Jeanne Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Rain said: I actually appeciated what you have said as it helped me to break things down a little more. I'm at the point that it seems to hinge on whether the baking the cake for the celebration is sinful or not. I may go through Christ'showed life to see if I can find a similar situation A thing that complicates all this in my mind is that I have a child who may get married in the near future. I'm not sure how to feel about that. They are living together so morally marriage seems to be the better choice, but I don't like the circumstances of them being a couple so I have been trying to decide what I would be willing to do for the wedding. Just to be clear, they are not same sex so the situation isn't exactly the same. I think most parents would have a hard time supporting this marriage. Just make sure you look at the big picture. Difficult as it may seem to be to support the marriage..you just need to support her and that relationship with her is super important in and outside that marriage. Just my 02...not worth a hoot. 1
Daniel2 Posted December 20, 2016 Author Posted December 20, 2016 On 12/19/2016 at 10:29 AM, LittleNipper said: When they ask for a topper of 2 men or two women or have a problem explaining the husband or wife's absence. What does the baker say --- "Sorry, I don't stock such things?" In answer to your question: Yes! A simple "Sorry, I don't stock such things" is perfectly acceptable and ENTIRELY legal.
thesometimesaint Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 19 hours ago, LittleNipper said: And I firmly feel that the Government has no business telling the citizens of the United States whom they may and may not serve, The only thing the government has the Constitutional Authority to control is their own agencies and businesses that rely on governmental funding. The Government may not set up an agenda religiously --- no matter how right that belief may seem. What gives you the right to limit anyone's questioning. Questioning is a form of freedom of speech. Citizens may certainly refuse to answer questions --- that is their freedom. It is my hope that under President Trump some of this maybe cleared up, including abortion, and open prayer in public schools. You never heard of Jim Crow laws I see. Freedom of Speech is not, nor ever has been unlimited. BTW The US Constitution allows us to make a fool of ourselves. It doesn't require it. So you want the government to tell you when you have to have a baby despite a doctors advice, and when you have to pray in public schools. 1
Daniel2 Posted December 20, 2016 Author Posted December 20, 2016 (edited) On 12/19/2016 at 10:37 AM, LittleNipper said: Do you honestly believe that Jesus would have attended a "homosexual" wedding? While I can't speak for Jesus (who, as a divine figure, I don't personally believe in), I can honestly say that my husband, our gathered family (including several active, devout LDS members), and I spoke of having felt The Spirit manifesting divine approval attesting to the sacredness of our marital commitment to one another during our marriage ceremony two years ago. And, speaking from personal experience, the 'rightness' and 'moral-ness' of my marriage to my husband was affirmed FAR more through The Spirit than my misguided attempt to marry my former-wife ever was. (And I'm speaking only for myself here, without passing judgment or suggesting absolutes... My own and other's experiences leads me to believe that what is right/wrong or possible/impossible for myself and others varies from person to person). Edited December 20, 2016 by Daniel2 1
california boy Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 4 hours ago, Rain said: I actually appeciated what you have said as it helped me to break things down a little more. I'm at the point that it seems to hinge on whether the baking the cake for the celebration is sinful or not. I may go through Christ'showed life to see if I can find a similar situation A thing that complicates all this in my mind is that I have a child who may get married in the near future. I'm not sure how to feel about that. They are living together so morally marriage seems to be the better choice, but I don't like the circumstances of them being a couple so I have been trying to decide what I would be willing to do for the wedding. Just to be clear, they are not same sex so the situation isn't exactly the same. I think most parents would have a hard time supporting this marriage. It is interesting that the church finds itself in a position where it encourages marriage if you are a straight couple, but discourages being legally married if you are a gay couple. I think it is the church that has made your child's situation different from a gay couples, not God. I would like to give you something to think about concerning the decisions you are facing. We are each responsible for our own salvation. You can't save your child. Only Christ can. There salvation is between your child and Christ and no one else. But you do have a responsibility to always be your child's parent. That will never change. When in doubt, look to the life of Christ for guidance. He too lived in a world where people lived in sin. That seemed irrelevant to Him on how He treated them. It should be irrelevant on how we also treat sinners. Make your choice on how you handle your child's wedding from a position of love and not judgement. I think you will do just fine. 2
bluebell Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 15 minutes ago, california boy said: It is interesting that the church finds itself in a position where it encourages marriage if you are a straight couple, but discourages being legally married if you are a gay couple. I think it is the church that has made your child's situation different from a gay couples, not God. It's not all that interesting if you think about it though. The church has always taught that some things are acceptable only under specific circumstances and that under different circumstances they are sins. One obvious example is having children. The church encourages having children if you are married, but discourages having children if you aren't. 3
Calm Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Again, to clarify: It sounds as if you're saying you agree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, but you disagree with anti-discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination where an element of behavior or choice is involved. Is that correct....? If it is correct, which of those two categories ("race" vs. "behavior/choices") do you feel that laws prohibiting anti-discrimination regarding interracial marriage would fall...? Meaning, do you feel that the choice to marry someone of a different race a matter of "race" or "behavior/choice"? If not already answered, I would like to know if Nipper sees religion as a choice or behaviour and if not, why not.
Calm Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: Just make sure you look at the big picture. Difficult as it may seem to be to support the marriage..you just need to support her and that relationship with her is super important in and outside that marriage. Just my 02...not worth a hoot. Do you feel that way if the marriage is abusive? Just trying to understand limits, if any... 1
Calm Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: It's not all that interesting if you think about it though. The church has always taught that some things are acceptable only under specific circumstances and that under different circumstances they are sins. One obvious example is having children. The church encourages having children if you are married, but discourages having children if you aren't. It is not like by rejecting same sex marriage they are actually promoting same sex unmarried sexual relationships, after all.
Calm Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: It is interesting that the church finds itself in a position where it encourages marriage if you are a straight couple, but discourages being legally married if you are a gay couple. I think it is the church that has made your child's situation different from a gay couples, not God. I would like to give you something to think about concerning the decisions you are facing. We are each responsible for our own salvation. You can't save your child. Only Christ can. There salvation is between your child and Christ and no one else. But you do have a responsibility to always be your child's parent. That will never change. When in doubt, look to the life of Christ for guidance. He too lived in a world where people lived in sin. That seemed irrelevant to Him on how He treated them. It should be irrelevant on how we also treat sinners. Make your choice on how you handle your child's wedding from a position of love and not judgement. I think you will do just fine. And if the problem with the marriage is not salvation, but a possibly destructive relationship (given she said all parents would have a problem with it, that would include atheists)?
Calm Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 (edited) On 12/19/2016 at 3:14 PM, LittleNipper said: The only thing the government has the Constitutional Authority to control is their own agencies and businesses that rely on governmental funding. The Government may not set up an agenda religiously --- no matter how right that belief may seem.... It is my hope that under President Trump some of this maybe cleared up, including abortion, and open prayer in public schools. Public schools rely on government funding, yet you think it is okay for prayer, a religious event, to take place there during time and events that are funded by taxes? Edited December 20, 2016 by Calm 2
Daniel2 Posted December 20, 2016 Author Posted December 20, 2016 13 minutes ago, Calm said: If not already answered, I would like to know if Nipper sees religion as a choice or behaviour and if not, why not. Great questions, Calm. From what I can see, Nipper doesn't feel that religion should be a protected class. Nipper has said that businesses should be able to discriminate against customers and employees based on religion, so I would presume he feels it's a choice/behavior. Nipper, could you confirm if the above also reflects your beliefs?
Daniel2 Posted December 20, 2016 Author Posted December 20, 2016 13 minutes ago, Calm said: Do you feel that way if the marriage is abusive? Just trying to understand limits, if any... I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to weigh in: I don't think anyone should support an abusive relationship (including marriage), regardless of it's configuration. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Rain said: I actually appeciated what you have said as it helped me to break things down a little more. I'm at the point that it seems to hinge on whether the baking the cake for the celebration is sinful or not. I may go through Christ'showed life to see if I can find a similar situation A thing that complicates all this in my mind is that I have a child who may get married in the near future. I'm not sure how to feel about that. They are living together so morally marriage seems to be the better choice, but I don't like the circumstances of them being a couple so I have been trying to decide what I would be willing to do for the wedding. Just to be clear, they are not same sex so the situation isn't exactly the same. I think most parents would have a hard time supporting this marriage. Trying to understand here. Are you saying it is easier for you to support them as a couple engaging in sex outside of marriage than it would be to support them as a married couple? Edited December 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Jeanne Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 46 minutes ago, Calm said: Do you feel that way if the marriage is abusive? Just trying to understand limits, if any... Abusive wasn't mentioned of course..but if that is the case..this is where Mom gets to shoot her mouth off in said relationship with daughter..outside that marriage. If they are going to get married anyway..she needs to know that Mom has her back..and there is a home to come to. That being said..I would do all I could first..to sway and even counseling before watching my daughter make such a huge mistake. This would be tough...
california boy Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: It is not like by rejecting same sex marriage they are actually promoting same sex unmarried sexual relationships, after all. Well it kind of is. At least that is the message I am getting. You don't get labeled an apostate if you are just gay having sex outside of marriage. 1
california boy Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: And if the problem with the marriage is not salvation, but a possibly destructive relationship (given she said all parents would have a problem with it, that would include atheists)? Yes of course. No one should be in a marriage or any relationship for that matter that is destructive.
california boy Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 2 hours ago, bluebell said: It's not all that interesting if you think about it though. The church has always taught that some things are acceptable only under specific circumstances and that under different circumstances they are sins. One obvious example is having children. The church encourages having children if you are married, but discourages having children if you aren't. What is interesting to me at least is that there has been no revelation from God on this important issue. I know some hate this comparison, but it is like not allowing blacks to marry in the temple. It seems to have been the opinion of a prophet and not the opinion of God. Hence, 100 years went by and all blacks were denied the blessings of the temple. Have the brotheren even diligently beseeched God for an answer on this subject like President Kimball did? Or is everyone happy just following along with their possible fallible opinions about gay marriage. Just to be clear. This issue is not particularly important to me personally. I think the church leaders can have any policy they want towards gays or blacks or anyone else they want. I am just trying to point out that it is not all cut and dried like some people claim it is. I realize that by making such a statement, there will be those that adamantly disagree with me and feel that the opinions of the brethren have made this issue crystal clear. We have been down that rabbit hole before. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed. And I don't intend to further defend my personal opinion. I will leave it to each person to come to their own conclusions on this issue. But at least now you can understand why I think this issue is at least interesting and not a settled issue.
Kenngo1969 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 20 minutes ago, california boy said: What is interesting to me at least is that there has been no revelation from God on this important issue. ... Sure, there has. You may not accept it as such, and others may not accept it as such, but that doesn't negate its existence. And, while others may disagree on this point, canonization is not necessarily a sin qua non of revelation. https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng
bluebell Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 27 minutes ago, california boy said: What is interesting to me at least is that there has been no revelation from God on this important issue. I know some hate this comparison, but it is like not allowing blacks to marry in the temple. It seems to have been the opinion of a prophet and not the opinion of God. Hence, 100 years went by and all blacks were denied the blessings of the temple. Have the brotheren even diligently beseeched God for an answer on this subject like President Kimball did? Or is everyone happy just following along with their possible fallible opinions about gay marriage. It's equally interesting that Pres. McKay also said he diligently beseeched God asking for blacks to be able to receive the priesthood and believed he was told that it wasn't appropriate yet. The sign of whether or not a prophet has asked God is not whether or not we like/agree with the outcome. Quote But at least now you can understand why I think this issue is at least interesting and not a settled issue. I get what you are saying, and I mean no disrespect by this and i'm not trying to be snarky, but i assume that the main reason you believe it's not a settle issue is because you disagree with the church's teachings on it. Most people don't agree with the church and also believe that it might not be God's will. That is almost exclusively reserved for people who disagree with the church's teachings or policies.
kllindley Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wanted to weigh in: I don't think anyone should support an abusive relationship (including marriage), regardless of it's configuration. Who determines if the relationship is abusive or harmful? What are the criteria and who gets to set them?
california boy Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 48 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Sure, there has. You may not accept it as such, and others may not accept it as such, but that doesn't negate its existence. And, while others may disagree on this point, canonization is not necessarily a sin qua non of revelation. https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng As you know, the Proclamation on the Family has never been declared to be a revelation. To say so now after all of these years would be a bit ridiculous. Either that or it shows how subjective Mormon revelations are if it takes 30 years to determine that such a thing was a revelation. 1
california boy Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 39 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's equally interesting that Pres. McKay also said he diligently beseeched God asking for blacks to be able to receive the priesthood and believed he was told that it wasn't appropriate yet. The sign of whether or not a prophet has asked God is not whether or not we like/agree with the outcome. I get what you are saying, and I mean no disrespect by this and i'm not trying to be snarky, but i assume that the main reason you believe it's not a settle issue is because you disagree with the church's teachings on it. Most people don't agree with the church and also believe that it might not be God's will. That is almost exclusively reserved for people who disagree with the church's teachings or policies. Like I said in my post. I definitely agree that the church can teach whatever it wants. If the church actually stated that they had received a revelation from God on that matter, then I wouldn't disagree at all that the church believed that policy came from God. But church leaders have not even made that claim. There is nothing to disagree about other than policy. And yes, I think the church policy towards gays is less than welcoming. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, california boy said: As you know, the Proclamation on the Family has never been declared to be a revelation. To say so now after all of these years would be a bit ridiculous. Either that or it shows how subjective Mormon revelations are if it takes 30 years to determine that such a thing was a revelation. Do you know how many proclamations have appeared over the signatures of each member of the First Presidency and/or of the Quorum of the Twelve in the entire history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Edited December 21, 2016 by Kenngo1969
sunstoned Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Sure, there has. You may not accept it as such, and others may not accept it as such, but that doesn't negate its existence. And, while others may disagree on this point, canonization is not necessarily a sin qua non of revelation. https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng I think the higher authority in this case is kirtland McConkie. I don't see God's hand in this at all. If you recall this mess started out as a policy that was being slipped into the hand book. When it was outed and the brethren received serious public and member push back, they modified the policy. Push back continued, so all of a sudden it is now a revelation. Though the one who supposedly received the revelation has remained quiet. This is not exactly a time line that inspires confidence IMO. It is more like an attempt at damage control.
Recommended Posts