LDS

[skyrider44]

Oh, please. Even if I grant you the upkeep cost of such multi-purpose buildings as part of your church's welfare programme, the total is still a small fraction of what your members pay in tithes.

You don't know that, and you can't provide a balance sheet to prove otherwise. You're simply conjecturing.

: Most churches have buildings to maintain and many also run welfare programmes without either sharing your church's bizarre beliefs (no, I haven't forgotten that it was my use of that adjective that launched you on this utterly irrelevant tangent) or demanding a compulsory tithe from their membership.

Many churches pay their leaders; the LDS Church does not (you may not have been aware of that). Consequently, the LDS Church has more funds to devote to welfare programs than many other churches.

Your lack of knowledge about the LDS Church surfaces still again in this post. Paying tithing is not compulsory; it is a free-will offering. A member can spend his/her entire lifetime in the Church and never pay a cent in tithing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What's a "homosexual experience"

It's when some poor kid's mom has to do a lesbian photo-shoot to earn grocery money.

Studies have shown children who grow up in such households don't do well.

and how does it relate to the typical homosexual couple raising a child?

Mm. You got me.

 

[Loss Leader]

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that case histories exist--and are well documented--that "logically support [my] point."

Name one in the last 25 years.

 

[RandFan]

You don't know that, and you can't provide a balance sheet to prove otherwise. You're simply conjecturing.

Many churches pay their leaders; the LDS Church does not (you may not have been aware of that). Consequently, the LDS Church has more funds to devote to welfare programs than many other churches.

Your lack of knowledge about the LDS Church surfaces still again in this post. Paying tithing is not compulsory; it is a free-will offering. A member can spend his/her entire lifetime in the Church and never pay a cent in tithing.

I'm affraid that the onus is on you to prove where the money goes. Your church won't tell you. Why not? If the resources go where you claim they go then it seems abundantly clear that the church would want to be transparent and make the records public. But the records are not and they are not even available to most church members. You have no right to know how your money is spent.

What we do know is that the church is very wealthy. While we don't know what percentage that the church takes in goes to welfare we do know that it owns a lot of property and businesses. It's investment portfolio is quite vast. Typical of most organizations that use religion as a means to generate cash for investment.

The truth is skyrider, you don't know where the money goes. You CAN'T know. The church won't let you see their financials. Ever.

Oh, and for those who don't know this, the purpose of tithing isn't charity or welfare, that's what "fast offerings" are for. Each 1st Sunday of the month members are expected to fast for two meals. Breakfast and lunch (IIRC). Then they are expected to take the money that would have been used for those two meals and give it to the Church to provide welfare. Now, that's not to say that some percentage of tithing isn't needed or isn't used to cover any shortfall. We don't know. We can't know. The Church, like most cults, are very secretive when it comes to the money they collect.

I sincerely regret that I ever gave that organization a dime. I do not for one moment think that the majority of the money goes to charitable operations or organizations. There would be no need to keep that a secret. IMO: When it comes to money, the church is very shady with its members money.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant. Sadly there are some corners of this world it will never shine.

 

[bruto]

You take liberties with what I have said. I have asked how the Church and its members have harmed anyone.

Yes, you certainly have, and when the question was answered you asked again. At some point it becomes reasonable to assume that the asking is not a search for information but a statement.

My "made-up criterion of increased love"? What is that supposed to mean? My concern all along has been for the welfare of children. And I have so said repeatedly. That's what the long, tedious discussion of late hereon has been about.

If your concern was simply for children, then why did you ask if marriage would make a gay person love his mate more? If there's a difference between what you say and what you say your subject is, it's reasonable to assume that what you actually say is what your subject is.

Biology alone tells you what marriage is not about.

Marriage is a social institution. What it is about is what a marrying authority decides it's about. Civil marriage is about what a civil society decides it's about.

Well stated; I don't disagree.

I'm glad you don't disagree in principle. We seem to differ on what those principles mean in practice, though.

Pardon me, but what is "the one glaring truth of circularity"?

Laws that seek to normalize homosexual relationships will inevitably result in those relationships being regarded more and more as normal.

Perhaps so.

so you asked the question then answered it. The circularity is that most arguments against gay marriage end up as arguments against gay marriage and little else.

I haven't spoken of same-sex marriage as "sin."

No, you have not specifically used that word, but does the church whose beliefs you're expressing not speak of all sexual relationships outside of traditional marriage as sinful? Obviously, if you agree with that position, and agree that same-sex marriage should be forbidden, what option exists for it to be anything but a sin?

 

[dafydd]

You don't know that, and you can't provide a balance sheet to prove otherwise. You're simply conjecturing.



Many churches pay their leaders; the LDS Church does not (you may not have been aware of that). Consequently, the LDS Church has more funds to devote to welfare programs than many other churches.

They have to lure suckers into the cult by any means possible.

 

[joobz]

. . Let's say that there is broad concensus from multiple studies? What would you say? Would you conclude, then, that opposite sex couples should no longer be allowed to marry?

Sorry, but you appear to have entered the theatre of the absurd.

I agree. it is absurd. But it is the logical extension of YOUR argument against gay marriage.

Shall I assume now that you admit there isn't a defensible reason to be against gay marriage?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Biology alone tells you what marriage is not about.

Could you clarify the above statement? Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Sorry, but you appear to have entered the theatre of the absurd.

Why is his question absurd? Why won't you simply answer it?

 

[halleyscomet]

I'm affraid that the onus is on you to prove where the money goes. Your church won't tell you. Why not? If the resources go where you claim they go then it seems abundantly clear that the church would want to be transparent and make the records public. But the records are not and they are not even available to most church members. You have no right to know how your money is spent.

What we do know is that the church is very wealthy. While we don't know what percentage that the church takes in goes to welfare we do know that it owns a lot of property and businesses. It's investment portfolio is quite vast. Typical of most organizations that use religion as a means to generate cash for investment.

The truth is skyrider, you don't know where the money goes. You CAN'T know. The church won't let you see their financials. Ever.

Oh, and for those who don't know this, the purpose of tithing isn't charity or welfare, that's what "fast offerings" are for. Each 1st Sunday of the month members are expected to fast for two meals. Breakfast and lunch (IIRC). Then they are expected to take the money that would have been used for those two meals and give it to the Church to provide welfare. Now, that's not to say that some percentage of tithing isn't needed or isn't used to cover any shortfall. We don't know. We can't know. The Church, like most cults, are very secretive when it comes to the money they collect.

I sincerely regret that I ever gave that organization a dime. I do not for one moment think that the majority of the money goes to charitable operations or organizations. There would be no need to keep that a secret. IMO: When it comes to money, the church is very shady with its members money.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant. Sadly there are some corners of this world it will never shine.

Having grown up Lutheran I'm used to more transparency in church finances. While they didn't include the financial statements in the program, it wasn't exactly hard to find out where the church was spending money.

I wonder why the Catholic and LDS churches are so opaque about expenditures? Is it a reflection of top-down hierarchy? It seems Lutheran churches have a lot more independence than LDS temples. Is this an accurate impression?

 

[tsig]

You don't know that, and you can't provide a balance sheet to prove otherwise. You're simply conjecturing.



Many churches pay their leaders; the LDS Church does not (you may not have been aware of that). Consequently, the LDS Church has more funds to devote to welfare programs than many other churches.

Your lack of knowledge about the LDS Church surfaces still again in this post. Paying tithing is not compulsory; it is a free-will offering. A member can spend his/her entire lifetime in the Church and never pay a cent in tithing.

The prophet doesn't live of the church?

 

[Cat Tale]

gods, worlds and hollow earth?

So you agree then that it is both scriptural and doctrinal that LDS have the potential to become gods and goddesses, and inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, and have no end, being everlasting to everlasting? That's not 100% clear in your previous responses. Yes means you agree, no means you do not agree. I'll settle for a two to three letter response (no or yes).

Hmm... so I'm going to assume that no answer means that you agree. It's basically what Mormon Newsroom said, though not as clearly as Sect. 132 of the D&C. So let me ask, why the evasion on deaman's question? You're the one who started the thread and wanted to discuss only LDS doctrine. Yet, when you've been given a chance you turn it down, why? You said that you live each day in a manner to enable both you and your family's return to the presence of Our Heavenly Father (and Mother) and to be empowered to keep progressing throughout the eternities." In other words what you're doing is, what LDS call, striving for "exaltation." Have I made a correct assumption here?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.
If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families...

So I'm going to assume that you and the Gospel Principles manual are saying the same thing (your goal is to achieve exaltation), which should be the goal of every LDS.

So when Deaman asked, if the end result was that you would become a goddess with your husband, why did you respond with, "Deaman, you ask the strangest questions. I am a widow, and my husband was a Presbyterian." Actually, Deaman didn't ask a strange question at all, it was right on target. If you want to return to Heavenly Father you will need to have been sealed in the temple to either your late husband or remarry and be sealed to the new husband. But to return to Heavenly Father's presence it is required that you have a Celestial marriage and abide by the commandments and covenants of the Lord. (D&C 132). Dang that section just won't go away.

Then there was the question regarding planets. I don't like that word either, but worlds or planets, what's really the difference? Now Mormon Newsroom, interestingly enough, says no, it's not "a doctrine of the Church." That seems totally out of line with everything that I've been taught. So during lulls over the last few days I've been putting together some things, all off lds.org

The first, is Gospel Fundamentals. According to the store.lds.org click on details

This manual is primarily for those who live in areas where the Church is relatively new or where scriptures have not been translated into their language. It may also be useful to other members. It provides a more basic outline of doctrines and principles than the Gospel Principles manual. It may be used as a personal study guide, for family home evenings, and for classroom instruction. [emphasis added]

Gospel Fundamentals, chapter 36.

To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted. [Emphasis added]

I already mentioned how the Gospel Principles manual says, that God "is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation." So what does it mean to become like our Heavenly Father? The Church Educational System put out a manual entitled "Achieving a Celestial Marriage," which was an Institute(college aged) Class. On page 132 it explains what it means to become like Heavenly Father.

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children. who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this." —Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48 [emphasis in original.]

I love D&C 88:78-79,

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;
Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad...[a bunch more things we should learn]"

Interestingly enough the The Aaronic Priesthood Manual 1

The Priesthood of God is the great supreme, legal authority that governs the inhabitants of all redeemed and glorified worlds. In it is included all power to create worlds. … It is that power that formed the minerals, the vegetables, and the animals in all their infinite [many] varieties” (Orson Pratt, Masterful Discourses and Writings of Orson Pratt, compiled by N. B. Lundwall [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1962], p. 316).[Emphasis added]

Why would the priesthood need to hold the power to create worlds, if it was not to be used one day, in the Celestial Kingdom? Now enter President Kimball to tie this all together.

President Spencer W. Kimball, on the topic of gods, and worlds. This is actually when I began to become more interested in the sciences, and started taking courses in earth and social sciences, etc.

The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things “so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 386).

Of course the current (Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society manual is the teachings of Lorenzo Snow, and chapter 5 basically starts out with President Snow's

couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me [Lorenzo Snow].
"As man now is, God once was:
"As God now is, man may be."
[and goes on to say], In this chapter, President Snow teaches the doctrine that we can become like our Heavenly Father... This is the high density of the sons of God, they who overcome, who are obedient to His commandments, who purify themselves even as He is pure. They are to become like Him; they will see Him as He is; they will behold His face and reign with Him in his glory, becoming like unto Him in every particular.... God has pointed out the results of traveling upon this road of glory and exaltation and the promises are sure... If we do the part that He has assigned unto us, and keep our second estate, we shall be sure to realize these promises in every particular...

pieced together from pages 83-89, but link goes to beginning of chapter so people can see it all in context.

Anyway, I didn't start the thread. Regarding gods, I think I'll just let D&C 132 v 19-20 speak for itself. Regarding worlds I've provided sources in manuals meant to teach new and prospective members the doctrines of the Church, an institute manual (President Joseph Fielding Smith), scriptures and Aaronic Priesthood manual, the seminary website (President Spencer W. Kimball), current RS & Priesthood manual (President Lorenzo Snow).

I'd still like proof that the LDS Church teaches the Hollow Earth theory, which Janadele comes out and says (in not so many words, but it's implied in her following posts). This is probably one of my favorite evasions of hers.

pakeha in post 8492 you have put your question to me in the wrong sequence.
As you are aware the sequence is as I have posted in 8490... The question being post 5926 and the response being post 5931. The scriptures you have reposted were a previous post 5923.

And the correct sequence matters why? Regardless the sequence, the question's the same. You said that the scriptures that were "reposted were a previous post 5923." Yeah those scriptures were a response to 5917, and they were the answer to 5912, all being posts about whether or not the LDS Church teaches the Hollow Earth theory. So I mean, the sequence really doesn't matter since his ultimate question was, "Which of these quotations refers to a hollow earth?" I gave my response to all the scriptures in my post 5946 As I've heard you say before, "posting nonsense as being LDS when it is not LDS is not [fine]."

So, what do you think about becoming a goddess, about your husband (whoever he will be) becoming a god and creating worlds, and about the hollow earth? Which of these things is not like the other? Hint, two are actual teachings of the Church, one is not. I'd suggest you quit backing yourself into corners with copy paste where you're left to try to dodge or redirect questions (as shown in this post) it gives the appearance of not knowing about the topic you're discussing, just come out and tell us what *you* really think.

Again, you're the one who wanted this thread, why are you not participating in answering with genuine well thought out answers rather than relying on the internet, which can (as has been shown here) be wrong?

I know you probably won't answer, but I did want to clarify for everyone else what is LDS doctrine and what isn't.

 

[Pup]

Your lack of knowledge about the LDS Church surfaces still again in this post. Paying tithing is not compulsory; it is a free-will offering. A member can spend his/her entire lifetime in the Church and never pay a cent in tithing.

To expand a bit on how that's possible and what it would mean: a member can remain on the rolls of the church without paying a tithe, but can't get a temple recommend. That means they can attend normal Sunday services but can't do all the special things in the temple, a central building that might be several hours away, where people are married, do baptisms for the dead, etc.

There would certainly be pressure to be a full tithe payer and/or get a temple recommend. Each member has to see their bishop once a year for tithing settlement and has to answer the question whether they're a full tithe payer. Of course, they can say no, and nothing bad would happen other than not getting/losing their temple recommend and also some application of guilt. If one believes the whole concept, paying tithe is a commandment like not drinking, not stealing, etc., so there's not much point in being a member and choosing never to pay a tithe.

The other way a member could never pay a tithe, and even get a temple recommend, would be not to have any earned income of their own. Disclaimer: that's actually our situation. Since we got married, my wife is a "full tithe payer" with a temple recommend, without actually paying any tithe, because all the family income comes from me and of course the church doesn't expect tithes from money earned by non-members.

 

[skyrider44]

the records [financial] are not [available] and they are not even available to most church members. You have no right to know how your money is spent.

But Pixel42, not LDS, does know how the money is spent.

That aside, I see the results of Church expenditures in individual lives of needy members. . .in magnificent, multi-purpose chapels being built worldwide. . .in service missions being performed by retired couples in developing countries (my neighbor, a retired dentist, served, with his wife, in part of AIDS-stricken Africa [Kenya, as I recall]). [You are aware, I assume, that latex gloves have been known to break.] When disasters happen, Mormons are among the first to rush supplies and food to the stricken areas (their gigantic warehouse in SLC is stocked with everything imaginable, floor to ceiling). The Church's family history center is without equal anywhere in the world and is open, free of charge, to anyone who wishes to use it. My close friend of many years is our ward's financial clerk. He writes checks, signed by our bishop, to help needy ward members, including paying mortgages. In one case, our ward paid a family's mortgage for 18 months at $1,200 a month. Keep in mind we are one ward out of hundreds of wards in the Church. Point: Very few people understand the vast reach of the Church's welfare program. Consequently, speaking out of ignorance, they aren't qualified to critique it.

 

[skyrider44]

Why is his question absurd? Why won't you simply answer it?

It is absurd on the face of it; it is self-evidently farcical. I have no interest in responding to such questions.

 

[skyrider44]

Yes, you certainly have, and when the question was answered you asked again. At some point it becomes reasonable to assume that the asking is not a search for information but a statement.

Is there some reason why it can't be both? Is there some reason why it can't be reiterated for emphasis or repeated for the benefit of those who didn't "get it" the first time?

No, you have not specifically used that word, but does the church whose beliefs you're expressing not speak of all sexual relationships outside of traditional marriage as sinful? Obviously, if you agree with that position, and agree that same-sex marriage should be forbidden, what option exists for it to be anything but a sin?

"Sin" requires the commission of an evil act by an individual. If I were to accept your somewhat tortured explanation, U. S. taxpayers are responsible for the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, or for the fact (last time I checked) the U.S. is the number one arms producer in the world.

 

[Craig4]

It is absurd on the face of it; it is self-evidently farcical. I have no interest in responding to such questions.

No, it was a valid question. To put it another way, are you opposed to same sex marriage because you are a Mormon or because there is social science to support opposite sex marriage being better? It appears as though, based on your refusal to answer that you are opposed based the fact you are Mormon and trying to use flawed social science to justify your position.

 

[RandFan]

But Pixel42, not LDS, does know how the money is spent.

That aside, I see the results of Church expenditures in individual lives of needy members. . .in magnificent, multi-purpose chapels being built worldwide. . .in service missions being performed by retired couples in developing countries (my neighbor, a retired dentist, served, with his wife, in part of AIDS-stricken Africa [Kenya, as I recall]). [You are aware, I assume, that latex gloves have been known to break.] When disasters happen, Mormons are among the first to rush supplies and food to the stricken areas (their gigantic warehouse in SLC is stocked with everything imaginable, floor to ceiling). The Church's family history center is without equal anywhere in the world and is open, free of charge, to anyone who wishes to use it. My close friend of many years is our ward's financial clerk. He writes checks, signed by our bishop, to help needy ward members, including paying mortgages. In one case, our ward paid a family's mortgage for 18 months at $1,200 a month. Keep in mind we are one ward out of hundreds of wards in the Church. Point: Very few people understand the vast reach of the Church's welfare program. Consequently, speaking out of ignorance, they aren't qualified to critique it.

The Mafia used to be known for taking care of the poor. Anecdotal evidence is worthless. I'm an auditor, I understand that things are not always as they appear. You DON'T know how much the Church takes in and how much they spend on charity. I've made no claims other than the church is secretive and I've no idea why. What could they possibly have to hide? Wouldn't making their books public engender good will rather than casting a shadow?

I think so, unless it's primarily a money making organization for a few.

 

[Pixel42]

But Pixel42, not LDS, does know how the money is spent.

Don't be ridiculous. I simply repeated what I learned (from an LDS source quoted earlier in the thread) - that only a small fraction of it goes on the church's welfare programme.

If I'd been asked to guess where the rest of it went I would have suggested that Randfan's description of the sumptuous opulence of the Salt Lake City temple gave a clue.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain what any of this has to do with the bizarre beliefs which are unique to your church.

 

[joobz]

It is absurd on the face of it; it is self-evidently farcical. I have no interest in responding to such questions.

Why is it farcical? You provided articles saying the science is inconclusive about there being no difference between child performance from gay couples and straight couples. One VERY REAL possibility then is that children from gay families will perform better than straight couples.

In that instance, what would be the logical conconlusion?

1. If we find children from straight couples perform better, would that mean we should not permit gay marriage?
2.If we find children from say gay couples perform better, would that mean we should not permit straight marriage?



If question 2 is a farce, then so is question 1.

If question 1 is a farce, then you have no argument against gay marriage and should not oppose it. You should be fighting against your church's opposition to it.