Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[rockpond]

Lots of Mormons in Massachusetts are in favor of gay marriage. It seems to be an area thing with the church headquarters in heavy conservative utah.

From the SL Trib:

"In February 2008, The Salt Lake Tribune asked newly installed church President Thomas S. Monson if Mormons could disagree with church politics without being disciplined.

"That depends on what the disagreement is ... if ... [it’s] an apostasy situation, that would not be appropriate," Monson said. "If it were something political ... there’s room for opinions."

... And ...

"Later that year, the LDS Church was involved in the rancorous debate over Proposition 8 in California, encouraging Mormons to give time and money to pass the act, making marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.

Many Latter-days Saints who disagreed with the measure said they felt pressured to go along, and some reported having temple recommends withdrawn, but that was not church policy, according to general authority L. Whitney Clayton, of the LDS Quorum of Seventy, who helped spearhead the California effort.

Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction, Whitney told The Tribune. "We love them and bear them no ill will."

Edited October 2, 2014 by rockpond

[Rob Osborn]

I agree, it is by definition a "proclamation". Further defined as a "guide" by an apostle (Pres. Packer).

Where in the text does it specifically define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman?

If you really have to question that then you need to do some serious reflection and prayer. The proclamation speaks very plainly about man and woman in marriage and the powers of sexual relations only between man and wife legally married.

[rockpond]

If you really have to question that then you need to do some serious reflection and prayer. The proclamation speaks very plainly about man and woman in marriage and the powers of sexual relations only between man and wife legally married.

Okay, so you are admitting then that the Proclamation does not actually define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wonder when I eventually have children, if one or more of them turns out to be gay, I wonder what I'd want for them in their life. I know I'd want them to be happy, but I would also want them to get sealed in the temple to a spouse. My patriarchal blessing says I will never have to apologize for my children, so I've always wondered what that meant.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay, so you are admitting then that the Proclamation does not actually define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman?

It very much does define marriage exclsively as only between man and woman. How do you not get that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cite the revelation.

It already has been cited. You ignore it.

[rockpond]

It very much does define marriage exclsively as only between man and woman. How do you not get that?

 

Please quote the text that says that.

 

Note:  I already understand and believe that God ordains marriage between man and woman.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, so you are admitting then that the Proclamation does not actually define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman?

ROfl, you are delusional.

[rockpond]

It already has been cited. You ignore it.

 

Mola -- There is nowhere in the Proclamation that states that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.  It says that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman.  But it does not define it exclusively as such.

 

Since this thread is about "better understanding", I'm trying to show how someone like me can have a testimony of the Proclamation and still support gay marriage.

[rockpond]

ROfl, you are delusional.

 

Maybe you should read it again.

[tonie]

Mola -- There is nowhere in the Proclamation that states that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.  It says that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman.  But it does not define it exclusively as such.

 

Since this thread is about "better understanding", I'm trying to show how someone like me can have a testimony of the Proclamation and still support gay marriage.

 

When was this thread every about a "better understanding"? A better understanding would be understanding the Church does not speak on the subject of homosexuality that way Kimball did. A better understanding would be adopting the instruction from the Church regarding dialogue on the subject.  I do not believe Rodeo every intended this to be about a "better understanding".

[USU78]

LOL.  You do realize there was a revolution and we broke away from England in 1776 right??????????????????????

 

And you do realize that the United States did not sign the Treaty of Paris in 1783 right?????????

 

Of course each state can regulate marriage.  There is nor never has been any laws against that UNLESS they pass laws that deny rights of American citizens that are guaranteed in the Constitution.   Is this a new concept to you??  For example states can not pass a marriage law denying marriage to say any Mormon or any black or we don't allow Jews to get legally married in the state of Utah.  EVEN if the populous of the state vote to pass such a law. 

 

Seriously, READ the briefs on any of the numerous federal rulings.  That is why this issue is being decided in federal court and not state court.  It is a federal issue because it breaks federal rights specifically the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.  

 

Your presumptive interpretation of constitutional law goes against EVERY federal court in this country??? Yet you think your Interpretation is the correct one????  And just what credentials do you have to present to make your personal inturpetition have any validity?  What do you base it on.  What criteria are you basing your opinion on to go against every single federal court in this country?  A commentary of English law written in the 1700???  Please, get serious.  If this legal argument had a leg to stand on, don't you think that at least all the conservative judges that have ruled in favor of gay marriagea rights would have used it??  I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution of the United States trumps English law in the courts of America.

 

Sorry Mola, you are hitching your hopes to a guy that is certainly not very familiar with how the constitution treats state laws that deny federal rights guaranteed to all Americans.

 

1.  The legal status of the American colonies during the war and until the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was signed was "colonies in rebellion against lawful sovereign."

 

2.  The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29

 

3.  Since there was no "USA" between 1783 and 1789 (just a short-lived confederation from 1783-1789, though the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1781 during the war:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation )

 

4.  Blackstone was the true author of the American form of government (tripartite government/2 houses in the legislature) and outlined what everyone in the colonies and in England considered to be the law:  http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html .  The first article of the Treaty of Paris established the several states as the heirs to the authority of the Crown [see # 2, above].

 

5.  There is nothing in the Constitution concerning marriage.  It was never there.  The States dealt with marriage according to the common law, which applied in the several states:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

 

You are more than free to be ignorant of the above and to mock its truth, but that doesn't change anything about its truth.

 

You are likewise free to disagree that the feds never got into the marriage business until miscegenation lost support in the polls, but your ignorance of that truth doesn't change anything about its truth.

 

You, like others, simply like the results of the feds' usurpations of state prerogatives.

 

But you lack a basis for doing so, other than relying on present stare decisis, which is circular reasoning.

 

You're really getting worked up here.  What's up?

[Rob Osborn]

Please quote the text that says that.

 

Note:  I already understand and believe that God ordains marriage between man and woman.

Here-

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

Signed, sealed delivered!

[rockpond]

Here-

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

Signed, sealed delivered!

 

Yes, I'm familiar with that letter, as a member of a Bishopric I was on the receiving end when it was sent.  What is your point in citing it here as "signed, sealed, delivered!"  as it does not answer my question.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, I'm familiar with that letter, as a member of a Bishopric I was on the receiving end when it was sent.  What is your point in citing it here as "signed, sealed, delivered!"  as it does not answer my question.

Read the second link- that is officially the church position. Here-

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

 

1. True but incomplete. The American Revolution was fought and won before the first shot heard around the world was fired. I think it basically started with the trial of John Peter  Zenger

2. True.

3. True, but incomplete. The Articles of Confederation were such a failure that delegates to a constitutional convention was formed to modify them. For better or worse they didn't modify them, they throw them out nearly entirely.

4. Blackstone was not the author of American jurisprudence. Blackstone relied upon appeals to the Christian God. Something Americans such as Thomas Paine explicitly rejected.

5. True but incomplete. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The 9th Amendment allows for unenumerated rights to be retained by the people, not the state they happen to reside in. The 14th Amendment specifically states that Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

6. American common law, such as it is, does not come from English Common Law. English Common Law was determined by the rulings of whomever happened to be the autocratic king at the time. American common law, such as it is, is based on Legal Precedence established in Courts of Law established in the US Constitution and upheld by the USSC.

7. The miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

8. The "States Rights" whine has been used by demagogs and dimwits alike for centuries. IE; The Whiskey Rebellion

9. I'm not a bit "worked up" over it. I'm perfectly content to let religion to continue to assert that SSM is a sin, and that governments needs to get out of the business of prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Edited October 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Maybe you should read it again.

I am not the one that is denying what is plainly stated in it's contents. I am not the one that is trying to say that homosexual marriage will happen because I received a personal revelation that such will happen in the future. I am not the one that is down playing what the proclamation is. Maybe it is you that should read it again with the the goggles of your "revelation". Then you might get what it says.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[tonie]

1. The legal status of the American colonies during the war and until the Treaty of Paris of 1783 was signed was "colonies in rebellion against lawful sovereign."

2. The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29

3. Since there was no "USA" between 1783 and 1789 (just a short-lived confederation from 1783-1789, though the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1781 during the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation )

4. Blackstone was the true author of the American form of government (tripartite government/2 houses in the legislature) and outlined what everyone in the colonies and in England considered to be the law: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html . The first article of the Treaty of Paris established the several states as the heirs to the authority of the Crown [see # 2, above].

5. There is nothing in the Constitution concerning marriage. It was never there. The States dealt with marriage according to the common law, which applied in the several states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

You are more than free to be ignorant of the above and to mock its truth, but that doesn't change anything about its truth.

You are likewise free to disagree that the feds never got into the marriage business until miscegenation lost support in the polls, but your ignorance of that truth doesn't change anything about its truth.

You, like others, simply like the results of the feds' usurpations of state prerogatives.

But you lack a basis for doing so, other than relying on present stare decisis, which is circular reasoning.

You're really getting worked up here. What's up?

Morrill anti-bigamy act and the Edmunds-Tucker act. Reynolds v US, 1890.

Will you explain how miscegenation lossing support in the polls played into any of the three?

Edited October 2, 2014 by tonie

[USU78]

USU78:

 

1. True but incomplete. The American Revolution was fought and won before the first shot heard around the world was fired. I think it basically started with the trial of John Peter  Zenger

2. True.

3. True, but incomplete. The Articles of Confederation were such a failure that delegates to a constitutional convention was formed to modify them. For better or worse they didn't modify them, they throw them out nearly entirely.

4. Blackstone was not the author of American jurisprudence. Blackstone relied upon appeals to the Christian God. Something Americans such as Thomas Paine explicitly rejected.

5. True but incomplete. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The 9th Amendment allows for unenumerated rights to be retained by the people, not the state they happen to reside in. The 14th Amendment specifically states that Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

6. American common law, such as it is, does not come from English Common Law. English Common Law was determined by the rulings of whomever happened to be the autocratic king at the time. American common law, such as it is, is based on Legal Precedence established in Courts of Law established in the US Constitution and upheld by the USSC.

7. The miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

8. The "States Rights" whine has been used by demagogs and dimwits alike for centuries. IE; The Whiskey Rebellion

9. I'm not a bit "worked up" over it. I'm perfectly content to let religion to continue to assert that SSM is a sin, and that governments needs to get out of the business of prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

My points were in response to cb's silliness, and it was his getting "worked up" that I was mentioning.  Perhaps you missed this, since it was his response to my response to your statement that led to my post to which you responded . . . or something . . .

 

My impatience is with the whole notion of accepting uncritically the method of the usurpation as though it were decreed by G-d.  It wasn't.

 

In the first week of lawschool they teach that laws are tools, not rules, for affecting one's environment.  The tool used in the usurpation, therefore, isn't all that interesting to me.  It is, rather, the motivation behind the usurpation, which I am skeptical of, given what has ensued.

 

VA prolly would have gotten rid of its silly miscegenation law if the folks there hadn't been so oppositional defiant of the feds and the Yankees.  But, of course, the reactionaries wouldn't allow it to proceed organically.

[USU78]

Morrill anti-bigamy act and the Edmunds-Tucker act. Reynolds v US, 1890.

Will you explain how miscegenation lossing support in the polls played into any of the three

 

You understand that pre-statehood Utah was under direct control of the feds and, thus, there was nothing to usurp, right?

[rockpond]

Read the second link- that is officially the church position. Here-

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

 

I absolutely accept that that is the current position of the church.  But it is not a statement by the Proclamation that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.  That is what you claimed.  That is what I asked you to support.  And that is what you were unable to support.

[rockpond]

I am not the one that is denying what is plainly stated in it's contents. I am not the one that is trying to say that homosexual marriage will happen because I received a personal revelation that such will happen in the future. I am not the one that is down playing what the proclamation is. Maybe it is you that should read it again with the the goggles of your "revelation". Then you might get what it says.

 

Incorrect:  I have not denied what is plainly stated in its contents.  If I have, I challenge you to cite an actual reference from the Proclamation that I have disagreed with.  If you can't, than kindly stop making false statements about me.

 

I asked Rob Osborn to support the claim that he made and he was unable to do it.

 

I suspect that you dislike the fact that the Proclamation has been left open enough that gay marriage could someday be a possibility in the church.  We all have goggles.

[ksfisher]

I absolutely accept that that is the current position of the church.  But it is not a statement by the Proclamation that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.  That is what you claimed.  That is what I asked you to support.  And that is what you were unable to support.

 

The Proclamation states that "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God..."  It is true that nowhere does it explicitly state that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  However, it does not explicitly state that any other form of marriage is "ordained of God"  only that between a man and a woman is given that divine sanction. 

 

It also states that "Marriage between man and woman is essential go [God's] eternal plan."  No other form of union is mentioned as being essential go His plan.

 

The Proclamation states that "God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."  The Proclamation does not authorize these powers within any other type of union.

 

Gay marriage, sanctioned by the church, is ruled out by the above statements.

 

The teachings of modern prophets and apostles seem to be very clear.

[rockpond]

Gay marriage, sanctioned by the church, is ruled out by the above statements.

 

Technically, it is not ruled out.  It is just not "ruled in".  

 

One can believe in each one of those statements you quoted and still believe in the possibility of a revelation accepting gay marriage in the church.  That's all I'm saying.  And I'm one of those people.

[ksfisher]

Technically, it is not ruled out.  It is just not "ruled in".  

 

One can believe in each one of those statements you quoted and still believe in the possibility of a revelation accepting gay marriage in the church.  That's all I'm saying.  And I'm one of those people.

 

One could also hold out a hope that the 10 Commandments will be done away with as well.