Page 3 of 4
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 14th, 2009, 7:08 pm
by J
[...]
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 14th, 2009, 7:37 pm
by Mark
If I did that Mosby I would kick my own butt out of the building. What that chump did is just so disrespectful in the Lords house and I frankly have no time for people like that. They are nothing more than useful idiots to a corrupt and anti-Christ agenda. "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same".
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 14th, 2009, 9:38 pm
by p51-mustang
My goodness, under mosaic law engaging in homosexuality was a capitol offense. Now we have become so tolerant that we think it is ok because we are "pursuing happiness". Being tolerant of gross sin increases the likelyhood that others will see it as ok and engage in the practice. Let the gays be "couples" or "life partners" or whatever, but please dont let them say they are "married". That definition came from God in the begining and only he can define it! And he defined it as a union of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Evil-Knievel
Remember laws are supposed to be based on morality and proper principle. If we allow govt to make marriage legal among gays and it takes hold, the fabric of society would be torn asunder.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 14th, 2009, 10:23 pm
by Mark
Remember laws are supposed to be based on morality and proper principle. If we allow govt to make marriage legal among gays and it takes hold, the fabric of society would be torn asunder.
You are right on here p51. The sanctity and protection of the marriage covenant between a man and a women must be protected for the common good of society. Otherwise we are headed for a slippery slope to hell in a hand basket. Just ask the ghosts of Sodom and Gommorah.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 14th, 2009, 10:56 pm
by kathyn
It's pretty obvious what this young man's objective was..to speak out against the Church and try to embarrass its leaders and members. It was obviously planned for this very purpose. To me, that is apostasy, pure and simple. To say it was rude is putting it very mildly. That he did it in his aunt's ward was totally despicable because he was embarrassing his aunt, in particular, for her stand on Prop. 8. It was cold and calculating. (I'll bet this young man had already left the Church before this incident.) I believe in being civil to everyone, but there has to be a point beyond which we are not willing to go. Allowing gays to marry is the line in the sand which we cannot cross. Gays can live together and have equal rights, etc. but redefining marriage is going too far. If we believe that Jesus Christ stands at the head of the Church, then we accept the official policies of the Church. If anyone wants to argue with the Church for its stand on homosexual issues, they better take it up with the Savior first!
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 1:21 am
by obamohno
p51-mustang wrote:My goodness, under mosaic law engaging in homosexuality was a capitol offense. Now we have become so tolerant that we think it is ok because we are "pursuing happiness". Being tolerant of gross sin increases the likelyhood that others will see it as ok and engage in the practice. Let the gays be "couples" or "life partners" or whatever, but please dont let them say they are "married". That definition came from God in the begining and only he can define it! And he defined it as a union of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Evil-Knievel
Remember laws are supposed to be based on morality and proper principle. If we allow govt to make marriage legal among gays and it takes hold, the fabric of society would be torn asunder.
When I die and God asks me why I didn't support Prop 8, I will answer I just feel didn't right about telling another human on earth with agency who they could and could not marry because I had different beliefs.
I also am so happy that we have evolved to not killing gay people because they are gay and we are comfortable with agency and mans liberty, you kind of proved my point with that one.
Your argument that being tolerant will make it more likely for people to do it is false, I personally say righteousness will bring forth good fruit, let the truth prevail, let the truth win, don't illegalize lies just because you think the truth may be threatened. just live the truth and it will prevail.
If being gay really makes people unhappy people will go away from it, but if making people feel prosecuted gives them a sense of pride and they will fight and become committed to the said sin based on the persecution they are getting from so called moralists.
You want any group of people to feel passionate about their beliefs, just persecute them for their beliefs, then you create a monster.
Be tolerate and loving and show them how being straight really brings forth peace and loving communities and not people who would judge others cause of their beliefs and say they can't enjoy the happiness of earthly unity if they determine that would bring them it, then maybe you would persuade the hearts of men.
But with your approach , I don't ever see that persuading the hearts of men and I just don't think I have the right to tell someone who or how many they can marry.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 3:57 am
by Mary
.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 4:11 am
by obamohno
I agree with everything Bednar said if your are under the belief that the state should define marriage, to me marriage is special because of the religious aspects.
I think its perfectly fine to vote yes on 8 since it was up for vote, but I do not feel that ultimately the state should have anything to do with marriage.
So if my only options are that its defined man and women or both man and women and same sex, I would say man and women because of that ripple effect of the state expanding its power.
I would love the option though to say that I vote that the state should have nothing to do with it.
But we as Saints have voted the lesser of two evils for a long time.
If anybody feels the above is against the Gospel and that I'm on my way to apostasy, thats fine.
I always thought though we were aloud to differ on some things but still be true believers.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 8:40 am
by armedtotheteeth
If all the info you got is that video and your jumping to these conclusions, man, I say that's quite a judgment.
If you saw it and your not, man, I’d say you need to watch it again and again. If you don’t believe this is flat out rebellion, that’s scary! If too many in the Church do this, or have this same sentiments we could become like to Nephites of old, holding our heads above the knowledge and understanding of the lord and his prophets; which would make us ripe for destruction.
I find it interesting you use the ol’ pursuit of happiness line for your argument. We all know; especially our Lord and his servant, that homosexuality is NOT happiness; no sin is.
But regardless of that, this is an interesting question we all could answer: Do you put your faith more in the constitution of the US or the prophet of God? We are to befriend the constitution, not worship it. If it ever came to the point where the prophet directly opposed something on the constitution, I would follow the prophet!!
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 8:41 am
by ChelC
obamohno wrote:p51-mustang wrote:My goodness, under mosaic law engaging in homosexuality was a capitol offense. Now we have become so tolerant that we think it is ok because we are "pursuing happiness". Being tolerant of gross sin increases the likelyhood that others will see it as ok and engage in the practice. Let the gays be "couples" or "life partners" or whatever, but please dont let them say they are "married". That definition came from God in the begining and only he can define it! And he defined it as a union of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Evil-Knievel
Remember laws are supposed to be based on morality and proper principle. If we allow govt to make marriage legal among gays and it takes hold, the fabric of society would be torn asunder.
When I die and God asks me why I didn't support Prop 8, I will answer I just feel didn't right about telling another human on earth with agency who they could and could not marry because I had different beliefs.
I've just got to call you out on that. I didn't want to force my beliefs on someone? These are not just your views. These are eternal truths. Telling a group of individuals that they cannot make a legal contract for which they do not qualify, especially when that contract is of a sacred nature, with such enormous impact on society when it is misused, is to apologize for the words of the Lord. Who are you to do so? The Lord gave commandments and throughout time has called his people to be a voice of warning. He has specifically spoken to His prophets on this matter and told them how to act and you put more faith in your own wisdom? I'm sorry if I offend you, but I think you walk a dangerous line. If the official position of the church continually fails to support your deeply held points of view in support of anarchy, it might be time to prayerfully reconsider your views. If after doing so you still believe you are correct, you'd do well to bind your tongue on matters in direct conflict with the leaders of the church. If you believe they are not acting on inspiration on this particular point, then continue to study and teach your political points of view - that is your prerogative. To publicly speak out against the church leadership is unwise, IMO.
I also am so happy that we have evolved to not killing gay people because they are gay and we are comfortable with agency and mans liberty, you kind of proved my point with that one.
Your argument that being tolerant will make it more likely for people to do it is false, I personally say righteousness will bring forth good fruit, let the truth prevail, let the truth win, don't illegalize lies just because you think the truth may be threatened. just live the truth and it will prevail.
Do you believe church leadership was deceived on this issue and that the Lord stood by and let them lead us astray?
If being gay really makes people unhappy people will go away from it, but if making people feel prosecuted gives them a sense of pride and they will fight and become committed to the said sin based on the persecution they are getting from so called moralists.
When I was young there were a lot of things I didn't do, not because I was so strong and convicted, but because I was afraid of what would happen if I did them. If everyone around me were more tolerant of misbehavior I'd have been more likely to do wrong, and would have had less opportunity to grow up. The youth of our day are suffering because of this! I think people who stand by and claim a moral high ground of "live and let live" have serious blood on their hands. Our job is to warn. Our perspective is eternal. Our children depend on us.
You want any group of people to feel passionate about their beliefs, just persecute them for their beliefs, then you create a monster.
Be tolerate and loving and show them how being straight really brings forth peace and loving communities and not people who would judge others cause of their beliefs and say they can't enjoy the happiness of earthly unity if they determine that would bring them it, then maybe you would persuade the hearts of men.
But with your approach , I don't ever see that persuading the hearts of men and I just don't think I have the right to tell someone who or how many they can marry.
Happiness of earthly unity? Come on. If these people want to enjoy the company of one another, they are free to do it. If they want to create a legal union, they are free to do it. What they are not free to do is to take a Godly ordinance which was created for a man and a woman, and to get a special allowance made in order to feel good about what they are doing.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 8:44 am
by mchlwise
obamohno wrote:I always thought though we were aloud to differ on some things but still be true believers.
I guess what it comes down to is the church taking an official position.
I agree that we are allowed to differ on some things but still be true believers. There are many backgrounds and opinions and the church has room for them. We are to use our minds and study things out, and we have our agency.
To me, though, when the church takes an official position or makes a statement or something, things change. At that point our agency is used to follow the prophet or to move away from the church. We don't have to necessarily agree with the position the church takes, but we are obligated to sustain and support the position regardless. I want to make it clear that I don't think that you, or anyone else, is an apostate or on the road to apostasy simply because they don't agree with the position the church took. That's your prerogative. But again, we are obligated to sustain and support the position and speaking with members in opposition to the position is not sustaining and supporting it. It is speaking against the church and is therefore an act moving towards apostasy.
I happen to agree with you that there is much too much government getting involved in too many things. It would be nice to have the choice to keep the government out of it. But we don't. When the choices are both "evil", the best thing you can possibly do is vote for the lesser of the two.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 8:46 am
by ndjili
The original meaning of "separation of church and state" was keeping the government out of religion, not keeping religion out of the government. Of course evil men of law have "interpreted" it to be the latter. I think the gay marriage stand the church has taken is far more inspired than most know. It's not about getting needlessly involved in who marry who. First came the proclamation of the family which was the word of God sent out among the people and leaders of all nations. Um can you say warning. Many nations did not listen and changed their laws to allow gays to marry (which marriage is a religious ideal and term). In the nations where gay people can marry, it is now considered hate crimes to teach over the pulpit in churches that homosexuality is a sin. I remember reading how pastors in Canada were being jailed for doing just that. Then they started MAKING churches, who wanted the right to perform marriages, marry homosexuals. This is not about the government getting involved in who marries who anymore. Once we start down this path is becomes a dagerous one for all of our rights. Every society in history that mocks God as we do, kills babies (we use the nice term of abortion) as we do, and openly accepts and practices homosexuality as we do, falls. That's a historical fact.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 8:48 am
by ChelC
mchlwise wrote:obamohno wrote:I always thought though we were aloud to differ on some things but still be true believers.
I guess what it comes down to is the church taking an official position.
I agree that we are allowed to differ on some things but still be true believers. There are many backgrounds and opinions and the church has room for them. We are to use our minds and study things out, and we have our agency.
To me, though, when the church takes an official position or makes a statement or something, things change. At that point our agency is used to follow the prophet or to move away from the church. We don't have to necessarily agree with the position the church takes, but we are obligated to sustain and support the position regardless. I want to make it clear that I don't think that you, or anyone else, is an apostate or on the road to apostasy simply because they don't agree with the position the church took. That's your prerogative. But again, we are obligated to sustain and support the position and speaking with members in opposition to the position is not sustaining and supporting it. It is speaking against the church and is therefore an act moving towards apostasy.
I happen to agree with you that there is much too much government getting involved in too many things. It would be nice to have the choice to keep the government out of it. But we don't. When the choices are both "evil", the best thing you can possibly do is vote for the lesser of the two.
I agree with this up to the last sentence. I don't vote for evil, I gave up that dirty habit. To follow the prophet is not to choose evil. To follow the prophet when it contradicts your beliefs is a good show of humility, and a good sign that you need to be shown further truth.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 9:04 am
by mchlwise
ChelC wrote:I don't vote for evil, I gave up that dirty habit. To follow the prophet is not to choose evil. To follow the prophet when it contradicts your beliefs is a good show of humility, and a good sign that you need to be shown further truth.
Thank you for calling me out on that.
It's an old expression - "the lesser of two evils" - that isn't always accurate. The way I understand it, and the way I meant it, is that when you are faced with two choices which are both less than ideal, you must choose the best one available.
I don't feel that "not voting" is a better option either. The band Rush put it well in an old song that says "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." I've voted for third-party candidates before, who I knew had no chance of winning, and didn't feel good about it. Sure I made a "statement", but the reality is I gave up any influence in who would win the election.
The bottom line for me still is: if the church says I should vote for it, I'll vote for it. If I didn't, like whoever said in this thread - I should question my own membership.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 9:12 am
by ChelC
I agree with that. I have also voted third party, but known I was going to lose and been happy as a clam leaving the voting booth.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 10:21 am
by obamohno
ChelC wrote:obamohno wrote:p51-mustang wrote:My goodness, under mosaic law engaging in homosexuality was a capitol offense. Now we have become so tolerant that we think it is ok because we are "pursuing happiness". Being tolerant of gross sin increases the likelyhood that others will see it as ok and engage in the practice. Let the gays be "couples" or "life partners" or whatever, but please dont let them say they are "married". That definition came from God in the begining and only he can define it! And he defined it as a union of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Evil-Knievel
Remember laws are supposed to be based on morality and proper principle. If we allow govt to make marriage legal among gays and it takes hold, the fabric of society would be torn asunder.
Do you believe church leadership was deceived on this issue and that the Lord stood by and let them lead us astray?
If being gay really makes people unhappy people will go away from it, but if making people feel prosecuted gives them a sense of pride and they will fight and become committed to the said sin based on the persecution they are getting from so called moralists.
Happiness of earthly unity? Come on. If these people want to enjoy the company of one another, they are free to do it. If they want to create a legal union, they are free to do it. What they are not free to do is to take a Godly ordinance which was created for a man and a woman, and to get a special allowance made in order to feel good about what they are doing.
I don't think the leaders were deceived, but I don't necessarily think it came directly from God and revealing the Lords position, this wasn't a declaration, it wasn't done over the pulpit, it was a little 'it's ok to get passionate about this' letter and it worked, the checkbooks opened up and the meetings started.
Now with all the tyranny and immoral acts we have supported with our votes and our government has done it was gay people that got us all excited? I don't get it, I just don't.
I think they should be aloud to be apart of a religion and get married in that religion and live together just like men and women get married in their faith and live together, and they should be able to call themselves what they want.
Freedom of religion and the government shouldn't have a say what goes on in a religious marriage ceremony, and the government shouldn't regulate certain benefits to married couples, it should be a matter of a private contract and arrangement.
The government doesn't seal marriage for eternity, the temple does. Being registered as a married couple by the state means nothing after we die.
I think there are many things we can do as saints that would make the existence of gay couples non threatening.
Homeschooling being the big one.
In the end though, I want some reasoning for this position, not "because the leaders said so" that doesn't bring the spirit, Bednars explanation is not one I felt was just more of a political opinion that very well may be correct.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 10:40 am
by obamohno
Some reasons I think I may be wrong is that the Lord said
Governments were instituted for the benefit of man, so using the government to define marriage how he defines it for the benefit of man might be the correct way to go.
If the saints and Christians in general are not going to do homeschooling and sacrifice for that, the best way to protect their children is to make sure its defined this way since they are sending their kids to be taught by the government, they need to make sure the government reflects their views in that regard, from this situation this probably is the best case scenario.
My position again is that once the saints do what they can to educate their children and build these strong communities, if THEN the gay factor is still a HUGE threat, then we act, but maybe it isn't the adversary or false lifestyles that are the threat but maybe its just the places we send our kids to be educated and what we allow them to be exposed to and the neglect of teaching them the true principles growing up.
just my thoughts
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 10:47 am
by ChelC
There is no doubt that we have a lot of power to protect our children at home. Without societal support it is extremely difficult to do it outside the home. If we accept anything and everything adults wish to do, children suffer for it. If we let go of right for the sake of its rightness, ALL criminal law can and will eventually with the degradation of society be pulled down. Children who don't have the privilege of parents who teach them correct principles are even more at risk when morals fail to exist outside their homes as well as inside. Our homes are the most powerful influence, but they aren't the only influence.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 10:52 am
by ChelC
And for clarity, it
was read over the pulpit.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... x-marriage
SALT LAKE CITY 30 June 2008 The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:
Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.
The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.
A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 11:08 am
by obamohno
ChelC wrote:And for clarity, it
was read over the pulpit.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... x-marriage
SALT LAKE CITY 30 June 2008 The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:
Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.
The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.
A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
thanks for the reference but until the Saints actually start voting as a block on morals and things that reflect our scriptures , it kind of is perplexing that its a disagreement in sexuality that riles people up.
How bout wars, monetary policy, etc, where is all this disgust or moral high ground, aren't these moral issues? Isn't being robbed a moral issue, isn't genocide a moral issue?
So that is why I maintain the "I don't know" card.
Because it just doesn't add up why Prop 8 is the most important political position of the Saints.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 12:40 pm
by armedtotheteeth
Because it just doesn't add up why Prop 8 is the most important political position of the Saints.
Fortunately that is for none of us to decide!!
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 1:10 pm
by obamohno
armedtotheteeth wrote:Because it just doesn't add up why Prop 8 is the most important political position of the Saints.
Fortunately that is for none of us to decide!!
it's unfortunate you don't think you have a decision on the matter about what is most important to yourself.
For me, I care more about a sound monetary system and a humble foreign policy than same sex couples wanting to be called Mr and Mr.
But maybe you think that is more important.
I think mass genocide and future enslavement is more of an important stance than government marriage.
So to me, it's an I don't know and an opinion based thing.
If the Lord declared that government should define marriage and it was by revelation , I would pray and search my heart about it till I got some sort of an answer, but the first presidency putting out a little blurb doesn't mean that if i differ from it I am in contradiction to the Lords will since I agree that with the specifics, just not the government involvement which I hold the possibility that many even some of our elect don't have a perfectly accurate view of the proper role of government.
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 1:36 pm
by armedtotheteeth
What are you talking about!?! You said SAINTS brains! I said nothing about what I think. I make my decisions on what is important to me. Your comment doesn’t add up. Agian you said:
Because it just doesn't add up why Prop 8 is the most important political position of the Saints.
No one but the lords prophets can speak for the SAINTS. THIS MEANS YOU!
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 1:38 pm
by armedtotheteeth
Some reasons I think I may be wrong is that the Lord said
Governments were instituted for the benefit of man, so using the government to define marriage how he defines it for the benefit of man might be the correct way to go.
Keep going your almost there!!
Re: Tods final testimony
Posted: September 15th, 2009, 1:44 pm
by mchlwise
obamohno wrote:For me, I care more about a sound monetary system and a humble foreign policy than same sex couples wanting to be called Mr and Mr.
If these things were to appear on the ballot, it would be interesting to see if the church would make similar statements. They won't ever be on the ballot, of course, so we'll never know.
It wasn't the church that brought this issue to the forefront. It was the pro-gay-marriage coalition that tried to legalize gay marriage, first with proclamations from the San Francisco Mayor, then through the courts. The coalition supporting Prop. 8 and the other similar propositions in the state before it (this has been going on in California for YEARS) brought Prop. 8 in response to the pro-gay-marriage agenda and decisions made by the courts.
It is interesting to think about what we could do if were were to all get together and demand that the Fed be audited, or that Wall Street be reformed, or any number of other issues.