BCSpace Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: The church could easily compromise without even altering doctrine. They can accept SSM as a reality of society and stop fighting against civil rights of SSM while still maintaining their religious standard. The church makes the mistake of thinking its position is the right position for all of society and that all of society must listen to them. Society will choose for itself. In the quest to secure religious liberty for the church, it undercuts religious liberty of others who believe differently about SSM. Their position and the continual fight against marriage equality is a self-interested attempt to carve out their own space, even at the expense of others. What civil rights? SSM has NEVER been about civil rights but about getting a piece of the welfare pie that should only be doled out where the state has an interest, that is, in the ideal marriage condition (heterosexual) that benefits raising children, reproduction, and providing the proper example of male and female role models in society.
california boy Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 7 hours ago, BCSpace said: What civil rights? SSM has NEVER been about civil rights but about getting a piece of the welfare pie that should only be doled out where the state has an interest, that is, in the ideal marriage condition (heterosexual) that benefits raising children, reproduction, and providing the proper example of male and female role models in society. oh brother. That is why people get married???? 1
JLHPROF Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 9 hours ago, Calm said: Hmmm...in my experience those who are most vocal in a positive way about SSM are also most vocal about plural marriage being a bad thing for the Church, not a revelation, etc. (not that nonSSM supporters have only good things to say about plural arriage, not even close). If it does become legal and even included in civil marriage and along with polyamory becomes socially acceptable (with all genders being able to participate in polygamy and ppolyamory, it has a good chance of occurring at a higher rate than SSM), it would be interesting to see how attitudes change in this group with extended exposure to it. If more positive, will that assessment be applied to early church marriage or will there be reasoning found to continue to label that nonrevelatory, etc. Interesting. "those who are most vocal in a positive way about SSM are also most vocal about plural marriage being a bad thing for the Church, not a revelation, etc" It's almost like political beliefs are directing religious beliefs instead of the other way round. 3
Atheist Mormon Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 22 hours ago, stemelbow said: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4093249-155/compromise-not-division-is-the-way The Church seems far more about wanting religious freedom defined as right to discriminate, then it is about compromise (the Church continues to push losing political fights in other countries regarding SSM). Is it possible for the church to compromise (meaning give) if the Church claims to be run by God, teaching things that are eternally true, as it pertains to this issue? Again, it is a horrible proposition; "Right to discriminate".....More like a Country club of gentlemens...Not at all what Jesus said; "What do you think Heaven is like? It's like a wedding and everyone is invited"...... 1
rodheadlee Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 30 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Again, it is a horrible proposition; "Right to discriminate".....More like a Country club of gentlemens...Not at all what Jesus said; "What do you think Heaven is like? It's like a wedding and everyone is invited"...... Yes and we are required to leave our sins at the door. 4
thesometimesaint Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/wickman-religious-freedom-requires-engaging-others-compomise 2
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted July 9, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Again, it is a horrible proposition; "Right to discriminate".....More like a Country club of gentlemens...Not at all what Jesus said; "What do you think Heaven is like? It's like a wedding and everyone is invited"...... OR you could actually read that parable: Matthew 22: 1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, 2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, 3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. 7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. 11 ¶And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen. Everyone is invited (called) but few are chosen. Christ will most definitely discriminate when it comes to his kingdom. All are invited, but not all will be allowed in. Oh, and this entire parable is about the temple ordinances. 5
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Interesting. "those who are most vocal in a positive way about SSM are also most vocal about plural marriage being a bad thing for the Church, not a revelation, etc" It's almost like political beliefs are directing religious beliefs instead of the other way round. Or underlying beliefs and attitudes are directing both...more likely imo.
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Again, it is a horrible proposition; "Right to discriminate".....More like a Country club of gentlemens...Not at all what Jesus said; "What do you think Heaven is like? It's like a wedding and everyone is invited"...... "For many are invited, but few are chosen..." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22 Prof got there first. Edited July 9, 2016 by Calm 3
Atheist Mormon Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 6 hours ago, JLHPROF said: OR you could actually read that parable: Matthew 22: 1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, 2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, 3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. 7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. 11 ¶And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen. Everyone is invited (called) but few are chosen. Christ will most definitely discriminate when it comes to his kingdom. All are invited, but not all will be allowed in. Oh, and this entire parable is about the temple ordinances. 4 hours ago, Calm said: "For many are invited, but few are chosen..." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22 Prof got there first. Just like I've said; .More like a Country club for gentlemens... 1
provoman Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Attributed to Mr Schultz: Practical arguments that respect the views of nonreligious people will be key to preserving religious freedoms, he said, ... for government employees ... to object to facilitating same-sex marriages. Compared to, Elder Oaks: “Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices,” he said. “A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.”
sunstoned Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 On 7/8/2016 at 10:02 AM, JLHPROF said: Compromise is not an option when it would require violating a law, standard, or correct principle. I totally agree. The law of the land has been set. SSM is the law. There is no longer a need to compromise. Just obey the law and everyone will get along fine. 1
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Just like I've said; .More like a Country club for gentlemens... Did you even read it? They were pulling guests off the street corner. All that was needed was agreeing to wear the wedding clothes which were provided.
Teancum Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 On July 8, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Mystery Meat said: Polygamy doesn't change that. Brigham Young had multiple marriages - each of them between one man and one woman - not one marriage between one man and multiple women. There is a big difference. Marriage has always been and always will be one man and one woman. Very interesting mental gymnastics at work here. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 4 hours ago, sunstoned said: I totally agree. The law of the land has been set. SSM is the law. There is no longer a need to compromise. Just obey the law and everyone will get along fine. I have to obey the law regarding SSM? I don't think so. It may be legal but I don't have to agree with it or have anything to do with it just as other things may be legal but I don't agree with. 1
Bernard Gui Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) On July 8, 2016 at 3:38 PM, gopher said: I think it's just a matter of time before polygamy is legal in the US. It'll be interesting to see how the LDS church responds. I wonder if LDS members will become part of the new LGBTP community. The answer was given in plain, easy to understand language ages ago and is in our canonized scriptures. Why do we keep ignoring it and arguing about it? Jacob 2:27-30 Quote Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. Seems like we may be in for a little "cursing?" Edited July 10, 2016 by Bernard Gui
waveslider Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 15 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Interesting. "those who are most vocal in a positive way about SSM are also most vocal about plural marriage being a bad thing for the Church, not a revelation, etc" It's almost like political beliefs are directing religious beliefs instead of the other way round. That last statement is more than almost it is definitely that politics are directing it. If the government stayed completely out of marriage in the first place there would be no argument. Churches would be the only ones who still preformed marriages. Freedom of religion would allow some groups to perform SSMs if they wanted to, and no one would be forced to recognize it as legit, or not. We should realize that marriage licenses weren't ever even issued or required until the end of slavery, in an effort to stop mixed race weddings from happening. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I have to obey the law regarding SSM? I don't think so. It may be legal but I don't have to agree with it or have anything to do with it just as other things may be legal but I don't agree with. If you are acting in any government capacity with regards to marriage you can not prevent it. 1
CMZ Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On 7/8/2016 at 9:01 AM, HappyJackWagon said: Their position and the continual fight against marriage equality is a self-interested attempt to carve out their own space, even at the expense of others. Their position is a benevolent one meant to create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people over the greatest amount of time, even if some do not have the ability right now to see that.
california boy Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 3 hours ago, CMZ said: Their position is a benevolent one meant to create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people over the greatest amount of time, even if some do not have the ability right now to see that. Let's deny others their civil rights for their own good?? The twisting Mormons have to do to defend their leaders at times is just absurd.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 12 hours ago, provoman said: Attributed to Mr Schultz: Practical arguments that respect the views of nonreligious people will be key to preserving religious freedoms, he said, ... for government employees ... to object to facilitating same-sex marriages. Compared to, Elder Oaks: “Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices,” he said. “A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.” A. Who's Mr. Schultz? B. What do your ellipses in your quote "attributed to" him leave out? 1
gopher Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 On 7/9/2016 at 1:50 AM, BCSpace said: What civil rights? SSM has NEVER been about civil rights but about getting a piece of the welfare pie that should only be doled out where the state has an interest, that is, in the ideal marriage condition (heterosexual) that benefits raising children, reproduction, and providing the proper example of male and female role models in society. Does anyone have a list of statements by church leaders declaring their opposition to SSM is based on their desire to deny civil rights to gay people? Might be an interesting read.
california boy Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, gopher said: Does anyone have a list of statements by church leaders declaring their opposition to SSM is based on their desire to deny civil rights to gay people? Might be an interesting read. Every statement the church leaders have made about the acting on homosexual desires is about church belief on chastity whether inside or outside of marriage. Any church statement about Prop 9 and legal briefs filed supporting Prop 9, are statements about denying the civil rights of gays. Prop 9 was designed to do one thing. Impose a religious belief on others by taking away their civil rights. This became glaringly obvious when Prop 9 was challenged in the courtrooms of this country. When asked what evidence they could produce to justify Prop 9 other than religious belief, they had NOTHING to present. If you think the church had any legal grounds to take away those civil rights, then read the court transcripts.
JLHPROF Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 17 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Just like I've said; .More like a Country club for gentlemens... Not really. But a more accurate description to Christ's parable than when you said "Not at all what Jesus said; "What do you think Heaven is like? It's like a wedding and everyone is invited"......
Atheist Mormon Posted July 10, 2016 Posted July 10, 2016 56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Not really. But a more accurate description to Christ's parable than when you said "Not at all what Jesus said; "What do you think Heaven is like? It's like a wedding and everyone is invited"...... That's the "Catch", isn't it? You invite everyone to the wedding and weed out 95% of it as scraps......l
Recommended Posts