Just read the latest 1st Pres Statement that will be read out at various church meetings. This seems to be like an edict from the 15 to all members to mobilise for the struggle ahead. In fact there is a dangerous paragraph that uses terminology that seems to infer that the LDS church's moral laws, specifically in reference to gay marriage, supercedes US civil law or the law of the land. This paragraph alone seems to encourage strongly that church and member disobedience of US law is warranted, especially in regard to SSM. The 15 and their lawyers must be getting worried indeed that they are resorting to the provocative use of what seems dangerous and coded language that will be interpreted by the temple covenanted faithful as a call to defend the church and kingdom in Utah. As a temple patron and worker for many years, I can see how the emotive language used in that paragraph could be seen as a clarion call, a reminder to the elect of their covenants at this critical time for the church. This 1st Pres. statement is a dangerous document as it has the potential for state legalised disobedience and, taken to its conclusion, even insurrection. A typically careful use of words by the 15 and their legal team, but a dangerous and inlammatory statement nonetheless.

So much for the 12th article of faith.

no, it is saying just because it's legal doesn't make it morally right. it isn't asking for insurrection.

....it's funny cause to them, God's view of marriage DID change with polygamy.

Letter is here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

My summary of the letter:

SSM has gained legal recognition in UT and elsewhere (at least temporarily), but marriage is about a man and a woman making God-fearing babies and gay sex is still a sin. LDS worthiness and discipline rules still stand. The LDS church WILL NOT have anything to do with any activities associated with same sex marriage ceremonies, but gay couples can still attend church as long as they don't get rowdy or have sex during their church visit. Lets all be civil. Mormons have a responsibility to teach the infidels about the "inevitable consequences of ignoring" God's commandments. Pray that the infidels and government officials will agree with us.

</summary>

I can't wait to be taught about the inevitable consequences of SSM.

P.S. this wasn't meant to be a reply to jujube, but I apparently clicked in the wrong spot



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2014 12:54AM by libor.

Can you please provide a link to this 1st pres statement?

I thought that paragraph was inflammatory also. It just gives the TBM's another reason to continue opposing gay marriage, and assures them they are on morally high ground when they do. I saw it as a cleverly disguised "call to arms".

I also saw similarities between that statement and the attitudes that Brigham Young fostered regarding the Fancher wagon train, sending George Smith through southern Utah whipping up the saints to a frenzy. We know how that one went down. Not that I think the statement condones any physical violence, but it certainly gives the LDS community the ammunition to continue their intolerance and discrimination.

I also find it odd that the church has such a fascination with controlling the sexual activities of its members, preaching chastity and abstinence, when Mormons were the sexual libertines and bohemians of the 19th Century.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2014 12:37AM by my2cents.

I find it odd that they care about the sexual activities of everybody, whether they are in the cult or not.

Nor can I imagine labeling love a sin.

What that says about the cultists making (and obeying) the rules and assuming "gentiles" should do the same is the boundary issue that disturbs me the most.

"It just gives the TBM's another reason to continue opposing gay marriage,"

Anyone can "oppose" SSM as long as they don't act on it...now...

What I mean is you can still not like SSM, but if you deal w/gay people in your professional business, they get treated the same way as all other customers.

Churches, mormon, catholic, muslim whatever still have their religious right to NOT marry or acknowledge gay people...in their churches.


Gay people (will) now get the same nonsecular/govt rights that straight people have in Re: to..
cohabiting.
Having raising kids.
Leaving property to one another.


So with that in place, why Gay people or anybody else even cares about churches recognizing their SSM is beyond me.

what's even sadder.... is the energy that have been stolen from the simple values of Christ-Like living: Kindness, Honesty, etc.

to me, that's the Whole Story.

Well, the bretren are becoming more aggressive toward gay marriage because it takes control out of ther hands. Parents are realizing they can love, and not adandon their guy children. Children can love tha parent who might have been guy. The rank and file seem to understand that love is a viable option to the castigation that is taught by the doctrinal gurus in the church.

Please tell me this is supposed to be read in the adult only meetings, not over the pulpit in SM.

that gay sex and marriage are bad, while pretending to be respectful. They've probably done a study and determined they'll generate more tithing revenue by continuing to stick gay members in hetero marriages. I really think that's their motive with the sudden semi-acceptance and Voices of Hope and everything. They're just milking it for money while they still can.

We still have religious liberty in this country as well as the right to assembly.

The government does not, and should not have the right to force a religious institution or its adherents to engage in the promotion of same-sex marriages.

Would you stifle religious organizations from making such statements? I would hope not.

"We still have religious liberty in this country as well as the right to assembly."
Yes you have the right to all the anti-gay rhetoric you want. Anti-gay rallies (church meetings), god-hates f*gs picketing, and any other cruel, distasteful, dogmatic hate speech. Yup, it's all protected. And other rights you take for granted are protected also. Taste of your own medicine maybe? The church, and it's Utah puppet government, wants to categorically deny a basic civil right to gays, marrying...and your response to gays is...leave my rights alone? Really? That totally doesn't stick. It's utterly ironic that churches are complaining that gays are taking away their rights. What rights of yours do gays want to injure, like you injure theirs?


"The government does not, and should not have the right to force a religious institution or its adherents to engage in the promotion of same-sex marriages."
Gays never wanted to do any such thing. Yet religions want to force their views into secular law. This is such a grossly hypocritical statement.

"Would you stifle religious organizations from making such statements? I would hope not."
Amen. I love it when religions profess their dogma, so that we can all see what their arguments come down to. They only pretend to use "legal" arguments in court, why? Because religious dogma is inadmissible. Why? Because there's this constitutional separation of church and state.

...so I will ignore the rest of your comments...

Wha..? There was nothing uncivil in Amos2's response. I agree with Amos2's statements. And as a gay guy I'll point out yet again that we're the 'victims' here having our civil rights threatened in a way that impacts every aspect of our personal and financial life, not the multi-billion dollar so-called church or its lackeys in the UT state government.

Apart from being deeply insulting and offensive to the rest of society, this 1st Pres Statement contains rhetoric that has very dangerous overtones and language, of which the interpretation and response would be determined primarily by its Temple covenanted membership.

The two paragraphs below are particularly worrying in that there is a suggestion in the phraseology that Mormon laws and doctrine, which of course includes the Temple Oaths, somehow possess greater authority over the law of the land.

It is an unapologetic and quite blatant appeal, a direct call to the membership, from the authorised representatives of god on earth, to challenge civil authority and be prepared to defend the church and the kingdom if necessary.

It is a call for the members to deny certain groups of people their legitimate entitlement to basic human rights and privileges under US law. Worse of all there is a hint in the language towards incitement, a total disregard for the rule of law and for members to prepare for a possible robust response ahead.


"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members."


This is desperate stuff coming from the brethren, not only does it appear to be a direct challenge to Obama, his administration and presidency, but is also a threat to freedom and equality for the rest of American society itself. Or so it seems to me.

That statement probably was one of the most thoroughly vetted, lawyer-certified ones they've come up with so far. Yes, a certain type of TBM mind will interpret it as a call to cultural, if not actual battle. That was intended, but very subtle. They know better than to lock horns with the feds, as that led to disaster for them in the past. They'll fuss and fume, but in the end they'll yield. Probably about the time discussion begins about big companies boycotting Utah, church businesses losing tax advantages and other such money-related matters. TSCC is all about the money.. or hadn't you noticed?

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

Didn't they do just that when they abandoned polygamy for political control of Utah and statehood? Sounds like a recruitment ad for the FLDS to me...

This is a thoroughly chilling statement from evil and conspiring men.
There is a real possibility of federal government intervention in the machinations of Utah state governance and its principal organ grinders - the prophets and apostles of intolerance and hate in the LDS church.

It's a tantrum letter from a bunch of geriatric religious leaders who are frustrated by the reality that they are losing control of just about everything. They are struggling to control the emergence of liberal Mormon sub-cultures who care less about what Church leaders say and more about following their own conscience. They are worried that these people are becoming Bishops and Church Leaders and that the power to decree and declare edicts is quickly slipping through their old fingers.

Letting the bishops and stake presidents know where to line up and not do anything that might open a door to a challenge on temple sealings. That's what the headline is for.

I had a similar thought to anybody, when I read: "Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments..."

Mopologists and TBM's cannot argue that God's "commandment" was 1 man 1 woman--it was actually for PLURAL marriage, via revelation to JS; there was NO official revelation that brought about the manifesto, although they refer to it now as such. They were unable to become a state, so they had to change their spots.

TSCC is so stuck behind the 8 ball, according to their own doctrine.

Male to male sealings under the Law Of Adoption. I no longer have the reference materials, however, during the days of rampant polygyny in Utah, CJCLDS was sealing men to men so as to allow them to increase their kingdoms. While these sealings were not explicitly gay, I did see hints that some hanky panky was possible as in the case of Orin Porter Rockwell and JS. Brigham did end the practice because he wasn't sure what it was all about. It would seem to me that having offered the highest of their ordinances to SSC in the 19th century, it is less than genuine to oppose the same in the 21st.

Hopefully someone with better reference materials than I have, will post a challenge to the current stance. It is time that all the Mormon chickens come home to roost.

True.

What short and inconsistent memories they have!

They HAVE had male to male sealings.

They HAVE been the outliers in society wanting an unconventional definition of marriage to include polygamy.

Do they think everyone is going to forget that?

Of all groups of people upset about SSM, they should STFU. They look ridiculous and should be embarrassed. They've put themselves in a corner and now there is no graceful transition.

Of course in 50 years the sheep will only be reading about how they were instrumental in helping gays be accepted as equal children of Heavenly Father, blah, blah. You know how church history works.

Ha ha, time for the feds!!
Would love to know what the reaction was from the morbots today. Is it getting read out today at SM, SS, RS, PH or just BM/PEC? Anyone like to share?

The letter is hate speech that will haunt them at some point in time.

Their PR people should know better than to be drawing so many red lines.

whether they admit it or not, most TBM families have a gay member. This letter is divisive and will hurt their organization over the long term.

Just wondering if that's your opinion or if you read that somewhere.

staind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wondering if that's your opinion or if you
> read that somewhere.


My opinion, but I think most families have a gay member. It just depends on how extended the family is and how open the gay person is.

and gay couples can still pay tithing

makes the church a very hostile place for gay couples and families. I've read many stories here of people raised in the church by part-member families, or single parent families, and how the constant harping about one-size-fits all eternal families made them feel like they were "less than" other kids. I would hate to see how the child of a gay couple would be treated in the church.

The constant attention on bearing children and on building eternal families hurts and controls people who don't fit the LDS cookie cutter, and even destroys families with non-believers in them FAR more than it comforts them. I was an "older" single woman in the church before I married in my later 20s. I felt horrible about that and like I was failing at one of my main purposes in life. And yet, it was out of my control until I met the right man. Instead of worrying about marriage, I should have just been enjoying my single life and throwing myself into my profession. All the harping about marriage didn't help me get married sooner. It just twisted the knife.

How do the hetero couples feel who CAN'T have children of their own, or choose to wait? What right do these leaders have to devalue their relationships and contributions because they don't have kids? Isn't love and mutual support a wonderful reason to be married?

Church leaders need to stop attempting their social engineering and let people figure out how and when to build their own families.

Does anyone know if this insult of a Statement is confined to the US, or is it being sent to the church worldwide? Many countries in Europe, including UK have legalised gay marriage or will very soon. This nasty and socially divisive church statement will not be welcomed or even tolerated in these more liberal and socially diverse societies. Did anyone still attending hear anything today?