The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[Guest]

Choas Wrote:

FYI

The moderators will determine what is allowed on this board, when it is allowed, and where it is allowed. Those who try to silence our posters with lectures or ridiculous comparisons to hate speech found elsewhere will be removed from the thread. The hate speech that is encouraged on another board is not allowed here. That is why this board is thriving. Those who make others defend themselves against the absurd accusation that what is allowed here is no different that what is encouraged there will be removed. Those who persist in a campaign to control and shut down other posters who aren't complying with their instructions will be banned permanently. Use the report function or find another board. We have too much traffic on this board to put up with board nannies who derail threads.

[_just me]

Choas Wrote:

FYI

The moderators will determine what is allowed on this board, when it is allowed, and where it is allowed. Those who try to silence our posters with lectures or ridiculous comparisons to hate speech found elsewhere will be removed from the thread. The hate speech that is encouraged on another board is not allowed here. That is why this board is thriving. Those who make others defend themselves against the absurd accusation that what is allowed here is no different that what is encouraged there will be removed. Those who persist in a campaign to control and shut down other posters who aren't complying with their instructions will be banned permanently. Use the report function or find another board. We have too much traffic on this board to put up with board nannies who derail threads.

[_cwald]

(if you want to comment on this insanity, please do it in this thread...http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13319&start=861

Darren10 wrote:

Nonesense. If God tells His people to enter into a new land and kill every native man woman and child than killing every man woman and child is the right thing to do. You don't necessarily have to enjoy doing it but it is the morally right thing to do. When God says to do something, you do it. Period. Attempting to declare God unworthy of worship because you do not fully accept His command is blashpemous.

Darren10 Wrote:

It's not dangerous at all. If God says to do something from not bearing false witness to slaughtering every man, woman, and child in a new land, then that's the right thing to do. It's far more dangerous NOT to do as God commands.

Wayfarer responds:

I'm sorry. I will stand in permanent opposition vocally, publicly, and in every venue i can and oppose your kind of thinking. genocide in the name of god is evil: always, absolutely, and forever evil.

Psalm 137:8-9
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Darren10 next response:

If God says to do something, than that is the correct thing to do.

Darren10 wrote:

Again, if God says to do it, than that's the right thing to do. Period. you're dictating to God what He should do by telling Himn, "no, God. That's morally wrong". There's nothing wrong with addressing your concerns to the Almighty but His commands stand. He has infinitely more knowledge as to what is morally right and wrong than all of humanity combined ever will while in mortality. We are on this earth to serve God with all our might, mind, and strength, not to tell God no and that what God says is not morally correct.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59984-john-dehlin-responds-by-podcast/page__st__40

[_cwald]

GingerRed Wrote:

I still find it fascinating how people out there attack and fight and against our church SO hard...it only increases my testimony of the church, because Satan fights it so forcefully, using every trick in the book, its gotta be true! :-)

Red

[_cwald]

This entire five star thread.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59953-what-has-the-new-farms-produced/

21 pages and 415 posts of insanity. Enjoy

[Guest]

 Darren10:

How is Dan Peterson worse than an LDS lesbian who refuses to live the law of chastity?

[_cwald]

Randall57 wrote:

Seeing defenders of the faith putting themselves in the 'pig pen' and entering into childish rants with apostates is what is an ammbarassment to Elder Maxwell's name and legacy. Dr. Peterson being the chief apologist, if only in the lens of the common folk, continually put himself in a position that mirrored a negative 'word picture' of what the Institute stands for. I believe it is time that people come to the reality that under the likes of Peterson, Hamblin, and yourself, the Institute was getting a very large black eye via fourms like this. The brethren had no choice is suggesting a more conservative change of direction from the institute; retirement is not such a bad option, and may I suggest in silence?

[_cwald]

From the scouting and Prop 8 thread...Wade Englund arguing and commenting about the degeneracy of gays and lesbians.

emphasis mine.

Now, after the last presidential election, I have come to grips with the fact that I am currently living in, from my perspective, an upside-down world, where "feelings" have sway over reason, and where, morally and otherwise, bad is now considered good and good considered as bad. Where once we as a society rationally condemned degeneracy and enacted laws to encourage generation and progression, we have slowly become corrupted into embracing the degeneracy. This isn't me, but I accept that it is now the majority, and I will find a way to live in this new world without being off it. To each their own.

This does not mean, however, that I won't at time, and where I deem appropriate, voice an opposing opinion. I will (on the off-chance that it might do some good), though I won't be holding my breath. At this point, sticking my finger in a leaky dike (no pun intended) will have little affect when the dike is now composed of coarse mesh wire.

Wow. And they call this place a vile trailer park.






http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59930-lds-church-files-friend-of-the-court-brief-w-scotus-re-prop-8-doma/page__st__380

[_SteelHead]

Way too good to pass up.

Been around the block a few times, wayfarer (over 70 years worth), and have doubtless met many more types and kinds of Mormons and non-Mormons than you will ever have the opportunity to meet. Including on this Board, I have yet to meet anyone who has left the LDS faith for a legitimate reason. Even you based your own disappointments on non-doctrinal assumptions which have turned out to be false.

Seriously Bob?

But wait, there's more (speaking to a doctrinal basis for the priesthood ban):

There was no such doctrine. Pres. McKay and his associates sought in every way possible to determine why such a policy existed, but could not find any doctrinal justification. Right wing Mormons are still in denial on this issue, and are not even aware that Joseph and his brethren were ordaining Black people to the priesthood and sending them on missions, nor that Joseph actively sought to end slavery.

And yet...... There was a 1st presidency letter (or two) that directly contradicts this. Mormons are fun.

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church's deep and historic concern with man's free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223]join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state."

President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224]chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

Throw it down the memory hole!

[_cwald]

Wanderer7 Wrote:

Does it matter whether it's "policy" or "commandment"? If it comes through the chain of priesthood keys, we ought to receive it as if from the Lord Himself. Even if the Lord didn't directly give it, remember, by the voice of God or His servants, it is the same. If for no other reason, we ought to keep policy to preserve unity and harmony and to prevent dissension and apostasy. If you do have an issue with a policy, you should keep it to yourself...

...according to Wilford Woodruff "No man who has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the kingdom of God and lead the people astray," and "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray." In other words, even if we do not believe the prophet is correct, we may be under obligation by their office to obey for the sake of obedience.

... I believe that even uninspired direction from the leaders of the church ought to be complied with. Generally speaking, by virtue of their calling from the Lord, their counsel is to be received as if from the Lord. Again, if their counsel seems to be harmful, we should express our concerns in the proper manner so as not to encourage dissension.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60153-obedience-to-policy/