Bill, you referenced 1 Cor. 19:27-29. Your finger slipped and hit the 9 instead of the 0. There is no 1 Cor. chapter 19. 1 Cor. 10:27-29 deals with what you mentioned and as I mentioned, it condemns the idea that the moral/religious beliefs of some can justify the limiting of rights for others. D&C 134:4, as you mentioned, likewise condemns this idea. This is why the clerk is in the wrong and not following the Bible. This is why supporters of Prop. 8 in California, especially us LDS, were likewise opposing scriptural mandates.
Bill GSeptember 10, 2015
Gary, at the risk of striving over the interpretation of scriptures, may I suggest the following: 1) 1 Cor. 19:29, if you read 27-29 it is clear that one following Christ should not feel intimidated by peer pressure to partake of meat offered in sacrifice to idols. 2) D&C134:4 - I believe there is some ammunition for your argument here, but verse 5 says, ". . . We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, WHILE PROTECTED in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments . . ." I'm not sure I would have chosen the path she chose; as unjust as this Supreme Court opinion is, she probably should have resigned. I admire her courage, however to stand up for what she believes. The point of the article however was that the judge didn't have to jail her; there were other less onerous courses that could have been taken.
David HallSeptember 10, 2015
Thank you for defending Kim Davis.
In my mind, the way she has been treated is so abusive, and the way this same-sex marriage was forced on us, contrary to our laws and the will of the people, is so tyrannical, that it is incumbent on us to stand up for her, whether or not we totally agree with how she has handled this. I don't think I would have done what she has done in the way she did it, but I will forget that and defend her against this awful oppression. Nit-picking at how she has handled this seems to me kind of like criticizing the rape victim because we think her dress was too short. Forget that and focus on the real evil here.
Wake up, people - they're coming after you next, and then what will you do when no one is there to defend you? What will you say when, as a grade school teacher they tell you that you have to teach the chiildren that same-sex marriage is good for the children in that home? What if the Church is sued for not allowing a same-sex wedding reception to be held in your local cultural hall? What if you get in trouble for promoting traditional marriage in the privacy of your home?
Jim KinseySeptember 10, 2015
Opinion: The supreme court are as much in league with the adversary as is the vast majority of those who pretend they are governing us with out best interests in mind. The interpretation of the constitution and the bill of rights has become so muddled that no one really has an idea what the original meaning was. I daresay the the politicians don't have the will, the desire, the means or the ability to do what that most inspired document, the constitution says. Jefferson said it best: "the best government is the least government." Besides, this polemic should fall under the pervue of the individual states, not the federal government, let alone the nest of vipers called the supreme court. If any of you bother to read or study history, the Civil War was started and fought over states rights, not the freedom of slaves. Lincoln's first desire was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves but he said if that was what it took he would do it. Many things evolved from the civil war, which, by the way is still being waged fiercely in the south, and the only thing we remember is that slavery was an issue. During the constitutional convention that became the vehicle for the Declaration of Independence the south said that it would not support the freedom of the slaves and so that part was left out. Franklin and others said that the issue of slavery would be our downfall and it nearly was.
There will come a conflict greater than the war between the states and it will be settled with violence, not with the vote. Why can we not stand for what we preach and stand for? Why do we acquiesce to the desires of the few instead of the majority? Quite plainly because at this time Satan is in charge and will continue to be until the Savior comes to set things right.
Kevin JKSeptember 10, 2015
Perhaps we should accommodate Catholic clerks who don't want to issue licenses to divorced people or to White Supremacist clerks who refuse to issue licenses to Blacks. Some Anti-LDS think the temple is of Satan and they don't want to be a part of any Satanic ceremony so perhaps they need to be accommodated as well.
She needs to just do her job or quit. Her denial of rights based on her religion is an establishment of religion. 1 Cor. 10:29 (as well as D&C 134:4) denounces that. How can any bible believing person do what she is doing?
Gary LawrenceSeptember 10, 2015
Sounds good on the surface, but no conscientious objectors in the military were ever company commanders.
Comments | Return to Story
kevin jkSeptember 11, 2015
Bill, you referenced 1 Cor. 19:27-29. Your finger slipped and hit the 9 instead of the 0. There is no 1 Cor. chapter 19. 1 Cor. 10:27-29 deals with what you mentioned and as I mentioned, it condemns the idea that the moral/religious beliefs of some can justify the limiting of rights for others. D&C 134:4, as you mentioned, likewise condemns this idea. This is why the clerk is in the wrong and not following the Bible. This is why supporters of Prop. 8 in California, especially us LDS, were likewise opposing scriptural mandates.
Bill GSeptember 10, 2015
Gary, at the risk of striving over the interpretation of scriptures, may I suggest the following: 1) 1 Cor. 19:29, if you read 27-29 it is clear that one following Christ should not feel intimidated by peer pressure to partake of meat offered in sacrifice to idols. 2) D&C134:4 - I believe there is some ammunition for your argument here, but verse 5 says, ". . . We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, WHILE PROTECTED in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments . . ." I'm not sure I would have chosen the path she chose; as unjust as this Supreme Court opinion is, she probably should have resigned. I admire her courage, however to stand up for what she believes. The point of the article however was that the judge didn't have to jail her; there were other less onerous courses that could have been taken.
David HallSeptember 10, 2015
Thank you for defending Kim Davis. In my mind, the way she has been treated is so abusive, and the way this same-sex marriage was forced on us, contrary to our laws and the will of the people, is so tyrannical, that it is incumbent on us to stand up for her, whether or not we totally agree with how she has handled this. I don't think I would have done what she has done in the way she did it, but I will forget that and defend her against this awful oppression. Nit-picking at how she has handled this seems to me kind of like criticizing the rape victim because we think her dress was too short. Forget that and focus on the real evil here. Wake up, people - they're coming after you next, and then what will you do when no one is there to defend you? What will you say when, as a grade school teacher they tell you that you have to teach the chiildren that same-sex marriage is good for the children in that home? What if the Church is sued for not allowing a same-sex wedding reception to be held in your local cultural hall? What if you get in trouble for promoting traditional marriage in the privacy of your home?
Jim KinseySeptember 10, 2015
Opinion: The supreme court are as much in league with the adversary as is the vast majority of those who pretend they are governing us with out best interests in mind. The interpretation of the constitution and the bill of rights has become so muddled that no one really has an idea what the original meaning was. I daresay the the politicians don't have the will, the desire, the means or the ability to do what that most inspired document, the constitution says. Jefferson said it best: "the best government is the least government." Besides, this polemic should fall under the pervue of the individual states, not the federal government, let alone the nest of vipers called the supreme court. If any of you bother to read or study history, the Civil War was started and fought over states rights, not the freedom of slaves. Lincoln's first desire was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves but he said if that was what it took he would do it. Many things evolved from the civil war, which, by the way is still being waged fiercely in the south, and the only thing we remember is that slavery was an issue. During the constitutional convention that became the vehicle for the Declaration of Independence the south said that it would not support the freedom of the slaves and so that part was left out. Franklin and others said that the issue of slavery would be our downfall and it nearly was. There will come a conflict greater than the war between the states and it will be settled with violence, not with the vote. Why can we not stand for what we preach and stand for? Why do we acquiesce to the desires of the few instead of the majority? Quite plainly because at this time Satan is in charge and will continue to be until the Savior comes to set things right.
Kevin JKSeptember 10, 2015
Perhaps we should accommodate Catholic clerks who don't want to issue licenses to divorced people or to White Supremacist clerks who refuse to issue licenses to Blacks. Some Anti-LDS think the temple is of Satan and they don't want to be a part of any Satanic ceremony so perhaps they need to be accommodated as well. She needs to just do her job or quit. Her denial of rights based on her religion is an establishment of religion. 1 Cor. 10:29 (as well as D&C 134:4) denounces that. How can any bible believing person do what she is doing?
Gary LawrenceSeptember 10, 2015
Sounds good on the surface, but no conscientious objectors in the military were ever company commanders.
ADD A COMMENT