LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Janadele said:
Free agency, the right to choose, is the basis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lucifer offers instead slavery to immorality, addictions, and the loss of opportunity to progress... regression back through the darkness of time.

The reason for our mortal existence is simple, is was the only opportunity available to us to progress, from our already exalted state, to far greater happiness and exaltation throughout the eternities, by the receiving of an immortal physical body to clothe our spiritual body.

It was a gamble which sadly many have lost through the choices they have made, and continue to make.
Click to expand...

How very...odd...to be referred to as the "slave" of an imaginary entity equally composed of equal parts Caananite mythology, Miltonian Puritanism, and sacred schadenfreude, by someone whose entire argument consists of rote recitation of an extended fairy tale. Why is it that the "slaves" of your apellation are a varied group of original thinkers, supporting their own arguments with reality; while your arguments are not original, not your own, and not supported by anything but the assertion that they comprise the "word of 'god' "?

I would be interested in you clarifying the "immorality" of which you argue, as well as the "addiction" to which you refer...

BTW, did you see this? Observe who is the protagonist, and who are the antagonists...and this one is documented.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...ficiating-sons-gay-marriage-in-massachusetts/
 
Myriad said:
Ah, but it does. Its prophets have been deceived by Satan regarding hatred and oppression of gays, just as they were in recent eras regarding the "accursedness" of black people and the acceptance of the immoral polygamy culture (which might have been okay had it been just people's free choices of whom to love, but unfortunately also involved coercion, statutory rape, and the deliberate impoverishment of male children to eliminate competition for the teenage girls).

You can look at other occasions where people who believed themselves moral leaders at the time can now be clearly seen, in retrospect, to have been on Satan's side, whipping up hatred and intolerance in God's name taken in vain. The Crusaders, the Inquisitions, the Old World anti-semites, the righteous pro-slavery preachers in the time of the abolitionists, the segregationists in the civil rights era.

The devil's tricky, though, right? As Matthew 4 tells it, he even tried to tempt Jesus into accepting rulership over the entire world. (Interesting how LDS doctrine one-ups that temptation and offers, to the highest elite, rulership over their own entire universe. Very interesting.) There's always scripture that seems to support whatever temptation to hatred and persecution (infidels, heretics, Jews, slaves, blacks... or gays) Satan is pulling out of his bag of tricks this year. It can get very confusing.

So here's a solution that has always worked. Ask yourself, which side is doing harm? Are gays doing harm by loving one another and marrying one another, or is the harm coming from the people trying to prevent that?

And, very importantly, the harm in question can't be vague invisible spiritual harm. That doesn't count. It didn't count for Jesus; he said so in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Samaritans at the time were a variant sect of Judaism, with slightly different beliefs than those of the Jews Jesus was preaching to. Accordingly, the "mainstream" Jews regarded the Samaritans as worthy of contempt because of all the spiritual harm they were supposedly doing by practicing different beliefs. Jesus's teaching was to disregard all that; the Samaritan in the fable was doing good in the world in the present and that was, and is, what counts. Those who would bloody their neighbor's nose out of concern for his soul are doing wrong. The state of his soul is up to God, and way beyond the reach of your fists or your bigotry.

Satan is very big on this idea of invisible spiritual harm. It's one of his best tricks. It can lead even a prophet into claiming nonsense like "male and female are eternal" when the Bible clearly says that there is no male or female in heaven, and no husbands and wives in the kingdom of Christ. Old Scratch laughs and laughs at the real-world harm (such as, lifelong partners denied one another's company when one of them is ill or dying in a hospital, or simply the spectacle of intolerance and violence of neighbor against neighbor provoked by the supposed prophets of a loving and forgiving God) that his simple trick invariably leads to when used on the wrathful, the pridefully pious, the uncharitable.

That is how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and, to be fair, many other churches) support evil and immorality, even though they and their members often did not intend to. It's a good thing for you that God is loving and forgiving.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Myriad said:
Those are indeed other words, but it's not what I said. Is inventing mind states of non existent entities really that unusual or problematic? Let's ask the average man on the street; what does he think? What is the current mood of the electorate on the issue? Might it depend on whether Wall Street is feeling bullish or bearish today? Or be affected by this angry weather we've been having? Remember, Murphy will always try to make things harder than you expect. The devil's in the details, after all.




What isn't very respectful is attempting to derail a perfectly comprehensible argument about religious beliefs directed at a religious arguer phrased in terms of religious imagery, using feigned incomprehension of a very common metaphor as if it had to be literally true to have meaning. I charitably assumed, therefore, that the incomprehension was real. Was I wrong?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I see no indication in the hilited words that you intended them as anything other than a factual statement. Now if you're telling me now that you don't think Satan is real then I can accept that.
 
Janadele said:
Free agency, the right to choose, is the basis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Lucifer offers instead slavery to immorality, addictions, and the loss of opportunity to progress... regression back through the darkness of time.

The reason for our mortal existence is simple, is was the only opportunity available to us to progress, from our already exalted state, to far greater happiness and exaltation throughout the eternities, by the receiving of an immortal physical body to clothe our spiritual body.

It was a gamble which sadly many have lost through the choices they have made, and continue to make.
Click to expand...

Not really a choice then is it? Believe what I do or else.
 
Janadele said:
What is the point of disputation Dissolution? Would it not be better instead to learn and understand and if you agree then follow, or if you disagree then go your own way.
Click to expand...

That's actually a pretty good philosophy in my opinion. But why then would the Mormon church, or any individual Mormon, be against non-LDS gays being allowed to marry?

Following that philosophy, a Mormon would learn and understand the various other moral/ethical outlooks that would make people believe gay marriage was okay, disagree, but go his or her own way without trying to stop others from doing what they wanted.

While I don't agree with the religious aspects of mormonsandgays.org, it actually seems like it's trying to be as respectful as possible, given the underlying choice not to compromise on principle.
 
One of the things that made me an Atheist (if you give my Mum the wool, she'll knit you one too) was the realization that there were so many (contradictory) religions, each of which had its own True Believers.

People do sincerely believe the crap**** nonsense in which they have been indoctrinated. But I couldn't tell them apart. Not one presents any incontrovertible evidence that it is the TRUTH.

A pox on all their silly, foolish beliefs.
 
Janadele said:
What is the point of disputation Dissolution? Would it not be better instead to learn and understand and if you agree then follow, or if you disagree then go your own way.
Click to expand...
That by itself seems a very good idea. But to implement it you have to agree not to engage in political activism that imposes your viewpoint on anyone else. Insofar as your and your church's attitude toward some group such as homosexuals is kept entirely within the church, it's not really the business of anyone who is not interested in being a part of that church. But insofar as that attitude includes political activity that affects others, it is no longer private. You are entirely entitled to be a political participant, but it becomes a matter of open argument. You are as entirely entitled to be a political activist, but it's a matter not just for open argument but opposing political action.

If you're going to fight the good fight, you need better armament than you've shown so far.
 
Pup said:
That's actually a pretty good philosophy in my opinion. But why then would the Mormon church, or any individual Mormon, be against non-LDS gays being allowed to marry?
Click to expand...
Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.
 
Janadele said:
Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Marriage is just a word, and was used before it was co-opted by the religious institutions.


'Separate but equal' does not work.
 
It is not just a word to those who hold the ordinance and the implications of it sacred.
 
Janadele said:
It is not just a word to those who hold the ordinance and the implications of it sacred.
Click to expand...

Talk about slippery slopes. What if it was decided that people could only be married in the Catholic church, and thus your precious temple weddings would have no legal status?

It should have no bearing on your religion if two men, or two women have a wedding, and get married in a manner that has nothing to do with the LDS church. To deny people their union who are not members of your religion, because of your religion is religious tyranny.
 
Janadele said:
Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

When did Christianity copyright and trademark the word "marriage"? How can you demonstrate that it's a "sacred" word? Are other words sacred?
What changes when gay marriage is legally recognized by the government?
 
Janadele said:
Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you are allowed to dictate what we say or the words we use. There's nothing wrong with same sex marriage. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. If you say otherwise, that's your hatred and bigotry, not ours. We're free to use the terms as we see fit.

Gay. Gay marriage. Gay rights. Gay is okay.
 
Last edited:
Is it so difficult to start another thread? It is not appropriate to this LDS thread to discuss further the legal and political implications and ramifications.
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


The word is sacred?

Sorry, no, it's an English word that's long been in common usage. It's public domain.

If the LDS wants a word for marriage that only Mormons and licensees approved by the Church of LDS are allowed to use (for commercial purposes, anyhow), make one up and trademark it.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom