Civil Unions

[Damien the Leper]

Said another way: "you're not the boss of me."

 

The same, in principle, applies to each and every belief system and believer or non-believer, and thus goes without saying. Everyone is entitled to their belief, and free to express their belief, and thus speak on God's behalf within the earthly marketplace of idea. And, ultimately, we will just have to wait until the final judgment to see which of the many belief systems and believers, if any, rightly spoke for God and correctly represented his Law. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Absolutely agreed. Now if we can get institutions to stop trying to play "the boss" that would be great. Not a single religious institution on the entire face of the earth is arbiter of Godly Law and what is absolute doctrine. IMO, of course.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Valentinus

[wenglund]

Absolutely agreed. Now if we can get institutions to stop trying to play "the boss" that would be great. Not a single religious institution on the entire face of the earth is arbiter of Godly Law and what is absolute doctrine. IMO, of course.

 

Who are you to claim they aren't "the boss" or the arbiter of Godly Law? Are you the boss of them?

 

The point being, institutions and individuals alike are free to claim to be "the boss" and the arbiter of Godly Law, and act accordingly. It's just that, in the free and open marketplace of ideas, no one is required to believe or except the claims, but can buy into whichever claims they deem best.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Who are you to claim they aren't "the boss" or the arbiter of Godly Law? Are you the boss of them?

 

The point being, institutions and individuals alike are free to claim to be "the boss" and the arbiter of Godly Law, and act accordingly. It's just that, in the free and open marketplace of ideas, no one is required to believe or except the claims, but can buy into whichever claims they deem best.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Very true, Wade. But in some ways it seems that you must "buy the product or get laid to waste." They are but mere claims and hardly worth taking seriously.

[wenglund]

Very true, Wade. But in some ways it seems that you must "buy the product or get laid to waste." They are but mere claims and hardly worth taking seriously.

 

Perhaps. We each get to decide for ourselves whether anyone's claims are mere and worth taking seriously or not, including your claim about religious claims being mere and hardly worth taking seriously, or the claim in your signature about bigotry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2013 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps. We each get to decide for ourselves whether anyone's claims are mere and worth taking seriously or not, including your claim about religious claims being mere and hardly worth taking seriously, or the claim in your signature about bigotry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Of course. We all have opinions. I'm just rather fond of the situations we have to deal with here and now. I'm not concerned with Heaven or Hell any longer. The statement in my signature stands true. If one does not wish to be labeled a bigot then they should consider stopping themselves from demonstrating the characteristics that portray and define bigotry.

[Brenda]

However, the LDS church's perspective on Canon Law (or whatever they may call it) is not binding on the entire world. As one church of thousands, the LDS church's authority concerning the Law of God is very minimal as they are not the primary authority on the earth.

It does not matter how many churches there are, there is only one true gospel, which is found only in the LDS Church  And it does not matter what civil laws may exist, God does not recognize SSM.  We have covenanted to obey the Lord.  Now obviously, if someone has never been taught the truth, they can't be held responsible.  But once they have been taught and choose to be baptized, if they are involved in a relationship that is immoral in God's eye, it must stop.  This isn't news, is it?  Same commandments as always.  

 

You are right that the LDS Church's authority in the world's view, is minimal.  But we're talking about eternity.  And if you don't believe in eternity, I can see how this would have no appeal.  At some point, though, eternity arrives at your door step.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Brenda

[Damien the Leper]

It does not matter how many churches there are, there is only one true gospel, which is found only in the LDS Church  And it does not matter what civil laws may exist, God does not recognize SSM.  We have covenanted to obey the Lord.  Now obviously, if someone has never been taught the truth, they can't be held responsible.  But once they have been taught and choose to be baptized, if they are involved in a relationship that is immoral in God's eye, it must stop.  This isn't news, is it?  Same commandment as always.  

 

You are right that the LDS Church's authority in the world's view, is minimal, but in God's eyes it has all the authority.  And God IS the primary authority.

This is all speculation and opinion and not absolute truth.

[wenglund]

The statement in my signature stands true. If one does not wish to be labeled a bigot then they should consider stopping themselves from demonstrating the characteristics that portray and define bigotry.

 

As always, you are entitled to your opinion about what "stands true."  I don't happen to grant credence to certain self-appointed labelers, particularly when their labeling is a poor substitute for, and an impediment to, reasoned argumentation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 11, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

I think this is a tough question. The sin is with the homosexual act, not being in a civil union. A same sex marriage, however, regardless of whether sex is involved would be considered a solemn mockery of a sacred ordinance and would get you exed. If I were a Bishop, I would hesitate about issuing same sex couples in a civil union a Temple Recomend and would probably request advice from higher in the food chain. If there were some obvious other reason, which does not readily come to mid, I suppose it is conceivable...but I really doubt that both the Bishop and the Stake Pres could be talked into it.

[Damien the Leper]

As always, you are entitled to your opinion about what "stands true."  I don't happen to grant credence to certain self-appointed labelers, particularly when their labeling is a poor substitute for, and an impediment to, reasoned argumentation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If it talks and walks like a bigot then it is a bigot. If you want someone to stop labeling another as such then that person should stop acting and speaking like a bigot. If a person is opposed to a group of persons being granted full civil liberties then they are likely anti-American. That's fine but such persons in that camp should hardly be taken seriously.

[Stone holm]

If it talks and walks like a bigot then it is a bigot. If you want someone to stop labeling another as such then that person should stop acting and speaking like a bigot. If a person is opposed to a group of persons being granted full civil liberties then they are likely anti-American. That's fine but such persons in that camp should hardly be taken seriously.

 

I think you cannot easily use "the equal protection" clause as a definition of a bigot.  In some instances bigots are granted protection under the Constitution, and if you want to take away those protections does that make you a bigot?

[wenglund]

If it talks and walks like a bigot then it is a bigot. If you want someone to stop labeling another as such then that person should stop acting and speaking like a bigot. If a person is opposed to a group of persons being granted full civil liberties then they are likely anti-American. That's fine but such persons in that camp should hardly be taken seriously.

 

If it walks like a quail and talks like a quail, and some people are calling it a duck because of their own prejudices and confusion about civil rights, the quails aren't obliged to genuflect to the prejudice and confusion and lack of civil and reasonable discourse, but should hardly take the mistaken duck-callers seriously,

 

And around and around we go...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 11, 2013 by wenglund

[Hestia]

Valentius is excused from this thread; accusations of bigotry and anti-American are anti-civility.

[thesometimesaint]

So 2 men in a legal union, recognized or not recognized as a marriage by the church?  Therefore, subject to church discipline or not?

 

The key is sexual activity not the legality of the union. There a great many things that are legal to do, but will get you into hot water wwith the Church.

[rockpond]

The key is sexual activity not the legality of the union. There a great many things that are legal to do, but will get you into hot water wwith the Church.

 

Yes, and since Handbook 1 lists the undefined term "homosexual relations" as a possible reason to hold a disciplinary council, a Bishop/Stake President could obviously see a homosexual civil union as reasonable cause for disfellowship/excommunication.  In my opinion, of course.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, and since Handbook 1 lists the undefined term "homosexual relations" as a possible reason to hold a disciplinary council, a Bishop/Stake President could obviously see a homosexual civil union as reasonable cause for disfellowship/excommunication.  In my opinion, of course.

 

Agreed.