Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- From: "DP" <xnuke94@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:30:55 -0000
Absalom wrote:
DP wrote:
It could very well be that the
First Presidency is opposed to the amendment, and
is trusting the members to inherently know that it
would be a bad thing.
Does this really follow the princeples taught??
The Book of Mormon pretty much teaches a libertarian
political philosophy: leave others alone unless they
have harmed you badly on multiple occasions. Do not
take up the sword (of government) to coerce others to
live your religion. Even if you have been offended
forgive the offense.
To teach not to use government to coerce others to live your religion,
is NOT the same as to teach not to be involved in government, and not
to let your voice be heard, and not to be in favor of government
actions that support your religion. Not at all. To follow the
established system, to create laws that the mojority of the nation
support, that happen to be right in line with one's religious beliefs
(as well as the beliefs of many *other* religions) is *FAR* from
contradicting any BOM teaching.
The theology regarding the war in heaven and the
plan of salvation teach us not to coerce peaceable
non-believers to live religious principles.
What a good example.
God made laws, and let everyone choose whether to live them or not, and
recieve the consequences accordingly. The government makes laws, and
lets everyone choose to live them or not, and recieve the consequences
accordingly.
The history of the saints demonstrate how much
sorrow can arise when a majority uses violence
to suppress the marriage practices of an unpopular
minority.
Where did violence get introduced???
AF-11 teaches us that we must allow others to worship
how they will.
Where did how others worship get introduced???
D&C 134 teaches us that it is tolerable to endure
government so long as we are protected in our rights.
Can there be any right more fundamental to human kind
than marriage?
Marriage is about at the top of the list. That's why we should do what
we can to protect it, and keep it from being redesigned into something
that it is not and never has been.
D&C 121 teaches that if we are using coersion to
cause other people to live the gospel, then we no
longer hold the priesthood.
Who do you see as coersing, and what Priesthood do they hold?
Encouraging people to vote their concience in a political debate is not
coersion. Supporting the established process to change/pass a law or
change the constitution is not coersion. What are you getting at?
DP
.
- References:
- Re: Anti-gay-marriage amendment
- From: Colleen Kay Porter
- What did the Presidency really say?
- From: Absalom
- Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- From: DP
- Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- From: Absalom
- Re: Anti-gay-marriage amendment
- Prev by Date: Re: Anti-gay-marriage amendment
- Next by Date: D&C (61:14-17) - cursing and lifting the curse
- Previous by thread: Re: What did the Presidency really say?
- Next by thread: Re: Anti-gay-marriage amendment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
