Posted on 11/10/2009 10:02:51 PM PST by Steelfish
Salt Lake OKs Gay Rights Ordinances Mormon church — which opposes same-sex marriage — backs laws
SALT LAKE CITY - With a historic endorsement from the Mormon church, the Salt Lake City Council unanimously passed a pair of ordinances making it illegal to discriminate against gays.
Tuesday's action was the first time the Utah-based church — which has been steadfast in its opposition to gay marriage — has publicly supported gay rights legislation.
"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintssaid.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Sunstone magazine. That explains plenty. They are very anti-mormon in any way they can be. Go to their website and search for articles on homosexuality. You will find that they promote the homosexual agenda. Taking their word for anything is just silly. What other Sunstone articles have been published here? I guarantee they were all anti-mormon. Why not post an article by them about homosexuality on this site and see where it goes.
Bottom line, there is no way they are privy to anything in the LDS Church. Did Romney meet with the Prothet? Yes.
So what?
I’m going to allow this thread to die because we have strayed a long way from the topic of the thread. (Mormon church not standing against a law to prevent discrimination in housing and employment against gays.)
I will leave this as my parting comment. I believe all who believe in Christ as our Savior and Redeemer to be fellow Christians. I consider you my brothers. While I do not expect you to believe as I do, I feel that we have enough common ground that we should stand together not divide ourselves. God bless every one of you.
Yes, and Catholic politicians in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut all voted for, and signed into law, similar anti-discrimination laws years ago with barely a peep from the church.
The Church is interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage, not in promoting discrimination.
- - - - - - -
The “church” is interested in protecting its vast business interests and land holding in SLC, and would rather avoid all the litigation.
Nonsense, the meeting with Gordon Bitner Hinckley took place, it’s purpose and result was reported on in 2005.
Like a cheap salesmen you simply mutter some complaints about them not supporting Mormonism enough.
Romney admitted the meeting to Tim Russert during an interview on MSNBC in 2007.
Since you brought it up I went and found what was said in the interview word for word.
But I, I also pointed out in my address, as you know, in, in College Station that, that I would accept no guidance or, or input of an inappropriate nature from anyone in any religion. The, the leaders of a faith have their responsibility and authority in the sphere of their faith, but in the sphere of public, of the public domain, they have, they have no authority.
MR. RUSSERT: So if President Hinckley told you it would not be in the best interest, in his judgment, for you to run for president, you would still run if you’d made that decision?
GOV. ROMNEY: I would have listened to a lot of people on a lot of topics, but the decision was mine, and the nature of my faith is not to have church officials tell you what to do. I believe very firmly in the principle of, of free agency, people making their own decisions and doing what they think is right.
MR. RUSSERT: Did he encourage you?
GOV. ROMNEY: He didn’t offer any advice on, on, on a run for office whatsoever.
I really thought I was done with that last post but I guess not.
It is just what I said and what Russert was asking about, Romney met with Hinckley in 2005 to seek approval for the run, in 2007 the totally disreputable(a man famous for being unable to tell the truth) Romney admits to the meeting, but avoids the subject by saying merely, “He didn’t offer any advice on, on, on a run for office whatsoever.”.
Sunstone Magazine two years earlier had reported on the meeting in a more thorough manner.
[Not if
(a) you live in Kolob Heights, where Lds say their eternal polygamists are "raising up seed"; or
(b) you're part the entourage welcoming the Mormon jesus back...Lds apostle Bruce McConkie said in his "Mormon Doctrine" book that the "holy practice" of earthly polygamy would be re-instituted when the Mormon jesus returns]
Polygamy is not something that LDS Mormons ever want to come back.
I'm sorry, but you are calling Lds apostle Bruce R. McConkie a false prophet? (see "B" above) I mean his forecast on polygamy is sold in most Lds bookstores; and the Lds church has owned McConkie's book publishing company for the past decade as its undergone reprints.
For those types you have to look at sects that have split from the LDS church.
I reference (a) and (b) above...all depends if you can "Hie to Kolob" (a Mormon hymn in the Lds hymnbook) or if you'll be part of the favored polygamists when the Lds jesus returns.
So-called “Catholic” politicians are different from the Catholic Church. What you have here is official Mormon Church policy.
Whatever the Mormons/Catholics/Druids believe, we will likely have a similar anti-discrimination law by the end of Obama's first term.
We already do. He recently signed such a law into effect.
I don't see how such a law would be prevented. Most polls show a slight majority of Americans being against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The only way I can see them passing it without a political war breaking out is if they have a "conscience clause" for religious institutions.
Sigh...I guess you know better than an individual who has been a faithful church going member of the LDS church for his entire life. (Granted only 38 years)
All I can do is encourage you to read, ponder, and pray. That is the advice given to all members of the LDS church since they are old enough to be baptized.
It is easy to look at 150 years of talks and speeches given by leaders of the church and find the most controversial things you like. I could point out that McConkie was never the leader of the church. I could point out that he speaks of after the return of Christ. The former has its debatable points, in the later, when Christ returns we can both take up the question with him. Either way, its not worth arguing about at this time.
For me, one wife is plenty, and often too much. Seriously, why nitpick. Polygamy is far more important to people like you than to any mormon I know.
Well, that's an understatement. Mitt Romney and I share at least one thing: We're both descendents of Mormon polygamists. Now when Mitt was on "60 Minutes" on May 9, 2007, what was his conclusion about it?
"I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy," he said. (Reuters, May 10, 2007) http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1018509620070510
Now that was a GOP POTUS MORMON candidate, circa 2007. He said he couldn't "imagine anything more awful than polygamy." Now, HC, you would think that things that are bottom-rung "awful" are going to rank to be of import, provocation-wise, right?
But at least in this case Mitt (for once) sounded more like our early-day fledgling Republicans, who in 1856 announced they were going to tackle the "twin relics of barbarism" -- polygamy and slavery.
We all need to understand that it wasn't just the need to take aim at something; rather, our Republican forefathers declared they saw the need to protect one-woman marriage.
That is what the still-existent threat of polygamy is.
That is what the ever-present threat of same-sex "marriage" is.
So, no, HC: Protecting marriage is never a "nitpicky" exercise or ideal. It goes back to the roots of our Free Republic and the Republican party.
It is easy to look at 150 years of talks and speeches given by leaders of the church and find the most controversial things you like.
It's actually more surprising to hear so-called "faithful" Mormons look at current "revelations" from their general authorities in their bookstores published by their church and "find the most controversial things" that they either want to disregard or take a pair of scissors to.
You make it sound like this was some off-handed remark given at a green-jello, muffin-laced potluck.
#1, Lds "prophet" Harold B. Lee took Marion G. Romney's edits of the '58 version of "Mormon Doctrine" & told McConkie to revise his '58 book.
#2, Brother Harold assigned Spencer W. Kimball to oversee those edits & they approved them for the '65 revision (before Kimball became a "prophet.")
#3, "Mormon Doctrine" was in its 10th printing before the 21st century. That tells us that the Lds church has had plenty of ops to re-edit/revise this book.
#4, "Mormon Doctrine" is carried by most, if not all Lds bookstores, and is published by the church itself.
#5 BYU prof Stephen Robinson, in his book, HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE, assures us that Lds consider apostles to be interchangeable with its "prophets."
I guess I'm just getting tired of Lds accusations that we "cherry pick" their leaders' citations. The reality is, that most grassroots Mormons, given their overwhelming life scheds, ensure that when they cherry pick their readings from their past & present leaders that they studiously avoid that which they don't want to confront. (That makes it easier to shift the blame to us when all we're doing is quoting them)
I will leave this as my parting comment. I believe all who believe in Christ as our Savior and Redeemer to be fellow Christians.
- - - - - - - -
Although we follow a very different Christ from the LDS.
And if this is so, why do you then support the LDS missionary program that INTENTIONALLY goes after Christians and nominal Christians instead of those who have never heard of Jesus?
When I was in Mission Prep class at BYU and at the MTC, we were specifically taught that “golden contacts” were those who were nominally Christian and not well versed in their Bible and to read the newspaper for obits, marriages, engagements, etc. and tract out those people or survivors since they are going through periods of “transition” are are more likely to convert.
Christian churches don’t engage in “sheep stealing”. The LDS church does.
These threads make me ill. Such hate-filled people, it’s a shame.
I think you’ve reversed the Two!
The Mormon Missionaries don’t tell me that I’ll burn for NOT reading “the Watchtower”.
NO “JW” door-pounders offer to help with the project, that they interrupted {by knocking}.
I can tell a Mormon Missionary that I’M HAPPY with my Faith. That statement DOESN’T stop them from offering to help with my project.
My Mother-in-Law is 80, a beer drinking and coffee loving Lutheran apartment dweller. Her Mormon neighbors are her support network.
. In no way does that mean he takes orders from the Prophet regarding which way he leads Massachusetts.
- - - - - - -
Wanna bet. Try reading the book “When Salt Lake City calls”
http://whensaltlakecitycalls.wordpress.com/
Polygamy is not something that LDS Mormons ever want to come back.
- — - - - - - - -
Then how come I had a “good Temple Mormon” and former stake president ask me to be a polygamous wife when I was 19?
And how come it was so often talked about in my friends Priesthood meetings and at BYU?
Actually the REAL LDS Inc does practice polygamy as instructed and demostrated by their founder, Joey Smith...
and written in their Doctrines and Covenants 132, which is the Everlasting Covenant, the First principal, the only waty to godhood, and godhood the only way to the mormon afterlife...
The mormons say that anything outside polygamy...ie monogamy, one man, one woman, is prostitution...
D&C 132 has NEVER been rescinded...Joey Smith claimed it was given to him by one of the mormon gods and MUST be practiced ALWAYS...
- - - — - - - - -
Yep. Which is why the LDS church is no longer a “restored” church, but a “reformed” one.
You are one twisted freak
- - - - - - -
Actually, as a former mormon, I know TN has a pretty good bead on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.