LDS

[desertgal]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY, increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally, physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation... whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

Nonsense. Spare us the Jack Mormon rhetoric of the mentally unstable. No one is dragging YOU, for example, on their alleged descent to damnation. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms no more affects you than what you do in the privacy of yours affects them.

You are just dodging the question.

What gives the Mormon church the right to impose their rules on non-members?

 

[Hokulele]

If you support the immorality of something, doesn't that mean you oppose that something? Your statement seems to suggest that those who find homosexual activity immoral threaten, demand, and attack those who find it moral.

I can agree with that!

 

[jsfisher]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY

Curiously enough, the only person openly supporting the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY (why are we shouting?) is you, Janadele. Why so?

...increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally

Still you.

...physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system.

Ok, nobody.

In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation...

And back you you.

...whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

Well, Eternal Law is eternal, after all, just like the Book of Mormon. It never changes, until it does, then somehow it actually didn't. It is all explain in the pamphlet somewhere.

 

[deaman]

Just like the prophets are prophets who speak the word of god, and should be listened to intently, unless they are not around to disagree, then they are general authorities who are no longer general authorities.

Just ask the general authorities and the prophet.

 

[bruto]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY, increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally, physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation... whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

Where do you contend that this awful thing is happening? I do not see it as a resident of Vermont, which is often jokingly referred to as "The Gay Mountain State," nor in Massachusetts, nor in Connecticut, all of which have taken various measures to promote gay rights.

Of course, if you make the very foolish mistake of identifying support with allowance, promotion with tolerance, then your statement almost makes sense even if it is bigoted and based on an unfortunate misunderstanding. It is true that we Vermonters might get into trouble these days if we violate the anti-discrimination laws, or if, for example, a Town Clerk refused to honor the legal requirement of Town Clerks, and so forth. Like it or not, it is no longer permissible for students to publicly ostracize their gay colleagues, or for landlords to evict gay occupants, or for public employers to fire gay employees, and like it or not, when the state through its laws recognizes that gay marriage is a legitimate and permissible event, it is no longer legal to use state platforms such as a teacher's privileged position to contravene public policy. It is not, emphatically not, a requirement that anybody approve of anything, or promote anything, or allow anything contrary to church teaching in any church. All a Vermonter is required to do is shut the **** up on the state's dime, and let people go about their lives.

You know, I've been a heterosexual for a very long time, and a Vermonter for much of it, and NOTHING worth keeping has changed here, except perhaps for a mild disturbance to my comfort level in public places, and if I were such a dickhead that I thought my comfort level in public places should trump the rights of others to live full lives, then I ought to be thoroughly ashamed of myself. I mean, yeah, I am 65, I grew up in a repressive, homophobic culture, and seeing men kissing in public still does not sit very comfortably emotionally. So what? What an utter peabrain I'd have to be to make that a standard for anything but where I direct my gaze. I am thankful that I live in a time and a place where I do not have to kowtow to some other peabrain's notion what what is eternal law and what will send me, or you, or the gay couple down the road, to hell. The Catholics can't outlaw condoms any more, and the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot outlaw blood transfusions, the new age loonytoons cannot outlaw vaccinations, and the Latter Day Saints can't outlaw homosexuality. And thank God or the Supreme Court or the man in the moon for that.

You complain, perhaps rightly so, when some suggest you have not been beyond your own yard when you have. Maybe next time you go somewhere you should actually open your eyes and your heart and look at what is around you through your own eyes. Life is not so black and white, not so horrible or so filled with evil, as some people seem to want to believe. Sure, it's a jungle out here, but it's kind of colorful if you take the blinders off.

 

[RandFan]

Deliberate or mistaken misquotations of President Young have misled some. Many have also not understood his actual meanings, or have wrongly speculated upon them. Brigham died before he could clarify what has come to be know as the "Adam-God theory". Only future revelation can now do so. The Adam for this earth was Michael, known in the pre-existance as the Arch Angel... but there have been many Adams and Eves on countless other planets. This higher learning is not given nor taught previous to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and revealed Scriptures being known, understood and accepted.

A direct link to god but everything is murky. Iron. Wheat, Barley, (no maze), Horses, elephants, chariots, Negros, Native Americans, Adam God, Blood Atonement (not to be confused with Christ's atonement), Men living on the Moon, Humans will never get to the Moon.

President Spencer W. Kimball said:
"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are ALLEGED to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

The Wizard of Oz said "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".

 

[RandFan]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY...

What you do in the privacy of your home is your business. The activities of consenting adults, be they gay or straight is none of your business. The only activities of others that you should be concerned about are those deemed to cause harm to society. It was a finding of fact that the families of gays and lesbians do not harm society. It's a fact that gay marriage around the world has not harmed those societies.

So, mind your own business when it comes to private matters between consenting adults. If you don't like gay marriage then might I suggest that you not get gay married.

Fair enough?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Where do you contend that this awful thing is happening? I do not see it as a resident of Vermont, which is often jokingly referred to as "The Gay Mountain State," nor in Massachusetts, nor in Connecticut, all of which have taken various measures to promote gay rights.

Of course, if you make the very foolish mistake of identifying support with allowance, promotion with tolerance, then your statement almost makes sense even if it is bigoted and based on an unfortunate misunderstanding. It is true that we Vermonters might get into trouble these days if we violate the anti-discrimination laws, or if, for example, a Town Clerk refused to honor the legal requirement of Town Clerks, and so forth. Like it or not, it is no longer permissible for students to publicly ostracize their gay colleagues, or for landlords to evict gay occupants, or for public employers to fire gay employees, and like it or not, when the state through its laws recognizes that gay marriage is a legitimate and permissible event, it is no longer legal to use state platforms such as a teacher's privileged position to contravene public policy. It is not, emphatically not, a requirement that anybody approve of anything, or promote anything, or allow anything contrary to church teaching in any church. All a Vermonter is required to do is shut the **** up on the state's dime, and let people go about their lives.

You know, I've been a heterosexual for a very long time, and a Vermonter for much of it, and NOTHING worth keeping has changed here, except perhaps for a mild disturbance to my comfort level in public places, and if I were such a dickhead that I thought my comfort level in public places should trump the rights of others to live full lives, then I ought to be thoroughly ashamed of myself. I mean, yeah, I am 65, I grew up in a repressive, homophobic culture, and seeing men kissing in public still does not sit very comfortably emotionally. So what? What an utter peabrain I'd have to be to make that a standard for anything but where I direct my gaze. I am thankful that I live in a time and a place where I do not have to kowtow to some other peabrain's notion what what is eternal law and what will send me, or you, or the gay couple down the road, to hell. The Catholics can't outlaw condoms any more, and the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot outlaw blood transfusions, the new age loonytoons cannot outlaw vaccinations, and the Latter Day Saints can't outlaw homosexuality. And thank God or the Supreme Court or the man in the moon for that.

You complain, perhaps rightly so, when some suggest you have not been beyond your own yard when you have. Maybe next time you go somewhere you should actually open your eyes and your heart and look at what is around you through your own eyes. Life is not so black and white, not so horrible or so filled with evil, as some people seem to want to believe. Sure, it's a jungle out here, but it's kind of colorful if you take the blinders off.

Nommed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No, it is not an official LDS website... as is clearly stated.

Nor did I SAY it was; nor did I imply it was, nor was I, in fact, referring in any way, shape or form to any website.

I was, as I and several other posters have indicated, trying to avoid having to type The CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of LATTER~DAY SAINTS every time I wanted to refer to the sect of which you are a member.

It is dishonest of you to pretend that I made any scintilla of the slightest hint of a suggestion that it was a website That I was indicating by the initials CJCLDS. I even offered to refer to the sect to which you belong by some other symbol set if you were to suggest one you found more congenial.

Not to mention, it was not effective to invent an issue. It is still pellucid that you have yet to even pretend to address my latest questions, to wit:

originally posed by Slowvehicle:
...suppose you address the idea that the "rules" you posted the link to apply to "members"? How does that give the CJCLDS license to impose their "rules" on non-members?

Why is what goes on among consenting adults in my demesne any more your business that what goes on among members in the fastness of your temples any of my business?

What is it about your "rules" that makes it so important to you to try and make sure that everyone must play by them, even when they are not playing with you, nor in your ambit?

Again I ask the question you have never answered: How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?

 

[pakeha]

... Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

You mean like discriminating against people because of the colour of their skin?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have no interest in criticizing your post even though some of it is inspired by Satan.

Naw...read the colors: that's not Satan, or Lucifer; just Sparky (one of only two NCAA mascots designed by Walt Disney).

 

[deaman]

Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

Then by your very own quote we can see that the LDS church teaches no "eternal law", since the laws of the LDS church change often, such as in cases of doctrine, polygamy, race and probably soon, homosexuality.

Of course, those who can reason, realize the term "eternal law" is nothing more than ego stroking gibberish.

If there are any "eternal laws" they may have to do with nature and physics, not morality and human sexuality.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY, increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally, physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation... whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

This, Janadele, is, simply, a tissue of lies. It is a tissue of lies on several levels and for several reasons.

1." Homosexual ACTIVITY" is only "immoral" according to the "rules" of your sect; and, oddly enough, those "rules" are manifestly, on the document you presented, applicable to "members" only.

I am not a memeber of your sect, nor a past member.

As I have asked before, where do you get off pretending that the "rules" for members of your sect have any relevance, any significance, any meaning at all to non-members?

2.a. I hereby invite you to demonstrate a single instance of someone "threatening" or "demanding" that you, or any member of your sect, or any others, "do likewise". When you fail to do this, you will be demonstrating that you are aware that this statement you have made is a lie (as when you told the little fib about the "gaoled" preacher). Isn't "bearing false witness" against the "rules" for your sect?

2.b. Why is it that your actions, threatening and demanding that all others follow the "rules" applying to the members of your sect, are not, then, equally "immoral"?

3.a. I invite you to demonstrate evidence for anyone being "obscenely attacked" verbally. Oh, wait, were you talking about referring to a lifestyle not your own as "abhorrent and disgusting"? That was YOU that did that...

3.b. I invite you to demonstrate evidence for anyone being "obscenely attacked"physically. Oh, wait, are you talking about people (some of whom are, in fact, gay; some of whom are not) being beaten up in public for being gay?

3.c. I invite you to demonstrate evidence for anyone being "obscenely attacked" financially. Oh. Are you talking about your sect's political involvement in denying the legal (including financial) protections of civil marriage to same-sex couples? Once again, where do you find the temerity to arrogate to judge the behaviour of non-members by the rules intended to apply to members of your sect?

3.d. I invite you to demonstrate evidence for anyone being "obscenely attacked" through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. Oh, Did you mean, "being expected to observe the relevant laws, regulations, and statutes"? Are members of your sect above the law?

4. In what way is living a life of love, in private, among consenting adults, "blind hate"? In what way is living a life of love, among consenting adults, "intolerance"? It is, in fact, your sect which is arrogantly and intolerantly blindly pretending to the right to dictate private consensual behaviour. Private, consensual behaviour among non-members, at that.

5. In what way should your silly superstition about "damnation" affect those who do not accept the bronze age goat-herding origins of that superstition (not to mention the demonstrably macculate developments of the versions of those superstitions espoused by your sect)?

6. In what way should your silly superstitions about "Eternal Law" affect those who do not accept the bronze age goat-herding origins of that superstition (not to mention the demonstrably macculate developments of the versions of those superstitions espoused by your sect)?

7. In what way are private, consensual behaviours among consenting adults, "evil and immoral"? Seriously: personalize it. How has anything I have done today in the privacy of my demesne affected you in any way at all? How will the disposal of my real property according to the desires shared by me and my partner (with good legal and financial advice) after I am dead affect you at all?

Not one, not even one of your scurrilous, dishonest, sensationalist accusations justifies you acting as if your sect has any kind of right at all to dictate my, or anyone else's, private behaviours according to the "rules" set for members of your sect.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Where do you contend that this awful thing is happening? I do not see it as a resident of Vermont, which is often jokingly referred to as "The Gay Mountain State," nor in Massachusetts, nor in Connecticut, all of which have taken various measures to promote gay rights.

Of course, if you make the very foolish mistake of identifying support with allowance, promotion with tolerance, then your statement almost makes sense even if it is bigoted and based on an unfortunate misunderstanding. It is true that we Vermonters might get into trouble these days if we violate the anti-discrimination laws, or if, for example, a Town Clerk refused to honor the legal requirement of Town Clerks, and so forth. Like it or not, it is no longer permissible for students to publicly ostracize their gay colleagues, or for landlords to evict gay occupants, or for public employers to fire gay employees, and like it or not, when the state through its laws recognizes that gay marriage is a legitimate and permissible event, it is no longer legal to use state platforms such as a teacher's privileged position to contravene public policy. It is not, emphatically not, a requirement that anybody approve of anything, or promote anything, or allow anything contrary to church teaching in any church. All a Vermonter is required to do is shut the **** up on the state's dime, and let people go about their lives.

You know, I've been a heterosexual for a very long time, and a Vermonter for much of it, and NOTHING worth keeping has changed here, except perhaps for a mild disturbance to my comfort level in public places, and if I were such a dickhead that I thought my comfort level in public places should trump the rights of others to live full lives, then I ought to be thoroughly ashamed of myself. I mean, yeah, I am 65, I grew up in a repressive, homophobic culture, and seeing men kissing in public still does not sit very comfortably emotionally. So what? What an utter peabrain I'd have to be to make that a standard for anything but where I direct my gaze. I am thankful that I live in a time and a place where I do not have to kowtow to some other peabrain's notion what what is eternal law and what will send me, or you, or the gay couple down the road, to hell. The Catholics can't outlaw condoms any more, and the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot outlaw blood transfusions, the new age loonytoons cannot outlaw vaccinations, and the Latter Day Saints can't outlaw homosexuality. And thank God or the Supreme Court or the man in the moon for that.

You complain, perhaps rightly so, when some suggest you have not been beyond your own yard when you have. Maybe next time you go somewhere you should actually open your eyes and your heart and look at what is around you through your own eyes. Life is not so black and white, not so horrible or so filled with evil, as some people seem to want to believe. Sure, it's a jungle out here, but it's kind of colorful if you take the blinders off.

As soon as I stop cheering and sit down, I am nominating this!

Hear, hear!

 

[Shalamar]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY, increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally, physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation... whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

The LDS Church is free to impose this intolerance and spread hate to its own members.

What right does it have to impose church doctrine and hate on those who are not members of the church?

It almost seems like you want to impose Mormon doctrine on all other religions. Perhaps those other religions should impose their doctrine on you?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Wait, your saying they can be both correct (led by Christ), and misled (by Satan) at the same time?

How are you, or your church, any different?

Well you see, The key, Is the Magic hat.

I mean, If you can't take the word of a man who read plates from a hat using a stone then when said writing was hidden couldn't read the stones the same way as absolute infallible truth, Then you are lost soul.

Kifflom and Ramen

 

[halleyscomet]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY, increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally, physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation... whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

None if that answers my questions.

When were you in Massachusetts?

How long were you here?

What gives your precious church the right to impose its anti-gay morals n NON-Mormons?

 

[RandFan]

1." Homosexual ACTIVITY" is only "immoral" according to the "rules" of your sect; and, oddly enough, those "rules" are manifestly, on the document you presented, applicable to "members" only.

I am not a memeber of your sect, nor a past member.

As I have asked before, where do you get off pretending that the "rules" for members of your sect have any relevance, any significance, any meaning at all to non-members?

The LDS Church is free to impose this intolerance and spread hate to its own members.

What right does it have to impose church doctrine and hate on those who are not members of the church?

It almost seems like you want to impose Mormon doctrine on all other religions. Perhaps those other religions should impose their doctrine on you?

Apparently Janedele does not know her Articles of Faith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I can't find the quote so perhaps it's apocryphal, but IIRC, one of the reformers said, "a right you affirm for yourself but deny others is not a right but a privilege".

Janedele wants the privilege of living by the dictates of her conscience but deny it to others.

 

[Craig4]

This is just one of the matters still being questioned which has been extensively answered earlier in this thread.

As far as I am aware I have answered all legitimate questions raised.

A sincere enquirer should then ponder and further research from official LDS content... NOT anti sites.

Seeking to expand on and understand the answers given will lead to greater knowledge... ignoring and ridiculing the answers and then repeatedly asking the same questions will not change the facts.
To check on my past posts for answers to sincere legitimate questions ( including those in AAH ) go to profile, all posts / threads.

But "official" LDS content is untrustworthy. It's hard to put faith in a source that claims there were horses and chariots in the pre- Colombian Americas. You've provided no reason to believe the veracity of official LDS information.

 

[RandFan]

But "official" LDS content is untrustworthy. It's hard to put faith in a source that claims there were horses and chariots in the pre- Colombian Americas. You've provided no reason to believe the veracity of official LDS information.

God desparatey needs prophets who listen better than the Mormon ones.

What the Mormons (myself included) were led to believe for nearly 200 years:

“...the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians"

It's since been changed. The link to the old preface at lds.org is 404. But I have a few copies, I should scan it and put it on the web.

Anyway, as a source see here:

“Single word change in Book of Mormon speaks volumes”. See here: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990
Not sure how many of you saw this, but there was a change announced to all future Book of Mormons that go to print. It is a one-word change in the introduction. Instead of saying: “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians,” it now says: “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

I find it odd that Mormons often guilt each other to lead by example (why do you take two Mormons with you fishing? If you take one he will drink all of your beer) but the give their putative god a pass for allowing his prophets to say ugly, racist, and demonstrably wrong things.

Of course the parsimonious answer is that the supposed Mormon prophets are just humans with no divine link, they make stuff up as they go and change their doctrines when it's politically expedient to do so.