The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs the Westboro Baptist Church

[Katzpur]

Yet your conscience should not be able to drown out any U.S. citizen's right to vote.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The leaders of the Church, as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, should do all in their power to teach His way, even if it's in the voting booth.

When the Church leadership actively campaigns to prevent marriages of non-LDS couples from taking place, I think it goes beyond "teaching His way."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a proposition appears on a ballot any U.S. citizen has the right to vote on it according to their own conscience.

Anyone can get a proposition qualified for the ballot if the initiative gets the required number of signatures.

Are you arguing that no religious person(s) should be able to use the same system of government as everyone else?

I'm saying that religious people ought to vote in a way that's compassionate and not hypocritical. I'm also saying that you ought not to expect that people will give you and your interests any more regard than you give to others, so if you choose to deny rights to others, you do so at your own risk.

For instance, why should someone support tax breaks for religions (like yours) and for donations by religious people (like you) to their churches? I can think of two potential justifications:

- a general notion of separation, where the government and your religion don't interfere with each other.
- popular opinion of your church as a net good for society.

If you're going to impose your beliefs about marriage through the law that applies to everyone, then you take away that first justification. If you do it in a way that people see negatively - and outside your circle, people do see same-sex marriage bans negatively - then you take away the second justification.

Remember what you said: anyone can get a proposition qualified for the ballot if the initiative gets the required number of signatures. Ultimately, your legal rights are contingent on the good graces of every other member of the voting public, and your actions shape the opinion that informs how they vote.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet your conscience should not be able to drown out any U.S. citizen's right to vote.

In my experience, the excuse "...but it's legal!" is the last resort of someone who has no other justification for their position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When the Church leadership actively campaigns to prevent marriages of non-LDS couples from taking place, I think it goes beyond "teaching His way."

Apparently, @Prestor John thinks that Jesus prefers same-sex relationships to be extra-marital.

 

[Prestor John]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The issue was on a ballot. We are free to vote our conscience.

When the Church leadership actively campaigns to prevent marriages of non-LDS couples from taking place, I think it goes beyond "teaching His way."

I disagree.

The leaders of the Church are more than just responsible for the Church, but the world.

Just as a bishop may be called upon to serve his community, members and nonmembers alike.

If they did not do all within their power to prevent evil then they could be held responsible for it.

It is similar to what Jacob said,

"Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God." (Jacob 2:2)

The record does not specify that Jacob was calling only members of the Church to repentance, but the "people of Nephi". That is everyone.

 

[Prestor John]

I'm saying that religious people ought to vote in a way that's compassionate and not hypocritical.

That is completely subjective.

I would consider my doing all that I can within the law to prevent other's from committing grievous sins very compassionate.

I'm also saying that you ought not to expect that people will give you and your interests any more regard than you give to others, so if you choose to deny rights to others, you do so at your own risk.

It was not considered a "right" until the California Supreme Court made their decision.

The people have every right to contest decisions made by the Courts.

No one was denying anyone the right to be together or to enjoy all the legal benefits of being a couple, but marriage was defined as only between a man and a woman.

It's like claiming that a credit union is a bank. Yes, they are similar, but they are not the same thing.

For instance, why should someone support tax breaks for religions (like yours) and for donations by religious people (like you) to their churches? I can think of two potential justifications:

- a general notion of separation, where the government and your religion don't interfere with each other.
- popular opinion of your church as a net good for society.

No one needs to support these tax breaks. You don't even need any justification for not supporting them, because we are free.

If you don't like them and want them change, by all means, do whatever you got to do to legally to make it happen.

If you're going to impose your beliefs about marriage through the law that applies to everyone, then you take away that first justification.

How was anything imposed?

Were people forced to sign the petitions?

Were people forced to vote for it?

Did the LDS Church force the California Supreme Court to uphold it against petition after petition?

Nothing was imposed by the LDS Church. The people voted for it and the Court upheld it.

If you do it in a way that people see negatively - and outside your circle, people do see same-sex marriage bans negatively - then you take away the second justification.

Completely subjective.

I guess you'd have to weigh it against all the fighting the LDS Church has done on behalf of the LGBT community in regards to discrimination.

Remember what you said: anyone can get a proposition qualified for the ballot if the initiative gets the required number of signatures. Ultimately, your legal rights are contingent on the good graces of every other member of the voting public, and your actions shape the opinion that informs how they vote.

Not exactly, considering that the Federal Courts ruled against the will of the people.

This idea that the LDS Church, which we believe is the true Church of God, would agree with the rest of the world and act like everyone else is so silly.

We are going to think differently. We are going to disagree with the way the world is. We are going to campaign and vote according to our conscience.

 

[Prestor John]

In my experience, the excuse "...but it's legal!" is the last resort of someone who has no other justification for their position.

Who said anything about that being my"last" anything?

Why can't I open with it?

 

[Prestor John]

Apparently, @Prestor John thinks that Jesus prefers same-sex relationships to be extra-marital.

No, He condemns them both.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, He condemns them both.

"Neither" is not one of the available options in the same-sex marriage debate. Same-sex relationships existing is common to both choices. The only options are:

- same-sex couples who want to marry should be able to marry, or
- same-sex couples who want to marry should live together unmarried.

LGBTQ couples existing and (for many of them) having same-sex relationships is common to both options.

There is more misery for LGBTQ people in the second option; is that what your version of Christ prefers about it? If not, what?

But here are the things that can't be a rational justification for choosing one option over the other, since they deal with things that are common to both options:

- opposition to homosexuality in general
- opposition to same-sex couples in general
- opposition to same-sex couples living together
- opposition to same-sex sexual activity
- opposition to same-sex couples raising families

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who said anything about that being my"last" anything?

Why can't I open with it?

Since the point of my post was lost on you the first time, I'll rephrase:

Using that tactic at all suggests that you have no other justification for your position.

 

[Katzpur]

The issue was on a ballot. We are free to vote our conscience.

I disagree.

The leaders of the Church are more than just responsible for the Church, but the world.

Just as a bishop may be called upon to serve his community, members and nonmembers alike.

If they did not do all within their power to prevent evil then they could be held responsible for it.

It is similar to what Jacob said,

"Now, my beloved brethren, I, Jacob, according to the responsibility which I am under to God, to magnify mine office with soberness, and that I might rid my garments of your sins, I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God." (Jacob 2:2)

The record does not specify that Jacob was calling only members of the Church to repentance, but the "people of Nephi". That is everyone.

To each his own. I don't see it that way. If you really, really want to get into this with me -- I know you've tried to on multiple occasions -- then start a one-on-one debate where only you and I can participate. I will join you, perhaps not eagerly, because I save some very strong feelings on the subject and have no desire to offend you, but as a means of laying the issue to rest between the two of us. But please, don't continue to contribute to the hijacking of this thread. There is nothing that has been said in the last 150 posts that has anything to do with the OP (which, by the way, was not even specifically related to homosexuality).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not exactly, considering that the Federal Courts ruled against the will of the people.

No; they ruled in accordance with the Constitution, which is also an expression of the will of the people.

... but given enough will, even the Constitution can be changed.

This idea that the LDS Church, which we believe is the true Church of God, would agree with the rest of the world and act like everyone else is so silly.

We are going to think differently. We are going to disagree with the way the world is. We are going to campaign and vote according to our conscience.

But it seems to me that your position on this issue is all about bringing the LDS Church and the rest of the world closer to agreement: you're trying to get the law to agree with LDS doctrine (or rather, with your take on it - does it even say that it should apply to non-members?). If you've made up your mind that you'll disagree with the world, then why don't you go ahead and - you know - disagree with the world instead of trying to make people follow a half-assed version of your religion?

BTW: as a coffee drinker, I wonder: are you looking to impose LDS rules on everyone across the board?

 

[Jane.Doe]

BTW: as a coffee drinker, I wonder: are you looking to impose LDS rules on everyone across the board?

Everyone has things that they consider to be moral issues, and do try to uphold these moral levels in society. Everyone includes yourself, obviously. Yes there's differences in what the issues/stances are for people, but everyone does this same behavior.

 

[Prestor John]

To each his own. I don't see it that way. If you really, really want to get into this with me -- I know you've tried to on multiple occasions -- then start a one-on-one debate where only you and I can participate. I will join you, perhaps not eagerly, because I save some very strong feelings on the subject and have no desire to offend you, but as a means of laying the issue to rest between the two of us. But please, don't continue to contribute to the hijacking of this thread. There is nothing that has been said in the last 150 posts that has anything to do with the OP (which, by the way, was not even specifically related to homosexuality).

As long as we understand each other's arguments I don't feel the need to get into it further.

I mean, it didn't go over so well last time, so why repeat the painful and futile process?

Needless to say, though, comparing the LDS Church to the WBP is ridiculous.

 

[Prestor John]

"Neither" is not one of the available options in the same-sex marriage debate. Same-sex relationships existing is common to both choices. The only options are:

- same-sex couples who want to marry should be able to marry, or
- same-sex couples who want to marry should live together unmarried.

LGBTQ couples existing and (for many of them) having same-sex relationships is common to both options.

There is more misery for LGBTQ people in the second option; is that what your version of Christ prefers about it? If not, what?

But here are the things that can't be a rational justification for choosing one option over the other, since they deal with things that are common to both options:

- opposition to homosexuality in general
- opposition to same-sex couples in general
- opposition to same-sex couples living together
- opposition to same-sex sexual activity
- opposition to same-sex couples raising families

I see I made an error.

I erroneously thought your comment about me had been that I believe that Christ "prefers same-sex relationships over extra-marital relationships."

So, that Christ prefers homosexual relationships over adulterous ones.

That was really confusing to me so I claimed that Christ condemned both of those relationships.

Either way, the Lord Jesus Christ abhors sin and engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful.

 

[Prestor John]

No; they ruled in accordance with the Constitution, which is also an expression of the will of the people.

... but given enough will, even the Constitution can be changed.

What part of the Constitution defined what a marriage was?

But it seems to me that your position on this issue is all about bringing the LDS Church and the rest of the world closer to agreement: you're trying to get the law to agree with LDS doctrine (or rather, with your take on it - does it even say that it should apply to non-members?).

No, I just don't want people redefining marriage.

You can't claim that a man selling cookies door-to-door in a skirt is a Girl Scout.

Ut doesn't matter how much he may want to be a Girl Scout. He can't be one.

He should sell cookies door-to-door as a man.

He gets to do the same work. Reap the same benefits. But he isn't a Girl Scout.

If you've made up your mind that you'll disagree with the world, then why don't you go ahead and - you know - disagree with the world instead of trying to make people follow a half-assed version of your religion?

What do you mean by "make"?

Are you picturing me holding a gun to everyone's head?

No one was forced to vote for the proposition.

BTW: as a coffee drinker, I wonder: are you looking to impose LDS rules on everyone across the board?

If I felt that I would have any success I would pass around a petition to ban coffee, tea, soda, alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs.

I'd do what I could to get the signatures and to then get it on a ballot.

Then the people would get to decide.

This whole freedom and democracy thing is a two-way street that we all get to use, not just those who agree with you.

 

[Prestor John]

Since the point of my post was lost on you the first time, I'll rephrase:

Using that tactic at all suggests that you have no other justification for your position.

Agree to disagree?

Besides, I didn't make that tactic, so why bring it up?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agree to disagree?

What?

As someone who values freedom and democracy, I demand a say in the government that I'm subjected to.

I'd much rather have church-state separation, but if you - or others like you - are going to insist thst the government I'm subjected to should be run according to the teachings of your religion, then I'm going to demand a say in your religion.

Is this really what you want?

Besides, I didn't make that tactic, so why bring it up?

Except you did:

Yet your conscience should not be able to drown out any U.S. citizen's right to vote.

 

[Prestor John]

What?

As someone who values freedom and democracy, I demand a say in the government that I'm subjected to.

I'd much rather have church-state separation, but if you - or others like you - are going to insist thst the government I'm subjected to should be run according to the teachings of your religion, then I'm going to demand a say in your religion.

Is this really what you want?

Are you making the claim that only members of the LDS Church voted for the proposition?

Even if the LDS Church had not supported the proposition, I would have voted for it.

You believe that any political action taken concerning a moral issue is a theocracy?

Except you did:

No. I never mentioned anything being "legal". I talked about someone's right to vote.

Someone having the right to do something is all the justification they need.

 

[Prestor John]

To each his own. I don't see it that way. If you really, really want to get into this with me -- I know you've tried to on multiple occasions -- then start a one-on-one debate where only you and I can participate. I will join you, perhaps not eagerly, because I save some very strong feelings on the subject and have no desire to offend you, but as a means of laying the issue to rest between the two of us. But please, don't continue to contribute to the hijacking of this thread. There is nothing that has been said in the last 150 posts that has anything to do with the OP (which, by the way, was not even specifically related to homosexuality).

There is one thing that I would want to make clear before I let the matter rest.

I am not claiming that God commanded the leaders of the Church to become involved with Proposition 8. I cannot make that claim.

I do believe they are prophets, but I also believe that it is not necessary for God to command them in all things.

He allows them freedom to do what they believe to be best as long as their actions does not lead the Church astray. He will remove them if they do that.

As long as they are motivated by love for Him and their fellow man, relying upon the inspiration of the Spirit, He honors the decisions they make.