It will be interesting to see what happens to the church's standing on gays in
the church. We accept all people in the church as long as they hold to our same
standards, i.e. no premarital sex. With the advent of gay marriage being legal
in some states like New York does the stance remain the same. Hence
hypothetically speaking two gay men or women could legally get married never
having sex before are they still considered in good standing with the church?
The church may have to rethink how it states its stance on gays in the church.
As a mormon, but I accept anyone no matter race, religion, sex preference as
long as they are good people. (which means they are not murderers, child sex
predators, sells or does drugs.) But I admit, I am almost embarrassed to tell
non members I am LDS because of all the FLDS contoversy, Warren Jeffs, etc.
Because my family and friends in other states that are not members do not
understand that we are different than FLDS. We don't have beds in our temples,
yet we have temples. It is just hard to help them understand this.
"Mormons don't see Jesus Christ for who Jesus Christ really is. That's the
big issue. They see him as a prophet, not the only begotten Son of God."I guess they don't know that the Roman Empire persecuted the persons we
read of in the Bible, they hijacked Christianity, then held a meeting in Nicea
to 'settle' the QUESTION of the trinity once and for all. Then Rome made this
law and persecuted other CHRISTIANS believing in God the Father and His son,
Jesus Christ.-------I have a question for these 'pretend
Christians' who spend their time hating us, against what Jesus Christ actually
taught (Perhaps they overlooked the bit about 'loving thy neighbor', or maybe
they think that by hating us they actually love us... yeah, whatever).How does a counsel of men decide whether God and Jesus Christ are separate
beings? I guess we can vote on what color of eyes He has too, right?All evangelicals who criticize us ought to tour Temple Square, see the
Christus with holes in His hands from the nails, then actually ask US what we
believe, rather than assume they know our thoughts better than we do.
I'm not LDS but I have watched this back and forth for years. I think the LDS
people do the right thing when they simply say what they believe rather than
worrying about the media. Eventually the press gets a better balance in their
reporting. Could that be happening here?
Henry,I personally believe that the press in general is getting
worse at accurately reporting what the LDS Church and its members believe. This
is why I think it's important to praise when people get it right.-Correction on my previous comment. When I say 'Evangelicals' I do
not mean all of them, only the ones who fight us for our beliefs, for beliefs in
the Bible, and for the same things that even those like Paul died preaching.
Not too long ago, a DN editor posed a question about whether or not the future
of journalism will be in writing stories with intentional bias. This is a very
good example of what could also happen - that, where possible, journalists
fact-check their source quotes and "facts" to remove potential bias
born of falsehood. It takes time and is sometimes difficult to do (especially on
deadline), but we would all be better served if we knew fact and if that fact
was placed within a story (as in this story's examples), not as a later
"fact-checker" story which many do not read.While
intentionally biased journalism might very well and accurately represent one
side of a story (as long as we all understand it's written with intentional
bias), fact-checking any and all stories and their sources would contribute
immensely towards educating this country as to the actual facts surrounding
To davedave: The stance I believe will not change. It has been the same stance
from the foundation of the Church. All we have to do is to continue to gain a
great understanding of, THE FAMILY, A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD. This came out
in 1995 years before the so called gay movement took hold. The Church has stood
tall in all states where the vote to amend state constitutions has been given
to the voter. In each it has won with a 30-0 stand. Only in states where it
has been done by the courts or legislature has it been given.Don't
expect this stand to change.
The LDS Church is to Protestants what Protestants were to the established
Catholic Church during the reformation. The established political
and religious leaders of that day persecuted, ridiculed and minimalized
reformation leaders like Martin Luther. They mocked him to be mentally ill.
Mormons are experiencing a similar situation. When a Protestant
tells me today I'm not a Christian I correct them by saying "I am very
difinatly a Christian. I'm just not Catholic or Protestant."
"the reporter quotes a South Carolina Republican leader, who said that
"Mormons don't see Jesus Christ for who Jesus Christ really is. That's the
big issue. They see him as a prophet"The Republican leader
doesn't know the facts. From The Living Christ:"He was
the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the
direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. "All things were
made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John
@A voice of reason"How does a counsel of men decide whether God and
Jesus Christ are separate beings? "Because that is what they
interpreted the scriptures to be suggesting. The LDS church views it
differently. Both sides of the trinity doctrine issue believe that their view is
what the Bible suggests to be the case.@davedave" With
the advent of gay marriage being legal in some states like New York does the
stance remain the same."The church stance is "no sex
before marriage" and since the church defines marriage as man-woman only,
regardless of what state law is that does not affect the church stance. I do
think we will see the church get way less active in Prop-8 type instances though
but it's not going to allow gay marriage or same-sex... sex during my lifetime.
To Bill in Nebraska:I agree with you. I guess my point is to clarify
it's statement in that we expect all members to live up to the standards of the
church. I guess my point is are they against the idea that having sex outside of
the confines of marriage the sin or the homosexual act the sin. I am just saying
that in their statement they are being a little ambiguous and that they should
clarify to non-mormons that yes we except our gay brothers and sisters but that
under no circumstances including under the confines of "marriage" is
it allowable in our church. And the church has changed its stance before don't
forget blacks receiving the preisthood and the disolussion of polygomy.
To atl134:I lived in the South when African Americans were given to
the priesthood and I can tell you many people felt the same
way........"during my lifetime". I hope you are right but you never
When a Protestant leader says the LDS Church is not following historical
Christianity I have to agree. That was the reason for the restoration. If historical Christianity is the standard by which we should believe
then why are these folks not Catholics? When Protestants painfully broke away
from the Catholic Church- the reformers made the choice not to follow historical
To be a Mormon you need have broad shoulders. Critics of the Church are
everywhere, some of their remarks are mild and not to hurtful because they don't
know and others seem to written by Satan himself. The Lord is watching
over His Church and has given us the Iron rod for guidance and comfort.Yes,"All things were made by Him" even Mormons, but the ones with
hardened hearts and stiff necks will always feel threatened and throw their
darts at us.The quality of the Church will ways stand above the
critics.Never lose faith because He is with us always, after all it is His
Bill in Nebraska "All we have to do is to continue to gain a great
understanding of, THE FAMILY, A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD. This came out in 1995
years before the so called gay movement took hold. "LDS4The Proclamation came out in response to the gay marriage voter initiatives in
Hawaii and Alaska that year. It was a combination "Call to Arms"
against gay marriage as well as a political position paper. The only thing
wrong with the proc is the last paragraph, a thinly veiled call for people to
curb the rights of gays to marry. We know, though, that D&C 134:4 and 1
Cor. 10:29 both condemn using one's private moral beliefs as justification to
condemn the rights and liberties of others. Gays in CA had the right to marry
before Prop.8 passed. I SINCERELY beg for someone to explain how LDS and
non-LDS Christian support of Prop.8 was not in violation of those verses.
I recently had the very distinct honor of wearing the yellow t-shirt we all
recognize:"Mormon helping hands". This is one way of showing the
world (or at least those who will take notice)that in spite of perceived
doctrinal difference or differing scriptural interpretations, actions must in
the end speak louder than words. Seems to me in my own naive, simplistic mind
that to live as Christ taught should trump any hot air that these evangelical
folks spew forth that Mormons are not Christian. Sorta the old cliche
"don't just talk the talk but truly walk the walk". In the city where
I was able to spend two long days in volunteer service was a Church Humanitarian
couple who said that after Katrina, there were as many as 3,000 volunteers
"Mormon helping hands" whose recovery efforts they co-ordinated. It is
truly sad when such "out of touch" folks continue their mindless,
ill-informed rants. Yet the countless folks who were served truly know that us
imperfect Latter-Day Saints are just trying to follow our Savior.
Article quote: "At one point in the story, the reporter quotes a South
Carolina Republican leader, who said that "Mormons don't see Jesus Christ
for who Jesus Christ really is. That's the big issue. They see him as a prophet,
not the only begotten Son of God."___Absolutely,
POSITIVELY untrue.Yes, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints absolutely DO see Jesus Christ as the Son of God.We see Jesus as the Creator.We see Jesus as the Great Mediator,
the one and only promised Messiah, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and as
God's only Begotten Son.If some South Carolina politician wants to
believe something false about LDS doctrine, that's his choice.But at
least readers here will know the truth.
LDS4, I've said it before, you speak out against the church, and its leaders.
Your views are that of someone who has been blinded by the great deceiver. And seriously, Marriage is NOT a right, and you also forget where rights come
from. They come from God, not the government!
Homosexual activity is simply immoral. It is wrong, it is evil; always has been
and always will be. Period.Now, before any pro-homosexual readers
freak out, notice I said homosexual "activity" is wrong. There is a
difference between who one is and what one does. The LDS church has been
exceptionally clear that if anyone struggles with homosexual urges and desires
but does not act on them they are as worthy as the staunchest, sexually pure
heterosexual person. The LDS member in San Francisco called to be a clerk must
be in this latter category.But to expect the LDS church to change
it's position on homosexual activity, ie, "sexual relations with one of the
same sex", so-called "marriage", etc, is unwise. Why? Because
Jesus Christ alone is in charge of the LDS church and He will not, no matter
what fuss pro-homosexuals stir up, change His mind.Gladly, I rejoice
in the fact that God is constant and refuses to be pushed around by anyone.(Now, having said that, let's see if this gets posted. DesNews posting
police don't seem to like the word "wrong" and "homosexuals"
to appear in the same post.)
lds4gaymarriage,The Proclamation was read publicly for the first
time in September 1995. The voter initiatives in Alaska and Hawaii were voted on
in November 1998. There were same-sex marriage matters prior to the Proclamation
but the voter initiatives in Alaska and Hawaii came later.D&C
134:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:29 are not intended to prevent a body politic from
legislating morality. The question isn't whether or not we should legislate
morality (because there isn't much, if anything else we legislate), the question
is "what is moral?" And answers will rarely have consensus. In this
democratic republic I support your freedom of speech to influence change in
people's minds about what is moral even if I disagree with your beliefs about
morality. (See Jarom 1:5 and Mosiah 29 for further commentary on morality,
legislation and government.)
Attacks on the LDS Church stem from a combination of ignorance and deliberate
dishonesty. Any preacher who receives his livelihood from the number of members
he can attract to his church has a serious conflict of interest from the outset.
Those who feel threatened by a Church that is taking their members have a
strong incentive to spew out hatred and falsehoods. Many repeat those
falsehoods just out of sheer ignorance. It will continue and all we can do is
to try and set a good example and correct the falsehoods as best we can. We need to remember that Christ watches over His Church and will
continue to bless those who live His commandments. Those who are pure in heart
will discern the truth even among all the confusion and falsehoods that others
try to promote. The great rock will continue to roll forth from the
mountain.P.S. The Church will NEVER change its stance on homosexual
lifestyle and "marriage."
@ LDS4 who wrote "I SINCERELY beg for someone to explain how LDS and
non-LDS Christian support of Prop.8 was not in violation of those
verses."___My (Caravan) comment: and I sincerely
beg you to explain how Prop. 8 went against the teachings of God.
One argument, Caravan, regarding the notion that support of Proposition 8 went
against the teachings of God (or, at minimum, the principles of freedom of this
country) is the intolerance that it implied. If Mormons and other people want
to believe that homosexuality and/or gay marriage is wrong, then hey, it's a
free country. But don't go around legislating your morality or religion on
others--especially in another state. While the LDS church
reportedly did not directly support Proposition 8 financially, there was
communication--formal and/or informal--that encouraged members to contribute
funds in support of prop 8. This impetus came from Utah and affected primarily
Californians, some of whom understandably preferred that Utah and Mormons
(comprising only a minority of California residents) would mind their own
business. While it wasn't illegal, it was meddling. All those who are
grandstanding against gay marriage would be well served to focus on their own
relationships, marriage or otherwise.
Hawkyo -LDS4, I've said it before, you speak out against the church, and
its leaders. Your views are that of someone who has been blinded by the great
deceiver. And seriously, Marriage is NOT a right, and you also forget
where rights come from. They come from God, not the government! LDS4Well, I'm obviously misinterpreting the verses I quoted. Do you
know of an interpretation that allows people to use their religious opinions to
justify infringing upon the rights of others? I'd love to hear it. Gays had
the RIGHT in CA to marry prior to Prop.8 and we LDS let our "religious
opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of" those
gays. I'd love your help to overcome my apostate views.Marriage IS
a right. The US Supreme Court said so in the Loving ruling which overturned
laws forbidding mixed-race marriages. The specific ruling that it overturned
had a section where the overturned judge stated that God separated the races and
therefore didn't intend for them to inter-marry and he quoted a Bible verse as
support. Perhaps the Supremes were wrong since allowing inter-racial marriage
clearly violates God's word.
"P.S. The Church will NEVER change its stance on homosexual lifestyle and
"marriage.""If that's what "the Church"
wants to do, fine. Freedom of religion. As for imposing its
beliefs on others, though (e.g., Proposition 8), I would hope that they keep the
meddling hands off. The gays who want to get married in Cali aren't impeding
Mormons anywhere from raising a forever family.
To LDS4GAYMARRIAGE: You may feel that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints is not obeying its own scriptures but as Curtis Hight spells out there is
a huge difference. The question comes out either you sustain President Monson,
the First Presidency and members of the Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers
and revelators. You can disagree and I can guaranteee you that there are many
disagreements between these brethern but in the end when President Monson, says
this is the way it should be, then you find a complete unified front by all.We are legally bound to vote our minds and beliefs. The problem is that
they will continue to be front and center just as they were in California and
every other state where it has been given to the people to vote on. President
Packer spoke quite well when he said courts and legislatures can vote to change
man laws to accomodate changes in society, yet they will never change the laws
of God. We have a mandate and a charge to try and pass laws which are morally
right, in accordance with the laws of God.
The Voice of reason;Mormons don't see Jesus Christ for who Jesus Christ really
is. That's the big issue.Mormon Doctrine p742 (Jesus) Conceived and Born
in the normal natural course of events.. .Also The birth of the Savior was
as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural
action. He partook of flesh and blood was begotten of His Father, as we are of
our fathers. (JoD 8:115).The pale of Christianity believes the birth
of Jesus was a unique miracle by the Holy Spirit/Ghost same Greek word. This is
how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about, His mother Mary was pledged to be
married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant
through the Holy Spirit. (Mt 1:18 NIV). Protevangelium, And I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and HER
seed(sperma,4690); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel" (Genesis 3:15). But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son-
Born of a Woman- born under law(Joseph)(Galatians 4:4 NIV)
The Caravan Moves On ..and I sincerely beg you to explain how Prop. 8 went
against the teachings of God. LDS4Easy. 1 Cor.10:29 has Paul
asking one person's moral sensitivities can justify infringing upon the rights
of another. D&C 134:4 talks about those who allow their religious opinions
to prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. It's clear
that God frowns upon those who use their own private religious/moral opinions as
justification to infringe upon the rights of others.Regarding
Prop.8, gays in CA, prior to 8's passing had the right under CA law to marry.
About 18000 gays DID marry. WE LDS, due to our religious/moral opinions about
homosexuality, the family, etc...felt justified in trying to pass a law that
clearly infringed upon the rights of others. Prop.8 objectively infringed upon
the rights of gays. This seems to be in direct opposition to the scriptures.The prophets have stated that their own words are inferior to scripture
so the Proc or anything else not sustained as scripture, via Common Consent,
can't override scripture.It's pretty straight forward. Please let
me know HOW I'm wrong.
Bill in NEThe question comes out either you sustain President Monson, the
First Presidency and members of the Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers and
revelators. LDS4I do! Just as I supported HBL and JFS before him
who both stated that their words are to be ignored if they don't align with
scripture. The 3 + 12 can't just ignore scripture. BillPresident Packer spoke quite well when he said courts and legislatures can
vote to change man laws to accomodate changes in society, yet they will never
change the laws of God. LDS4I'm not asking the Church to permit
homosexual behaviors. I'm just saying that scripture forbids LDS from infringing
upon the rights of others and that is what Prop8 did. We must refrain from
doing what scritpure clearly condemns.BillWe have a mandate
and a charge to try and pass laws which are morally right, in accordance with
the laws of God. LDS4So we need to pass laws outlawing coffee, tea,
shopping on Sundays and bikinis? Really? Isn't that what those who oppossed
plural marriage 125 years ago thought that they were doing? You wanna emulate
Comparing the church's stance on gay marriage to blacks receiving the
priesthood, doesn't equate. For the church, gay marriage is a moral issue,
whereas blacks receiving the priesthood had always been "at some point in
time, they will get it". Having gay tendencies is not the concern--but
acting on those tendencies is. That's the sin, according to the church. For
myself, having an openly gay person in a leadership position in my ward would
not bother me in the least. I would support that person just as well as I
support the other leaders of my ward. Blacks were finally able to
receive the priesthood because of revelation from God. I don't see the same
thing happening with gay marriage, however. (Personal opinion).
@Hawkyo"Your views are that of someone who has been blinded by the
great deceiver. "Curious how some people who would get offended
if someone of another faith said that about their faith... are just fine using
it against others.
sharrona Mormon Doctrine is NOT Mormon Doctrine. Only the scriptures are
doctrine. We OFFICIALLY join with other Christians in believing in the
miraculous conception of Christ. We don't know the exact methods or mechanics
of how God did it. It doesn't really matter how it happened...it only matters
THAT it happened and that we all benefit from the atonement of Christ.All faiths have leaders who have made statements and commentaries that are
foolish and I don't think you want to take ownership for things that Kenneth
Copeland, Kenneth Hagen, Tony Alamo and others have said. We LDS have a bad
habit of taking everything that the GAs say as Gospel. The prophets have said
that we shouldn't do it, but too many can't resist.
To Kevin J Kirkham and LDS4GayMarriage: The Word of Wisdom is a commandment to
follow, it is not a law. You have the law of tithing, the doctrine of marriage
and etc. It stands as it should for all to follow, but it isn't governing.
To LDS4 same-sex marriage is a MORAL issue, not a right issue. Those who
believe that are preaching false doctrine. It has nothing to do with rights
thus they are not going against the scriptures as stated.I'll ask
both of you to go back and try to find every General Conference talk ever given.
You probably won't be able to do so but we are told that those talks especially
those given during those conferences are SCRIPTURE. If we were to take each of
those conferences and put them together, you wouldn't be able to carry that book
around with you. Why, do you think that the 4th Sunday of every month is given
to studying and learning about selected talks by your Stake President for both
the Relief Society and Priesthood. It is true that we are not to take what is
said as Gospel but to LEARN for ourselves.
Kirk C Kirkham: All faiths have leaders who have made statements and
commentaries that are foolish and I don't think you want to take ownership for
things that Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagen,Alamo and others have said. True,
They are very schismatic in the body of believers, but they hold no authority
over the vast majority,But your authorities:Brigham Young said, The
birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the
result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood was begotten of His
Father, as we are of our fathers. (JoD 8:115). Joseph Fielding
Smith, They tell us the BoM states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I
challenge that statement. The BoM teaches No Such thing! Neither does the
Bible! (Doctrines of Salvation Vol 1:18) Check Alma 7:10 and Mt 1:18.Heber C Kimball, I was naturally begotten; so was my father,and also my
Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the scriptures ,he is the first begotten of
his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.(JoD 8:21)No room for Orson Pratt,and others.
lds4gaymarriage/Kevin,Your comments at 3:17 p.m. and 3:34 p.m., and
ChuloDO's around noon, are largely answered through my 2:44 a.m. comments. You
seem to be wanting a civic world where freedom of speech is limited to those
voices you agree with, and you seem to want to wrest scriptural context and
meaning and then shackle the Church with this wrested interpretation. The First
Amendment and other laws answer the legal issues and virtues have to answer for
public relations, while Jarom 1:5 and Mosiah 29 answer the scriptural
questions.President Obama, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney all approach
civic government based on their personal beliefs about morality. The Nixon,
Ford, and Carter administrations supported a 55 mph speed limit. Why? Morality!
From a certain point of view! The Reagan administration supported higher speed
limits. Why? Morality! From another point of view. We're almost always, if not
always, legislating morality: "legislating morality" isn't the issue,
"what is moral?" is the question. And I value your freedom of speech
in a public conversation laboring to answer it!
Sharrona, Are you saying that Protestants don't believe that Jesus had a father;
are you saying that Mary was his only parent? If so, then you are the one
denying that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. Not the
Mormons, falsely accused by the Carolina preacher.
Bill in Nebraska ...same-sex marriage is a MORAL issue, not a right(s) issue.
Those who believe that are preaching false doctrine. It has nothing to do with
rights thus they are not going against the scriptures as stated.KJKSorry, Prop 8 had to do with which CIVIL rights the CIVIL government
would grant to those whose unions were recognized under CIVIL law. The
scriptures condemn us using our religion as justification to infringe upon those
CIVIL rights. Our religion rightly states that homosexuality is wrong, but
Prop.8 wasn't a referendum on our beliefs, but rather about the CIVIL rights and
standing afforded same-sex couples. Bill...talks especially those
given during those conferences are SCRIPTURE.KJK"Some of the
brethren have been willing to submit to the inference that what they have said
was pronounced under the influence of the inspiration of the Lord and that it
therefore is the will of the Lord... but that does not become binding upon the
Church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the
brethren and later to the vote of the people."Hugh B. BrownSorry, only SUSTAINED scripture is binding.
Sharrona:As a previously baptized member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, you should know better. Although you are likely to
refuse the correction, in the spirit of this wonderful article, you need to be
corrected.Paramount in LDS theology is the teaching that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. Our premier article of faith states: "WE BELIEVE
IN GOD THE ETERNAL FATHER, AND IN HIS SON JESUS CHRIST, AND IN THE HOLY
GHOST." It cannot be clearer. Jesus is not the son of Joseph,
nor is He the son of the Holy Spirit, nor a mere prophet. He is the Only
Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh, through the power of the Holy
Spirit. That is unique miracle in our eyes. No other than Jesus Christ has ever
had an immortal father and mortal mother. He held power over death. He lived a
perfect life. No other person could be our Savior. No other person wrought the
infinite atonement. God, Our Heavenly Father, was His earthly Father. The
scriptures are instructively clear. Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God.Do you believe something entirely different from these beliefs?
Curtis Hight D&C 134:4 and 1Cor.10:29 aren't intended to prevent a
body politic from legislating morality. KJKBoth clearly show that
subjective morality can't justify infringing upon the rights of others.CHThe question isn't whether or not we should legislate morality
(because there isn't much, if anything else we legislate), the question is
"what is moral?"KJKWe may legislate OBJECTIVE
morality..outlawing acts that OBJECTIVELY harm the person(murder),
property(theft) or rights(kidnapping) of others. Outlawing acts that are
SUBJECTIVELY immoral (19th century polygamy)is wrong.CHYou
seem to be wanting a civic world where freedom of speech is limited to those
voices you agree with.. KJKYou're free to speak, just not free, per
scripture, to harm the rights of others.CH..and you seem to
want to wrest scriptural context and meaning and then shackle the Church with
this wrested interpretation...Jarom 1:5 and Mosiah 29 answer the scriptural
questions.KJKSorry, but 1Cor.10:29 and D&C 134:4 are newer, and
therefore overriding, scripture. We don't live in Law of Moses theocracies.
Paul & JS lived in pluralistic societies. No religion overrules another.
All have equal rights.
Curtis Hight,Well said!With the exception of one, all of
my philosophy professors had problems with the Church based on their liberal
views. I often tried explaining that liberalism when properly understood is
entirely compatible with what the Church believes. I argued that 'yes, we
believe that all should be free so long as they do not infringe others freedom;
but prop 8 was not infringing freedom in the slightest. If I said, 'in private
practice they can do as they wish, marry as they wish, like polygamists
currently do, just without state endorsement' then what freedom is taken away
from the individual when the crowd simply says 'we don't endorse your private
institution'. A crowd's refusal to endorse and politically sanction a private
institution does not take away individual liberty."My point in
all this isn't actually in that quote. I'm referencing it (and I often argue
that on here) simply to say this- Even those professors would agree that we're
always legislating morality.Are there people on both sides of the
debate using logical fallacies? Yes. What we should focus our attention on, is
the productive ends of the debate. Although it's often hard to do.
Andermart, The scriptures are instructively clear. Jesus is the Only Begotten
Son of God. True,The pale of Christianity believes the birth of Jesus
was a unique miracle by the *Holy Spirit. This is how the birth of Jesus the
Messiah came about, His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but
before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
(Mt 1:18 NIV). * Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit is the same Greek
word(pneuma). God is Spirit (John 4:24) and He is Holy, There is no
contradiction in saying that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit and also the
Son of God.Brigham Young, Jesus was not begotten by the Holy
Ghost(JoD v. 1 p.51) ) Mormons believe God is a man ,but not Christians.
Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.(Mt 16:17)In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John
1:1)and the Word became flesh(John 1:14) God becomes man Not man become God.
KJK: Then I suggest you go back and study your scriptures because this did not
infringe on any rights. You are misguided and misrepresenting the Church. It
is clear that as long as your pointy of view is seen you are clearly wrong on
this.The Family, A Proclamation to the World is the teaching tool at
the present time for all things pertaining to Same-Sex marriage. If you don't
agree talk to your Stake President, Bishop and others. You will find they agree
WITH me long before they will agree with you.
From all I've heard about Jesus, He would think all this theological quibbling
was ridiculous and mean-spirited. He seemed much more concerned with "Love
thy neighbor" than with parsing scripture.
SharronaAre we even speaking the same language? It seems that you are
saying that in your theology, Jesus was the son of the Holy Ghost. Mormons, on
the other hand, know Him as the Son of God. So is this about symantics?
Please explain the reticence to name the author of the Religion Dispatches piece
that is mentioned in this article.
Curtis Hight and Andermart, you've both posted some amazingly clear, direct, not
rude, and logically accurate comments on here.Thanks!---Concerning those who would only fight us, claiming they are
Christian and we are not...No good fruit can possibly come from
saying "No sir, you indeed believe this- contrary to what you claim to
believe"No good fruit can possibly come from criticizing others
on grounds that are not agreed upon. The strawman fallacy is when someone argues
against a weaker argument than actually presented. If Mormon's say "We
believe that Jesus Christ is our redeemer, the Son of God, etc" then no
good fruit can come from arguing on grounds that we 'don't believe such things'.
If we are claiming that we do, then the only good fruit, productive dialogue, or
even peaceful and righteous debate can come from a discussion that continues
with such a premise. Trying to argue against someone's beliefs based on claims
that they do not agree with not only is basing your arguments on a strawman
fallacy.Such dialogue breeds contention, which is not of God.
Peaceful discussion requires seeking agreement, not a fight. Such agreement is
truly Christian and biblical doctrine.
davedave wrote: "Hence hypothetically speaking two gay men or women
could legally get married never having sex before are they still considered in
good standing with the church?"The answer to that is no if they
are having sex which breaks the law of chastity because the church does not
recognise the marriage of two people of the same sex regardless if the state
they are living in does.davedave also wrote: The church may
have to rethink how it states its stance on gays in the church.The
Lord does not have to rethink His stance on anything....His stance is law...not
just for the church but for the whole world.
A Voce of reason, Such dialogue breeds contention, . Peaceful discussion
requires seeking agreement, not a fight. Such agreement is truly Christian and
biblical doctrine. ye should earnestly CONTEND for the faith which
was once delivered unto the[Christians] saints.(Jude 3)
numerous commentors on this article have made the point that the LDS Church
should not have gotten involved in Prop 8 because their involvement infringed on
the rights of others. The assert that the Church took a moral stance when they
shouldn't have. What these individuals have not taken into account is the long
term legal impact that same sex marriage will (not might) have on freedom of
religion. The Harvard Law Review has an excellent article about this issue.
The Church has every right to defend not only it, but it's members freedom of
religion. If you want more, you will ahve to look it up yourselves, (I can't
post the link). Search for "or Poorer" on the Harvard law review
website to get a taste of the legal side of this issue.