What About Gay Civil Marriage?

[Kenngo1969]

1. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

2. Sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Time and time again I've seen people on this board who are searching for "wiggle room" in order to allow homosexual couples/unions in the Gospel of Jesus Christ completely ignore the first of those two points. Same sex civil marriages/unions/yada-yada only address the second of those two points.

[Chris Smith]

Time and time again I've seen people on this board who are searching for "wiggle room" in order to allow homosexual couples/unions in the Gospel of Jesus Christ completely ignore the first of those two points.

I'm not ignoring your first point. Rather, I'm asking whether perhaps it refers specifically to temple marriages.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not ignoring your first point. Rather, I'm asking whether perhaps it refers specifically to temple marriages.

Such that we do our thing, while the rest of the world does theirs? I would have little problem with that, if that's where things remained. The problem is that I don't think that's where things will remain. I'm concerned that once gay marriage gains acceptance in most jurisdictions, the tail will start trying to wag the dog, and people will start agitating for the state to dictate to churches that they must marry (or in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that they must seal) gay couples.

[The Nehor]

I'm concerned that once gay marriage gains acceptance in most jurisdictions, the tail will start trying to wag the dog, and people will start agitating for the state to dictate to churches that they must marry (or in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that they must seal) gay couples.

I'm not. They'll whine and moan about it but unless the constitution falls completely it won't happen. They aren't going to compel us to seal gay couples. They will try to make us feel bad about it. The building in the air in Lehi's dream shows what will happen then.

[Chris Smith]

Such that we do our thing, while the rest of the world does theirs?

Such that temple weddings have to be heterosexual, but chapel weddings can be gay.

I'm concerned that once gay marriage gains acceptance in most jurisdictions, the tail will start trying to wag the dog, and people will start agitating for the state to dictate to churches that they must marry (or in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that they must seal) gay couples.

This is America. As long as you're not using federal funds or federal lands in wedding people, you're protected from that sort of thing under the First Amendment.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Damien the Leper]

Because God said so. That is really the bottom line. We can speculate as to the purpose of marriage as a way to raise up seed- but as with all commandments it is God's instructions as revealed in the scriptures and through prophets that guides our practices.

The boundaries according to the LDS are sexual acts outside of a marriage between an man and a women. That includes hetero as well as homosexual acts.

You mean because someone else says that God said so. Hearsay anyone?

[The Nehor]

You mean because someone else says that God said so. Hearsay anyone?

Then you should take President Packer's counsel and accept that there is one legitimate end-run around the priesthood leadership in the Church. Check with the CEO. If you don't believe the CEO exists or can't or won't communicate with Him then one can never know.

[Damien the Leper]

1. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

2. Sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Time and time again I've seen people on this board who are searching for "wiggle room" in order to allow homosexual couples/unions in the Gospel of Jesus Christ completely ignore the first of those two points. Same sex civil marriages/unions/yada-yada only address the second of those two points.

Just a friendly reminder...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ but a form and interpretation thereof.

[MorningStar]

If God doesn't consider it a marriage, then He wouldn't consider their behavior to be chaste.

[Damien the Leper]

Then you should take President Packer's counsel and accept that there is one legitimate end-run around the priesthood leadership in the Church. Check with the CEO. If you don't believe the CEO exists or can't or won't communicate with Him then one can never know.

God and I are talking and quite frequently at that. The Apostle Paul is not the Christian church's conservative icon. This is demonstrated by his authentic letters Romans, Philipians and Galatians vs. the pseudapigraphal pastorals such as 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Perhaps a good reading of Paul in Critical Contexts from Fortress should be part of our scripture study.

[blackstrap]

Just had a disturbing thought. Suppose I live with 3 women(perish the thought).One is my wife to whom I am legally and lawfully married.We have 4 children together. The other 2 I do not have relations with but we have 4 children because of invitro fertilization. Can I still be a member in good standing?Assuming I can still stand.

[KevinG]

You mean because someone else says that God said so. Hearsay anyone?

You seem to be crossing that line from respecting the church setting its own rules and wanting the church to change its rules for you.

I'm just trying to figure out how this is consistent with you wanting the church to back down from influencing community standards?

(not snark - genuine questions)

[Damien the Leper]

You seem to be crossing that line from respecting the church setting its own rules and wanting the church to change its rules for you.

I'm just trying to figure out how this is consistent with you wanting the church to back down from influencing community standards?

(not snark - genuine questions)

The church is fully capable of setting ITS OWN RULES...as in rules only binding on itself. But with anyone, myself included, we are subject to criticism and scrutiny.

Furthermore, I was specifically speaking of scripture and not contemporary LDS leadership. With both, I consistently and respectfully take with a grain of salt and exercise discernment.

And also, I didn't recognize any snark in your response.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Valentinus

[MorningStar]

The church is fully capable of setting ITS OWN RULES...as in rules only binding on itself. But with anyone, myself included, we are subject to criticism and scrutiny.

Furthermore, I was specifically speaking of scripture and not contemporary LDS leadership. With both, I consistently and respectfully take with a grain of salt and exercise discernment.

And also, I didn't recognize any snark in your response.

Can the church change the commandments?

[Chris Smith]

In case anyone missed this on the previous page:

President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but ... when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill. --Apostle Charles Penrose

[Kenngo1969]

Such that temple weddings have to be heterosexual, but chapel weddings can be gay.

No. I believe the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints always will be that marriage between a man and a woman (wherever it is performed) is ordained of God. While I don't want to get into a debate about whether the Church considers marriages outside the temple to be "inferior" to sealings performed in the temple, the hope of leaders, whether on the general, stake, or ward level, is that every marriage performed in a chapel eventually will lead to a sealing performed in the temple.

This is America. As long as you're not using federal funds or federal lands in wedding people, you're protected from that sort of thing under the First Amendment.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread, but the reality is that the federal government has exceeded many other bounds you might consider to be hard-and-fast over the last 80 years or so. If the United States Supreme Court determines that Obamacare passes constitutional muster, there won't be anything left that the federal government can't tell citizens to do or not do.

[Damien the Leper]

Can the church change the commandments?

I believe the relevance of the commandments are best kept in their historical context and communities.

To answer your question...no. Because those commandments are binding on the communities from which they are derived.

[Chris Smith]

I don't want to turn this into a political thread, but the reality is that the federal government has exceeded many other bounds you might consider to be hard-and-fast over the last 80 years or so.

It's true that the Scalia Court tried to expand the power of government to violate freedom of religion by striking down the "compelling interest" rule, but fortunately Bill Clinton's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (and a variety of state-level counterparts) have largely undone the damage. So long as these laws stay on the books, you've nothing to worry about. If anything, the freedom of religion has expanded in the United States since the founding, not constricted.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Kenngo1969]

... So long as these laws stay on the books, you've nothing to worry about. ...

I hope you're right. Time will tell.

[Tepui]

Some Scandinavian countries require all weddings to be administered by a civil authority. These govt's don't recognize church-administered weddings.

But it doesn't prevent worthy LDS married couples (a man and a woman)* in these countries from being sealed in the Temple.

You're not going to stop the work by having govt's not recognize church-weddings over this same-sex wedding nonsense.

A sealing is considered pish-posh to a govt official anymore than a baptism.

So if the laws in the US become so corrupt that churches can't perform weddings, as retribution that some won't perform same-sex marriages, fine.

Civil weddings and Temple sealings it will be.

You'll marry your bride before some Govt Administrator in a pea-green room that says US GOVT MARRIAGE ADMINISTRATION with the SEAL of two Bald Eagles kissing each other on the wall.

Then you'll take your bride to the Temple.

The work will go on and won't be hindered - other than our society being corrupted by its acceptance of this same-sex nonsense - which would legitimize its teaching in public schools-sex-ed classes, etc.

*amazing this has to be clarified

Edited April 8, 2012 by Tepui

[Kenngo1969]

Some Scandinavian countries require all weddings to be administered by a civil authority. These govt's don't recognize church-administered weddings.

But it doesn't prevent worthy LDS married couples (a man and a woman)* in these countries from being sealed in the Temple.

You're not going to stop the work by having govt's not recognize church-weddings over this same-sex wedding nonsense.

A sealing is considered pish-posh to a govt official anymore than a baptism.

So if the laws in the US become so corrupt that churches can't perform weddings, as retribution that some won't perform same-sex marriages, fine.

Civil weddings and Temple sealings it will be.

You'll marry your bride before some Govt Administrator in a pea-green room that says US GOVT MARRIAGE ADMINISTRATION with the SEAL of two Bald Eagles kissing each other on the wall.

Then you'll take your bride to the Temple.

The work will go on and won't be hindered - other than our society being corrupted by its acceptance of this same-sex nonsense - which would legitimize its teaching in public schools-sex-ed classes, etc.

*amazing this has to be clarified

I will accord you the respect of responding civilly to your post, notwithstanding the fact that you apparently think that, somehow, I'm intellectually deficient for holding the position I have stated. (Thanks, all the same, for your "amazing clarification.") Quite frankly, I would love to believe that the Church of Jesus Christ will be allowed to do "its thing" in perpetuity, while the world will go on doing "its thing" in perpetuity, and never the twain shall meet. If, ultimately, that proves to be what happens, I'll certainly understand the handwringing engaged in by self-proclaimed faithful Latter-day Saints who wish the Church would simply shut up about gay marriage and save all of the time, money, resources, strained relationships, and so forth that have (and will) be expended in fighting a battle which, ultimately, proves futile.

I hope you're right. I hope the "gay-rights" tail neither tries nor ever succeeds in wagging the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" dog. (Bad metaphor, I know.) But it's not as if such an occurrence is entirely without precedent. It already happened with polygyny. I'll grant you, the sociopolitical conditions which led to the abandonment of the practice by the Church of Jesus Christ were different than the sociopolitical conditions implicated in the debate over whether churches should [be forced to] accept gay marriage. Nevertheless, I stand by my position on the strength of the old axiom which says that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Tepui]

Kindly, I wasn't addressing you nor trying to offend you. Any intellectual deficiency is what you conjured up about yourself. Not from me. ok?

I was addressing the issue of the LDS Church being required to perform same-sex chapel weddings. It won't happen. The Church will discontinue civil weddings, just as it threatened to stop supporting the Boy Scouts of America if that Supreme Court ruling had gone against the BSA. There's an underlying tone in all this and it's to destroy all that is good and decent regarding families, but it's not going to stop the work. Just as in Scandinavia not recognizing any church weddings-there are none, other than ceremonial.

It's always been the law that Church weddings in the US were recognized by the State. There's an insipid attempt for this to be changed over some tolerance issue. It should be stopped. And it isn't futile to attempt to do so.

(The reason polygamy was abandoned by the Church was because it became illegal & and the Lord commanding it to be stopped. Read the OD.)

Edited April 8, 2012 by Tepui

[Minos]

Everyone can express their opinion on a topic like this one. Then there isn't much to do except argue. What if threads about sensitive topics are never a good idea.