Posted on 10/08/2014 2:26:02 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says its doctrine on marriage will remain unchanged despite Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized gay marriage in five states, including Utah, and opened the door for legalization in six more. “As far as the civil law is concerned, the courts have spoken,” the church said in a statement reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision.
“Church leaders will continue to encourage our people to be persons of good will toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation.”
In September, the Mormon church was among five religious organizations that filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the country’s high court to hear Utah’s appeal on gay marriage. The church was also a major player in supporting Proposition 8 in California in 2008 -- an amendment to the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Members of the church donated millions to support the amendment and made up 80 percent to 90 percent of volunteers who canvassed election precincts handing out pamphlets.
Now, the Mormon church has decided to let the legal battle go. Still, LDS emphasized the fact that the civil law will have “no effect on the doctrinal position or practices” of the church....
(Excerpt) Read more at ibtimes.com ...
Well said!
That may be tough to enforce. Back in the day when we were married, you had to pay the state a fee in the form of a marriage license. They took your money; they recognized the marriage.
The polygamists enjoy being married however many times without a license. They largely don’t care about what is going on.
Like I said, the big issue that makes a difference in Mormon marriages compared to a photographer, or a baker, or a B&B owner is the fact that they don’t offer their marriages to the general public, but since I am not one, well, you could ask one to get the finer details. You have to as far as I know, be Mormon to be married in their temples. If anything, if someone has some kind of moral conscience nowadays, then my best recommendation is to do something exclusively for those of a religion or denomination that caters to your own morals.
Well, I am not Mormon, so correct me if I am wrong. However, your bishops could stop offering civil marriages, or simply offer marriages to members only, and make that written policy. That would change a lot. The most immediate concern is whether or not you offer whatever service to the general public, or to “marriages” in general. Making the right steps is key to pushing it away, for at least some time. Generally though, it is key to note that we’re all going to be dealt similar blows, so let’s not be paranoid about who is on which side, let’s stick to the facts.
I think the post meant the state punishing them for not accepting ‘gay marriage’ by stopping the ability of priests and clergy to act as civil agents of the state in the case of marriages. Something that they probably never should have been doing in the first place, in order to illustrate the difference that what the state and Church means by marriage haven’t been the same thing for centuries.
Freegards
Not at all. If sex is irrelevant to civil marriage, then what is the relevance of number?
The LDS has set great store by the opinion of the State when it has suited its purposes. Witness the speed with which the eternal, unchanging doctrine of polygamy was discarded when the Supreme Court upheld its prohibition and a similar prohibition in the state constitution was made a requirement for Utah's admission as a state.
Witness again the haste with which blacks were admitted to its priesthood in the face of legal pressure, and the Book of Mormon expunged of references to a "white and delightsome people."
If surrendering to the homosexual lobby offers an opportunity to protect its assets and bring back polygamy, why wouldn't the LDS take it?
Not at all. If sex is irrelevant to civil marriage, then what is the relevance of number?
It is a dangerous path when clergy are licensed by the state to perform what are religious ceremonies. The state's involvement should end with the purchase of a marriage license-- they have their fee and the information they need to register the marriage at that point. They can collect another fee if the couple wishes to rescind or cancel the license at some limited window (say, 90 days) in the future.
From post 12:
“...will be to pull the license to marry people from any person or organization who refuses to perform gay marriages.”
It’s about the clergy member having their ability to act as an agent of the state to civilly marry someone being stopped as a punishment because they won’t perform ‘gay marriage.’
“You have it backwards. Marriages were the domain of the church before the state got involved because the issuance of licenses were a revenue stream for them.”
I’m not sure how I have it wrong, because I agree with that. I’m not sure how much revenue is made from the actual license, I think it’s more of a culture control thing for the state. Thus civil divorce and remarriage, then very easy civil divorce and remarriage and now ‘gay marriage.’
FReegards
My bad. Sounds like we agree. Yes, if there is one thing the nanny state loves more than a revenue stream, it is cultural control.
Mormon don’t believe the Old Testament...its part of the Christian Bible which they reject as wrong..
plus polygamy is in the Old Testament but not because God said it was OK..
There is no case of polygamy in the Bible that was sanctioned by God...
along with polygamy, rape and murder and theft is in the OT, but they are not right just because they are in there...
In Exodus Chapter 20 God tells us not to do any of those sins...”You SHALL NOT...”
I hope everyone is able to see what the judiciary is up too.
For many people the first amendment only means anything if it involves their own rights but to hell with any one else.
I believe our founding fathers were just interested in the plain bold facts of what our bible says.
Leviticus 20
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The bible says no such thing about polygamy but many preachers do not preach the word of God, what they do is put a scripture here and there together and try to make it say what they like.
And that is most likely the reason for the first amendment.
If the homosexuals can convince people that polygamy is in the same category as homosexuality ( and it looks like they are doing it ) they will have a hey day.
I would just ask people to read their Bible and quit believing the lies of the homosexual agenda.
Polygamy is impractical to a lot of people, the mainstream Mormon church included, for a number of reasons. Once the wives figure out how to divorce you easily, you can have a whole bunch of divorces and tons of your assets taken by the court very quickly; gotta thank no-fault divorce for being a deterrent to polygamy. Then there’s the jealousy aspect, which happens even in polyamory, where people get unhappy because someone in the relationship becomes the obvious favorite one of them all. Plus there’s the cultural aspect that the Mormons have become spread out all over the place, after ending polygamy. By essentially ending polygamy, they opened up their own pandora’s box. Plus, if they did try to go to the compounds and incest way of living, the ever-increasingly powerful Mormon women would be lost, and they would self-destruct. They’re pretty much trapped. As for SSM, well the pressure is going to be on pretty much everyone for that one, each denomination which goes to SSM means more people ganging up on the rest of us.
Exactly, I wonder how many people actually bother reading things for themselves, but then again, probably not that many.
the Mormon church quit practicing polygamy to get in step with the state
_______________________________________
but they didn’t...
in 1890 the Mormons just lied to the US government so they would not have their lands and goods confiscated ...well and also to join the US as a state..
the property was more important though...plus keeping out of jail foe “unlawful co-habitation” where many had gone..
meanwhile they thumbed their noses at the US government and continued to practice polygamy, the “president” and “prophet” of the Mormons the guy who made the proclamation got “married” again soon after 1890 to yet another young female or 2 as did his underlings and the following president/prophets until the last polygamist leader died in 1945..
Inded after Utah became a state they elected themselves a congressman knowing full well that he was a polygamist with about 3 wives..
about 1896 they sent him to Washington with their blessing still attached to his many “wives”...
the outraged Christians around the country sent petitions to Washington demanding that the polygamist no be seated..
the SEVEN MILLION signatures got the Mormon polygamist banned fr4om congress and the people in Utah had to beat the bushes for a “worthy” and “temple” Mormon man who had only ever had one wife to send in the stead of the polygamist.. try that impossibility in the 1890s in Utah...
well meanwhile back in Utah the polygamist Mormons kept right on committing wholesale adultery until after 1900 there was a 2nd so called “proclamation” denouncing polygamy LOL
and then later there was a 3rd..
and all the time the Mormons never changed their Mormon religious literature to reflect the ban on adultery..
to this day their religious canons still let them be polygamists..
and they still are..the fLDS still have the same religion as the offshoot in SLC..
they all worship Joseph Smith as a god and prophet, they still have the same books, they still have the same beliefs..
and there are still many polygamists in Utah...who go to the Mormon temples
LOL
Well, clergy can do things without the approval or license of the state. I would recommend this one if someone has a concern of being intertangled with the affairs of the state, and the morality of the state.
http://hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm
A good web site about the problem of churches taking state licenses for marriage.
but they didn’t...
the outraged Christians around the country sent petitions to Washington demanding that the polygamist no be seated..
finally you said something that is correct..
the religion of the Mormons made them do it..
polygamy is necessary in their beliefs for them to become gods and have their own planet..
They regard the one man one woman Christians as “apostates”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.