A War Against The Church Based On Marriage, Or Is This Just Sarcasm I Missed?

[teddyaware]

Anyone who is at all familiar with the scriptures, and believes them, knows what President Benson testified to in his October 1988 General Conference address is going to take place -- it's all just a matter of time... "I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer’s leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the righteous will be tested. God’s wrath will soon shake the nations of the earth and will be poured out on the wicked without measure. But God will provide strength for the righteous and the means of escape; and eventually and finally truth will triumph."

[tyler90az]

I counter that until you prove the validity of reason such an exercise would be pointless.

The burden rests with you to prove the invalidity of reason since your saying it would be a pointless exercise. Until you can prove the invalidity of reason we go forward assuming reason is valid. Basically, your accusation, you must prove it.

[The Nehor]

The burden rests with you to prove the invalidity of reason since your saying it would be a pointless exercise. Until you can prove the invalidity of reason we go forward assuming reason is valid. Basically, your accusation, you must prove it.

I disagree aboutmthe burden of proof. If you wish to use reason in your argument you must first prove its validity. I chose not to use reason so I am okay without it.

[Erin15]

This is not a political question. I am just shocked at the suggestion from a closed thread. I would like to know if the original comments were intended seriously, and if so if this is a belief that is widely held by those on this board.

We see the pattern repeated in the scriptures over and over again. As the general population becomes more and more wicked, they will naturally begin to persecute the Saints more and more, until a point is reached where The Lord tells his Saints to leave, and then the wicked will destroy one another.

It has happened many times in the past, and it will happen again. I don't know if the subject of same sex marriage will be the catalyst, but it is certainly a strong indicator of the people of this land becoming more wicked.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Erin15

[tyler90az]

I disagree aboutmthe burden of proof. If you wish to use reason in your argument you must first prove its validity. I chose not to use reason so I am okay without it.

The very fact we are having an "argument" implies reasoning is required. If you choose not to use reason you have admitted we are not in an "argument." Argument defined is, "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood." You must then acknowledge my argument is truth as you refuse to argue.

I am your father.

[ERayR]

The very fact we are having an "argument" implies reasoning is required.

To bad you all can't find some.

[USU78]

I happen to agree with you that the Edmonds-Tucker Act was a miscarriage of justice. I do however have a question for you. Do you wish that the church could have continued to practice polygamy including in our lifetime? Do you hope that the church will one day be again allowed to practice polygamy?

This is a rabbit hole, but I will go down it only insofar as to say: I believe the generation of my great-grandparents misunderstood that polygyny was an Abrahamic test that was not to be a generations-long imposition. Had they prayed for release from the test, their prayers, IMNSHO, would surely have been answered. As it was, it took the prayers for deliverance from the effects of the acts of war by Congress upon our ancestors to allow the Master to release us from that bondage.

[The Nehor]

The very fact we are having an "argument" implies reasoning is required. If you choose not to use reason you have admitted we are not in an "argument." Argument defined is, "A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood." You must then acknowledge my argument is truth as you refuse to argue.

I am your father.

You used reason in this argument making it invalid as support of reason.

[Bikeemikey]

We see the pattern repeated in the scriptures over and over again. As the general population becomes more and more wicked, they will naturally begin to persecute the Saints more and more, until a point is reached where The Lord tells his Saints to leave, and then the wicked will destroy one another.

It has happened many times in the past, and it will happen again. I don't know if the subject of same sex marriage will be the catalyst, but it is certainly a strong indicator of the people of this land becoming more wicked.

You are aware that god did not destroy those people in the scriptures but they ended up destroying themselves.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You are aware that god did not destroy those people in the scriptures but they ended up destroying themselves.

He turned them over to a reprobate mind...total darkness, unless your views will not allow you to believe scripture. God will not be mocked and this issue is seeking to do just that. Sadly there is a price that will have to be paid. Abortion, SSM and many other sins is why Christ will burn us at his coming. Soon polygamy will be the next battle, are you going to teach your children that this is OK? If it is wrong to define marriage or who can marry, then anything is alright...so there is no discrimination. Edited June 26, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[california boy]

This is a rabbit hole, but I will go down it only insofar as to say: I believe the generation of my great-grandparents misunderstood that polygyny was an Abrahamic test that was not to be a generations-long imposition. Had they prayed for release from the test, their prayers, IMNSHO, would surely have been answered. As it was, it took the prayers for deliverance from the effects of the acts of war by Congress upon our ancestors to allow the Master to release us from that bondage.

Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Do you have any historical evidence that there was any big movement within the church where members were praying to God to remove the "burden" of polygamy from them? If so, could not the unjust ruling by the Supreme Court be an answer to such a plea??

[USU78]

Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Do you have any historical evidence that there was any big movement within the church where members were praying to God to remove the "burden" of polygamy from them? If so, could not the unjust ruling by the Supreme Court be an answer to such a plea??

I'm aware of no such movement. Indeed, the more persecution via prosecution occurred, the more they dug in their heels, my G-Grandfather (the Sugar House jailbird), included.

Edited June 26, 2013 by USU78

[Bikeemikey]

He turned them over to a reprobate mind...total darkness, unless your views will not allow you to believe scripture. God will not be mocked and this issue is seeking to do just that. Sadly there is a price that will have to be paid. Abortion, SSM and many other sins is why Christ will burn us at his coming. Soon polygamy will be the next battle, are you going to teach your children that this is OK? If it is wrong to define marriage or who can marry, then anything is alright...so there is no discrimination.

Unless govts are religious institutions this issue is ignoring god all together.

I will teach my children that govt has a sacred temporal duty to judge fairly and equally all citizens under law and administer principles of harm and consent... And that govts may use reasonable force in this narrow area.

And that religions have an even more sacred moral and spiritual duty to teach correctly the precepts and commandments of god and that such teaching must always be via love and charity and never with force or threat.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[tyler90az]

You used reason in this argument making it invalid as support of reason.

That was not an argument for the support of reason. It was stating a fact that in order to argue you must use reasoning. Since reasoning is arguing there is essentially no way reason can be invalid in itself. That brings us back to the burden of proof resting with you, to prove the invalidity of reason. But since you chose not to use reason you do not have an argument. Therefore, you can not prove the invalidity of reason.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know what you mean. I am pointing out that violence against the Church and its members on a wholesale level is only a thread away.

It's called "agreeing".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Unless govts are religious institutions this issue is ignoring god all together.

I will teach my children that govt has a sacred temporal duty to judge fairly and equally all citizens under law and administer principles of harm and consent... And that govts may use reasonable force in this narrow area.

And that religions have an even more sacred moral and spiritual duty to teach correctly the precepts and commandments of god and that such teaching must always be via love and charity and never with force or threat.

So anything goes if someone feels discriminated against? Wow!

[Bikeemikey]

So anything goes if someone feels discriminated against? Wow!

No idea what you mean by that - but taking the idea your proposed at face value it seems utterly ridiculous.

[Avatar4321]

This is not a political question. I am just shocked at the suggestion from a closed thread. I would like to know if the original comments were intended seriously, and if so if this is a belief that is widely held by those on this board.

Comments from a now closed thread:

My Response:

Please show me where there is a imminent threat of massive apocalyptic warfare against the Church or Church leaders (either in the USA or another country) based our stance on marriage!

In the mean time I have no issues with where my perception is.

It think it is prudent for members of the church in the USA to realize this is not a battle with the LDS church globally (in fact many members outside of the USA were horrified by the church involvement in Prop 8 and the general marriage debate) but is a political battle of Americans vs Americans. Most countries where the church is active have already moved past this issue.

The government has already tried to use marriage laws to destroy the Church in the past. Why should we expect differently in the future? Especially when the wickedness of the people is far more wide spread than it was in the past.

[california boy]

I'm aware of no such movement. Indeed, the more persecution via prosecution occurred, the more they dug in their heels, my G-Grandfather (the Sugar House jailbird), included.

Thanks for clearing up your opinion on this.

[Bikeemikey]

The government has already tried to use marriage laws to destroy the Church in the past. Why should we expect differently in the future? Especially when the wickedness of the people is far more wide spread than it was in the past.

Because today people want the freedom to so what they want...

Back in the day people wanted the freedom to make other people do what they wanted.

[Calm]

You are also aware that you are linking two fundamentally distinct things... the restored gospel of christ and the US constitution. The LDS church is US constitution independent. The constitution can be violated every day from now to the end of time... that only impacts Americans, not the Church.

While I agree the Church should work on phrasing things in a more global way, I would hope in any country it would respond as if such affected all members of our faith community as imo what effects one of our members affects all.

Not only that, but due to the wealth of the US (this does not equate to comparing righteousness between countries) a large part of the Church's funding comes from Americans and therefore if that is diminished to a great extent, that most likely means that many of the Church's projects, including missionary work and humanitarian projects will be greatly diminished which will affect all Saints everywhere, imo.

That includes your tax deduction for tithes and offerings, property taxes for all church own building, etc.

Money that is refunded through tax deductions can then be applied towards fast offerings and other church projects thus allowing tithing to be as great a sacrifice as one wants to make. Many who are in the group of 30% deductions are the ones who are able to give very generous offerings to help those in the faith community and outside it in ways that would not be able to be accomplished without the support of the more wealthy in the Church. That does not mean they are more righteous than the less fortunate whose sacrifice financially impacts them much more than those who are financially well provided for, it simply means there is more than one way to experience sacrifice and commitment to the faith and those who claim that getting refunds changes tithing from a sacrifice into whatever don't understand what makes it a sacrifice for those who can easily afford it in the first place imo.

[USU78]

Because today people want the freedom to so what they want...

Back in the day people wanted the freedom to make other people do what they wanted.

Like make the several states' citizens pay stay-at-home homosexual lovers death benefits? Something like that?

[Bikeemikey]

Like make the several states' citizens pay stay-at-home homosexual lovers death benefits? Something like that?

Exactly :-).

*** did someone change the thread title?? ***

Edited June 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[cdowis]

That is already how it is in most of the world that the church operates in. The US is an outlier here, not the other way around.

Really, "most of the world"?

What other countries disallow secular marriage by LDS clergy (temple marriages)?

Edited June 27, 2013 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

Really, "most of the world"?

What other countries disallow secular marriage by LDS clergy (temple marriages)?

It should be noted the following countries allow LDS ministers to marry people ... You simply can not be married in the temple.

Anyone feel free to correct me on these: New Zealand, Australia, England and most of Europe.

More New Zealand marriages have to be open to the public - they are a public ceremony - as such temple sealing does not count.

There has been some mystique developed around this within the church. I believe you must be married in the temple within 48 hrs of being civilly married or wait a year to go to the temple for sealing - sealing first and then civil wedding is strong advised - apparently no sex until after the sealing - just a few of the things that come to the surface when a sealing is not a civil marriage.

Given that a sealing is a sacred religious covenant why should it be a civil marriage?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey