose, but I refuse to" is unpopular and easily refutable. That's why anyone thinking they're doing God's work by forcing people to behave as if they're in heaven (forcing your neighbor to live a "celestial law," for example--which is for them to work out, not any zealot to do for them), and worse yet, punishing people for God (unrighteous dominion), are immediately recognizable to me as people who's message I may want to avoid.

[Sirocco]

The officers of the Church are responsible to have fidelity to the commandments of God in these regards.
That's why I said if we turn aside from what God has ordained then our fidelity is being directed elsewhere.

This is a form of ecclesiastical adultery against God.

He has laid out His Law in His word and if we become deluded and choose that in which God abhors, then we forfeit our blessings through Him.

God made His mind and will quite clear on this subject.

And what if people don't want to live by your churches laws?
Why should they accept your ideas?
(I am not saying this to be rude, I, while disagree with plenty the LDS church says I agree with things they say too... which is very typical of me-I've never really agreed with anything I didn't think up, though that is often subject to change so I guess I don't even agree with myself sometimes lol)

[redj]

Aren't there any libertarians here who think folks should be able to contract for whatever they want?

Here here!!

[jwharton]

And what if people don't want to live by your churches laws?

If they are not part of the covenant then the righteousness of those who are buys them time.

Why should they accept your ideas?

Why I would like them to is because the Book of Mormon teaches us that America is a land of promise that has covenants attached to it, whether the people living on that land realize it or not. If the people living in America reject the God of the Land then He causes them to be swept off of it when they become fully ripened in iniquity.

So long as the covenant people upon that land have integrity to the Lord, they become the salt that savors the rest. It's like when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were being weighed in the balance. If even just a small number of righteous people were yet able to live in those cities, then for their sakes everyone was spared. But, as soon as those cities cast out or persecuted the righteous among them to dwindle their numbers down, they were then subject to being wiped out.

The gay lobby won't be satisfied to leave religious liberty in place. They will eventually garner the force of government to persecute those who will be of a disposition to keep fidelity to God's Law. When the righteous give in and succumb then the salt no longer has the savor God is looking for.

[Sirocco]

I donno it all went quite smoothly here, and goes quite smoothly here.
But I live in Canada so...

[jwharton]

I donno it all went quite smoothly here, and goes quite smoothly here.
But I live in Canada so...

Covenant people still have religious liberty in Canada, right?

[Sirocco]

I donno it all went quite smoothly here, and goes quite smoothly here.
But I live in Canada so...

Covenant people still have religious liberty in Canada, right?

Like what do you mean?

[jwharton]

I donno it all went quite smoothly here, and goes quite smoothly here.
But I live in Canada so...

Covenant people still have religious liberty in Canada, right?

Like what do you mean?

Like the gays are not able to force the church to marry them, right?
As long as Mormons are free to teach homosexuality is a sin, there's still religious liberty.

[Sirocco]

Oh yeah, I am certain you cannot do that here, not that I have ever heard anyone trying even if you could...
But since a majority of Canadians are for same sex marriage... it's not a popular thing to state your disagreement with it (our Prime Minister is against it and even tried to reopen the issue in the house of commons, or something, but was shot down and hasn't bothered since, the country has far bigger issues and as I said, the majority agree with it).
I do know that, what you Americans I think call protected classes or whatever, GLBT people are a part of here.
Alberta did try to do their own shenanigans, but I guess forgot it doesn't work that way...they ain't a state lol But nobody likes Alberta.
One of our most famous Prime Ministers said this on the subject "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

[samizdat]

Canada does have an established church does it not? The USA not so much, but when you get churches to go under the corporation under the five oh one charlie rules of the IRS anything goes.

[Sirocco]

Canada does have an established church does it not? The USA not so much, but when you get churches to go under the corporation under the five oh one charlie rules of the IRS anything goes.

What do you mean exactly?

[jdawg1012]

Oh yeah, I am certain you cannot do that here, not that I have ever heard anyone trying even if you could...
But since a majority of Canadians are for same sex marriage... it's not a popular thing to state your disagreement with it (our Prime Minister is against it and even tried to reopen the issue in the house of commons, or something, but was shot down and hasn't bothered since, the country has far bigger issues and as I said, the majority agree with it).
I do know that, what you Americans I think call protected classes or whatever, GLBT people are a part of here.
Alberta did try to do their own shenanigans, but I guess forgot it doesn't work that way...they ain't a state lol But nobody likes Alberta.
One of our most famous Prime Ministers said this on the subject "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

See? I told you "religious liberty" is always newspeak code for "anti-gay." People who use the term are not worried about a person's right to use marijuana as a deeply held belief, or the right to sacrifice animals, or the right to turn away black people, or the right to have churches marry gay people (In North Carolina, their marriage ban was struck down in part because a church sued the state for not letting them practice same-sex marriage as part of their beliefs, they wanted the freedom to marry gays, which was a crime, but part of their deeply held religious beliefs). "Religious Freedom/Liberty" is always used as a way to say someone wants to harm, disenfranchise or denounce gay people, with impunity and without criticism. It's NEVER about actual religious liberty, in any other context. It's always newspeak for "anti-gay." The day people mean "religious liberty" as an actual freedom to practice their religion, like smoking pot, denying interracial couples from entering into marriage, etc., allow women to have abortions, etc., is the moment I birth a kitten.

[Sirocco]

Yeah religion and law, especially if you have several religions wanting to influence said law, can cause all sorts of chaos, but you are right, it's never about their own religious freedoms, which worse to religion is the new age of communication (I think) and they are entering a strange new age religion has never quite seen before.
So they gotta scapegoat someone in their fear, scapegoats for their larger problems.

[marktheshark]

And what if people don't want to live by your churches laws?

If they are not part of the covenant then the righteousness of those who are buys them time.

Why should they accept your ideas?

Why I would like them to is because the Book of Mormon teaches us that America is a land of promise that has covenants attached to it, whether the people living on that land realize it or not. If the people living in America reject the God of the Land then He causes them to be swept off of it when they become fully ripened in iniquity.

So long as the covenant people upon that land have integrity to the Lord, they become the salt that savors the rest. It's like when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were being weighed in the balance. If even just a small number of righteous people were yet able to live in those cities, then for their sakes everyone was spared. But, as soon as those cities cast out or persecuted the righteous among them to dwindle their numbers down, they were then subject to being wiped out.

The gay lobby won't be satisfied to leave religious liberty in place. They will eventually garner the force of government to persecute those who will be of a disposition to keep fidelity to God's Law. When the righteous give in and succumb then the salt no longer has the savor God is looking for.

Amen to the covenants attached and required of the people of this land. All the iniquity abound will be our undoing. All the carnal, godless people will bring destruction upon all of us. Even those professing to be of Christ are struggling to not be of the world, myself included. It's definitely a trying time.

[Sirocco]

Why do you care what happens to me? (for example)...
How will my life b your undoing? Does my life have any effect on your afterlife and where you go?

[jwharton]

And what if people don't want to live by your churches laws?

If they are not part of the covenant then the righteousness of those who are buys them time.

Why should they accept your ideas?

Why I would like them to is because the Book of Mormon teaches us that America is a land of promise that has covenants attached to it, whether the people living on that land realize it or not. If the people living in America reject the God of the Land then He causes them to be swept off of it when they become fully ripened in iniquity.

So long as the covenant people upon that land have integrity to the Lord, they become the salt that savors the rest. It's like when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were being weighed in the balance. If even just a small number of righteous people were yet able to live in those cities, then for their sakes everyone was spared. But, as soon as those cities cast out or persecuted the righteous among them to dwindle their numbers down, they were then subject to being wiped out.

The gay lobby won't be satisfied to leave religious liberty in place. They will eventually garner the force of government to persecute those who will be of a disposition to keep fidelity to God's Law. When the righteous give in and succumb then the salt no longer has the savor God is looking for.

Amen to the covenants attached and required of the people of this land. All the iniquity abound will be our undoing. All the carnal, godless people will bring destruction upon all of us. Even those professing to be of Christ are struggling to not be of the world, myself included. It's definitely a trying time.

This is why I become a bit strident at times because I realize individuals can only hold out for so long.
This is also why I am gravely concerned about the church yet being under condemnation for things that are within our power to change, but we do not.
The wicked in the world don't have power of their own to overcome the righteous. It is only when the righteous also turn away that trouble starts.

[Bald_Bandit]

BaldBandit,
You failed to address the most significant reasons why legal marriage has NOT included homosexual couples in the past, and why it is illogical and harmful to start doing so now.

[/quote]

The constitution says nothing about marriage, but it does say plenty about Equal Protection and Due Process. States are allowed to and have made laws dealing specifically with marriage, and some have been struck down for interfering with Equal Protection and Due process, e.g., Loving v Virginia when the federal government determined that Virginia's law banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

Unfortunately for you, your logic doesn't apply equally: if marriage is only for heterosexual couples for reasons of procreation and the furthering of human life, then why do we allow older couples to marry? Why do we allow the destitute to marry? Why do we allow those with a criminal record to marry?

If it's the protection of children, then where are the studies that show a child being raised by only one parent is better off than two gay parents? Where are the studies showing that all children raised by heterosexual couples are better off all the time, i.e. all heterosexual couples are fit parents?

In the case of state laws saying marriage is FOR the promotion of human life, where does it explicitly say it's AGAINST same sex marriages, and again, how can you make a case that children in foster homes without parents, or children in need of adoption, wouldn't benefit from two, loving parents?

One of my points, which you never addressed, is polygamy in our own church, which many OTHER Christian churches have spoken out against and continue to speak out against, what defense would you use to justify the protection of our practice of polygamy, but the discrimination of same-sex marriage?

How do you address the special incentives and protections that marriages enjoy from our government, and then deny them to same sex couples?

In humanity's history marriage has included same sex marriage, monogamy, polygamy, and various other forms of marriage, polygamy being on the occurred throughout the Bible, so the argument that traditional marriage is only for one man and woman simply doesn't hold, not even in the recent history of our church.

Again, morally I agree with you that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, but at the same time I recognize that morally the greatest gift we've been given was freedom, the right to choose. Leaving morality aside, I simply don't know how you can argue for discrimination against same sex couples without including your own religious views on the subject, but those have no place in the conversation, because what makes your religious views any more valid than another's? From a constitutional point of view, all of those questions are difficult to answer and justify if your goal is denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

At the end of this internal debate with myself, I've decided I would rather have the right to choose for myself, and because I value that right, I cannot force my morality on someone else, and deny them the same, nor would I want someone else to have the same power of my right to choose, as already happened with our church...how do you not see the irony here? We were denied that same right! We would very likely be practicing polygamy today as a God-given commandment if not for the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, and I'm sure there would be plenty of other religious sects denouncing us for doing so, citing that marriage is only between a man and a woman...never mind all the cultures who have practiced polygamy throughout history, including revered prophets, and we would use those examples in our defense.

I probably won't change your mind. I've been back and forth on this myself. One thing I do know for a certainty, if we in the church would spend more time and attention on the two great commandments upon which all the law and the prophets hang, we would drive a lot less of our neighbors from the church with our self-righteous and smug superiority.

[log]

I wonder if anyone thinks it could have been simple, raging bigotry that caused a public-opinion-conscious Church leadership to stick its neck out and commit itself on the radically-unpopular and certain-to-eventually-be-losing-both-politically-religiously-and-socially issue of homogamy?

Man, if so, then they'd have to believe the Church leadership to be almost unbearably malicious, wouldn't they? I would guess they would have to figure the Church leadership harbors some deep and satanic hatred towards gays.

Can you imagine, if your highest priority was your positive public perception and the raking in of tithing funds, what kind of virulent enmity it would have taken to get you to do something that would trash your image in the public eye?

It's mind boggling, almost. In fact, almost mind-bogglingly self-contradictory, maybe.

[Sirocco]

I wonder if anyone thinks it could have been simple, raging bigotry that caused a public-opinion-conscious Church leadership to stick its neck out and commit itself on the radically-unpopular and certain-to-eventually-be-losing-both-politically-religiously-and-socially issue of homogamy?

Man, if so, then they'd have to believe the Church leadership to be almost unbearably malicious, wouldn't they? I would guess they would have to figure the Church leadership harbors some deep and satanic hatred towards gays.

Can you imagine, if your highest priority was your positive public perception and the raking of tithing funds, what kind of virulent enmity it would have taken to get you to do something that would trash your image in the public eye?

It's mind boggling, almost. In fact, almost self-contradictingly mind-boggling, maybe.

I don't think the church leadership are bad people, I think they are afraid of a strange and uncertain future for their church, but say they were only in it for the tithing and the members... What if they did go and change to cater to a wider bunch, but those wider bunch weren't interested in being Mormon, and even worse a lot of the current Mormons felt the church was simply trying to change with the times, and I guess bend over backwards to get members.
It's not as simple as "change and they will come" they very well might not.

[jwharton]

I wonder if anyone thinks it could have been simple, raging bigotry that caused a public-opinion-conscious Church leadership to stick its neck out and commit itself on the radically-unpopular and certain-to-eventually-be-losing-both-politically-religiously-and-socially issue of homogamy?

Man, if so, then they'd have to believe the Church leadership to be almost unbearably malicious, wouldn't they? I would guess they would have to figure the Church leadership harbors some deep and satanic hatred towards gays.

Can you imagine, if your highest priority was your positive public perception and the raking in of tithing funds, what kind of virulent enmity it would have taken to get you to do something that would trash your image in the public eye?

It's mind boggling, almost. In fact, almost mind-bogglingly self-contradictory, maybe.

My mind boggled trying to follow you here...
I'm not sure what point or points you are trying to make.

[Bald_Bandit]

I wonder if anyone thinks it could have been simple, raging bigotry that caused a public-opinion-conscious Church leadership to stick its neck out and commit itself on the radically-unpopular and certain-to-eventually-be-losing-both-politically-religiously-and-socially issue of homogamy?

Man, if so, then they'd have to believe the Church leadership to be almost unbearably malicious, wouldn't they? I would guess they would have to figure the Church leadership harbors some deep and satanic hatred towards gays.

Can you imagine, if your highest priority was your positive public perception and the raking in of tithing funds, what kind of virulent enmity it would have taken to get you to do something that would trash your image in the public eye?

It's mind boggling, almost. In fact, almost mind-bogglingly self-contradictory, maybe.

My mind boggled trying to follow you here...
I'm not sure what point or points you are trying to make.

I think he's mocking the idea that the church can be so so self-defeating in it's stance, while at the same time only being after increased membership and increased tithing, a contradictory set of goals. I think his somewhat heavy-handed use of satire was trying to make the point that the church leadership is obviously sincere in it's desire to follow God's will as they understand it, since they're taking such an unpopular stance that will probably drive a lot of people away...although you could make the argument that they're catering to their base, but that would just be for the sake of argument...or I missed his point entirely.

[samizdat]

Canada does have an established church does it not? The USA not so much, but when you get churches to go under the corporation under the five oh one charlie rules of the IRS anything goes.

What do you mean exactly?

I thought Canada had an established Church or two (an established Church is a Church subsidized by the government where taxes go to). I figured as much as reading up on the United Church of Canada. Please educate me on the matter.

[Sirocco]

Canada does have an established church does it not? The USA not so much, but when you get churches to go under the corporation under the five oh one charlie rules of the IRS anything goes.

What do you mean exactly?

I thought Canada had an established Church or two (an established Church is a Church subsidized by the government where taxes go to). I figured as much as reading up on the United Church of Canada. Please educate me on the matter.

I don't think so... but I am certainly no expert so don't quote me on that...