What Exactly Are We Trying To Accomplish

[Stone holm]

Last night my wife and I had this long discussion trying to fathom exactly what the Church is trying to accomplish in joining an amicus brief in defense of Utah's SSM ban. Anybody want to take a shot at explaining the purpose served?

[Bikeemikey]

Last night my wife and I had this long discussion trying to fathom exactly what the Church is trying to accomplish in joining an amicus brief in defense of Utah's SSM ban. Anybody want to take a shot at explaining the purpose served?

Practice ?? They say it makes perfect.

[Calm]

World Peace.

[Tacenda]

They sure aren't getting on certain people's good side much.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[rodheadlee]

I don't think they care if they get on anybody's good side. By their actions I would say they are trying to cement the idea that SSM is not acceptable to Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ, the Church and has no place in the Plan of Salvation.

[The Nehor]

It gives our secret council of 50 headquartered in Manti a chance to work with a preexisting legal system so we can prepare for our imminent takeover in 2016 when the resurrected Joseph Smith runs for President.

[Okrahomer]

They sure aren't getting on certain people's good side much. The other night several pro SSM protesters were arrested at Utah's State Capital over it.

 

You are conflating two different things here.  The protest which resulted in the arrest of 13 people at the Utah State capitol on Monday had to do with the decision by Utah legislators not to consider a "non-discrimination bill" (SB 100)--a bill, incidentally, sponsored by a Republican State Senator who went to law school at BYU and apparently fashioned similarly to the non-discrimination ordinances recently passed in several Utah cities with the backing (at least in Salt Lake City) of the LDS Church.  There was nothing in their list of grievances about the amicus brief--which deals exclusively with the recent ruling by U.S. District Court judge, Robert J. Shelby.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Okrahomer

[Stone holm]

I don't think they care if they get on anybody's good side. By their actions I would say they are trying to cement the idea that SSM is not acceptable to Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ, the Church and has no place in the Plan of Salvation.

And I agree that it has no place in the Plan of Salvation, and so we are now going to legislate the Plan of Salvation?

[rodheadlee]

And I agree that it has no place in the Plan of Salvation, and so we are now going to legislate the Plan of Salvation?

No, but are we allowed to vote our conscience? Also, I think we're trying to preempt  any chance of being forced to seal SSM couples.

[Okrahomer]

And I agree that it has no place in the Plan of Salvation, and so we are now going to legislate the Plan of Salvation?

 

I believe one of the main points made in the amicus brief is that churches have a right and a duty to express their views with respect to such things.  I'm  not understanding how one comes to the conclusion that by joining the amicus brief the Church is now "going to legislate the Plan of Salvation."  Is it your belief that churches in the U.S. should remain silent about everything, or only this one thing?

[BCSpace]

Last night my wife and I had this long discussion trying to fathom exactly what the Church is trying to accomplish in joining an amicus brief in defense of Utah's SSM ban. Anybody want to take a shot at explaining the purpose served?

 

A society in which homosexuality (and other lifestyles as well) is not seen as a viable or legitimate alternative to the ideal relationship.  Such as been part of the assault on the family which by extension threatens the membership of the Church.

 

and so we are now going to legislate the Plan of Salvation?

 

Sure.  Legislated support for sin should be opposed.

Edited February 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[Stone holm]

I believe one of the main points made in the amicus brief is that churches have a right and a duty to express their views with respect to such things.  I'm  not understanding how one comes to the conclusion that by joining the amicus brief the Church is now "going to legislate the Plan of Salvation."  Is it your belief that churches in the U.S. should remain silent about everything, or only this one thing?

First off I was responding to rodheadee 's statement that suggested we were preaching a sermon to the Court. I don't believe Churches should remain silent, they have an obligation to preach the Gospel. They also have the right to defend their right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs and to defend themselves against other faiths attempting to impose their beliefs on them. I rationalized the Church's Amicus brief in Prop 8 as setting up a shield or free exercise defense with respect to SSM related activities on Church grounds. However, there comes a point, when one has to stop and ask oneself, what is it we are really trying to accomplish at this point.

[Stone holm]

A society in which homosexuality (and other lifestyles as well) is not seen as a viable or legitimate alternative to the ideal relationship.  Such as been part of the assault on the family which by extension threatens the membership of the Church.

 

 

Sure.  Legislated support for sin should be opposed.

So should we be supporting some of the laws of the Old Testament that in some cases resemble Sharia law? Just how much of the separation between Church and State should we erase in our pursuit of a sinless culture? Exactly how far are we willing to go in trying to force someone into Heaven?

[BCSpace]

The faith groups said allegations that those who uphold traditional marriage are "irrational" or "bigoted" are "false and offensive" and should not be the basis for overturning the two states’ laws.

 

Such comments are "intended to suppress rational dialogue and democratic conversation, to win by insult and intimidation rather than by reason, experience and fact," the groups said. "In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because we believe it is right and good for children, families, and society. Our respective faith traditions teach us that truth. But so do reason, long experience, and social fact."

 

So true.

 

 

Exactly how far are we willing to go in trying to force someone into Heaven?

 

How far are we willing to go to provide welfare to a lifestyle choice that brings significant risk factors to those who practice it?

[Tacenda]

You are conflating two different things here. The protest which resulted in the arrest of 13 people at the Utah State capitol on Monday had to do with the decision by Utah legislators not to consider a "non-discrimination bill" (SB 100)--a bill, incidentally, sponsored by a Republican State Senator who went to law school at BYU and apparently fashioned similarly to the non-discrimination ordinances recently passed in several Utah cities with the backing (at least in Salt Lake City) of the LDS Church. There was nothing in their list of grievances about the amicus brief--which deals exclusively with the recent ruling by U.S. District Court judge, Robert J. Shelby.

Yeah, the minute I posted I realized that, thanks for posting information what the protest was really about.

[Okrahomer]

First off I was responding to rodheadee 's statement that suggested we were preaching a sermon to the Court. I don't believe Churches should remain silent, they have an obligation to preach the Gospel. They also have the right to defend their right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs and to defend themselves against other faiths attempting to impose their beliefs on them. I rationalized the Church's Amicus brief in Prop 8 as setting up a shield or free exercise defense with respect to SSM related activities on Church grounds. However, there comes a point, when one has to stop and ask oneself, what is it we are really trying to accomplish at this point.

 

Thank you, and I apologize if I misunderstood.  I can see how an observer (who is also a believer) could look upon this episode of LDS Church history--even as it unfolds--and feel worried about the negative reactions from the broader society.  By understanding you better, I can say that I share your concern.  I'm hoping--praying--that something positive will come from it instead.

[EllenMaksoud]

Last night my wife and I had this long discussion trying to fathom exactly what the Church is trying to accomplish in joining an amicus brief in defense of Utah's SSM ban. Anybody want to take a shot at explaining the purpose served?

There is either a lot of momentum behind those who want "equal rights", or they make the media think there is a lot of support there, and I do not know which. Personally, I wish the church would just stay out of it and get on with things that are more valuable. We are not God's little committee for the assurance of virtue and modest. They have that in Saudi Arabia and if you talk to them privately it does not work.

 

Still there is a growing "push back" movement in this country and who knows where it will end?

[Kenngo1969]

We're not called to stand for what's right ... when it's easy ... or if it's popular ... or (while we're commanded to love all of our brothers and sisters) if people will love us for it ... or as long as the courts think we're on the "right" side of the law ... or as long as people think we're on the "right" side of history.  As Christ said, "If ye were of the world, the world would love you." Elder Oaks made it clear in his last General Conference address that we may well have to sacrifice these things in order to be true disciples of Christ.  As President Ezra Taft Benson said nearly a quarter-century ago, the proud care more about "What will the world think of me?", while the humble care more, "What will God think of me?"

 

P.S.: Here's Elder Oaks, from his last General Conference address:

 

Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

 

In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[emarkp]

Last night my wife and I had this long discussion trying to fathom exactly what the Church is trying to accomplish in joining an amicus brief in defense of Utah's SSM ban. Anybody want to take a shot at explaining the purpose served?

 

Standing up for truth and right?

[emarkp]

So should we be supporting some of the laws of the Old Testament that in some cases resemble Sharia law? Just how much of the separation between Church and State should we erase in our pursuit of a sinless culture? Exactly how far are we willing to go in trying to force someone into Heaven?

 

You apparently can't see the difference between forcing desired behavior vs. not enshrining wicked behavior.

 

Also, you apparently don't understand language.

 

[Buckeye]

The church's brief is quite weak from a legal standpoint. It spends most of the space presenting religious arguments and defending religious views as not bigoted. The intended audience is not the tenth circuit so much as the press, future courts that may need to decide the church's sincerity of belief, members who support SSM like Harry Reid, and especially parents of the rising generation.

[Senator]

 I think we're trying to preempt  any chance of being forced to seal SSM couples.

 

[Senator]

 

  Legislated support for sin should be opposed.

 

Dang!  The church better get busy.

[CV75]

Last night my wife and I had this long discussion trying to fathom exactly what the Church is trying to accomplish in joining an amicus brief in defense of Utah's SSM ban. Anybody want to take a shot at explaining the purpose served?

I want to know what your wife thinks.

[Gray]

Unfortunately I think they're tilting at windmills