Sign in to follow this  
Fether

Alma 30:7-11

Recommended Posts

there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds ... Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him... But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.”

This section seemed to be referencing both the current law of the land as well as the laws of G*d.

It seems that man can believe what they want but they are To be punished Civilly if their belief leads to actions that are contrary to G*d.

Now to my question along with some context. 
 

I was debating with a friend of mine that bill in CA that “legalized pedophilia”. Now it doesn’t do that, far from it actually. But the reality of the bill is still not moral. It allows consensual sex between a 14-17 year old with someone that is less than 10 Years older than them. It is seeded in immorality that puts off the commandment of not committing adultery or doing anything like unto it.

This law is based in different beliefs on morality, and there is no law of G*d that tells someone what they must believe. this is the same with LGBTQ rights and laws.
 

If we live in a nation where many are on the LGBTQ spectrum and differing views on sexual morality, would it be against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief? Or would it be against the laws of G*d to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments? 

Thoughts?

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's break this down (yes, I will re-cover the same ground)--

1) There is no law against a man's beliefs.  The 11th Article of Faith goes along with this.   You may believe whatever you do.

2) There are laws against actions.  So while you may believe that it's ok to do A, if the law states that it's illegal, then doing such is illegal.  

3) Now how do man's laws come into being?  That varies across time & space, but for the USA currently they are mostly voted in.  This has upsides & downsides. 

Every person has the right to vote according to their beliefs.  So while I don't agree with "Bob"s views, I totally support Bob's right to vote according to those views to make the law of the land the best it can be (at least according to Bob's views). 

Likewise I will vote  according my beliefs to make those views to make the law of the land the best it can be (at least according to my views).

Such is being a good civil citizen: we each strive to vote for what we believe to be the best code of conduct for our lands.  If either Bob or I were to vote for anything else, then that's doing a sub-par job.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a moral society, one should vote for moral laws.  This means in a society based upon the laws of Christianity or the Laws of the Lord, than one must select laws based upon the laws the Lord has given.

The United States Constitution is not based upon such things necessarily, but grants certain rights to people.  They have the right to religion and to believe as they want.  This means that many things we find immoral, are perfectly constitutional among the citizens of the United States.

This could mean that someone who believes in ritual sacrifice of human beings, in theory, is allowed to believe this way.  However, this also creates problematic issues if they practice this.

Thus another interpretation of these rights, are that one has the freedom to practice their rights until they infringe upon the rights of another.  Thus, though they could believe in murdering others....if they actually practice this it is an infringement upon the rights of another.

This can get tricky in regards to immorality, for immorality can include more than one individual.  Where does one draw the line between Constitutional rights and Morality?

This is not something the Church really dictates to us, but allows each of us the free agency to choose what we feel is the right course of action. 

While some may feel that Constitutionally they should allow others to do as they wish  (for example, polygamy.  The early church was prosecuted for it's practice, but in theory, the Constitution should protect those who religiously practice such a thing.  How then does one feel about how far others should be allowed to practice odd marriage beliefs.  Should polygamy be allowed...or other forms of weird marriages such as Gay Marriage?), some think that we need to take into consideration the morality that our Fore Fathers would also have expressed (meaning such things as Abortion, or Gay Marriage are things they probably would not have approved of in their mindset).

It may seem a simple question on the root of it, but can get far more complex the deeper you dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fether said:

there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds ... Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him... But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.”

......

This law is based in different beliefs on morality, and there is no law of G*d that tells someone what they must believe. this is the same with LGBTQ rights and laws.
 

If we live in a nation where many are on the LGBTQ spectrum and differing views on sexual morality, would it be against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief? Or would it be against the laws of G*d to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments? 

Thoughts?

It is my opinion that there is no difference between morals and laws (laws created by men).  I am of the opinion that the only "things" that can be legislated into law are what-ever is believed to be moral.  Attempting to change the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the value of pi or the distances between the earth and anything else in our solar system is absurd, foolish and irrational - and impossible to enforce or bring about any change through the power of law.   I submit that the only "thing" mankind can legislate into law - are morals.  Whatever other law anyone thinks to pass is of no effect outside of human society.  Take murder for example.  As universal as it may seem that murder is a "natural law" or "G-d given law" there is no such law on the Serengeti to keep a lion from murdering (or abusing in any way) any other animal they will for whatever reason - and this includes other lions being murdered or abused.  It is interesting that (as far as I know) there is no major religion that teaches any lion will be held responsible by G-d for any of their "bad" deeds. 

I would introduce another thought about "G-d's Laws" and commandments.  I submit that it is impossible to break G-d's laws and commandments.  When we think of us or someone else breaking G-d's laws and commandments - it is an expression of speech.  The reality is that it is ourselves that are broken when G-d's laws and commandments  are not obeyed by ourselves.  Contrary to popular opinion - I do not believe that G-d punishes anyone for disobedience.  - I believe that not being obedient to the wisdom of G-d is its own punishment.

I believe that those that desire LGBTQ may so desire and make such their moral and law for eternity.  In scripture this is called becoming a law unto themselves.  Those that desire to live with G-d must conform their individual morals and laws to his.  I also believe G-d to be incredibly intelligent and smart - so that when he says that adopting LGBTQ morals will result in miserable bondage - I am guessing (faith) that he is 100% correct.

There should be at least two reason that we or anyone else supports and causes a moral to become law.  The first is to prevent anyone from using the force of law to make us live by their morals.  The second is to prevent someone from taking advantage of those unable or incapable of determining what is moral to them.  Generally we think of such as children but this can be increased to include anyone of "limited" ability.

If someone wants to be involved in LGBTQ - I have no intent to prevent them but I also reserve the right to openly say that they are stupid and "unfit" to so think and do.  Part of the science of life is evolution.  A principle of evolution is "Survival of the Fittest".  By definition being fit to reproduce and so genetically survive is obviously not within the capabilities and intents of the LGBTQ and their understanding of morality.  To purport LGBTQ goes against the reason and intelligence of observable science - weather anyone chooses to believe in the wisdom or G-d or not.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not as of yet come to a firm conclusion in my beliefs of how much government has a right to regulate on issues such as this. It's the dilemma caused by a form of government that requires a moral people to function properly but who's people are quickly losing said morals. 

Concerning the gay marriage issue (which I think is relevant) Pres Hinckley said:

“Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."

Edited by laronius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fether said:

If we live in a nation where many are on the LGBTQ spectrum and differing views on sexual morality, would it be against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief? Or would it be against the laws of G*d to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments? 

Thoughts?

If we live in a nation where many are on the LGBTQ spectrum and differing views on sexual morality, would it be against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief?

The simple, but not so simple, answer would be no. No, it would not go against the laws of God to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief. The three kingdoms of Glory give evidence to this. There are laws in each kingdom. A person abides by the law of the kingdom, or they don't live there.

If a person believes a law restricts them from living according to their beliefs these individuals have the freedom to 1) seek to change the law, 2) choose to abide by the law and adhere to it (repentance so to speak), or 3) move to a different society that would allow them to live according to their "chosen" morals whether these morals are right or wrong.

Would it be against the laws of G*d to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments?

Yes. If God says murder is against his law, then we shouldn't vote for any law that allows "murder" or anything like unto it. Zion will be a place where the morality of God will be adhered to. Zion will have God's laws and morality. In order to achieve Zion, there will be many laws that will oppose a person's beliefs (especially those with evil hearts, wicked), and which will not allow them to live such beliefs without consequence/punishment for breaking the law.

8 hours ago, Fether said:

there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds ... Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him...

There is a subtle irony to this scripture. There is no law against a human's belief, but there are laws (eternal laws) that if they live according to their beliefs (which are against God's laws), and are "ripe" in iniquity there is punishment for belief that lead to actions. Sodom and Gomorrah are the perfect example. The Nephite civilization before Christ came is another perfect example. So to speak, believe as you may, but in the end and to some degree now your belief could lead to an earthly destruction/punishment. The world is already heading that way. Have your belief, but watch your actions.

Rarely do people believe something that they don't act on.

I was debating with a friend of mine that bill in CA that “legalized pedophilia”. Now it doesn’t do that, far from it actually. But the reality of the bill is still not moral. It allows consensual sex between a 14-17 year old with someone that is less than 10 Years older than them.

I would disagree with the first and second paragraph. If a male twenty-three year-old sleeps with a 14 year-old (less than 10 years) it is statutory rape. Statutory rape (depending on age gap) is pedophilia. So, if a law is passed that allows a 23 year-old to consensually have sex with a minor (14) without punishment the law has successfully legalized pedophilia. This is no different with heterosexuals. If a 23 year-old woman (let's say a teacher) has sex with her male student consensually who is 14, she will be charged and put on the sex offenders list. This is pedophilia. It appears pedophile is loosely defined also. Some dictionaries simply refer to it as "prepubescent" children, and yet other articles refer to pedophilia even with 13 year-olds.

In that light, one could then say this law is legalizing statutory rape of a minor. As as 22 year-old who has sex with a 14 is statutory rape. In our modern age, our modern time, and the knowledge we have with human development this is an immoral law and it is wrong.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, from what I've read the bill does not create the standard but rather broadens an existing law that only applies to heterosexual type activities to now include homosexual type activities. The argument being the LGBTQ community was being adversely affected by the previous law which is true. The problem is that the original law was absurd to begin with. I totally get the desire for allowing judges to have some discretion as not every case is the same but the 10 year age difference part is just crazy. It's one thing to extend some leniency to an 18/19 year old having relations with a 16/17 year old but 24 and 14??? That's just crazy! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anddenex and anyone else who wishes to respond.

Should we be for voting in laws that being upon civil punishment to anyone who commits any sin? That seems a lot like the law of Moses which we have gotten away from.

Would you be in favor for laws that punish all extra-marital sex? Or laws that punish those that lie, or disrespect their parents?

If not, how do we dictate what sins should also have civil punishments tied to them if we aren’t going to look to society morals as a whole?

 

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fether said:

@Anddenex and anyone else who wishes to respond.

Should we be for voting in laws that being upon civil punishment to anyone who commits any sin? That seems a lot like the law of Moses which we have gotten away from.

if not, how do we dictate what sins should also have civil punishments tied to them if we aren’t going to look to society morals as a whole?

Focus on the larger sins.  Yes, it's wrong to tell a white lie during small talk, but that isn't something to get legal proceedings involved in.  Rather, it's easily resolved between two people with an apology.  Or if it's not resolved, the damage is relatively small.

Versus: if somebody commits sexual assault, that is very damaging and not easily resolved - even if the perpetrator were to opening confess "I'm sorry", that doesn't alleviate the wounds they inflicted on the other person, or the wounds they inflicted on themselves.  Both people need more cleansing / healing.   And in the much more likely case the perpetrator does not confess, then the law is even more needed (again, for the benefit of both parties, let alone possible future victims).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Focus on the larger sins.  Yes, it's wrong to tell a white lie during small talk, but that isn't something to get legal proceedings involved in.  Rather, it's easily resolved between two people with an apology.  Or if it's not resolved, the damage is relatively small.

Versus: if somebody commits sexual assault, that is very damaging and not easily resolved - even if the perpetrator were to opening confess "I'm sorry", that doesn't alleviate the wounds they inflicted on the other person, or the wounds they inflicted on themselves.  Both people need more cleansing / healing.   And in the much more likely case the perpetrator does not confess, then the law is even more needed (again, for the benefit of both parties, let alone possible future victims).  

To specify my question,  I want to focus on laws that Babylon and Zion disagree on.

- extra marital sex

- marijuana

- sex between 16 year olds

- gambling

Shoukd we be seeking to make All these Illegal and punishable by a civil crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fether said:

To specify my question,  I want to focus on laws that Babylon and Zion disagree on.

- extra marital sex

- marijuana

- sex between 16 year olds

- gambling

Shoukd we be seeking to make All these Illegal and punishable by a civil crime?

Focus on the biggest / most important things first.  

Honestly, I love to live in a world where the biggest concern in my life was a neighbor gambling in a slot machine and we could have this conversation.  That would be great.  But instead... frankly I have a LOT bigger amoral battles to fight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any reasonably approximate democratic government the Laws will and should reflect the collective morality of the people.  If we allow corrupt laws then that says something about our collective morality.  This is why the Book of Mormon speak harshly about corrupt laws and government.  Thus I should vote for my morality to become law, and so should everyone else.  The places where the most agree become Laws and the rest do not.

As for what parts of my morality should I try to make into Law... well that is were the Golden Rule comes in.  I am a flawed and imperfect person, and I live my morality imperfectly.  So I have to ask myself if I violated my own standards what would I think would be fair and correct course of action for society to take against me?  And that gives me the answer of what the Law should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fether said:

To specify my question,  I want to focus on laws that Babylon and Zion disagree on.

- extra marital sex

- marijuana

- sex between 16 year olds

- gambling

Shoukd we be seeking to make All these Illegal and punishable by a civil crime?

Under the Constitution is a different answer than if it was in regards to living in a more theocratic type world.

Under a more Theocratic rule, or even one where the laws are created based upon the whims or dictates of the people and their morality or a ruler and their morality...then there are laws we absolutely should have based upon the Laws of the Lord.

Fornication and Adultery should be outlawed in these instances.  We have seen since the 60s and the increasing of immorality...the laxation of divorce laws to make divorce make marriages more trivial to some, a breakdown of the home and the family unit in great degree, and many children being born out of wedlock than ever before.  The consequences have been disastrous in my opinion.

In fact, many of the things that we allow under the Constitution are not what we may consider exactly moral in a more  Christian based society.  If we look at the early laws in the United States that individual states had, we can see the changes over time regarding our interpretation of the Constitution and the separation between Church and State.

There use to be laws that were regulating chastity on a more strict scale, and all sorts of immorality were outlawed.  Other laws such as keeping the Sabbath day Holy or prayer before government meetings (which now are seen as violations of Constitutional rights in some areas, the exact opposite view that was held decades ago) were also such laws that were in effect. 

In relation to more modern takes on rulings...at least on drugs and gambling that you bring up...

Marijuana and Gambling are not strictly forbidden by the Scriptures and are not really things most of Christianity can agree upon, though many in the Church may be against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Focus on the biggest / most important things first.  

Honestly, I love to live in a world where the biggest concern in my life was a neighbor gambling in a slot machine and we could have this conversation.  That would be great.  But instead... frankly I have a LOT bigger amoral battles to fight.  

I am of a slightly different opinion - I am the most concerned with those that think others should not do or be allowed to do something that they are doing.  Second to that are those that believe other should be or must be forced to do what they are doing.  

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fether said:

@Anddenex and anyone else who wishes to respond.

Should we be for voting in laws that being upon civil punishment to anyone who commits any sin? That seems a lot like the law of Moses which we have gotten away from.

Would you be in favor for laws that punish all extra-marital sex? Or laws that punish those that lie, or disrespect their parents?

If not, how do we dictate what sins should also have civil punishments tied to them if we aren’t going to look to society morals as a whole?

These are good questions. My first thought is there is a difference between "voting in" and "voting against" a law. We should vote against any law that would bring the nation closer to God's judgement (i.e. that would have us become ripe in iniquity). If we vote in laws, then as members of the Church we will have an accounting for the laws we helped initiate or vote for that were against God's laws. We can defend them as much as we want in this life, in the next, the defense is going to be poor. I, personally, don't want that.

I would personally love to see a law against adultery. It breaks homes up, and it can cause lasting damage to children. There is a scripture in our Book of Mormon that I think is helpful to this discussion. The whole chapter (Alma 42), in essence, describes what we are discussing, but let me focus on a few verses of scripture:

Quote

 

"Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

"Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

"Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

"And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

"And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

"But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God."

 

In Zion, I wouldn't be surprised if there are laws against all major sin (i.e. adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, etc...). We already have many laws that match the kingdom of God. Bearing false witness can be looked at as "fraud." And there is punishment for fraud (varying degrees).

These verses highlight the following points:

1) Without law there is no sin. In Zion, we are following God's laws and these laws have already been given. And they are just laws.

2) Look at how rampant fornication is, and it is rampant because there is "no law" against it. Which bring up the second point, "would [humans] be afraid," to sin if there is no punishment? No. We already know the natural human, until he is enlightened by God (either the Spirit of Christ or through the Holy Ghost witness) the natural human will not be afraid to commit sin if there is "no law" against that sin. Our world is evidence for that. So any law must have some form of punishment in order for it to be a law. Every law that is broken must then have a "way out" or mercy.

We already have laws that punish for lying, this is fraud. Depending on the degree of fraud depends on the punishment (i.e. Under penalty of perjury). I don't know how many times I have read a government document I have signed, or financial loans, where it specifies that if I purposely give false information I will enjoy the penalty/punishment of the law.

I wouldn't have any issue with voting in a law that punished fornication or adultery. Fornication has lead to how many abortions? The murder of innocent human beings because they are unable to protect themselves. For that alone, I would be willing to vote in this law. We have around 56 million abortions per year worldwide, and probably more due to fornication rather than rape or the mother's life in danger. We have laws to protect people, unless you are an unborn, then we have law "voted in" that is against God's laws, not due to differences in morality, but due to a lack of morality. (Which is where I would agree with @Traveler that, "I am of the opinion that the only "things" that can be legislated into law are what-ever is believed to be moral.")

I wouldn't have any problem with a law against gambling. We already have a bit of that in Utah. I am good with it. I also wouldn't be surprised if in Zion there is a law, strict law, against homosexuality. The Lord is very very clear and plain pertaining to homosexuality.

This though is even harder in our day because people liberally use the word "rights" for everything now, and what is moral. How do you make moral laws in a society where good is being called evil, and evil is being called good?

How did Sodom and Gomorrah come to a point that a group of men could stand outside of another man's home and tell him to bring his guests out so that they may "know" them? Little by little, with allowing whatever morality a person feels is good or right.

Quote

Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (We know from scripture what the word "know" is)

I mean we already have news outlets talking about leniency for pedophiles as a sexual orientation. 😮

I guess a question is what way do we want to go, possibly. Do we want to go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah with open laws that appear to allow almost anything. Or do we want to go with laws that will bring us closer to Zion? And I am honestly not sure how to go about that without becoming another "Law of Moses," (or what would look like it from the outside) but something needs to happen.

One thing I think though, the more moral (actually moral, Godlike) the less laws a nation will have. People will be able to govern themselves, but there will still be laws. Strict laws, such that people who don't want to abide by them will leave.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 11:59 AM, Fether said:

there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds ... Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him... But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.”

This section seemed to be referencing both the current law of the land as well as the laws of G*d.

It seems that man can believe what they want but they are To be punished Civilly if their belief leads to actions that are contrary to G*d.

Now to my question along with some context. 
 

I was debating with a friend of mine that bill in CA that “legalized pedophilia”. Now it doesn’t do that, far from it actually. But the reality of the bill is still not moral. It allows consensual sex between a 14-17 year old with someone that is less than 10 Years older than them. It is seeded in immorality that puts off the commandment of not committing adultery or doing anything like unto it.

This law is based in different beliefs on morality, and there is no law of G*d that tells someone what they must believe. this is the same with LGBTQ rights and laws.
 

If we live in a nation where many are on the LGBTQ spectrum and differing views on sexual morality, would it be against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief? Or would it be against the laws of G*d to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments? 

Thoughts?

The law as you describe it (I haven't researched it) seems founded in concepts about age-appropriate levels of responsibility, age-aligned developmental mental capacity and competency, and the power differentials due to these between people of different ages, and not so much morality. It seems to have a secular premise over a moral one, which is a problem in itself.

Voting is only an expression of belief, and not the commission of the deed that is allowed by the passage of the law that is voted upon. The scripture you cited relates to what governments can do to punish a person according to law, but not what God can do to punish a person for his beliefs that indirectly lead to actions that enable wicked acts to be committed. God's punishment is often unseen, and more often I think,  not executed until the "last day."

We each vote according to the light we have ("vote your conscience"), so the accountably rebellious will be punished accordingly.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fether I am thinking this might add to the conversation from Ezra Taft Benson,

"Never before has the land of Zion appeared so vulnerable to so powerful an enemy as the Americas do at present. And our vulnerability is directly attributable to our loss of active faith in the God of this land, who has decreed that we must worship Him or be swept off. Too many Americans have lost sight of the truth that God is our source of freedom —the Lawgiver —and that personal righteousness is the most important essential to preserving our freedom. So, I say with all the energy of my soul that unless we as citizens of this nation forsake our sins, political and otherwise, and return to the fundamental principles of Christianity and of constitutional government, we will lose our political liberties, our free institutions, and will stand in jeopardy before God."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 4:40 PM, Traveler said:

Contrary to popular opinion - I do not believe that G-d punishes anyone for disobedience.  - I believe that not being obedient to the wisdom of G-d is its own punishment.

How do you understand these verses?

Hosea 12:2 - The Lord hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according 
to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him
.

Amos 3:2  - You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish 
you for all your iniquities.

Do you believe God blesses someone for obedience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to believe that a 14yo can give consent (in absence of parental supervision) to a sexual act to any adult.  Much less someone almost ten years older.

While not actually condoning this situation, the law, by mitigating the penalties of such an act, is immoral IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jonah said:

How do you understand these verses?

Hosea 12:2 - The Lord hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according 
to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him
.

Amos 3:2  - You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish 
you for all your iniquities.

Do you believe God blesses someone for obedience?

I do, my question was based on whether we should vote in laws that forces others with differing moral views to live according to our beliefs (ie LGBTQ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fether said:

I do, my question was based on whether we should vote in laws that forces others with differing moral views to live according to our beliefs (ie LGBTQ).

Can you provide an example of a law that forces people to live contrary to their moral conscience?

Given that not all LGBTQ people share the same moral view (we have active LGBTQ people in our Church), what would be the conflicting morality?

Legalized ssm does not force saints to enter ssm, though it could be said it is a symptom of societal attitudes that run contrary to traditional religion and is therefore a looming threat to freedom of religious expression. The majority voted such laws in according to the light they had. I think some who voted against them may have failed to introduce greater light into the public square, and so they would share some responsibility for their passage along with those who voted for them in willful rebellion against God.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can you provide an example of a law that forces people to live contrary to their moral conscience?

Given that not all LGBTQ people share the same moral view (we have active LGBTQ people in our Church), what would be the conflicting morality?

Legalized ssm does not force saints to enter ssm, though it could be said it is a symptom of societal attitudes that run contrary to traditional religion and is therefore a looming threat to freedom of religious expression. The majority voted such laws in according to the light they had. I think some who voted against them may have failed to introduce greater light into the public square, and so they would share some responsibility for their passage along with those who voted for them in willful rebellion against God.

A law that bans SSM. That would prevent LGBTQ marriages from occurring despite them not believing it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fether said:

A law that bans SSM. That would prevent LGBTQ marriages from occurring despite them not believing it is wrong.

Thank you. There are also LGBTQ people who believe SSM is wrong, and a subset of these, as well as a subset of straight people who think SSM is wrong (some are OK with it), could support pro-SSM laws for secular (political, economic) reasons. Laws created in jurisdictions where they must be are voted upon are typically the result of good-faith debate of the pros and cons, and the citizenry likewise has the duty (civic virtue) to live with them in good faith despite their personal druthers. Typically their laws can also be changed over time through legal processes. God holds people accountable for their decisions and participation in this process according to the light they have.

So, given these parameters, I think good-faith voting for a law that either establishes or bans SSM would be morally acceptable, in accordance with the Book or Mormon teachings.

As to a permissive law being in accord with God's revealed covenants, that is another thing. People are moral or immoral, not permissive laws. Likewise, a law that bans in accord with God's revealed covenants is neither moral nor immoral; the people are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 6:57 PM, CV75 said:

Can you provide an example of a law that forces people to live contrary to their moral conscience?

Given that not all LGBTQ people share the same moral view (we have active LGBTQ people in our Church), what would be the conflicting morality?

Legalized ssm does not force saints to enter ssm, though it could be said it is a symptom of societal attitudes that run contrary to traditional religion and is therefore a looming threat to freedom of religious expression. The majority voted such laws in according to the light they had. I think some who voted against them may have failed to introduce greater light into the public square, and so they would share some responsibility for their passage along with those who voted for them in willful rebellion against God.

It depends on how far they extend the regulations pertaining to the law or court rulings.  For example, when they dictate that churches or religious institutions must open their doors to perform or allow such things to be performed directly against the religious beliefs of those churches or institutions, that is forcing people to live contrary to their moral conscience. 

For example, in California...

Southern California Law Review 2018 The Purposes of Anti-discrimination Law

Quote

I have been a gay rights advocate for more than twenty-fiveyears.5

Herein this Article, for the first time, I make common cause with my longtime adversaries. I have worked very hard to create a regime in which its safe to be gay.I would also like that regime to be one thats safe for religious dissenters.Here is what happened in Albuquerque.6In September 2006, Vanessa Willock sent an email to a business called Elane Photography, asking it to photograph her commitment ceremony. She indicated that she and her partner were a same-sex couple.7  Although same-sex marriages were not then legally recognized in New Mexico, that did not stop same-sex couples from celebrating their unions.She received an emailed refusal, which explained that company policy forbids photographing same-sex weddings. The companys owner, Elaine Huguenin, later testified that facilitating such a ceremony is contrary to her religious beliefs.9

Willock then brought a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission.10  New Mexico law prohibits discrimination, on the basis of sexual orientation, by businesses that offer their services to the general public.11  The Commission concluded that the discriminatory policy violated New Mexicos Human Rights Act, and required Elane Photography to pay more than six thousand dollars in attorneys fees and costs.12  The district court granted summary judgment for Willock, the state supreme court affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.13  If Huguenin does not change her policy, she will either have to stop advertising to the public or shut down Elane Photography altogether.14

Here we have someone with personal religious beliefs.  The author feels that if one clearly identifies their discriminatory attitude in regards to their business, they should be allowed to do so.  The assumption made by the author is that the backlash publicly will be enough to make it so most will not choose this route.

The question then is if the law should allow one to have such beliefs and should force such beliefs to capitulate to legal judicial requirements.  For example, in this day, could we allow racism to do the same thing if one was open about it or would this be a road to travel.  Nevertheless, both in this and with racism or other forms of discrimination, the law clearly in some cases infringes upon someone's moral conscience.  If someone truly feels that religiously they should believe in one manner and act in such a way (for example, they do not feel they can morally be a photographer for a wedding, or perhaps bake a cake specifically and artistically designed for a specific wedding, or perhaps they are racist and feel they cannot sell certain items to certain groups of people, or many other beliefs people may have which can go from mild to extreme), then any law that forces them to act or perform otherwise would be forcing them to live contrary to their moral conscience.

Now, some of these are more mild in what they do, while others are more extreme, but for comparisons, sometimes the extremes are more useful in pointing out how far these things may go to make it apparent at the limitations they are placing upon people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2020 at 9:33 PM, JohnsonJones said:

It depends on how far they extend the regulations pertaining to the law or court rulings.  For example, when they dictate that churches or religious institutions must open their doors to perform or allow such things to be performed directly against the religious beliefs of those churches or institutions, that is forcing people to live contrary to their moral conscience. 

For example, in California...

Southern California Law Review 2018 The Purposes of Anti-discrimination Law

Here we have someone with personal religious beliefs.  The author feels that if one clearly identifies their discriminatory attitude in regards to their business, they should be allowed to do so.  The assumption made by the author is that the backlash publicly will be enough to make it so most will not choose this route.

The question then is if the law should allow one to have such beliefs and should force such beliefs to capitulate to legal judicial requirements.  For example, in this day, could we allow racism to do the same thing if one was open about it or would this be a road to travel.  Nevertheless, both in this and with racism or other forms of discrimination, the law clearly in some cases infringes upon someone's moral conscience.  If someone truly feels that religiously they should believe in one manner and act in such a way (for example, they do not feel they can morally be a photographer for a wedding, or perhaps bake a cake specifically and artistically designed for a specific wedding, or perhaps they are racist and feel they cannot sell certain items to certain groups of people, or many other beliefs people may have which can go from mild to extreme), then any law that forces them to act or perform otherwise would be forcing them to live contrary to their moral conscience.

Now, some of these are more mild in what they do, while others are more extreme, but for comparisons, sometimes the extremes are more useful in pointing out how far these things may go to make it apparent at the limitations they are placing upon people.

Yes, I see this is an example of infringement on personal religious expression. The question in the OP is whether it is against the laws of God to support things like this. My take is that God’s law is to vote our conscience (He instituted governments, D&C 134), and He will judge whether the citizens are acting in accordance with the light they have.

So I would say it is not “against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief” or “to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments.” But He will judge us according to how we vote in relation to the light we have and how we share that light to influence others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this