"the Faithful Won't Yield On Religious Liberty"

[rockpond]

You know, I know this the popular thing to teach, even some GA's have said it.

But I'd like to know where God said it, where God said that sexual relations main job, the purpose of their existence, was for anything other than multiplying and replenishing the earth.

Not denying it has other perks, but as to its actual purpose in being, I think God has only ever taken one position.

I see your point. My answer would be to look at His design for the system. Women are only fertile a fraction of the time. The other benefits work all of the time. Just a thought. Also, the intimate physical bond seems to help keep couples together for the long run. (IMO)

But I'm admitting I don't have anything that God may have said... Only my best interpretation of what He created.

Edited April 4, 2015 by rockpond

[mormonnewb]

You know, I know this the popular thing to teach, even some GA's have said it.

But I'd like to know where God said it, where God said that sexual relations main job, the purpose of their existence, was for anything other than multiplying and replenishing the earth.

Not denying it has other perks, but as to its actual purpose in being, I think God has only ever taken one position.

I'm on my phone right now, but my understanding is that Pres. Packer gave a talk (perhaps, the little factory talk) where he explained that HF made the sex drive: (1) strong and (2) constant. And the purpose of it being constant was to bind the man and woman. If I remember correctly, Pres. Packer backs up his proposition by showing that, in the animal kingdom, the only animals that are monogamous and live in "families" (mom, dad and offspring) are those that mate consistently. In species that have mating seasons, the male usually lives in packs with other males and then only seeks the company of the female during the mating season. Obviously, those makes have almost nothing to do with raising their offspring.

I heard a summary of this talk so it's entirely possible that the speaker got it all wrong. But he seemed like a pretty smart guy to me (lots of initials after his last name).

[tonie]

"Given that same-sex [Western cultural practices of] marriage has the same level of scriptural support as abortion (none), we’ll see the same phenomenon at work in the contemporary churches."

 

I wonder what his position is about divorce?

 

It also does not defy reasonableness that he would view the LDS Church as having surrendered to the "left".  And someone who has to write use perjoratives like "left", appears desparate and writing to an ill-informed audience.

Edited April 4, 2015 by tonie

[danielwoods]

Do you ever stop to think that perhaps you are attacking the absolutely least significant sexual sin ever?????  One that only affects the church when it tries to impose its beliefs on others? 

 

 

Until you lose your business because of your faith, or job. Or until preaching the exact words of the bible put you in prison. Sure, it's a small minority, so why do they make it seem like a big deal for everyone else, that we must accept, change, adapt to their viewpoint? 

[california boy]

Until you lose your business because of your faith, or job. Or until preaching the exact words of the bible put you in prison. Sure, it's a small minority, so why do they make it seem like a big deal for everyone else, that we must accept, change, adapt to their viewpoint? 

There are endless threads on this subject so this is probably a waste of time.  But I don't know of a single church that thinks it is a sin to serve a gay couple.  Christ lead by example in spending most of His life in the service of sinners.

 

And NO ONE is asking or forcing you to accept a single thing.  Even after gay marriage is legal, most in the Church will not accept their marriages nor are they required to.

 

But I am sure these facts will not stop you or anyone to make gay couples the scape goat that they dearly love to use these days.

[cinepro]

Given that same-sex marriage has the same level of scriptural support as abortion (none), we’ll see the same phenomenon at work in the contemporary churches. Christians who are already on their way out of orthodoxy will embrace same-sex marriage largely to the same extent that they’ve already embraced porn, abortion, and sex outside of marriage. In fact, churchgoing Christians who support same-sex marriage are eight times more likely than churchgoing Christians who oppose same-sex marriage to think viewing porn is acceptable, almost four times more likely to believe cohabitation is acceptable, almost six times more likely to think adultery is ok, and almost six times more likely to support abortion rights. The churchgoing supporter of same-sex marriage is much more like the average American than the average churchgoing American.

This paragraph seems to veer wildly from nonsensical to painfully obvious, sometimes in the same sentence.

 

But ultimately I think I agree with it.  Just as with abortion, pornography, cohabitation and adultery, I am opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, but don't think the government should use its power to outlaw it.

[Stone holm]

Most Mormon fundamentalist "churches" follow that.  They are for the most part holding steady in their numbers.  It doesn't seem to have impacted the 25-30,000 fundamentalists in the intermountain west.

Since it was the State I grew up in, I have been following Indiana fairly closely. It's stance on religious liberty has sparked a religious revival there of sorts. Several polygamist groups are now coming out of the closet and demanding protection, a Wiccan group is now demanding protection for its nude rituals, and a new Church of Cannabis has been formed. It seems that Hoosiers are now taking religious liberty serious. Has there been a similar revival and spark of interest out west?

[teddyaware]

There are endless threads on this subject so this is probably a waste of time.  But I don't know of a single church that thinks it is a sin to serve a gay couple.  Christ lead by example in spending most of His life in the service of sinners.

 

And NO ONE is asking or forcing you to accept a single thing.  Even after gay marriage is legal, most in the Church will not accept their marriages nor are they required to.

 

But I am sure these facts will not stop you or anyone to make gay couples the scape goat that they dearly love to use these days.

 

That's right, Christ did spend His life in service to sinners. But the time He spent with those sinners was to the end that He would teach them to repent and turn to lives of godliness in obedience to the will of God. To the woman taken in adultery He said "go they way and sin no more. He most certainly did not say "go thy way and sin some more.

 

I'm wondering how the participants and guests at a typical gay wedding would react if Christian caterers who were compelled by threat of law to supply and serve food at the wedding spent much of their time preaching the gospel message to the wedding attendees and witnessing to them about the evils of gay marriage?  Should the law not only compel the caterers to supply and serve the food against their conscience but also compel them to remain silent as well?  

Edited April 6, 2015 by teddyaware

[california boy]

That's right, Christ did spend His life in service to sinners. But the time He spent with those sinners was to the end that He would teach them to repent and turn to lives of godliness in obedience to the will of God. To the woman taken in adultery He said "go they way and sin no more. He most certainly did not say "go thy way and sin some more.

 

I'm wondering how the participants and guests at a typical gay wedding would react if Christian caterers who were compelled by threat of law to supply and serve food at the wedding spent much of their time preaching the gospel message to the wedding attendees and witnessing to them about the evils of gay marriage?  Should the law not only compel the caterers to supply and serve the food against their conscience but also compel them to remain silent as well?  

 

 

Christ still fed sinners bread and fish.  He didn't say only those without sin are allowed to be served.  Those that claim their religion is suppose to follow Christ will find no scriptural support in the life of Christ to discriminate against sinners.  Matthew 25 is Christ's last public sermon.  All would do well to not only read it, but to follow it.

 

Caterers do not loose their freedom of speech when they cater.  But that also doesn't mean that they would be free from consequences of their speech what ever that might be.  "Go thy way and sin no more" is hardly standing on the buffet table and telling the gay couple they are going to hell.  So if you are really a follower of Christ, I would think you would be compelled to not only serve but also encourage righteous behavior in a private quiet way.  At least that is how Christ handled the woman given in adultery.  I think she felt Christ's love for her as much as hearing His words of encouragement to not sin.  I would hope that the "christian" caterors would be as loving and encouraging as Christ.  Since Mormons consider gay marriage as sinful as adultery, then a like response would probably be appropriate.  And it is certainly a more Christ like way of dealing with sinners than discriminating against them.  

 

Perhaps the compromise the church is looking for is for Christians to be more Christ like in how they do business with gay couples..

 

Sound reasonable??

Edited April 6, 2015 by california boy

[teddyaware]

Christ still fed sinners bread and fish.  He didn't say only those without sin are allowed to be served.  Those that claim their religion is suppose to follow Christ will find no scriptural support in the life of Christ to discriminate against sinners.  Matthew 25 is Christ's last public sermon.  All would do well to not only read it, but to follow it.

 

Caterers do not loose their freedom of speech when they cater.  But that also doesn't mean that they would be free from consequences of their speech what ever that might be.  "Go thy way and sin no more" is hardly standing on the buffet table and telling the gay couple they are going to hell.  So if you are really a follower of Christ, I would think you would be compelled to not only serve but also encourage righteous behavior in a private quiet way.  At least that is how Christ handled the woman given in adultery.  I think she felt Christ's love for her as much as hearing His words of encouragement to not sin.  I would hope that the "christian" caterors would be as loving and encouraging as Christ.  Since Mormons consider gay marriage as sinful as adultery, then a like response would probably be appropriate.  And it is certainly a more Christ like way of dealing with sinners than discriminating against them.  

 

Perhaps the compromise the church is looking for is for Christians to be more Christ like in how they do business with gay couples..

 

Sound reasonable??

 

Christ was not compelled by government edict and governmental threats of personal and financial destruction to feed sinners. He did what He did as a free agent without being compelled by threats from the governmental powers that be. In fact, He often stood up to and defied the the ruling powers that stood in opposition to His personal religious sensibilities. 

 

If this trend to empower government to use compulsory power to force religious people of conscience to do what they don't believe in doing continues, there will very likely be many unforeseen consequences that all people of good will, straight or gay, will decry as unconstitutional and unjust limits on personal freedom of conscience. For example, if some particularly hard-hearted group of abortion advocates decide to torment a pro-life artistic-baker by saying they want him to bake a cake with a likeness of a bloody aborted fetus on top of the cake, should our baker be compelled to bake and create such a cake? After all, abortion is perfectly legal and considered perfectly respectable by a large number of US citizens. Or what if as America continues to ripen in iniquity some diabolical religion springs up that practices abortion as a legal form of ritual child sacrifice -- should our pro-life artistic baker be compelled to create a cake with the likeness of an abortion in progress on top of the cake? After all, there are already many US citizens who laud abortionists as heros who liberate women from "oppression."

 

You will likely say my examples are outlandish and ridiculous. But not many years ago the notion of gay weddings would have been considered to be equally outlandish and ridiculous,  if such an improbable idea would have even entered into anyone's mind. 

 

The problem is that the devil is real and his goal always was and still is to destroy the agency of man by calling evil good and then forcing the children of men to do what they know in their hearts they should not do. The devil is the ultimate totalitarian and he will not at all be satisfied merely by a success in using the coercive power of government to force religious people to participate in gay marriages. In reality there is no limit to the degree of degradation and enslavement he would force upon the human race. These societal changes that are now rapidly taking place are not happening in a sterile vacuum, but taking place on the battlefield of spiritual right and wrong where wicked intelligences are working with their leader to defy God and destroy the God-given freedom of the children of men. The forces of darkness won't stop nor be satisfied until all free agents are fully enslaved and made perfectly miserable like unto themselves. 

Edited April 6, 2015 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Your religious right to swing your righteous fist ends at my nose.

 

Ps;  Loving v Virginia wasn't that long ago either.

Edited April 6, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

Christ was not compelled by government edict and governmental threats of personal and financial destruction to feed sinners. He did what He did as a free agent without being compelled by threats from the governmental powers that be. In fact, He often stood up to and defied the the ruling powers that stood in opposition to His personal religious sensibilities. 

 

If this trend to empower government to use compulsory power to force religious people of conscience to do what they don't believe in doing continues, there will very likely be many unforeseen consequences that all people of good will, straight or gay, will decry as unconstitutional and unjust limits on personal freedom of conscience. For example, if some particularly hard-hearted group of abortion advocates decide to torment a pro-life artistic-baker by saying they want him to bake a cake with a likeness of a bloody aborted fetus on top of the cake, should our baker be compelled to bake and create such a cake? After all, abortion is perfectly legal and considered perfectly respectable by a large number of US citizens. Or what if as America continues to ripen in iniquity some diabolical religion springs up that practices abortion as a legal form of ritual child sacrifice -- should our pro-life artistic baker be compelled to create a cake with the likeness of an abortion in progress on top of the cake? After all, there are already many US citizens who laud abortionists as heros who liberate women from "oppression."

 

You will likely say my examples are outlandish and ridiculous. But not many years ago the notion of gay weddings would have been considered to be equally outlandish and ridiculous,  if such an improbable idea would have even entered into anyone's mind. 

 

The problem is that the devil is real and his goal always was and still is to destroy the agency of man by calling evil good and then forcing the children of men to do what they know in their hearts they should not do. The devil is the ultimate totalitarian and he will not at all be satisfied merely by a success in using the coercive power of government to force religious people to participate in gay marriages. In reality there is no limit to the degree of degradation and enslavement he would force upon the human race. These societal changes that are now rapidly taking place are not happening in a sterile vacuum, but taking place on the battlefield of spiritual right and wrong where wicked intelligences are working with their leader to defy God and destroy the God-given freedom of the children of men. The forces of darkness won't stop nor be satisfied until all free agents are fully enslaved and made perfectly miserable like unto themselves. 

 

I get it.  You are of the camp that thinks we should turn back the clock and go back to the "we don't serve your kind" kind of businesses.  The anti discrimination laws have been law in this country for 50 years.  In my opinion, this country and its citizens are better because of them.  You feel it is satan that is encouraging more Christ like behavior.  I see your point.  I just don't agree with it.  

 

And your example is completely bogus.  You clearly don't even understand how the anti discrimination laws work.  A baker does not have to bake any cake a customer demands.  He only has to offer all of the cakes he currently bakes to all of his customers.  So in your example if the baker does not offer abortion cakes, then he is not forced to bake any.  If he does offer abortion cakes, then he has to offer them to all of his customers.  If the baker offers wedding cakes, then he has to offer wedding cakes to all of his customers.  He is not compelled to decorate them in a unique way, write anything on the cake or put two grooms on the cake.  He just has to offer his wedding cakes to all of his customers.  Does a better understanding of the actual discrimination laws calm your fears a little more?  It is not about forcing a baker to bake a unique cake, it is about a baker serving ALL if his customers without discrimination.

 

Now when you pray about how to treat others, doesn't the spirit prompt you to treat others with equal kindness and compassion no matter what their sins?  Gently moving them towards Christ rather than crossing the street because they are sinners?  Christ wasn't compelled to help the Samaritan, but He taught that we as His followers should be compelled to serve all.  We are all sinners.  We are all beggars.  "When you do it unto the least of these, you do it unto me."  I will leave you with that thought.

[teddyaware]

I get it.  You are of the camp that thinks we should turn back the clock and go back to the "we don't serve your kind" kind of businesses.  The anti discrimination laws have been law in this country for 50 years.  In my opinion, this country and its citizens are better because of them.  You feel it is satan that is encouraging more Christ like behavior.  I see your point.  I just don't agree with it.  

 

And your example is completely bogus.  You clearly don't even understand how the anti discrimination laws work.  A baker does not have to bake any cake a customer demands.  He only has to offer all of the cakes he currently bakes to all of his customers.  So in your example if the baker does not offer abortion cakes, then he is not forced to bake any.  If he does offer abortion cakes, then he has to offer them to all of his customers.  If the baker offers wedding cakes, then he has to offer wedding cakes to all of his customers.  He is not compelled to decorate them in a unique way, write anything on the cake or put two grooms on the cake.  He just has to offer his wedding cakes to all of his customers.  Does a better understanding of the actual discrimination laws calm your fears a little more?  It is not about forcing a baker to bake a unique cake, it is about a baker serving ALL if his customers without discrimination.

 

Now when you pray about how to treat others, doesn't the spirit prompt you to treat others with equal kindness and compassion no matter what their sins?  Gently moving them towards Christ rather than crossing the street because they are sinners?  Christ wasn't compelled to help the Samaritan, but He taught that we as His followers should be compelled to serve all.  We are all sinners.  We are all beggars.  "When you do it unto the least of these, you do it unto me."  I will leave you with that thought.

 

It's all very simple: You believe the souls of men should be compelled to compromise their religious beliefs and practices in the name of politically correct "fairness" and I don't.  Compel away and enjoy yourself while it lasts.  

[Gray]

It's all very simple: You believe the souls of men should be compelled to compromise their religious beliefs and practices in the name of politically correct "fairness" and I don't.  Compel away and enjoy yourself while it lasts.  

 

That doesn't sound like what he was saying. 

[teddyaware]

That doesn't sound like what he was saying. 

 

Call it what you will and adorn it in all the high-sounding progressive language you like, in the end it's the adversary's program of compelling the souls of men and it won't end up in a good place. Mark my words. 

Edited April 6, 2015 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

Call it what you will and adorn it in al the high-sounding progressive language you like, in the end it's the adversary's program of compelling the souls of men and it won't end up in a good place. Mark my words.

So legalized discrimination is the Lord's way of countering the devil's plan to deny gays wedding cakes.

I kind of expected the calling good evil and evil good to be less blatant.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

I don't want to put rose-colored glasses over the past. Some positive changes have increased divorce statistics. Feminism gave women more courage to flee abusive relationships for one.

But you just did with your comment here. I think this was secondary or tertiary. Modern day feminism is one of the biggest reason for a decline in marriage. "You don't need a man".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, you may have misunderstood my beliefs... I certainly do NOT believe that sexual immorality isn't sinful.

Yes you do. Homosexual behavior has been defined by the church as sinful and immoral. You just don't think it is. Because you received a revelation form the "HS".

 

Whom do I trust? RP who is no a prophet and is not authorized to speak for the church or do I chose to follow the church leaders and the revealed word? This is a tough one. Maybe you had better re think your position.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe the Church will change because it's the right thing to do.

And has been reiterate time and time again at GC it will never happen. It can't happen because it goes against the foundation of what has been taught. And it is not the right thing to do.On this point you are simply wrong. Marriage is between only a man and a woman. Not 2 men or 2 women. Did you even listen to conference? It was clear.

[rockpond]

Yes you do. Homosexual behavior has been defined by the church as sinful and immoral. You just don't think it is. Because you received a revelation form the "HS".

 

Whom do I trust? RP who is no a prophet and is not authorized to speak for the church or do I chose to follow the church leaders and the revealed word? This is a tough one. Maybe you had better re think your position.

 

If you think I haven't "rethought" my position a dozen times over than you haven't been paying attention.

 

Kindly refrain from telling me what I believe when you don't know nor understand me.  What I stated is correct and an accurate reflection of my beliefs.

 

p.s.  You should trust the Prophet over me.  Full stop.

[danielwoods]

There are endless threads on this subject so this is probably a waste of time.  But I don't know of a single church that thinks it is a sin to serve a gay couple.  Christ lead by example in spending most of His life in the service of sinners.

 

And NO ONE is asking or forcing you to accept a single thing.  Even after gay marriage is legal, most in the Church will not accept their marriages nor are they required to.

 

But I am sure these facts will not stop you or anyone to make gay couples the scape goat that they dearly love to use these days.

 

If someone loses their business, how is that not forcing them to accept your viewpoint? 

[rockpond]

And has been reiterate time and time again at GC it will never happen. It can't happen because it goes against the foundation of what has been taught. And it is not the right thing to do.On this point you are simply wrong. Marriage is between only a man and a woman. Not 2 men or 2 women. Did you even listen to conference? It was clear.

 

Our foundation is Christ and his atonement.  There is no reason same sex marriage cannot fit into that foundation.  But I'm quite comfortable with you believing that I am wrong.  Your vitriolic attitude about this gives me further assurance that I am on the correct path.

 

And yes, I did listen to conference.  Here are some other *absolute* statements made by our church leaders regarding our view on marriage.

 

“But, for the information of those who may be assailed by these foolish tales about two wives, we would say that no such principle ever existed among the Latter-day Saints, and never will... the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants; and also all our periodicals are very strict on that subject, indeed for more so than the Bible.” --Millennial Star, v. 3, p. 74

 

Brigham Young:  “’Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?’ If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.” --Deseret News, October 10, 1866

 

Brigham Young:  " Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood." --JoD, Vol.7, Pg.290-291

 

Brigham Young:  “Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ It is the only popular religion there...” --Deseret News, Aug 6, 1862

 

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible." --Improvement Era

 

Brigham Young:  "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."  --JoD, 10:110

 

And just for fun, this "famous" one...

 

Joseph Fielding Smith:  "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." --May 14, 1961 Stake Conf in Honolulu

[The Nehor]

But you just did with your comment here. I think this was secondary or tertiary. Modern day feminism is one of the biggest reason for a decline in marriage. "You don't need a man".

 

Feminism has been a mixed bag. I applaud the increased ability of women to escape abusive marriages and their increase in economic opportunities. The idea that they do not need a man to be complete is, of course, wrong. Both genders need each other to be complete.

 

I am not sure how that constitutes rose-colored glasses. I do not look back at the last century as some kind of golden age like many do.

[Mormonmaniac]

Feminist movements are bad news for society.

[CV75]

 

Our foundation is Christ and his atonement.  There is no reason same sex marriage cannot fit into that foundation.

The atonement brings opposing principles (such as justice and mercy) into eternal harmony, just as eternal marriage does (male and female). This is why non-opposing principles cannot be married, but must “remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.” Opposing principles have life only when they are "a compound in one."

 

There is no place in Christ and His atonement for things of naught. One of the many problems with claims that the Holy Spirt witnesses that there is is that there is no bona-fide invitation extended to receive it.

 

Getting back to religious freedom, the Book of Mormon teaches how important it is, and the principles that can either enhance or undermine (or support or oppose) it.