Hello, I am new to this site, but am glad I found an outlet to ask a serious question on my mind. I am a faithful mormon in a quandary right now. I wonder if I should support gay marriage.
According to the standard works, the only reason we stopped polygamy was becuase of the laws of the land. In other words, the morality of the majority silenced the minority. In fact, as a mormon, most of our early persecution resulted from the moral majority forcing it's will on us.
Altho I consider homosexuality a sin, if I join in stopping homosexual (or polygamous) marriage, am I not using the same social justification that was used against the early church? What happens when/if the majority looks at our Church as an abomination (we already see an attack on Christianity), then the same argument I used against homosexuality could be used against me. I think we (homosexual and religious groups) should support each other. But if I think that, then I am going against the counsel of the church.
True, I have never heard a prophet tell me how to vote, but I can't deny that church money is being used against the homosexual agenda.
***Thoughts? If you are Mormon, how will you vote on anti-homosexual marriage acts? And what will be your justification?...I am still on the fence and really perplexed. Thanks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is a great question. There are many, many threads on this subject on the site currently. I'm sure people will answer, but you could try a search.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Welcome to Hatrack! Have you been lurking? How did you find the site? Have you read any OSC?
I like the name.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Holy cr@p...this has got to be the most intense first post I've ever seen on this site.
Welcome...
I like you already.
I'm not sure "the homosexual agenda" is quite the phrase I'd choose if I were trying to be open-minded, but what the heck. It's still a great post.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I admit it. I'm a cynic. I'm not sure it's legit yet.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I thought one of your past prophets also denounced polygamy as a revelation from God.
I'm not Mormon, but I thought I remembered seeing that in past threads.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Alexa!
I am also a Mormon who is in a quandry about homosexual marriage. In my mind, I am torn between my religious beliefs (that those who I believe speak for God have said that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman) and my hesitancy to apply my personal (religiously-based) morality/beliefs to all of society - many of whom do not share my beliefs. I honestly don't know how I would vote, if I had to vote on such a thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Denounced? No Mormon bashing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK, IIRC, a few years ago there was some sort of refferendum concerning gay marriage that came up in California. Again, IIRC, the LDS Church leaders spoke openly in oposition to it.
Does anybody know the details to this?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Thank you for your reponses. I have read Enders Game and Bean. I think I also read a collection of Horror Stories by card..come to mention it, I can't remember the author. I have been reading here for a while and love this site. I chose the word "homosexual agenda" intentionally because that is a word I hear often enough in church an my mormon society.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Alexa, welcome!!
You describe beautifully just how I feel about this issue. I feel that being against gay marriage makes me as "bad" as those who caused my ancestors to suffer. I am just not sure it is right. Thanks for being so brave.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
[ March 09, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Welcome, Alexa. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I must have phrased that poorly. Did a prophet denounce polygamy saying that God had told him to so? It's really not intended to sound bad.
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
Kat, You really should throw that link in a URL block.
Alexa, Welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Polygamy is sometimes necessary, sometimes not in certain dispensations.
When it became unecessary, God revealed to the prophet at the time to cease polygamous marriage. Was it influenced by the law of the land? Yes, I think there was some influence. However, I think it would have been renounced within that same generation even if the law had not pressured the prophets into asking God. Its purpose had been fulfilled. There were no more women being widowed by mobs or war, and there was no need to increase the population rapidly. It was turning into an unrighteous tradition, with people seeking to have their young daughters married to the older 'patriarchs' and men having many wives, more wives than they were called to have, because of infatuation rather than a righteous desire to make sure every woman had a husband to take care of her. Had it continued, it would have plagued us not only from a persecution standpoint, but also as a threat to the sanctity of marriage.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Beautifully put, Amka.
Welcome, Alexa! I'm with Bob in liking you already. That first crucial post took some cajones, though we have kind of been over this before. I'm not LDS, btw (though that should be apparent to all non-newbies ).
Anne Kate has a unique perspective on this issue, if she could be persuaded to share it again?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Amka States:
Its purpose had been fulfilled. There were no more women being widowed by mobs or war, and there was no need to increase the population rapidly.
Is that truely why you think mormons delved into polygamy? To increase population and care for widows? There is a spiritual significance beyond that explanation, otherwise, men would still not be able to be sealed to multiple women in the temple whereas women can only be sealed to one man. I believe the D&C would also disagree with that post. However, I do agree it became more corrupt.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
This is true, Alexa.
But there are other laws that God has ceased requiring of us because we are too unrighteous, aren't there?
My point is that God had us practice this law as long as it was helpful and no longer.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
MY CONCLUSION
As I have been reading these replies, I realized I need to define marriage before I could answer my own question...So here goes.
Marriage has essentially three functions.
#1 A legal system of responsibilities and rights. Spouses get access to health care, you have a right to certain properties in a divorce..et cetera.
#2 A Sign and ceremony of Commitment.
#3 Social status granted by society to said ceremony and and union.
I was reading Beverly's new post on this topic and was intrigued. I am now on the conclusion that we SHOULD NOT deny access to all the lagalities of marriage, as that would be discrimination. We never have a say on committment, because frankly, you don't need a ceremony to be committed. Commitment is expressed in behavior of the individuals involved in a relationship.
That leaves social status. I am uncomfortable having the law dicate to me what is socially acceptable. I can make up my own mind. As a democray, I think we need to guarantee certain rights to all members of society.
I think that homosexual marriage is more about status then rights. Here is why. I think we should have "unionages" as a option to have the ceremony and legalities of marriage granted to homosexual unions. That will grant the same legat status as marriage but for those like me who see marriage as more sacred then that, the status of marriage is preserved.
If homosexual groups want the same status for "unionages" as marriages, then they can convince heterosexual couple to get "unionaged" instead of married, and if society ever places more value on that type of union, versus a strictly heterosexual union, well, that is societies will and no one has to have the status of their marriage feel under attack by the law.
This would never fly tho, because it is a matter of symantics, which will upset the pro family groups, and it still does not make homosxuality appear immediatly acceptable, which will upset many homosexual movements.
Any thoughts, besides my reliance on run on sentences?
What do you think?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
There's nothing we can do to stop gay people from doing what they do, and we probably can't prevent women from getting abortions, but we can sure as heck prevent the government from subsidizing things we don't believe in with our tax dollars.
We are using tax dollars to pay public servants to process every gay couple that goes in that courthouse.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
That is an intresting point Amka.
You are right, there are laws that God no longer requires us to follow because WE are too unrighteous. I can only think of two tho--The Law of Conscration and Polygamy. All other laws I can think of that we no longer practice were FULFILLED.
Can you think of other laws that we wern't ready for....oh, I can think of one other time. Moses and the original commandments. Not having more recinded commandments still makes me feel a little weird about polygamy and consecration.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Skillery
I like your response. I use that argument in favor of capital punishment. If someone killed my wife, it would bother me till my death that my tax dollars were feeding the murderer. Even if capital punishment is more expensive then serving life in jail, at least I know I am not financing someones life that took away (hypothetically) my loved ones life.
However, correct me if I am wrong, but I think it cost around $25 dollars when I got married. I am sure the employee made less then $25 an hour and it took only 15 minutes. I also don't see a major influx of public employees being needed to handle all the new potential marriages. At my local office, I was 1 of 2 people getting a marriage license--I just can't imagine a run to hire new eemployees.
Therefor, I am forced to conclude I would not be subsidizing gay marriage with my tax dollars--unless you take into consideration how a legal union would affect financial institutions like Social Security and insurance companies. But that brings us back to granting same legal privlages to all citizens.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Alexa very thoughtful thread. I like watching the way you think and reason things out.
(does that make me a scary stalker ) AJ
----
OSC-fan:
quote: We should just vote like any other citizen, otherwise I would dare everybody who is religious to speak of religion (and pray) in school, which I have never been afraid to do anyway but other people are.
How very interesting, now you appear to be in a public school that is high school or lower. You said you were an older middle aged woman.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and OSC-fans post is suddenly deleted, how mysterious!
I really need a vomiting smilely.
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: If someone killed my wife,
Alexa is a guy?
*shifts imagery in head*
FG
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Alexa:
The rate of divorce among those who have been sealed in the temple would suggest to me that as a people we aren't even keeping the commandments we have been given now. Luckily for me, enough people take it seriously so that this ordinance is not being removed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Welcome Alexa
I'd like to clarify two things on polygamy. It was not ended only because it was against the law. It was ended when the federal government was going to extinguish the church's existence if we didn't comply. I think there is a difference. That said, if it were to become legal, it would not automatically be a recommended lifestyle for LDS folks. After all, adultery is "legal".
I'm afraid I'm made suspicious of your intentions when you say that the system "became more corrupt." This is at variance with your initial post, of polygamy being a right that should have continued were it not for the law interfering.
The church donated to the cause of defining marriage as a man and a woman in California. Because if we allow our children to be taught something that brings them to sin, it's on our heads. For me it still comes back to the argument of whether or not Homoseuxality is inborn or learned. I think that there are some for whome it is more a psycho-cultural phenomenon that is learned.
Also, whether folks want to date their same sex is their business. But same sex marriage kind of implies that they are explicitly unattracted to the opposite sex. I don't think it is right to institutionalize prejudice in this way. This is my only post in this thread, so I'll add that of course I think divorce is a bigger ill than committed couples. But I think confused young people see both as potential solutions to their search for happiness. I don't think happiness comes from a legal institution.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've got a question, looking in from outside on the LDS doctrine.
Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" (in a Temple)as a second step (partially to accommodate non-LDS relatives in the prospective marriage.) He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
Is this really true? I mean once you are sealed your Heavenly status is determined. I'm assuming you can't get unsealed even if you do get divorced.
I also seem to remember that sealing can be done post-humously, as someone was joking with an element of truth about the number of women who have sealed themselves to Elvis.
So why do it all at the time the marriage is initiated? Why not implement say a 10 year waiting period so that people don't make rash choices about their Heavenly status.
Like I said I'm an outsider looking in so I apologize if this seems preposterous to practicing LDS.
AJ
[ March 09, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" as a second step. He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
Is this really true? I mean once you are sealed your Heavenly status is determined. I'm assuming you can't get unsealed even if you do get divorced.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "your Heavenly status is determined". Sealing is a bonding of a family (or the start of a family, as is the case when a couple is married/sealed in the temple) as an eternal unit - that family can remain a family regardless of death. Now, whether that family actually will be an "eternal family" depends entirely on the actions of the family members. The sealing is a covenant between spouses and God (they promise to do certain things - like be obedients to God's commandments - and God promises to do certain things - like have their family remain a family for eternity). Being sealed is a requirement for people to obtain the highest degree of "glory" (and live with God), but does not guarantee it, only your individual faithfulness can do that.
quote:I also seem to remember that sealing can be done post-humously, as someone was joking with an element of truth about the number of women who have sealed themselves to Elvis.
So why do it all at the time the marriage is initiated? Why not implement say a 10 year waiting period so that people don't make rash choices about their Heavenly status.
If a couple is married civilly, they must wait 1 year before being sealed in temple. I think there is a general assumption that if you are not married in the temple, it is because you are not currently living the way you should in order to do so. So, in a roundabout way, getting married in the temple, from the start, ensures that you are both following certain basic commandments, which is probably a better way to start off a marriage.
For me personally, I thought that it was important to start my marriage with the understanding that it was an eternal committment, not just something to "try out" first for a couple years before making that committment. This meant that slacker and I waited a few extra months to get married (since an adult must be a member of the church for at least a year before going to the temple, and he was a recent convert to the church), but I think it was worth doing. I have had friends that have not chosen to do so and I respect their decision.
[ March 09, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That helps clarify. So sealing is totally conditional on how faithful the parties are to the agreement.
So you can in effect unseal yourself from someone by your own behavior.
Can you then get your act back together and asked to be sealed to someone else?
Since it is a family unit are parents sealed to children as well?
AJ
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Welcome to Hatrack , Alexa ! I'm very sorry to do that, but I promised I would do it with the next person who would start a "gay wedding" thread. A WITCH ! A WITCH !
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:That helps clarify. So sealing is totally conditional on how faithful the parties are to the agreement.
So you can in effect unseal yourself from someone by your own behavior.
Exactly. Any type of covenant between God and man is conditional on our behavior. There is a scripture (D&C 130:20-21) that says: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any a blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated", meaning that certain blessings (including the blessings of being sealed as a family) are attached to obedience to certain commandments. If you are not keeping God's commandments (and being faithful to the promises you have made Him), you cannot receive the blessings God promises in return for keeping the commandments. Another scripture (D&C 82:10), one of my favorites, says: "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." So, when we do what we have been commanded to do, God will (and is required to) bless us, and, conversely, we can't expect blessings if we aren't doing what we should.
You can request an annullment of your temple sealing (which is sometimes done in case of divorce), but I've been told it is a difficult process and not something that is normally done.
quote:Can you then get your act back together and asked to be sealed to someone else?
Yes, you can have your previous sealing annulled and be sealed to someone else (but this is not the ideal thing to do - the hope is that we "get it right" the first time ).
quote:Since it is a family unit are parents sealed to children as well?
Yes. Children of couples who have already been sealed to each other are considered "born in the covenant", meaning that the children essentially born "sealed" to their parents (and vice versa). Couples who are sealed after having children (or adopt children) have their children sealed to them (and the children are sealed to their parents).
[ March 09, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:Can the children seal their divorced parents post mortem?
If the parents haven't got sealed to their new spouses?
I would think so, although if they had gotten divorced I don't know why their children would want to.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I'm pretty sure it can be done, if someone wants to do it. If it were my parents, I probably wouldn't (if they didn't like being married to each other while they were alive, why would they want to be married to each other for eternity?).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure what the 'rule' is on that OSC-fan.
Widespread divorce is a relatively new social phenomena-- we are only beginning to see the effects of it on society. I don't know that the LDS church has even considered your particular question yet.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" (in a Temple)as a second step (partially to accommodate non-LDS relatives in the prospective marriage.) He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
Let me elaborate some more on this. To someone who believes that marriage is supposed to be an eternal covenant between man, woman, and God, getting married civilly is certainly a lesser commitment. It means that either you don't belive that eternal marriage is all that important, or something else (like having non-member family members attend) is more important than following God's desires.
I am not saying this to be judgmental, but just to explain why it is felt that it is better to get married in the temple instead of getting married civilly and later being sealed.
Also, temple sealings can be "un-sealed" (I don't know what the real term is), but it *is* very difficult. My understanding is that permission has to come from the First Presidency of the church, and that it rarely does.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, you cannot seal people after death who were not married (at the time of death) in life. If they were divorced when they died, they cannot be sealed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
so the whole sealing to Elvis thing is the equivalent of an LDS urban legend?
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh good heavens, yeah.
I mean, maybe somewhere some temple workers got distracted and some went through (in which it needs to be sorted out), but yes, proxy sealings are only for those who were married in life.
[ March 09, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Polly (Member # 6044) on :
I sealed my divorced parents to each other after their death because that was the only way I could be sealed to them. I also sealed my divorced grandparents to each other, so I could seal my mother to them.
I had some misgivings about both of those proxy sealings, but trust that all will be sorted out eventually.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Clarification on my gender....
There is no clarification on my gender, as I hope to keep it ananymous. Farmgirl demonstrated wonderfully when *she* said, "Alexa is a guy? Shifts imagery in head."
One wonderful thing about forums is an ability to discuss without superficial impressions. It is no mistake that my name is Alexa or that I said my husband. My gender is one of three. If it is important to know, you can ask.
POOKA! I like your style. Did you get your name from BoF?
I think there is LITTLE difference if we stopped polygamy because it was illegal or if the government was going to confiscate church property. The point is: an external source of our religion dictated our behavior, and we coinsider that interference wrong.
I am glad someone caught "became more corrupt." You are right, I am suspicious of polygamy. But everyone has their issues or unique justification for their faith that make them sound ridiculous if they ever voice it. If you don't believe me, write down your justification for polygamy, dinasours, cave men, et cetera. Faith is primarily designed to shape character and find happiness, not explain life.
My issue results from not thinking polygamy satisfies my use for religion. I am glad it is gone. But back to my original post. If it is true, as is claimed, then the justification for the governement to force it's removal is wrong. In short, the government of the people should never impose it's collective morality on the citizenship. If so, the time may/will come when christianity looses the culture war and is deemed hateful and the "moral majority" would have precedent to discrimanate religious practices.
As a religion, I believe we should support gay marriage. Not out of moral concern, but out of protection or granting of rights. The same rights I expect them to support for my religion.
If we should as a religion stop gay marriage out of moral concern, then MAYBE the goverment was right to threaten confiscation of property for practicing polygamy--which would seriously tip me over the edge on my testimony. I am in a catch 22. That is why I am grateful to see everyones response--as it helps me settle my own beliefs.
Pooka..I do not see how same sex marriage implies explicit unattraction to the opposite sex.
As far as allowing our children to be taught something that brings them into sin..well, isn't that the parents job? We teach adultry is legal but immoral.
I see no double standard. The law's morality is focused on "consent." I don't consent to be stolen from or killed. I don't consent to be cheated in business. I don't consent to many things that are morally wrong. Adultry is consentual and legal. Homomsexuality is consentual and should homosexual marriage be legal? I now think NO (see previous post), but a legal means for them to get same legal or governmental benefits as a marriage shoudl exist. Hence my "Unionage" idea.
Abortion should not be talked about in the same breath as homosexuality, as ther eis question whether a fetus has the right to consent or if it doesn't count as life...that is the true debat--not the morality from the mothers perspective.
Alexa
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:so the whole sealing to Elvis thing is the equivalent of an LDS urban legend?
It's not even that much. I'ts more of a joke. Nobody believes it. It's too preposterous.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I sealed my divorced parents to each other after their death because that was the only way I could be sealed to them. I also sealed my divorced grandparents to each other, so I could seal my mother to them.
I had some misgivings about both of those proxy sealings, but trust that all will be sorted out eventually.
I stand corrected then. *confused* I don't know how it works.
My step-mom was unsealed to her ex-husband in order to be sealed to my dad. I don't know what happened to the sealing with her children then.
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
quote:Was talking to an LDS jatraquero recently, and asked whether if you were getting married, why couldn't you do "sealing" (in a Temple)as a second step (partially to accommodate non-LDS relatives in the prospective marriage.) He said you could but it just isn't "as good" as doing it all at once.
This is actually what happens in several European countries, where it is only legal to get married in the registry office. Couples there get married in the office, and then go on to get sealed in the temple. That is an accomodation to the law.
Where the law does not have to be considered, however, there are several reasons why it isn't allowed. One that hasn't been mentioned, I think (and this is my opinion only), is that people are far too prone to want an Elaborate Wedding. Temple sealings are very simple, and it is appropriate to have a simple wedding dress and so on. I would bet that if it became usual to have a civil ceremony before the sealing, an awful lot of people would start treating the Wedding as more important than the sealing.
We do have ring ceremonies after sealings sometimes to include family members (temple sealings do not include rings), but they aren't allowed to look like weddings, partly because people can get so worked up about them and forget the important part, which takes place in the temple.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Alexa, are you honestly a new member on this forum?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I first read about the whole Sealing to Elvis here at hatrack, hadn't been aware of even sealing before that. I thought the person was serious at the time, though it was a long time ago when I was relatively new. I guess it was actually the equivalent of an LDS "in" joke, that not being in I didn't get!
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:We do have ring ceremonies after sealings sometimes to include family members (temple sealings do not include rings), but they aren't allowed to look like weddings, partly because people can get so worked up about them and forget the important part, which takes place in the temple.
*nods* I'm going to a ring ceremony and dinner reception next month for Chad and Connie. She joined the church last year, and she's the only member in her family. The ring ceremony is for her parents. I've never been to one before - I'm interested to see how it goes. The event - ceremony and reception - does take place in a restaurant, so it can't be too elaborate.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Best sealing definition I heard to date...
When I was getting my patriarchal (sp?) blessing, My patriarch and I had long discussions. I never GOT sealings. I mean, since marriage is personal commitment and legal benefits or responsibilities, then what is eternal marriage? I can't say to myself I am commited in the after-life and chose to call myself married?
"What does marriage add?" I asked my Patriarch.
His response (paraphrased):
"When you get sealed, you are not being sealed to eachother, you are being sealed into the celestial kingdom. It is the final ordinance you must recieve to qualify for entry into the Celestial kingdom."
That made sense to me. It is like the whole being married to christ thing in the New Testiment.
If you work with that perception of Eternal Marriage, then it makes sense that if someone is unfaithful and leaves the church, the spouse or children who are left behind still qualify for eternal salvation to the highest degree. They (sigle but sealed spouse and kids) will have all opportunities faithful married members have in the Celestial Kingdom.
I hope that helps someone.
Alexa
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Alexa:""What does marriage add?" I asked my Patriarch.
His response (paraphrased):
"When you get sealed, you are not being sealed to eachother, you are being sealed into the celestial kingdom. It is the final ordinance you must recieve to qualify for entry into the Celestial kingdom."
Well, I would agree with that definition if applied solely to the sealing between parents and children.
However, the sealing between husband and wife is different. They really ARE being sealed to each other, the reason being that a man or woman alone cannot become perfect/whole. In order to attain exaltation, and become perfect, the union of male and female is a necessity.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Storm Saxon
I am new. My best friend introduced me to this site a while ago, and I sometimes read her posts. I only ever read it with her by my side, but the past few days I have had free time at work and read more of hatrack (not just forums).
I wanted to discuss my question with a variety of people that understood LDS theology, history, and was comprised of members and non-memners alike. I posted here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Awesome. Welcome. Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
UofUlawguy
If that standard you use is true, then my mom who was sealed in the temple (but later had her husband leave) is nto eligible for the highest degree of glory.
I have a hard time believing someone as faithful as her who had all ordinances done, is going to be someone elses angel because her husband ran off with a younger model (using like a car model not a professional model).
I do think her being sealed will get her into the Celestial Kingdom and there she will have the opportunity to be sealed or married or be with a worthy man.
According to your analysis, our ultimate salvation CAN be tied to someone elses sins.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Alexa, not at all. Your statement that no otherwise qualifying person will be excluded solely because of an unfaithful spouse is absolutely correct. That does not change the fact that every person will eventually need to be sealed in marriage to at least one other person in order to become perfect. As you said, there will be arrangements made to cover all contingencies.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Although I have many LDS friends, and dated an LDS guy for awhile -- I still have an uneasy time understanding many LDS beliefs (and don't agree with many of them -- but that is irrelevant to my point here).
I have a very good friend -- male. He was married to a woman. Both were LDS, and grew up LDS, although they were NOT married in the temple, nor sealed. They had two children.
Then they divorced.
(This is all before I met him, so I don't know details).
I do know that he is very upset that she (his ex) is going to have the children "sealed" to her in the temple -- which, as I understand it -- will totally cut him off from his kids 'in the next life' (if you want to call it that). He truly believes this and it rips him up emotionally.
How can she be the better LDS -- when her sole goal is to cut the kids off from their father? When she is using sealing in a vindictive way?
I just don't get it.
Farmgirl
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Have her re-read D&C 121. She will get it. So will you.
In short...any unrighteous use of anything that deals with the priesthood will not be validated by God.
Alexa
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
FG -- her's my take. The mother is not "cutting off" the father -- they were never sealed together in the first place. They are not cut off from him any more than if neither one of them ever re-married.
But that's from a doctirnal standpoint. From a human standpoint, I see why this would bother him. Those kids can only be sealed to one set of parents, and by the mother doing this, it makes it so that the father can never be sealed to his kids.
It always makes me sad to think of the pain that comes and never leaves when people get divorced. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Farmgirl:"I do know that he is very upset that she (his ex) is going to have the children "sealed" to her in the temple -- which, as I understand it -- will totally cut him off from his kids 'in the next life' (if you want to call it that). He truly believes this and it rips him up emotionally."
Then he completely misunderstands Church doctrine. But that's okay, lots of members do.
The fundamental difference between a parent-child sealing and a husband-wife sealing is completely missed by many people, probably because the two so often occur simultaneously.
People imagine these little households in heaven, with their own children gathered around their knees forever just because they are sealed. This is poppycock. Ideally, each of those children will be sealed to a spouse of their own, and to children of their own. You can easily see that this "household" would eventually be infinite in size, and this is in fact what happens. The "household" is the family of God, and all his qualifying children will be there. Thus, the only "special" sealing relationship is between husband and wife.
So many people agonize over who a child is sealed to, when in fact it makes absolutely no difference at all, as long as they are sealed to somebody.
[ March 09, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Farmgirl: Ouch. This is one of the reasons why divorce is such a painful thing for LDS. I am very aware of the fact that if I my husband (porteiro) and I were to become unsealed for some reason, but both of us went on to be faithful LDS and married different people, to whom would our children belong?
But then, that is a lot of hypotheticals. The chances of us unsealing ourselves and both going on to be fully faithful LDS is pretty slim, IMO. Not that it doesn't happen, just that the chances are slim. In our faith, the breaking of an eternal family is not a thing to be taken lightly.
I understand that this is a painful thing for him, but what else can be done? Obviously unless the two of them become sealed to each other, the children won't be sealed to them both. If he believes in the doctrine, there is no easy answer. If he does not believe in the doctrine, then it won't bother him nearly so much.
Posted by Polly (Member # 6044) on :
It's rather a simplification that her "goal" is to cut the children off from their father. Her "goal" is to be with her children for eternity.
We're not totally clear on what the eternities will be like, but I'm sure that anyone who qualifies for eternal life will NOT be cut off from any of their family members who also qualify for eternal life. If your friend is worthy enough to make it into the celestial kingdom, and his children are there too, he will be with them.
We believe that the important thing is that everyone has the ordinances performed. As was mentioned before, parent/child sealings are based on individual righteousness and we trust that God will sort things out in the next life. I feel comforted by that, since so many of us have really made a mess of things in this life...
[edit: oops... too slow ]
[ March 09, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Polly ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Ooops. I just noticed. You are having me assume that her SOLE purpose of getting sealed to her kids is to cut him off. Is that true? I find that difficult to believe.
If she is doing it out of faith and wanting to be with her kids, then from an LDS perspective, if we eventually gets married or sealed and goes to the Celestial Kingdom, he can be by his kids and associate with them.
Shout out to UofUlawguy
I think we are arguing semantics. You are right..ultimately, you need to be sealed. I was just pointing out that in this life, we only really need to worry about IF we have been sealed. Whatever happens in this life, will be sorted out in the next.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The chances of us unsealing ourselves and both going on to be fully faithful LDS is pretty slim, IMO.
This is what actually happened to my step-mother, her ex-husband, and their children. They divorced after 30 years and both remained faithful and temple-worthy until his death four years later.
I don't know exactly how they worked out everything - my step-mom was sealed to my dad and the previous one done away with.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I do know that he is very upset that she (his ex) is going to have the children "sealed" to her in the temple -- which, as I understand it -- will totally cut him off from his kids 'in the next life' (if you want to call it that). He truly believes this and it rips him up emotionally.
How can she be the better LDS -- when her sole goal is to cut the kids off from their father? When she is using sealing in a vindictive way?
As far as I understand, that won't "cut him off" from his kids. There aren't restraining orders in heaven, nor is there child custody. As UofUlawguy said, the children aren't going to be living at home in the eternities. They're going to be grown up and sealed to their own spouses. If they all make it to heaven, I think he'll have just as much access to the kids as she will.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This is one of those Mormon doctrine I don't get and don't agree with. How does all this jive with Matthew 22:22-32? Jesus quite plainly told the Saduccees that people aren't married nor given in marriage after the Resurrection. How does Mormon doctrine accomodate that, is there another interpretation you use?
I personally don't see any other way to take that other than there will be no marriages in eternity. Angels aren't married, don't have children. Christ specifically says we will be "as the angels in heaven."
No disrespect y'all - I'm genuinely curious, this sealing, and marriage for eternity has been something I never understood because it seems to me that it contradicts something specifically stated by Christ.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Good point! I will read Joesph Smith's Translation of the bible and see if he addresses that issue.
I personally think the afterlife will be both a culture shock to everyone and yet be familliar.
As far as sealings go...Motherhood is defined by itself. If I have a child, whether I get sealed or not, by definition, I am the parent. Right? How can I suddenly not have a daughter--you could place her on the other side of the universe, but I still gave birth to her. ** (hypothetically of course)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
This is the first thing I've found that might address that question, Belle. Unforunately, I'm working, so I don't have a lot of time to go looking.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
First, I am not qualified to sufficiently answer your question.
But here's a partial answer: As I understand it, LDS doctrine views this statement by Jesus as a very clever way of giving an answer without answering the question at all. He was very good at answering questions in a clever way that did not give more information than He felt people were ready to receive.
Christ could have chosen this moment to discuss eternal marriage with them. He decided that they were not ready for/would not benefit from such a revelation.
Now to explain: We believe that those who have been married lawfully in life may be sealed to each other by proxy (someone living stands in for them to have the sealing performed). I assume that at some point, probably after Christ returns to the earth to rule here and much more is revealed than is now known to us, people who would like to have been married but never had the opportunity will be given that opportunity here on the earth. My understanding is once you are resurrected and judged, that's it, no more marrying. You are where you are, single or married. So if you look at it that way, it doesn't seem like a contradiction.
EDIT: Oh, and we believe the term "angels" refers to people who have entered into God's kingdom yet are single.
[ March 09, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Hmm..I read it Jon Boy, but I don't think it addresses the issue. I mean, if you are sealed and married in eternity, and Christ says there is no marriage in eternity, then we have a contradiction.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring it up, so I'm just wondering what the explanation is. Is there an alternate interpretation of this chapter in Matthew? 'Cause, let's say I was interested in becoming a convert to LDS (I'm not, this is hypothetical), this would a huge stumbling block to me. I would be wary of any church doctrine that seemed to directly contradict the words of Jesus.
I'll go googling and see what I can find.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Oh, and we believe the term "angels" refers to people who have entered into God's kingdom yet are single.
As in, not sealed (in both form and substance). Which would be everyone who isn't in the highest level of the celestial kingdom.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
The standard LDS response to the passage where Jesus tells the Sadducees that there is no marriage in the resurrection is that this is, in fact, true. Nobody who has been resurrected will get married thereafter. Any effective sealing (the only kind of marriage that is of any effect in the hereafter) must have taken place before resurrection.
Now, of course, this raises a lot of questions about why he responded this way to the question. As was said by someone else, many of us believe that Jesus was deliberately refraining from giving a complete answer to the specific question asked, because it was not a sincere question to begin with. After all, the Sadducees didn't even believe in the resurrection -- therefore, the basis for their question was dishonest.
Another interpretation, that doesn't contradict the above, is that none of the seven (?) marriages were sealed in the first place, so none of them could be efficacious in the next life, and all of the participants would fail to be exalted because of their lack of a sealing.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No, Bev that doesn't work for me either. It's a little plainer even in Luke.
quote: Lu 20:34 And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Lu 20:35 but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Lu 20:36 for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
The word marry in this case is the Greek gameo which doesn't just mean "marry" as the verb, but also the act of leading in marriage, taking to wife, being married.
It's not just that the marriage ceremony won't be performed anymore, but that people won't BE married anymore after the resurrection. Wes will not be my husband in eternity, we will both be children of God.
dkw? Am I wrong? (I'm using my study materials, of course, not being a Biblical scholar)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
By the way, this is not intended to be an argument to change anyone's mind. I intend it as a discussion among friends about different ways of looking at things.
I have a feeling we are all probably wrong in our internal ideas of what the afterlife will be, because I don't think the human mind has the capacity to truly comprehend Heaven. In other words, we'll all be plesantly surprised.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmm, I don't have a good answer for you, but I do know that we use the King James Version of the Bible and LDS doctrine disagrees with some of the ways the Bible has been translated since then. I don't know about the Greek word usage. For all I know, that could be a wrong translation to. One of the LDS articles of faith states that we believe in the Bible insofar as it is translated correctly.
I will see what I can find.
EDIT: Nevermind, that looks like the King James version to me now
[ March 09, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Belle
I just read the answer to your question. I started by reading the new testement you quoted. I then thought, "Aha, Joseph Smith said the Bible was often mistranslated. and was working on a Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. Surely the JST will shed new light."
Well, it didn't. That part of Matthew was never "retranslated." On the LDS website http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/22 they have "resurrection" "marry" and "angel" highlighted in verse 30.
When you click on the link, it takes yo uto D&C 132 (which was already quoted here).
In answer to your question imho, mormons make it jive by saying modern prophets take precedent over ancient prophets, and when Joseph Smith was inspired to talk about needing to be married and sealed to enter the highest kingdom, then his revelation is "more complete" then what is recorded in the bible.
Remember, mormons don't need to justify everything with the Bible...there are so many contradictions in the Bible, that it takes 3 more books (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and D&C) PLUS living prophets to understand God's plan.
As far as contradicting Christ, I understnad yoru concern and will always maintain that eternal truth is ONLY understood through prayer. If we each gave our honest opinions (since eternity is so abstract a thought with no way to understand it) we woudl sound like talking fools. Back to my assertation that religion is only used to acquire a relationship with Diety and to shape character.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, it makes more sense to me when taken in context with D&C 132:15-17.
Here is the text for ease of reading:
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage•; but are appointed angels in heaven•, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels• of God forever and ever.
[ March 09, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Belle, I agree with you. I think that in the kingdom of God we’ll find out that we’re all members of one family – the family of God. Loving relationships don’t end, but the institutions we use to structure our society in this world will be irrelevant in the next.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
DKW
You hit the nail on the head. Concise and rings true.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay, this is coming down to I'm not Mormon and you guys are.
This is a case where I can't possibly agree with your stance because I don't accept as scripture something you do and I don't accept as prophets people you do. We are at a friendly impasse.
Thanks, though, that's what I wanted to know was how you looked at it. A question that has been bugging me is now answered.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I personally think the idea of eternal marriage is very sweet. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It is sweet, but I think my view is even sweeter. All of us living in harmony, the closeness and love I feel with my husband won't be lost, it will only be multiplied and shared with the millions of other believers. It's going to be quite remarkable. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Actually, Alexa, I believe that the entire Bible was restranslated, but very little of it made it into the LDS Church's version of the Bible. I believe that the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS Church) is in possession of Joseph Smith's complete manuscript, though they've made further changes (I think).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Belle, that's actually not all that different than how I imagine it being. But then I guess we all have to wait to see what really awaits us.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:mormons make it jive by saying modern prophets take precedent over ancient prophets
I'm not sure that this is the most accurate way to state this. Rather, we believe that due to varying factors and states of readiness of those willing to hear the Word, the Gospel is revealed in various permutations and practiced in various forms throughout history and with different emphases in different societies.
We also believe that many parts of the Gospel (including much of what is involved in our temple worship) have been part, in some form or another, of early incarnations of the "true Church of Christ," but that many things have been lost or obscured, either by accident, or because of not wanting to reveal those things to the those who are not prepared to receive them.
This semi-relativistic (or perhaps conditional would be a better term) approach makes people uncomfortable -- even some Mormons are discomfited by doctrines or practices that were revealed by earlier prophets but are no longer part of current Mormon theological discourse -- living in a communitarian-style type of society for instance. But it makes a weird kind of sense, imo. The Gospel never changes, but how it is manifested is tailored to be most effective for current cultural, societal and political conditions. Thus the need for modern revelation.
---- Belle:
Just to state the obvious [EDIT: Okay so you beat me to it]. Any Mormon answer is going to be unsatisfactory because your approach to Christianity is to go for the *best* interpretation of the New Testament text. I think this is a good approach and am glad you asked this question because I think us LDS need to 1. be more familiar with the Bible 2. be more familiar with how other denominations intepret the Bible 3. be very clear about where our interpretations of Bible verses are reasonable and where they may be stretching things a bit
[ March 09, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:It is sweet, but I think my view is even sweeter. All of us living in harmony, the closeness and love I feel with my husband won't be lost, it will only be multiplied and shared with the millions of other believers. It's going to be quite remarkable.
I think that is wonderful. I've always thought that mainstream Christian conceptions of heaven were totally boring, but the way you put it here makes it seem more attractive that I had previously thought --- althought it, naturally, doesn't get my blood stirring anywhere near as much as the Mormon conception of the afterlife does.
I also have gained an appreciation from your post that it's a wonderful expression of faith in God -- that since it will be with him it will be amazing beyond imagine even if it isn't quite clear what it will exactly be.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I Love Hatrack.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
So do I Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Me too. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
sorry I'm a little delayed in my answer (the thread has moved on)
But thanks for those of you who replied to me above. Perhaps I didn't understand all of his story right, and yes, I am probably only seeing it as being vindictive and I didn't think of it in the other lights you have now shown me. So perhaps she is only trying to do what she thinks is the best thing for her kids -- and I can hardly fault her in that.
That's what happens when you only get to hear one side of the story -- and I never thought of it from her side.
The other question, then, that your comments bring to mind-- if this mother has her kids "sealed" to her in the temple, and then later after she passes on or whatever, any of those kids choose to instead to be "sealed" to their dad instead, can they do that? Or can they not do that because he has never been sealed to anything?
Farmgirl
btw -- my own personal beliefs fall in line with what dkw posted above. I only ask these things about my Mormon friend so I can better understand what he believes when I have conversations with him.
[ March 09, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Perhaps Hatrack is the Utopia we have all been seeking. Allowing for a few exceptions, people are amazingly respectful and considerate. Darn smart and witty too!
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Farmgirl - Children are only sealed to a couple (who has been sealed to each other).
[ March 09, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Bev Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Thanks lud!
FG
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Farmgirl: Assuming their mother is sealed to a man (which I guess she would have to be in order to have the kids sealed to her, it would be her and a father figure) and they remain faithful all their lives, probably not. But I don't really know. Perhaps that is what bothers this guy, is the idea that they are sealed to another man as their father instead of him.
My mother's parents divorced when she was 11, neither one LDS. Her mother then married an inactive member, got him to be involved in his faith again, and joined the church themselves. They were all sealed in the temple. So I have a blood-relation grandfather that I am not sealed to. I'm sure that bothers him. We really try to include him and show him our love, though, we still recognize him as an important part of our family.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Anna, wow! That is my first Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I've been wanting to post to this thread, but didn't have time until now to do it justice.
First of all, I want to welcome Alexa and say we're delighted to have you with us. I hope you stay around for a long time.
I am LDS, a convert for three years now, and I am in favor of allowing gays the full rights of citizenship, including marriage. I don't see a conflict between this view and church doctrine.
I do believe totally in the teachings of the church on the family. But I believe we are in a situation now similar to the time in the seventies when blacks were not allowed to be members of the priesthood. I believe that as a church we are taught line by line, precept by precept, only that for which we are ready. If we as a church were ready for this, if it would not tear the church apart, then we would be told to receive our gay brothers and sisters with open arms.
I am not in rebellion against the church leadership at all. I know that my stewardship extends over my own life and callings, and they are doing the right thing, what God tells them to do, with their own stewardships. I do pray and look forward to the day when we can as a church extend equal welcome to gay couples, just as in the seventies people prayed for the priesthood to be extended to all worthy members regardless of race.
To me, the fact that some people can be born with ambiguous gender means that the physical body must not be the determining factor of spiritual gender. So what "man" and "woman" mean spiritually, I'm not sure we completely understand in all particulars. Certainly I know many openly gay people who are celibate outside lifetime partnerships, and who love their partners as deeply as any heterosexual spouse does.
I don't believe people choose to whom they will be attracted. I know I didn't choose to like guys. I just discovered that I did. I don't believe being gay is a sin. Sin blights people's lives. You can tell it's sin independent of any church teaching, because you can see the blight it causes. Happy gay couples in committed relationships don't have any such blight on their lives, that I can see. The only blight they suffer comes from the sins of others, from their hatred and intolerance.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Thank you AKA for your post.
This was the type of thoughtful post I was looking for. I never compared the church not accepting gay couples to blacks. Interesting thought that the church does not condone it because the membership are not yet ready. Very insightful.
I could never see the church giving active homosexuals the priesthood (as that is sinful in any mormon doctorien), but I could see them welcomed with the same rights in our community.
Hey, I just found out that Jospeh Smith ordained black people to the priesthood and it was Brigham Young who took it away. Anyone else know about that?
I am reading a book written by a black member telling his accounts of discrimination faced in the church and as a missionary right now.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Joseph Smith did ordain at least one black man to the priesthood. I used to know his name, but it's not coming to me right now.
There are claims of others, but last I heard they were still disputed. The one I mention above, though, is accepted as real.
However, neither Smith nor any other early Church leader made a common practice of ordaining black men. It was truly an exceptional occurrence.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I was extremely excited to read that Brigham Young was in favor of sisters having other callings, such as doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc., in addition to motherhood and marriage. I did not know until a year or two after I joined the church, that the early church actually pioneered many areas of women's rights. In Utah, women always had the vote, for instance, until the United States of America, in its wisdom, outlawed that practice along with other "heathen" practices of Mormons such as polygamy. Even then, early LDS sisters such as Emmaline B. Wells were champions of womens suffrage, and traveled the country speaking out about the subject.
I feel so totally in the same spirit as those sisters. I am very proud of what they did, and hope to live up to their legacy.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Wow, what a great thread. I don't know how Alexa did it, but we've finally got a gay marriage thread on this forum that isn't full of hurled epithets and hard feelings. You're quite the amazing androgynous humanoid presence. You remind me of a dude I knew in high school... the type that could go into the final round of a state championchip debate tournament with no prior experience and come out the winner, and friends with the opposing team to boot. Good on you, mate.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
By the way, I am LDS. I'm happy to belong to a church and have a faith to guide my life. I'm a firm believer in the seperation of church and state. I like the idea that my church can give me guidance in moral decisions like this, and I also like the fact that they're completely cut off from our process of national legislation. If it came to a vote, I think I'd vote for gay marriage. And I'd feel comfortable, as a member of the church, doing it. I've voted against a generally accepted church "position" before. There was a little deal with the Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake last year. Members of the church were encouraged to get involved, so I did, but on the opposite side of most of the rest of the members, for reasons I won't go into here. I felt good about my decision, and I never lost any status or church membership benefits because of it. That's what I like about the church/ state relationship. The place where I go to be guided in moral decisions is in no way related to the place where I go to affect government policy change. And in the end, after all the advice I get, the final piece of advice is to think and pray about the issues and vote according to my conscience. And no vote has ever, nor I suspect will ever, have any more effect on my status in the church than my church membership has effect on my voting rights. God bless America.
[ March 10, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
Welcome Alexa,you sound like someone I know, Excellent topic to choose. For the last couple of years this has been one of the most frequently discussed topics at my work, that might also be because I work with a gay guy. I am LDS and as speed said yes the church has made a stand on gay marriage but the ultimate decision is ours when it comes to voting. I would vote for it. I don't think that I have the right to stop someone from legaly beeing someones spouse cause the Bible says so. In someways it feels like being in Afganistan and Saudi Arabia where the religion is not separated from state and we claim that religion is separated from state in USA but we say it is morally wrong and it is not in the Bible for in the Good Book we read: Thou• shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. But who are we to judge? Is it morally wrong? I don't know I have not formed an opinion yet, the Bible says it is, I guess it is but I can not see how we could be the ones to determine whom you should love and if you could have insurance through your mate or if after several years of living together and paying for morgage and what else if something happens to the other person there is a chance that you might not get anything even though you contributed to it. I don't know that that is fair too.
Tough topic but a good one, thanks for opening this discussion Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Do you think that we'll even get a chance to vote? The proposed amendment would go directly through congress.
I personally view this as more of an issue surrounding federal powers and states' rights than anything else.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Well, we would get a chance to vote for our congresspeople, which, in theory, is the way that citizens are able to indirectly influence this type of process. Might not be as effective as a direct vote, but we have to take what we can get sometimes.
Anyway, growing up in America I sometimes get the concepts of "vote for" and "support" confused, since they're so often interchangable 'round these parts. So when I see a thread about "Should Mormons support gay marriage" (as opposed to "Will Mormons support gay marriage") I tend to think of it in terms of how I'd vote if, in theory, the opportunity presented itself. But thanks for keeping it real, dog.
[ March 11, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
who says I am humanoid?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Is today "old thread day?"
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Thanks for being so brave.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
]![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Anna, wow! That is my first