LDS to push marriage amendment

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.

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."

Anyone with the proper priesthood authority can perform plural marriage, correct?

No, a priesthood holder must be called and set apart by the church to perform such ceremonies. The ceremonies must be performed in a LDS temple. To even enter a LDS temple, a person must be judged worthy and in good standing with the church. The LDS church must also authorize plural unions, which it hasn't done since the late 1800s.

So, you are misplacing your concern. The sole question you should be asking yourself, if you believe in plural marriage, is whether the person performing it has the priesthood power to do it. If he does, he has it whether the state acknowledges the efficacy of the marriage or not.

I disagree. See my response above. Granted, LDS fundamentalists in offshoot sects, do tend to side with you on this one point. Maybe you are a fundamentalist Mormon? Fundamentalists know full well the states don't acknowledge more than one wife at a time. On the other hand, the main body of LDS (the SLC church), who are most certainly law abiding, will not solemnize plural unions among the living. The stated reason for not doing so was because it is against the law of the land. The church wants to make sure it stays that way.

The LDS Church maintains that no man has the present authority to perform plural marriage among the living. If they're right, they're right regardless of what the government says. If they're wrong, they're wrong regardless of what the government says.

I would love for you to provide a source for this claim. I doubt you can provide one from a non-fundamentalist source. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have all the keys and authority needed to call and set apart priesthood holders to perform plural marriage ceremonies. If not, the authority could be given through revelation. If G-d should decide that Celestial Plural Marriage should be practiced again in this country, it could be done. But NOT, if the modern church has its way with this marriage amendment.

The government in your argument is a classic red herring. You can argue it until you're blue in the face and it doesn't answer the question, certainly not the way you think it does.

It most certainly is not. Just why was the practice of plural marriage stopped by the church in the first place?

Who you gonna let decide in your state? The people? Your legislature? A one-vote majority of your Supreme Court?

In my state, as in all others, as long as we do not create a law that otherwise violates the BOR or the 14th Amendment, then we the people of the state are in full control. We will never approve of homosexual marriage in this state.

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.

The law that was turned down in Nebraska had nothing to do with marriage, as the judge stated. He said the state could define marriage. He struck down the law because the remainder of it had the effect of practically outlawing homosexuality and any unions of any type, which he stated clearly violated the First and Fourteenth amendments.

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.

Again, I have not seen a single federal court decision that threatens the traditional meaning of marriage. And if there were, I doubt it would survive the USSC with its current makeup. But in any case, no constitutional amendment will ever be approved that has the effect of overturning any of the rights currently enumerated within our Constitution. As I've stated before, their is an agenda at work that has nothing to do with shoring up DOMA.

He struck down the law because the remainder of it had the effect of practically outlawing homosexuality and any unions of any type, which he stated clearly violated the First and Fourteenth amendments.

I was not aware that homosexual sex or any unions of any type were Constitutionally guaranteed rights -Justice Scalia has and would disagree...

You are aware that judicial rulings are rightly termed "opinions" and as such are supported by arguments...

Your laundry list of factual recitations comprising the myriad of opinions and legal rulings in support of the homosexualization of society is noteworthy; however, there is much more legal precedence opposing such opinion...

Are there ANY opinions or ANY arguments YOU support and can espouse that do not support the homosexualization of society?

In other words, is your commentary comprised of factual recitations peppered with anecdote and personal opinion done to perhaps educate and or comment on the homosexual issue without agenda an effort that just so happens to 'accidentally" ignore the opposing opinion or is your effort simply agenda driven?

Not to belabor the point, but don't you find it at least a little strange, that today's church wants to carve into stone the laws of the land (that you say changed), that it was so vehemently against in the past?

Ummm... Since when has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints supported Homosexual Marriage?

You are implying, apparently, that the church is trying to sneakily outlaw polygamy to cover its own past mis-steps through this letter (which support the amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman). I think anyone with a fair mind about the matter will see it as the church trying to save the family from the pernicious evil of Homosexual Marriage. I suppose your conclusion that it will also outlaw polygamy could be construed from it. I think any one who reads the article realizes that times have changed. The homosexualization of America was not an issue a hundred years ago. It is an issue now. So the church is trying to fight it, as is any one with any sense.

As for your implication that the Church is trying to cover for it's past practice of polygamy in the 1800's I just don't buy

The Journal of Discourses is not Doctrine or accepted Canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A little history of the JD shows why. (simplified and summarized by me)

A member of the Church attended various meetings and conferences of the Church, in his own version of shorthand he copied down the sermons. Some of the talks he did not write at the time but up to a few weeks later as he best remembered them. He did this over a period of approximately 25 years. He decided that all this material should be published. So he did publish the material privately for which he recieved money (profits). To do so he had to reconstruct what he meant by his shorthand from the past 25 years. This man was not called by the church or held any position as recorder or historian. What he wrote is very valuable material for historians and people interested in the what early apostles and prophest "probably" said. It does provide a great window into some early sermons of early church leaders it is clearly not accepted as Canon of the Church.

I have personally had anti-Mormons tell me that I believe the "Adam-God Theory" and "Blood Atonement" by using quotes from the Journal of Discourses. They are both false principles. (Though I agree with the idea that a murderer's blood should be spilt. It just doesn't have any effect on his consequence in the afterlife.)

You are correct. My mistake. I've got a book of Mormon circa 1880's I need to find. So many changes as compared to the present one but, thats another thread.

Ah yes... drop another bomb and then say its better for another thread.

I have a copy (reprint) of the 1830 First edition of the BOM. (published by the RLDS church now known as the Community of Christ through Herald Heritage 1970). I also have collected various modern copies of the BOM.

Various Anti-Mormons have quoted me the fact that there have been 2000-3000 changes to the Book of Mormon (pick a number between there I have heard a few different ones. Anti-Mormons can't seem to agree what number to use). They include among those changes, the fact that in the 1920's the Chapter and verse numbers were added with headings. The original 1830 edition is in paragraph form. In other words adding a "1" to the first verse counts as 1 change. A little disingenuous I think.... There are a few leftover examples like the fact that King Mosiah was refered to as King Benjamin in the wrong section (King Benjamin lived a generation before). Interestingly this error was resolved when the RLDS church (Community of Christ) looked over the orinial handwritten manuscript by Joseph Smith (which they own part of). The original manuscript had the correct name. In other words it was a printer's error.

This same argument applied to the Bible would also be invalid. That the Bible Translators added verse numbers while copying the original manuscripts in no way changes the Bible as the Holy Word of God.

I am not saying Joseph Smith did not commit any typographical errors. One of the orinial authors of the BOM an early Prophet named Moroni wrote this interesting verse perhaps in anticipation of those who would try to discredit the book.

Mormon 8:17

17 And if there be faults• they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things;

If you honestly have read the Book of Mormon and disagree with it as per your faith or belief that is fine by me. But disingenuous insinuations about all the "changes" is just a form of slander.

On another note.... If you really do have an 1880 copy of the BOM I am sure there are many Mormon collectors who would be willing to help you out and buy your copy of the BOM. I alas am a poor college student and can't afford it. But 1880 copies of the BOM go for a pretty penny on EBAY.

//Vanity post//

Aren't they all vanity posts anyway? ;-)

I do remember this and it is very important to me personally. My mother was a bit of a Feminist, a Democrat and President of the League of Women Voters for her State. She was also Relief Society President of her Ward and had some conservative values. At that time was possible to have some conservative values in the Democrat Party though today it seems impossible.

She raised me to be a Democrat. Thankfully I converted first to Republicanism then to be a Constitutionalist.

She told the story about how she was supposed to talk at the State Convention in support of the ERA as the President of the League of Women Voters. The Church came out with a letter asking Women to speak in opposition. She had been asked to speak on both sides. She decided to stay home.

I am so glad I was raised with Conservative Values in the Mormon church. My Mom was a very Christlike person but unfortunately she was decieved about some issues. I think if she was around today it would be easier for her to see how wrong liberalism is.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can't take all the credit for defeating the ERA. It was righteous Christians of every faith. But hey a little credit where credit is due is nice.That the church took an offical stance affected her and her state (not Utah).

I heard this letter about the Marraige Amendment over the pulpit yesterday in my small branch out here in the mission field. I was glad to see someone had posted about it on FR. Sorry for the late posts. News travels slow in the boon docks. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints supports an issue it helps more than just Utah.

Fair enough. We will agree to disagree.

Mormon 8:17 17 And if there be faults• they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things;

Thats one heck of a way to CYA. It effectively kills any arguments by taking the blame off the author.

It has been years since I've read the BOM.

At any rate, Yes. The book I have is in pristine condition as well as other historical documents (some very interesting letters). I could never part with these things since they have been in my family for generations. Such as life.

>>Rendering unto Caesar is one thing, but actively working with Caesar in another matter. Wouldn't you say?

No, I would not “say”, this amendment is pro-family something the church has always been about. Outlawing deviancy and making sure “Heather has two mommies” is not a reality is a good thing. (the church gets involved in “Good Things”, always has.)

I do however find it interesting that those who present themselves as “Christians” (presumably Bible reading) have more of a problem with polygamy than homosexuality. Especially when Polygamy is accepted in the Bible, but homosexuality is condemned (Abraham, Jacob, Solomon…)

>>The Mormon church drew alot of heat because the children of Cain (Blacks) could not hold the priesthood.
>>Due to this heat, the prophet received a devine revelation saying it was ok for them to hold the priesthood.
>>Just another flip-flop.

I was there (a member), and I remember the revelation. There was no heat that I remember. It was quite a surprise, because there was no “build up” the prophet just said “It is time”.

Without the heat, well you stand exposed, in your logical argument.

>>As far as polygamy is concerned, are you familiar with the Journal of Discourses section 132?

Which volume? There are 26 and many have sections 132, many of the 132’s deal with polygamy (polygamy is discussed a lot in the JOD), can you be more specific? (links are nice, try this one http://journalofdiscourses.org/ Complete text at your disposal.)

>>Your tact leaves alot to be desired. If you plan on being a God one day, you need to work on that.

Tact: “Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.” ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tact )

I was not aware that Tact was one of gods attributes; he offends sinners all the time by commanding them to repent. (“A tactful God”, there’s a short story in there somewhere)

That said, I am sorry if my posts offend you, I am merely having fun with words, I assure you I am very likable in person, everybody says so, right after I pay them.

>>So you are doing everything you can to make sure that legal abortion remains the law of the land, correct?

Does abortion strengthen the family? If murder were temporarily legal would you support it, or work against it? Polygamy is not Abortion. Not being able to marry more than one wife may be an inconvenience to some, but abortion is the deprivation of Life. I believe life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned some where in our founding documents… http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm Polygamy is not mentioned, and therefore is, as far as this country is concerned, optional.

From your posts here you need to change your handle to “Rabble-Rouser” or maybe “Contrarian”. Do you have a point, or are you posting just to oppose others? If your “style” of street preaching is this fragmented, what do you preach when no one is around to oppose?

>>So, where does the Mormon Senators, Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch stand on this? Are they gonna support this amendment as all good Mormons should do?????

If they want to have a chance of getting re-elected they do. Some times it’s not what the church says, but the fact that a large number of your constituents agree with what it is saying that makes a legislator “go with the church on this one”.

Simply put too many Mormons, and non Mormons are pro family and it would be handing your opponent a very big stick to beat you with in the next election.

(Utah is considered a safe yes on this amendment).

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.