• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

LDS II: The Mormons

I see. The LDS church draws a distinction between worship and rituals that Christians do not, necessitating separate holy places. It reminds me of some if the Neo-Pagans and Druidic Pagans I know. While they don't typically separate ritual places, they do limit some ritual attendance based upon similar criteria. For example, You and I couldn't walk into a proper Beltane ceremony to witness what happens on the standing stones.

A better parallel are the Masonic rituals, which are what the Mormon temple ceremony is based on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry I don't get why people want to be Masons, either, but apparently there's something attractive about secret rites and ceremonies that meets a need for a large enough segment of the population. Makes people feel special, I guess, and part of a group which would support them. There's probably some biological tribal urge, stronger in some than others, that gives people warm fuzzy feelings to be part of a group, protect the group from outsiders, etc.
 
Micah 5:2 (His destiny).


Micah is interesting because, when take figuratively as the prophets should be, it would seem to be describing the Jesus of christianity:

He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.​

Of course, this could apply equally to any religious leader including Mohammed, Martin Luther, and, for that matter, Martin Luther King, Jr.

But Micah doesn't stop with a figurative description. He makes some very literal promises:

And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders, who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march across our borders.​


Of course, Jesus was not a military commander. He did not repel the Assyrians from anything. There were no 7 shepherds and 8 commanders who conquered and ruled Assyria.


Zechariah 9:9 (He will come and live under humble circumstances).


Once again, if you take a couple words out of Zechariah, it might sound interesting:


See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.​


Of course, Jesus and his disciples knew of this prophesy. So, it would be pretty easy to put him on a donkey and ride him around (either at the time or to invent such a story after his death).

However, reading all of Zechariah makes clear that he is again talking about a military victory.

But the Lord will take away [Tyre's] possessions and destroy her power on the sea, and she will be consumed by fire... Gaza will lose her king
and Ashkelon will be deserted. A mongrel people will occupy Ashdod.... But I will encamp at my temple to guard it against marauding forces. Never again will an oppressor overrun my people, for now I am keeping watch.​


Jesus didn't do any of that. He wasn't a military leader. He didn't rebuild the great temple and, sadly, an oppressor overran the Jewish people pretty much annually since then.


Psalm 22: 16-18 (Cruelty with which He will be treated).


Psalm 22 was written by King David as a song of thanks to God. It doesn't even pretend to be a prophesy.


I hope this is helpful.


So far, I'm not very impressed with your claim that the Old Testament predicts anything about Jesus.
 
Last edited:
It's odd though that such community centered rituals, likes marriage and introducing an infant to the community, are restricted instead of open....
...excluding people from community ceremonies.

I have no idea what you mean by "introducing an infant to the community" as being restricted. Are you referring to the naming and blessing of the few week old baby? That's done in church during sacrament meeting. Anyone can come and be there. If you mean the baptism of children (age 8), that too is done at church, either in a baptismal font (if the church has one) or in a river, but not in the temple. And older people can have their friends present for their baptisms as well. When I was baptized, both my member and my non-member friends were in attendance. My family couldn't make it cause I lived too far away (I was attending college at the time). :(
 
The Old Testament is rich in references to Jesus Christ. Here is a sampling:

Oh, goody. Let's have a look.

Isaiah 7:14 (His birth).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d]

A key factor here is that "virgin" can also be interpreted as "young woman." "Immanuel" just means "God with us." The "Virgin Birth" wasn't really a "thing" the Jews were looking for. In the end, the verse is so vague as to apply to just about any son born to a teenage mother who gives the kid a name that could mean "God with Us" in some language.

Isaiah 9:6 (His destiny, including some of the names by which He shall be
known--"Wonderful Counselor," "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father,"
"Prince of Peace").

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 9:6
Isaiah 9:6
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Another vague, Nostradamus-grade "prophesy." One problem with this prophecy is that Jesus never had a government job. This verse is prophesying a wise political leader. Jesus was, according to the Bible, a homeless wandering preacher of no fixed address or income. Claiming this is about Jesus requires you to flat out ignore part of the verse being quoted.

Micah 5:2 (His destiny).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=micah+5:2
Micah 5:2
2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”


Jesus never ruled over the former Israeli kingdom. Even today that region is fought over by Jews and Muslims, with Christians cheering on the Jews, largely as part of an End of the World cult.

Claiming Jesus is from Judah is a poorly supported proposition. Remember, the lineage of Jesus is traced through Joseph, who is, according to the text, NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OF JESUS. Even then, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ in a number of ways. Apologists try to explain this away as asserting the Luke genealogy has to be of Mary, but that results in a very twisted, convoluted family three where Mary and Joseph are intertwined in some very improbable ways. A lot of both their ancestors had to have been bastards to achieve some of the splitting and rejoining in those two lists.

No, the verse cannot be about the Jesus written of in the Gospels.

Zechariah 9:9 (He will come and live under humble circumstances).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah+9:9&version=NKJV
Zechariah 9:9
9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.


A lot of people try to use the number of alleged prophesies that Jesus supposedly "fulfilled" as evidence of his divinity. What this argument ignores is the fact that the gospels were written AFTER the prophesies in question by people who were intimately familiar with the texts.

This verse is a particularly amusing example of the way the "prophesies" were crammed into the gospel stories. In one Gospel, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on one donkey. In another Gospel he somehow rides in on two donkeys, in what must have been an entertaining circus act. Why this disagreement? Because one gospel writer read "A colt, the foal of a donkey" as repetition for dramatic effect while another read it as indicating there was a second animal.

Psalm 22: 16-18 (Cruelty with which He will be treated).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 22:16-18
Psalm 22:16-18
16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[a] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.


This describes a fairly standard defeat scenario. Verses 16 and 18 reflect events that would later be described in the Gospels. Casting lots for the property of someone you've killed was a standard military practice for a large hunk of history. It was seen as a way to let the gods decide who should be honored with the goods. That part however could apply to any of the people the Romans crucified. The two thieves supposedly hanging on the crosses on either side of him would ahve fulfilled that part of the "prophesy."

Verse 17 is a problem though. "All my bones are on display" indicates either a corpse that has rotted to be exposed, or the victim of multiple compound fractures with protruding bones. No matter how you try to twist the words, Jesus never had "All his bones on display" in any of the conflicting gospel narratives. His bones were never broken let alone forced through his skin, and he supposedly ascended into Heaven having been resurrected long before his body would have rotted enough to expose bones.

Even if this bit of poetry is an actual prophesy, as opposed to a lament about defeat, it can't be about Jesus.

Malachi 4:2 (Second coming).
http://biblehub.com/malachi/4-2.htm
But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves.

This is pretty standard "Follow me and be happy" rhetoric used by just about any religion. Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and innumerable other faiths use the same argument. You'd be hard pressed to find a religion that promises misery, suffering and disaster to its followers.

I hope this is helpful.
Yes, but not in the way you were hoping.
 
Girls need female role models if they are to fulfill their biological destiny of becoming wives, homemakers, and mothers.
Seriously? Girls can do whatever the hell that they want. They do NOT have to be wives, or homemakers, or mothers.

They learn from those female role models how to keep a house, how to cook, how to dress, how to shop for appropriate clothing, and how to carry a fetus for nine months and go through childbirth (and breast feeding)p

Amazing... And mind boggling. There are many places that they can learn this.. IF they want to.

(Shop for appropriate clothing? Really? Buy, and wear whatever they want., Sheesh.)

A girl who has a "mother" who is, in fact, a male, is at a distinct disadvantage in learning and mastering these elemental skills. True, men can cook, men can shop, men can keep a house, but they cannot do it with the insight that women can. It is well established that the brains of males and females are wired differently, with females being superior at multi-tasking, precisely the innate ability that homemaking and motherhood requires. Try as you might, you cannot endow a male "mother" with the ability to be a real mother. Does this fact impact society as a whole? Of course it does. "Mothers" who don't know how to be mothers raise young women who are not equipped to do what they are biologically foreordained to do. That is not a promising prospect for society. If you want to claim that this is a matter of small moment, please explain why females are physically and mentally provisioned to accomplish some critically important roles in life while men are not. Accepting your position is the equivalent of claiming that there are no physical/mental differences between men and women.

CITATION NEEDED







My job is, I believe, much less demanding than yours. If you are to argue that considerations of child welfare make gay marriage inadvisable, you will have to find cogent arguments, and those arguments must include an explanation of how the existing children of homosexual parents, with or without partners, would be harmed by allowing their parents to marry the people they love. That is a very hard argument to make. It has not happened yet. Limited comprehension is not an asset here.

There is nothing special about same gender marriage. There is nothing special about opposite gender marriage.

There is marriage.

The bullcrap that 'girls' need special role models is bullcrap.

My wife is neither a homemaker, or a mother. In fact, she's the breadwinner, as she makes significantly more in her career than I do.

I suspect that many in the LDS church would find this abhorrent, or demeaning towards the men. I'm glad my wife can do, or be whatever she chooses, and isn't limited to being a wife, homemaker, and mother (and dressing appropriately!)

I notice that 'boys' are missing from that list. At least I know you're a little chauvinistic...
 
Temples are The House of The Lord, sacred spaces for sacred matters of no concern to those who have not reached this stage of progression. Everyone has the chance to progress to this level, it is just a matter of choosing to take the steps required.

It's part of a special club, the 'temple recommend'. One cannot attend a temple service, or even go to the wedding of ones relatives or children in a temple without it.

As well, part of the temple recommend is the payment of tithing to the LDS church. It's basically a scam to make money.
 
53rd chapter of Isaiah (Detailed information about Jesus).

I didn't forget about this one. It's just a larger chunk of text and my post was already getting pretty long.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53

53 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.


So far there’s nothing really distinctive about any of this. It describes a homely man who was despised by the people around him. How exactly that gels with a preacher who attracted multitudes is a bit baffling however. Already we see the “prophecy” diverging from the Biblical Jesus.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.


These verses could be describing the The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, or the “underdog” hero from just about every action movie.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.


A hero who dies at the end. The “pierced” here could be figurative or literal. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of ways for someone to die as a result of being stabbed. It’s often claimed that the piercing of the side of Jesus is proof that this verse refers to him, but so far the rest of the text isn’t lining up with the life of Christ as described in the Gospels.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.


This is describing a fairly standard Scapegoat as typically inferred from Leviticus 16:8

“And Aaron shall place lots upon the two he goats: one lot "For the Lord," and the other lot, "For Azazel."

There’s nothing particularly unique about someone taking the blame for the problems in society. You can’t go more than a few weeks between stories coming out of Africa about someone being tortured, killed, maimed exiled or some combination of the above for alleged witchcraft or because of some curse. Most the bog people of Ireland are believed to have been ritual sacrifices, scapegoats identical to the ones being described in Isaiah 53.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.


Jesus wasn’t exactly silent during his trial. While the scapegoat in the chapter is submissive, Jesus got in a few zingers on his way to be tortured.

8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.


This chapter has been devoid of any real specifics so far and has been lamenting the fate of a typical, and depressingly common, scapegoat. It’s a surprisingly progressive rant for the time period in which it was probably written. It’s so revolutionary, it would be like trying to advocate women have the right to vote before the ink on the Magna Carta was dry.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,


FINALLY! An actual specific. The scapegoat was buried with wealthy scoundrels. He was buried with the wicked and the rich.

Wait, hold on a second here. No Biblical account depicts Joseph of Arimathea as wicked. Jesus was buried in a new tomb that had been purchased by and for a righteous man. Jesus only fulfills HALF of this verse.

THE ONE AND ONLY SPECIFIC IN THE CHAPTER SO FAR DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS MULTIPLE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS.

though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,


More generic lamenting about the scapegoat.

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];


*blink*
*blink*

he will see his offspring and prolong his days

I’ll just leave that here for all of us to think long and hard about it and contemplate all the times the wife and children of Jesus were mentioned in the Bible.

by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.


The chapter concludes with the scapegoat being triumphant. Since his death is explicitly mentioned earlier in the chapter this requires the death is metaphorical or the scapegoat come back from the dead. This could also refer to an afterlife observation of his descendants.

Skyrider44’s assertion that this chapter contains “Detailed information about Jesus” simply does not hold up to examination. The chapter has very few details, most of which contradict the Gospel narratives. The only parts that line up with the story of Christ are that of a scapegoat who suffers and returns triumphant. Too many of the other specifics however, such as the Scapegoat having children, are either unsupported in the Gospels or contradict them directly.

If Jesus is the Christ, and the Gospels are even vaguely accurate in their description of him, then Isaiah 53 is not a prophecy of the Christ.
 
Girls need female role models if they are to fulfill their biological destiny of becoming wives, homemakers, and mothers. They learn from those female role models how to keep a house, how to cook, how to dress, how to shop for appropriate clothing, and how to carry a fetus for nine months and go through childbirth (and breast feeding) A girl who has a "mother" who is, in fact, a male, is at a distinct disadvantage in learning and mastering these elemental skills. True, men can cook, men can shop, men can keep a house, but they cannot do it with the insight that women can. It is well established that the brains of males and females are wired differently, with females being superior at multi-tasking, precisely the innate ability that homemaking and motherhood requires. Try as you might, you cannot endow a male "mother" with the ability to be a real mother. Does this fact impact society as a whole? Of course it does. "Mothers" who don't know how to be mothers raise young women who are not equipped to do what they are biologically foreordained to do. That is not a promising prospect for society. If you want to claim that this is a matter of small moment, please explain why females are physically and mentally provisioned to accomplish some critically important roles in life while men are not. Accepting your position is the equivalent of claiming that there are no physical/mental differences between men and women.
When you got to the part about how women have some sort of special "insight" for cooking, shopping and housecleaning that men just can't equal, I realized just what a 1950's TV sitcom family fantasy you're living in. So let's have the state investigate the housekeeping standards of prospective heterosexual couples. If a woman wants to get married but she tends to leave laundry in piles for weeks, hasn't vacuumed in a while and has some expired half & half in the back of the 'fridge, then she should be denied a marriage license, whether she wants or is capable of having children. Once she's achieved a level of housekeeping that the state deems suitable to instruct a daughter as to the measure of her self-worth as a woman, then she can get married, but she'll have to submit to periodic surprise visits from social workers to make sure that she's keeping up her end of the contract.

But I guess we can add housekeeping proficiency to the list of double standards that you insist on employing to justify discriminating against homosexuals. Because we all know that you'll scoff at the idea of equally applying such a standard for determining whether heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

And what critically important roles, other than actual gestation and delivery, are men unable to accomplish as parents?






bruto said:
My job is, I believe, much less demanding than yours. If you are to argue that considerations of child welfare make gay marriage inadvisable, you will have to find cogent arguments, and those arguments must include an explanation of how the existing children of homosexual parents, with or without partners, would be harmed by allowing their parents to marry the people they love. That is a very hard argument to make. It has not happened yet. Limited comprehension is not an asset here.
I found your accidental inclusion of bruto's last statement rather ironic.
 
I have no idea what you mean by "introducing an infant to the community" as being restricted. Are you referring to the naming and blessing of the few week old baby? That's done in church during sacrament meeting. Anyone can come and be there. If you mean the baptism of children (age 8), that too is done at church, either in a baptismal font (if the church has one) or in a river, but not in the temple. And older people can have their friends present for their baptisms as well. When I was baptized, both my member and my non-member friends were in attendance. My family couldn't make it cause I lived too far away (I was attending college at the time). :(

I was in error. Thank you for the correction.
 
Blacks and Homosexuals

Okay, time for my take on things. :D I do think that the Church moves with social changes, albeit with caution, preparing members for the change. Janadele talks about eternal law, which is also referred to as "Celestial law" since it is how God governs the Celestial Kingdom. Eternal law and Church doctrine are not always the same thing, which is why we have a Prophet to instruct us on what God wants us to know.

We don't know why Brigham Young took the priesthood away from the blacks, the Church has no official statement; there is a lot of speculation, but no revelation has ever been found. However, even after the passing of Brigham Young, the Church continued the ban on blacks and the Priesthood. While the Civil Rights movement probably had something to do with the reinstatement of the priesthood; the primary thing, at least according to the Church, seems to be the building of the temple in Brazil.

Race and the Priesthood said:
In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.
Three years later, the priesthood was restored to blacks of African descent.

The gay rights movement has been moving in the same sort of direction over the last 5 years, or at least so it appears to many. The Church stands firm that marriage is between a man and a woman, and any sexual intimacy outside of marriage is sinful. However, their attitude toward gays has changed pretty dramatically, since Prop 8 (2008). The following is from the Huffington Post

Huffington Post said:
In 2008, Mormons faced "intense criticism" after church authorities offered vocal support and funding for California's Propositon 8, a ballot measure that called for a ban on gay marriage.
The backlash was swift -- and church leaders say they were "stunned" by the negative response. Since then, the Associated Press writes, the church has been actively reaching out to the LGBT community "to heal tensions."

One change (MormonsandGays.org) that it made was that sexuality is not a choice. "The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."

Another change 2009 is the Church officially endorsed gay rights initiatives in SLC that stopped just short of civil unions or marriage, it exempts local churches (all faiths), and small businesses. But it's still a big move in that it recognizes the rights of those outside the Church.

Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex.

Of course the other place that the Church has changed is that they're putting more pressure (and rightfully so) on the membership to be kind and sensitive toward gays whether they're in our families, our churches, or our world.
mormonsandgays.org said:
But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.

Even BYU has altered its code of conduct to allow gay students to be open about their homosexuality without the fear of expulsion. I sat in tears last night while I watched the video filmed on campus entitled, "It Gets Better." To listen to young people talk about being gay, and that they once thought that their suicide would be easier on their parents than telling them they're gay... that was especially heart-wrenching.

In 2010, the church put out the following statement following the death of several young gays who were bullied throughout the US.

While we disagree with the Human Rights Campaign on many fundamentals, we also share some common ground. This past week we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.
As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down. [my emphasis added]

These may seem like small changes, but they're big coming from the LDS Church. It's hard to get an entity the size of the LDS Church to admit that they've made mistakes, but they've done it in a few areas, and yes, I respect that tremendously.

One last thing that I see that is interesting, on mormonsandgays.org. "From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior. That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change." That really makes it sound like it's possible for God to change the law...

Most all of this is entirely contradictory to the sites that Janadele has been sending in by extreme right wing conservatives about a "gay agenda." The hatred that comes from those sites is not the attitude of the new and improved LDS Church.
 
That's just quote mining.

In Post 1043 Akhenaten asked for documentation showing the number of times Jesus Christ is mentioned in the OT. Subsequently, I identified the number he sought by using a topical guide. How else do you suppose Akhenaten's request could be fulfilled other than by searching for passages in the OT that allude to Jesus Christ? That isn't "quote mining"; it's research.

The Old Testament is rich in imagery and metaphor.

True.

The writer(s) of the Gospel of Matthew pretty much ransacked the Old Testament looking for anything that could be linked to something in the life of Jesus. And they probably threw out way more "prophesies" than they kept.

"Pretty much. . . ."? "Probably threw out. . . ."?

Sources?

I'll bet one could do the same for Kim Jong-un.

Uh-huh.

Also, did you know God is a chicken? For proof, see Psalms 91:4.
He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

Above you state, correctly, that "the OT is rich in imagery and metaphor."
Here, you contradict yourself.
 
...
The gay rights movement has been moving in the same sort of direction over the last 5 years, or at least so it appears to many. The Church stands firm that marriage is between a man and a woman, and any sexual intimacy outside of marriage is sinful. However, their attitude toward gays has changed pretty dramatically, since Prop 8 (2008). The following is from the Huffington Post...

One change (MormonsandGays.org) that it made was that sexuality is not a choice. "The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."

Another change 2009 is the Church officially endorsed gay rights initiatives in SLC that stopped just short of civil unions or marriage, it exempts local churches (all faiths), and small businesses. But it's still a big move in that it recognizes the rights of those outside the Church.

Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex...

One last thing that I see that is interesting, on mormonsandgays.org. "From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior. That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change." That really makes it sound like it's possible for God to change the law...
It sounds to me like the church's own position is going to make it not only possible, but necessary, for the law to change (whether by God or otherwise is up to you guys to decide, I guess). If they concede that sexuality (including gay attraction) is not a sin, and that acting on it is the sin, equivalent to heterosexual acting in "sexual intimacy outside of marriage"- how can they, with any logic, deny to gay people the same ceremony (marriage) that would make their behavior equal to heterosexual intimacy as not sinful within it? It's simply absurd to claim that it's the behavior that's the difference, when it's only the blessing of the behavior by a ceremony withheld from one and not the other that actually seems to count.
 
As a Jew, it interested me to learn where in my own holy books appeared mention of Jesus. The answer is that it is nowhere in the Torah (except for a singe passage in Deuteronomy. For any hope, Skyrider44 has turned to the Prophets. These lesser books are filled with imagery and doomsaying. They do not count as Jewish law.

I haven't suggested that your pejorative "lesser books" count as Jewish law.

"Emmanuel" ("Immanuel" in Hebrew) means "God is with us." Matthew perceived Jesus as God, and that is the sense in which he used the word.

You might consider the following: "Although the precise difference between a 'name' and a 'title' may be open to interpretation, 198 [emphasis added] different names and titles of Jesus in the Bible are listed in Cruden's Concordance, first published in 1737, and continuously in print ever since. The first index of the book. . .is entitled 'A collection of the Names and Titles given to Jesus Christ, with 198 names listed, each accompanied by a biblical reference.'" (Wikipedia, "Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament")

"[a] young woman gives birth to a baby named Immanuel[/url]. Jesus' name was not Immanuel."

The fact is, it was but one of the names by which Jesus was known (see above). Wikipedia states: "Two names and a variety of titles are used to refer to Jesus in the New Testament."


For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne ...​

What does the sentence I have underlined tell you?

Sounds like Isaiah is talking about a government leader.

Government can be used in various senses; i.e., "moral conduct or behavior" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, p. 982.
It appears you have selectively chosen a meaning not supported by the passage you quote.

Jesus never led a government.

Not in the sense that you use the word.

I'm just not seeing it.

Given your background, that's understandable.
 
Not really.
It is helpful, however, as an illustration of circular reasoning.

No, it's a list of scriptural passages from the OT in which Jesus Christ is referenced. It is a list; it has nothing to do with circular reasoning.
Suggestion: Look up circulus in probando in a logic book.

It's hard to believe this isn't a Poe, but on the chance your post represents a sincere belief, all I can ask is whether those views on biological destiny are LDS doctrine?

They aren't just LDS doctrine; they are scientific proof. Are you prepared to say there are no physical and mental differences between males and females, and that those differences do not tend to be pivotal in determining how males and females live their lives? Is that really your position? I'm not interested in the fractional exceptions (such as female astronauts); I'm interested in what constitutes--and overwhelming so--universal truth.

BTW, if "Poe" is supposed to stand for "Point of Embarkation" it should be in all caps. Otherwise, it refers to pearl beads or the two tufts of white on a
poebird (not capitalized). But then, again, maybe it's a slang term, the meaning of which is unknown to me.
 
<snip for focus>

The "messianic 'prophecies' " supposed by xianists to be found inthe old testament are a collection of circular reasoning and pareidolia supported by special pleading and healthy doses of assuming the consequent.

From the disagreement and confusion over whether Jesus' genealogy is rightly figured through Mary (socially unlikely) or Joseph (physically impossible) through such problems as Jesus never being referred to (in contemporary materials) as "wonder-counselor, god-hero, forever-father", or "prince of peace"; the "messianic 'prophecies' " stand on equally historical footing as the legends of "the exodus", the "fludde", "King David" (Goliath and all), or "the Garden of Eden" (or, for instance, claims of horse-husbandry in the pre-Colombian Americas, or Abrahamic autographs in standard Egyptian funerary texts). It dies not help that the editors and redactors of the canonical materials were aware of the "messianic 'prophecies' " when the canonic materials were collected and redacted (at least half a century after Jesus' ministry was said to have happened--Texas Sharpshooter, anyone?).

There are some simple and accessible materials to help you with this--for all of his other shortcomings, Ehrman's treatment of the "messianic 'prophecies' " in Did Jesus Exist? are not a bad place to start.

As for "Poe":
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/poes-law
http://www.skepdic.com/poeslaw.html

-You're welcome.
 
No, it's a list of scriptural passages from the OT in which Jesus Christ is referenced. It is a list; it has nothing to do with circular reasoning.
Suggestion: Look up circulus in probando in a logic book.

They aren't just LDS doctrine; they are scientific proof.
NO! They are not. :eye-poppi

Are you prepared to say there are no physical and mental differences between males and females, and that those differences do not tend to be pivotal in determining how males and females live their lives? Is that really your position? I'm not interested in the fractional exceptions (such as female astronauts); I'm interested in what constitutes--and overwhelming so--universal truth.

Your argument is religion-based, not science-based. What constitutes the scientific view regarding sexual orientation is that it’s a normal variation of natural sexuality.

“…Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding…”.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

The same view is true of virtually every psychological association and related discipline worldwide.

BTW, if "Poe" is supposed to stand for "Point of Embarkation" it should be in all caps. Otherwise, it refers to pearl beads or the two tufts of white on a
poebird (not capitalized). But then, again, maybe it's a slang term, the meaning of which is unknown to me.

Poe’s Law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's Law
 
... I do think that the Church moves with social changes, albeit with caution, preparing members for the change... of the new and improved LDS Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no reason to be "new and improved" nor will it ever change Eternal Law.
Mere mortals do not dictate to God!!! To think "social changes" would influence LDS Doctrine and Teachings is ludicrous, blasphemous and laughable, as is quoting from The Huffington Post as reference to LDS Doctrine and Teachings.

Teaching by influence or example is the most powerful of all teachings. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-matt/5?lang=eng JST, Matthew 5:21. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments,and shall teach men so to do, he shall in no wise be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven; Compare Matthew 5:19
 
Cat Tale on Homosexual thread said:
For those who are curious about the changes in the LDS Church on homosexuality over the last five years, I have posted what I was able to find over on the Mormon thread, here. I'll keep the LDS stuff over there, but just wanted to link from this thread directly to that.
Janadele on homosexual thread said:
There is no negotiation on the gender of our Spirit nor the reason for mortality and the sacred powers of creation. LDS teachings and doctrines on the acts of homosexuality have not changed, nor will they be doing so. Twisting and imagining meanings which are not there is dishonest in the extreme.

Jan, please show me where I said that the Church's stance on the "acts of homosexuality" has changed. I said that the attitude of the Church toward gays has changed. Here's what I actually said:

Cat Tale said:
The Church stands firm that marriage is between a man and a woman, and any sexual intimacy outside of marriage is sinful. However, their attitude toward gays has changed

You said, I'm "twisting and imagining meanings which are not there is dishonest in the extreme." How am I being "dishonest in the extreme?" Are not all the facts correct? Most all the above facts are from LDS sources. The only thing that you could be upset about in the least is the following.

Cat Tale said:
"That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change." That really makes it sound like it's possible for God to change the law...

I don't pretend to know eternal law, our Heavenly Father does not reveal all to us, and I have no idea what he will or will not reveal. If saying that it sounds like it's possible that God can change something is wrong, then guilty as charged. :) Even Skyrider, when push came to shove admitted that "eventually the Church could change its position." And you came back and agreed. So which is it? I posted the whole series of posts here a while back.

Now, I'd still like an answer to my question from the homosexual thread on why you trust anti-Mormon sites to be honest about the 'gay agenda.' If they're wrong about the LDS Church, how can you trust them to be right about the gay agenda?

I know, you don't consider the sites anti-Mormon because that's not their only focus in life. Hey, a lie is a lie no matter whether it's a person's sole purpose or not.
 
I see. The LDS church draws a distinction between worship and rituals that Christians do not, necessitating separate holy places.

Unfortunately, you don't "see." Worship and rituals take place in LDS meeting houses and in temples. If you're going to nit-pick at the LDS Church, it might be a good idea to learn something about it.

It reminds me of some if the Neo-Pagans and Druidic Pagans I know. While they don't typically separate ritual places, they do limit some ritual attendance based upon similar criteria. For example, You and I couldn't walk into a proper Beltane ceremony to witness what happens on the standing stones.

That is their policy. Rather than criticize it, you should be respectful of it. I'm sure you don't reject the following principle, as expressed in the LDS Church's 11th Article of Faith: "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.

It's odd though that such community centered rituals, likes marriage. . .

It isn't accurate to say that LDS marriage is "community centered" without adding a proviso. LDS marriage in the temple is also--and most importantly--
eternity centered. Worthy LDS couples marry in the temple not "til death do [you] part" but for eternity. Again, you are woefully under informed about the LDS Church.

. . . and introducing an infant to the community. . . .

The first Sunday of each month is known as "fast Sunday." Faithful LDS fast for two meals and give the money they would have spent on food to the Church to help the poor. On such Sundays newborns are brought forward by their fathers in a meeting house, together with other family members, and given a name and a blessing. So your statement that infants are not introduced to the community (a typical LDS ward consists of about 500 members) is flat-out wrong.

It highlights a rather sick need for isolating outsiders.

It does no such thing. Anyone, whether or not he/she is a member of the congregation (ward), is free to attend LDS meetings. (Why do I get the feeling that some folks display symptoms of a persecution complex?)

The choices about what ceremonies are restricted in the LDS appears to be more about deliberately excluding Gentiles than anything "Holy" in the ceremony itself.

See my last sentence, above.

Keeping Gentiles out of Mormon weddings does make a bit more sense than the baptisms though.

Is it your misconception that non-LDS cannot attend baptisms?

We have to remember that these distinctions evolved during a time when Mormons were openly practicing polygamy. Excluding outsiders meant fewer people knew about a specific act of bigamy.

If they were "openly" practicing it, why the need for secrecy?

The legacy of being subjected persecution influenced the odd practice of excluding people from community ceremonies. The alleged holiness of the ceremonies is just a post hoc rationalization.

Your statement is based on a near-total misunderstanding of the polices and practices of the LDS Church.

"BTW, if you went to the Vatican, do you think you would be free to enter any building/room of your choosing?" A simple answer will suffice. (A simple answer wasn't given.)
 
When you got to the part about how women have some sort of special "insight" for cooking, shopping and housecleaning that men just can't equal, I realized just what a 1950's TV sitcom family fantasy you're living in. So let's have the state investigate the housekeeping standards of prospective heterosexual couples. If a woman wants to get married but she tends to leave laundry in piles for weeks, hasn't vacuumed in a while and has some expired half & half in the back of the 'fridge, then she should be denied a marriage license, whether she wants or is capable of having children. Once she's achieved a level of housekeeping that the state deems suitable to instruct a daughter as to the measure of her self-worth as a woman, then she can get married, but she'll have to submit to periodic surprise visits from social workers to make sure that she's keeping up her end of the contract.

But I guess we can add housekeeping proficiency to the list of double standards that you insist on employing to justify discriminating against homosexuals. Because we all know that you'll scoff at the idea of equally applying such a standard for determining whether heterosexual couples are allowed to marry.

And what critically important roles, other than actual gestation and delivery, are men unable to accomplish as parents?

That should be self-evident to you.

None of the foregoing changes by one iota the fact that men and women are mentally and physically different, and they are biologically provisioned to perform discrete roles in life. Do you realize you're trying to argue against a fundamental, universal fact of life? As Bill Clinton liked to say, "That dog won't hunt."

I found your accidental inclusion of bruto's last statement rather ironic.

Rather charitable of me, wasn't it?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom