22 replies to this topic

[Saints Alive]

What does this:
http://www.telegraph...-in-church.html

Mean for the church in denmark?

How will the church handle this?
Will this force the Church to perform gay temple marriges?

[Benjamin McGuire]

It doesn't mean anything for the LDS Church. Denmark has an official state religion - and this requirement is for that organization. It will have no impact on other religions.

[treehugger]

the telegraph article is poorly written, it does not provide the necessary details. As stated above, this applies to the State Religion of Denmark and not other religions.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

An article that tells "the rest of the story"...

http://www.getreligi...ges-in-denmark/

[jwhitlock]

Interesting. GIven the government licensing involved, I wonder how long it will be until that technicality is used to force others to comply.

[thesometimesaint]

That's why I favor a near absolute separation of church and state. My spiritual health is my concern. Let the state be involved in my physical health.

[The Nehor]

jwhitlock, on 08 June 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

Interesting. GIven the government licensing involved, I wonder how long it will be until that technicality is used to force others to comply.

This will have no effect on the LDS Church. The LDS faith is not affiliated with the government of Denmark (unlike the State Religion). Bishops and sealers in Denmark are not government officials and will not be forced to do anything.

[blackstrap]

As a decendent of Danes,I have a dis Dane for this State intrusion into a religious matter, ie passing a law declaring doctrine .But ,this is not the first time such has happened.IIRC,that is one of the reasons newly found America was attractive to religious sects.

[calmoriah]

Quote

The government’s religion minister, who is identified as an agnostic

[jwhitlock]

The Nehor, on 08 June 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

This will have no effect on the LDS Church. The LDS faith is not affiliated with the government of Denmark (unlike the State Religion). Bishops and sealers in Denmark are not government officials and will not be forced to do anything.

It is correct that this particular action probably won't have any effect - though someone may try to use it from a legal standpoint if they have something against the church.

It is very possible that something more broadly covering all churches in Denmark may be passed in the future.  Depends on the rationalization they come up with to justify it.

[jwhitlock]

thesometimesaint, on 08 June 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

That's why I favor a near absolute separation of church and state. My spiritual health is my concern. Let the state be involved in my physical health.

Being the official state church means that the government can dictate church procedure more freely. It's one of those European anachronisms that is quite interesting. I agree that it's something to be avoided.

Full separation of church and state doesn't really exist. While some people seem to concentrate on making sure religious organizations are excluded from political involvement or influence, every government, including the U.S., exercises regulatory power in a variety of ways over churches. And there is inevitable mixing both ways that does lead to conflict and inconsistency in application.

[ERayR]

The Nehor, on 08 June 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

This will have no effect on the LDS Church. The LDS faith is not affiliated with the government of Denmark (unlike the State Religion). Bishops and sealers in Denmark are not government officials and will not be forced to do anything.

For how long?  One short step from where they are today and interference tomorrow.

[The Nehor]

ERayR, on 09 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

For how long?  One short step from where they are today and interference tomorrow.

No, it's several huge steps. The government won't currently even force the LDS Church to perform heterosexual marriages either in or out of the temple. Playing this up as the beginning of the end of religious freedom is paranoia.

[ERayR]

The Nehor, on 09 June 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

No, it's several huge steps. The government won't currently even force the LDS Church to perform heterosexual marriages either in or out of the temple. Playing this up as the beginning of the end of religious freedom is paranoia.

Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get them.

[The Nehor]

ERayR, on 09 June 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get them.

Oh, there are people out to get the LDS faith (Satan, his minions both embodied and not, and many organizations). I don't think this legislation is an attack on our religious freedom and crying out that it is is unwise. I've stopped taking seriously most LDS who cry 'wolf' at everything. I imagine many others have as well and some of them may be deaf to listening if something threatening does come.

[Valentinus]

Benjamin McGuire, on 08 June 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

It doesn't mean anything for the LDS Church. Denmark has an official state religion - and this requirement is for that organization. It will have no impact on other religions.

This makes me feel better.

[thesometimesaint]

jwhitlock, on 09 June 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Being the official state church means that the government can dictate church procedure more freely. It's one of those European anachronisms that is quite interesting. I agree that it's something to be avoided.

Full separation of church and state doesn't really exist. While some people seem to concentrate on making sure religious organizations are excluded from political involvement or influence, every government, including the U.S., exercises regulatory power in a variety of ways over churches. And there is inevitable mixing both ways that does lead to conflict and inconsistency in application.

One of the reasons I could never live in Europe.

Minimal involvement would be about it; IE. Health and Safety Codes.

[cdowis]

The Nehor, on 09 June 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

Oh, there are people out to get the LDS faith (Satan, his minions both embodied and not, and many organizations). I don't think this legislation is an attack on our religious freedom and crying out that it is is unwise. I've stopped taking seriously most LDS who cry 'wolf' at everything. I imagine many others have as well and some of them may be deaf to listening if something threatening does come.

Are you familiar with the situation in Canada, New York, and UK?

  Perhaps this law does not affect the church this moment, but I can see that the advocates for the gay agenda will not be satisfied, but in a decade or so, the "wolf" will become a monster.  Just a few centuries ago, Europe had a history of persecution and severe punishment for those who do not have the "correct" religion and there are laws now that are moving in that direction.

Edited by cdowis, 16 June 2012 - 02:32 PM.

[The Nehor]

cdowis, on 16 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Are you familiar with the situation in Canada, New York, and UK?

Yep.

cdowis, on 16 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

  Perhaps this law does not affect the church this moment, but I can see that the advocates for the gay agenda will not be satisfied, but in a decade or so, the "wolf" will become a monster.  Just a few centuries ago, Europe had a history of persecution and severe punishment for those who do not have the "correct" religion and there are laws now that are moving in that direction.

I'm now confused. Do you think we are going towards a "correct" secular religion that will persecute all religions or back to a state-sponsored religion where one church is elevated above all others? I can't see either happening with this legislation.

Of course the "gay agenda" will not be satisfied until there are gay temple marriages but all they can really do about it is complain, protest, and write articles about it. I just don't see this as a step towards a legal requirement. Again, the Church is allowed to discriminate at will as to who they will marry. If I grab a random girl and take her to the Bishop the Bishop is under no legal obligation to marry us. The Temple can exclude anyone they wish. When that starts to change I will worry about gay marriage destroying the church and not until then.

[cdowis]

The Nehor, on 16 June 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

I'm now confused.

OK, let's see if I can straighten you out.


Do you think we are going towards a "correct" secular religion that will persecute all religions or back to a state-sponsored religion where one church is elevated above all others? I can't see either happening with this legislation.

I guess you are very inexperienced in such things.

Of course the "gay agenda" will not be satisfied until there are gay temple marriages but all they can really do about it is complain, protest, and write articles about it.

They can do just as in the UK, where no temple sealings can be done until a civil marriage is performed.  They can take away the legal authority of the church to perform marriages unless they are willing to do SS marriage.  I forsee this happening in the next couple of decades as their power grows.

Open your eyes.

I just don't see this as a step towards a legal requirement. Again, the Church is allowed to discriminate at will as to who they will marry. If I grab a random girl and take her to the Bishop the Bishop is under no legal obligation to marry us. The Temple can exclude anyone they wish. When that starts to change I will worry about gay marriage destroying the church and not until then.

You are very naive and they are counting on that.  By the time they have their way, you will then open your eyes but it will be too late.  Again, look at what is already happening in NY, the UK and Canada.  You say you already are aware, but you just yawn.  You just don't see what is happening right now.