Posted on 05/27/2006 8:00:47 AM PDT by Utah Girl
Voice your support for a federal marriage amendment, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urges in a letter to be read in LDS sacrament meetings Sunday.
The letter, sent to priesthood leaders in the United States, calls on Latter-day Saints to contact their senators to support a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would limit lawful marriages to those between a man and a woman.
To further spell out its opposition to same-sex marriages, the amendment states that: "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
A Senate vote on the resolution is expected the week of June 5. A previous vote failed in the Senate but passed the House. Any future amendment would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.
The LDS Church posted its letter to priesthood leaders on its Web site, but its communications office declined to comment further.
"We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship," the letter reads.
"Disappointing," says openly gay state Sen. Scott McCoy about the letter. "It's no surprise as to what the church's position is on same-sex marriage and the amendment," says McCoy, D-Salt Lake. "But I find it disappointing that the church is being drawn into what is nothing more than election year grandstanding on the part of the Republican Party. It's an attempt to distract voters from the total mismanagement of the country they've been responsible for in the past two years."
News of the letter was received with a "Great!" at the conservative, Colorado-based Focus on the Family. "The timing is wonderful," says Peter Brandt, senior director of public policy. Focus on the Family has sent out its own letter to 135,000 U.S. pastors, offering them pre-printed postcards in support of the amendment. "We've distributed a million or so postcards," Brandt says. The group has also launched phone campaigns in 14 states where Senate members voted against the amendment the last time. Utah is not on the list.
Religious groups are also lining up for and against the proposed amendment.
A coalition calling itself Clergy for Fairness is campaigning against it. Among its members are leaders of Reform Judaism, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ.
Last month the LDS Church officially signed on to another letter, written on behalf of the Religious Coalition for Marriage, that called for a national marriage amendment. Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve, signed the letter along with 49 other religious leaders from around the country.
In 2004, two-thirds of Utah voters passed a state version of the marriage amendment, which changed the Utah Constitution to specifically ban gay marriages. Four months earlier, the First Presidency of the LDS Church issued a brief statement saying that the church "favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
I am not a Morman, nor will I ever be one, but I applaud your Church for their stand on these issues, and I can assure you, most of us welcome your help! Great post btw!!!
Are you saying that man will someday be a god?
God says "I am the Lord and there is no other; besides me there is no God" Isahiah 45:5 "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." Isahiah 43:10 (see also Isa 44:6 and 45:21)
Here we go again Heavenly Father God will always be God, and Jesus Christ will always be Jesus Christ.
We are children of God, eternal spirits some days resurrected immortal beings, never to suffer death!
What are you going to do with with your talent in these immortal bodies, seat around for all eternity playing the harp on clould nine?
The journey has just begun!
Brilliant. I wish I had said that! You are so right.
If you do have to refer to the Mormon idea that men and women are "gods in embryo" or will one day be like God, then you can just explain it in those terms.
Imagine if somebody referred to Catholics as "body munchin' cannibals" because they believe the Eucarist is the actual body and blood of Christ? I just think one should tread lightly when describing the beliefs of others, especially when there is no purpose or intent to insult.
Your quotes are not scripture my friend. The Bible, and Book of Mormon both say there is one God, and the ten commandments give appropriate direction about His worship as does Jesus in the New Testament.
Pleading the case for political relevance in regard to the Libertarian party is tantamount to pleading the same for the Whigs.
Principles fostered or discarded form the consensual nexus of any political party and in this regard it is self-evident that the Libertarian party severely lacks consensus on MANY moral principles the majority hold dear such that some even term the Libertarian party to be morally devoid...
The Libertarian party house is on fire -the action of most effective import would be to put out the fire rather than assign blame and chase the supposed arsonist(s) while the house burns down to the ground...
The Libertarian party is impotent -as such, the principles fostered or discarded are in question -not the questioners...
The difference is figurative v literal.
Obviously, they are not scripture. These are the words of Joseph Smith and Mc Conkie.
Not to a Catholic--and I'm talking about a REAL Catholic, not a "Kennedy" Catholic. The belief is that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ.
See:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
It explains the argument between the literal and figurative view of Christ being in the Eucharist, and rightly identifies it as a point of attack by what they are calling "fundamentalists".
I'm not very familiar with the Catholic church. Your saying that true Catholics believe Jesus sliced pieces of his own body to feed to people? Eating the flesh of another is cannibalism.
Correct. It was snotty, rude, and a cheap shot. It seems like any time a thread shows up that mentions the LDS church, regardless of the actual content of the subject, people like that invariably show up to try to hijack the thread.
This thread started out as a discussion of the Mormons' support for the DOMA, remember?
I have already apologized for hijacking the thread, that was not my intention. Time to move forward -
No problem.
You've found the crux of the "cheap shot" that is often taken against the Catholic church. It is known as the doctrine of transubstantiantion. The belief is that the bread and wine becomes the literal body and blood of Christ in a mystical miracle. When I was in boarding school at a Catholic monastery I recall hearing that some naysayers were even pushing to have doctors come in and examine the host (as the Eucharistic wafer is called) after the point in the mass where the priest declares it the body and blood of Christ.
Going back to the point of the thread, I do think it is important and productive for people of faith (almost a minority now) join together and work on common interests instead of infigthing. Does anyone remember the integral part that the LDS Church played in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment a few decades ago?
I remember, vaguely, I was a kid then. The church viewed it as a moral issue rather than a political one.
The church (or many individual members) were instrumental in passing Prop 22 in California a few years back.
The Church vary rarely involves itself in politics, but when we do it's always in a moral issue. Many LDS (myself included) view the attack on the family as one of the most important issues of the times. We will work with anyone who believes in the sanctity of the family.
The Libertarian Party does not speak for US libertarians, on that we can agree.
76 posted on 05/27/2006 8:08:58 AM PDT by tpaine
As you can see, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party.
Find someone else to lecture.
Who you gonna let decide in your state? The people? Your legislature? A one-vote majority of your Supreme Court? Or a single federal judge, like the one who overturned Nebraska's state marriage amendment after it was approved by 70 percent of state voters. Point is, without a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states will not remain free to decide for themselves. The people will decide, then the federal judges will veto their decision. Wake up.
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.