charity wrote:There isn't anyone who is a member of the Church of the Lamb in this life. Not LDS, not anyone. It is a heavenly organization.
I would really expect better knowledge of the Book of Mormon from you, given all the time you've had to study it. What about this:
I beheld that
the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God,
were also upon all the face of the earth (1 Nephi 14:12)?
So the best any of us can do is to be headed toward it. There are many people who are trying to live to the best of their knowledge. Got it now?
I think you are the one who doesn't get it given the scripture I cited above, but feel free to contradict your own religious texts.
If I get one more "no, that isn't what you really thnk" type of comments, I will have a pretty good clue as to what is motivating your thought processes.
I've never doubted your sincerity. I have expressed amazement that you think what you say you think because it is so far out there compared to what the Book of Mormon actually says.
You are wrong. Our missionaries do not go out armed with lessons against Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists or Catholics. Our missionaries teach what we believe.
Well, until fairly recently it was believed that non-LDS clergy were employed by Satan, which I'm sure you've had the opportunity to see many times, although it probably wasn't taught directly to investigators - yet another bit of hypocrisy.
We have no quarrel with any church teaching what they believe. We have quarrell with anyone who teaches AGAINST any other belief system.
You are teaching against the Episcopalian belief system and against most Friends' belief system when you lobby anti-gay legislation. And in many other matters, too.
I will leave your accusations against the prophets alone sinceit is obviously a blend of presentism, a Biblical double standard and a porjection of your own repressed sexual desires on others.
That is basic Freud. They teach that in high school. You don't need an advanced degree for that.
Oh, so I suppose that it's okay to make my assessment of
your repressed sexuality publicly available, as well? Okay, here we go: I think that cheerleading for polygamy is easy for you because you are probably frigid. Happy now?
Repression is only a negative defense mechanism when it warps thinking.
Continuing with the paragraph above, I will return the favor and make an observation that I think that out of the two of us, your thinking needs to be unwarped, so to speak, much more than mine does.
Andyou make all kinds of libidinous projections from that. I guess you didn't ever read where Mark Twain said he would personally give the husbands of plural wives a medal. He went to Utah and say them. They weren't exactly Cleopatras.
I think a lot of them were pretty attractive. Take Ann Eliza Webb, for instance. Generalizing like that is just silly and not very nice, either. I know there were some wives that Brigham probably stopped having sex with once they were past their prime; with others he probably never had sex, marrying them to have free labor force and a guarantee of larger eternal increase instead. But to think that the GAs didn't enjoy their sex lives with multiple women is rather naïve.
I suggest you try a little test of your idea here. Find a nice, attractive young woman, start hugging her, kissing her, complimenting her. Then tell your wife it was all non-sexual.
You see, it would really be impossible to perform the test you suggest because I don't have a wife. I have a husband. And I do hug, kiss and compliment nice, attractive young women. My sisters and friends. In a completely non-sexual way. Hugging and kissing is more acceptable for women in this culture than for men, which I think is sad. It's tougher for gay guys out there in this respect, no doubt.
The Church doesn't have anything against young single people who are attracted to each other hugging, kissing, and complimenting each other, as long as that's all they are doing, does it now? As long as they are straight, of course.
For the record, I wonder why you decided I was a man. Yet more evidence of your making conclusions without any basis.
No, I don't think the Church would approve of that behavior. And for your information, it isn't bigotry to disapprove of a behavior.
Holding on to unfounded prejudices is, though. And the Church has done that repeatedly over the years. If you think it hasn't, you are really in denial.
God isn't just God of people who happen to believe in Him. And when some of His laws are violated to the extent that this is, then it is the responsibility of the Church to try to prevent it.
So much for letting people have their own beliefs and respecting free agency,huh.
You just can't get out of the juvenile mode of insulting people, can you? Old maids. What a way to degrade a person. And you think only attractive people deserve mates? This is really a laugh.
What really is a laugh is how my words become so twisted in your mind you get a completely different message than the one I intended. What was I supposed to say? Single women over 50 who have never been married? That's what an old maid means, doesn't it? I would equally apply the term "old bachelor", as well. That was not meant to be degrading. I'm not really into PC. Which part is offensive - the "old" or the "maid"? Is the mention of a woman's age offensive, according to outdated manners, or the fact that she's never had a sexual partner? I thought it was something to be proud of. I'm all for mature people getting married, and I don't think it's ever to late to find a partner. If you thought my position was different, you're in for a disappointment.
Also, please tell me why you've decided that I think only attractive people deserve mates. What, stating the obvious facts that attractive people have an advantage when it comes to finding mates is offensive now, too?
So, you are basically saying that if the only way you can gratify some desire is by breaking a commandment it is okay to do that? Does your spouse know that? You would fit really well with the crowd that believes that adults who can only be gratified sexually with children should have that right. It is called NAMBLA.
Oh yeah, cuz I don't give a crap about this little thing called "consent". I think some desires shouldn't be gratified, but there is an obvious double standard for gay and straight people in the Church, and I'm sorry your vision is too clouded for you to be able to see that.
My master's degree was from Portland State University. Gay people there? Sure. And since my tuition didn't even pay the cost of my own education, and was subsidized by taxes of Oregon citizens, how did my attendance there advance the gay cause? I really want to hear you wiggle your way out of this one.
I don't think I have to wiggle my way out of anything. You paid tuition to them, so you contributed to their funds. As do people who donate to PFLAG. Are you now saying that there is a break-off point in the amount of money that has to be paid to an organization in order to qualify for fighting against Christ? What is it, pray tell? I fail to see how one member paying dues to the NEA (if there are any) would advance the gay cause, but you wouldn't hesitate to assert they are fighting against Christ, would you?
And the light of Christ being identified as being the conscience isn't only based on Mormon Doctrine. But I really don't want to take time to search out references for you, when you don't have an open mind and won't accept it anyway. I get tired Old Testament his kind of thing.
I don't have a problem with accepting it, and I've already made it clear that I allow for that possibility, which you have obviously missed. However, I don't see how it helps you unless you and I have different definition of conscience. In fact, I think it hurts your position because there are few anti-social people and I think it's too far out to consider them fully responsible for having this disorder.
Go out and study Kohlberg's and Gilligan's work on moral development, and then come back and see if you think "moral code" has to belong to any one group.
What makes you think I haven't studied their work? Stop assuming I'm some backwoods ignoramus already, please.
It seems that many religious believers are stuck in the pre-conventional stage as defined by Kohlberg because they think that external motivation is necessary in order to not rape and pillage left and right.
I should probably note that I think there are significant problems with both Kohlberg's and Gilligan's theories because of overreliance on assuming humans to be rational and reinforcing gender stereotypes. I might be using the word ironic incorrectly here, for those concerned, but I find it rather ironic that Gilligan, being a woman, decided to put women in a forced category instead of suggesting approaching different people's morals and their circumstances individually, which is precisely what she argued women do when it comes to moral reasoning.
Also, you are the one who suggested that absolute libertines have no idea how to live by a moral code, so I'm not the one here who thinks that there are groups of people who are not in possession of any moral code. Do you even remember what you yourself have said?
The Church has denounced war wherever it occurs.
Really? And what's this: "It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression." - GBH talking about the Iraq war
here (I don't think abortions are a good idea, but I suspect that if there was less social stigma rooted in religious beliefs, less women would be having abortions).
What? This explanation has got to be good. Bring it on!
I've already made it clear that it's just a hunch which may or may not be true, but I'll share it with you if you so insist. I think that the reason for having an abortion might often be the stigma attached to being an unwed mother or giving your child up for adoption. For the record, I think it's commendable that the Church has adoption services. But I think it's sad that they lament the fact that unwed mothers are now less socially stigmatized than in the past. I'm sure I've seen some GA quotes on this, but LDS.org is down right now. I'll look later, if you want me to. When you have an abortion, no one has to know about it, thus no gossip and loss of reputation for either getting knocked up or being an irresponsible mother.
Of course, I think abortion is a pretty crappy form of birth control and that other, non-invasive forms are much more preferrable. I don't think I could ever have an abortion even though I don't want children at the moment, at least. But that's just me. I respect other people's attitudes about that. After all, a fetus cannot be an independent entity in the initial stage of pregnancy, so it is a part of the mother's body which she is sovereign of, isn't she? I suppose they'll be able to solve this problem once we develop an artificial womb.
On a sidenote, I'll point out an inconsistency to you in the Church's stance on abortion. They are not against in vitro, for which multiple embryos are created but not all used. The discarded embryos are sold to pretty much anyone who wants them and used to test hair spray and such. Yet the Church has not spoken out against it. I wonder why. How is this different from having an abortion?