Add Reply
Related Information to LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon GaysLDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays - Page 17 of 42
Dbackers: QUOTE I Just do not think someone - Page 17 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 19th Sep, 2008 - 5:19pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 329 - Views: 42019
Poster says, "At first I was against it because of the sanctity of marriage and it's eternal purpose, but now I am not sure. I agree that a Temple marriage can only be between male and female. This is because of the religious sanctity of marriage for eternity, for propogation and simply because that is how God intended it. However, the Church recognizes the validity of civil marriages that are only for this life and not eternity, even though this is not how God intended it. "Your view is... ?" Other interests: Gay and serve a mission? Boyd K. Packer's talk about same sex attraction. Related Information to LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon GaysPost Date: 14th Sep, 2008 - 12:42am / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays - Page 17
LDS Church Issues Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
Top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently released a six-page statement on why the faith is opposed to same-sex marriage. The document, titled "The Divine Institution of Marriage," has garnered both praise and derision from Affirmation, a group of gay Latter-day Saints.
Ref. Source 5
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 15th Sep, 2008 - 11:06pm / Post ID: #
LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays Studies Doctrine Mormon
The Church is involved as the church, telling people how to vote, and using church priesthood/relief society time, donating time and effort, having leaders show up at peoples houses in the capacity of representatives of the church, Following up by having the peoples names and amounts donated returned to church leaders, holding media conferences, working with lobbiest groups and coalitions, issuing first presidency letters, threatening worthiness and temple recommends from the local level, requiring repentance for disagreeing. How much more involved can the church get?
Is anyone arguing that the church as an entity is or is not involved? I thought it was obvious. Am I wrong? Is the church involved politically with influencing the civil government on this issue? Even Dbackers seems to think so and argues that the Prophet and God have the right to influence the government..
Is it possible for the church to be out of line with their own teaching? I think we are scared to consider that possibility because of the possible ramifications.
 Message Edited...Persephone: Please check over your spelling using the built-in Spell Checker before posting your message. See Constructive Posting Policy |
Page 17 Gays Mormon Marriage Gay Perspective LDS
I am not scared at all. I have said it before and I will say it again. I think the Church should not get involved in this issue. I think is way out of line for ANY Church leader to show up as a Church representative and ask for a donation on this cause. If the individual wants to do it as a private issue without Church involvement neither using his Church position to influence others, then fine but organizing meetings, asking people to do this or that from the pulpit is almost sacrilegious in nature.
Post Date: 18th Sep, 2008 - 4:53am / Post ID: #
Gays Mormon Marriage Gay Perspective LDS
| QUOTE (Amonhi @ 15-Sep 08, 6:06 PM) |
| The Church is involved as the church, telling people how to vote, and using church priesthood/relief society time, donating time and effort, having leaders show up at peoples houses in the capacity of representatives of the church, Following up by having the peoples names and amounts donated returned to church leaders, holding media conferences, working with lobbiest groups and coalitions, issuing first presidency letters, threatening worthiness and temple recommends from the local level, requiring repentance for disagreeing. How much more involved can the church get? |
First of all, when you refer to "The Church" as sending leaders to show up in their official capacity to people's houses collecting money and so forth, you are being disingenuous in implying that this practice was set forth by the first presidency, which is what you are essentially saying by using the term "The Church". If this has in fact actually happened as you say, then I can assure you it is not approved of by the First Presidency. Secondly, when you refer to using priesthood/relief society time, issuing first presidency letters, threatening worthiness for temple recommends, etc, are you referring to the church's official stance (or in other words, the Lord's) that homosexuality is a sin? Also, I don't recall ever being told officially by the First Presidency on how I should vote on anything, only that as a citizen I should become aware of and study issues and make prayerful decisions on how I vote, but then again I may have missed something. Can you refer me to where the First Presidency has issued such a statement?
Edited: emme on 18th Sep, 2008 - 5:03amLDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays
Emme:
| QUOTE |
| Also, I don't recall ever being told officially by the First Presidency on how I should vote on anything, only that as a citizen I should become aware of and study issues and make prayerful decisions on how I vote, but then again I may have missed something. |
It seems like you did miss something:
| QUOTE |
| The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children... We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. |
Post Date: 19th Sep, 2008 - 4:28pm / Post ID: #
LDS Perspective Gay Marriage Mormon Gays - Page 17
| QUOTE |
| First of all, when you refer to "The Church" as sending leaders to show up in their official capacity to people's houses collecting money and so forth, you are being disingenuous in implying that this practice was set forth by the first presidency, which is what you are essentially saying by using the term "The Church". If this has in fact actually happened as you say, then I can assure you it is not approved of by the First Presidency. |
Wow, I totally agree with you that this wasn't coming from the First Presidency which doesn't get involved politically. I would be just as assured as you because I understand that problem of the first presidency getting involved just as you do. If it did come from the top, it sounds like you would be VERY Surprised and also have issue with it, just as I do.
Here is a quote from a letter from the First Presidency that is signed by Monson and councilors and read over the pulpit in church.
| QUOTE |
| A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause. We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve that sacred institution of marriage. |
I will send a copy of the signed letter to LDS_Forver so she can post it for the forum.
Compare the above statements with D&C 134...
| QUOTE |
| D&C 134:2, 4, 7 2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. 4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. 7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy. 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, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied. - Source 1 |
Isn't the First Presidency trying to mingle the Christian religious belief of the "sacred institution of marriage" with the civil government and thereby fostering the Christian religious society by providing benefits such as tax discounts, estate distribution, Divorce laws and other such benefits while denying these benefits to citizens who do not follow the religious belief of Heterosexual Unions?!?
Dbackers, even your comments says that God or the Church is getting involved and influencing civil issues:
| QUOTE |
| First I do not believe God is ever limited on his ability to confront civic issues. It is a civil issue with moral implications, which any entity has a right to influence. If I believe this and am being as literal as you are, then the Prophet if he speaks as a Prophet has the authority to speak on civic matters (unless we are saying God does not have that right to speak concerning any issue that he wants.) |
All these statements are in agreement that God and the Church in the capacity of the church is justified and expected to get involved in civil matters of this sort. You even use the word "influence" saying, "any entity has the right to influence".
This is a direct contradiction to D&C 134:9 which clearly and emphatically states,
| QUOTE |
| We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, |
Anyone else see the contradiction between the actions of the Church acting as the church and the doctrine and beliefs of the Church as spelled out clearly in D&C 134?
I personally think it is both obvious and stares in the face of truth as I understand it. I will even go so far as to say I will fight the church and the coalition with which it participates and belongs. And in so doing I feel I will be in line with D&C 134 and my personal religious convictions.
Please comment, for or against or with questions, thoughts, feelings concerns anything, what are you experiencing after reading the above?
LDS Perspective Gay Marriage Mormon Gays Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 17
Dbackers:
| QUOTE |
| I Just do not think someone in my area could get away with requiring individuals to donate to a specific cause as a member of the Stake presidency or any leader. |
So what about if the request of donations come from the First Presidency itself. The letter Amonhi posted (which I have a copy of, is a real letter) which clearly says:
| QUOTE |
| We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and timeto assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve that sacred institution of marriage. |
TOPIC: LDS Perspective: Gay Marriage - Mormon Gays