Prohibitions on gay marriage = Satan's plan of salvation?

[_asbestosman]

You're right -- my connection only makes sense if obtaining a gay marriage is sinful in and of itself, or if the Church was ever in favor of anti-sodomy laws.

Score on the later. Anti-sodomy laws do restrict agency as that term is commonly understood by society. However, it isn't a restriction on agency in the sense that Satan's plan would have been from the LDS POV. But yes, I was limiting my thoughts to the connection between government recognition of gay marriage, and somene's agency.

As to the former, I fail to see how agency is effected by whether or not an action is sinful in and of itself. Is your agency restricted if you don't believe it's sinful and that eternal punishment (or at least consequences) await?

[_JohnStuartMill]

You're right -- my connection only makes sense if obtaining a gay marriage is sinful in and of itself, or if the Church was ever in favor of anti-sodomy laws.

Score on the later. Anti-sodomy laws do restrict agency as that term is commonly understood by society. However, it isn't a restriction on agency in the sense that Satan's plan would have been from the LDS POV. But yes, I was limiting my thoughts to the connection between government recognition of gay marriage, and somene's agency.

I don't think the LDS conception of agency is limited to free will. My later posts in this thread explicate why I believe that the conception extends to political liberty as well.

As to the former, I fail to see how agency is effected by whether or not an action is sinful in and of itself. Is your agency restricted if you don't believe it's sinful and that eternal punishment (or at least consequences) await?

The question of whether gay marriage is sinful in and of itself goes to the question of whether the Church's stance on Proposition 8 is consistent with its stance on agency. If gay marriage is sinful, and does not infringe on other people's freedoms, then a Church that lauds the freedom to go astray shouldn't try to ban it.

[_Brackite]

Are Prohibitions on Plural marriage = Satan's plan of salvation?

The States of Utah and Arizona have Prohibitions against Polygamy in their Constitution.

Just asking.

[_asbestosman]

I don't think the LDS conception of agency is limited to free will. My later posts in this thread explicate why I believe that the conception extends to political liberty as well.

The problem is that I hear the church reject similar arguments about law and agecy time and time again. Since I tend to assume they know what they mean, it's hard for me to believe anything other than 1) those who disagree are mistaken 2) the church has changed its stance. or 3) some in the leadership were mistaken.

I wonder, for example, if President Benson wasn't referring to the restrictions on religious freedom found in communist countries and saw that as analogous to what Satan would have liked to do to our moral agency with his plan--not that the analogy was perfect or necessarily a good one. Perhaps President Benson was mistaken about the application to politics, or maybe I'm mistaken about the church's view of the nature of agency.

The question of whether gay marriage is sinful in and of itself goes to the question of whether the Church's stance on Proposition 8 is consistent with its stance on agency. If gay marriage is sinful, and does not infringe on other people's freedoms, then a Church that lauds the freedom to go astray shouldn't try to ban it.

By sinful in and of itself, I suspect you mean that naturally implies it doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms. Either way, I'm pretty sure the church views gay marriage as something which will infringe on our freedoms in one way or another, whether it be through the extreme of God punishing us through fire and brimstone (unlikely nowadays), be it through a faster decline of the familly, or be it by imposing more restrictions against "hate speech" in proclaiming homosexual relations to be wrong (although the latter fears may be a bit exaggerated).

But in any case, I think it also likely that the church has never claimed unrestricted agency. Otherwise, why would God use his power to kill the occasoinal sinner in the scriptures? Considering that, I tend to think of agency more like the scraped knees vs charred bodies of children. Some mistakes are worth learning from, and some should be restricted so that they are less likely to occur.

Perhaps EAllusion is right in that it was more about religious freedom initially. It's possible in the sense that it fits nicely into my understanding of personal responsibility for one's desires and the resolve to act accordingly when given a reasonable opprotunity.