Close Topic Options

Law vs. Religion - Page 4

The Topic at hand is Law VS. Religion and as such I can talk about the so called Separation of Church and State. The Bill of Right explicitly states that The federal Government cannot establish a State Church or Support a church through taxes, as had been done in By the Church of England. It also forbade the Government to impose its will on the any religion by prohibiting people from exercising their religion according their own consciences. It never forbade citizens to make laws that they thought would benefit the society or define legal terms such as Marriage.

Since when must the laws of Man have to different from the laws of God. The closer these laws are to the laws of God the more blessed that nation is. In Fact many of our laws are based on portions of Biblical Law. The Ten Commandments are the Basis of much of our civic Laws. God's law on Marriage has Involved the feminine and the masculine and has been the basis for Marriage Law throughout the Nation's History.

How would you define Marriage?
Marriage as defined by the actual ceremony is nothing more or nothing less then a union between a man and a woman. The temple Marriage Ceremony is nothing more or nothing less then a union between a man and a woman sealed by God. What is wrong with these definitions?

What is wrong with Latter-Day-Saints trying be involved in making laws that conform to their ideals? If they are not involved someone else will who does not have their beliefs will make the laws.

Religion vs Law

I find myself agreeing with Bobnbrittw on many of his points.

I think that we not only as LDS but as Citizens of any democracy have a duty to improve society and represent our values. We should be out there representing our ideas and beliefs. They must be counted in a democratic society.

However I to tend to think that we should not legislate morality or should I say private morality. In a democracy, there is such a thing as a public morality that regulates public morals and values. Sometimes such "public morals" may spill into private morality and that is why we have such issues with Gay marriage.
Thus like in the idea of Porn, child sex etc. there is a public concensus of morality that legislates such things. If you look into the subject you will see the the courts recognize such ideas and thus the distinction of soft and hard core porn arise from. We as LDS should fight to keep such public morality in place.
To illustrate this point I can remember some years ago where the city Provo was trying to shut down a porn vendor in the city limits. The porn vendor won the case, and the reason was that his lawyer proved through argument that pornography was of the moral norm of Provo. He did this by showing that per capita Provo citizens watch more porn then the national average. Thus it was ruled that the community morality allowed for pron sales in Provo UT.

Now as for the gray matters like gay marriage. Is it a public morality? In some places I suppose it is and in others it it not. However the idea behind gay marriage for me is not a moral issue, but rather what Bobnbrittw has said. By not allowing gay marriage, we limit the rights of people to enter a legal contract. (For under law marriage is a legal contract. I have done enough divorce dissolutions to know this.) The question is then do we have the right to exclude 2 people from entering a legal contract and its benefits because because of there sexuality or morals? This is the problem that we have in our courts today. there are gay marriages with children, property assets and debt. Since there is no official contract under law like marriage, how then do we as a society officiate "breakups, deaths and other life issues that come up with any relationships? Do we as a society owe it to all of our citizens protection under law or regulate such life changes and problems? Legal or not gays will live together, have children and property, and thus they have a right to have protection under the courts for such things, even if it does offend our morality.

The argument that says that allowing gays to marry would open a flood gate of other types of marriages such as minor/ adult marriages, animals/ and humans, etc does not work is because such parties cannot enter legal contracts by law. Animals nor minors cannot enter legal contracts. It just would not fly.

If Gay marriage is allowed it does nothing in defining what marriage under law already does. Marriage is defined in may ways by many people. For example a LDS marriage is defined differently then a protestant marriage. We see marriage as eternal not temporal. Even the responsibilities in marriage are different between groups in the nations depending on culture or religion. No where does the government define such ideas of marriage and thus allows for each group to define its idea of marriage, and allows each group to recognize other marriages as they please.
The government does not say that we must recognize all marriages as eternal because they are married. There is still room to define marriage as you please. If gay marriages are legal then the LDS church can still define marriage as man and woman and do not have to start officiating in gay marriages. They still can and will be able to dictate who is and is not allowed or accepted as an eternal marriage under there beliefs.

Law vs. Religion Studies Doctrine Mormon

My opinion on this matter relies heavily on the fact that Apostles in the LDS church have opposed making Same Sex marriages Legal. I know that we have had the discussion on the difference of Doctrine and opinion but I believe I am in good company with Elder Oaks who in this release on the official LDS website stated his desire to see a Constitutional Amendment declaring Marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

I would also like to address something that you said.

There is nothing stopping a Homosexual man from entering the Marriage contract (If a Marriage contract is defined as a union between a man and a woman as Elder Oaks would propose) with a woman. No rights are being taken away from that person, because the marriage contract can be entered by a man and a woman regardless of sexual orientation. Conversely a Heterosexual man could not Marry another man because it does not fall within the legal definition of marriage as defined in our example.

I believe the Church is fighting in essence to define what the Marriage Contract is(a union between a man and a woman), and I believe I have the right to help determine this. The other side also has the right to try to define it there way. That is how the Law works, different sides trying to define what the Law should be.

Edited: dbackers on 26th Jul, 2007 - 9:12pm

Page 4 Religion vs Law

This thread deals with Law vs. Religion. There is an existent thread that deals with Gay Marriage through an LDS perspective located here:

https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index....l=homosexuality

Religion vs Law

We can as LDS member be part of the process of making sure laws are closer to our ideals.
There is no danger in us doing so.
In Fact we have be told that participation in making laws is a responsibility as a member of the Church.

If I am subject to kings, presidents, ruler, and magistrates and in obeying the Law I will definitely work to make those laws more closely in line with my way of thinking (is that not true of all people) even though it may impose on someones right to do a certain activity (this is true of all laws.)

Edited: dbackers on 27th Jul, 2007 - 12:22am

Law vs. Religion

Dbackers you have given me many things to think about and you are incredibly persuasive. I agree with you that it is our responsibility, in countries that are democratic, to assist in the law making process, to make sure that we can practice our beliefs free from discrimination. These are rights afforded to US citizens in the Bill of Rights, and many other countries as well. During my service in the US Navy I fought for freedom for all, not just a specific moral group.

Looking at how JB set up the thread the thing that bothered me about it the most is how he asks if it is our responsibility to make laws to "force" morality. I do not think this is our purpose for being here. We are not meant to "force" anyone to do anything. I believe I am also in good company in quoting from the Book of Moses.

Our Agency is a tricky thing. It gets in the way a lot. Obviously, I do not believe we, as a people, have to allow a man to commit murder, theft, incest or anything that might infringe on another mans rights, without some form of temporal punishment. However, I don't believe it is within our jurisdiction to disallow someone to make a choice based on moral beliefs that are alternate to mine, IF that choice has no affect on another persons rights. Why would we have the agency, unless we should be free to use it?

In my opinion everyone should be free to make choices that will culminate in their ultimate judgement. Obviously it is our job to try to reach out to as many people as possible to share the Good Word with them, but forcing our morals on them is another thing entirely. I believe that our agency is important to God, we will be judged according to it. If we take away another mans agency, and force morals upon him, I don't believe we will be judged lightly.

Edited: bobnbrittw on 27th Jul, 2007 - 12:30pm

Law vs. Religion - Page 4

bobnbrittw

I suspect we have alot that we agree on in this discusion, but we are coming from different angles.

The trouble with the flawed world we live in is that all law, regardless if it comes from a dictatorship or a democracy is backed up with some kind of force to make it effective. If we steal, kill, or do anything that is against the Law there is a punishment affixed. This is not so different from the laws of God.


In a secular government the punishments includes imprisonment, fines and in extreme cases the death penalty (I am not saying this is right or wrong just that the punishment is affixed.) When a law is broken there is the "Legal Force" affixed that punishment. The person had free agency to break the law but he does not have free agency to choose the consequences. This is very similar to the Laws of God.

When a nation makes laws to govern moral behavior (which in my way of thinking involves most laws between individuals), I acknowledge that there are some legal and religious issues that have to be argued. It gets a little dicier when it involves Sexual Moral Behavior between adults. In most cases I do not believe there should be laws governing individual sexual behavior. In cases however where there is a law governing that behavior (prostitution, indecency, or other "Sex crimes") Force (or rather punishment for breaking that law) is indeed used to either prevent or discourage such behavior. No Free Agency is taken away, as the person may still choose to break a Law as determined by the state. That person only suffers the consequence of breaking that law. It is equivalent to God giving a commandment and a person may choose to follow that commandment or break it. There is still a punishment affixed.

As citizen's (and as Latter-day-saints) it is in our best interest to determine what should be covered by Law and what should be left to the individual. You and I will will probably disagree on what should be covered by these laws, because we have different views on things, but that is the beauty of discussion.

Law vs. Religion Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 4

I haven't participated in the discussion as yet because it's kind of tricky subject nevertheless I have enjoyed reading the points of views.

I consider myself a pretty open-minded Latter-Day Saint, by open minded I mean someone who respects the lifestyle of other individuals without making a big fuss about it and even though I may not agree with their lifestyles.

I am not sure if as members of the Church we have a responsibility to impose certain moral laws to others who are non-members. As an example, if drinking would be ban in Utah I would be against it even though I do not drink and go against my beliefs but I am thinking about those who do not share my same beliefs, am I interfering in their free agency? I think I am.

Now it is a different story if the moral laws we want to protect or pass is for the sake of children or other innocent people. I think we all are in the same page here.