LDS Church issues statement of support for LGBTQ concert event

[msfreeh]

http://www.wanttoknow.info/inspiration/ ... _mentality


Transcending Tribal Mentality
By Caroline Myss

Transcending Tribal Mentality
All of us are born into a "tribal mentality" of various forms. These include our family unit, religious background, country of origin, ethnicity, etc. The tribal mentality effectively indoctrinates an individual into the tribe's beliefs, ensuring that all believe the same. The structure of reality – what is and is not possible for the members of the group – is thus agreed upon and maintained by the tribe.

While the tribal mentality has definite benefits in terms of establishing common ground and ensuring group survival, it is not a conscious agreement. We are born into it. Yet at a certain stage, both personally and collectively, the tribal mentality must be challenged. People can then begin to recognize the need for a personal honor code independent of the tribe. If humanity is to progress, we need to learn how to treat everyone – regardless of tribal affiliation – with honor and respect.

Every one of us is plugged into the tribal mind. We support tribal belief patterns by directing a percentage of our life force into maintaining our affiliation with the tribe. This involves an implicit agreement to think like the tribe thinks, to evaluate situations and people the way the tribe does, and to believe in right and wrong according to tribal values and ambitions. As long as the tribal mentality within us remains unexamined, we unwittingly subject others to our tribal laws.

When we are plugged into tribal thought forms, we can easily believe in nonsensical prejudices held by the tribe. Tribal mentality allows us to hold harsh, judgmental positions or attitudes about an entire group of people: "All fat people are lazy," or "all Irish are drunks," or "all Muslims are terrorists" for example.

A rigid tribal thought form may have little truth to it, but individuals hold to such beliefs because that perspective is what the tribe has agreed to believe. Innocent children, born into the hatred and prejudice of their parents and ancestors, grow up inside a tribal mentality that sponsors an endless march toward war against the tribe's perceived enemies. People grow up hating other people – people they have never seen – based on group affiliation. This is the shadow side of the tribe.

Inevitably, some among us come to a point where we want to break out of the inflexible tribal mentality. At some point, these individuals want to explore, develop, and manage their own consciousness without the judgments and limitations of the tribal mind.

It is easy to spot these mavericks when they start to question and unplug from tribal mentality – they hang out on the periphery looking bored and restless, or whimsical and dreamy. Others may act out the agitated hot-head as they challenge tribal ways.

The unspoken assumption of the tribal mind is that everybody loves being part of the tribe. And in many ways, we do. Knowing where and to whom we "belong" is crucial to our self-concept and sense of safety in the world. Yet when we begin the real deep journey of questioning, "What do I believe?" and start to individuate from the tribe, we often enter a dark night of the soul. It is, by necessity, a passage we take alone.

It's one thing to reject what we don't want to believe anymore. It's quite another to begin to explore what we do believe. All we know as we enter the dark night is that we can't go back – even when the tribe is the only world we've ever known.

At this critical point in our development, the tribe doesn't feel right anymore. It no longer offers us comfort. Previous feelings of security and familiarity begin to feel like a trap constraining our individuality and hampering our efforts to discover deeper levels of who we really are.

This dark night passage pushes us to look at our false gods – the tribal belief patterns in which we've become invested and to which we've given our allegiance.

The Language of Wounds

For a large segment of the population, the language of wounds has become the new tribal language of intimacy. Prior to the current age of personal therapy – which only really took off in the 1960s and 70s – the tribal language of intimacy largely involved the sharing of only superficial personal and family data. Deeper matters such as family secrets like sexual abuse or a mad aunt or uncle were shared with exceedingly few, if any.

Divorce and financial information were also considered very intimate. People would almost never talk about such matters, or about their inner life and emotions. They talked only about the details of what was going on in their external lives. The tribal mentality at the time kept people from revealing intimate matters or deep wounds or traumas even with their family and close friends.

The current age of personal therapy has brought about a very different situation. Now, the tribal mentality has shifted such that we not only share our intimate feelings more openly and willingly, many have even begun to define themselves by their wounds. Let me give an example of how this phenomenon plays itself out.

I was in an Indian restaurant in Scotland talking with two men friends when the woman friend I was to meet for dinner walked up and greeted the three of us. After I had introduced her, another man walked over and asked if she was free on June 8th, as he thought she might like to attend a lecture on that date. The question required little more than a ‘yes' or a ‘no' answer.

Instead of a simple answer, she began an elaborate discussion about June 8th. "Did you say June 8th? No, no. Any other day would be fine, but not June 8th. That's the day my incest survivor group meets and I have to be there because we never let each other down." She went on and on for at least a full minute with this.

Later, I asked her, "Do you realize that in that brief introduction, you told two men whom you have never met before that 1) you had experienced incest, 2) you were still in therapy about it, 3) you were angry about it, 4) you were angry at men, and 5) you needed to determine the course of the conversation – all in one minute?"

She replied, "Well, I am a victim of incest."

To which I replied, "I know that. Why did you have to let them know that?"

She was operating from a tribal mentality. The group mind within the incest survivor community has a belief about how this particular wound should be healed. The tribe says, "You need a group." The tribe says, "You have a right to be angry."

People now get together in support group tribes that function within many of the same rigid frameworks of ethnic, national, or family tribes. Some feel that the comfort and security of belonging to a group or tribe is more important than venturing alone in the direction of real healing.

Tribalism in Relationships

The tendency toward tribalism can keep us stuck in repeating negative cycles in our intimate relationships, and can wreak havoc when a relationship is ripe for transition. Tribal mentality often teaches a righteous stance in relationships: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. When we feel violated, the first thought is vengeance, rather than forgiveness.

Tribal mentality even has gender-specific undercurrents – women do vengeance differently than men. Yet for both genders, what rules the day is the tribal mentality that holds "breaking up is painful" or "betrayal warrants retaliation."

Healing revolves around this crucial question: "Do you want to make different choices?" Are we willing to let go of old, constricting tribal patterns? Sadly, the answer quite often is "No." Being healthy isn't always the most appealing option. Quite frankly, in many cases, it's not appealing at all. What is most appealing is being out of pain. Old patterns are difficult to relinquish because they do serve to relieve pain, even if it is only in the short run.

Change is terrifying for many precisely because short-term pain relief must be given up. Deep healing requires learning to tolerate the pain that comes with change. Fortunately, the growing pains that come with new behavior – with making the choices that will change your life – are often short-lived.

Thought alone doesn't heal. Nor does action without thought. For deep healing to occur, we need the chemistry of conscious thought and direct action combined. Every thought or attitude we have – whether consciously chosen or unconsciously adopted through the tribal mind – invests a part of our life-force into that thought or attitude. This is true whether the thought is one of betrayal and vengeance, or of understanding and forgiveness.

What matters is that a whole system of consciousness – the old tribal mentality – no longer holds us enthralled. We no longer have faith in those limiting patterns of thought. Through this transformation we learn a whole new level of trust. We break the habit of telling tribal lies which bring short-term comfort but long-term pain. We develop a new sense of self-worth and of trust and honor.

In spite of all the heavy tribal conditioning, we now have hope because tribal mentality the world over is going through a vast transformation. And each one of us can play a vital role in this transformation.

With increasing numbers of individuals changing and transcending limiting tribal beliefs, the codes of the tribe are being affected. As we collectively change and evolve, the tribes around us gradually change and evolve with us. Yet ultimately, the journey upon which we are embarking is an incredible solo flight of transcending the tribe to find our own trust, honor, and new sense of self-worth and meaning in life.

[Col. Flagg]

Making a big deal about nothing, they simply trying to say everyone hug it out and get along and respect opposing views, a little Prop 8 damage control maybe. The Church cannot come out and say homosexuals are going to hell, not with today's society and today's Mormons, they would lose half the membership.

are you then saying it is more important that the church has numbers then telling the people to repent?

No, not trying to say that. I actually wish they would stand stronger on the issue, or like others say, just keep quiet and dont say anything. But I will say this, it was terrible to see good members in my ward leave the church over the Church's stance on homosexuality and all that Prop 8 mess. They saw the Church as "haters" and bigots.

This is why it is so vital to never put your faith and trust in the arm of the flesh – our testimonies need to be rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the institutional church. And it is amazing to me how so many members see everything as either black or white – if there is any gray, they equate it to being all black and walk away – ridiculous – there is no such thing as an infallible man in the church, never has been, never will be, save our Savior only. If your testimony is rooted firmly in the gospel of Jesus Christ, nothing the church does or says will cause you to lose it… ever.

[Seek the Truth]

What does the "W" in the LGBTW stand for? Wishing?

Lol I coined that recently, it stands for "whatever". They keep adding item so I'm like let's just put a big open ended one out there.

[Seek the Truth]

This is why it is so vital to never put your faith and trust in the arm of the flesh – our testimonies need to be rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the institutional church.

Except Jesus told us to.

[e-eye2.0]

This is why it is so vital to never put your faith and trust in the arm of the flesh – our testimonies need to be rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the institutional church.

Except Jesus told us to.

After all these years I have hoped Col would change his tune about church leadership but it's been the same thing. Men can change but it's hard. I think Col. is a good guy but it's obvious that this is one of his challenges.

[jbalm]

Col. is one of the few sane people on this forum.

[FTC]

what do we do with those people?

"Choose you this day whom ye will serve: … but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Josh. 24:15
There is no way you can spin homosexual to make it work and fit in God's Plan of Salvation. That Plan including "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife". Until someone is willing to do what they have to to follow that commandment, Yes, they must be rejected from the house(s) that are serving the Lord. Its already been forseen that God will reject so many that they number as numerous as the stars, from the Celestial kingdom and plop them into the Telestial. (D&C 76)
Jesus did NOT eat with the sinners to herald them in their sins. To let them flaunt their sins to His face. He also didn't eat with all sinners. The sinners he ate with were the ones that were wanting to follow His commandments. He ate with them in order to teach them the Gospel so that they would repent of sinning and return to live with God. It should be noted that Jesus did not eat with the Pharisees, Scribes, Saducees, those selling at the Temple, and various others of the like, because those did not want to repent, therefore, He rejected them and let them know how stupid they were for not getting it.

[gardener4life]

I was in California during Prop 8. It was really corrupt. The stand we took was real and right.

Prop 8 was written so that if a bishop or anyone, including businessmen didn't cater and give special service to Gays, queers, and others they could be put in jail and have their property taken. All for no reason. It was a license to hunt non-gays, just like in the days of deer and bison hunting. A lot of people really still don't get how dangerous prop 8 was written for people. There was nothing oppressive against gays and their group in taking a stand; rather it was a self defense action so that lawsuits couldn't be pre-engineered to steal from anyone that wasn't LGBTQ.

If anyone left it was because they weren't actually reading how prop 8 was written.

[passionflower]

Col. is one of the few sane people on this forum.

OK so I'm crazy, but at least I admit it.

But hey, nice to see you!!! I have been really missing you .

[SmallFarm]

Col. is one of the few sane people on this forum.

Insane is the label the conformist gives the free thinker.

[gkearney]

I was in California during Prop 8. It was really corrupt. The stand we took was real and right.

Prop 8 was written so that if a bishop or anyone, including businessmen didn't cater and give special service to Gays, queers, and others they could be put in jail and have their property taken. All for no reason. It was a license to hunt non-gays, just like in the days of deer and bison hunting. A lot of people really still don't get how dangerous prop 8 was written for people. There was nothing oppressive against gays and their group in taking a stand; rather it was a self defense action so that lawsuits couldn't be pre-engineered to steal from anyone that wasn't LGBTQ.

If anyone left it was because they weren't actually reading how prop 8 was written.

Hold on here you have what Prop 8 was completely backwards. California Proposition 8 read as follows:

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/ ... .pdf#prop8 (Office of the Secretary of State of California website.)

As can be clearly seen in the text Proposition 8 would have placed into the California Constitution that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This is the total opposite of what you are suggesting. The church was strongly in favour of the passage of prop 8.

Now I personally think that the church, which strongly supported the passage of prop 8, got played in all of this. If you look at what happened in other states while everyone was spinning their wheels in California on prop 8 you will see that one by one the proponents of same sex marriage were gaining that right through the courts (Iowa), the legislature (New York) or by popular vote (Maine).

In a federal system such as ours with the constitution having a full faith and credit provision it didn't matter what California did or didn't do. The smallest state counts just as much as a big state in legal terms. The opponents of same sex marriage needed to fight it full on in every state large and small. Instead they put all their eggs into one basket, California, believing somehow that a big state would count more than a bunch of little ones. It was not so. So I do think that those groups supporting same sex marriage succeeded in tying down the opposition in one state while they went out and worked on a whole bunch more.

[Sunain]

Making a big deal about nothing, they simply trying to say everyone hug it out and get along and respect opposing views, a little Prop 8 damage control maybe. The Church cannot come out and say homosexuals are going to hell, not with today's society and today's Mormons, they would lose half the membership.

The culling of members will need to take place then because if they can't stand up for what is right now, how are they going to be when the Lord asks them at judgement if they followed his commandments? It really does seem like the homosexuality issue will end up being the major sifting issue of the last days for the church.

[brlenox]

Col. is one of the few sane people on this forum.

Aey Lad, but does he av a unicorn?

[Seek the Truth]

I was in California during Prop 8. It was really corrupt. The stand we took was real and right.

Prop 8 was written so that if a bishop or anyone, including businessmen didn't cater and give special service to Gays, queers, and others they could be put in jail and have their property taken. All for no reason. It was a license to hunt non-gays, just like in the days of deer and bison hunting. A lot of people really still don't get how dangerous prop 8 was written for people. There was nothing oppressive against gays and their group in taking a stand; rather it was a self defense action so that lawsuits couldn't be pre-engineered to steal from anyone that wasn't LGBTQ.

If anyone left it was because they weren't actually reading how prop 8 was written.

Hold on here you have what Prop 8 was completely backwards. California Proposition 8 read as follows:

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/ ... .pdf#prop8 (Office of the Secretary of State of California website.)

As can be clearly seen in the text Proposition 8 would have placed into the California Constitution that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This is the total opposite of what you are suggesting. The church was strongly in favour of the passage of prop 8.

Now I personally think that the church, which strongly supported the passage of prop 8, got played in all of this. If you look at what happened in other states while everyone was spinning their wheels in California on prop 8 you will see that one by one the proponents of same sex marriage were gaining that right through the courts (Iowa), the legislature (New York) or by popular vote (Maine).

In a federal system such as ours with the constitution having a full faith and credit provision it didn't matter what California did or didn't do. The smallest state counts just as much as a big state in legal terms. The opponents of same sex marriage needed to fight it full on in every state large and small. Instead they put all their eggs into one basket, California, believing somehow that a big state would count more than a bunch of little ones. It was not so. So I do think that those groups supporting same sex marriage succeeded in tying down the opposition in one state while they went out and worked on a whole bunch more.

Not exactly. 44 states at one point had banned gay marriage, 35 at the state constitution level. All told about 4 got gay marriage through a legislative process. Gay marriage had effectively lost. California was worth it because of it's left politics, if you could win there you could win anywhere.

But the tyrants on the Court are what was the deathblow. Things were working as they should until the usurpers stepped in.

[Col. Flagg]

This is why it is so vital to never put your faith and trust in the arm of the flesh – our testimonies need to be rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the institutional church.

Except Jesus told us to.

After all these years I have hoped Col would change his tune about church leadership but it's been the same thing. Men can change but it's hard. I think Col. is a good guy but it's obvious that this is one of his challenges.

It's a challenge for seeing things as they are and speaking out in defense of the truth and for what's right and against what's wrong??? #-o

[Seek the Truth]

The truth is you avoid a truckload of scriptures.

[Fiannan]

My prediction? The secular culture will continue to warm up to all the new lifestyles and so religion will seek to not look out of step and will try its best to accomodate.

Except...

Islam. Islam will stand firm and eventually many more traditional people who feel out of place in the "modern" culture will convert to Islam.

I would rather die.

As much as I would like a traditional family, I would never, could never be Muslim.

I am going to say it again: you need to be a Mormon. Look, there are more than enough good LDS young women to choose from. Just avoid any and all SJWs, obese or highly judgemental types (rule of thumb, ask if they voted for McMuffin and if they did just make sure to lose their number). The fact you are smart and traditional makes you a winner.

[Fiannan]

Prop 8 was not righteous and supporting it was not a good idea for any Mormon -- maybe now we are seeing the fruits of that decision. It enshrined monogamy into the California Constitution. Polygamy is part of our scriptures and our history.

[Robin Hood]

I refuse to use the word "gay". I remember the original meaning before being stolen.

Homosexual, homo, perverted, same sex, are words I use if circumstances require a comment.

My mom's name is Gay. Back in the day it meant happy. I prefer to use the word "homosexual" but sometimes "gay" still slips. That is classic satan, taking things that mean well and then twisting it. Like the rainbow.

Absolutely!
I've never been to a miserable wedding. They have all been gay.
Likewise, I have a gay marriage.... and I hope everybody has one!

[simpleton]

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.....

I think that is a pretty good, (bad?) graphic description of us today...
If we "hold the truth" then we hold it in unrighteousness, and because of it God curses us with a rebrobate mind...
All of the above is happening right now amongst us to a sickening degree, and we just go with the flow, maybe with a little protesting but ultimately sin and wickedness becomes light and good....

Isaiah 5.20:
Woe unto them(us) that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

l-) l-) l-) A perfect explanation of what is happening today in our society.

And then there is Nephi addressing us from the dust of the past, but did he ever have a clear view of us as it is another perfect description of us today...

2nd Nephi 28:

And now, behold, my brethren, I have spoken unto you, according as the Spirit hath constrained me; wherefore, I know that they must surely come to pass.

2 And the things which shall be written out of the book shall be of great worth unto the children of men, and especially unto our seed, which is a remnant of the house of Israel.

3 For it shall come to pass in that day that the churches which are built up, and not unto the Lord, when the one shall say unto the other: Behold, I, I am the Lord’s; and the others shall say: I, I am the Lord’s; and thus shall every one say that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord—

4 And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.

5 And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men;

6 Behold, hearken ye unto my precept; if they shall say there is a miracle wrought by the hand of the Lord, believe it not; for this day he is not a God of miracles; he hath done his work.

7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.

12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.

14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.

17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.

18 But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof.

19 For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;

20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

23 Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

24 Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!

25 Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!

26 Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!

27 Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!

28 And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall.

29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

32 Wo be unto the Gentiles, saith the Lord God of Hosts! For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me; for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts

And just for the record, yes i am a sinner also...

And I apply those scriptures to myself also...

[gkearney]

Not exactly. 44 states at one point had banned gay marriage, 35 at the state constitution level. All told about 4 got gay marriage through a legislative process. Gay marriage had effectively lost. California was worth it because of it's left politics, if you could win there you could win anywhere.

But the tyrants on the Court are what was the deathblow. Things were working as they should until the usurpers stepped in.

Time, I think, for a review of the legal situation that developed. First up. To suggest that the courts are "usurpers" shows a profound lack of understanding of the courts role in our governmental system. As the third branch of government people who feel their rights have have been abused by actions of the government have turned to the courts for regress. Consider school desegregation (Brown v. Board of Education), This was the case with same sex marriage as well. While it is true that in many cases the proponents of same sex marriage turned to the courts for regress, which was their right, it is also true that in some states this change was made by the legislature and even by popular vote.

IN the case of the courts the legal framework for this was based on three legal ideas: stare decisis, equal protection and full faith and credit.

Stare Decisis
Stare decisis is legal speak for "the matter is settled". In many ways this matter was lost in 1967 with the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. This decision which cited the other two points equal protection and full faith and credit set out the idea that a state had no right to say a couple married legally in one state could not be considered legally married in all states (full faith and credit) and that the states could not carve out a benefit (marriage) to one group of persons while denying it to others (equal protection).

Equal Protection
This was the original argument made in this matter. In effect a legal benefit, marriage, was being granted to one group of adults while being denied to another group. Those objecting had to make the argument that there was some fundamental reason for this, and no, appeals to the Bible, or even worse that we were somehow defending the English language were not going to cut it. This raises the issue of the weak defence raised by those who objected to same sex marriage. I heard people literally argue that same sex marriage should be prohibited because they found what these people did icky, or that the court were changing the meaning of the word marriage, as if the English language itself had standing before the court.

Full Faith and Credit
This was where the mistake of relying on a single vote in California was made. The full faith and credit clause of the constitution means, in this case, that a legal contract, marriage, entered into to one state is enforceable in all the other states. If not for full faith and credit we would be 50 separate little nations. Full faith and credit was what Loving v. Virginia was, in part, based on. The Lovings were married legally in Washington, D.C. but upon moving to Virginia they found that Virginia did not consider their marriage legal. Eventually the case made it way to the U.S. Supreme court which rule in the Lovings favour based in part on full faith and credit.

Where the error was made in the case of same sex marriage was the mistaken belief that the size of the state would somehow matter. As can be seen in the Loving case full faith and credit can be invoked even when the marriage did not take place in a state at all. So once a group of states had legal same sex marriage then the rest of the states had to at least recognize those legal marriages which are in effect contracts. This set up the situation where even had the laws against same sex marriage remained in place they would have in effect been rendered null because same sex couple would need only to travel to a state where such unions are permitted to become legally married. This is similar to the situation we have with law prohibiting close cousins from being married. All the couple need to do is to travel to a state without such a rule, marry and return to their home state, the marriage is then legal because of full faith and credit.

Size of the state does not matter, California carries no more legal weight than does tiny Vermont. This was where the tactical error was made. Those in support of same sex marriage lured the opponents into a costly and time consuming election knowing full well that such was a waste of time, energy and effort. California was an incredibly expensive place to engage the issue and in the end a meaningless one as well. The opponents would have had to mount a full scale assault on same sex marriage in every state, all the time and that was not something they were in a position to do. By tying the opposition up in California it freed the proponents to pursue their objectives elsewhere unfettered by effective opposition.

Social acceptance
All of the legal maneuvering aside the supporters of same sex marriage did one other thing that was, perhaps, the most effective of all and something against which there was no effective retort. They humanized the issue. Up until this debate homosexuals were viewed as "someone else" strange people in far off cities of New York and San Fransisco. Once they became your friends, neighbours and most important your family members the issue took on a more direct and personal tone. It was at this point that there started to be a sudden and significant shift in the public mind. In 2001 57% of Americans opposed same sex marriage 15 years later in 2016 that number had fallen to 32%. [Pew Research Center, Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/chan ... -marriage/ ] I would argue that it was the efforts to humanize the issue to bring it home as it were more than legal or protests that created this sea change in the public mind. This effort alone, even without the political and legal actions, would have changed the matter just as it did with interracial marriage a century before.

So I will stand by my original point, the opponent permitted themselves to be taken for a ride in California. They mistakenly believed that California would serve as some kind of bellwether. They forgot that from a legal standpoint all the state count equally. Those supporting same sex marriage knew full well that if they could tied down the opponents in a costly and time consuming battle in California they would then have a free hand in the courts, legislatures and in a few cases public referendums to make their case while the opponents fought it out in California which ultimately meant nothing at all.

[David13]

Not exactly. 44 states at one point had banned gay marriage, 35 at the state constitution level. All told about 4 got gay marriage through a legislative process. Gay marriage had effectively lost. California was worth it because of it's left politics, if you could win there you could win anywhere.

But the tyrants on the Court are what was the deathblow. Things were working as they should until the usurpers stepped in.

Time, I think, for a review of the legal situation that developed. First up. To suggest that the courts are "usurpers" shows a profound lack of understanding ...

...

GK
That's a good analysis, but why won't the license to carry a concealed firearm from the state of Utah be recognized in California? Under your analysis, it should be, should it not?
dc

[gkearney]

Not exactly. 44 states at one point had banned gay marriage, 35 at the state constitution level. All told about 4 got gay marriage through a legislative process. Gay marriage had effectively lost. California was worth it because of it's left politics, if you could win there you could win anywhere.

But the tyrants on the Court are what was the deathblow. Things were working as they should until the usurpers stepped in.

Time, I think, for a review of the legal situation that developed. First up. To suggest that the courts are "usurpers" shows a profound lack of understanding ...

...

GK
That's a good analysis, but why won't the license to carry a concealed firearm from the state of Utah be recognized in California? Under your analysis, it should be, should it not?
dc

The reason, as I understand it, is that such a license is not a contract. Full faith and credit deals with contracts. Also keep in mind that full faith and credit wa just one of the three legal legs that the same sex marriage arguments were based on and even then not the primary one.

[larsenb]

I want to urge caution on this article. I think it's false. The event may be real. And that some members are supporting it are real. But I think this is one of those times where I'd made examples on other posts of NOT clearly lining out the difference between church members saying something, and church leadership saying something. They also may decide that who is popular is real leadership. This is exactly what's happening here.

Almost always the Deseret News (Church owned) gets their press release responses from the Church Headquarters PR department. But as you said, the exact source does seem to elude the article. Being on the Deseret News means all the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency have seen this. There would have been a retraction if they didn't agree to the articles posting.

The Deseret News has misquoted things and made mistakes in the past. You can't agree that they are universally ALWAYS correct unless someone makes a big scene. But thanks for being lively and commenting.

"The Deseret News has misquoted things and made mistakes in the past." Ha! Such an understatement. But their biggest errors involve being an outlet for the big-gun, 'progressive' media outlets such as the NYT, the NYT News Service, the Washington Post, the LA Times News Service and AP . . . this includes being a platform for the commentators of same.

[Sirocco]

My prediction? The secular culture will continue to warm up to all the new lifestyles and so religion will seek to not look out of step and will try its best to accomodate.

Except...

Islam. Islam will stand firm and eventually many more traditional people who feel out of place in the "modern" culture will convert to Islam.

I would rather die.

As much as I would like a traditional family, I would never, could never be Muslim.

I am going to say it again: you need to be a Mormon. Look, there are more than enough good LDS young women to choose from. Just avoid any and all SJWs, obese or highly judgemental types (rule of thumb, ask if they voted for McMuffin and if they did just make sure to lose their number). The fact you are smart and traditional makes you a winner.

Not very successful, though I got a pretty nice apartment and I live alone, but I'm also Canadian- in Canada- so if they voted for McMuffin then that's even worse lol
Also a bit socially awkward and pretty lousy at dating, it's been a miserable experience, and I still fear my green shirt and bowtie (I don't like wearing white, and traditional values may not be enough.
Though if she is my age (28) and single she may be a tad less obsessed with jobs and material things, but in this day and age, who really knows.
I am planning to go to the church close to where I will be moving to next month, in the east end of my city, the one in the west end of my city was very tricky to get to, as things sometimes are here.

The older I get the less tolerant I become, I guess the more I see of the world and the more I see how what I was hates me.
I am glad the internet wasn't really a thing when I was a teenager, by time my twenties hit me I was to immersed in things like Dungeons and Dragons to have a concrete set of beliefs.
After the last girl I was actually quite close to getting with, left, I started to actually think about, like a family and how in a lot of ways I do want one, my own children not someone elses (by which I mean dating a single mother not adopting, though I could never afford to do that).
Its the little things, like what my own father did for me, that I want to do for any hopeful children I have.