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:
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

If you want a theocracy, then you oppose the Jesus of the scriptures. Show where he preached for that in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon.

And if you have any D&C scriptures, give them to us.

I never said Christ wanted a theocracy, where are you getting that.

He did set up a church while on earth, that much is clear.


And what difference does it make? Right Wren? You said Mormons can be saved, or is this a change in your stance? If we believe he wanted a thocracy, we aren't saved anymore?

I never said Mormons could not be saved, and you know it.

Yes, you were preaching for a theocracy. No, it ain't agonna happen. Read more carefully, please.

How did I preach for a theocracy?

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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.

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. Silly argument, for there is plenty of support for the Trinity but none for a Heavenly Mother.

Now did you apologize to your wife for sinning against her? It's time you do that, Dubbs, for you will feel much better and be less hateful here.

The trinity is a man made word, and a man made doctine created at the nicene council.


Wren, is it possible we have a mother in heaven, or are you so closed minded to think we have everything that God has, does and what ever happened in the bible?

Is it possible not all we will know is not currently in the bible? Possible?



You are losing this as well.

There is a hundred times more support for the Trinity, which you despise, than for a Heavenly Mother, which is a lunancy. Support from the Bible and BoM, if you please, if you have it.

Why won't you answer a simple question Wren,

Do you think we have all their is to know in the current Bible?

Wren wrote:
This has been a good morning, Dubbs being counseled and reproved competently yet once again.

A word for evangelicals: get off it. Two words: back off. None of you decide who is Christian and who is not. You do not have the authority scripturally or spiritually to do so.

If you are mad at Mormonism, then be an adult enough to admit that is what is driving you. Otherwise, you are hypocrites and no different than the bozo TBMs who come chanting through here with the "one true church" nonsense.


Tippin the bottle on a Saturday afternoon WRen? Your losin it.


Your beliefs are so close to theirs Wren. You just said Mormons who don't believe in a theocracy are opposing Jesus of the NT,

Can someone who opposes Jesus still go to heaven?


Doh! Caught you in a contradiction Wrenyy boy.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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?

Dubbs cut something out of the original thread. It had do with the priesthood. You will notice that it is not up there above.

He's being dishonest again, which only makes him look stupid.


What? I disagree with the priesthood? Huh?

YOu gonna answer this Wrenster ?

Dubbs said:

"Your right she has to answer for her own life. But I have seen people get offended for the silliest things in my life, I have been offended in my life by some people at church but I would never allow any person take something so important to me away. I have liked the recent talks in conference that mention how we need to forgive and forget when offended"

Oh, Dubbs, you are such a good person and so righteous and forgive and forget so easily any wrong doing or offense toward you. I guess my mother was just not as good a person as you are.

I think I am beginning to see why everyone here has lost patience with you, Dubbs. I have a very good friend, that when she was dating her husband to be she went to a class he was teaching. He taught way over their heads, deliberately doing so to show how intelligent he(thought) was. After the class, he asked his future wife what she thought about him. She said, "I think you are an arrogant, pompous Ass!"


If you think I recalled that because of him being so intelligent, think again.

Dubbs wrote:
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:
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

If you want a theocracy, then you oppose the Jesus of the scriptures. Show where he preached for that in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon.

And if you have any D&C scriptures, give them to us.

I never said Christ wanted a theocracy, where are you getting that.

He did set up a church while on earth, that much is clear.


And what difference does it make? Right Wren? You said Mormons can be saved, or is this a change in your stance? If we believe he wanted a thocracy, we aren't saved anymore?

I never said Mormons could not be saved, and you know it.

Yes, you were preaching for a theocracy. No, it ain't agonna happen. Read more carefully, please.

How did I preach for a theocracy?

Yeah, you did, so move along, nothing happening here.