D&C 134:9; blanket rule, or general guideline.

[frankenstein]

Doctrine and Covenants 134

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

There are some issues which religions differ. Some religions even have split over at least one issue.

Can an issue trump the statement in verse 9, whereby, The Church would call upon the members or even the Church "lobby" to enact laws which would proscribe another religion in what that religion deems its spiritual privileges.

For example, but not limited too, marijuana or similar "narcotic", I recall that in the 1990's California members were asked from pulpits to canvass in opposition of a marijuana ballot measure.

It should also be noted that LDS Church deems it's right to seek to influence on what the Church deems "moral issues".

for those who feel the need to allege agendas, I will save you some trouble. I created this thread, based on my thoughts of tax exemptions for 501c3, said code section prohibits a 501c3 from "substantial" involvement in a legislative matters, "substantial" is not defined, and no one knows what it means, based on the case law it could mean 20% of revenue; but how unfair would that be. this would mean that a 501c3 with large revenues could out spend and out lobby, without violating the tax code, but a smaller 501c3 with less revenue could not spend as much....so there, there is the agenda, but since this is not the place for discussing the seemingly unfairness of the Tax Code, I have phrased the quandary in terms which related directly to Official Statements of the LDS Church. Now, can we please get back the discussion. PLEASE NOTE, this discussion is not about the Tax Code.

[bluebell]

Which religious society was going to have its priviliges curtailed and it's rights denied because of the marijuana law? I'm sincerely asking because i have no knowledge of the event.

[nicolasconnault]

Doctrine and Covenants 134

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

There are some issues which religions differ. Some religions even have split over at least one issue.

Can an issue trump the statement in verse 9, whereby, The Church would call upon the members or even the Church "lobby" to enact laws which would proscribe another religion in what that religion deems its spiritual privileges.

For example, but not limited too, marijuana or similar "narcotic", I recall that in the 1990's California members were asked from pulpits to canvass in opposition of a marijuana ballot measure.

You would need to define what constitutes a "spiritual privilege". I think that the Rastafarian religion would consider smoking marijuana as a spiritual privilege...

[frankenstein]

You would need to define what constitutes a "spiritual privilege". I think that the Rastafarian religion would consider smoking marijuana as a spiritual privilege...

yes, "spiritual privilege" does seem to give much leeway.

[Pahoran]

Doctrine and Covenants 134

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

There are some issues which religions differ. Some religions even have split over at least one issue.

Can an issue trump the statement in verse 9, whereby, The Church would call upon the members or even the Church "lobby" to enact laws which would proscribe another religion in what that religion deems its spiritual privileges.

For example, but not limited too, marijuana or similar "narcotic", I recall that in the 1990's California members were asked from pulpits to canvass in opposition of a marijuana ballot measure.

As another example, I seem to remember another California ballot measure, somewhat more recently, which Church members were invited to support.

As an interesting coinkydink, it is one upon which you have started a large number of threads that appear to try to dispute the Church's position, often by indirection.

So, dear Mr Frankenstein, could that be the example you are more interested in?

If so, what religious privileges do you think Prop 8 "proscribes?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAO]

Frank, it is just as much of our right though, to prevent things we disagree with from being taught to our children, is it not? If it effects our children in any manner or form, we have a right to act to stop it, do we not?

Just sayin', things are not so clear cut ;-).

[frankenstein]

Frank, it is just as much of our right though, to prevent things we disagree with from being taught to our children, is it not? If it effects our children in any manner or form, we have a right to act to stop it, do we not?

Just sayin', things are not so clear cut ;-).

that is the question, isn't it. So how would you relate stop or prevent things, with section 134:9

[Pahoran]

that is the question, isn't it. So how would you relate stop or prevent things, with section 134:9

Where there are clear-cut moral issues, and especially where the Church has taken a public stand, it is appropriate for us to work towards putting that stand on the public record. Including, but not limited to, the legislative record.

We recognise that taking a stand on a moral principle is not a popular thing to do these days. We recognise that even some Church members can't tell the difference between principle and "oppression," or surrender and "compassion." We also recognise that our efforts may in the long run be defeated. But that is less important than the fact that we stood up for what is right.

We stood up for what is right when we opposed the legalisation of destructive substances such as marijuana. We stood up for what is right when we opposed the decriminalisation of prostitution.

And we stood up for what is right when we supported the correct definition of marriage being enshrined in law.

And none of these things proscribe any religion, or trammel the religious privileges thereof.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

so pahoran,

do you view "moral issues" as an exemption to 134:9

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied; except on what we deem as moral issues.

I tend to see the verse as the Church will not promote something that only fosters the LDS Church and at the same time proscribes other religions. How this would relate to "moral issues" the Church has taken a stand against, would be the legislation, was neutral, that is not direct legislation against another religion, but legislation for society as a whole, and any affect on another religion was secondary, and not a intentional direct proscribing of a religion.

[TAO]

that is the question, isn't it. So how would you relate stop or prevent things, with section 134:9

Frank, under the definition, both sides would be at fault. What happens when such a conflict exists (as it did in the Garden of Eden w/two of god's rules)? God decides the best course of action for the church at that point.

[Pahoran]

so pahoran,

do you view "moral issues" as an exemption to 134:9

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied; except on what we deem as moral issues.

No. That is not what I said.

I said that when we are taking a stand on a moral issue, then that is what we are doing. It is not the case that we are going after some religion in order to proscribe it. We were the target of the Edmunds-Tucker act, not its instigator.

I tend to see the verse as the Church will not promote something that only fosters the LDS Church and at the same time proscribes other religions. How this would relate to "moral issues" the Church has taken a stand against, would be the legislation, was neutral, that is not direct legislation against another religion, but legislation for society as a whole, and any affect on another religion was secondary, and not a intentional direct proscribing of a religion.

Okay.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rpn]

That verse has only to do with not civilly promoting or discouraging a specific or several specific religions --- basic Establishment clause language. That is clear from the "so as to foster".

[Bob Crockett]

so pahoran,

do you view "moral issues" as an exemption to 134:9

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied; except on what we deem as moral issues.

As pointed above by others, this clause is worded only to say that we believe that religion should not get involved in getting government to grant special privileges for it or any other religion. This is the standard "disestablishment" rule. This clause says nothing about forbidding religion's voice altogether in the legislative sphere, which is called "anticlericalism."

[BCSpace]

do you view "moral issues" as an exemption to 134:9

The footnote on that verse leads to Alma 30:7(7-11). So while one's belief, even publically stated, is never proscribed, where there is conflict between moralities, the one God prefers will trump the other and permission is given go after it.

[blackstrap]

If the Church authorities were to request that its members support a law that prohibits the construction of a Mosque within 20 miles of ground zero,that would be a clear violation of D&C 134:9. Just such a law was passed and enforced

not too many decades ago against the Mormon's in an area I grew up in.

Around the same era the majority Christian population passed and enforced "day of rest" laws, which caused the Jews and Seventh Day folks to be disadvantaged.

[Avatar4321]

I would have to say that D&C 135 is a general rule. I'm not convinced it's a revelation despite being adopted into the scriptures.

[Jason]

If there is a question as to what a particular scripture means when applied to a contemporary situation there is an easy way to get an authoritative answer - the Church's leadership can simply seek revelation on the issue, and then transmit the answer to the Church. For instance, they could determine that a state's proposed Constitutional ammendment intended to protect the institution of marriage is not in conflict with D&C 134:9 and inform the Church membership that they wish to encourage support of the measure.

[CV75]

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

I would say this has to do with a government denying the rights of members of a religious society based solely on their religion, and not on behavior (which may be practiced within said religious society as a tenet) that infringes upon the rights of other citizens as defined by the applicable constitution or legislation.