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

[Stone holm]

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?

The fact that religious ministers can perform civil marriages is a holdover from the time when the church was considered an extension of the state, something that probably should have been eliminated at the beginning of America.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

Your comment about the "sacred" object of Gov't as well as your joy that people in many States were able to violate God's laws and commandments. This is the wow...but I am sure that this makes to Popular and not peculiar as were are described by our Prophets. But I just realized that you made be a member, if so, it is fine for you to reject them.I support the Prophet and the 12, and all that they teach us...so yes I am old fashioned and don't need the praise of the world, only God's...the real wow comment is when I asked if you would teach polygamy if the Gov't says it is alright. This is putting "putting you faith in the arm of flesh". Oh and I love everything about my faith...again no apologies. Even if don't believe in God, nature has already passed judgement on SSM...they cannot reproduce, nor keeper God's first command. The PMOTF will one day be canon...I hope then it will matter.

[Bikeemikey]

Your comment about the "sacred" object of Gov't as well as your joy that people in many States were able to violate God's laws and commandments. This is the wow...but I am sure that this makes to Popular and not peculiar as were are described by our Prophets. But I just realized that you made be a member, if so, it is fine for you to reject them.I support the Prophet and the 12, and all that they teach us...so yes I am old fashioned and don't need the praise of the world, only God's...the real wow comment is when I asked if you would teach polygamy if the Gov't says it is alright. This is putting "putting you faith in the arm of flesh". Oh and I love everything about my faith...again no apologies. Even if don't believe in God, nature has already passed judgement on SSM...they cannot reproduce, nor keeper God's first command. The PMOTF will one day be canon...I hope then it will matter.

I think your confusing me with someone else.

Either that or you manage to read far more into my posts than I ever put there.

[Stone holm]

I think your confusing me with someone else.

Either that or you manage to read far more into my posts than I ever put there.

Probably misreading me. Interesting proposition about what nature has or has not proved, obviously has not been around cow herds much.

[ERayR]

It's called "agreeing".

Thanks. When one is besieged round about it is sometimes difficult to distinguish friend from foe. I hope you and I can always be friends.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. When one is besieged round about it is sometimes difficult to distinguish friend from foe. I hope you and I can always be friends.

Me too!

[emarkp]

The fact that religious ministers can perform civil marriages is a holdover from the time when the church was considered an extension of the state, something that probably should have been eliminated at the beginning of America.

You've got it exactly backwards. Marriage is older than any standing government. It's older than the English language. Ministers can perform civil marriages because civil marriage was a contract-level recognition of an ancient rite.

It also codified rules of property, inheritance, etc. since it's civil government's job to protect property rights. At least until recently.

[Avatar4321]

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.

lol. I dont think the two populations were as different as you think.

[Stargazer]

If there is anyone who thinks that the government is not above trying to force people to do what is against their consciences, consider the State of Washington.

A little while ago, a local grocery chain (two stores) in Olympia, WA, decided not to carry the "morning after pill" in their pharmacy because the owners of the stores (the Storman family) has religious objections to what they consider to be an abortifacient, and immoral. The State Pharmacy Board decided they weren't going to get away with it, and so with the Governor cheering them on, they took the little grocery store chain to court.

Here's some info about the case:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Trial-over-morning-after-contraceptive-begins-Monday--134537898.html

There was a happy ending, it turns out. A federal court finally struck down the state law that the Pharmacy Board was trying to force down Storman's throat.

http://www.becketfund.org/court-strikes-down-law-requiring-pharmacies-to-dispense-the-morning-after-pill/

But observer carefully. The Pharmacy Board initially crafted rules that permitted pharmacies to decline to dispense drugs that violated their consciences, but when Governor Gregoire found this out, she went ballistic, restructed the Board and forced them to adopt strict "shall dispense" rules that did not take conscience into account. And when a test case appeared, she pretty much helped whip the Pharmacy Board into a frenzy to attack the miscreant. With Planned Parenthood at her back cheering on the action.

They were stopped this time. But there's plenty of opportunity for mischief out there.

Don't tell me that the LDS or any other Church is immune from being forced to marry homosexuals. It might take a few years, but the slope is indeed slippery.

[sheilauk]

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.

So as to avoid the wrath of my fellow citizens - it's the UK - England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Edited June 27, 2013 by sheilauk

[Stone holm]

You've got it exactly backwards. Marriage is older than any standing government. It's older than the English language. Ministers can perform civil marriages because civil marriage was a contract-level recognition of an ancient rite.

It also codified rules of property, inheritance, etc. since it's civil government's job to protect property rights. At least until recently.

Yes. Marriage used to consider the woman to be the property of the man along with all of her possessions. In addition, the Ministers from ancient times until the Enlightenment were considered officers of the State or tribe. We no longer live in theocracies ruled by the local minister, the Pope, or tribal shamans. Do you really want to go back to stoning people and burning witches?

[Senator]

Don't tell me that the LDS or any other Church is immune from being forced to marry homosexuals. It might take a few years, but the slope is indeed slippery.

I tell you that the LDS church will never be forced to marry homosexuals.

[BlueDreams]

So for those with deep mormon roots dating back into the mid 1800's there is a war that never stopped and you think gay marriage will do away with an informal armistise between the US govt and Utah Mormons.

Meh, let the people from pioneer stalk speak for themselves. I, for one, feel nothing of the sort and think the idea is weird. My peeps on my mom's side goes back to Nauvoo.

Wtih luv,

BD

[Damien the Leper]

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.

This is all just silliness. The LDS church doesn't get to play a silly victim card in this. In fact, the LDS church isn't even relevant to the discussion of marriage equality. They can continue to do their heterocentric practices. No big deal. But marriage in the US is NOT about the LDS church. Such an assertion is narcissistic and ultimately flawed.

[cdowis]

Are you familiar with the term "strawman argument"? Look at your post -- it is narcissistic and flawed. You are putting words in his mouth, refuting a phoney argument and declaring victory.

You can be sure that we are all impressed.

You too - stop with the insults. - Ares

Edited June 27, 2013 by Ares

[Stone holm]

Are you familiar with the term "strawman argument"? Look at your post -- it is narcissistic and flawed. You are putting words in his mouth, refuting a phoney argument and declaring victory.

You can be sure that we are all impressed.

Hm which was the "strawman" the bit about the victim card or the bit about it not being about the Church. The victim card is being played rather loudly right now by certain social conservatives. It always intriguing how people can stand reality on its head in order to make themselves out as a victim.

[Damien the Leper]

Are you familiar with the term "strawman argument"? Look at your post -- it is narcissistic and flawed. You are putting words in his mouth, refuting a phoney argument and declaring victory.

You can be sure that we are all impressed.

I'm not puting words in anyone's mouth. I'm stating my own personal opinion. Perhaps you should have asked me what I was doing before being so narcissistic as to assert I'm doing something. I'm not here to impress anyone. Good job, cdowis. You never cease to amaze me with your mind boggling correctness and intelligence.

[BlueDreams]

Personally, If I had to make a prediction for the future. LDS members will become more culturally alienated due to familial/other beliefs, but very little will change in forms of legal restaints/protections....at least in the US. But frankly SSM is likely to remain at cultural odds for a while to come. To me, it's similar to the topic of abortion in the US: It's highly moralized, simply allowing it has not changed the sticky debates surrounding it. 40 years later there is still a push and pull for limiting abortion practices. There will continue to be plenty of people who will not see gay marriage as progressive or a societal good. Personally the closest civil rights topics that are related to SSM based on social implication/culture at least are interracial marriage and abortion. One has become a non-issue in many ways for the most part the other still hasn't in around the same amount of time. The difference was the capacity to change the moral understanding of the issue, IMO. Interracial marriage followed a wave of beating down overt racism as a whole. There was plenty of both social and religious grounding to back up the claims (all equal, all god's children, all should have the capacity to live health productive lives, etc). Abortion.....not so much, especially on the religious ends of things. SSM....it's a mixed bag.

I think the sociopolitical ground is fairly possible to be bridged and is being so. The problem is the religious-cultural ground....that continues to lag/divide, and will continue to do so. Because of this, I think it will continue to have a tension between what is thought, expressed, and done about it within communities. LDS may be looked down upon for their views in certain circles, while others it won't. But some outright universal persecution is simply unlikely.

With luv,

BD

[Stone holm]

Personally, If I had to make a prediction for the future. LDS members will become more culturally alienated due to familial/other beliefs, but very little will change in forms of legal restaints/protections....at least in the US. But frankly SSM is likely to remain at cultural odds for a while to come. To me, it's similar to the topic of abortion in the US: It's highly moralized, simply allowing it has not changed the sticky debates surrounding it. 40 years later there is still a push and pull for limiting abortion practices. There will continue to be plenty of people who will not see gay marriage as progressive or a societal good. Personally the closest civil rights topics that are related to SSM based on social implication/culture at least are interracial marriage and abortion. One has become a non-issue in many ways for the most part the other still hasn't in around the same amount of time. The difference was the capacity to change the moral understanding of the issue, IMO. Interracial marriage followed a wave of beating down overt racism as a whole. There was plenty of both social and religious grounding to back up the claims (all equal, all god's children, all should have the capacity to live health productive lives, etc). Abortion.....not so much, especially on the religious ends of things. SSM....it's a mixed bag.

I think the sociopolitical ground is fairly possible to be bridged and is being so. The problem is the religious-cultural ground....that continues to lag/divide, and will continue to do so. Because of this, I think it will continue to have a tension between what is thought, expressed, and done about it within communities. LDS may be looked down upon for their views in certain circles, while others it won't. But some outright universal persecution is simply unlikely.

With luv,

BD

As far as the Church is concerned, abortion has become something of a non-issue because we are only moderately pro-life and so you can have a civil conversation with both sides. As to SSM there is no moderate position that we can adopt internally that is not fraught with significant structural doctrinal issues. It's not just a matter of whether we classify homosexual behaviour as sinful, SSM strikes at a core way we view the purpose of life and how the hereafter functions. Having said that having gotten politically aggressive on the issue, while at the same time softening our views regarding SSA attraction was kind of a one step forward one step backwards sort of thing. Had we just stuck to our doctrinal principles and explained them, instead of aggressively stepping into the political fray and attempting to legislate our beliefs, I doubt much of the venom would have been directed our way. As it is, it had begun to die down a little until the gratuitous and pointless political jab was taken in the recent release. I just wonder how much thought and prayer went into that release from the very top. It did not sound very much like Pres. Monson.

[Senator]

I think the sociopolitical ground is fairly possible to be bridged and is being so. The problem is the religious-cultural ground....that continues to lag/divide, and will continue to do so. Because of this, I think it will continue to have a tension between what is thought, expressed, and done about it within communities. LDS may be looked down upon for their views in certain circles, while others it won't. But some outright universal persecution is simply unlikely.

Bingo! I don't get all this slippery slope paranoia. Even if political push comes to shove, all the church has to do is stop performing civil marriages, change some wording in temple ceremonies and the problem is solved. We have this handy internal, esoteric ritual called "sealing"! Government can't touch it!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think your confusing me with someone else.

Either that or you manage to read far more into my posts than I ever put there.

I guess I misread your comment concerning Gov't...please forgive.

[california boy]

Personally, If I had to make a prediction for the future. LDS members will become more culturally alienated due to familial/other beliefs, but very little will change in forms of legal restaints/protections....at least in the US. But frankly SSM is likely to remain at cultural odds for a while to come. To me, it's similar to the topic of abortion in the US: It's highly moralized, simply allowing it has not changed the sticky debates surrounding it. 40 years later there is still a push and pull for limiting abortion practices. There will continue to be plenty of people who will not see gay marriage as progressive or a societal good. Personally the closest civil rights topics that are related to SSM based on social implication/culture at least are interracial marriage and abortion. One has become a non-issue in many ways for the most part the other still hasn't in around the same amount of time. The difference was the capacity to change the moral understanding of the issue, IMO. Interracial marriage followed a wave of beating down overt racism as a whole. There was plenty of both social and religious grounding to back up the claims (all equal, all god's children, all should have the capacity to live health productive lives, etc). Abortion.....not so much, especially on the religious ends of things. SSM....it's a mixed bag.

I think the sociopolitical ground is fairly possible to be bridged and is being so. The problem is the religious-cultural ground....that continues to lag/divide, and will continue to do so. Because of this, I think it will continue to have a tension between what is thought, expressed, and done about it within communities. LDS may be looked down upon for their views in certain circles, while others it won't. But some outright universal persecution is simply unlikely.

With luv,

BD

There is a big difference between abortion still being a social issue and SSM continuing to be a social issue. For those that are against abortion, they view it as murdering a child. When it comes to SSM, it has been very difficult for anyone who is against SSM to come up with a reason why it causes harm to them or anyone else. I think you were closer to how this will all play out with your example of inter racial marriage. It is no longer an issue, because it harms no one. There is no soap box someone can stand on and point to any harm being done.

In this thread, there are wringing of hands and woes of despair of this country walking down some immoral road. The problem with that kind of hand wringing, is that no one has been able to specifically define what that immoral road is. Are gays more immoral now that they have the ability to marry? Would they be less moral if they were not allowed to marry? Are straight people in this country less moral because gays can now marry? If the sin of homosexuality is the issue, whether someone who is gay is married or not has absolutely no relevance to sin. The church views both as EQUALLY sinful. No change has happened.

I believe this issue will all die down once gay marriage is nation wide. Some churches will embrace it and freely marry gay couples, others will not. We have already seen some mainstream religions heading in that direction. The Mormon church will most likely never embrace gay marriage, because like was mentioned, it tears at the very core of Mormon belief in the plan of salvation. But so does divorce and that has become more tolerated in the church. The church may very well continue to be labeled as anti-gay in a very similar way that the church was labeled as being anti-black. It still survived, and no government forced the church to give blacks the priesthood.

[Stone holm]

There is a big difference between abortion still being a social issue and SSM continuing to be a social issue. For those that are against abortion, they view it as murdering a child. When it comes to SSM, it has been very difficult for anyone who is against SSM to come up with a reason why it causes harm to them or anyone else. I think you were closer to how this will all play out with your example of inter racial marriage. It is no longer an issue, because it harms no one. There is no soap box someone can stand on and point to any harm being done.

In this thread, there are wringing of hands and woes of despair of this country walking down some immoral road. The problem with that kind of hand wringing, is that no one has been able to specifically define what that immoral road is. Are gays more immoral now that they have the ability to marry? Would they be less moral if they were not allowed to marry? Are straight people in this country less moral because gays can now marry? If the sin of homosexuality is the issue, whether someone who is gay is married or not has absolutely no relevance to sin. The church views both as EQUALLY sinful. No change has happened.

I believe this issue will all die down once gay marriage is nation wide. Some churches will embrace it and freely marry gay couples, others will not. We have already seen some mainstream religions heading in that direction. The Mormon church will most likely never embrace gay marriage, because like was mentioned, it tears at the very core of Mormon belief in the plan of salvation. But so does divorce and that has become more tolerated in the church. The church may very well continue to be labeled as anti-gay in a very similar way that the church was labeled as being anti-black. It still survived, and no government forced the church to give blacks the priesthood.

Divorce is different. I tend to agree that the issue will tend to die down once gay marriage becomes widespread, which doesn't mean that we as Mormons will ever embrace it, it just means it won't be a fighting issue anymore. The damage we do to ourselves with loose rhetoric will unfortunately haunt us for decades as we tend to keep a record of every idle word that comes out of the mouth of a GA. That is why it is so important right now for the Church to avoid pointless political jabs that will linger in the media for years.

[tyler90az]

You've got it exactly backwards. Marriage is older than any standing government. It's older than the English language. Ministers can perform civil marriages because civil marriage was a contract-level recognition of an ancient rite.

It also codified rules of property, inheritance, etc. since it's civil government's job to protect property rights. At least until recently.

Let's put Emarks comments in perspective, he is from California. There is a good chance he flushed time and/or money down the toilet defending prop 8. People usually do not have the strength of intellect or character to admit they made a mistake. That means they will go down fighting a lost cause just to make themselves feel better.

You can keep the Ad Hominem out of the thread. -Ares

Edited June 27, 2013 by Ares

[emarkp]

Let's put Emarks comments in perspective, he is from California. There is a good chance he flushed time and/or money down the toilet defending prop 8. People usually do not have the strength of intellect or character to admit they made a mistake. That means they will go down fighting a lost cause just to make themselves feel better.

Perfect example of ad hominem sir! I'll be adding it to the logical fallacy lessons for my kids.