smac97 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Smac did not start "a similarly-themed fear-mongering thread this weekend." He started a thread discussing the issue.And he was most certainly shouted down. Instead of discussing the topic, the most conspicuous posters on that thread attacked him personally for even mentioning it.Regards,Pahoran I would like to clarify a few things: 1. I think this is a topic worthy of discussion. We cannot dismiss as "irrational" or "fearmongering" concerns about what is happening in Coeur d'Alene (and, for that matter, in Houston), because what we previously worried might happen is happening there now. And if it can happen there, it can happen elsewhere. And if individuals can be coerced, under threat of fines and imprisonment or other punitive means, to speak in ways that violate their religious beliefs, then so can religious groups. And although the city ordinance in Coeur d'Alene might be defeated, and although the mayor of Houston backed off on her subpoenas (sort of), that is no reason to not be vigilant in defending our rights and our beliefs. Indeed, it is only because of that vigilance that we are seeing resistance to the city ordinance in Coeur d'Alene and the subpoenas in Houston. 2. The other thread had some substantive legal analysis, but I did not detect a good faith desire to discuss this matter. 3. That other thread was locked. I locked it. For reasons I do not presently understand, I felt prompted, in a rather pointed way, to lock it. But I think that this prompting related to me personally, rather than to the topic itself. So while I think this topic is worthy of discussion, I feel that I personally should not participate in it. So I won't. But I hope whatever discussion is had will carry with it some measure of dispassionate and fairminded analysis. Thank you, -Smac Edited October 21, 2014 by smac97 2
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 As we speak, religious people of different stripes are being compelled to make wedding cakes and do videos for gay weddings, even though they don't want to because of their religious convictions. As a consequence, it's not hard for me to imagine a gay couple, both of whom were born and raised in the Church, going to their local bishop with a demand that he civilly marry them or face the consequences of the law. And when they do the Bishop will say no. The couple will go to a lawyer and get laughed out of his office or, if the lawyer is really dumb or desperately wants bad publicity, will push for a court date at which point the judge will laugh hysterically and throw out the case. There are anti-discrimination laws that apply to public businesses. I cannot refuse to serve a gay man or a black man or a hermaphrodite or a blond-haired blue eyed representative of Hitler's master race on the grounds that doing so violates my religious convictions. There are laws and case law in place protecting clergy from being compelled to act by the government. They cannot be forced to perform ordinances, rituals, marriages, or any other form of religious or secular task that the government wishes to (unless of course they also have a job that does not fall under this distinction). You cannot compel a Catholic priest to do last rites, you cannot compel an LDS temple sealer to marry someone, you cannot force a bishop to marry anyone, etc. Throwing out every nightmare scenario you have come up with in your head does not make it at all likely. If we reach the day that clergy are compelled to perform ordinances then the rule of law has collapsed anyways. I prophesy in the name of the Lord that if such a time comes it will not come because gays want to be sealed in the temple and try to sue the Church to make it happen. 2
Senator Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 But I hope whatever discussion is had will carry with it some measure of dispassionate and fairminded analysis. " I prophesy in the name of the Lord that if such a time comes it will not come because gays want to be sealed in the temple and try to sue the Church to make it happen." Ummm.............sorry smac, it ain't gunna happen.
teddyaware Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 There is a difference between Joe Smith the baker and Jane Smith the minister. Will you identify a State or locality with laws/ordinances against discrinimation based on sexual orientation, which DOES NOT exempt religious entities or Churches? Also will you identify a State or locality with laws/ordinances against discrinimation based on sexual orientation, which mandates ANY PERSONS authorized to solemnize a marriage is forbidden from turning down an oppurtunity to solemnize a marriage.You'll have to read all my posts on this thread in order to more fully understand my position. The following statement of mine from post # 43 will help to clear up your confusion:"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 ." My intention in citing the bakers and videographers is that they are examples of "cracks in the dam" leading to a possible eventual flood of tyrannical ungodliness. Meanwhile, today's governmental legal action against the two ministers and wedding chapel operators in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho could very be among the first actual leaks in that dam of restraint.
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 My intention in citing the bakers and videographers is that they are examples of "cracks in the dam" leading to a possible eventual flood of tyrannical ungodliness. Meanwhile, today's governmental legal action against the two ministers and wedding chapel operators in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho could very be among the first actual leaks in that dam of restraint. Give credit where it is due then. These "cracks in the damn" came mostly from the Civil Rights movement when businesses were prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. This is your villain who started destroying the damn: 2
Senator Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 "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 ." I don't. Not at all!
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Ummm.............sorry smac, it ain't gunna happen.Prophecy is the epitome of fair-minded and dispassionate discussion.
teddyaware Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) And when they do the Bishop will say no. The couple will go to a lawyer and get laughed out of his office or, if the lawyer is really dumb or desperately wants bad publicity, will push for a court date at which point the judge will laugh hysterically and throw out the case. There are anti-discrimination laws that apply to public businesses. I cannot refuse to serve a gay man or a black man or a hermaphrodite or a blond-haired blue eyed representative of Hitler's master race on the grounds that doing so violates my religious convictions. There are laws and case law in place protecting clergy from being compelled to act by the government. They cannot be forced to perform ordinances, rituals, marriages, or any other form of religious or secular task that the government wishes to (unless of course they also have a job that does not fall under this distinction). You cannot compel a Catholic priest to do last rites, you cannot compel an LDS temple sealer to marry someone, you cannot force a bishop to marry anyone, etc. Throwing out every nightmare scenario you have come up with in your head does not make it at all likely. If we reach the day that clergy are compelled to perform ordinances then the rule of law has collapsed anyways. I prophesy in the name of the Lord that if such a time comes it will not come because gays want to be sealed in the temple and try to sue the Church to make it happen.The "nightmare scenarios" you make light of or think can never happen have already been prophesied in the scriptures. You can whistle past the graveyard all you want, but it won't stop the flood of darkness and wickedness that will eventually flood the earth when the floodgates of ungodliness are fully open. Even as I write, the adversary inspires and emboldens many on this earth to commit the most horrific acts of murder, torture. rapine and enslavement. To think it can't happen here because of a few pieces of paper that are already torn almost completely to shreds is unrealistic. But I can't blame you or anyone else who cannot, or will not, see it coming, for it really is extremely unpleasant to contemplate. Sadly, In all probability history is going to repeat itself...16 ... I cried:17 O ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you!18 Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I mourn your loss.9 O ye fair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye could have fallen!20 But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return. (Mormon 6) Edited October 21, 2014 by teddyaware
teddyaware Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Give credit where it is due then. These "cracks in the damn" came mostly from the Civil Rights movement when businesses were prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. This is your villain who started destroying the damn: So our jovial and lighthearted "board comedian" shows his true colors.
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 The "nightmare scenarios" you make light of or think can never happen have already been prophesied in the scriptures. You can whistle past the graveyard all you want, but it won't stop the flood of darkness wickedness that will eventually flood the earth when the floodgates of ungodliness are fully open. Even as I write, the adversary inspires and emboldens many on this earth to commit the most horrific acts of murder, torture. rapine and enslavement. To think it can't happen here because of a few pieces of paper that are already almost torn to completely to shreds is unrealistic. But I can't blame you or anyone else who cannot, or will not, see it coming for it really is extremely unpleasant to contemplate. Sadly, In all probability history is going to repeat itself...16 ... I cried:17 O ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you!18 Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I mourn your loss.9 O ye fair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye could have fallen!20 But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return. (Mormon 6)And the goal posts run down the field. Suddenly I am made to sound as if I am saying all is wonderful and denying that there is evil in the world because I do not buy into your specific pet doomsday scenario of the end of the world. Back when I thought I could calculate the date of the end of the world and conducted an in-depth analysis of apocalyptic scripture I learned a lot about the signs to watch for. Gay marriage isn't in there. Nor that the followers of God will be forced to solemnize gay marriages.Do I think the legalization of gay marriage is a mistake that will cause God to withdraw further from the world? Yes. Do I think it will have repercussions? Yeah, I do. I fought against legalization in a very small way. Does this make me faithless because I dismiss this unsubstantiated scaremongering as unrealistic? Nope.Prophecy has not spoken on it.....well except my prophecy in this thread which I will go with.I guess I find the concept that this is the big threat offensive because there are real virtues to cultivate and real vices to root out that we do not need to spend time fighting phantoms. Be respectful. Do not make snide "prophecy"
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 So our jovial and lighthearted "board comedian" shows his true colors.Are people supposed to look on in horror that I know something about the Civil Rights movement and learned a bit about discrimination law back on school and through a job I had years ago?That seems really.....non-controversial..... 1
USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 And when they do the Bishop will say no. The couple will go to a lawyer and get laughed out of his office or, if the lawyer is really dumb or desperately wants bad publicity, will push for a court date at which point the judge will laugh hysterically and throw out the case. There are anti-discrimination laws that apply to public businesses. I cannot refuse to serve a gay man or a black man or a hermaphrodite or a blond-haired blue eyed representative of Hitler's master race on the grounds that doing so violates my religious convictions. There are laws and case law in place protecting clergy from being compelled to act by the government. They cannot be forced to perform ordinances, rituals, marriages, or any other form of religious or secular task that the government wishes to (unless of course they also have a job that does not fall under this distinction). You cannot compel a Catholic priest to do last rites, you cannot compel an LDS temple sealer to marry someone, you cannot force a bishop to marry anyone, etc. Throwing out every nightmare scenario you have come up with in your head does not make it at all likely. If we reach the day that clergy are compelled to perform ordinances then the rule of law has collapsed anyways. I prophesy in the name of the Lord that if such a time comes it will not come because gays want to be sealed in the temple and try to sue the Church to make it happen. The lawsuit is already being prepared in the offices of both the ACLU and the GLBT, if it has not already been. How naive to believe these things are not already worked out: they're only waiting on (a) plaintiff(s). 2
USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 I prophesy in the name of the Lord that if such a time comes it will not come because gays want to be sealed in the temple and try to sue the Church to make it happen. Nice. Why does anybody even talk to some people? Ain't worth the bandwidth, and yet we keep doing it. Hoping that the lurkers might be aided by the stark contrast to mocking jerkiness like that quoted above. 1
USU78 Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 So the Constitution at the time was the will of God? We need to bring back that 3/5ths of a person statute to please God? Childish, presentist, nonsensical deflection. But nice try.
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 The lawsuit is already being prepared in the offices of both the ACLU and the GLBT, if it has not already been. How naive to believe these things are not already worked out: they're only waiting on (a) plaintiff(s).I hope they have. It will be a major PR disaster for them if they try. I don't think so though. There might be someone in those offices planning or hoping for it. There are morons in just about every organization. I am guessing the smarter ones will not allow it though. I do not deny someone might try it. I am laughing at the idea that it could succeed.They are also not waiting for a plaintiff. Finding volunteers for that would be ridiculously easy if they want one. 1
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Nice. Why does anybody even talk to some people? Ain't worth the bandwidth, and yet we keep doing it. Hoping that the lurkers might be aided by the stark contrast to mocking jerkiness like that quoted above.That was an authentic prophecy. You are not required to accept it because I do not have the Priesthood Keys to make it so but demeaning the gifts of God by calling it "mocking jerkiness" is a bit sacrilegious. I take prophecy very seriously. That was not a joke.
MorningStar Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I think there are a couple things that make a difference. Bishops don't charge money to perform wedding ceremonies and it's not something they advertise. Second, the church decides who gets to enter the temple, so it would be hard to force them to perform a sealing. Has anyone ever sued the church to be declared temple worthy? If a homosexual were to argue they are chaste, but are demanding they get to be sealed to someone of the same sex, then they're automatically showing they have no intent of keeping the Law of Chastity because homosexual sex is not considered chaste by the church. 2
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Childish, presentist, nonsensical deflection. But nice try.I am sorry you did not understand it. I wrote it at a third grade reading level. Maybe one day......
mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Give credit where it is due then. These "cracks in the damn" came mostly from the Civil Rights movement when businesses were prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. This is your villain who started destroying the damn: Odd Mormon usage notwithstanding, "damn" is not a synonym for "dam" anywhere but in the imagination of Mormons. 1
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Odd Mormon usage notwithstanding, "damn" is not a synonym for "dam" anywhere but in the imagination of Mormons.I know. The misspelling was intentional though. Not sure why. Just seemed fun.
strappinglad Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Odd Mormon usage notwithstanding, "damn" is not a synonym for "dam" anywhere but in the imagination of Mormons. Either word could be used to precede the word ' irrigation'. Context is everything.
mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Either word could be used to precede the word ' irrigation'. Context is everything.Lol!
Calm Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 The lawsuit is already being prepared in the offices of both the ACLU and the GLBT, if it has not already been. How naive to believe these things are not already worked out: they're only waiting on (a) plaintiff(s).CFR please if this is not speculation.
Calm Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I hope they have. It will be a major PR disaster for them if they try. I don't think so though. There might be someone in those offices planning or hoping for it. There are morons in just about every organization. I am guessing the smarter ones will not allow it though. I do not deny someone might try it. I am laughing at the idea that it could succeed.They are also not waiting for a plaintiff. Finding volunteers for that would be ridiculously easy if they want one.Ifthey are waiting, it is for poll numbers to be strong enough to almost guarantee a win in the social side no matter the courts. Moving too soon could damage their appearance and set them way back IMO. 1
The Nehor Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Ifthey are waiting, it is for poll numbers to be strong enough to almost guarantee a win in the social side no matter the courts. Moving too soon could damage their appearance and set them way back IMO.Okay, so they win socially? I never denied they could do that. They will call LDS bigots and point and jeer and a few will be ashamed and leave and most will carry on.
Recommended Posts