How should Christians respond to political and cultural hostility?

[prisonchaplain]

We've had favor with government for over 200 years in the U.S., but now face the dismissal of our prayers and meaningless, or even partisan. We answer by loving God-neighbor-and enemy, by taking care of the widow and the orphaned, by not tiring in doing good works, and by lifting up the name of Jesus. We'll not be pigeon-holed into political parties or positions. I'm just a migrant laborer here--my true citizenship is in heaven.

Edited October 9, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

What a hard lesson to learn. But if we learn it well and truly, then we become citizens of the kingdom of God, or at least take many steps nearer to it.

[Fether]

As much as We love America, you are right, our true loyalty lies above. 

I first internalized this truth when the LGBT succeeded in legalizing marriage. In a conversation with my parents, they talked about that if the government began to spread this legalization toward forcing religious entities to comply, we may be in a position where we would need to defend the temples from men/women seeking to be sealed to their own gender.

[zil]

9 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm just a migrant laborer here--my true citizenship is in heaven.

Quote

For a wise and glorious purpose

Thou hast placed me here on earth

And withheld the recollection

Of my former friends and birth;

Yet ofttimes a secret something

Whispered, “You’re a stranger here,”

And I felt that I had wandered

From a more exalted sphere.

Verse 2 of O My Father (hymn #292)

[Grunt]

15 minutes ago, Fether said:

As much as We love America, you are right, our true loyalty lies above. 

I first internalized this truth when the LGBT succeeded in legalizing marriage. In a conversation with my parents, they talked about that if the government began to spread this legalization toward forcing religious entities to comply, we may be in a position where we would need to defend the temples from men/women seeking to be sealed to their own gender.

Interesting.  I wonder what actions the church would take.

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Interesting.  I wonder what actions the church would take.

Right now, when one is getting married, the whole thing (marriage & sealing) are done together.  The government paperwork is signed by someone in the temple.  There aren't two separate ceremonies.  Were the government to say that those who perform marriages must perform them for same-sex couples, like it or not, the Church would stop performing "marriages" - you would have to have that done civilly - and would only perform "sealings" - a religious rite with no civil meaning which the government could not force.

If the government ever tried to force religious-only rites, well, I'm pretty sure the Lord would arrive and set them straight.

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

Right now, when one is getting married, the whole thing (marriage & sealing) are done together.  The government paperwork is signed by someone in the temple.  There aren't two separate ceremonies.  Were the government to say that those who perform marriages must perform them for same-sex couples, like it or not, the Church would stop performing "marriages" - you would have to have that done civilly - and would only perform "sealings" - a religious rite with no civil meaning which the government could not force.

If the government ever tried to force religious-only rites, well, I'm pretty sure the Lord would arrive and set them straight.

Good insight.  I was stuck on the example of forcing a baker to make a cake for a wedding.  I suppose, given the current laws, that wouldn't apply to a sealing.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Interesting.  I wonder what actions the church would take.

I can't speak officially, of course, but it seems obvious to me what the Church would do: Quit performing marriages altogether. The Church would perform only sealings, and of course it could control who gets sealed to whom. Marriage, as perversely defined by the government, would cease to be a Church concern. Neither bishops nor temple sealers, nor anyone else, would perform marriage ceremonies, in the government sense. People would go to the justice of the peace (or equivalent) to get married.

EDIT: I see that @zil preempted me. What she said.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Vort

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

EDIT: I see that @zil preempted me. What she said.

I probably stole it from you a couple years ago.

[zil]

2 hours ago, zil said:

the Church would stop performing "marriages" - you would have to have that done civilly

And if you were really clever, you'd open up a chain of civil marriage joints, each built right next to an LDS temple, so that couples could drop in on their way to the temple, get married, and then go to the temple to be sealed.  I predict high demand.   (Because all the Mormon couples will be there, and all the Anti's and people who like to cause contention will show up demanding you perform marriages for people who can't get sealed.  I'm thinking you could make a killing.)

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Right now, when one is getting married, the whole thing (marriage & sealing) are done together.  The government paperwork is signed by someone in the temple.  There aren't two separate ceremonies.  Were the government to say that those who perform marriages must perform them for same-sex couples, like it or not, the Church would stop performing "marriages" - you would have to have that done civilly - and would only perform "sealings" - a religious rite with no civil meaning which the government could not force.

If the government ever tried to force religious-only rites, well, I'm pretty sure the Lord would arrive and set them straight.

This already happens in some nations of the world.  Well, the fact that the church does the sealing and marriage is considered a separate event in regards to the government of that nation.