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

[CV75]

Who is "her"?

The Church. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of SSM as a Constitutional right, the Church will continue her efforts to protect the free exercise of religion with regards to how religious people intersect with those who practice things that are abominable to them, and how church organizations address demands and pressure on them to accommodate religiously abominable practices.

[Kenngo1969]

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 have already outlined the difference between gay marriage and polygamy according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And as I've said numerous times before on many of the various gay marriage threads, the position of the Church of Jesus Christ is: (1) sex outside of marriage is wrong; and (2) marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.  Gay marriage only addresses the first of those two points.  And while many proponents of opposite-sex marriage base their arguments on religious grounds, not all of them do: there are sound psychological, sociological, legal (notwithstanding the recent decision of five U.S. Supreme Court justices), cultural, and other arguments in favor of opposite-sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion, and that even atheists (few though they may be among opposite-sex marriage proponents) have made.  If you want to know why the Church of Jesus Christ has taken such a strong stand in favor of traditional marriage, reread The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

 

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

You're right: for purposes of construing the 11th Article of Faith, it wouldn't be consistent for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actively to oppose gay marriage if the Church considers it to be a form of worship.  However, I seriously doubt Joseph Smith had gay marriage or anything else of the kind in mind (and that's a gargantuan understatement) when he authored that Article of Faith.

 

P.S.: And, as others have pointed out, and as you conspicuously continue to fail to address, whatever moral qualms the Church of Jesus Christ has with respect to gay marriage, they are not the only reasons why the Church is concerned about it: if gay marriage proponents were content to savor this legal and political victory and to leave churches alone, that would be one thing; however, as the more militant among them have already demonstrated, they are apt to continue attacking churches and their adherents (both the Church of Jesus Christ and others) merely for holding the beliefs that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

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.

Here is the issue.

The concern was that we could be forced to perform gay marriage if it was the law of the land.

It is still a concern.

It was never about forcing others to accept our beliefs.

Edited June 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

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

 

 

 

 

By saying nothing you are giving tacit approval.

[ERayR]

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

 

And I hear the SSM lobby is supporting it.  It is the only way they can hold all those SSM's together that they fought for so valiantly.

[Kenngo1969]

Here is the issue.

The concern was that we could be forced to perform gay marriage if it was the law of the land.

It is still a concern.

It was never about forcing others to accept our beliefs.

Oh, no.  As I noted in the "One Gay Marriage Thread to Rule Them All," that may be part of the reason why the Brethren are concerned; it may be a big part of the reason why the Brethren are concerned.  But the majority decision in Obergfell v. Hodges, notwithstanding the majority's generously condescending to throw those of us who are devout a bone by allowing us to continue to "believe" and to "teach" according to the dictates of our consciences (even though I believe the Framers' conception of free religious exercise is much broader than that), will impact free exercise in many, many ways before we reach the point where gay marriage proponents attempt to use government power to dictate religious exercise.

 

I hope I'm wrong; I doubt I am.  Time will tell.

[Mormonmaniac]

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

Your a comedian obviously.

[thatjimguy]

 

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.

 

 

Here's the problem. If it the act that is in question, what of the act of polygamy back in the day, as I asked earlier to Kengo? People did not like that for much of the same reasons. Although most liekly the hatred of which was rooted in religious belief, like Kengo pointed out with SSM, there were normal reasons not to have it in society.

 

Now granted, I know this is from Wikipedia,

 

"After the death of Joseph Smith, the practice of polygamy was carried to the Intermountain West by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then led by Brigham Young. In what is today Utah and some surrounding areas, the principle of plural marriage was openly practiced. In 1852, Young felt the church in Utah was secure enough to announce the practice of polygamy to the world. However opposition from the U.S. government threatened the legal standing of the church. President Wilford Woodruff announced the church's official abandonment of the practice on September 25, 1890. Woodruff's declaration was formally accepted in a church general conference on October 6, 1890. The Church's position on the practice of polygamy was reinforced by a second formal statement in 1904 called the Second Manifesto, which renouncing the practice in all areas of the world.[15] Although the largest part of the Mormon population accepted the prohibition on plural marriage, people now identified as Mormon fundamentalists left the mainline LDS Church to continue practicing plural marriage."

 

So was the USA right here? Or should we have been left alone?

Edited June 30, 2015 by thatjimguy

[thatjimguy]

Here is the issue.

The concern was that we could be forced to perform gay marriage if it was the law of the land.

It is still a concern.

It was never about forcing others to accept our beliefs.

 

 

That I understand, but we should fight that when that comes up. Otherwise, it's like arresting someone for a crime you think they are going to commit in the future.

[mfbukowski]

That I understand, but we should fight that when that comes up. Otherwise, it's like arresting someone for a crime you think they are going to commit in the future.

The church has issued a statement which will be read in all wards on this Sunday or next clarifying their position.

 

It is a powerful letter- I suggest you wait to hear what the church says.   It is not to be read in sacrament meeting but in other meetings.

[thatjimguy]

Thanks for the heads up.

[Meadowchik]

Here's the problem. If it the act that is in question, what of the act of polygamy back in the day, as I asked earlier to Kengo? People did not like that for much of the same reasons. Although most liekly the hatred of which was rooted in religious belief, there were normal reasons not to have it in society.

 

Now granted, I know this is from Wikipedia,

 

"After the death of Joseph Smith, the practice of polygamy was carried to the Intermountain West by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then led by Brigham Young. In what is today Utah and some surrounding areas, the principle of plural marriage was openly practiced. In 1852, Young felt the church in Utah was secure enough to announce the practice of polygamy to the world. However opposition from the U.S. government threatened the legal standing of the church. President Wilford Woodruff announced the church's official abandonment of the practice on September 25, 1890. Woodruff's declaration was formally accepted in a church general conference on October 6, 1890. The Church's position on the practice of polygamy was reinforced by a second formal statement in 1904 called the Second Manifesto, which renouncing the practice in all areas of the world.[15] Although the largest part of the Mormon population accepted the prohibition on plural marriage, people now identified as Mormon fundamentalists left the mainline LDS Church to continue practicing plural marriage."

 

So was the USA right here? Or should we have been left alone?

 

I think that if the USA decided to restrict marriage to a man and woman, that could have been constitutional.

 

However, this changes now with what the Court says in legalising same-sex marriage.  If a ban on ssm is unconstitutional, then imo, so is a ban on polygamy and other group marriages.

[thatjimguy]

 

 

You're right: for purposes of construing the 11th Article of Faith, it wouldn't be consistent for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actively to oppose gay marriage if the Church considers it to be a form of worship.  However, I seriously doubt Joseph Smith had gay marriage or anything else of the kind in mind (and that's a gargantuan understatement) when he authored that Article of Faith.

 

 

 

I don't think he may have had it in mind, but I think God did. Which, in a weird way, may even be the precursor for why polygamy came to be. This way, the Saint's could learn of religious persecution for having different beliefs and rituals that seem like an abomination to others. Makes sense to me.

 

[california boy]

And I hear the SSM lobby is supporting it. It is the only way they can hold all those SSM's together that they fought for so valiantly.

I promise to bring it up at our next gay agenda meeting. Do you have any suggestions you want me to pass on?

[tonie]

You're right: for purposes of construing the 11th Article of Faith, it wouldn't be consistent for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actively to oppose gay marriage if the Church considers it to be a form of worship.  However, I seriously doubt Joseph Smith had gay marriage or anything else of the kind in mind (and that's a gargantuan understatement) when he authored that Article of Faith.

 

 

 

Here is what Joseph Smith had to say about religious liberty.

 

Chapter 29: Living with Others in Peace and Harmony

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2011), 339–48

 

 

“We deem it a just principle, and it is one the force of which we believe ought to be duly considered by every individual, that all men are created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.”¹²

 

“I have the most liberal sentiments, and feelings of charity towards all sects, parties, and denominations; and the rights and liberties of conscience, I hold most sacred and dear, and despise no man for differing with me in matters of opinion.”¹³

 

“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.

 

“It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul—civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. Love of liberty was diffused into my soul by my grandfathers while they dandled me on their knees. …

 

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”¹⁴

 

“We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world, who choose to differ from us in opinion and in matters of faith. Our religion is between us and our God. Their religion is between them and their God.”

[Calm]

So was the USA right here? Or should we have been left alone?

 

Are you suggesting that the gay marriage advocates through their legal challenges, etc. were attempting to be "left alone" by the government?

[tonie]

I think that if the USA decided to restrict marriage to a man and woman, that could have been constitutional.

 

However, this changes now with what the Court says in legalising same-sex marriage.  If a ban on ssm is unconstitutional, then imo, so is a ban on polygamy and other group marriages.

 

 

Traditional marriage was argued/defended on the basis of  man and woman unite which encourages responsible procreation and that children are best raised by their father and mother.

 

What part of polygamy does not fit neatly within the reasons to defend traditional marriage?

 

As Justice Roberts mentioned, polygamy may verywell have a different legal analysis for considering the merits of polygamy.

[Auggybendoggy]

 

Thatjumguy, I hear you loud and clear.  Where exactly is the distincion between what the church allows and what the church allows as government?  It seems to me that most conservatives want both - make others who don't bellieve like you obey your views on marriage - is that the same as what the church allows?  I feel the church could deny SSM for the church and permit it for the public.

Years ago I always held the church (Christian/Catholic/Mormon/JW) should concede it to avoid the war with liberals.  Make the stance that we won't perform such a marriage but other religions should be allowed to.  Now the liberals are placing conservatives in their bullseye.

 

[thatjimguy]

Are you suggesting that the gay marriage advocates through their legal challenges, etc. were attempting to be "left alone" by the government?

 

You're right, now they may never leave it alone, much like a jew who jumps at anything remotely anti-semetic. They cry out "Never Again" instantly, and rightfully so.

 

In other words, our society may have created our own bully due to our collective social persecution of these people.

 

In other words, we did not follow God's law that we should let them worship as they may, and now we have to pay the price of it.

Edited June 30, 2015 by thatjimguy

[Meadowchik]

Traditional marriage was argued/defended on the basis of man and woman unite which encourages responsible procreation and that children are best raised by their father and mother.

What part of polygamy does not fit neatly within the reasons to defend traditional marriage?

As Justice Roberts mentioned, polygamy may verywell have a different legal analysis for considering the merits of polygamy.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean?

[Meadowchik]

Traditional marriage was argued/defended on the basis of man and woman unite which encourages responsible procreation and that children are best raised by their father and mother.

What part of polygamy does not fit neatly within the reasons to defend traditional marriage?

As Justice Roberts mentioned, polygamy may verywell have a different legal analysis for considering the merits of polygamy.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean?

[thatjimguy]

 

Traditional marriage was argued/defended on the basis of  man and woman unite which encourages responsible procreation and that children are best raised by their father and mother.

 

What part of polygamy does not fit neatly within the reasons to defend traditional marriage?

 

As Justice Roberts mentioned, polygamy may verywell have a different legal analysis for considering the merits of polygamy.

 

One of the real world reasons for not having polygamy was that the rich and powerful would take a lot of the women. There are also effects on women and children.

 

I am not an expert on the subject by any means, but I am just saying there are those who believe in non-religious reasons for not having polygamy in the USA.

Edited July 1, 2015 by thatjimguy

[tonie]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean?

SSM was opposed on the basis of protecting tradional marriage.

If traditional marriage is about, man and woman united, having children, and those children are raised by their biological mother and father;

Then why not allow polygamy, which meets the criteria traditional marriage as setforth by those who advocated traditional marriage.

[tonie]

The church has issued a statement which will be read in all wards on this Sunday or next clarifying their position.

 

It is a powerful letter- I suggest you wait to hear what the church says.   It is not to be read in sacrament meeting but in other meetings.

 

Having read the statement, I see it as an affirmation of the position of the Church - which the Church has maintained throughout the same-sex marriage public/legal debate process.

[thatjimguy]

Having read the statement, I see it as an affirmation of the position of the Church - which the Church has maintained throughout the same-sex marriage public/legal debate process.

 

Do you have a link please?