As the First Amendment allows, the Church is free to keep their restrictions on
marriage as long as it's within their own membership. There is no more
chance of the Church being forced to marry a same-gendered couple than they
would be forced to marry non-members. All the protection they need is written
into the First Amendment and any attempt otherwise would be wrong.However,
there are many churches today that are denied their First Amendment rights. The
Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, for instance are more than
happy to perform marriages for same-gendered couples, but are prohibited by the
laws in most states.Marriage in the United States is first and foremost a
legal contract conferred by the State. As such, it is subject to the 14th
Amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law.
Two questions: 1) Say a prophet of some religion, for instance,
marries a woman that is already married to another man; are not the two men
somehow in a marriage relationship with each other (by reason of being married
to the same woman)?2) Was polygamy a doctrine or a practice? If a
practice (that has been discontinued) is it still doctrine?
Thank you LDS church!
Good job mormons!Me and Pope Francis are with you.
I find it confusing when some people claim to be Mormons and claim to support
gay marriage.I'm not Mormon, but my understanding is Mormons
believe their prophet speaks for God. Is that right?If Prophet
Monson speaks for God, and prophet Monson says it should be illegal for gays to
marry, isn't that meaning God is saying gay marriage should be illegal?
Question: what is the churches stance on polygamy? Is it abandoned practice or
Chris B,My understanding is that the Pope is considered infallible
to Catholics. Yet, many Catholics disagree with the Vatican's position on
birth control, same-sex marriage, women in the priesthood, etc. Does that make
these people's claim to Catholicism illegitimate?
@Claudio"Does that make these people's claim to Catholicism
illegitimate?"Yes; pretty muchNo one is forced to
belong to any religion in the US - so make a "choice" and join one you
@DanO"The Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, for
instance are more than happy to perform marriages for same-gendered couples, but
are prohibited by the laws in most states."Correct me if wrong,
but I don't believe gay marriage is illegal like polygamy is. It just
isn't recognized by the government in all states. That means that gay
couples can get married by any organization such as those Unitarian churches,
but that the government won't recognize it. If this is correct, then it is
worth repeating and recognizing the distinction.
@Chris B"I find it confusing when some people claim to be Mormons and
claim to support gay marriage.I'm not Mormon, but my
understanding is Mormons believe their prophet speaks for God. Is that
right?"It shouldn't be too confusing, after all something
like 90% of U.S. Catholics have used birth control.
@Claudio,Yes. I think if someone believes the Pope speaks for God
and they don't do what the Pope says, those people are essentially saying
they disagee with God.Pretty simple concept really. Sorry it was
confusing for you.
@alt134,"It shouldnt be too confusing, after all something like
90% of Catholics have used birth control"Then those 90%
obviously dont believe the Pope speaks for God always, or they disagree with
God. Simple concept really, not sure you some people are
struggling.Mormons claim Prophet Monson speaks for God.IF God(through prophet MOnson) thinks gay marriage should be illegal, the only
explanation for a Mormon supporting gay marriage is:1. Those people
disagree with God.Again. Simple concept. Not sure how people are
having a hard time understanding.Alt134 and Claudio,Please let me know how I can be clearer, I'd love to clarify, but I feel
I've been quite clear. If there is something I can do to be more clear,
pleaes let me know!Thanks!
No statehouse nor capitol building is anyone's church. Let's keep it
I believe the LDS prophets are wrong on this subject just like they were with
blacks and the priesthood, feminists, and intellectuals. Instead of continuing
to produce black eyes on history, it might be better to start loving and
embracing the "sinners" and "critics."Just a
Chris B,You were clear, thank you. I guess my point is that I
don't know why someone has to agree 100% with a religion/political
party/interest group/etc. in order to be a member of that group. I don't
see why a person who agrees with most of Catholicism, but disagrees on birth
control, can't be Catholic. I don't see why a person who agrees with
most of the Republican Party platform, but supports same-sex marriage (as
Senator Rob Portman announced this week) can't belong to the Republican
Party. I don't understand why we need to assign degrees to
membership. If I choose to belong to a group and I meet the group's
established standards for membership, who is anyone to tell me I'm not a
"real" member of the group? Does that make sense?
I am glad that Chris B. is out of his limit of 4 postings, as his postings are
rediculous. My thought is while mormons don't condone being homosexual and
they have a right to take a stand against it, it is wrong of them to say it
should be illegal. That is the same as them saying they don't believe in
alcohol (which they don't) so it should be illegal for ANYBODY to choose to
use it. Of course, that would be absurd. Nobody is asking them to drink, or be
homosexual or even agree with it. I think the church has forgotten what it is
like to be persecuted for doing something illegal regarding marriage (polygamy).
They should remember that because polygamy was illegal and they still did it
because they thought it was right. Many others were against it. So why
don't they remember that?
You know there is a whole lot we know now that we didn't know in the past.
For example, we know that skin complexion is the work of natural selection, not
God's curses; we know that the mechanism of inheritance is genetic and not
via "blood," and we know that same-sex attraction is largely in-born.
Since organized religion has had to retreat on so many fronts, it's hard to
take their position on same-sex marriage very seriously, not that there may be
problems with it, bur religion has little credibility as an opponent.
So basically the church would like the SCOTUS to continue to allow government to
ignore the 1st and 16th Amendments under the guise that in their opinion
"strengthens families"? What governmental purpose does not allowing to
consenting adults to be married? Life-safety general welfare? Hardly.
Enforcement of religious beliefs across the board regardless of religious or
non-religious affiliation? Absolutely. Gay’s being married hurts society
no more than it does if two members of the same sex cohabitate with each other,
and we don’t seem to egger as a society to start trying to stop that now
do we? Then what’s the deal? Each to each, mind your business!
@Chris B"Then those 90% obviously dont believe the Pope speaks for God
always, or they disagree with God. "Okay, you just seemed
confused that there could be LDS members who disagreed on matters. "IF God(through prophet MOnson) thinks gay marriage should be illegal, the
only explanation for a Mormon supporting gay marriage is:1. Those people
disagree with God."There is one little catch though... Elder
Whitney Clayton of the Seventy, and the LDS General Authority in charge of the
Prop 8 stuff the church was involved with, had stated that LDS members should
feel free to disagree with the church on the issue (Prop 8) without fear of
sanction. So while the church has taken a stance, it is not considering members
taking a different stance to be a real problem (at least with regards to civil
marriage... if one were to advocate same-sex marriage in the temple, then
there'd be problems I'm sure). I would argue that the church actually
isn't even claiming that their support of Prop 8 is from God it's just
something they've voiced an opinion about like they have with those
non-discrimination ordinances for housing and employment.
If the Lord's word was followed there would be no need for a court hearing.
@DanO"As the First Amendment allows, the Church is free to keep their
restrictions on marriage as long as it's within their own membership. There
is no more chance of the Church being forced to marry a same-gendered couple
than they would be forced to marry non-members."Don't bet
on it. Next they'll sue us for not performing the marriages. Then
they'll seek to take away our tax exempt status all under the guise of
"civil-rights".The camel's head is in the tent. Soon
the whole camel will be.
Please remember that Elder L. Whitney Clayton said:"Latter-day
Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue (Prop 8) without
facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy.
"We love them and bear them no ill will."It is not a
commandment to disagree with the church on gay marriage.
Some wonderful and thought provoking posts on this thread. I for one have been
amazed and heartened that this debate is (for the most part) civil and that
people seem to be listening devoid of malice. But like all great civil rights
issues, there is a right side and a wrong side. If you stand in support of
"traditional marriage" you may as well be standing next to Gov. Wallace
and cheering as he cried "segregation now, segregation fo-evah!" You are
on the wrong side of history and though you may have convinced yourself that you
are doing so with love in your heart for your fellow human being--you stand side
by side with those who would deny tax paying citizens and the children of those
citizens "Equal justice under law." And you are about to be counted
among those well mannered ghosts of the South, who pined for the days of the old
plantation and who protested that they knew what was best for their negroes.
Namely--on the wrong side of history, dying away on your porch. Would you like
your rocking chair carved out of mahogany, or will simple knotty pine do?
My personal response to several issues raised. The article mentions that
marriage is to be between a man and a woman because it gives children the best
chance to be raised in an ideal environment. If it was only about two consenting
adults, then get a civil union, or in SLC you can get a co-dependent adult
certificate and that takes care of the legal issues. To ParkCity Aggie, I
don't think you understand the 1st and 16th Amendments, I think the debate
is about the 14th and the "equal protection clause" which looks like it
doesn't apply. The LDS Church has disavowed polygamy and will
excommunicate anybody who practices it. To the person that says that the Church
prophets are wrong about gays, you need to look throughout history, the Old and
New Testaments both speak against homosexuality. My understanding of the New
Testament and the LDS Church's stance is hate the sin and love the sinner.
Compassion and love to the person suffering with same gender attraction, but no
tolerance for homosexual activity which has been preached is immoral and
aberrant. I think this shares my thoughts with the variety of questions out
California Steve, Indeed, I would totally bet on it. Anyone can sue. However,
it's up to the courts to determine that a suit has merit. Such suit would
not be successful. The First Amendment allows religions plenty of coverage.
Otherwise, don't you think someone by now would have successfully sued to
have entrance into the temples to witness a family member's wedding?
I find it confusing when some people claim to be Mormons and claim to support
gay marriage.==========================If one were to
preach in the Church that relations between people of the same gender, or
outside of the bonds of marriage for anyone was alright, that would be in direct
conflict with the established doctrine of the LDS Church.If someone
were to argue that while they may not agree with the relations themselves (such
as alcohol, or tobacco) but that they should still be treated as
"people" and have equal protection under the law: I see no conflict
with LDS doctrine or teachings, rather its an issue of personal politics.I find myself in the position of morally opposed to, but civilly for
same sex marriage, or the same rights I enjoy being married to my wife.All Americans should have the right to have a their loved mate make end of
life decisions for them. All Americans have the right to have their inheritance
passed on to their mate without having to go through a long complicated court
process. All Americans should be given equal opportunity to housing and
employment without import to who their chosen mate is.
@Chris BThe Prophet speaks God's will.BUT the
people still have their agency to obey or disobey and they will then reap what
Utes Fan: Polygamy is covered under the Constitution. The Church had nothing
to do with Prop 8. It was some people in the Church.
I guess no one wants to answer my question. I believe that polygamy is still
church doctrine, although not current church practice. So in stating that
marriage should be between a man and a woman, is not the church arguing against
it's own doctrine?
Snowman, Your statement is dishonest. The Church did indeed contribute to Prop
8. There are even election filings detailing that.
Chris B.In the LDS Church even the least of us, when fulfilling our
callings and acting under the direction of the Holy Ghost, would mean the same
thing in principle as if God had spoken it one on one with you personally.Why the lesson?My point is that not only should the words of
our Prophets be understood as revelations from our Heavenly Father- but when all
faithful members who live righteously and TRULY sustain not only our Prophet,
but sustain what he reveals to us... when all of us are testifying of the same
truth- it is indeed puzzling that some turn from the teachings of their God yet
still profess to follow Him.Many members "struggle" with not
understanding certain doctrines, which is perfectly understandable. It often
takes prayer to be given understanding. While I didn't disagree, I did have
to ask for myself how this doctrine is congruous with our full devotion to
freedom. I now clearly and soberly understand that we're only fostering
freedom through this position.At some point, we're all
"questioners". But those who directly oppose our Prophet while
professing to be faithful members- they've been tricked.
The Lord speaks through the prophet, but he also speaks as the church leader. We
also believe in obeying the law of the land and free agency, so it is an issue
with many sides.
Red corvette. Yes it does.if you cant find it. Let me know ill.find it. All you
have to do is read it Its clear in all the scriptures about marriage
@Utes Fan:"Correct me if wrong, but I don't believe gay marriage
is illegal like polygamy is."Both are illegal according to
federal law. Gay marriage by the federal DOMA and polygamy by the federal
Edmunds–Tucker Act."That means that gay couples can get
married by any organization such as those Unitarian churches, but that the
government won't recognize it."That's true. Gays and
lesbians can marry if they can find someone to marry them. But, as you say, the
government (state and Federal) will not recognize it as a marriage."If this is correct, then it is worth repeating and recognizing the
distinction."The problem is, there are thousands of benefits
accruing to marrieds that are not available if the government doesn't
recognize the marriage.The bottom line is, if anyone wants the
benefits of marriage they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. It's
not that complicated. Those people who can't plan ahead or manage their
lives to conform have to go without the benefits. Too bad.
@Wastintime"I guess no one wants to answer my question. I believe that
polygamy is still church doctrine, although not current church practice. So in
stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is not the church
arguing against it's own doctrine?"You have the doctrine
wrong. Simply put, the doctrine is do what God commands. The current command
is marriage between one man and one woman, not polygamy. That was a command in
the past. Although it may be a command in the future, it is not a current
command. By definition, doctrine is something that is taught or a principle or
position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.
Current Church teachings prohibit the practice polygamy at this time, so the
practice of polygamy at this time is not Church doctrine. The Church's
argument in favor of traditional marriage is perfectly consistent with Church
Stay strong LDS faithful! Every time this subject comes up, and a few others I
always reflect on what President Monson stated a few General Conferences ago.
It's going to be very difficult to be a Mormon in this country in the
coming years. I pray that our good brother and sisters from other faiths will
lock arms with us!
Gay marriage will likely sweep this country in one form or another. When it
does, I will proudly stand with the Catholics and Mormons in defense of
By golly, I finally found something that I agree with Chris B on... This is a
Black and White Issue... Any shade of gray is a rationalization... Modern Day
Prophets and Popes say that Gay Marriage is not condoned by God, the scriptures
quoting prophets of old are pretty clear on that issue... If you are a Believer,
that should be good enough...It doesn't mean we can't love
friends and relatives who are Gay or do support Gay marriage... It simply means
they are wrong and engaging in beliefs and/or conduct that is contrary to
I can't believe I actually agree with Chris B on something.Good
call on gay marriage, Chris B, and how about those Cougs tonight!
I understand that the Supreme Court may decide it is too early for a definitive
ruling on gay marriage. And, although foes of gay marriage say traditional
marriage is better for children, I understand that no reputable study has been
done on the subject. Therefore, if a reputable study is completed and it finds
that gay marriage is actually better for children, America should move quickly
to outlaw marriages between a man and a woman.
Agency. We can go with God, or we can go with man. Choose ye this day...I remember that Sodom and Gomorrah were rained on with fire and
brimstone. I don't remember Sodom and Gomorrah having a big rainbow
raining with skittles, or lucky charms, or having prancing leprechauns.In summary (for those with short attention spans or who are bent on ignoring
theology/history) Sodom and Gomorrah were DESTROYED for their immorality. God
decides what immorality is and is not. When man decides what
immorality is and is not they get fire and brimstone, not rainbows and
skittles.It' pretty straight forward if your intent is to serve
God. Serving yourself is when it gets confusing.
@ChaseWhat we know about Sodom and Gomorrah is verses later in the Bible
about their inhospitable nature and how they didn't care for those less
fortunate, and then the chapter in Genesis itself...That chapter
includes men who were looking to rape angels (there's a big difference
between rape and consentual sex) and the one allegedly moral guy in the story,
Lot, offered his daughters to the rapists. Do you really want to use this story
as anything useful about morality?
Good for the church! One of the few Christian churches that has the spine to
stand up for what is right.
It is unfortunate when members of the Church call their fellow members'
worthiness and faithfulness into question based on sweeping assumptions about
political issues.I am a faithful LDS member, enjoying all the
blessings of the Temple etc. I support marriage equality.My position
on this issue is grounded directly in the following official, canonized,
divinely inspired scripture:"9 We do not believe it just to
mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society
is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges [such as
marriage], and the individual rights of its members, as citizens,
denied."I refuse to be a part of any effort to deprive my fellow
US citizens of equality before the law when it comes to marriage. I refuse to
act contrary to scripture and revelation that have provided guidance since the
Prophet Joseph established the foundation of this work.You may
interpret things differently. But please stop castigating the worthiness and
faithfulness of those you are supposed to be calling "brother" and
poyman - How can you really believe what your comment said? Just because you
believe it doesn't mean others have to. It also doesn't mean that
because you think it is god's will that it actually is his will. I doubt
you have talked to him. If somebody doesn't believe in your god why would
they have to follow your god's teachings? It is absurd to make people think
they are wrong for not believing what you believe.
@at1134Thanks for a textbook example of a Red Herring. I
made a distinctly clear point about God's disapproval of sexual deviance -
which you avoided altogether. Instead you relied upon your own interpretation of
morality (which is what same-sex marriage advocates do), and the bible, to
justify your position. There is more in the Bible about Sodom, its just that
you're only familiar with the points you think prove or disprove what you
want to believe or disbelieve. You're right, God probably only
destroys cities for their "carelessness" and "inhospitability".
Next you'll argue how the word "Sodomy" is etymologically
inaccurate...that it actually means "careless", "inhospitable".
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you want is same-sex marriage, even the scriptures appear NOT to
condemn it (Jesus said 'love everyone', 'don't judge'
[*teary eyes*]). It's self-deception, my friend. Again, when
you are serving yourself, it's easy to rationalize and justify any and
everything. When you seek to serve God, what's right and what to do
becomes pretty black and white.
@BrahmaBull: Just a historical note: polygamy was not illegal when the LDS
Church began its practice. Moreover, it *was* illegal for the U.S. government to
enforce the new law (the Edmunds-Tucker Act) against polygamy retroactively, but
it did so anyway.I do *not* intend this comment to condone any
current practice of polygamy.
@Chase --"Next you'll argue how the word "Sodomy"
is etymologically inaccurate..."That depends on which language
you're speaking in.Due to strict DN moderation, I can't
tell you exactly what it means in the different languages. There are actually
several different meanings. And guess what -- none of those meanings are
restricted to a specific gender, or specifically refer to same-sex relations."There is more in the Bible about Sodom"Yes, there
certainly is. Unfortunately, every time I try to post quotes from the Bible I
get my post denied by the moderators. I can't understand why that is.Since I can't actually post quotes, I will just say that the sins
linked to Sodom within the text of the Bible include adultery, lying,
impenitence, careless living, wantonness, "filthy" lifestyle, arrogance,
haughtiness, "careless ease", and failure to help the poor and needy.Let's see if the moderators will allow me ONE Bible quote:"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters
had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor
and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me."
(Ezekiel 16.49-50 NASB)
Sharrona posted:But, the original articles of faith. #8 We believe in the
Word of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe the Word of God recorded in
the Book of Mormon, and in all other good books.The above is
incorrect. An article at fairlds about changes to the Articles of Faith, fails
to mention the above. The 8th AoF as original penned by Joseph Smith, appears
exactly the same in the Pearl of Great Price. AoF #'s 4, 6, 7 and 11
are documented to have been changed between JS penning and inclusion to Canon of
Scriptures. Your quote comes from a book published by a member of
the Church. Apparently he was having "fun" with the scriptures. I
remember fellow seminary students, and missionaries taking such liberty with the
scriptures, all in humor and fun.
SheBearThat may be true, but the church continued to do it, and
church members continued to take on polygamous relationships knowing it was
illegal. Parley P. Pratt also took a wife that were still married (also illegal)
yet felt it was the right thing to do so he disobeyed the law because it was
convenient for him.
I'm confused... LDS Church affirms position on marriage? Which position?
One wife? Many wives? Wives already married to other husbands? The
'position' has been all over the map, so please forgive my confusion.