california boy

I've seen this as well. It is heartbreaking to watch.

The teachings of the Church are clear at this time and you watch people who want to obey but can't. I get a little bit of it because I've been searching for a relationship that I want to make permanent for about a decade now. I imagine the annoyance, the pain, the anger, the despair, and the lack of anything ever seeming to change is similar though I have a supreme advantage: hope that it will change. Their hopes are at best founded on the next life and receiving something they want to want but don't actually desire. That seems like little to live the gospel for.

There is no hope in the next life for someone who is gay. We are clearly taught that our thoughts and desires in this life will rise up with us in the next. Gay men have no desire to be married in the next life eternally to a woman. So where is the hope?

You are not adding anything new. I need only to repeat what I said before, "Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

I think what you are hoping for is that the thread gets shut down as a way of escape from your predicament.

The problem is, you haven't explained how preventing gay couples makes them more moral or anyone else for that matter. So what moral cause was the church activally involving itself in the political process over? It is a puzzle to me that somehow stopping anyone from marrying is a moral cause.

I think most people would disagree with you that activally pushing a proposition before the voters is not political. But hey, believe what you want. You certainly have not provided any support for your theory. I on the other hand have provided you with common definitions of what is political.

And it seems there are some people who have a skewed view that preventing gays from marrying is a fight against immorality. The thinking goes that some how if we prevent gays from marrying they will be more moral. Yet those same people are quick to condem the "gay lifestyle" because they are often not in committed relationships. I just wonder how many straight couples would be in committed relationships if they were not allowed to be married.

Obedience to church leaders is expected and required when you are a member of that church. Certainly all should respect the right for any church to teach the dogma it chooses to teach to its followers. It is not so much expected to follow the leaders or dogma of a religion if you ar not a member of that church.

There is no fight against Zion. No one is trying to change Mormon beliefs or doctrine. Let them worship how where or what they may.

LOL! That is a cheap dodge. It won't work. You have lost the argument, and now you are trying to wriggle your way out of it. The focus of my post was NOT Prop 8. It was about what is political and what is not. It was about what kind of activity a church can engage in using the political (and democratic) process without being involved in "politics". Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

Ok if you have no problem in getting this thread shut down, I would be glad to answer your post. To say that politics is only about candidates and not about issues is ridiculous. Politics is about how we govern the nation and states. Here is the definition of political

1 the political affairs of the nation: governmental, government,constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative,administrative, bureaucratic; public, civic, state.

Candidates represent a view on how the laws should be formed and followed. Prop 8 was a law changing the rights of some citizens. To say it was not politics is certainly not supported by any definition of what politics is.

You and Jeff try and make the case that taking away the right of gay couples to marry was a moral issue. So who exactly does not allowing gay marriage make more moral? Are gay people more moral because the are not allowed to marry? Are straight people more moral because gays can now not marry in the state of California? Has there been any spike in increased morality in California because prop 8 passed? Are there less divorces? Are there more stable families because gays are not now allowed to marry? Just how has the morality of California changed because prop 8 has passed??

I am not nor have I ever stated that the church and its members have a right to get into politics. Of course they have that right. Should the church be involved in politics? It is up to the leaders to answer that question not me. But the fact that this election cycle where 5 states are contemplating similar laws to prop 8 the church has wisely decided to not get involved political in those propositions. So the question I have for you and Jeff, if the churches involvement in prop 8 was such a great idea, and something the church felt compelled to do, where are they this time around? Are not the people of Washington deserving of the churches political involvement? Are not the people of Maryland deserving of the churches involvement? Where are the phone banks, Where are the satellite broadcasts? Where is the rallying of the members to finance and man the streets?

I didn't walk away from your posts, I was only respecting the moderators request.

That depends on how you want to define "political involvement". The kind of "political involvement" that churches should not become involved in are (a) when they support a particular political candidate over another (of whatever party), or (b) when they support a particular political party over another (and urge their members to do so), or (c ) when they support a cause that is essentially political rather than moral or something else. Participating in the democratic process to support a moral issue is NOT the same as becoming involved in politics. Prop 8 was NOT a political issue, but a moral issue. The LDS Church (and any other church or organization) did NOT become involved in politics by supporting (or opposing) Prop 8. Using the political (and democratic) process to accomplish a moral purpose is NOT the same as becoming involved in politics.

Did you not read what the moderator said? This is not a prop 8 thread. If you would like to start a prop 8 thread, I would be more than happy to answer your post. Because I would love to hear how you think not allowing gays to marry makes anyome more moral. So go ahead and start a prop 8 thread and we can discuss this issue if you would like. Otherwise please stay on topic. This thread is about being obedient to chruch leaders.

I am not aware that the Church institutionally provided financial or human resources to promote its cause; but individual Church members did; which they were entitled to do as citizens. It was not just Mormons. Catholics and many other faith groups did the same. Indeed, the LDS Church became involved because it was invited by Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco to support the campaign. The opposing camp spent more. Citizens are free to devote their means to support any cause that they feel is important enough for them to support.

I am not going to turn this thread into a who did what to pass prop 8 thread. Like Sky said, it is beating a dead horse. If after all of this time and all of the discussions on this subject, all the facts, all the satalite broadcasts, all the letters read in Sacrament meeting, all the statistics on time and money given by Mormons, you feel the Church had no involvement in passing prop 8, I doubt that I could say anything to you that would change your determined mind. But if you want some reality check, just ask around. Yeah ask your ward members or neighbors if they feel the Church had NO political involvement in prop 8.

California Boy:

More money was raised by the Anti8 groups.

What is your point?

This thread is not about prop 8. Zerius asked for an example when a Prophet or Apostle has commanded a Church member to do something that was manifestly wrong?

Sky responded with:

I'm not saying I agree with it, but an obvious area where a lot of people feel the leaders of the Church were completely wrong was in regards to Proposition 8. Many of the objections to the Church in coming years will center around the Church's doctrines regarding homosexuality. So brace yourself, friends, because we are in for a bumpy ride!

I was responding to Zerinus claim:

I was careful enough to say evidently wrong. It is not at all "evident" that that is wrong. I would guess that 90% of lds believe it is right. I would guess that 90% of Catholics believe it was right. Perhaps even 90% of Baptists think it was right too. It is something about which it is possible to have more than one opinion. I am not aware that the Church has taken any disciplinary action against any Church member who has disagreed with Prop. 8.

Since you seem to have forgotten what I posted, I will repost it for you.

You may find 90% of the church that agrees with the churches position on prop 8 was correct. I doubt very much you would find 90% of the church members who think the prophets and apostles decision to get politically involved in prop 8 was a good decision. I coubt you would find 90% of the church leadership that made the decision to get politically involved in prop 8 in hindsight think it was a wise decision. They should have counseled with God a little more on that idea. My support for that statement is the noticable fact that the church is not getting politically involved in this election cycle where similar propositions are on at least 5 states ballots. Evidently it was wrong guidance and counsel.

That is my point.

California Boy: I believe that members of the Church were politically involved. As citizens of California we have an absolute right to be politically involved. As members of the Church we have a moral responsibilty to be involved in our communities, states, and nations.

I completely agree with you. I never have stated otherwise. That is not the issue I was addressing in my post.

It is the sign of a lost argument when people resort to jeering and sneering instead of engaging in rational debate. Some people are just bad losers I guess.

How exactly do you want me to respond to your statement that the church was not politically involved in Prop 8? Do we really need to derail this thread by me listing all of the things the church and it's members did to actively pass prop 8? If providing over half of the financial support and over 70% of the manpower to pass prop 8 was not being politically involved what would you consider being politically involved? It is not called the "Mormon proposition" because the church sat on the sidelines.

I don't agree that the Church became "politically" involved. The Church had a moral duty to support a decision it considered to be morally right and in the interest of society as a whole, and to urge all its members to give it their full support; and that is what it did.

lol. Well there is bound to be at least a few that think the church was not politically involved in the prop 8 campaign. Reality is such a difficult thing to face at times I guess.

I was careful enough to say evidently wrong. It is not at all "evident" that that is wrong. I would guess that 90% of lds believe it is right. I would guess that 90% of Catholics believe it was right. Perhaps even 90% of Baptists think it was right too. It is something about which it is possible to have more than one opinion. I am not aware that the Church has taken any disciplinary action against any Church member who has disagreed with Prop. 8.

You may find 90% of the church that agrees with the churches position on prop 8 was correct. I doubt very much you would find 90% of the church members who think the prophets and apostles decision to get politically involved in prop 8 was a good decision. I coubt you would find 90% of the church leadership that made the decision to get politically involved in prop 8 in hindsight think it was a wise decision. They should have counseled with God a little more on that idea. My support for that statement is the noticable fact that the church is not getting politically involved in this election cycle where similar propositions are on at least 5 states ballots. Evidently it was wrong guidance and counsel.

IIRC in the Nibley book Approaching Zion ,he tells a story of a bro. Wooley who came to SLC and built a dance hall. It was a success,so much so that Pres.BY told bro Wooley to give it to the Church so it could have the revenue. Bro. Wooley refused until he was threatened with excommunication.He then gave in. After the meeting Bro.Young then said to Bro.Wooley that he supposed that bro.Wooley would now go off and apostatize.Bro. Wooley said that if the Church was the Church of Brigham Young he would,but since it was the church of Christ,he would not. I am paraphrasing some,but it pertains to the OP with respect to obedience to leaders.

PS. guess who was Bro.Wooley's decendent

Spencer W. Kimball

once burnt twice shy.Perhaps,like the ancient king, they see the writing on the wall. "you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

As for CB, his post # 65 serves as a response to his CFR if only by implication.If it does not rise to the mote/beam level of difficulty at least it is mote/mote.

This thread is about whether the church will be involved with the Catholic church in the UK over gay marriage. I simply am asking if anyone thinks that the church will also get involved in the gay marriage issue in this country as it did in California. How is that anti mormon in any way? And quite frankly how is that a sneer? How is that showing disrespect for the church? Like I said, I don't agree with the church over gay marriage, but I certainly have always supported the right of the church to get involved in the political process. If that is what it takes to be called anti Mormon then there are a heck of a lot of active members of the church that are also "anti-Mormon" including a few bishops and stake presidents. I certainly am not the only one that disagrees with the church on its political position.

Count on the anti Mormons to sneer and laugh.

Oh yeah isn't that typical of you Jeff. You like to accuse me of being anti Mormon and saying things against the church. You are the same guy that I have asked repeatedly for a CFR where I have said anything against the church or its leaders. I may disagree with the churches stance on gay marriage, but I certainly have never spoken badly against the church.

You have over 1200 posts to find ONE instance where I have said anything bad against the church or about its leaders YET after repeated requests for a CFR you whimper in the corner and are no where to be found. You have yet to apologize for saying these falsehoods about me and you have yet to come up with any proof for your remarks. Jeff, you are a guy who has no honesty and no morals. And I have plenty of proof of that. A person with morals does not break the commandments by bearing false witness against others. And I am not the only one. You seem to consistently want to personally attack others with false accusations. When they also ask for CFR's you hide like a little kid not willing to apologize for your falsehoods. Personally I don't see how the moderators let you get away with out answering these regular unsupported CFR's. I thought it was one of the rules of this board.

Just curious why there is all this discussion about UK legalizing gay marriage when there are something like 5 states that have gay marriage issues on the ballot in the US including Washington and Maine where gay marrriage is now the law in those states. Possibly New Jersey will have gay marriage on the ballot if governor Christi has his way. Yet not a peep out of the Mormon church. Where are all the phone banks coming out of Utah and call for money and time from the members? Where are the satilite broadcasts to train the members to fight against the rights of gays to marry? Where is the political activism? Is the church only interested in California following their dogma? Doesn't the church want the entire world to follow their teachings on gay marriage?

california boy:

I would vote for; We are lead by God through mortal men, and mortal men no matter how wise and good they are often make mistakes.

That being said. I will not be judged by God by what other men believed. But I will be judged by God for what I did with what I believe.

So on issues as important as who can hold the priesthood, how does God guide His church? Is He an active participant or is He leaving such important issues up to mortal men. And if He is leaving those kind of decisions up to mortal men, what kinds of things does God say anything about? And if He is leaving such an important doctrine/policy to mortal men, then what other beliefs have been instituted by imperfect mortal men? Are you abandoning the idea of direct revelation altogether in the Mormon church? And if you are, how is the Mormon church any different than say the Catholic church, also run by wise mortal men that make mistakes.

I am first going to say that I have not read through this thread. Quite frankly it is a debate that does not interest me. And I would like to explain why.

Today is the first time I looked at the poll results and I have to say I am quite shocked at the results. The last question I thought would be leading is the first question. The one I expected to lead is the last one. Does the Mormon church have a living prophet or not? If the church does, then what else matters? Do the majority of the members not feel that this is the church of Christ and He is not just the head of it but He leads it through his prophets? Is God as active in leading the church today as He was during the time of Joseph Smith or are the heavens once more closed? If BY made up this policy on his own accord, wouldn't God appear to him to correct the problem immediately? For heavens sakes, angels appeared to Joseph Smith to instruct him on much less important issues than who should and who should not hold the priesthood. This issue comes down to the very core of truth. Is the prophet a prophet of God or is the church lead by a consensus of men. If a poll was put up to the members on this board with these two questions, what would you answer.

1. The church is lead by Christ. He actively runs His church by revelation through His mouthpiece the current prophet.

2. The heavens are once again closed and wise men just get together to set policy for the church.

How would you vote? How is that different than the results of this poll?

If you believe that the church is now on autopilot and Christ has lost interest in it, then wouldn't you have to say that since the time of Joseph Smith, the thoughts and policies of men have crept into the church including this issue? If this issue crept in, then what other issues are just one man's opinion or a group of men's opinions. What other teachings of the prophets have nothing to do with what God wants us to do? And how are we to know which teachings are from God and which ones are just opinions of who happens to be chosen by men to run the church?

I am sorry. Banning blacks from the priesthood is either from God and He sets out the teachings of the church or policies come from man and God is no longer involved. If this principle was wrong from the beginning, and not what God wanted in His church, why did it take until 1978 for Him to get around to correcting a policy made by a man. It kinda says there is not a lot of communication going on between God and His church if you believe that.

Some who know my posts may be surprised at my strong words about the church. But let me say this. I am not currently a member of the church because I believe it is false. I am not a member of the church because I believe it is true and I am gay. I have chosen to not live a celibate life alone for the promised reward of being married to a woman for eternity in the next life. It is a promise I don't desire and I choose not to want. Please don't comment on my reasons for leaving the church in this thread. I am not trying to derail the thread, I am only explaining why I I can believe in the church but not be a member.

A sealing can occur between a man and a woman who were never married. JS was sealed to women who were married, but never sealed to their husband. Normally we think of these jointly, but they are actually two different things. Married is effective for mortality, sealing is post mortality. We can be sealed and married in the temple, but the sealing goes in effect after mortality. A woman is married to a non-member and he refuses to join the church. She meets a member, and they have a tactful agreement that they will be part of the same family in the afterlife. After they are deceased, it is possible that they can be sealed (under special conditions) in the temple. Women who never knew JS had themselves sealed to JS after he was deceased -- but this practice was stopped for obvious reasons. Give it some thought and it will become clear.

Thank you all for your responses. I think that I do understand the difference between being sealed and being married. I understand it has to do with continuing relationships after we die. Husbands are sealed to wives and children are sealed together as a family. I think that is correct anyway. If not perhaps someone can clarify for me.

I have to admit I actually know very little about who or how JS was sealed to other women so I have no real understanding about the actual circumstance of his purral marriages. But perhaps someone can help me with a few questions I have from reading this thread.

Are you all saying that JS only married other men's wives when the husband was unable or had not been sealed to their wives for eternity? Because aren't some of the women he was sealed to quite prominent leaders who should have been able to be sealed to their own wives?

And if he was only "helping others out" by being sealed to those who were not sealed to their husbands, how do you explain JS marrying the one that was 14 years old? I guess first I should ask if he in fact did get sealed to a 14 year old. By doing so, how is being sealed to someone so young necessary when one assumes that the young girl would eventually find someone to love and be sealed to her.

I am just trying to figure out how all of this fits together. I think I liked it better when I only knew that JS had multiple wives and Emma wasn't happy over the whole issue. It seems like it is much more complicated than that.

I am not sure if you are joking or not. I ask the question because I am a bit confused at drawing such a distinction. I always thought sealing was being bound together for eternity. Am I wrong? Or as you imply, is sealing just not that important of ordinance? And I guess if I was a husband whose wife was bound to Joseph Smith for eternity rather than me, I would be upset.

I also want to make clear, I, like Darth Bill revere JS, and don't in any way ask these questions to diminish who Joseph Smith is. I am just trying to understand this issue better.

When this topic is discussed no distinction is made between marriage and sealing. They are not synonomous.

In your mind, what is the difference between marriage and sealing that justifies Joseph Smith taking another man's wife?

Can't really tell here....do you find the beliefs distasteful or the ridiculing?

Since I doubt anyone believes punching a button a computer will turn someone gay after they are dead, I would say I find the ridiculing distasteful. I am sure someone felt justified in ridiculing the church because of the actions of the church against gays, but it doesn't make it right to me.

No, just incredibly ridiculous. The really stupid thing is that there is nothing that even remotely parallels the Gospel concept of baptism for the dead that is vainly attempting to parody.

Lehi

I kinda thought so to, but it is ridiculing Mormon beliefs which I find distasteful.

Just curious. Does anyone find this web site offensive?

Really?! You think that is appropriate to post a link for? I don't - Ares

I think some people do not recognizing the difference between "getting marry" and "being sealed". JS was sealed to women who were married and continued in that marriage.

Just curious, what do you think the difference is between "getting marry" and "being sealed" and how does that better justify what JS asked married couples to do?

You are wrong in my view. Not only have these men married and fathered kids, but they absolutely reject their pasts and find the sin of homosexual practice utterly abhorent. They now thoroughly reject homosexuality and regard it as an addictive strategy of the devil. Not my words, theirs.

Ah yeah, someone who is not gay who is absolutely sure people just wake up one day and decide to be gay. Of course the church is not at all sure of your statement and have repeatedly said they don't know if a person is born gay.

Carry on. Nothing to see here.