Split Thread Mormons and marriage

Sword_Of_Truth said:
Did you not notice the crucifixes (Mormons do not venerate the cross as our fellow Christians do) all over that site?
Click to expand...
Not an argument. More ad hominem (oh I wouldn't trust Mormons, they are not Christians) Now, about these questions you refuse to answer....

Would you consider a site that bashes Fords as credible if all its bullet points were indicated by Chevy logos?
Click to expand...
I would not dismiss any argument or evidence based on ad hominem. When I was a Mormon missionary I hated it when I was dismissed simply because I was Mormon. Arguments must be evaluated on their own strength.

So, special pleading (fallacy) to defend ad hominem (fallacy)


About thsoe questions....
  1. Are the quotes in my previous post above correct?
  2. Is polygamy still part of Mormon theology (even if it is not practiced)?
  3. Are acts of duplicity, deception and evasion intellectually honest?
  4. Why use logic and reason if you only use it selectively?
  5. Who is the father of ALL lies?
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
BTW, RF: I answered one of your five questions. It was the one that I felt I knew the most about and could give the most accurate answer.

This appears to have made you more angry than if I had answered zero questions. A mistake I won't repeat in the future.
Click to expand...
I'm not angry. This all started when I said Mormons don't answer questions. I'm thrilled that you continue to prove me right.
  1. Are the quotes in my previous post above correct?
  2. Is polygamy still part of Mormon theology (even if it is not practiced)?
  3. Are acts of duplicity, deception and evasion intellectually honest?
  4. Why use logic and reason if you only use it selectively?
  5. Who is the father of ALL lies?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You seem pretty pissed to me.
Click to expand...
:D It's the dissonance yelling at you.

Seriously Sword, I've no ill will for you. Nearly all the people I know and love are Mormon. Besides, I don't judge people by their beliefs. I've no doubt you are a decent fellow. I'd happily sit down and share a glass of any beverage of your choice with you. When I was an active Mormon it was root beer. What is your prefered drink?
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
As a mormon, I find the three biggest problems in discussing the church with outsiders are convincing people that:

1.) It's not spelled "morman"
2.) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is Christian
3.) This is not the year 1889
Click to expand...

4 they don't believe the same nonsense that you do.
 
RandFan said:
:D It's the dissonance yelling at you.

Seriously Sword, I've no ill will for you. Nearly all the people I know and love are Mormon. Besides, I don't judge people by their beliefs. I've no doubt you are a decent fellow. I'd happily sit down and share a glass of any beverage of your choice with you. When I was an active Mormon it was root beer. What is your prefered drink?
Click to expand...

Right now?

Benadryl™ with a Superstore No Name™ Peach Crystal chaser.
 
Also this:

Mormon Church backs protection of gay rights in Salt Lake City

In a rare public appearance before Salt Lake City lawmakers Tuesday night, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported two proposed ordinances protecting gay and lesbian residents from housing and employment discrimination.

An LDS Church representative read a supporting statement at a public hearing before the Salt Lake City Council regarding the ordinances proposed by Mayor Ralph Becker.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Homosexuality—especially when used as the basis for a fraudulent mockery of marriage—is immoral, disordered, and wholly against the laws of God and nature. That other activities may take place that are similarly immoral is completely irrelevant to this fact.

That one kind of evil takes place is not, in the least, an argument that some other form of evil isn't evil.
Click to expand...


Immoral? What's immoral about something between two consenting adults that harms nobody?

Disordered? How is it any more disorderly then heterosexuality? (And gay marriage is far more orderly than gays sleeping around with multiple partners in short-term relationships. So isn't this an argument in favor of gay marriage?)

Against the laws of nature? But there are many examples of homosexual mating in nature. If something occurs in nature, then by definition it can't be "unnatural", or against the laws of nature.

Against the laws of God? That assumes that there is a God and it has given us laws to follow. Those claims have yet to be demonstrated.

Evil? How exactly do you define "evil"? I define it as anything that knowingly and deliberately causes or contributes to the unnecessary harm or suffering of others.

By my definition, it isn't evil at all. What definition do you use?

Or is it just a case of "It's evil because my holy book says it's evil"? ("The sin of Sodom is evil." 2 Nephi 13:9) If you only condemn something as evil because you've been told that it is evil, you don't have the right to make moral judgments on others, because you lack the ability to distinguish right from wrong on it's own merit.

Bob Blaylock said:
The homosexual movement seeks to create fake “families” that by their very nature will be unstable and destructive. Not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...


Could you define "fake family" for me? I don't know what you mean.

Let's take an example: Two people who love each-other decide to live together as a married couple,and get the appropriate legal paperwork. Unable to have children together for some reason they decide to adopt, or one of them chooses to have a child on their own by artificial insemination or a surrogate mother. They raise this child (or children) as their own in a loving, caring environment.

Would the "reality' of this family unit be in any way influenced by whether or not the couple were same-sex or opposite-sex? If so, why?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
Wether practiced in this life, or the next it fulfills a necessary function. God in his infinite wisdom chose to create a species consisting of two genders and made both equally dependent on each other for their salvation. Unfortunately, one gender has a slight lead over the other in birth rates.
Click to expand...


Of course, the high rates of death in childbirth at the time the Book of Mormon was written meant the reverse would be true. If 10 men married 10 of 12 women, and three of them died in childbirth, that would leave only 9 women for 10 men. In short, fewer remaining adult women then men. So logically, shouldn't they have been practicing polyandry instead of polygamy?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
If marriage is essential to ones salvation, then among those living today there will be 140 million souls that will be out of luck through no fault of their own unless there is a mechanism in place to allow them to achieve the benefits of marriage.
Click to expand...


There are only 4% more women being born then men (52% female, 48% male). If as little as 10% of men took two wives, that would leave huge numbers of men with no women to marry. Worse results than no polygamy. If the goal was to get the largest percentage of the population married as possible, then there'd have to be very strict limitations the number of men allowed to have two wives. But no such restrictions were imposed, so the reasoning is flawed.
 
Brian-M said:
There are only 4% more women being born then men (52% female, 48% male). If as little as 10% of men took two wives, that would leave huge numbers of men with no women to marry.
Click to expand...

Mormons practiced polyandry as well as polygyny.

Anyway, this is one of the few things that IMO Mormons got right, and it's quite funny to me that it's the one thing they really go ape-fertilizer over when it's mentioned.
 
Brian-M said:
There are only 4% more women being born then men (52% female, 48% male). If as little as 10% of men took two wives, that would leave huge numbers of men with no women to marry. Worse results than no polygamy. If the goal was to get the largest percentage of the population married as possible, then there'd have to be very strict limitations the number of men allowed to have two wives. But no such restrictions were imposed, so the reasoning is flawed.
Click to expand...

Not flawed, just extremely simplistic. There would obviously be far more criteria by which souls are granted access to the big party upstairs than simply the total number of female souls and male souls in existence.
 
epepke said:
Mormons practiced polyandry as well as polygyny.

Anyway, this is one of the few things that IMO Mormons got right, and it's quite funny to me that it's the one thing they really go ape-fertilizer over when it's mentioned.
Click to expand...

tesscaline said:
They did? That's not in any of the history I've ever seen on the matter. Do you have a source to cite?
Click to expand...

Not only that, but it defies theology as well--the man is the head of the household, and how can you have multiple heads?

Males are conceived 107 to every 100 females, owing to the speedier Y-bearing sperm, but more males than females die in gestation so the birth ratio is essentially 1:1. Males currently slightly outnumber females on Earth.

This is ignoring countries like India or China where female births are actively discouraged, leading to a surplus of males. Polygamy is not biologically required or even indicated.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Also this:

Mormon Church backs protection of gay rights in Salt Lake City

In a rare public appearance before Salt Lake City lawmakers Tuesday night, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported two proposed ordinances protecting gay and lesbian residents from housing and employment discrimination.

An LDS Church representative read a supporting statement at a public hearing before the Salt Lake City Council regarding the ordinances proposed by Mayor Ralph Becker.
Click to expand...
Bob keeps painting gays and lesbians in a rather unflatering light. "Disordered" has been used on numerous ocasions (to be fair I belive I used it first when I quoted the Catholic position). I hate to be jaded but why shouldn't we see this as cynical? The Mormon church has taken a huge PR hit for their support of prop 8.

Don't get me wrong I'm happy that they are standing up for the rights of gays and lesbians but, why is this necassary? Who is it that is denying gays and lesbians rights in the first place?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Not only that, but it defies theology as well--the man is the head of the household, and how can you have multiple heads?

Males are conceived 107 to every 100 females, owing to the speedier Y-bearing sperm, but more males than females die in gestation so the birth ratio is essentially 1:1. Males currently slightly outnumber females on Earth.

This is ignoring countries like India or China where female births are actively discouraged, leading to a surplus of males. Polygamy is not biologically required or even indicated.
Click to expand...

Also males have a lower average life span. In some eastern European countries high alcoholism and heart disease can skew the numbers more so after age 45.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom