Prop 8. and temple recommends

[justaname]

Im going to make this short and sweet. A couple of questions:

1. What reasons would an active LDS person have for promoting the strike of Prop. 8?

2. If you find yourself promoting same sex marriage, at what point do you become ineligible or a temple recommend because of this temple recommend question:

"Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?"

[MarginOfError]

Im going to make this short and sweet. A couple of questions:

1. What reasons would an active LDS person have for promoting the strike of Prop. 8?

Separation of church and state

2. If you find yourself promoting same sex marriage, at what point do you become ineligible or a temple recommend because of this temple recommend question:

"Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?"

When you oppose the the theological reasoning for the Church's opposition; when you actively encourage same sex marriages and openly condone homosexual relations.

This is akin to being pro-choice politically, but never encouraging, supporting, providing, or paying for an [elective] abortion.

[Wingnut]

1. What reasons would an active LDS person have for promoting the strike of Prop. 8?

Because there is no legal argument to be made against same-sex marriage.

[Melissa569]

not really a direct answer to the questions, just my opinion here: A person should only join a church if they fundamentally agree with it. Otherwise, they should look elsewhere for a place of worship. Churches have the right to believe and practice whatever they want. Instead of trying to change the church to suit personal needs, a person should find a church that agrees with what they believe. Why would somebody want to join a church, if it didn't support their lifestyle? That's what I would like to know.

You either believe the gospel is true, or you don't. And if you're not sure, then search for answers with an open heart.

I don't think its about being fair at all. I think its more about forcing people to accept the gay lifestyle. And that's wrong. Weather or not you accept it, condone it, or allow it should be a personal choice, and should always remain so. Especially when people believe that they will be held resposnible for supporting it in the afterlife. Nobody should be forced to support something that they believe is against the word of god.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Melissa569

[MarginOfError]

not really a direct answer to the questions, just my opinion here: A person should only join a church if they fundamentally agree with it. Otherwise, they should look elsewhere for a place of worship. Churches have the right to believe and practice whatever they want. Instead of trying to change the church to suit personal needs, a person should find a church that agrees with what they believe. Why would somebody want to join a church, if it didn't support their lifestyle? That's what I would like to know.

By LDS doctrine, this isn't really true. The LDS paradigm would have people seek out the true religion with the authority to act in God's name and change themselves to accept God's will.

I don't think its about being fair at all. I think its more about forcing people to accept the gay lifestyle. And that's wrong. Weather or not you accept it, condone it, or allow it should be a personal choice, and should always remain so. Especially when people believe that they will be held resposnible for supporting it in the afterlife. Nobody should be forced to support something that they believe is against the word of god.

You're welcome to believe that. But you may no longer expect homosexuals to accept your heterosexual lifestyle.

[Melissa569]

Well, that may be what the doctrine says, but no doctrine strips anybody of their free will. Technically, a human can always choose to follow the teachings of a church or not.

I never said gays had to adopt a straight lifestyle, just like drunks don't have to adopt a sober lifestyle. We must have free will, otherwise we cannot be held resposnible for our actions.

But likewise, I should not be stripped of my free will to accept or reject the homesexual lifestyle. If somebody could come up with a solution that allowed everyone to maintain their free will, that would be better.

[MarginOfError]

Well, that may be what the doctrine says, but no doctrine strips anybody of their free will. Technically, a human can always choose to follow the teachings of a church or not.

I never said gays had to adopt a straight lifestyle, just like drunks don't have to adopt a sober lifestyle. We must have free will, otherwise we cannot be held resposnible for our actions.

But likewise, I should not be stripped of my free will to accept or reject the homesexual lifestyle. If somebody could come up with a solution that allowed everyone to maintain their free will, that would be better.

How about this one: allow same sex marriage and you can declare your rejection of it just as much as a homosexual can reject your heterosexual marriage.

But we digress. Let's try to stay on the topic of Prop 8 and temple recommends. If you want to discuss these other issues, feel free to start a new thread.

[justaname]

This is one topic Im not going to share my opinion on. Just wanting to get different views.

Do you feel conflicted at all supporting same sex marriage legally though not morally?

Do you feel that as the separation of church and state becomes more apparent, that we become a better nation? Why?

In the Book of Mormon and in the Bible, church and state were often the same. Prophets were also kings. Which way is better and why?

Is the legalization of same sex marriage a step closer to the prophesies concerning "the end"?

[justaname]

I didnt really know what to title this thread. I dont want this to become a debate about same sex marriage or a bunch of legalese. Basically I want to know how members of the LDS church feel about the issue and how they feel this affects our country and our future. By promoting the recent court decision, are you participating in the destruction of our nation and in the prophecies? Our church has asked us to support prop 8, and many members do not. Should we take this as counsel from a prophet of God or follow our own legal and social philosophies?

[Melissa569]

Well, like I said, there's a problem with that--- Religiously, christians cannot "allow" it, even if its in the form of voting yes. Many christians believe they will be held responsible for "allowing" it. So they're most likely not gonna do that.

So if it is "allowed", it can only be allowed DESPITE the Christian votes againts it. Otherwise we will directly be held responsible. Now if there are more people for it than against it, fine. I guess in that case, it will be (legally) allowed. Remember, our votes won't change what holds true in heaven. But as long as devout religious voters outnubmer gay supporter voters, it won't be allowed, it seems....

And gay rights activists don't really have as much support as they like to think they do... There are a TON of "closet cases" who in public will say "Yeah, sure, homosexuality is ok". But deep inside, they don't really believe that. They are just saying it because they don't want dramatic arguments, vandalism, or violence. But those people can vote whatever they want without fear, because votes are made in private.

Lots of closet cases came out of the wood work just to vote on Prop 8, because its a matter they take very, very seriously. And the more attention that's brought to it, the more closet cases will come forward. So unfortunately, the battle may be far from over.

Then of course, you have to consider all the people who do not vote, which is actually a pretty high number...

Edited August 5, 2010 by Melissa569

[MarginOfError]

This is one topic Im not going to share my opinion on. Just wanting to get different views.

Do you feel conflicted at all supporting same sex marriage legally though not morally?

I wouldn't know. I'm pretty indifferent to same sex marriage. If there were a vote on it in my state, I wouldn't cast a vote at all.

Do you feel that as the separation of church and state becomes more apparent, that we become a better nation? Why?

I think we become a more tolerant and inclusive nation. But a more pronounced separation of church and state can be good and bad at the same time. Just like lack of separation can be good and bad at the same time.

I'll tell you what would make a better nation, however. If more people adopted the principles of the Gospel into their lives. But this can be done independently of the level of separation between church and state. Personal conviction to the Gospel should have nothing to do with government.

In the Book of Mormon and in the Bible, church and state were often the same. Prophets were also kings. Which way is better and why?

There were very few prophets in the Bible that were kings, if any at all. And in the Book of Mormon, the practice only carried from Nephi to Benjamin, after which a separation of church and state was imposed.

But when you look through history, religion as government has led to disastrous results far more often than it has led to even marginally positive results. The historical record seems to be pretty clear that separation of church and state is far better than theocracy. The one exception to that rule is when everyone can agree on the same theology, which hasn't happened very often.

Is the legalization of same sex marriage a step closer to the prophesies concerning "the end"?

Don't know. Don't care. External events are of very little concern to me concerning the end times. The prophecies about the end times aren't there to serve as a notice that we better get ready. They're there to remind us the the end will eventually come, and we should be ready as soon as possible. If you're ready for the end now, then it doesn't matter much if or how badly the world takes itself to hell in a handbasket.

[justaname]

Isnt the ideal government a theocracy? Is that what Christ will have upon his return?

[bytor2112]

".....Those who oppose the Lord's Church oppose HIM. To reject the apostles and prophets who are sent to preach the Gospel is to reject HIM who sent them. To be in opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on moral issues is to link arms with Satan and to fight against God. On this point we must speak plainly and bluntly-there is no middle ground; men are either for HIM or against HIM, and those who are not for HIM are against HIM." ( Bruce McConkie....The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 144.)

Edited August 5, 2010 by bytor2112

[MarginOfError]

Isnt the ideal government a theocracy? Is that what Christ will have upon his return?

Not necessarily, and not even likely. The Millenium will follow Christ's return, and religions will continue to abound. There will still be plenty of work to do to convince the world to convert to the true Gospel.

Also consider Isaiah 3:2 in conjunction with the following.

President Harold B. Lee said:

“I have often wondered what that expression meant, that out of Zion shall go forth the law. Years ago I went with the brethren to the Idaho Falls Temple, and I heard in that inspired prayer of the First Presidency a definition of the meaning of that term ‘out of Zion shall go forth the law.’ Note what they said: ‘We thank thee that thou hast revealed to us that those who gave us our constitutional form of government were men wise in thy sight and that thou didst raise them up for the very purpose of putting forth that sacred document [the Constitution of the United States—see D&C 101:80 ]. . . .

“‘We pray that kings and rulers and the peoples of all nations under heaven may be persuaded of the blessings enjoyed by the people of this land by reason of their freedom and under thy guidance and be constrained to adopt similar governmental systems, thus to fulfill the ancient prophecy of Isaiah and Micah that “. . . out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”‘ ( Improvement Era, October 1945, p. 564.)” (“The Way to Eternal Life,” p. 15).

So it would appear that although Christ will reign over the world, he will have secular and religious arms of government.

[MarginOfError]

".....Those who oppose the Lord's Church oppose HIM. To reject the apostles and prophets who are sent to preach the Gospel is to reject HIM who sent them. To be in opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on moral issues is to link arms with Satan and to fight against God. On this point we must speak plainly and bluntly-there is no middle ground; men are either for HIM or against HIM, and those who are not for HIM are against HIM." _Elder Bruce McConkie

Let's be fair, bytor, and give the reference as well

The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 144.

As such, your quote should not give McConkie the title of Elder, as he was not speaking for or on behalf of the Church with that statement.

[Wingnut]

Isnt the ideal government a theocracy? Is that what Christ will have upon his return?

And the people were desirous that Alma should be their aking, for he was beloved by his people.

But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall anot esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

Nevertheless, if it awere possible that ye could always have just men to be your bkings it would be well for you to have a king.

Mosiah 23:6-8

Christ will be a perfect ruler. No man could ever be.

[bytor2112]

Let's be fair, bytor, and give the reference as well

The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 144.

As such, your quote should not give McConkie the title of Elder, as he was not speaking for or on behalf of the Church with that statement.

Fair enough.....(corrected )

[Melissa569]

".....Those who oppose the Lord's Church oppose HIM. To reject the apostles and prophets who are sent to preach the Gospel is to reject HIM who sent them. To be in opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on moral issues is to link arms with Satan and to fight against God. On this point we must speak plainly and bluntly-there is no middle ground; men are either for HIM or against HIM, and those who are not for HIM are against HIM." ( Bruce McConkie....The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 144.)

Couldn't have said it better. I'm not perfect, but I know on the BIG issues, I'm deffinitely for god.

[MarginOfError]

Fair enough.....(corrected )

Thanks.

Now I'd be curious how you feel that applies to someone such as in my situation. That being that I believe that homosexual acts are sins, and that I don't like same-sex marriage, but I also find myself indifferent on the political issue. Is it possible for a person to separate right and wrong in the religious and civil arenas and for those views not to be equivalent? Or would that also be linking arms with Satan?

[rameumptom]

The temple question you refer to is actually poised at polygamist groups, particularly in the West. The Church has lots of problems with members going to the temple for their endowment, and then later taking a second wife in a private ceremony with their polygamist group.

To read this question too broadly could mean we could no longer affiliate with other Christians or atheists, etc.

[Melissa569]

Thanks.

Now I'd be curious how you feel that applies to someone such as in my situation. That being that I believe that homosexual acts are sins, and that I don't like same-sex marriage, but I also find myself indifferent on the political issue. Is it possible for a person to separate right and wrong in the religious and civil arenas and for those views not to be equivalent? Or would that also be linking arms with Satan?

When you put it that way, I can see why you would prefer to just not vote. It might feel like by voting on what we think of as religious matter, we are pushing our religious laws on others.

But then again-- Yeah, the law may separate church and state, but an induvudual doesn't have to in their heart, if they don't want to. I know god probably wouldn't want you to separate them, he does expect us to live by his influence, in everything we do, including votes. not to mention the fact that there are many laws that go hand-in-hand with religion, that nobody questions for a second-- such as laws on murder, theft, etc. It seems like our willingness to accpet the joining of church and state is somewhat selective.

But in the end, I guess its up to the individual.

[MarginOfError]

The temple question you refer to is actually poised at polygamist groups, particularly in the West. The Church has lots of problems with members going to the temple for their endowment, and then later taking a second wife in a private ceremony with their polygamist group.

To read this question too broadly could mean we could no longer affiliate with other Christians or atheists, etc.

Since I was being nit picky about bytor's sources, I'd better do it to you to, Ram. Do you have any kind of reference our source to back up that claim (that it is specifically poised at polygamist groups)?

[rameumptom]

Let's be fair, bytor, and give the reference as well

The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 144.

As such, your quote should not give McConkie the title of Elder, as he was not speaking for or on behalf of the Church with that statement.

I agree. Elder McConkie, while a wonderful and knowledgeable apostle, was also very opinionated and black/white on issues. For him, salvation only meant exaltation, and he stated that in his writings. He was known to pick and choose scriptures to support his beliefs, and ignore those that didn't support them, such as the concept that Telestial people are saved.

People are for and against Christ in different levels. It isn't black and white. I obey certain commandments and am for Christ in those things. Where I disobey, I am against him. There are shades of gray that Elder McConkie refused or chose not to discuss. It left many members convinced they could never make it to heaven, because they just were not able to live up to Elder McConkie's standards required for salvation.

While I like about 80% of what Elder McConkie taught, I'm really bothered with the other 20%. And I think many of today's General Authorities are too, as their discourses on grace, atonement, works, etc., are moving away from his black/white realm, and opening the door for a broader salvation.

Elder McConkie and others insisted that King David would only merit the Telestial Kingdom. Yet the scriptures tell me otherwise, and this recent Church statement on blood atonement seems to back me up:

Mormon church statement on blood atonement | Mormon Times

Members can be on both sides of the Prop 8 discussion, and still be good people. While I support Prop 8, I do understand and empathize with some of the arguments on the other side. Thankfully, we do not stone people today for sexual immorality.

[Melissa569]

People are for and against Christ in different levels. It isn't black and white

I agree, there are little issues that really aren't going to determine much of your fate, and are mostly just friendly suggestions for your health. And then there are big, major rules that you are expected to follow, and that play a huge part in weather or not you can be with god one day. For example, you can't say,

"Well god, I know I beat my wife to a pulp on a regular basis, and she died young because I stabbed her when she tried to run away to a women's shelter. But its all good, because-- I NEVER did drugs."

Edited August 5, 2010 by Melissa569

[bytor2112]

Thanks.

Now I'd be curious how you feel that applies to someone such as in my situation. That being that I believe that homosexual acts are sins, and that I don't like same-sex marriage, but I also find myself indifferent on the political issue. Is it possible for a person to separate right and wrong in the religious and civil arenas and for those views not to be equivalent? Or would that also be linking arms with Satan?

I have long felt that you and Satan are joined inseparably at the hip MOE. Seriously, you and I would fall into the same camp on this one. ...that is I am fairly indifferent on the issue. Opinionated...sure, but, I'm not gonna lose any sleep either way.