Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for the head's up, Scott.  Could you post a link?  I try to stay informed on topics like these, even of cringe-worthy stupid actions or reporting!

I'm not sure board rules allow it. Huffington Post is not ostensibly an anti-Mormon site, but I would regard the article as being anti-Mormon. 

I got it on my "Google Alerts" email feed, so I know it's new. 

Oh, what the heck. Here it is. I'll take it down if the mods object. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/should-the-mormon-church-_b_13656738.html

[LittleNipper]

On 12/15/2016 at 10:46 PM, The Nehor said:

They gained the black vote because Republicans wrote off the black vote to appeal to racists. While no bastion of racial equality LBJ backed black rights by helping to dismantle Jim Crow laws and laws suppressing the Black vote. The Republicans lost the South because they were more willing to play to the racists of the South and many of those Democrat KKK members became Republicans. Most KKK members now vote Republican. Some are cheering for our President elect hoping (rightly or wrongly) that he will make racism respectable again.

The political parties of the United States shift over time and black people do not owe perpetual loyalty to the Republicans because of Lincoln. Decisions made at high levels by FDR and Truman in the Second World War probably saved my grandfather's life. Am I obligated to vote Democrat because of that or am I allowed to examine what Democrats are like now and vote based on that analysis.

If you want to play the history card it is wise to know it reasonably well.

Please see and remember that the Govenor of Arkansas was the Democrat... http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/eisenhower/aa_eisenhower_littlerock_1.html

Edited December 17, 2016 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

You are right, every Christian does have to decide for themselves if they are willing to follow the teachings of Christ.  Sometimes following those teachings are tough.  And of course you too have to decide if you are going to follow the teachings of Christ.  But let's be clear.  Christ did not say "When the law compels you to walk a mile, walk 3/4 of a mile and  offer the soldier a glass of water and you are good."

Christ also taught in Matthew 7:9 "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?"  The couple asked for a wedding cake.  You offered them a half finished cake, some water and a piece of bread.

The sad part is when people make the kind of choices you are making and then still want to pretend that they are representing the teachings of Christ.  THAT is what is turning people off of organized religion.  That is why the fastest growing religion is no religion.  That is what the author of the blog that Daniel posted meant when they wrote.  

 

I suggest you reread the article that Daniel posted if you sincerely want to follow the teachings of Christ.  It has a lot to think about for every Christian that wants to claim they following the teachings of the Savior.  Of course, if you have already decided to do your own thing, then don't bother.  Just don't make the claim that you are following the teachings of Christ like some others in the media have.

 

John 2:13-16

13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Jesus didn't always give everyone a hug and then His coat... Christians need to be charitable but not cast aside their Character to placate those doing what God says is wrong.

Daniel 6:1-13

1It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, 2with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. 3Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. 4At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. 5Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.”

6So these administrators and satraps went as a group to the king and said: “May King Darius live forever! 7The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next thirty days, except to you, Your Majesty, shall be thrown into the lions’ den. 8Now, Your Majesty, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” 9So King Darius put the decree in writing.

10Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. 11Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. 12So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human being except to you, Your Majesty, would be thrown into the lions’ den? The king answered, “The decree stands—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”

13Then they said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, Your Majesty, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day.” 

Doing what is right in the Eyes of God is not always popular nor without trials.

Edited December 17, 2016 by LittleNipper

[smac97]

Here's an interesting article that touches on this ongoing "skirmish":

Quote

How The Left Overreached In Court
By ROD DREHER • December 16, 2016, 12:38 PM

Sean Trende, on what the left has done over the last four years to attack and provoke religious conservatives:

Quote

Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention (this is disputed, but it is the perception); endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations – despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights – and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners. In 2015, the United States solicitor general suggested that churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. In 2016, the Democratic nominee endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, thereby endorsing federal funding for elective abortions.

On Eugene Volokh’s legal blog, David Bernstein cites this as reason why religious conservatives, even those who may have been averse to Donald Trump, voted for Trump anyway. What’s more, there was this exchange in SCOTUS oral arguments in the Obergefell case, between Justice Alito and the government lawyer arguing for same-sex marriage:

Quote

Justice Samuel Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating.  So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­ sex marriage?

Solicitor General Verrilli: You know, I ­, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that.  I don’t deny that, Justice Alito.  It is ­­it is going to be an issue.

When liberals say the only reason conservative Christians oppose gay marriage is prejudice, they have to overlook facts like, oh, that a very senior Justice Department lawyer concedes in Supreme Court oral argument that their churches, schools, and charities may be severely penalized for following their religious beliefs. It’s not paranoia when people really are out to get you. 

"It's not paranoia when people really are out to get you"  

Aptly said.

Quote

Bernstein writes:

Quote

In short, many religious Christians of a traditionalist bent believed that liberals not only reduce their deeply held beliefs to bigotry, but want to run them out of their jobs, close down their stores and undermine their institutions. When I first posted about this on Facebook, I wrote that I hope liberals really enjoyed running Brendan Eich out of his job and closing down the Sweet Cakes bakery, because it cost them the Supreme Court. I’ll add now that I hope Verrilli enjoyed putting the fear of government into the God-fearing because it cost his party the election.

Amen. Asking orthodox Christians to vote for a candidate whose party has been so explicitly and proudly hostile to their most important values and deepest interests was ridiculous. The left brought all this on itself.

The article ends on a rather ominous note:

Quote

But here’s the thing: Obergefell is the law of the land now. Eventually there will be a Democratic administration that will seek to Bob-Jones an orthodox Christian institution (that is, take away its federal tax exemption). Christians had better hope that there’s a SCOTUS majority that will side with religious liberty, and reverse the Court’s holding in Bob Jones vs. United States (1983). If not, we’re done for. We had better use these next four years of what we hope will be a reprieve to prepare for the long resistance.

The author of this piece makes the current conflict out to be something quite a bit more serious than a "skirmish".

Given what we are seeing from Karger and his ilk, I think that's right.

-Smac

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Please see and remember that the Govenor of Arkansas was the Democrat... http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/eisenhower/aa_eisenhower_littlerock_1.html

Which happened under Eisenhower before the big shifts in partisan policy towards Blacks in the South that occurred when LBJ and the Democratic Party switched gears. While this was going on the Republicans made a conscious effort (the Southern strategy) to appeal to southern racists.

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

John 2:13-16

13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Jesus didn't always give everyone a hug and then His coat... Christians need to be charitable but not cast aside their Character to placate those doing what God says is wrong.

Daniel 6:1-13

1It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, 2with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. 3Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. 4At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. 5Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.”

6So these administrators and satraps went as a group to the king and said: “May King Darius live forever! 7The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next thirty days, except to you, Your Majesty, shall be thrown into the lions’ den. 8Now, Your Majesty, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” 9So King Darius put the decree in writing.

10Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. 11Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. 12So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human being except to you, Your Majesty, would be thrown into the lions’ den? The king answered, “The decree stands—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”

13Then they said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, Your Majesty, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day.” 

Doing what is right in the Eyes of God is not always popular nor without trials.

Buried in this is the insinuation that baking cakes or serving gays in other ways is the equivalent of desecrating the temples or worshipping a human monarch in preference to God and that the only reason some refuse this petty discrimination is fear of a loss of popularity. I reject the insinuation and the insult buried in it.

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

What is it with Huffington Post? Have they abandoned all aspirations whatsoever to journalistic integrity?

By definition, one cannot abandon something one never had to begin with. Did they ever have any?  

(I think it's a fair question. )

P.S.: I see Danzo beat me to it.  Good call!  

Edited December 17, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Buried in this is the insinuation that baking cakes or serving gays in other ways is the equivalent of desecrating the temples or worshipping a human monarch in preference to God and that the only reason some refuse this petty discrimination is fear of a loss of popularity. I reject the insinuation and the insult buried in it.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

 

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

 

1 Corinthians 6:15-20

 

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

 

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 

Ephesians 2:19-22

 

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 

1 Peter 2:

you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Please see and remember that the Govenor of Arkansas was the Democrat... http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/eisenhower/aa_eisenhower_littlerock_1.html

Have you ever heard of The Southern Strategy? 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[california boy]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

John 2:13-16

13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Jesus didn't always give everyone a hug and then His coat... Christians need to be charitable but not cast aside their Character to placate those doing what God says is wrong.

Daniel 6:1-13

1It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, 2with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. 3Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. 4At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. 5Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.”

6So these administrators and satraps went as a group to the king and said: “May King Darius live forever! 7The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next thirty days, except to you, Your Majesty, shall be thrown into the lions’ den. 8Now, Your Majesty, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” 9So King Darius put the decree in writing.

10Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. 11Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. 12So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human being except to you, Your Majesty, would be thrown into the lions’ den? The king answered, “The decree stands—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.”

13Then they said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, Your Majesty, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day.” 

Doing what is right in the Eyes of God is not always popular nor without trials.

Turning the temple into a market place and praying in your own private home has NOTHING to do with what we have been talking about.  But hey, what ever helps you sleep at night.  right?

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

 

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

 

1 Corinthians 6:15-20

 

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

 

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 

Ephesians 2:19-22

 

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 

1 Peter 2:

you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

How is your life as a hermit avoiding total contact with sinners going?

I do not think these scriptures mean what you want me to think they mean?

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Turning the temple into a market place and praying in your own private home has NOTHING to do with what we have been talking about.  But hey, what ever helps you sleep at night.  right?

What they mean is that Christians are not to behave like everyone else. Christians are not obligated to cooperate with secular values ---- homosexuality included. I thought you once said you loved the Lord?  That always means putting God ahead of the desires of man and that can, and does mean, that like Christ you will be at odds with society and the fashion of the day.

Edited December 17, 2016 by LittleNipper

[The Nehor]

Just now, LittleNipper said:

What they mean is that Christians are not to behave like everyone else. Christians are not obligated to cooperate with secular values ---- homosexuality included. I thought you once said you loved the Lord?  That always means putting God ahead of the desires of man and that can, and does mean, that like Christ you will be at odds with society and the fashion of the day.

Yes it does. And if God demands that I no longer eat meat sacrificed to idols or make a cake for a gay marriage I will follow. Until then I am going to assume God just doesn't care that much. Sometimes God gets into minutiae for reasons we do not always understand (earrings for example) but in this case he has chosen not to and the Apostles and Prophets have been silent on our need to put "No Gays Allowed" signs on our business doors or to exclude helping with specific events involving homosexuality.

Your need to go beyond the scriptures and revelations to invent rules about such things as quite Talmudic and may work for you but do not expect others to follow it.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

What they mean is that Christians are not to behave like everyone else. Christians are not obligated to cooperate with secular values ---- homosexuality included. I thought you once said you loved the Lord?  That always means putting God ahead of the desires of man and that can, and does mean, that like Christ you will be at odds with society and the fashion of the day.

And THIS belief that Christians are above the law of the land is what has turned off so many people to Christianity.  Of course it is total NONSENSE.  Christ was very clear that those who follow Him should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's  The scripture where Christ not only said to follow the laws of the land, but to do more than is asked of you has already been pointed out to you..  You can not call yourself a follower of Christ and ignore the teachings that Christ taught on this very subject.

And just so you think there might be a little wiggle room for you in modern times, one of very basic beliefs of the church as outlined by Joseph Smith in the Articles of Faith

Quote

 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

If you have misplaced the Articles of Faith, you can find them in your Pearl of Great Price.  Your attitude is disturbing and offensive to those that truly strive to follow the teachings of Christ.  

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by california boy

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

What they mean is that Christians are not to behave like everyone else. Christians are not obligated to cooperate with secular values ---- homosexuality included. I thought you once said you loved the Lord?  That always means putting God ahead of the desires of man and that can, and does mean, that like Christ you will be at odds with society and the fashion of the day.

Supporting equal rights for all and treating people with respect is in harmony with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. 

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And THIS belief that Christians are above the law of the land is what has turned off so many people to Christianity.  Of course it is total NONSENSE.  Christ was very clear that those who follow Him should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's  The scripture where Christ not only said to follow the laws of the land, but to do more than is asked of you has already been pointed out to you..  You can not call yourself a follower of Christ and ignore the teachings that Christ taught on this very subject.

And just so you think there might be a little wiggle room for you in modern times, one of very basic beliefs of the church as outlined by Joseph Smith in the Articles of Faith

 

If you have misplaced the Articles of Faith, you can find them in your Pearl of Great Price.  Your attitude is disturbing and offensive to those that truly strive to follow the teachings of Christ.  

 

NO! What turns people off to Christianity is that Christians try to please everyone, try to be "cool" and try to hide the fact that they are indeed different... The laws of GOD should supersede ones' enjoyment and earthly pleasures. That doesn't mean that Christians are to be sad sacks. They should to joy in the simple fact that God loved them so much that He sent His One and Only true Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have the gift of eternal life. Christians should be aware that everyone around isn't headed for a beautiful eternity. Christians should be concerned with the salvation of those around them. 

Christians  need to stop agreeing with everyone and everything to make people feel okay with all the stupid things they do. And Christians need to stop making excuses for their own choices and own up to the fact that had they been indeed perfect they would not need a Savior either. Read your Bible, it is the genuine article.

Matthew 19:4-12

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
 

Edited December 18, 2016 by LittleNipper

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

NO! What turns people off to Christianity is that Christians try to please everyone, try to be "cool" and try to hide the fact that they are indeed different... The laws of GOD should supersede ones' enjoyment and earthly pleasures. That doesn't mean that Christians are to be sad sacks. They should to joy in the simple fact that God loved them so much that He sent His One and Only true Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have the gift of eternal life. Christians should be aware that everyone around isn't headed for a beautiful eternity. Christians should be concerned with the salvation of those around them. 

Christians  need to stop agreeing with everyone and everything to make people feel okay with all the stupid things they do. And Christians need to stop making excuses for their own choices and own up to the fact that had they been indeed perfect they would not need a Savior either. Read your Bible, it is the genuine article.

Matthew 19:4-12

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
 

So now what.  Are you going to start stoning people who divorce their wife?  And you are allowed to do it because you are a Christian?

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

So now what.  Are you going to start stoning people who divorce their wife?  And you are allowed to do it because you are a Christian?

You swing from one extreme to another. I simply believe ALL CHRISTIANS in the United States should (and once did) have the right to say, "I'm very sorry for you but I am unable to help you pursue your affair. However, I have a Savior who can help you with what really matters. And if you like I would be very happy to share His plan with you from His word --- if you're willing."

Edited December 18, 2016 by LittleNipper

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

... And just so you think there might be a little wiggle room for you in modern times, one of very basic beliefs of the church as outlined by Joseph Smith in the Articles of Faith

[Article of Faith 12] We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

If you have misplaced the Articles of Faith, you can find them in your Pearl of Great Price.  Your attitude is disturbing and offensive to those that truly strive to follow the teachings of Christ.  

 

Hmmm.  I don't think the Li'l Nipster puts much stock in the Articles of Faith, in the Pearl of Great Price, or in Joseph Smith or any of his successors.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You swing from one extreme to another. I simply believe ALL CHRISTIANS in the United States should (and once did) have the right to say, "I'm very sorry for you but I am unable to help you pursue your affair. However, I have a Savior who can help you with what really matters. And if you like I would be very happy to share His plan with you from His word --- if you're willing."

Like legal marriage between a white man and a black woman.

SEE Loving v Virginia

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Like legal marriage between a white man and a black woman.

 

 

There is no Biblical Law against such a marriage. I see nothing wrong except where the one chosen for marriage is a non believer. That would amount to being unequally yoked.

We learn in Numbers that “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom Moses married. (Num. 12:1). A Cushite is from Cush, a region south of Ethiopia, where the people are known for their black skin. We know this because of Jeremiah 13:23: “Can the Ethiopian (the same Hebrew word translated “Cushite” in Numbers 12:1) change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” Attention is drawn to the difference of the skin of the Cushite people.

[Rain]

 

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 0:11 PM, Daniel2 said:

My kids have come home and discussed with me their school lessons related to the founding principles of Mormonism and the subsequent religious persecution and westward migration around the state holiday of Pioneer Day (none of which was surprising, given the local culture), which also included (to my surprise) discussions of LDS polygamy.

I was raised outside of Utah, and we never had those types of discussions.

Like bluebell was saying,  this was history.  I learned not only a little LDS doctrine, but doctrine from other religions as well when it applied to history. A good teacher is not going to ignore that kind of thing because it can make a big difference in the actions of people. 

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 4:17 PM, The Nehor said:

I just see it as a show of passive aggressive behavior. If I went to a store to buy something and the person owning the store said they thought Mormons were sinful and planned to donate all the profit from my purchase to create anti-Mormon literature I would probably laugh in their face at how dumb they were and leave. 

You may see it that way and most of the time it probably is that way,  but sometimes it just means people are being honest in heart.  

Personally I think the cakes are easy.  I would just stop making "wedding" cakes. I would still make fancy cakes, but they could do with the cake what they want.   It's photographers that have it tough.

 

 

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 1:05 AM, california boy said:

Tell me how you square your attitude with the example Christ showed when he had dealings with sinners?  Did Christ not treat them with love and respect?

Who do you think the sinner would be if someone compels you to bake a cake.  Because I think Christ taught that we should bake them two. Or was Christ only talking about Roman law so you are off the hook.  

 

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 0:03 PM, bluebell said:

Christ did teach though that if someone compelled you to do something you thought was wrong and which you didn't want to do, you should do it anyway, and even do more than they demanded.

I am a rebellious person by nature in the same way that you are; I don't do well when i'm forced.  My instinct is retribution as well.  I'm often reminded though that retribution has no part in being a Christian.

Retribution is another word for vengeance and the Lord declares "vengeance is mine."  Part of me becoming a new creature in Christ is not seeking retribution when i feel forced.  It's a difficult thing to do though.

It was interesting what happened when I read your post. Suddenly something came to mind,  probably only because we are both women.  

I was weighing things in my mind about baking a second cake.  Applying that to different circumstances.  Thinking about the things I said above, but then something cane to mind very quickly with your post and all the talk of walking two and turning the other cheek etc.

If someone is raped do we give them a second opportunity to do it again?  

I'm not equating baking a cake for SSM with rape. I'm just thinking that probably no one here would say we should "walk" with the rapist twice.  So there must be a line somewhere. If the baker feels he is hurt when compelled to make a cake for a SSM then what makes it different than walking twice or getting raped twice except for severity?  

Before anyone jumps to conclusions and thinks I am hinting at something or trying to get people to agree with my point I am not.  I have no point as these are real questions not a manipulative agreement tactic. I'm just trying to see if the walking really equates to baking the cake. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Like bluebell was saying,  this was history.  I learned not only a little LDS doctrine, but doctrine from other religions as well when it applied to history. A good teacher is not going to ignore that kind of thing because it can make a big difference in the actions of people. 

You may see it that way and most of the time it probably is that way,  but sometimes it just means people are being honest in heart.  

Personally I think the cakes are easy.  I would just stop making "wedding" cakes. I would still make fancy cakes, but they could do with the cake what they want.   It's photographers that have it tough.

 

 

 

It was interesting what happened when I read your post. Suddenly something came to mind,  probably only because we are both women.  

I was weighing things in my mind about baking a second cake.  Applying that to different circumstances.  Thinking about the things I said above, but then something cane to mind very quickly with your post and all the talk of walking two and turning the other cheek etc.

If someone is raped do we give them a second opportunity to do it again?  

I'm not equating baking a cake for SSM with rape. I'm just thinking that probably no one here would say we should "walk" with the rapist twice.  So there must be a line somewhere. If the baker feels he is hurt when compelled to make a cake for a SSM then what makes it different than walking twice or getting raped twice except for severity?  

Before anyone jumps to conclusions and thinks I am hinting at something or trying to get people to agree with my point I am not.  I have no point as these are real questions not a manipulative agreement tactic. I'm just trying to see if the walking really equates to baking the cake. 

I think you answered your own question when you said that you are not equating baking a cake for a SSM with rape.

[Rain]

 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you answered your own question when you said that you are not equating baking a cake for a SSM with rape.

No. I didn't word  it well. In fact it brings many questions to mind.  I'm wanting to know what makes it different.  Is it only severity?  If that is the case then where is the line?  Is it something more? Is it when the action is morally wrong? Is it when the actions hurt the person compelled?  Is walking twice the same as turning the other cheek?

Edited December 19, 2016 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Like bluebell was saying,  this was history.  I learned not only a little LDS doctrine, but doctrine from other religions as well when it applied to history. A good teacher is not going to ignore that kind of thing because it can make a big difference in the actions of people. 

 

The stupidity of avoiding discussion of religion in the context of history was brought home to me several years ago when I heard a talk by a member of the Mormon Battalion heritage organization.

He said he had been invited to come to a public school and talk about the Mormon Battalion for a class in Utah history. The teacher had informed him that he was not to discuss God or religion or faith or anything of that nature, as school district regulations prohibited it.

It is ridiculous to try to talk about the mustering of the Mormon Battalion as an event in history without discussing the religious motivation of the battalion members or of the Mormon Pioneer movement in general. Or the founding of the state of Utah, for that matter.

To me, this was a clear example of political correctness run amok. It was unsettling to me that there might be such stupid policies controlling the administration of our public schools. I hope this was not really a matter of school district policy but just something we could chalk up to an ill-considered directive from a single ill-informed schoolteacher.