Jump to content

Mormon church comes out in support of same-sex marriage law


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Literally nobody is talking about abolishing interracial marriage.  

"Oh no, Clarence Thomas's opinion in Dobbs suggests that he and Ginni want to abolish interracial marriage!"

Link to comment
On 11/15/2022 at 10:35 PM, california boy said:

wow.  I honestly didn't see that happening.  Congratulations to Church leaders for respecting the right to marry for gay couples.

The church is admitting defeat on the battle over marriage.  Your side won.  Congratulations. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Rivers said:

The church is admitting defeat on the battle over marriage.  Your side won.  Congratulations. 

I don’t believe that is what is happening. 
I think the church leadership has gained more knowledge and understanding over the last few decades and realize there is more to this. 
I still think we will see even more light and knowledge on this topic in the future.

The days of Kimball and Packer’s position that this is a ‘mental disorder’, ‘chosen feelings’, ‘they are deviant’, ‘curable disease’ and that gay marriage will some how destroy heterosexual marriage are over.

Now comes the hard part, helping members understand that Kimball was wrong on this topic with much of his statement in Miracle of Forgiveness and yes this is a major pivot from Prop 8 effort days as well.

This is also going to challenge many members ingrained political views as well. Which have already been on full display on Deseret and Tribune comments threads and many other social media forums.

That is the win. 

Edited by Ragerunner
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

I don’t believe that is what is happening. 
I think the church leadership has gained more knowledge and understanding over the last few decades and realize there is more to this. 
I still think we will see even more light and knowledge on this topic in the future.

The days of Kimball and Packer’s position that this is a ‘mental disorder’, ‘chosen feelings’, ‘they are deviant’, ‘curable disease’ and that gay marriage will some how destroy heterosexual marriage are over.

Now comes the hard part, helping members understand that Kimball was wrong on this topic with much of his statement in Miracle of Forgiveness and yes this is a major pivot from Prop 8 effort days as well.

This is also going to challenge many members ingrained political views as well. Which have already been on full display on Deseret and Tribune comments threads and many other social media forums.

That is the win. 

Just what I was going to say, a guy that my husband works with is hating on Mitt Romney for supporting it, and I asked my husband, does this guy know that the church supported it, because that might just do him in.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:
Quote

The church is admitting defeat on the battle over marriage.  Your side won.  Congratulations. 

I don’t believe that is what is happening. 

I agree.  I think the time for "sides" on this issue has passed.  Now comes the time for conciliation.

I am currently involved in a lawsuit in which two brothers (my clients) are suing their three sisters regarding a large tract of land they jointly own.  20+ years ago they all signed a "contract" divvying up the property, and operated under that document until the last few years.  Disputes arose, leading to the litigation.  We are headed into the final stages of the litigation, after which I truly hope that these siblings can reconcile.  The litigation has created a lot of hard feelings on both sides.  Both sides have presented their legal and equitable arguments, but after the litigation is over they will still be siblings.  So regardless which "side" wins and which loses (frankly, the result of the lawsuit will be a mixed bag for both sides), the need to reconcile and come back together, to repair the relationship, will still be there.  The relationship between these people is so much bigger than merely their joint ownership of a tract of land.

So it is, I think, with the issue of same-sex marriage.  Now that the outcome has been determined, we need to look to reconciliation, both broadly as a society, and as a Church, and as individuals. 

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I think the church leadership has gained more knowledge and understanding over the last few decades and realize there is more to this. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "more to this."  

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I still think we will see even more light and knowledge on this topic in the future.

I agree.

I doubt that "more light and knowledge" will include any substantive departure from the Church's long-held positions on marriage and same-sex attraction.  YMMV.

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

The days of Kimball and Packer’s position that this is a ‘mental disorder’, ‘chosen feelings’, ‘they are deviant’, ‘curable disease’ and that gay marriage will some how destroy heterosexual marriage are over.

I think the Church and its leaders have indeed improved in both tone and content when addressing same-sex attraction.

Regarding "that gay marriage will somehow destroy heterosexual marriage," I would need to see what the Church has said about that in particulars.  I think there are many ways that "marriage" as an institution has been harmed.  Decoupling it from the man-woman union and from procreation (both of which are heavily implicated in the re-definition of marriage), has been, I think, a contributing factor.  But there are many others.

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Now comes the hard part, helping members understand that Kimball was wrong on this topic with much of his statement in Miracle of Forgiveness and yes this is a major pivot from Prop 8 effort days as well.

"Kimball was wrong" is way too brad.  His strident tone is no longer reflected in our approach (and I think that is a good idea), but the prohibition against same-sex behavior, its status as "sin," is the contextual foundation of Pres. Kimball's approach, and that remains unchanged in the Church, and I think it will continue to be unchanged.

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

This is also going to challenge many members ingrained political views as well.

Yep.  Political views of all sorts, from all over the political spectrum.

There are some members of the Church who have allowed the influence of the Restored Gospel on their worldview to be overshadowed by sociopolitical trends and preferences.

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Which have already been on full display on Deseret and Tribune comments threads and many other social media forums.

That is the win. 

I think the focus should be on reconciliation.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Why 4 U.S. senators acknowledged The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Senate floor
The Respect for Marriage Act aims to balance religious liberty with LGBTQ rights, the senators said
By Joshua Lee | Nov 17, 2022, 4:59pm MST

Before the U.S. Senate voted to open debate Wednesday on the Respect for Marriage Act, four senators in their floor speeches acknowledged The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other faith groups. 

The bipartisan bill (Senate Bill 4556), is a an amended version of the House bill that codifies same-sex marriage protections in federal law. Concerns that the original bill lacked sufficient protection for people of faith caused some senators to reach out to religious organizations around the nation to collaborate on a workable compromise. The bill, as currently amended, is expected to pass a full vote of the Senate later this week.

“Achieving this kind of compromise could not have happened without hard work, good faith and bipartisan negotiation,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said during his Senate floor speech. “I want to extend specific thanks to the following groups that have worked with my colleagues and me to develop this legislation, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, known as the Mormon Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,” and several other religious organizations.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., also said he thought the bill was a good compromise. “I am grateful for the leadership of so many people who were involved,” Tillis said before listing co-sponsoring senators of the legislation. “But I also want to thank The Church of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Council for Christian Colleges,” he said, while also listing a number of other religious organizations.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., echoed what her colleagues from across the aisle said during her own floor speech.

“I thank the faith communities who helped us expand the policy conversation and ensure that our amendment includes robust and common-sense religious liberty protections. In particular, I thank The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who provided thoughtful suggestions and contributions.”

Sinema said the church’s public statement supporting the legislation summarizes well the bill’s “holistic outcome.” She quoted the church’s statement in part that says, “‘We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.’”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, asked that the church’s statement be included in the Senate record, as well as a combined letter of support signed by a group of intra-faith leaders including the Seventh-day Adventists, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the council for Christian colleges and Universities, and others.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

The First Presidency issued the following statement on February 13, 1994:

Quote

 

The principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.

We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.

 

Any thoughts about what, if anything, has changed about "the principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us" between then and now?

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The First Presidency issued the following statement on February 13, 1994:

Quote

The principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.

Yep.  But the "efforts" succeeded anyway.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.

We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.

Any thoughts about what, if anything, has changed about "the principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us" between then and now?

Nothing.

What has changed is . . . the law.  What was previously settled law has now changed.  What was then in dispute is now not.

I have already provided a number of quotes from the Brethren dating back to 2014-2015 stating: "Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles and a former Utah Supreme Court justice, said church members should "accept unfavorable results graciously, and practice civility." Oaks said Latter-day Saints should show goodwill toward all and reject persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief and sexual orientation."

And this: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

And this: "Elder Oaks then provided some suggestions for fellow believers and others for those with non-religious values.  Believers, he said, should seek to harmonize divine and civil laws. They should not assert the free exercise of religion to override every law and government action that could possibly be interpreted to infringe on institutional or personal religious freedom."

And this: "Believers should also acknowledge the validity of constitutional laws. Even where they have challenged laws or practices on constitutional grounds, once those laws or practices have been sustained by the highest available authority, believers should acknowledge their validity and submit to them. It is better to try to live with an unjust law than to contribute to the anarchy that a young lawyer named Abraham Lincoln anticipated when he declared, 'There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.'"  (Emphasis added.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  But the "efforts" succeeded anyway.

Nothing.

What has changed is . . . the law.  What was previously settled law has now changed.  What was then in dispute is now not.

I don't follow. After all, immediately before Proposition 8, Californians having the Constitutional right to marry was settled law. What put it in dispute was the Church and a few others fighting against it.

If nation-wide marriage rights is now a settled issue, what is the point of the new Respect for Marriage Bill? Is it just superfluous? Regardless, I don't understand why an organization with a "sacred responsibility" to "oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender" would support a bill that "repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. "

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't follow. After all, immediately before Proposition 8, Californians having the Constitutional right to marry was settled law. What put it in dispute was the Church and a few others fighting against it.

If nation-wide marriage rights is now a settled issue, what is the point of the new Respect for Marriage Bill? Is it just superfluous? Regardless, I don't understand why an organization with a "sacred responsibility" to "oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender" would support a bill that "repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. "

For. Purposes. Of. Federal. Law. As. It. Stands. Today.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:
Quote
Quote

Any thoughts about what, if anything, has changed about "the principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us" between then and now?

What has changed is . . . the law.  What was previously settled law has now changed.  What was then in dispute is now not.

I don't follow.

I figured as much.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

After all, immediately before Proposition 8, Californians having the Constitutional right to marry was settled law. What put it in dispute was the Church and a few others fighting against it.

Have you ever heard of a "circuit split"?  It's a legal concept.  See here:

Quote

In United States federal courts, a circuit split occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue.[1] The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case.[2] Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.

Of course, not all circuit splits are created equally.  Our system of government can accommodate some jurisdiction-based diversity of viewpoints and laws.  Hence different circuits - and different states - can have divergent approaches to a particular issue.

When it comes to marriage, however, I think a patchwork system would have been unworkable.  A marriage valid in California or Vermont or New York, but not valid in Arizona or Utah or Colorado, would create all sorts of difficulties.  

In the end, the issue of marriage was examined through a constitutional lens, with SCOTUS being the final arbiter.  Prior to 2015, the Church and many others who opposed re-defining marriage were at liberty to use all lawful mechanisms to advance that perspective, and opponents were likewise free to advance theirs.  But in 2015, with the issuance of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, the dispute was settled.  Fast forward to 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act is an attempt to legislate and codify Obergefell while preemptively addressing concerns from religious institutions and groups.  I think that's a good idea.  Our largely dysfunctional Congress just might actually be able to do its job on this one, and do it well (assuming that Congress has legal authority to pass such legislation).

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If nation-wide marriage rights is now a settled issue, what is the point of the new Respect for Marriage Bill? Is it just superfluous?

I don't think so.  Obergefell legalized SSM, but that's about it.  Offhand, I see the current bill as intended to A) provide clarity to the several states and individuals who might still want to resist Obergefell in various ways, B) provide legal recourse for same-sex couples whose constitutional rights are being infringed, and C) provide legal protections for religious organizations and groups in anticipation of the foregoing newly-minted "legal recourse" options.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Regardless, I don't understand why an organization with a "sacred responsibility" to "oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender" would support a bill that "repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. "

Because the circumstances have changed.

Because the "efforts" are over.

Because codified laws need to conform to the Constitution, and sometimes the Powers-that-Be (state legislatures, etc.) are reluctant to take appropriate steps to ensure that.

Because "{w}e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  (AoF 1:12.)  As Dallin H. Oaks put it, "{b}elievers should also acknowledge the validity of constitutional laws. Even where they have challenged laws or practices on constitutional grounds, once those laws or practices have been sustained by the highest available authority, believers should acknowledge their validity and submit to them. It is better to try to live with an unjust law than to contribute to the anarchy that a young lawyer named Abraham Lincoln anticipated when he declared, 'There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.'"  (Emphasis added.)

Because the Church has long supported legal protections for LGBT folks.  Now that gays and lesbians can lawfully marry, those marriages can and ought to be afforded normative protections under the law.  The Respect for Marriage Act does that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don't follow. After all, immediately before Proposition 8, Californians having the Constitutional right to marry was settled law. What put it in dispute was the Church and a few others fighting against it.

If nation-wide marriage rights is now a settled issue, what is the point of the new Respect for Marriage Bill? Is it just superfluous? Regardless, I don't understand why an organization with a "sacred responsibility" to "oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender" would support a bill that "repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. "

It doesn't make much sense.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Analytics said:

The First Presidency issued the following statement on February 13, 1994:

Any thoughts about what, if anything, has changed about "the principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us" between then and now?

My take on "heal relationships and foster understanding" refers to things the Church is doing that shows we have equal regard for all God's children (e.g., equal protection under the law as it stands today vs. back in 1994) but also higher regard for what we believe to be God and His covenants, including marriage as we practice it. We can support those things that protect people who are LGBTQ -- the same protections all God's children should have (commerce, housing, employment, public safety, etc. as demonstrated in part in the Utah Compromise) -- and have a religion to support which all God's children have a right to agree with (or not), but in any case, expect protection as much as any other  fundamental right (such as commerce, housing, employment, public safety, etc.).

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Rivers said:

The church is admitting defeat on the battle over marriage.  Your side won.  Congratulations. 

Well thank you, I guess.  I always believed that gay couples should. not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage.  Their love and their families are just as real and as important as straight couples.  So yes, I am happy about not only the Supreme Court ruling, but also a bipartisan support on that ruling.

But I also have to say that it has always saddened me that the Church fought so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples in California.  I hope that the reason the Church has come out in support of this legislation is to right a wrong.  Maybe others don't see it that way, but it does help me have better feelings about the Church in my life.

My partner and I are not married.  A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying.  We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry.  We haven't really talked about it for a long time.  But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately.  I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married.  Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church?  It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying.  You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back.   I am a little confused to be honest.  

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thank you. Thank you very much ;)

Isn't it amazing how prophets and apostles have been such leaders on this issue over the years. 

They did their job.  Members of the church are supposed to stand as witnesses of Christ, the gospel, and moral standards.  The world as a whole can reject all of it. That is fine.  Noah went through the same thing.  The people rejected Noah.  Noah lost for a time.  Then everything switched. The winners became the losers and the loser became the winner.  

Link to comment

If this hasn’t been posted yet…

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/11/17/examining-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-statement-on-the-us-congress-respect-marriage-act

The Church recognizes that within the US, civil marriage has been defined to include unions between same-sex individuals. With that understanding, the best course of action, aligning with what President Oaks explained, is to not seek total dominance of having civil marriage redefined to meet the Church’s position, but to instead seek fairness for all. In this case, that fairness needs to meet two needs:

  1. Ensure that the rights and privileges society grants to those that enter into the civil contract of marriage are protected for all individuals that enter into that contract, including those that have historically been cut off from these privileges. In particular, in the US, this has a primary impact on the LGBTQ+ community.
  2. Ensure that the rights and privileges for faith-based institutions are not infringed upon by allowing them to continue to define and support the religious ordinance of marriage in the way they choose.

With the religious freedom protections included in the RFMA in its current form, the Church has indicated their belief that the act represents “the way forward”. It’s reasonable to conclude that this position is due to the act working to meet the two needs above, respecting the law and preserving the rights of both sides.”


——

It has been noted by some different reviewers that the Church’s statement is actually quite nuanced and is not saying the Church supports this specific bill itself, but instead endorses efforts to include protections of religious freedoms while respecting law and LGBT+ rights as is being attempted by this bill and that this (the efforts to do all three together) is the way forward. 
 

I hadn’t read the statement while coherent before (sleep has been very weird lately) and had been assuming that others were right about the Church backing the bill itself. But now I have read the more reserved interpretations and reread the statement, I am leaning towards the Church expressing gratitude that attempts are being made, but it feels more like “this is heading in the right direction [where all three, the law and both LGBT+ and religious rights, are well protected], but not there yet”.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well thank you, I guess.  I always believed that gay couples should. not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage.  Their love and their families are just as real and as important as straight couples.  So yes, I am happy about not only the Supreme Court ruling, but also a bipartisan support on that ruling.

But I also have to say that it has always saddened me that the Church fought so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples in California.  I hope that the reason the Church has come out in support of this legislation is to right a wrong.  Maybe others don't see it that way, but it does help me have better feelings about the Church in my life.

My partner and I are not married.  A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying.  We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry.  We haven't really talked about it for a long time.  But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately.  I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married.  Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church?  It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying.  You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back.   I am a little confused to be honest.  
 

The whole argument over marriage was definitional.  It was a question of how we define marriage.  

Link to comment
14 hours ago, california boy said:

My partner and I are not married.  A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying.  We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry.  We haven't really talked about it for a long time.  But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately.  I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married.  Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church?  It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying.  You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back.   I am a little confused to be honest.  

 

I would never have seen a small wedding where one quietly invited those who wanted to celebrate the marriage with one as disrespectful to anyone…and by quietly I mean one didn’t invite the press to see one being first to get married when legal (which I don’t have a problem with as long as that didn’t come with an expectation that everyone had to be happy about it and using it as an opportunity to shame those who weren’t) and one didn’t send out invitations to any and everyone on one’s contact list without regard to their views, which shows a lack of caring about them as individuals.  
 

At this point I think enough have been married that it is no longer likely to be viewed as a political statement, it has been long enough and the novelty is absent, so anyone marrying is doing it because they want to.

I don’t think the Church ever viewed living together as better than marriage for same sex relationships. I think it was more just easier to identify because someone could argue if the issue was living together that they weren’t really doing that as they had their own residence, it was just a short term relationship so not really living together, or they were just roommates with benefits, etc.  The Church drew bright lines in two places bright lines could be drawn…homosexual sex is a sin in any situation and same sex marriage is not eligible to be sealed (and previously was listed as apostasy while now it is not listed, but still is that imo as is any sin that contradicts church teachings when there is no recognition that it is a sin and no intent to repent, which would include anyone living together, straight or gay, with the same views).

But if one is concerned about one’s own marriage being viewed disrespectfully or as disrespectful, one should be asking the opinion of those one is worried about. Even a consensus of the board’s posters is irrelevant unless it is our opinion one cares about. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Isn't it amazing how prophets and apostles have been such leaders on this issue over the years. 

It is indeed.  Your sarcasm notwithstanding, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to inspired/revelatory counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when doing so is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

They have also worked hard to preserve religious liberty, and not just for the Church and its members, but for people of all religious persuasions.

I hope we can move toward more reconciliation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
17 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Do you also believe that the church admitted defeat on polygamy

Sorta.  The excerpts from Pres. Woodruff's remarks at the time make it clear that they bent based on what the Lord said:

Quote

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

(Emphases added.)

17 hours ago, CA Steve said:

and the priesthood ban?

No.  See this item from 2012:

Quote

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent.  It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 hours ago, california boy said:

Well thank you, I guess.  I always believed that gay couples should. not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage.  Their love and their families are just as real and as important as straight couples.  So yes, I am happy about not only the Supreme Court ruling, but also a bipartisan support on that ruling.

But I also have to say that it has always saddened me that the Church fought so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples in California.  I hope that the reason the Church has come out in support of this legislation is to right a wrong.  Maybe others don't see it that way, but it does help me have better feelings about the Church in my life.

My partner and I are not married.  A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying.  We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry.  We haven't really talked about it for a long time.  But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately.  I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married.  Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church?  It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying.  You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back.   I am a little confused to be honest.  

 

I wouldn't view either option as being disrespectful to the church, because you don't believe in the church and in my mind it's weird to hold people responsible for behaving in ways that they don't believe God wants them to behave.

To me that would be like a Catholic believing that I was being disrespectful to them by getting married in a temple instead of by a priest.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Rivers said:

The whole argument over marriage was definitional.  It was a question of how we define marriage.  

Maybe for you it was just some definition that needed defending.  For hundreds of thousands of gay couples, it meant legal rights.  How could you not understand that.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...