LDS

[Slowvehicle]

pakeha the link you refer to in your post 8531 is not an LDS site. The "mormon handbook" refered to is not from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many links Rand Fan has given in this thread have been to anti-Mormon sites, cleverly disguised so that the unwary could easily be unaware of their dubious motives and who is behind them.

Any genuine enquirer should seek their information from official LDS sites, and their affiliates such as Fair.

The question in your mind should not be, "Is it possible to pretend to dismiss the site as anti-mormon?", but, "Is the information correct?"

 

[bruto]

bruto, Slowvehicle and others... once again you falsely attribute to me that which I have not said.

Perhaps, but your utterances in the thread on Shakespeare and his sonnets left some questions, and others added inferences from other sites that cast further doubt on your position. Clarification would be extremely simple. Can you not answer simply?

 

[Pacal]

It appears to have been in a PM, and to MikeG's credit, he wouldn't reveal the contents. But you can read the relevant post here. Here is where she makes the original claim about much of Shakespeare's writing actually being that of Elizabeth I. She's re-written the sonnet into a series of couplets and says that's the way the author wanted it.

The argument that Elizabeth I wrote the plays and Sonnets attributed, (Correctly), to Shakespeare has been around for a least a century. It is my understanding that it started as joke making fun of the Baconians who hallucinated that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare. It is my understanding that Bernard Shaw had particular fun with this piece of nonsense.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So Janadele, in plain simple terms, what's your scriptural basis for condemning homosexuality?

 

[Craig4]

pakeha the link you refer to in your post 8531 is not an LDS site. The "mormon handbook" refered to is not from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many links Rand Fan has given in this thread have been to anti-Mormon sites, cleverly disguised so that the unwary could easily be unaware of their dubious motives and who is behind them.

Any genuine enquirer should seek their information from official LDS sites, and their affiliates such as Fair.

But official Mormon sites contain incorrect information.

 

[skyrider44]

Which is why we support proven and effective birth control, morning after pill, abortion pill and abortion. You cannot legislate behavior.

BTW: Some married consenting adults (actually many) who are also poor get pregnant and live on welfare. Some married couples neglect and abuse their children and they become wards of the state and some grow up to be criminals.

SV is on record as declaring that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. That statement breaks new ground in absurdity. Surely you don't believe the examples you cite above, by themselves, account for the following:

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly 900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008." (Peter Ferrara, Forbes, "America's Ever-Expanding Welfare Empire," Apr. 22, 2011)

SV is flat-out wrong. What some consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes affects all of society, including the taxes we pay. Why is it, I wonder, that some liberals refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, thus earning the sobriquet "free riders."

: Oh, and there are people who don't practice any birth control and have huge families, often they are not able to support them. Some of us think they should not have such big families, should we legislate family size or do you think we should let consenting adults make decisions for themselves?

Thank you for proving my point by noting that some consenting adults have big families they are unable to support, which places a burden on society. I thought you were arguing in support of SV's position; i.e.,that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. It turns out, by your own admission, that what those consenting adults do does have an effect on society. Use of the shifting ground fallacy can come back and bite you.

 

[Shalamar]

SV is on record as declaring that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. That statement breaks new ground in absurdity. Surely you don't believe the examples you cite above, by themselves, account for the following:

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly 900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008." (Peter Ferrara, Forbes, "America's Ever-Expanding Welfare Empire," Apr. 22, 2011)

SV is flat-out wrong. What some consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes affects all of society, including the taxes we pay. Why is it, I wonder, that some liberals refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, thus earning the sobriquet "free riders."



Thank you for proving my point by noting that some consenting adults have big families they are unable to support, which places a burden on society. I thought you were arguing in support of SV's position; i.e.,that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. It turns out, by your own admission, that what those consenting adults do does have an effect on society. Use of the shifting ground fallacy can come back and bite you.

That's Nice. How does that apply to Homosexual couples? How do they effect you? How does Two men, or two women, in the privacy of their own homes, having sex, affect you? How does it affect you if they get married?

On a related note, if I join the LDS church, does that mean I have to hate homosexual couples, and work to deny them rights?

 

[bruto]

SV is on record as declaring that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. That statement breaks new ground in absurdity. Surely you don't believe the examples you cite above, by themselves, account for the following:

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly 900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008." (Peter Ferrara, Forbes, "America's Ever-Expanding Welfare Empire," Apr. 22, 2011)

SV is flat-out wrong. What some consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes affects all of society, including the taxes we pay. Why is it, I wonder, that some liberals refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, thus earning the sobriquet "free riders."



Thank you for proving my point by noting that some consenting adults have big families they are unable to support, which places a burden on society. I thought you were arguing in support of SV's position; i.e.,that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. It turns out, by your own admission, that what those consenting adults do does have an effect on society. Use of the shifting ground fallacy can come back and bite you.

It continues to amaze me that you would use deadbeat heterosexual parents trying to escape the obligations of matrimony as an argument against homosexual parents trying to participate in them. The contention that careless breeding has public effects is used as an argument against a class of people who, if they breed at all, generally do so only by choice, and with considerable care. How bizarre is that?

Aside from this, however, I think you confuse one thing with another. While it may be true that failure to support children is a public matter, it is only post facto that this social event relates to sex in the home.

Everything has a cause. The fact that a public event can be traced back to a private one does not make the private event a public one.

 

[Slowvehicle]

SV is on record as declaring that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. That statement breaks new ground in absurdity. Surely you don't believe the examples you cite above, by themselves, account for the following:

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly 900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008." (Peter Ferrara, Forbes, "America's Ever-Expanding Welfare Empire," Apr. 22, 2011)

SV is flat-out wrong. What some consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes affects all of society, including the taxes we pay. Why is it, I wonder, that some liberals refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, thus earning the sobriquet "free riders."

"sr"--you missed high school biology, din'cha?

If you beleive what you say, why is the CJCLDS not the world leader in promoting realistic sex education, including accessible birth control, and accessible pre-natal care?

And, despite your joy at feeling as if you have something else to mock me for. please, I suggest to you, even implore you, read what I said, what I actually said: How can what happens among consenting adults in my demesne affect you [in the case of the repeated question by context, Jan Adele, but by extension, anyone who makes the ...odd...claim that another's concept can affect their concept...of anything) at all?

Do you think that your tale of teenage irresponsibility applies to me and mine?

What has the CJCLDS done to honestly and realistically educate teenagers?

Thank you for proving my point by noting that some consenting adults have big families they are unable to support, which places a burden on society.

How many of these families are mormon? What does the CJCLDS do to promote reasonable, sustainable, family planning? How does "abstinence only" sex ed work in mormon communities? Does being a mormon confer immunity against unexpected, unwanted pregnancy? (suggestion: read this thread again, before you answer)

I thought you were arguing in support of SV's position; i.e.,that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. It turns out, by your own admission, that what those consenting adults do does have an effect on society. Use of the shifting ground fallacy can come back and bite you.

Well, you might have a point, if (for instance) you were not mistaken (lying?) about "SV's position"...might you consider actually reading?

You keep moving the goalposts, but it does you no credit.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It continues to amaze me that you would use deadbeat heterosexual parents trying to escape the obligations of matrimony as an argument against homosexual parents trying to participate in them. The contention that careless breeding has public effects is used as an argument against a class of people who, if they breed at all, generally do so only by choice, and with considerable care. How bizarre is that?

Aside from this, however, I think you confuse one thing with another. While it may be true that failure to support children is a public matter, it is only post facto that this social event relates to sex in the home.

Everything has a cause. The fact that a public event can be traced back to a private one does not make the private event a public one.

:

 

[deaman]

Skyrider -

You seem to have a very desparate need to be "right", about something....anything.

When will you address the descrepecies in the Book of Mormon?

 

[Janadele]

So Janadele, in plain simple terms, what's your scriptural basis for condemning homosexuality?

There are many Scriptural references one could cite Frozenwolf, from our pre existence to Adam to today... but one must receive ones own understanding of the Eternal Plan of Salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit, by Scripture study, and from the words of the Prophets, Seers and Revelators, who are The Twelve Apostles and The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From October 2013 Conference, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, in plain simple terms, confirms:
"the marriage of a man and a woman is necessary for the accomplishment of God’s plan. Only this marriage will provide the approved setting for mortal birth and to prepare family members for eternal life... we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it... There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness...Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable."
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

 

[Slowvehicle]

There are many Scriptural references one could cite Frozenwolf, from our pre existence to Adam to today... but one must receive ones own understanding of the Eternal Plan of Salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit, by Scripture study, and from the words of the Prophets, Seers and Revelators, who are The Twelve Apostles and The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From October 2013 Conference, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, in plain simple terms, confirms:
"the marriage of a man and a woman is necessary for the accomplishment of God’s plan. Only this marriage will provide the approved setting for mortal birth and to prepare family members for eternal life... we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it... There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness...Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable."
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

Lovely. Simply lovely.

Now about this 'god' of yours--any evidence at al?

"How much is that piggy in the poke?"

 

[Shalamar]

There are many Scriptural references one could cite Frozenwolf, from our pre existence to Adam to today... but one must receive ones own understanding of the Eternal Plan of Salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit, by Scripture study, and from the words of the Prophets, Seers and Revelators, who are The Twelve Apostles and The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From October 2013 Conference, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, in plain simple terms, confirms:
"the marriage of a man and a woman is necessary for the accomplishment of God’s plan. Only this marriage will provide the approved setting for mortal birth and to prepare family members for eternal life... we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it... There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness...Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable."
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng

That's Ok, Janadele. God gave me a Revelation that everyone should treat everyone else with love, and respect. Including the homosexuals, who, incidentally, The Lord^tm said that it's ok for them to be married.

You can stop the raw hate now.

 

[Kopji]

And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable...

Like racial equality in priesthood office for instance. And that polygamy thingy, wherever that went to. And why are women allowed on missions but can't be in the priesthood?

What is it about being a man that is so inherently holy?
Just curious because it seems like God has these built in inequalities that are modified later as society changes.

 

[fromdownunder]

There are many Scriptural references one could cite Frozenwolf, from our pre existence to Adam to today...

But you will even quote one. That tells me a lot.

Norm

 

[deaman]

In order for there to be a "God's Plan, there would have to a "A God". Have you any evidence for this being?

If God's plan was for happiness, why isn't everybody happy? He sure seems to have missed the mark.

Who created gay people? God?

There is no God, so how can there be a "divine command"? What you have here is "men", telling you what to do, how to act, what to think. "Men", telling you what is right and what is wrong. Men, telling you to give them 10% of your money and not to question them at any time.

You have fallen for a swindle.

Unfortuneately, they believe in a non-existent being. That's not so good, right from the get go.

Does it ever occur to you, why a God who has a plan for happiness, is worried about what people do with their sexual organs, rather than people who are starving, or who have no clothes, or shelter? This God seems really strange.

Why does he "need" so much groveling?

It's really a good thing he doesn't exist. People have believed in imaginary beings for thousands and thousands of years, but, of course, none of those gods existed, and neither does yours.

Mankind is waking up from such myths.

People who believe in gods, need to wake up to "reality".

Lastly, if God is "unchangeable", why do the Mormons keep changing things, and why are there so many massive discrepencies between your scriptures, and reality?

Wake up. You are asleep.

 

[RandFan]

SV is on record as declaring that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes has no effect on anyone else. That statement breaks new ground in absurdity. Surely you don't believe the examples you cite above, by themselves, account for the following:

You cannot legislate behavior. Gays and lesbians are not going to get each other pregnant.

SV is flat-out wrong. What some consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes affects all of society, including the taxes we pay. Why is it, I wonder, that some liberals refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, thus earning the sobriquet "free riders."

Red States Feed at the Federal Trough, While Blue States Supply the Feed

Teen Pregnancy Is Higher in Red States Than in Blue States

Thank you for proving my point by noting that some consenting adults have big families they are unable to support....

Gays and lesbians don't. So, where does your argument lead? Let's grant your premise for discussion sake, so what?

How about we let people make decisions about their personal lives and get the government out of our lives?

 

[fromdownunder]

"The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly 900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008." (Peter Ferrara, Forbes, "America's Ever-Expanding Welfare Empire," Apr. 22, 2011)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that gays having sex is responsible for the increase in Government welfare handouts? Citation emphatically needed here, with the % figures of gays who have had kids and are wallowing in the welfare trough, compared to people who had kids by normal means.

For some stupid reason, I suspect that heterosexual couples (married or not) would be somewhat more responsible for any increase in child welfare payments than gays, or even - here is an idea - that gays adopt kids who are not wanted by their natural parents in the first place.

Does your quaint idea that same sex couples can produce children come from the BoM?

Norm

 

[RandFan]

It continues to amaze me that you would use deadbeat heterosexual parents trying to escape the obligations of matrimony as an argument against homosexual parents trying to participate in them.

EXACTLY!