hordak

I think it's a shame. Solders die to protect the freedoms and rights of the US Constitution, which include Free speech and assembly and the towns people dishonor the same freedoms these members died for because they don't like what this church has to say. Families don't have the right to a funeral without interruption. Per the US Supreme Court. interpretation of the US constitution that these service members signed up to protect. Is what they say and do good, true or right? No i don't think so. But it is a greater dishonor to ignore the rights that people put their life on the line for and died for simply because we don't agree with what others say. It kind of reminds me of the anti semites who hate the Jews because "they killed Jesus". They are completely missing the point of the Crusifiction and his life.

Gospel Principles Chapter 47: Exaltation

Actually midiclorians (as per George Lucas )is a microscopic life forms in all matter that the Jedi, and Sith are able to manipulate. This is what allows them to use the force. The "God gene" is thought to be VMAT2,

!st amendment protects the stuff others say, not just the stuff you like. I'm sure i've told this story before but when i was in the service the war protesters were crowded around the gates at the base all the time. My supervise used to come in complaining about them, just gripping all morning long. I loved them. Not because i agreed with what they said, but because they were taking full advantage of the rights i signed up to protect. So while i don't agree with what they say or how they say it, i'm glad they are protected, because it means we all are. Plus this church thrives on publicity, the negative publicity gave a church of 71 members a worldwide voice. I think the best action would be to ignore them.

Never seen september dawn. But will admit liking Flash Gordon in one of my guilty pleasures

Wonder if OPs vies evolved, since it was 4 years ago:p 04-04-2007, 07:25 AM

Total anecdotal evidence here but i heard a story once... Missionaries at MTC were having a Q&A session with one of the 12 and one ask "What does it mean to blasphemy the holy ghost?" the response was "There is only one person in this room who needs to worry about it, and I don't plan on it" Don't know if the story is true or not but it was said by Joseph Smith Seems you must have some great knowledge, to commit it. Didn't Peter deny Christ? If he was there with him, denied him for his own personal benefit, and was still able to pass on the Priesthood (D&C 27) i think someone questioning, millennial later in spite of having a baptism would not committing the unpardonable sin.

You completely missed the point. Problem is you attributing the deeds of a few to an entire group. I have an anti catholic friend who does the same thing in light of some of the recent scandals. Also know some atheist/agnostics who do the same thing dropping name like Steven Hawking, or Richard Dawkins. But you see the acts of a few, don't represent the group as a whole, whether they be good, or bad. You might call that "small minded" I call that logic. Mormon is to Browning as Mormon is to Mark Hoffman. Both got famous doing unusual things. But these thing don't represent the church.

2 wrongs can make a right:evilsmile:

Proclamation on family The Family: A Proclamation to the World

War does not equal patriotism. And John Browning represents "they" as much as Mark Hoffman, Butch Cassidy or Ted Bundy do.

I'm saying from a secular stand point it's hypocritical to accuse those who want to keep marriage between a man and a women, as discriminatory, while being perfectly fine with discriminating against polygamist/ polyandry because it's seen as unnatural.

Why is that closing loophole But to add Is Discrimination:huh: defining marriage between 2 people, because you don't think it's natural to have more is no different then those who define it as man and woman because they see ssm as unnatural

That is ridicules. I can't believe members of the church, who can refuse to marry a couple because one drinks tea, would fear being forced to wed gays in the temple. Naturally the opposition wouldn't bring up the protection in their ads, I'm just suprized so many would actually think churches would be forced to to wed gays, given that religious groups are all ready exempt from changing their doctrine and practices to meet secular law. When native Americans are taking peyote, when LDS an Catholics aren't including women in the priesthood, and when westboro baptist are picketing funerals of service members. I don't think we need to fear being forced into performing SSM.

I would think it would be "built in" automatically. A Catholic church can't be forced to marry a non catholic to Jew (although religion is a protected class) likewise members of the church who don't follow the standards, drink tea, coffee ,not pay tithe, etc. Has no legal right to force the church into performing a wedding.