LDS

[RandFan]

There are many Scriptural references one could cite Frozenwolf, from our pre existence to Adam to today... but one must receive ones own understanding of the Eternal Plan of Salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit, by Scripture study, and from the words of the Prophets, Seers and Revelators, who are The Twelve Apostles and The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From October 2013 Conference, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, in plain simple terms, confirms:
"the marriage of a man and a woman is necessary for the accomplishment of God’s plan. Only this marriage will provide the approved setting for mortal birth and to prepare family members for eternal life... we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it... There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness...Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable."
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

This is a secular nation. The constitution does not contain a single word about the authority of god or the Bible. America is NOT a theocracy. If you don't like gays and lesbians then that is your right. There is no law against bigotry. If you don't want to get gay married then don't.

You could remember the words of Jesus and try love and tolerance.

 

[Astreja]

From October 2013 Conference, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, in plain simple terms, confirms:

"the marriage of a man and a woman is necessary for the accomplishment of God’s plan... {snip} ...Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it."

Well, I'm not Mormon and have no intention of becoming an LDS member. I think it's reprehensible and completely out of line for LDS members to oppose same-sex marriage between non-members.

As for "God's plan," I am no longer accepting representations from mortals on behalf of gods. If the god worshipped in the LDS faith actually exists, I would be pleased to speak with it in person, in physical form, regarding its opinions on same-sex marriage. No others need apply.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm pretty sure the LDS church encourages its members to have large families. Something about providing homes for as many of God's spirit children as possible. IIRC. Presumably it orders them not to accept welfare payments but provides for them itself if they fall on hard times. Right, skyrider?

 

[RandFan]

I'm pretty sure the LDS church encourages its members to have large families. Something about providing homes for as many of God's spirit children as possible. IIRC. Presumably it orders them not to accept welfare payments but provides for them itself if they fall on hard times. Right, skyrider?

I've been on church welfare as a child in SLC and as an adult it CA. In SLC the meat and vegetables were very good. The cleaning products, soaps,shampoos, toothpaste, peanut butter, sucked. In California it all sucked. I would much rather be on SNAP.

 

[Empress]

I'm pretty sure the LDS church encourages its members to have large families. Something about providing homes for as many of God's spirit children as possible. IIRC. Presumably it orders them not to accept welfare payments but provides for them itself if they fall on hard times. Right, skyrider?

The LDS church holds its welfare program out as an example of...well, Christian value, I suppose. People are expected to work for the food on church farms, etc. They have a cannery in Salt Lake City and if you work there, canning food, you can buy cans of whatever they're canning that day for your own use. You can't get it otherwise. Some of it is very good, and I look forward to getting it when one of my sisters has been working there and sends some. Some I flat refuse to eat until the zombie apocalypse hits and I have no choice. Even then, I might roast and eat a few zombies before breaking down and eating those canned chicken chunks from hell. *shudder*

More importantly, unlike many churches the LDS church does not give out its financial statements. This, despite requiring a full tithe to be a member in good standing. A few years ago someone looked at different churches and ranked them as to how much they provided in charity. They had to go with the numbers that the LDS touted, since IRS financials are not available. But going solely by the numbers that they, themselves provided, once extrapolated, it showed that the Mormon church uses less than one-percent of its yearly income for welfare. What a great scheme they've set up. And all perfectly legal. Perfectly moral? Well, that's another story.

I've seen my own family, in times of financial hardship, give up all sorts of things, including getting their cars fixed, medical care, etc, yet always pay their tithing first, even before buying food. They're so deluded about the pyramid scheme to which they belong, that they can't see their way out.

ETA: Odd thing about some of the breakaway polygamous sects. They preach roundly against welfare, except for themselves. Since polygyny is illegal, the women sign up for welfare based on being a single mother, and most of the massive families in those sects get huge social program benefits. They actually preach that it is God-given for them. Just not for the rest of us peons.

Those are strictly breakaway sects, however, and denounced by the LDS. The LDS did used to encourage large families, but I think they do less of that today. IIRC, their official position is that the number of children a family has is between them and God.

 

[desertgal]

I'm pretty sure the LDS church encourages its members to have large families. Something about providing homes for as many of God's spirit children as possible. IIRC. Presumably it orders them not to accept welfare payments but provides for them itself if they fall on hard times. Right, skyrider?

Sure, it provides...after they've paid full tithe for whatever number of years. Considering how much is donated to the Mormon church by members-aside from the tithing and including professional services-members essentially pay for a good portion of the church's "charity" they might receive.

They'd be better off hanging on to their tithe and spending it on essentials.

 

[Pixel42]

Thanks for the info, Randfan and Empress.

Is it the case, then, that the LDS does forbid its members to accept taxpayer-funded welfare payment and requires them to use their church welfare programme (however poor a return on their tithing) instead? If so then the point I was attempting to make - that the private behaviour of Mormons affects the taxpayer, but I suspect that wouldn't be seen by Mormons as grounds for non-Mormons to sit in judgement on that behaviour - is invalid.

OTOH if the church welfare programme is in addition to state welfare programmes, which members are permitted to use, then the point stands.

Of course it's all still a red herring, given that the particular private behaviour being discussed produces no children who may require welfare payments of any description.

 

[Empress]

I'm not aware of any prohibition against using state-funded welfare programs, and know several LDS families that have received WIC and other subsidies. I suspect it's not against the church to do so.

 

[halleyscomet]

Informative reading relating to some of the questions being asked:

“1. legislation that flat out prohibits counseling help for minors who want to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions
2. the prosecution and criminalization of ever-larger numbers of Christian businesspeople for simply declining to promote homosexuality on moral and religious grounds
3. the new California law decreeing that boys must be allowed to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms if they identify with the opposite sex, and vice versa
4. forced integration of open homosexuals into the military
5. the imposition on the nation of homosexual marriage.”

But, Kupelian warns – what’s going on behind the scenes, and what’s coming down the tracks – is even more troubling.”

http://victoriajackson.com/9892/gay-rights-trojan-horse-totalitarianism#ZePBhSEJiKLgoo9q.99

http://libertyalliance.com/2013/10/gay-rights-trojan-horse-totalitarianism/

Congratulations. You're quoting people who psychologically abuse children who are whining and wringing their hands because the law is restricting their ability to abuse children. Is NAMBLA the next source you'll quote?

 

[halleyscomet]

Sacred Scripture cannot be fraudulent pakeha.

Nonsense. That which is "Sacred" to one person is profanity to another. The fact that you hold it dear and feel a burning in your bosom has no bearing whatever on if it is a fraud. Your feelings and the regard in which you hold the text does NOT make it true. This extends to the LDS church. The fact that your particular faith holds the texts "sacred" does not make them any less of a fraud.

From memories from our pre mortal existence... which allows our Spirits to recognise the Eternal Gospel, with assistance from the Spirit of Jesus and The Holy Spirit.

False Memory Syndrome is not evidence of divinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

Try again. This time, try not to use evidence of your mental failings as proof of your religion.

Slow Vehicle, Rand Fan and others.. you are inventing claims and statements you say I have made whilst having no words of mine to support such suppositions nor prerogative to do so.

You have spent your entire posting history here evading most the questions people here have asked. For example, multiple people have asked you, repeatedly, what gives the Mormon church the right to impose its views on non-Mormons. You've yet to provide an answer outside of rambling about eternal law. Unless you're arguing for a Mormon theocracy, that constitutes evasion, not an answer.

Why would people here spend time slogging through more of your written Bristol 7 just to provide evidence of something you'll probably just stop responding to the moment the proof is provided?

Update: RandFan, you are a more patient man than I. Possibly more stubborn as well. Are you motivated in part by just how badly she's representing the faith you grew up on? While you are no longer Mormon, I can see it bugs you when people making Mormons look like small minded, hate-filled, evil, control freak bigots.

 

[halleyscomet]

Well, I'm not Mormon and have no intention of becoming an LDS member. I think it's reprehensible and completely out of line for LDS members to oppose same-sex marriage between non-members.

It looks to me like Jan and Sky want a Mormon theocracy. I'd be interested in reading a justification of their desire to keep my lesbian friends from marrying each other that doesn't reinforce the notion that they want a theocracy, but I have yet to read one from either of them.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It looks to me like Jan and Sky want a Mormon theocracy. I'd be interested in reading a justification of their desire to keep my lesbian friends from marrying each other that doesn't reinforce the notion that they want a theocracy, but I have yet to read one from either of them.

Don't be obtuse...it's all the unwanted children your friends will be breeding, and abandoning onto the welfare rolls...

 

[halleyscomet]

Don't be obtuse...it's all the unwanted children your friends will be breeding, and abandoning onto the welfare rolls...

 

[halleyscomet]

There are many Scriptural references one could cite Frozenwolf, from our pre existence to Adam to today... but one must receive ones own understanding of the Eternal Plan of Salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit, by Scripture study, and from the words of the Prophets, Seers and Revelators, who are The Twelve Apostles and The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From October 2013 Conference, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, in plain simple terms, confirms:
"we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it... "
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

He sets out a reasonable argument for Mormons not engaging in a same sex marriage, but fails to provide a reason why gay marriage should remain illegal, when sex outside of marriage is legal.

There are a good many things that are banned by particular religions yet are perfectly legal. Mr. Oaks appears to be arguing in favor of a theocracy where his religion gets to set the law.

This is the thin edge of the wedge folks, the camel trying to get its nose in the tent. If we let the Mormons win the marriage equity battle, they'll continue pursuing their theocracy. Before long, coffee will be illegal and alcohol prohibition will return. Homosexuals will be executed, sexually active single people will be jailed. Atheists, in accordance to Mormon texts about god-deniers being struck dumb, will have their tongues cut out by the state. I suspect Janadele would find this to be a glorious development, but I do not intend to live under a Mormon theocracy.

Thank you Janadele, for revealing your church's long term game plan of theocratic dominion. Before I saw marriage equality as just a civil rights issue, but now I see it's part of a larger battlefield. At stake is the very secular basis of American governance. This isn't just about my lesbian friends getting married. This is about YOU trying to come into MY home and dictate what I can eat, what I can drink and who I can date. This is about people being disenfranchised because of their religion. This is about my polyamamrous friends facing prison and death because the wife in a couple has a girlfriend with her husband's consequent. This is about my kinky friends being jailed for using Violet Wands on consenting adult sensation play partners while Janadele's sons are praised in public for taking a third underage bride, which is just fine because he only rapes her in the missionary position.

We will not be ground under the heel of your church Janadele. We will fight religious oppression from your ilk and we will win.

 

[Slowvehicle]

He sets out a reasonable argument for Mormons not engaging in a same sex marriage, but fails to provide a reason why gay marriage should remain illegal, when sex outside of marriage is legal.

There are a good many things that are banned by particular religions yet are perfectly legal. Mr. Oaks appears to be arguing in favor of a theocracy where his religion gets to set the law.

This is the thin edge of the wedge folks, the camel trying to get its nose in the tent. If we let the Mormons win the marriage equity battle, they'll continue pursuing their theocracy. Before long, coffee will be illegal and alcohol prohibition will return. Homosexuals will be executed, sexually active single people will be jailed. Atheists, in accordance to Mormon texts about god-deniers being struck dumb, will have their tongues cut out by the state. I suspect Janadele would find this to be a glorious development, but I do not intend to live under a Mormon theocracy.

Thank you Janadele, for revealing your church's long term game plan of theocratic dominion. Before I saw marriage equality as just a civil rights issue, but now I see it's part of a larger battlefield. At stake is the very secular basis of American governance. This isn't just about my lesbian friends getting married. This is about YOU trying to come into MY home and dictate what I can eat, what I can drink and who I can date. This is about people being disenfranchised because of their religion. This is about my polyamamrous friends facing prison and death because the wife in a couple has a girlfriend with her husband's consequent. This is about my kinky friends being jailed for using Violet Wands on consenting adult sensation play partners while Janadele's sons are praised in public for taking a third underage bride, which is just fine because he only rapes her in the missionary position.

We will not be ground under the heel of your church Janadele. We will fight religious oppression from your ilk and we will win.

Thank you.

 

[Janadele]

 

[Slowvehicle]

Do you deny it?

 

[Astreja]

This particular LGBT-friendly, SSM-supporting, coffee-drinking, Scotch-drinking agnostic atheist is cheering wildly at your post, halleyscomet. Nominated.

 

[desertgal]

It's not HER church. Janadele is a Jack Mormon. So is skyrider. For real views of the Mormon church, and the majority of people who belong, look to Cat Tale.

 

[halleyscomet]

Do you deny it?

That wasn't denial. I think she's either a troll mocking me for working up that head of steam, or a religious fanatic who, believing God to be in her side, thinks it's funny I intend to oppose what she sees as the manifest destiny of the Mormon Church.