Skip to comments.LDS Church Responds to Supreme Court Marriage Rulings
Posted on 06/29/2013 9:38:31 AM PDT by Ripliancum
SALT LAKE CITY The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement today regarding the decisions announced by the United States Supreme Court on cases involving marriage:
"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.
"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.
"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."
WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
From the Proclamation on the Family, published in 1995
I fear Mormons will be among the first to have their church tax exempt status revoked when they refuse to perform gay marriages. Hopefully, all other conservative denominations will come out with similar statements in short order.
Sorry, after their recent capitulation that forced the Boy Scouts to open the door to homosexuality, the LDS church is simply not credible on this issue.
I agree. Mormons basically endorsed the homoscouts, so they have absolutely no leg to stand on.
The time for action by all God fearing men is here. Obey the government or obey God’s commandments. It’s your choice of peril for disobedience. As for me and my house, we will obey God.
“The Churchs long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: Young men who agree to abide by Church standards [are] welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate (Handbook 2: Administering the Church , 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously beenand is not nowa disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.”
This one is actually pretty simple for me. We’re told to leave the 90 and 9 to save 1. Does that not include the so called misguided youth who think he might be gay because the “world” tells him he is? Is not the purpose of Scouting to rise above the ordinary and become leaders and build character? Why should ANY youth be left out of that equation, after all, “gay” young men are not “born that way”, do we as conservatives believe that or not?
Gay adults continue to have no place in scouting whatsoever, and never will, or the Church would drop the program and do their own.
Nope. They will revise the book of Mormon again to state gays have always been an important part of the church and embrace them w open arms.
I thought it was an announcement that plural marriages in the LDS church were to begin again- immediately!
Two incidents, happening almost right after another.. The first was when I traveled with a Mormon troop to attend the national jamboree; troops were joking around with each other while atop the Empire State's Building, someone made a comment about a cute girl who was in the elevator with us, and someone else said within earshot of our chaperon that it was a good thing that his girl friend gave him a good [vigorous intercourse] before he went on this trip, or he'd be all over her.
He was on the plane back home before we reached the Italian restaurant for dinner.
The second was right after we returned, I hung around for their awards ceremony, where one of the older scouts on the trip was us was going to receive his Eagle award. That portion of the program was cancelled when his girlfriend became concerned about missing a period, and his response was that he had been wearing a condom.
Turned out that she wasn't pregnant, he was tossed out of the troop, and scout leaders used the time in the program to reiterate the scout oath and how seriously the troop took that oath.
Excellent examples, thanks! As an Eagle Scout and adult scouter myself, I can tell you that this practice will continue, even more closely watched now. I’m sure the gay groups will try to infiltrate troops and spread dissent, but the moral rules will be strictly adhered to.
It sounds like the troop blurred the lines between church and troop.That can lead to trouble.
I’m sorry, did you not know that the Boy Scouts is a religious organization?
LDS BSA troops must abide by conducts of Church standards, and the Church is the sponsoring charter organization. If one does not wish to do so, they are free to join non-LDS troops.
Again, an excellent point!
Those thinking differently, I think, have never been in scouting, nor participated in the non-denominational Duty to God program.
With all due respect I am still not buying it.
Yes, I absolutely have read the church’s statement. I appreciate that its focus is on sexual behavior rather than orientation, that was the de facto and unspoken position of the BSA previous to the new Membership Standards Resolution. I supported that and believed that it was entirely unnecessary to modify the BSA by-laws in the fashion that they did.
However, because the BSA took the route they did and articulated the matter of orientation, it is arguable that they may very well have opened the door to a challenge under BSA v. Dale, the very decision which affirmed the right of the BSA (as a private organization) to restrict a person from membership based on the idea that “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”
The BSA acted with the support of the LDS membership on the national council and without the support of a super-majority of those involved in Scouting.
Now, that they have expressly articulated that orientation is no barrier to membership as a youth, they are going to have a very, very hard time excluding a homosexual from leadership, despite the fact that they say that policy has not changed. I imagine that the lawsuits are already written for several gay, 17-year-old Eagle Scouts who will turn 18 around the time this takes effect in January 2014. Deny any one of them the privilege of leadership and the lawsuits will fly.
Given that this controversy has largely about the influence of large donors I am very doubtful that the BSA will do anything other than weigh the financial cost of litigation and cave into the pressure groups again.
That moment will be an even more telling one for the Mormon church. Will they accept homosexual leadership? Not likely, given this statement found on (http://ldsbsa.org/): Where Scouting is authorized by the Church, quorums may participate in Scouting activities during Mutual. Under priesthood leadership, Scouting can complement the efforts of Aaronic Priesthood quorums and Primary classes in building testimonies in young men and boys.”
But here is the problem. Mormon Scout leadership is already not likely to be homosexual and given the preponderance of closed troops and the priesthood requirements, that is not likely to change. So even a vote by the Mormon contingent in support of homosexual leadership for the BSA would not really affect them, but it would have a profound and negative effect on the rest of Scouting. Given their numbers, the entire Mormon contingent could leave Scouting and almost overnight create an LDS version, decimating the rest of Scouting in their wake.
For those of us involved in Scouting through smaller, faith-based organizations that do not necessarily have an alternative (yet), the Mormon capitulation is seen as a hypocritical betrayal of the values of Scouting.
Will have to respectfully agree to disagree. The gay rights agenda are using youth to make their case, but we will not forget that these few youth (and they are few), are still valuable to God and society, and need all the help they can get if they are confused. We do not shun the sinner, but the sin.
100% in agreement with you Rip. But when the BSA opens the doors to homosexual leadership (and that is almost inevitable) then Scouting will no longer be a place where help for those few can be found.
No doubt the gay rights agenda will try to do that very thing. I have it on good authority that one of the reasons the BSA held off from making a blanket change to that effect in March, and made the smaller change they did last month, was due to the LDS board opposition to that effect.
I also know there is a LDS program on the shelf that will replace scouting if that ever happens. I pray it never does, but the Church will not allow gay leaders now or in the future. It is in direct opposition to what the Church and Scouting teach.
Like em or don’t the Mormons have called out the court on its mamby pamby ruling that allowed it to do nothing and completely ignore the voters in the state
You are right. The final resolution was put off because of LDS lobbying. The compromise that was reached is part of that effort. But it may well have sealed the BSA’s ultimate fate, in spite of the fact that SCOTUS had supported the BSA’s earlier stance.
That the LDS has a Plan B is great. For them. For many in Scouting, there is no Plan B yet. And it breaks my heart to see such a venerable organization unnecessarily self-destruct.
Mormonism isn’t a denomination, it is a religion, and they will be working this to get back their polygamy that the Christians took from them.
Their Bishop gave us gay marriage and supported homosexualizing the military and Boy Scout leadership for years, which finally paid off.
Mormonism will do what it takes to advance Mormonism and to hurt the culture and the religion that stands in it’s way.
Reading your comments on MANY threads about the gay marriage ruling, where it appeared that you were trying to normalize polygamy made me wonder if you had a relationship to Mormonism.
I guess this is a Mormon thread.
"de·nom·i·na·tion 1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith.
"A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity."
“So when we talk about gay marriage meaning the destruction of marriage, we kinda’ mean it.”
Especially so in the context of multiple gay marriages.
I am a Mormon Scout Master and a proud homophobe, and I don’t believe that the LDS Church endorsed homosexual scout membership, but basically decided not to leave the scout organization over it.
Truthfully, in the function of everyday LDS scout troops, I don’t expect any changes.
Most of the Scouts in the LDS troops are LDS, and the few who are non-LDS who attend are generally in agreement with LDS morals. If a scout member lds or non-lds is immoral they may be subject to a bishops interview and approval for continuation in the scouting program.
I think most of your knee-jerk reaction to the LDS church staying with the scouting program is your own religious or homosexual problems.
The LDS Church and its members will continue to implement an example of Christ’s teachings regardless of an imperfect world, culture or scouting organization.
The obvious democratic solution should apply. Support candidates for governor of California who *will* support referendums in the federal courts. Not just Prop 8, either.
For example, the California legislature hates and fears the referendum imposed term limits placed on them. But right now, were a single Democrat to challenge those term limits, it would go to federal court, and Jerry Brown would not defend them.
In effect, this means that by not granting standing to other than the governor of a state, referendum ceases to exist, as soon as a governor is in office that opposes it.
Other popular referendums that can be overturned this way?
Medical marijuana, tax limits, you name it. The people can vote for it, and the governor can overturn the votes of the people.
Curious diagnosis. I'm not sure exactly what is knee-jerk in my reaction. I acknowledged that, in principle, I support the position that sexual behavior has no place in Scouting and that I also supported the previous BSA de facto position that would not exclude some random 12-year-old who happened to think he might be gay.
So yes, I do think that Mormon influence facilitated that resolution. My reaction to the LDS position is that while almost no harm will come to Mormon troops, the same cannot be said for the rest of Scouting as the door is now opened and may not be easily closed to prevent the BSA from accepting homosexuals in position of leadership.
As for the question of my own religious or homosexual problems, I'll just assume that was an accidental attempt at an insult which I prefer not to address.
I don’t think your knee jerk reaction is in question, at least not by me. However, there are apparently many on this thread who blame the LDS Church for facilitating the change in scouting, whereas has been determined, is just the opposite. If not for the LDS Church and it’s substantial membership on the BSA board, the BSA would today embrace homosexual leaders.
Forgive the analogy, but I believe what happened is likened to what was to have been an amputation, but instead, surgically remedy the wound to become a slow bleed. I don’t believe society will allow it to heal, as it is what it is. But if the body becomes infected in the future, it must needs be allowed to die.
The irony here is that a few FReepers actually think the LDS church is embracing homosexuality, while in reality, it’s the Church that is keeping homosexual leaders out of scouting, while striving to save the youth that are lost.
Thanks for the respectful dialog.
So far the opposite is true. But when litigation comes to force gay leadership, I hope that the LDS draws the line, not just for their troops, but for all of Scouting. And that will mean fighting, not leaving.
a few FReepers actually think the LDS church is embracing homosexuality
Those would have to be FReepers who have never met a Mormon. ;-)
True but it makes the church liable for anything that happens within the troop.
I saw something on tv about the Girls Scouts, I believe in Iowa, was losing money. Has anyone heard this?
By virtue of the Chartered Agreement with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the National Council Boy Scouts of America and the local council agrees:
Respect the aims and objectives of the organization and offer resources to help meet those aims and objectives.
Provide year-round training, service, and support to the organization and units.
Provide training and support for the chartered organization representative as the primary communication link.
Provide techniques and methods for selecting quality unit leaders and ensuring those selected meet BSA leadership standards.
Provide primary general liability insurance to cover the chartered organization and its board, officers, chartered organization representative, and employees against all personal liability judgments. This insurance includes attorney's fees and court costs as well as any judgment brought against the individual or organization. Unit leaders are covered in excess of any personal coverage they might have, or if there is no personal coverage, the BSA insurance immediately picks them up on a primary basis.
Provide camping facilities, service centers, and a full-time professional staff to assist the organization in every possible way.
It is through the Annual Charter Agreement and the Youth and Adult membership applications that these benefits are extended to the Chartered Organization and its’ officers. Completing the proper paperwork to ensure that all adult and youth members are properly registered as soon as they join or are called, even if simply switching form the Troop to the Team or Team to the Crew is essential for the protection of the individual as well as the Church.
Chapter 1, Section e, item 4, subsection c “District and Above”.
Also, this is from old data, from 2000, but back then the LDS sponsored 31,000 units - the largest number of religious sponsoring units. I think about half of all scout units are sponsored by religious organizations.
Yep. The Girl Scouts have bought the liberal agenda hook, line, and sinker with their National leadership almost serving as a front for Planned Parenthood. (http://girlscoutswhynot.com).
And the result? Believe it or not membership is dwindling and funding is drying up. So yes they are selling some properties. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/declining-membership-fiscal-woes-among-problems-facing-girl-scouts/
And for that reason, the Girl Scouts are not sponsored by LDS units.
Rip is right. That language comes straight out of BSA materials for all Chartered Organizations. In fact the one I have goes even farther and covers vehicles of the sponsoring organization.
We just make our scouts hike everywhere. ;-)
If the church can dictate policy to the Scout organization, the church assumes liability. That’s the rule.
The Church’s policy is clearly defined within the Charter organization agreement. The BSA embraces such agreements. I’m not sure what your getting at exactly, but that’s the reality of the situation.
Scouts who do not wish to abide the by charter of the organization don’t belong there. Scouts must sign (annually) an agreement adhering to said charter rules.
So in the case that you mentioned, where the scout was sent home for his sexual conduct, he clearly broke the rules of the charter, which was totally in line with the BSA agreement with that charter unit.
It doesn’t help that their headquarters is in NYC.
Eeks! I was responding to the wrong post. :^D
Since when, Rip, has the Mormon church gone on record saying they will block 18 yo Eagle Scouts (adults) from being scouts (if they are gay)?
What? The Mormon church doesn't allow Eagle Scouts to be 18 anymore?
Are you going to take back then you're above statement as being inaccurate?
While it’s plain you’re splitting hairs as the great anti mormon crusader, I’m pretty certain you know that if one doesn’t have their eagle by age 18, they are no longer eligible for it, or belong in the scouting program. If I wasn’t clear as what was meant by adult (leader), let this take all doubt as to my intent away.
If you are here to do your usual thing, then I will not play.
(Eye rolling time)
Lds third "prophet" John Taylor used to tell the Mormon faithful how committed they were to their stance on marriage (which happened to be polygamy) in the 1880s? (How long did that last, practice wise...By the first decade of the 20th century, only a handful of secret polygamous unions were still being solemnized by Lds leaders.)
And in the 1860s and 1870s...when some Mormon leaders were saying that polygamy was better than monogamy...because it pre-empted a penchant for prostitution...how "irrevocably committed" was the Mormon church to the institution of monogamy then?
And...given that the Mormon church STILL endorses "eternal" polygamy by claiming that multiple temple weddings/sealings to multiple spouses = eternal polygamy...what kind of a wink-wink, nod-nod "commitment" is that to monogamy???