Supreme Court Decision Will Not Alter Doctrine on Marriage[LDS - Mormon]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/supreme-court-decision-will-not-alter-doctrine-on-marriage ^ | 26 JUNE 2015 | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[StormPrepper]

SALT LAKE CITY —

The Church issued the following statement Friday:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

[StormPrepper]

Just to let everyone know that there are many people out there that won’t change their beliefs on marriage no matter what the world does, how they mock, or threaten.

[ChocChipCookie]

I think the leftists have underestimated just how much backlash there is going to be. The number of pastors who will willingly turn and begin “marrying” homosexual couples will be very small — even at the point of threat of persecution.

[Vigilanteman]

Yep. I'm almost looking at this as a blessing in disguise. The court could have waited for popular culture to impose soddomite marriage via the ballot box instead of by judicial fiat. But they couldn't wait, so the next step of the soddomites will be to crack down on all their opposition so that none of us are dismissing their iron fist as just an isolated case in Oregon or New Mexico.

It is time to push back against the tyranny which will quickly move from soft to hard.

[manc]

I will never change my view on what marriage is regardless of 5 black robed tyrants.
If someone tells me they are married they will be told that they are not in my view.

[light-bulb]

The churches, and really all churches that believe in the sacred and special bond of marriage must unite together and fight. It’s either stand together, and work together, or Stand apart and be defeated.

They can’t imprison everyone.

You are so right on the aspect of tyranny. The switch has been flipped. Doesn’t take a genius to see the news highlights and see that the slope has just been adjusted. From ‘minor orientation’ to exempt status for charities. We live interesting times indeed.

[StormPrepper]

I think the leftists have underestimated just how much backlash there is going to be. The number of pastors who will willingly turn and begin “marrying” homosexual couples will be very small — even at the point of threat of persecution.

I certainly hope you're right.

[alloysteel]

Anybody can get married outside the blessings of any religious institution, and that marriage is as valid in the eyes of the law as any ceremony performed in or under the auspices of a religious entity. Civil marriages may be performed at the courthouse, by the Clerk of Court, most generally by any of the judicial members, the Mayor in most cities, the Justice of the Peace in distant localities, and even by the Governor of the State of New York. Or perhaps the ship’s captain if at sea.

In fact, it may be beneficial to separate the concept of a church setting, or similarly, a chapel setting, from the civil procedure, designating the setting in the religious institution or under religious auspices as a “wedding”, and the civil ceremony as a “marriage”. In fact, any “wedding” should not be performed as a designated “marriage”, but that there should be two different rituals, the religious and separately, the civil ceremony. The civil ceremony is designated the legally binding one, and the only one that would be accepted for government purposes. The religious ceremony would have no standing in law, if the civil commitment is not validated.

I know, it is playing games with words, but this is what happens when you start inserting civil law into religious practices. Separation of church and state, remember?

[teppe]

As an LDS member, and a Christian, I hope that we as a country follow Rand Paul’s (?) recent throughts that the Government gets out of the marriage regulation business altogether.

If Marriage has been dumbed down to mean anything, than the only meaningful marriage is a religious marriage pledge before God anyway!

[Yosemitest]

"If someone tells me they are married,
they will be told that they are not in my view."

They are not married IN GOD'S VIEW !



TO TOLERATE HOMOSEXUALS IS EVIL.
This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
For it is written:

“ For whosoever shall commit ANY of these abominations,
even the SOULS that commit them
SHALL BE CUT OFF from among their people. ”

Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.

Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \ˈre-prə-ˌbāt\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.


Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.




2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.

They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."

[StormPrepper]

If Marriage has been dumbed down to mean anything, than the only meaningful marriage is a religious marriage pledge before God anyway!

I think what could happen is that marriages for time only in other Churches could drop off significantly. If marriage in a church is not legally binding, most people will say, "why bother?"

[laotzu]

As an LDS member, and a Christian..

As a Baptist, and fellow Christian, I salute the LDS for taking an outspoken lead on this.

[CommerceComet]

Just to let everyone know that there are many people out there that won’t change their beliefs on marriage no matter what the world does, how they mock, or threaten.

Really? The LDS Church certainly blinked on September 24, 1890 when it issued the Mormon Manifesto ending its recognition of polygamous marriages and its showdown with the federal government. By all appearances, it backed down to the threats of the federal government in that case.

[ansel12]

Not yet, but part of the Mormon move over to supporting the homosexual agenda, is about them getting back to being able to openly have polygamy again, rather than keeping it in the shadows and the Temples.

[ansel12]

Mormonism is not Christian, and your Baptist denomination, the Catholics, the Methodists and the Orthodox and all Christian denominations, agree that it is a different religion, not Christian.

[ansel12]

**”As an LDS member, and a Christian, I hope that we as a country follow Rand Paul’s (?) recent throughts that the Government gets out of the marriage regulation business altogether.”**

Nonsense. That is a silly argument, and a call for polygamy.

Marriage licenses became mandatory in 1639, in Massachusetts.

From THE COLONIAL FAMILY IN AMERICA “While we think of the early New England settlers as very religious, they actually viewed marriage as a civil contract, not a religious contract. Consequently, marriage was a function of the magistrates more than the clergy.”

From LEGISLATIVE GUIDE TO MARRIAGE LAW Iowa.gov “They (Puritans founders of Massachusetts) believed that marriage was not a religious ceremony but a civil contract. They required that this covenant must be “agreed” or “executed” (not “performed” or “solemnized”) before a magistrate, and not a minister. They also insisted that if the terms of the marriage covenant were broken, then the union could be ended by divorce. These attitudes became the basis of regional marriage customs throughout New England.”

[laotzu]

Mormonism is not Christian

Fortunately, that is not for a pagan to decide.

[ansel12]

You think the Baptists are Pagans? Along with all the other Christian denominations, since they all agree that Mormonism is a different religion, a polytheistic religion, and is not part of Christianity?

[Loud Mime]

I do not claim to speak for God. Therefore neither of us is an authority on these matters, unless you are claiming to speak for God.

Are you asserting that claim?

Do not use the Lord’s name in vain/vanity.

[laotzu]

I see you as a pagan.