rockpond Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 That doesn't make sense.An atheist view is that there is no valid religion, yet they were forced to live by marriage laws that were defined by religion.
rockpond Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Rockpond, the way I see it, someone's religious rights are going to be infringed no matter what way you cut it. We always talk about the courts being neutral. While this is true in the sense that their rulings should not be influenced by personal preferences, their judgements cannot be purely neutral. Someone is going to come away from any court case or legislation feeling like someone else's morals were imposed upon them. No matter what laws you pass, someone is going to feel like their morals were given less weight than another's. This is why I think that the church's recent news conference was, in my opinion, extremely wise. They are encouraging law makers to create a piece of legislation which, when passed, doesn't impose morals on either side. Of course, like I said, such legislation is extremely difficult, almost impossible. The GA's recognize this. That is why they said that a little give and take is necessary on both sides.Can you, or anyone, listen to the press conference or the Q&A/Trib Talk and identify something that they offered to "give" in that give and take? Was there anywhere that "our side" is offering to compromise on?
teddyaware Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) An atheist view is that there is no valid religion, yet they were forced to live by marriage laws that were defined by religion. You present a real conundrum for believing Latter-day Saints who genuinely sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in their prophetic callings. In the Family Proclamation, these 15 prophets solemnly warned the people of all the world (not just the members of the Church) that if the undermining of traditional Father/Mother marriage continued on its then (1995) present trajectory, the scripturally prophesied cataclysmic destructions of the last days would eventually spread death, horror and damnation over the face of all the earth. How does a Latter-day Saint fight for civil liberties that he knows violate the laws of God, and at the same time fulfill the obligation to warn the people of the world that the judgements of God are waiting at the doors if the traditional family continues to be redefined, undermined or ignored? Now there's a balancing act for the ages! How does a Latter-day Saint simultaneously condone and even support the spread of evil, while at the same time convincingly sound the voice of warning? Edited February 4, 2015 by teddyaware
Tacenda Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Can you, or anyone, listen to the press conference or the Q&A/Trib Talk and identify something that they offered to "give" in that give and take? Was there anywhere that "our side" is offering to compromise on?I believe if the church/churches are going to seek to take the equal opportunity away for gay marriage, they might need to give up their tax exempt status. They should not be in politics if that is the case and have that exemption also. And think that that was probably the whole reason for the announcement. The church wants freedom for the right to go after keeping marriage to heterosexual couples only but don't want to lose that status.
Duncan Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) You present a real conundrum for believing Latter-day Saints who genuinely sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in their prophetic callings. In the Family Proclamation, these 15 prophets solemnly warned the people of all the world (not just the members of the Church) that if the undermining of traditional Father/Mother marriage continued on its then (1995) present trajectory, the scripturally prophesied cataclysmic destructions of the last days would eventually spread death, horror and damnation over the face of all the earth. How does a Latter-day Saint fight for civil liberties that he knows violate the laws of God, and at the same time fulfill the obligation to warn the people of the world that the judgements of God are waiting at the doors if the traditional family continues to be redefined, undermined or ignored? Now there's a balancing act for the ages! How does a Latter-day Saint simultaneously condone and even support the spread of evil, while at the same time convincingly sound the voice of warning? welcome to the world of Elder Christofferson and God. Here in Canada we never got to decide if we wanted gay marriage, as far I know parliament voted and it was a done deal. I don't see things collapsing. I haven't seen the LGBT community trying to take away the rights of the Church here any. Edited February 4, 2015 by Duncan
rockpond Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 You present a real conundrum for believing Latter-day Saints who genuinely sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in their prophetic callings. In the Family Proclamation, these 15 prophets solemnly warned the people of all the world (not just the members of the Church) that if the undermining of traditional Father/Mother marriage continued on its then (1995) present trajectory, the scripturally prophesied cataclysmic destructions of the last days would eventually spread death, horror and damnation over the face of all the earth. How does a Latter-day Saint fight for civil liberties that he knows violate the laws of God, and at the same time fulfill the obligation to warn the people of the world that the judgements of God are waiting at the doors if the traditional family continues to be redefined, undermined or ignored? Now there's a balancing act for the ages! How does a Latter-day Saint simultaneously condone and even support the spread of evil, while at the same time convincingly sound the voice of warning?How does supporting legal gay marriage (or at the very least, not advocating against it) undermine the traditional mother/father family? We're talking about people who, for the most part, cannot create a mother/father family.
rockpond Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) I believe if the church/churches are going to seek to take the equal opportunity away for gay marriage, they might need to give up their tax exempt status. They should not be in politics if that is the case and have that exemption also. And think that that was probably the whole reason for the announcement. The church wants freedom for the right to go after keeping marriage to heterosexual couples only but don't want to lose that status.Yup... If Prop 8 was purely a political issue and not a religious matter and bluebell is claiming than the church should have formed a PAC and played by the rules. Edited February 4, 2015 by rockpond
Tacenda Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) How does supporting legal gay marriage (or at the very least, not advocating against it) undermine the traditional mother/father family? We're talking about people who, for the most part, cannot create a mother/father family.And the ratio of gay marriages compared to heterosexual marriages is so small that it would be the same thing or far less than single parent homes, I'm guessing. So if people can see how it wouldn't affect many people, maybe there wouldn't be so much concern. Especially if those individuals put a big dent in the children in foster care being adopted. Edited February 4, 2015 by Tacenda
USU78 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 welcome to the world of Elder Christofferson and God. Here in Canada we never got to decide if we wanted gay marriage, as far I know parliament voted and it was a done deal. I don't see things collapsing. I haven't seen the LGBT community trying to take away the rights of the Church here any.you have not been following the stories in the news then. Christian attorney who do not favor abortion or homosexual marriage are being denied the chance to sit for the bar. Very much a wedge issue
USU78 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Yup... If Prop 8 was purely a political issue and not a religious matter and bluebell is claiming than the church should have formed a PAC and played by the rules.the rules of having religiously inspired political speech being regulated and taxed by the government?
rockpond Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 the rules of having religiously inspired political speech being regulated and taxed by the government?No. The rules by which organizations maintain their tax exempt status.
Duncan Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 you have not been following the stories in the news then. Christian attorney who do not favor abortion or homosexual marriage are being denied the chance to sit for the bar. Very much a wedge issue I've never heard of it until I found this, it seems like an isolated situation as there are many LDS Lawyers here in Canada, Hugh B. Brown was probably the most famous but times were different back in his day! http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/24/b-c-christian-university-that-bans-gay-sex-asking-ontario-lawyers-to-accredit-new-law-school/
USU78 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 No. The rules by which organizations maintain their tax exempt status.I am endowed by my Creator with the right of free speech and religious exercise. No government grants me that. Religion precedes government. Religion is not subservient to government. Didn't you know that? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Yeah, as embarrassing as it was, I got the "no apology" message that came from an apostle of the Lord. Not sure what point you were making with the Romney comment. I also voted for him. The fact that Prop 8 was overturned isn't what made it wrong to support.The point I was making was to contradict you in your misguided insinuation that the Brethren now regret having supported Prop 8 and that they no longer oppose same-sex "marriage". Look at my sig line, the quote from Elder Nelson. If anything, <that> is their epilogue to the Prop 8 episode. 3
rockpond Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I am endowed by my Creator with the right of free speech and religious exercise. No government grants me that. Religion precedes government. Religion is not subservient to government. Didn't you know that? Of course. But it doesn't mean one can fund a campaign without paying taxes.
rockpond Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The point I was making was to contradict you in your misguided insinuation that the Brethren now regret having supported Prop 8 and that they no longer oppose same-sex "marriage". Look at my sig line, the quote from Elder Nelson. If anything, <that> is their epilogue to the Prop 8 episode. I actually don't think that they regret supporting Prop 8. I think that they *should* regret it because their ability to advocate for religious freedom would be stronger today if they hadn't played the role they did with Prop 8, other anti-SSM measures, and their past opposition to non-discrimination ordinances.
Coreyb Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I am endowed by my Creator with the right of free speech and religious exercise. No government grants me that. Religion precedes government. Religion is not subservient to government. Didn't you know that?Not in American since Reynolds vs United States
readstoomuch Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 It would be nice to have the discussion not be only about SSM. Can we please not have this thread become another deteriorates to a SSM thread. Mormonnewb, john should be able to go off without a bunch of members throwing rocks instead of life preservers. He is very polarizing and manipulative. He is not easy to love. Like you, he can get in your face. I try to do my best with both of you. IMO he (john) has hurt more people than you with his agenda. That is tough. I know these people. Mr Rockpond I won't even try to go toe to toe with you. You will defend SSM and John far longer than I could even think about. I will concede and not even try to go up against you. 4
mormonnewb Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Mormonnewb, john should be able to go off without a bunch of members throwing rocks instead of life preservers. He is very polarizing and manipulative. He is not easy to love. Like you, he can get in your face. I try to do my best with both of you. IMO he (john) has hurt more people than you with his agenda. That is tough. I know these people. I can see why faithful Mormons would see John as "hurting" people by exposing them to information that leads to them leaving the Church. Yet, I simply don't see it that way. We can only truly exercise our agency when we know the facts. And that is what John has done -- exposed people to the facts. Now, I do understand that some will argue that John has only shown one side of the facts, but that is simply not true. He's had faithful Mormons on his podcast to give the apologetic response on such topics as polygamy, BOM historicity, etc. If, at the end of the day, a saint comes to the conclusion that the Church isn't what it claims to be, then how has Dehlin harmed them? Was he supposed to not give the facts; many of which facts the Church has disclosed in its own essays over the last year or so. Besides, if Church leaders emphasized the two measures of "truth" taught by Christ himself (our love and our fruit), our testimonies wouldn't be so brittle. For some strange reason, I seem to have a heightened sense of ex-modar. I can pick out an ex-Mormon at 100 yards. And amazingly, I tend to constantly find myself in contact with them. For example, my hairdresser (long story) and my doctor are both ex-Mormons. We've talked a fair bit about the Church and, even in their eyes, the Church passes both of Christ's tests (our love and fruit). In fact, I have yet to meet the ex-Mormon who says that Church members on the whole are full of hate and that the Church produces greedy, self-centered and downright evil people. Just about everyone of these people will be sure to tell you that they have wonderful and kind parents and that they grew up under the authority of kind and loving bishops, YM/YW leaders, primary teachers, etc. Even Dehlin himself has said the same things about the Mormons in his life on several occasions. Now, sure, on occasion, members get offended and have disputes with other members. But, by and large, I have yet to find the ex-member who claims that the Mormons who raised and nurtured him/her were evil people who provided terrible examples of how to live life. However, for whatever reason (and despite pretty clear scriptural instruction to the contrary), we teach our kids to base their testimony on amorphous feelings. Then when they discover real world evidence that would seem to contradict those feelings, they began to doubt those feelings ... as they should. At present, my 10 yo son has a burning in his tiny little bosom about Santa Claus (yes, 10 yo is a little old for that). Eventually, he will come across enough real world evidence that will shed considerable doubt on the feasibility of Santa delivering BILLIONS of toys in a single 24-hour period. Should he simply ignore this evidence and continue believing because he once felt good about it? Or should my wife and I ban the Internet from our home or perhaps, prevent him from progressing past his current cognitive state in order to shield him from the Santa apostasy? Interestingly, despite the fact that he will soon enough discover that Santa Claus isn't what we claimed him to be, it won't shake his faith in being a Newb. He will weigh our (well-meaning) deception in this one instance against the wider arc of love that we have shown him and come to the conclusion that the Newbs are true. Because even my naive boy understands that the value of our family isn't based on the factual accuracy of the tales we tell (thank Heavens!), but rather on the lives we live (the love and the fruit). Perhaps, we should work to build that understanding amongst the rest of the saints. In that case, no set of facts (or if you wish, lies and half-truths) about JS, the BOA, or what have you would shake their testimony in the Church (i.e., the ecclesia, the congregation, the people). Edited February 4, 2015 by mormonnewb
why me Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) I can see why faithful Mormons would see John as "hurting" people by exposing them to information that leads to them leaving the Church. Yet, I simply don't see it that way. We can only truly exercise our agency when we know the facts. And that is what John has done -- exposed people to the facts. Now, I do understand that some will argue that John has only shown one side of the facts, but that is simply not true. He's had faithful Mormons on his podcast to give the apologetic response on such topics as polygamy, BOM historicity, etc. If, at the end of the day, a saint comes to the conclusion that the Church isn't what it claims to be, then how has Dehlin harmed them? Was he supposed to not give the facts; many of which facts the Church has disclosed in its own essays over the last year or so. John's podcasts usually followed his belief and unbelief moments. In the beginning he had on active members answering the questions that he had about the church and gospel. These people gave him the answers that he was searching for. But then, he became a critic and his questions reflected his new belief system and the people he interviewed gave him what he needed as a critic. The problem with john now is that he is an open critic of the church who no longer believes in the foundational claims of the church. Thus, his possible excommunication. Besides, if Church leaders emphasized the two measures of "truth" taught by Christ himself (our love and our fruit), our testimonies wouldn't be so brittle. When a person no longer believes in the book of mormon, the foundational claims, and in Joseph Smith as a prophet who restored the the gospel, and who openly proclaims this in the media, it is difficult for any church and not only the mormons to keep this person as a member. In fact, the best love that one can give, is to excommunicate them. For some strange reason, I seem to have a heightened sense of ex-modar. I can pick out an ex-Mormon at 100 yards. And amazingly, I tend to constantly find myself in contact with them. For example, my hairdresser (long story) and my doctor are both ex-Mormons. We've talked a fair bit about the Church and, even in their eyes, the Church passes both of Christ's tests (our love and fruit). In fact, I have yet to meet the ex-Mormon who says that Church members on the whole are full of hate and that the Church produces greedy, self-centered and downright evil people. Just about everyone of these people will be sure to tell you that they have wonderful and kind parents and that they grew up under the authority of kind and loving bishops, YM/YW leaders, primary teachers, etc. There is nothing wrong in being an exmember. The problem comes when these exmemmbes take their criticisms to the public via newspapers. Many people have left because of a crisis of faith. Nothing new in this at all. I have met, ex catholics, ex protestants etc. Even Dehlin himself has said the same things about the Mormons in his life on several occasions. Now, sure, on occasion, members get offended and have disputes with other members. But, by and large, I have yet to find the ex-member who claims that the Mormons who raised and nurtured him/her were evil people who provided terrible examples of how to live life. The more active exmembers who use the internet to spread the word do so with fond memories of their mormon experiences. But there are also exmembers who have posted their hatred toward the lds church for their upbringing etc. However, many exmembers continue with the values that were taught to them when raising their families etc. However, for whatever reason (and despite pretty clear scriptural instruction to the contrary), we teach our kids to base their testimony on amorphous feelings. This is not true. We base on faith on spiritual experiences and not feelings. Those women who accepted polygamy at the time of Joseph Smith had genuine spiritual experiences that convinced them to be sealed to Joseph. Before that experiences, some said no to him. It is a spiritual experiencing church and not a feeling church. Interestingly, despite the fact that he will soon enough discover that Santa Claus isn't what we claimed him to be, it won't shake his faith in being a Newb. He will weigh our (well-meaning) deception in this one instance against the wider arc of love that we have shown him and come to the conclusion that the Newbs are true. Because even my naive boy understands that the value of our family isn't based on the factual accuracy of the tales we tell (thank Heavens!), but rather on the lives we live (the love and the fruit). Perhaps, we should work to build that understanding amongst the rest of the saints. In that case, no set of facts (or if you wish, lies and half-truths) about JS, the BOA, or what have you would shake their testimony in the Church (i.e., the ecclesia, the congregation, the people). I actually dont see a deception. No one denied polygamy etc. Maybe it wasn't actively taught but certainly one could read many things published by active lds members where information was present. For example, in the biography of Hyrum published in 2003 or in Rough Stone Rolling published in 2005 or in other scholarly books about mormon history. Many members had the journal of discourses of BY in their own libraries and new of the quotes that the antis use. But because we lacked the internet, we could come to our own conclusions about the information. And we could talk with other members who also had the books. Much more simple back then. Sorry for the answer in blue lines but since I am on limited I need to be careful with how many posts I post a day. Edited February 4, 2015 by why me
why me Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) It would be nice to have the discussion not be only about SSM. Can we please not have this thread become another deteriorates to a SSM thread.Mormonnewb, john should be able to go off without a bunch of members throwing rocks instead of life preservers. He is very polarizing and manipulative. He is not easy to love. Like you, he can get in your face. I try to do my best with both of you. IMO he (john) has hurt more people than you with his agenda. That is tough. I know these people.Mr Rockpond I won't even try to go toe to toe with you. You will defend SSM and John far longer than I could even think about. I will concede and not even try to go up against you.Mr mormonnewb needs to meet people who feel very betrayed by john. And there seem to be many of these people around on other boards posting their feelings. He seems to be unaware of the hurt that many people feel. But those of us who have been around a long time on the boards and from the beginning of John's podcasts know much of this betrayal. One one board, the poster gave quite a rundown of john's behavior point by point and this person is no fan of the church. Edited February 4, 2015 by why me 2
Tacenda Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Mr mormonnewb needs to meet people who feel very betrayed by john. And there seem to be many of these people around on other boards posting their feelings. He seems to be unaware of the hurt that many people feel. But those of us who have been around a long time on the boards and from the beginning of John's podcasts know much of this betrayal. One one board, the poster gave quite a rundown of john's behavior point by point and this person is no fan of the church.I've been around from the beginning, maybe I'm not where I can see what you're talking about. Is it in FB groups that you're seeing this? Where would you see these things? Though I agree, John has changed his tune somewhat, and probably bitter since he see's that the LGBT issues aren't being fixed. And I've been listening to old podcasts. But yesterday and on other occasions I read a woman's FC coming about entirely from reading the church essays, so now who's to blame? The Santa Claus analogy is spot on, the church certainly makes it so there is no middle ground either. They aren't necessarily taking their cues from people like the Givens, etc. It's been stated from the pulpit that it's all true or it's all a fraud. Why can't it just be a church of faith and hope? Instead we get these changes, significant changes that cause people to wonder/question. Or info that trickled in here and there just to keep them honest. Almost like small print. And now with the internet more has been done to share the info, well kind of. When the essays came out, I was glad to see it printed in the Church News and Deseret News. But haven't seen much since.
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I'm saying they can't state that it was a civil rights issue as a fact when it wasn't a fact but their opinion. Sure they can. It's their opinion that it is a fact...just like it's your opinion that it is not a fact. But it seems you have an argument with Elder Oaks not them--at least Elder Oaks from 30 years ago.
Mars Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Sure they can. It's their opinion that it is a fact...just like it's your opinion that it is not a fact. But it seems you have an argument with Elder Oaks not them--at least Elder Oaks from 30 years ago. I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks has arguments with Elder Oaks from 30 years ago. Heaven knows Mars has arguments with Mars from 10 years ago... 2
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks has arguments with Elder Oaks from 30 years ago. Heaven knows Mars has arguments with Mars from 10 years ago... Sure. But that wasn't my point. Bluebell, I believe, pointed out that to associate rights with marriage wasn't a part of it in 2008. But obviously it was 30 years ago. So I'm not sure where she gets the idea that rights wasn't a part of it in 2008. I think it was.
Recommended Posts