LDS II: The Mormons

[AdMan]

In Post 489, I listed a link to just one of many articles that extol the virtues of breastfeeding. <snip>

Certainly breast feeding probably has some natural advantages.

I was adopted as a baby. I was not breastfed, so I didn't get the advantages you speak of. Yet I love my adopted parents, and consider them as much my "real" parents as probably any other child. I cannot imagine a reason why I would think any less of them or love them less if they were the same sex, as long as they proved their love to me as they have.

The bigotry you've shown is pretty sad, to be honest.

 

[pakeha]

Holy misogynism, Batman. While I was aware that Mormonism was based on a 19th century fraud, I was unaware that it was steeped in medieval gender roles.

It's been some time since I read this thread and and I'm amazed skyrider has yet to see just how ridiculous their arguments are against same sex marriage.

...Before the women's lib movement, most women were homemakers; i.e., they didn't work outside the home. Men were the breadwinners, and the jobs they did to win "bread" typically required that they wear pants--coal miners, lumberjacks, longshoremen, fire fighters, construction workers, soldiers, roofers, carpenters, mechanics, etc. Thus the expression "He wears the pants in the family" was not necessarily, as you suppose, a pejorative directed at women. ...

skyrider, did you know there are many cultures world-wide where women wear trousers and have done so for thousands of years?

Why invoke the image of a 50's America to support your views on same sex marriage?
Before women's lib?
What are you talking about?

So the list of people who should not be allowed to marry or adopt includes gays, heterosexuals who can't have children, the poor, and now, women who can't breast feed.

What IS disturbing is that skyrider's posts show no sign of understanding their arguments appear to be the result of deeply flawed cognition.


For example

...

You are also apparently unaware that no females play in the NFL.

And

In Post 489, I listed a link to just one of many articles that extol the virtues of breastfeeding. Here are some condensed statements from the link I posted (for those who didn't bother to read it)...

Could someone explain what breast-feeding has to do with same sex marriages?

 

[Loss Leader]

Could someone explain what breast-feeding has to do with same sex marriages?

I can:

1. Before the second coming of the Messiah, all people must be baptized in the CLDS.
2. Homosexuality is a sin against God and no homosexual can be properly baptized.
3. Thus, so long as there is homosexuality, there will be no second-coming.
4. Anyone interested in hastening the day of the second coming should fight to create the conditions on earth that are required by God.
5. Anything that makes homosexuality easier, more acceptable or more normal brings us farther from that day.
6. Thus, the devoted Mormon, must seize every opportunity, push for every law and make every argument (no matter how illogical or incoherent) that makes it more difficult to be homosexual.

(Supressed premise: If you make homosexuality sufficiently difficult, homosexuals will turn it off and go straight.)


If this view of the universe is correct, the logic is almost necessary. The largest flaw is the belief that it is anyone's business to try to bring about the second coming. Jesus will get here when he gets here.

 

[halleyscomet]

Take the simple issue of nursing, for example. Despite your evasions, and equivocations, and sidestepping the implications of your claims. Even if what you say about men being unable to bond with a baby because they are not physically lactating were true (and it is not), if that were, in fact, a reason to legally prevent homosexual men from raising babies, that very criterion that you want to use to exclude homosexual men form parenting would also exclude:
-widowers
-women who experience lactational insufficiency
-women who have had mastectomies
-women who adopt neonates
-women who choose to bottle feed rather than breast feed.

Shall all of these be legally excluded from parenthood?

He did explicitly state that he believed women who could not nurse had failed in their duties. He made an explicit comparison to an impotent man.

Frankly I found his judgmental condemnation of women who can't breast feed a refreshing instance of consistency on his part. It's one of the few examples I've seen of a religious person taking their arguments against marriage equality and applying them to heterosexuals as well.

Skyrider, do you believe a woman who has trouble producing milk for her child does so as a result of some sort of judgement from God?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . it is hard to claim i changed your meaning when i used your own words.

By supporting same-sex marriage, you are part of the process of changing white to black. I don't think that such a change--overturning centuries of tradition and violating natural law--would be a good thing. You, in contrast, think it would be a good thing. There are reputable studies that support both
of our positions.

Are you shocked to know that your own bias against gays may be a contributing factor to the suicide rate?

You ask me to respond to a falsehood that comes perilously close to a ad hominem attack. I am not biased against gays. I am biased against a fundamental change in our society that threatens to harm children (I have cited studies that validate that concern).

use this as a learning experience.
your bias against gays is much deeper than you are aware.
it is much more damaging than you are aware.
reevaluate why you are so motivated to deny them marriage.
Think why you haven't been able to link to original research which supports your views.
Think why you have had to go to ridiculous lengths (e.g., breast feeding = deny gay marriage) in order to support your arguments.

Here you open the valve to a veritable cascade of falsehoods about me. There is nothing I can do about that.

 

[skyrider44]

Nobody is suggesting that breastfeeding does not confer advantages; for those for whom it is possible it is the best start they can give their child in terms of immune system health (for example). What people are objecting to is your characterisation of mothers who choose not to, or who are unable to breastfeed as 'unfortunate', and your assessment that the parental bond is lessened. You have presented no evidence suggesting that breastfeeding results in an increased bond between mother and child.

Considering the benefits to infant and mother, it is unfortunate some women are unable or unwilling to breastfeed. The pro-breastfeeding evidence is overwhelming, to wit:

"How breastfeeding benefits you and your baby"
http://www.babycenter.com

"Benefits of Breastfeeding"
www.nrdc.org/breastmilk/benefits.asp

"Breastfeeding Benefits for Mom and Baby"
www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/breastfeeding-9/nursing-basics

"Breast-feeding"
www.patient.co.uk

More sources are available. Simply enter "Benefits of Breastfeeding" into your search box.

Further, this diversion into non-breastfeeding as an objection to children being brought up by same sex couples is not applicable to fostered or adopted children in either homosexual or heterosexual relationships, nor to children brought up by males.

Obviously, except for the portion I have underlined.

The love and the bond between child and parent is founded on a great deal more than a few weeks/months/years of breastfeeding. Parenting is so much more than how the child is fed.

True, of course. I have never said anything to the contrary.

What on earth does this have to do with your religion (which does not treat men and women as equals), or with same sex marriages?

Your parenthetical statement is false (and a subject for a thread of its own).
That aside, breastfeeding directly relates to the welfare of mothers and babies.

 

[realpaladin]

Many 'net sites describe important benefits to both infant and mother as result of breastfeeding. They also describe some significant downsides caused by not breastfeeding. For starters, go to:
http://www.medelabreastfeedingus.com/benefits-of-breastfeeding

Do you know that there is no single conclusive study that has proven benefits of breastfeeding?

All documentation, including the one used as reference on exactly that specific site (http://www.medelabreastfeedingus.com/benefits-of-breastfeeding), says exactly nothing about the specific act of breastfeeding being better if it comes from the biological parents.

Thank you for showing me how you get your information, I really *have* read most of these studies (in conjuction with the hospitals specialist) and what do you know? They all say in more or less terms the same thing that I did.

You just fell for a commercial ploy on a commercial site.

That there is no evidence for the specific act of breastfeeding, that it all depends on closeness, the migration of bacteria and that this same thing goes for the composition of mothers milk.

The main reason for mothers milk being preferred over 'generic' formula is... bacteria, specific fats and other components that are closer to what the child is used to during the pregnancy.

If you (I do not know the english term for it but google translate says 'flasking') were to 'kolf' the mothers milk and the father were to provide it, or someone else, then studies, specifically those on that fabulous site of yours, have shown that... wait for it... there is *no* difference in the development of the child.

So, from your site we can conclude:

- Gays and lesbians can provide the same as biological parents (with a bit of transference of biological liquids even so close that no studies have ever found any difference at all).

I think they will be thankful for your efforts in proving this.

 

[Pup]

I am not biased against gays. I am biased against a fundamental change in our society that threatens to harm children (I have cited studies that validate that concern).

Does that mean you would be okay with allowing gay marriage, if such couples weren't allowed to adopt children? Is it really all about the children?

 

[joobz]

By supporting same-sex marriage, you are part of the process of changing white to black. I don't think that such a change--overturning centuries of tradition and violating natural law--would be a good thing.

People thought monarchies were part of the natural order.
People thought slavery was part of the natural order.
People thought women as second class citizens were part of the natural order.

They were wrong.
But thank you for tacitly admitting that I didn't misquote you.

You ask me to respond to a falsehood that comes perilously close to a ad hominem attack. I am not biased against gays. I am biased against a fundamental change in our society that threatens to harm children (I have cited studies that validate that concern).

I am not saying you are wrong because you are a bigot. That would be an ad hominem attack.

I am saying you're arguments are unsubstantiated bigotry. Bigotry that leads to increased suicide rates in the population you are baised against. If you claim to be in support of children, then consider what your arguments means to gay teens.

And note. I have already offered a willingness to discuss your "studies"(studies which you haven't read, by the way.) if you can show me to be wrong, I would be happy to amend my argument.

Here you open the valve to a veritable cascade of falsehoods about me. There is nothing I can do about that.

I have not made a single false statement. If you beleive otherwise, show me where I am wrong. It is insufficient to claim I am wrong. You must present the evidence.

 

[Craig4]

So, uh... back to Mormons. I've been seeing a lot of missionaries at the train stations near the Christmas markets here in Germany. I also saw quite a few during the volksfests seasons his fall. Is this a new thing, sending missionaries to what are essentially drunk fest in Europe to get converts? They've only engaged me once and I keep to a don't fire unless fired upon rule with missionaries. I've seen the same team twice and I have to say, their German is worse than mine.

I may point out to the poor lads the utter futility of trying to convert people to Mormonism who are going to fest where the main attraction is hot wine, often spiked with hard spirits.

 

[Cat Tale]

LDS Beliefs

1. Before the second coming of the Messiah, all people must be baptized in the CLDS.

False. According to LDS doctrine, the majority of people will not even be members of the LDS Church. He will cleanse the earth and judge the inhabitants dividing the righteous from the wicked. And as I understand it not all righteous will be LDS, and not all LDS will be righteous.

2. Homosexuality is a sin against God and no homosexual can be properly baptized.

Again, according to LDS doctrine, those who are homosexual can be baptized, hold the priesthood, have callings in the church and attend the temple (admittedly they cannot be sealed to a ss partner), it is not the person, but the act that the Church is against (mormonsandgays.org), and yes I realize that if one is against the act it is pretty much the same as being against the person, in this case.

3. Thus, so long as there is homosexuality, there will be no second-coming.

Again, false. That's like saying as long as there are still murders, or infidelity in marriage, etc. there can be no Second Coming. Not true, in fact, LDS doctrine again states, that one of the signs of the Second Coming is that wickedness, war, and turmoil will be rampant.

4. Anyone interested in hastening the day of the second coming should fight to create the conditions on earth that are required by God.
5. Anything that makes homosexuality easier, more acceptable or more normal brings us farther from that day.
6. Thus, the devoted Mormon, must seize every opportunity, push for every law and make every argument (no matter how illogical or incoherent) that makes it more difficult to be homosexual.
(Supressed premise: If you make homosexuality sufficiently difficult, homosexuals will turn it off and go straight.)
If this view of the universe is correct, the logic is almost necessary. The largest flaw is the belief that it is anyone's business to try to bring about the second coming. Jesus will get here when he gets here.

The fallacy in your post is that, according to LDS beliefs Jesus' Second Coming will be brought on by a large increase in wars, violence, sin, corruption, famine, etc. It will not be brought on by all mankind being converted to the Church. So what will usher in the Second Coming isn't that all the people on the earth will be LDS, but that wickedness, war, turmoil, sin, etc. will all be at levels never before known to mankind. So my thinking last night was, why are we fighting what the Lord says must come to pass so He can return? We don't know the hour and day that Christ will come, only the Father knows. Matt. 24:36 So the day and time is set and we cannot do anything to hasten it.

I believe in a separation of Church and state. The Church shouldn't tell the state what to do, and the state shouldn't tell the Church what to do.

 

[Loss Leader]

The fallacy in your post is that, according to LDS beliefs Jesus' Second Coming will be brought on by a large increase in wars, violence, sin, corruption, famine, etc. It will not be brought on by all mankind being converted to the Church. So what will usher in the Second Coming isn't that all the people on the earth will be LDS, but that wickedness, war, turmoil, sin, etc. will all be at levels never before known to mankind. So my thinking last night was, why are we fighting what the Lord says must come to pass so He can return?

Well, then, I'm stumped.

 

[skyrider44]

Do you know that there is no single conclusive study that has proven benefits of breastfeeding?

You're correct: "There is no single conclusive study that has proven the benefits of breastfeeding." In fact, there are multiple studies that conclusively prove the benefits of breastfeeding. Among medical professionals the benefits of breastfeeding are a "given"; they are not even open to debate.

Please see my response to Agatha and follow the links.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You make a quintessential strawman statement.

No, I point out the double standard that you repeatedly use.

You've invoked childbearing as a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. But when you are asked if you equally object to marriages between heterosexual couples who can't, or choose not to have children, or whether they should be required by law to have children, you dismiss the notion as absurd. This demonstrates that, for you, it isn't really about producing offspring, it's about discriminating against same-sex couples by having a special set of laws that only apply to them.

You've claimed that same-sex marriage should be prohibited because you believe that children raised in such families are at a disadvantage to children raised by heterosexual married couples. Yet we know that children raised by poor parents are at a clear disadvantage to those raised in wealthier homes. But when you are asked if you favor prohibiting marriage between poor couples, you dismiss the notion as absurd. This demonstrates that, for you, it isn't really about the welfare of children, it's about discriminating against same-sex couples by having a special set of laws that only apply to them.

And now you are attempting to drag breast feeding into the argument. Are we to apply laws based on breast feeding to homosexual couples (ignoring, for the moment, that a lesbian woman is just as capable of breast feeding an infant as a heterosexual woman) that are not applied equally to heterosexual couples?

 

[Foster Zygote]

By supporting same-sex marriage, you are part of the process of changing white to black. I don't think that such a change--overturning centuries of tradition and violating natural law--would be a good thing. You, in contrast, think it would be a good thing.

It's funny that you should choose terminology invoking "black" and "white". Wasn't it once considered part of the natural order that a "black" man was ineligible for the priesthood in the LDS church?

There are reputable studies that support both
of our positions.

Please point to one reputable study supporting your position.

You ask me to respond to a falsehood that comes perilously close to a ad hominem attack. I am not biased against gays. I am biased against a fundamental change in our society that threatens to harm children (I have cited studies that validate that concern).

"I'm not biased against gays. I just think that they must be denied the same rights as others because they are a danger to society. I've cited many anti-gay organizations that have misrepresented data in order to sustain this assertion."

Here you open the valve to a veritable cascade of falsehoods about me. There is nothing I can do about that.

Point out the falsehoods.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That aside, breastfeeding directly relates to the welfare of mothers and babies.

Does you concern for the welfare of said babies stop at heterosexual mothers?

 

[realpaladin]

Yes, back to Mormonism.

So according to:
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-43-signs-of-the-second-coming?lang=eng

it would be a horrible thing for us to make worldpeace, solve crimes etc... because then the second coming would not take place...

On the other hand, we should not act out any violence etc... because then the second coming would not take place...

How is this not a Catch-22?

 

[Agatha]

Considering the benefits to infant and mother, it is unfortunate some women are unable or unwilling to breastfeed. The pro-breastfeeding evidence is overwhelming, to wit: <snip>

Sigh. I know. If you read my earlier post you'd have read that all my four children were breastfed for up to 2.5 years. They were exclusively breatfed; no dummies (I think you call them pacifiers), no bottles, no formula. Cloth nappies, co-sleeping, baby-led weaning. Go me. Further, they were all born naturally at home (statistically safer) - it's hard to find a more hippy, child-centred mother than me, especially when my children were young. I even volunteered as a breastfeeding counsellor for a while. So please don't waste your time patronising me by thinking you are educating me about the advantages of breastfeeding.

But accepting that breast is best does not mean that children who are bottlefed are less loved or less bonded with their parents, and nor does it mean that parents who are unwilling or unable to breastfeed should be made to feel guilty about their abilities or their choices. Love and bonding is not dependent on feeding; some breastfed babies end up being taken into the care system because of abuse or neglect just as some bottlefed babies do.

And once again, it is a diversion from the main discussion. If this were a real stumbling block to your acceptance of same sex marriage, you would have more acceptance of any same sex couple who do not have (and don't plan to have) children.

Your parenthetical statement [that the Mormon church does not treat men and women as equals] is false (and a subject for a thread of its own).

I'd hate to divert your mind from this current discussion, but this is the continuation of the 'all things LDS' thread, not just a thread for discussing gay marriage. So it is not off-topic. However, if you wish open a new thread to defend your church against my accusation that it does not treat men and women as equals, it's probably best to check with a moderator, as starting new threads to avoid a moderated one is a big no-no. Perhaps we could put the subject to one side and return to it later.

By supporting same-sex marriage, you are part of the process of changing white to black. I don't think that such a change--overturning centuries of tradition and violating natural law--would be a good thing. You, in contrast, think it would be a good thing. There are reputable studies that support both of our positions.

1. What does "turning white to black" mean? What is connoted by 'white' and 'black' in this context?

2. Centuries of tradition are overturned all the time - outlawing slavery overturned centuries of tradition. The invention of the wheel overturned centuries of tradition, as did the invention of the internal combustion engine. Same sex couples have been living together as if they were married for thousands of years, they just had to pretend they were merely friends or cousins instead of being able to be openly a couple. Allowing those who want to marry to do so doesn't overturn centuries of tradition so much as allow the formalising of a situation which has existed for centuries.

3. What is 'natural law'? Who or what laid down this law, what does it forbid, and to whom does it apply?

What I understand as 'natural law' are things like E=mc² - the laws of physics upon which this universe depends. None of it says anything about the very brief lives of hairless apes on an obscure planet in one tiny galaxy. Clearly, you must have a different understanding of the term, so I'd be most grateful if you'd explain what you mean.

 

[halleyscomet]

The folks behind the "Sister Wives" program have won a major legal victory that strikes down the bulk of Utah's anti-polygamy law.

Clearly, there are conservative Mormon churches that will fire up the wedding chapels the moment they can. That said, what is the LDS church likely to do if polygamy becomes legal again?

Given the legal situation women with multiple husbands is likely to end up as legal as polygamy.

Dear lord. We may be looking at legal, bisexual group marriages in the next decade.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for your post, Cat Tale, it cleared up a lot of things for me.

...Again, according to LDS doctrine, those who are homosexual can be baptized, hold the priesthood, have callings in the church and attend the temple (admittedly they cannot be sealed to a ss partner), it is not the person, but the act that the Church is against (mormonsandgays.org), and yes I realize that if one is against the act it is pretty much the same as being against the person, in this case. ...

I'm relieved you didn't drag breast-feeding or trousers into the mix.
At the end of the day, the LDS considers the homosexual act to against divine law.
End of story, until someone has a vision justifying a change, correct me if I'm wrong.