Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[JoStories]

Your post is hostile and argumentative It has an air of uncompromising obstinance about it . You are right and nothing that I say will change your mind, which is the source of the goal post shifting. You enlist the assistance of the posters you made your friends and are of the same mindset as you. It give you confidence and courage to speak out against me knowing that you will win the point even if it come to bullying. You resent those whose opinions differ from your own so you insult and ridicule. You asked..

Wow...you read a lot into something that is not there. I present no hostility in any post, it is you who read that into a post. It saddens me that you do but it is not my responsibility to hold your hand and make you feel better about something. I hope you find peace in your life.

 

[JoStories]

I've never known you to cop an attitude here. But then, I'm not usually intimidated by someone with letters behind their name. There are people here who take education and experience and certification as some kind of "attitude."

My education does not mean anything here. And I have in the past been rude but not for quite a long time here. I am sorry if someone sees it that way.

 

[Serenity7855]

My first question is of that 39% who had this experience, what level of knowledge did they have about things that go on such a situation? Such, in my own experience, I've had enough surgeries that I just know what's going on and when, and even had doctors, nurses, and others comment that they can tell it's something I've been through a few times.

I know what you are saying. I have asked all sorts of questions, however, these people have dedicated their lives, for the past 4 years, studying it. I would assume that those question would have been asked and satisfied.

So, for you was it something that you saw in your minds eye or just feeling?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fornication is a sexual perversion, as is adultery, and having sex with animal, like the pet shop boys did in the 90's. extramarital sex fornication, a sexual sin. Masterbation is a sexual sin. Even if you look upon a woman with lust in your eyes, so have you committed adultery. These are basic Christian values.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. I don't agree that fornication is a sexual sin. Nor is masturbation. They seem to merely be natural parts of life.

Morgan Freeman has a new series of documentaries out called "The Story of God" in which this professor appeared and explained the study that they were doing and the results, that he said was almost certain.

First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study

Death is a depressingly inevitable consequence of life, but now scientists believe they may have found some light at the end of the tunnel.

The largest ever medical study into near-death and out-of-body experiences has discovered that some awareness may continue even after the brain has shut down completely.

It is a controversial subject which has, until recently, been treated with widespread scepticism.

But scientists at the University of Southampton have spent four years examining more than 2,000 people who suffered cardiac arrests at 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study/

While this is interesting, I'm not really sure it's evidence for life after death rather than just evidence that the brain can still be active for several minutes after death.
A lot of it is iffy. For instance, it's next to impossible to know that the exact moment the patient claims to have witnessed something or left their body, was also the exact few moments when their heart had stopped. That's just one issue I have with these kinds of things.

 

[Prestor John]

WOW! A lot of words to say nothing. I don't remember the original site - which is why I Goggled the LDS stance on it, and gave you multiple LDS sites showing exactly the same thing.

Every LDS site I visited quotes the Bible as the source.



LOL! A bit backward isn't that. The LDS are using the Biblical text as the SOURCE for their declarations. They quote the Bible verses.



LOL! "supporting evidence"? - from the much older - SOURCE? - and BASE - of Christianity? It is the SOURCE from which they get their stance on it.



You had better reread that proclamation. They quote the Bible.

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children....

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife...." https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&_r=1



BULL! They quote the Bible, because it is the source of authority they are using. And see above.

"...solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God..." AND QUOTE THE BIBLE VERSES!

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve..."



BULL again! I put in the specific query - and every LDS site that came up on the subject ,claimed it is from God and quote the Bible. That is a fact - and you can prove it by doing the same. And I gave you several that came up.

How about you give me a LDS source saying their stance on same sex marriage is only their own, - and not from God's word in the Bible! You won't find any!



Why would I do that when I am correct?

The LDS page titled - What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attitude regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage? - and which sends us to the proclamation page - says -

Notice where this statement splits -

"In the Bible Paul preached to the Romans that homosexual behavior was sinful (see Romans 1:24-32). In Old Testament times Moses included in his law that homosexual relations were against God’s law (see Leviticus 20:13)

Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued the following statement about homosexuality: “We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” which was written by twelve modern Apostles through inspiration from the Lord)...." https://www.mormon.org/faq/stand-on-homosexuality

The - proclamation - was written by inspiration, - however - the source of the info in the proclamation was the BIBLE.

In other words they felt they had to make a proclamation - on God's supposed "view" from the Bible, - concerning homosexuality and marriage, - because of new laws allowing same-sex marriage.

*

I can't believe you still do not understand the difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other "Christian" churches.

The LDS Church's basis for all of it's doctrine comes from modern-day revelation.

In 1820, the boy Prophet Joseph Smith prayed in a grove outside his home and he claimed to have been visited by both God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. He claimed that They declared to him that all of the "Christian" denominations had been led astray. They had a "form of godliness but denied the power thereof". Joseph Smith also claimed to have received many other revelations throughout his lifetime that continually confirmed this idea.

He also claimed to have had many revelations concerning the truthfulness of the Bible.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that the Bible is the Word of God as long as it is translated and interpreted correctly. The Church believes that the Bible does contain the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but a man must be inspired by the Holy Ghost while reading the Bible in order to filter through the errors written into it by Man.

The basis of doctrine for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is modern-day revelation. The Standard Works (the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of great Price) are considered sources of past revelations that will agree with and support modern-day revelation. They will also agree with and support one another.

The fact that the Bible agrees with the stance of the LDS Church on homosexuality does not mean that the Bible is the original source of the Church's stance. Latter-Day Saints look to the leaders of the Church (who they consider to be Apostles and Prophets receiving revelation) in order to understand the Lord's stance on the issues of today.

The scriptures (Standard Works) are useful to all members of the LDS Church in learning and teaching doctrine, but they do not always fully explain the LDS Church's position on modern-day issues.

For this and other reasons, the leaders of the LDS Church were inspired to write the official declaration known as "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". This declaration provided what they claimed to be the Lord's position on the issues of gender, marriage and sexuality.

The Bible may agree with many aspects of this declaration, but the Bible was not the source of the declaration. The source of the declaration was inspiration from the Lord revealed to modern-day Apostles and Prophets.

Not only is the content of the declaration considered revelatory, but the time in which it was given (1995) is considered to be prophetic because many of the issues discussed in the declaration were not generally believed to be issues of any kind back then. It is only through the hindsight of today that we can see how the Lord prepared His people for what lay ahead.

The LDS Church had a firm stance on these issues decades before they were in the populace's spotlight. These long-held and officially declared positions helped the LDS Church withstand the ridicule and outrage that caused other churches to crumble and change their doctrines on these issues.

The source that the LDS Church relies upon for doctrine is the Lord Jesus Christ. What He says and directs today, NOT THE BIBLE.

 

[sojourner]

This declaration provided what they claimed to be the Lord's position on the issues of gender, marriage and sexuality

Key term here: they claim. This is their "claim" of "the Lord's position." Fortunately, this country takes no official notice of what someone "thinks" the Lord's "position" is.

 

[Serenity7855]

Well, that's a matter of opinion. I don't agree that fornication is a sexual sin. Nor is masturbation. They seem to merely be natural parts of life.

But you are an atheist, Your opinion is bound to differ from mine, and my Gods. In order to perform any off them one must become aroused by looking upon a woman, or man, with lust in their eyes, According to the beatitudes, that constitutes adultery. To indulge in sex outside of Holy Matrimony is a sin as God only sanctioned that between it between those who are married.

While this is interesting, I'm not really sure it's evidence for life after death rather than just evidence that the brain can still be active for several minutes after death.

The professor who spoke about it claimed that the body can take more than week to complete shut down. Blood does not stop all of its activity for days. He has said that it is this that continues after death. The most interesting thought is that energy can neither be created or destroyed. What if who we are, that is our self awareness, is in fact that energy. It could mean that we will be hanging around for weeks waiting for all the energy to dissipate.

A lot of it is iffy. For instance, it's next to impossible to know that the exact moment the patient claims to have witnessed something or left their body, was also the exact few moments when their heart had stopped. That's just one issue I have with these kinds of things.

There are documented cases of when the out of body experience occur the person has seen things on top of locker and even a trainer on a roof with no knowledge that they were there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You cannot totally shield them but you can minimize their exposure to it. There is the dilemma of just one more straw may just break the camels back. Just because society is rife with social pressures does not mean we should add more. That means we try and keep them innocent for as long as we can, whist allowing them to enjoy being a child having a child's perspective on life. Far better for a child to wonder if Darth Vader will ever get what he deserves than it is to wonder why his dads have so many different partners.

Minimize their exposure to what? The fact that gay people exist? What’s wrong with teaching kids about diversity, about the fact that people come in all different shapes and sizes, about treating other human beings with compassion and respect?

Stop assuming that all gay people are promiscuous, irresponsible lunatics who are fisting in the woods with twenty different guys while their kids roam around. That’s ridiculous. They’re not feral animals. They’re perfectly capable of being decent, upstanding human beings who can properly care for a child. It’s another of your outdated arguments anyway, back from the times when gay people had to hide in their closets and meet clandestinely in remote locations so as not to be arrested and incarcerated.

Which is strange because I have yet to meet a homosexual on here who doesn't mention the persecution that they receive from the general public.

Unfortunately, people are judged and persecuted for all kinds of things.

I believe that we have regressed back to animalistic behaviour by becoming desensitised to promiscuity and perverse sexual practices that is so prevalent in our society, whilst we loss our morality that made us greater then the animals we have dominion over.

I think we’ve grown and matured as a society quite a bit over the last 40 years. We’ve extended much deserved rights to African Americans, to women, to gay people and most other minorities.

There is no reason for a child to be burdened with the act of adults until they are into their teens. At the age of 13 I was still not aware that a man and a woman had intercourse in order to produce children. I probably didn't want to know as I was still busy climbing trees and fighting wars to care what adults did. Our children grow up far to quickly now at the cost of losing the fun that children should be having.

Having parents isn’t a burden that children can’t handle. I don’t know why you assume gay parents are having wild sex with random strangers all the time and talking to their children about it.

Why do you think that two men would want to raise children. No one is expecting them to and they have no duty to.

Same reasons anyone else would want to raise children. My cousin has always wanted a child to care for - being a lesbian doesn't change anything about that.

And with adoption, they can give a home to a child who otherwise wouldn’t have one.

When I got married I wanted to have children to carry on my seed and my name, but I didn't realise just how hard it would be. I was only 18, a kid having a kid. As young as I was when my first child arrived, just 19, from the second they cried at birth I worried about them and loved them without condition, and have not stopped since, I had never felt love quite like it, even though I worship the ground my wife walks on. It was a unique and new experience for me, and it happened six times. I didn't have any say in it, even if I wanted it. There was an instant bond that I could neither control or remove. I have had no alternative since but to do the very best for them.

It sounds like you have been very fortunate.

Why wouldn’t you think that the same emotions that were involved in your decisions surrounding having and raising kids would so much different between two parents of the same sex?

Personally, I have considered both adoption and maybe even becoming a foster parent to a child who desperately needs a home.

Does the same emotions erupt when there is no biological link with the child. Will that make for additional difficulties for the child, and suffer as a consequence?

Why wouldn’t they? All human beings share the same hormones that facilitate bonding behavior, trust and psychological stability.

Some of the studies I presented to you regarding gay parenting talked about how children are better in a family setting (regardless of the sex of the parents), than they are in an orphanage or foster care type of setting.

Not to mention the fact that many gay females give birth to their own biological children, and so your fears are not warranted there.

It cannot an easy option for gay people to make, or does a promiscuous lifestyle dampen that fear?

Adoption is probably not an easy option for gay people to make, given the social stigma and intense scrutiny (evident in your posts) that still surrounds them to some degree.

I don’t think there’s any reason to assume most gay people that want to adopt children are involved in these promiscuous types of lifestyles you are talking about.

There will always be one that is not his/her biological parent, does that mean that the child will not receive his fair share of love. My wife and I have both experience that moment when your child becomes your world, however, with gay couples, presumable, only one has that bond, will that put stress on their relationship?.

Why would only one of the parents have a bond with the child? Are you talking now talking about lesbians relationships where one of the women gives birth to her biological child? If that’s where you’re going, you could ask the same question of heterosexual couples: If only the mother gives birth to the child, how can the father develop a bond with that child?

Is it just because heterosexual raise children so to be normal they want to do the same? Maybe they think it will be an adventurous experience, something they want to try, like when people buy puppies for christmas that you will find down the dog pound by the summer. Parenting is a hard thing to do, correctly. It is a life changer and a life's commitment. You are no longer only responsible for your wife and yourself. Given the choice again, I don't know if I would have had any children at all, let alone six. I digress. So what is it that appeals to them, motivates them to want the hassle of raising children

Why does anyone have children? I’m sure the responses vary among heterosexuals as they do among homosexuals. Why would the reasons be so different?

I am aware of the innocence of children, however, that innocence is leaving them at an increasingly younger age. I have 12 grandchildren and the difference between them, and my children, is very noticeable and evident. I deferred telling my children about the sexual perversions and the different sexual orientations, in our society, for as long as I could, and when I thought they were ready, which was all at different times, my wife and I sat down and explained it to them in a Christian Theme, because we are Christians, my wife has been a Mormon for 35 years and I was for 25 years.

This kind of thinking though, ignores the fact that some children are going to discover, as they grow up, that they may be gay, or bisexual, or transgendered, or any other host of things, and may already be experiencing such feelings and wondering why they’re different from everyone else which leads to all the terrible things you mention occurring more frequently among gay people like depression, isolation, ostracization, etc. Shielding kids from the existence of gay people until they’re grown adults isn’t really doing them any favors. You don’t have to get into details about sexual positions and whatnot when you explain homosexuality, in the same way you don’t have to do so to explain heterosexuality. Sexual orientation doesn’t just boil down to sex positions or some kind of “lifestyle.” It boils down to who a person finds him/herself attracted to in life and who they are going to contentedly spend their life with and raise kids of they desire (or not), as you have been so lucky to be able to do without anyone questioning your “lifestyle.”

It is important to us that our children were taught moral values and accountability, so we taught them that it is important to keep Gods commandments so as to live in righteousness. All of my children have been academically successful and have all attended university. None of them, as yet, has been in a failed marriages and they have all married successful people. All have rewarding and fulfilling lives and are happy. I have no cause to complain about raising them with Christian values and morals. I have no regrets about waiting until they were ready to hear about the different lifestyle that exist in our society. And in particular, that sex is not the meaning of life but love is. There is no necessity for sexual perversion of any kind. We all have self control. We do not have to give in to sexual desires and gratification. If I, or my wife, became impotent tomorrow, I know that she would love me , and I her, regardless. Our live are a series of choice, The choices we make will determine who we are.

That’s great and I’m sure many other parents care about moral values and accountability just as much as you do. I would think love, respect, dignity and compassion toward our fellow human beings would be a part of that.

 

[viole]

No, I mean our life and I mean mainstream science, whether they are Christians or not I am not sure. I am talking about consciousness, the state or quality of awareness

And what mainstream science is that? I am not aware of science claiming that we will survive our death.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you are an atheist, Your opinion is bound to differ from mine, and my Gods. In order to perform any off them one must become aroused by looking upon a woman, or man, with lust in their eyes, According to the beatitudes, that constitutes adultery. To indulge in sex outside of Holy Matrimony is a sin as God only sanctioned that between it between those who are married.

Well sure our opinions will differ, but I'm not morally depraved or something because I'm an atheist.

I don't think we need all this ancient religious baggage which no longer reflects the times or the culture we live in and doesn't account for everything we've learned over the last several thousand years. I prefer to think about it reasonably and logically. Is fornication a natural human and/or animal function? Yes. Is masturbation a natural human and/or animal function. Yes. Do most people do it? Yes. Does it harm anyone? No.

The professor who spoke about it claimed that the body can take more than week to complete shut down. Blood does not stop all of its activity for days. He has said that it is this that continues after death. The most interesting thought is that energy can neither be created or destroyed. What if who we are, that is our self awareness, is in fact that energy. It could mean that we will be hanging around for weeks waiting for all the energy to dissipate.

I hope not, because there are a few people in my family that have been cremated that probably shouldn't have been, if that's the case!

There are documented cases of when the out of body experience occur the person has seen things on top of locker and even a trainer on a roof with no knowledge that they were there.

I've looked into those before and they usually always turn out to be a lot less remarkable than they first sound.

My grandfather died on the operating table for a few minutes, during a routine heart surgery and he reports seeing absolutely nothing. No out of body experience. No loved ones coming for him. No floating above his body. Just nothing.

 

[Serenity7855]

My grandfather died on the operating table for a few minutes, during a routine heart surgery and he reports seeing absolutely nothing. No out of body experience. No loved ones coming for him. No floating above his body. Just nothing.

Yes, me to, however, that just mean that we are not one of the 40%. It does not falsify the study. My main interest, and the most likely area for any scientific discovery, is the electrostatic charge that is emitted at the point of death, and what happens to the energy that is released when the body decomposes. Especially if energy and intelligence are synonymous.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, me to, however, that just mean that we are not one of the 40%. It does not falsify the study.

Sure, but it doesn't make much sense that it would only happen to less than half of us, does it?

My main interest, and the most likely area for any scientific discovery, is the electrostatic charge that is emitted at the point of death, and what happens to the energy that is released when the body decomposes. Especially if energy and intelligence are synonymous.

I'm not aware of any such electrostatic charge and I'm not even sure how that would make sense given the way the body organizes and uses energy.

I don't know why energy and intelligence would be synonymous.

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, but [you] don't have the right to tell others [they] can't comment,

It's not, until you try to say that your conversation was private.

If I try to tell you that you can't chime in, sure! Unfortunately for you, I haven't done that.

When did I ever say that you couldn’t comment?

When did I ever say that this conversation was “private”?

When did I ever say that you or anyone else could not “chime in”?

In post #2234, you quoted me stating that the basis of LDS Church doctrine was not the Bible, but modern-day revelation. Then you tried to take my statements about the beliefs of the LDS Church out of context by claiming that I was using them as a basis of a case to present to the Supreme Court.

Your attempt to quote me out of context led me to say in post #2235,

“I was speaking to another member about her false claims concerning the beliefs of the LDS Church. Which I have every right to do.

I never made the claim that "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" should be the basis of any case brought before the Supreme Court.

Don't try to redirect my comments about one topic and apply them to another. That is not honest.”

I NEVER SAID that those beliefs I discussed should be the basis of any case. I was ONLY correcting another member on this forum who had posted incorrect information about the LDS Church.

My mentioning that my earlier comment had been a response to another member’s false claim about the LDS Church was not in any way, shape or form my telling you that you could not comment. Or that the conversation was “private”. Or that you could not “chime in”.

It was YOU who first mentioned that my response to the other member’s false claim about the LDS Church should have been “private”. In post #2239 you said,

“Then perhaps you should have opened a private chat.”

Which led me to say in post #2251

“The false claim about LDS doctrine was made in a public forum, which means I have the right to address that false claim in a public forum.”

I NEVER SAID that you could not comment on the conversation I was having with this other member or that the conversation was “private” or that no one could “chime in”.

The ONLY issue I had with your post was your attempt to quote me out of context.

Pathetic copy of one of my arguments that simply is not germane here. Nice work!

I haven't done that. But you've tried to make it look thus.

First, I had no idea that you had used a similar argument. I do not read your posts unless they are responding to something I have written.

Second, what makes you think that you have any authority over what arguments a person can or cannot use?

How does your supposed past use of this argument mean that I cannot also use it if I consider it to be appropriate?

Do you believe that you have an argument “monopoly”?

Or do you believe that since you have used this argument in the past that you are now somehow above reproach?

You now have this uncanny ability to never be guilty of hypocrisy?

Wouldn’t that be confirmation to the fact that you actually do believe yourself to be privileged or “special” in some way?

Third, how can you deny your obvious hypocrisy? You don’t consider yourself responsible for what you say?

Lastly, how is your blatant hypocrisy not “germane” to this discussion when one of your arguments against me is that I should not have had this discussion with this other member on a public forum, yet you claim that you are free to comment on a public forum?

You clearly contradicted yourself in post #2239 when you ridiculed me for responding to a claim made on a public forum by saying that it should have been a “private chat”, but then you said IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD,

“These are public forums, and when you post erroneous or controversial material, I'm free to contest it publicly.”

You claimed that since the topic of discussion had between myself and this other member was about a topic other than the OP we should have opened a “private chat”. Yet you COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF by then claiming that if someone posts any “erroneous or controversial material” on a public forum then “you” (I would normally attribute this comment to “anyone”, but you don’t seem to believe that everyone should have the same freedom of speech as you do) are “free to contest it publicly”.

This WOEFULLY HYPOCRITICAL comment led me to ask you in post #2251,

“First off, how is your right to contest what I say in a public forum any different than my right to contest the false claim made by someone else on this forum?”

Would you mind actually answering this very “germane” question now?

Since this other member made a false claim about the beliefs of the LDS Church (which should be considered “erroneous or controversial”) on a public forum, then by the logic you presented above, shouldn’t I be “free to contest it publicly”?

What makes you think that you are entitled to more “freedom” than I am to comment on a public forum?

I beg to differ. You're really grasping at straws here.

I wasn't quoting you out of context.

You may try.

Your disagreement with my claim that you tried to quote me out of context does not magically make it invalid.

The comments I made to this other member were attempts to explain and clarify beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. THAT’S ALL!

You, however, tried to change the intent of my comments from being simple explanations of the beliefs of the LDS Church into a case that I wanted presented to the Supreme Court and also that I had claimed that these beliefs should be sufficient cause to amend constitutional law.

I NEVER SAID THOSE THINGS!

In post #2234 you quoted a part of what I said in post #2231, which said,

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints declares that this proclamation, which clarifies the Church’s stance on gender, family and sexual orientation, is not based on the Bible, but rather on modern-day revelation received from the Lord.”

This comment was made in reference to the official declaration called “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

I made this comment in response to the question mentioned by the other member, which was, “What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attitude regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage?” and her claims that the LDS Church’s “attitude” regarding homosexuality was solely based on the Bible.

You will notice that the intent of my comment was only to explain that the LDS Church believes that their doctrine is founded on “modern-day revelation”.

I did NOT present this belief as the basis of a case for the Supreme Court.

However, you decided to directly respond to what I had said by saying in post #2234,

“"Modern-day revelation received from the Lord" is inadmissible as a basis for bringing any case before SCOTUS.”

I NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS!

You also quoted another thing I said from post #2231 in post #2234,

“The proclamation begins with the decree, “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

This proclamation is not based on the Bible. It is based on the revelation received by these men”

I made this comment to refute the other members’ insistence that since the official declaration “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” quoted from the Bible then it must be based on the Bible. I was claiming that the LDS Church claims that the declaration was based on modern-day revelation, not the Bible.

I did NOT present these beliefs as sufficient cause to amend constitutional law.

However, you decided to directly respond to what I had said by saying in post #2234,

“SCOTUS does not care what some supposedly religious men "believe." Their beliefs, their faith and their religious convictions do not constitute sufficient cause to amend constitutional law.”

I NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS!

You deliberately took what I had said out of context. This led me to say in post #2235,

“Don't try to redirect my comments about one topic and apply them to another. That is not honest.”

You are guilty of trying to quote me out of context and then you lied about attempting to do so.

You are being dishonest.

 

[Prestor John]

That's what this thread is about.

You could.

Yet, according to you, “you” are “free” “to contest publicly” “erroneous or controversial material”. You said so in post #2239.

Since someone made a false claim about the beliefs of the LDS Church on this thread on this public forum, I should be “free” to respond to that false claim publicly, right?

Wouldn’t you agree? Or does this “freedom” only apply to you? Are you the only one “free” to do so?

These questions place you in a precarious situation because if you claim that you are the only one who is “free” to do this, then you are claiming that you are “privileged” or “special” in some way, so certain rights and freedoms only apply to you. (Which would make you deluded.)

On the other hand, if you claim that anyone is “free” “to contest publicly” “erroneous or controversial material” which was shared on a public forum, then you are proving yourself to be a hypocrite because you had previously contradicted yourself by doing the exact same thing you had condemned me for doing earlier.

The only way to get out of this situation is to admit that you had been wrong and that you had “misspoke” and that I am “free” “to contest publicly” “erroneous or controversial material” posted on a public forum.

I didn't take what you said out of context. You're making fact claims out of something that is not binding upon anyone as a fact.

Of course it is. See above. You're conflating faith-claims with facts, as if they should apply to everyone.

your beliefs are simply not "the way it is" factually, as you're purporting them to be.

Key term here: they claim. This is their "claim" of "the Lord's position." Fortunately, this country takes no official notice of what someone "thinks" the Lord's "position" is.

Where did I ask you or anyone to believe what I was sharing?

I was merely sharing what the LDS Church actually believes to correct someone who had posted inaccurate information about what the LDS Church believes.

Whether or not you or anyone else believes the claims made by the LDS Church is irrelevant to the fact that they HAVE those beliefs.

The LDS Church having their own beliefs is in NO WAY “binding” anyone to believe them as fact. Mentioning those beliefs to correct someone’s misconceptions about them is in no way “conflating” those beliefs with fact. Nor is explaining those beliefs mean that the country should take “official notice” of them.

The LDS Church believes that the Lord condemns homosexuality. The LDS Church believes that the Bible records the Lord condemning homosexuality. The LDS Church also believes that the Lord has called Prophets and Apostles again and also brought forth new scripture in order to preserve the truth found in the Bible which includes the condemnation of the sin of homosexuality.

Whether or not you agree with the LDS Church on these beliefs is irrelevant to their right to have them. Their right to have said beliefs does not mean that they are trying to “bind” them upon anyone or conflating them with “fact” or trying to get the country to establish them as law.

Even though they do “believe” them to be “fact”.

I knew what I've read here, and that's enough. This "teaching" is nothing more or less than Jim Crow.

What “teaching” are you referring to?

That the teachings of the LDS Church concerning homosexuality are not based solely on the Bible?

That was the discussion I was having with the other member.

I don't think you do, based on what I've seen of your interpretations.

No, it's confirmation bias wrapped up as "scholarship."

Your responses here are based on the assumption that your interpretation of the Bible is correct.

You are actually the one guilty of applying a confirmation bias.

You are applying your interpretation to everyone while I am only sharing what the LDS Church believes.

Nope. The bible never uses any term that means "homosexual." That's just reading the texts.

First, the Bible describes homosexual acts and then condemns them. The English translation of this ancient record does not need to include the term “homosexual” in order for it to describe homosexual acts and to also label them as sinful.

Next, as I was explaining to the other member, the LDS Church’s stance regarding homosexuals and homosexuality is not based solely on the Bible.

The (false) idea that the Bible may not be talking about homosexuality does not alter the LDS Church’s stance on the matter whatsoever.

I didn't say what I believe. I stated what's true for the set [of] people who are not Mormon.

You obviously shared your own personal belief because not everyone “who are not Mormon” all agree on what the Bible teaches.

You are applying your version of truth onto everyone else.

You are doing so hypocritically because that is the very thing you accused me of doing.

How so? You're using these texts as if they have some kind of ontological reality for the whole world. I'd say that refuting that "fact" is eminently cogent.

It is not relevant because I was only explaining what the LDS Church believes. I believe that the teachings of the LDS Church do make up the “ontological reality for the whole world”, however, I never said that anyone had to agree with or live by what the LDS Church teaches.

What other churches, organizations or people believe about the teachings of the LDS Church is completely and irrevocably irrelevant to what the LDS Church believes and teaches. It does not and should not affect them.

The set of all people who are not Mormon."

Where do you believe you acquired the authority to speak for all those people?

Aren’t you “special” with your delusions of authority and grandeur?

 

[sojourner]

Gee! I must have struck a nerve, eh? Such involved refutations!

 

[Ingledsva]

I can't believe you still do not understand the difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other "Christian" churches.

The LDS Church's basis for all of it's doctrine comes from modern-day revelation....

That this is bull, - is obvious, - by their quoting the Bible on pages explaining their stance!

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes that the Bible is the Word of God as long as it is translated and interpreted correctly. The Church believes that the Bible does contain the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but a man must be inspired by the Holy Ghost while reading the Bible in order to filter through the errors written into it by Man.

Yep - word of God - given before LDS came into being, - and used by LDS.

The basis of doctrine for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is modern-day revelation. The Standard Works (the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of great Price) are considered sources of past revelations that will agree with and support modern-day revelation. They will also agree with and support one another.

OTHER doctrine. However, what is already said by the Bible - is their law - source!

The fact that the Bible agrees with the stance of the LDS Church on homosexuality does not mean that the Bible is the original source of the Church's stance. Latter-Day Saints look to the leaders of the Church (who they consider to be Apostles and Prophets receiving revelation) in order to understand the Lord's stance on the issues of today....

The Bible does NOT agree with LDS, - LDS agrees with the Bible!

Then it adds its own doctrine.

The Bible is obviously their source, as they use Bible quotes, when asked about their stance on the issue.

The source that the LDS Church relies upon for doctrine is the Lord Jesus Christ. What He says and directs today, NOT THE BIBLE.

SEE ABOVE! And -

"We love and revere the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.”

"I bear solemn witness that we are true and full believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His revealed word through the Holy Bible. We not only believe the Bible—we strive to follow its precepts and to teach its message."

—M. Russell Ballard https://www.lds.org/topics/bible?lang=eng

The Articles of Faith - https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

THE BIBLE

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, a record of God’s dealings with the inhabitants of ancient America (2000 BC – 400 AD).

The Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the Church of Jesus Christ in the last days (1830 AD – 1978 AD).

The Pearl of Great Price, a selection of revelations, translations, and writings of Joseph Smith.

*

 

[Prestor John]

Gee! I must have struck a nerve, eh? Such involved refutations!

I get like that when I know I'm right.

 

[sojourner]

I get like that when I know I'm right.

Problem is, your post isn't right -- just righteously indignant. You've managed to either skew or misunderstand nearly everything I posted, and then blow it all out of proportion.

 

[Prestor John]

Problem is, your post isn't right -- just righteously indignant. You've managed to either skew or misunderstand nearly everything I posted, and then blow it all out of proportion.

I doubt that because I know how to read.

Feel free to try to prove it though.

 

[Shad]

You are applying your interpretation to everyone while I am only sharing what the LDS Church believes.

The (false) idea that the Bible may not be talking about homosexuality does not alter the LDS Church’s stance on the matter whatsoever.

I love your double-standards.