LDS Only: Fighting for our morals (Jesus, Latter-Day Saints, beliefs, homosexual)

[PetShopBoy88]

Since you specifically said LDS only, I just want to present this for you guys to discuss your interpretations (since I'm very much interested in seeing them). I won't encroach any further to present my own opinion or to discuss what you guys say. I hope this post doesn't interfere so much and that you will be willing to discuss it, but if not, I totally understand.

D&C 134 (aka, why all mormons are libertarians):
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 . . . governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interes; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

9 We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

[jonny]

I'm going to agree that the church shouldn't get involved in political issues. In most cases, it is pretty good at staying out of politics. For some reason, it has chosen to get involved in this one. I'm really not sure why. Is there any scriptural basis for a church trying to legislate its morals? I'm not sure that there is.

Is the church getting involved in this a result of the members of the church being very connected to the Republican party? I wonder if the church would be able to do things like this if it were more diverse politically.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by PetShopBoy88

Since you specifically said LDS only, I just want to present this for you guys to discuss your interpretations (since I'm very much interested in seeing them). I won't encroach any further to present my own opinion or to discuss what you guys say. I hope this post doesn't interfere so much and that you will be willing to discuss it, but if not, I totally understand.

D&C 134 (aka, why all mormons are libertarians):
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 . . . governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interes; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

9 We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

I think these scriptures are very applicable to this discussion. Thanks for bringing them up.

With these scriptures in mind, why is the church pushing this gay marriage issue so hard? Honestly, with our history of marriage and the government, it appears hypocritical in many ways. Where should the church draw the line? I believe it should state its position on this issue and motivate its members to get involved in the political process, but I think that we, as members, need to keep the above scriptures in mind when making decisions on what types of legislation we are going to support.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by PHOTOTAKER

i don't thank anyone is trying to stop them from having sex. i thank the church is trying to keep in the minds of our children that marriage is between a man and a women. the questions that will be asked by little children will be and are too advanced for there age like around 5 or 6 by complicating words like marriage will have negative effect on there development into pre-teen and teen most kids can't even figure out what normal because of infidelities that are now in the world were asking kids such as 5 or 6 to understand marriage between the same sex and be able to tell the difference between man and women marriage and divorce??

I can see the "children" argument, but I don't know if defining marriage will really make a difference. People will still be gay. That's not going to change. It isn't like some pornography laws where they can limit distribution of pornography to keep it away from children. People are going to live their lives whether they are married or not.

I don't know if 5- and 6-year-olds are going to be any more aware of gay marriage than they are now if it were legal. Values still will need to be taught to children in the home by parents.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by PHOTOTAKER

i agree with both you and katzar to a point, that point is when the state or goverment is more interested in teaching children that same sex marrage is normal and excepted without telling them that there are some beliefs that don't acepted in, then who will fight for our beliefs when were not will to fight for them ourself??

I guess a point of this debate is to determine where we draw the line in "fighting" for our beliefs. I don't think we should sit back and do nothing, but at the same time I don't think we have the right to impose our beliefs on others. There are other things we can do to fight for our beliefs.

[PHOTOTAKER]

i honestly thank that no side can truly win, no matter what you do or what i do i fell that i am not alowing all of my beliefs to come though it seems as if i have to decide what beliefs i have to pick and let the other ones set on the side line for the time... i have several friends that are gay i love them to death there great they see my point about marrage and what i worry about that and i see there point that it is unfair for the laws no to allow them have some of the rights that other people have... and it boals down to do we limit our own free will or the free will of others... but if we take it from a moral stand point then the desition is very clear and it is what you personaly belive and there is very little a person can do to change that...

[PHOTOTAKER]

Originally Posted by jonny

I can see the "children" argument, but I don't know if defining marriage will really make a difference. People will still be gay. That's not going to change. It isn't like some pornography laws where they can limit distribution of pornography to keep it away from children. People are going to live their lives whether they are married or not.

I don't know if 5- and 6-year-olds are going to be any more aware of gay marriage than they are now if it were legal. Values still will need to be taught to children in the home by parents.

i agree, i will add that part of who we are is to stand up for who we are. "I am a Mormon true and though, from morning until morning, day by day, I will left up my voice and say halleluiah to the God of the most high. I will go and tell the world what I am and what I believe!!! Halleluiah to the most high God!!!"

[jonny]

After a couple days of thinking on the subject, I think I've come to a quasi position. I don't support gay marriage or homosexuality. I see it as something that in unnatural and immoral. For the record, I also don't support pre-marital sex, smoking, drinking alcohol, pornography,etc. I just have a hard time justifying making all these things illegal.

I don't think that we should have laws that define what marriage is. As long as the government is going to recognize unions and grant them special rights, they should recognize all unions.

Now, this is the problem I'm seeing with my position. I've given a list of things that are legal right now that I don't support. I believe that many of these things are damaging to society (actually, all of them are damaging to society). The question is, how do we justify making these things legal and not legalizing other immoral things such as drugs, pedophilia, or even murder for that matter? How far do we take this "people should have the right to choose" stuff?

Here are the three things that were in the scripture posted above:
- Free exercise conscience
- Right and control of property
- The protection of life

Ok, so we are justified by the scriptures in outlawing things like murder and drugs under "The protection of life" category. How about alcohol and cigarettes?

I think I'm more confused than I was before I started thinking about this. I still don't think I know where the line is...

[emmaleebee]

I agree that the issue is confusing. It is extremely difficult to come to a decision on how far we "push our beleifs on other people" as far as making laws.

This issue has weighed heavily on me since it first came to my attention 3 or 4 years ago--at that time I asked myself "What would Jesus do if he lived today and in our society?" What does he expect us to do politically as his followers? Should laws take away agency when the behavior in question "doesn't affect anyone else?" I never came to an acceptable answer. But I want to.

In studying Dallin H. Oaks article “Same-Gender Attraction,” (Ensign, Oct. 1995, 7) I ran accross some relevant quotes:

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

As much as "society" or Satan and his followers try to get us to beleive otherwise, there is no such thing as the condition of "being gay." In todays society it is so hard to keep that strait--in the interest of being politically correct or tollerant we lose sight of the fact that "homosexuality" is a choice to follow an unnatural and sinful way of living.

Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him.

even though someone might have feelings of attraction toward someone of the same sex, may even feel he/she was born that way--we can choose not to indulge.

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Most of this just goes to support our position on the issue. It doesn't go into the political side--my point in bringing all this up and so called "preaching to the choir" is that maybe we do want to establish laws to define marriage just for the very fact that this can be so confusing--even to us--who know where we stand.

I want to do more research as to what has actually been said by general authorities specifically about laws regarding marriage. But that's what I've gotten so far. Do you have any input on what I've said so far?