Quantcast
Faith

LDS Church reaffirms position on marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    March 27, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    As the First Amendment allows, the Church is free to keep their restrictions on marriage as long as it's within their own membership. There is no more chance of the Church being forced to marry a same-gendered couple than they would be forced to marry non-members. All the protection they need is written into the First Amendment and any attempt otherwise would be wrong.
    However, there are many churches today that are denied their First Amendment rights. The Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, for instance are more than happy to perform marriages for same-gendered couples, but are prohibited by the laws in most states.
    Marriage in the United States is first and foremost a legal contract conferred by the State. As such, it is subject to the 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    March 27, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    Two questions:

    1) Say a prophet of some religion, for instance, marries a woman that is already married to another man; are not the two men somehow in a marriage relationship with each other (by reason of being married to the same woman)?

    2) Was polygamy a doctrine or a practice? If a practice (that has been discontinued) is it still doctrine?

  • UteNationAlum Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    Thank you LDS church!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    Good job mormons!

    Me and Pope Francis are with you.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    I find it confusing when some people claim to be Mormons and claim to support gay marriage.

    I'm not Mormon, but my understanding is Mormons believe their prophet speaks for God. Is that right?

    If Prophet Monson speaks for God, and prophet Monson says it should be illegal for gays to marry, isn't that meaning God is saying gay marriage should be illegal?

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    March 27, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    Question: what is the churches stance on polygamy? Is it abandoned practice or abandoned doctrine?

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 27, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    Chris B,

    My understanding is that the Pope is considered infallible to Catholics. Yet, many Catholics disagree with the Vatican's position on birth control, same-sex marriage, women in the priesthood, etc. Does that make these people's claim to Catholicism illegitimate?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    @Claudio

    "Does that make these people's claim to Catholicism illegitimate?"

    Yes; pretty much

    No one is forced to belong to any religion in the US - so make a "choice" and join one you agree with

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    @DanO

    "The Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, for instance are more than happy to perform marriages for same-gendered couples, but are prohibited by the laws in most states."

    Correct me if wrong, but I don't believe gay marriage is illegal like polygamy is. It just isn't recognized by the government in all states. That means that gay couples can get married by any organization such as those Unitarian churches, but that the government won't recognize it. If this is correct, then it is worth repeating and recognizing the distinction.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    @Chris B
    "I find it confusing when some people claim to be Mormons and claim to support gay marriage.

    I'm not Mormon, but my understanding is Mormons believe their prophet speaks for God. Is that right?"

    It shouldn't be too confusing, after all something like 90% of U.S. Catholics have used birth control.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    @Claudio,

    Yes. I think if someone believes the Pope speaks for God and they don't do what the Pope says, those people are essentially saying they disagee with God.

    Pretty simple concept really. Sorry it was confusing for you.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    @alt134,

    "It shouldnt be too confusing, after all something like 90% of Catholics have used birth control"

    Then those 90% obviously dont believe the Pope speaks for God always, or they disagree with God.

    Simple concept really, not sure you some people are struggling.

    Mormons claim Prophet Monson speaks for God.

    IF God(through prophet MOnson) thinks gay marriage should be illegal, the only explanation for a Mormon supporting gay marriage is:

    1. Those people disagree with God.

    Again. Simple concept. Not sure how people are having a hard time understanding.

    Alt134 and Claudio,

    Please let me know how I can be clearer, I'd love to clarify, but I feel I've been quite clear. If there is something I can do to be more clear, pleaes let me know!

    Thanks!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 27, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    No statehouse nor capitol building is anyone's church. Let's keep it that way.

  • Whos Life RU Living? Ogden, UT
    March 27, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    I believe the LDS prophets are wrong on this subject just like they were with blacks and the priesthood, feminists, and intellectuals. Instead of continuing to produce black eyes on history, it might be better to start loving and embracing the "sinners" and "critics."

    Just a thought.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    March 27, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    Chris B,

    You were clear, thank you. I guess my point is that I don't know why someone has to agree 100% with a religion/political party/interest group/etc. in order to be a member of that group. I don't see why a person who agrees with most of Catholicism, but disagrees on birth control, can't be Catholic. I don't see why a person who agrees with most of the Republican Party platform, but supports same-sex marriage (as Senator Rob Portman announced this week) can't belong to the Republican Party.

    I don't understand why we need to assign degrees to membership. If I choose to belong to a group and I meet the group's established standards for membership, who is anyone to tell me I'm not a "real" member of the group?

    Does that make sense?

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    March 27, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    I am glad that Chris B. is out of his limit of 4 postings, as his postings are rediculous. My thought is while mormons don't condone being homosexual and they have a right to take a stand against it, it is wrong of them to say it should be illegal. That is the same as them saying they don't believe in alcohol (which they don't) so it should be illegal for ANYBODY to choose to use it. Of course, that would be absurd. Nobody is asking them to drink, or be homosexual or even agree with it. I think the church has forgotten what it is like to be persecuted for doing something illegal regarding marriage (polygamy). They should remember that because polygamy was illegal and they still did it because they thought it was right. Many others were against it. So why don't they remember that?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    You know there is a whole lot we know now that we didn't know in the past. For example, we know that skin complexion is the work of natural selection, not God's curses; we know that the mechanism of inheritance is genetic and not via "blood," and we know that same-sex attraction is largely in-born. Since organized religion has had to retreat on so many fronts, it's hard to take their position on same-sex marriage very seriously, not that there may be problems with it, bur religion has little credibility as an opponent.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    March 27, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    So basically the church would like the SCOTUS to continue to allow government to ignore the 1st and 16th Amendments under the guise that in their opinion "strengthens families"? What governmental purpose does not allowing to consenting adults to be married? Life-safety general welfare? Hardly. Enforcement of religious beliefs across the board regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation? Absolutely. Gay’s being married hurts society no more than it does if two members of the same sex cohabitate with each other, and we don’t seem to egger as a society to start trying to stop that now do we? Then what’s the deal? Each to each, mind your business!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    @Chris B
    "Then those 90% obviously dont believe the Pope speaks for God always, or they disagree with God. "

    Okay, you just seemed confused that there could be LDS members who disagreed on matters.

    "IF God(through prophet MOnson) thinks gay marriage should be illegal, the only explanation for a Mormon supporting gay marriage is:
    1. Those people disagree with God."

    There is one little catch though... Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy, and the LDS General Authority in charge of the Prop 8 stuff the church was involved with, had stated that LDS members should feel free to disagree with the church on the issue (Prop 8) without fear of sanction. So while the church has taken a stance, it is not considering members taking a different stance to be a real problem (at least with regards to civil marriage... if one were to advocate same-sex marriage in the temple, then there'd be problems I'm sure). I would argue that the church actually isn't even claiming that their support of Prop 8 is from God it's just something they've voiced an opinion about like they have with those non-discrimination ordinances for housing and employment.

  • bob j Maryborough, 00
    March 27, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    If the Lord's word was followed there would be no need for a court hearing.

  • California Steve Hanford, CA
    March 27, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    @DanO
    "As the First Amendment allows, the Church is free to keep their restrictions on marriage as long as it's within their own membership. There is no more chance of the Church being forced to marry a same-gendered couple than they would be forced to marry non-members."

    Don't bet on it. Next they'll sue us for not performing the marriages. Then they'll seek to take away our tax exempt status all under the guise of "civil-rights".

    The camel's head is in the tent. Soon the whole camel will be.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    Please remember that Elder L. Whitney Clayton said:

    "Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue (Prop 8) without facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear them no ill will."

    It is not a commandment to disagree with the church on gay marriage.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    March 27, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    Some wonderful and thought provoking posts on this thread. I for one have been amazed and heartened that this debate is (for the most part) civil and that people seem to be listening devoid of malice. But like all great civil rights issues, there is a right side and a wrong side. If you stand in support of "traditional marriage" you may as well be standing next to Gov. Wallace and cheering as he cried "segregation now, segregation fo-evah!" You are on the wrong side of history and though you may have convinced yourself that you are doing so with love in your heart for your fellow human being--you stand side by side with those who would deny tax paying citizens and the children of those citizens "Equal justice under law." And you are about to be counted among those well mannered ghosts of the South, who pined for the days of the old plantation and who protested that they knew what was best for their negroes. Namely--on the wrong side of history, dying away on your porch. Would you like your rocking chair carved out of mahogany, or will simple knotty pine do? Equality. Now!

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    March 27, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    My personal response to several issues raised. The article mentions that marriage is to be between a man and a woman because it gives children the best chance to be raised in an ideal environment. If it was only about two consenting adults, then get a civil union, or in SLC you can get a co-dependent adult certificate and that takes care of the legal issues. To ParkCity Aggie, I don't think you understand the 1st and 16th Amendments, I think the debate is about the 14th and the "equal protection clause" which looks like it doesn't apply. The LDS Church has disavowed polygamy and will excommunicate anybody who practices it. To the person that says that the Church prophets are wrong about gays, you need to look throughout history, the Old and New Testaments both speak against homosexuality. My understanding of the New Testament and the LDS Church's stance is hate the sin and love the sinner. Compassion and love to the person suffering with same gender attraction, but no tolerance for homosexual activity which has been preached is immoral and aberrant. I think this shares my thoughts with the variety of questions out there.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    March 27, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    California Steve, Indeed, I would totally bet on it. Anyone can sue. However, it's up to the courts to determine that a suit has merit. Such suit would not be successful. The First Amendment allows religions plenty of coverage. Otherwise, don't you think someone by now would have successfully sued to have entrance into the temples to witness a family member's wedding?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    I find it confusing when some people claim to be Mormons and claim to support gay marriage.

    ==========================

    If one were to preach in the Church that relations between people of the same gender, or outside of the bonds of marriage for anyone was alright, that would be in direct conflict with the established doctrine of the LDS Church.

    If someone were to argue that while they may not agree with the relations themselves (such as alcohol, or tobacco) but that they should still be treated as "people" and have equal protection under the law: I see no conflict with LDS doctrine or teachings, rather its an issue of personal politics.

    I find myself in the position of morally opposed to, but civilly for same sex marriage, or the same rights I enjoy being married to my wife.

    All Americans should have the right to have a their loved mate make end of life decisions for them. All Americans have the right to have their inheritance passed on to their mate without having to go through a long complicated court process. All Americans should be given equal opportunity to housing and employment without import to who their chosen mate is.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    @Chris B

    The Prophet speaks God's will.

    BUT the people still have their agency to obey or disobey and they will then reap what they sow.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    Utes Fan: Polygamy is covered under the Constitution. The Church had nothing to do with Prop 8. It was some people in the Church.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    March 27, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    I guess no one wants to answer my question. I believe that polygamy is still church doctrine, although not current church practice. So in stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is not the church arguing against it's own doctrine?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    March 27, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    Snowman, Your statement is dishonest. The Church did indeed contribute to Prop 8. There are even election filings detailing that.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    Chris B.

    In the LDS Church even the least of us, when fulfilling our callings and acting under the direction of the Holy Ghost, would mean the same thing in principle as if God had spoken it one on one with you personally.

    Why the lesson?

    My point is that not only should the words of our Prophets be understood as revelations from our Heavenly Father- but when all faithful members who live righteously and TRULY sustain not only our Prophet, but sustain what he reveals to us... when all of us are testifying of the same truth- it is indeed puzzling that some turn from the teachings of their God yet still profess to follow Him.

    Many members "struggle" with not understanding certain doctrines, which is perfectly understandable. It often takes prayer to be given understanding. While I didn't disagree, I did have to ask for myself how this doctrine is congruous with our full devotion to freedom. I now clearly and soberly understand that we're only fostering freedom through this position.

    At some point, we're all "questioners". But those who directly oppose our Prophet while professing to be faithful members- they've been tricked.

  • rick122948 boise, id
    March 27, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    The Lord speaks through the prophet, but he also speaks as the church leader. We also believe in obeying the law of the land and free agency, so it is an issue with many sides.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    March 27, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    Red corvette. Yes it does.if you cant find it. Let me know ill.find it. All you have to do is read it
    Its clear in all the scriptures about marriage

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 27, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    @Utes Fan:
    "Correct me if wrong, but I don't believe gay marriage is illegal like polygamy is."

    Both are illegal according to federal law. Gay marriage by the federal DOMA and polygamy by the federal Edmunds–Tucker Act.

    "That means that gay couples can get married by any organization such as those Unitarian churches, but that the government won't recognize it."

    That's true. Gays and lesbians can marry if they can find someone to marry them. But, as you say, the government (state and Federal) will not recognize it as a marriage.

    "If this is correct, then it is worth repeating and recognizing the distinction."

    The problem is, there are thousands of benefits accruing to marrieds that are not available if the government doesn't recognize the marriage.

    The bottom line is, if anyone wants the benefits of marriage they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not that complicated. Those people who can't plan ahead or manage their lives to conform have to go without the benefits. Too bad.

  • Clouds Pleasant Grove, UT
    March 27, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    @Wastintime
    "I guess no one wants to answer my question. I believe that polygamy is still church doctrine, although not current church practice. So in stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is not the church arguing against it's own doctrine?"

    You have the doctrine wrong. Simply put, the doctrine is do what God commands. The current command is marriage between one man and one woman, not polygamy. That was a command in the past. Although it may be a command in the future, it is not a current command. By definition, doctrine is something that is taught or a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief. Current Church teachings prohibit the practice polygamy at this time, so the practice of polygamy at this time is not Church doctrine. The Church's argument in favor of traditional marriage is perfectly consistent with Church doctrine.

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    March 27, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    Stay strong LDS faithful! Every time this subject comes up, and a few others I always reflect on what President Monson stated a few General Conferences ago. It's going to be very difficult to be a Mormon in this country in the coming years. I pray that our good brother and sisters from other faiths will lock arms with us!

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    March 27, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    Gay marriage will likely sweep this country in one form or another. When it does, I will proudly stand with the Catholics and Mormons in defense of traditional marriage.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    March 27, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    By golly, I finally found something that I agree with Chris B on... This is a Black and White Issue... Any shade of gray is a rationalization... Modern Day Prophets and Popes say that Gay Marriage is not condoned by God, the scriptures quoting prophets of old are pretty clear on that issue... If you are a Believer, that should be good enough...

    It doesn't mean we can't love friends and relatives who are Gay or do support Gay marriage... It simply means they are wrong and engaging in beliefs and/or conduct that is contrary to God's will...

  • Northwest Coug Pasco, WA
    March 27, 2013 8:37 p.m.

    I can't believe I actually agree with Chris B on something.

    Good call on gay marriage, Chris B, and how about those Cougs tonight!

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 27, 2013 9:04 p.m.

    I understand that the Supreme Court may decide it is too early for a definitive ruling on gay marriage. And, although foes of gay marriage say traditional marriage is better for children, I understand that no reputable study has been done on the subject. Therefore, if a reputable study is completed and it finds that gay marriage is actually better for children, America should move quickly to outlaw marriages between a man and a woman.

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    March 27, 2013 10:11 p.m.

    Agency. We can go with God, or we can go with man. Choose ye this day...

    I remember that Sodom and Gomorrah were rained on with fire and brimstone. I don't remember Sodom and Gomorrah having a big rainbow raining with skittles, or lucky charms, or having prancing leprechauns.

    In summary (for those with short attention spans or who are bent on ignoring theology/history) Sodom and Gomorrah were DESTROYED for their immorality. God decides what immorality is and is not.

    When man decides what immorality is and is not they get fire and brimstone, not rainbows and skittles.

    It' pretty straight forward if your intent is to serve God. Serving yourself is when it gets confusing.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 28, 2013 12:24 a.m.

    @Chase
    What we know about Sodom and Gomorrah is verses later in the Bible about their inhospitable nature and how they didn't care for those less fortunate, and then the chapter in Genesis itself...

    That chapter includes men who were looking to rape angels (there's a big difference between rape and consentual sex) and the one allegedly moral guy in the story, Lot, offered his daughters to the rapists. Do you really want to use this story as anything useful about morality?

  • Jazzledazzle Provo, UT
    March 28, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    Good for the church! One of the few Christian churches that has the spine to stand up for what is right.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    March 28, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    It is unfortunate when members of the Church call their fellow members' worthiness and faithfulness into question based on sweeping assumptions about political issues.

    I am a faithful LDS member, enjoying all the blessings of the Temple etc. I support marriage equality.

    My position on this issue is grounded directly in the following official, canonized, divinely inspired scripture:

    "9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges [such as marriage], and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

    I refuse to be a part of any effort to deprive my fellow US citizens of equality before the law when it comes to marriage. I refuse to act contrary to scripture and revelation that have provided guidance since the Prophet Joseph established the foundation of this work.

    You may interpret things differently. But please stop castigating the worthiness and faithfulness of those you are supposed to be calling "brother" and "sister".

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    March 28, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    poyman - How can you really believe what your comment said? Just because you believe it doesn't mean others have to. It also doesn't mean that because you think it is god's will that it actually is his will. I doubt you have talked to him. If somebody doesn't believe in your god why would they have to follow your god's teachings? It is absurd to make people think they are wrong for not believing what you believe.

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    March 28, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    @at1134

    Thanks for a textbook example of a Red Herring.

    I made a distinctly clear point about God's disapproval of sexual deviance - which you avoided altogether. Instead you relied upon your own interpretation of morality (which is what same-sex marriage advocates do), and the bible, to justify your position. There is more in the Bible about Sodom, its just that you're only familiar with the points you think prove or disprove what you want to believe or disbelieve.

    You're right, God probably only destroys cities for their "carelessness" and "inhospitability".
    Next you'll argue how the word "Sodomy" is etymologically inaccurate...that it actually means "careless", "inhospitable".

    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    When all you want is same-sex marriage, even the scriptures appear NOT to condemn it (Jesus said 'love everyone', 'don't judge' [*teary eyes*]). It's self-deception, my friend.

    Again, when you are serving yourself, it's easy to rationalize and justify any and everything.
    When you seek to serve God, what's right and what to do becomes pretty black and white.

  • SheBear Orem, UT
    March 28, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    @BrahmaBull: Just a historical note: polygamy was not illegal when the LDS Church began its practice. Moreover, it *was* illegal for the U.S. government to enforce the new law (the Edmunds-Tucker Act) against polygamy retroactively, but it did so anyway.

    I do *not* intend this comment to condone any current practice of polygamy.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    March 28, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    @Chase --

    "Next you'll argue how the word "Sodomy" is etymologically inaccurate..."

    That depends on which language you're speaking in.

    Due to strict DN moderation, I can't tell you exactly what it means in the different languages. There are actually several different meanings. And guess what -- none of those meanings are restricted to a specific gender, or specifically refer to same-sex relations.

    "There is more in the Bible about Sodom"

    Yes, there certainly is. Unfortunately, every time I try to post quotes from the Bible I get my post denied by the moderators. I can't understand why that is.

    Since I can't actually post quotes, I will just say that the sins linked to Sodom within the text of the Bible include adultery, lying, impenitence, careless living, wantonness, "filthy" lifestyle, arrogance, haughtiness, "careless ease", and failure to help the poor and needy.

    Let's see if the moderators will allow me ONE Bible quote:

    "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me." (Ezekiel 16.49-50 NASB)

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    March 28, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    Sharrona posted:
    But, the original articles of faith. #8 We believe in the Word of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe the Word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon, and in all other good books.

    The above is incorrect. An article at fairlds about changes to the Articles of Faith, fails to mention the above. The 8th AoF as original penned by Joseph Smith, appears exactly the same in the Pearl of Great Price.
    AoF #'s 4, 6, 7 and 11 are documented to have been changed between JS penning and inclusion to Canon of Scriptures.

    Your quote comes from a book published by a member of the Church. Apparently he was having "fun" with the scriptures. I remember fellow seminary students, and missionaries taking such liberty with the scriptures, all in humor and fun.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    March 29, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    SheBear

    That may be true, but the church continued to do it, and church members continued to take on polygamous relationships knowing it was illegal. Parley P. Pratt also took a wife that were still married (also illegal) yet felt it was the right thing to do so he disobeyed the law because it was convenient for him.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 30, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    I'm confused... LDS Church affirms position on marriage? Which position? One wife? Many wives? Wives already married to other husbands? The 'position' has been all over the map, so please forgive my confusion.