Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Katzpur]

I actually tend to agree, believe it or not. In the case of Mormon Temples, in the UK, the government does not allow marriages to be performed unless it's open to public view. As a result, Mormons who plan to marry in the temple, first get married outside of the temple to satisfy the legal requirement. They then go to the temple where they participate in the religious ceremony which has spiritual meaning. That ceremony has no legal significance. I don't see a problem with this.

My feelings exactly, Scott.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So god is an exclusivist who only picks those whom he deems worthy to share in eternal secrets and esoteric messages? I thought he "so loved the world?" That it wasn't an issue of him choosing, but of us accepting?

It's starting to sound more and more JW-ish...

 

[sojourner]

A parent who decides to give their child up for adoption has the right and the obligation to influence where the child is placed.

I disagree. Just as every other "interested" adult has no right or obligation to influence a child's upbringing. They may wish, they may hope, they may petition, but, in the end, once they sign off, they have no more interest in the child's welfare.

 

[sojourner]

My feelings exactly, Scott.

I officiated a wedding for a couple (she is the mother of a personal friend) who got married in London (they're US citizens). They got married at the Magistrate's office. I then solemnized the marriage with a religious ceremony. The only difference was that, at that point, I was not acting as a government agent (which is usually the case in the U.S.), only as an agent of the church. That, and I had to make sure that their British marriage license was appropriately transferred to a state license. That's the way, I think, marriages are generally handled in Britian. I don't believe the minister handles the legal (certificate) aspect of any marriage. Somebody enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. Natural disaster do just happen

2. They are beyond our control

Then how can you attribute them to peoples’ actions or behaviors?

3. The baggage you refer to is in fact scientific advancement The Universal Mind and the Laws of Attraction.

1. This is not simply a philosophical ideal passed down to us through the ages. It is an exact scientific truth.

I’m not sure why you think that is an exact scientific truth, as it is not.

The baggage doesn't appear to be necessary.

But if you say it is, what evidence would demonstrate that to be the case?

I don't know that yet, however, it is certainly within the realms of possibility. That is why I started the thread "Is God and Energy the same thing?"

I thought that it was you were stating to me.

and this universe will get you if you’re wicked and debaucherous,

How does the universe “get you?”

And if that is true, why didn’t the universe get Hitler? (Just for one example of a wicked person).

No, the universe will react to certain condition that it picks up on, like overwhelming wickedness.

How does it do that? How do you demonstrate that it does that?

How on earth have you manage to come to this resolve from anything that I have written here discombobulate me. You are complicating a simplistic phenomenon with

I’ve come to that conclusion based on the observation that natural disasters apparently strike indiscriminately and randomly. A baby or child is just as likely to die in an earthquake as a wicked person is. A church is just as likely to be destroyed as a mosque or a satanic temple.

This only applies to the lives of those living under the Mosaic Laws, which have now been superceded by the Abrahamic Covenant.

How is the “universal law of consciousness” a universal law if it doesn’t apply anymore?

2. When a group of people, living under the Mosaic Law, reach a point of impious andsacrilegiouswickedness the Universal Mind reacts.

The universe only reacts (or used to react) to the actions of GROUPS of people? Why didn’t it take out the Nazi party then?

3. Does God know how it will act, well in order to tell the that a great flood will destroy them I would say yes, so no surprises there.

4. No, you can carry on with wicked actions indefinitely and nothing at all will happen to you. Those prostitutes, as I have said, are governed by the Abrahamic Covenant

So if you can do whatever you want without consequence how are you determining that there is some law at work here? It’s like I said before, there’s no apparent way of actually knowing whether a natural disaster was meant for “wicked” behavior or if it was just random – which you took issue with but seem to be agreeing with here.

Or are you saying only Jews are subject to this supposed law of universal consciousness?

Neither do I, unless it is God. Then I am humble enough to do what I am told to do because I know that He sees what I cannot see and what ever he tells me to do will be for my benefit.

Again, neither do I, however, it makes perfect sense to me.

Would you do something you personally thought was immoral, if this god commanded it of you?

It seem mysterious to you because you cannot conceptualize it and your knowledge on the subject might be limited. I got my knowledge about universal consciousness from scientific articles and journals. I think you will find that Christianity may not agree with me as it just might disagree with how they see God. The rest is gleaned by simple objective and inductive reasoning using my own knowledge and the knowledge and wisdom of those who are intellectually superior to me.

It seems mysterious to me because what you are describing doesn’t have any order to it, but you seem to be saying that it does. And you pretty much said yourself that it is mysterious when you pointed out that we can’t see the big picture and so it won’t make sense to us.

Can you share some of these papers from scientific journals?

I means that civilization reach a point where it was appropriate to introduce the Abrahamic Covenant. No more were there physical punishments for sin, like cutting the thief's hand of or flooding the earth. It was a time for free agency and faith in God to come into its own.

So that means that the “universal law of consciousness” is no longer in effect? Or only for Jews? What are you saying?

Hey, I am not asking, or expecting, you to believe anything that I say on here. That is for your own conscious. The evidence is provided by the Bible. The earth was flooded because of the wickedness of the people.

There is no scientific evidence for a global flood though. So I’m not sure how the Bible would be evidence for a global flood – just because it says there was one?

God could not kill them as he is a perfect being incapable of sin. That is the character of God. We cannot even dwell in his presence because of His perfect. We would shrevil and die and whilst we did he would be contaminated by our carnality. He is pure love, He is incapable of hurting us. If He did then he would cease to be God. It is a fundamental principle of the Bible and Christianity. So who do you think killed them if it wasn't God?

There is no evidence of a global flood so I don’t think either god or a global flood killed anybody.

But if god is the universe, then “god” did kill them, assuming there actually was a global flood, no?

There will be no more disasters of this magnitude because Christ will return before mankind becomes that wicked again, plus, of course, and for the umpteenth time, we are living under the Abrahamic Covenant.

But natural disasters are still a fairly common occurrence.

I’m sorry but I still don’t know what Abrahamic convenant or Mosaic law has to do with natural disasters.

I never said that. I said that the Universal Mind reacts.

If the “universal mind” reacts and that “universal mind” is god, then isn’t that just a convoluted way of saying god reacts?

Who knows

Whether you think it a cop out or not .it is the way that it is. We do not have the capacity to see Alpha and Omega but he does because He is a God. But we may know the answer to all things, even hidden knowledge, when we reach a point of righteousness where we can tap into the powers of heaven.

That depends on whether you believe that God is the universal mind or pure intelegent energy

Right, so it is mysterious, like I said.

 

[sojourner]

It's starting to sound more and more JW-ish...

"Worthiness," theologically, is incongruent with grace. We can never be "worthy," but are made worthy by the grace of God. FWIW, I don't think many people understand what "worthy" means.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's keep it simple and look at the bigger picture. A parent who decides to give their child up for adoption has the right and the obligation to influence where the child is placed. I see this as being as much a right as it is to decide how to raise the child in their own home. If we believe this, we will find ways to make it happen in the adoption process. If we believe the state is better equipped to decide, we'll put up roadblocks for the parents.

Just because a birth parent chooses a religious adoption agency doesn't mean that the birth parent is 100% on board with that religion's doctrines. Maybe they chose that agency because it has a good reputation. Maybe it was more aggressive in its marketing. Maybe it's the only agency in town.

I get why you want religiously-affiliated organizations to be free to follow the dictates of their religion, but unless there are a spectrum of high-quality options available, what you're talking about can quickly become oppressive for people who don't belong to the dominant religion.

 

[Scott C.]

I disagree. Just as every other "interested" adult has no right or obligation to influence a child's upbringing. They may wish, they may hope, they may petition, but, in the end, once they sign off, they have no more interest in the child's welfare.

The key is "when they sign off". Prior to sign off they have the right to specify where the child will go. The agency and the parent should come to an agreement. Then the parent "signs off" and turns the child over, in good faith that the agency will keep it's word.

 

[Scott C.]

Just because a birth parent chooses a religious adoption agency doesn't mean that the birth parent is 100% on board with that religion's doctrines. Maybe they chose that agency because it has a good reputation. Maybe it was more aggressive in its marketing. Maybe it's the only agency in town.

I get why you want religiously-affiliated organizations to be free to follow the dictates of their religion, but unless there are a spectrum of high-quality options available, what you're talking about can quickly become oppressive for people who don't belong to the dominant religion.

The most important point is that the parents have the right to decide the parameters of the adoptive family. That's all I ask. I agree that if the Catholic Church is the only game in town, it would make it unfairly difficult for non-Catholics to adopt. I don't want to see that.

But I go back to my most important point. The parents preference should take precedence. I feel for parents who want to adopt. I'm know many hearts yearn for the opportunity. But, it's not the responsibility of a natural parent to satisfy those needs with any kind of balance across demographics. Plus I believe there are plenty of agencies where a person from any background or lifestyle (within reason) can go and be fully accepted.

As a Mormon, I suppose the Catholic Church might not give a baby to me. If that were the only game in town, I would be bothered. But I would respect the natural parents wishes and I would understand why they prefer a Catholic.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The most important point is that the parents have the right to decide the parameters of the adoptive family. That's all I ask. I agree that if the Catholic Church is the only game in town, it would make it unfairly difficult for non-Catholics to adopt. I don't want to see that.

But I go back to my most important point. The parents preference should take precedence. I feel for parents who want to adopt. I'm know many hearts yearn for the opportunity. But, it's not the responsibility of a natural parent to satisfy those needs with any kind of balance across demographics. Plus I believe there are plenty of agencies where a person from any background or lifestyle (within reason) can go and be fully accepted.

As a Mormon, I suppose the Catholic Church might not give a baby to me. If that were the only game in town, I would be bothered. But I would respect the natural parents wishes and I would understand why they prefer a Catholic.

You'd respect the natural parents 'right' to continue forcing their religious beliefs on the child even after they've signed away all responsibility?

 

[Scott C.]

You'd respect the natural parents 'right' to continue forcing their religious beliefs on the child even after they've signed away all responsibility?

Since you phrased this as "continue forcing", you apparently have a bias against parents raising children in their faith in their own home. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. So yes, as long as the parent is still the parent, they can specify where the child goes. The relinquishing of their parental rights should be contingent on prior legal agreement that their wishes for the child will be met.

I have never adopted, so I don't know the process well or if it differs from agency to agency. But I have spoken with adoptive parents. They have described situations where the pregnant mother interviewed them as well as other candidates. It was entirely up to the mother (and father I presume) to choose the couple. I believe this was through LDS Social Services, who has stopped doing adoptions. So probably all of these candidates were LDS and potentially the same couple could go to multiple interviews with multiple mothers and never be selected. That would definitely be hard to take. But once again, I feel that the natural parents rights take precedence.

 

[Serenity7855]

I don't judge who is a true Christian (unlike you). I judge what is a true Christian act.

As with many people who do not think things through objectively and logically you have fallen into the trap of semantics not. A judgement is the act of coming to a determination based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture. It is a not based on fact but supposition. A fact is reading words that are blatantly and obviously hostile. No judgement but a fact that can be viewed by anyone who reads the thread. Christians are not supposed to speak in that manner to their fellow man. Once or twice is acceptable, however, when it is every post then the perpetrator is acting against the teachings of Christ, an anti-Christ. The conclusion is that it is a fact that is supported by the evidence in your post that you are not a true Christian. No judgement just unadulterated fact.

I don't know you; how can I judge you?

You cannot judge me, even if you did know me. But if you witnessed me shooting someone in the head there is no judgement in say that I killed that person. It is a fact.

Even if I did know you, I would never assume that it's up to me to decide whether you are a "true Christian."

It is not up to you but I would love to know your thoughts if you caught me committing adultery knowing that I am a Christian. Your assumption would be absolutely necessary in order to give me support in obtaining forgiveness.

A member of the clergy is trained to not overstep that boundary and is trained to help people judge for themselves where their hearts are.

Trained by whom. Man or God? Who gives you the authority to act in the name of God. I do not require any training from man all the time I can bend on my knees and draw on the powers of heaven. Mankind cannot tell me anything that I cannot find out for myself, however, the Holy Ghost can.

That's the difference between a professional and a jackleg.

An again the insults keep on coming. You have judged me to be a jackleg, though I have told you that I was called by God and set apart by the Holy Ghost to be a Bishop of His church by those who hold the Holy Priesthood of God, after the order of the son of God (the Melchizedek Priesthood) so are in authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. I will never loose that calling so will always be a Bishop, whether active or not.

The professional helps people and meets people where they are. The jackleg makes judgments and foists opinion.

When I need to make decisions on behalf of anyone else I do what I am expected to do. I rely upon discernment and then ask the Holy Ghost. If the decision is important, I fast and pray for as long as it takes to get an answer. I am not a professional. I am a Lay Minister, the professional is the Holy Ghost. Together we make a good team.

See above. You don't know me. You think you do, but I can assure you that you do not. I doubt you ever would -- even were we to meet face to face.

I know your character type.

It does, actually. Clergy are not self-made; they are called, and that call is affirmed by the church-at-large.

Called by whom, man? Who are the church-at-large, men?

The candidate for Orders must manifest the presence of the Spirit, or else Orders are not conferred.

How do you manifest the presence of the spirit. If that were true and possible we would all be Christians based on the evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost.

When Orders are conferred, the Holy Spirit is invoked upon that person by the church, who has authority to do so.

What authority do they have? Where did the get it from, man? What priesthood authority do they hold?

The presence of Holy Spirit defines whether or not that call is confirmed, so, by definition, clergy do manifest the Spirit. It's a rather humbling experience.

You may have experienced mass euphoria but I doubt that it was the Holy Ghost participating in a man made rituals. The moment that the Holy Ghost reveals himself to two or more men is the moment that faith becomes obsolete and we all become subjected to the devil.

No, I'm defining who I am, since you seem to have missed the mark so badly.

Would you tell me if I had hit the mark spot on?

When clergy vest (that is, put on the clothing of ordained ministry), part of that clothing is the stole -- a long piece of material which goes around the neck and hangs down the front.

Who decided that Gods representatives should wear special attire to signify who they are. Did Jesus, or any of His disciples wear strange attire? Where did such pomp and ceremony come from as nowhere in scripture does it say that those who speak in the name of Christ should only do it with a gown on. Nowhere does it say that these man-made garments have special powers. At least the garments that Mormons wear are spoken of in Genesis where God tell Adam and Eve to wear them. Is it yet another invention of man?

It represents the towel that Jesus wrapped around him when he washed the disciples' feet. It is a mark of servitude and humility.

It is a piece of cloth, used to dry oneself with,that people like you envision has a particular meaning of Christ. Jesus did not mention it or give anyone authority for it to be use as a memento. It is a romantic gesture developed by mankind to demonstrate that they are someone with somekind of authority who serves God so needs to be revered. The benefits of it is only to the pride and arrogance of him who wears it and those who manufacture it, and that in cold churches it keeps them warm. It is nonsensical ceremonial pious claptrap

 

[Serenity7855]

.

Whatever authority the clergy person receives, it is received and exercised with all due humility.

No, the glamorous attire and ceremony makes him feel superior to the congregation which ultimately breeds egocentricity and haughtiness.

There is also the strength, however, to protect the flock from ravening wolves who would devour their souls for whatever ill-conceived reason moves them to do so. Even Jesus beat the dog slap out of the vendors in the temple. So don't mistake righteous anger with "unrighteous dominion."

Jesus demonstrated righteous indignation at those money changers, and quite rightly so.

What ravenous wolves? What flock do you protect. Does your congregation believe that you protect them. If they do, does that make you feel special. Do you believe that by putting on fancy clothing that you have the power to kill wolves? Do you wear your pants on top of your trousers. Where are you getting this stuff from. It is not in my Bible.

I used that term when you called my spiritual status into question, which it is not your place to do; it's poor form, and it was wholly uninvited. (Clergy never spout spiritual counsel unless it's asked for.) Plus, it was unnecessary to the debate.

You should have never allowed those words to pass your lips. If you claim to be a Christian and an authority called by God, what do you think God would think of your insults against another of His Children.

You have patently said that homosexuals are "not normal." That's a condemnation of homosexuals, who are a minority group.

Again you try and portray me as a hater of homosexuals in direct contradiction to what I have said, many times. I ma a Christian. God has told me, in his Holy Bible, that sexual sin is unacceptable. It is an abomination and perverse. He has told me, in no uncertain terms, in both the Old and New Testament. I do not question God's words, as you so obviously do. You could be the recipient of His warning to those who were unprepared "
But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. He knew them not because they were dressed in man-made ceremonial customs and teaching false doctrines to the children of God.

A person's sexual identity is not a sin -- it's an identity -- it's who someone is.
and that they cannot control that

Is it? Are you stating that homosexuals are born that way so they have no control of who they are. Are you suggesting that God created gays and then inserted a piece in the Bible making it a sin? That wouldn't be nice would it? I do not know exactly what makes gays what they are, and neither does anybody else. What I do know is that God would not allow gays to be born that way and then forbid it. It would be impossible for Him to do that, therefore, you and I must conclude that gays have the same choices as straight people do as to whether they jump into that bed or not.

So, when you condemn homosexuality as "not normal," you do condemn the person as "not normal." IOW, you have effectively ostracized homosexuals from "polite society." You have turned homosexuals into a "them," which Jesus specifically commanded us not to do.

I don't condemn them as being abnormal. I do not condemn them for anything as that would require my judgement. Ii am giving an opinion that anal sex is abnormal.

You don't have a right to an opinion of something you know nothing about -- in this case, my spiritual condition. You view my attitude as "poor," because I'm resisting the bullying that's being perpetrated against the homosexual community.

Yes I do. We all have a right to our opinions. To suggest otherwise is just folly.

What bullying do you refer to. I only see people hear voicing their opinions. If anyone takes offence of that then maybe they shouldn't be here.

I find it offensive because it's untrue.

I said "I am voicing an opinion that you have never been privi to the prompting of the Holy Ghost and I base my opinion on the poor attitude that is more then prevalent in all of your posts here." This is true, however, I would be happy for you to prove me wrong.

What you "believe" is immaterial.

It is to me

It's called "assuredness through experience." It bears no resemblance to humility in your eyes, because it challenges you to be honest.

I said "I am sure that you do have a high degree of confidence in your spiritual formation. I believe it is called egocentric narcissism, it certainly bears no resemblance to humility."

and you replied.

It's called "assuredness through experience." It bears no resemblance to humility in your eyes, because it challenges you to be honest.

How do they relate.

You have drawn the discussion off-topic. That's a tactic.

If I have then it is only a tactic if that was my intention. It was most certainly not intentional. But you are continuing to make unfounded assertion against me with no evidentiary support. You cannot even come to a deduction that I use tactics because I do not. I use the truth, as I see it

So, cheap provocation, by calling into question publicly that which your opponent holds very dear -- is, in fact, who your opponent is -- isn't both "obvious" and "vulgar?" Yeah! At this point, I'm a little hostile. I don't appreciate my character being questioned by someone who has no right to do so.

Then you should not be here putting your opinions up for critique.

And if you cross a boundary you ought not cross, I'm gonna push you back.

This is a debating forum. If your sensibilities cannot withstand open criticism then don't post your opinions. If you do not want me to retaliate to your unnecessary hostility then post amicably and i guarantee that my post will be the same. To insult me and then complain when I retaliate is ludicrous, however, I have crossed no boundaries and your threat of pushing me back has not been realized by you.

I think you did it on purpose to misdirect the topic, because you're losing ground in the debate.

Then your thought are incorrect and your assertion against my person is not only completely erroneous and it is mean-spirited and confrontational, I take exception to it.

I'll thank you to leave the personal barbs out of the equation from here on in. I should think that a bishop of "the only true church" would know about -- and maintain -- decent boundaries

.
What personal barbs do you refer to. That I believe that you have not been blessed with the Holy Ghost? Only you started that personal barb when you said "Oh, please. The Holy Spirit told me the exact opposite. Now what? Claims like this are useless as teats on a bull."
I didn't say they were the only true church, you did.

I disagree.

Every point that you have made in contradiction of my opinion has been vindicated by me.

No, I'm saying that you're using "the Holy Spirit" as a trump card.

Is that another personal barb expressed like a true hypocrite.

Everyone struggles with spiritual discernment. Or have you never done that? Even Jesus did that.

Yes, of course, but I have many struggle which is why I jokingly said "which one"

If you're not arrogant, then you need to apologize for calling my spiritual disposition into question. Doing that is an arrogant act.

That would be dishonest as that is my honest appraisal of you hostile and unpleasant post. A person who has the Holy Ghost as his companion would not be so offensive so my assessment was accurate and correct. I obviously have thicker skin then you do as I have not allowed your post to offend me.

So, now, not only are you trying to police who may and may not be married

,

Nope, I have not objected to same sex marriage. More words in my mouth again.

and which hole someone uses for sexual pleasure in the privacy of their own bedroom,

Nope, that is not me that is God, the one that us Christians strive to obey. You are really getting this so wrong.

now you're trying to police what words I may or may not use?

No, it is your motive for using those words that concerns me as it gives a false impression of who you are.

Did you have to look up "hyperbolic?"

Of course not.

I've been using that word since high school geometry, and since Composition 101 in college. It's called "precise language usage."

Have you?

It describes the way in which something is exaggerated.

I know what it means

In the case of its description of your post, you exaggerated the point by dancing around the real nugget of truth.

You are wrong.

Perhaps you'd care to bring the debate back on track, now that you've had your diversion of bombastic spiritual entitlement?

I didn't take it off course, you did by telling me that my experience with the Holy Ghost was efficacious

That old thesaurus ah

I can help you get started. If love is good, and, as you have said, two people loving each other is good, how can homosexuality be "not normal?" Isn't love normal??

If I need any help i will ask God, the eternal father, in the name of Jesus Christ, His only begotten son, through the pwer of the Holy Ghost, who testifies of his name.

There is nothing wrong with two people loving each other it is the act of anal sex that God tells me, and you, is wrong and a grievous sin. As far as Christianity is concerned, we have Adam and Eve as our role models of normality and anything else is abnormal to them. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.That is how God designed it. He did not say that Adam and Steve should be one flesh or Eve and Elsie. It state clearly, for all Christians to read and believe, Adam and Eve and that they should procreate and replenish the earth. That we are to follow their example and perpetuate mankind, as God commanded. Homosexuality has no place in the circle of life. Christianity has no place for gays. That is what us Christians are taught to believe. Having said that, if two men allow themselves to fall in love then good luck to them. I hope they are happy. If the want to indulge in anal sex then who am I to question them. That kind of behavior is not acceptable in Christianity. Quite why you uphold the sin of sexual perversion is beyond me if you are a Christian. Just that you do defend the indefensible cast doubt upon you claim to be a Christian let alone someone who has been privy to the Holy Ghost.

 

[sojourner]

The key is "when they sign off". Prior to sign off they have the right to specify where the child will go. The agency and the parent should come to an agreement. Then the parent "signs off" and turns the child over, in good faith that the agency will keep it's word.

Maybe. But I don't think the agency is obligated to do that, "good faith" or otherwise.

 

[Serenity7855]

1) We are all disciples.
2) Jesus commands us to go out and make disciples of all the world.
3) Jesus is God.

Therefore, God has chosen humanity, just as God has always chosen humanity. I can't help it if the church you learned from taught you something different from the core teaching of historic, apostolic Christianity. That's an unfortunate difference of doctrine, but it makes my statement no less true.

He was talking about the disciples that he chose to be with him throughout His mission. Take a look at my avatar. You will see Jesus knocking on a door with no handle. This is because it is up to us to open the door to Him, He will not just walk in. Why don't you know that as a clergy. Do you teach such false doctrine to a congregation?

 

[Serenity7855]

I officiated a wedding for a couple (she is the mother of a personal friend) who got married in London (they're US citizens). They got married at the Magistrate's office. I then solemnized the marriage with a religious ceremony. The only difference was that, at that point, I was not acting as a government agent (which is usually the case in the U.S.), only as an agent of the church. That, and I had to make sure that their British marriage license was appropriately transferred to a state license. That's the way, I think, marriages are generally handled in Britian. I don't believe the minister handles the legal (certificate) aspect of any marriage. Somebody enlighten me if I'm wrong.

The Mormon church here have there own registrars that are trained and licensed by the local council. All other religions need to hire a local government registrar that will do the marriage in the council offices or you can pay extra and they will marry you in a pub or hotel or your own living room. Just £300 pays for that.

 

[sojourner]

As with many people who do not think things through objectively and logically you have fallen into the trap of semantics not. A judgement is the act of coming to a determination based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture. It is a not based on fact but supposition. A fact is reading words that are blatantly and obviously hostile. No judgement but a fact that can be viewed by anyone who reads the thread. Christians are not supposed to speak in that manner to their fellow man. Once or twice is acceptable, however, when it is every post then the perpetrator is acting against the teachings of Christ, an anti-Christ. The conclusion is that it is a fact that is supported by the evidence in your post that you are not a true Christian. No judgement just unadulterated fact.

Shall I go back and repost all the insulting things you've said to and about me? I believe I've done that before; it's all there for the public to see. And you lecture me about how Christians are "supposed to speak?" You're fooling no one here. Everyone who has kept up with the thread has seen your insulting remarks that you have brushed off and explained away.

You cannot judge me, even if you did know me.

I could, but I don't want to waste my time.

It is not up to you but I would love to know your thoughts if you caught me committing adultery knowing that I am a Christian. Your assumption would be absolutely necessary in order to give me support in obtaining forgiveness.

I'd think you screwed up, like every other human being. I'd also hope that you would grab hold of the grace God offers through Christ. What I wouldn't do is judge you to be "not Christian."

Trained by whom. Man or God?

Jesus was a man. Jesus taught his disciples. God works through the church and through human agency. This isn't magic.

Who gives you the authority to act in the name of God.

God, through the church -- the body of Christ.

I do not require any training from man all the time I can bend on my knees and draw on the powers of heaven. Mankind cannot tell me anything that I cannot find out for myself, however, the Holy Ghost can.

You're fooling yourself if you really think that.

An again the insults keep on coming. You have judged me to be a jackleg, though I have told you that I was called by God and set apart by the Holy Ghost to be a Bishop of His church by those who hold the Holy Priesthood of God, after the order of the son of God (the Melchizedek Priesthood) so are in authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. I will never loose that calling so will always be a Bishop, whether active or not.

Please point out where I called you a jackleg. That's an assumption wholly made by you.

At any rate, if your skin is so darned thick, why would you be insulted by the term. Here's what it means: "unskilled; untrained. Amateur." Quite soon, you're going to crow about not being a professional. And, as we all know, if you're not a "professional," You're an "amateur." Or ...




wait for it ...




jackleg. It's descriptive. And accurate, given your disdain for education and training at the hands of competent, qualified people.

So, your claim is that your call comes from God, but mine does not. My claim is that we're both called, and that both calls are valid. Apparently, the difference is (once again) your religious entitlement. Looks like my assessment earlier was correct. You are LDS -- or were. I'm well acquainted with LDS entitlement, doctrine, and claims. I've heard them many times. I'm here to claim that you are not the only Christians, but Christians only -- just like the rest of us, whether we're RCC, Anglican, Orthodox, Protestant, or any other flavor.

I am not a professional. I am a Lay Minister, the professional is the Holy Ghost. Together we make a good team.

See? I told you that you were going to say this. You are lay. I am clergy. The Spirit isn't "professional." "Professional" is a human descriptor, not a descriptor for spiritual beings.

I know your character type.

No you don't.

Called by whom, man? Who are the church-at-large, men?

If you have to ask who comprises the body of Christ, your theology is sadly lacking. God initiates the call. That call is confirmed by the body of Christ -- the church. It is (once again) God working in and with human agency. As it should be.

How do you manifest the presence of the spirit. If that were true and possible we would all be Christians based on the evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost.

Well, yes. Jesus did promise that he would send the Spirit to all followers. When we are baptized, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit in baptism, and marked as Christ's own for ever. And, just to be clear, all ministry -- whether it be lay or ordained -- is, at its base, baptismal ministry.

What authority do they have? Where did the get it from, man? What priesthood authority do they hold?

Same as you, I'm assuming. Oh! Except that my authority is apostolic, as well. Once again, we see God working in and through human agency. As it's supposed to be. After all, Jesus breathed Holy Spirit on the apostles and gave them authority.

You may have experienced mass euphoria but I doubt that it was the Holy Ghost participating in a man made rituals.

I haven't experienced "mass" anything. All rituals are man-made. None of them are efficacious in and of themselves. They are merely the framework within which we work as we partner with God.

The moment that the Holy Ghost reveals himself to two or more men is the moment that faith becomes obsolete and we all become subjected to the devil.

Oh, you mean like when all the witnesses saw the Plates, and witnessed Joe Smith "translating" through the peepstones? You mean like when the Quorum gets together and ratifies new doctrine and policy? Those who live in glass houses ...

Would you tell me if I had hit the mark spot on?

Of course, but as it stands, you don't have either a projectile or a firing mechanism, and I don't think you've even seen the target.

Who decided that Gods representatives should wear special attire to signify who they are. Did Jesus, or any of His disciples wear strange attire?

Who decided that missionaries should wear white shirts, black ties, and name tags? Did Jesus, or any of his followers wear such strange attire while riding bicycles?

Where did such pomp and ceremony come from as nowhere in scripture does it say that those who speak in the name of Christ should only do it with a gown on

Where did such pomp and ceremony come from, as nowhere in the bible does it say that followers of Jesus needed a temple in which to hold secret ceremonies, and nowhere in the bible does it say that marriage is for eternity? We all have our symbology and ceremonies that help in meaning-making.

Nowhere does it say that these man-made garments have special powers. At least the garments that Mormons wear are spoken of in Genesis where God tell Adam and Eve to wear them. Is it yet another invention of man?

Where or when did I say that they have "special powers?" I said that they symbolize.

It is a piece of cloth, used to dry oneself with,that people like you envision has a particular meaning of Christ. Jesus did not mention it or give anyone authority for it to be use as a memento. It is a romantic gesture developed by mankind to demonstrate that they are someone with somekind of authority who serves God so needs to be revered. The benefits of it is only to the pride and arrogance of him who wears it and those who manufacture it, and that in cold churches it keeps them warm. It is nonsensical ceremonial pious claptrap

Well, I suppose if we envision it, it does carry meaning for us. And no, it's not a sign of authority. It's a sign of humility. If you're going to try to dismiss it, you could at least get it right, for crying out loud! The benefit of it is only to remind everyone that the clergy are servant of Christ and of the people. It's only as nonsensical as any of the claptrap you -- or anyone -- does in her or his particular religious ceremonies.

No, the glamorous attire and ceremony makes him feel superior to the congregation which ultimately breeds egocentricity and haughtiness.

I don't know what reality shows you've been watching, but that's simply not the case. But your lack of professionalism on the matter is touching in its naivete and encouraging in that it illustrates that you don't know what you're talking about. And it's sad that, while you're comfortable in your own "authority" to minister, you are unable to extend the same courtesies to your colleagues that they extend to you. It's further sad that, even as you cry "foul" on grounds of insult, in virtually the same breath, you're doing everything in your power to insult someone else, because you, quite mistakenly, think that it "bothers me."

You have said more than once that you do not recognize homosexual marriage. That is an objection to it.

Nope, that is not me that is God, the one that us Christians strive to obey. You are really getting this so wrong.

Nope. That's all you. it's in how you interpret the texts.

No, it is you motive for using those words that concerns me as it gives a false impression of who you are.

I see. People "like me" cannot possibly use the term "hyperbolic" in any honest way.

I didn't take it off course, you did by telling me that my experience with the Holy Ghost was efficacious

That old thesaurus ah

Learn what "efficacious" means. It might be of help to you here. I said that your experience with the H. S. was not efficacious in critical readings of the text. I could have sworn I already went over this? And I explained why: that critical reading is a cognitive and not an intuitive exercise. It was cogent to the point of the debate, because it refutes the validity of an interpretation that weakens your argument.

 

[sojourner]

What ravenous wolves? What flock do you protect. Does your congregation believe that you protect them. If they do, does that make you feel special. Do you believe that by putting on fancy clothing that you have the power to kill wolves? Do you wear your pants on top of your trousers. Where are you getting this stuff from. It is not in my Bible.

people who prey on weaknesses of others. Those under my care are "the flock." Yes, in fact, part of our clergy code of ethics is to protect those we serve. No, it doesn't make me feel "special." It places a burden and a responsibility on me, however. Clothing plays no part in protecting people. It plays no part in resisting violence. It plays no part in speaking up for those who have little or no voice. I don't know why you're so hung up on clothes; you're the one with the "holy underwear." It's a uniform -- like any other uniform of office (which, BTW, is what ordained ministry is: an office that is served by one so qualified and recognized).

You should have never allowed those words to pass your lips. If you claim to be a Christian and an authority called by God, what do you think God would think of your insults against another of His Children.

I'm asking you the same thing. What do you think God thinks of your insults? Do you suppose God already knows that people are human, and sometimes people are petty and provoked to pettiness?

Again you try and portray me as a hater of homosexuals in direct contradiction to what I have said, many times. I ma a Christian. God has told me, in his Holy Bible, that sexual sin is unacceptable. It is an abomination and perverse. He has told me, in no uncertain terms, in both the Old and New Testament. I do not question God's words, as you so obviously do. You could be the recipient of His warning to those who were unprepared "

You have also said that homosexuals are not normal. That's a hateful thing to say. You also have said that you don't recognize them as being married. Also a hateful thing to say.
God may have told you that sexual sin is unacceptable, but God never names homosexuality as unacceptable. That's wholly of your own doing. I'm not asking you to question God -- I'm asking you to question your own scholarship on the matter. Heck! We could all be recipients of God's "warning." Or not.

Is it?

Yes. It is. That's what medical science has shown.

Are you stating that homosexuals are born that way so they have no control of who they are. Are you suggesting that God created gays and then inserted a piece in the Bible making it a sin?

No, I'm suggesting that you're misreading the texts.

What I do know is that God would not allow gays to be born that way and then forbid it.

Quite right. And since (as we believe) God created all of us to be who we are, why would God forbid us to be who we are? Therefore, the injunctions you perceive to be against homosexuality must mean something else.

It would be impossible for Him to do that, therefore, you and I must conclude that gays have the same choices as straight people do as to whether they jump into that bed or not.

This doesn't have anything to do with "jumping into bed." It has to do with how people identify, and who people are. Could you make the choice to no longer be attracted to women, and to be attracted, instead, to men?

I don't condemn them as being abnormal.

Yes, you have said several times that homosexuals are "abnormal." Several times.

We all have a right to our opinions.

True. But you don't have the right to come off as a pundit on the matter until you're educated on it.

What bullying do you refer to.

Homosexual marriages are not to be recognized. Homosexuals are abnormal. That's bullying.

I said "I am voicing an opinion that you have never been privi to the prompting of the Holy Ghost

Your opinion is wrong.

I said "I am sure that you do have a high degree of confidence in your spiritual formation. I believe it is called egocentric narcissism, it certainly bears no resemblance to humility."

and you replied.

It's called "assuredness through experience." It bears no resemblance to humility in your eyes, because it challenges you to be honest.

How do they relate.

They relate in that the first is mistaken and the second is the truth.

This is a debating forum. If your sensibilities cannot withstand open criticism then don't post your opinions.

The debate isn't about me.

If you do not want me to retaliate to your unnecessary hostility then post amicably and i guarantee that my post will be the same.

Fine. Stop insulting me, and I'll respond in kind.

To insult me and then complain when I retaliate is ludicrous, however, I have crossed no boundaries and your threat of pushing me back has not been realized by you.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. Oh, and you have crossed boundaries. It's disturbing that one who is a spiritual leader doesn't recognize that fact.

Then your thought are incorrect and your assertion against my person is not only completely erroneous and it is mean-spirited and confrontational, I take exception to it.

Ditto.

What personal barbs do you refer to. That I believe that you have not been blessed with the Holy Ghost?

Yes.

I didn't say they were the only true church, you did.

That's what Mormons are taught.

Every point that you have made in contradiction of my opinion has been vindicated by me.

I disagree.

That would be dishonest as that is my honest appraisal of you hostile and unpleasant post

Fine. Don't take responsibility for your own actions. But you lose a lot of credibility here by taking that course of action.

A person who has the Holy Ghost as his companion would not be so offensive so my assessment was accurate and correct.

I doubt you recognize how one who has the Holy Spirit as his companion should act. Because everything you've accused me of, you're guilty of yourself.

I obviously have thicker skin then you do as I have not allowed your post to offend me.

It's not a contest. Thick skin isn't some sort of intellectual or spiritual attribute.

Nope, I have not objected to same sex marriage. More words in my mouth again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The most important point is that the parents have the right to decide the parameters of the adoptive family. That's all I ask. I agree that if the Catholic Church is the only game in town, it would make it unfairly difficult for non-Catholics to adopt. I don't want to see that.

But I go back to my most important point. The parents preference should take precedence. I feel for parents who want to adopt. I'm know many hearts yearn for the opportunity. But, it's not the responsibility of a natural parent to satisfy those needs with any kind of balance across demographics. Plus I believe there are plenty of agencies where a person from any background or lifestyle (within reason) can go and be fully accepted.

As a Mormon, I suppose the Catholic Church might not give a baby to me. If that were the only game in town, I would be bothered. But I would respect the natural parents wishes and I would understand why they prefer a Catholic.

It seems you're reading an awful lot into someone's choice of adoption agency. Do you also respect the wishes of natural parents who might want their child to go to the highest-quality adoption agency available to them (which might be a Catholic agency) while also wanting their child to go to the best home available (which might be with a same-sex couple)?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Since you phrased this as "continue forcing", you apparently have a bias against parents raising children in their faith in their own home. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. So yes, as long as the parent is still the parent, they can specify where the child goes. The relinquishing of their parental rights should be contingent on prior legal agreement that their wishes for the child will be met.

Considering I don't believe there's such a thing as a religious child, yes. That is correct. Labelling children and telling them inculcating them in religious dogma before they're able to think critically is tantamount to indoctrination.

I have never adopted, so I don't know the process well or if it differs from agency to agency. But I have spoken with adoptive parents. They have described situations where the pregnant mother interviewed them as well as other candidates. It was entirely up to the mother (and father I presume) to choose the couple. I believe this was through LDS Social Services, who has stopped doing adoptions. So probably all of these candidates were LDS and potentially the same couple could go to multiple interviews with multiple mothers and never be selected. That would definitely be hard to take. But once again, I feel that the natural parents rights take precedence.

From a legal standpoint I don't have a problem; I just view such a position on the part of the parents (using similar religious belief as a filtering criteria for who they want the child to go to) as selfish - they're potentially limiting the pool of loving homes a child could go to because they want to make sure the child grows up believing the same way they do. They're doing it to make themselves feel better first & foremost, putting what is best for the child second.