LDS

[skyrider44]

...do you, personally, admit that the "rules" invented to apply to "members" of your sect should not be applied to me, or mine, or anyone else who chooses not to be subject to the authority of your sect?

Of course.

Why, then, the opposition to marriage equality?

Because "marriage equality," as you euphemistically label it, strikes at a basic tenet of LDS doctrine. Churches are obligated to speak out on moral issues (though I don't know about sects). The Catholic Church, for example, hasn't been shy about its opposition to abortion.

While the Church is opposed to same-sex marriage, it obviously has no enforcement power. Moreover, a majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. So why are you so exercised about the issue? Just looking for something to pick at?

Some on this forum assume that the LDS Church, all by itself, won the CA gay marriage "debate." Please note that other organizations actively supported that initiative.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Did that make you feel better? Did it mask, in your mind, your complete inability to explain away the blatant evidence of Joseph Smith's fraud regarding the Book Of Mormon and the Book Of Abraham? Does it help you to deny the lie?

Really hung up on that, aren't you? Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some on this forum assume that the LDS Church, all by itself, defeated the CA gay marriage initiative. Please note that other organizations actively opposed that initiative.

No one has said that. The fact that other groups were just as vehement about denying rights to homosexual couples does not absolve the LDS of its involvement. If anyone starts a similar thread titled 'RCC' and brings up Catholic sponsored opposition to gay rights, we can discuss Catholic participation in the Prop 8 campaign.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Really hung up on that, aren't you? Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

I don't need to assume, I can see it right before my very eyes. I can see that the Book Of Mormon makes claims that are plainly contradicted by multiple scientific fields. I can read the translations of the Egyptian funerary texts that supposedly contained the Book Of Abraham.

Joseph Smith was a liar, and I don't need to ask how that makes you feel. It is obvious.

 

[kellyb]

Because "marriage equality," as you euphemistically label it, strikes at a basic tenet of LDS doctrine. Churches are obligated to speak out on moral issues (though I don't know about sects). The Catholic Church, for example, hasn't been shy about its opposition to abortion.

.

The Catholics believe they're actually saving lives with their anti-choice activism. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're trying to just start a theocracy there.

What's your excuse with the anti-gay activism? Who do you think you're helping?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Of course.

Because "marriage equality," as you euphemistically label it, strikes at a basic tenet of LDS doctrine. Churches are obligated to speak out on moral issues (though I don't know about sects). The Catholic Church, for example, hasn't been shy about its opposition to abortion.

It is possible that you do not know what "euphemistically" means, if you can use it this way.

I use the term marriage "equality" to mean just that--the strictures against civil marriage should be narrowly crafted to prevent specific problems. Citizens, of their majority, able to consent, should be free to marry. If your sect chooses to forbid its members certain kinds of marriage rights, so mote it be...but to presume that a "basic tenet" of the "rules" your sect invented to regulate the behaviour of its members should be applicable to society at large is to admit that your goal is theocracy. You may follow your rules--but you do err when you pretend what others "ought".

While the Church is opposed to same-sex marriage, it obviously has no enforcement power. Moreover, a majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. So why are you so exercised about the issue? Just looking for something to pick at?

I am sorry for you that you are unaware of the money and time your sect spent working to defeat a California proposition. I'm not opposed to mormons working to support, or defeat, laws as individuals. When the sect, as a sect, spends sectarian funds for political activism, it ought to voluntarily surrender its tax-free status.

Once again--despite Janadele's tendency toward sensationalism, no one is considering forcing individuals into same-sex marriages--only allowing couples to marry if they choose, without regard to the ire, distaste, disgust, and abhorrence of those not involved in the union. If I legally marry a person of my own gender--how does that affect you, or your sect?

Some on this forum assume that the LDS Church, all by itself, defeated the CA gay marriage initiative. Please note that other organizations actively opposed that initiative.

Why was your sect, as an organization, addressing a civil law, not affecting its members, at all?

You have still not answered my question about why your sect feels free to attempt to control the behaviour of non-members with the rules invented for members. It' almost as if you are avoiding the question...

 

[kellyb]

Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

There is this thing called "truth". Some of us are rather fond of it. Defensive, even.

 

[Shalamar]

Of course.

So the LDS church should not enforce it's tenets on those not of church..

BUT..

Because "marriage equality," as you euphemistically label it, strikes at a basic tenet of LDS doctrine. Churches are obligated to speak out on moral issues (though I don't know about sects). The Catholic Church, for example, hasn't been shy about its opposition to abortion.

While the Church is opposed to same-sex marriage, it obviously has no enforcement power. Moreover, a majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. So why are you so exercised about the issue? Just looking for something to pick at?

Some on this forum assume that the LDS Church, all by itself, won the CA gay marriage "debate." Please note that other organizations actively supported that initiative.

BUT the LDS church should use it's influence and money to force people to follow it's tenet of 'No Homosexual Marriage'.

 

[deaman]

Churches are obligated to speak out on moral issues (though I don't know about sects).

Why would anyone seek advice about "morality" from a church whose main document is laughably (and lamentably) filled with inconsistencies, and whose main protagonist is a proven fraud, false prophet, con-man, bigamist, adulterer, liar, racist and molester of children?

Why do you?

 

[jsfisher]

Why would anyone seek advice about "morality" from a church whose main document is laughably (and lamentably) filled with inconsistencies, and whose main protagonist is a proven fraud, false prophet, con-man, bigamist, adulterer, liar, racist and molester of children?

Why do you?

Actually, maybe not so much a racist. That was more of Brigham Young's doing.

You can have all the rest, though.

 

[deaman]

Actually, maybe not so much a racist. That was more of Brigham Young's doing.

You can have all the rest, though.

Yes, I paused on that one, too.

I figured anyone who imagined up a god who considers white people, to be more blessed, than people of color, could be labeled a racist.

Do you think that label fits?

 

[deaman]

My point being that Joseph Smith does not seem to be a mountain of high moral fiber.

 

[Pixel42]

Really hung up on that, aren't you? Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

It does not affect me, which is why I only point it out to Mormons who come to my home or to message boards I belong to and claim otherwise. I do not go to their homes or to Mormon message boards to point this out.

Neither do I actively try to get legislation enacted which would prevent them worshipping as they wish and promoting their beliefs and lifestyle, or allow those who consider their beliefs blasphemous to discriminate against them by refusing to serve them in shops etc.

 

[joobz]

Really hung up on that, aren't you? Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

That is a rather sloppy attempt at trying to reverse the argument used in defense of gay rights. No one is taking away rights from you by saying that smith was a fraud. But, others are trying to use smiths teachings as reason to deny rights to gays.

In this way, the fact the smith was a fraud matters greatly and the clear evidence of that fraud matters.


How can one claim to know homosexuality is immoral when their morality is based upon a liar?




To add to this, why doesn't it bother you? Or does it and you are merely defending it out of a sense of loyalty?

 

[Janadele]

This is why it's important to study the scriptures and not just cut and paste off lds.org.

I have no interest in such insulting false opinions! To presume to be eligible to judge and proclaim that a deceased person would become a God merely by accepting a Baptism by proxy is preposterous. To declare this to be a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not only incorrect but blasphemous in the extreme.

 

[AdMan]

I have no interest in such insulting false opinions! To presume to be eligible to judge and proclaim that a deceased person would become a God merely by accepting a Baptism by proxy is preposterous. To declare this to be a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not only incorrect but blasphemous in the extreme.

Oh, what garbage. So blasphemous (in the extreme! so not just regularly blasphemous) that we're all going to hell because we're pointing out what the LDS proclaims?

Do you think your BS is at all convincing?

 

[Pixel42]

I have no interest in such insulting false opinions! To presume to be eligible to judge and proclaim that a deceased person would become a God merely by accepting a Baptism by proxy is preposterous. To declare this to be a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not only incorrect but blasphemous in the extreme.

The point under discussion is whether or not the LDS teaches that Mormons can become gods. Where did the bolded caveat come from?

ETA: OK, I've looked back and the point originally arose because Janadele's husband was not baptised until after his death, after apparently asking for that baptism. So I think Janadele is just saying that, not having been a Mormon in life, her husband does not qualify for godhood, not that no Mormons qualify for godhood.

 

[Flo]

Really hung up on that, aren't you? Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

It affects everybody when someone pretends to dictate the way people should live based on lies and frauds.

 

[Cat Tale]

I have no interest in such insulting false opinions! To presume to be eligible to judge and proclaim that a deceased person would become a God merely by accepting a Baptism by proxy is preposterous. To declare this to be a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not only incorrect but blasphemous in the extreme.

Gotta hurry on this, I'm leaving in about 10 minutes. But... I said no such thing about being eligible to become a god merely by baptism. I said, "as long as you live worthy of it anyway (there's always that little clause in there)." I also highlighted the portion of the D&C 132 intro that says that there are terms and conditions, and celestial marriage enables the continuation of the family unit to become gods.

Go to the original question. You were talking about "empowered to keep progressing throughout the eternities." deaman simply asked if the end result was that you would be a goddess with your husband. And that is the end goal of all LDS.

It's not an insulting false opinion when I give you a scripture that clearly states that we can become "gods" and say that it's "not only doctrine but also scripture" and you say, "no it's not." You replied with a copy paste using a Mormon newsroom article to prove your case against the 2013 edition of the D&C section 132. BTW, the current Investigator's Manual also says on page 272 that "Those who inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, who become gods, must also have been married for eternity in the temple (see D&C 131 1-4)."

You wrote: "Fortunately The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not rely on her enemies to decide what is doctrine:" Exactly, we have the scriptures.

 

[desertgal]

Because "marriage equality," as you euphemistically label it, strikes at a basic tenet of LDS doctrine.

So? Is there some effort afoot to force Mormons into gay marriage?

While the Church is opposed to same-sex marriage, it obviously has no enforcement power.

It's clearly attempting to have, hence the active opposition to Prop. 8.

Moreover, a majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. So why are you so exercised about the issue? Just looking for something to pick at?

Why can't you just answer the question? What gives the Mormon church the right to try and impose their rules on non-members?

Some on this forum assume that the LDS Church, all by itself, won the CA gay marriage "debate." Please note that other organizations actively supported that initiative.

I don't believe anyone argued otherwise. But this thread is about the MORMON CHURCH.

Really hung up on that, aren't you? Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

No "assuming" here.

It doesn't. But the JREF forum isn't attempting to prohibit Mormons from worshiping as they please, or prohibit them from conforming to the tenets of their church. We also didn't seek you out to attempt to shove our views down your throat - YOU came HERE. Jackadele chose here to spew her hatred, bigotry, and mindless prosyletizing, and you came here to be her echo, remember? I'm betting James Randi didn't send either of you engraved invitations.

Jackadele spends an awful lot of time trolling message forums with her copypasta, searching for some moral fulfillment in doing so, I gather. Something her church apparently fails to provide her.