Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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

Stone holm

By Stone holm
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

frank_jessop Rising Star

frank_jessop

Posted
Posted

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

D&C 134:9

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

In the United States are there religions that accept ssm and the Priest of those religions willing to officiate ssm?

Stone holm Grand Master

Stone holm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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

The problem with this is that x is society as a whole, and whether any group of individuals has the right to dictate that because of their religious beliefs X must remain what it is. To my knowledge no one has argued that heterosexuals must only marry people of the same sex. The Jews do not require that we abstain from pork, nor do we require Jews to eat pork. We do not require that non Mormons abstain from coffee, and no one is requiring us to drink coffee.

california boy Grand Master

california boy

Posted
Posted

D&C 134:9

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

In the United States are there religions that accept ssm and the Priest of those religions willing to officiate ssm?

I posted this partial list in another thread.  Not all are based in the US, but there are quite a few that are.  It is a topic that is being considered in almost every major Christian religion in America.  Some have embraced gay marriage, some are considering it, and some are not even close yet.

 

There have been quite a few large Christian religions that have significantly changed their position on SSM and ordaining gay clergy.  Anglican church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelic Lutheran Church of Canada, Unitarian church, some Baptist churches, Swiss Reform Church, Moravian Church, some Quakers, The United Church of Canada, (Canada's largest protestant denomination) The United Church of Christ, some Pentecostal, United Church of Australia, New Apostolic Church, Protestant churches in Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, Danish National Church, Community of Christ, some Jewish sects, have started to perform gay marriages and/or ordaining gay clergy to name a few. 

california boy Grand Master

california boy

Posted
Posted (edited)

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

 

A lot of this depends on what X is.  In the past it has included such wonderful ideas as salvery, not allowing women to vote, discriminating against blacks, Jews, gays, Catholics, etc.   I guess those that aren't effected by X have no problem keeping the status quo.  Those that X is directed against have this strange idea that the constitution guarenteed civil rights for them as well.

 

I think there were probably more than one Mormon who felt that the citizens in Missouri really didn't have a right to drive them out of the community.  I doubt many would have been ok with, well, the community likes it better without Mormons here.  So you gotta move or we will burn your homes down.  If that doesn't work we will murder you.  Even though the community might have agreed with that is how they wanted their community to be, those darn Mormons might have seen things a bit differently.

Edited by california boy
awyatt Experienced

awyatt

Posted
Posted

D&C 134:9

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

In the United States are there religions that accept ssm and the Priest of those religions willing to officiate ssm?

 

You are, of course, sidestepping what my comment was about.

 

My comment was about (1) the Church's right to defend its position and (2) the tendency of others who oppose that right (or that position) to mischaracterize the Church's actions as trying to "force others to abide and conform to our beliefs."

 

Defending the status quo isn't forcing others to do anything. It is only defending against a change that one doesn't see as advantageous.

 

-Allen

1
Storm Rider Grand Master

Storm Rider

Posted
Posted

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

 

So standing up for one's convictions can only be viewed as political. Please define political. 

1
awyatt Experienced

awyatt

Posted
Posted

The problem with this is that x is society as a whole, and whether any group of individuals has the right to dictate that because of their religious beliefs X must remain what it is. To my knowledge no one has argued that heterosexuals must only marry people of the same sex. The Jews do not require that we abstain from pork, nor do we require Jews to eat pork. We do not require that non Mormons abstain from coffee, and no one is requiring us to drink coffee.

 

I agree with you that no group of individuals (including the Church) has "the right to dictate" anything within society as a whole. If you go back and read what I wrote, that was NOT what I was saying.

 

I do, however, believe that the Church has the right to argue its position in any way it sees fit and call for others to join it in trying to shape society in a way that it views as advantageous to that society. That isn't force; it is the heart of democracy and it is consistent with the Church's principles.

 

For you (or anyone) to mischaracterize that behavior as being aggressive or forceful or like "the other plan in the war in Heaven" is intellectually manipulative. It is an attempt to dismiss the opposition without actually dealing with the issues which they raise.

 

-Allen

1
awyatt Experienced

awyatt

Posted
Posted

A lot of this depends on what X is.

 

Not really. The point I was making -- how one side conveniently mischaracterizes what the other side is doing -- has very little to do with what X really is.

 

 

I guess those that aren't effected by X have no problem keeping the status quo.  Those that X is directed against have this strange idea that the constitution guarenteed civil rights for them as well.

 

Thank you for illustrating my point. In my scenario there were two positions: X and Y. People on both sides decided to argue for their position. But supporters of Y decided that they should mischaracterize those who supported X. Such as saying that "X is directed against others" or "Y is a civil right guaranteed by the constitution." Or implying that "X is akin to slavery and other societal ills."

 

-Allen

1
frank_jessop Rising Star

frank_jessop

Posted
Posted (edited)

You are, of course, sidestepping what my comment was about.

My comment was about (1) the Church's right to defend its position and (2) the tendency of others who oppose that right (or that position) to mischaracterize the Church's actions as trying to "force others to abide and conform to our beliefs."

Defending the status quo isn't forcing others to do anything. It is only defending against a change that one doesn't see as advantageous.

-Allen

And you of course are sidestepping the issue that LDS Doctrine is that religion should stay out of government. Edited by frank_jessop
rodheadlee Grand Master

rodheadlee

Posted
Posted

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.

I"m suggesting that we have a right to seek such place and when people come to visit or move in they abide by the rules instead of trying to change the place to their rules. Why? because our rules or laws should be the same as God's rules. Don't you think that one of the reasons Heavenly Father sent the Saints to Utah was to have them be in a place where the Church could be nurtured out of it's infancy without outside interference? This place I'm speaking of is sort of mythical, at least until Christ returns. I believe it's called Zion. When He returns he'll set up a government right? A thousand year reign. Do you think we'll be abiding by His rules or our rules? I don't know maybe I'm wrong in my thinking. D&C 134 may tell me this but Mosiah 29 tells me in verse 26 Now it is not common that the avoice of the people desireth anything bcontrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the cpeople to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

  27 And aif the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

 

 So in answer to the OP maybe the GA's are trying to prevent great destruction.

1
rodheadlee Grand Master

rodheadlee

Posted
Posted (edited)

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

I don't care to swing my fist at anybody's nose. I live on a world cruiser when I don't like where I am, I just leave. I thought Zion was to be on this earth, I'm still searching for it. I don't have an FTL drive so Kolob is not on my charts.

Edited by rodheadlee
1
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted

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

But what about orientation?

Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted

CFR is met when you ask one.

No Good.

 

Anyway, how would they know what their orientation was at birth?

Do they have special memories of their birth that others don't have?

Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted

No Good.

Anyway, how would they know what their orientation was at birth?

Do they have special memories of their birth that others don't have?

You know what I meant....seriously.
Stone holm Grand Master

Stone holm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So standing up for one's convictions can only be viewed as political. Please define political. 

 

"Political" will be if the State of Utah prosecutes these people:

http://news.yahoo.com/utah-polygamous-family-says-going-tv-liberating-154510681.html

Stone holm Grand Master

Stone holm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So standing up for one's convictions can only be viewed as political. Please define political.

Political is when you either are proposing legislation or Constitutions, or defending either. You can stand up for your religious convictions, but if you do that in the form of legislation that's political.

1
Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted

 

the title of the article uses "May" which means (as you would have known if had actually read the article)  Its just one scientist's guess.

 

Also the quote from the bottom of the article

 

"to go from changes in gene expression to why someone is attracted to a person of the same sex is a question for which science may never fill in all the blanks."

 

Pretty weak 

Gray Grand Master

Gray

Posted
Posted

the title of the article uses "May" which means (as you would have known if had actually read the article)  Its just one scientist's guess.

 

Also the quote from the bottom of the article

 

"to go from changes in gene expression to why someone is attracted to a person of the same sex is a question for which science may never fill in all the blanks."

 

Pretty weak 

 

You were asking for evidence, and I provided some. Maybe you didn't really want evidence. 

Bikeemikey Grand Master

Bikeemikey

Posted
Posted

Political is when you either are proposing legislation or Constitutions, or defending either. You can stand up for your religious convictions, but if you do that in the form of legislation that's political.

 

Great answer.

Danzo Grand Master

Danzo

Posted
Posted (edited)

You were asking for evidence, and I provided some. Maybe you didn't really want evidence. 

 

Speculation, is not very good evidence.

 

I was looking for something a litter stronger than someones unsupported hypothesis.

 

You can't find anything stronger can you?

Edited by Danzo
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...