Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BCSpace

Ssm Ruling: What To Expect Near Term

Recommended Posts

No the Church did not use religious reasons for establishing a definition of marriage.  And yes, it does matter why we want to legislate something.  If we are legislating something for the sole purpose of establishing or preserving a religious principle, then we are in fact establishing religion.  Both sides tried to avoid mentioning religion in their briefs, as the cases were argued for the most part upon equal protection grounds.  How long a tradition has existed is for the most part irrelevant to this debate, slavery and racism are as old as humanity -- but no one would, well actually some might, argue that this is grounds to preserve them.

 

No, but you want the church to shut up anyway.  It doesn't freeking matter why I oppose gay marriage, and I say that because those who want it want it only because they want it.  Fairness!  Dignity!  Love!  Specious arguments for overturning marriage, which, unlike your attempt to switch context to slavery and racism, is a universal good for all of humanity, and only exists because there is a desperate societal need for a safe place to raise children, without which the entire human race suffers.  And the next thing you will bring up will be the exceptions.  As if exceptions destroy the rule -- which they don't, because as you perfectly know or should know, exceptions prove the rule.  Simply because there are exceptions means the rule is valid in a general sense.

 

When a man can beget a child on another man, then I suppose SSM would have a purpose beyond making its proponents and participants feel good.  Until that day then it is a glilttering generality with no inherent purpose nor meaning.

You seem to have absolutely no clue why 60% of Americans now support gay marriage. Do you really think this is all just about redefining the current definition of marriage? Seriously? That is all you have gotten out of a decade of talking about this issue? Do you really think that support for equality in marriage went from 30% in favor to what it is today because everyone is out to destroy the traditional definition of marriage?

You are. blinded and deaf by your oun tunnel vision. Why dont you ponder why the public has shifted so radically on this subject. If you can come up with an honest answer you will understand why marriage is now legal for all Americans.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

No, but you want the church to shut up anyway.  It doesn't freeking matter why I oppose gay marriage, and I say that because those who want it want it only because they want it.  Fairness!  Dignity!  Love!  Specious arguments for overturning marriage, which, unlike your attempt to switch context to slavery and racism, is a universal good for all of humanity, and only exists because there is a desperate societal need for a safe place to raise children, without which the entire human race suffers.  And the next thing you will bring up will be the exceptions.  As if exceptions destroy the rule -- which they don't, because as you perfectly know or should know, exceptions prove the rule.  Simply because there are exceptions means the rule is valid in a general sense.

 

When a man can beget a child on another man, then I suppose SSM would have a purpose beyond making its proponents and participants feel good.  Until that day then it is a glilttering generality with no inherent purpose nor meaning.

You seem to have absolutely no clue why 60% of Americans now support gay marriage. Do you really think this is all just about redefining the current definition of marriage? Seriously? That is all you have gotten out of a decade of talking about this issue? Do you really think that support for equality in marriage went from 30% in favor to what it is today because everyone is out to destroy the traditional definition of marriage?

You are. blinded and deaf by your oun tunnel vision. Why dont you ponder why the public has shifted so radically on this subject. If you can come up with an honest answer you will understand why marriage is now legal for all Americans.

 

 

A carefully orchestrated attack on Christian values, home and families.

Share this post


Link to post

I said it earlier, but perhaps it bears repeating.  (If not, feel free to ignore it, which is what most will do anyway ... ;)) There's a certain amount of merit in the libertarian, live-and-let-live, we'll-do-our-thing-and-let-others-do-their-thing argument.  "If he's harming anyone, he's only harming himself," or "If they're harming anyone, they're only harming themselves," so the argument goes.  But such "harmful-only-to-himself" or "harmful-only-to-themselves" arguments posit a vacuum which, for the theory to hold, would need to be only big enough for the person or persons involved.  But such actions rarely (if ever) occur in such a small vacuum; they rarely (if ever) harm only the actor(s).  

 

Sin adversely affects sinners, yes; but (as outmoded as this idea is in many quarters today) it can also adversely affect friends, family, associates, and, eventually, communities, states, and nations.  Don't disagree with me; disagree with The Fifteen: They put the idea forth in The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and it wasn't their idea: it pervades the scriptures.  (See, e.g., Mosiah 29:26-27: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.26-27?lang=eng)   The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once wrote that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  I wonder if sin anywhere might be a threat to righteousness everywhere.  Don't forget God's conversation with Abraham about Sodom: Whether it really occurred or not is irrelevant; it still illustrates the principles that one righteous person can save a whole city, and, as the Apostle Paul wrote, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think so.  Google around for videos of the Anti-Prop 8 demonstrations outside the Los Angeles Temple, then come back and tell me that "only ... a very few" will continue to agitate militantly against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines on marriage and the Law of Chastity.  Whatever the number or proportion of gays that engage in such demonstrations, it wouldn't (shouldn't) take very many people willing to engage in such conduct for the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders to become concerned.

 

I would ask you for a CFR, but I don't think you're speaking from firsthand or close secondhand knowledge.  I think you've been fed a bill of propaganda goods by sexually active gays who have an axe to grind against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who refuse to conform to God's dictates on the issue and who, instead of abandoning sin to become comfortable with God, want to abandon God to become comfortable with sin (and who, consequently, want the Church to change the Law of Chastity and its view that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God).

 

There are celibate gays in the Church of Jesus Christ, just as there are celibate straights (yours truly among them).  That choice takes an enormous amount of courage when the gay lobby insists that any religion that holds that sexual intimacy should be confined to opposite sex marriage is, along with its members, bigoted.  I don't recall if Handbook 1 says anything specific about the types of callings open-if-celibate gays may receive, but I do think caution would be in order.  I would gladly defer to the discernment of any Bishop or Stake President involved in such a decision (since, unless I had specific knowledge that should raise concerns, it wouldn't be my place to second-guess such decisions anyway).  I think most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel the same way, and if some don't ... well, their Bishops and Stake Presidents can tell them, politely, to butt out. ;)

Edited by JAHS

Share this post


Link to post

A carefully orchestrated attack on Christian values, home and families.

 

Much of the support for gay marriage is coming from family-oriented Christians 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post

"I am, too, but a large subset of those who identify as gays and lesbians will never be satisfied until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandons its doctrines regarding chastity and marriage."

 

 

Please define "large".

Also; compare this definition with the greater populous.

5,000 people is a very large group to be standing all together excluding others.

5,000 people among 320,000,000 is hardly a popcorn toot.

Share this post


Link to post

A carefully orchestrated attack on Christian values, home and families.

 

By Theodore Olson. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

If the only reason for heterosexual marriage is the production of children. Then that is a sad commentary on marriage.

Yeah and that argument was repeatedly made and repeatedly refuted since we authorize heterosexuals who are beyond child bearing to get married. The problem the opponents had was the secular arguments did not stand up. In essence the Church's real reason for the opposition was religious, and I respect that...but I do not respect trying to impose our religious beliefs by legislation on others.

Share this post


Link to post

A carefully orchestrated attack on Christian values, home and families.

That's the reason 60% of Americans support gay marriage ???? Really?? 60% of Americans want to do away with families and Christianity and their values??? That is what you got out of 8 years debating this subject?

Share this post


Link to post

I think the biggest fear the church leaders have is not "the gays" demanding marriage in the church but rather the members themselves pushing for gay inclusion to the plan of salvation.

The letter read in sacrament meeting was the first volley to try and nip these changing attitudes towards gays that has already started. They weren't quite ready to threaten excommunication for having pro gay marriage in the church. But they did clearly state that members should seek counsel from first bishops then stake presidents who would be given access to general authorities if needed. While this may always be true it was a reminder that they do not want a shift of attitudes toward giving gays the blessings of temple marriage.

I personally could care less if the church allows temple marriage for all gods children. I think imost gays could care less what Mormons teach their members. But I am pretty confident that this fear the leaders have with members increasingly wanting gay couples to have the blessings of temple marriage will continue to increase not diminish.

 

You really have no idea, do you?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm unfamiliar with the process of how SSM became legal in the US. What is the biggest social contention that pervades thoughts? I get the theological argument and don't wish to get into that discussion as it seems that topic has in its own way hijacked the board.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm unfamiliar with the process of how SSM became legal in the US. What is the biggest social contention that pervades thoughts? I get the theological argument and don't wish to get into that discussion as it seems that topic has in its own way hijacked the board.

 

This is a good overview: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/gay-marriage-supreme-court-politics-activism/397052/

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By TOmNossor
      Hello!
      I enjoy reading Catholic thought and I wanted to share.  I believe the call for SSM and many other criticisms of the CoJCoLDS (primarily from those who still hold to some sense of its being “true”) is a product of lack of rigorous thought.  An emotionalism where we substitute how we feel about things for sound principles derived by seeking God with faith and reason.
      First two links:
      Article by Archbishop of Philadelphia:
      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/03/believe-that-you-may-understand
      Faith and Reason by JPII:
      http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
      I will admit that I have only read parts of Faith and Reason, but I hope to rectify this.
      I think the Catholic Church is in crisis partially because its highest leaders have left behind sound thinking on issues for a hoped pastoral love of all.  This is from First Things:


      More poignantly from an interview with Bishop Chaput:



      It is my opinion that there are many very concerning things coming for the Pope and the leadership around him.  I fear he has forgotten (and I think it likely that many around him have forgotten) the second half of: “Truth without love is imperious self-righteousness. Love without truth is cowardly self-indulgence.” With an organization so committed to preserving the “truth once delivered,” how (with or without God’s supernatural guidance) can such a thing happen.  How can it happen to the CoJCoLDS?
      Somebody who wrestles with issues like advocating for or against SSM will become a general authority (not me).  In my personal life, I feel the desire to embrace love without the restraining influence of truth.  In the name of love sometime not just self love, I can stray from God’s path.  As my attempt at my best self online, I feel the desire to embrace love without mentioning truth to those with whom I dialogue even though I do not face the same issues they do (I like to not speak of their sin or emphasize that I too am a sinner to eliminate or soften the truth).  How much tougher will this be for the future bishop who can clearly see the pain in those he loves and knows that speaking truth to them will make him a lone voice in a world that has ceased to care about truth.
      There are two things about the difficult and recent declaration concerning children of same sex couples.  First, is that it would be somewhat cruel to ask a child to explain the reason his/her parents have embraced a way of living out of alignment with God’s teaching.  The second is having not been cruel, those who likely believe that SSM is a wonderful institution that has blessed their lives will continue to grow and learn and progress in the church.  
      As I said in a recent thread, I think it quite possible that one day our church will embrace SSM in many and perhaps all ways.  IMO today this would be the love without truth result.  If this happens in the future, it will not be the end of the church, but too much of this love without truth could be (I have faith that God is in control and can steer away from this).  But, one of the ways God steers away from this is by calling us to THINK correctly.
      I believe that wrong thinking after Vatican II has lead to the place where the Catholic Church is today and while some of the things Pope Francis is doing may briefly increase the number of folks in the pews, I believe ultimately it will further water down truth and lead to more indifference to the things of God.
      I do not think the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS have succumbed to the thinking Pope Francis has embraced.  And I believe that the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS receive revelation and inspiration to guide God’s church.  That being said, I have little doubt that Bishops and Stake Presidents struggle with these issues.  Without a commitment to have both TRUTH and LOVE, I think errors can happen.  As these error permeate the church AND society, there may be one day when our God (who I think is pragmatic) will recognize that it does more harm than good to continue to teach the truth in certain ways.  Someday, the pain caused by the truth and the prevalence of societies tolerant arms willing to offer an ultimately cold loveless embrace, could make it better for the church to water down the gospel in certain areas (no more United Order comes to mind).  Alternatively, if the gospel understanding of these issues is correct and discussion and dialogue helps folks to find ways to love in truth, perhaps pragmatic solution will not be required.  
      Anyway, there is great value in learning from wise folks like JPII and Arch Bishop Chaput.  I believe God is in charge.  I believe the CoJCoLDS passed through its first 200 years in a way far more remarkable than the years 33-233AD were for New Testament Christians and evidence God’s continuing inspiration and revelation for the whole body of the church.  That being said, God’s hand is occasionally the wise and intelligent council of our brothers and sisters.  The society into which President Nelson held his first press conference is hostile to God’s truths.  I believe that the church is guided by God through President Nelson, but ALL of us imbibe inappropriately of the ideas evidenced in this press conference hostility (in the name of love or in the name of self-indulgence or in the name of …but we imbibe).  May right reasoning and truth from God provide a counter force to societies pull!  
      Charity, TOm  
      P.S.  In case it is somehow veiled by what I say above, I do not think I am superior in my thinking to all others.  I offer the above because it is what seems true to me.  If it didn’t seem true to me, my best self, would find something else to embrace that I think is true.  I desire to align my beliefs with what God believes to be true!  
      This also means I want to read and discuss thoughts about the above.
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By cinepro
      First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.
      Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:
      I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"
      The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?
      My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:
      "Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."
      Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?
       
    • By Darren10
      Here's a story of Courtney and Rachelle. Courtney grew up in the LDS Church and "did everything [she] was supposed to". During her enrollement at BYU, she met Rachelle. Courtney moved to Oregon to be with Rachelle and they got married. Courtney said her soul was torm into pieces as she was gau but knew the Church was true. Courtney found lots of happiness with Rachelle and at a picture session, Courtney's father apologized for previously, by his choice, not ever meeting Rachelle; and that began a healing process. The LDS missionaries showed up to Courtney and Rachelle's door. They both agreed to listen to their message and after feeling the peace brought into their home by the missionaries and by reading the Book of mormon and knowing it was true, Rachelle agreed to join the church they both filed ofr divorce in order for Rachelle to be baptized. 
      I think this is a miraculous story. It shows how through the love of Christ anyone can change. It also shows how the most effective way to bring the love of Christ into the lives of ithers is through charitbable service. Not preaching, not condemnation. Though those do have a place in the gospel, it is through personable loving service that Christ's love is most likely felt by others. Jesus knows His own and does not forget them.
      http://www.ldsliving.com/Watch-A-Lesbian-Couple-Shares-Why-They-Divorced-to-Join-the-Church-in-Powerful-Video/s/86166?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=social_button
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I'm nervous to try and tackle this theory but I'll do my best. I'm definitely open to critique of my thought process here.
      I've come to a bit of a realization today about the continuing debate about SSM and the role of gays in the plan of salvation. This modern debate seems to be based on elements similar to the debate in which Orson Pratt and Brigham Young engaged. Specifically, I'm thinking of their debate over intelligence(s) and the progression of God. (I'll do my best to describe this in the way that I understand it and I'll try to make this brief)
      In essence, Orson Pratt claimed that the first God organized Himself from among eternally existing intelligences. These intelligences are the core and origin of each individual, including God. Pratt then claimed that God progressed sufficiently to become perfect at which time he organized other intelligences, the first of which was Jesus Christ. But the keys are a) preexisting individual intelligences  b) God progressed to perfection so His personal progression has ceased except for the continuing progression of the other intelligences He organized.
      Brigham Young, on the other hand taught about intelligence as more of a force/material from which spirits were created, not as preexisting individuals. He taught that God, and therefore all spirits, eternally progress. Therefore God is not eternally perfect. Therefore God has a father, who has a father, who has a father etc. eternally.
      The debate about the LGBT role in the plan of salvation, including SSM and eternal progression, seems to be at least partially rooted in this same debate. Is each individual preexisting and organized by God into a spirit with preexisting personal attributes, or is each spirit created by God from the material of intelligence.
      IF each individual was organized from preexisting intelligences, or refined into a spirit by an eternally perfect God instead of being created from a substance of intelligence by a God who is still progressing, and therefore is not yet perfect/complete, then perhaps it's easier to believe that the individual, with all of it's particular idiosyncrasies, talents, character traits etc, including SS attraction, might eternally be gay by nature. The organization of the individual from the preexisting intelligences could be an asxual process instead of a sxual one. Therefore SS couples may also be capable of organizing intelligences in eternity because it doesn't involve a kind of sxual reproduction.
      On the other hand, IF each individual was procreated by a still progressing God in companionship with a Heavenly Mother, from a substance of intelligence, then it may be more conceivable to think of sxual procreation as the method of spirit creation. With eternal progression a possibility I see how LGBT could be viewed by some as a "work in progress" that will continue to progress.
      I view the eternal nature of LGBT in the terms I used to describe Pratt's argument and therefore as a natural and eternal characteristic which God would account for in His plan of salvation. Further, that SS couples could organize intelligences in the eternities and in that way have eternal offspring instead of being limited to sxual spirit reproduction. But by thinking of the BY model of a progressing God and the essentialness of sxual spirit reproduction, I can better appreciate the other point of view.
      Thoughts? Rip away
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...