Close Topic Options

Law vs. Religion - Page 3

Sorry, I forgot where I was posting, but I don't see where I went off topic. Well now that I look back, I guess I did, I was just responding to your post. So, anyway. Sorry.

Then let me say it this way, I think in any country where people have the option to elect and or participate in their government, they should. I think they should work to pass good laws that are in tune with the gospel as long as they stay within the bounds set by whatever their constitution or laws say regarding who they represent and how they should conduct themselves.

Religion vs Law

That is why I said that we should all use the same principles. That is, we should use principles of righteousness within our governments.

Yes, there are a lot of forms of government, other than the US Constitutional form. But many, many countries that have a large contingent of LDS have representative democracies of some sort. LDS members can certainly teach and seek to implement principles of liberty and personal responsibility. We can campaign for, write to, and seek to influence representatives, as well as actually run for office. And yes, we can seek to implement laws that are based on righteous principles.

NightHawk

Law vs. Religion Studies Doctrine Mormon

Nighthawk agreed.

Tenaheff, no problems, just wanted to make sure that you understood you were on the LDS Board because the idea is to prove things here based on doctrine and not the way the US government has been set up. I know my first post seems to be political, but it is not, it is meant for a doctrinal reply just like any other issue in this section.

Offtopic but, I believe Nighthawk or you, Tenaheff should start a thread in the International section, entitled, 'The US Constitution, a pattern for other world Governments?' I am sure that you will get lots of feedback and yes, I am serious

Page 3 Religion vs Law

Wow, this is an interesting topic, and probably why so many people in the United States fear having Mitt Romney become President.

I have a fundamental problem with any government creating and passing legislation to enforce a Moral Law. In my view Moral laws should be taught and in a way enforced in the home and at church.

Government should only be around to protect our basic freedoms. I see what JB is saying about there not being a need for government in biblical times, but we have it now. I think we should still allow the Prophet and the Church to tell us what is right and wrong, morally, and leave the government out of it.

Everytime I hear about another Moral law being passed, like laws against homosexuality, it worries me that we are overstepping our bounds. We were sent here to be tested. In the pre-existence Lucifer had a plan to get us all back, by making all of our decisions for us. We chose Christs plan that gave us free-agency. I think it is wrong to make laws that take that free-agency away.

Religion vs Law

This is a very difficult topic for me and I will try on stay on topic.

Please be patient with me as I preface my idea and then segue into how it relates to LDS Doctrine.

There are two main ways I believe that Government can practice its power. One is that the Government forces its citizens to follow laws (dictatorship) and the other way the Governed or majority of the Governed allow or accept that the Government will enact laws through representation or the implied consent of the Governed.

This being said Good Government, I believe, must follow the LDS standard of governing to be effective. It must be done without the use of unrighteous Dominion or in unrighteousness.

From the doctrine and Covenants 121:37,39
All words in Parenthesis are my own thoughts

As Latter day saints we can work to have laws enacted that uphold certain standards. For example the government has the authority over issuing Marriage Licences. It can and must define Marriage or Marriage is a useless word.
As Latter-day-Saints most believe that Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. By definition a man and a man cannot Marry nor can a woman and a woman marry. By legislating that Marriage is between a man and a woman we are indeed enacting a Moral Law. But in enacting this law it must be done through proper channels and in righteousness.
There are thousands of Moral laws in every country that are Legislated
A list of "Moral Laws" already enacted
Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not steal
Thou shall pay a tithe (actually it is a tax, but at least tithes are based more on free agency.)
Sex with minors is not allowed.
People cannot marry a sibling.
A strip club cannot be right by an elementary school.


If a so called "moral law" is created by majority rule, while maintaining the rights of the minority then it is appropriate for LDS member to be involved in this process. The enforcement of these laws will inevitably done by the power and force of the Government (Punishment will be assigned if the law is broken) but this is not inappropriate force. The Lord has stated that Governments are now responsible to have some dominion over the Governed. The Lord will hold the Government responsible on how it Governs. Those that are in Representative Democracies will be held to a higher standard because they have given there consent to be governed. And if we as Latter-Day-Saints are not involved in the process of Governing, then Laws that take away certain standards will be enacted.
For example
Sex with minors will be more acceptable.
Strip clubs would have a right to be any where even near schools.
Laws that justify killing innocents will not have any boundaries (mercy killings, Killing of Retarded children because they are a burden to society,Abortion without regard to trimester or ability to save child,)
Billboards with nudity to sell products will not be monitored (Sex sells)

Is it not appropriate to enact laws (directives backed up by the force of Punishment) to curtail these things? Is it not our responsibility as Latter-Day-Saint to be involved in this process?

Law vs. Religion

I must respectfully disagree with you dbackers. As an example the US government was founded by righteous men who understood by personal experience the desire to separate church and state. I have heard throughout my life that God was instrumental in bringing about the founding of the United States government. I believe very much in the scripture that you quote above out of D&C. Try looking at it from a slightly different perspective. I believe it to be "unrighteous dominion" to enact laws that take away another mans basic free-agency. It may be within our capacity to act as a majority and pass legislation to bring about laws, but is it within our realm of responsibility? I believe the realm of responsibility for enforcing moral laws is in our home and in our church.

You list a couple of examples of supposed moral laws, which I don't agree are only moral laws. I believe that a law should be made and enforced only if the exercise of the supposed crime infringes on another persons inalienable rights. An example would be murder, theft, or a sexual crime involving a minor, or someone who is incapable/denying of consent.

A moral law that does not infringe upon someone elses inalienable rights, except in a moral sense, should not be made into a law. A specific example would be homosexuality and gay marriage. Except in a moral sense, people who practice this are hurting no one. I know that many will say that it is an insult to the institution of marriage, and I agree. I know many will also say that it will confuse our children, and I agree. These are hard questions to answer and this is not an LDS perspective on homosexuality thread so I will leave it.

I believe it to be a sign of the downfall of man that we ask governments to step in and enforce laws that should be taught in the home and at church. This will bring about a feeling of "if it is legal, it must be okay."

In my opinion it is repressive and unrighteous to make a law, outside of church, that takes away from a persons ability to exercise their free-agency without infringing on someone elses inalienable rights. We fought for that free-agency in the pre-existence, it must be important. Ideally moral laws should be enforced within our home and within our belief system, I.e. disfellowship, excommunication or other forms of punishment. Leave the government out of it.

Law vs. Religion - Page 3

Bobnbrittw
I am sure we will continue to disagree on this one.
I do not feel however, that making a law that states that Marriage is only between a man and a woman is taking away anyone's free agency. The government is in the business of granting Marriage licences, and with that power they have the right to define Marriage.
We as Latter-Day-Saints can, without taking free agency of the individual, participate in defining what Marriage is.
From A Declaration and Reaffirmation of Standards, Doctrines, and Practices Relative to the Family

In fact we are commanded to take part in helping defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman

I agree with you in principle that it is the responsibility of the family and church to be the main purveyor of moral teachings, but the government does have the responsibly to maintain some moral standards.

The following things do not infringe on my inalienable rights but there are laws that deal with them (thank goodness).

How can I as a father protect my four sons from a billboard with a naked lady advertising a new beer if there are not some moral laws of decency.
If Marriage can only defined by people that hold that Homosexual "marriage" is equivalent to marriage as defined by God, then are not my rights to help define it being infringed.
Can I not expect a government to stop an adult male or female from walking around naked around schools, parks, or other public places. If we stop him or her then are we not infringing his or her right to freedom of choice.


I do not believe there should be laws stopping people from practicing homosexuality(or any other moral sexual sin) if they are consenting adults, but that has no bearing on enacting laws of decency and other "moral laws" that affect society as a whole.

I suspect that our views on this topic are tied as much to our political beliefs as to our spiritual ones

The whole separation of church and State thing is something that I would have to discuss in another forum. (No where in the bill of rights or constitution does it state that there is a separation of Church and State)

Rather off topic, but... Granting of a Marriage licence is not an enalianable right (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) A license would not be granted in the following cases 1. Sister marrying Sister. 2. Two women marrying one man. 3. An adult Marrying a small child 4. A person marrying their pet. Marriage licences are given in most states between a man and a woman of a certain age, and there are limitations outside of this, like the ones above. A Marriage licence can be given and it can be taken away. Enalienable by definition is something that can not be taken away or given.

Law vs. Religion Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

First and foremost the Bill of Rights of the United States of America does mention a separation of church and state, the first line of the First Amendment stated that:

This could either mean that they cannot outlaw a religion, or make laws based on a religion.

I agree with you that there should not be pictures of naked women promoting a product where children, or anyone else, would be able to see them. I do not see it as an exercise of someones life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness to put up an advertisement like that, and in fact I find that it infringes on someone elses rights to have to view it. This is an example of a moral law that if broken infringes on someone elses rights.

On to another of your points:

If marriage was as simple now as a union between a man and a woman, then we could simply define some other word to describe the union between anything else. The problem now is that there are tax breaks, executorship, and a host of other incentives offered for those that enter into marriage. If we only offer those benefits to heterosexual people we are in effect limiting someones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, based upon their sexual orientation and moral values.

In my opinion the hardest thing to realize here is that a governments definition of marriage has to differ from God's definition of marriage. Just as a governments definition of any principle will be different from God's. God's law has, is, and always will be a higher law that only a few will submit themselves fully to. This is what we have been sent here for. To be tried, tested and move on to the next life, to be judged for those decisions. If we make a decision to limit someones ability to make those choices, choices that do not directly effect anybody else, are we not going against what we fought for in the pre-existence?

I slippery slope is in store for us when we make a precedent to pass laws based on a majority's morals. We could very well find ourselves in the future being subject to another majorities morals.