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

[JAHS]

I can't tell you how offensive your post is.  Perhaps that was your intent.  Do you also believe that heterosexual couples only marry to fulfill a purely carnal expression that lasts only 15 minutes.  Do you think that just because some person is gay that his feelings for another person who he is attracted to is any different than any other human on earth?  The only difference between a person who is gay and a person who is straight is who they are attracted to.  Just because you are gay does not make you into some carnal starved person only in search of 15 minutes of pleasure.

 

You may not like the fact that there are people who are attracted to the same sex, but seriously, you don't have to villainize them.  Get a grip.

That was quite the rant. At first I thought he was responding to the wrong post. 

[Storm Rider]

I can't tell you how offensive your post is.  Perhaps that was your intent.  Do you also believe that heterosexual couples only marry to fulfill a purely carnal expression that lasts only 15 minutes.  Do you think that just because some person is gay that his feelings for another person who he is attracted to is any different than any other human on earth?  The only difference between a person who is gay and a person who is straight is who they are attracted to.  Just because you are gay does not make you into some carnal starved person only in search of 15 minutes of pleasure.

 

You may not like the fact that there are people who are attracted to the same sex, but seriously, you don't have to villainize them.  Get a grip.

 

Cal, I admit that I spoke harshly, but I also think I spoke truthfully.  You have to admit, you must admit, that there is a large segment of the gay culture that is only about the 15 minutes of pleasure that exists from only sexual release to the next.  There is no desire for a lasting relationship. Am i right or not?  

 

I did not intend to offend, but I will not mince words either.  I do not villianize them so much as I tell the truth and it is the same criticism that you have of others that have SSA.  Now if you are saying that this segment of society is just a normal group looking for long term relationships, then we have a problem and someone is not being truthful.  The gay lifestyle has little to do with long-term relationships and everything to do with finding sexual release whether it is by themselves or with another.  

 

How do you define carnal?  What does being carnal mean to the gay man?  Is the term carnal applicable to the gay lifestyle or am I completely mislead?  

[tonie]

Cal, I admit that I spoke harshly, but I also think I spoke truthfully.  You have to admit, you must admit, that there is a large segment of the gay culture that is only about the 15 minutes of pleasure that exists from only sexual release to the next.  There is no desire for a lasting relationship. Am i right or not?  

 

I did not intend to offend, but I will not mince words either.  I do not villianize them so much as I tell the truth and it is the same criticism that you have of others that have SSA.  Now if you are saying that this segment of society is just a normal group looking for long term relationships, then we have a problem and someone is not being truthful.  The gay lifestyle has little to do with long-term relationships and everything to do with finding sexual release whether it is by themselves or with another.  

 

How do you define carnal?  What does being carnal mean to the gay man?  Is the term carnal applicable to the gay lifestyle or am I completely mislead?  

 

Storm Rider, You have to admit, you must admit, that there is a large segment of the heterosexual culture that is only about the 15 minutes of pleasure that exists from only sexual release to the next.  There is no desire for a lasting relationship. Am i right or not?

 

I did not intend to offend, but I will not mince words either.  I do not villianize heterosexual sexual looking for 15 minutes of pleasure, so much as I tell the truth.  Now if you are saying that this segment of society is just a normal group looking for long term relationships, then we have a problem and someone is not being truthful.  

 

How do you define carnal?  What does being carnal mean to the heterosexual person?  Is the term carnal applicable to the heterosexual lifestyle or am I completely mislead?

Edited October 20, 2014 by tonie

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If we ARE forced to perform them, the solution of course is easy- get out of the wedding business and stay in the sealing business.

 

The couple gets married civilly first, then goes to the temple and gets sealed- a purely spiritual ordinance, like sealing dead couples.   Problem solved.

 

It's been done in Europe like that for years.

 

I am not too concerned about it.   We're going to - you know where-- in a handbasket rapidly.  We can fight it as long as we can, but at some point we have to come up with alternatives to survive.  That's one.

I think this gets to the nub of the matter. I really don't think we will be forced to do them (any time soon). What will happen is that things will get more corrupt and that will force a change with in the church to remove the marriage component and it will be just a sealing.

[The Nehor]

I find the above to be naïve in the extreme. Given the fact that this country will likely eventually ripen in iniquity (a distinct possibility given the many prophecies pertaining to the last days found in the Standard Works), I see the eventual compelling of the Latter-day Saints to perform gay marriages to be a very real possibility.

You ask why gay couples would want to compel LDS ministers to officiate in their gay marriage ceremonies when those ministers would be only be performing such marriages under protest? The answer is quite simple: They would do it as a painfully graphic way to demonstrate their triumph over "the forces of bigotry" as they rub that triumph into the faces of the Latter-day Saints. I'm confident there already are some (not all) who would love to do just that, for they would proudly wear a wedding ceremony performed under duress by Latter-day Saint ministers to be a badge of honor and a real feather in the cap to boast about for decades to come. Remember, not all victors are gracious in victory.

 

Given the fact this country will ripen in iniquity (a distinct possibility given the many prophecies pertaining to the last days found in the Standard Works) I see.....

 

....the rise of Satanism in our schools to be imminent.

....the day that mandatory daily public masturbation is legally mandatory.

....the eventual mass enslavement of the LDS people.

....the rise of an AntiChrist prophet commanding a Quorum of Twelve Apostates to rival us.

....the abolishment of religion and making tithing to any religious organization punishable by death.

....that some day we will be forced to give the Sacrament and Baptism to any who ask without question.

....that human sacrifice will come back in homage to Lucifer.

 

See? You can do this with anything. Why pick this one thing as the uber-threat and treat it seriously as something we need to do something about NOW (doing something here being defined by panicking on the internet) while treating the others as unlikely or not worth worrying about as we cannot do anything about it?

Edited October 20, 2014 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this gets to the nub of the matter. I really don't think we will be forced to do them (any time soon). What will happen is that things will get more corrupt and that will force a change with in the church to remove the marriage component and it will be just a sealing.

I don't think it will ever be viewed or treated by the Church as "just a sealing."

 

If we are ever forced into a situation such as you and others are predicting, it will be the civil ceremony that will have a pedestrian nature to it -- similar to justice-of-the-peace or county courthouse proceedings of today. There will continue to be deep meaning attached to the temple marriage ceremony, the presence of family and friends, the photographs on the temple grounds, etc.

 

Do  you really think we will ever be forced into treating the temple marriage ceremony as anything less than the special occasion we regard it as now? If so, why? Why should we ever cave into the world's pressures in that manner?

Edited October 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

I think this gets to the nub of the matter. I really don't think we will be forced to do them (any time soon). What will happen is that things will get more corrupt and that will force a change with in the church to remove the marriage component and it will be just a sealing.

That is really the only thing that could happen, but not for many years (decades) down the road.

[cinepro]

I find the above to be naïve in the extreme. Given the fact that this country will likely eventually ripen in iniquity (a distinct possibility given the many prophecies pertaining to the last days found in the Standard Works), I see the eventual compelling of the Latter-day Saints to perform gay marriages to be a very real possibility.

You ask why gay couples would want to compel LDS ministers to officiate in their gay marriage ceremonies when those ministers would be only be performing such marriages under protest? The answer is quite simple: They would do it as a painfully graphic way to demonstrate their triumph over "the forces of bigotry" as they rub that triumph into the faces of the Latter-day Saints. I'm confident there already are some (not all) who would love to do just that, for they would proudly wear a wedding ceremony performed under duress by Latter-day Saint ministers to be a badge of honor and a real feather in the cap to boast about for decades to come. Remember, not all victors are gracious in victory.

 

So explain to me how that would work.  Two gay men want a Bishop to marry them (civilly).  The Bishop says no.  What happens next, and what is the chain of events that results in the Bishop being "forced" to marry them?

 

Just down the street from my office is a lovely church of another religion.  Suppose an LDS man and woman couldn't get married in the Temple, and decided they wanted to get married in that chapel, but the minister of the congregation declined the request because the man and woman were Mormon.  Is there currently a process in place where the LDS man and woman could force the minister to perform the marriage?

Edited October 20, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

So explain to me how that would work.  Two gay men want a Bishop to marry them (civilly).  The Bishop says no.  What happens next, and what is the chain of events that results in the Bishop being "forced" to marry them?

 

Just down the street from my office is a lovely church of another religion.  Suppose an LDS man and woman couldn't get married in the Temple, and decided they wanted to get married in that chapel, but the minister of the congregation declined the request because the man and woman were Mormon.  Is there currently a process in place where the LDS man and woman could force the minister to perform the marriage?

It's not Mormons who are being afforded special privileges these days.

[USU78]

Yes.  Because those assurances are based in fact, history, and the US constitution.

 

 

 

It's a good thing that popular opinion doesn't impact the constitution.  Let's get concerned when a constitutional amendment to eliminate the first gains steam.

 

 

Hmmm..... how do all those white-only Churches in the south get away with it?  What about golf clubs that don't allow women members?  Simple.  The government has no right or authority to interfere with these private institutions because their activities are protected by the US constitution -- explicitly protected.

 

 

Um.... the US Constitution for starters.

 

How about you fear-mongerers seeking to stir up the fears of the Saints bring this issue up if/when you can provide an example of the government compelling a religion to perform one of its rites against its will.  Just one example would be great.  Until then, let's stay grounded in reality and stop trying to get people worked up over fantastical falsehoods.

 

I myself am unaware of any successful defense before the SCOTUS on free exercise grounds where a member of a "protected class" has sought to infringe free exercise.

 

Thus your vague and general "history and the US Constitution" don't cut it.

[USU78]

Smac started a similarly-themed fear-mongering thread this weekend.  His assertions were meant with strong opposition.  He wasn't "shouted down."  The thread was closed.

 

"Fear-mongering" to him who supports uncritically the oppressor is rational concern to him who would be oppressed.

[The Nehor]

I have spent way too much time thinking about why this topic is so terrifying to so many people that they have to make things up about it. It is becoming like the devil worshiping cult hysteria prominent in some Christian faiths.

 

I think it is because both share a common element. It is a sin the person is uninterested in. They have most likely never been tempted by it. They have probably never committed any sins in that direction so any condemnation, hatred, or warnings about it do not strike at home in any way. It is safe. And because these villains endure a temptation you never have it is much easier to make them alien. They are "the other", the people who cannot be related to.

 

Do this with condemnations of heterosexual lust, greed, anger, pride, covetousness, etc and we have to be cautious. Most of us have struggled with most or all of those and have failed in some of them as well so condemning them or scare-mongering about them is also at least partially a self-condemnation.

 

I am not sure if that makes me fortunate or unfortunate to have met guys I would marry.

[teddyaware]

Given the fact this country will ripen in iniquity (a distinct possibility given the many prophecies pertaining to the last days found in the Standard Works) I see.....

 

....the rise of Satanism in our schools to be imminent.

....the day that mandatory daily public masturbation as legally mandatory.

....the eventual mass enslavement of the LDS people.

....the rise of an AntiChrist prophet commanding a Quorum of Twelve Apostates to rival us.

....the abolishment of religion and making tithing to any religious organization punishable by death.

....that some day we will be forced to give the Sacrament and Baptism to any who ask without question.

....that human sacrifice will come back in homage to Lucifer.

 

See? You can do this with anything. Why pick this one thing as the uber-threat and treat it seriously as something we need to do something about NOW (doing something here being defined by panicking on the internet) while treating the others as unlikely or not worth worrying about as we cannot do anything about it?

I brought up the gay marriage issue for at least 4 reasons:

1) Gay marriage is the topic of this thread.

2) The gay marriage issue is a timely current issue.

3) In contradiction to the leaders of the Church, some progressive Mormons would like to see the Church embrace gay marriage and gay sealings.

4) The General Authorities have been addressing this issue of late, warning the saints that the Church

will never waiver in its opposition to gay marriage (though we have been counseled to be civil in

our disagreements).

When and if there's thread with real evidence about the rise of Satanism in the public schools, there's a good chance I'll chime in and refer to that as a sign of ripening iniquity as well.

Edited October 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you provide some examples of why I should have a rational fear of governments bodies in the United States forcing religions and/or religious institutions to act, via its agents,  against the beliefs of the religion?

 

 

If there is a substantial segment of the populace who see nothing wrong with such a thing (as USU78 showed in his opening post) and if that sentiment is being taken seriously in some government quarters, there is substantial cause for concern.

 

Fear Mongering, is an appropriate term for the topic and the other that was closed; what is worse, in my opinion, is that those who would call themselves Doctors of the Law, made no effort to identify the religious exemption that exist in many public accommodation laws.

 

Yet more marginalizing and shouting down.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

It's not Mormons who are being afforded special privileges these days.

 

The only "special privilege" you, as a Mormon, are not afforded, is the privilege of not being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.

 

Otherwise, as a Mormon, you are afforded the special privilege of protection against discrimination due to your race, religion, national origin, age, and disability.

 

 

So would you like to edit your post to make if factual?

[Scott Lloyd]

The only "special privilege" you, as a Mormon, are not afforded, is the privilege of not being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.

 

Otherwise, as a Mormon, you are afforded the special privilege of protection against discrimination due to your race, religion, national origin, age, and disability.

 

By "special privilege," I mean the sort of thing that is not afforded others in society. And no, Mormons are not given such special privileges.

 

 

So would you like to edit your post to make if factual?

 

Care to cut the snark?

[The Nehor]

I brought up the gay marriage issue for at least 4 reasons:

1) Gay marriage is the topic of this thread.

2) The gay marriage issue is a timely current issue.

3) In contradiction to the leaders of the Church, some progressive Mormons would like to see the Church embrace gay marriage and gay sealings.

4) The General Authorities have been addressing this issue of late, warning the saints that the Church

will never waiver in its opposition to gay marriage (though we have been counseled to be civil in

our disagreements).

When and if there's thread with real evidence about the rise of Satanism in the public schools, there's a good chance I'll chime in and refer to that as a sign of ripening iniquity as well.

 

1. No, mandatory performance of gay marriage is the topic of this thread.

 

2. No, to be timely mandatory performance of gay marriage would have to be a current issue. It is not.

 

3. There are also members who want to do away with the Word of Wisdom or soften our stance on premarital sex in general. There are even some who want to disown Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. So what?

 

4. True that the General Authorities reiterated their stance lately though I would argue that using hyperbolic scaremongering that lies way outside the issue being discussed is not being civil.

[USU78]

Response to disingenuous CFR:  Dr Peterson, within the last several months, warned of the upward trending of the numbers (then at 30+% of all US responders) who would use the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force to compel homosexual weddings be performed in Mormon Churches and Temples.  I've looked for but cannot find it or the link therein to the Pew study, and cannot find it in Pew, though I have seen it.

 

Do you honestly dispute those are the numbers of people who don't care whether they compel others to engage in acts abhorrent to them?

Edited October 20, 2014 by USU78

[tonie]

By "special privilege," I mean the sort of thing that is not afforded others in society. And no, Mormons are not given such special privileges.

 

 

Care to cut the snark?

 

Cut what snark, Your post was factually inccorrect. 

 

Speaking of snark what "special privilege" is not afforded to Mormons?

[USU78]

If we ARE forced to perform them, the solution of course is easy- get out of the wedding business and stay in the sealing business.

 

The couple gets married civilly first, then goes to the temple and gets sealed- a purely spiritual ordinance, like sealing dead couples.   Problem solved.

 

It's been done in Europe like that for years.

 

I am not too concerned about it.   We're going to - you know where-- in a handbasket rapidly.  We can fight it as long as we can, but at some point we have to come up with alternatives to survive.  That's one.

 

It has been my chief concern for 20 years.  The forces arrayed against the Boy Scouts and the Church have been and continue to be vicious.  I see no evidence they will stop at anything short of disincorporation, seizure of Church and Church members' assets, and proscriptions.

[USU78]

I don't think it will ever be viewed or treated by the Church as "just a sealing."

 

If we are ever forced into a situation such as you and others are predicting, it will be the civil ceremony that will have a pedestrian nature to it -- similar to justice-of-the-peace or county courthouse proceedings of today. There will continue to be deep meaning attached to the temple marriage ceremony, the presence of family and friends, the photographs on the temple grounds, etc.

 

Do  you really think we will ever be forced into treating the temple marriage ceremony as anything less than the special occasion we regard it as now? If so, why? Why should we ever cave into the world's pressures in that manner?

 

 

If the military appears at the temple's gates to force entry over the objections and bodies of those who would resist, then the Church may just have to "endure what it cannot any longer resist [per Elder Oaks]."

[tonie]

Yet more marginalizing and shouting down.

 

How is pointing out exemptions to laws designed specifically for the benefit of religions shouting down or marginalizing?

[Scott Lloyd]

Cut what snark, Your post was factually inccorrect. 

 

Speaking of snark what "special privilege" is not afforded to Mormons?

If it's a privilege that everyone else enjoys, then by definition it is not a "special" privilege, is it?

 

Definition of "special privilege" from Merriam-Webster website:

 

a privilege granted (as by a law or constitution) to an individual or group to the exclusion of others and in derogation of common right

 

[USU78]

As long as the First Amendment to the constitution exists there is no conceivable way that churches will be required to perform such marriages. 

 

Reynolds vs US would beg to differ.

 

There is no such thing as "free exercise" when the gov't decides it doesn't like the way you exercise your faith.

[tonie]

If it's a privilege that everyone else enjoys, then by definition it is not a "special" privilege, is it?

 

Definition of "special privilege" from Merriam-Webster website:

 

Again, what is special privilege you speak of? And will you prove that this alleged special privilege is not afforded to Mormons?