LDS II: The Mormons

[abaddon]

Do you actually believe that the life of Jesus Christ--and the Church that bears His name--can somehow be linked to "bigotry, hatred, and evil?"

Astonishing.

It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact. All of the Christian denominations have practiced bigotry, hatred and evil. Every single one. One does not have to believe this as a matter of faith. It is fact.

It is happening right now in this very thread.

 

[catsmate]

Do you actually believe that the life of Jesus Christ--and the Church that bears His name--can somehow be linked to "bigotry, hatred, and evil?"

Astonishing.

Not really. Firstly have you any evidence that "Jesus Christ" actually existed? Secondly how are the teachings of your sect related to anything his promoted? Finally why would any rational person consider the opinions of a iron age preacher relevant to modern society?

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
<snip>
Gordon B Hinckley

Wasn't he the one involves in the Hoffman affair? Forgery, fraud and covering up the past of the Mormons?

 

[Craig4]

No need to base your perceptions on individual members read the words of the Prophets instead to know what the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually are:
"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years.There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God." Gordon B Hinckley. http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

You may have noticed your beliefs have some, shall we say problems with facts, as in your founding texts getting many facts wrong. I'm not sure you want to encourage people to read the words of your prophets if you want to be taken seriously.

ETA: The justification for a state to ban anything cannot be religious. I'm sure you've heard of that whole separation of church and state thing.

 

[Craig4]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

But people who want an SSM don't care if they offend your "prophet". Why should they be bothered by what this guy says?

 

[Pup]

Read the following, imagining you're a man or one of his wives in 19th century Salt Lake City, who just want the government to give them the right to follow their religious beliefs concerning marriage:

"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God." Gordon B Hinckley. [URL="http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng"]http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng[/URL]

The Mormons who were persecuted in the 19th century for trying to redefine what marriage is, must have been rolling in their graves.

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

Hint: as long as something is legal, it's being preserved.

When Mormons wanted to practice polygamy, they didn't want to outlaw traditional marriage. When gay people want to get married, they don't want to outlaw traditional marriage.

I can't see that traditional marriage is under any threat whatsoever. If I find evidence that the government could force my wife and me to divorce, then I'll believe traditional marriage is under threat.

 

[halleyscomet]

Do you actually believe that the life of Jesus Christ--and the Church that bears His name--can somehow be linked to "bigotry, hatred, and evil?"



Astonishing.

Well, yes. History gives us a lot of examples of exactly that. Your astonishment at this fact reveals a profound ignorance of history. Even the Mormon founders commuted violent, evil acts in the name of Christ.

 

[turingtest]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

Yeah. See, here's the thing...Hinckley is certainly right in saying that he and his church have "religious and constitutional prerogatives" to speak out in defense of whatever positions on morality they see fit; I know some Christians love to play martyr, but, really, nobody is "question[ing] [their] constitutional right as a church to raise [their] voice" about anything- you guys can flail all you want. But what you do not have a constitutional right to is the expectation that anyone else be bound by your views (or your compulsion to share them). What is a civil right is that everyone else has as much right to ignore your "morality" as you have to personally abide by it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights;

Yes, it is.

it is a matter of morality.

If by "morality" you mean "that which one group, because of their dogmatic belief system, wishes to legislate another group to do or not do", then yes, it is a matter of morality. I think your morality is evil and should be abolished from the face of the earth.

Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family.

I don't mind as long as your church pays taxes. If you are fraudulently using the religious institution tax break while actually being a political entity, you should also pay many years of back taxes that you've defrauded your country of.

We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives.

I believe that you're a group of zealous and hate-filled bigots who wish for a theocracy so you can force your evil religion down other peoples' throats.

Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

Indeed, you are compelled by your religious zealotry and hateful intolerant bigotry to speak out.

 

[joobz]

No need to base your perceptions on individual members read the words of the Prophets instead to know what the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually are:
"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years.There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God." Gordon B Hinckley. http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

The prophets say a bunch of crazy things.
They used to be horribly racist and deny blacks from being priests.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No need to base your perceptions on individual members read the words of the Prophets instead

Aren't your false prophets individual members?

 

[joobz]

Do you actually believe that the life of Jesus Christ--and the Church that bears His name--can somehow be linked to "bigotry, hatred, and evil?"

Astonishing.

I do not believe that a person that actually followed the teachings of Jesus would be a bigot. I believe the person would be in support of same sex marriage.


However, I do believe that a person who belonged to a church that was started by a convicted con man and who we know committed fraud in the book of Abraham could be bigoted.

 

[turingtest]

Aren't your false prophets individual members?

Apparently they're no longer just people when they're deified as "Prophets" (and no matter what Janadele may think, making a "Saint" of someone is no less than deifying them); and their words are no longer just opinion, they're now "doctrine," from God, to be followed, and never to be questioned or really even thought much about. This is the part of the religious process that kind of staggers me- how so much is so willingly given up.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

You have never even bothered to address the issue of what you, personally, lose, or how you, personally, are affected, when any two people marry.

A high-school football star who did not make it in college and sells cars for his father-in-law marries the head cheerleader, president of the "cookie club", and known by everyone in the program for 4 years. How does that affect you, personally? What does that take away from you, personally?

A mother of 4 (from two previous marriages) marries a man she met on the internet and hopes that this time she will not be abused. How does that affect you, personally? What does that take away from you, personally?

A successful antiques dealer decides to marry in order to produce an heir for his commercial empire. He selects a woman for her child-bearing hips. How does that affect you? What does that take away from you, personally?

A chanteuse finds true love and marries in joy and passion. She is 45; he is 19. How does that affect you, personally? What does that take away form you, personally?

I marry my partner, my best friend, my favorite person; even though my partner's family severs all ties (keep in mind my partner's brother is, literally, a 4-time ex-convict with three children who has never been married and lives in his parents' den...and that is more acceptable than my partner marrying me). How does that affect you, personally? What does that take away from you, personally?

As far as your post: I continue to maintain that you and your club have my permission and blessing to apply to each other whatever rules you have invented that you tell yourselves will appease whatever 'god' you have invented. You can even wear funny hats and give each other funny (if gramatically incorrect) titles.

How does that affect me, personally? Not at all. Not in the slightest.

What does that take away form me, personally? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Where you and the other members of your club do err is when you pretend that your 'god' has ordered (and authorized) you to tell me, a non-member, that I, a non-member, must adhere to the rules you altered out of what you say are your 'god's' words. When you try to enforce your clubs rules outside your clubhouse, you violate my civil rights and make a mockery of the Constitution of these United States and of the Rule of Law. You take away form me my right not to be governed by the 'god' you invented, nor by any other 'god' or 'gods'.

Consider the nooligans that are trying to impose Shaira Law on neighborhoods of non-muslims in England.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/imposing_shariah_law_in_london.html
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3555/sharia-law-london
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/07/musli...led-for-sharia-law-attacks-in-london-4221898/

Would you grant them the right to tell you that you could not worship any 'god' but theirs, nor in any way but the way they dictate? Would you submit to the will of their 'god' when you were told you had to tear down your temple, and close your meeting houses? Would you give up bacon, and be happy that 'god's' will was being done as pig ranchers were stoned? Would you let liquor store owners and winesellers be "gaoled" for practicing their professions, and refusing to accede to the unjust imposition of sectarian rules? Would you happily wear their burka, and agree never to go outside your house but in the company of a man, and stop posting on the internet, according to the "commands" of their 'god'?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No need to base your perceptions on individual members read the words of the Prophets instead to know what the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually are:
"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years.There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God." Gordon B Hinckley. http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

Marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one. Churches should stay out of civil matters unless they also wish to start paying their fair share of taxes. Why should anyone other than Mormons care about Mormon dogma?

 

[bruto]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called

This is the spoor of the spurious argument. As soon as you see this phrase you need not read further to know what will be concluded. It is just the same kind of linquistic sign as someone referring to Mormons as "so called Christians," or adding gratuitious quotation marks. Hate will follow, however smoothly it's spread.

same-sexmarriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred

There we go again. Nonsense, pure and simple. Does the LDS church recognize civil marriage as sacred now? It's regarded as legal, but are members not urged to be married or remarried under Mormon jurisdiction? Is this not considered necessary for the marriage to be considered eternal?

institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

Sure everyone has a right to speak an opinion. Compulsion is certainly arguable though. Unless the Mormon church can honestly say that all civil weddings are sacred in their own sense of what a wedding is, they cannot base a political opinion on the false assertion of sacredness.

 

[pakeha]

...Actually Smith (and Brigham Young) supported Southern slavery:

“. . . [W]e have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind & will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better & more prudent not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted: and then teach the master to use them with kindness, remembering that they are accountable to God and that servants are bound to serve their master with singleness of heart, without murmuring.”

“After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind--wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ.
'It is my privilege, then, to name certain passages from the Bible and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is incontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!"

“ . . . I am aware that many who profess to preach the gospel complain against their brethren of the same faith who reside in the South and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery and raise their voice against every thing of the kind.
This must be a tender point and one which should call forth the candid reflection of all men and especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fall States of the South and set loose upon the world a community of people who might peradventure overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity and virtue.”

That's clear enough.

 

[tsig]

I've seen an awful lot of seeming condescension towards the 1970's revelation in the LDS church in regards to dark skin.

I would think the people in this forum would like a church to abandon racist doctrine.

So this mocking attitude somewhat perplexes me. It was this revelation that allowed the Mormon church I joined in the late 80's to be very active in trying to welcome in black members rather than exclude them. This would seem to me to be a step in the right direction for a large church.

So why all the snark about this?



I swear this and the obsession some people have over the undergarments will always mystify me.

When you say you have the absolute, unchangeable truth of god then change what you say as truth it looks funny.

 

[Loss Leader]

Because of a move of several posts to this thread, a post by Travis was unfortunately overlooked and subsequently buried. It can be found here. My apologies for the mistake.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Janadele]

...
I think your morality is evil and should be abolished from the face of the earth

Typical of anti-LDS. What could be more hateful.

 

[Chernobyl X1]

Yes, but answer my question: do you think it would have better for the LDS church to not have their revelation regarding racism?

Better for who? The church? LDS members? The general public who were non LDS, The same public that saw the LDS as a racist organization?

For the church, I would say no. It would not have been better if the church didn't have this "revelation". It's fairly obvious that by the late '70's the society in the U.S. had changed dramatically from 20 years previous. The LDS had no choice but to adapt to the social changes. The LDS was wrong about it's practices calling blacks "cursed" and the public was aware of this racist stance in the '70's. It was nothing but an act of survival for them to call it a revelation to save face.

I find it amazing how the LDS members believe their "god" decided 113 years after slavery ended, blacks were suddenly ok now. Yet for 113 years, they were perfectly fine with their policies.

Here's two questions for you. When, do you believe the church will give up the sexism ghost and let women become priests? And will it be another flip-flop revelation from the Mormon god that will allow it?