Jump to content

What Does This Mean For The Church In Denmark?


Saints Alive

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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. :rolleyes::diablo:

Link to comment

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

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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

Yep.

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.

Link to comment

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.

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

This should be good.

I guess you are very inexperienced in such things.

So instead of defining what you are saying you allow both to stand and then imagine that I am inexperienced with two mutually exclusive things happening simultaneously as indeed I am. If you are experienced in such matters I recommend a therapist of some kind.

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.

Which would end up meaning absolutely nothing. We'd just have our people do a civil wedding and then a temple wedding right afterwards....like we already do. Only change is that we'd need a Justice of the Peace or someone else instead of the Bishop IF this happens which I doubt.

Open your eyes.

Yep, heard this admonition before. Usually when someone is trying to convince me of some Illuminati-style conspiracy or that the moon landings were faked.

The twin towers never fell. It's all a conspiracy!!! Wake up sheeple!!!!

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. You say you already are aware, but you just yawn. You just don't see what is happening right now.

Who is "they"? It will be "too late" for what exactly? What exactly are you suggesting I do about it even if it is happening? Proclaim the coming of doom on a message board? Talk drearily amongst my friends of the coming government takeover of the Church? Vote for the Green Party?

I would contend instead that you are too naive in buying into the conspiracy story being peddled amongst the more paranoid amongst the faith (and other faiths). I dislike this as it means items of genuine concern will be missed in the flood of imagined threats.

Link to comment

Which would end up meaning absolutely nothing. We'd just have our people do a civil wedding and then a temple wedding right afterwards....like we already do.

Well, I was both married and sealed in the temple with one ceremony, since this is possible by the current laws in the United States.

Only change is that we'd need a Justice of the Peace or someone else instead of the Bishop IF this happens which I doubt.

OK, I guess you do not have any problem with the government stripping away from the church the authority to perform marriages.

No big deal.

I personally have a real problem with this possibility, and clearly the church feels the same way. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment

Well, I was both married and sealed in the temple with one ceremony, since this is possible by the current laws in the United States.

Yes, it is. I was responding to your comments about the UK where I lived for several years.

OK, I guess you do not have any problem with the government stripping away from the church the authority to perform marriages.

That's not what I said. I said that EVEN IF they did it would not compel the LDS Church or any other church to endorse or perform gay marriages. It would of course not be a good thing and if the government tried to make that happen I would fight it. They are not.

No big deal.

I personally have a real problem with this possibility, and clearly the church feels the same way. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I also would have a problem with it but it would not cause what you seem to think it will cause not is there any indication it is happening. I'm done with this red herring. You seem to retreat on every point. When I say it is not an indication of governments anywhere forcing the LDS Church to perform gay marriages you fall back and talk about how that is what "they" want us to think and refuse to clarify who "they" are. When I point out that that is a little paranoid you argue that the Church is going to be stripped of the power to perform marriages. I show that that we are not moving towards that and point out that even if we were it wouldn't cause the church to have to endorse gay marriages. Then all of the sudden you are saying I wouldn't mind if they did that and patronizingly try to explain how it would be a bad thing (which I already knew and believed).

So what point are you trying to make?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...