ttribe

Each, and every, one of these things listed above can be accomplished without hijacking a religious ordinance called "marriage".

There were some very good posts on the subject over at the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (Link) a while back by posters named "SMAC" and "Confidential Informant". However, the topic is on temporary ban over there so they haven't been as active. Nevertheless, the both of them are attorneys and I'd suggest doing some searches for their posts at the site. In the meantime, I will preface my "off the top of my head" reply by saying I am not an attorney. However, while many wish to make the "slippery slope" argument go away with a wave of hand, I believe there are real dangers here. The passage of legislation allowing SSM, absent specific protections for churches to refuse the performance of such rites, is perilous. Despite the historical strong interpretation of the 1st Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court (I realize you're in Canada), the intersection between these marriage laws and anti-hate speech legislation could easily lead to civil rights complaints and a determination that the gov't could try to force churches to perform these marriages despite their objections. While I know you've said you've never heard such things being called for by GLBT activitists, I'm afraid I have, and it concerns me. Setting aside any moral objections to the issue, the fact that the word "marriage" has both civil and religious meaning and consequences is a real problem. For this to be resolved, something will need to be done to relieve that tension. Either specifically protect churches, or take the state out of the marriage business altogether. I don't think there's a middle ground here. Incidentally, I'd suggest some additional reading on at least one area of the world where some believe SSM has had a significant impact on the heterosexual institution of marriage: Link

Actually, there are some pretty good legal arguments regarding the matter. Until those are worked out, there is a very good reason to put the brakes on this process.

Dangerous territory...I'll answer thusly - I believe the two developments have a common cause...not one flowing from the other.

It appears a potential split in the Lutheran Church may be on the horizon due to this very issue: Link 1, Link 2

Thanks for the heads-up...here's an example of of what I was talking about (I was much more hands-off in this thread I am linking than in times past): MADB Link

Probably because they, and I, read different things into your statement...and they probably know you better than I do. My apologies...too many arguments with other evangelicals under my belt...I was anticipating the line your statement might go down.

Actually, I believe you are incorrect here. According to Elder Oaks - Here's the full discussion: Link

Three questions here since this flies in the face of established LDS doctrine: 1 - How does the Holy Ghost communicate, then, if not by the feelings outlined in Galatians? 2 - What is the purpose of the Holy Ghost if not to assist in the revelation of truth and guidance? 3 - Why can we not rely on God to provide us answers to direct prayers for the revelation of truth?

By way of clarification, it wasn't simply a "disagreement" - Satan sought to essentially overthrow the Father ("give me thy glory"). Additionally, can you clarify what you are asking? Are you wondering why the discussion of limitations given a potential common spiritual heritage between him and us?

Based on my understanding of the doctrine - no, Satan cannot directly imitate the Holy Ghost. That being said, we are often confronted with the counter-argument (especially from our evangelical friends) with the Biblical mandate to "try the spirits" which, when coupled with the warning that Satan can appear as an "angel of light", leads many outside of the Church to conclude that the Holy Ghost is not immune from imitation. I believe this conclusion to be false (obviously) for the following reasons: 1. The Holy Ghost (and his mission) is always spoken of separately and distinctly from these Biblical passages in the New Testament. Consequently, his mission, and methods, appear to be outside of the warnings contained with those passages; 2. There are specific "fruits of the Spirit" outlined in the New Testament which are only spoken of in relation to the Holy Ghost (see Galatians); 3. The admonition of Moroni requires a method which cannot be imitated by Satan, else the encouragement to "read and pray" is hollow and fraught with peril; 4. God wants us to talk to Him. He intends to communicate with us...He MUST have a voice...that voice is the Holy Ghost. It, therefore, follows that He would prevent imitation of that voice.