Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
We aren't talking about the LDS church saying that gay marriage is morally wrong, :

We certainly are, and that's the point of this whole conversation.

Is that what the Church is currently saying? That Gay marriage is morally wrong?

Of COURSE.

I was reading from lds.org. Here is a comment from Elder Oaks concerning Gays and membership in the Church:

"Every teaching position, every missionary position can be held by single people. We welcome to that kind of service people who are struggling with any kind of temptation when the struggle is a good struggle and they are living so as to be appropriate teachers, or missionaries, or whatever the calling may be."

So a person that is Gay and that tells his Bishop he is Gay and as long as he/she is not sexually active, just like their hetersexual counterpart, they can go on a mission. Does that sound like being Gay is morally wrong to you?


Huh? Being Gay is not the same topic as same sex marriage dude,

So dude, you agree, being Gay is not morally wrong! I agree.

Wow, I guess I have to spell it out for you.

The church as said that being Homosexual is not a sin, but the acting on it is.


On a completly seperate topic.

The church wants to keep marriage as God intended it, between a man and a women.

Not sure where your confused, but you surely are.

Well dude, they can have it that way. Doesn't mean they can tell anyone else how they can have them. It's NON OF THEIR BUSINESS. Just as it's non of anyone ele's business to them how they should perform their marriages. You're making things up, dude.


You LDS? Are you saying the proclomation on the family is not inspired, and the Prophets are not inspired to try to keep marriage the way God intended it?

Gee dubbs, you're questioning rather the proclamation is inspired or not depends on how it is viewed in say 20 or 30 years and if something within it becomes embarrassing to the Mormon Church.

Wren wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
[
Give me a flippin break Dubbs, when is it that you get to decide when things should be "civil" or not?

I don't decide, I merely stated you are not really interested in a discussion as I asked you a question, and find it funny you responded with a smart alec comment. then get on me for doing the same?


So again, save your little sermons until you yourself are living as you want others to.

Talk about being a crybaby!

Wait until you get a load of Dubbs' 'forum bishop interview' of those whom he deems unworthy. Jaye has been 'interviewed' countless times. It's only time before ThomasK gets 'interviewed.'

Jaye never had trouble turning Dubbs inside out, and ThomasK will do as well, I predict.

I believe dubbs is starting to doubt and question Mormonism and he knows that this will eventually lead to him losing his wife, friends and neighbors if he continues. dubbs undoubtedly has serious mental issues, he desperately wants that relationship wiith Jesus Christ that just isn't available within the confines of the Mormon Church.

What makes you think a member of the LDS Church, "in it's confines" cannot have a relationship with Jesus Christ? I don't presume to know and understand everything in other Churches, and I don't judge them for their beliefs even when they differ from mine. Nor do I make up things about their church to make them sound bad. Another misconception I have noticed around here is that Mormons know nothing about any other religions, have never been to any other religious service, and think that all other religions are wrong and their members are going to Hell. Generalizations! I hate them all . . . including this one

Seriously, I know there are very good people in other religions that believe in the Savior, and follow him, and will absolutely be going to Heaven. I also know that we, as Mormons (I prefer to be called LDS) believe in Jesus Christ, know that he is our savior, that he died for our sins, and we try to follow his example, which is the most importnat and perfect example ever set for us . . . ALL of us. Jesus Christ is the very base of our Church. We are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are not St. Matthew's Church (that was the Lutheran Church I went to before I joined the LDS Church)or The Seventh Day Adventists, etc.

By the way, I have a very loving relationship with my Savior. I study about Him in the Bible, I pray in His name, I give thanks and gratitude to Him and love and honor Him. I do try to follow His example in everything I say and do.

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
[
Give me a flippin break Dubbs, when is it that you get to decide when things should be "civil" or not?

I don't decide, I merely stated you are not really interested in a discussion as I asked you a question, you responded with a smart alec comment. then get on me for doing the same?

OK, Mr Serious. Other than which side I sit on during Sacrament meeting, I can't think of anything I've had a change of position on in the LDS Faith. I've never thought that the Church should allow Gay marriage. But I do not think the Church should try to stop Civil Unions/Marriage between Gay couples. And my position on your response to Wren has not changed.

What is your position on Blacks in the priesthood? Was it inspired? Was it one mans opinion (Brigham) that it should happen? Did you know Joseph Smith ordained Black people to the priesthood? You ever wonder where the revelation to start it is?


Ever thought of what would happen if every state in the union allowed civil marriage, what that would ultimatly mean to the LDS faith?

If the Blacks had not had the Priesthood when I was investigating the Church I would not have joined, no matter how I felt about the rest. Before I joined, I had conversations about this with the Bishop, Mission President, and Stake President. Most of this is private. These Preisthood holders did not have a problem with my understanding and belief concerning this. That is as much as I'm willing to discuss.

As far as every state allowing civil marriage. In my opinion, that time has come. That should have no bearing on the LDS Faith. A religion should not have to recognize a Civil Union anymore than the "state" should have to recognize an Eternal Sealing. I know this is the fear, but I don't think it is has sufficient grounds.

Now for the rest of the day, you be civlized.

Mmm, to bad your not interested in discussing it, I'd be interested in hearing your take.

As far as the civil marriage issue, it is my opinion that if every state were to offer civil marriages, the next step would law suits for those LDS members who want to do it in the Temple.

There's that, and this...

20 And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my bcommandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

Two things...

1) Religious ceremonies won't be forced by law to allow gay marriages. They aren't forced by law right now to even offer marriages at all, it is something they go to the state/feds for now, not the other way around.

2) Of all the corruption and immorality in the world, isn't it a little strange that the focus of the LDS church should be so set on fighting gay marriage? We are talking about a civil matter of legality aren't we? Homosexuality will not run rampant just because we allow them equal rights to marry. People are and will be homosexual anyway. I don't see the LDS church asking it's members to put a stop to that.

Is there a commandment somewhere about making sure Gays can't marry? If so, I haven't seen it.

I doubt that the state will require any of us, ever, to marry one of our own sex.

So the answer to this is very simple.

Don't marry someone of your own sex.


Huh? Who's saying the state will "require" anything?

Your bizzare dude, and need to read more, post less.

Are you backtracking now? You were arguing that the state could force the church to do certain things. Now you are saying the state won't?

So, you are confused, so let's ask: what's your point?

as I said read more, post less.

The topic was on the government saying the LDS faith could say we must do as federal says and honor marriages as federal states, which if this passes in all states, would be any creed, gender, etc.

Not that it could require us to marry someone of the opposite sex, as your post said.

Now you are trying to deceive, Dubbs.

You are bound by everything your write.

You can't argue both sides. Either the state can or cannot force its will on church marriage regulations.

Which it it?


Huh? You are so confused it's hard to even follow your logic. Bizzaro Wren.


We're discussing whether the church would be forced to follow federal law and have to marry as the states define marriage.


not if they will force us to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Read more, post less.

OK, so you are now taking a side again. You are arguing that the state has the power to force the LDS church to marry homosexuals. On what do you base that? Got any examples?

Ahhh, finally comprehended what was written. Good job, baby steps.

I said it was my opinion in my first post,

Again, read more, post less.

So now you are arguing only one side, when you were arguing both before.

Got any examples? I asked that before, and I expect a clear and concise answer that makes sense.

Have examples of the government redefining laws?

Yes, insurance companies are now forced to cover domestic partners.

That's bad? Government exists to make good laws.

To the insurance companies yes, as this would be to God.

Government always makes good laws? And good decisions that favor Gods word?

Insurance companies are regulated by God? I will tell the state and federal regulatory agencies immediately.

And that conundrum is where your argument falls apart.

We are a secular democracy, governed by the Constitution, not by your God's laws. Go create your own theocracy if you want to have that type of law.

That is what Brigham tried to do in the 1850s and got slapped down by the feds and the army. There is only one law here, and it is not the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or praise heaven, the D&C.

Render unto Caesar what is his, and unto God what is His.

What's sad is a supposed Christian saying this, Oh, wait, you want to throw out those parts you don't agree with, like the ones that speak of homosexuality being wrong. And the words of James. Typical

Wren wrote:

Don't you believe in all the doctrines of your faith? doesn't that put your temple recommend in jeopardy?

The Catholics will agree with you on this, Dubbs.

I didn't say that Wren, not sure what either of you are talking about. What did I say I didn't believe?

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
BLogan wrote:

why do some Mormons still occasionally get riled up and start talking about a heavenly mother?

I didn't know Mormon got riled up about this? Jesus had a mother, didn't He? You have one. They are just as much a part of "man"kind as fathers, aren't they? I'd say they are a pretty important part, not only here, but THERE! Don't get riled, they'll forgive you. Even with your chauvinist attitude.

Why? don't you think God could handle creation on his own? Don't confuse creation with the Mormon beelief of procreation.

Has nothing to do with God being able to handle his creation, has to do with a sacred topic.

Don't you actually mean this digs up another embarrassing teaching for the Mormon church?

What, mother in heaven? No, this makes perfect sense to most logical bible believers, if there is a father in heaven, there's logically a mother.

If God created us in his image, then logic says women were created in a female image.

Only bible thumping nut jobs who listen to their preachers screaming, 'that is false, that is false, those damn Mormons are false" are the ones who can't think for themselves, past their preachers words.

Dubbs, most Bible believers think God created man in his image. Nothing is indicated whatsoever that there was a Mother Goddess. That is paganism.


Do you think we know all about the heavens Wren?


Is it possible there is many things we don't know about God and what he is, who he is and who he's with now?


Does it not make a little sense that if we are his children, and he is our father in heaven, (matt 6, among many others) we have a mother? Think past your preachers words for a minute and answer in your own thoughts.

That is why we have the Bible, Dubbs, to restrain the credulous faculty of some, such as imagining that Heavenly Mother exists.

But actually your common belief teaches that their many Heavenly Mothers as there are many Heavenly Fathers.

Because we don't as much as we would like does not give us free reign to make up stuff.


God says in the new testement that many secret treasures and doctrine would be given to his believers, where are these going to come from if not Prophets?


I notice you did not answer my questions, because I think you know and have admitted the Bible is not completly accurate nor complete, and much we are missing. Do you know how many books of scripture are mentioned in the bible that we don't have today? YOu think we could be missing some things from those? Again, answer my questions and think for yourself.

Out for a date with my wife. out.

I know that you are not thinking yourself but following your leaders who are making things up where there is no substance to support the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother.

I have a good date. And do apologize to her and ask her forgiveness, for you have sinned against her.

Neither is the word Trinity, but that doesn't stop you and your ilk from creating this bogus doctrine.