Bryce Cook's article reviewing church's stance on gay marriage

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I just read this quote YOU posted in another thread supporting what you consider was never doctrine concerning Adam/God

 

You seem to change the litmus test on what is doctrine depending on whether it fits your need at the time.  Or do you have a different way at looking at these conflicting criteria for what you or maybe the church considered is doctrine.  The doctrine of Adam/God was approved by the entire first presidency and eventually all 12 apostles.  Joseph F. Smith is saying that since it was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification then it was never really doctrine.  And you agreed.  Yet you are hanging on a comment made by one apostle as proof that the October "policy" is revelation direct from God.  

Excellent post and so true.  But then, we all tend to do this at times (apply different reasoning or levels of proof to fit our needs and beliefs).  

We really do not know for sure how the current Prophet and all of the apostles felt about the recent policy since we have not heard from them regarding it. Did we hear anything from President Monson at that time?

As far as I know, it was "never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood.  However,, but we do know that it was not submitted "to the church for approval or ratification".  So it just remains a policy and policies evolve and change (and do teachings as well).

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

God has allowed the church to do a lot of things that were totally wrong.  Banning blacks from holding the priesthood is just one example.  It only took 150 years to correct that church policy invented by a church leader

How do you know the ban didn't come from God? LDS doctrine doesn't teach it was permanent.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/1/2017 at 6:06 AM, california boy said:

Ultimately from a legal point of view, it comes down to equal protection under the law.

From a legal point of view the definition of marriage says nothing about constitution rights. So when androids become intelligent are you going to support marriage? You didn't answer the 16-17 year marriage question. According to naturalism, "historically (and evolutionarily) this almost certainly .... the case"  Why do you have a different standard for 16-17 year marriage? It is legal in some US states.

Edited September 2, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[california boy]

55 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

How do you know the ban didn't come from God? LDS doctrine doesn't teach it was permanent.

This thread is not about the priesthood ban, so I am not going to comment on your question and risk derail this thread.  But if you would like to open a thread about the priesthood ban, I would be more than happy to comment on it.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

From a legal point of view the definition of marriage says nothing about constitution rights. So when androids become intelligent are you going to support marriage? You didn't answer the 16-17 year marriage question. According to naturalism, "historically (and evolutionarily) this almost certainly .... the case"  Why do you have a different standard for 16-17 year marriage? It is legal in some US states.

Wrong.  Read the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.  It has EVERYTHING to do with constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has also ruled 7 other times on marriage.  Each one of their rulings was based on guaranteed constitutional rights.

The law makes a distinction between a minor and adults.  Minors are not entitled to all the same civil rights until they reach 18.  And robots are never guaranteed any civil rights, ever.

Edited September 2, 2017 by california boy

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

This thread is not about the priesthood ban

Why did you mention it?

5 hours ago, california boy said:

The law makes a distinction between a minor and adults.  Minors are not entitled to all the same civil rights until they reach 18.  And robots are never guaranteed any civil rights, ever.

In many states marriage is legal for 16-17 year. I don't understand why you have a different standard on that. 16-17 year have many rights, including the right to drive, play football, boxing, base-jumping,  work. Many boxers start professional boxing as young as 16. 16-17 do have rights, in Ohio they can vote in the Primaries. According to naturalism 16-17 year old marrying is consistent with human evolution. I don't believe in Evolution, but that is what the scientists say.    

It is absolutely fine if you don't agree with 16-17 year marriage, and it is absolutely fine that God and the Church don't agree with gay marriage.  So please respect the church's view on gay marriage, just as many states respect that you don't believe in 16-17 years.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Wrong.  Read the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage.  It has EVERYTHING to do with constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has also ruled 7 other times on marriage.  Each one of their rulings was based on guaranteed constitutional rights.

The definition of marriage doesn't say "civil rights". It is people with civil rights, not marriage.  You won't find in the links below that marriage has civil rights.

https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/93323

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

There are many ways to define marriage, in your view why can't the federal government recognize it? For the people that married a doll or android their marriage is valid, and true love. It is fine if you don't believe in doll marriage.

Edited September 3, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

 And robots are never guaranteed any civil rights, ever.

America should become more progressive and recognize that they should have civil rights. 

[Marginal Gains]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Brethren are guided by revelation pretty much constantly, and it is not necessary that every little thing be presented to in conference for vote. The Church is governed by revelation from God, not popular vote. 

And you'll wait a lot longer than 150 years before you'll see marriage redefined or the law of chastity repealed in this or any other respect. 

You think barring children from baptism unless or until they reach the age of 18 AND denounce their gay parents is a ‘little thing’?

Marriage has already been redefined within Mormonism - when it denounced plural marriage as non doctrinal and when it removed the advice against interracial marriage.

What happened to common consent?

[Marginal Gains]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

How do you know the ban didn't come from God? LDS doctrine doesn't teach it was permanent.

Have you read ‘Race And The Priesthood’?

*Apologies, as California Boy points out, this is off topic so please don’t respond to it on this thread.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

Edited September 3, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why did you mention it?

Read the post that I mentioned it.  You should be able to understand why I referred to it.  That doesn't mean I was introducing a new topic into the thread to discuss.

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In many states marriage is legal for 16-17 year. I don't understand why you have a different standard on that. 16-17 year have many rights, including the right to drive, play football, boxing, base-jumping,  work. Many boxers start professional boxing as young as 16. 16-17 do have rights, in Ohio they can vote in the Primaries. According to naturalism 16-17 year old marrying is consistent with human evolution. I don't believe in Evolution, but that is what the scientists say.    

You are wrong.  In the United States, all but one state requires that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission. Nebraska sets the age of majority at 19. Although a few states will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy, teenage couples may still have to have court approval.

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is absolutely fine if you don't agree with 16-17 year marriage, and it is absolutely fine that God and the Church don't agree with gay marriage.  So please respect the church's view on gay marriage, just as many states respect that you don't believe in 16-17 years.

Who said I have a problem with the church's view on gay marriage?  The church can have any rules it wants about gay marriage.  The problem I have is you attributing that policy to a revelation from God when no such revelation has ever happened.  

 

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The definition of marriage doesn't say "civil rights". It is people with civil rights, not marriage.  You won't find in the links below that marriage has civil rights.

https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/93323

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

There are many ways to define marriage, in your view why can't the federal government recognize it? For the people that married a doll or android their marriage is valid, and true love. It is fine if you don't believe in doll marriage.

Already answered.  Dolls/robots/cartoon characters/ don't have civil rights of equal protection under the law.  You really need to read the Supreme Court decisions.  You certainly have no idea what the basis for their ruling was.  I think when you do that, you will have a better understanding why not only the Supreme Court of the United States, but virtually every single court that gay marriage was brought before ruled in it's favor.  My job really is not to educate you on how the rule of law works in the United States.  

[cinepro]

On 8/25/2017 at 8:56 PM, carbon dioxide said:

There are ZERO, and I mean ZERO passages that endorse homosexual behavior in any form in the scriptures.  We have plenty of passages that endorse and accept heterosexual marriage (monogamy and polygamy) but nothing for same sex marriage or marriage to anything else that exist whether living being or inanimate object.

 

Thanks goodness we're a Church with on-going modern revelation.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You are wrong. In the United States, all but one state requires that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission. Nebraska sets the age of majority at 19. Although a few states will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy, teenage couples may still have to have court approval.

I didn't say "without parental permission", and I didn't know one state didn't require it.   If at least one state allows it means it is a right in that state, I wonder how many European countries allow it.  Why are you opposed to more states allowing 16-17 year marriage in the future? Please help me understand why you have a different standard for 16-17?  I mean, it is okay to be opposed to 16-17 marriage, I suspect most parents are opposed to it, but you should also respect church's view on gay marriage. 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Who said I have a problem with the church's view on gay marriage?  The church can have any rules it wants about gay marriage.  The problem I have is you attributing that policy to a revelation from God when no such revelation has ever happened.  

The church hasn't declared "thus said the Lord" for many things.  Your statement ""Mormons want to exclude gays from the joys of family and having a spouse" doesn't look like you have no problem with the church's view on marriage.  

Even if you are right, God is still allowing the church to forbid gay marriage. Not only his church, but all the Christian churches that are sincerely believe in him and do their best to understand his will. 

Quote

You really need to read the Supreme Court decisions. You certainly have no idea what the basis for their ruling was. I think when you do that, you will have a better understanding why not only the Supreme Court of the United States, but virtually every single court that gay marriage was brought before ruled in it's favor. My job really is not to educate you on how the rule of law works in the United States.

Marriage doesn't have rights, marriage is a right. Do you see the difference? Let me clarify why I said "The definition of marriage doesn't say "civil rights"". 100 years ago women didn't have the same rights as men, but they could still get married. Same for African Americans in the late 19th century because they could still get married. The point is that the civil rights are not required for marriage,  wasn't like that for most of US history.   

The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage on a 5-4 majority decision, if only one more justice were to vote on the traditional side gay marriage wouldn't be legal everywhere in the country.  If the Supreme Court overturns gay marriage in the future would you agree with it's decision? Does the Supreme Court think for you? 

Quote

Dolls/robots/cartoon characters/ don't have civil rights of equal protection under the law.

There are many ways to define marriage, in your view why can't the marriage of one human be recognized? Marriage can be a ritual, it can be many things. Marriage doesn't have to mean "a contract between two persons".  In the early history of the church and Israel marriage wasn't just a contract between two persons, read the journals of Emma Smith. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[california boy]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I didn't say "without parental permission", and I didn't know one state didn't require it.   If at least one state allows it means it is a right in that state, I wonder how many European countries allow it.  Why are you opposed to more states allowing 16-17 year marriage in the future? Please help me understand why you have a different standard for 16-17?  I mean, it is okay to be opposed to 16-17 marriage, I suspect most parents are opposed to it, but you should also respect church's view on gay marriage. 

The church hasn't declared "thus said the Lord" for many things.  Your statement ""Mormons want to exclude gays from the joys of family and having a spouse" doesn't look like you have no problem with the church's view on marriage.  

Even if you are right, God is still allowing the church to forbid gay marriage. Not only his church, but all the Christian churches that are sincerely believe in him and do their best to understand his will. 

Marriage doesn't have rights, marriage is a right. Do you see the difference? Let me clarify why I said "The definition of marriage doesn't say "civil rights"". 100 years ago women didn't have the same rights as men, but they could still get married. Same for African Americans in the late 19th century because they could still get married. The point is that the civil rights are not required for marriage,  wasn't like that for most of US history.   

The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage on a 5-4 majority decision, if only one more justice were to vote on the traditional side gay marriage wouldn't be legal everywhere in the country.  If the Supreme Court overturns gay marriage in the future would you agree with it's decision? Does the Supreme Court think for you? 

There are many ways to define marriage, in your view why can't the marriage of one human be recognized? Marriage can be a ritual, it can be many things. Marriage doesn't have to mean "a contract between two persons".  In the early history of the church and Israel marriage wasn't just a contract between two persons, read the journals of Emma Smith. 

You keep bringing up the same questions.  I think it is time I bow out.  You are welcome to your views on marriage.  I don't agree with most of your opinions on marriage.  Neither does the laws of this country.  I don't think you have a clear idea why the courts ruled in favor of gay marriage.  And I don't think you really are all that interested in what I believe.  You seem more interested in picking things apart and asking shallow questions then trying to understand this issue at all.  I don't think you have even read the Supreme Courts ruling which clearly explains why they ruled the way they did.  If you really want to understand  my views on gay marriage, then reading that decision would go a long way to understand why the laws of this country have to allow gay couples their equal right to marriage.  

But thanks for expressing your opinion.  I wish you well in your pursuit of understanding this issue.

Edited September 3, 2017 by california boy

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

You keep bringing up the same questions.  I think it is time I bow out.  You are welcome to your views on marriage.  I don't agree with most of your opinions on marriage.  Neither does the laws of this country

They are not my view, I am just wondering why you have a different standard for 16-17 year when at the same time you strongly disagree with the church on gay marriage.  Some states do allow 16-17 year, you told me one state doesn't require parent permission, so I don't understand why you say the laws of the land disagree.  

4 hours ago, california boy said:

 I don't think you have even read the Supreme Courts ruling which clearly explains why they ruled the way they did.  If you really want to understand  my views on gay marriage, then reading that decision would go a long way to understand why the laws of this country have to allow gay couples their equal right to marriage. 

I do understand, I voted for Obama and Hillary Clinton. In a secular view gays do have the right to get married and I respect that view. I wasn't mad when the Supreme Court legalized it, I do respect it's decision. Please understand  that our God that doesn't allow gay marriage in his church, and most of the Christian churches that try their best to follow him. God has never approved gay marriage, and likely never will. 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

But thanks for expressing your opinion.  I wish you well in your pursuit of understanding this issue.

Thanks, as a lifelong democrat I do understand your view. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/2/2017 at 3:16 PM, california boy said:

This thread is not about the priesthood ban, so I am not going to comment on your question and risk derail this thread.  But if you would like to open a thread about the priesthood ban, I would be more than happy to comment on it.

True though perhaps you should not introduce an outside topic to the discussion if you are not prepared to discuss the topic within the thread.

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

Thanks goodness we're a Church with on-going modern revelation.

Perhaps Jesus was not really a man but a woman.  Though the scriptures lead us to believe that he was a male, perhaps modern day revelation will reveal something we have not known before.

Edited September 4, 2017 by carbon dioxide