Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

Well, if imo there is no god, why is this question pertinant?

Answering a question with a question is as unwise as you are.

Well, a simple extrapolation of your poor question and narrow choices could give you all the answers you need.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

Fist,

I am a little confused by the post, dear. Are you wondering why God is not visible to us as his children? Cause in the mind of a believer, he is with us all day, every day. We pray to him, he lives within us and we feel the spirit of God.

Could you be a little more specific in terms of what you would like to chat about here? This does sound interesting, I just want to make sure I am fully understanding what you want here. Thank you. *smiles*

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually. There is no god. God's as real as magic, hypnotism and karma.

Originally posted by lord xyz
There is no god. God's as real as magic, hypnotism and karma.

Some would beg to differ on that post there lordxyz. *smiles*

Originally posted by marcu
Some would beg to differ on that post there lordxyz. *smiles* And 1000 others would contradict the person who differs from my post because God is as real as Karma. Heck, Santa Claus is just as real.

It's infront of us everywhere.

(Actually, don't look but hes behind you now)

Sure is................

Perhaps after walking among men and being hung on a cross, he decided that it might be wise to allow man to do what he would for a bit, without much aid, they were called the Dark Ages for a reason

Just to clear this up before someone comments:

The Dark ages were initially the 500 odd years from ~476 AD - ~1000 AD, coined by humanists critical of the lack of Latin literature during this period. The term then grew and expanded to refer to the entire backwardness of the period, and expanded the period to the ~17th or 18th century whenever the Age of Enlightenment occurred. But, even the Age of Enlightenment was considered a part of the Dark ages, and so someone referred to the period between ~476 to sometime in the early 19th century as being the Dark ages. It has since been altered somewhat by various scholars, but fact is someone referred to this period as the Dark Ages regardless of whether it was or is agreed upon.

Originally posted by Regret
Perhaps after walking among men and being hung on a cross, he decided that it might be wise to allow man to do what he would for a bit, without much aid, they were called the Dark Ages for a reason

Though to be fair he wanted that to happen. Humans were bastards in doing it, but they had been doing it for a long time, and God apparently intended for it to happen to Jesus. It is hard to believe he would get all sulky when his plan went so well. And of course if that were the case it took him hundreds of years to withdraw - which is ironic because it happened when Christianity was doing well.



True, but historians of late are becoming more and more reluctant to use the term which is horribly eurocentric and based upon the faulty concept held by those later on that the period following the western Roman Empires disintegration but before the enlightenment or Renaissance was lacking in value or "light" compared to the lamentably lost Roman Empire.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Though to be fair he wanted that to happen. Humans were bastards in doing it, but they had been doing it for a long time, and God apparently intended for it to happen to Jesus. It is hard to believe he would get all sulky when his plan went so well. And of course if that were the case it took him hundreds of years to withdraw - which is ironic because it happened when Christianity was doing well.

Yes, I was trying to be a bit facetious. Mormons believe that the true gospel of Christ began degrading around the end of the first century and beginning of the second BC. We like the fact that the Dark Ages were considered to have ended in the early nineteenth century

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, but historians of late are becoming more and more reluctant to use the term which is horribly eurocentric and based upon the faulty concept held by those later on that the period following the western Roman Empires disintegration but before the enlightenment or Renaissance was lacking in value or "light" compared to the lamentably lost Roman Empire.

Yes, I know, but regardless of the change in historical view, the period was referred to as such. I'm not saying it was, but it was referred to as such

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, I was trying to be a bit facetious.

I know, I was just using my serious voice.





True, which is unfortunate when an inaccurate label made by people in the past without perspective sticks so well. A bit like "Gothic" in "Gothic Architecture" originally being derogatory in nature. Fortunately that didn't stick.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I know, I was just using my serious voice.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, which is unfortunate when an inaccurate label made by people in the past without perspective sticks so well. A bit like "Gothic" in "Gothic Architecture" originally being derogatory in nature. Fortunately that didn't stick.

Yes, there are many issues with it. LDS refer to them as the period when priesthood authority, that we recognize, was not present on the Earth

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, there are many issues with it. LDS refer to them as the period when priesthood authority, that we recognize, was not present on the Earth

Wouldn't that last then from the death of the last Disciple of Jesus up until the early 1800's with Joseph Smith? Or was there other holders of it in between that time?

Why doesn't the poll have an option that denies the existence of God?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Wouldn't that last then from the death of the last Disciple of Jesus up until the early 1800's with Joseph Smith? Or was there other holders of it in between that time?

Basically, yes. When the twelve died off and were not replaced.

Originally posted by Trickster
Why doesn't the poll have an option that denies the existence of God?

I haven't voted yet, every time I look at it I get the giggles - "hiding for a reason" just makes me think he is playing a cosmic game of hide and seek. I'd be very upset if it turned out he was behind the lounge. Someone always hides there.



Well I guess from a religious stand point that would be qualifications for thinking of the period dark, but it seems harsh not to take into account human achievement in the time (like the "no Latin writings" ones who labeled the period that failing to also take into accounts the East and the west continuing achievements in the period.)

Makes me wonder though - with the close ties between certain Disciples and the Catholic Church (or at least Early Christians and Rome), why wasn't this "authority" passed on to them?

I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about the development of Christianity, but I thought it was mainly Paul that was in contact with the RCC. Am I mistaken?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

It's cuz we're not worthy...we're just a bunch of sloppy animals

Originally posted by Trickster
I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about the development of Christianity, but I thought it was mainly Paul that was in contact with the RCC. Am I mistaken?

Well the Catholic Church can apparently connect itself directly to the 12 apostles, but it had a strong bond with Peter, who I believe some consider the first Pope.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well I guess from a religious stand point that would be qualifications for thinking of the period dark, but it seems harsh not to take into account human achievement in the time (like the "no Latin writings" ones who labeled the period that failing to also take into accounts the East and the west continuing achievements in the period.)

Yes, I can understand that. We do take them into account. We believe that much of this led to the ability of Joseph Smith to question religion as he did.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Makes me wonder though - with the close ties between certain Disciples and the Catholic Church (or at least Early Christians and Rome), why wasn't this "authority" passed on to them?

We believe that the True Christian Church must follow the structure that Christ created in the Bible. It must have at all times a current Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. As precedent for this we use the fact that the Twelve in the Bible replaced members as they died. The loss of the Twelve was the breaking point in authority. I am unsure as to why the Twelve vanished, I am unaware of a history that explains this, but I assume there is little explanation for it. In the Catholic Church they created the College of Cardinals after the Twelve vanished. Given this I must assume that the College was not appointed by the Twelve. There are historical documents stating that the Twelve maintained the Gospel as taught by Jesus, and that, after they vanished, false teachings began to creep into the Church.

Ah, I see.

I guess that makes sense. As does your point. If they were so close, then Peter would have passed down the authority of pope, unless it was merely a position of honour (first among equals).

Regret, wouldn't Peter's successor have had the ability to appoint other apostle/cardinals, if he was the leader of the faith?

(On another note, if there must always be twelve apostles, how did two men re-establish the Church of LDS?)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well the Catholic Church can apparently connect itself directly to the 12 apostles, but it had a strong bond with Peter, who I believe some consider the first Pope.

Yes, Peter is considered the first Pope by Catholics. Mormons believe that the Catholic Church was the Chruch started by Christ. We just believe that they have altered the teachings of Christ to the point that it is no longer the same belief system as existed in the early Church.

My wife was Catholic, I used to attend Mass with her on Saturdays and discuss religion with the Priest (might have been some position other than this, but I am not sure which, he was at the least a priest) there afterwards.

Originally posted by Trickster
Ah, I see.

I guess that makes sense. As does your point. If they were so close, then Peter would have passed down the authority of pope, unless it was merely a position of honour (first among equals).

Regret, wouldn't Peter's successor have had the ability to appoint other apostle/cardinals, if he was the leader of the faith?

(On another note, if there must always be twelve apostles, how did two men re-establish the Church of LDS?)

We don't believe that Peter was a Pope, we believe the position was created after the Twelve vanished to fill the absence of leadership. We believe it probable that the Apostles did not appoint successors due to the people leaving the original teachings in favor of false teachings.

We believe Peter, James and John were sent by God to re-establish the Twelve.

Okay. Still, I don't understand how if there must always be twelve Apostles, two men could re-establish the Church.

Originally posted by Trickster
Okay. Still, I don't understand how if there must always be twelve Apostles, two men could re-establish the Church.

We believe the Prophet that is called to preside over the entire Church holds all the authority of the entire Quorum of the Twelve. We believe that Joseph Smith was given that authority by Peter, James and John. He later ordained the Twelve, giving each the authority respective to his position within the Twelve. When a Prophet dies, the Twelve then unanimously call, through what we believe to be revelation, the Prophet, and each member of the Twelve then confers the authority they hold upon the Prophet.

It just occurred to me that this could explain how the Apostles could have vanished, and it is probable that this would be our belief. Although I would still be unsure about why such a thing would occur, although we believe the great apostasy spoken of in the Bible is this apostasy.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.


Maybe he doesn't want us to see how he looks...he could very ugly....u never know....

Originally posted by Regret
We believe the Prophet that is called to preside over the entire Church holds all the authority of the entire Quorum of the Twelve. We believe that Joseph Smith was given that authority by Peter, James and John. He later ordained the Twelve, giving each the authority respective to his position within the Twelve. When a Prophet dies, the Twelve then unanimously call, through what we believe to be revelation, the Prophet, and each member of the Twelve then confers the authority they hold upon the Prophet.

It just occurred to me that this could explain how the Apostles could have vanished, and it is probable that this would be our belief. Although I would still be unsure about why such a thing would occur, although we believe the great apostasy spoken of in the Bible is this apostasy.

Interesting. Tell me, since I think one of the jobs of the prophets was to write, have all the ones since the original ones in the Book of Mormon (I only know of Nephi and Alma) continued writing? Does the BoM have to be updated regularly?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Interesting. Tell me, since I think one of the jobs of the prophets was to write, have all the ones since the original ones in the Book of Mormon (I only know of Nephi and Alma) continued writing? Does the BoM have to be updated regularly?

They maintain records, we have fairly regular articles from him presented in our monthly magazine, The Ensign, he speaks at every Bi-Annual General Conference of our Church and all the talks from them are presented in The Ensign for reading, and we believe God mandated everyone to keep a current record of their personal life. I believe that the majority of Prophets have had 10-50 or more volumes of journals.

The BoM isn't updated regularly. We believe that the BoM is an abridgement of comparable journals kept by the ancient prophets presented in it.

We have a book called the Doctrine and Covenants which is updated(not having things taken out, but the new placed at the end) when a prophet has a revelation altering the organization, structure, or other important aspect of Church function.

Also, there have been a few proclamations that have gone out, the most recent one that is of major comment lately is The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Originally posted by Trickster
Okay. Still, I don't understand how if there must always be twelve Apostles, two men could re-establish the Church. Acutally there were 13 including Paul the heretic,.

God never chose him, he chose himself saying so.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Acutally there were 13 including Paul the heretic,

* there are 16 Apostles including Christ Himself... 15 excluding Judas Iscariot...

Originally posted by debbiejo
God never chose him, he chose himself saying so.

* God chose Saint Paul, and his apostleship to the Gentiles was a prophesy fulfilled from the Old Testament...

Originally posted by Regret
Also, there have been a few proclamations that have gone out, the most recent one that is of major comment lately is The Family: A Proclamation to the World

So does he decide to do this when he wishes or is it a joint decision? This particular proclamation, is it in response to something? Because the things it advocate I thought were what Christian's in general are meant to believe.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Acutally there were 13 including Paul the heretic,.

God never chose him, he chose himself saying so.

Wow, thanks for that totally irrelevant post. I don't actually really care how many Apostles there were: I was just inquiring in to the beliefs of the Church of LDS. Anyway, weren't all the Apostles heretics? (In regards to Judaism.)

Originally posted by Regret
We believe the Prophet that is called to preside over the entire Church holds all the authority of the entire Quorum of the Twelve. We believe that Joseph Smith was given that authority by Peter, James and John. He later ordained the Twelve, giving each the authority respective to his position within the Twelve. When a Prophet dies, the Twelve then unanimously call, through what we believe to be revelation, the Prophet, and each member of the Twelve then confers the authority they hold upon the Prophet.

It just occurred to me that this could explain how the Apostles could have vanished, and it is probable that this would be our belief. Although I would still be unsure about why such a thing would occur, although we believe the great apostasy spoken of in the Bible is this apostasy.

That's interesting. (Sorry, a couple of follow-up questions.) Why did they (John, Peter and James) wait 1700 years to appoint a new prophet? Surely it would have been better to appoint a propher at some period during the Dark Ages, unless this position would be filled by the pope.

Also, what is the hierarchy within the Twelve? All the pictures I have seen of them seem to be representing them as equals.

Dont forget that the artwork depicting Christ comes from the mideval and reniassnace eras, positions might have changed by then.

Also, different religoins have different views. Mormons might have made it up, or other Christians could have changed it.

Originally posted by Trickster
That's interesting. (Sorry, a couple of follow-up questions.) Why did they (John, Peter and James) wait 1700 years to appoint a new prophet? Surely it would have been better to appoint a propher at some period during the Dark Ages, unless this position would be filled by the pope.

As to why wait, we believe that had the Church been brought back before this time it would not have been received well by the people, and would have been attacked heavily and possibly destroyed by the various powers that be. The United States, offered religious protection such that it could be brought back without this possibility, we believe that is a portion of the reason. Also, Joseph Smith asked. He doubted all the religious options offered him, and asked God what to do. I am unsure that another did this.

Also, from what I have read about the Popes, they do not seem to have been the best of people. The indulgences, various instances of bastard children, infallibility clauses that give a Pope free reign of behavior, etc.

My personal belief is that most likely no one asked God about the subject. Many men thought they knew how it should be, and so they started various religious sects based on what they perceived as wrong and right methodology, but I do not believe they asked God in the same manner.

Also, a recognition of error within the Christian church must have occurred. Until shortly before the 19th century there was not a broad recognition by Christians of a lacking in their religion. For most of the Dark Ages, the people did not recognize anything missing from the Christian religion.

We believe that there are times that are set for various occurrences:

The Fall of Adam
Noah
Moses
Elijah
Christ
Joseph Smith
Brigham Young
Second Coming
Return to a Pre-Fall level of existence

These are just a few that show a small portion of what we consider important events that basically mirror each other. There is a time frame in our belief for various events. We don't believe all events mirror, but many major ones do.

Originally posted by Trickster
Also, what is the hierarchy within the Twelve? All the pictures I have seen of them seem to be representing them as equals.

As to hierarchy, typically this is decided by seniority. I am unsure as to how this works, and am unsure if any real hierarchy really exists, but what hierarchy exists that I am aware of is based in seniority. There was some form of hierarchy existent, in the Bible there are instances when one apostle defers to another.

This thread suggests that somehow God is outside of us.

Here I AM....jump

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So does he decide to do this when he wishes or is it a joint decision? This particular proclamation, is it in response to something? Because the things it advocate I thought were what Christian's in general are meant to believe.

Sorry for the delayed response, I didn't see your post.

We believe in unity. The prophet is absolute, his authority over-arches the entire Church. But, unless it is direct revelation from God, all decisions are put before the Twelve and then sustained by the Twelve. Any decision that affects the organization or doctrines of the church is also put before the general body of the church and is sustained by them as well. Although below the Twelve it is mainly just a matter of commitment to the subject presented, and no veto type authority really exists below the Twelve.

As to the Proclamation I used as an example, these concepts it advocates should be believed by Christians in general, but various aspects of it are not strongly supported among Christians today.

It does advocate gender as being absolute, girls should be girls, boys should be boys, and they should behave as such, an idea that isn't extremely popular at the moment. It is an anti-homosexual behavior document, and various Christian faiths are questioning this. It discourages single parent situations, although it does make the statement, "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Originally posted by Regret
It does advocate gender as being absolute, girls should be girls, boys should be boys, and they should behave as such, an idea that isn't extremely popular at the moment. It is an anti-homosexual behavior document, and various Christian faiths are questioning this. It discourages single parent situations, although it does make the statement, "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Yeah...people usually think that having a role defined for you is improper.

Originally posted by lord xyz
There is no god. God's as real as magic, hypnotism and karma. I agree with you except for hypnotism, this is real.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah...people usually think that having a role defined for you is improper.

It's more a statement that girls shouldn't be boys type attitude.

I dont understand how that changes anything.

Your statement seemed more broad in scope.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals take on opposite gender roles?

No, it wasn't in reference to homosexuality at all. It was in reference to behavior. Girls and Boys should attempt to be attractive to the opposite sex, but maintain a modest behavior. This is in reference to girls that behave in such a manner that boys find them unattractive, and vice versa.

sounds sexist.

It doesn't make sense to me.

If it was a simple as that. They would have said: "be modest"

Originally posted by Alliance
sounds sexist.

It doesn't make sense to me.

If it was a simple as that. They would have said: "be modest"

It is sexist, but I do not believe it to be in a negative manner. Women are women, men are men. The LDS Church frowns on androgyny and confusion between the sexes. Sexism can be a simple discrimination based on gender, and discrimination can be the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. It doesn't need to be negatively defined.

There is a distinction between men and women. This is a fact with more evidence than evolution ever had. I do not understand why the differences are not celebrated instead of being the object of negative connotation. Sexist views, that are not negative, celebrate the virtues of these distinctions, but it is currently politically incorrect to make the statement as such.

No. Its morally incorrect to have defined gender roles for individuals. Sexism is discrimination and discrimination is itself a negative concept.

There are clear reasidues of anti-homosexuality as well.

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Its morally incorrect to have defined gender roles for individuals. Sexism is discrimination and discrimination is itself a negative concept.

There are clear reasidues of anti-homosexuality as well.

Discrimination is not a negative concept, differential treatment of others is the negative concept to which you are referring. Discrimination is a misnomer.

No. I dont think there's really a trick to this one.

So I should treat a girl much like I would a fllow man? So if a woman slaps me, I should punch her back?

Thats what I do when I sleep with men with women who think they are men women man.

So your bisexual?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

Because if there was a "god," we would be insignificant to said "god."

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

The Lord works in mysterious ways......

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
So your bisexual?

No. I just don't think that men and women have defined roles that they should follow because fo their sex.

Women can work wherever and be a woman. A man can be gay and be a man. Gender roles are shit.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Lord works in mysterious ways......

That's the biggest and cheapest excuse I have ever heard on Christianity's defense....what a cop out

Let me send people to places where they will be tortured for only a DAY, and as I go to prison, my defense will be "I work in mysterious ways" and "I did it out of love"

Yet God sends "good" people to Hell, who are non beleivers, and then all of a sudden it's okay, and it's out of his "love"....

Originally posted by Regret
Discrimination is not a negative concept, differential treatment of others is the negative concept to which you are referring. Discrimination is a misnomer.

This is coming from the person who argued that there is no such thing as "nuetral"

Regret come on...you said before actions are only good or evil. If you remain loyal to your logic, then Discrimination can only be negative or positive, it cannot be "nuetral"...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That's the biggest and cheapest excuse I have ever heard on Christianity's defense....what a cop out

It's not a cop out, its true.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's not a cop out, its true.

If it is true, then I am assuming you can prove it. Would you be willing to convince me as to how u know its true ?

if something is hard to understand and elusive, then its mysterious.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
if something is hard to understand and elusive, then its mysterious.

Yes, assuming that something exists....

Originally posted by Regret
No, it wasn't in reference to homosexuality at all. It was in reference to behavior. Girls and Boys should attempt to be attractive to the opposite sex, but maintain a modest behavior. This is in reference to girls that behave in such a manner that boys find them unattractive, and vice versa.

Personally I don't think a girl needs to conform to a preconceived, gender specific image to be a girl, but maybe that's just me.

So what would be a women roll in a Mormon household that adheres to the proclamation? Does she work outside the home?

And can girls be missionaries? I have never I seen a female Mormon missionary.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Personally I don't think a girl needs to conform to a preconceived, gender specific image to be a girl, but maybe that's just me.

I think the question is only applicable to each person individually. If a woman wants to follow a traditional role, she should be able to do so without being attacked for it. A woman should be able to work and follow the nontraditional role without being attacked for it. And the same with men. Men are the target of the same type of treatment as women. Men are typically viewed negatively if he does not work while his wife does. Women are typically viewed negatively if she wants to be a stay at home mom. Differential treatment comes from both sides, imo.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So what would be a women roll in a Mormon household that adheres to the proclamation? Does she work outside the home?

Women are encouraged to pursue an education, and pursue a marriage relationship, same as men. Women are encouraged to remain in the home once a child is born, but an education is encouraged if it does not interfere with child care. The hierarchy of men and women's responsibility is outlined somewhat as follows:

Family
Church Responsibilities
Education/Vocation

Women are encouraged to raise children while men are encouraged to maintain financial stability. Traditional roles are encouraged.

Within the family Husbands and Wives are equal in all aspects of responsibility.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And can girls be missionaries? I have never I seen a female Mormon missionary.

Women are encouraged to pursue their careers and marriage, and a mission is not supposed to be a priority for them, but they have the option. Female missionaries cannot request to become a missionary until 2-3 years later than male missionaries. I am unsure if there are any differences between their assignments and male missionary assignments, although I do believe that often they are positioned at visitor centers and such more frequently than male missionaries. But I do know that many female missionaries have the same type of schedules and perform the same as male missionaries.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This is coming from the person who argued that there is no such thing as "nuetral"

Regret come on...you said before actions are only good or evil. If you remain loyal to your logic, then Discrimination can only be negative or positive, it cannot be "nuetral"...

I do not believe discrimination to be an act, it is merely recognition of a distinction between two stimuli. Differential treatment is the action that occurs when one responds differently to one stimulus than he would to another. To treat a person in a negative manner differently than one would another is evil, if the negatively treated individual did not earn the treatment, particularly if such treatment is due to an uncontrollable aspect of the individual.

I did not say anything about neutrality here. Discrimination is a misnomer in that it uses a term that describes recognition of distinction to describe a negative action based on this recognition. Logically you could say someone discriminates based on discrimination.

or are you just trying to avoid people tagging Mormonism's gender roles as blatant discrimination.

Originally posted by Alliance
or are you just trying to avoid people tagging Mormonism's gender roles as blatant discrimination.

No, I do not believe it to be discrimination as many use the term. Women choose to follow these guidelines, discrimination would be the Church actively acting against women that do not or women being punished for not living these guidelines, such is not the case.

I do disagree with the use of the term, for the exact reason I describe.

I don't buy that argument. If its in the documentation of the church, its discriminatory. It doesn't have to be active discrimination, it can be passive.

Yeah its good that they are not prosecuted...but its still in your rules/reccomendations.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't buy that argument. If its in the documentation of the church, its discriminatory. It doesn't have to be active discrimination, it can be passive.

Yeah its good that they are not prosecuted...but its still in your rules/reccomendations.

Perhaps, but that is inherent with any prescribed behaviors, those that don't comply will be actively or passively discriminated against.

Would you consider men discriminated against in these recommendations? I would have to say that they have to be if women are.

Oh yes...100%

Originally posted by Alliance
Women can work wherever and be a woman. A man can be gay and be a man.

Then, I believe that discrimination, of the sort we have been discussing, is an integral part of any organized structure within human society. Some form of acceptable discrimination may be the only truly common factor among human societal systems.

Currently those discriminations present in society appear benign despite the possible errors in the view. Which discriminations are profitable, and which are detrimental? I am unsure that such can be decided by those involved.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

We must believe. If you doubt him, then he won't come. Look at how Peter fell into the water when his faith wavered

Originally posted by Council#13
We must believe. If you doubt him, then he won't come. Look at how Peter fell into the water when his faith wavered
His faith wavered even when he was in the presence of the Lord. He looked straight at Jesus and then at the water and fell. It just goes to show that he live by faith not by sight.

Originally posted by Regret


Then, I believe that discrimination, of the sort we have been discussing, is an integral part of any organized structure within human society. Some form of acceptable discrimination may be the only truly common factor among human societal systems.

Currently those discriminations present in society appear benign despite the possible errors in the view. Which discriminations are profitable, and which are detrimental? I am unsure that such can be decided by those involved.

Perhaps it is, but then again, its not indocrinated is it?

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps it is, but then again, its not indocrinated is it?

It is not? Have you never taken a course that dealt with American society in general? Any course dealing with women's issues, even briefly? Discrimination of some type is indoctrinated in every organized body of humans. We merely have an areligious indoctrination, not the lack of indoctrination. And such indoctrination is required of those that are educated in any level of American education. It is merely more covert than religious indoctrination. It is more subtle and the method is easier to dismiss, but it is indoctrination. If I were to post a thread in the GD forum addressing the subject, perhaps entitled "Housewife, is she suppressed?" I am positive that I would have a large portion of the responses saying that, yes she is. My wife would have issue with that, as she is not a housewife, but would like to be. It would have the same result as my thread in the philosophy forum, "Were women suppressed?", I do not believe the statements I make on that thread, but I was curious as to the response such a thread would engender. It produced a predictable response. Typically women were up in arms over the topic. Men would swing from one end to the other, although often they would acknowledge suppression. Similar would probably occur with my theoretical thread.

Originally posted by Regret
I do not believe discrimination to be an act, it is merely recognition of a distinction between two stimuli. Differential treatment is the action that occurs when one responds differently to one stimulus than he would to another. To treat a person in a negative manner differently than one would another is evil, if the negatively treated individual did not earn the treatment, particularly if such treatment is due to an uncontrollable aspect of the individual.



So you are essentially arguing that discrimination can occur in the mind, not necessarily in live action ? Yes or No ?

Originally posted by Regret
I did not say anything about neutrality here. Discrimination is a misnomer in that it uses a term that describes recognition of distinction to describe a negative action based on this recognition. Logically you could say someone discriminates based on discrimination.

This is where I beg to differ...

Discrimination, in my eyes, and in the eyes of many, is a lot more than just a "recognition" of different stimuli. It almost always involves favoritism of one side and/or dislike or disgust of another side.

To "recognize" one's differences is to observe or make an observation. To like or dislike someone or something based on these observations is to be BIAS...and to act upon that bias is to Discriminate

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you are essentially arguing that discrimination can occur in the mind, not necessarily in live action ? Yes or No ?
This is where I beg to differ...

Discrimination, in my eyes, and in the eyes of many, is a lot more than just a "recognition" of different stimuli. It almost always involves favoritism of one side and/or dislike or disgust of another side.

To "recognize" one's differences is to observe or make an observation. To like or dislike someone or something based on these observations is to be BIAS...and to act upon that bias is to Discriminate

No, what I am saying is that the definition of discrimination that you are using has been applied to the word improperly. Perhaps I haven't been clear, I understand what you are referring to by the term "discrimination", but due to my training I do not agree with the use of the term as only referencing negative behavior. Discrimination for me is merely the ability to distinguish between stimuli. I know the definition, and you are referring to a portion of the definition that I disagree with. That portion of the term is relatively new and adds a negative connotation to the term. I disagree that all discrimination is negative.

Originally posted by Regret
No, I do not believe it to be discrimination as many use the term. Women choose to follow these guidelines, discrimination would be the Church actively acting against women that do not or women being punished for not living these guidelines, such is not the case.

I do disagree with the use of the term, for the exact reason I describe.

So if people don't follow the guidelines recommended is there any form of social weight put on them as they act against the advised norms?

Obviously here in Australia there was a relatively recent case where gay men were refused the whole communion because they were gay (they were identified as gay by the minister in question as they were wearing the gay pride sashes.)

While I know the Mormon Church differs a lot form many of the other Christian Church's out there do they differ here to? That is lack the "social punishment" avenue where individuals risk being ostracised socially/religiously due to their choices (being openly gay or leaving the family, or putting work/education before the family etc?)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So if people don't follow the guidelines recommended is there any form of social weight put on them as they act against the advised norms?

If you are asking if the LDS Church prescribes social weight being placed on individuals for acting outside the advice of the Church, no there is not.

If you are asking if people in the Church behave in a similar manner to people outside of the Church, and treat people in the Church differently when those people do not behave in the manner that is viewed as proper, yes, such does occur. People are people. I am sure that there is a curve that fits the level of behaviors, I am not sure where it lies, but I would assume that it is similar to any other culture.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Obviously here in Australia there was a relatively recent case where gay men were refused the whole communion because they were gay (they were identified as gay by the minister in question as they were wearing the gay pride sashes.)

The LDS Church is against the practice of homosexuality. Although, if a person does not practice or condone such behavior, that person is allowed to maintain membership. The Church does not advise negative behavior towards such an individual. If a person practices homosexuality, that individual will most likely be excommunicated, and all activities within the Church will be restricted.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
While I know the Mormon Church differs a lot form many of the other Christian Church's out there do they differ here to? That is lack the "social punishment" avenue where individuals risk being ostracised socially/religiously due to their choices (being openly gay or leaving the family, or putting work/education before the family etc?)

Religion is a choice, as are the behaviors accepted to be a part of that religion. Any social group has behaviors that one would risk being ostracized for violating. Some groups ostracize you if you "rat" on another, some groups ostracize you if you speak out of turn, some groups ostracize you because you state a disagreement with an aspect of its philosophy.

Homosexuality is another topic and is stretching your argument beyond the relatively simple subject of family. It delves into sexual morality.

A homosexual should still be accepted as an individual, as a part of a family, as a friend, as whatever he/she was prior to "coming out." But, as far as religious activity, that individual will not be allowed to participate in religious activities where the individual plays a role. A homosexual could go to our meetings, but they would not be given responsibility, and would be counseled to not partake of the sacrament. A practicing homosexual is stating that he/she does not want to behave as the Church is teaching to behave, that person is choosing not to be a part of that religious group.

Our belief on the sacrament is that it is a renewing of baptismal covenants. As such, homosexual activity does not comply with those covenants, to partake of the sacrament would be a lie for that person.

No one would stop that individual though, unless the individual was overtly interrupting the activities, or speaking against the activities at times that are improper and disrespecting the experience for others.

Now, people are people. You cannot expect people to be something else. I would hope that the LDS people would stand above the norm, but I am realistic and know that there are those who do not. People, by nature pressure others to conform. A professor of mine, an atheist by theological bent, asserted that if you wanted to be like a specific type of person you should spend time with them. They will shape you through various overt and covert reinforcement of proper behaviors and punish your improper behaviors, within that groups behavior schema. This is a fact. You cannot separate religion from other cultural/societal groups and say that it must not follow the same patterns as the rest of these groups, religion is merely a group of people that want and strive to behave a certain way, it is not a group of people that behave that way.

I will not get into a debate on homosexuality. I believe such is a waste of my time. I have stated my views on it.

Originally posted by The Disagreer
His faith wavered even when he was in the presence of the Lord. He looked straight at Jesus and then at the water and fell. It just goes to show that he live by faith not by sight.

Yes....

Originally posted by Regret
You cannot separate religion from other cultural/societal groups and say that it must not follow the same patterns as the rest of these groups, religion is merely a group of people that want and strive to behave a certain way, it is not a group of people that behave that way.

Excluding the useless diatribe, So you would then approve of the FLDS and their continued practice of polygamy? You would think this practice should be protected as a religious institution?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.

If God is defined as something which created us, then it is not hiding, its everywhere around us. Mother earth, Universe - it created us, so it is, by deffinition a God...unless you have a different deffinition of what God is.

Originally posted by Regret
The LDS Church is against the practice of homosexuality. Although, if a person does not practice or condone such behavior, that person is allowed to maintain membership. The Church does not advise negative behavior towards such an individual. If a person practices homosexuality, that individual will most likely be excommunicated, and all activities within the Church will be restricted.


You see Regret....you can be so logical at times, and then you make a statement like this....

How can you think the Church excommunicating a homosexual is a just act? The homosexual is just as much a sinner as any of the heterosexuals that are members of the Church.

Do you mean to tell me that homosexuality is SO sinful that it outweighs any of the sins of all the other heterosexual members ?

Or are you going to argue that the heterosexual members of the LDS Church are NOT sinners in some way....?

If homosexuality is a sin, then obviously the homosexual is a sinner...if a sinner cannot practice in the Church, then ALL SINNERS should not be allowed to participate..not just homosexual sinners.



Originally posted by Regret
Religion is a choice, as are the behaviors accepted to be a part of that religion. Any social group has behaviors that one would risk being ostracized for violating. Some groups ostracize you if you "rat" on another, some groups ostracize you if you speak out of turn, some groups ostracize you because you state a disagreement with an aspect of its philosophy.


I think it would be revolutionary when we have a religion that does not aim to judge anyone that way...oh wait...we already have Buddhism


Originally posted by Regret
Homosexuality is another topic and is stretching your argument beyond the relatively simple subject of family. It delves into sexual morality.

Yes, yes we heard this a million times....what's your point? There are more "sins" than just homosexuality, why would you only target homosexuality and ignore the other sins that exist within the members of the church ?

Since when is a heterosexual automatically more moral than a homosexual ?

Originally posted by Regret
A homosexual should still be accepted as an individual, as a part of a family, as a friend, as whatever he/she was prior to "coming out." But, as far as religious activity, that individual will not be allowed to participate in religious activities where the individual plays a role. A homosexual could go to our meetings, but they would not be given responsibility, and would be counseled to not partake of the sacrament. A practicing homosexual is stating that he/she does not want to behave as the Church is teaching to behave, that person is choosing not to be a part of that religious group.

If a homosexual stops having gay sex, he or she is STILL homosexual...the same way you would STILL be heterosexual even if you stopped having sex all together....

According to the logic of your wording, homosexuals can never participate in your Church.

And at the same time, how do you know that all the heterosexuals are living exactly the way your Church is teaching? You don't...the Church is just simply making guesses and discriminating based on sexual orientation, using that as the example.

Originally posted by Regret
Our belief on the sacrament is that it is a renewing of baptismal covenants. As such, homosexual activity does not comply with those covenants, to partake of the sacrament would be a lie for that person.


I understand, and i am not going to argue that homosexuality is "okay" because we are never going to agree...i get it already.

However....this statement is implying that all heterosexual members are not only good people, but that they're NOT sinners...is that even possible?

Do you really beleive that alll the heterosexual members of the Church are THAT committed to living a non sinful life, that they will never commit a sin ?

Originally posted by Regret
No one would stop that individual though, unless the individual was overtly interrupting the activities, or speaking against the activities at times that are improper and disrespecting the experience for others.

But do you really think that all homosexuals are going to be disrespectful and not commit ? I dont understand how you can want to ban homosexuals from Church activity, YET at the same time you want them to be SAVED ?????

Originally posted by Regret
Now, people are people. You cannot expect people to be something else. I would hope that the LDS people would stand above the norm, but I am realistic and know that there are those who do not. People, by nature pressure others to conform. A professor of mine, an atheist by theological bent, asserted that if you wanted to be like a specific type of person you should spend time with them. They will shape you through various overt and covert reinforcement of proper behaviors and punish your improper behaviors, within that groups behavior schema. This is a fact. You cannot separate religion from other cultural/societal groups and say that it must not follow the same patterns as the rest of these groups, religion is merely a group of people that want and strive to behave a certain way, it is not a group of people that behave that way.


Ofcourse bro, i totally agree. Religion is a human construct just like every other cultural deal.

Originally posted by Regret
I will not get into a debate on homosexuality. I believe such is a waste of my time. I have stated my views on it.

Why is it a waste of your time?

OH, you mean subservient to their men.

Originally posted by Alliance
Excluding the useless diatribe, So you would then approve of the FLDS and their continued practice of polygamy? You would think this practice should be protected as a religious institution?

I am unsure of how much of their beliefs have changed from the LDS beliefs. Joseph Smith stated the Articles of Faith, and they hold him as a prophet. The 12th Article of Faith is:



Polygamy is against the law. This is the central reason for the LDS Church having eventually ending the practice of polygamy. We ended the practice through revelation, but, the central reason for the end was that the two beliefs came into conflict. I do not approve of the FLDS and their continued practice of polygamy, their continued practice conflicts with the Articles of Faith and thus the Articles of Faith must be held invalid by them, as well as any need to live within the law.

I believe that polygamy should be allowed by law, especially if other relationships are tolerated by the law. I believe there are many behaviors that should not be covered by protection of religious freedom.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You see Regret....you can be so logical at times, and then you make a statement like this....

How can you think the Church excommunicating a homosexual is a just act? The homosexual is just as much a sinner as any of the heterosexuals that are members of the Church.

Do you mean to tell me that homosexuality is SO sinful that it outweighs any of the sins of all the other heterosexual members ?

Or are you going to argue that the heterosexual members of the LDS Church are NOT sinners in some way....?

If homosexuality is a sin, then obviously the homosexual is a sinner...if a sinner cannot practice in the Church, then ALL SINNERS should not be allowed to participate..not just homosexual sinners.

Sins that cause one to become excommunicated include breaking the sexual laws, as well as others. There are various sins we view as too strong to allow activity while committing. We want them to be good people, but influence within the Church by such people must be limited until they repent. We don't single out homosexuals. I have an uncle that was excommunicated for adultery, heterosexual activity outside of marriage is punished as heavily as homosexual activity. Sexual immorality is second only to the sin against the Holy Spirit in our beliefs. Sexual immorality is activity outside the bounds of marriage. Since we do not believe that one can marry another of the same gender, and do not recognize such, homosexuality falls into the category of sexual immorality.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Since when is a heterosexual automatically more moral than a homosexual ?

Sexual activity outside of marriage is less moral than sexual activity within marriage. My religion does not recognize homosexual marriage. It isn't the sexual orientation, it is where the activity occurs.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If a homosexual stops having gay sex, he or she is STILL homosexual...the same way you would STILL be heterosexual even if you stopped having sex all together....

If the homosexual stops having gay sex and does not condone homosexuality, what makes him a homosexual? And I don't care about the thoughts and such or your personal internal observation of yourself. Neither is something that can be held as valid evidence, both are subjective and assuming something that cannot be shown to exist.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think it would be revolutionary when we have a religion that does not aim to judge anyone that way...oh wait...we already have Buddhism

Lol, that is amusing. Buddhists are not all judgemental, but there are judgemental Buddhists, people are people.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, yes we heard this a million times....what's your point? There are more "sins" than just homosexuality, why would you only target homosexuality and ignore the other sins that exist within the members of the church ?

We do not target homosexuality. Sexual immorality is merely a sin that we believes requires more extreme measures than many other sins.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
According to the logic of your wording, homosexuals can never participate in your Church.

Not in an active role, no.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And at the same time, how do you know that all the heterosexuals are living exactly the way your Church is teaching? You don't...the Church is just simply making guesses and discriminating based on sexual orientation, using that as the example.

Addressed above.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I understand, and i am not going to argue that homosexuality is "okay" because we are never going to agree...i get it already.

That is good.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
However....this statement is implying that all heterosexual members are not only good people, but that they're NOT sinners...is that even possible?

Addressed above. I spoke to the topic of homosexuality, I did not limit sins that are punished in this manner to only homosexual behavior, you inferred that due to homosexuality being the sin discussed.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you really beleive that alll the heterosexual members of the Church are THAT committed to living a non sinful life, that they will never commit a sin ?

I do not believe that the members of my Church are perfect individuals. If they are active in the Church, then yes they should be committed to trying to lead as sinless a life as possible. That is not saying that anyone is sinless or even nearly sinless, it is only saying that that is the goal being worked towards. They should be committed to trying to be good people, and good is defined here as following the teachings of the Church. Whether they are or not is not the point, they should be.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But do you really think that all homosexuals are going to be disrespectful and not commit ? I dont understand how you can want to ban homosexuals from Church activity, YET at the same time you want them to be SAVED ?????

I did not state that they would be. I merely stated that if they were disrespectful, they would not be welcome. There is a homosexual man that attends our Sacrament meeting weekly, he is quiet and sometimes attends the classes following. He does not speak out disrespectfully. He is accepted there, but he will never hold a position within the structure of the Church.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Ofcourse bro, i totally agree. Religion is a human construct just like every other cultural deal.

I believe that religion was instituted by God, I merely believe that the population of religion is composed of people. As such, you cannot separate those people from people not of their group and expect one to have dissimilar tendencies. The curves may shift as to their central tendency, but the curves will still exist.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen


Why is it a waste of your time?

It is pointless to debate homosexuality because it is something my religion views as wrong. Regardless of philosophical discussion that will not change, and so I will remain within the same view on the subject as my religion. I will remain within it and not try to deviate because neither side of the debate impacts my life. There is no need for me to assess the validity of the stance because I don't care one way or the other about the topic, and don't plan to start caring about the topic. As such I will follow the stance of the religion.



My statements addressed homosexuality because that is what Imperial Samura directly asked about. My statements do not imply anything other than the fact that we strongly disagree with homosexuality, as I mentioned above.

Originally posted by debbiejo
OH, you mean subservient to their men.

My wife disagrees with your assessment.

Originally posted by Regret
My wife disagrees with your assessment. Oh, maybe she tells you so, but according to your scriptures a man is ahead of the woman in every way...........she can only suggest, but you are the one that will lead the belief?.............I'm wrong.???.........if so, let me know.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh, maybe she tells you so, but according to your scriptures a man is ahead of the woman in every way...........she can only suggest, but you are the one that will lead the belief?.............I'm I wrong.???.........if so, let me know.

You are wrong. In Mormon family structure and authority, husband and wife are equal in all aspects.

What if your wife wanted to read books outside your faith?.................and the books were from the original source instead of the churches view of books that should be read .................and avoided...........would you permit her to bring them into the house?

Originally posted by debbiejo
What if your wife wanted to read books outside your faith?.................and the books were from the original source instead of the churches view of books that should be read .................and avoided...........would you permit her to bring them into the house?

Other than pornography, I am unaware of any books that the LDS Church believes should or should not be read.



As to would I permit her, why would I have a right to deny her? Your question does not make sense.

An intelligent person would study all views of any opinion that impacts their own life in some way. If she found error with our beliefs that would sway her, I should investigate it as well.

Your question assumes that I hold authority to tell her what she can or cannot do, such is not the case. Neither does she have that authority. Although, we do compromise with each other's views often, but I believe that is the key to success in marriage.

Originally posted by Regret
Sins that cause one to become excommunicated include breaking the sexual laws, as well as others. There are various sins we view as too strong to allow activity while committing. We want them to be good people, but influence within the Church by such people must be limited until they repent. We don't single out homosexuals. I have an uncle that was excommunicated for adultery, heterosexual activity outside of marriage is punished as heavily as homosexual activity. Sexual immorality is second only to the sin against the Holy Spirit in our beliefs. Sexual immorality is activity outside the bounds of marriage. Since we do not believe that one can marry another of the same gender, and do not recognize such, homosexuality falls into the category of sexual immorality.

We already established how homosexuality is defined as immorality in your religion....that's fine with me, because I am not part of your religion, so I am not bound by such restrictions.

For me it's no sin, because to me your religious perspective of "SIN" and "Heaven" is just mythology....as long as you understand that, then we can come to mutually agree to disagree...

Originally posted by Regret
If the homosexual stops having gay sex and does not condone homosexuality, what makes him a homosexual? And I don't care about the thoughts and such or your personal internal observation of yourself. Neither is something that can be held as valid evidence, both are subjective and assuming something that cannot be shown to exist.


HE is still a homosexual, the same way YOU Are still heterosexual regardless of whether or not you contine having sex.

Answer me seriously...if you chose to become celebate...no sex for the rest of your life....does that mean you would no longer be straight ?

I am telling you from personal experience, i knew what i was before i even became sexually active. I know myself...i know that regardless of what i do in the future, I am bisexual, and probably always will be.

I also couldn't change it, even if i WANTED TO....













Originally posted by Regret
It is pointless to debate homosexuality because it is something my religion views as wrong. Regardless of philosophical discussion that will not change, and so I will remain within the same view on the subject as my religion. I will remain within it and not try to deviate because neither side of the debate impacts my life. There is no need for me to assess the validity of the stance because I don't care one way or the other about the topic, and don't plan to start caring about the topic. As such I will follow the stance of the religion.

I am glad you admit that you couldn't care less. You don't have to bro, but im glad that you finally admit it, atleast to me, because that is the crux of the matter in my eyes.

You don't care...that simple. It means nothing to you, because it impacts your life in no way whatsoever...

meaning you lack true empathy, meaning you choose to remain narrow minded and beleive in something you ahve no evidense for, and you do it willingly....

that's your choice...fine.

But then.....since you admit that you do not care....you have no right to render any judgement or create any kind of restriction for someone who is homosexual or bisexual, since you do not even have thier best interests in your heart.



Originally posted by Regret
My statements addressed homosexuality because that is what Imperial Samura directly asked about. My statements do not imply anything other than the fact that we strongly disagree with homosexuality, as I mentioned above.


You disagree with it because your religion condemns it...that's fine. There's nothing I can do about it, and i couldnt' care less whether or not you approve, because likewise, your beleif it affects me in no way.

You can beleive whatever you want, and if any homosexual is stupid enough to WANT to have an active role in your Church, then let him or her enter thier own misery...its thier choice.

However....if you go beyond keeping your religion within your church, by publicly speaking out against homosexuality, and voting to ban gay marriage and limit gay rights...then you and i have a problem, because THEN it would effect me....just understand that.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

Answer me seriously...if you chose to become celebate...no sex for the rest of your life....does that mean you would no longer be straight ?

It would make you A-sexual.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
We already established how homosexuality is defined as immorality in your religion....that's fine with me, because I am not part of your religion, so I am not bound by such restrictions.

For me it's no sin, because to me your religious perspective of "SIN" and "Heaven" is just mythology....as long as you understand that, then we can come to mutually agree to disagree...

Agreed

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
HE is still a homosexual, the same way YOU Are still heterosexual regardless of whether or not you contine having sex.

Answer me seriously...if you chose to become celebate...no sex for the rest of your life....does that mean you would no longer be straight ?

I would say yes, I would no longer be straight. Is a eunuch gay or straight? If you are celibate, you are not participating in sexuality, and thus are not within the realm at all. I believe that your actions define you to other people, your thoughts may be one thing, but no one else is capable of knowing what they are.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am glad you admit that you couldn't care less. You don't have to bro, but im glad that you finally admit it, atleast to me, because that is the crux of the matter in my eyes.

I have never stated that I cared about the matter.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You don't care...that simple. It means nothing to you, because it impacts your life in no way whatsoever...

meaning you lack true empathy, meaning you choose to remain narrow minded and beleive in something you ahve no evidense for, and you do it willingly....

that's your choice...fine.

But then.....since you admit that you do not care....you have no right to render any judgement or create any kind of restriction for someone who is homosexual or bisexual, since you do not even have thier best interests in your heart.

Yes, I lack empathy for the plight of the homosexual. This does not necessitate me not having their best interest in my heart, it only necessitates my view of their best interests not being in line with theirs.

I do not believe in judging others. I do not view their ability to participate in my religions activities a judgement. Participation in my religions activities is voluntary as is the individuals behavior, if one is in conflict with the other a choice must be made. Just because they don't like that does not mean the religion should change, they must decide where they stand. If they do not stop the behavior, religious aspects that conflict with their behaviors must be withheld. In the case of homosexuality, nearly all of the aspects of LDS doctrine are in conflict with such behavior.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You disagree with it because your religion condemns it...that's fine. There's nothing I can do about it, and i couldnt' care less whether or not you approve, because likewise, your beleif it affects me in no way.

You can beleive whatever you want, and if any homosexual is stupid enough to WANT to have an active role in your Church, then let him or her enter thier own misery...its thier choice.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
However....if you go beyond keeping your religion within your church, by publicly speaking out against homosexuality, and voting to ban gay marriage and limit gay rights...then you and i have a problem, because THEN it would effect me....just understand that.

I do have an issue with legalizing homosexual unions, in that I do not believe any union should be given special legal consideration unless there are benefits or rational reasons for doing so, including heterosexual unions, which I believe have both. But we have discussed this, and we disagree.

Now, I avoid the homosexuality threads for the most part. But if I am asked a question concerning the topic I will present my opinion/beliefs, as I have done here.

studies of Buddhism, Hinduism, New age,.........etc...and from the real source..............you have NO problem with this??

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It would make you A-sexual.

No it doesn't. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.



Thanks for answering the rest, as to this - it is believed that the family should come first? But theoretically it would be possible for a Mormon women to persue a career and leave home care to the husband, or even a nanny/etc?

While it is advised against, there is nothing stopping a family working like this?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Thanks for answering the rest, as to this - it is believed that the family should come first? But theoretically it would be possible for a Mormon women to persue a career and leave home care to the husband, or even a nanny/etc?

While it is advised against, there is nothing stopping a family working like this?

It is how my wife and I did things for a couple of years, it is advised against, but nothing says it cannot be like this. Although, women in the Church do not like this type of setup, they view it as the man's position to work. My wife received some negative comments from women due to this.

Originally posted by Regret
It is how my wife and I did things for a couple of years, it is advised against, but nothing says it cannot be like this. Although, women in the Church do not like this type of setup, they view it as the man's position to work. My wife received some negative comments from women due to this. Hmmmmmmmmmm your wife is being talked about and judged??

Originally posted by debbiejo
Hmmmmmmmmmm your wife is being talked about and judged?? Like I've stated before, people are people. The doctrines of the Church do not support such, all the same, some people act how they will at times. Also, you should notice the term some in my statement here and in my previous post.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It would make you A-sexual.

Wrong

Asexuality is when you do not LIKE having sex...and there are some people, a rare minority of people, who are indeed asexual.

Asexuality accompanies either a dislike in sexual activity, OR a total inability to have sex (lets say severe erectile disfunction, or damaged genitals)

According to your logic, you were not straight before you started having sex. Once you started having sex, you were straight...

Originally posted by Regret
Like I've stated before, people are people. The doctrines of the Church do not support such, all the same, some people act how they will at times. Also, you should notice the term some in my statement here and in my previous post. They don't seem Christian then if they talk..............seen it in may protestant churches......................stand tall, I suppose, but eventually you all will so be tired of it that you will all be sick of it and whelmed and leave.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Wrong

Asexuality is when you do not LIKE having sex...and there are some people, a rare minority of people, who are indeed asexual.

Asexuality accompanies either a dislike in sexual activity, OR a total inability to have sex (lets say severe erectile disfunction, or damaged genitals)

According to your logic, you were not straight before you started having sex. Once you started having sex, you were straight...

Or just as much not having any gender at all, nor any sexuality.

Originally posted by debbiejo
They don't seem Christian then if they talk..............seen it in may protestant churches......................stand tall, I suppose, but eventually you all will so be tired of it that you will all be sick of it and whelmed and leave.

You act like this is something confined to religions. It is the state of man in general. Men are not perfect, no matter the teachings they adhere to. One must accept that other people are not perfect and assume the best of others and their actions.

If someone thinks ill of what you do, you should harbor good feelings towards them. They are only trying to better you by letting you know of your error. If you disagree with them is beside the point, they still have good intentions, or at least one should assume so. If they do not have good intentions, does it hurt you to assume otherwise? I don't believe so. Christian beliefs state that man should forgive seventy times seven times, or rather we should forgive all, as such is more likely the meaning behind Christs teachings on forgiveness. To be affected by other's comments as you suggest does not seem to show a high level of love and forgiveness.

Originally posted by Regret
You act like this is something confined to religions. It is the state of man in general. Men are not perfect, no matter the teachings they adhere to. One must accept that other people are not perfect and assume the best of others and their actions.

If someone thinks ill of what you do, you should harbor good feelings towards them. They are only trying to better you by letting you know of your error. If you disagree with them is beside the point, they still have good intentions, or at least one should assume so. If they do not have good intentions, does it hurt you to assume otherwise? I don't believe so. Christian beliefs state that man should forgive seventy times seven times, or rather we should forgive all, as such is more likely the meaning behind Christs teachings on forgiveness. To be affected by other's comments as you suggest does not seem to show a high level of love and forgiveness.

I think i've forgiven one guy I know about 489 times

Originally posted by docb77
I think i've forgiven one guy I know about 489 times