Doctrine & Covenants on Influence of Religions

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; …

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:4,9

Have the Mormons’ religious opinions prompted them to infringe on the rights and liberties of others? Unquestionably. Last month, a Californian could marry anyone he or she chose; today, no.

Has the LDS Church mingled religious influence with civil government, fostering its and other conservative churches’ definition of marriage, while proscribing the spiritual privileges of Unitarian and other liberal churches to solemnize their members’ same-sex unions as lawful marriage, and denying the individual rights of these churches’ members to marry whomever they choose? Undoubtedly.

Thanks to “LDS Hypocrisy” for pointing this section out in a comment.

8 Responses to Doctrine & Covenants on Influence of Religions

  1. Talor Sorensen says:

    Let’s talk hypocrisy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Prop 8 opponents raising $40M plus to push gay marriage down the throats of Californians. But it’s an outrage that Prop 8 supporters raised just under $30M to push their bigoted beliefs down the throats of Californians. Let us change the definition of the word “marriage” and damn anyone who disagrees. Let’s track down each of the supporters and punish them!!

  2. Wendy says:

    Talor:
    In 1948 four “activist” California Supreme Court judges redefined the word “marriage” to allow interracial couples to marry in the case Perez vs. Sharp. 65% of the country was against interracial marriage, studies were out claiming that children of interracial relationships had it worse off than children of same race parents, passages from the Bible were used to show how this was evil and unjust, churches were afraid they would be forced to perform interracial ceremonies, and even in 1967, 19 years later, 13 states still disallowed interracial marriage. No one was forced to become part of an interracial marriage, just those that wanted to were now allowed to do so in the state of California. How terrible that these judges forced it down people’s throats in that way.

    California didn’t fall into the ocean and somehow the world survived. Now we consider this form of discrimination to be despicable.

    More money was actually spent on the yes side for Prop 8 than the no side. http://www.bilerico.com/2008/08/proposition_8_funding.php No one is forcing anyone to become a part of a gay marriage, the only forcing that is being done is when a group has specifically chosen to make a law to force the actions of others or to even go so far as amending an entire constitution to force the actions of others. No one has tried to make a law saying that Christians can’t get married, no one has made an effort to deny the rights of or force the actions of Christians. Conservatives have taken on their own initiative to go and change the laws and change the constitution to say “No, you can’t do this,” to force the actions of others to follow the beliefs of another set of people. Who’s shoving their views down who’s throat here?

    No one is forcing a church to recognize a same-sex marriage or perform one if they don’t want to. The Catholic church to this day still doesn’t recognize marriages if the ceremony was performed in a non-Catholic church. My parents had to remarry in a Catholic church because their original ceremony was in a Pentecostal church. They had been married for 10 years and had 3 children, but the Catholic church didn’t recognize them as married. No one has made them change this.

    But there are churches that DO want to perform same-sex unions for legal recognition such as the Unitarian Church, many Episcopalian churches, Metropolitan Community churches, Progressive and Reform Jewish Synagogues, etc that aren’t able to because more conservative churches are afraid they would have to do them too even though they won’t. Who’s stepping on who’s religious freedom here? No one is forcing the conservative churches to do anything, but the conservative churches are forcing the other churches to not be able to do something. Who’s forcing who’s hand here? Who’s shoving their views down who’s throat here?

    I’d like to see a definition of “shoving down people’s throats.”
    We haven’t forced you to do anything. Many have been vocal and sometimes even pig-headed in the way they expressed their beliefs. (You can’t in all fairness actually say that the conservative side doesn’t have their share of people that do the same.) But we haven’t made any laws requiring others to be gay or limiting the actions of heterosexuals. No laws have been made that heterosexuals can’t adopt or marry. Forcing people to do or not do is done in law. Saying you can be criminalized for doing something or not doing it is done by laws. No law has been made to limit you, you have not been forced to do or not to do anything. The conservative side has done the forcing, they have made the laws specifically setting special rules for another set of people. Please define to me “shoving down your throat,” because the only forceful shoving I see is from the other side.

    Thank you

  3. Jurjen S. says:

    Would it be awfully cynical of me to surmise out loud that that element of LDS doctrine stems from the time that they were still a fringe religious organization, and any involvement with civil government was more likely to be to the church’s detriment rather than to its benefit?

    As for Talor’s comment about hypocrisy: there is nothing hypocritical about raising money to publicize a political cause per se. That act does become hypocritical when an organization doing so has explicit rules saying that it refrain from that behavior. FWIW, if any religious organization raised money to campaign against Prop 8, I’d like to see their tax-exempt status withdrawn as well.

  4. nik says:

    sorry i thought it was the church of lsd my mistake. god told me to write to you. be aware and love life. it is also written love each other. the number 1 command. if you can do this all the other commandments fall into place. live and and love life your place in heaven is there for you

  5. truth says:

    Shame on you people for trying to spread perversion and debauchery. The constitution and it’s amendments are just that. They force us all to live by certain laws. There’s laws about taxes, there’s laws about speed limits, there is laws about all kinds of things that force us all to stay within certain guide lines to protect the majority. Marriage between a man and a women is normal, morally, religiously, psychologically, biologically, theologically and finally socially. The most important of those is the theologically. God said it was wrong but even if he didn’t it’s still disgusting and is a pathological abnormality which will only have dire consequence on society. Open your eyes and ratiocinate. If you have an in ability to do so consider this and hopefully it will help you see the pernicious and nefarious mindset those have who are saying you have to have gay marriage to have equal rights:

    ( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )

    ‘Next.’

    ‘Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.’

    ‘Names?’

    ‘Tim and Jim Jones.’

    ‘Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.’

    ‘Yes, we’re brothers.’

    ‘Brothers? You can’t get married.’

    ‘Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?’

    ‘Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!’

    ‘Incest?’ No, we are not gay.’

    ‘Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?’

    ‘For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
    Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.’

    ‘But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been
    denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get
    married to a woman.’

    ‘Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
    But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want
    to marry Jim.’

    ‘And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
    because we are not gay?’

    ‘All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.’

    ‘Hi. We are here to get married.’

    ‘Names?’

    ‘John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.’

    ‘Who wants to marry whom?’

    ‘We all want to marry each other.’

    ‘But there are four of you!’

    ‘That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
    loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and
    me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express
    our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.’

    ‘But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.’

    ‘So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!’

    ‘No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s
    just for couples.’

    ‘Since when are you standing on tradition?’

    ‘Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.’

    ‘Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more
    the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution
    guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!’

    ‘All right, all right. Next.’

    ‘Hello, I’d like a marriage license.’

    ‘In what names?’

    ‘David Deets.’

    ‘And the other man?’

    ‘That’s all. I want to marry myself.’

    ‘Marry yourself? What do you mean?’

    ‘Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry
    the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.’

    ‘That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!’

  6. This is very up-to-date info. I think I’ll share it on Delicious.

  7. Heron says:

    The LDS Church does believes that all people have the same rights when it comes to marriage: any man may marry any woman, and any woman may marry any man.

    By that logic, pushing a law that bans homosexual marriage is not infringing on anyone’s rights any more than a law that bans jaywalking.

    In that light, the LDS Church’s actions do not contradict D&C 134.

    You can disagree about whether a person has the right to marry whom they choose, but you can’t cry foul when group X’s beliefs contradict group Y’s beliefs. If group X’s beliefs are self-consistent (in this case, they are), then group X is not being hypocritical.

  8. airmax90lolo says:

    marriage in the chuech will be less, but we hope for this kind of marriage!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: