canard78 Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 You just blew my mind with that label. But seriously, I am less concerned with DOMA being upheld than a number of other more important issues.If it's any consolation I've broken my promise about four times to keep my nose out of this 'American implications' thread.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Belief is one thing, knowing how it will happen is another.Then what practical good is our faith. Man has prevailed against greater odds Edited December 10, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 It is like the difference between riding in a car and driving that car.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 If it's any consolation I've broken my promise about four times to keep my nose out of this 'American implications' thread.As a Latter-day Saint who presumably believes that the Lord brought forth the U.S. Constitution by the hands of wise men whom He "raised up unto this very purpose," you have a stake in it as well, regardless of where you live.
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Taken too far that is just an excuse for American jingoism.
canard78 Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 As a Latter-day Saint who presumably believes that the Lord brought forth the U.S. Constitution by the hands of wise men whom He "raised up unto this very purpose," you have a stake in it as well, regardless of where you live.As a Brit whose ancestors got chucked out with the tea barrels I consider it to be on the list of "not an important or foundational doctrine" Having said that, I'm very grateful for the religious liberties granted by it that created the environment for the restoration and have no wish to see the teachings of the church limited or influenced by the US government. Regardless of anything else said on this site, I want any future direction and revelation to be in the Lord's good time and not in response to any political duress. As your dollar bill says... In God We Trust.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Taken too far that is just an excuse for American jingoism.What's an excuse for jingoism? Doctrine and Covenants 101:76-80?
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 As your dollar bill says... In God We Trust.I would love it to say...In God We Trust. All Others Pay Cash.
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 What's an excuse for jingoism? Doctrine and Covenants 101:76-80?Manifest Destiny
Scott Lloyd Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) As a Brit whose ancestors got chucked out with the tea barrels I consider it to be on the list of "not an important or foundational doctrine" I was in Elder Hugh W. Pinnock's office on one occasion on a work-related matter (I'm a staff writer with the LDS Church News). Elder Kenneth W. Johnson, who was Elder Pinnock's counselor in the North America Central Area presidency, was there.As you may or may not know, Elder Johnson is a British national.The conversation turned to the celebration of the Fourth of July, Independence Day in the United States. Elder Johnson said, "We celebrate the Fourth of July in England."The quintessential straight man, Elder Pinnock said, "You do not."Elder Johnson replied, "Oh yes, we celebrate it in a big way. We celebrate it as the date when we got rid of that troublesome colony."Having said that, I'm very grateful for the religious liberties granted by it that created the environment for the restoration ...I think it's even broader than that. The scripture explicitly states that the Constitution was brought forth "that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity according tothe moral agency which i have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment."It's about preserving an environment in which the God-provided gift of moral agency may flourish. And it's for "the rights and protection of all flesh," not just Americans. Therefore, regardless of national allegiance, whatever it may be, all Latter-day Saints everywhere ought to reverence those principles. I believe the U.S. Constitution set an example for the rest of the free world in the championing of principles of what the scriptures call moral agency.And I earnestly disagree that it's being jingoistic to point that out.... and have no wish to see the teachings of the church limited or influenced by the US government. Regardless of anything else said on this site, I want any future direction and revelation to be in the Lord's good time and not in response to any political duress. As your dollar bill says... In God We Trust.May it ever be so. Edited December 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
canard78 Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I was in Elder Hugh W. Pinnock's office on one occasion on a work-related matter (I'm a staff writer with the LDS Church News). Elder Kenneth W. Johnson, who was Elder Pinnock's counselor in the North America Central Area presidency, was there.As you may or may not know, Elder Johnson is a British national.The conversation turned to the celebration of the Fourth of July, Independence Day in the United States. Elder Johnson said, "We celebrate the Fourth of July in England."The quintessential straight man, Elder Pinnock said, "You do not."Elder Johnson replied, "Oh yes, we celebrate it in a big way. We celebrate it as the date when we got rid of that troublesome colony."I do indeed know of Elder Johnson. I think my Dad was friends with him a while back.The other day an American friend asked if I celebrated thanksgiving. I looked at him gravely and replied, "What, celebrate the day the Indians didn't kill off all the Americans? No... No I don't."
DavidB Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I do indeed know of Elder Johnson. I think my Dad was friends with him a while back.The other day an American friend asked if I celebrated thanksgiving. I looked at him gravely and replied, "What, celebrate the day the Indians didn't kill off all the Americans? No... No I don't."LOLOL
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Let the pontificating begin . . .http://www.cbsnews.c...up-prop-8-doma/Let us imagine the Supreme Court does legalize gay marriage. At that point churches should stop cooperating with the state when it comes to marriage. The best bet would be for the state to have civil marriages required for everyone. The church should just celebrate their sacraments based on their own rules. Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. who do not support gay marriage would just have non-legally binding ceremonies which the churches recognize in their own communions.
Saints Alive Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Let us imagine the Supreme Court does legalize gay marriage. At that point churches should stop cooperating with the state when it comes to marriage. The best bet would be for the state to have civil marriages required for everyone. The church should just celebrate their sacraments based on their own rules. Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. who do not support gay marriage would just have non-legally binding ceremonies which the churches recognize in their own communions.Assuming your scenario plays out, would there no longer be marriages in the temple? only sealings? Would the one year wait still be in place?
Scott Lloyd Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Assuming your scenario plays out, would there no longer be marriages in the temple? only sealings? Would the one year wait still be in place?I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Bart Burk is Catholic.Not that he wouldn't have a valid opinion on this question, but I wondered whether you were aware of it (assuming it is indeed the case). Edited December 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Assuming your scenario plays out, would there no longer be marriages in the temple? only sealings? Would the one year wait still be in place?I expect the one year wait would end. This is what happens in places like Great Britain. People get married outside of the temple and then get married in the temple afterwards within a day or two. And yes I am Catholic. My point is that if gay marriage is approved it may be that eventually it would be considered discrimination for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple. The only possible way to avoid this is to unhinge the church sacrament from the legal marriage. We don't want Christian ministers acting as legal marriage officers to be dragged into court for refusing to marry a gay couple. If the Christian ministers are only doing it according to church rules rather than as a matter of civil law the government shouldn't be able to question the way it is done.
DavidB Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) ... My point is that if gay marriage is approved it may be that eventually it would be considered discrimination for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple. The only possible way to avoid this is to unhinge the church sacrament from the legal marriage. We don't want Christian ministers acting as legal marriage officers to be dragged into court for refusing to marry a gay couple. If the Christian ministers are only doing it according to church rules rather than as a matter of civil law the government shouldn't be able to question the way it is done.Perhaps in UK and else where not performing a ssm in a religious building could be found by a Court of Law to be discrimination, not very likely for that to happen in the United States, depending on the circumstances, but overall not very likely.Notwithstanding the probability, I agree, that the best course of action for Religions is to cut all ties with the State. In the US, where State monies are tied to the strings of State puppeteers. Edited December 10, 2012 by DavidB
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Perhaps in UK and else where not performing a ssm in a religious building could be found by a Court of Law to be discrimination, not very likely for that to happen in the United States, depending on the circumstances, but overall not very likely.Notwithstanding the probability, I agree, that the best course of action for Religions is to cut all ties with the State. In the US, where State monies are tied to the strings of State puppeteers.I don't know if you've noticed, but the federal government is becoming hostile to religion right now. When they are willing to force religious organizations to provide insurance that pays for abortifacients and birth control, it is only a matter of time before they start interfering in other matters. And it certainly wouldn't take much for gay activists to start focusing on a church's refusal to perform gay marriage. 1
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I expect the one year wait would end. This is what happens in places like Great Britain. People get married outside of the temple and then get married in the temple afterwards within a day or two. And yes I am Catholic. My point is that if gay marriage is approved it may be that eventually it would be considered discrimination for a church to refuse to marry a gay couple. The only possible way to avoid this is to unhinge the church sacrament from the legal marriage. We don't want Christian ministers acting as legal marriage officers to be dragged into court for refusing to marry a gay couple. If the Christian ministers are only doing it according to church rules rather than as a matter of civil law the government shouldn't be able to question the way it is done.This is paranoia and not going to happen. No religious clergy can be forced to perform a heterosexual marriage and no charges of discrimination can be made. No one can force a Catholic priest or an LDS Bishop to perform a marriage. No one can force the church to perform a sealing on anyone. Religious leaders cannot be forced to perform marriages. Drive through wedding vendors in Vegas do not have to marry anyone they do not want to. The only person who would have to perform such a marriage would be a government official as part of their job.
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 This is paranoia and not going to happen. No religious clergy can be forced to perform a heterosexual marriage and no charges of discrimination can be made. No one can force a Catholic priest or an LDS Bishop to perform a marriage. No one can force the church to perform a sealing on anyone. Religious leaders cannot be forced to perform marriages. Drive through wedding vendors in Vegas do not have to marry anyone they do not want to. The only person who would have to perform such a marriage would be a government official as part of their job.You have a lot more faith in an eventual Obama Supreme Court than I do. My guess is the ACLU is salivating at the thought of bringing such cases to court. 2
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I don't know if you've noticed, but the federal government is becoming hostile to religion right now. When they are willing to force religious organizations to provide insurance that pays for abortifacients and birth control, it is only a matter of time before they start interfering in other matters. And it certainly wouldn't take much for gay activists to start focusing on a church's refusal to perform gay marriage.This is the slippery slope fallacy. I actually am on the government's side on that decision. Allowing objections to what insurance is compelled by law to cover would lead to insanity. Employers will claim to be faith healers so they do not have to provide insurance at all.Gay activists already focus on church refusals. Making noise in the media does not mean that soon ministers will be compelled to marry people.
DavidB Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 I don't know if you've noticed, but the federal government is becoming hostile to religion right now. When they are willing to force religious organizations to provide insurance that pays for abortifacients and birth control, it is only a matter of time before they start interfering in other matters. And it certainly wouldn't take much for gay activists to start focusing on a church's refusal to perform gay marriage.are religious organizations required to provide such things?Or is it that employers, say Twinkle Dink Meats Inc. - a family owned and operated meat processing plant, which family just happens to be religious - required to provide insurance that covers various methods of birth control?
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 This is the slippery slope fallacy. I actually am on the government's side on that decision. Allowing objections to what insurance is compelled by law to cover would lead to insanity. Employers will claim to be faith healers so they do not have to provide insurance at all.Gay activists already focus on church refusals. Making noise in the media does not mean that soon ministers will be compelled to marry people.The idea the government forces employers to provide any type of insurance for their employees is insane in and of itself, let alone insurance that provides for birth control, etc. The protection of religious rights is only as good as the government enforcing the laws. We've seen rights of individuals and organizations trampled on for years in the pursuit of so-called "civil rights". There is no reason to believe that gay marriage won't provide the government with another excuse to trample on the rights of religious people. 1
The Nehor Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 You have a lot more faith in an eventual Obama Supreme Court than I do. My guess is the ACLU is salivating at the thought of bringing such cases to court.How would you bring that case to court? By law you CANNOT force a religious leader to perform a marriage. When was the last time an LDS Bishop or Catholic Priest was hauled into a US courtroom on discrimination charges for refusing to marry a Protestant or atheist couple? Now suddenly when a gay couple does it it is going to find its way through appellate courts to the Supreme Court? Not a chance. There is no law or judicial precedent to even begin such a proceeding.The ACLU is not stupid enough to even consider a stunt like that. It would be an embarrassment and a PR nightmare.
Bart Burk Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 are religious organizations required to provide such things?Or is it that employers, say Twinkle Dink Meats Inc. - a family owned and operated meat processing plant, which family just happens to be religious - required to provide insurance that covers various methods of birth control?The University of Notre Dame will be required to provide such things as will BYU under the current regulation beginning in August 2013. The Archdiocese of Indianapolis and the LDS Church will be required to provide such coverage as well. The only organizations exempted will be those whose mission is completely religious -- if they have a school or a soup kitchen that serves people who aren't of their religion they will be required to provide the insurance. It is not a stretch to believe that a church officer with the legal right to perform marriages will be required to marry same sex couples in the event such marriages are legally recognized.
Recommended Posts