When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression--LDS Church moves their Same-Sex Marriage fight to Mexico

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, DJBrown said:

Why exactly do you put "a majority" and "most" in quotes here?  Are you claiming to be quoting me?  Because I never used those words.  

When representatives from a movement that seeks to change the definition of marriage- something that is fundamental and indispensable to society- claim that the movement is actually seeking to achieve something more profound and effectual to society than is openly admitted, I don't think one should be faulted for paying attention.  

We can easily see what was portrayed in the campaign leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage by those advocating the change- happy, two-parent homes with happy kids and the white picket fence as the norm among same-sex couples.  But we also have studies showing that a majority of those same-sex couples have open marriages of some form- something that was never alluded to or mentioned in the aforementioned campaign.  "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

And the Republican Party is a front for Christian Dominionists who want to criminalize apostasy from the Christian faith and set up a quasi-theocracy. The LDS faith will undoubtedly be amongst the proscribed. Some believe it so it must be the point of the party.

The Democratic Party is actually out to bring about full communism. There are Democrats who believe in it and have said it so that must be what the party is for.

I agree that Same-Sex Marriage is sin in the same way I am convinced having homosexual relationships is sin but lying and mischaracterizing the opposition to make them appear worse is also sin. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis's wonderfully profound warning:

“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

I have seen this in political discussions all the time with Church members. They spin out some story they got from a blog or talk radio. I agree that it was bad but also point out some mitigating factor or misinformation they got. They quickly defend the original story to make their enemy continue to be as evil as possible.

We should not do this with the same sex marriage debate. Yes, it might have bad consequences. I believe it will have bad consequences. But this urge to want our political opponents to be as vile as possible is diabolic. Literally. It is exactly what the devil wants. It is the evil in all of us wanting to indulge in justifiable hatred and dehumanization.

You will note the Apostles do not stoop to this kind of rhetoric. We should not either. We fight the fight while we can and if we lose (and we have and might continue to) we do it with dignity and charity. If they have sinned against us our orders are to forgive and pray for them. Yes, we do have to warn against sin but that does not include a necessity for sensationalized "slippery slope" pronouncements of impending doom. The regular pronouncements of doom for the actual sins of the moment are more then sufficient.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Who knew - fornication is now preferable to committed marriage. We're witnessing the creation of new doctrinal innovations in this thread.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here where apostasy is being rated as a worst sin and therefore less desirable than others when the issue really is that it is a different type of sin.

Does anyone believe that the Church teaches it is better for a man to have five mistresses than to practice plural marriage (committed marriage) even though the latter is judged as apostasy and the former is not?  In the first case, most likely the man (and women if they are aware of the situation) is seeking the relationship for primarily selfish gratification and not because he sees eternal as well as immediate value for himself and the others in the companionships of multiple marriages.  If one can convince the participants that the current practice of plural marriage is contrary to the laws of the gospel, since the participants may very well be very moral individuals whose misunderstanding of doctrine has misled them---not a weakness of giving into the less admirable aspects of the natural man, repentance may be immediate and long lasting since there is no temptation once a correct understanding is received.  Apostasy therefore may be something easily corrected, an error born more out of ignorance than weakness.  Otoh, if correction is resisted, if the sin of pride leads one to be too arrogant to accept that one is wrong in one's choice to reject teachings or practices, apostasy may be more of a burden to the soul than a sin that is recognized for what it is because there may come a time wh en the person desires to become a better man by repenting of his sins.  Sins that are not recognized as sins (as is the case it seems to me in most apostasies as well as many sins of pride and others), that may even be treasured as higher moral attitudes...these sins aren't going to be repented of (until recognized).  

Fornication, adultery (whether hetero or homosexual), etc. are what I would class among what I label as carnal sins...sins that arise primarily out of the desires of the natural man, desires that are not automatically bad but need to be schooled in seeking gratification or fulfillment in the proper context.

Actions that are labeled apostasy are what I call sins of rebellion/rejection (against the laws/teachings of the Gospel).  The EoM defines apostasy as rejections of the covenants and ordinances of the gospel (among other stuff).  

In any particular case, apostasy may be less or more damaging to the soul than the carnal sins of the individual.  It depends, imo, on how much we value the behaviour that is a sin in terms of the gospel.  A behaviour that we recognize as a sin and feel regret when we engage in it may be easier to repent of or it may be very difficult because we have nurtured our hunger for it.  Apostasy has the drawback of often not being recognized as a sin and may even be believed by the individual to be something admirable, thus ensuring there will be no repentance until something happens to change that belief.  But if the apostate is humble, it may be relatively easy for him to be convinced by the Spirit of his misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the gospel and how it should be lived.