Mormon Leaders Take on Marriage Equal...

Mormon Leaders Take on Marriage Equality in Hawaii

There are 141 comments on the EDGE story from Sep 20, 2013, titled Mormon Leaders Take on Marriage Equality in Hawaii. In it, EDGE reports that:

Although leaders from the Mormon Church have remained out of the gay marriage debate in a number of states as of late, they have recently resurfaced to take on the marriage equality battle in Hawaii, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#110 Oct 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Married clergy in the West lasted well into the 9th Century. In the East it never ended, where presbyters may marry but monks do not. The move toward a celibate clergy is the direct result of monastic influence as the backbone of the expansion of "christendom" both East and West. The resistance to married clergy was largely a result of Germanic cultural influence.
One of the most functional reasons the West moved from married clergy was the tendency to create "dynasties" and property ownership little different from baronies. History shows that the restriction had little effect. Commendatory abbacies are just one later example of how the "solution" didn't address the problem.
Saul's heresies are responsible for so much needless suffering and, of course, the hoary edifice called "christendom".
The Medici family comes to mind.
onefour1

Eagle Mountain, UT

#111 Oct 27, 2013
I don't think the point of this thread is about the constitutionality of religious beliefs. It simply about teaching people between what is right or wrong according to the Christian God. It is not trying to force anybody to do anything but merely to teach and let others choose based on what they learn. It is the same as when other teach me that homosexuality is ok. I hear it but I still have the right not to believe it. There are those in the US who would like everyone to accept homosexuality as something natural and ok. I don't believe that is true based on the bible. Do I have a right to believe in the bible? I believe I have a right to believe it just as much as those who believe homosexuality is good and acceptable. Should I be forced to believe it is good? Can I not have this freedom in my religion? Can I not teach my perspective as much as others teach theirs? Should christians be persecuted for their religious beliefs? Because the bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin, do I not have the right to beleive that? And if I do believe in the God of the bible should I be labeled a hate monger? Just because I believe that homosexuality is a sin and teach against it, should I be labeled a hate monger? Should I be forced to swallow the pill of the government doled out ethics? Should the government be involved in establishing state ethics that do no harm to others? You can contrue any language into hate speech just because it opposes your point of view. But under this pretext and if we were fair, everyone would be guilty. All my purpose is on teaching you what the bible says regarding homosexuality is to show you that it is against christianity to support it. That if you are involved in it, you should repent of it for your personal salvation. If you choose not to believe this, that is your right of free will. Nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. The LDS church was within its rights to lobby people to vot against homosexuality in state accepted marriages. The majority of the people voted the same. Unfortunately the powers that be do not respect the voice of the people but feel their judgment to be superior to that of the voice of the people. But no matter, at least for the time being, we still have the freedom to express our opinions.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#112 Oct 27, 2013
onefour1 wrote:
I don't think the point of this thread is about the constitutionality of religious beliefs. It simply about teaching people between what is right or wrong according to the Christian God. It is not trying to force anybody to do anything but merely to teach and let others choose based on what they learn. It is the same as when other teach me that homosexuality is ok. I hear it but I still have the right not to believe it. There are those in the US who would like everyone to accept homosexuality as something natural and ok. I don't believe that is true based on the bible. Do I have a right to believe in the bible? I believe I have a right to believe it just as much as those who believe homosexuality is good and acceptable. Should I be forced to believe it is good? Can I not have this freedom in my religion? Can I not teach my perspective as much as others teach theirs? Should christians be persecuted for their religious beliefs? Because the bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin, do I not have the right to beleive that? And if I do believe in the God of the bible should I be labeled a hate monger? Just because I believe that homosexuality is a sin and teach against it, should I be labeled a hate monger? Should I be forced to swallow the pill of the government doled out ethics? Should the government be involved in establishing state ethics that do no harm to others? You can contrue any language into hate speech just because it opposes your point of view. But under this pretext and if we were fair, everyone would be guilty. All my purpose is on teaching you what the bible says regarding homosexuality is to show you that it is against christianity to support it. That if you are involved in it, you should repent of it for your personal salvation. If you choose not to believe this, that is your right of free will. Nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. The LDS church was within its rights to lobby people to vot against homosexuality in state accepted marriages. The majority of the people voted the same. Unfortunately the powers that be do not respect the voice of the people but feel their judgment to be superior to that of the voice of the people. But no matter, at least for the time being, we still have the freedom to express our opinions.
"The LDS church was within its rights to lobby people to vot against homosexuality in state accepted marriages. The majority of the people voted the same. Unfortunately the powers that be do not respect the voice of the people but feel their judgment to be superior to that of the voice of the people. But no matter, at least for the time being, we still have the freedom to express our opinions."
Really? If a religion considers something a sin and can drum up enough support, it's ok to ban it? Seriously ??

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#113 Oct 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Married clergy in the West lasted well into the 9th Century. In the East it never ended, where presbyters may marry but monks do not. The move toward a celibate clergy is the direct result of monastic influence as the backbone of the expansion of "christendom" both East and West. The resistance to married clergy was largely a result of Germanic cultural influence.
One of the most functional reasons the West moved from married clergy was the tendency to create "dynasties" and property ownership little different from baronies. History shows that the restriction had little effect. Commendatory abbacies are just one later example of how the "solution" didn't address the problem.
Saul's heresies are responsible for so much needless suffering and, of course, the hoary edifice called "christendom".
I have researched writings by RCC priests on this matter. Here is one I found that verifies what I stated.

"Much has been said about practical reasons for celibacy,...When all is said and done, however, we must understand it as a powerful sign of the presence of the kingdom of God. It is not essential to the priesthood, but it is a radical witness to the reign of Christ in the world. In the West the church eventually adopted the practice of celibacy as a universal discipline. The East, however, never did."

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu143.htm
Q. 1. What is the position of the Catholic Church regarding married priests?
A. 1. This question is best answered by reproducing the Questions and Answers placed before the Most Reverend Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of Milwaukee, on July 26, 2008 on married clergy becoming priests.
The following is a Q & A sent by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan to priests and deacons explaining how married clergy can become priests.
Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, in a letter to priests and deacons about Father Michael Scheip.
Q. We were always taught that married men could not be ordained Catholic priests. How is it possible that we could have a married Catholic priest here in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee?
A. Celibacy is a discipline of the Roman Catholic Church practiced universally in the West. Although it is highly valued, Pope Paul VI states that celibacy "is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself. This is clear from the practice of the early church and the traditions of the Eastern rite churches."

Much has been said about practical reasons for celibacy, such as giving the parish priest more time to dedicate to the children of God, etc. When all is said and done, however, we must understand it as a powerful sign of the presence of the kingdom of God. It is not essential to the priesthood, but it is a radical witness to the reign of Christ in the world.

In the West the church eventually adopted the practice of celibacy as a universal discipline. The East, however, never did. Even today Eastern rite priests, in their native lands, may marry before ordination. This historical situation opened the doors to the possibility of a married clergy in the West under certain circumstances - most notably for those whose lifelong traditions allow for a married clergy. This includes certain Protestant traditions.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#114 Oct 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Married clergy in the West lasted well into the 9th Century. In the East it never ended, where presbyters may marry but monks do not. The move toward a celibate clergy is the direct result of monastic influence as the backbone of the expansion of "christendom" both East and West. The resistance to married clergy was largely a result of Germanic cultural influence.
One of the most functional reasons the West moved from married clergy was the tendency to create "dynasties" and property ownership little different from baronies. History shows that the restriction had little effect. Commendatory abbacies are just one later example of how the "solution" didn't address the problem.
Saul's heresies are responsible for so much needless suffering and, of course, the hoary edifice called "christendom".
There is also this tidbit from the Catholic encyclopedia describing a rite installed for certain offices since very early Rome though the wording may have changed here and there.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

I did state Paul's negative opinion of marriage was the main backing for the early sustained rite of celibacy in the ancient church of Rome.

"Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry."

Celibacy of the Clergy

Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The character of this renunciation, as we shall see, is differently understood in the Eastern and in the Western Church. Speaking, for the moment, only of Western Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by the bishop at the beginning of the ceremony regarding the gravity of the obligation which they are incurring. He tells them:

You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.

By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#115 Oct 27, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the point, isn't it? We CAN'T choose the gender we are attracted to - these things are hard-wired. And that means they come from God, for His purposes.
I don't know that our sexual attraction comes from God. What I know from what the Torah and Bible states is that God made marriage a commandment for the procreation of children so his spirits could be born into this life. Marriage wasn't instituted by God to be or not be a self indulged activity. I say that because if it wasn't important for spirits to be born into this life, I would think God would never have made marriage a commandment for the purpose of procreation. I would think he would have made some commandment for us to not engage in marriage unless it was absolutely necessary. He could have simplified it all by making us all a-sexual with the ability to self conceive without a partner and marriage would never have been needed. In that case having a relationship would have been the option.
But it's not like that. That's why marriage came as a commandment for the faithful. You obeyed the commandment or you don't as it is with other commandments. There was to be no middle ground as we have made of it to exist.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#116 Oct 27, 2013
Quest wrote:
The argument is whether or not civil laws that directly harm law-abiding people for religious purposes are constitutional. And if they are, which religious sect or sects should be allowed to drive those laws?
I am a Christian, and my denomination believes that God blesses the marriages of gay folks in the same way that He blesses the marriages of everyone else. Should my denomination have the final say? Should yours? Should the Jewish Rabbi down the street? Or the Imam next door?
Who gets to impose their particular religious view on everyone else?
People in person or behind institutions impose their views on others. It's a human thing :)
Having a belief that God thinks this way or that way is one thing. But the Bible has specific things in it and that is it. If a religious congregation wishes to endorse and bless same sex marriage it is their right afforded by our constitution, but not a right sustained by the Bible. The Bible neither sustains nor speaks against same sex marriage. The Bible records God endorsed two forms of marriage and that is it: monogamy and then polygamy though polygamy seems to have been the more popular form of marriage for a long, long while.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#117 Oct 27, 2013
Mormons aren't Christians.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#118 Oct 28, 2013
onefour1 wrote:
I don't think the point of this thread is about the constitutionality of religious beliefs. It simply about teaching people between what is right or wrong according to the Christian God. It is not trying to force anybody to do anything but merely to teach and let others choose based on what they learn. It is the same as when other teach me that homosexuality is ok. I hear it but I still have the right not to believe it. There are those in the US who would like everyone to accept homosexuality as something natural and ok. I don't believe that is true based on the bible. Do I have a right to believe in the bible? I believe I have a right to believe it just as much as those who believe homosexuality is good and acceptable. Should I be forced to believe it is good? Can I not have this freedom in my religion? Can I not teach my perspective as much as others teach theirs? Should christians be persecuted for their religious beliefs? Because the bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin, do I not have the right to beleive that? And if I do believe in the God of the bible should I be labeled a hate monger? Just because I believe that homosexuality is a sin and teach against it, should I be labeled a hate monger? Should I be forced to swallow the pill of the government doled out ethics? Should the government be involved in establishing state ethics that do no harm to others? You can contrue any language into hate speech just because it opposes your point of view. But under this pretext and if we were fair, everyone would be guilty. All my purpose is on teaching you what the bible says regarding homosexuality is to show you that it is against christianity to support it. That if you are involved in it, you should repent of it for your personal salvation. If you choose not to believe this, that is your right of free will. Nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything. The LDS church was within its rights to lobby people to vot against homosexuality in state accepted marriages. The majority of the people voted the same. Unfortunately the powers that be do not respect the voice of the people but feel their judgment to be superior to that of the voice of the people. But no matter, at least for the time being, we still have the freedom to express our opinions.
The "bible" is not a good authority on "nature", nor on what is or isn't "natural". It calls bats birds. lol

The bible is not some august authority. It's a collection of writings compiled and edited by men at various times and places. Any teachings to the contrary, or that give the anthology greater gloss and glamour, are merely human traditions which are themselves non-scriptural.

Not everything in the anthology carries equal weight. The Jews call their anthology the Tanakh, which is actually a Hebrew acronym for "the Law" "the Prophets" and "the Writings". In the oldest grand synagogues there was the central chest (ark) for "the Law" (Torah), and another chest or curtained niche in the wall on either side for the others; one for the collection of "the Prophets" and one for "the Writings". Even within each of these collections, not everything carries equal weight.

The idolatry of "the bible" is a purely human invention, that shares great similarities with the pharisaic attachment to their books, treating them as legal codes and authority to abuse others.

"Beware the leaven of the Pharisees."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#119 Oct 28, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
"The LDS church was within its rights to lobby people to vot against homosexuality in state accepted marriages. The majority of the people voted the same. Unfortunately the powers that be do not respect the voice of the people but feel their judgment to be superior to that of the voice of the people. But no matter, at least for the time being, we still have the freedom to express our opinions."
Really? If a religion considers something a sin and can drum up enough support, it's ok to ban it? Seriously ??
Mormon INDIVIDUALS are withing their Rights to do so.

The church is NOT.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#120 Oct 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I have researched writings by RCC priests on this matter. Here is one I found that verifies what I stated.
"Much has been said about practical reasons for celibacy,...When all is said and done, however, we must understand it as a powerful sign of the presence of the kingdom of God. It is not essential to the priesthood, but it is a radical witness to the reign of Christ in the world. In the West the church eventually adopted the practice of celibacy as a universal discipline. The East, however, never did."
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu143.htm
Q. 1. What is the position of the Catholic Church regarding married priests?
A. 1. This question is best answered by reproducing the Questions and Answers placed before the Most Reverend Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of Milwaukee, on July 26, 2008 on married clergy becoming priests.
The following is a Q & A sent by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan to priests and deacons explaining how married clergy can become priests.
Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, in a letter to priests and deacons about Father Michael Scheip.
Q. We were always taught that married men could not be ordained Catholic priests. How is it possible that we could have a married Catholic priest here in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee?
A. Celibacy is a discipline of the Roman Catholic Church practiced universally in the West. Although it is highly valued, Pope Paul VI states that celibacy "is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself. This is clear from the practice of the early church and the traditions of the Eastern rite churches."
Much has been said about practical reasons for celibacy, such as giving the parish priest more time to dedicate to the children of God, etc. When all is said and done, however, we must understand it as a powerful sign of the presence of the kingdom of God. It is not essential to the priesthood, but it is a radical witness to the reign of Christ in the world.
In the West the church eventually adopted the practice of celibacy as a universal discipline. The East, however, never did. Even today Eastern rite priests, in their native lands, may marry before ordination. This historical situation opened the doors to the possibility of a married clergy in the West under certain circumstances - most notably for those whose lifelong traditions allow for a married clergy. This includes certain Protestant traditions.
"Eastern Rite" refers to those few Eastern sects that are in communion with the Patriarch of Rome. Orthodoxy allows presbyters to marry even after charismation and tonsure. Monks may not, of course. A presbyter who has been widowed or properly divorced is expected to not remarry and become a monk. Episcopos (bishops) are by tradition, and later by Conciliar decision, drawn from among the monastic communities; so may have been married at one time, and may have children.

Regardless, "christendom" is actually Saulianity; i.e. synagogue Pharisee gentiles posing as Temple Sadducees, violating and institutionalizing at one time or another almost every teaching of Yeshua in favor of their developed traditions.
anonymousnetruth teller

Omaha, NE

#121 Oct 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Mormons aren't Christians.
Says you but the truth is we are Christians:-)
anonymousnetruth teller

Omaha, NE

#122 Oct 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Mormons aren't Christians.
Actually we are

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#123 Oct 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also this tidbit from the Catholic encyclopedia describing a rite installed for certain offices since very early Rome though the wording may have changed here and there.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
I did state Paul's negative opinion of marriage was the main backing for the early sustained rite of celibacy in the ancient church of Rome.
"Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry."
Celibacy of the Clergy
Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The character of this renunciation, as we shall see, is differently understood in the Eastern and in the Western Church. Speaking, for the moment, only of Western Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by the bishop at the beginning of the ceremony regarding the gravity of the obligation which they are incurring. He tells them:
You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.
By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege.
One of the problems of Saulian "christendom" is conflation; and conflation with a chaotic depth only possible to gentiles who have little grasp of the context of Yeshua's teachings.
One of the most glaring conflations is the confusion between the roles of "apostolos" and "mathitis" (disciple) and the common follower.
Saul created roles in his communities based upon Pharisee synagogues. The deacons, for example, were nothing more than what is now called "the Synagogue Brotherhood" which has always been charged with the social services of the community served. This was NOT how the Jerusalem community functioned. The presbyter (elder) is nothing other than the synagogue elders, and the episkopos (overseer) nothing other than the Rabbi.
NONE of these are what Yeshua established.
Further developments of these roles into what you know today is the direct result of gross conflation by gentiles with pagan priests and the hierarchies and prerogatives established for them by Roman Imperial law. All of this is englamoured with allusions to and borrowings from the Sadducees and their destroyed temple.
It is interesting to note that female virginity developed swank before celibacy did, drawing from the Roman Vestals and other pagan temple renunciates, especially those of Egypt.
The RCC is not always the best authority on itself. It has to filter everything through it's ossified traditions and other agenda.
Again, get some snacks and give this the time:

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#124 Oct 28, 2013
anonymousnetruthteller wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you but the truth is we are Christians:-)
Which means Saulianity.

Pity.

Better that you were followers of Yeshua.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#125 Oct 28, 2013
anonymousnetruthteller wrote:
<quoted text>
Says you but the truth is we are Christians:-)
No. Mormons aren't Christians for many reasons. For one thing, Mormons are not monotheistic.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#126 Oct 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Mormons aren't Christians for many reasons. For one thing, Mormons are not monotheistic.
Who cares? All I know is that they are another once cult that has now gained legitimacy by there being so many of them and them lasting long enough. They are no different than Sciendologists or whatever new group, that makes the founders VERY rich, bopping down the pike.

If you read up on the origin of any religion, they all began the same. A small group who try to make sense of thunder and and earthquakes and death, and dreams up a pretty story to keep the children from crying.

Usually, the new religion upsets the status quo and a whole lot of people die, until a generation or so when everyone calms down and lets the new group to their little beliefs in peace. Sort of.
anonymousnetruth teller

Omaha, NE

#127 Oct 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Mormons aren't Christians for many reasons. For one thing, Mormons are not monotheistic.
No you are wrong I know we are Christians(followers of Christ)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#128 Oct 28, 2013
anonymousnetruthteller wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are wrong I know we are Christians(followers of Christ)
There are more requirements tahn simply that to be a Christian.

Foremost is to be monotheistic which Mormons are not.

Furthermore, I know of NO religious groups or denominations, i.e. Protestant, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, nor others, that recognize that Mormons are Christians. My denomination, ELCA, SPECIFICALLY TEACHES that Mormons are NOT Christians.

They're not.

Now I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just like saying that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus are not Christians. That's just a fact. It's the same with Mormons. They're not Christians. It's just a fact.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#129 Oct 28, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Mormons aren't Christians for many reasons. For one thing, Mormons are not monotheistic.
Neither were the early Hebrews.

"Elohim" is a "plural collective", like "the Johnsons".

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News First gay Navy Spouse of the Year and husband a... 5 min Wondering 16
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 60,797
News Amoaning slams Theresa May, UN Rapporteur over ... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 3
Does NE Jade Spit or Swallow? 2 hr Daisy Chane 2
News Goldberg: America not as intolerant as we make ... 2 hr Rainbow Kid 4
News Florida's Top Ten Gay Beaches (Jan '14) 7 hr I love jesus 26
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 8 hr Frankie Rizzo 27,981
News 'Roseanne' Star Recalls Fight to Air Controvers... Fri Frankie Rizzo 103