I'm starting this topic to "continue" a conversation started in the Christians vs. Catholics thread. I will include some of the details from there, but the rest are up to anyone new to read up on. I will specifically post the contents of one post, more or less.
We did not baptize Adolf Hitler. That is a lie. After people baptized for Obama's mother, an official release was sent out saying that unless you specifically know the person who's name you are bringing in to do temple work for (not the names that they already have) or they are in your family, you cannot do temple work for them.
We are not barred from being around ex Mormons. We do not necessarily believe they are with Satan. We excommunicate people for their good. In our views, it gives them a second chance. They can rejoin the church later, and their sins will be gone, just as they were when they were first baptized. I know many ex Mormons, and I do not get in trouble for being with them.
South Park is in no way an authority on anything. The fact that you're trying to cite that is pathetic.
Yes, there was polygamy. But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons). Joseph Smith did not try to burn down a newspaper place. He was taken to jail for no real reason. If he shot back, it was only because they were shooting at him.
The reason non members are not allowed in the temple is because of the sacred things that go on in there. If just anyone was allowed in, the spirit would be disrupted. I will expound on this if needs be.
I am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.
Tithing... It was actually in Christ's day when it started. The only reason it affects our worthiness to enter the temple (not our standing in general). The Lord gave us everything we have, and all he asks is 10% of what we earn. I'd say that's a pretty small price for life, liberty, and happiness.
Also, we believe in Agency and Accountability. You can choose to do what you want, but you will have to accept the consequences.
I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He is my savior and my redeemer. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is correctly translated. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and return to live with our Heavenly Father. I have seen the Atonement in action in my life. I know that God listens to all prayers to him. He answers them in his own way. I know that I can make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I but do my best to keep the commandments of God.
Somehow, I managed to not snag that in my quote for you, but I meant to.
So, I am addressing:
I stated it was not instinct for man to do things like that [homosexuality]. That should be proof enough that it is unnatural. And I know that man is part of the Animal kingdom, so perhaps this will help: beasts have that instinct. Humans do not.
You're tying to claim that heterosexuality is instinctual in humans, but homosexuality is not? If that be the case, let me respond to it.
Sexuality is not that black and white. One type of sexual orientation is not more or less instinctual than another. The behaviors (which you are clearly speaking of) that come with each orientation are learned. They are not derived from instincts, as you've said.
A person's sexuality is not something that is chosen. The chemical reactions that happen in a person's brain when they are around a person they have a sexual attraction to is the instinctual part o fit all. So, to say that heterosexuality is deemed as morally 'okay' and homosexuality as morally 'wrong,' because you believe one is instinctual and the other is not, is absurd.
The room is so quiet you could hear a pin drop on the carpet, so everyone would hear your burritos, haha.
I kind of figured as much, hence the joke. I've been to serviced by other religions where you just sit and meditate for a while.
I just thought about this, if there's a temple where you live they renovate the temples every few years, and when they do before rededicating it they have an open house, where anyone can go in and have a tour. It's actually really beautiful in there, if you get a chance you should check it out.
Interesting idea.
I don't know how you can define "not virgin" as virgin though...
well one definition would be if they had sex but for what ever reason the hymen was not broken. Which I think is what his comment was referring to. Some claim someone could be defined as a virgin back then if they had sex with only one person, though I can't say I've seen anything backing this claim. Some count all forms of penetration such as oral or ****, while others only count vaginal.
beasts have that instinct. Humans do not.
Considering we see people have such feelings this would indicate otherwise.
I just don't see a point in having choice if there is no "bad" choice.
When it comes to what two adults want to consensually do in the privacy of there own home that does not hurt or effect anyone else I don't see how it could be classified as a "bad choice".
Mage gave a great answer, but I have to ask, I'm having a hard time determining how objectivity is dependent on perception in the first place? If it were, that would be subjectivity, would it not?
When Mage said that perceptions were not necessarily reality, and he made the claim that degrees of certainty can be determined, then I posed the question about how objectivity would be determined. Was this question aimed at me or Mage?
I started this thread to answer questions. It has come to the point where I am more defending my beliefs than answering questions about them.
@1337 If you actually read some of our manuals, and some of the recent talks by General Authorities of the church on GLBT, you would realize that it isn't the church as a whole that is generating hatred. The people who say they hate gays because of the church are severely misled. If I could apologize for those peoples' actions, I would. Even in 1995, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said the following:
Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called âgay bashingââ"physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.
For anything further on homosexuality, I would recommend opening a new thread instead of emailing me. That way, more people can answer your questions/thoughts. If they are directly related to this discussion, go ahead and post them. In other words, pretend I never said not to post them.
Okay, to get back on topic. I do have some questions, now that I've done more reading on Mormonism.
A lot of religious doctrine have contradictions within their texts. Mormonism also has this issue. When confronted with a contradiction, what makes you maintain your faith?
It seems like the Book of Mormon will proclaim one ideal, and Joseph Smith will sort of...back track and say something that contradicts it. Let me provide an example.
And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. (Mormon 9:19)
Then you have Joseph saying things like:
"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,...he was once a man like us..."- Joseph Smith
So, I suppose my question is more general and not specific to the religion of Mormonism, but to me, this makes a person less credible.
@Asherlee: Kudos to you for reading up! In your example, Mormon is saying that God will never cease to be God. His is more about the present and future. Joseph Smith was talking more about the [extremely] distant past.
Many other discrepancies/contradictions aren't really there. One example is the Word of Wisdom. There was never doctrine before saying that you should partake of these things, nor was there doctrine against it. Therefore, God did not contradict himself when giving the Word of Wisdom. In other words, they are stating something that was never stated before in other doctrine (I hope this makes sense).
I'm trying to think of other contradictions that have been pointed out before, and I'm drawing a blank. Could you perhaps post another example? Don't bring up obvious historical ones like plural marriage or race issues, because I already know about those, and I think those fall in line with obeying the laws of the land (see my WAY earlier post with the Articles of Faith, or just read them online, which is more convenient).
I do see your point, though. I think I see more contradictions in the world of non-religion than I do in religion itself, though. You don't have to think very hard to see where those contradictions lie.
I haven't been challenged all that much in my belief until this thread. At the same time, I realize I know much more about my beliefs than I originally thought, and I have also gained more knowledge by studying to answer some of these questions.
I don't think I can answer your question about maintaining my faith in that situation without having one of those situations first. I'm open to whatever you can find.
I do see your point, though. I think I see more contradictions in the world of non-religion than I do in religion itself, though. You don't have to think very hard to see where those contradictions lie.
Like what?
I haven't been challenged all that much in my belief until this thread. At the same time, I realize I know much more about my beliefs than I originally thought, and I have also gained more knowledge by studying to answer some of these questions.
Glad to hear this has been a learning experience for you.
@MageGrayWolf: I would say that one of the biggest contradictions is in government. Not to say that government is bad. Our current government is corrupt, and has been for some time. There have been countless claims of improvement, but very few signs of it. In addition, most News Broadcasting Companies are contradictory in terms of their bias. They say they get both sides of the story equally, but then they interrupt people when they start to say something that news company doesn't like. Fox and MSNBC are prime examples of this.
Those are the two biggest examples that stand out in my mind.
@E1337 I can already tell that you didn't bother to read the articles.
It is true that there were $180,000 in expenditures relating to Proposition 8. It is NOT true, however, that it was directed against the PEOPLE of the LGBT community. It was directed toward preventing a law that would set precedent to allow gays to force churches to marry them, even if it was against that religion's beliefs. Really, we would have been the only church that was safe. All we would have had to do was take the authority to legally marry a couple from the Bishops and only allow marriages in the temple.
All other hostility towards the LGBT community was by people who were so vigilant that they read into it more than was there. There were some who even thought they were told to hate gays by their religion, even though that wasn't true. All the hostilities broadcast on the news were uncalled for.
As for your second question, I'm going to hold off until you prove to me that you've actually read and considered the articles I posted.
@E1337 I'm sorry if my post sounded bigoted. I did not mean it to sound that way. I thought of using gays and homosexuals, and both sounded worse. What would you have me say, or how would you rephrase what I said to mean the same thing without sounding so bigoted?
Yes, we are saying gays can't have sex - with other people of the same gender. We believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. I'll also add this to your reading list, just to clarify beyond the "no sex before marriage" thing: The Family: A Proclamation to the World Ignore the little bubbly effect and just click continue.
Please read the other two articles, though. I think you'll benefit from reading them.
Yes, we are saying gays can't have sex - with other people of the same gender. We believe marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Is it your belief that they should not, or that they should not be able to (in other words, you would pass a law barring them from...). Because in doing this, they are not hurting anyone - they are not affecting you in any way whatsoever. So it is coercive and forceful for you to try to prevent them from doing what they want.
It was directed toward preventing a law that would set precedent to allow gays to force churches to marry them, even if it was against that religion's beliefs.
@E1337 You're avoiding my request: since you say that what I said was bigoted, rephrase it to mean the same thing without being bigoted.
Also, the Bible does not say slavery is all right. There are scriptures warning of people being carried off into slavery, but there are none that condone slavery. Also, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has never believed in slavery. This small excerpt from a revelation received December 16, 1833 illustrates this:
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. ~ Doctrine & Covenants 101:75
I have said this in many different ways before; I've even tried to get you to find it yourself. I'm going to say it plain and simple now. God does not hate you because you are gay. He does not hate you at all. He is sad that you have made the choice to engage in homosexual activities, and you would know that if you would but read what I've given you. You don't have to read the third item I gave you unless you want to know what we believe about the family.
So, let me restate what I want from you so I can better answer you: 1. Read the two articles. I know you don't want to, but do it anyways. 2. Since you think my statement was bigoted, rephrase it in a way that it is not bigoted, but means the same thing as the original.
