jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Should the govt, an institution without a prophetic leader or the priesthood, be given the authority to enforce gods moral law?How could they do this without gods authority or revelation? That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about our actions as members of both the church and society, and what we support and oppose as our right as citizens.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I'm not sure, I've never had the chance to talk with him about it. However, you just had a chance to listen to him talk about this very subject.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 This type of thinking rules in many of the oppressive theocracies we see in the Middle East. Would you support making premarital sex, watching rated "R" movies, swearing, wearing immodest clothing, shopping on Sundays, and disobedience to the WoW as illegal activities? There's a difference between mandating obedience to one's religious belief, and opposing the opening up and legalization of that which is demonstrably harmful to society. It doesn't matter whether it's perceived as an issue of morality or not. In addition, I reject the characterization of what I said as the type of thinking that exists in oppressive theocracies. The issues relating to the interactions of morality and law are far more complex than that kind of simplistic pronouncement.
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 However, you just had a chance to listen to him talk about this very subject. I did and concluded that I can be possible to oppose SSM while tolerating the legality of it.
Tiki Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Moral law should be based on morality. Civil law should be based on property rights, contractual security, and freedom from harm.What? You're not even making any sense. What is "moral law?"Morality is the distinction between right and wrong or of good and bad behavior.Civil laws should be based on morality and homosexual behavior causes harm, harm to the individuals involved, harm to children raised in same-sex unions and harm to society, since society is made up of individuals.What you're promoting is what population control advocates want: child abortion and homosexuality. Then the same has to lie that it is not but some nonsense being about "love" or "womens' rights." It's a way for the Devil to frustrate the Plan of Salvation as has been regularly taught and warned against by our Priesthood leaders.Planned Parenthood's on Homosexuality & Marital Rights:PP has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970) & In 1974 the United Nations held a World Population Conference in Bucharest. Following this conference the Population Council endorsed abortion as a birth control measure. This position was not exactly new as Planned Parenthood and Hugh Moore had been attempting to revise anti-abortion laws for over a decade. Planned Parenthood had consistently promoted sterilization and abortion as “family planning.” John D. Rockefeller 3rd focused on abortion rights and sex education after Bucharest and placed these issues under the term “women’s rights.” Rockefeller also embraced homosexual rights as part of this program.http://www.depopulation.newworldorderuniversity.com/Wordpress/?p=70http://www.un.org/en/development/devagenda/population.shtml
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about our actions as members of both the church and society, and what we support and oppose as our right as citizens. Exactly and should we as religious adherents allow Govt to be given charge of administering Gods moral law knowing they have neither authority or mandate to do so? You say that is better despite the obvious limitations and I say given the issues with have civil govt administering gods moral law we should instead demand they fulfill a more limited role.
Tiki Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 This type of thinking rules in many of the oppressive theocracies we see in the Middle East. Would you support making premarital sex, watching rated "R" movies, swearing, wearing immodest clothing, shopping on Sundays, and disobedience to the WoW as illegal activities?These were and some are still illegal! Study history. Study movie ratings. And for your information, smoking is now illegal in many public places as is driving or operating equipment while under the influence, or swearing and being immodest in many municipalities.
Tiki Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Exactly and should we as religious adherents allow Govt to be given charge of administering Gods moral law knowing they have neither authority or mandate to do so? You say that is better despite the obvious limitations and I say given the issues with have civil govt administering gods moral law we should instead demand they fulfill a more limited role.What?? This is ridiculous. You have no sense whatever.
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 What? You're not even making any sense. What is "moral law?"Morality is the distinction between right and wrong or of good and bad behavior.Civil laws should be based on morality and homosexual behavior causes harm, harm to the individuals involved, harm to children raised in same-sex unions and harm to society, since society is made up of individuals.What you're promoting is what population control advocates want: child abortion and homosexuality. Then the same has to lie that it is not but some nonsense being about "love" or "womens' rights." It's a way for the Devil to frustrate the Plan of Salvation as has been regularly taught and warned against by our Priesthood leaders.Planned Parenthood's on Homosexuality & Marital Rights:PP has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970)&In 1974 the United Nations held a World Population Conference in Bucharest. Following this conference the Population Council endorsed abortion as a birth control measure. This position was not exactly new as Planned Parenthood and Hugh Moore had been attempting to revise anti-abortion laws for over a decade. Planned Parenthood had consistently promoted sterilization and abortion as “family planning.” John D. Rockefeller 3rd focused on abortion rights and sex education after Bucharest and placed these issues under the term “women’s rights.” Rockefeller also embraced homosexual rights as part of this program.http://www.depopulation.newworldorderuniversity.com/Wordpress/?p=70http://www.un.org/en/development/devagenda/population.shtml Moral Law, Gods Law... call it what you will. As I have already said, broader moral law is up to God. Civil laws, as I have already stated and is my opinion, should be based on a very narrow subset of that broader moral law.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 You're against it, but still think it should be legal?Why not defend the concept that Civil law should be based on Morality?To what other types of immorality are you opposed but you believe should be legal? Theft? Murder? Actually, after thinking about this post for a bit, it's not as extreme as one would think. Murder? Think about laws concerning abortions of convenience. Theft? Think about the abuse of Eminent Domain, of excessive taxation, of frivolous lawsuits that are won, of traffic photo cameras used for "speeding" and other fines. All of these things touch in some way on morality, and all "legal". 2
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I did and concluded that I can be possible to oppose SSM while tolerating the legality of it. "Tolerating"? That's different than supporting as you originally indicated. We tolerate or obey lots of things because we are forced to, but we don't support them. 1
ERMD Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 He's also praising a member for standing up when even other members disregard prophetic counsel on the topic. I wonder what the reaction of that woman's friend who criticized her on FB will be when she recognizes herself in Elder Andersen's talk. 2
frank_jessop Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 You're against it, but still think it should be legal?Why not defend the concept that Civil law should be based on Morality?To what other types of immorality are you opposed but you believe should be legal? Theft? Murder?Tiki, from which God should the laws of melting-pot Country get their morality? And be reminded that some Christian Religions believe their God accepts the matrimony of same sex couples.Also be reminded that the LDS believe it is unjust "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." D&C 134 1
frank_jessop Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 "Tolerating"? That's different than supporting as you originally indicated. We tolerate or obey lots of things because we are forced to, but we don't support them.Did the mormons of Utah vote to repeal or sustain the Prohibition? There is no conflict is recognizing the position of God, and the opposite position of Civil Government. One can support God and vote to allow things that God does not support. This is not serving two masters, this is recognizing, that in our current state where we are without a Theocracy Ruled by Christ, that we give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...also let us, as LDS, not forget the Articles of Faith. 1
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Exactly and should we as religious adherents allow Govt to be given charge of administering Gods moral law knowing they have neither authority or mandate to do so? You say that is better despite the obvious limitations and I say given the issues with have civil govt administering gods moral law we should instead demand they fulfill a more limited role. Actually, I can agree to some extent with the second sentence. However, given the fact that there is some kind of a moral aspect to just about everything the law considers, it would be next to impossible to make a hard and fast rule that morality must be kept out of civil law. In addition. we have the right as citizens to make our voices heard and to participate in the process. When others are pushing laws to legalize their standards of morality (such as SSM) that are inconsistent with ours, we have every right to oppose them.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Did the mormons of Utah vote to repeal or sustain the Prohibition? There is no conflict is recognizing the position of God, and the opposite position of Civil Government. One can support God and vote to allow things that God does not support. This is not serving two masters, this is recognizing, that in our current state where we are without a Theocracy Ruled by Christ, that we give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...also let us, as LDS, not forget the Articles of Faith. There was no vote to "sustain" it. The only vote in question was whether the amendment should be repealed. The saints in Utah were counseled by the prophet to not vote to repeal, but many did anyway. They should have let some other state be the deciding state to repeal it, and not to - in effect - give their stamp of approval to alcohol consumption.
Alvino Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) You're against it, but still think it should be legal?Why not defend the concept that Civil law should be based on Morality? Doing such a thing would have little effect on the discussion about whether SSM should be legal or not. The reason is that we will still have the now moral question: Is it moral to allow for certain immoral acts in our laws? In other words, ought the state interfere with force to stop immoral acts? If yes for some and no for others (as seems the case to me rather clearly), on which of these two categories does SSM fall and why? Edited April 5, 2014 by Alvino
Alvino Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Elder Nelson would disagree with you. I'm interested in this, jwhitlock. How do you know he would disagree? As far as I've seen, the GAs don't even talk about this distinction, much less engage it.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I'm interested in this, jwhitlock. How do you know he would disagree? As far as I've seen, the GAs don't even talk about this distinction, much less engage it. Again, he addressed this subject in his conference talk today.
Alvino Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Again, he addressed this subject in his conference talk today. I'm not talking about the subject, but about the specific distinction between what's moral and what immoralities we should allow for in our laws being recognized. Do you have any specif quote by any GA who had talked about it or, better yet, addressed it?
omni Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 (edited) There's a difference between mandating obedience to one's religious belief, and opposing the opening up and legalization of that which is demonstrably harmful to society. It doesn't matter whether it's perceived as an issue of morality or not. In addition, I reject the characterization of what I said as the type of thinking that exists in oppressive theocracies. The issues relating to the interactions of morality and law are far more complex than that kind of simplistic pronouncement. You stated: I don't believe that we can hold moral stances, recognizing that those are what is right for individuals and society, and yet say that it's ok for the government to legislate otherwise. This is exactly the thinking behind laws requiring women to be covered with the hijab in many Islamic countries. Those in power believe these actions to be moral and feel it is their duty to enforce this morality on everyone. This is what sets this country (and many other pluralistic societies) apart from the many of the oppressive governments we see around the world. There isn't one dominating religious or philosophical view point that must be accepted by everyone, we have a choice (within reason). Those religions whose doctrine requires them not to perform SSM are protected under the law, however those religions whose doctrine allow for SSM are not free to do so in much of this country - effectively stifling their religious liberties. Edited April 6, 2014 by omni 1
Bikeemikey Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I'm interested in this, jwhitlock. How do you know he would disagree? As far as I've seen, the GAs don't even talk about this distinction, much less engage it. I fully agree.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Doing such a thing would have little effect on the discussion about whether SSM should be legal or not. The reason is that we will still have the now moral question: Is it moral to allow for certain immoral acts in our laws? In other words, ought the state interfere with force to stop immoral acts? If yes for some and no for others (as seems the case to me rather clearly), on which of these two categories does SSM fall and why? We must not forget that the SSM debate is about redefining marriage, about legalizing someone's moral definition of what they think marriage should include. I find it ironic that LDS are accused of foisting their morals on others, when in fact the exact opposite is happening. However, to answer one of your other questions, the state can do several things. It can take no position, it can legalize immorality, or it can legislate structure based on morality. What the state is doing with SSM is a combination of legalizing immorality and removing legislation related to the structure of morality - something it has been doing for some time. SSM is simply the latest and most visible incarnation of this process. Unfortunately, it is also one with some significant potential negative effects.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 I'm not talking about the subject, but about the specific distinction between what's moral and what immoralities we should allow for in our laws being recognized. Do you have any specif quote by any GA who had talked about it or, better yet, addressed it? You'll have to wait for two days until the text of his talk comes up. In it he stressed the fact that what is immoral according to God cannot be made moral by law. It's still immoral, and church members should consider it so and not think that such laws make immorality ok.
jwhitlock Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 You stated: This is exactly the thinking behind laws requiring women to be covered with the hijab in many Islamic countries. Those in power believe these actions to be moral and feel it is their duty to enforce this morality on everyone. This is what sets this country (and many other pluralistic societies) apart from the many of the oppressive governments we see around the world. There isn't one dominating religious or philosophical view point that must be accepted by everyone, we have a choose (within reason). Those religions whose doctrine requires them not to perform SSM are protected under the law, however those religions whose doctrine allow for SSM are not free to do so in much of this country - effectively stifling their religious liberties. Evidently I have to repeat it again - the situation with SSM bears no resemblance to the types of Islamic or Sharia law as implemented in some repressive countries. I find it overhyped for you to compare it as such. To claim that any expression of morality in law is invalid is to ignore the fact that virtually everything legislated or ruled on has a moral aspect to it. The logical conclusion to where your argument leads is to eliminate all law, which is untenable. The recognition of SSM as part of the law of the land is not something that is as benign as you think it is. There are reasons God doesn't approve of it, and those reasons pertain to its negative effect on individuals and society. In the same way the the weakening of marriage laws to encourage living together and bringing up children outside of marriage have been bad for society, SSM simply continues that negative trend - despite attempts of SSM supporters to portray it otherwise.
Recommended Posts