American Atheists Attack Church For Stance On Homosexuality

[Walden]

I do not share your insulated view of your place in society.

We know from scripture that the Lord causes it to rain on the just as well as the unjust. We also know from scripture that when the voice of the people chooses unrighteousness, then the people are ripe for the judgments of God.

Thus, I believe that if we, as a people, ever vote to legitimize homosexual behaviors by recognizing gay marriage as a institution worthy of the same level respect as traditional marriage, then I think we will be ripe for the judgments of God, and I don't want myself, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, or any of my extended family or friends to get caught in the ensuing rain.

But I only think that way because I am a Christian socialist and believe we are all responsible for each other's well-being.

Why should your scripture trump my atheism when it comes to government policy?

And I only think the way that I do because I am a atheist socialist who believes that we are all responsible for each other's well-being.

[california boy]

The Church is responding to an issue which is being campaigned for by others. That is not a crusade. Perhaps if there were a strong campaign to legalise drugs, the Church would speak out about that. Has the Church begun any campaign? I'm not aware of any. Does it speak out on moral issues of the day? Yes. It is not the only Church to take a strong stance, isn't the Catholic church equally against it? Did the Catholic Church support or oppose prop 8? In the UK, there is also a campaign to bring in same sex marriages and the Anglican Church (the State Church of England and Wales) has spoken out against it in exactly the same way as the LDS church and receives the same criticisms. The Church is not political. There is no "upside" to campaign for. It is stating its views and asking members to act as they think fit. Is the Church not allowed to join in the debate? There are people who aren't church goers who oppose same sex marriage, though I grant not the majority. The issue for the Church? perhaps its "mission creep". In the UK, we have civil partnerships, brought it to give homosexuals in a partnership the same rights as married heterosexuals (heterosexuals in a partnership still have limited rights). This was supposed to be acceptable and stop the calls for marriage, but it didn't. The campaigners say that churches will able to refuse to marry homosexuals. How long before they campaign to disallow that? In the UK, the Anglican Church has a real problem because it is the state church so how can it refuse, even if it is against their beliefs? Campaigners don't want the church beliefs imposed on them, but want to impose their beliefs on the Church. Is it worth putting up a wall to prevent that?

You are probably unaware that there are several states voting to legalize marijuana this election cycle. As far as I know there has been no call to arms to get politically involved in that issue.

[Walden]

If there was a traditional requirement for a licence in order to publish pictures, and pictures published without such a license were looked upon with derision, and pornographers had never been granted such a license, and then the government decided to license pornographers and give them the same level of respectability as previously licensed works, then your question might be relevant. But non-pornographic literature has not traditionally been subject to governmental legitimization through licensing, so I fail to see your point.

Simple fix....get the government out of the licensing business and let the individual institutions performing the act determine who it is that they will license as legitimate.

[Mark Beesley]

Why should your scripture trump my atheism when it comes to government policy?

Kinda because we're talking about why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is taking a certain position, and it takes its positions based on scripture. That's why. Scripture is still relevant in the Church.

And I agree wholeheartedly with your post about getting the government out of the licensing of marriage business.

[RobertAC]

Do you have specific, verifiable examples of how "the LDS Church leadership's treatment of gay and lesbian people has been abysmal" in the past?

Thanks.

The internet is dripping with this history. Here are a few sites to review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

http://mormoninthecloset.blogspot.com/2008/11/lds-gay-history-timeline-unabridged.html#!/2008/11/lds-gay-history-timeline-unabridged.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_lds1.htm

http://www.affirmation.org/history/homosexuality_at_byu_1.shtml

http://www.affirmation.org/history/homosexuality_at_byu_2.shtml

[california boy]

My analogy suffers from the fact of uniqueness: there is little in the way of analogous situations that I can use.

If I try to compare gay marriage to a man that is so in love with his car that he wants to marry it, it fails because a car is not a person. There are other analogies that would likewise fail, and some which would be considered lewd to even suggest.

The prospect of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman is bereft of reason. For all of human history "marriage" has meant a relationship between a man and a woman. Calling the unisex couple next door "married" does not change the nature of my marriage, but does violence to the language and reason itself. In my humble opinion. And stamps that unisex relationship as equal to a heterosexual marriage, which it most certainly is not.

As for the "plight" of gay couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual couples. Balderdash. There is no "plight". Under civil union laws such partners can (and do) inherit from each other, act in pretty much all ways as if they were a heterosexual married couple, without perhaps the "dignity" of calling it marriage. And it isn't marriage! Calling it marriage maligns the word. Calling a marigold a rose does not improve the marigold, nor the rose. Calling a gay relationship a marriage does nothing to make it a marriage.

But apparently your personal moral code, namely your attitude that there should be this contradiction-in-terms called "gay marriage", is currently in the process of being stuffed down the throats of society; quite actively in the case of my own state of Washington. Referendum R74 on the ballot. The newspaper here is all in favor of it and is crowing that the polls show that it will pass. And maybe it will.

There was some bill in the Kentucky legislature (or was it Tennessee) many years ago that attempted to change the value of Pi to some rational value. If they had succeeded in making that a law, it still would not have changed the value of Pi. It would have created a legal fiction; much as "gay marriage" would be a legal fiction.

If you knew that gays were in fact being discriminated against simply because they are in a gay marriage or a gay civil union, would you change your position? Or are you perfectly comfortable with gays being discriminated against simply because they are not in a heterosexuality relationship?

[california boy]

I do not share your insulated view of your place in society.

We know from scripture that the Lord causes it to rain on the just as well as the unjust. We also know from scripture that when the voice of the people chooses unrighteousness, then the people are ripe for the judgments of God.

Thus, I believe that if we, as a people, ever vote to legitimize homosexual behaviors by recognizing gay marriage as a institution worthy of the same level respect as traditional marriage, then I think we will be ripe for the judgments of God, and I don't want myself, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, or any of my extended family or friends to get caught in the ensuing rain.

But I only think that way because I am a Christian socialist and believe we are all responsible for each other's well-being.

So what do you think will happen if Washington State, Maryland or Maine pass gay marriage in the next couple of weeks? Should we be preparing for the wrath of God? Will the end of the world be happening before the end of the year? Seriously, is this really a rational way to view gay marriage? If so, can you get back to me after the election if one of these states passes gay marriage?

You completely illustrate the exact question I asked at the beginning of this thread. Why does the church view gay marriage as such a huge sin as compared with say adultery and fortification that is far more rampant than homosexuality. God is only going to get upset if gay marriage is passed? Really?

[Mark Beesley]

The Church sees homosexual actions as a grievous sin, next to murder itself.

I would tend to disagree with this.

While there are some in the Church who have interpreted scripture this way, such as Spencer W. Kimball in The Miracle of Forgiveness, I believe that interpretation of Alma is faulty.

In Alma 39, the prophet Alma chastises his son Corianton for 3 things: Boasting in his own strength and wisdom, forsaking the ministry, and using the services of a prostitute. Toward the end of his words to Corianton, Alma proclaims, "Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words." (Alma 39:11)

The verse which some members liken sexual sin to murder is verse 5 where Alma says,

"Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?"

Alma refers to "these things" in the plural, so it seems he is talking about more than just the sexual sin as being as grievous as murder.

Second, there is no indication that Corianton was married at the time, so the sin would have been fornication rather than adultery, and even today the Church treats the two differently.

Third, Alma's concern is that Corianton's conduct made it more difficult for Alma to bring the Zoramites to Christ.

Compare this with Christ's own words in Matthew.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6)

Christ here is talking about people who cause children to stumble, or to lose faith. What can be more damaging than acts that have eternal, negative consequences to another person? Christ says of such that it would be better for them to be executed. This is the type of conduct that is the sin next to murder. Conduct that destroys another's faith, separates them from God, jeopardizes their ability to return home to Heavenly Father--this is conduct that is as serious as murder and warrants a murderer's punishment.

That is what Corianton did by being boastful, abandoning his mission, and chasing after the harlot. He made the Zoramites stumble. He hindered Alma in bringing them to Christ. He jeopardized their ability to return home to Heavenly Father. This is the crime next to murder, not an isolated incident of sexual sin.

That being said, sex outside of marriage is still serious and the consequences thereof cannot be fully known in this lifetime, IMO.

[Walden]

Kinda because we're talking about why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is taking a certain position, and it takes its positions based on scripture. That's why. Scripture is still relevant in the Church.

And I agree wholeheartedly with your post about getting the government out of the licensing of marriage business.

Yes, I agree that scripture is still relevant in the church. We just seem to disagree on what it's relevance should be outside of the church.

I didn't think that we were discussing "why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is taking a certain position," but rather, why it is that the LDS church is making it's position a political battle. I do not question why it is that the church disagrees with same-sex marriage, but rather, why they think it prudent to get into a political fight in an effort to force their religious views on those outside of the LDS religion.

[Mark Beesley]

The internet is dripping with this history. Here are a few sites to review:

http://en.wikipedia....tter-day_Saints

http://mormoninthecl...unabridged.html

http://www.religious...rg/hom_lds1.htm

http://www.affirmati..._at_byu_1.shtml

http://www.affirmati..._at_byu_2.shtml

So, you are equating denouncement of sin as abysmal treatment? And I suppose if and when gay marriage become commonplace and the Church refuses to solemnize such marriages in the Temples, that will be considered abysmal treatment as well?

[Mark Beesley]

So what do you think will happen if Washington State, Maryland or Maine pass gay marriage in the next couple of weeks? Should we be preparing for the wrath of God? Will the end of the world be happening before the end of the year? Seriously, is this really a rational way to view gay marriage? If so, can you get back to me after the election if one of these states passes gay marriage?

You completely illustrate the exact question I asked at the beginning of this thread. Why does the church view gay marriage as such a huge sin as compared with say adultery and fortification that is far more rampant than homosexuality. God is only going to get upset if gay marriage is passed? Really?

That's right, mock me. I see little to be gained in continuing with you, as you likely see with regard to me.

[RobertAC]

So, you are equating denouncement of sin as abysmal treatment? And I suppose if and when gay marriage become commonplace and the Church refuses to solemnize such marriages in the Temples, that will be considered abysmal treatment as well?

Mark, it's a little more than that. In fact, it's a lot more than that.

Take a look at what was actually done. It's pretty grotesque, and I am sure that the LDS leadership today would not approve of some of what took place even 20 years ago.

That said, it's history. One can dwell on the past, or one can constructively learn from it and move forward. I get the sense that the church is moving positively forward. That's always a good thing.

[Mark Beesley]

Yes, I agree that scripture is still relevant in the church. We just seem to disagree on what it's relevance should be outside of the church.

I didn't think that we were discussing "why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is taking a certain position," but rather, why it is that the LDS church is making it's position a political battle. I do not question why it is that the church disagrees with same-sex marriage, but rather, why they think it prudent to get into a political fight in an effort to force their religious views on those outside of the LDS religion.

Well, now you've redefined the question. I don't believe the Church is trying to force its religious views on those outside the LDS religion. It is taking legitimate action in a democracy on a question which it views as inherently moral rather than political. I understand why you would disagree.

I still fail to see the rather measured action of the Church as being a crusade. The Church has not organized impeachment drives to remove judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage. The Church has not organized protests at courthouses, in front of judge's homes, etc. There has been no call for political assassinations. No one has been killed by the Church. A crusade? I think not. Simply legitimate speech.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, it's a little more than that. In fact, it's a lot more than that.

Take a look at what was actually done. It's pretty grotesque, and I am sure that the LDS leadership today would not approve of some of what took place even 20 years ago.

That said, it's history. One can dwell on the past, or one can constructively learn from it and move forward. I get the sense that the church is moving positively forward. That's always a good thing.

I did not thoroughly read everything in every link your post. Can you summarize specifically some of the abysmal things the Church leadership did? Was it local leaders or SLC?

But, like you said, it's history, and even leaders in the Church are subject to making mistakes.

[california boy]

That's right, mock me. I see little to be gained in continuing with you, as you likely see with regard to me.

I am sorry if you took my questions as mocking you. If you were serious about your statements about Gods wrath, I am seriously wondering what you think will happen if gay marriage is approve by the voters in one of the states in a couple of weeks. And why God is only going to get upset if gay marriage is passed?

[Mark Beesley]

I am sorry if you took my questions as mocking you. If you were serious about your statements about Gods wrath, I am seriously wondering what you think will happen if gay marriage is approve by the voters in one of the states in a couple of weeks. And why God is only going to get upset if gay marriage is passed?

Go back and read what you wrote with an editor's eye and tell me you didn't intend to mock. I won't believe you if you deny it.

And then remember that 1000 years to us is like a day to the Lord. Noah cried repentance for 200 years before the flood.

[Walden]

Well, now you've redefined the question. I don't believe the Church is trying to force its religious views on those outside the LDS religion. It is taking legitimate action in a democracy on a question which it views a inherently moral rather than political. I understand why you would disagree.

I still fail to see the rather measured action of the Church as being a crusade. The Church has not organized impeachment drives to remove judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage. The Church has not organized protests at courthouses, in front of judge's homes, etc. There has been no call for political assassinations. No one has been killed by the Church. A crusade? I think not. Simply legitimate speech.

I think the conundrum, at least for me, is not that the church is taking a moral stance, but rather, that a tax exempt organization like the LDS church is actively communicating to church members on how it is that they should support a particular political measure (actively telling them to devote their "time, effort and resources" to defeat a political measure). I think that this aligns with some of the earlier questions in these posts as to why it is that the LDS church has chosen to become politically active on this particular measure, and not other measures that would allow the public to behave in manners that clearly contradict LDS doctrine and threaten the LDS Plan of Salvation.

[swfarnsworth]

Go back and read what you wrote with an editor's eye and tell me you didn't intend to mock. I won't believe you if you deny it.

Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds. (D&C 64:9-11)

[TAO]

There is no doubt that those supporting gay marriage have a crusade against the church. And it is prop 8 that brought on that crusade.

For some, yes. For others, I have noticed it has just contineud the crusade =p.

In any case, how does asking members to suppor the Proposition equal a crusade?

Before the churches involvement, there was never any of the kind of push-back from supporters of SSM against the church. Sometimes I wonder what the church expected would happen because of their political involvement.

No, that's not quite correct, or so I have heard. Spencer W Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness has been out quite a while now, and people have been criticizing it nearly as long. While I think you'd be correct as that it wasn't as widespread, the battle has been going on a lot longer than Prop 8.

I'm pretty sure the chuch expected to be criticized, like the other churches inovlved were.

As far as other sins that you mentioned, there is nothing that the church has done addressing those sins like they did against homosexuality.

Pornography. The war against porn is happening, right now, in church. If anything, the church is even more vocal against it than it is against gay relationships, I must say... probably because it's more prevelant.

[TAO]

I don't have a problem with the Church speaking out against all sin. In fact, I think it is a primary function of the church. I would just like to know why the church seems to be making such a political issue in regards to gay marriage as opposed to all the other sins in the world.

Maybe because they see that it's going to have a gigantic effect? Just sayin'... I think the church knew there might be problems. They had a significant reason for getting involved.

[Nemesis]

So what do you think will happen if Washington State, Maryland or Maine pass gay marriage in the next couple of weeks? Should we be preparing for the wrath of God? Will the end of the world be happening before the end of the year? Seriously, is this really a rational way to view gay marriage? If so, can you get back to me after the election if one of these states passes gay marriage?

You completely illustrate the exact question I asked at the beginning of this thread. Why does the church view gay marriage as such a huge sin as compared with say adultery and fortification that is far more rampant than homosexuality. God is only going to get upset if gay marriage is passed? Really?

We don't allow proselyting. Thread Closed.

Nemesis