Mormons: D&C 134: 4, 9; "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence...

B

b4mary1 - over the edge

New member
...with civil government...? "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others….

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed [prohibited] in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

What About Prop 8 and the Equal Rights Amendment?
desirexnoel-
precisely my point...not worried they have views...it is the influence wielded in these two instances to influence civil government...
LottaLou...you have every right to your religious beliefs....my point is about wielding religious influence regarding civil government...contrary to D&C 134
slcbtf - D&C 134:9 talks about denying INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of members of other religious societies , "as citizens", (which also includes secular humanism according to the Supreme Court) please read again...
Completely Ducky - I respect that....yet D&C 134 talks of not exercising religious influence in ways that cause denial of equal rights to all of our fellow citizens.
 
It was not about equal rights at all. When God's law is about to be overturned, we must stand and fight for truth and righteousness. I am not here to debate over religion, so I will leave it at that and ignore what others have said about the only true gospel out there.
 
Reread the 2nd verse and I think you'll find your answer.

The verse is talking about mingling in civil government in regards to "another" religious society. For example, the LDS faith doesn't go to the courts to have another religion removed as a recognized religion by the state. Prop 8 is not a religious society and neither is the Equal Rights Amendment you mentioned.

The verse can stand on it's own, it's right there. Interpreting the verse, beyond its mark for argument's sake, is detrimental to the critics foundation.
 
There is something you have missed in that as well...

It also states: WE believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.


You're forgetting that LDS belief that LDS believe that God is the instituter of Government. And that he holds us accountable for our acts.

as well as this portion: ....all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

In other words we have the right to vote in accords to our freedom of conscience as well.

While I admit that not all people in the LDS church voted for Prop 8 or for the ERA. It is the freedom of their conscious that was playing the role as well as believing that God will hold us accountable for our actions in Government.
 
Reread the 2nd verse and I think you'll find your answer.

The verse is talking about mingling in civil government in regards to "another" religious society. For example, the LDS faith doesn't go to the courts to have another religion removed as a recognized religion by the state. Prop 8 is not a religious society and neither is the Equal Rights Amendment you mentioned.

The verse can stand on it's own, it's right there. Interpreting the verse, beyond its mark for argument's sake, is detrimental to the critics foundation.
 
Reread the 2nd verse and I think you'll find your answer.

The verse is talking about mingling in civil government in regards to "another" religious society. For example, the LDS faith doesn't go to the courts to have another religion removed as a recognized religion by the state. Prop 8 is not a religious society and neither is the Equal Rights Amendment you mentioned.

The verse can stand on it's own, it's right there. Interpreting the verse, beyond its mark for argument's sake, is detrimental to the critics foundation.
 
There is something you have missed in that as well...

It also states: WE believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.


You're forgetting that LDS belief that LDS believe that God is the instituter of Government. And that he holds us accountable for our acts.

as well as this portion: ....all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

In other words we have the right to vote in accords to our freedom of conscience as well.

While I admit that not all people in the LDS church voted for Prop 8 or for the ERA. It is the freedom of their conscious that was playing the role as well as believing that God will hold us accountable for our actions in Government.
 
Gays want gay marriage to pass to further their acceptance into mainstream society. It has nothing to do with rights. It has everything to do with wanting the rest of the world to think that the way they live their life is right. They wanted to CHANGE the definition of marriage, not make marriage available to them. All the people did who voted for Prop 8 was to keep the definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman.

If I lived in CA, you bet I would have voted for Prop 8. As it was, I live in AZ and I voted for Prop 102, which was the same thing here. And my husband donated his time to the call center to make calls about it and we both had bumper stickers on our cars for it. His car even got vandalized several times because of it--but he never removed the sticker until after the election. We had a yard sign and when it was torn down twice, we replaced it each time.

And guess what? The Church had no influence on my decision to vote the way I did. I voted the way I did because my conscience dictated it. I cannot stand by and watch the definition of marriage, that holy and sacred institution, be soiled and contaminated by that which is unholy and dirty.
 
Joseph Smith wrote this at a time when he was fighting the U.S. He had no sign from God, and most of his religion is a lie, aside from the Bible, which they should really switch to NIV by the way. Nobody says the word "thou" anymore.
 
The problem with redefining Marriage, is that it takes away the rights & meaning of everyone who has been Married according to it's original definition.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Jesus said that a man shall leave his parents and find his wife and they two shall be one flesh.

And according to our oldest dictionaries, the definition has been the same; A covenant between one man and one woman.

So why change the definition of words used in legal documents. Isn't this just promoting lawlessness?!!

If two or more homosexuals want to make a commitment to each other, they should call it something else. Not marriage!!!!!!!
 
It was not about equal rights at all. When God's law is about to be overturned, we must stand and fight for truth and righteousness. I am not here to debate over religion, so I will leave it at that and ignore what others have said about the only true gospel out there.
 
Gays want gay marriage to pass to further their acceptance into mainstream society. It has nothing to do with rights. It has everything to do with wanting the rest of the world to think that the way they live their life is right. They wanted to CHANGE the definition of marriage, not make marriage available to them. All the people did who voted for Prop 8 was to keep the definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman.

If I lived in CA, you bet I would have voted for Prop 8. As it was, I live in AZ and I voted for Prop 102, which was the same thing here. And my husband donated his time to the call center to make calls about it and we both had bumper stickers on our cars for it. His car even got vandalized several times because of it--but he never removed the sticker until after the election. We had a yard sign and when it was torn down twice, we replaced it each time.

And guess what? The Church had no influence on my decision to vote the way I did. I voted the way I did because my conscience dictated it. I cannot stand by and watch the definition of marriage, that holy and sacred institution, be soiled and contaminated by that which is unholy and dirty.
 
The problem with redefining Marriage, is that it takes away the rights & meaning of everyone who has been Married according to it's original definition.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Jesus said that a man shall leave his parents and find his wife and they two shall be one flesh.

And according to our oldest dictionaries, the definition has been the same; A covenant between one man and one woman.

So why change the definition of words used in legal documents. Isn't this just promoting lawlessness?!!

If two or more homosexuals want to make a commitment to each other, they should call it something else. Not marriage!!!!!!!
 
The problem with redefining Marriage, is that it takes away the rights & meaning of everyone who has been Married according to it's original definition.

Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Jesus said that a man shall leave his parents and find his wife and they two shall be one flesh.

And according to our oldest dictionaries, the definition has been the same; A covenant between one man and one woman.

So why change the definition of words used in legal documents. Isn't this just promoting lawlessness?!!

If two or more homosexuals want to make a commitment to each other, they should call it something else. Not marriage!!!!!!!
 
The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
 
I was Mormon and then I realized it was stressing me out and not making much sense. I was really mad when I found out about the 20 mil they put into it.
Thank you so much for this question. You get a star from me!

It is convenient that something can be said to be a revelation from God and then they can decide it isn't when they do something that opposes what they had previously said. Like blacks not getting the priesthood was a revelation. Suddenly there is an apology taking it back.

If it is in the D&C it was considered a revelation at some point in time, which means from God.

Latter Day Saint- He isn't talking about equal rights. He is talking about the 20 million used to fund prop 8 when Mormons "do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government..." which the church clearly did.
 
I was Mormon and then I realized it was stressing me out and not making much sense. I was really mad when I found out about the 20 mil they put into it.
Thank you so much for this question. You get a star from me!

It is convenient that something can be said to be a revelation from God and then they can decide it isn't when they do something that opposes what they had previously said. Like blacks not getting the priesthood was a revelation. Suddenly there is an apology taking it back.

If it is in the D&C it was considered a revelation at some point in time, which means from God.

Latter Day Saint- He isn't talking about equal rights. He is talking about the 20 million used to fund prop 8 when Mormons "do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government..." which the church clearly did.
 
Back
Top