LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
halleyscomet said:
This Mormon Inquisition
Is quite an Imposition
As the probe the position
In which I proposition
My lovely, faithful wife!

All kidding aside, Janadele, did you know about this? What's your position on it? Do you stick to your hard line adherence to LDS doctrine on sexual matters?
Click to expand...

Urge to comment rising, rising.
 
abaddon said:
halleyscomet said:
This Mormon Inquisition
Is quite an Imposition
As the probe the position
In which I proposition
My lovely, faithful wife!

All kidding aside, Janadele, did you know about this? What's your position on it? Do you stick to your hard line adherence to LDS doctrine on sexual matters?
Click to expand...


Urge to comment rising, rising.
Click to expand...


Why can you never find one of those Mormon missionaries when the need arises?
 
zooterkin said:
Not all that bizarre, either, since it's the position quite a lot of mainstream Christians hold, too.
Click to expand...

It's an effective way to break down someone's self-esteem and gain more power over them. Just tell them that perfectly normal human behaviors are something to be ashamed of.

 
You'll have to wait at least three days for Janadele to provide the evidence you seek, deaman; she's having a little holiday from the forum.

Akhenaten said:
Some things, (bigfeets, alien abductions, Anita Ikonen) are impossible to parody and trust me, I've tried.
Click to expand...
Don't stop trying, though! Or get that bloke Aberhaten on the case. :D
 
Slowvehicle said:
I address this to Janadele, but I include all posters in this, and other similar, threads, and everyone who has posted on JREF:

Janadele:

I was wrong, and I apologize.

You are correct. You diod not use the term "disgusting" to refer to a person, or to people. Here is the relevant post at which I did err:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9512104#post9512104

You did, in fact use the phrase, "immoral, disgusting, and abhorrent lifestyle". and I was wrong to have misspoken.

You appear, however, to be willing to equivocate "activity", and "lifestyle".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9524688#post9524688

You may notice that I have been asking you a repeated question about how an "activity" taking place among consenting adults, in private, can affect you at all.

In other words, how do you, personally, distinguish between an "activity", and a "lifestyle"?

Not that I expect you to substantively respond.

Again, I do apologize for my error. I should have been more careful, and will continue to work to be more so in the future.
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to your question. I think it fair to ask. But at the end of the day it's none of her business what consenting adults do in private.

That someone finds something "icky" doesn't make it immoral. Mormons were treated much like gays are treated today because Christians found the idea of polygamy disgusting and perverse.

Psychologists tell us there is nothing maladaptive about homosexual attraction or activity.

IMO: Janadele's comments are disgusting and vulgar. Sex between two consenting adults is not.
 
RandFan said:
I'm not opposed to your question. I think it fair to ask. But at the end of the day it's none of her business what consenting adults do in private.

That someone finds something "icky" doesn't make it immoral. Mormons were treated much like gays are treated today because Christians found the idea of polygamy disgusting and perverse.

Psychologists tell us there is nothing maladaptive about homosexual attraction or activity.

IMO: Janadele's comments are disgusting and vulgar. Sex between two consenting adults is not.
Click to expand...

RandFan: I agree, but I did make a substantive error, and felt I should own up. My point has been, all along, that "squicky" is not a valid basis for "eternal law"...

I also appreciated the waffling that "marriage" is "sacred" between a man and a woman...but, evidently, also "sacred" between one man ad several women...

Oh, well.
 
Slowvehicle said:
RandFan: I agree, but I did make a substantive error, and felt I should own up. My point has been, all along, that "squicky" is not a valid basis for "eternal law"...

I also appreciated the waffling that "marriage" is "sacred" between a man and a woman...but, evidently, also "sacred" between one man ad several women...

Oh, well.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Leviticus only meant being gay made you "ritually unclean." Translating the description as "abomination" was creative license by the translators. You know what else was ritually unclean? Menstruating women.

Oh, wait, Menstruating women are now banned from a variety of temple services. This was, believe it or not, a recent change.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/02/10/unclean-unclean-unclean/
 
Janadele said:
Neither. Gender is an eternal characteristic. There is no negotiation on the gender of our Spirit.
Click to expand...

You have provided nothing that would suggest any of this is true. The books you cite simply aren't good enough to make me or it seems, anyone else here believe this is true.
 
kellyb said:
Well, Leviticus 20:13 says to kill the gays.
Click to expand...

Hell according to Leviticus we really should be just slaughtering each other in droves almost constantly. Eating shellfish, sassing a parent, wearing blended fabrics, entering church with a cut off penis, getting the wrong hair cut, getting a tattoo... all condemned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom