The future is almost here.

[_The Nehor]

Clamoring for what to happen? The LDS church to lose their tax exempt status because they wont "shut up"? Who is "clamoring" for this to happen? - i must have missed it... Your post makes no sense....who should go to hell? People who "ridicule" Mormonism and its ridiculous beliefs? What dangers are you talking about?

People on this very board have suggested that LDS should lose their tax-exempt status. They're idiots but they're doing it.

Lds agreement with what is appropriate? institutionalized bigotry, racism and discrimination? Again, your post makes no sense and i think the LDS church should lose their tax exempt status if they discriminate based on sexuality, gender or race...

Okay, you're one of them. You idiot.

So why are you suggesting no one wants this to happen?

I think you're confused.

[_Darth J]

JSM--

I"ll do a line by line response so I seem more catty and nit-picky.

Darth, I think you underestimate the speed with which religions can evolve, especially when they're subject the intense societal pressures that the Church is about to experience.

That's true, but I'm not talking about the speed of change so much as the enormity of change. For the LDS Church to really accept gay marriage, it would mean accepting gay temple sealings (eternal marriage). To do so would require an almost total reworking of LDS concepts about God and godhood. This would be comparable to the Roman Catholic Church trying to redefine the Trinity after 1,600+ years (I'm alluding to the church councils where the creeds about the Trinity were promulgated for my time frame).

Let's continue with your War in Heaven example: that was just as integral a part of Church doctrine as the idea of Heavenly Parents. If the former can be reworked so much as to be almost unrecognizable in a mere generation, why not the latter?

The war in heaven is still an integral part of LDS doctrine. A summary of this doctrine can be found here: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,49 ... -6,00.html.

The war in heaven was this: everyone who ever has existed or ever will exist on this Earth lived with God as a spirit before we were born (our lack of memory of this is also part of God's plan, per the Church). God wanted us to progress and become like him. To do this, we had to get physical bodies (like Mormons believe God has) and go through mortal life to be tested, learn to choose right from wrong, etc. But because we would make mistakes and would sin as part of this process, we had to have a savior who would atone for our sins in some way so we could come back to God. The pre-mortal Jesus said that he would be the savior, and he would do this to honor God. Lucifer, another of the pre-mortal spirits, said he would be the savior and that he would force everyone to make the right choices so that no one would be damned (because of their sins). Lucifer also said that he wanted God's honor for doing this, which implies that he wanted to take over and be the ruler of the universe (it's kind of vague what "give me thine honor" means).

God chose Jesus, because we have to have free will (Mormons call it free agency). This pissed off Lucifer, so he got 1/3 of all the billions and billions of spirits there would have been to follow him to rebel against God. Everyone else fought for Jesus, and Jesus' side won. God kicked Lucifer and the 1/3 that followed him out of heaven, and Lucifer became Satan at or around this point. Lucifer and all these evil spirits are on the Earth (but invisible) and tempt us to do evil things.

The above teachings have not changed.

Prior to the priesthood ban being lifted, LDS leaders taught that during the war in heaven, some of the spirits were sort of neutral or "less valiant" than the ones who really wanted Jesus to win. These spirits are born to black (Negro) parents who are "cursed" with a dark skin as an outward sign of their lukewarm attitude during the war in heaven. I've posted examples of LDS leaders teaching this doctrine here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13385&p=330724&hilit=negro#p330724

When the priesthood ban was lifted, the Church did not repudiate these teachings, and still has not done so. LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie said:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.

He never said that it wasn't true. He just said, "Never mind." (Alternatively, you could conclude that LDS prophets and apostles can't tell the difference between inspiration and their own ideas, but that's a very troubling stance for a believing member of the LDS Church.)

Anyway, the core doctrine didn't change. Neither did the "less valiant" doctrine; it just got ignored because "it doesn't matter anymore." However, the "less valiant black people" idea is not necessary for the core doctrine of the war in heaven to remain in place. The concept of two gay gods somehow making spirit children is substantially more problematic for LDS theology than "never mind about the black people."

The only reason you've articulated is that the limited possibilities of biological parentage, combined with the Church's reproductive conception of the purpose of marriage, require it to restrict marriage to heterosexuals.

Well, no. The Proclamation on the Family indicates that both sex (male and female) AND gender (traditional male and female social roles) are part of our eternal spirit identity. It is pretty vague about how exactly a god and a goddess make spirit children, but it is abundantly clear in LDS doctrine that it takes a male and female for it to happen.

But science is expanding the possibilities for mortal reproduction, so it's not clear that the biological constraint on this aspect of Mormon thought will be around much longer. And why should scientific possibility be such a roadblock in the first place? There have always been Saints who have been obviously infertile in mortal life: the ad hoc presto-change-o that grants those people the ability to procreate in the afterlife should work just as well for gays and lesbians.

But now you get to, "why does sex matter at all if you're a god?" According to the LDS Church, it matters a lot. You have to understand, too, that believing LDS members don't see these concepts as philosophical ideas that are being debated and explored. They are eternal truths revealed through prophets.

If the Church were to someday take the Bruce R. McConkie mulligan, and just say "never mind; we were speaking with limited knowledge" about the Church's core doctrines regarding the nature of God and of exaltation (attaining godhood), then what confidence are believers supposed to be left with that anything that the Church teaches is ontologically, eternally "true"? That's a substantial problem, too.

[_Darth J]

People on this very board have suggested that LDS should lose their tax-exempt status. They're idiots but they're doing it.

Nehor, people all over the United States have suggested that EVERY church should lose its tax-exempt status, and the reasons for that have nothing to do with the substance of any church's teachings.

And before you get too carried away with playing a straight flush consisting of all persecution cards, you should consider that Bob Crockett is one of the people who shares this view:

I don't think there ought to be tax exemptions for First Amendment organizations.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, people all over the United States have suggested that EVERY church should lose its tax-exempt status, and the reasons for that have nothing to do with the substance of any church's teachings.

And before you get too carried away with playing a straight flush consisting of all persecution cards, you should consider that Bob Crockett is one of the people who shares this view:

I know this. However, this is not the reasoning I'm arguing against. Go to a story on Prop 8 and you'll see a lot of people in the comments section suggesting the LDS Church lose it's tax exempt status.

I think removing the tax-exempt status of Churches is a bad idea in general. Not because of my own faith (the LDS Church would survive that kind of change) but because other churches, particularly small ones, would suffer immensely and many would shut down.

[_Darth J]

Nehor, people all over the United States have suggested that EVERY church should lose its tax-exempt status, and the reasons for that have nothing to do with the substance of any church's teachings.

And before you get too carried away with playing a straight flush consisting of all persecution cards, you should consider that Bob Crockett is one of the people who shares this view:

I know this. However, this is not the reasoning I'm arguing against. Go to a story on Prop 8 and you'll see a lot of people in the comments section suggesting the LDS Church lose it's tax exempt status.

The real reason for this is because of the Church participating in a political campaign, making it act more like a political organization than a religious one. Go back to that thread to which I linked and read Bob's comments on this issue.

I think removing the tax-exempt status of Churches is a bad idea in general. Not because of my own faith (the LDS Church would survive that kind of change) but because other churches, particularly small ones, would suffer immensely and many would shut down.

Well, that's life. Religion is subject to market forces just like everything else. There are small bookstores and newspapers that go out of business, too. Maybe Congress should give them "freedom of the press" tax exemption so they can stay open.

[_The Nehor]

The real reason for this is because of the Church participating in a political campaign, making it act more like a political organization than a religious one. Go back to that thread to which I linked and read Bob's comments on this issue.

Yeah, this double-standard is odd. People want to jump on the LDS faith for support on a few issues and staying neutral everywhere else while other churches (mostly black ones) endorse candidates. I see no huge rush to strip them of their status.

I guess LDS are politically acceptable targets and are singled out only because we're big?

I think removing the tax-exempt status of Churches is a bad idea in general. Not because of my own faith (the LDS Church would survive that kind of change) but because other churches, particularly small ones, would suffer immensely and many would shut down.

Well, that's life. Religion is subject to market forces just like everything else. There are small bookstores and newspapers that go out of business, too. Maybe Congress should give them "freedom of the press" tax exemption so they can stay open.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. A government hostile to religious groups could easily put them in a special group and tax them into obscurity.

The difference between this and your newspaper example is that religion purports to be the way of learning about and worshipping God. The tradition of U.S. thought on the subject is that the government has no business meddling with that kind of a relationship. Newspapers don't have that level of importance to anyone.

[_Darth J]

The real reason for this is because of the Church participating in a political campaign, making it act more like a political organization than a religious one. Go back to that thread to which I linked and read Bob's comments on this issue.

Yeah, this double-standard is odd. People want to jump on the LDS faith for support on a few issues and staying neutral everywhere else while other churches (mostly black ones) endorse candidates. I see no huge rush to strip them of their status.

I guess LDS are politically acceptable targets and are singled out only because we're big?

I agree that those churches should lose their tax-exempt status, whether on the grounds of their political activism, or on the grounds of every church being subject to taxation.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. A government hostile to religious groups could easily put them in a special group and tax them into obscurity.

Then absolutely no one should be taxed, because a government hostile to anyone can easily tax them into the stone age.

The difference between this and your newspaper example is that religion purports to be the way of learning about and worshipping God. The tradition of U.S. thought on the subject is that the government has no business meddling with that kind of a relationship. Newspapers don't have that level of importance to anyone.

100% irrelevant. Taxing a religion does not inhibit religious freedom any more than taxing newspapers, bookstores, or television stations inhibits freedom of speech.

You also seem remarkably oblivious to the role that freedom of the press has had in this country coming into existence, and that freedom of the press continues to have in maintaining personal liberty, government accountability, and ensuring a representative democracy.

[_harmony]

I guess LDS are politically acceptable targets and are singled out only because we're big?

Ummm... no.

[_The Nehor]

I guess LDS are politically acceptable targets and are singled out only because we're big?

Ummm... no.

Harmony, you're back. Perhaps you can explain what you meant by your comments suggesting I was ignorant of history and how marriage has only in recent years been available to the rich and powerful.

[_schreech]

People on this very board have suggested that LDS should lose their tax-exempt status. They're idiots but they're doing it.

Lets see, you actually said - "No. I'm asserting that attempts to silence religions on political matters are wrong. Threatening them with taxation to get them to shut up is scary."

To which i responded - "When has this happened? I have heard that the govt threatened to remove the LDS tax exempt status if they continued to practice institutionalized racism by denying blacks the priesthood but i have never heard of any situation in which a religion was threatened "with taxation to get them to shut up"" - i eeven suggested that the 1st amendment would protect the LDS church from being "shut up"

So apparently you can't even be expected to remember what you said just a few posts up as you are NOW saying that ANYONE that suggests that the LDS church should lose their tax exempt status is an "idiot"...Your blind, unthinking devotion to all things LDS is kinda sad as you don't seem to see that the LDS persecution card has been played out....I also love how you have to immediately resort to name calling...so cute...

Okay, you're one of them. You idiot.

So why are you suggesting no one wants this to happen?

I think you're confused.

I guess reading comprehension issues accompany unthinking devotion to the LDS church considering my reasons for the LDS church losing their tax exempt status has nothing to with getting them to "shut up" (as you originally suggested) and everything to do with their discriminatory/racist practices...Please feel free to pull your head out of your butt, reread what i wrote and respond accordingly...

Yes, i am confused by your inability to carry on a rational conversation...again, not something unexpected from blind devotee to the morg but occasionally i get hopeful...I love when children don't have the words to adequately express themselves and have to resort to name calling...