Church Has No Right In Political Discourse?

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry that I misunderstood you.

 

No problem.

[ERayR]

 What he doesn't have a right to is a television show.

 

The TV company has the right to suspend him, which they found to be bed of quicksand and the fans of the show have a right to voice their opinion, which they did.  Makes for quite a dynamic incident, right?

[thesometimesaint]

The TV company has the right to suspend him, which they found to be bed of quicksand and the fans of the show have a right to voice their opinion, which they did.  Makes for quite a dynamic incident, right?

 

Absolutely they have that right. I didn't say whether doing it was a good idea or a bad idea. Now that Mr. Robertson has expressed his ideas on being able to marry a 15 year old. I wonder what his fan base thinks now. Given that I was in High School and a 14 year old could legally get married. Maybe his fan base loves that idea too. Dynamic? True.

[ERayR]

Absolutely they have that right. I didn't say whether doing it was a good idea or a bad idea. Now that Mr. Robertson has expressed his ideas on being able to marry a 15 year old. I wonder what his fan base thinks now. Given that I was in High School and a 14 year old could legally get married. Maybe his fan base loves that idea too. Dynamic? True.

 

Funny thing is I had only watched Duck Dynasty as I was flipping through the channels until all this fuss.  In the past week I have watched 3 or 4 episodes.  I can't say as I really want to become a fan but it does have some humor to it.

[Avatar4321]

Well I would think that if the churches policy is that gays should be celibate, and the church feels that this is an important issue to lead people back to Christ, then spend 40 million on a campaign to preach celibacy.  But preventing gay marriage does nothing to make anyone more moral.  It was like spending 40 million telling the world that gay sex is less immoral if it is done outside of marriage.  If gays will only have sex outside the bonds of marriage, then they will be closer to Christ.  Does that make any sense at all???

 

 

I don't think the Church's policies is that gays should be celibate. I think their policy is the all should come to Christ and seek out an Eternal marriage partner and multiply and replenish the earth. Just because you have temptations to engage in sexual relations with people of the same gender does not preclude you from obtaining the blessings of an Eternal Family.

 

And quite frankly, the issue isn't really preventing gay marriage. You can enter into any relationship freely and call it whatever you want. The issue is whether we as a society should recognize said relationships as marriage. They aren't. You can call them marriages all you want, it's not a marriage by definition. The point is to make marriage irrelevant. And unfortunately, it's succeeding. So the Lord seek to preserve marriage.

 

I've found that the Lord has a reason for everything. The question is do you believe the Lord is leading the Church or not?

 

All of your points may be true.  But that is not what the church spent money doing.  The church spent the money fighting gay marriage not on preaching about the power of the atonement.  The money was not spent on telling the world that sexual relations with the same gender aren't appropriate.  The money was spent telling gay people they should not marry.  Period.  If the church wants to publicly pass laws against sin, shouldn't it be about sin?  Shouldn't the church be passing laws that outlaws sex outside of marriage for everyone?  Shouldn't the church be passing laws that prevent gays from ever having sex at all?  If the church wants to become a political action pac, then it should go after laws that actually address sin.  Whether gays are having sex outside of marriage or being allowed to marry are both immoral.  Not a single moral principle is promoted.  If anything, some young people may think that since it is not important for gays to marry, then why should they?

 

 

The Church isn't really spending much money at all. Members are donating most of the money of their own accord.

 

Just because we don't believe in compelling people to rightouesness doesn't mean we should be endorsing sin.

[thesometimesaint]

Funny thing is I had only watched Duck Dynasty as I was flipping through the channels until all this fuss.  In the past week I have watched 3 or 4 episodes.  I can't say as I really want to become a fan but it does have some humor to it.

 

I've never been a fan of the show. I watched "Deadliest Catch" for several seasons, but finally just lost interest in it. Only so many crabs, and I like crab, to watch before they all look the same.

[california boy]

We have discussed that issue extensively on this very forum.

Well I certainly have heard countless opinions from many on this board why they are against gay marriage. Most of which are based on groundless fears.  I have yet to hear the reasons why the church is against gay marriage.  The only thing I have heard from the church is that they felt Prop 8 was a moral issue.  The church however NEVER explained HOW it was a moral issue.  I am still waiting for something from the church. 

 

It is easy to say that gay marriage destroys marriage or destroys families or destroys all of civilization.  It is much more difficult to say HOW it effects anything except the couple getting married.

[california boy]

I don't think the Church's policies is that gays should be celibate. I think their policy is the all should come to Christ and seek out an Eternal marriage partner and multiply and replenish the earth. Just because you have temptations to engage in sexual relations with people of the same gender does not preclude you from obtaining the blessings of an Eternal Family.

 

 

 

I am surprised you are unaware that the current church policy is that gays should remain celibate.  If that has changed, let me know.  It would have a significant impact on my life.

 

And quite frankly, the issue isn't really preventing gay marriage. You can enter into any relationship freely and call it whatever you want. The issue is whether we as a society should recognize said relationships as marriage. They aren't. You can call them marriages all you want, it's not a marriage by definition. The point is to make marriage irrelevant. And unfortunately, it's succeeding. So the Lord seek to preserve marriage.

 

 

 

Well actually we are talking about legal marriage not just the ritual.  And gay marriage does fit the definition of marriage.  Maybe not your definition but certainly the generally accepted definition of marriage.

 

 

I've found that the Lord has a reason for everything. The question is do you believe the Lord is leading the Church or not?

 

 

 

 

I do believe in the  Lord.  And I believe He does lead the church.  Do I think everything a prophet or apostle says is doctrine and comes from God?  Absolutely not.  Do you?  I personally am waiting for a revelation from God on this matter.  Until then, the churches stance against SSM is just policy not doctrine.

The Church isn't really spending much money at all. Members are donating most of the money of their own accord.

 

 

 

 

The church is the members.  Without members, is all the church is are empty buildings.  When the prophet tells the members that they should contribute all they can to Prop 8, then he was acting as president of the church.  The members were acting as members of that church.  You are trying to split hairs.  Just doesn't work and you should be willing to accept that your argument is specious.

 

Just because we don't believe in compelling people to righteousness doesn't mean we should be endorsing sin.

 

 

 

 

 

But the church evidently does believe in compelling people to righteousness since they were trying to use the law to force gays from not marrying.  And I certainly never said anything about the church endorsing sin.  Where did you get that idea?

 

None of your comments address anything that I am talking about in my posts.  

[Calm]

Preventing people from engaging in immorality is not the same thing as compelling to be moral. Neither the absence of immorality is an indication that there is morality present (someone can be amoral, but not immoral) nor it the absence of morality the indication of immorality, IMO.

One can not desire to go out and beat people up and lack also the desire to go out and help people in need.

Even if one assumes the Church was encouraging legislation that would require one to avoid sin (which IMO a law refusing to recognise gay marriage as a legal construct does not as they can still go ahead and have their behaviour be identical to without the law, the only difference is in what others call the relationship legally and what legal benefits are given), that does not in any form mean the law could compell righteousness even if the Church or anyone else wanted it to.

[california boy]

Preventing people from engaging in immorality is not the same thing as compelling to be moral. Neither the absence of immorality is an indication that there is morality present (someone can be amoral, but not immoral) nor it the absence of morality the indication of immorality, IMO.

One can not desire to go out and beat people up and lack also the desire to go out and help people in need.

Even if one assumes the Church was encouraging legislation that would require one to avoid sin (which IMO a law refusing to recognise gay marriage as a legal construct does not as they can still go ahead and have their behaviour be identical to without the law, the only difference is in what others call the relationship legally and what legal benefits are given), that does not in any form mean the law could compell righteousness even if the Church or anyone else wanted it to.

So campaigning against gay marriage had nothing to do with morality.  The only goal of the church was to take away gay peoples legal rights to marry.  Now that is an outstanding reason to get involved in politics.  What other legal rights should the church try and take away from US citizens??

[Calm]

Please demonstrate where I said it had nothing to do with morality.

Also note I was focusing on your phrase "compel righteousness".

Trying to create an environment that encourages morality and discourages immorality is not the same as forcing people to be righteous...or even trying to since it is an impossibility.

[california boy]

Please demonstrate where I said it had nothing to do with morality.

Also note I was focusing on your phrase "compel righteousness".

Trying to create an environment that encourages morality and discourages immorality is not the same as forcing people to be righteous...or even trying to since it is an impossibility.

I wasn't saying that you don't think it has nothing to do with morality.  It is me that is claiming that being against gay marriage has nothing to do with morality since I have repeatedly pointed out that whether a gay couple is married or not married, the church considers both to be immoral behavior.  So gay marriage makes absolutely no moral difference.  

 

If you think that stopping gays from marrying is trying to create an environment that encourages morality, I would love to hear your reasoning behind that.  "Don't get married, you will be in a more moral environment if you are not married???"

[Calm]

I wasn't saying that you don't think it has nothing to do with morality.  It is me that is claiming that being against gay marriage has nothing to do with morality since I have repeatedly pointed out that whether a gay couple is married or not married, the church considers both to be immoral behavior.  So gay marriage makes absolutely no moral difference.  

 

If you think that stopping gays from marrying is trying to create an environment that encourages morality, I would love to hear your reasoning behind that.  "Don't get married, you will be in a more moral environment if you are not married???"

Since LDS teach sexual activity is only acceptable within marriage, it should go without saying that if gay marriage is being discouraged, if "gay marriage" is being taught that such is a mislabel, that such a relationship is not a marriage no matter what it is called, they are also discouraging all forms of sex outside of marriage for those same people they are discouraging from being married.  To suggest that the leaders want to even allow the inference to be made that they don't care if those who do not marry because of these leaders' counsel or if they were to lose the ability to have legal recognition of the relationship, that it would be alright to go ahead and have sex as long as it is not in anything labeled "marriage" is ludicrous.

 

That would be like saying an effort aimed at reducing gang violence by telling people that it is immoral to go out with a gang and steal for a lark or whatever is like telling them it is more moral to go out and steal when one is alone.

 

As far as gay marriage making a moral difference---the sin is considered the same whether they are married or not, therefore why not allow them to be married), this does not take into account the illusion of morality that the relationship may take on in the views of those who are prone to transfer their view of heterosexual marriage on to homosexual marriage, including homosexuals themselves...thus raising the likelihood that such behaviour will be engaged in, that there will be no questioning or continual appraisal of oneself if this is wise or the best way one can live his or her life so that someday they may come to believe as well that homosexual sexual behaviour is immoral and they should change and instead they continue to live as they have done, comfortable with what they are doing, and this would be something that is harmful to the soul if it is truly immoral.  Someone may not believe at a particular place and time that what they are doing is immoral, but if their society views it as immoral, it is likely they will continue to think about the possibility that what they are doing is in fact immoral and may in time, with experience and wisdom if it is truly immoral, come to view it that themselves.

 

An analogy might be those hopefully few (assuming the folklore is accurate at all) BYU students who drive to Reno or someplace in Nevada to have a marriage on Friday night and then get divorced on Sunday so they can have guilt free sex and not risk getting kicked out of BYU or however the story goes...reasoning that they are still chaste and in full fellowship since they had sex within the bounds of marriage just as the Law of Chastity states.  And if they are never brought to an understanding that such a marriage is a sham because one of the fundamental aspects of marriage is the concept of commitment and fidelity and long term (eternal hopefully) companionship, they may continue to act in such behaviour and then engage in other activities on the same principle, (these are of course minor) making misuse of agreements by signing up for a monthly membership that allows open access to all their documents and then making copies of all documents and then ending the membership within the allowed number of days, thus getting something for free they should have paid for...but if the contract with the owners isn't written to cover that loophole, that is technically legal.  Wearing clothes while keeping the price tags on them so you can get a refund, taking a job to get them to pay for your moving to another state so you can then take a different job that didn't have that benefit or so you could make connections with the person you want to hire you or signing up for a long term commitment to a project while knowing you were going to be leaving early are more examples of using the rules to justify immoral behaviour behaviour.

 

Marriage, being one of the choicest blessings that God has given men and women (and it is no wonder to me that it is desired by so many so much that to live without it seems to them the greatest sacrifice anyone could ask of them and an unjust one as well) so be one imo that we follow God's desires and instructions on as closely as possible (and I understand that many believe that God hasn't offered any instruction differentiating "gay marriage" from "heterosexual marriage") and not take risks with by experimenting with variations on the theme that has been established for quite some time or place too much value on uncommon exceptions that have occurred from time to time in the past.

 

The BYU students in the example may have entered into a contract, but it wasn't a marriage and they have therefore committed a transgression and a sin if their understanding rose to that level (and I can't imagine a BYU student who wouldn't have that understanding, given that they are generally students with high grade point averages, good attendance at church and seminary, etc.).  When in time they entered into a committed marriage and live through years of love and hardship but faithfulness, they will likely look back in shame on what they did for a weekend's pleasure or to tweak the PTB's noses, think it was no big deal at all, later realizing that they had risked losing everything they had now by such actions.

[cdowis]

Well I certainly have heard countless opinions from many on this board why they are against gay marriage. Most of which are based on groundless fears.  

 

Nice try.  Why don't you start your own thread, because this one is going to be closed if become yet another argument over SS marriage.  That is a dead issue.