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 But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons).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.
Linktopast30 wrote: ...it would have set precedent for other states to pass laws that could essentially force churches to marry gays
I don't know the exact language of the proposition, but in other states where gay marriage is legal, it does not force churches to marry same-sex couples. Some of them do, because they choose to so.
The power of procreation is a sacred power, meant to be used by a man and a woman in the bonds of marriage
Say another species of animal were able to reason. It is beneficial to think that one has a purpose in life - it's, in some way, an evolutionary advantage. Any sentient species at some point will have invented religion.
How do you think religion arose? Did God write the Bible? There is a tendency for people to believe they have divine inspiration or are special in some way, and this creates religions. People associate a meaning of life with a divine being.
In the beginning, man created God.
Also, I have a question for you - what is life? Define life.
@DDX: that had no place in the conversation for the last 24 pages. Therefore your comment is spammy and has been marked as such. Please read the entire thread before posting. Or at least read enough of the thread to know what is currently being discussed.
@Asherlee: What I'm saying is it would set precedent for people to try to push laws through that would force it. Also, before that time, it would still be legal for gays to force churches to marry them just by virtue of the way people are at doing things that aren't necessarily legal in a written sense, but also aren't necessarily illegal. It then could trigger a chain of events that would lead up to a law like the one I described.
Just so you know, Proposition 8 defined marriage as between a man and a woman. To put the above paragraph differently, when there isn't a legal definition for something, or if the definition lacks something, someone will inevitably take advantage of it and use it for the wrong purpose. News Media often focuses on this, and causes other people to support it. When enough people have joined the cause, and the government takes notice, a bill might be drafted up, or legal action will proceed (lawsuits, etc.), depending on which happens first. I've noticed a trend. It also doesn't hurt that I studied the way American Government works and what influences it, and also have studied general law, especially human/civil rights.
Anyways, I'm going to stop the post here and get back to work. Later tonight (after 6pm Mountain Standard Time), I will talk about the Plan of Salvation.
From a scientific standpoint, yes, man did create God. That is a key point where Science and Religion start to separate.
As for you question on what life is, you will be answered in tonight's post. I think that post alone will clear up so much about "Mormons." I use quotes because that's all that is - a nickname placed on us by others. We are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I will refer to us as such for the remainder of this thread.
Before I post tonight, I am going to tell you in advance - I am not trying to alienate anyone, discriminate against anyone, or chastise anyone. What I will write will come straight from my heart, with scriptural references to back it up.
I'm sorry to tell you that 4mormon.org is an anti-Mormon website designed to lead astray anyone wanting to find out more about us.
Wasn't using it as an information source, simply posting up it's list of said contradictions. If i was to use it as as an information source I would double check what it's saying.
I see where your confusion lies, and I hope I can clear some of that up in this post. Joseph Smith is talking about the state of the children after the resurrection, when the spirit and body shall reunite. When he says "There is no ****ation awaits them, for they are in the spirit," he means that they will not be sent to Spirit Prison (more on that later), but rather to Spirit Paradise, between now and the Second Coming. Upon resurrection, they will be children again, just as I would be an 18-year-old if I were to die today.
I think your just doing a whole lot of mental gymnastics to rationalize away a clear contradiction.
To put the above paragraph differently, when there isn't a legal definition for something, or if the definition lacks something, someone will inevitably take advantage of it and use it for the wrong purpose. News Media often focuses on this, and causes other people to support it. When enough people have joined the cause, and the government takes notice, a bill might be drafted up, or legal action will proceed (lawsuits, etc.), depending on which happens first. I've noticed a trend. It also doesn't hurt that I studied the way American Government works and what influences it, and also have studied general law, especially human/civil rights.
How is it that you've studied human and civil rights and cannot see how unethical it is to deny two adults the right to marry. It is really no different than mixed racial marriages were 'way-back-when.'
And again, I'm really not seeing how non-Mormon adults getting married has an effect on your church.
Not sure what happened to the top of my post, but here it is.
What I'm saying is it would set precedent for people to try to push laws through that would force it.
That is pretty presumptuous and just not the case.
Also, before that time, it would still be legal for gays to force churches to marry them just by virtue of the way people are at doing things that aren't necessarily legal in a written sense, but also aren't necessarily illegal. It then could trigger a chain of events that would lead up to a law like the one I described.
Honestly the issue I find with marriage is that it is allowed by religious organizations AND recognized by the government. Either we need to completely remove all government recognition and benefits of marriage and keep it a purely religious tradition, or we need to keep said government benefits and dictate that it be a secular affair.
Hey guys, I'm sorry I couldn't post my thing tonight. I kind of forgot I had something important going on with my family. I'll post it tomorrow sometime.
Also, what happened to my post answering Asherlee? I could have sworn I posted it. It answered Asherlee's two posts that were supposed to be one post (lol). I'm having trouble remembering exactly what I said, so I'll have to re-answer that in the morning.
Also, MRWalker82 is right about the problem with marriage. It shouldn't be both allowed by religion and recognized by government. If I were to choose a way for it to go, I would prefer that the government leave it to the religions. Of course, this would have an effect on the legal definition of a religion, and I don't know how that would affect us (meaning everyone) right now. If the two just have to stay the way they are, then there's got to be a better way to implement it. This is a very interesting topic, and might make an interesting independent thread.
@E1337: That was a very well-thought-out post, and I enjoyed reading it. You really know your stuff, and I will definitely research your arguments.
I'll address everyone's questions tomorrow and will then post what I wanted to post earlier tonight. As for now, I need to go to sleep.
@E1337: That's what I'm getting at when I say (in different words) that it would significantly alter the definitions of marriage. While marriage based on one belief system is not actually against the first amendment, which has been grossly misinterpreted by everyone on both sides of any argument about it, I still see your point.
I realize I forgot to post that thing again. Something is trying to keep me from doing it, so I know I need to post it today. I'll wait about half an hour, and then begin writing it up.
@E1337: The argument you use about foster care is invalid for two reasons. Only a man and a woman can produce a child, and it is not the marriage that causes the abuse. It is the people. The same could happen with a homosexual couple who has adopted a child.
It's not the gay marriage that's harmful. It was the way some "extremists" (for lack of a better word) tried to force it upon others. It's them who were wrong.
Now then, for some good news. I finally have all my sources put together and am ready to post what I've wanted to post for three days now. Expect it within the next hour or so.
Link believes that gay marriage will be coerced - that churches will have no choice but to marry them despite what they want. If you can show him that his idea that this will happen is false, then you have won. There is one other way, and this is justifying coerced gay marriage, but I don't expect you to take this route.
Now - I have a question for you, Link. Do you believe that in the ideal governmental system that gay marriage would be legal?
How is the invalidating an argument for homosexuals using foster care? Often foster care is used when a couple are unable to produce a child of their own anyway. Whether this is the result of the couple being infertile or the couple not possessing the anatomy to produce a child together should be inconsequential.
It's not the gay marriage that's harmful.
Then there should be no problem with homosexual couples wanting to become married and foster a child.
