• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

*LDS Only; LDS Church Joins California Constitutional Ammendment Banning "Gay Marriage"

zippythepinhead

zippythepinhead

Your Tax Dollars At Work
FFH said:
Crickets...

How can they argue against the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, whom I'm sure discussed and gave unanimous support on this and many other similar issues concerning same sex marriages.

I'm sure the letter was scrutinized, prayed over and unanimously accepted by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve before it was publicly announced.
Click to expand...
I have had the same question. This letter to California LDS is nothing new. When banning same sex marriage was on the ballot in Utah a similar message was given out by the Church leadership. I fail to see where "The Proclomation on the Family" is believed to be scripture from God, where one could say "well gosh, two lesbians should enjoy being wife and wife too?"

The letter to the saints in California is directly tied to the Proclomation on the Family and other scripture concerning homosexuality. Homosexuality IS an ABOMINATION before God. If one truly believes in the Gospel, how can one question this fact? Men did not make this commandment. The Great I Am did. When we endorse two people or a group of people living in serious sin, what does that say to them? God says it is okay? What does it say about us? (See 2 Nephi 28:8).

I have friends that are gay and one I know of lives with his partner. He knows my stand on the issue of homosexuality, but I am not preaching to him or his friend. They know right from wrong. We are free agents to ourselves. We should love all God's children, regardless of the choices they make. However, we cannot condone actions done by people when we know it is an abomination to God.

I am no homophobic, xenophobic, pitchfork carrying anti gay right wing nut job. In fact the people I know who are practicing homosexuality are generally just like us all the good, bad, and the ugly. But when you have the Gospel and you claim to follow prophets, seers and revelators, how can you say except this once?

It makes no sense?:confused:
 
SoyLeche

SoyLeche

meh...
Orontes said:
You are right that "if and only If" is an equivalence statement. That was my intention. I hoped to show that the first clause isn't simply inductive, but actually materially equivalent. The crux would be that 1) an unjust mingling of religious government with civil government is when there is a fostering and proscription of religious societies. Conversely, 2) whenever civil government fosters or proscribes religious societies that is an unjust mingling of religious influence. Therefore one would have the base truth table as I laid things out being the following (where X is clause one and (Y +Z) are clause two):

X----- (Y+Z)---- X ≡ (Y + Z)
T-------T-------------- T
T------ F-------------- F
F----- T--------------- F
F----- F-------------- T

(I couldn't get the truth table to look normal. It kept crunching up, so I added the lines for some spacing.)
Click to expand...

Just thought I'd show you how you can do this in the future :) When you put things within "code" tags* the spaces stay around better (it can still be a bit annoying though)

*the word "code" surrounded by []s
Code: 
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][U]X     [/U][U](Y+Z)    [/U] [U]X [FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Arial]≡ (Y + Z)[/FONT][/FONT][/U][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]T        T             T[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]T        F             F[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]F        T             F[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]F        F             T[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
Orontes

Orontes

Master of the Horse
Orontes said:
Hi, That's nice of you to say. I am currently engaged in the same topic, though a different refrain, over in this thread. My participation is from post 22.



You are right that "if and only If" is an equivalence statement. That was my intention. I hoped to show that the first clause isn't simply inductive, but actually materially equivalent. The crux would be that 1) an unjust mingling of religious government with civil government is when there is a fostering and proscription of religious societies. Conversely, 2) whenever civil government fosters or proscribes religious societies that is an unjust mingling of religious influence. Therefore one would have the base truth table as I laid things out being the following (where X is clause one and (Y +Z) are clause two):

X----- (Y+Z)---- X ≡ (Y + Z)
T-------T-------------- T
T------ F-------------- F
F----- T--------------- F
F----- F-------------- T

(I couldn't get the truth table to look normal. It kept crunching up, so I added the lines for some spacing.)
Click to expand...

SoyLeche said:
Just thought I'd show you how you can do this in the future :) When you put things within "code" tags* the spaces stay around better (it can still be a bit annoying though)

*the word "code" surrounded by []s
Code: 
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][U]X     [/U][U](Y+Z)    [/U] [U]X [FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Arial]≡ (Y + Z)[/FONT][/FONT][/U][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]T        T             T[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]T        F             F[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]F        T             F[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]F        F             T[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...

Ahh, good information. I didn't know.
 
opuntia

opuntia

Religion is Law
Secularism is the idea that God does not exist and religionists should keep their noses out of their personal lives.

It is unusual to see a belief that a person who has an interest in some item or object is not interested in all the aspects of that item or object. Anyone who believes that a person who owns a home and is not concerned about the front walk or the garage or the roof is deceived. Just so, God has a vested interest in the goings on upon this Earth and anyone to say that He is blind to gay marriages is deceived. God does care and since Adam and Eve no other method of keeping the human race alive has been authorized. Only through the heterosexual method does humanity multiply. Even if science could sustain human life it will be through the egg and the sperm, not through homosexuality or lesbianism. Homosexuality and lesbianism are life choices, nothing more, not methods for sustaining the human race.
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
jonny said:
I'm late in joining the discussion, but I wish the church wouldn't have gotten involved in this. I disagree with telling members how to vote, which is something that the church has respected in the past.
Click to expand...

A cursory examination of our history reveals the Church has thrown its weight behind other civil rights issues. Historically, the church has fallen on the side of the losing bigots.

I'm embarassed.

Even 50 years ago my wife and I would not be allowed to be sealed in the temple. I'm not saying gay couples will ever be sealed - I'm just pointing out the Church has, historically, been wrong on these issues.
 
J

jonny

Well-Known Member
It's all in a sad attempt to be accepted by those who hate us. IMO, it ends up with us creating more enemies and still being disliked by the people who we so disparately want the approval of.
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Agreed.

Funny how those who hate us are ready to take our money when the need arises.
 
Scott C.

Scott C.

Just one guy
jonny said:
I'm late in joining the discussion, but I wish the church wouldn't have gotten involved in this. I disagree with telling members how to vote, which is something that the church has respected in the past.
Click to expand...

The church on occasion encourages members to vote a certain way on a certain issue. I don't believe the church takes this responsibility lightly and it only does so when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are united.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World encourages citizens and leaders to "promote those measures designed to strengthen the family". This means that citizens and governments need to get involved in policy that preserves the family.

Immediately before this encouragement to citizens, The Proclamation gives a bold prophetic warning "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

That's a serious warning and a serious prophetic plea that citizens support governmental measures that will strengthen the family and help avoid the calamaties that await our socitey. The First Presidency and the Twelve are acting as seers when they make these statements.

That's the way I see it.
 
sputnik323

sputnik323

Goat licker
I find it funny that people here will not address the basic assumptions layed out by Orontes before. If you do not think that the Government does not legislate morality than you have been decieved. We have laws regulating morality all of the time. Prostitution is the same otherwise legal acts, just recieving payment. If money wasn't involved the law can do nothing. There are laws prohibiting acts based on age (smoking, drinking, driving, buying prohibited things, entering clubs, ect). So everyone claiming that the law doesn't regulate morality either hasn't connected other issues, or just use it to justify their beliefs that the law shouldn't ban gay marriage.
If the definition of marriage is changed to consent between 2 adults to be bound by law to one another, then you are being bigots(by the assumptions of previous posts) to people who want pologamy if you do not allow that. If you do accept that, then what about people under legal limit that want to get married but their parents will not allow it? You are bigots towards minors. hey minors are going to do what they do anyways? why not allow it? -these are some of the arguments that have been made in this thread for gay marriage.
Changing definitions based on loosely guided socital influences can be a very slippery road.

Those who try to connect gay marriage to blacks and the priesthood is in my mind absurd: the Lord blesses whom he chooses to bless in His time and in His way, it is not a sin to be born of certain parents. (BTW the Lord didn't give most of the isrealite men the Priesthood in Moses's time - its up to Him who, when, and how).

And lastly, the Lord always makes requests to us to which we disagree. Who wants to turn the other cheek when we are abused, who wants to forgive someone who has abused us or used us? Yet these are His commandments....
No it is not a commandment to support prop 8, i know, but neither was it a commandment from Elijah for the King to wash himself in the river Jordan 7 times. Joseph persisted in letting Martin take the transcript of the plates against the previous suggestions not to (look how that ended up). And since the law does regulate moral decisions, the church requested the help of its members to support a law reguardless of their views against it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top