Baptism for same sex couples?

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

@JustAGuy could you elaborate on this please? I’m having difficulty seeing how the church can reject and condemn something that the law says is acceptable, while still saying that we honour, obey and sustain the law. The same principle applies to laws that legalise abortion, marijuana, and prostitution. Perhaps others have a different view from mine about what it means to honour and sustain something?

 

sustain

verb

1.    1.

strengthen or support physically or mentally.

"this thought had sustained him throughout the years"

synonyms:

comfort, help, assist, encourage, succour, support, give strength to, be a source of strength to, be a tower of strength to, buoy up, carry, cheer up, hearten, see someone through;  informalbuck up "she had lived life to the full, but now had only the memories of such times to sustain her"

 

honour

verb

1.    1.

regard with great respect.

"Joyce has now learned to honour her father's memory"

synonyms:

hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More

I'm happy to elaborate, but first I'd like to see you engage with my earlier point.

Do you sincerely think that, in authoring the 12th Article of Faith, Joseph Smith meant to refer all questions of morality to the United States Congress and the federal judiciary for final resolution?

[anatess2]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

@JustAGuy could you elaborate on this please? I’m having difficulty seeing how the church can reject and condemn something that the law says is acceptable, while still saying that we honour, obey and sustain the law. The same principle applies to laws that legalise abortion, marijuana, and prostitution. Perhaps others have a different view from mine about what it means to honour and sustain something?

 

sustain

verb

1.    1.

strengthen or support physically or mentally.

"this thought had sustained him throughout the years"

synonyms:

comfort, help, assist, encourage, succour, support, give strength to, be a source of strength to, be a tower of strength to, buoy up, carry, cheer up, hearten, see someone through;  informalbuck up "she had lived life to the full, but now had only the memories of such times to sustain her"

 

honour

verb

1.    1.

regard with great respect.

"Joyce has now learned to honour her father's memory"

synonyms:

hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More

This is a pretty simple concept @askandanswer.

When we say honor and sustain the law, we don't mean each individual items in the law.  We mean the concept of being subject to the law of the land.  In the US, that would be the US and State Constitutions.

Joseph Smith, Jr. felt it necessary to put this in our Articles of Faith because this was a new-fangled concept back in the 1800's.  Before that, the Church controlled the law and therefore, other Churches wage wars so that laws favoring their religious practice will supercede.  We still have much of that today in the Islamic States, Israel, and the Vatican but the norm of government has become secular even in England where the Church of England still holds legal power.  But back in the time of Joseph Smith, it was necessary to state that this religious organization does not believe in waging war against the Constitution or any law of the land to achieve its objectives.

But no, that doesn't imply that we encourage people to drink alcohol because it is legal or even that we encourage people to exterminate Jews because it is what the government wants to do.  But yes, when the Church was ordered by the government to give up one of their members for the crime of hiding Jews, they gave him up to the Nazis.  Law of the land.

Edited August 31, 2017 by anatess2

[Jojo Bags]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is a pretty simple concept @askandanswer.

When we say honor and sustain the law, we don't mean each individual items in the law.  We mean the concept of being subject to the law of the land.  In the US, that would be the US and State Constitutions.

Joseph Smith, Jr. felt it necessary to put this in our Articles of Faith because this was a new-fangled concept back in the 1800's.  Before that, the Church controlled the law and therefore, other Churches wage wars so that laws favoring their religious practice will supercede.  We still have much of that today in the Islamic States, Israel, and the Vatican but the norm of government has become secular even in England where the Church of England still holds legal power.  But back in the time of Joseph Smith, it was necessary to state that this religious organization does not believe in waging war against the Constitution or any law of the land to achieve its objectives.

But no, that doesn't imply that we encourage people to drink alcohol because it is legal or even that we encourage people to exterminate Jews because it is what the government wants to do.  But yes, when the Church was ordered by the government to give up one of their members for the crime of hiding Jews, they gave him up to the Nazis.  Law of the land.

So, if the law of the land requires doctors to perform abortions and does not allow them to opt out, will God hold a doctor blameless for murdering an innocent child?

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

So, if the law of the land requires doctors to perform abortions and does not allow them to opt out, will God hold a doctor blameless for murdering an innocent child?

Not all abortions are murder.  But in a case where abortion IS murder, there are many ways to resolve these conflicts, none of which include going to war against the law.

1.)  Petition for conscientious objection.

2.)  Quit your medical practice.

3.)  Ask to pay a fine or go to jail instead.

etc.

As far as God's judgment, I leave that up to God.  It's above my pay grade.

Edited August 31, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

4 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

This is called projection. You see in others what you fear in yourself. See I learned something in undergrad!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

@Grunt @Carborendum

Yup. It's the same with people who are vehemently anti-Mormon, to some degree. 

[person0]

12 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

So, if the law of the land requires doctors to perform abortions and does not allow them to opt out, will God hold a doctor blameless for murdering an innocent child?

I would assume that in God's eyes, that person could choose not to be a doctor anymore.  The only benefit to remaining a doctor would be the income and financial advantage it provides.  God doesn't care about how much money you have, he wants you to keep the commandments and covenants you make with him, regardless of how else that may affect you.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Jojo Bags said:

So, if the law of the land requires doctors to perform abortions and does not allow them to opt out, will God hold a doctor blameless for murdering an innocent child?

If the law of the land required you to murder all two-year-olds would you consider yourself accountable if you responded, "Okie Dokie!" -- *stabby stab stab*?

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If the law of the land required you to murder all two-year-olds would you consider yourself accountable if you responded, "Okie Dokie!" -- *stabby stab stab*?

You're spoiling the game, TFP.  It's supposed to go like this:

"If your prophet/bishop/church required you to murder . . ."

Get on board, man!  It's only Mormons who are blindly obedient, doncha know?

Edited August 31, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Bill (Papa) Lee]

On August 29, 2017 at 7:50 PM, askandanswer said:

I suspect that the situation might be somewhat analogous to what happens when people in a polygamous marriage, in countries where such marriages are legal, seek to be baptized. 

It is not an issue of "Law". In States where drugs have been (or the use of) legalized, one must give this up in their baptismal interview to move forward. Also someone seeking to baptized who grows it, or sells it, the same would apply. It would certainly be a difficult tightrope to walk, to ask someone to divorce, if the behavior were to continue. Throughout the history of the Church, and I mean it's entire history, in any land and any age sacrifices have to be made to receive the blessings of the Gospel. We are all aware of the great example and prayer of King Lamoni, who prayed "...that he would give away all his sins to know him (God)". So it is today, we must all must be willing to give away our sins to know Him. This includes even things that we never considered sin before hearing the fullness of the Gospel. 

Also with that "long history" of the Church there have always been difficult choices, filled with emotion that pulls at the heartstrings of so many. But as we learn we grow in greater knowledge, and with that our understanding of what is "right" in the eyes of the Lord. I once went with the missionaries and taught a woman who took the lessons, attended a year a half of my Gospel Essentials class and was truly converted. She had been living with a man for 20+ years, and had two children by him. It was a strong family, a loving family, but no marriage. Both had been married before and just could not trust enough to commit. She wanted to be baptized, but her husband (and his was by "common law" and a good father) but he would not marry her. So in the end, it came down to joining the Church or breaking up a family. It was heart wrenching, and slowly other things she had given up, Word of Wisdom issues she returned too. Since she was not going to leave him, she felt like; what was the point?

This was decades ago, I pray that she and her family were finally baptized. The Apostle Paul, once wrote that, "in this life we see through a glass darkly". Maybe someday, we will all see all things clearly. When that day comes with perfect vision we will move forward, more quickly, without stumbling all over ourselves. Until that day comes we must move forward in faith, and "give away all our sins to know him". At least this is what my faith tells me.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Yup. It's the same with people who are vehemently anti-Mormon, to some degree. 

So, those who are most vociferously anti-Mormon actually want to be Mormons?  That has not been my experience.  The most vociferously anti-Mormon individuals are usually ignorant and stubborn people.

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm happy to elaborate, but first I'd like to see you engage with my earlier point.

Do you sincerely think that, in authoring the 12th Article of Faith, Joseph Smith meant to refer all questions of morality to the United States Congress and the federal judiciary for final resolution?

I think that Joseph Smith realised that there needs to be a body that has the job of given a final resolution on questions of morality and in a system where church and state and so clearly seperated, he knew that body couldn't be the church.

[Guest MormonGator]

49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, those who are most vociferously anti-Mormon actually want to be Mormons?  That has not been my experience.  The most vociferously anti-Mormon individuals are usually ignorant and stubborn people.

First off, I'm talking about 2-5% of people. I'm not saying, and I never did say, that everyone who disapproves of homosexuality is secretly gay. 

What I am saying, and what I stand by 100%, is that usually people who scream the loudest and talk it about the most DO often times have the "I am trying to convince myself" disease. Like Queen Gertrude says, "The lady doth protest too much."

Remember that dude in your fraternity who banged on the table, jumped up and down and said "I've been with more women than anyone! Ladies love me" Yeah, he's probably never even been on a date before.. Remember your social justice warrior cousin who screams in your face about how tolerant and accepting she is while hating anyone who doesn't agree with her? Yeah, she's trying to convince herself, not us. And remember your co-worker former member who won't shut up about how much he hates Mormons? Yeah, he's probably full of guilt and shame about leaving the church. So yes, the 2-5% who believe that you can beat up homosexuals and talk non stop about how much they hate gays? Yes, they are probably having trouble dealing with their own sexuality. 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by MormonGator

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think that Joseph Smith realised that there needs to be a body that has the job of given a final resolution on questions of morality and in a system where church and state and so clearly seperated, he knew that body couldn't be the church.

I honestly don't know how to respond to such a statement.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Vort

[mordorbund]

 

1 minute ago, Vort said:

53 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think that Joseph Smith realised that there needs to be a body that has the job of given a final resolution on questions of morality and in a system where church and state and so clearly seperated, he knew that body couldn't be the church.

I honestly don't know what to say at such a statement.

I'll take a stab at this one.

Laws define morality in the same way that the rules in basketball define sportsmanship - they don't.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

First off, I'm talking about 2-5% of people. I'm not saying, and I never did say, that everyone who disapproves of homosexuality is secretly gay. 

What I am saying, and what I stand by 100%, is that usually people who scream the loudest and talk it about the most DO often times have the "I am trying to convince myself" disease. Like Queen Gertrude says, "The lady doth protest too much."

Remember that dude in your fraternity who banged on the table, jumped up and down and said "I've been with more women than anyone! Ladies love me" Yeah, he's probably never even been on a date before.. Remember your social justice warrior cousin who screams in your face about how tolerant and accepting she is while hating anyone who doesn't agree with her? Yeah, she's trying to convince herself, not us. And remember your co-worker former member who won't shut up about how much he hates Mormons? Yeah, he's probably full of guilt and shame about leaving the church. So yes, the 2-5% who believe that you can beat up homosexuals and talk non stop about how much they hate gays? Yes, they are probably having trouble dealing with their own sexuality. 

Ok, I get what you're saying now.  But please understand that your message has been self-contradictory.  

You say 2-5%, but then say "usually".  Doesn't "usually" mean the common thing or the "majority" like over 50%?

I absolutely agree that there are those who use their declarations to cover their secret weaknesses.  But I don't automatically think that's what is going on when someone loudly declares something.  The SJW, yes, I believe so.  But that guy in the fraternity... I've found that it happens to be close to the truth more often than him faking it.

The anti-Mormon who was simply raised in a different faith is certainly different than the anti-Mormon who was raised in the faith and left.  You know that.  And that is because of a completely different reason than mere projecting.

Projection tends to happen when emotions are high or when there is consistent pressure placed on a person.  Remember that projection is a form of lying.  When do we lie?  When there is a pressing reason to.  Most people are not habitual liars.  We tend to lie only when a lot is on the line.  I don't see a whole lot of people who go out and decide to protest something that they felt no pressure about simply because they were projecting.  No, they felt some sort of pressure to do so.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Vort said:

I honestly don't know how to respond to such a statement.

Here's another way:

"Huh?"

That was seriously my reaction.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok, I get what you're saying now.  But please understand that your message has been self-contradictory.  

You say 2-5%, but then say "usually".  Doesn't "usually" mean the common thing or the "majority" like over 50%?

I absolutely agree that there are those who use their declarations to cover their secret weaknesses.  But I don't automatically think that's what is going on when someone loudly declares something.  The SJW, yes, I believe so.  But that guy in the fraternity... I've found that it happens to be close to the truth more often than him faking it.

The anti-Mormon who was simply raised in a different faith is certainly different than the anti-Mormon who was raised in the faith and left.  You know that.  And that is because of a completely different reason than mere projecting.

Projection tends to happen when emotions are high or when there is consistent pressure placed on a person.  Remember that projection is a form of lying.  When do we lie?  When there is a pressing reason to.  Most people are not habitual liars.  We tend to lie only when a lot is on the line.  I don't see a whole lot of people who go out and decide to protest something that they felt no pressure about simply because they were projecting.  No, they felt some sort of pressure to do so.

I get what you are saying too, 100%. 

[mirkwood]

21 hours ago, eddified said:

 "Build up a year's supply of food storage" has supposedly changed to just a few months.

 

Quick clarification.  No it hasn't. 

Derail over.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I think that Joseph Smith realised that there needs to be a body that has the job of given a final resolution on questions of morality and in a system where church and state and so clearly seperated, he knew that body couldn't be the church.

Let me clarify, then:

Your position is that Joseph Smith says (via the 12th Article of Faith) that churches have no business pronouncing particular behaviors to be moral or immoral; because God has delegated that role to majoritarian secular governments?  That there is *no* morality, except as defined by civil government?  That if a hypothetical government like--say--Germany, chooses to perpetrate genocide against a hypothetical minority like--say--Jews; God ratifies the morality of that genocide since it was perpetrated under color of law?

Or are you just trying to say that governments, not churches, should be able to impose punishments on those whom violate moral/social/legal norms?

Edited August 31, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Let me clarify, then:

Your position is that Joseph Smith says (via the 12th Article of Faith) that churches have no business pronouncing particular behaviors to be moral or immoral; because God has delegated that role to majoritarian secular governments?  That there is *no* morality, except as defined by civil government?  That if a hypothetical government like--say--Germany, chooses to perpetrate genocide against a hypothetical minority like--say--Jews; God ratifies the morality of that genocide since it was perpetrated under color of law?

Or are you just trying to say that governments, not churches, should be able to impose punishments on those whom violate moral/social/legal norms?

Whoa...you went all Reductio Ad Hitlerum there...

...which, when you think about it, isn't really a logical fallacy at all.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whoa...you went all Reductio Ad Hitlerum there...

...which, when you think about it, isn't really a logical fallacy at all.

Sometimes a "reductio" is just a "reductio."

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whoa...you went all Reductio Ad Hitlerum there...

...which, when you think about it, isn't really a logical fallacy at all.

IIRC, reductio ad hitlerum entails a moral judgment against the person one is debating with.  But notwithstanding such misuse/overuse, I think that hypotheticals involving Nazi Germany can still be useful for exploring the specific contours of many generalized arguments about government, collective morality, etc.

I'm not trying to smear @askandanswer as a Nazi.  I'm trying to invite him/her (sorry, A&A!) to consider the implications of his/her position and then to draw a line somewhere.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IIRC, reductio ad hitlerum entails a moral judgment against the person one is debating with.  But notwithstanding such misuse/overuse, I think that hypotheticals involving Nazi Germany can still be useful for exploring the specific contours of many generalized arguments about government, collective morality, etc.

I'm not trying to smear @askandanswer as a Nazi.  I'm trying to invite him/her (sorry, A&A!) to draw a line.

What it boils down to is, "your argument is the same thing the Nazi's thought!"

Didn't the Nazi's believe, ultimately, that the government establishes morality?

[eddified]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

Quick clarification.  No it hasn't. 

Derail over.

I find posts made merely to express disagreement with someone pretty unhelpful and basically, contentious. <Ahem>. I would suggest giving reasons for the disagreement, thus making the post worth reading. As it is, it's not worth reading.

The perception among some portion of the members is that food storage counsel has softened. I would say it has been clarified in such a way as to make it seem, to those not making a careful study of the teachings, as if they had been softened (that's why I used the word "supposedly" in my other comment). See:

https://askgramps.org/how-much-emergency-preparedness-is-enough/

Edited August 31, 2017 by eddified

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Sometimes a "reductio" is just a "reductio."

Sometimes I miss having a Laugh button.