How Credible Are Assurances Of Non-Compulsory Homosexual Weddings By Lds Priesthood?

[Pahoran]

I am not sure why you are trying to rewrite history,

And I'm not sure why you are trying to rewrite my own post. I am in nowise attempting "to rewrite history."

but you do realize that Romans  governed the small little land of the Israelites.

And allowed them rather a significant degree of autonomy. Including allowing them to run their country according to Jewish (i.e. Biblical) law.

Including, but not limited to, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

 And that government during the time of Christ certainly had no problems with homosexuality.  If anything, the Romans had a much more liberal view of homosexuality than even our government does today.

I already agreed that Rome was a sink of iniquity. But they also had a much more liberal view of those who disagreed with that "liberal" view.

 And if you are familiar at all with Roman celebrations, you would certainly know better than to pretend there was not public events that were very in your face.

But not in the streets of Jerusalem.

Did you fail to read that point, or did you just choose to ignore it?

The Romans could care less what the Jews thought of their morals and beliefs.

What morals?

 

You find yourself living under similar circumstance.  Your religious beliefs may very well be in conflict with what the government practices.  Sounds pretty similar to the Jews living during the time of Christ. Yet I don't remember Christ leading a crusade against the Roman government and how they treated homosexuals of His time, do  you?  Christ seemed to be preaching a gospel of worry about your own sins and not trying to force others into submission.  Your religious beliefs or Paul's beliefs on homosexuality has nothing to do with governmental law.  It didn't at the time of Christ, and it doesn't today.

So when are you and yours going to stop "trying to force others into submission?"

(Answer: when you've succeeded. Completely. And not before.)

We're not the ones insisting that "gays" have to actively support our weddings, remember?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

No He does not. It's very simple.

Wrong again, Scott.

[Damien the Leper]

See posting, above, and no, no amount of Socialist tinkering with human institutions can make something that ain't into something that is a wedding.

Socialist tinkering? Gov. Jan Brewer whined like others about unelected judges making decisions. Apparently, she's anti-Constitution.

[Pahoran]

Wrong again, Scott.

 

That's fine, Val.

 

You stick to your opinions.  We'll stick to the Lord's.

 

Who made them in the beginning male and female.

 

And who ordained marriage in the beginning as the union of a man and a woman.

 

And who has never changed that.

 

It is merely self-serving wishful thinking on your part to suppose that He has.

 

Oh, and here's a parting thought for you: 

 

If you try to take away my right to believe in, teach and uphold the sanctity of marriage, in both my private and public life, then you are a bigot.  It doesn't matter your reasons.  You're still a bigot.  If you don't like being called that, then change.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

I am not sure why you are trying to rewrite history, but you do realize that Romans  governed the small little land of the Israelites.  And that government during the time of Christ certainly had no problems with homosexuality.  If anything, the Romans had a much more liberal view of homosexuality than even our government does today.  And if you are familiar at all with Roman celebrations, you would certainly know better than to pretend there was not public events that were very in your face.  The Romans could care less what the Jews thought of their morals and beliefs.  

 

You find yourself living under similar circumstance.  Your religious beliefs may very well be in conflict with what the government practices.  Sounds pretty similar to the Jews living during the time of Christ. Yet I don't remember Christ leading a crusade against the Roman government and how they treated homosexuals of His time, do  you?  Christ seemed to be preaching a gospel of worry about your own sins and not trying to force others into submission.  Your religious beliefs or Paul's beliefs on homosexuality has nothing to do with governmental law.  It didn't at the time of Christ, and it doesn't today.

I have to disagree here. Rome's acceptance of homosexuality was merely that a freeborn male citizen had the right to have sex as he wished as long as he was not a "bottom". Most of the targets were underage slaves, foreigners, and prostitutes. Basically a class system. You can call it many things but liberal is not one of them.

[Damien the Leper]

That's fine, Val.

You stick to your opinions. We'll stick to the Lord's.

Who made them in the beginning male and female.

And who ordained marriage in the beginning as the union of a man and a woman.

And who has never changed that.

It is merely self-serving wishful thinking on your part to suppose that He has.

Oh, and here's a parting thought for you:

If you try to take away my right to believe in, teach and uphold the sanctity of marriage, in both my private and public life, then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter your reasons. You're still a bigot. If you don't like being called that, then change.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hi, Pahoran. Good to see you posting.

I don't live under the delusion that the Adam and Eve narrative was about marriage and family in the same sense as contemporaries seem to conceptualize the text. Having read the text numerous times and having read academic commentaries on the text, I am of the opinion that the text is about relieving aloneness with togetherness and with human relationship.

Upholding the sanctity of marriage in a religious sense should not bleed over into secular government. You're more than welcome to voice your opinions beliefs publicly but they should have no bearing on secular law. I also reject government dictating the private religious sphere. The government has no business getting involved with the temples or meetinghouses.

The reality of our positions is that we disagree with each other. You believe God is on your side because of your testimony of the church and the prophet. Nothing wrong with that. I believe God is on my side based on what the scriptures say and what Jesus didn't say.

Thankfully, we live in a secular state where theocratic imperialism can be annihilated and stopped from infecting the government with its disease.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

If you try to take away my right to believe in, teach and uphold the sanctity of marriage, in both my private and public life, then you are a bigot. It doesn't matter your reasons. You're still a bigot. If you don't like being called that, then change.

This statement is in absolute agreement with the statement in my signature. Well said, Pahoran.

[USU78]

 

There is a big difference to me between a for profit business and the desire for the federal government to stop the discrimination that was going on far to long in this country and a religion.  

 

Yes, you can count on me to be right there shoulder to shoulder with you if the federal marshals ever attempt to take over any temple or ward building.  I strongly believe in following the constitution and the free exercise of religion is as clearly spelled out as the equal protection clause.

 

You obviously want some mystical reassurance that seems impossible to fulfill.  I evidently can not provide what you are looking for, especially since even you have no idea what that reassurance would be.  But I can assure you that I would fight for your constitutional rights with as much vigor as I have fought other's constitutional rights.  While you didn't ask for an answer, I am still giving you one.

 

Defending your civil rights is very consistent with my defending the civil rights of gays.  It is that simple.  

 

 

That is no answer.

 

If the feds, through legislation or SCOTUS, determine that the Church must perform SSMs in wardhouses, stake centers and/or Temples, will you stand beside me to block the marshalls from enforcing the writ?

[USU78]

Don't beat your chest so hard. You might bruise it.

This is why I find this inane issue so interesting. There is no evidence it is going to happen but the fantasy that it might enables people to cast themselves as imaginary heroes. I suspect this is why people cling to the fantasy against all reason.

 

And what fantasy is that, Nehor?

 

The fantasy that one would never be compelled to bake a cake for somebody else in violation of his conscience?  To pay for abortion medications or procedures in violation of his conscience?  To suffer a SSM celebration to be imposed on his private property in violation of his conscience?

 

All of those are happening.

 

How is it a fantasy that a little "safety valve" might be turned off at our expense?

[USU78]

You are very good at whipping up the evils of the last days and linking it to the acceptance of homosexuality in our time.  But I asked this question before and never got an answer.  Do you think that the acceptance of homosexual behavior is more prevalent now than during the time of Christ?  Did Christ think that homosexual behavior that was prevelent in His life time would bring down the rath of Satan?  What justification do you have that gay marriage will be the "wickedness" that is fulfilling the dire prophecies you site when there is no record of Christ even condemning homosexuality?  If this is the wickedness that is going to cause the end of the earth, you would think Christ would have mentioned something about it.  

 

Instead Christ talks about things like loving everyone, including your enemies.  Loving one another as I have loved you.  The gospel Christ taught is a gospel of love and inclusiveness.  When Christ defended the adulterest from those that would condemn her, somehow I think there are many in the church today that would have turned on Christ for telling them to be more concerned with their own sins than the sins of others.  What the Book of Mormon does teach is that when church members are more concerned with the sin of others then their own sins, then the end of the world will truly come.

 

He also taught:  "Go and sin no more."

 

But I guess that doesn't count for anything.

[USU78]

Another religious group forcing it's views on another group of people and wanting power over them. What do you think is going on in the Middle East?

 

As opposed to an irreligious group forcing its views on all other people and seizing power over them.

 

That's going on right here in Utah.

 

And you applaud.

[Daniel2]

That is no answer.

If the feds, through legislation or SCOTUS, determine that the Church must perform SSMs in wardhouses, stake centers and/or Temples, will you stand beside me to block the marshalls from enforcing the writ?

I will.

[Daniel2]

As opposed to an irreligious group forcing its views on all other people and seizing power over them.

That's going on right here in Utah.

Sent

I don't believe that is happening here in Utah.

[USU78]

I don't believe that is happening here in Utah.

 

Of course you don't, Dan'l.

 

You are happy to go along with redefinitions that suit you.

 

USU "I am no devil, since there is none" 78

[california boy]

That is no answer.

 

If the feds, through legislation or SCOTUS, determine that the Church must perform SSMs in wardhouses, stake centers and/or Temples, will you stand beside me to block the marshalls from enforcing the writ?

I think I said yes.  And I would be glad to say yes again.

[california boy]

He also taught:  "Go and sin no more."

 

But I guess that doesn't count for anything.

No one is saying anyting different than that.  The call to sin no more goes out to all of us.

[california boy]

As opposed to an irreligious group forcing its views on all other people and seizing power over them.

 

That's going on right here in Utah.

 

And you applaud.

 

Could you point to me where straight couples are being forced to marry the same sex in Utah?  I missed that news bulletin. Heck you are not even forced to accept anyone's marriage.  Anyones, gay or straight. 

 

I have to say, after participating in 20 pages of this tread, the only thing that has been established is there is no basis for any of your fears.  That no one has been forced to accept anyone's marriage.  That no one has been able to come up with even ONE example where a religion has had to marry anyone against their will.  That gay marriage does not require anyone to do anything against their will.   That those who want to discriminate against gays or anyone else in their business practices have to tear down the clvil rights legislation passed over 50 years ago.  And that those discrimination laws have nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

The bottom line.  You got nothing to base your fear on but fear itself.  

[sethpayne]

I will.

 

As will I.

 

I support liberty.  That's why I support both SSM and 1st amendment rights.

[The Nehor]

And what fantasy is that, Nehor?

 

The fantasy that one would never be compelled to bake a cake for somebody else in violation of his conscience?  To pay for abortion medications or procedures in violation of his conscience?  To suffer a SSM celebration to be imposed on his private property in violation of his conscience?

 

All of those are happening.

 

How is it a fantasy that a little "safety valve" might be turned off at our expense?

I would argue that if your conscience is offended by baking a cake for someone that you have bigger issues then your conscience being violated. As to abortion, no, you cannot declare yourself a religion to get out of laws designed to protect your employees and make sure they get health insurance equivalent to others. If I believe healthcare itself is an affront to God should I be allowed to not offer healthcare to my employees because it would violate my conscience? Or maybe just Mormons do not get it because may faith teaches that they are cultists and aiding cultists with healthcare is a violation of my faith? What is required to be covered is a legislative fight, not a court one. Participate if you feel the need. That will require more effort then just writing angry screeds against the judiciary. I will not hold my breath that anyone here will actually get involved. A place of business is not "private property". I cannot rent a venue to the public and discriminate against gays, Mormons, Catholics, or Hispanics. That is the way it works.

[USU78]

I would argue that if your conscience is offended by baking a cake for someone that you have bigger issues then your conscience being violated. As to abortion, no, you cannot declare yourself a religion to get out of laws designed to protect your employees and make sure they get health insurance equivalent to others. If I believe healthcare itself is an affront to God should I be allowed to not offer healthcare to my employees because it would violate my conscience? Or maybe just Mormons do not get it because may faith teaches that they are cultists and aiding cultists with healthcare is a violation of my faith? What is required to be covered is a legislative fight, not a court one. Participate if you feel the need. That will require more effort then just writing angry screeds against the judiciary. I will not hold my breath that anyone here will actually get involved. A place of business is not "private property". I cannot rent a venue to the public and discriminate against gays, Mormons, Catholics, or Hispanics. That is the way it works.

 

Antiochus only wanted to burn a pig on the altar in Jerusalem.

 

Warn't no big woop, were it?

[Daniel2]

As will I.

I support liberty. That's why I support both SSM and 1st amendment rights.

You and me both... and thankfully, we're in the growing, and now majority, that sees that both can peacefully coexist.

The gay "boogeymen" that somehow force same-sex marriage on straight, opposite-sex citizens is just that... a false fabrication designed to engender fear where no actual threat to liberty exists.

Even the case that prompted this thread has born out that religious organizations and ministers will NOT be forced to marry couples against the dictates of their conscience.

I look forward go the day when the hyperbole and false hysteria of this thread and others like it become part of a long-forgotten past, and we once again regain the vision of a nation of families united by a shared vision of freedom, justice, and liberty for all.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Daniel2

[Tacenda]

You and me both... and thankfully, we're in the growing, and now majority, that sees that both can peacefully coexist.

The gay "boogeymen" that somehow force same-sex marriage on straight, opposite-sex citizens is just that... a false fabrication designed to engender fear where no actual threat to liberty exists.

Even the case that prompted this thread has born out that religious organizations and ministers will NOT be forced to marry couples against the dictates of their conscience.

I look forward go the day when the hyperbole and false hysteria of this thread and others like it become part of a long-forgotten past, and we once again regain the vision of a nation of families united by a shared vision of freedom, justice, and liberty for all.

My daughter "liked" a post on FB today of a equality advertisement (?) with a male gay couple, and female gay couple kissing. Even though I believe in equality and that most gays are "born that way", I winced and worried what people would think and would they judge my daughter?

I guess things take time for that "boogeyman" scare to go away. The threat, as in it's taking over.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

Antiochus only wanted to burn a pig on the altar in Jerusalem.

 

Warn't no big woop, were it?

And if anyone wanted to do the modern equivalent of that (sodomy on a temple altar?) I would be incensed. Of course having to allow gays to rent a venue or buy a cake is nothing like that.

[rodheadlee]

Another religious group forcing it's views on another group of people and wanting power over them. What do you think is going on in the Middle East?

A lot of kiling and raping.

[Pahoran]

You and me both... and thankfully, we're in the growing, and now majority, that sees that both can peacefully coexist.

Yes, as long as those who believe in traditional marriage submit completely, you can "peacefully coexist" with them.

But not otherwise.

 

The gay "boogeymen" that somehow force same-sex marriage on straight, opposite-sex citizens is just that... a false fabrication designed to engender fear where no actual threat to liberty exists.

That's right. No-one who believes in marriage sanctity has been forced by the "gay" jihad to adopt dhimmi status in order to keep their livelihood.

Move along folks, nothing to see here...

 

Even the case that prompted this thread has born out that religious organizations and ministers will NOT be forced to marry couples against the dictates of their conscience.

I look forward go the day when the hyperbole and false hysteria of this thread and others like it become part of a long-forgotten past, and we once again regain the vision of a nation of families united by a shared vision of freedom, justice, and liberty for all.

And if you want to know what that Gay New World looks like, see here.

 

And if I try to exercise my right to stand up for the sanctity of authentic, natural marriage -- i.e. mixed-sex marriage -- in my public as well as my private life -- there won't be any "gay" people anywhere trying to force me to conform, will there?

 

Regards,

Pahoran