Washington Post had an article a couple days ago entitled in their email as "Young Mormons aren’t fooled by church support for a gay marriage bill"

First, note use of the forbidden word "Mormon". You can only fit so many words into a subject line, and Nelson didn't give the world a short name for referring to Mormons, so the world works with what it's got.

Second, the article is about BYU students protesting. They see the LDS hierarchy support of the bill as a move to protect BYU from lawsuits or DoJ investigation, rather than a move by the Church to protect gay marriage.

That is pretty much the same situation as the sex abuse hotline to Kirton-McConkie, which exists to protect the church, not the abused.

If even BYU students are not swallowing the BS, things are not going well for the Q15. And I bet they'd really rather this story were not in the weekend edition of WaPo. [ETA: Oops, 11/23 was not on a weekend]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/23/mormons-respect-for-marriage-support-sham/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2022 05:26PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Because when it comes to the continuing evolution of mormonism, what isn't a sham?

. . . okay, okay; the money is real.

the Beatings will continue until morale improves

If you can't beat 'em, pretend like you're joining them.

The church doesn't stand for sex without marriage, and if you're married, you can only have sex with whomever it was you entered that holy state.

According to Robert A. Heinlein (in "Glory Road"), there was a time in England, among the peasantry, or at least the more pleasant pheasant-eating peasants, when 'jumping the broom' together made a male peasant and a female peasant husband and wife.

In other words, intent ruled.  No church, no state, no paperwork, no banns, no engagement, no bridal shower, no bachelor/bachelorette parties, no rehearsal, no rehearsal dinner, no reception, no tin cans tied to their mule, etc.  Just intent.

But it can be a tricky, slippery road, because very often, we hormonal humans can have one intention, but claim another.  

Or more succinctly, men are pigs.

It’s very simple what the church is doing. It’s no longer calling temple sealings temple marriages. They are saying ok, society wants same sex marriage and it’s become legal in the US and we believe in sustaining the law of the land. Why do you think the church now tells couples to get married civilly then go to the temple to get sealed? It legally makes the temple ordinance a religious practice and not a civil marriage. It makes it to where the government can’t force the church to change it’s temple ceremony.

BoJ, do you want to deal with this nonsense?

Yeah. Not sure what Rubicon has been smoking, but either it or he has not been functioning well. Oy.

The church's right to marry or not marry anyone of its choosing was in no danger whatsoever.Cite a single court case, anywhere in the country, where a church was in danger of court-ordered losses because of not performing same-sex marriages. Cite a single law, anywhere in the country, that would have legal sanctions against a church for not performing same-sex marriages.

Hasn't happened, and there is no danger it is going to happen. First Amendment.

Church-owned universities is a different story. Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption for its racially discriminatory dating policy. BYU might be in some danger of being accused of having a gender-discriminatory dating policy but they could probably wiggle out of that by saying their proscription against premarital sex applies to all students.

However, if they expel students for getting legally married, but only if they are a same-sex couple, the discrimination charge might stick, and the university could lose federal research funds, federal work-study funds for students, might lose their tax exemption, and all manner of financial sanctions.

The LDS Church decided to support the law after an amendment was added that was specifically aimed at protecting church universities (the word university was specifically used). They decided that protecting their schools was important enough that they would support the overall law, which was likely to pass anyway, to improve the chances that the amendment would be left in the bill when it had to go to a House-Senate conference committee to resolve the differences between their two bills. Only the Senate bill had the amendment.


As for why did LDS Inc change its policy about allowing civil marriage without the formerly mandatory one year waiting period for a temple sealing - that had nothing to do with the US government. The mandatory waiting period had been put in place in the first place to pressure Mormon couples to get a temple marriage, which in turn pressured their family and friends to pay up on tithing or they couldn't attend the wedding.

That has been obvious for years to anyone who gave it 30 seconds worth of critical analysis.

There was obviously no reason why that waiting period was necessary because in the UK, weddings had to be performed in a place open to the public, and temples did not meet that requirement, so the couple got married in a public place first, and then got sealed shortly after, no one year wait as punishment for getting married outside the temple.

The reason for the change in the US was that rank and file members were starting to openly rebel against the policy. If their friends and family could not attend the wedding, screw it - they'd just get a civil wedding with everyone in attendance, and wait a year. What the hell. If one of them should die before the year was up, they could have the wedding sealed by proxy in the temple. "What if one of you dies" was always the reason for not waiting.

What was actually happening was that a lot of couples, after the year was up, decided not to bother with getting sealed. Or, there was not the public pressure for people to attend the sealing, so not that many family and friends were bothering to pay tithing to get their TR. They'd already been to the "real" wedding. They'd just as soon keep their money, and skip the sealing.

And that was why the policy changed. It had nothing to do with the church fearing it would be forced to perform marriages it did not approve of.

BTW, couples can still opt to get married/sealed in the temple and skip the civil marriage, so how the civil marriage policy change was going to protect against government mandated same-sex temple marriage is completely beyond me.

LDS Inc just swallowed a pill they would not normally have swallowed in the hope that it would protect BYU's policy of expelling married same-sex couples. The fact that supporting the bill made them look like /nice, tolerant people/spineless hypocrites who have knuckled under to Satan's Plan/ were side effects, not the main reason for the change.

The Church tax exemption was in zero danger. BYU, on the other hand....

You can’t get sealed in a temple without proof of a civil marriage. Yeah the church got on board with the legislation because there were some protections that benefitted them and it would get a lot of media coverage and they would get a positive PR pop.

Temple marriages actually benefitted the church for the reasons you described. It did force people to pay up and get temple recommends. Why would the church give that up? Most it’s tithing paying members live in the US not in foreign countries where the marriage laws differ.

It’s all a play on words. Separate marriage from the temple and you protect the temple. As far as the first amendment goes we don’t seem to be following it too well right now. Even Lot’s Wife complains our constitutional rights are being trampled on.

Anyways Rome is falling. Enjoy the implosion.

Divide and conquer is what it’s all about. Ruffle as many feathers as you can. Get America in one big constant fight and get it distracted and you can move on ahead.

We are the country of guns. It is a thing and has been for our entire history.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. The church has the latter in spades.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As
> far as the first amendment goes we don’t seem to
> be following it too well right now. Even Lot’s
> Wife complains our constitutional rights are being
> trampled on.

Yeah, but I mean the rights in the constitution and the way they have been interpreted for 230 years. I do NOT mean the rights you believe should be in the constitution but are not.

There is an opinion piece today on MSNBC's site that nails the Mormon "support" for the Marriage Act. It is by a gay person who sees right through what they are doing.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/lgbtq-people-deserve-weak-respect-marriage-bill-rcna59020

Here's a sample:

---
To a casual observer, it might appear that the Latter-Day Saints simply caught up with the times. While some of them may well have, it is important to note that this same-sex marriage bill also comes with some protections for their church.

The concession was made in the form of an amendment that not only spells out that religious organizations can refuse to marry same-sex couples but also protects such religious organizations’ tax-exempt status and ensures they still receive other federal benefits should they choose to discriminate against same-sex couples who wish to wed.
---

Of COURSE it protects their tax-exempt status while discriminating. Barf.

I believe it carves out protection for businesses so that they can refuse services based on the owners'/operators' personal religious beliefs.

No wedding cake for you, Alex & Jeffrey, Hilda & Rowena!!



(I'm wracking my brain, wondering why I picked those names...  So far, nothing, other than an old girlfriend named Hildi...and she should have known better!)

While the amendment does include churches in its list of protected organizations, I see that as mostly for show. The part of the amendment that actually might have some effect is item 3 in the amendment, relating to other tax-exempt organizations. In an indented sub-item, it gives the specific example of universities in case there was any doubt about what it protecting.

It doesn't appear to be to be applicable to general businesses, like the discriminatory baker of wedding cakes.

See: https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2453015,2453146#msg-2453146

Protect the eternal family business first. Let them eat cake.

while it simultaneously guarantees gay marriage as a right in every state for people who are gay, they just can't force a church to wed them or a person who objects religiously to sell them cake or take their wedding photos and etc. It's not ideal, but when you think think about what happened to Roe and that this far right SCOTUS wants to axe Obergefell too, I would take this deal. With a Republican House around the corner, you're not going to get another chance.

Just remember that Mike Lee voted against it.

Yeah. I can't believe he got voted in again.
Or maybe I should say, of course he got voted in again.

Another theory I heard peddled: by supporting this Marriage Act, it will (somewhere down the road) make it easier for LDS to return to polygamy here on Earth, in Utah, in other places, too.

Is there any logic or merit to that supposed outcome?

The Senate amendment has a clause that specifically says the law can’t be used to justify federal recognition of polygamy. It is right after the clause designed to protect discriminatory universities.

I suspect LDS Inc was behind both clauses. Legalization of polygamy would be their worst nightmare.

I think you are right. No one wants polygamy to go away more than Mormons. The amendment smells like Mitt's work after having a pow wow with LDS leadership about what they HAVE to do and what they can get away with to get Mitt's vote.

If the regular nut jobs had added that about polygamy, they would have included forbidding marriage to animals since that is where their slippery slope arguments often lead. OK, I'm kidding...sort of.

Yeah, what she said.

I sincerely think the LDS Church wants absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. Sure it's doctrine; it's heavenly; it's okay when some old widow wants to remarry.

But they do not want it practiced in this world with living beings any more than they want members having and declaring their own visions, the fulfillment of the old prophesies about the destruction of the US government, believers speaking in tongues, women given the priesthood as JS was beginning to do, the reimposition of the priesthood ban, or anything else that would further alienate the world and its peoples from the conservative little sect that the lawyers, businessmen, and public relations specialistis--the apostles--have been building for the last century.

They are intelligent enough to realize that polygamy is a pandora's box with no hope at the bottom.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2022 02:21PM by Lot's Wife.

They are a multilevel marketing corporation that acts like a bank retaining a Sanhedrin of lawyers running for profit businesses profitably.

Whether they admit it or not, the church's survival strategy is to jettison every controversial doctrine and practice Mormonism ever had.

Other, of course, than one singular defining characteristic: Mormons must unquestioningly and always obey the church leadership.

That's what is left.