LDS

[Pup]

"Sin" requires the commission of an evil act by an individual. If I were to accept your somewhat tortured explanation, U. S. taxpayers are responsible for the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, or for the fact (last time I checked) the U.S. is the number one arms producer in the world.

Wait. I'm totally lost now. If same sex marriage is not considered a sin, why is the LDS church against it? Especially, why would the church care if non-members practiced it? Church members would be no more personally responsible for what non-members did, than an individual taxpayer would be responsible for the use of Agent Orange.

 

[pakeha]

Making it appear that you have access to facts that support your position, then withdrawing when challenged does not logically support your point. The only logic to it is to deflect and forestall, for however short a time, having to face criticism head-on.

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that case histories exist--and are well documented--that "logically support [my] point."

That's great, skyrider.
Once you address the fraudulent base of Smith's BoA, which he claimed was a translation of funerary texts found in some mummies, why not post up those case histories?
I mention the order for your responses so you're not tempted to ignore the fraudulent nature of LDS scripture.

...Oh, and for those who don't know this, the purpose of tithing isn't charity or welfare, that's what "fast offerings" are for. Each 1st Sunday of the month members are expected to fast for two meals. Breakfast and lunch (IIRC). Then they are expected to take the money that would have been used for those two meals and give it to the Church to provide welfare. Now, that's not to say that some percentage of tithing isn't needed or isn't used to cover any shortfall. ...

That's interesting information, RandFan.
Thanks for posting it up.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It is absurd on the face of it; it is self-evidently farcical. I have no interest in responding to such questions.

It is not farcical. It exposes the farcical nature of your argument against same-sex marriage.

Mike Huckabee once explained that his reason for opposing same sex marriage was that same-sex couples couldn't produce offspring together. A relevant question that directly follows such a statement is "Do you then oppose marriages between heterosexual couples who can't have children, or choose not to have children?". I'm sure Mike Huckabee would answer that he regarded the question as absurd.

Or why don't you address joobz's post #8876? There is broad consensus from many studies that children of lower socio-economic status families do poorly compared to children of higher socio-economic status. The study that Kim attempted to discredit was intended specifically to remove that factor, and found that when it was removed, the children of gay couples did just as well as those of heterosexual couples. In other words, it points to poverty being bad for children, not homosexual parents. So a logical question is: "Do you then oppose marriages between people of low socio-economic status?" That's a pretty absurd question, isn't it?

When you advance an argument that logically leads to such absurd questions, what does that tell you about the legitimacy of your argument?

 

[bruto]

Is there some reason why it can't be both? Is there some reason why it can't be reiterated for emphasis or repeated for the benefit of those who didn't "get it" the first time?[\quote]No reason it can't be both, but if it is both, then your apparent denial that it is both in post 8874 does not work. In that post you accuse me of error when I suggest that it is not only a question. Not agreeing is not the same as not getting it.

"Sin" requires the commission of an evil act by an individual. If I were to accept your somewhat tortured explanation, U. S. taxpayers are responsible for the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, or for the fact (last time I checked) the U.S. is the number one arms producer in the world.

That makes no sense at all. Yes indeed, "sin" requires an act that the person making the accusation considers wrong or evil. I am suggesting that your church considers homosexual unions and homosexual marriages a sin, since its stated policy is that all sexual unions are wrong outside of marriage, and since it actively seeks to keep homosexuals from marrying. The protection of marriage is obviously impossible if marriage is forbidden, is it not? Insofar as you share that viewpoint, you share that viewpoint. Insofar as you argue for that policy, you cannot reasonably disavow it. This has nothing to do with ideas about the collective guilt of citizens for what their countries do, and I can't imagine why you should think it does. We are talking about specific policies and acts of the church here, and your defense of them, and simply mincing words by trying to suggest that "sin" is a poor choice of vocabulary. Are you now saying that homosexual unions are not considered wrong by your church? Has church policy changed? Are you saying you do not agree with LDS policy on this subject? Are you contending that you have not argued in favor of LDS policy here?

 

[Loss Leader]

Could you clarify the above statement? Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?

I believe that this is at least the unofficial Mormon view. God's first commandment was to be fruitful and multiply. Culturally, at least, they appear to take this very seriously.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I believe that this is at least the unofficial Mormon view. God's first commandment was to be fruitful and multiply. Culturally, at least, they appear to take this very seriously.

Then logically, if a Mormon were to oppose same-sex marriage on these grounds, but regard the idea of proscribing marriage between heterosexuals unable to have children as "farcical", it would mean that he/she was really only concerned with denying marriage rights to certain people because they are gay, and not because of any pragmatic social concerns.

 

[bruto]

This discussion seems to hinge on semantic quibbling and differing ideas of what a word means. A thing that is opposed and objected to on moral grounds is not a sin as long as you omit the word "sin." Openly defending and seconding the policies of a church and the statements of outspoken elaborators of that policy is compared to silent acquiescence, as long, presumably, as the offending terms are not explicitly used.

And yet, we have the official LDS ideology, and we can read official LDS publications. If we are going to quibble and deny that implications, insinuations, and linguistic dodges have any meaning, then I modestly propose that, from here on, we refer to the institution that is the subject of this thread as The so-called LDS "Church." This is the language that the self-identified "church" uses when referring to activities of the homosexuals they profess to love as brethren. According to the so-called "Mormons" on this site, this does not imply belittlement or bias on the part of the "Church," whose members are presumably either too naif or too stupid to understand how language can be bent to produce implication without direct terminology. The fact that the "church" has made explicit efforts in the civil sphere to ban homosexual marriage, and the the "church" states on its so-called "websites" that it opposes on moral grounds all sexual relations outside of traditional two-sex marriage does not, it seems, imply that what the "church" does happens to relate to what it believes. In the peculiar language of this so-called "church" what you do does not reflect what you believe, as long as you dodge certain words. A thing that is impermissible on moral grounds is not a sin. It's sort of like a sin, but it's not a sin. Perhaps it's a "sin."

 

[skyrider44]

To expand a bit on how that's possible and what it would mean: a member can remain on the rolls of the church without paying a tithe, but can't get a temple recommend. That means they can attend normal Sunday services but can't do all the special things in the temple, a central building that might be several hours away, where people are married, do baptisms for the dead, etc.

That's correct.

There would certainly be pressure to be a full tithe payer and/or get a temple recommend. Each member has to see their bishop once a year for tithing settlement and has to answer the question whether they're a full tithe payer. Of course, they can say no, and nothing bad would happen other than not getting/losing their temple recommend and also some application of guilt. If one believes the whole concept, paying tithe is a commandment like not drinking, not stealing, etc., so there's not much point in being a member and choosing never to pay a tithe.

Some Mormons, unfortunately, are members for social reasons. They enjoy the social activities the Church sponsors. Consequently, not paying tithing is not a significant concern for them.

: The other way a member could never pay a tithe, and even get a temple recommend, would be not to have any earned income of their own. Disclaimer: that's actually our situation. Since we got married, my wife is a "full tithe payer" with a temple recommend, without actually paying any tithe, because all the family income comes from me and of course the church doesn't expect tithes from money earned by non-members.

Good point.

 

[skyrider44]

Could you clarify the above statement? Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?

That's certainly a major part of it. Marriage makes it possible to bring children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other.

 

[skyrider44]

Is there some reason why it can't be both? Is there some reason why it can't be reiterated for emphasis or repeated for the benefit of those who didn't "get it" the first time?

No reason it can't be both, but if it is both, then your apparent denial that it is both in post 8874 does not work. In that post you accuse me of error when I suggest that it is not only a question. Not agreeing is not the same as not getting it. That makes no sense at all.

I have read and reread Post 8874, and I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. . .don't understand your point. Blame it on my "density."

Yes indeed, "sin" requires an act that the person making the accusation considers wrong or evil. I am suggesting that your church considers homosexual unions and homosexual marriages a sin, since its stated policy is that all sexual unions are wrong outside of marriage, and since it actively seeks to keep homosexuals from marrying.

That's an accurate summation of the Church's position.

The protection of marriage is obviously impossible if marriage is forbidden, is it not?

Marriage was instituted primarily as a means to raise children with legally sanctioned protection. What protection do two adult males, who will not have children, receive as a result of being married? Perhaps you're referring to financial matters.

Insofar as you share that viewpoint, you share that viewpoint. Insofar as you argue for that policy, you cannot reasonably disavow it.

Correct, and I don't disavow it.

We are talking about specific policies and acts of the church here, and your defense of them, and simply mincing words by trying to suggest that "sin" is a poor choice of vocabulary.

My defense of "specific policies and acts of the Church" is based on the fact that they have a right to take a position on matters of morality. The fact that you don't consider same-sex marriage a moral issue, doesn't alter the right of the Church to take the position it has taken.

Are you now saying that homosexual unions are not considered wrong by your church?

Don't you already know the answer to that?

: Has church policy changed? Are you saying you do not agree with LDS policy on this subject? Are you contending that you have not argued in favor of LDS policy here?

1) No. 2) No. 3) No. I support Church policy. I'm intrigued, though, as I ponder why that matters to you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is absurd on the face of it; it is self-evidently farcical. I have no interest in responding to such questions.

Actually, It is, in fact, a valid extension of the point you appear to be trying to make.

I am still curious about something else alongthese lines.

At least in the xianist canon, Jesus has not a single word attributed to him condemning homosexuality; OTH, at least in the xianist canon, Jesus has several distinct and fairly draconian words attributed to him concerning the missing of the mark that is divorce.

Given your claim that the "moral issue" in marriage equality is "the good of the children"; and, given that you have not presented a single valid, recent, study demonstrating a specific harm experienced by "the children" in untraditional marriages (same-sex, same-gender, polygygny, polyandry, polygamy, or even some other alternative); and, given the demonstrable stress "the children" undergo in a divorce; why is it then that your sect is not as harshly, adamantly, actively involved in preventing divorces, and limiting the marriage rights of the divorced, as it is in withholding the benefits of civil marriage from untraditional partner arrangements?

 

[skyrider44]

Wait. I'm totally lost now. If same sex marriage is not considered a sin, why is the LDS church against it?

Because it involves the conduct of individual members.

Especially, why would the church care if non-members practiced it?

Because it's part of the doctrine of the Church, which LDS believe is formulated by God and communicated to the Church's living prophet, Thomas S. Monson. President Monson has an obligation to speak out on certain moral issues to both members and non-members.

Church members would be no more personally responsible for what non-members did, than an individual taxpayer would be responsible for the use of Agent Orange.

I think the Church regards it as a societal issue, one that strikes at the heart of the Church's belief that the family is the building block of society.

 

[skyrider44]

No, it was a valid question. To put it another way, are you opposed to same sex marriage because you are a Mormon or because there is social science to support opposite sex marriage being better? It appears as though, based on your refusal to answer that you are opposed based the fact you are Mormon and trying to use flawed social science to justify your position.

I support my Church's position re. same-sex marriage.

Your suggestion that the research of those social scientists who oppose same-sex marriage is necessarily flawed is incorrect. Moreover, the jury is stilll out on whether or not same-sex marriage has a negative effect on children.

 

[skyrider44]

And I'm still waiting for you to explain what any of this has to do with the bizarre beliefs which are unique to your church.

No explanation is required because your statement is based on a false premise; i.e., "the bizarre beliefs which are unique to your church."

 

[halleyscomet]

I support my Church's position re. same-sex marriage.

Your suggestion that the research of those social scientists who oppose same-sex marriage is necessarily flawed is incorrect. Moreover, the jury is stilll out on whether or not same-sex marriage has a negative effect on children.

This very thread has discussed reasons why the specific study was flawed. The study is not flawed because of the conclusions it drew, but because it used flawed methodology to get those results.

If the research is not flawed, then why did the opponents of same sex marriage refuse to testify upon the claim during the Prop 8 trial?

 

[Loss Leader]

Marriage was instituted primarily as a means to raise children with legally sanctioned protection.

Well, no. Not at all, really. Marriage was instituted primarily as a means for people who love each other to declare their fidelity. That's why it exists in tribes where all property is shared and children are raised communally.

In English common law, marriage was a system for keeping track of property - especially one's domestic labor and real estate.

 

[joobz]

I support my Church's position re. same-sex marriage.

On what grounds? You have yet to present a rational argument in support of this position?
If it is purely based on the idea that your religion is a source of morality, then what does it say that your religion was founded by a person who committed obvious fraud(e.g., the BoA)?

Your suggestion that the research of those social scientists who oppose same-sex marriage is necessarily flawed is incorrect.

based on what? It is insufficient to make this claim. One must back it up with evidenced arguments.

Moreover, the jury is stilll out on whether or not same-sex marriage has a negative effect on children.

By the exact same token, the jury is still out on whether or not same-sex marriage had a better effect on children than opposite sex marriage.



Why are you not answering the clear question?
Since low economic status has a confirmed negative effect on children, should we ban marriage between people with low income?

 

[RandFan]

That's certainly a major part of it. Marriage makes it possible to bring children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other.

You cannot prevent gays and lesbians from having children (they often have children while in heterosexual relationships and or they adopt). Many gays and lesbians have children. In fact the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial had children. So, since not allowing gays and lesbians to marry will have no discernible difference as to whether they have children, and since it will improve their lives, why not?'

You can't just yada yada yada.... children.

You've not presented an argument. Even if we grant your premise for arguments sake (I reject your premise otherwise), but if we grant it, so? Gays and lesbians will still have children. Straight people will still get married. What's your point?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Because it involves the conduct of individual members.

I see. Not, then, because of the best interests of "the children"--but because of private behaviours of consenting adults. Adults who are not, nor do they care to be, members of the CJCLDS.

Your sect does, in fact, arrogate the right to impose its standards upon everyone, not just members.

Because it's part of the doctrine of the Church, which LDS believe is formulated by God and communicated to the Church's living prophet, Thomas S. Monson. President Monson has an obligation to speak out on certain moral issues to both members and non-members.

And here, at last, is the answer to how it affects me, personally, that your sect reveres and refers to documents that are demonstrably a-historical; demonstrably fraudulent.

Your sect arrogates to impose "standards" of behaviour (standards egregious to the xianist canon) that were invented for members, even upon and against non-members. Your "god' is claimed to authorize your "living prophet" to dictate my behaviour--even behaviour that cannot affect him, or you, or Janadele, in any way (behaviour of which you are reduced to inventing lurid details, as you have demonstrated you do not know what goes on among consenting adults in my demesne), based at least in part on authority derived from those demonstrably a-historic and demonstrably fraudulent texts. OTH, your sect provides counseling and support for the divorced, even mechanisms whereby they may marry again in the temple with the highest privileges.

Jesus is said, at least in the xianist canon, to have preached against divorce. Jesus is not said, at least in the xianist canon, to have spoken one word against homosexuality. Oddly enough, Jesus is also said, at least in the xianist canon, to have taught that marriage is not observed in heaven...

I think the Church regards it as a societal issue, one that strikes at the heart of the Church's belief that the family is the building block of society.

Which would be a creditable rationalization, were it not for the divorce issue, and the non-breeding heterosexual couple issue, among others.

 

[Pup]

Moreover, the jury is stilll out on whether or not same-sex marriage has a negative effect on children.

Negative compared to what?

Same-sex marriage won't remove children who are already in happy opposite-sex-marriage homes, so that's not the comparison.

You'd have to show that being raised with same-sex parents is worse than the typical alternative for such children, which is not being adopted at all, or not being born at all.