Ssm And Church "moral" Activism In Political And Judicial Forums

[Stone holm]

I am reminded of a quip by Will Rogers. He indicated there was a big house fire the other night, the house would have burned down in a matter of an hour, but the volunteer fire department kept it going all night. I am beginning to believe we want this issue to remain a divisive issue so we do not have to confront some real issues.

[guerreiro9]

I am reminded of a quip by Will Rogers. He indicated there was a big house fire the other night, the house would have burned down in a matter of an hour, but the volunteer fire department kept it going all night. I am beginning to believe we want this issue to remain a divisive issue so we do not have to confront some real issues.

Is this your view on all issues or just same sex marriage? If certain segments of a society are trying to promote actions that the Church views as amoral would you ever support the Church voicing its opinion in opposition?

-guerreiro9

Edited March 9, 2014 by guerreiro9

[Stone holm]

Is this your view on all issues or just same sex marriage? If certain segments of a society are trying to promote actions that the Church views as amoral would you ever support the Church voicing its opinion in opposition?

-guerreiro9

Homosexuality is not amoral, it is immoral. The Church has a duty to proclaim immorality, and to call people to repentance. However, I know of nothing whereby the Church is commanded to force adherence to our beliefs and standards via legislation. However, by entering the political and judicial forums to combat behavior which we deem behavior which does not conform to our standards that is another matter. This cultural war is lost, and what we are now accomplishing by our political aggression is keeping the strife going without convincing anyone to repent. But, we are becoming known primarily for our political aggression. That is appealing to a minority which believe that the US should be a theocracy, but it alienates those who might otherwise stop and listen to our gospel, and actually voluntarily conform to our beliefs and behavioral standards.

[Tacenda]

Being homosexual is just being what you are at birth. How could a human being be called immoral for just being and not for doing. You fight to keep religion out of the government but in your post above it didn't help the situation by connecting being homosexual to being immoral. We need to be careful around LGBT, that talk is what drives the suicide rate up. It is fresh on my mind after listening to a podcast discuss the suicide that is happening over and over with these people that are every bit as moral as the next guy.

[Calm]

Studies have shown that suicides go up with talk about prevention. It may not always be wise to talk about it if the goal is to decrease it. There may be better ways to help including avoiding any publication of them.

[california boy]

Homosexuality is not amoral, it is immoral. The Church has a duty to proclaim immorality, and to call people to repentance. However, I know of nothing whereby the Church is commanded to force adherence to our beliefs and standards via legislation. However, by entering the political and judicial forums to combat behavior which we deem behavior which does not conform to our standards that is another matter. This cultural war is lost, and what we are now accomplishing by our political aggression is keeping the strife going without convincing anyone to repent. But, we are becoming known primarily for our political aggression. That is appealing to a minority which believe that the US should be a theocracy, but it alienates those who might otherwise stop and listen to our gospel, and actually voluntarily conform to our beliefs and behavioral standards.

 

Your cause is noble, but I think it falls on deaf ears.  It is clear that the Mormon leadership likes control.  They want to control what others do in their lives even when they are not members.  This is what the political activism is all about.  It has never been about decreasing morality in society.  Not allowing people to marry does not decrease morality in society, it increases it.  Not allowing people to marry does not make things better for children, it makes things worse.  Not allowing people to marry does nothing but control what other people do in their lives.  

 

If this was really about declaring repentance for sin, the only thing we would hear from the church pulpit is "homosexual relations is sinful in the eyes of God."  It would be treated like any other moral sin, adultery, fornication, etc.   There is only one reason why the church continues to get into the fight over gay marriage:  control.  They thought they could control how homosexuals live their lives.  They misjudged peoples fundamental belief in equality and freedom under the law.  And now the church has a reputation of being bigoted and prejudice against gays.  What a shame.

[Stone holm]

Your cause is noble, but I think it falls on deaf ears.  It is clear that the Mormon leadership likes control.  They want to control what others do in their lives even when they are not members.  This is what the political activism is all about.  It has never been about decreasing morality in society.  Not allowing people to marry does not decrease morality in society, it increases it.  Not allowing people to marry does not make things better for children, it makes things worse.  Not allowing people to marry does nothing but control what other people do in their lives.  

 

If this was really about declaring repentance for sin, the only thing we would hear from the church pulpit is "homosexual relations is sinful in the eyes of God."  It would be treated like any other moral sin, adultery, fornication, etc.   There is only one reason why the church continues to get into the fight over gay marriage:  control.  They thought they could control how homosexuals live their lives.  They misjudged peoples fundamental belief in equality and freedom under the law.  And now the church has a reputation of being bigoted and prejudice against gays.  What a shame.

Well of course we are prejudiced against gays because they are defined by their actions and we consider homosexual behavior sinful. To that extent we will always be considered bigots, but there are many religions who believe the same, the difference is they have not become political.

[emarkp]

It is clear that the Mormon leadership likes control.  They want to control what others do in their lives even when they are not members.

Of course this is a contemptible lie, untethered from reality.

[Danzo]

Being homosexual is just being what you are at birth. 

 

CFR that sexual orientation can be determined at birth.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Danzo

[cdowis]

delete

Edited March 9, 2014 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

Of course this is a contemptible lie, untethered from reality.

Possibly, but much depends upon perception. So when we backed Prohibition, and now when we fight SSM, it does give the perception that we are trying to dictate standards to non members. The success of such efforts is almost always unlikely, and rarely ends up looking good in the course of history. Perception is not something we can ignore at will. The public perception is that we are forcing our religion on others, and are devoting considerable resources to that effort. Once the amount of money devoted to adopting Prop 8 became public and the amount coming from Mormons estimated, the culture war was lost. Prior to Prop 8 , it was unlikely that SSM would be accepted in the short term, however, as soon as Americans learned that it was religious organizations funding the adoption of their beliefs as law, the jig was up.

[rodheadlee]

, however, as soon as Americans learned that it was religious organizations funding the adoption of their beliefs as law, the jig was up.

Yeah 'cause we should never try to create a place where we can live to the dictates of our religion. I once asked on a thread that was shutdown "Why do you think the Saints migrated to Utah?"  The next poster totally missed the point and brought up persecution. The point is where can we live our lives as we deem fit to live them?  This is what drove the initial migration of religious people from Europe to the US. Shall we migrate to another planet?

[thesometimesaint]

CFR that sexual orientation can be determined at birth.

 

I know of nothing that says it is determined at birth. However sexual identity is established between 2 and 5 years old.

[thesometimesaint]

Possibly, but much depends upon perception. So when we backed Prohibition, and now when we fight SSM, it does give the perception that we are trying to dictate standards to non members. The success of such efforts is almost always unlikely, and rarely ends up looking good in the course of history. Perception is not something we can ignore at will. The public perception is that we are forcing our religion on others, and are devoting considerable resources to that effort. Once the amount of money devoted to adopting Prop 8 became public and the amount coming from Mormons estimated, the culture war was lost. Prior to Prop 8 , it was unlikely that SSM would be accepted in the short term, however, as soon as Americans learned that it was religious organizations funding the adoption of their beliefs as law, the jig was up.

 

Utah voted down Prohibition.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah 'cause we should never try to create a place where we can live to the dictates of our religion. I once asked on a thread that was shutdown "Why do you think the Saints migrated to Utah?"  The next poster totally missed the point and brought up persecution. The point is where can we live our lives as we deem fit to live them?  This is what drove the initial migration of religious people from Europe to the US. Shall we migrate to another planet?

 

Onwards to Kolob. Your religious right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

[Tacenda]

CFR that sexual orientation can be determined at birth.

CFR is met when you ask one.

[Bikeemikey]

Yeah 'cause we should never try to create a place where we can live to the dictates of our religion. I once asked on a thread that was shutdown "Why do you think the Saints migrated to Utah?"  The next poster totally missed the point and brought up persecution. The point is where can we live our lives as we deem fit to live them?  This is what drove the initial migration of religious people from Europe to the US. Shall we migrate to another planet?

Are you suggesting that in order to create such a place we must ensure that those who live by dictates different to our own are not allowed in?

That's kinda what it sounds like - please clarify.

[california boy]

Of course this is a contemptible lie, untethered from reality.

I wish that was true, but unfortunately it is not.  Maybe you could point what part of what I said is a contemptible lie?

[Kenngo1969]

Onwards to Kolob. Your religious right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

CFR.  I'm sorry, if someone in the thread is claiming a religious right to practice battery as a religious rite, I missed it.  Could you kindly point me to that post?  Thanks in advance.

 

[Stone holm]

Utah voted down Prohibition.

But Joseph F Smith be wailed its demise

[Stone holm]

Yeah 'cause we should never try to create a place where we can live to the dictates of our religion. I once asked on a thread that was shutdown "Why do you think the Saints migrated to Utah?"  The next poster totally missed the point and brought up persecution. The point is where can we live our lives as we deem fit to live them?  This is what drove the initial migration of religious people from Europe to the US. Shall we migrate to another planet?

I assume we are talking Pilgrims and Puritans here. Which is interesting since Massachusetts was the last State to give up its established Church. The myth is that the Puritans were seeking religious freedom. What they were seeking is a theocracy that was governed by their Calvinist beliefs. Religious freedom is more akin to what Pennsylvania was doing where they sought freedom to practice their beliefs and wished to allow others the right to practice what they believed. I don't think anyone is trying to prevent us Mormons from practicing our beliefs, the objection is when we try to force others to abide and conform to our beliefs. You know like the other plan in the war in Heaven.

[frank_jessop]

"moral activism" is just new speak that attempts to conceal political activities..

[frank_jessop]

I don't think anyone is trying to prevent us Mormons from practicing our beliefs, the objection is when we try to force others to abide and conform to our beliefs.

Precisely.

Edited March 9, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Stone holm]

"moral activism" is just new speak that attempts to conceal political activities..

And not very well concealed.

[awyatt]

I assume we are talking Pilgrims and Puritans here. Which is interesting since Massachusetts was the last State to give up its established Church. The myth is that the Puritans were seeking religious freedom. What they were seeking is a theocracy that was governed by their Calvinist beliefs. Religious freedom is more akin to what Pennsylvania was doing where they sought freedom to practice their beliefs and wished to allow others the right to practice what they believed. I don't think anyone is trying to prevent us Mormons from practicing our beliefs, the objection is when we try to force others to abide and conform to our beliefs. You know like the other plan in the war in Heaven.

 

This is always an interesting casting of the narrative, to me.

 

A person grows up believing X is the way life should be. Society agrees, and X is codified in law, and has been for generations. Along comes a person who believes that Y is a better way of life. One rhetorical device used by the person is that anyone who disagrees with the person about Y is cast as "trying to dictate that others should live by X."

 

Problem is, the only thing the person is trying to do is stop the acceptance of Y and the jettisoning of X. But, it is trendy to say that X is a bigoted belief and Y is kinder, gentler, and more loving. Society changes the laws so that not only is Y the law, but X is completely shamed and any promotion of X--despite its long history of acceptance, acceptability, and societal value--is rejected out of hand.

 

Perceptions are fickle and don't always accurately represent reality. Mormons don't want to "force others to abide and conform to our beliefs," but to defend a way of life that is worth defending. Someone needs to be willing to stand up and defend it. If not Mormons, then who?

 

-Allen