Thousands of Prop. 8 opponents protest LDS Church at Temple Square
Thousands marched in downtown Salt Lake Friday night to protest the passage of California's Proposition 8. Like their counterparts in California, the Utah protesters targeted The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. November 7th, 2008 @ 10:00pm
Sorry, we are not accepting new comments on this story.
In that case, the church should just stop taking a stand on anything and should just let anybody with any idea roll right over them. And why? Cuz someone might get their feel goods hurt.
The church also invites all to come and partake of what it considers the good and the righteous... no one will be excluded... but the church will never bend on its core standards or doctrine.
"This is a temporary set-back. This civil rights fight is really in its beginning stages and historically, the LDS church doesn't change its mind on issues until it is painfully obvious that their membership will suffer if they do not. In the late 1800's, the LDS leaders chose to remove polygamy from its practices after "Deseret" was rejected from statehood. Soon after the rejection of polygamy they attained the goal of joining the union.
They did this despite Brigham Youngs previous state of "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." The same thing happened with "Woman Suffrage" It took The Utah territorial congress twice passing it before it stuck.
The LDS church waited until 1978 to give African Americans full rights and privelages in the LDS church. This was after Brigham Young had said the following two statements Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture. "I say now, when they [ His Discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.) And he said the following: "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290)
Since God told him these things, wouldn't it be prudent that the LDS church follow his prophecy? The answer is no, the LDS church gave African Americans the priesthood because they would have ceased to exist as a church if they had not, just as they would have ceased in the previous two instances. I know that there will be a day that their stance will become so unpopular that they will once again be forced to change their stance on Gay marriage or they will lose their memberships.
I know that it is a matter of a few decades and Homosexuals will be getting married in LDS temples even if that seems far-fetched now, so did the disbandment of polygamy and blacks receiving the priesthood in the 1800's. Wait and see.."
"We're tired of the church injecting its politics and its morals into the lives of those that don't belong to their church."
Jacob,
The Church has a moral obligation to teach the truth about any subject upon which it sees fit to comment in a non-political manner. It has done so.
The Church has dispensed money and facts in a worthy effort to maintain the proper definition of marriage and its proper place in the lives of citizens. It has also taught that same-sex marriage is improper and should be banned as an option for society. The Church's decisions in this matter are correct.
Voters, overwhelmingly, have agreed with the Church's response to this issue and many other right-thinking religions have, and will, teach the same principles.
When one is faced with a moral dilemma, the correct course of action is to respond with wisdom and correct thinking brought about by experience. Same-sex unions or relationships, have, more often than not, caused a decline in the quality of life for all who are connected to the act. It was the responsibility of all concerned to show support for Prop 8 and to clarify the laws and desires of the majority. We did.
Jacob, it is now your responsibility to uphold this law as you would any law and obey it, live it, and enjoy the benefits of it. I suspect that you will garner the strength to do so.
'Tail.
What are these benefits you speak of?
If a Law is a Law is a Law, then the church is not following the letter of the law or the spirit of the law by supporting illegal aliens in this country.
You can't have it both way. You can't mold the laws and scriptures to fit your way of thinking and then expect to be right all the time.
I certainly have compassion for them and if the LDS church truly has compassion for those struggling families then they could certainly help them out finacially instead of building a $2billion mall!
From what I understand the LDS church disfellowships or excommunicates all felons, except for repeat illegal aliens. So it's sort of a double standard. If you're going to stick up for the churches doctrine you should at least by 100% consistent.
First, the Church should call for the repeal of NAFTA
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=296446
Second, the Church should call for the IMF and World Bank to forgive all of Mexico's debts.
Here are some links, but if you want more info, Google IMF World Bank and Mexico
"How the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Undermine Democracy and Erode Human Rights:
Five Case Studies"
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wbimf/imfwbReport2001.html
"Press release: World Bank and IMF share in blame for Mexico's crisis"
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/46/018.html
"Don we now our gay apparel...."
now means you're crossdressing.
I was taking issue with the church honoring and sustaining the laws of the land when they clearly did not do that for 20 years, until the government brought a lot of hardship down on them.
The mormons didn't want to be told how they could live and marry and yet 150 years later they are now all for telling others how they should be married.
It was called oppression and intolerance by mormons in the early church years, but now its moral and just in their views.
By the way it was the government (California Supreme Court) who recognized gay marriages, the people overruled them. So now what, do you want the government to step in and ignore the majority and rule the vote invalid?
I find it really funny how everyone is blaming the Mormon church for this, they're not the only church that spoke out against gay marriages, why are you only mad at the Mormon church on not the Catholic and others?
Regardless of how it was decided, the issue is still that the church is trying to institute the same type of oppression they received many years ago, disguised as morality.
I dont blame just the mormon church, but since this article is about the church, im just discussing the hypocrisy involved on its part.
How bout them utes!!!!!
and yes go Utes!! :)
Since many states have offered civil unions and and other "terms" other than the term marriage to allow same-sex couples to be legally joined this is not about being able to carry insurance on your partner, or doing your taxes. It is about the religeous element and sanctity of a traditional marraige. That being said, I cannot support their cries of descrimination.
"I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.
JOSEPH F. SMITH,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
So you are right, the original manifesto was a little vague and just said hey we aren't doing anything wrong and we aren't teaching it. Not until 1904 did they actually condemn it.
Im not say they do or dont have a right to say anything, im just saying the hypocrisy is really showing here.
The doctrine of plural marriage is still a doctrine. But it has never been a doctrine that was meant to be practiced at all times. Such is the case of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob practicing polygamy, but Adam did not, neither did Noah. It takes a simple math calculation of the amount of women to men to figure out that not all people could be polygamists. The LDS church did not "change their mind" on polygamy in order to become a state. They were greatly harrassed and endured hardship until finally the revelation came, from God (the LDS church does not make decisions by voting, but according to revelation from God)to end the practice of polygamy. It is not a doctrine meant for all to practice at all times, only when needed.
Further, enough has been clarified about blacks and the priesthood, and as was stated, it was a time based condition, I believe mostly due to the state of the world. Look at the feeling of the entire country towards the black population at that time and you will see that it wasn't an accepting environment.
Now onto gay marriage. This isn't an action of the church against gay marriage, even though it is not condoned by the church. It is an important part of the legal process to protect the definition and protected status of marriage. If that is changed, then there could eventually be all kinds of actions taken against the church because of their stand, and this supposed civil liberty would take away parent's rights to sheild their children's innocense from sexual indoctrination that goes against the values of their parents. The church will never perform gay marriages in the temple. If you think that then obviously you don't understand the doctrine on eternal marriage. Eternal marriage means that couples will live together forever with the ablitity to bear children. That's what eternal life means. It would be impossible for a gay couple to do so, there will not be pregnant teenage girls to adopt from in that exalted sphere. So you're absolutely wrong! The LDS church will not support other issues such as abortion, and they will never allow for homesexual marriage. It has no place in God's plan.
Further more, it has no place in the well being of society and children. Step outside of religious beliefs for a moment and take a good hard look at what this would do for society? Legalizing homeseuxual marriage supports and promotes it. It sets it on equal ground as traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is no longer protected, which means that neither are the children. There have been many studies showing that for a child's optimal well-being, they need to be raised by both biological parents, by a male and female influence. What happens to all these children raised in families that don't include their real parents? Have you or do you know anyone who has had issues in their life because they lack a relationship with a biological parent? Would you like to be raised in a homosexual environment? This issue is often approached from the selfish interests of adults, but think of all the children now involved and yet to be involved as marriage becomes nothing more than an agreement between 2 people who are looking for their own fulfillment.
Forget religious views for a minute, take a good hard look at how this would impact our society.
A lot of the points you are bringing up here dont seem to apply to what I stated, but, my point was that the government should not have been telling the mormons how they should marry, and I cant seem to find anything that says the church agrees with what the government did back then, and likely you wont.
But now the church is helping promote doing the same thing to another group.
As far as gay marriage being an accepted practice, it does not force the church to recognize or perform such marriages, the church itself has said thats not a concern because they are protected by the constitution from that kind of thing. Are mormon churches being forced to marry gays in other states? No.. That's simply untrue.
The whole argument about protecting the status of marriage is ridiculous, there is not one valid argument other than your perceived fears that it will do anything to destroy your family or anyone elses. Without getting into what you believe is in store for the afterlife and your religion, there is no valid reason to deny them marriage.
Beyond religion, legalizing gay marriage does not promote it or even force you to accept it, you can continue to believe its wrong and not practice it just like you do now. Also, having a child raised by both biological parents would indeed be ideal but there are millions of single parents out there that do a fine job on their own. Having two parents regardless of the parents sex would be even better.
Your belief that gays have no place in society is no more right than those who said mormons had no place in society and set out to murder, drive them out and force them to give up what they believe.
Prop 8 does not ban anything, it only defines what marriage is and that is between a Man and a Woman.
Marriage is not a right granted by government any more than being born is but the government has been delegated permission BY THE PEOPLE to regulate it.
Marriage is for the purpose of perpetuating the human family. Homosexuals cannot perpetuate the human family and so there is no need for them to be married.
If it's about love, they can love just as a heterosexual or unmarried bisexual can love. If it's about the same benefits and privileges that married people have regarding health care benefits or taxing issues, then let them petition the government for them.
Let's not make this a race issue as it is not, let's not make this a discrimination issue as it is not, we don't need to give a special classification for every person or type or person. This is not an entitlement issue.
I could say more but I think I've said sufficient to raise significant dander.
it is about love and also the same benefits and privileges that straight couples automatically get upon marrying. and yes, health care and tax benefits are very important, and especially hospital visitation rights!!! what if your significant other was in the hospital and you couldn't visit him/her because you can't legally get married? wouldn't that make you enraged?
It seems homosexuals are following in some pretty big footsteps in an effort, much like Daniel and Joseph, to do what they think is right.
Why is the LDS Church being targeted on this? Why are there not protestors at the Catholic churches? The LDS Church merely joined in a coalition of other groups. Moreover, without the votes of blacks and latinos in California, prop 8 would not have passed.
Unlike Mormons, they were not founded by someone who had, and religious teachings include, a non-traditional family.
Unlike Mormons, they do not continually complain that they were persecuted for their belief in the non-traditional family.
Unlike Mormons, they have always supported marriage as between one man and one woman
The thing you people fail to understand is not every member was a polygamist. Polygamy was a calling and it came by way of calling. More than anything else, it was a test of faith for that man and his wife who were asked to accept the calling. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to accept it? It was a test commandment, to prove them, whether they would be obedient or not to God's will. Many weren't, and many weren't when the commandment to end it came as well.
Joseph Smith himself never had any children with any of the other wives that he married under polygamy. He only had children with Emma, whom he always considered to be his wife, his one and only. In Nauvoo, all of his wives lived in a separate home. He lived with Emma, and his children and he provided for his other wives but Emma was his. He obeyed because God commanded him to. Just as He commanded many prophets in the old testament to do the same.
Get your facts straight before making ridiculous and outlandish, ignorant comments.
places of worship. They were God-fearing and humble.
They did not blame one group of people for a decision made by a multitude.
Apples and Oranges, here.
May he continue to rot in (we said no swearin', please!), and may Mr. Jeffs join him soon.
'Tail.
When my grandfather was a Stake President, he wasn't even allowed to put lawn signs on his front lawn in support of any one candidate, so careful is the church about this status.
Specifically: "For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status."
Does that answer your question?
Your Stake President grandfather is an irrelevant and tangential argument. There was no candidate involved in Proposition 8. However, I suspect there would have been no problem if your grandfather put a ‘Rock the Vote’ sign in his front lawn. (BTW Rock the Vote is a 501c3 organization).
As long as you’re going to pull a direct quote from a website at least have the courtesy to credit the website: http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm. BTW you will not find this exact verbiage in the tax code. To put some perspective on section 501c3 of the tax code, Wikipedia.org is organized under this same tax code, as is the America Red Cross, as is the ACLU, etc. This is a tax code used by many not-for-profit organizations who on a regular basis mobilize their volunteers/members to create, put in place, maintain their agendas and raise money.
How many organizations who wanted people to vote ‘no’ on proposition 8 are 501c3 organizations? How active were these organizations in contributing funds or asking people to contribute funds on their behalf? Did they preach from their bully pulpits in their meetings asking their members to vote ‘no’ on prop 8?
As long as you are going to quote tax code please specify what part of the tax code was violated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
While church's need to be careful to maintain their non-profit status, and participation in "partisan" politics and endorsements should always be avoided, advocating for a citizens initiative seems well within the boundaries. Let's not forget that "the church" consists of people, citizens of this country who have the right to vote and advocate for legistlation. I completely disagree that the church, meaning church members who are also citizens of this country, have the right to participate in this legislative process.
I know about a bazillion gay people and not one of them has ever said a thing about being molested as a child. Maybe some were, who knows?? But molestation does not cause homosexuality, regardless.
Gay marriage has also, and still by many people, been considered so wrong and deviant that it should never be legalized.
So Lucky13's point still stands - should we legalize anything that some very sick people want because they think they need it to make them happy?
Since when is the constitution supposed to make you happy? If it makes you happy it may make me unhappy.
It's all about selfishness!
Seems like everyone who is not a member of the church targets it just because it is an organization. To think with all the problems we have in this world such as child abuse, kidnapping, murder, and other crimes against humanity and all people can find time to protest against a group who stands for peace and morality. I suppose we know where people stand in their values.
The Constitution doesn't say that anywhere.
The Declaration of Independence does state that people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Having a right to pursue happiness is different from the government keeping people from being happy.
They're keeping me from being happy by all the taxes I pay but that's not against any law.
Thomas S. Monson IS a Prophet of God, called of God to declare His will throughout the earth. Whether you believe that or not is of no consequence. It doesn't change the fact that he is a Prophet. Prophets do not speak to their own. They speak to ALL God's children everywhere. That is what Thomas S. Monson has done. That is what EVERY Prophet since the beginning of time has done.
What President Monson has done regarding gay marriage should be a sign to all those out there who are looking for truth, as it is one of the signs of a true Prophet or not. He condemns sin, but does not condemn the sinner, just as Christ did. A Prophet does what Christ would do, as He is called to emulate the Savior as best as he can, being an imperfect being still. That is what President Monson did and is doing. Your ranting and railing against the church will not change that, it's not changeable. Deal with it.
Also this was not a political campain. There was no political party involved. This was an issue and nonprofit organizations are allowed to get involved with issues. Otherwise Green peace and others would not be allowed to be involved in laws forcing environmental issues on the ballot.
Since when does the fact that your a private organization or entity protect you from lawsuits? That is ridiculous! NO ONE is exempt from being attacked by some idiot who tries to use the law for his own selfish gain. The gay community are masters at using the law to silence anyone who has a differing opinion and who is not afraid to let that opinion be known.
The gay community constantly spouts off about "love and tolerance" and this is what they do when the MAJORITY votes against them. They single out one group out of THOUSANDS that helped to educate people about this issue. They are hypocrites of the highest calibre and they are disgusting, low lifes that try and use the law to destroy other peoples rights and beliefs.
Well this time we proved to them that WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED. The people have spoken, they lost, nuf ced!
Main article: Civil Unions in California
In California where domestic partnership/civil union has been available to same-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 has made it, like the New Jersey civil union law, equivalent to marriage in every respect at the state level, though neither is recognized by the federal government.
gay people aren't hurting anybody. they just want the same rights that everyone else gets.
this is suppose to be a free country. proposition 8 is a contradiction to that. prop 8 stands for oppression and a step backwards.
remember karma, people. what are you going to do if your own child comes to you and tells you he/she is gay? are you going to shun your own child just so you wont have to admit that you were wrong? or are you going to accept your child because you love and support them. if you think that gay's are going to he11 for their choices, that's fine... but no amount of preaching nor oppression will make them become straight.
god forbid if you were a little different, you would pray for the acceptance of your country, because you cant change who you are.
would it kill you to just close your eyes right now and say "i accept you, because we are all god's children and that's what god would want.. my support and my acceptance of my brothers and sisters."
i bet not one single person here can do that, except for the ones who already have.
People are angry that the church was the #1 contributor of funds in support of Prop 8. Estimations are that $22 million+ came from LDS donations alone.
So when we start hearing reports that the Catholics, Baptists and others have contibuted monies even close to that amount, then they'll begin getting their share of protests too.
If the church is against homosexuals getting married, fine.
But when they start contributing heavily to campaign initiatives, then in my opinion they need to forfeit their tax exempt status and wear the "Lobbyist" label appropriately.
whoever or whatever they choose...
Barack Obama raised over $600 million dollars on his campaign... better find out what church those people belong to!!!
You LDS members dont see your religion the way others do. You think everything you do is correct and others are wrong. We are on the outside looking in, and we dont approve of what we see and you cant understand why that is! You believe everything you read and are told by your leaders, HAVE A MIND OF YOUR OWN FOR A CHANGE!!! SO, thats PART of the reason why you are such an easy target!
because we are a peculiar people.
Anyone judged as 'peculiar" will always be a target. Those on the outside looking in dont approve because they dont understand.
The LDSchurch is an easy target because the adversary wants it that way. YOU find out why he does...
because we are a peculiar people.
Anyone judged as 'peculiar" will always be a target. Those on the outside looking in dont approve because they dont understand.
The gays are an easy target because the adversary wants it that way.
Hey look your argument works both ways...
You have no idea how true that statement is.
Not only that, you are forgetting one Major difference....
The Lord condones the actions of one and Satan condones the actions of another.Just to help you along a little with your thinking... The side who screams, pickets outside sacred temples, drags along children in an issue they probably dont understand, spews out hate, revenge and contention against a single church only..
Who's side do you think they stand for?
The LDS church has been singled out and the Gay community is nothing but an instrument in the hands of the Adversary to do his work.
And we're not taught to follow blindly. Most of us happen to agree on this issue.
Unlike Mormons, they were not founded by someone who had, and religious teachings include, a non-traditional family.
Unlike Mormons, they do not continually complain that they were persecuted for their belief in the non-traditional family.
Unlike Mormons, they have always supported marriage as between one man and one woman.
"Be honest with yourself and others" doesn't hold much water when in practice.
So in response to your comment, if those "members" are engaging in a homosexual relations, they are BREAKING THE LAW OF CHASTITY and are UNWORTHY to consider themselves active members in the church.
This church will never bend on the issue of gay marriage.
Like my father used to say about you and yours: "They're plumbing just doesn't work right". I've come to understand that is both physical and psychological.
Now go one Neddie and do your thing. Allow me to do mine. No one is attempting to stop you from your deviance. Just don't tell me I have to call it good and right.
The Warren Jeffs tribe have deviated substantially from what it began as. The women were asked for their hand in marraige, the first wife was asked permission. There wasn't a hostage community. All members could come and go as they pleased. They didn't purposely assign child-bearing teenagers to old men. Nor was the prophet mapping out the marriages for his convenience or his friends advantage. Some specific men were specifically asked to participate. They then asked permission from their current wife and then selected their other wives, each selection was generally approved with the first wife and the new wife was asked, invited, and not obligated to enter into the marriage. It was all much less dramatic than people make of it. There are some interesting journals, not biased books, just true and earnest emotions from people who lived it.
Ned is right on this one.
You go and look on lds.org about the Edmunds Tucker act and how it affected the church and its members when the US government decided they would force them to give up plural marriage by disbanding the church corporation and seizing all of their assets.
No one seems to stand up and say hey good job government, we were immoral and you straightened us out thanks a lot! The church held out as long as they could and then 3 years later they buckled and conformed.
If gays really want to compare the persecution of Mormons to what they are going through now, why don't they just move out of the country? There's plenty of other countries that accept gay marriage.
(Hint: Days of '47)
Not until 1857 did they want to secede from the US so they could continue to practice as they saw fit. Which of course did not work. But they continued for more than 20 years to go against the law of the land for their beliefs.
See, this is the problem. Mormons aren't allowed to be proactive and stand for what we believe in! Some of you agree with gay marriage rights, and we allow you the freedom of campaigning for your belief. We as Mormons believe in traditional marriage. How about you let us campaign for our belief? We aren't taking away your rights. They aren't there to take away. Some of you claim this is a civil issue, not a religious or moral one. I'll agree to an extent, and add that if it is only a civil issue, you are still remiss. Nowhere does it state that it is okay for two gays to be married. Pretty straightforward.
In 1862 the government passed the Morrill anti bigamy act, making it a felony to practice polygamy. The church continued to endorse polygamy even after the law was passed but the government had no budget to prosecute the violators.
In 1874 the government passed the Poland act that took control of the courts and removed mormons from all positions of power in the government. Mormons still continued to practice polygamy...
In 1882 the Edmund's act was passed because the mormons 20 years later continued to violate the law of the land and endorsed polygamy. This act took away the mormon right to vote or to hold office.
And finally in 1887 the Edmunds Tucker act. It disbanded the church corporation and the perpetual immegration fund, it provided fines and imprisonment for anyone convicted of polygamy and seized the church property. The church STILL continued to support polygamy.
Not until the 1890 manifesto did the church attempt to conform to the law of the land, but only because the government had take nearly all of their assets. and even then the practice was alive and well but hidden.
I know some gay people that have stronger morals then half the mormon I know.
Not so much they are physically breaking in and doing it themselves but they help put in place a change that will do exactly that, tear up the marriage license.
What you could and should be saying instead is something like "I hope they repent before it's too late".
Wow, you sound like a real nutjob! How exactly are you and your athiest buddies "infiltrating" our primary classes? It may take you a while to reach all 13 million of us, and it might be kind of hard to keep up with the new growth of the church, but hey, who am I to try to disuade you! (psycho!)
BTW, Not every educated person in the world is an atheist...I wish you well and hope you get the help you need someday...
But to be alearned is good if they bhearken unto the ccounsels of God."
quoted from an Ancient Prophet
Just because so-called "experts" claim a Church to be "debunked" or invalid does not make it so.
Besides, what are the Church's motives? Family, strong community, good health, eternal live, the list goes on, but why wouldn't someone want those things?
We do not get our morals from religion. Religion gets morals from us. I am Atheist and I have strong moral values, strong family ties, and I want to do good for society. It's survival. If you hurt people you are more likely to get punished or get hurt yourself and your offspring are more likely to suffer as well. We do not learn this from fairy tale books.
The great thing about having a Prophet is modern revelation. All in all you are speaking of things you do not understand.
Prophets have always stated it would happen some day. It was always just a matter of when.
Polygamy -
Even the Book of Mormon states one man and one woman should become one--this was always meant to be temporary.
Adam and Steve -
This has always brought the destruction of the people that practice and espouse it. ALWAYS. The church would cease to be the true church if it accepted the practice of homosexuality.
That is why people like you who are holding your breath to see if the church will cave on this issue will be holding your breath a long time--like until the flames are upon you. At this point you might want to just let out your breath and run.
At different times through the Old and New Testaments, different people and groups of people were authorized to hold the priesthood. It was never set eternally as one group of people.
Homosexuality was never allowed by God through the history of the scriptures.
What you've said about Nicaea has an element of truth; but your assertion that the writings of Paul were somehow a product of Nicea would be humorous if it weren't so misinformed. Nicea's mistake you've described was the production of creeds, not the preservation of the original apostles' writing. You are simply wrong in implying that the new testament wasn't "formulated" until 325AD at the Nicene Council. The fact is that the new testament was canonized in virtually its current form by 175 AD, 150 years prior to Nicea. Prior to that the individual writings of the Apostles were carefully preserved and taught by the church. You are either deceived or deceiving in your assertions.
Regarding your first question: Could you show me where scriptures explicitly teach that a man shouldn't marry his dog, or his cat, or his donkey, or his...." Do you think it necessary that God delineate each and every form of union that is unacceptable; or could it be that His pronouncement that his will that a man and a woman be wed and become one is sufficient to exclude the infinitude of erroneous potential unions.
I can certainly show you plenty of references that indicate that marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. Where does it say that marrying a man to a man is acceptable in God's eye?
Wrest, wrest, wrest away; but do so to the everlasting detriment of your own soul.
In 1995, The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles released "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," in which it reads: "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan." This statement is in harmony with Doctrine & Covenants section 132, where the covenant of marriage is defined. That scripture lays out several "scenarios" of marriage, specifically marriage outside of this covenant (v. 15), marriage not by proper authority (v. 18), marriage in covenant and by proper authority (v. 19), and marriage where the covenant is broken (v. 26). In each of these scenarios it clearly defines marriage between a man and a woman. In addition, in verse 66, the Lord states he will reveal more on this later. The statements given by those sustained as prophets, seers and revelators defining marriage as between a man and a woman just might this continued revelation.
I would respectfully disagree that Sodom was destroyed because of the actions of rapists. That idea stems from an interpretation of Josephus' writings, and only addresses one particular incident. If one studies the Talmudic, Koranic and Biblical accounts of Abraham's interaction with Sodom, it clearly refers to homosexuality as being one of the sins being committed in Sodom.
With regards to the atheists out there -- how long did the notion exist that the world was flat? Did such a belief make it so? You can argue God's existence from now and through the eternities. Such arguments won't change His reality.
"21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Or that 1 Corinthians 11:11 says, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."
More importantly, you claim to be familiar with the LDS religion, so you ought to know that we revere the current President of the Church as God's prophet here on earth, his mouthpiece to the world. So when Gordon B. Hinckley spoke to us on this matter in 1999, it wasn't just good advice from a senior citizen. It was the will of God spoken by his prophet to the people of earth. He said:
"We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.
Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.
Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.
I commend those of our membership who have voluntarily joined with other like-minded people to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. As part of a coalition that embraces those of other faiths, you are giving substantially of your means. The money being raised in California has been donated to the coalition by individual members of the Church. You are contributing your time and talents in a cause that in some quarters may not be politically correct but which nevertheless lies at the heart of the Lord's eternal plan for His children, just as those of many other churches are doing. This is a united effort."
For faithful Latter-Day Saints, that pretty much ends the debate.
Oh and i like the way you spell Stuart. That is how my maiden name is spelled!
Secondly, polygamy has always been part of church doctrine since the old testament. But it is practiced only by command from the Lord. We are told in the Book of Mormon: "For IF I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will comand my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30) So even though Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore, it is still in their doctrine.
Therefore, the church's change in policy on both blacks and polygamy did not involve a change in doctrine. However, the union between a man and a women as the basis for a family, and that family being the basis for a healthy society, is so deeply rooted in the doctrines of the church, that you will never see it change.
Will the church lose membership over it? Definitely. In fact, it has been foretold that the great sifting out of the wheat from the tares will begin within the church and spread out from there to the world. The ones who stay in the church will be those with the strongest testimonies and greatest faith. But the church will never change its doctrine on marriage.
Will you obey the laws you created that discriminate against your gods will, or just ignore laws you create?
Bring this up again if it ever DOES happen.
Bring this up again if it ever DOES happen.
In the US it has become a fad to be gay. It represents freedom from what many call religous oppression. The minority would love to kill God and make us all free men from what is considered a tyranny. The problem is that Actors and famous people make the gay lifestyle seem romantic. Being gay is a choice, there is no real proof that it is nothing else. They gay population say there is proof, but what ever proof is out there is confusing and the experts can only agree to disagree. I would not agree if any of my children decided to be gay. I would not agree with the lifestyle. I would still love them, but would not agree with them. I do not believe the myth that Gays are discriminated against. They are given all the rights of any person in the US. They just can not claim the title of Married...Instead they have to use the word Union. Means the same, just not as romantic and Married. Laws have been passed that allow them to have medical insurance, life insurance and the right to live together. Yet they insist that the rights of those who disagree with them must be trampled and that their children must be taught that it is ok to be gay even though the parents of the children say no. We are not given a choice and what is considered unsatisfactory in the religous community is being forced into our lives. Discrimination is rearing its ugly head and yet only one side is claiming it. Just because gays are not getting the title of Married, does not mean they are not allowed to be together. But don't force our values out the window for yours. Live your lives, but remember that most people (the Majority) are religous and feel it is against Gods laws to be deviant. I have nothing against gay people. But I do have something against people who try to change Gods laws to make themselves look and feel mainstream. all you had to do was live your lives. You decided to force the mainstream to accept you and now the mainstream has spoken. It did not have to be this way. Laws have been put into place to protect all people. Real Discrimination is a rare thing these days. Many use it to put fear into the hearts of people to Force them to accept them. Yet the laws of this country protect all. Just because you don't get to use a term that has for centries been used to describe a union between man and woman does not mean it is descrimintaion. Just get on with your lives and enjoy them. To fight will cause more dislike and intolerance for your lifestyle. The harder you push against mainstream America the harder you will make it for your selves. You asked for a vote and now you don't like the outcome. Religion came into play. It was not just one religion, it was many religions. You have to stop and think what has happened and ask yourself why this happened. You did something that has not happened in a long time. You made the Religious people wake up and take notice. Never has their been a uninity with in the religions to defeat what they consider evil since the 1800's. You accomplished something in that.
It would be a rare condition indeed to find the majority of society voting against an Eternal law of such profound importance. Wise and moral citizens will most always vote properly and will choose to uphold the laws of God coincidentally. To do otherwise would be a total lack of common sense.
'Tail.
As a point of clarification, the LDS church doesn't perform any civil marriages in the Temple.
Any worthy individual who has repented of their homosexual sin is welcome to be sealed in the Temple to any willing and worthy spouse of the opposite gender.
Government can't force a church to do anything of the sort. It's against one of the primary foundations of the country.
Does this ruling require religious groups or clergy members to marry same-sex couples?
No. The court's decision said the GOVERNMENT may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage - a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or REFUSE to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. While some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith, a growing number do.
One of my close friends requested that her name be removed from the LDS records over this issue.
I believe you are correct and anti-gay bigotry will be increasingly seen as just a wrong as racism.
Another person I know who moved to Utah about two years ago discontinued their meetings with the LDS missionaries over this issue. They did not want to invite bigotry into their home.
LDS voters only made up a small percentage of those who voted for Prop 8, yet they are the ones being villainized. It's just so easy for those who dislike the mormon church to make them the scapegoat. How convenient.
If the LDS church is in the wrong, and their views on gay marriage don't reflect how the majority feels, then why did Prop 8 even pass?
There it is. The definition does not apply to the Church as you wish it would, or if it does, you must apply it too to the gays who don't agree or tolerate the Church's doctrine and view. They too would be bigots. You know someone who couldn't continue seeing the missionaries because they didn't want to "invite bigotry into their home." Lame. Pathetic. I've been holding up "Yes on 8" signs on the corner of major intersections here in California, and you have never seen bigotry until you witness the militant "No on 8" people. They vandalize, steal signs, scream and shriek obscenities as if possessed by demons from hell. It is most unfortunate to see this take place. I didn't go by and steal their "no on 8" signs, and I'd object were I to see someone else doing so. My freedom of speech is only as good and secure as when I ensure that yours too is upheld.
Yes, in 2000, there were on average 3 people per ward in California who left the church over this stance for the family---for religious protection under the 1st Amendment. There are more now? Surely. That is their choice, and it is sad they can't figure out that what they think is "bigotry" has nothing to do with the term. Those who voted "Yes on 8" are not bigots, but mercifully, US Patriots helping keep the hand of tyranny from rising against religion by activist USSR type judges.
As pointed out in one of my other posts, "bigoted" government power in England in the 16th Century had William Tyndale burned alive for publishing the English Bible. That dear C.R., was the atmosphere that drove boatload after boatload of Englishmen to the shores of the new world, in search of religious liberty, free of the tyranny of "bigotry" in the law.
Jefferson swore upon the alter of God "eternal hostility toward any form of tyranny upon the mind of man."
Religious liberty was the first and foremost issue with these colonists in the forming of a Constitutional Republic. The first amendment in their Bill of Rights forbade the wicked and bigoted hand of government from doing anything upon religion, which reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, the First Amendment was to keep the damned hand of government tyranny off of religion, for "Congress shall make no law" concerning religion, and neither shall the vicious Soviet Courts in the United States today. Prop 8 was not an "anti-gay" measure, but a 1st Amendment measure to protect religion from the wicked courts who are hostile and seek an inroad as slaughtering the First Amendment. Judges the ilk of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri are ready and anxious to criminalize religion if they can do so.
An example of these most wicked courts. Recently, the Soviet US District Court in San Francisco ruled that "parental rights are severed" when a child crosses the threshold of the school. Where did this Stalin/Mao/Hitlarian ruling come from? Straight from a tyrannical hell, a US Court that is as un-American as anything you hear of today. People 30 years ago would have laughed you to scorn if you would have predicted a court ruling could take place in America that followed the Marxist ideology of the USSR. But, here we are. Such Soviet rulings have been made and will continue to be made. That ruling enforced a plank of the Communist Manifesto.
The liberals are attempting to interfere with religious liberties. This isn't about the church exercising political speech, which is constitutionally protected. It is about the state inserting itself into and curtailing religious liberty.
C.R. is a self-avowed atheist: an inherently illogical position. He considers religion and belief in God as anachronistic superstitions that need to be supplanted by his preferred philosophies of naturalism and humanism. He pretends to be a defender of Constitutional liberties; but seeks to support changes in the law that would, in effect, impose state sponsored secular humanistic values on the Church.
With you, I agree that his self-professed motivation of defending Constitutional liberties is little more than disingenuous smokescreen and that his real intent is to enforce secular humanism as the state's official philosophy in clear violation of both spirit and letter of the 1st amendment.
The church will never accepts Gays in the temple. It defeats the very core of the regigion. That is, marriage is between a man and a women.
I know you wish it will happen, but it will not. Regardless of what you think the reasons about allowing blacks to receive the priesthood are.
This whole thing against the Church is stupid and silly.
Mormons do not believe in homosexulity, either do the Catholics or many sects of the Baptists. This is not new! Yet this rage has come out of California against the mormons from the gay community. They are forgetting that the mormon population only consists of 2 or 3 percent of the states population. Yet, over 50% of the population has voted for Prop 8.
HELLO! Does that tell you something. This is not only a mormon belief, but the majority of the voters of the state. If not it would not have passed.
For a group of people that fought hard to get discrimination and hate laws passed they sure are hypritical.
The church does not hate gays. They were well within their constitutional right to stand up for what they believed in. Just as the Gay community has done for what they believe in. But when it has to come down to a vote and they lose. Don't point your finger out to one group of people. Remember is was over 50% of the state that was for prop 8
Being gay is not a civil rights issue! Not even a social issue. You're sexual orientation can stay in the bedroom, not the office. Nobody knows [removed] unless you let them know. Hense they can't discriminate.
What's next, reinstate polygamy? Once you open "sexual" rights, there is no closing the door on what is "legal".
As far as benefits are concerned, thats a business issue. Companies don't have to extend rights if they don't want to no matter what the law says! If you have had cancer in the past, insurance companies do not have to insure you.
You don't have to have a law to state whether you can or can't receive benefits. DOn't like it, start your own business catering to gay people.
As it was said before - "The church also invites all to come and partake of what it considers the good and the righteous... no one will be excluded... but the church will never bend on its core standards or doctrine."
The church will not weaken its standards. In fact they have been tightening them!
And this is the condemnation of the world and of man: that light has been revealed; but that we reject it, spurn it and hate it: choosing instead to act, think, believe, and desire alternate, less worthy perceptions.
I bear solemn witness that the day will come when all men will realize that reality here is presented ambiguously before our eyes for agency's sake, viz., that we may choose for ourselves what we will believe.
The day will most surely come when all men will know that there is a perfect order that has been architected and ordained by a living and loving Father and God; that our potential place in the universe was truly without limit; but while today lasts, that reality is hidden from view, so that we can choose for ourselves.
I tell you these things so that you might understand that your perceptions about what is going on around you, and why it happens, is a manifestation of your choice of what you want to believe. In effect we choose our worldview and then interpret the universe to fit it: and this is possible because of ambiguity. The world is in a state of mass hallucination: darkness covers the world and gross darkness the minds of the people.
So, you say, the church decided to ordain Blacks because of political constraints and it abandoned polygamy because of political constraints. Is it possible that there is an alternate view?
How about Polygamy: The Book of Mormon implies that God ordains polygamy in order to quickly grow a rising generation. From a legitimate frame of reference, the establishment of the latter-day church faced great opposition: its adherents were driven, raped, and slayed in the most free country upon the earth - largely, incidentally, because of its opposition to slavery. It seems reasonable that this was such a period that necessitated the rapid embryonic growth required to set the Kingdom firmly in place. Once the critical mass was achieved, polygamy was no longer 'required' for the Lord's purposes.
How about Blacks and the Priesthood:
In the colonial days of the Americas, slavery was a common and ACCEPTED practice in most of the world. Black men were not free. The founding fathers, many of whom were slave holders themselves and subjects of their own times, wisely set in motion a political system that was not in their own self-interest and that would eventually politically liberate the slaves. To understand the early restrictions on the priesthood, I believe you have to understand the solemnity, oath and covenant of the priesthood.
A man who accepts the priesthood incurs a solemn obligation to magnify that priesthood and to function in the world as a free agent in the service of God in administering truth and light to others. Instead of viewing the Priesthood as a privilege that was denied from some because of their skin color, I view the Priesthood as a grave obligation that results in condemnation when not handled properly; and that God mercifully withheld that obligation from Blacks until the time when very real political, educational, and cultural impediments were removed; and conditions were such that they could take upon themselves these sacred obligations with a reasonable probability of success. I'm convinced that Blacks in the early history of the United States, because of their limited liberty, will be judged to a different standard than their white contemporaries who had, but abused, greater liberty; and that the priesthood restrictions correlate to this reality.
Now, I recognize that you likely won't jump to my frame of reference just because I showed it too you. However, I wish that I could merely convince you to renew a childlike, meek, humble, search for truth and to recognize that the ultimate reality typically transcends our poverty of perception.
Choose wisely what you believe... it is the foundation of your perceptions... it comprises the self-imposed limits on what you can see. What is "obvious" to you is an artifact of where you stand spiritually. Your conclusions are built upon the foundation of your desires.
You hold your conclusions up as objective truth; you measure yourself and the world by your own light (and the light of others who stand with you) instead of submitting yourself to the measure and light of God.
I know that there is a living God in the Heavens, that Christ has set forth his hand in these latter days to restore his Kingdom upon the earth preparatory to his coming in great glory. The Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be and Joseph Smith truly saw the Father of Heaven and his only begotten Son. I solemnly affirm that just because you don't know these things doesn't have anything to do with whether such knowledge can be held; and I do hold it, and that it has been given to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. Such things may sound nonsensical to the world; but so it is, and I know it.
I've always been fascinated by folks who stand on lower ground and confidently declare, "all that I see is all that there is!" Will you tell me that I don't know these things? Or will you stand there and insanely bear witness of what is not? Please come quickly out of darkness and ignorance: humble yourself before God. Believe that He is, believe that he has power to change our natures, believe that he can lift us from our fallen state, believe that he operates among men according to their faith because of free agency.
Nevertheless, you may choose for yourself: for it is given to you to choose life or death, light or darkness, truth or error, salvation or damnation. This is a great key to understanding: God has prepared a plan for each soul to choose its own destiny - therein lies tragedy; therein lies triumph.
Choose wisely what you desire!
#1 there are human rights
there are no rights for your sexual preference. why should someone get a right based on whom they like to sleep with. do I get a special right because I like athletic women, or fat women, or etc? No. So why should a gay person get anything more for what he/she likes to sleep with. that is a personal choice, with no constitutional rights.
#2 I am not going to start to quote scripture to you, but what B young said is true. you just need to have a better understanding of LDS teachings. The LDS church also believes that you must be perfect or you will be damned. I bet that idea is going to drive you nuts as well.
#3 Blacks and the priesthood, once again I am not going to quote scripture to you, but the doctrine was they will not get the priesthood until every other tribe has the full blessings of the priesthood. Not that they would never get the priesthood. Also it is Gods priesthood and he has denied it to multiple groups of people, go read the bible. There were people that Christ would not even teach the gospel too until it was time. Also the lds church was anti slavery. that is one of the reasons people did not like them.
#4 Women suffrage. The lds church was not against equal rights for women. If I remember correctly the lds faith was for women having the right to vote before a lot of people. What the lds church did not want was to have women leave the very important position of being a mother. Do not try to tell me that women leaving there position of being a mother to go out and pursue a career has not had a bad effect on everyone. The country went from a single income home to having to be a two income home. Pay went down because of the large influx of workers. And now we have kids being raised by nanny's, and baby sitters. Women who do not even want to have children because they want to have a job. It is not men that are saying that women are not as good as men it is the feminist. Also try to tell me that it is easier for a marriage when both parties have to work. In comparison to having one person have to work. Once again the lds church was not against equal rights. they were just against women trying to be men, and vice versa.
# 5 You will never see the lds church change their view on homosexual marriage!!
I disagree with you on every point that you made.
If God had really meant for two women or two men to marry, then He also would have provided a way for them to have children naturally.
The Church is not going to change their minds in ten, twenty, or a hundred years and say that homosexual marriage is okay. This is an issue of doctrine, not popular opinion or cultural trends.
[no swearing please]..
You all are beyond me.
Sodom and Gomorrah anyone?.... sure seemed to work for those people. Whatever drugs you are on Supernurseboy you'd better get off of them fast so you can come back to reality.
The Sadducees of old faced off with the Savior himself with these same arguments, decidedly ignorant to the eternal vision of the Father. Jesus Christ himself endured these same criticisms in the Meridian of Time when he came to declare and end to the Law of Moses and introduced the Gospel of repentance, forgiveness.
The mechanics of the Gospel are tremendously different now than they have been in the past. There was a time when the Gospel of Jesus Christ was reserved for a select few wandering in the wilderness. Plurality of wives came and went all through Old Testament times.
God has always fulfilled his purposes on his own timeline using methods applicable to the listener. Humanity is not the same now as it was then. The doctrine of the gospel has always been the same, but, the way God teaches it to us and requires us to follow it has never been the same from one generation to the next.
Plurality of wives is a completely separate argument, as God has condoned it at times and condemned it in others, as it has fulfilled His purposes. Gods position on homosexuality has always been the same. Participate in it if you so choose, but pay the consequences.
As a democratic people we vote as a matter of law to define marriage as the union of a man and woman. Obviously we are in the majority.
You my friend seem to have a lot of knowledge about the LDS faith... are you a member? Or one of those apostate type fellows?
Over the years I've been very intrigued by the beliefs of the Mormon religion but have yet to join myself with them.
This is my brief and narrow understanding of what you have tried to explain.
See polygamy has always been God's way. It was instituted by God to people in Biblical times by way of commandment. I understand that the world changes and certain institutions are no longer necessary. I believe that is why the law was revoked from the Mormons around the time of their denied statehood.
I've had these same questions in my heart all these years and this explanation has brought me the most satisfaction. I don't believe political pressure was the only reason to end polygamatic marriages.
I don't think it is proper to single out the Mormon church for speaking out against Gay marriage. Other Christian faiths have done the same, however less publicly. The difference is that other faiths do not have the courage to be more overt about it.
Please set aside your biased mind and angry heart toward the Mormons and be rational in your thought process. Im sure there are many personal beliefs that you hold that you wouldn't like to be compromised. We have liberty in America but that doesn't mean we always get what we want. But organizations/ religions should stand firm as beacons of truth and constancy.
Human rights is a two edged sword. If we push too hard on one end we infringe upon others legitimate human rights. Please be mindful of the effect your ambitions might have on future generations.
-Jakob
Let me translate what Supernurseboy is really saying.
TRANSLATION - If we can harass the LDS Church hard enough. If we can bully them, intimidate them, ridicule them, and threaten them hard enough.
- If we can perform enough acts of "civil disobedience" against LDS Church property and LDS leaders (or their families).
- If we can produce enough books and DVDs which distort LDS teachings and lifestyles, especially if such materials threaten the safety of LDS missionaries.
- If we do all of these long enough and consistent enough, eventually, we will force the LDS Church to change its position.
In 1895 Mormon women approached the church to gain it's approval of forming an association affiliated with the Nation Woman's Suffrage association. The church GAVE it's approval and the association was led by prominant non-Mormon women.
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/womenssuffrageinutah.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage
As for your other issues with the church I will only say this. There has always been and there will always be change in the approach God has taken in guiding his children in righteousness. We as parents forbid many things for our children until they understand the dynamics involved and are ready to make their choice, fully understanding right from wrong.
Mormons are one of the few possible parties that prejudice is still allowed for. On Bill Maher's show, Ben Affleck referred to Mormonism as a "suspect religion" - tell me, if you referred to Judaism as suspect - would it be tolerated? I can tell you as someone who has grown up in large diverse cities - it would not. Lawrence O'Donnell, a political analyst speaking at on the show the McLaughlin Group, accused Joseph Smith of being a rapist and a criminal. A counterpart of his was fired from the show for referring to young African Americans as "nappy headed." Not only was he not fired, he was brought back to speak again. If he had referred to Mohammad a rapist due to his religious practices I can assure you there would have been an uproar.
My life thus far has been spent in San Francisco and New York City. I am an LDS individual with many gay friends. This is ridiculous. I have never had this issue before. I respect my friends and they respect me in return. We may not agree but we love one another. In all honesty, the majority of people I know are not offended by this. My friends still have civil union available. The minority of this group are making the uproar and making it personal. The LDS church has very respectfully called for peace and open mindedness. Interesting that the very people calling for us to open our minds are the very ones being close minded.
Bottom line - God loves all his children. He wants us to treat each other lovingly. Perhaps we just need to remember where we came from.
This is the same group that demands free speech when it meets their needs, but vilifies, and would deny the same right to anyone who disagrees (as evidenced by the hostile/putative position taken toward the LDS Church). (Let’s see…, homophobia, bigotry, discrimination, etc…, all terms the GLBT crowd loves to throw out, particularly on TV, to belittle and castigate anyone who believes the practice is wrong/deplorable)
There was a time that homosexuality was considered a “deviant” sexual behavior by the metal health profession AND the public. However, homosexuals working within the mental health profession promoted a change. This then became an “Alternative Lifestyle.” Major efforts within the movement focused on a multi-pronged approach; public relations to soften the image and change the stigma, and an aggressive lobby of state and federal legislators to enact and/or change laws that were/are more favorable to the gay/lesbian agenda (ever hear of Special Interests?). Unfortunately for America in general, this movement discovered they could “overcome” the voice of the people much more successfully by pandering to activist judges, who then took it upon themselves to legislate from the bench.
Let’s be very clear, the majority of Americans have consistently viewed homosexuality as wrong, as evidenced by the growing trend of voters in States across the country to install constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a “Man and a Women.”
Trying to “change America’s mind” has proven to be a significant obstacle, besides, why waste the time when you can call it a “Civil Rights” issue, and get the tax-payers to cover the bill. Much of what we now see coming from the GLTG group looks like it came from either the Civil Rights or Environmental-Terrorism play book or both!
Your theories on the LDS Church evolving are interesting, but contextually manipulated to prove your point. In reality, the anger of the Gay/Lesbian crowd should be focused on the many, many people who disagree. It’s just easier to find a big target, get a WHOLE big bunch of free media coverage and do one’s best to turn it into a public relations bonus for the GL side.
Please, stop the posting until you have finished your “deprogramming.” Figure it out and post again once your feet are back on tera-firma.
If God dosen't exist, then all of this hype about gay marriage dosen't matter one way or the other. If He does exists, and He does, then gay marriage isn't a question.
God governs by laws. He always has. And whenever there has been a people on the earth who would listen to Him, He would send prophets to tell them about commandments, and things NOT to do to make God angry. God would also speak directly to those individuals who sought Him out. It's called personal revelation. It's something that all christians believe in.
The thing is, God's laws are unalterable. If they were alterable, God would be a changing God, therefore a TEMPORARY God, and a God that you couldn't really trust one day to the next. All Christian churches believe and KNOW that God is unchanging, and is no respecter of persons. That is why christian churches of all denominations have come together to stand against that which would destroy our faith...the very attack of the adversary, the devil, himself.
The very suggestion that in a few years homosexual marriage will take place in mormon temples is absoleutly faithless and treacherous. In saying that, just to make a point, it's like you are saying that God dosen't really know what He's doing, and that He should listen to you because you are, obviously, smarter than He is.
I know, beyond doubt and as a fact, that the family is central to the divine plan God has for EACH of his children. It is sacred, and safe. Just like having faith in God is sacred and safe. This plan that He has for all of us IS a divine plan of happiness. And for those who would degrade the family to a thing of insignificance, and who would seek to redefine a divine institution simply to suit their "trendy" practices and who would make fun of, and persecute those who WOULD stand up for the institution that brings us together as better individuals with stronger faith in CHRIST, I say..."band together then. Because whether you belive it or not "those that be with US (christians and belivers) are more than they that be with them."
I WILL wait and see, friend. And I will not wait alone. I know what's coming. And I'm up for the challenge. I won't just back down because I'm too afraid to stand up for what's right. Bring it on. "I know in whom I trust, and I will trust in Him forever."
And as far as you last comment goes on that it will be "a matter of a few decades before Homosexuals will be getting married in LDS temples," have you ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Need I say more?
I am sorry to say that you will probably never understand this but there is no way ever God will allow same-sex temple marriage. Its unheard of and provokes God's plan. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. His plan is to allow us to have eternal progression and to have eternal progression, marriage is needed between a MAN and a WOMAN... they can carry on the sacred power of procreation. Same-sex couples CANNOT, it hinders the process. Just you wait and see, same-sex marriage will never happen on this earth or at any time hereafter... Sorry dude, its just not going to happen... yeah I know there was polygamy and blacks that made a breakthrough, but you have to understand in the history why it happened the way it did. But unless you really research and research in the right places... not anti-mormon materials then you will never know.
"In the colonial days of the Americas, slavery was a common and ACCEPTED practice in most of the world. Black men were not free. The founding fathers, many of whom were slave holders themselves and subjects of their own times, wisely set in motion a political system that was not in their own self-interest and that would eventually politically liberate the slaves. To understand the early restrictions on the priesthood, I believe you have to understand the solemnity, oath and covenant of the priesthood.
"A man who accepts the priesthood incurs a solemn obligation to magnify that priesthood and to function in the world as a free agent in the service of God in administering truth and light to others. Instead of viewing the Priesthood as a privilege that was denied from some because of their skin color, I view the Priesthood as a grave obligation that results in condemnation when not handled properly; and that God mercifully withheld that obligation from Blacks until the time when very real political, educational, and cultural impediments were removed; and conditions were such that they could take upon themselves these sacred obligations with a reasonable probability of success. I'm convinced that Blacks in the early history of the United States, because of their limited liberty, will be judged to a different standard than their white contemporaries who had, but abused, greater liberty; and that the priesthood restrictions correlate to this reality."
You hold up the sophistry and lie that this "gay movement" against Prop 8 in California is akin to the "Civil Rights Fight." What sophistry. You've been conned. What a perfect tool to bring about a ruthless tyranny, and you fully support it. Let me explain a few things.
William Tyndale was burned alive in the 16th century for printing the English Bible. This was the "tolerance" for religion in England that pushed boatload after boatload of Englishman to the eastern seaboard of the United States, seeking freedom.
Jefferson swore eternal hostility toward any form of tyranny upon the mind of man:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Religious Liberty was of the highest order and concern to these colonists, and the very first of their spelled out "Bill of Rights" reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So, the First Amendment was to keep the damned hand of government tyranny off of religion, for "Congress shall make no law" concerning religion, and neither shall the damned Soviet Courts in the United States today. Prop 8 was not an "anti-gay" measure, but a 1st Amendment measure to protect religion from the wicked courts who are hostile and seek an inroad at slaughtering the First Amendment. Judges the ilk of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri with his infamous "extermination order" against the Mormon's are ready and anxious to criminalize religion if they can do so.
An example of these most wicked courts. Recently, the Soviet US District Court in San Francisco ruled that "parental rights are severed" when a child crosses the threshold of the school. Where did this Stalin/Mao/Hitlarian ruling come from? Straight from a tyrannical hell, a US Court that is as un-American as anything you hear of today. People 30 years ago would have laughed you to scorn if you would have predicted a court ruling could take place in America that followed the Marxist ideology of the USSR. But, here we are. Such Soviet rulings have been made and will continue to be made. That ruling enforced a plank of the Communist Manifesto.
Respecting religion and the "free exercise thereof," churches absolutely must defend against these damned, wicked courts who now "make law" which the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from doing, regarding religion.
I hope, in a nutshell, this explains the real issue. What a damned lie to say this is "hate filled" by churches. Churches did not start this battle, but they shall be destroyed if they don't stand up and defend the 1st Amendment. It is their defense against hate filled judges who will begin criminalizing churches as soon as they can get an inroad to do so. Marriage as defined as a "man and a woman" is a buffer against such tyranny upon the 1st Amendment. Gay people can have every right and do so under the law. The only difference is their "domestic unions" are not given the legal definition to be a "marriage" which protects churches from a ruthless tyrannical government hell bent upon legislating it into oblivion by the Secularist High Priests of the State Religion of Secularism---the Judges.
Mormon's, more than any other people on earth today, perhaps, ought to know what governments can do, for in the 19th Century, the US Federal government sought to "destroy the LDS Church as an institution" as Gordon B. Hinckley expressed a while back. It is true, murder of leadership, their imprisonment, lootings, rape, robbings, plunder, seizure of assets, burning of temples, shutting down of temples, "extermination orders," it's all been had before, and is prophesied to transpire again. We're fools to let it come about easily by not seeking to ensure the 1st Amendment is of force, keeping judges damned hands from "making law" against religion and "the free exercise thereof." Thus, those crying that this is an unfair fight at "denying rights" from gay couples are liars, and the best line sophistry sold in the 2008 election year.
http://www.awakeandarise.org/article/lds_targeted.htm
it seems to me that it would be a better option for homosexuals to start their own church and build their own temples so that they can do whatever they please in those temples.
Because you do not understand doctrine you say that gays will marry in our temples... sure that will happen as long as the gay individual is marring someone of the opposite sex.
It would never happen and Church will never allow gay marriage in the temple. Lets said if US government threaten the Church to allow it then God will end this world of wicked and burn the earth to destroy all the wicked people. End of story.
The changes you site with blacks came because the curese of Cain was fulfilled. The black people were then ready to receive the blessings. Polygamy was changed because it was against the law and the people were not prepared to live it correctly. It was just for a short period of time to take care of the excess women. I don't think we will ever be expected to live polygamy again on the earth. We may accept it later in the celestial kingdom, but not here.
The whole endowment ceremony in the temple is based on Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
The Savior WILL come! Doctrine isn't dictated by members or by public pressure. We all need to repent. Even you. You can "wait and see."
I have homosexual members of my family and have sadly witnessed how THIS CHOICE (it is NOT genetic) devastates and destroys lives. I've also witnessed how one of these family members purposely and deceptively recruited teenage boys to adopt his lifestyle.
Homosexuals are NOT evil, but homosexuality IS! There are people in this world who are inclined and have strong desires to murder others. Should their desires and inclinations being protected by law and should they be given "rights" to murder others? Homosexuality IS evil.
Homosexuality is not evil... religion is EVIL.... Practice what you preach!!!!! religious people claim to be, kind, caring, accepting.... YET... when it comes to something their god, or joseph smith's (a man that was obviously high off shrooms.) writings or beliefs they turn all evil, unloving, hypocritical, fanatics.
Not everyone believes in your god, so lay off.
I'm guessing that you weren't around in 1978 when the LDS church changed a core doctrine and decided that letting even Negroes hold the priesthood was a desirable change.
There was a lot of arrogance in the thought you expressed that the LDS church is "the standard of what is good and righteous in this world."
So of all the religions of the world, the comparatively small sect headquartered in SLC is the standard for what is good and righteous? Better cc the Dali Lama and others that they are below SLC on the good and righteous continuum.
So I see that a lot of my fellow members think that the church should go around trying to legislate into law what it considers to be moral.
I'm thinking that it is probably more to do with a lot of your "ick" feelings about homosexual sex.
If you really thought the church should be legislating all over the country for what it considers moral behaviour, why don't they try to return us to prohibition? Using alcohol is "immoral."
Why don't they try to get laws passed to outlaw premarital sex? It is immoral.
I could go on, but you get the point. It isn't about outlawing what is immoral. It is about outlawing what makes intolerant people go "ick". Alcohol just isn't as icky.
My suggestion would be to let those who want to marry do so, if you don't want to picture them having sex, don't picture it.
To almost the whole country in the 1800's, marrying a bunch of women, many underage, was immoral and shouldn't be tolerated. They passed laws against it that the church thought were unfair against their brand of immoral and repugnant behaviour.
The whole reason that the rest of the country hated polygamy was because they thought it was immoral. A smaller group wanted to have immoral and repugnant marriages, and have others just leave them to do what they wanted in bed, then they forgot what that was like and started to do the same thing that they found so unfair.
This morning, I read that "the" church said that neither side should be targeted or villified. Hello? You people and your "church" have been targeting and villifying a whole group of law-abiding citizens and that is the precise reason that your church is being targeted and villified now. Well, your hatred paid off - now, you will suffer the consequences and the huge backlash. This is just the beginning. Congratulations people. I hope you feel proud of yourselves and your bigoted ways. The way I see it, you should be feeling ashamed. Absolutely disgraceful. Your church has NO right to even talk about your little persecution that you "suffered" when you are the persecutors and oppressors now. Everyone is seeing your total and utter hypocrisies and sick ways.
Every church who actively participated in prop 8 should have their tax exemption status revoked and done so very publicly in order to send a message. This is a political matter, not a religious matter. This is also a California matter - not a Utah matter, so MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!
My next wish is that when Utah has a controversial prop come up that Californian's will send every single penny and dime and influence and advertising this way to oppose what you people want.
Absolutely reprehensible.
2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
As for the acceptance part. I accept the people but I do not accept their sin.
Christ also taught to judge righteously, and saying something is wrong that god himself has condemned is judging righteously.
This is about allowing others to have the right to pursue equality and happiness, not about giving up your own rights. Until church leaders accept that homosexuality is not a choice, not deplorable, and utterly wrong because, its members will never be allowed to have that belief independently.
The church will not change it's stance on the sin. Because the sin is wrong. It is a sin just like murder, theivery, and adultry. The church will never change it's stance on the severity of sin.
Bigotry, hatred, self-righteousness, ignorance, and refusal to understand (all of which are sins) tell you that homosexuality is evil.
If that is how you feel, how about we teach acceptance of Mormons by giving children in schools a Book of Mormon to take home? How would you feel then? There are a lot of people who hate Mormons. How about Mormon doctrine being taught in schools? I am sure you would be against that. As we are against gay lifestyles being taught in schools, which gay marriage leads to that.
Can we disagree without being disagreeable?
If your sister and her partner of 10 years were satisfied with the full rights they have as a "domestic partnership" in California, then that would be fine. What would that hurt the church? Nothing.
But, for your sister and her partner to demand their union be the same legal term of "marriage" then opens of religion to prosecution and persecution, with vicious court rulings trashing the 1st Amendment.
I refer you to my other post, explaining this in more detail, as we have the USSR Court of Appeals in San Francisco making rulings that enforce planks of the communist manifesto, such as their recent "parental rights are severed when a child crosses the threshold of the school."
Any red blooded American, straight or gay should see the absolute tyranny of such a court ruling. Honest homosexuals (I know some) supported Prop 8 knowing how it protects the 1st Amendment from tyranny. Those are fair minded people who don't jump on a damned band wagon of anything "gay" and blindly support it, such as the dupes running around screaming about "hate" and "bigotry," the very same here in California who have been vandalizing property and now some threaten to "burn down churches." I wish they would do so, it would be the greatest thing they could do to destroy their rhetoric and in the fullest possible way expose their hypocrisy, always claiming to be treated with "bigotry" and "intolerance." Bigots, by definition, don't allow other points of view, and so it has been here where over 24 of my yard signs have been stolen. "Bigots" steal my yard signs saying "Yes on 8."
Bigots shriek against churches for something they truly don't give a [no swearing please]about: marriage as a covenant of fidelity. Honest gay men want nothing to do with such a commitment to one sexual partner, and if you are not familiar with that, then start reading. Such men are addicted to sex and the "hunt" for partners. That is the "rush" from their very promiscuous lifestyle. Gay woman generally would be more into "fidelity" to each other, but again, they have the full rights under california law with prop 8 passing as to if it failed. Churches on the other hand would be subjugated to a yoke of tyranny by the courts as it destroys the 1st Amendment protection of religion.
This my friend, is the real issue, and you fail to see it. Please be honest and wake up to see it. Failing to acknowledge the justice of the LDS Church taking a stand on this issue to defend itself against judicial tyranny would indicate truth is not in you, and, like lawyers of old, you might be deemed a "child of hell," having no salt, no savor, but having the devil, the father of all lies seal you his.
The LDS Church has said, over and over again, that it does not vilify homosexuals, it simply disagrees with their lifestyle and opposes societal sanction of it. Where's the division in that? Does disagreement = division, and can we no longer disagree without being disagreeable?
I understand the sensitive feelings on both sides, but do not understand the singling out and disparaging of the LDS Church despite its constant and considerate position on this issue.
Righteousness, purity, decency and wholesome family values transend any man made boundaries.
I can assure you that no resident of Utah voted in California. Californians of every nationality, ethnic group, and religeous orientation, defeated Satan and one of his evil programs.
For the remainder of life on this planet, good, clean living people from all walks of life, will rise up in times of need and defend their homes and families against wickedness.
You would do well to stop being a cheerleader for the Father of Lies.
you know that will never happen.
Holding yourselves up to be the moral judges of the world is total BS. So many of you are what is refered to as sunday mormons..because you drink, smoke, have sex outside your marriage, ect...but on sunday go to church and act all high and mighty.
This is not a church issue...it is a right that should be afforded every citizen of the United states to marry who they love, with the common sense restrictions of must be of legal age and not related.
It seems you are the one trying to deny peoples rights not me.
The LDS Church leadership is simply exercising bad judgment with respect to morality. They are making a stand based on bad judgment.
The American Heritage Dictionary:
mo·ral·i·ty
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Collins Essential English Dictionary:
morality
Noun
pl -ties
1. good moral conduct
2. the degree to which something is morally acceptable
3. a system of moral principles
Wordnet 3.0, copyright 2003-2008 Princeton University:
morality - concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct.
Related words from the Collins Essential Thesaurus include virtue, morals, goodness, righteousness, propriety, and chastity
Unless you have walked in the shoes of someone who has strggled with realizing that they are gay, you really have no right judging them or their lifestyle. Although not being gay myself I do find that gay people are more open, honest and understanding of other people than people are of them.
Gay does not "rub off" on to you or your children, anymore than you can catch aids or cancer from touching the person.
You detest the Church, but the Church is only trying to defend their stand in order to protect Families as they are. Family btw, is how nature has always allowed them to grow and exist, not what someone wants to fulfill their own satisfactions. If two men or two women can get married, how far away are we from Marrying children, animals, cars? I know it sounds crazy, but where do we stop? If the homosexual feels offended now with the current definition of marriage, then that definition changes to include Homo's, would the petafile then be offended and so on?
I don't recall where LDS people make up 52% of Californians...
I don't recall John McCain calling for protests all over Chicago... He's not leading protests against contributors to Democrat-supported causes...
You can agree or disagree, that is the democratic process. Vilifying and protesting against the majority after the vote only reinforces perceptions of a hostile minority.
I'm not going to back out of a fight that needs to be fought because someone's feelings might be hurt.
The churches rights to not perform marriages for gay people where at stake here. Besides the whole moral repercussions that would have followed if good people did nothing about this perversion of the marriage institution would be devastating.
The lawsuits already won by gay people in the forcing of their lifestyle on society and into the homes of decent moral citizens was at stake.
To me, personaly, this does seem conflicting with the counsel given by the prophet to support porp.8.
Homosexuality is ethically, morally, and legally wrong and even changing a law or Constitution will not change those facts. I can't stand ANY group who tries to change the "rules" in order to justify their actions. Homosexuality is a CHOICE - face that fact and then you can move on with your life :).
And no, I'm not irate, just firm in my conviction of this.
Seriously we... wait at least I will never give up my values just for the sake of unity. What point is there in being united if what you are united to is no good, meaning the side of Liza Minelli. You sheep that go along to get along are weak of mind. Grow a spine and stand up for what you believe.
You angry proponents of the gay agenda just need to take an anger management class. The Church and religious people all across the country have a right to keep marriage as it has always been. Religious people have a right to vote. Some judge with bloomers can't just come along and say that what the people voted on is no longer valid and say that gays can alter the sacred and holy institution of marriage.
I praise the Mormon Church for standing it's ground when others have fallen!!!
We don't believe in changing our view or that of the def of marriage just because the world's standards has changed. The church or gospel of Christ is the same yesturday, today and forever. It does not change based on what the world viewpoints are. Sorry to all those gays but the majority has spoken - deal with it. The minority should not rule the majority
Those who favor this say it's no bodies business what they do behind closed doors. WELL, keep it behind closed doors then!!!!! I find is difficult to explaine to my kids why 2 boys, obiviously older than Kindergarter are holding hands at Sam's Club. If you don't want the attention, don't draw it to yourselves. I feel many of the "they's" like the shock factor they give.
I will admit, I have VERY little exposure to the gay community, but the call to action to protest in front of LDS properties really shows the kind, loving people the community of gays are. This is the impression I will have of them. And "they" ask, and expect others to be understanding???
WELL WE ARE TIRED of you trying to inject your politics and morals into the lives of us WHO AREN'T GAY!!!!! GET OVER IT!!!
I remember when drinking legislation hit the Utah State legislature the Church said on camera: we are not a political entity, The church said it does not influence what the legislature decides/does not decide there for the allegations the Church is lobbying the legislature is untrue. With that being said the Church "LIED" back when the Church released that statement so how many more lies have they told between then and now???
If what the Church did was not lobby favoritism in one way or another i guess i just do not know what the definition of a lobbyist is. This time the Church lobbied the public. Here is a lovely definition of what a lobbyist is from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
Wiki specificly says right at the top "all attempts to influence". It is clear as day Church had a agenda and spent dearly to get its way just like a bully, thug.
I am not to surprised to see a lower than expected turn out in Utah. Wait until these people hit States like New York it will become national news again hopefully the National media puts the spot light on the Church like 60 minutes did when they interviewed the Church and they refused to answer the 60 minutes reporters question/questions. Stuff like this is what i mean by "I Want The Truth Behind Utah". Utah reps say one thing but do another they LIE.