LDS and Prop 8

[Witch of Hope]

to be fair

mormons changed their stance in the 1970's

people can change

But why they change? Did they see that they were wrong? No,it was because of the pressure from outside and inside the church (see my last two posts about that)

 

[Witch of Hope]

Nowhere does Jesus speak on homosexuality.

Is your second comment that King David was gay and this is endorsed by the Bible?

Yes, Jesus never talk about this issue. Maybe ir wasn't important to him, or maybe he was gay? David and Jonathan had a romantic homosexual relationship, this was also understood at the European middle age. Homosexuality has many faces. some with sex, others without (as for example, monks did it).

 

[Witch of Hope]

I believe that if it is possible for a heterosexual to remain celebate, it should not be any harder for someone who feels he has homosexual tendenceies to do so as well. I mean, heterosexual urges are not any less than those of the homosexual, are they?

Straight couples can get married, and than it is allowed by a church to have sex. To a gay couple it is forbidden by churches. So their sx is not allowed. But i guess it is more joyfull than straight sex. No fear to get pregnant, no fear to lost a job because of pregnancy, no fear to aborte and no fear for a child from another man. Gay sex is less stress.

 

[Witch of Hope]

Why do you hate America?

If somebody made a critical statement about th lss gay rights in the USA or the racial problms which ar exists, he or she didn't "hate" America (or the LDS as in my case), he or she see things just different than you.That*s all.

 

[Witch of Hope]

This show people how the church members were involved in Prop 8 and how they really think about it:

May 22, 2009 ~ Mormons and Proposition 8 | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly

 

[Witch of Hope]

Here some LDS documents which shows that the LDS plays a double play in the case of Same-Sex-Marriage in Hawaii: Californians Against Hate - Fighting for marriage equality - Proposition 8

And this sound lik they made a test for NOM: http://www.mormongate.com/document2.html

 

[Baydwin]

I believe it was wrong for the LDS Church to campaign as they did, if I lived in California I would be very angry at them.

However, the Mormon population of California is only 2%, which means it wasn't Mormons who caused this step backwards, it was everybody else who voted, non-LDS bigoted Americans. If you need to point the finger at someone it should really be your society as a whole, as homophobia clearly is not confined to the LDS Church.

 

[McBell]

I believe it was wrong for the LDS Church to campaign as they did, if I lived in California I would be very angry at them.

However, the Mormon population of California is only 2%, which means it wasn't Mormons who caused this step backwards, it was everybody else who voted, non-LDS bigoted Americans. If you need to point the finger at someone it should really be your society as a whole, as homophobia clearly is not confined to the LDS Church.

Now now Baydwin, no need to present any facts that would take the wind out of the sails of those who are only interested in bashing Mormons.

I mean come on, everyone knows that 2% is plenty to get a majority vote....

 

[DallasApple]

I believe it was wrong for the LDS Church to campaign as they did, if I lived in California I would be very angry at them.

However, the Mormon population of California is only 2%, which means it wasn't Mormons who caused this step backwards, it was everybody else who voted, non-LDS bigoted Americans. If you need to point the finger at someone it should really be your society as a whole, as homophobia clearly is not confined to the LDS Church.

This is very interesting.Makes me wonder isnt California in general considered to be more of a liberal place to live compared to some other states?

But it also doesnt make sense because didnt the Californians have to vote it into law in the first place?or was it written into law by officials (excuse my ignorance).

Love

Dallas

 

[Katzpur]

But why they change? Did they see that they were wrong? No,it was because of the pressure from outside and inside the church (see my last two posts about that)

Your problem is that you provided a bunch of unofficial statements and hoped that your readers would see them as official. Not a single one of your quotes was from a doctrinally binding source. Furthermore, none of them even began to address your claim that "it was because of the pressure from outside and inside the church." If anything, they would disprove that claim. And finally, I thought your OP was about Prop 8. You're not even able to stick with the topic of your own thread long enough to make a coherent point. It's just ramble, ramble, ramble with you.

 

[Smoke]

Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will.

Exactly. For instance, the legislature should be able to shut down the LDS Church, confiscate its properties and imprison its leaders, and no legal appeal to the courts citing constitutional rights should be allowed. If the people don't like it, they can vote out the legislators, and if they do like it, then shutting down the LDS Church is the right thing.

 

[Sunstone]

Exactly. For instance, the legislature should be able to shut down the LDS Church, confiscate its properties and imprison its leaders, and no legal appeal to the courts citing constitutional rights should be allowed. If the people don't like it, they can vote out the legislators, and if they do like it, then shutting down the LDS Church is the right thing.

Damn! I can't give you frubals again yet!

 

[Katzpur]

Wow...

Sounds like overkill to me.

 

[Autodidact]

Minus one point for the use of a non sequitur.

Well you certainly seem opposed to our system of government. Maybe you'd be happier in a pure democracy--if you can find one. Here in the United States it is the role of the courts to ensure that laws comply with constitutional guarantees.

You are confused: the whole Black Priesthood thing was not a theological shift. There was never a doctrinal basis for the prohibition.

I went through this very argument with LDS right here at RF and won. If you want me to roll out my Google magic and show where it was indeed doctrine, I will be happy to do so. At least on RF LDS member changed his signature to reflect his acknowledgement of that fact. If I show you that it was doctrine, will you change your signature to do so? Because if you can show me that it wasn't, I will.

*wonders why LDS leadership lies to its members so much*

You are confused. I gave no diagnosis of marriage.

I hold homosexuality to be a sexual fetish. I do not think the state need or should endorse sexual fetishes.

I understand that you hold that. Why should the rest of us give a fig for your bizarre diagnosis of someone else's marriage?

I hold Mormons to be absolutely deluded. I don't think that gives the state the right to deny them basic civil rights.

 

[Autodidact]

On a positive note, when the LDS church changes its stance on same-sex marriage, we will all learn after the fact that their opposition never was a matter of doctrine. LDS is nifty that way.

 

[Orontes]

There was no legal pressure on the Church to change its position on Blacks and the priesthood in 1978. The only thing I can think of would be some college schools refused to play against BYU (a Church affiliated university). There certainly was the issue of trying to maintain some loyalty to a stance while dealing with Church expansion in South American that has large amounts of people of mixed decent: but that is an issue of internal coherence, not outside pressure.

As a result tangled the NAACP (a civil right organization for non-whites as well as the organization of the boy scouts of America with the Mormon leadership.
In addition Salt Lake tribunes from the 3rd of August, 1974:

„Briefly before boy scout's officials appeared on the Friday morning because of the accusation of the discrimination before the federal court, the church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints brought out a change of the politics, the black youngsters will permit to become Senior-scout leader, a position which was left up to now for white LDS youngsters in boy scout's groups which were promoted by the church... A church speaker said Friday that on the 'directives which are demonstrated in the statement also other young men, the not president of a deacon's quorum can become a senior scout leader if they are suitable better in addition.'“

The LDS Church changed its policy on Blacks being able to hold the priesthood in 1978. The 1974 NAACP would be suit was concerned with LDS Church affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America (a private organization): specifically full access of scout troop leadership roles run by the Church to elevate boys to senior troop positions independent of any connection to the Church proper. Previously, senior scout troop posts were held concurrently with being the senior boy priesthood holder. The 1974 Boy Scout case is not connected to the 1978 change of the LDS Church's priesthood policy.

A temple in Brazil was built, and it was impossible for the church leaders to think leader without BLACK BLOOD how the Deseret news reported about the 10th of June, 1978.
In addition Lester E. Bush jun. in Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought, spring, 1973, page 41 said:

„The decision, to everybody with black's forefathers 'to refuse the priesthood (no matter as remotely') had solved the theoretical problem of the suitability for the priesthood, but it didn't help in the practical problem to identify the 'blood of Cain' in those which aren't known yet for the fact that they have black's forefathers...
The growth of the international church brought quite clearly new problems. Brazil was especially difficult... J. Reuben Clark, the first counsellor to George Albert Smith reported that the church 'in the mission work in a new situation' entered... with is very difficult to say if not impossibly, who has black's blood and who not. He said that we if we baptized Brazilians we almost certainly baptize people with black's blood, and that we if the priesthood transfers to them what happens without doubt to a very serious problem face.&#8220; Citation source: <http://www.negerundpriestertum.de.tl/BESSER-SP-Ae-T-ALS-NIE.htm>

And LeGrand Richards, an apostle (deceased in the meantime) meant about it:

&#8222;And I could say them what it caused as it were. There below in Brazil the population has so much black's blood that it is difficult to approach leader in which is no black's blood, and we have built there just a temple. He is initiated in October. Many people who have black's blood in themselves have got together the money for the temple construction. And if we don't change something, they can't use him, after he is built.&#8220; (From an interview taken up on tape recorder, that LeGrand Richards gave at 16th of August, 1978 to Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos , cited in thee broschure of of DonaldS. Tingle, The Mormons, p. 23)

Church expansion in South America and the issues related to building temples there were internal issues of the Church. They are not examples of any outside legal pressure.

I mention two Propositions in what you quote from me. I don't know which you mean with the "This proposition started as a lie". The verbiage of the two is nearly identical, if not identical, where the language is the state recognizes the marriage of one man and one women. What is the lie?

I mean th second one:

And with lies I maqn all this false Information which wre made from church members, from NOM (which is suspect to be a hidden group build by the church as it was in Hawaii (see several church documents about this at the Internet, e.g. )

This was the language of Proposition 8: (O)nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". This isn't a lie. It is simply a statement of what would be a recognized marriage.

There is nowhere in the Bible where the text states: "homosexuality is not a sin". There are some gay advocates who attempt to reread some of the sexual stances of the text. These aren't particularly compelling or interesting. Moreover, they fail to take account of the larger traditions who produced the text and their long history of sexual ethics. Even so, the LDS Church on the subject is clear: homosexuality is a sin, even a gross sin.

No, it is proved by bible scientists (some of them are maybe gay or bisexual, but most of them are straight). Here you can found some answers to it:

White, Mel: What the Bible says and doesn&#8217;t say &#8211; about Homosexuality​

(PDF-File to download: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf) He is a Pastor which wrot for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell)​

One poorly written article put forward by a pro-gay organization does not a consensus of Biblical scholars make. If you seriously want to pursue this argument you will need to explain why the religious traditions that produced the texts have always held an opposite view (homosexuality is a sin). Do you wish to argue that Jewish rabbis do not understand Hebrew or that the Greek Christian Tradition does not understand Greek? Your position is problematic. It is not a serious or sober view. It confuses advocacy with scholarship.

Harrison, R K: Leviticus : an introduction and commentary.
Noth, Martin: Leviticus : a commentary

Scroggs, Robin: The New Testament and homosexuality : contextual background for contemporary debate


Skinner, John: A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis​

The New Layman's Bible Commentary in one volume


Van Solms, A: Genesis. Deel 1.


Von Rad, Gerhard: Genesis : a commentary.


Westermann, Claus: Genesis 12-36 : a commentary.


ALL of this books proof my statement!

Referencing random books is not compelling. It does not constitute a proof. Without content the above has no value. If you present some content, then it can be dealt with.
​

 

[Orontes]

I don't understand how your post above relates to my statement that the Church agrees with the larger notion the state (a political body) can regulate sexual relations. Both marriage and domestic partnerships are examples of state regulations. Regulation of sexual relations is within the state's purview. Such regulations should occur via the democratic process.

A question: Does a religion stand within or beyond national laws? Must a religion also keep the laws, or does the religion stands above or beyond the law? If a state permits the marriage for homosexuasl, may a religion go then, and people excommunicate who have entered such a marriage? Mormons and other "Christian" churches do nothing else in the USA! The State/Country determines who may marry, not a religion!

This comment doesn't seem to relate to my post. As to your question(s): if you are asking my personal opinion: I think a religion is bound by national laws insofar as those laws are subject to the will of the governed and do not violate natural law (i.e. certain moral precepts that transcend the body politic, for example the state cannot justifiably demand one participate in a genocide).

I'm not aware of any Official statements from the Church that the ban on Blacks would never change. I have read statements by various General Authorities from during the prohibition who said it would change during the Millennium (after Christ's return) or that the policy would one day change etc. Even so, polygamy is likely the better choice to go with if one wants to find precedent for dramatic changes. If one reads the rhetoric of the Church on the subject, the change was very much tied to a practical concession given the U.S. Government's moves against the Church's holdings and possible very existence as an organization. If the government opted for a stance where the Church must recognize gay marriages and then began seizing Church holdings and imprisoning those who refused to comply, that would move in the direction of what was happening during the late 19th Century with the Church. Of coarse, such would impact far more churches than just the LDS.

Here some quotes:

Bruce R. McConkie:

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned ... (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.477).

Mark E. Peterson:

"When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation" (Race Problems as They Affect the Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen, August 27, 1954).

Evning & Morning Star (July, 16, 1833):

"Having learned with extreme regret, that an article entitled, 'Free People of Color,' in the last number of the Star, has been misunderstood, we feel in duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church" (Reprinted in History of the Church, vol. 1, pp.378-79).

Brigham Young:

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham..." (New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue, Spring 1973, p.56).

John Lund, writer, LDS:

Brigham Young made a very strong statement on this matter when he said, "... Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be to sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death.... It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same.... To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders" (The Church and the Negro, 1967, pp.54-55).

These words are louder than your try to support your church in this case.

-McConkie's 'Mormon Doctrine's, despite the title, is not doctrinal, but the opinions of one man. The book has some value, but also contains several blatant errors which the author also recognized after the fact.

-Peterson's work is not doctrinal.

The Morning Star: This predates and is prior to any priesthood ban on blacks: none existed at the time and would not until the 1850's. The Morning Star article was written by the local Mormon leader in Missouri. Missouri was a slave state. The vast bulk of Mormons who were moving into the area were from the American Northeast and were known to be generally opposed to slavery. There was a fear among locals that evangelical Mormons would be preaching to slaves and bring into the state free blacks. The article was an attempt to indicate neither would occur. This was in the shadow of the Nat Turner slave revolts that had rocked the South.

-Young's comment is a personal position and connected to his bid to have the Utah Territory admitted into the Union as a state: where it would be a slave state following California's previous admittance as a free state that had occurred a few years earlier. This followed the larger patterns of the Missouri Compromise agreements.

-Lund: The references to Young reflect a strong segregationist penchant, but does not contradict my post: "I'm not aware of any Official statements from the Church that the ban on Blacks would never change."

 

[Orontes]

Nowhere does Jesus speak on homosexuality.

Is your second comment that King David was gay and this is endorsed by the Bible?

Yes, Jesus never talk about this issue. Maybe ir wasn't important to him, or maybe he was gay? David and Jonathan had a romantic homosexual relationship, this was also understood at the European middle age. Homosexuality has many faces. some with sex, others without (as for example, monks did it).

If you wish to argue David and Jonathan were gay lovers (and I assume this was considered proper), make the argument.

 

[Orontes]

Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will.

Exactly. For instance, the legislature should be able to shut down the LDS Church, confiscate its properties and imprison its leaders, and no legal appeal to the courts citing constitutional rights should be allowed. If the people don't like it, they can vote out the legislators, and if they do like it, then shutting down the LDS Church is the right thing.

Given you cite constitutional rights, I assume you are talking about the U.S. Constitution? If so, the Constitution already makes provision the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. This means the legislature (state or federal) could not act against the Mormon Church as you describe until the Constitution were changed.

 

[Orontes]

Well you certainly seem opposed to our system of government. Maybe you'd be happier in a pure democracy--if you can find one. Here in the United States it is the role of the courts to ensure that laws comply with constitutional guarantees.

Given previous exchanges we've had we both know you understand little of our system of government and less about jurisprudence. It also seems you have a penchant to destroy democratic principle in order to get whatever it is you want. This is both dangerous and disturbing. The reality is rights claims to be justified have to pass through a majoritarian process. This was the case from the First Amendment to the Twenty-seventh. When judges or others invent rights or try and dictate the same, it threatens the very basis of democracy and republicanism. I understand the totalitarian impulse that drives you, histroy is replete with the blood split by the like minded.


Those who support gay rights claim (whether it be marriage titlement or something else) should make their case in the public square. If enough of their fellow citizens agree, then law can and will be passed to reflect that view.

I went through this very argument with LDS right here at RF and won. If you want me to roll out my Google magic and show where it was indeed doctrine, I will be happy to do so. At least on RF LDS member changed his signature to reflect his acknowledgement of that fact. If I show you that it was doctrine, will you change your signature to do so? Because if you can show me that it wasn't, I will.

If you wish to make a case, do so, it is not a concern of mine: the doctrines of Mormondom are in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Bible and Pearl of Great Price. If your Google magic is going to present reference of various Mormons on the Curse of Ham/Cain, Pre-existence moral status etc. all certainly existed. These opinions all reflect an attempt to justify the ban, but were not doctrinal.

I understand that you hold that. Why should the rest of us give a fig for your bizarre diagnosis of someone else's marriage?

I hold Mormons to be absolutely deluded. I don't think that gives the state the right to deny them basic civil rights.

If someone calls me a bigot and asks me if I consider gays to be human, then I feel at liberty to state my personal view on homosexuality. I made no comment on marriage. You don't read very carefully.