Rob Osborn Posted November 17, 2013 Author Posted November 17, 2013 How about if someone started a religion that allowed a man to have more than one wife? Thats a little different than a pet. Let me ask- when ever did God command his people to marry animals and have intimate relations with them? History has shown that in the right circumstances marriage to more than one wife is ordained of God.
Rob Osborn Posted November 17, 2013 Author Posted November 17, 2013 Is there a "gay" agenda? What items are on it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda http://www.afa.net/faq.aspx?id=2147483680 http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda That should get you informed.
Tacenda Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 How about if someone started a religion that allowed a man to have more than one wife?Or already married wives.
Danzo Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 If laws are not based on morality, on what are they based?
Bob Crockett Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agendahttp://www.afa.net/faq.aspx?id=2147483680http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_AgendaThat should get you informed.In that sense you are correct. The gay agenda is what the enemies of the gays say that it is. Like Evangelicals saying that atheism is a religion. Edited November 17, 2013 by Bob Crockett
Bob Crockett Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 If laws are not based on morality, on what are they based?They are based upon morality. But if you lived in Eastern Europe, some place, for example, where the Muslims outnumber the Christians, are you going to have a problem when the Islam view of morality begins to be felt in legislation? Isn't a better solution for the law is the beat the drum for religious freedom and tolerance?
jwhitlock Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 They are based upon morality. But if you lived in Eastern Europe, some place, for example, where the Muslims outnumber the Christians, are you going to have a problem when the Islam view of morality begins to be felt in legislation? Isn't a better solution for the law is the beat the drum for religious freedom and tolerance? Religious freedom and tolerance are becoming mutually exclusive concepts with the way things are headed in our society, especially since tolerance has become synonymous with political correctness. 2
Bob Crockett Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) Religious freedom and tolerance are becoming mutually exclusive concepts with the way things are headed in our society, especially since tolerance has become synonymous with political correctness.No it isn't. The word is being misused by bullies. Like those who marched on the LA Temple or those semi-members of the Church who put my name and employer on a website to target for making a Prop 8 contribution. Yes, you, M. Hanks. Sorry. Still smarts. Edited November 17, 2013 by Bob Crockett
jwhitlock Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Gotta love the cheap shots at polygamy. They are evidence of a simplistic world-view driven by 15 second sound bites, and not by any depth of thought that considers the real world complexities that make finding a balance between religious freedom and moral law such a challenge. To comment more about religious freedom and tolerance, and their relationships to SSM, there are quite a few parallels that people try to draw between SSM and polygamy. In my opinion, most of those parallels are strained, at best. Unfettered religious freedom (think Islamic Sharia) and unfettered tolerance (anything goes without restraint) are diametrically opposed to moral law that takes into account the overall good of society. That much should be clear, so when we talk about religious freedom and tolerance, we really should be talking about those concepts being constrained within a proper framework provided by moral law. Religious freedom and tolerance end where their exercise starts to negatively impact society in that they break down moral codes of conduct and damage the interactions in society. Freedom to exercise religion must be unfettered within the constraint that it does not dictate to people outside of that religious belief what they MUST do. Tolerance must be restrained when it comes to conducts that damage society. A properly functioning society will continue to evaluate the interaction between those two and adjust the balance as needed. When one or the other gets too far out of balance, society suffers and moral law is undermined. The thing that makes comparisons between SSM and polygamy strained, is that a careful historical reading of polygamy makes it clear that the government infringed upon the exercise of religious freedom. The practice of polygamy did not dictate to individuals outside of Mormonism what they should do, nor (despite attempts to portray it otherwise) did it coerce people inside of Mormonism to practice it. Mormons retained their freedom of choice within the boundaries of their faith as to the practice. The government really didn't have a leg to stand on, and laws disenfranchising the church and its members were nothing more than an attack on religious freedom. Intolerance was readily evident on the part of the government and of society in general. There was not any demonstrable negative impact on society through the practice of polygamy. Supporters of SSM claim that intolerance is evident in those who oppose SSM, and that SSM is nothing more than a right to practice what people want within their own relationships. The claim is also made that SSM has no impact on other people, nor does it have a negative impact on society. However, that particular claim is questionable when it comes to SSM. Supporters have been able to successfully manipulate public opinion via sound bites concerning "loving relationships" and "the right to marriage" while ignoring or dismissing the complex challenges that SSM presents to society and moral law. There is conflicting evidence about the negative impact of raising adopted children in SS relationships (supporters dismiss evidence contrary to their agendas, while opponents do the same). SSM introduces questionable legal impacts to the protections available under marriage with the validation of certain concepts such as being monogamish, instead of having marriage require full fidelity. Unlike polygamy, which was specifically designed to be supportive of lasting marriage relationships, SSM finally cements in place the concept that marriage is an on-demand contract that can be terminated at will with minimal recourse, thus completing the the watering down of marriage as a foundational pillar of society that has been going on for decades. The government itself has been attacking marriage for quite a while now, through increased taxes for married couples (marriage penalty, as commonly known) and by penalizing those on welfare by reducing benefits for those who marry, for instance. SSM is, in effect, not a strengthening influence on marriage, but a significant step in the direction of diluting marriage, which is ultimately harmful for society and undermines moral law. Adjustments are needed to balance religious freedom and tolerance from time to time, but the way things are headed with SSM unbalances society because of its negative impact.
jwhitlock Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 No it isn't. The word is being misused by bullies. Like those who marched on the LA Temple or those semi-members of the Church who put my name and employer on a website to target for making a Prop 8 contribution. Yes, you, M. Hanks. Sorry. Still smarts. See my post above. I think we're coming from the same side; the only point that I'll make is that I don't think that religious freedom and tolerance should be the basis of law. Instead, they should be appropriately enshrined in moral law within boundaries. You're correct in your portrayal of those you described above as bullies, and their co-opting and re-interpretation of what "tolerance" means. The church appeared to be far more tolerant of Prop 8 opponents than those opponents were of us, as was clearly evident by the incidents you referred to.
Stone holm Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Just a few corrections. There really is no such thing as differing points or principles of morality. Morality stands on its own. Yes we may debate moral law, but in truth it is ingrained into the fabric of our souls- we know right from wrong- God has given that to us- its called moral agency or in finer terms- the law of moral freedom. It is God who has given to us our frredom. Our constitution got that one correct. It is not man that has given us our freedom neither is it some random force in nature. We are free because of God. Our forefathers got that much truly correct knowing it was divine providence that lends us our freedoms. Our laws are and must be built around that principle. It is not the courts jurisdiction to actually redefine moral law- that which we know is right and wrong. For instance- it is not the courts proper right to redefine "marriage", an institution held and reserved for the morally free and righteous. It used to be that marriage was only a religious ceremony performed in front of God as a witness (the form of his ordained servents). Thus, if one wanted marriage, it was thus a sacred ordinance only authorized and carried out by Holy men who held the priesthood. In reality this is the only type of marriage God even recognizes eternally. But, over time man began reinterpreting and redefining that sacred religious ceremony into what we have today. Now its just become some legal civil right that has the power to protect even the morally corrupt especially in cases like gay marriage, it is completely blasphemous to God and moral law. Why do you think pretty much the entire religious world is fighting against gay marriage, especially our LDS religion? Its because we are fighting to preserve the fatc that marriage really is a religious institution ordained by God for his children. This is a religious right and with it carries the divine purpose of bringing children into the world- Gods children I might add.Exactly what is meant by the assertion that morality stands on its own? I believe any serious look at history suggests otherwise. Morality is primarily a cultural phenomenon. Even when it is propped up by religion, it changes. We no longer shun menstruating women, stone witches, or discriminate against people who lap water a certain way. Morality is more of a cultural/religious/political dance, and monogamy in particular was a Roman thing and the Romans countenanced all types of other relationships.
Bikeemikey Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 If laws are not based on morality, on what are they based? Based on the need for things to be stable. A desire for maximum conformance. The need to control. Law and morality do not have to have anything in common. We have all sorts of muslim law in the world that not just tolerates, but advocates for principles of action we in the West consider immoral... In some respects the clash between muslim extremists is a clash of moral perspective. Just as the clash between Christian fundamentalists and non-religious Americans in the US is based on different understandings of what is moral. There is a difference between moral goods and moral rights. I believe, and I think LDS theology agrees with me on this matter, is that moral rights are superior to moral goods. The primary moral right, perhaps the only moral right, is agency. My moral rights allow me to to chose not to engage in certain moral goods. We will all however be held accountable for those moral goods we violate. The question is, to what extent should civil government be involved in that process of dictating accountability vs. leaving it to God.
Bikeemikey Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Religious freedom and tolerance are becoming mutually exclusive concepts with the way things are headed in our society, especially since tolerance has become synonymous with political correctness. Your response is half on target. Not only is tolerance synonymous with political correctness, but it is also the case that for many religious followers religious freedom has become synonymous with legislative advantage.
Stone holm Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Your response is half on target. Not only is tolerance synonymous with political correctness, but it is also the case that for many religious followers religious freedom has become synonymous with legislative advantage.That is not correct. It is not politically correct to tolerate bullying, etc.
jwhitlock Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 That is not correct. It is not politically correct to tolerate bullying, etc. It has become politically correct to tolerate bullying that is done in support of politically correct agendas.
california boy Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Why does your vision of a government basing their laws and punishments on what God wants sound more like the vision Satan had to how the world should be run. And we all know how that turned out. Forcing the children of God by law is not the plan we voted on when we came to this earth. It is directly against the plan of God that we did embrace.
california boy Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 You have something fundamentally wrong with your assumptions. It is the government that holds the right as to whether marriage is legal or not, not the church. The government extends the right to religion to marry. Religion does not extend the legal right to marry to the government. The government also extends the right to marry to non religious entities such as governmental judges. Religion can do many things that are not recognized by the government as being legal. Baptism, confirmation etc. are just a few. It is only marriage that the government has extended any legal recognition for a religious ritual. Without the government extending that legal recognition of marriage, being married in a church would have no legal recognition.
california boy Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 If laws are not based on morality, on what are they based?Most of our laws are based on Greek'Roman laws. Magna Carta, and English law.
Bob Crockett Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) I think Whitlock you are now using words with pet definitions. My Jewish friends are very fond if the word "tolerance." But they often don't tolerate evangelism by Christians in their communities. Does that mean that the word has a new meaning?Tolerance was a concept Joseph Smith taught. We have to embrace it. God tolerates sin but does not endorse it. Edited November 17, 2013 by Bob Crockett
Tsuzuki Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) Thats a little different than a pet. Let me ask- when ever did God command his people to marry animals and have intimate relations with them? History has shown that in the right circumstances marriage to more than one wife is ordained of God.It's a lot different. One of those differences is that it's not a made up straw man. However, it is a good example of how the morality of the surrounding majority can be used to oppress people. I don't understand why many Mormons keep forgetting this lesson. Edited November 17, 2013 by Tsuzuki
Stone holm Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Most of our laws are based on Greek'Roman laws. Magna Carta, and English law.Most were originally based on English common law. We normally resort to humanistic reasoning now because there is such a lack of agreement in religion.
thesometimesaint Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Just a few corrections. There really is no such thing as differing points or principles of morality. Morality stands on its own. Yes we may debate moral law, but in truth it is ingrained into the fabric of our souls- we know right from wrong- God has given that to us- its called moral agency or in finer terms- the law of moral freedom. It is God who has given to us our frredom. Our constitution got that one correct. It is not man that has given us our freedom neither is it some random force in nature. We are free because of God. Our forefathers got that much truly correct knowing it was divine providence that lends us our freedoms. Our laws are and must be built around that principle. It is not the courts jurisdiction to actually redefine moral law- that which we know is right and wrong. For instance- it is not the courts proper right to redefine "marriage", an institution held and reserved for the morally free and righteous. It used to be that marriage was only a religious ceremony performed in front of God as a witness (the form of his ordained servents). Thus, if one wanted marriage, it was thus a sacred ordinance only authorized and carried out by Holy men who held the priesthood. In reality this is the only type of marriage God even recognizes eternally. But, over time man began reinterpreting and redefining that sacred religious ceremony into what we have today. Now its just become some legal civil right that has the power to protect even the morally corrupt especially in cases like gay marriage, it is completely blasphemous to God and moral law. Why do you think pretty much the entire religious world is fighting against gay marriage, especially our LDS religion? Its because we are fighting to preserve the fatc that marriage really is a religious institution ordained by God for his children. This is a religious right and with it carries the divine purpose of bringing children into the world- Gods children I might add. 1. ALL morality is based on the rule that you should not do to someone else what you wouldn't want done to you. Also known as the Golden Rule. 2. Divine providence is nowhere provided for by the US Constitution. 3. I'm not totally convinced that we are moral creatures. Last I looked we do need a Savior because we can't follow the Golden Rule. 4. God is nowhere even mentioned in the US Constitution. We are not governed by God. We are governed by men. Under our laws We the People get to decide. Not Kings, not Popes, not Prophets. Moreover until God comes back and rules over all the earth. I want a say in how I am governed. 5. No we are NOT FREE because of God. We are free because we choose to be. Moreover we fight bloody wars to obtain and maintain that freedom. 6. The Founders were of debatable morals, and we don't, by in large, believe in the same God(There were many Deists in that bunch) as they did. Moreover some were atheists. Ever hear of Thomas Paine his writings more than any others provided the moral rationale for the American Revolution. He was an atheist. Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson, while not an atheist, he rewrote the Bible removing all references to God(s), deity, and the supernatural. 7. Courts of law don't decide morals. You can be a money grubbing lecherous old freak, and as long as you don't violate the law. The law has no claim on you. They are integral to deciding law. 8. Courts of law have an affirmative responsibility to decide what if any laws are, and how they effect marriages. If you don't like a particular ruling by a court of law. You do have the right of appeal, and if you so desire band together, with sufficient people, change that law. In this country that is called a majority of the votes. 9. God can recognize any marriage he wants to. The law, in the US, is that ANY with recognized proper legal authority can perform the wedding ceremony. I could if I wanted to could obtain the necessary legal clearance to perform the ceremony. Though I doubt the Church would be thrilled if I invoked its name in it. 10. What you believe is between you and God. What you do is between you and the State. That being said I oppose SSM but not upon legal grounds, but because of my morals grounds. Which is not sufficient to deny those that want it a SSM. 11. Moral grounds alone are insufficient to deny SSM rights. For thousands of years, and hundreds of years in the US, it was considered immoral, and illegal for people of differing races to intermarry. Add in that Bible decries marriage between differing religions. You'd be pretty surprised at what the Bible requires. 12. In the US religions are permitted to perform the wedding ceremony, and have the State recognize them. We(The US) doesn't get of marriage laws from God, the Bible, or the supernatural. We do get them from the ancient Romans, by way of the British. More to the point. If all men were angels no government would be necessary; If all men were devils, no government would be possible. 1
thesometimesaint Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Most were originally based on English common law. We normally resort to humanistic reasoning now because there is such a lack of agreement in religion. Those English got them from the Romans. Even the word Britain is a Roman word.
jwhitlock Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 I think Whitlock you are now using words with pet definitions.My Jewish friends are very fond if the word "tolerance." But they often don't tolerate evangelism by Christians in their communities. Does that mean that the word has a new meaning?Tolerance was a concept Joseph Smith taught. We have to embrace it. God tolerates sin but does not endorse it. Not at all. The term tolerance is broad enough that you have to define how you're using it. In it's most basic sense tolerance is unqualified and so anything goes. I disagree that God tolerates sin. He allows it to exist here but He does not tolerate it in His presence. Joseph did not teach unrestrained tolerance. It was far more directed to individual situations and circumstances and not broadly defined as acceptance of everything without qualification.
Stone holm Posted November 17, 2013 Posted November 17, 2013 Those English got them from the Romans. Even the word Britain is a Roman word.Some, not all much of the common law was Biblical based, so it would be as accurate to say it was based on Hebrew law.
Recommended Posts