Gay Marriage And What It Could Mean The Lds Church.

[The Nehor]

I think it was Nibley who said it is a good thing life is not an intelligence test because none of us are very bright. One more of those things that make me convinced I was crazy to go along with this plan of salvation thing and come here.

[tyler90az]

Of course there is no need. More of a 'want to do' kind of thing.

It might.....though I have never seen it. I have even been party to decisions made where members thought that it was a political decision. Almost invariably those are the ones where we dug deep on the list of candidates because the Spirit did not like the early candidates we came up with. So I have seen people such as yourself whinge about this and know they are wrong.

Even if it does happen rarely (and I am not convinced) I can categorically say that it is not 100% making you very wrong, very dumb, and very naive....at least on this point. I should clarify that I have no idea if you are dumb all the time. I meant in my first post that you were dumb at the time you invented this idea within your brain juices and when you shared it here. Outside of that you might be a genius.

Has the spirit ever prompted you to call somebody you did not like on a personal level? You know, that one guy that kinda rubs you the wrong way, him, did he ever enter your mind as a candidate?

[The Nehor]

Has the spirit ever prompted you to call somebody you did not like on a personal level? You know, that one guy that kinda rubs you the wrong way, him, did he ever enter your mind as a candidate?

Yep, gave him Nursery leader and then followed up with 2nd Assistant Hymnbook Coordinator.

Seriously, yes. A wise Bishop pointed out to me that the best way to know if you are making God in you own image is if you imagine God dislikes everyone that you dislike and them as irritating as you do.

[tyler90az]

But, I thought that a bad feeling was a sign from the spirit telling you a particular candidate should not be called. Which is it, do you listen to the spirit or choose based on politics? You can not have it both ways.

[Calm]

May I suggest you reread what he said.

[Stargazer]

No, I have been involved in councils that make these decisions and you are wrong. Very wrong. It was a dumb thing to say and you are dumb for saying it.

You stop that. It's surely a dumb thing to say but you shouldn't be accusing tyler of being dumb. I am sure you have said dumb things before in your life, but allowing the occasional idiocy to pass one's lips, err, keyboard, does not make one an idiot.

That being said, as a Ward Clerk I spent 7 years in three different bishoprics and my own stint as a branch president, watching how decisions were being made and I can agree 100% with you that politics never once even raised its head. It might occur once in awhile somewhere (it's a big church, after all), but when you read the Handbook it makes it clear that leaders are to be led by the spirit, not poltical considerations.

[Stargazer]

Hear, hear!!! Once civil gay marriage is legalized, the US government will force the LDS church to marry same-sex couples in it's temples, just like once civil interracial marriage was legalized, the US government forced the LDS church to marry interracial couples in its temples--and just like the US government forces the LDS church to marry interfaith couples in its temples, given that civil interfaith marriage is also legal!!

I mean, we ALL know that the American government and religion operate EXACTLY like how the British government and The Church of England relate... It's not like the US government are indistinguishable, when it comes to religious freedoms, or anything--otherwise, the original colonies would have probably rebelled, and we'd have a totally different constitution or something. (Btw, has anyone heard how LDS temples in all the European countries are being FORCED to marry same-sex couples?!?! Especially the Stockholm temple... which we all know is going to Outer Darkness in a handbag!)

Daniel

I actually believe that you have a point, but I am not entirely sure it won't eventually be tried, at least, and how would it turn out if it were?

Here's the thing that causes me have a doubt that this is completely out of the question: Plural Marriage. The US government once applied overwhelming force to stop the practice of plural marraige. I wouldn't ordinarily expect the government to succumb to pressure to make any religious group change their theology, but matters touching that which is considered politically correct are matters that someone is bound to try to do something about. Could they influence the US government sufficiently? I think probably not, but times change.

[The Nehor]

But, I thought that a bad feeling was a sign from the spirit telling you a particular candidate should not be called. Which is it, do you listen to the spirit or choose based on politics? You can not have it both ways.

I really don't think that not liking someone is "politics". I shudder to imagine what your personal life is like if you do. When I am told someone is wrong for a calling it is more a sense of doubt then a "bad feeling" aka disliking them. The difference is obvious. I have never suggested anyone for a calling for political reasons. To be honest I am not sure what that would even mean. Someone who would support my bid for higher callings? I just cannot imagine thinking that way in a church environment.

Anyways, Church Callings 101. The Lord does not always have one person that must be called for every calling that comes up. We sit around and discuss the needs of the ward and which individuals we feel could do the job well. Names are tossed out (some surprising). In the end we come up with a name. The person in charge (guy with the keys, Bishop or Stake President or whatever) makes a call one way or the other. We are either done or keep going. In some cares the Lord is okay with more then one person being called. In some cases he has someone specific in mind and leads the council to that name. In some cases we are told to wait on that calling.

As for some people not getting callings they want (presumably prominent ones) I imagine the reason is that those who most covet the calling can't be trusted with it. The Lord does not want someone who is convinced they have great ideas and know how it should be done. He wants someone willing to work with him to get the calling done the way he wants. People who imagine that callings are all politics or are sure that they will do a great job cannot be trusted with callings with influence because they will start playing politics (most likely to the injury of others) or will ignore the promptings of the spirit (to the injury of others).

You stop that. It's surely a dumb thing to say but you shouldn't be accusing tyler of being dumb. I am sure you have said dumb things before in your life, but allowing the occasional idiocy to pass one's lips, err, keyboard, does not make one an idiot.

CFR

[Stargazer]

You stop that. It's surely a dumb thing to say but you shouldn't be accusing tyler of being dumb. I am sure you have said dumb things before in your life, but allowing the occasional idiocy to pass one's lips, err, keyboard, does not make one an idiot.

CFR

Hah. I don't have any access to your entire life history, nor have I much interest researching all your posts looking for dumb things you might have written, so I can't meet your CFR, but inasmuch as "I am sure you have said dumb things before in your life" is my opinion only, it is not subject to CFR anyway.

So there.

[The Nehor]

Hah. I don't have any access to your entire life history, nor have I much interest researching all your posts looking for dumb things you might have written, so I can't meet your CFR, but inasmuch as "I am sure you have said dumb things before in your life" is my opinion only, it is not subject to CFR anyway.

So there.

Well, at is disappointing. I was hoping you would do the research for me so I could get a nice list of all the dumb things I have ever said. Oh well. Will just have to assume I am perfect.

[Mark Beesley]

The most interesting thing about this thread? The sub-topic of whether or not Nehor crossed the line for calling tyler90az dumb.

My question to tyler90az is this: What do you mean when you say that Church callings are political? One of the definitions of political on dictionary.com is "having a definite policy or system of government." To that extent, since the Church does have a definite policy or system of government, it might be said to be political. But I think you need to clarify what you mean.

[tyler90az]

The most interesting thing about this thread? The sub-topic of whether or not Nehor crossed the line for calling tyler90az dumb.

No not at all that was very lgiht. I have been told I will get my eye balls poked out skull [edit] and dragged across the grass, all well getting hit in the head with a brown hat, if I ever cut across the grass again by a guy that could have crushed me like a bug. Drill Sergeants are some interesting people...

My question to tyler90az is this: What do you mean when you say that Church callings are political? One of the definitions of political on dictionary.com is "having a definite policy or system of government." To that extent, since the Church does have a definite policy or system of government, it might be said to be political. But I think you need to clarify what you mean.

What I mean by politics is basically getting called due to the fact that you are liked by the person in power. That means you play the political game and work your way towards callings. That is the best way to describe it and that is a weak description. Just for the record, I am not bitter over not getting called to some position. I am pretty sure I could have worked my way up to a "high calling" if I wanted.

Tyler: Let's watch the language even if edited.

[The Nehor]

No not at all that was very lgiht. I have been told I will get my eye balls poked out skull f$ck$d and dragged across the grass, all well getting hit in the head with a brown hat, if I ever cut across the grass again by a guy that could have crushed me like a bug. Drill Sergeants are some interesting people...

I wish to learn from this man and accept him as my mentor. The brown hat bit is almost poetry.

What I mean by politics is basically getting called due to the fact that you are liked by the person in power. That means you play the political game and work your way towards callings. That is the best way to describe it and that is a weak description. Just for the record, I am not bitter over not getting called to some position. I am pretty sure I could have worked my way up to a "high calling" if I wanted.

So basically the suck up brown nose principle. How does that work for you at work?

Ah yes, the siren song of failures everywhere. "I could have if I wanted to." Let me assure you, you would not if that was your plan for achieving "high calling" whatever that means.

[Mark Beesley]

What I mean by politics is basically getting called due to the fact that you are liked by the person in power.

Ok. Kind of a new formulation of what is political, I think, but it helps to know where you are coming from. You might keep in mind though that calling something political often is kind of polemical, so it might not be the best choice of descriptors for the process you believe exists, to some extent, in the Church. Of course many members might take you quite literally and agree that callings are based on the fact that God likes the person being called, because God is, after all, the person in power.

That means you play the political game and work your way towards callings.

By getting someone to like you? How do you do that? Bake cookies?

That is the best way to describe it and that is weak description.

I agree, with the second clause.

As for the topic of the thread (in a very broad sense), I think what I am seeing is that the gay marriage issue has helped many in the Church to become more charitable towards others as the leadership has, in my opinion, shown the way. Church doctrine will likely never satisfy those who want to see homosexual behavior accepted as moral in any circumstance. But that should not prevent people of good will on both sides of the debate being respectful and charitable to each other. Unfortunately, it is the loudmouth, activists who get the media attention. They are not, I think, being respectful and charitable.

[strappinglad]

I currently live where SS marriage is legal. The sky has not fallen, nor has any church been required to marry anyone. In fact the pre-legalization discussion was muted and brief and hence no hard and fast positions were formed. I doubt that anyone would or could lose a TR over the acceptance of SS marriage in society at large although there might be a serious discussion if one were to advocate for SS temple marriage.

[Stargazer]

I currently live where SS marriage is legal. The sky has not fallen, nor has any church been required to marry anyone. In fact the pre-legalization discussion was muted and brief and hence no hard and fast positions were formed. I doubt that anyone would or could lose a TR over the acceptance of SS marriage in society at large although there might be a serious discussion if one were to advocate for SS temple marriage.

So far.

I admit that it seems very unlikely now. But if the left gets even weirder than even I think is possible, well, then you may have to eat those words.

I, too, live in a state with legal SSM. Perhaps the same one as you? Washington?

[Daniel2]

So far.

I admit that it seems very unlikely now. But if the left gets even weirder than even I think is possible, well, then you may have to eat those words.

I'm curious... While I'm aware of governmental marital prohibitions, can you provide any examples of the US government forcing any church or clergy member to perform/officiate over a marriage against its/his/her will?

Daniel

[strappinglad]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/2/seattle-mulls-ban-brown-bag-objectionable-terms/ As you can see Stargazer , your state is already getting weird!!!

[Stargazer]

I'm curious... While I'm aware of governmental marital prohibitions, can you provide any examples of the US government forcing any church or clergy member to perform/officiate over a marriage against its/his/her will?

Daniel

Like I said, things would have to get really weird.

But let's examine a case in which the federal government is attempting to force people into affirmative actions (as opposed to negative actions, like prohibiting certain behavior). Not to get political, but let's examine Obamacare. As Chief Justice Roberts ruled, the fine which is levied for those who do not take action to get health insurance is to be regarded as a tax. And what is one way in which government attempts to modify public behavior? By taxing something in order to bend public behavior in a particular direction. In 2014 the average fine for not having health care is going to be around $1200 (something I read in the newspaper yesterday). Is that going to nudge people in a particular direction, the way the feds want them to go?

Another example, contrary to what most people think, the ownership of fully automatic firearms, or silencers, or sawed-off shotguns is not actually prohibited by the Feds. Individual states may prohibit it (for example, the State of Washington). But in order to qualify to own such a firearm you must apply for a license to do so, get an extensive background check, get approval from your local law enforcement chief officer, fingerprints, and pay a $200 tax. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, and this discourages the vast majority of people who might want to have machinegun, silencer or other such.

Now, I can imagine that the federal government might, by way of a threat to remove tax-exempt status, or by levying a very stiff tax, strongly discourage churches from refusing to perform weddings for anyone. The federal government was more than willing to destroy the LDS church to stop plural marriage. Very few public figures at that time stood up for the Church in that regard. And eventually public opinion might be swayed to such a point that the public might swallow the idea of the federal government forcing churches to perform gay marriages. You do recall that after Pearl Harbor the federal government interned 110,000 ethnic Japanese on the west coast of the US, regardless of whether they were citizens(and 62% were citizens), don't you? The feds already hamstring churches from endorsing political candidates, by way of threatening loss of tax-exempt status. So if Satan himself ran for public office, churches would be prohibited from endorsing his opponent. This was not always so -- not that I want churches to get heavily involved in politics -- but the American Revolution was partly fueled from the pulpits of churches. More than one pastor exhorted his flock to fight against the British. They'd lose their tax exempt status for such behavior today.

You don't think the government is incapable doing that which is wrong? Good luck with that.

And I don't truly expect that this will happen -- I just reserve the right to not be surprised if it happens nonetheless.

[Calm]

I currently live where SS marriage is legal. The sky has not fallen, nor has any church been required to marry anyone. In fact the pre-legalization discussion was muted and brief and hence no hard and fast positions were formed. I doubt that anyone would or could lose a TR over the acceptance of SS marriage in society at large although there might be a serious discussion if one were to advocate for SS temple marriage.

I know of members who have publicly supported gay marriage who still have their temple recommend. While it is possible that a particular leader might be so inclined to pull it, it is not by any means a given that this will happen.

And making a personal comment, considering what has been recently said on the board, I don't think it was as simple a case as that in this alleged case either; it seems like it was more complicated than just supporting gay marriage and more about sustaining or rather not sustaining one's leaders in general...okay, I may think better of this comment in a bit and remove it as inappropriate...but what I really mean is that while one person may focus on one thing and think that is what an issue is about, they may be blind to what in their behaviour is really causing the difficulty. It can happen to anyone of us in a variety of ways, it is sad when it happens in the context of a temple recommend or something else that is not a minor issue.

[Stargazer]

http://www.washingto...tionable-terms/ As you can see Stargazer , your state is already getting weird!!!

You will note that this applies to Seattle, which is possibly the most liberal city on the West Coast -- it seems to be in competition with San Francisco, and perhaps SF is winning at the moment, but that is only at the moment. The rest of the state is nowhere near that ridiculous.

[strappinglad]

You will note that this applies to Seattle, which is possibly the most liberal city on the West Coast -- it seems to be in competition with San Francisco, and perhaps SF is winning at the moment, but that is only at the moment. The rest of the state is nowhere near that ridiculous.

That is true. It might be something in the air. If I recall, there was a strong scent of 'flower power'.

[EllenMaksoud]

The title of this thread should say "Gay Marriage And What It Could Mean for the LDS Church."

So I Saw this story over on the Blaze.

http://www.theblaze....e-sex-nuptials/

I find it interesting that now that it is legal to marry of in England that that is not enough. This guy is wanting force the church into accpeting or performing thier marriage. I am telling you now that this is a type of thing that will happen in this nation when and if gay marriage is made legal er put on the same platform as traditional marriage.

This seems to be a big fear of some members, and I just do not see it happening. We do have the first amendment. While I have no personal issue with others doing as they wish in the secular arena, being forced to accept this conduct within the temple is completely unacceptable to me and there would be a great ruction over it.

[Calm]

I doubt that any law would actually go into place....at least not for a long, long time and by then we probably would have other political issues to worry about the legal landscape having changed so much..

But I do think there is a possibility of someone simply suing for the 'fun' of it, to hassle the Church with a frivolous lawsuit. It wouldn't be the first time it happened (though the one I know of the guy was rather 'off'), there is no law against filing any kind of lawsuit is there? I have a friend who looked like it was about to happen to due to some weird stuff going on with her business.

Then there are valid lawsuits that attach the Church's name without a valid reason.

What kind of penalties are in place to discourage this kind of thing? Anything?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You don't think the government is incapable doing that which is wrong? Good luck with that.

And I don't truly expect that this will happen -- I just reserve the right to not be surprised if it happens nonetheless.

This is more or less my line of thinking. I can just see a scenario for this to happen. I guess I will retract my statement that "Mark my words this will happen here". I just see a probability of this happening.