Are Our Values Under Attack?

[california boy]

We don't know what, if any money, Christ spent on anything. He was a poor itinerant Jewish preacher who lived and died in relative obscurity. But whose ideas are still challenging and changing the world 2 millennia later. As to SSM I'm against it, but find no legally consistent way the outlaw it.

Oh come on.  Christ never looked to the government as a way to force morality.  This is a pretty disingenuous answer coming from you.

[thesometimesaint]

There was still 1000 years before the Christians took over.  And it wasn't the wicked immorality of the Romans that caused Christianity to be adopted as the official religion.  The whole premis is still false.

 

The Empire had largely moved well before the fall of Rome. In 285, the emperor Diocletian (r. 284–305) partitioned the Roman Empire's administration into eastern and western halves. Between 324 and 330, Constantine I (r. 306–337) transferred the main capital from Rome to Byzantium, later known as Constantinople ("City of Constantine") and Nova Roma ("New Rome"). Under Theodosius I (r. 379–395), Christianity became the Empire's official state religion and others such as Roman polytheism were proscribed. The Romans(Western Empire and Eastern Empire) were no more immoral than any other peoples of the time, and in some ways less so. The simple fact is that Byzantium was Christian by law.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh come on.  Christ never looked to the government as a way to force morality.  This is a pretty disingenuous answer coming from you.

 

I don't believe we should use government to enforce morality too far beyond the simple idea that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. My other point is that just because something is legal doesn't mean we should do it.

Edited April 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

Wait, "look what happened to Rome???"  The Roman empire started in 500 BC.  It split in two in 475 AD,  The Eastern Roman Empire lasted until 1453 AD.  That is about 2000 years.  The United States has to last another 1800 years to match the Romans.  Looks like the Romans system of allowing individuals to make morality choices worked pretty good to me.  It actually wasn't until the Romans embraced Christianity that the empire began to fall apart and eventually split.  So if you are going to use the Romans as a judge, it would be much safer to outlaw Christianity than to pass laws against morality.  

I think that Rome's age of decadence didn't last that long. Every empire when they begin to fail adopts certain traits. In Rome, they began once again the gladiator games, had cooking personalites, and had an aiitutue of eat, drink and be merry for tomorow we die a sense of amoralism. And with morality it was a amoral free for all. And then the fall occurred. Here is an interesting video:

 

 

Watch from 7:25-14:10

 

The whole video is quite an education.

Edited April 14, 2014 by why me

[blackhat]

Increasingly, the counsel from church leaders is that the saints must have the courage to defend our values. My question is: "How are our values under attack?"

The desire of gays to legally marry doesn't seem to present any more of a "threat" to our law of chastity than does the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal everywhere is a threat to the Word of Wisdom.

I don't see how our inability to impose our standards on others constitutes a threat to our religion. Somebody please show me the error of my ways.

what a your Value, Are you trying your very best to live the stander of the gospel, What is our reason to be on the earth at this time.( to prove or self worth to return to or Father in Heaven,)

so Is the stander you talk about, living those stander proving me worthy, (goal the Lord set) to  return back to our father in heaven? Will it let me having a closer walk with the Lord each day? Are those stander breaking any commandment the Lord giving us to live?  Living those stander, am i obey the laws of Obedience? Each and every day we get attack with thought and Ideal from all around us, tell us it all right to break one of the Lord commandment. So each day we have to set or Stander higher, To have a stander worthy so we can have a daily walk with the Lord each and every day. I personally want the Blessing you get from Having a daily walk with him. Do you feel that being disobedience to the commandment, that you will get the same blessing from that  those who try to be Obedience ? So what stander do I choose this day to live ? .  .    

[teddyaware]

what a your Value, Are you trying your very best to live the stander of the gospel, What is our reason to be on the earth at this time.( to prove or self worth to return to or Father in Heaven,)

so Is the stander you talk about, living those stander proving me worthy, (goal the Lord set) to  return back to our father in heaven? Will it let me having a closer walk with the Lord each day? Are those stander breaking any commandment the Lord giving us to live?  Living those stander, am i obey the laws of Obedience? Each and every day we get attack with thought and Ideal from all around us, tell us it all right to break one of the Lord commandment. So each day we have to set or Stander higher, To have a stander worthy so we can have a daily walk with the Lord each and every day. I personally want the Blessing you get from Having a daily walk with him. Do you feel that being disobedience to the commandment, that you will get the same blessing from that  those who try to be Obedience ? So what stander do I choose this day to live ? .  .

Throughout all ages of sacred history, whenever the Prophets have indicated that a people were abandoning God and beginning to ripen in iniquity, there always were those naysayers who said the Prophets were alarmists who were overstating the degree to which those people were descending into wickedness. But not to worry, this attitude of contradiction and denial against the declarations of the living Prophets is par for the course and is an example of how there will always be opposition in all things. What held true in the past will hold true in the 21st century: There will always be those who will protest against the Prophets by saying they are harshly exaggerating the wrongdoings of the people they are calling to repentance.

Speaking of the people of Jerusalem and the Holy Land who had fully ripened in iniquity and were about to be destroyed by Babylon in divine judgment against their wickedness, Laman and Lemuel said:

22 And we know that the people who were in the land of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept the statutes and judgments of the Lord, and all his commandments, according to the law of Moses; wherefore, we know that they are a righteous people; and our father hath judged them, and hath led us away because we would hearken unto his words; yea, and our brother is like unto him. And after this manner of language did my brethren murmur and complain against us. (1 Nephi 17)

Edited April 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[rodheadlee]

So why shouldn't adultery be illegal? It's been a motive for murder for centuries.

[thesometimesaint]

So why shouldn't adultery be illegal? It's been a motive for murder for centuries.

 

If you're looking for an excuse any will do.

[pogi]

Wait, the church members throw 40 million dollars to fight gay marriage to deny gays the right to marry, but shrug their soulders at divorce, fornication and adultery?  It is estimated that 3% of the population is gay.  Of that only about 10% choose to marry. So you are dealing with a problem of only .03% of the population.  Quite honestly, this looks solely like a targeted attack on gays and not an attack on immorality.   Perhaps this helps you understand why gays feel like the church hates them.  

 

The church didn't simply leave this issue of morality up to a vote, the church out spent every single group combined for a problem tha effects .03% of the population.  How much does the church spend when legalization of prostition or marajuana comes up for a vote?  Can any member in good conscious sit there and say that the church does not have a problem with gays?  Would you say that the reputation of the church being bigoted against gays has some grounds for being true?

 

I don't know the church's reasons.  Perhaps they view the redefining of marriage and family as a greater threat to marriage and family than marijuana or prostitution.  Perhaps they view the legalization of marijuana as a lesser evil than the war on drugs.  I do.

 

They are not going to try to ban divorce when there are legitimate reasons for divorce.  Adultery and fornication are already illegal in Utah believe it or not. This is from wikpedia:

 

In Utah adultery is a class B misdemeanor. The adultery law only applies to the married party (the law states that "A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.”) However, Utah also has a fornication law that applies to any unmarried person (also a class B misdemeanor). 

 

I think it is the redefining or marriage and family that the church finds especially troubling.  I really don't view this as a targeted attack on gays, I really think that they feel that the future family in America is threatened by this legislation in more ways than just homosexuality.

[USU78]

So why shouldn't adultery be illegal? It's been a motive for murder for centuries.

 

It was . . . in nearly every culture and at every time (that we have records of) . . . until relatively recently.

[USU78]

I don't know the church's reasons.  Perhaps they view the redefining of marriage and family as a greater threat to marriage and family than marijuana or prostitution.  Perhaps they view the legalization of marijuana as a lesser evil than the war on drugs.  I do.

 

They are not going to try to ban divorce when there are legitimate reasons for divorce.  Adultery and fornication are already illegal in Utah believe it or not. This is from wikpedia:

 

In Utah adultery is a class B misdemeanor. The adultery law only applies to the married party (the law states that "A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.”) However, Utah also has a fornication law that applies to any unmarried person (also a class B misdemeanor). 

 

I think it is the redefining or marriage and family that the church finds especially troubling.  I really don't view this as a targeted attack on gays, I really think that they feel that the future family in America is threatened by this legislation in more ways than just homosexuality.

 

 

Archbishop Wiegand of the San Fran Archdiocese had previously been the Bishop of the Cathedral of the Madeleine in SLC.  In that position he came to know several people in the Church hierarchy, including GBH.  His flock and his brother bishops and archbishops had the will to defend marriage against Court attacks by backing Prop 8, but little know-how and human (volunteer) resources.  So he placed a call, and GBH said, "Sure, we'll help out.  What do you need?"

 

So the LDS Church got involved, not as a corporate body, other than lending logistics and whatnot, and local leaders called local members to be boots on the ground and checkbook supporters.  These callings, however, were not in the nature of Church callings, but rather requests for involvement.  No "no" answer would reflect badly on anybody asked to become involved.

 

california boy knows all this.  He and I along with many others talked about it almost daily as the Prop 8 battle waged.  He is not being candid in the post you responded to.

 

Nobody Ever Denied Anybody Any Civil Right.

 

What the Prop 8 backers sought is a return to status quo ante on the subject.

[pogi]

Essentially yes, but I do believe in the idea that we do have a responsibility to each other. IE; My children are all out of the nest. They have children of their own. But I still pay taxes to support the schools, libraries, parks, etc., etc., etc., that my grandchildren, my neighbors and fellow citizens use.

 

You believe in the idea that we have a responsibility to each other in what way?  Because it sounds like you are saying that we SHOULD have a legal moral responsibility to each other.  Why should this monetary moral responsibility be forced and not others?  It seems to me that your belief is an infringement upon my property, and one could argue my liberty, in that I have to spend my time working to support others.  This belief of your's is contrary to your legal ideas.  You are setting a precedence for other moral laws.  That's a good start I guess.

[Stone holm]

So why shouldn't adultery be illegal? It's been a motive for murder for centuries.

It used to be illegal in many States.

[thesometimesaint]

You believe in the idea that we have a responsibility to each other in what way?  Because it sounds like you are saying that we SHOULD have a legal moral responsibility to each other.  Why should this monetary moral responsibility be forced and not others?  It seems to me that your belief is an infringement upon my property, and one could argue my liberty, in that I have to spend my time working to support others.  This belief of your's is contrary to your legal ideas.  You are setting a precedence for other moral laws.  That's a good start I guess.

 

From Shakespeare's King Lear, 1605:

KING LEAR:

Thou think'st 'tis much that this contentious storm

Invades us to the

skin: so 'tis to thee;

But where the greater malady is fix'd,

The lesser is scarce felt. Thou'ldst shun a bear;

But if thy flight lay toward the raging sea,

Thou'ldst meet the bear i' the mouth. When the

mind's free,

The body's delicate: the tempest in my mind

Doth from my senses take all feeling else

Save what beats there. Filial ingratitude!

Is it not as this mouth should tear this hand

For lifting food to't? But I will punish home:

No, I will weep no more. In such a night

To shut me out! Pour on; I will endure.

In such a night as this! O Regan, Goneril!

Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all,--

O, that way madness lies; let me shun that;

No more of that.