Epsicopalins And Their Right To Marry Ssm & The 11Th Article Of Faith

[thatjimguy]

The episcopalins preform same sex marriges. It is officially part of their religion.

 

Isn't making laws to stop them against our 11th Article of Faith?

 

Everything I have learned about being an LDS (as a convert) is that the new scriptures and revelations are about agency and freedom to worship.

Edited June 28, 2015 by thatjimguy

[Kenngo1969]

Episcopalins?  Why drag Todd, Sarah, and the gang into this?    (Sorry; couldn't resist.)

 

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot make law; it lacks that power.
2. As with all other faiths (along with many other groups), the Church of Jesus Christ gets a seat at the table in legal and policy discussions that have an impact on morality generally and on religion specifically.  That is as it should be.  If you're going to argue otherwise, you should recognize that the endpoint of starting on such a course may well put you in a place you don't want to be at the end of that road.
3. Pick a horse, any horse, and ride it, but don't change horses in the middle of the race: is opposition to same-sex marriage wrong because it abridges freedom of worship, or because, legally, it's untenable to deny government benefits conferred by the status of marriage to same-sex couples while conferring those benefits on opposite-sex couples?  (I don't concede that the latter position is correct, I'm simply asking you to clarify your position in order to facilitate the discussion.)
4. There's a difference between religious worship and free exercise of religion: while, surely, the latter includes the former, it is not limited to it.  However, we're rapidly approaching the point in the legal and policy arenas, respectively, in which the two terms will be treated as synonyms, and in which a person will be said to have the "religious freedom" contemplated by the First Amendment as long as the government does not intrude on what he does within the walls of his holy place on his holy day.  I doubt that's what the Constitution's framers intended in crafting the First Amendment.  I think that's one of the reasons why the Brethren have been so concerned about legal outcomes in the same-sex marriage debate.
5. Marriage, particularly as practiced as a religious sacrament, may include elements of worship, but it, in itself, is not an act of worship.
6. I suspect another reason why the Brethren are concerned is that if same-sex marriage were where the path upon which we've embarked were to end, that would be one thing.  I suspect, however, that it's just the beginning: I suspect that the tax-exempt status and other benefits accorded to churches and religious organizations that maintain that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God now will be attacked.
7. The overriding reason why marriage as conceived in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is so important is because it facilitates the creation and nurturing of families (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World). Companionship, and even romantic love, may be important parts of many relationships (even of families that do not have children), but, in God's plan, marriage between a man and a woman is the sin qua non of families, and is the best environment in which to bring children into the world.

[Meadowchik]

The episcopalins preform same sex marriges. It is officially part of their religion.

 

Isn't making laws to stop them against our 11th Article of Faith?

 

Everything I have learned about being an LDS (as a convert) is that the new scriptures and revelations are about agency and freedom to worship.

 

Some religions also believe in beating the devil out of children, or not giving them lifesaving antibiotics. 

 

I don't believe the 11th means that religious practice is an excuse for crimes.

[thesometimesaint]

It does me no injury for my neighbor to believe in 20 Gods or no Gods, it neither break my leg nor picks my pocket.

Thomas Jefferson.

 

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Joseph Smith Jr.

[bluebell]

Churches and ministers were marrying same sex partners long before and government recognized the marriage. It did not impact their agency.

No church has a right to have their religious ceremonies legitimized by the government. Likewise, not having that legitimacy does not take away their agency to perform such ceremonies.

[carbon dioxide]

The episcopalins preform same sex marriges. It is officially part of their religion.

 

Isn't making laws to stop them against our 11th Article of Faith?

 

Everything I have learned about being an LDS (as a convert) is that the new scriptures and revelations are about agency and freedom to worship.

No.  The issue was about changing the legal definition of marriage.  Not what a religion could do by its own.  Even if gay marriage was shot down by the Supreme Courth, if a church wanted to perform a gay wedding and recognize it for their own purposes they could.  Temple sealings are private rites we do that does not require government sanction.  Usually we do both the "legal" marriage by the state and the sealing part at the same time but it does not have to be that way.

[JLHPROF]

The episcopalins preform same sex marriges. It is officially part of their religion.

 

Isn't making laws to stop them against our 11th Article of Faith?

 

Everything I have learned about being an LDS (as a convert) is that the new scriptures and revelations are about agency and freedom to worship.

 

1. Making laws is not something the Church has ever done.

2. The 11th Article of Faith specifically refers to worship, not actions.

3. The righteous have never been directed by God to accept the wicked in their sins.  Accepting sin is not God's way.

4. Agency of one man to sin places no requirement of acceptance or tolerance on another man.  Or else we would all be extending the hand of fellowship to all manner of evils.

[thatjimguy]

Kengo, JHLPROF, I thik you know that I did not mean that the church made laws directly. Cute.

 

If the 11th article refers to actions,  wouldn't that mean that we were wrong about polygamy and the US was right to make laws against Mormons during that time? Aren't we opening a doorway for people to come after our beliefs?

 

We do not have to accept wickedness, but we can fight SSM without forcing people to live our gospel. What's wrong with influence?

Edited June 28, 2015 by thatjimguy

[CV75]

The episcopalins preform same sex marriges. It is officially part of their religion.

 

Isn't making laws to stop them against our 11th Article of Faith?

 

Everything I have learned about being an LDS (as a convert) is that the new scriptures and revelations are about agency and freedom to worship.

I think it depends on whether the legal jurisdiction within which they operate eccesiastically has granted them a license to perform same-sex marriages (render unto Ceasar...). Otherwise it is just a symbolic, "church" same-sex marriage, not a "civil" same-sex marriage.

[CV75]

Kengo, JHLPROF, I thik you know that I did not mean that the church made laws directly. Cute.

 

If the 11th article refers to actions,  wouldn't that mean that we were wrong about polygamy and the US was right to make laws against Mormons during that time? Aren't we opening a doorway for people to come after our beliefs?

 

We do not have to accept wickedness, but we can fight SSM without forcing people to live our gospel. What's wrong with influence?

Yes, threats against religious freedom are carried out by the laws that are passed (or left unenforced, depending). There is a section in this article that discusses it. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

 

I think Chief Justice Roberts was advocating influence in his dissent.

[Avatar4321]

No one was stopping them fro.performing whatever religious ceremony they wanted to. But that doesn't mean the government should recognize that ceremony as legally binding.

Should the fact that the government doesn't legally recognize the endowment mean we are being persecuted? Should we assume we don't have our religious ability or that said ceremony has no effect?

[Kenngo1969]

... If the 11th article refers to actions,  wouldn't that mean that we were wrong about polygamy and the US was right to make laws against Mormons during that time? Aren't we opening a doorway for people to come after our beliefs? ...

 

 

There is no equivalency between polygamy and same-sex marriage: the latter, without the intervention of a third party, lacks the power to create a family, while the only scriptural justification for the former of which I am aware involves the creation of families.  And I'm not following your logic as to any supposed relationship between the eleventh Article of Faith and polygamy. You're welcome to connect a few more dots for me there, if you like.  As for your contention that standing up for what is right "open a doorway for people to come after our beliefs," I reiterate my contention that while the eleventh Article of Faith refers to worship, the Founders' conception of Free Religious Exercise in the First Amendment is broader than that.  If other religions want to solemnize gay unions, that's up to them.  By contrast, those who stand for traditional marriage should not be penalized under the law for supporting it or for opposing gay unions, and I fear that's what's coming.

We do not have to accept wickedness, but we can fight SSM without forcing people to live our gospel. What's wrong with influence?

 

There are plenty of proponents of traditional marriage of all religious stripes, and even of no particular religious stripe.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands with them.  Such support is not simply about "forcing people to live our gospel."

 

P.S.: If you're concerned about the proper role of religion in general in public life, and about the proper role of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular in public life, I commend Doctrine and Covenants Section 134 to you.  And the Brethren don't freelance: I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has undertaken support of traditional marriage because He whose Church this is commanded its leaders to do so.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[thatjimguy]

Kengo, the eqivelency between SSM and polygamy is that both are considered abominations that had laws drawn up because of them.

 

Gay marriage is considered an abomination. People want laws to stop it.

 

LDS used to be polygamists, which other churches thought was an abomination. They made laws against Mormons because of it.

 

 

 

I also would think that a SSM marriage ceremony is a form of worship to them, just like our Temple ceremony is to us.

Edited June 28, 2015 by thatjimguy

[thatjimguy]

Yes, threats against religious freedom are carried out by the laws that are passed (or left unenforced, depending). There is a section in this article that discusses it. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

 

I think Chief Justice Roberts was advocating influence in his dissent.

 

 

 

I understand that others may attack our religious freedoms, I am totally against that and not surprised by it.

 

However, it is when we are the instigators of attacking relgious freedoms that is bothering me, when scriptures and doctrine say we should not be a part of  it.

Edited June 28, 2015 by thatjimguy

[CV75]

I understand that others may attack our religious freedoms, I am totally against that and not surprised by it.

 

However, it is when we are the instigators of attacking relgious freedoms that is bothering me, when scriptures and doctrine say we should not be a part of  it.

Then stahp! Stahp it! -- whatever you're doing to attack religious freedoms.

 

The LDS Church is not attacking or opposing anyone's religious freedoms through legislation (assuming that is the topic at hand, which may be an incorrect assumption on my part). Her opposition to SSM legislation is on religious grounds. Her lack of adopting a SSM ordinance like some churches have is certainly not a reflection of attacking others' religious freedom to pervert the original covenant, just matter of a fact that she is not changing God's law.

[filovirus]

Kengo, the eqivelency between SSM and polygamy is that both are considered abominations that had laws drawn up because of them.

 

Gay marriage is considered an abomination. People want laws to stop it.

 

LDS used to be polygamists, which other churches thought was an abomination. They made laws against Mormons because of it.

 

 

 

I also would think that a SSM marriage ceremony is a form of worship to them, just like our Temple ceremony is to us.

Other churches did not make laws against Mormons and the practice of polygamy. The government did. Stop trying to say that other churches made the law. They had influence, yes, but what you're arguing is absurd.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I don't believe the 11th means that religious practice is an excuse for crimes.

 

 Elder Oaks said, "First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety." 

 

So how does SSM endanger public health or safety?

 

Why don't you want SSM to be legal? Why not give moral agency to LGBT?

Just because you allow something doesn't mean you promote it. 

 

 

Churches and ministers were marrying same sex partners long before and government recognized the marriage. It did not impact their agency.

 

So why are polygamists still persecuted and arrested for marrying other adults in their temple? 

Edited June 29, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mormonmaniac]

I think we as a church have the right to vocally oppose practices that we know are harmful to society and detrimental to God's children. At stake in the SSM debate comes right down to rights of individuals, churches, local and state governments, etc. If we think God is innocently sitting and doing nothing, then be warned because we are quickly ripening for destruction where God himself will send out His judgment amongst men in the destruction thereof. Talk about not having agency when we are burning to death!

[bluebell]

So why are polygamists still persecuted and arrested for marrying other adults in their temple?

Because Utah had a law which specifically made living with more than one spouse as if you are married illegal, regardless of how many marriage licenses are involved.

[thatjimguy]

Other churches did not make laws against Mormons and the practice of polygamy. The government did. Stop trying to say that other churches made the law. They had influence, yes, but what you're arguing is absurd.

 

Wow. So many people mince words.

 

Yes, I know that churches do not make laws folks. My wording is coming across wrong, but I think you really know what I mean, but I will rephrase...

 

 

Gay marriage is considered an abomination. People want laws to stop it.

 

LDS used to be polygamists, which other churches thought was an abomination. Which resulted in laws against Mormons because of it.

 

 

Is that better CV?

 

Edited June 29, 2015 by thatjimguy

[thatjimguy]

 

The LDS Church is not attacking or opposing anyone's religious freedoms through legislation (assuming that is the topic at hand, which may be an incorrect assumption on my part). Her opposition to SSM legislation is on religious grounds. Her lack of adopting a SSM ordinance like some churches have is certainly not a reflection of attacking others' religious freedom to pervert the original covenant, just matter of a fact that she is not changing God's law.

 

Who is "her"?

[california boy]

I think we as a church have the right to vocally oppose practices that we know are harmful to society and detrimental to God's children. At stake in the SSM debate comes right down to rights of individuals, churches, local and state governments, etc. If we think God is innocently sitting and doing nothing, then be warned because we are quickly ripening for destruction where God himself will send out His judgment amongst men in the destruction thereof. Talk about not having agency when we are burning to death!

I hear the next ballot measure the church is going to spend 40 million dollars on is a ban on divorce. Christ himself condemned it in the bible and it is the single most destructive force on marriage and families today

This will prove to the world that Prop 8 was a moral issue and not some attack against gays rooted in prejudice

[california boy]

Duplicate post

Edited June 29, 2015 by california boy

[Meadowchik]

 Elder Oaks said, "First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety." 

 

So how does SSM endanger public health or safety?

 

Why don't you want SSM to be legal? Why not give moral agency to LGBT?

Just because you allow something doesn't mean you promote it. 

 

 

 

 

You took that out of context, I said this:

 

"Some religions also believe in beating the devil out of children, or not giving them lifesaving antibiotics. 

 

I don't believe the 11th means that religious practice is an excuse for crimes."

 

As for same-sex marriage or anything else, I don't believe the 11th Article was meant as a free religious exception to anything.  The point, IMO, is that we cannot prohibit someone from something just because it is of a religion with which we disagree. It means that, as a religious society, our aim is not to snuff out other religious practices.  By no means is it a license to do anything merely because it is religious.

 

I've never used religious argument against the legalisation of same-sex marriage and I've argued against ssm a great deal.  Using religion that way would go against my core beliefs.

 

I used the parenting examples as extremes because they came to mind and I feel very strongly about them.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Kenngo1969]

 Elder Oaks said, "First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety." 

 

So how does SSM endanger public health or safety? ...

You're not seriously arguing that Elder Oaks has no qualms about same sex marriage on the basis that it doesn't endanger health or safety, are you?