LDS

[Foster Zygote]

I can't help but notice that we still have no explanation as to why some LDS members feel that their values and rules should apply to non-members.

Janadele and/or Skyrider44, please address this point at your earliest convenience.

I too would like to know. Let Mormons voluntarily abstain from any behaviors that they like, but they have no right to force their religious proscriptions on others.

 

[Shalamar]

I too would like to know. Let Mormons voluntarily abstain from any behaviors that they like, but they have no right to force their religious proscriptions on others.

The answer I've heard from other Mormons is 'Religious Freedom'. But it is telling that neither Janadele nor Skyrider44 will answer.

 

[halleyscomet]

Then your wait will be long enjoy it the reason should be obvious, check my profile.

Ah, then you admit you can't find any examples. You've been making a lot of concessions to me lately.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think the most pathetic thing about the whole Janadele/skyrider contribution is the antagonism and vitriol. If the mormon 'god' really is a 'god' of loving welcome, why aren't skyrider and Janadele working to show the world how pleasant it would be, how rewarding, to follow the 'god' they are selling; to buy into the sectarian superstitions and become fellow godsellers?

Am I just mising something? Is this some sort of over-sophisticated Tom Sawyer's Fence gambit?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . I would like you to answer the following questions:

1. What does this have to do with homosexual domestic partnerships?

I responded to Post 8407 in which SV wrote: "How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?" SV didn't qualify that statement in any way. It makes no reference to homosexuality. Consequently, your question is moot.

2. How does your observation not also apply to heterosexual relations as well?

It could, indeed, apply to my observation inasmuch as SV didn't specify the sexual orientation of "consenting adults." If he had homosexuals in mind, why didn't he write "homosexual consenting adults"?

If you do not directly address either of the above queries, I will know that your comment regarding Slowvehicle's "simplicity" and "naïveté" were so much hyperbolic puffery.

Your queries have been addressed; take your "hyperbolic puffery" elsewhere.

BTW, the singular noun "comment" requires the singular verb "was" (just a little grammar lesson for you).

 

[Shalamar]

I responded to Post 8407 in which SV wrote: "How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?" SV didn't qualify that statement in any way. It makes no reference to homosexuality. Consequently, your question is moot.



It could, indeed, apply to my observation inasmuch as SV didn't specify the sexual orientation of "consenting adults." If he had homosexuals in mind, why didn't he write "homosexual consenting adults"?



Your queries have been addressed; take your "hyperbolic puffery" elsewhere.

BTW, the singular noun "comment" requires the singular verb "was" (just a little grammar lesson for you).

So no answer on why you should be able to impose your beliefs on others who do not?

 

[skyrider44]

I think the most pathetic thing about the whole Janadele/skyrider contribution is the antagonism and vitriol. If the mormon 'god' really is a 'god' of loving welcome, why aren't skyrider and Janadele working to show the world how pleasant it would be, how rewarding, to follow the 'god' they are selling; to buy into the sectarian superstitions and become fellow godsellers?

Am I just mising something? Is this some sort of over-sophisticated Tom Sawyer's Fence gambit?

You're missing an "s" for one thing. That aside, why did you cite the incorrect post and claim it was the one to which I responded (you know, the one about "consenting adults" in which you use a legal term incorrectly)?

 

[Shalamar]

You're missing an "s" for one thing. That aside, why did you cite the incorrect post and claim it was the one to which I responded (you know, the one about "consenting adults" in which you use a legal term incorrectly)?

So no answer on why you should be able to impose your beliefs on others who do not share them?

 

[skyrider44]

I can't help but notice that we still have no explanation as to why some LDS members feel that their values and rules should apply to non-members.

Janadele and/or Skyrider44, please address this point at your earliest convenience.

I suppose that "some LDS members" feel that way; they err. I am certainly not among them. Perhaps you are not familiar with the Church's 11th Article of Faith, to wit: "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 [emphasis added]."

 

[skyrider44]

So no answer on why you should be able to impose your beliefs on others who do not share them?

How, specifically, has the LDS Church imposed its beliefs [emphasis added] on others who do not share them? How, in fact, is in possible to impose a set of beliefs about anything on others who do not share them?
(You might want to reframe your question.)

 

[skyrider44]

I too would like to know. Let Mormons voluntarily abstain from any behaviors that they like, but they have no right to force their religious proscriptions on others.

What, specifically, "religious proscriptions" has the Church forced on others?

 

[Olowkow]

How, specifically, has the LDS Church imposed its beliefs [emphasis added] on others who do not share them? How, in fact, is in possible to impose a set of beliefs about anything on others who do not share them?
(You might want to reframe your question.)

Just a little grammar lesson. "in" cannot be used as a pronoun.

The church's spending millions in an attempt to prevent same sex marriage in California was a pretty blatant case of imposing its beliefs on non-Mormons.

ETA: Now maybe you were one of those who objected to the tactics of the LDS powers that be back in 2008. If not, then you were involved in an act of violence toward your fellow man known as Prop 8. It is an obscenity perpetrated by believers in bronze age customs as somehow worthy of imposition on 21st century citizens of the United States.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[67][68][69] (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church), also publicly supported the proposition. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time."[67] The church produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.[70]

Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call.[71][72] The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive,[73] such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California.[74] LDS members contributed over $20 million,[75] about 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[76] ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.[77]

 

[Shalamar]

What, specifically, "religious proscriptions" has the Church forced on others?

The political campaign backed by the Mormon church to deny, or remove the rights for homosexual marriage.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I responded to Post 8407 in which SV wrote: "How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?" SV didn't qualify that statement in any way. It makes no reference to homosexuality. Consequently, your question is moot.

...it does however, "make reference" to...my home (more typically,"within my demesne"), which, given your admitted ignorance of my situation, makes your list of horrors...puzzling, to say the very least.

I am not responsible for how little you pay attention, but I have given several reasons why your "welfare orphans" scenario is a startlingly inapt straw man.

You also might want to consider "in my house", before you make...odd...accusations, or leap to conclusions.

It could, indeed, apply to my observation inasmuch as SV didn't specify the sexual orientation of "consenting adults." If he had homosexuals in mind, why didn't he write "homosexual consenting adults"?

...because what "he" "had in mind" was "exactly" the scenario of which "he" asked the question: 1. Consenting. 2. Adults 3. In "His" Demesne. Your responses, pretending to horrors, are particularly unskilled straw persons. Perhaps you might want to answer the question?

The overarching issue is, of course, one that I, and others, have repeatedly raised: Why do mormons feel as if they may arrogate to impose their "rules", invented for members (as the rules state upon their very face), upon non-members? In what way does anyone else's violation of those "rules" affect your experience as a mormon, within the fastnesses of your keeps?

Your queries have been addressed; take your "hyperbolic puffery" elsewhere.

Well, no they have not. You are probably doing the best you are able, but you are demonstrably not answering the questions being asked.

I wonder if you read my other, more general question? It is certainly something to consider...

BTW, the singular noun "comment" requires the singular verb "was" (just a little grammar lesson for you).

How nice for you that you have never committed a typographical error.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You're missing an "s" for one thing. That aside, why did you cite the incorrect post and claim it was the one to which I responded (you know, the one about "consenting adults" in which you use a legal term incorrectly)?

...I encourage you to explain how my reference to any one of my post can be the "incorrect post". Have you discovered a post with an error in typography, and are therefore pretending that it, alone out of all the others, plumbs the depths of my meaning?

...I encourage you to indicate in which post you claim a "legal term" has been used "incorrectly.

And, how nice for you that you have never committed a typographical error. I do so appreciate your kind help. Perhaps, in the future, you might quote, or at least link to, the specific post upon which you wish to raise your ebenezer.

I do notice, however, that you have once again chosen to avoid answering the actual question I asked. It is an...interesting...ploy.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I suppose that "some LDS members" feel that way; they err. I am certainly not among them. Perhaps you are not familiar with the Church's 11th Article of Faith, to wit: "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 [emphasis added]."

...do you, personally, admit that the "rules" invented to apply to "members" of your sect should not be applied to me, or mine, or anyone else who chooses not to be subject to the authority of your sect?

Why, then, the opposition to marriage equality?

 

[Slowvehicle]

What, specifically, "religious proscriptions" has the Church forced on others?

...there is this matter of the "lifestyle" which Janadele claims to know that 'god' finds "abhorrent and disgusting"...

Oh, yes--the small matter of opposing marriage equality for non-mormons.

 

[Pup]

I responded to Post 8407 in which SV wrote: "How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?" SV didn't qualify that statement in any way. It makes no reference to homosexuality. Consequently, your question is moot.

It could, indeed, apply to my observation inasmuch as SV didn't specify the sexual orientation of "consenting adults." If he had homosexuals in mind, why didn't he write "homosexual consenting adults"?

Okay. If we grant your premise that some things which consenting adults do in their own home does affect others and should be regulated by law, there's still another step in the chain of logic that needs addressed.

How do we decide which things should be regulated? On what basis is homosexual marriage one of the things that should be banned?

Playing devil's advocate, I can see some logic in saying that if personal freedom is important, individuals should have the freedom not to do things: not to sell their home to black or interracial or gay couples, not to let blacks or Asians or Jews or gay couples eat at their restaurant, not to hire any gay couple who claims to be legally married, and so forth.

The problem is that allowing that kind of personal freedom undercuts other personal freedom. If gay marriage is made legal but private individuals can band together to prevent such married people from getting jobs, buying homes, etc., then gay people really don't have the same freedom to get married as others.

The tide shifts. In the US, I remember when smokers argued that they should have the personal freedom to smoke wherever a business-owner allowed and non-smokers had no right to infringe on that right. Nowadays, it's the opposite: states have told business owners that they must ban smoking, whether they want to or not, and most people are okay with the laws.

Similarly, the tide shifted on racial and religious discrimination. "No Jews" or "no coloreds" used to be a free choice of business owners or home sellers. Now, it's the opposite: the rights of Jews and blacks trump others', in most cases. (You can still throw a private party and disinvite whoever you want.)

I'm expecting gay marriage to be similar. The tide has shifted. Society wants it to be acceptable, not just de jure but de facto, which means others will lose a few rights. But they'll survive, just as whites did when blacks moved into their neighborhoods or married other whites. And Mormons--the ones who abide by the articles of faith, at least--will comply with the changing laws and survive too, because they "believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

[Foster Zygote]

I responded to Post 8407 in which SV wrote: "How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?" SV didn't qualify that statement in any way. It makes no reference to homosexuality. Consequently, your question is moot.

It could, indeed, apply to my observation inasmuch as SV didn't specify the sexual orientation of "consenting adults." If he had homosexuals in mind, why didn't he write "homosexual consenting adults"?

Your queries have been addressed; take your "hyperbolic puffery" elsewhere.

You knew the subject being discussed. Dodge noted.

BTW, the singular noun "comment" requires the singular verb "was" (just a little grammar lesson for you).

Did that make you feel better? Did it mask, in your mind, your complete inability to explain away the blatant evidence of Joseph Smith's fraud regarding the Book Of Mormon and the Book Of Abraham? Does it help you to deny the lie?

 

[Foster Zygote]

What, specifically, "religious proscriptions" has the Church forced on others?

Why, homosexual marriage, of course. Mormons supported Proposition 8, a ballot measure in California to ban same-sex marriage. They contributed over $5 million, institutional support and dedicated volunteers to tip the scales in the last two weeks before the vote.

We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things, but we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.

California is a huge state, often seen as a bellwether — this was seen as a very, very important test.

-Michael R. Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.