Elder Andersen Quoting Elder Oaks On Marriage Re-Definition

[Alvino]

We must not forget that the SSM debate is about redefining marriage,

 

Well, legally. You can keep your own definition, that's fine. Nothing wrong about changing either one's concepts or one's laws if new understanding comes along, is there?

 

about legalizing someone's moral definition of what they think marriage should include.

 

Don't get stuck on this. Who cares what anyone thinks? That has little importance in the discussion of whether we should change it or not, or in what the scope of law is and why. What you or I think doesn't matter. It matters that reasons work. I hope you can see the difference in these two approaches.

 

I find it ironic that LDS are accused of foisting their morals on others, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.

 

 

I'd have no problem with that. As I said, there's nothing wrong with changing one's views as new understanding is available.

 

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.

 

 

Well.... yeah, the state can do that but that isn't the issue. We want to think about whether and why it is legitimate for the state to either recognize or not SSM as marriage.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

He said, and others repeated, that we shouldn't think that Laws tolerating a certain action or behavior mean that said behavior or action is moral. That does not mean the same thing as being opposed to the laws that tolerate said behavior or action.

[Alvino]

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.

 

*sigh*

 

That is not to recognize the distinction me and others have been talking about in this thread. Gay marriage, like gay sex, can be immoral for all we know, that's fine. It doesn't follow from that that it is morally permissible for the state to prevent them from entering a legal institution like marriage. Those are different claims and the connection between them isn't obvious. It really is baffling to me the GAs haven't addressed this issue more or at all.

 

Again, that, say, masturbation is immoral doesn't mean it is permissible for the state to interfere to crack down on it. It also doesn't mean that because the laws allow for it that now it is morally permissible, no one is arguing that.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Elder Neil L. Andersen just did it in his conference sermon, quoting Elder Oaks's talk from last general conference about changes in the civil law not changing the moral law.

 

What's that doctrine about the word of God being established in the mouths of two or three witnesses?

 

If anything, Elder Andersen is being even more explicit than than was Elder Oaks.

 

Edited to add:

 

Both are members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

These are odd times, but if Gov't wants civil unions, it would not redefine marriage a understood by us and for that matter for almost every faith upon the planet. The Church has never recognized "common law" when it comes to marriage. One must be married (male and female) by the Church, or by a judge.

[stemelbow]

*sigh*

 

That is not to recognize the distinction me and others have been talking about in this thread. Gay marriage, like gay sex, can be immoral for all we know, that's fine. It doesn't follow from that that it is morally permissible for the state to prevent them from entering a legal institution like marriage. Those are different claims and the connection between them isn't obvious. It really is baffling to me the GAs haven't addressed this issue more or at all.

 

Again, that, say, masturbation is immoral doesn't mean it is permissible for the state to interfere to crack down on it. It also doesn't mean that because the laws allow for it that now it is morally permissible, no one is arguing that.

 

I agree.  it doesn't seem like any of the General Authorities are addressing the distinctions some have made on this topic.  So, perhaps we're all left to form our own opinions on the matter.

[thesometimesaint]

As much as I love our judicial system, they are increasingly flat out wrong.

 

That may be, but as long as we live in this country. It is what we have to work with.

[thesometimesaint]

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?

Totally depends of what is defined as immoral. IE;

 

Worshiping a different God.

 

Painting pictures, carvings, representations of any image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

 

Cursing

 

Taking "X" amount of steps on Sunday.

 

Not liking something your father or mother does.

 

Looking upon a woman(man) with lust.

 

Telling your wife that that dress doesn't make her look fat.

 

Keeping up with the Joneses.

 

Eating Shrimp.

 

Playing football.

 

Wearing cotton and wool.

 

Planting corn and pumpkins side by side.

 

Selling your children into slavery.

 

 

The list is endless of things that have been considered immoral but legal to do at some time in history.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

Who exactly is forcing you into a same sex marriage?

 

Who's God is the US going to use as its basis for laws?

 

I fail to see where two guys or two gals forming a legally binding union in any meaningful way effect my wife's and I's marriage.

Edited April 6, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[webbles]

I fail to see where two guys or two gals forming a legally binding union in any meaningful way effect my wife's and I's marriage.

It probably won't affect your marriage, but it will affect your children's, grandchildren's, etc.  I've been recently reading up on no-fault divorce laws.  There was very little discussion on what the consequencs would be.  Most thought that no-fault divorce would be beneficial to society.  When it was enacted, it probably affected very few of the existing stable marriages.  But 30 years later, it has affected all marriages and relationships.

[wenglund]

Elder Andersen's talk prompted me to post the following on my facebook wall:

 

I wish to join with others of my religious faith in expressing genuine love for family and friends and neighbors with same-sex attraction.

We desire only their fullness of joy, edifying fulfillment, and all the very best for them in this life and throughout the eternities.

Does this mean that we condone homosexual behavior and encourage homosexual relationships?

No…quite the opposite. We believe such things are contrary to the will of God, and thus contrary to true and eternal happiness of man. And, so, our love compels us to advocate against such things and for that which we believe to be God’s will.

I get that many, if not most people, may not currently share my belief in this regard, and may even view my beliefs as unfounded and bigoted and perhaps even worthy of ridicule and spite and grounds for firing—as in the case of the Mozzila executive.

That is their choice, just as it is my choice to stand firm in and to proclaim and promote my belief in love and gratitude. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

"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.

I think you are missing the point. There are Mormons, like myself who believe that acting upon Homosexual desires is sinful, but that legislating our religious beliefs to impose our religious standards upon others is also a form of sin.

[wenglund]

I think you are missing the point. There are Mormons, like myself who believe that acting upon Homosexual desires is sinful, but that legislating our religious beliefs to impose our religious standards upon others is also a form of sin.

 

This is puzzling to me in a number of ways.

 

First, marriage laws do not prevent homosexual from committing sin or entering into sinful relationships. So, where is the religious imposition?

 

Second, marriage laws simply and primarily define marriage. And, since marriage has, up until recently, been essentially defined as between a man and a women, then how is retaining that well-establisehd definition somehow amount to religious imposition? Isn't the real imposition in the altering of the longstanding definition?

 

Third, for hundreds if not thousands of years prior to government usurpation, marriage was a religious institution. Now that government has since determined to regulate this religious institution, then how is it a religious imposition to continue to have a say in the nature of that religious institution which government has usurped?

 

Fourth, given that the U.S. government began regulating marriage through licensing, and government licensing was first instituted on religious ground (i.e. to prevent polygamous marriages), even if one assumes it is imposing for religious people to vote their religious conscience regarding marriage laws, then why would it now be problematic for religionists to have a say in the religious institution that was usurped by the government on religious grounds?

 

Fifth, if "sin" is defined as acting contrary to the will of God, then how is it a sin to vote consistent with what one believes is God's will?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

This is puzzling to me in a number of ways.

 

First, marriage laws do not prevent homosexual from committing sin or entering into sinful relationships. So, where is the religious imposition?

 

Second, marriage laws simply and primarily define marriage. And, since marriage has, up until recently, been essentially defined as between a man and a women, then how is retaining that well-establisehd definition somehow amount to religious imposition? Isn't the real imposition in the altering of the longstanding definition?

 

Third, for hundreds if not thousands of years prior to government usurpation, marriage was a religious institution. Now that government has since determined to regulate this religious institution, then how is it a religious imposition to continue to have a say in the nature of that religious institution which government has usurped?

 

Fourth, given that the U.S. government began regulating marriage through licensing, and government licensing was first instituted on religious ground (i.e. to prevent polygamous marriages), even if one assumes it is imposing for religious people to vote their religious conscience regarding marriage laws, then why would it now be problematic for religionists to have a say in the religious institution that was usurped by the government on religious grounds?

 

Fifth, if "sin" is defined as acting contrary to the will of God, then how is it a sin to vote consistent with what one believes is God's will?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is a sin to impose conformity to your religious beliefs upon another. Freedom of religion is best protected in two ways those are preventing the government from interfering in the religious beliefs of individuals and by preventing government from passing laws whose primary purpose is to force conformance to religious beliefs. To say that marriage was originally a religious concept, a belief in which I concur, is beside the point since historically religion was always considered either an arm of the state or vice versa, however, America eventually shed itself of the idea.

[CV75]

America eventually shed itself of the idea.

By separating church and state and protecting religious freedom so that a democratic republic operates according to the will of the people as tamed by the rule of law (including a system of checks and balances), which is the best way to define and protect the rights of all regardless of their power base.

[wenglund]

It is a sin to impose conformity to your religious beliefs upon another.

 

This doesn't answer my thoughtful and challenging query. It simply reiterates your puzzling thinking..

 

Freedom of religion is best protected in two ways those are preventing the government from interfering in the religious beliefs of individuals and by preventing government from passing laws whose primary purpose is to force conformance to religious beliefs.

 

Again, even if one mistakenly assumes that retaining the traditional definition of marriage is somehow primarily a religious-based proposition (there are atheist against legalizing SSM--see HERE, and all the arguments I have made against SSM have been secular), no one is being forced to get married, nor are they prevented from being married or entering into marital relationships or from having homosexual sex. Instead, through advocacy of SSM, people are demanding homosexual conformity into the heterosexual convention and religious institution of marriage. So, if anything, you have it exactly backwards.

 

Besides, religionists believe that murder is wrong. By your "reasoning," then, murder should be allowed on the basis that laws against murder are supposedly sinfull because their primary purpose is to force conformance of that religious belief. Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

To say that marriage was originally a religious concept, a belief in which I concur, is beside the point since historically religion was always considered either an arm of the state or vice versa, however, America eventually shed itself of the idea.

 

You need to study American history a little more carefully and thoroughly. U.S. laws in general, and marital laws in particular, were steeped in and oft motivated by religious precepts and morality. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the U.S. first started issuing marriages licenses back in the late 1800's, as dictated by the Edmund Tucker Act., and it only applied to U.S. territories at the time, and was specifically intended to prevent polygamous marriages, and was indisputably the product of religious fervor.

 

So, In order for your belief to make any sense whatsoever, you would need to abandon your support of SSM (i.e. conformance of homosexuals to the heterosexual and religious convention of marriage), and advocate instead that the government get out of the marriage business altogether.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Alvino]

This is puzzling to me in a number of ways.

 

First, marriage laws do not prevent homosexual from committing sin or entering into sinful relationships. So, where is the religious imposition?

 

But marriage laws (that don't allow SSM) do prevent homosexual couples from entering this legal institution without good reason. If a legal institution of same-sex marriage is sinful, then by not legally allowing such an institution to exist the law is preventing homosexual couples to enter into a sinful relationship. So, in that respect you are just wrong. You might think there are good reasons to do so, but as long as those reasons hinge on beliefs not justifiable but by faith then that's religious imposition. 

 

Second, marriage laws simply and primarily define marriage. And, since marriage has, up until recently, been essentially defined as between a man and a women, then how is retaining that well-establisehd definition somehow amount to religious imposition?

 

 

 

Because we came to find out such a definition illegitimately prevents same-sex couples from entering such an institution. Again, you might think there are good reasons to keep such definition as 'one man, one woman' but as long as those reasons rely primarily on religious beliefs, then that's a religious imposition.

 

 Isn't the real imposition in the altering of the longstanding definition?

 

 

Not if we realize such a definition was problematic all along and prevented people that shouldn't have been from entering this institution.

 

Third, for hundreds if not thousands of years prior to government usurpation, marriage was a religious institution. Now that government has since determined to regulate this religious institution, then how is it a religious imposition to continue to have a say in the nature of that religious institution which government has usurped?

 

Well, marriage still is a religious institution. But now also a legal one. You can do everything people 'before government usurpation' did with it (except force others into or out of it). Think about it. If you don't go the legal way and perform your own religious marriage ceremonies the government won't care, and you also won't have the legal rights and benefits the government offers if you do, but neither did the people 'prior to government usurpation' have them. So, you don't lose anything, you can only win.

 

Seriously, I don't understand why you say the govt. has a say in the nature of the religious institution of marriage. You can do everything you would have done if there wasn't a legal institution of marriage. It's just bizarre to say the govt. stole the institution from you. It may have copied or mimicked it but didn't steal or usurped it since the govt. is not preventing you to practice your religious marriage any way you want.

 

Fourth, given that the U.S. government began regulating marriage through licensing, and government licensing was first instituted on religious ground (i.e. to prevent polygamous marriages), even if one assumes it is imposing for religious people to vote their religious conscience regarding marriage laws, then why would it now be problematic for religionists to have a say in the religious institution that was usurped by the government on religious grounds?

 

Government didn't start regulating religious ceremonies of marriages (except to the extent that they violate some other conditions like violently forcing someone into marriage). You can marry and de-marry in as many ways as your religious beliefs allow you to. What you can't do is claim legal benefits (that obviously weren't around before what  you call "govt. usurpation") if you don't agree to enter the LEGAL institution of marriage.

 

Fifth, if "sin" is defined as acting contrary to the will of God, then how is it a sin to vote consistent with what one believes is God's will?

 

 

I don't know if it is a sin religiously, but it certainly is a sin of the intellect. Why? Because God didn't give you instructions on how to vote on a myriad of issues and, more importantly, because you don't seem to understand what 'consistent with' implies here. "X is consistent with Y" means that there is nothing about X that contradicts anything about Y. Now, can you point out to me how it is that ALLOWING the legal institution of marriage to accept homosexual couples that want to enter it is contradictory with the proposition that it is sinful to be in a homosexual relationship? Please be mindful of the distinction again: that X is immoral doesn't mean X should not be legal; it doesn't necessarily follow.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[Stone holm]

This doesn't answer my thoughtful and challenging query. It simply reiterates your puzzling thinking..

 

 

Again, even if one mistakenly assumes that retaining the traditional definition of marriage is somehow primarily a religious-based proposition (there are atheist against legalizing SSM--see HERE, and all the arguments I have made against SSM have been secular), no one is being forced to get married, nor are they prevented from being married or entering into marital relationships or from having homosexual sex. Instead, through advocacy of SSM, people are demanding homosexual conformity into the heterosexual convention and religious institution of marriage. So, if anything, you have it exactly backwards.

 

Besides, religionists believe that murder is wrong. By your "reasoning," then, murder should be allowed on the basis that laws against murder are supposedly sinfull because their primary purpose is to force conformance of that religious belief. Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

You need to study American history a little more carefully and thoroughly. U.S. laws in general, and marital laws in particular, were steeped in and oft motivated by religious precepts and morality. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the U.S. first started issuing marriages licenses back in the late 1800's, as dictated by the Edmund Tucker Act., and it only applied to U.S. territories at the time, and was specifically intended to prevent polygamous marriages, and was indisputably the product of religious fervor.

 

So, In order for your belief to make any sense whatsoever, you would need to abandon your support of SSM (i.e. conformance of homosexuals to the heterosexual and religious convention of marriage), and advocate instead that the government get out of the marriage business altogether.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Albino did a very good job of refuting your arguments. I would simply add that the murder analogy doesn't fly because it is fundamental to the rule of law that people not be allowed to murder each other. There is a secular justification for the law. You need to be careful regarding the application of history because you have to take into account that the Federal Bill of Rights was not applied to the States until passage of the 14 the Amendment and even then not rigorously until the 20th century. Massachusetts did not give up it's established Church until the 1830 s. Finally, I have argued in the past that the best way out of this particular Constitutional dilemma would be for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether, but at this point I think the religions would raise a hullabaloo over that concept. Truth be told the religionists want government involved in marriage, they jus want to dictate that the government enforce their beliefs in the matter. And yes, I am aware that religionists cross the line and try to enforce their beliefs via legislation, anyone with the least bit of familiarity with Mormon history would realize the Attacks on Mormonism were religiously motivated. If we continue to support people mixing politics and religion, we will someday reap the whirlwind again. Of all Americans, we Mormons should be wary of the type of religious political activism we have been engaging in.

[Daniel2]

As has also been hashed out on this board, Loving vs Virginia is not an equivalent situation to SSM.

The courts, who are the authority when it comes to whether or not the two legal cases are analogous (not "this board") are consistently finding that Loving Vs Virginia IS analogous to rulings same-sex marriage.

As for conference.... society has moved on on this issue. I believe the current church leaders return to an increasingly inflexible position (now that Mitt lost and the spotlight of the so-called "Mormon Moment" has dimmed) will ultimately cause further brittleness and fractures, as inflexibility often does. As I see the larger change in society, I find myself less and less interested in trying to convince Mormons that they should be open to further revelations from God on the issue. The increase in rhetoric simply makes them less and less relevant.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Daniel2

[Stone holm]

The courts, who are the authority when it comes to whether or not the two legal cases are analogous (not "this board") are consistently finding that Loving Vs Virginia IS analogous to rulings same-sex marriage.

As for conference.... society has moved on on this issue. I believe the current church leaders return to an increasingly inflexible position (now that Mitt lost and the spotlight of the so-called "Mormon Moment" has dimmed) will ultimately cause further brittleness and fractures, as inflexibility often does. As I see the larger change in society, I find myself less and less interested in trying to convince Mormons that they should be open to further revelations from God on the issue. The increase in rhetoric simply makes them less and less relevant.

The Church and its members are entitled to be inflexible on their moral beliefs, and I would not expect us to change in that regard. I agree that continuing to try and force others to conform to our beliefs simply marginalizes not only the Church, but taints all of our faith.