Elder Oaks speaks about the Respect for Marriage Act

[Seed Starter]

I thought it was a good defense of those principles. There are times which I wish the Church would be more forthright in defending traditional marriage but I realize that these times are different now than they were 30, 50 years ago.

No times are not different. Time has reminded the same. Arrogance is at the level of Noah's time and mankind is on the verge of finding out that "this ain't no disco!"

...

Time has not remained the same. 50 years ago it would have been impossible for a man of African descent to get the Priesthood or enter the temple.

Thank goodness a revelation changed that.

Even though there are quite a few characters on the board that did NOT and do NOT support that revelation.

The original policy was not revelation to begin with

From the church website:
"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

Why do you think revelation was needed to alter that policy?

[TheDuke]

cannot blame Oaks, maybe reading legal documents and understanding them isn't his thing any more, like RMN and doctoring with COVID?

[TheDuke]

No times are not different. Time has reminded the same. Arrogance is at the level of Noah's time and mankind is on the verge of finding out that "this ain't no disco!"

...

Time has not remained the same. 50 years ago it would have been impossible for a man of African descent to get the Priesthood or enter the temple.

Thank goodness a revelation changed that.

Even though there are quite a few characters on the board that did NOT and do NOT support that revelation.

The original policy was not revelation to begin with

From the church website:
"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

Why do you think revelation was needed to alter that policy?

because McKay believed in prophets getting revelation at the time, not PSR's just making up policy on doctrinal things.

[InfoWarrior82]

No times are not different. Time has reminded the same. Arrogance is at the level of Noah's time and mankind is on the verge of finding out that "this ain't no disco!"

...

Time has not remained the same. 50 years ago it would have been impossible for a man of African descent to get the Priesthood or enter the temple.

Thank goodness a revelation changed that.

Even though there are quite a few characters on the board that did NOT and do NOT support that revelation.

The original policy was not revelation to begin with

From the church website:
"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

Why do you think revelation was needed to alter that policy?

The lifting wasn't revelation either

Just a bunch of old dudes doing their own thing.

[4Joshua8]

He's saying the law protects individuals' right to religious freedom, but that does not appear to be the case. My reading of it only makes allowances for religious institutions. Secular businesses owned by religious individuals are not protected. Christian bakeries, for example, will need to transform their business into a church if they want religious freedom.

Where am I wrong?

You are not. The Church "came out" in favor of the "Fairness For All" act, which only protects religious institutions while throwing everyone else under the bus.

This is exactly what they did in Utah quite a few years ago with their non-discrimination legislation.
Benchmark Books cannot discriminate in hiring a loud and proud homosexual, but Deseret Book can.
Lion House doesn’t need to cater gay weddings or make gay cakes, but every privately-owned bakery in Utah cannot pick and choose.

This injustice stokes the fire of anger in my soul.
The church supporting this injustice is damnable.

[h_p]

This injustice stokes the fire of anger in my soul.
The church supporting this injustice is damnable.

Not to mention using a bald-faced lie like he did in this video to misrepresent the whole thing.

[crabman]

There's absolutely no excuse for a religious institution to have come out in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act. The very first clause was to revoke the Defensive of Marriage act.. the act that correctly defined marriage exactly as the Proclamation on the Family did, between one man and one woman.
So this new disgrace of a bill turned the Proclamation on its head, and for what? To list religious protections that are already and more clearly and powerfully spelled out in the bill of rights. What an abomination!

[largerthanlife2]

Members always lose rights and the church always gains more money. Nice partnership!

[Dave62]

I thought it was a good defense of those principles. There are times which I wish the Church would be more forthright in defending traditional marriage but I realize that these times are different now than they were 30, 50 years ago.

Dude . . .read the comments. The Church doesn't defend marriage anymore. Members want the Church to push for full acceptance. You are in the minority.

In the USA that might very well be the case. Latin America is vastly different, and the same can be said of Asia and Africa.

True . . . but USA drives the World-wide Church and SLC drives the Church in USA. So you are out of luck.

What you say is interesting, Spirit. I wonder if this might cause a schism in the future?

[Trucker]

There's absolutely no excuse for a religious institution to have come out in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act. The very first clause was to revoke the Defensive of Marriage act.. the act that correctly defined marriage exactly as the Proclamation on the Family did, between one man and one woman.
So this new disgrace of a bill turned the Proclamation on its head, and for what? To list religious protections that are already and more clearly and powerfully spelled out in the bill of rights. What an abomination!

It's almost like they sell something...for money.

[Trucker]

Time has not remained the same. 50 years ago it would have been impossible for a man of African descent to get the Priesthood or enter the temple.

Thank goodness a revelation changed that.

Even though there are quite a few characters on the board that did NOT and do NOT support that revelation.

The original policy was not revelation to begin with

From the church website:
"Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."

Why do you think revelation was needed to alter that policy?

The lifting wasn't revelation either

Just a bunch of old dudes doing their own thing.

In the modern church, social pressure trumps revelation.

[spiritMan]

Dude . . .read the comments. The Church doesn't defend marriage anymore. Members want the Church to push for full acceptance. You are in the minority.

In the USA that might very well be the case. Latin America is vastly different, and the same can be said of Asia and Africa.

True . . . but USA drives the World-wide Church and SLC drives the Church in USA. So you are out of luck.

What you say is interesting, Spirit. I wonder if this might cause a schism in the future?

It drove the split in the UMC . . .there is now a UMC and a GMC (global).

The African congregations of the UMC told the UMC to shove it. There are lots of American congregations leaving but it's more around 30% . . .without the Africans to force the vote to allow congregations to leave the American congregations would have been out of luck.

[BenMcCrea]

He explained that same-sex marriage is already the law. The Church did all it could to prevent that from happening. Prop 8 etc, It still went ahead. Same sex marriage is legal and it is illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ’s. The only thing the Church can do now - within the law - is to seek exemptions for religious organisations from having to perform same sex marriages.

I would also add - maybe examine yourselves - are you free from all filth - pornography, masturbation, lust and perversion and all other sexual sins - before you point the finger at Church leaders and accuse them of anything.

[spiritMan]

He explained that same-sex marriage is already the law. The Church did all it could to prevent that from happening. Prop 8 etc, It still went ahead. Same sex marriage is legal and it is illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ’s. The only thing the Church can do now - within the law - is to seek exemptions for religious organisations from having to perform same sex marriages.

Bull@#$%. Prior to this, SS"M" was a "right" created out of thin air by the Supreme Court. Just as much as abortion was a "right". 50+ years after abortion was a "right" the Supreme Court said . . .actually it's not a right. The exact same path WAS possible with SS"M" . . .and especially possible with this SC. In fact, Thomas said as much in his opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

What this law did is made it double hard for the SC to overturn it . . .b/c now there are two protections to SS"M" in place. 1) SC ruling, 2) act of Congress. Which means to overturn it will require another Congress to overturn the law + have the SC reverse itself.

This is EXACTLY why this law was passed NOW . . .b/c the left didn't want what happened to Roe v. Wade to happen to SS"M". After 50 years of battle it's impossible at the Federal level to have a federal abortion law. . . .just like it would have been after 50 years of battle on SS"M".

I would also add - maybe examine yourselves - are you free from all filth - pornography, masturbation, lust and perversion and all other sexual sins - before you point the finger at Church leaders and accuse them of anything.

Seriously? As a matter of fact, I am. Are you?

Yes, the Church leaders have allowed perverted, wicked, evil into the Church. Maybe you should get your own head out of the gutter and realize that yes in fact there are a lot of individuals who do not masturbate, watch porn, lust after their neighbor's wife and desire other sexual sins. Maybe you are the messed up one, not everyone else?

[spiritMan]

I would also add - maybe examine yourselves - are you free from all filth - pornography, masturbation, lust and perversion and all other sexual sins - before you point the finger at Church leaders and accuse them of anything.

Typical leftist trope.

Let's just abolish laws against murder b/c you should examine yourself . . .do you have anger in your heart towards your fellow man . . .well obviously then you can't advocate for laws against murder.

My goodness . . .what a childish, foolish, insane, stupid argument.

[Reluctant Watchman]

He explained that same-sex marriage is already the law. The Church did all it could to prevent that from happening. Prop 8 etc, It still went ahead. Same sex marriage is legal and it is illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ’s. The only thing the Church can do now - within the law - is to seek exemptions for religious organisations from having to perform same sex marriages.

I would also add - maybe examine yourselves - are you free from all filth - pornography, masturbation, lust and perversion and all other sexual sins - before you point the finger at Church leaders and accuse them of anything.

You know where that’s headed right? I hope you also know that corrupt government will make it impossible to be a Christian today. You will be thrown in jail or exiled for being a believer of Jesus.

[Trucker]

He explained that same-sex marriage is already the law. The Church did all it could to prevent that from happening. Prop 8 etc, It still went ahead. Same sex marriage is legal and it is illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ’s. The only thing the Church can do now - within the law - is to seek exemptions for religious organisations from having to perform same sex marriages.

I would also add - maybe examine yourselves - are you free from all filth - pornography, masturbation, lust and perversion and all other sexual sins - before you point the finger at Church leaders and accuse them of anything.

It's so weak. So whenever there is a law that's awful, we should just throw our hands up, Oh well that's the law. Thomas Paine/George Washington/Thomas Jefferson: oh well, that's the law. Abraham Lincoln: oh well, that's the law. General Eisenhower/Winston Churchill: oh well, that's the law. Moroni: oh well, that's the law. Rise of the AntiChrist and everyone says: oh well, that's the law.

Weak men.

On edit: I just told my wife about this an I got physically ill. The church did not have to send an official representative when this was signed, who smiled and shook hands and got their picture taken. The church didn't tolerate this after doing everything they could. They helped create it and celebrated it. I just want to vomit. And it's not like when evil really starts persecuting the church that they suddenly will grow a backbone and be valiant. They have already shown their true colors in word and deed. I seriously fell like I am going to throw up.

[largerthanlife2]

If you speak out against same sex marriage, it will now be considered hate speech. You can be fired from your job, if you are against same sex marriage.

[Dusty Wanderer]

He explained that same-sex marriage is already the law. The Church did all it could to prevent that from happening. Prop 8 etc, It still went ahead. Same sex marriage is legal and it is illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ’s. The only thing the Church can do now - within the law - is to seek exemptions for religious organisations from having to perform same sex marriages.

I think you bring up a valid consideration here. However, I would clarify, "The Church Previous presidencies did all [they] could ..."

Seeking for religious exemptions for the Church alone is not "the only thing" they can do now. There is no other another way. But I agree, that is certainly what they're doing.

With their emphasis on the importance of families, you'd think they'd advocate for them, too; but they continue to support legislation that is bad for parents, as long as it is good for the Church. (cf. Arizona, and GA and FL legislation in 2022)

[LDS Physician]

He explained that same-sex marriage is already the law. The Church did all it could to prevent that from happening. Prop 8 etc, It still went ahead. Same sex marriage is legal and it is illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ’s. The only thing the Church can do now - within the law - is to seek exemptions for religious organisations from having to perform same sex marriages.

I would also add - maybe examine yourselves - are you free from all filth - pornography, masturbation, lust and perversion and all other sexual sins - before you point the finger at Church leaders and accuse them of anything.

It's so weak. So whenever there is a law that's awful, we should just throw our hands up, Oh well that's the law. Thomas Paine/George Washington/Thomas Jefferson: oh well, that's the law. Abraham Lincoln: oh well, that's the law. General Eisenhower/Winston Churchill: oh well, that's the law. Moroni: oh well, that's the law. Rise of the AntiChrist and everyone says: oh well, that's the law.

Weak men.

On edit: I just told my wife about this an I got physically ill. The church did not have to send an official representative when this was signed, who smiled and shook hands and got their picture taken. The church didn't tolerate this after doing everything they could. They helped create it and celebrated it. I just want to vomit. And it's not like when evil really starts persecuting the church that they suddenly will grow a backbone and be valiant. They have already shown their true colors in word and deed. I seriously fell like I am going to throw up.

The church didn't have to publicly say a single word because the religious protective provisions were already in place ... yet they did. Why's that?

[Subcomandante]

If you speak out against same sex marriage, it will now be considered hate speech. You can be fired from your job, if you are against same sex marriage.

That's been the case for a long time now, in SEVERAL jobs.

They will even look you up in social media before you are even hired.

[thaabit]

He has to know he is operating from a false premise, namely that the Supreme Court makes the law of the land. That being said, it is de facto accepted and I can understand why the church would just concede that and still try to fight for religious freedom which is in danger.

[HVDC]

I thought it was a good defense of those principles. There are times which I wish the Church would be more forthright in defending traditional marriage but I realize that these times are different now than they were 30, 50 years ago.

No times are not different. Time has reminded the same. Arrogance is at the level of Noah's time and mankind is on the verge of finding out that "this ain't no disco!"

...

Time has not remained the same. 50 years ago it would have been impossible for a man of African descent to get the Priesthood or enter the temple.

Thank goodness a revelation changed that.

Even though there are quite a few characters on the board that did NOT and do NOT support that revelation.

Equality for Blacks.

Means equally for everyone.

And everything.

The battle is over.

Go home and lick your wounds.

As goes the United States.

So goes the world.

There was no revelation then.

And there will be no revelation this time.

Only pragmatism.

The Banksters declare.

Their will be done.

Word.

Sir H