LDS II: The Mormons

[joobz]

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.

If it is scientific proof, than you should have no problem showing the data that women are biologically predestined to be better at doing laundry than men. the fact that men and women are different isn't being challenged. What is being challenged is your notion that these differences support the 1950s stereotype you advocate.

I noticed you avoided Foster's argument regarding the logical conclusion of your argument.

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.

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 references the internet's Poe's Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

it's the observation that it is sometimes challenging to tell the difference between posts made in earnest belief and posts that are meant to be jokes.

It is hard to tell if your posts are being serious as the arguments you have made in regards to gender roles are comically bad.

 

[halleyscomet]

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

It's not a pejorative. It's not an insult. It's a legitimate variation on the terminology used by ACTUAL JEWS to refer to the "lesser" or "minor" prophets. My wife is Jewish. I've attended synagog with her. I've personally heard both words used by a Rabbi in reference to the 12 minor prophets.

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."

You write that as if it matters. It does not. The fact that Matthew took the passage and assigned the two titles to the "Jesus" he wrote about does not magically transmute the original passage into prophesy. The fact that someone came along later and announced "Well, THAT was about MY guy!" does no more to legitimize the claim than the next random schmuck who insists he or she knows what Nostradamus was REALLY writing about.

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.

A secular society needs to agree upon the morality to be enforced. You cannot use the religious dogma of one faith to override a secular society where more than 50% of the population wants gay marriage to be legal. When you let religion dictate the law and override the morals of the populace, you have a nasty situation where any religious group can enforce their will once they gain a dominant voting position. That sounds good to Mormons now, because it means oppressing gays. It won't sound so good when the WASPS take a look at the pagans masquerading as Christians and decide, "You know, these pesky Mormons really need to be shut down. It's just not MORAL to let them pervert the Bible drag souls to hell."

Face the facts. A secular society is to your advantage, because in a theocratic one, Mormons are going to be seen as even worse than homosexuals. Homosexuals are just committing a sin, engaging in perversion. Mormons are claiming there is no Hell and you can be a god on your own planet. They even have a whole bunch of fiction writing they claim is holy scripture. A sin endangers your soul, rejection of the true Christ to follow a fake one drags it to Hell.

The gallows you use to hang the gays will one day be used to make you dance in the air. Winning this battle now will seal your own doom down the road, and don't think for a minute you'll be able to stop it. Remember, gays outnumber Mormons in the USA. If they don't have the numbers to win this battle, you certainly won't.

Oh, wait, you're Australian. You're an even smaller minority there.

 

[pakeha]

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.

Thanks for the suggestion, skyrider44.
I see your point and I think Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fits the bill here.
Imagining the OT contains references to Jesus is an example of retro-fitting an older text to a later one, of course.

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.

LDS doctrine? Really?
Could you post up the chapter and verse on that, please?

I daresay you meant proven, rather than proof. Which is absurd, of course.

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.

Try the JREF search function; it's simple to use, so you shouldn't have any problems with it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is no mention of Jesus in the Tanakh. There's a bunch of a posteriori claims in the New Testament that Jesus was prophesied in Jewish scriptures, but, like all prophesied events, it's a case of hammer to fit and paint to match.

 

[turingtest]

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. 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.

"Poe." Make of that what you will; I think Pakeha's point was pretty clear.

 

[Craig4]

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.

Is there anything you wouldn't do if the President of The LDS Church told you to do it? If you president came put and said, "God has directed that all LDS members must put puppies in microwaves" would you do it?

 

[skyrider44]

It's not a pejorative. It's not an insult. It's a legitimate variation on the terminology used by ACTUAL JEWS to refer to the "lesser" or "minor" prophets. My wife is Jewish. I've attended synagog with her. I've personally heard both words used by a Rabbi in reference to the 12 minor prophets.

You're welcome to believe what your rabbi says. Perhaps you should accord the same courtesy to LDS who believe what their Prophet says.

You write that as if it matters.

It mattered to the poster who asked the question. I suggest you take up the issue with him. He asked for a list, and I gave him one.

A secular society needs to agree upon the morality to be enforced. You cannot use the religious dogma of one faith to override a secular society where more than 50% of the population wants gay marriage to be legal.

What you say is true if one accepts your characterization of U. S. citizenry as a "secular society." Note, however, how a fraction of that citizenry wants to override the wishes of those who vastly outnumber them.

When you let religion dictate the law and override the morals of the populace, you have a nasty situation where any religious group can enforce their will once they gain a dominant voting position. That sounds good to Mormons now, because it means oppressing gays. It won't sound so good when the WASPS take a look at the pagans masquerading as Christians and decide, "You know, these pesky Mormons really need to be shut down. It's just not MORAL to let them pervert the Bible drag souls to hell."

You do quite well here--rational, actually--until you get to "It won't sound so good. . . ."

Face the facts. A secular society is to your advantage, because in a theocratic one, Mormons are going to be seen as even worse than homosexuals.

Do you seriously believe Mormons could establish a theocratic state? Hilarious.

Homosexuals are just committing a sin, engaging in perversion.

You are speaking rhetorically, I assume.

Mormons are claiming there is no Hell and you can be a god on your own planet. They even have a whole bunch of fiction writing they claim is holy scripture. A sin endangers your soul, rejection of the true Christ to follow a fake one drags it to Hell.

Why don't you say what you really feel?

The gallows you use to hang the gays will one day be used to make you dance in the air. Winning this battle now will seal your own doom down the road, and don't think for a minute you'll be able to stop it. Remember, gays outnumber Mormons in the USA. If they don't have the numbers to win this battle, you certainly won't.

I'm trying to make sense of the above, but have decided it isn't worth the effort.

Oh, wait, you're Australian. You're an even smaller minority there.

I am not Australian.

 

[Cat Tale]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no reason to be "new and improved" nor will it ever change Eternal Law.

Well, you need to decide which it is, you've flipped on this a few times.

Mormons believe, according to their Articles of Faith, that God has not revealed all that will be revealed. That means that eventually the Church could change its position.

Take that one up with Janadele. It is her contention that this can never happen.

Not so. I have never made such a contention. There is much yet to be revealed.

Sounds almost exactly like what I said.

Mere mortals do not dictate to God!!! To think "social changes" would influence LDS Doctrine and Teachings is ludicrous, blasphemous and laughable.

First, no one ever said that mortals "dictate to God," instead they cry out unto Him and He hears their prayers. Why does it seem so incredible for you to believe that when large social movements occur more and more people are begging for rights, and the Lord hears their prayers and in many cases His heart is softened.

The quote about blacks and the Priesthood was actually from lds.org. The Church makes no bones about it, it was due to the Saints crying out unto the Lord, and the Lord softened His heart. The Church is very clear on the social pressures that lead to the restoration of the Priesthood to the blacks, on the stated site.

...ludicrous, blasphemous and laughable, as is quoting from The Huffington Post as reference to LDS Doctrine and Teachings.

What did I say from the Huffington Post that you find ludicrous, blasphemous, and laughable? Please be specific, I thought what I quoted was pretty positive about the Church. Apparently you disagree? Here's my original post, #1070

 

[SezMe]

Looking for evidence of Mormonism. It probably won't happen but it sure would be fun.

 

[skyrider44]

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.

How did you reach the fanciful conclusion that I have said they have to be "wives, homemakers, and mothers"? Is a strawman under construction?

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

That isn't the point. Females are programmed to fill certain roles; centuries of history make that clear. It's as if you and your acolytes think you can reconstruct female biology--sort of like changing the earth's orbit.

There is nothing special about same gender marriage.

Really? Then why are you so breathlessly committed to it?

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

Can you make that a little clearer?

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.

Good for her. Is she a lumberjack?

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!)

LDS consider the body as a temple; consequently, members typically abide by a dress code. It's a fact that people tend to behave in compliance with their dress and grooming.

LDS women are also free to choose whatever career is most attractive to them. Nevertheless, most will end up doing what they are biologically foreordained to do--to be mothers and homemakers. Years ago (during the bra-burning era) women rushed into jobs outside the home, assuming they would find real happiness there. Many quickly discovered that true happiness existed in being mothers and homemakers.

I notice that 'boys' are missing from that list. At least I know you're a little chauvinistic...

I thought it obvious that my argument is readily transferable, in reverse, to boys.

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

Your "clarification" does not differ from my observation. What, exactly, are you saying I got wrong?

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.

I wasn't criticizing, just observing. Children most demonstrably do NOT belong at some Beltane rituals. You seem to be laboring under the impression that everything I write is an attack. It is not. I am merely trying to learn about your particular branch of paganism. You're an usually repressed lot for pagans and I find the phenomenon fascinating.

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.

Are there receptions at Mormon weddings that non-Mormons can attend?

If you do not make provisions for allowing non-Mormons to participate in some capacity then you are still using what other cultures have treated as a moment of inclusion as a means of exclusion.

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.

Thank you for the correction. That was enlightening. Is there a particular symbolism for baptizing on fast Sundays?

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?)

You're just projecting.

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

I was, but Cat already corrected me.

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

I'm not going to give you a history lesson about your own religion, or the mechanics of practicing polygamy in the territories that would eventually become the state of Utah. I'll leave that to the fine gentlemen at Irreligiosophy. This episode is as good a starting point as any:

Mormon Fundamentalism, Part I

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

No, I just expressed an outsider's view of things you clearly aren't very comfortable with yourself.

"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.)

I did give you a straight answer. I'd be allowed in any place of worship that wasn't restricted for safety, historical preservation or private ownership reasons. You seem fixated on your wording of "any building/room of your choosing" but that's not what we were discussing. We're not talking about administrative buildings, the accounting office, the pastor's office or basement storage, but the places of worship. Dance all around it you want, but the simple fact of the matter is LDS Mormons put restrictions on specific ceremonies that Christians don't.

 

[halleyscomet]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no reason to be "new and improved" nor will it ever change Eternal Law.

Ah, but there's the catch. You don't know what is "eternal" law and what is church policy that a future revelation will overturn. Banning blacks from the priesthood was once considered "Eternal Law," but that has been revealed to have been just a policy God was planning to change.

You are claiming to know eternal law with the authority of a prophet, yet you are not a prophet. You cannot claim to know what is eternal law and what is merely a policy. Making such a claim is to claim to be a prophet.

Are you a prophet Janadele?

 

[halleyscomet]

You're welcome to believe what your rabbi says. Perhaps you should accord the same courtesy to LDS who believe what their Prophet says.

Did you even read my reply?

My point was that the term "lesser" was not a pejorative. I wasn't trying to argue if the lesser / minor prophets were law. I was pointing out that you were in error to consider it a pejorative term. You don't get to tell actual Jews and Christians what is and is not a pejorative term for the holy books they themselves use. This isn't about religious value, but a technical term that was in use before John Smith was even born.

What you say is true if one accepts your characterization of U. S. citizenry as a "secular society." Note, however, how a fraction of that citizenry wants to override the wishes of those who vastly outnumber them.

That's a refreshingly honest assessment of the recent behavior of the LDS church in working to suppress the rights of homosexuals. Thank you.

You do quite well here--rational, actually--until you get to "It won't sound so good. . . ."

As for the "Extermination of the Mormons" scenario I described, I was just taking some dramatic license in trying to explain that the Mormons siding with the anti-gay movement are being incredibly short sighted. It would be a bit like a Jew siding with the NAZIs on the Night of the Long Knives, because most the murder victims were gay NAZIs. Both the theoretical Jew in my example and the Mormon today have a massive body of literature from the NAZIs / homophobes that very clearly points out what they really think about Jews / Mormons.

You are siding with a bitter enemy who seeks your eradication. Once you cease to be of value to that enemy, you will be a target. Mormons will fare best if they lose the gay rights battle to the homosexuals. If you side with your enemy on the Knight of the Long Knives, you will eventually face your own Kristallnacht.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That should be self-evident to you.

No, it isn't. What critically important roles, other than actual gestation and delivery, are men unable to accomplish as parents?

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.

Please show scientific evidence that women are biologically provisioned to cook, clean and shop in ways that men are unable to do.

 

[Shalamar]

How did you reach the fanciful conclusion that I have said they have to be "wives, homemakers, and mothers"? Is a strawman under construction?

I dunno. That whole 'biologicial destiny' nonsense.

That isn't the point. Females are programmed to fill certain roles; centuries of history make that clear. It's as if you and your acolytes think you can reconstruct female biology--sort of like changing the earth's orbit.

Citation Needed (On females are programmed). Women give birth. They lactate. That's their 'Biological imperative' Nothing about cleaning, or being homemakers, or cooking, or being good little wives. That's a fantasy given out by chauvinists.

Really? Then why are you so breathlessly committed to it?

Ahh.. Strawman.

I support homosexual marriage.. Because there is nothing special about it. It's You, and your fellow cultists that are clutching pearls, actively trying to force your cult on others.

Can you make that a little clearer?

It's Bullcrap. Nonsense.

Good for her. Is she a lumberjack?

Nope. But nothing it stopping her.

LDS consider the body as a temple; consequently, members typically abide by a dress code. It's a fact that people tend to behave in compliance with their dress and grooming.

Like women being forced to wear dresses.

LDS women are also free to choose whatever career is most attractive to them.

Citation needed. LDS women are STRONGLY encouraged to be good little homemakers, and wives.

[/quote] Nevertheless, most will end up doing what they are biologically foreordained to do--to be mothers and homemakers. Years ago (during the bra-burning era) women rushed into jobs outside the home, assuming they would find real happiness there. Many quickly discovered that true happiness existed in being mothers and homemakers.[/quote]

Bullcrap. Complete idiocy. No one is predestined to be anything. If a woman does not WANT to be a mother, no one can force her. If she finds a job fulfilling,and happy. Great.

Along the same lines that men can also stay at home, cook, clean, and the like. There is no biological imperative, other than what society tries to force on people.

Women can give birth, men cannot. 'Traditional' roles beyond that are pointless. This isn't the 19th century, or the 1950's.

I thought it obvious that my argument is readily transferable, in reverse, to boys.

And yet you never mentioned what boys are 'programmed' to do.
DO tell. It'll be good for a laugh.

 

[pakeha]

...LDS women are also free to choose whatever career is most attractive to them. Nevertheless, most will end up doing what they are biologically foreordained to do--to be mothers and homemakers. Years ago (during the bra-burning era) women rushed into jobs outside the home, assuming they would find real happiness there. Many quickly discovered that true happiness existed in being mothers and homemakers. ...

I'm looking forward to the post of yours where you cite chapter and verse for this being LDS doctrine.

 

[Janadele]

I'm trying to make sense of the above, but have decided it isn't worth the effort.

Understandably so.

 

[joobz]

The gallows you use to hang the gays will one day be used to make you dance in the air. Winning this battle now will seal your own doom down the road, and don't think for a minute you'll be able to stop it. Remember, gays outnumber Mormons in the USA. If they don't have the numbers to win this battle, you certainly won't.

I'm trying to make sense of the above, but have decided it isn't worth the effort.

Understandably so.

It is actually a very easy statement to understand and one that would be well worth your effort.
What was said (and quite clearly) is that by using religious arguments to deny gays rights, you give our government a right to use religion as a justification for any law. Since Mormons are a minority in our country, Mormons can easily become a suppressed group.

Your hatred of others blinds you to this undeniable truth.
It is why our founding fathers created a government that was secular and not religious.
It protects us from religious tyrants.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . It is hard to tell if your posts are being serious as the arguments you have made in regards to gender roles are comically bad.

Note the following:

". . .three researchers put forth a study that was published on Wednesday (8 Jan.) on the Public Library of Science website saying they've found that men and women feel and behave in markedly different ways. 'They're almost like different species,' Paul Irwing, one of the researchers, told the Huffington Post." (HUFF POST, "Men and Women's Differences Extend to Personality,"
Claire Gordon, posted 01/9/2012)

The research also involved Marco Del Giudice (University of Turin) and Tom Booth (University of Manchester). The methodology consisted of having 10,000 Americans take a questionnaire designed to measure 15 discrete personality traits. The researchers then analyzed the responses to the questionnaire. Results: "Men are far more dominant, reserved, utilitarian, vigilant, rule-conscious, and emotionally stable, while women are far more deferential, warm, trusting, sensitive, and emotionally 'reactive'" [emphasis added]. Said Paul Irwing, "If you translate it into the simplest terms, only 18% of men and women match in terms of personality profiles, and that's staggeringly different from the consensus view" [emphasis added]. The article quotes Del Giudice thus: "In past studies. . .researchers would simply add up all the survey responses. This led to imperfect results because of careless responses and misreadings." Del Giudice says that by means of a sophisticated method ("structure equation modeling"), they were able to remove this random error. Del Giudice adds that past research compared one variable at a time. He notes that "this method led to underestimations of the sex differences." How so? "If you were to examine the differences between men and women's body types using the traditional method, you would look at torso circumference and waist-hip ratios, one by one." Del Giudice says that in his method, all the figures are crunched into one much larger number, which is what he did with personality.

The study has its critics, of course, to which Irwing responds: "I think distorting science because of what you would like to believe, or because of what you think the political consequences are, is very dangerous" [emphasis added] .

 

[Cat Tale]

Like women being forced to wear dresses.

See my post 453 There has never been a dress code in the Church, and I give examples from my own ward. Individual members may attempt to bully people into doing what they believe is LDS teachings, but it is merely that, individual members bullying.