GoodK
-
Posts
60 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GoodK
-
-
Some answers have come in all the forms you mentioned above. Typically it is a strong feeling of warmth and reassurance--a knowledge.
This is what it felt like for me.
-
I find it quite strange that somebody would come into a religious forum to argue a secular view.
You can call it a secular view if you like. I didn't know dissenting opinions were not allowed here. Feel free to ask a moderator to ban me.
It would be like me going into an atheist forum to advocate for the existence of God!!
Hardly the same thing. And that never happens... does it?!
Otherwise every new political generation would throw away what was built previously simply because it may no longer see it as valuable or "reasonable" according to their philosophy.
I am certainly glad a new political generation decided that slavery should be thrown away. Or laws preventing interracial marriage. I'm glad they decided it was no longer "reasonable" to own humans as property.
I have traveled thru 40 countries and speak 6 languages. I can attest to the fact that there is nothing like the good old USA. That what made this country great was a constitution with no equal in the world, developed and inspired by God fearing men and on God's principles. It is naive to speak about furniture without mentioning WOOD. Ignoring that precedent in favor of a recent, socially induced philosophical position.
You are conveniently neglecting to mention that these God fearing men knew that it would be vital to seperate church and state. What precedent? The Old Testament? Are you kidding?
We should agree to disagree and conserve the emotional energy for more productive endevours than this exchange.
Like...
-
Once again you missed the point. As far as molding the government into what we want it to be, gee, I don't know, isn't that pretty much what we do every time we go to the polls to vote. Last time I checked this government was for the people, of the people, and by the people.
Hmmm... maybe you missed my point. We do mold our government via voting and elected officials, yet we do not mold our government to respect select religious doctrine. It is not your job to mold the government to match your religious faith. That would be, gee, I don't know, a disaster.
Your argument of just leaving people alone can go both ways. No ones is being denied any freedoms that are associated with marriage. To my knowledge most if not all the states have civil union laws that would allow gay couples every right that comes with marriage. So why can't they leave us hetros alone?
Well your knowledge is certainly lacking, then. Perhaps you should read up a bit. (I'll give you a hint, but you really need to do your own homework: not a single civil union law in any state offer gay couples every right that comes with marriage.)
And how are they not leaving "us hetros alone?" By not joining your faith, or calling themselves evil? By not changing the way they live in respect of your beliefs? Is there anything more unChrist-like than that?
I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. But you don't need to be married to do that. A piece of paper saying you are married won't change the fact that what you are doing is a sin.
You obviously do care, if you didn't why would you object?
If a piece of paper doesn't change anything, why do you care so much. Obviously the Lord won't recognize the marriage, so why do YOU feel the need to object to it. Spend your time doing something more productive. Instead of lobbying politicians to interfere with personal relationships and freedoms, why not lobby them to end poverty and hunger in third world countries? Why not go out and pick up some trash along the highway? Why not lobby for recycling programs in apartment complexes? In fact, I could probably think of thousands of things that would benefit humanity, society, America, and you personally better than trying to prevent people from marrying eachother.
So you don't think AIDS is the LORD'S way of dealing with promiscuous sex, (notice I said sex and not just gay sex.)
Of course not. It would be funny, if you didn't seem to believe this yourself. How could anyone possibly think this? We've known for more than 50 years that disease is not caused by sin. This belief - I almost dare not repeat it - that AIDS is sent from God to punish people who aren't having sex the right way, is not rooted in doctrine, church teachings, common sense, science, logic, or even careful thought. I can't believe you said that.
Also how do you know the LORD never told me to do something about it?
What the heck are you talking about? I never mentioned your apparent conversations with the Lord. To be frank, I don't care if you believe the LORD told you something about it. How do you know he didn't talk to ME about it?
You aren't me you haven't had my experiences.
Clearly.
The simple truth is that the LORD works through people.
And through virus', according to you.
Very rarely has He come down and done the job himself.
So it's your job to punish sinners? Why do you think that?
And like so many have posted He did reveal the Proclamation that has been quoted a few times.
I must have missed the part where the Proclamation said you needed to concern yourself with what other people do in the privacy of their own home. Feel free to quote it again, forgive me for being dense.
Do you not take that to be scripture or the LORD asking us to defend marriage between a man and a woman?
No, I do not take that to be the Lord asking us to defend marriage. I think the Lord is probably more concerned with how we live our lives, not what we do to change the way other people get to live theirs.
-
good thoughts.
I can't seem to find the article, but don't really want to read it anyway, except for I am curious about the court ruling against voters. I am curious about this, because there are two ways it could be played out. One: I only feel safe in a democracy where religion can't be voted on. Two: we talk of "balanced" powers being devided into 3 branches. I don't know history very well, but in my adult lifetime (since I've actually been allowed to vote), it seems that we live more (as some have pointed out) in a dictatorship, ruled by judges "interpretation of the law", "interpreted" to mean "If I'm the judge, I can twist those words to mean whatever I want." This makes voting on a law seem useless, as however well we seem to word it, a judge will be able to claim it "means" something else.
We have a say in who the judges are. The Judicial branch has always been a vital aspect of our government. Justices interpreting law is not a recent development. We NEED them to interpret and implement the laws. It is naive to think that voters simply vote on laws, how they should be applied, and what happens to those that don't follow them. You don't simply check a box and Walah! the police are now informed of this new law. I suggest you try and search You Tube for the School House Rock that talks about how a Bill becomes law.
The fears about force "acceptance" of untraditional marriage, expressed on this thread, are not irrational.
I think you are confusing acceptance with tolerance. No one will be forcing you to accept something you believe is wrong. You just can't persecute people for it in an unlawful manner.
One needs only to glance at the abortion situation, to know that fear of it not being "just" about 2 people's rights to do whatever they want, is legitimate.
How does gay marriage affect you, personally? And feel free to follow that tangent, how does someone's abortion affect you, personally?
Giving the govt. more power, in the guise of protecting (promoting?) our values and definition of a family, is imo very dangerous.
Amen.
-
For the skeptics, they should read 1984 from G. Orwell. It was published in 1949 but ABSOLUTELY everything it proposes and that sounded like Sci-Fi at the time actually came to pass.
Examples? Skeptics of what?
If anyone objects to homosexual behavior and/or teaching of any kind in public you WILL be suit and liable for civil rights infringement.
I beg your pardon? This is absolutely and demonstratably false. I object to homosexual behavior, as in I do not engage in it, find it appealing, etc... but I have never been sued nor would any court in any state in America find me liable for my objection. You should really correct this statement.
You will be guilty and liable for discrimination.
You are mixing truth with fiction here. Discrimination is not tolerated, but merely "objecting" to homosexual behavior is not considered discrimination.
Say a female teacher begins to discuss her "wife" on my 2nd grade daughter's class, brings pictures to share and talks about her "family with two "moms". If I object, on whatever grounds, and want to have my daughter changed to another class not taught by her I am in jeopardy of being suit. The fact remains that the court has elevated homosexual behavior to a constitutional right. ANYONE that objects on WHATEVER grounds will be violating civil rights laws.
With all due respect, you are either lying or speaking from ignorance here. The court has not "elevated homosexual behavior to a constitutional right"
Why do you say such false things?
My issue is not with they sexual orientation, choice, lifestyle or desire. My issues relate to my right to object based on my moral, and religious foundation has been eroded.
Would you really like to live in a society that governs what goes on in your bedroom? You really want to live in a theocracy? How about Iran? Supposedly there are no homosexuals there...
The constitution does not guarantee such rights to anyone; to ignore their faith and individual creed on account of the laws of men.
Actually yes, it does. The constitution does give people the right to ignore their faith and individual creed. You have the freedom to be a Mormon, Jew, Scientologist, Jehova's Witness, member of PETA, NAMBLA, etc... and the laws of men are what is important in matters of government. The God fearing men that authored the constitution knew well enough to seperate church and state.
Beyond that, God as inspiration and foundation of the constitution, also says that homosexuality is an abomination.
God says a lot of things. He says you shouldn't eat swine. Should we make sweet and sour pork illegal? Is legalizing the consumption of bacon a persecution of civil society? Should we require people to pay tithing? Add it to their taxes? Just because you choose to cherry pick something out of the Bible and use it as justification to call something an abomination, does not mean that we need to turn our democracy into a theocracy. Respect is a two way street. You respect the rights of other citizens that don't believe what we believe, and they may respect your right to believe they are an "abomination"..
I find it repulsive to be intimidated into acceptance of something I find offensive before the eyes of God.
Just my thoughts.
And I find it repulsive to see that such intolerance is rooted in uninformed, poorly thought out reasoning.
-
Now I beg to differ on several points, do we really defend the faith when the Spirit gives the alarm? I do see a failure point here. It doesn’t take a ‘Holy Man’ in seeing someone outright opposing those of the faith. Well?
And it doesn't take a Holy Man to see when someone is inventing doctrine.
-
Well GoodK, from your reply you seem to enjoy belittling people and I could easily do the same with what you wrote but it’s beneath me to do that. It’s abusive. But I’ll respond to what you wrote.
Interesting. I'd be interested to hear what exactly I wrote that you found belittling. It's beside the point, but an odd interpretation in my opinion.
That’s not what the articled is about. Did you read the article? I’ll quote part of it, “Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes. Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.”
Sadly, I read the article twice. Again this morning, just to make sure that what the author was saying was void of any references or citations for the events the writer is claiming to have happened. Sorry, but I don't wish to swallow what some writer posessing an anti-homosexual agenda says without some sort of factual basis.
Let me add some bold and color for you:
There is no factual basis to support the author's anti-homosexual hysteria. And real journalists cite their sources. I find it suspect that you quote a catholic website when it suits you. Do you know the Vatican recently condemned the church for its baptisms for the dead and geneology work? I guess whatever suits YOUR agenda is useful, eh?
Again, read the article.
Twice is enough, more than it deserves.
Did you forget the part about the photographer in the article?
If this is even true - there is no way for us to know, as the author forgot to cite her sources like a real journalist would be required to do. I guess the sumbission guidelines over at the Catholic Register are a bit lax, eh? But if it was true, so what? People get sued all the time, for no good reason. Welcome to America, my friend. I can guarantee that the photogropher wasn't thrown in some Soviet-esque jail cell.
Yes I do. Didn’t you read the article? Let me quote it for you. “...Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.”
You are really relying on this Catholic Register article, aren't you? We have no way to know what happened, the journalist never cited a source. We don't even know if it is true, let alone the details. Who owned the facility? This is most certainly nonsense, or spin. (but in my personal opinion, and this is for another thread, church's don't deserve tax-exempt status).
And another example of what the governments are doing to religion... “In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.”
Nonsense. Prove it.
A government should not be telling religion that same-sex marriage is acceptable. What would happen if a Bishop did not allow his ward to be used so that two gays can have a marriage ceremony? Would the church be taken to court for discrimination and force a religion to change their beliefs?
A government is not telling religion that. Religion is, in fact, trying to tell government what is acceptable. And that is foul and runs in the face of everything that is American.
Reread the Mennonite story.
No. Don't you have any original ideas, or do you rely solely on this authors shoddy "article".
Yes, I’m in the United Stated and yes this is a free country but your remark clearly shows you didn’t read the article. So I’ll quote part of it again. “A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple.” Pretty amazing for something like this to happen in the United States huh?
You must not have been in the country long, because this is absolutely not "pretty amazing". I really doubt that frivolous lawsuits against doctors can be attributed to homosexual marriage. But anti-homosexual propaganda clearly has no regard for what is true or not. Just as long as they can work anti-homosexuals into a frenzy.
Not representative of the church? You are kidding aren’t you? Have you forgotten our Marriage Proclamation?
Ya, I'm kidding. An anti-homosexual article in the Catholic Register is representative of the church. YOU have got to be kidding me.
Does it seem our government is promoting the strengthening of the family from what you read in the article?
It's not the government's job to promote strengthening of the family. Why would you want the government to? Do you wish to turn America into a theocracy? It is not your job to interfere with other families. Live and let live. As much as you would like to pretend, none of your rights are in jeopordy as a result of a homosexual marriage.
Simply ask the Mennonites and the Methodists mentioned in the article if they believe it.
I'd love to, but I have no clue who they are. Or when this supposedly happened. I guess that's what happens when you rely on faux-journalism.
Then let me quote part of our church’s The Marriage Proclamation, “Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
Gay marriage does not equal the disintegration of family. And if it did, it isn't your job to change that. It's the Lord's job to dish out consequences for sin, not yours. Get it?
I'm simply godsmacked that some people feel obligated to mold this government into what they want it to be. They seem to enjoy freedom when it benefits them, yet they can't stand to see other people enjoy a freedom they don't find acceptable. Hypocritical?
Why not just leave people alone? Why not just let people be? Why concern yourself with what people do in the privacy of their bedroom? I think that if the Lord really had a problem with gay marriage, He would do something about it. He didn't ask you, or any of us, to do anything about it.
-
Failure….Goodk, already demonstrated his position in this forum, his stance that countermands church doctrinal points. I will not sit idling by, to watch someone with a weaker testimony be drawn after this nonsense...
Do you get the picture?
The picture I get is that you are willing to invent church doctrine to suit you. What a surprise. Please don't pretend to know me or my testimony. Your display on this board is shameful, to say the least.
-
We don't follow our leaders blindly, as some would have you believe.
We do it on faith... We test the words of our leaders, to see if they're true.
After awhile we find a pattern: They speak the truth, and tell us things that help us grow, and help us lead a good life.
F.Y.I. I have been a member all my life. I know how we do it.
But no, that doesn't mean they're always right, and it doesn't mean that we should listen to everything they say without praying about it ourselves.
Agreed.
-
So... it's not necessarily a bad thing when you consider the merits of certain counsel?
-
Thanks for your viewpoint and I do appreciate your candor remarks but I rather rely on the merits of the Spirit here Elph. Something I had learned to do in these situations.
You are saying you would give medical advice to someone even though you are not a doctor?
Are you seriously saying that?
Do you have any idea how dangerous that could be?
Elphaba
Yikes !
-
Thanks. I will give it a look-see. Careful though. I might have to throw in an opinion or two. :)
Please do. At least I'll know you read it :)
-
I'm not really sure how the Blogging here works. I guess blogs don't appear on personal profiles? Well, I posted it to the Blogs section. It's called A Proposal for Same-Sex Marriage.
-
I can see the plight of those who want or need the legal blessings of marriage.
I wrote an essay on this very subject almost 2 years ago, yet it seems to be quite applicable now.
It's currently posted at another website, but heck, I'll post it to my blog here. If I can figure out how. Check it out.
-
I actually don't. I think there are times when they speak by the spirit. GC is one of those occasions. Their words can be considered scripture. Other talks or comments of GA's can be considered good counsel or truthful, wise advise and direction. But since most of them are such incredible examples of integrity, it is difficult not to trust their words. But do the make mistakes, misstep, mis-state things or act too zealously at times? Yes. They are human beings who fail and falter and who try better and get better and wiser as they grow. Just like the rest of us.
Is that any excuse for us? Heck no. Because we have the spirit, we are responsible.
I'm not saying they make mistakes, misstep, or mis-state things. I'm just saying sometimes they are speaking as Elder so and so instead of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
-
I guess I understand the live and let live philosophy. I suppose it may be said, choose and let choose. But we are at war. It is a moral war. A war for what is right against a force that is determined to destroy all that is good and pure and right thru the deception and corruption of the hearts of the children of men.
If you or I were at war, would you let your enemy kill as many as they wanted while you sat by and let them? Or would you fight to save as many as you could?
We can't control others. But we can let our voices be heard. "As for me and my house, we will choose the Lord."
I think saying that we are at war is almost on the verge of irrationality. So you would rather live in a country that does not respect personal freedoms, but rather one specific belief system? A theocracy?
I don't find myself at war with homosexuals, or anyone really. Perhaps myself and my own self-defeating habits.
-
This is true. Looking at more from the LDS view point you realize more what Brigham Young was teaching. From “outsiders” it appears (with smaller understand of our Doctrine) that Brigham young was taking about God, he wasn’t in the full sense.
Nonsense. If Brigham didn't teach it, why would McConkie and SWK correct him?
-
Snow: No worries, I understood what you meant.
GoodK: Living Prophet > Other prophets.
Doesn't mean it's all doctrine, but they clarify doctrine, and occasionally pronounce "new" doctrine. I say "new" because it really falls in line with old stuff, it's just that old laws are realized to encompass new meanings... Line upon line.
Can you help me understand something a little better? Do you think that everything a prophet or general authority says is doctrine?
-
Actually, legalizing same-sex marriage may be the most visual sign we are in the last days...
With all due respect, the rabbi relies on more than a few assumptions. I really don't understand what the big fuss is. Don't people rejoice at the thought of the second coming? Why not just let the sinners sin and allow God to intervene?
Seems like people are just uncomfortable seeing two men together. I have shared the same sentiments as some other anti-Homosexuals here in the past, I'm sorry to admit. But I grew out of it. Live and let live is a great way to, well, live.
-
Notice how these apologists keeping pointing to "anti-mormon" literature, knowing the mere mention of "anti-mormon" will put a bad taste in people's mouths? I learned about Adam-God not from anti-mormons but from very believing sources. I have lost much respect for Mr. Robinson at this point and feel inclined to never spend my money purchasing one of his books.
Persecution complex.
-
The only immature posting here is you and right now, my patience on your behavior is just about to run out. Do you understand?
I hardly can understand anything you type, due to lack of logic, reason, citations, proper grammar, spelling etc...
But please, do something out of the norm for you, and tell me what exactly is immature about my posting here. My expressed distaste for your invention of church doctrine? Like when you tried to say Jesus can be too busy at times. Or maybe how I keep asking you to support things you say with any sort of evidence? Do you understand how to support a claim with evidence?
-
Straw man. I never said that this is official church doctrine. I said that it is something taught by a prophet (Brigham Young, no less) that is NOT considered doctrine now. I have a hard time understanding why articles are being posted concerning "anti-Mormons" and "enemies" of the church try and accuse the church of believing this doctrine. It clearly isn't doctrine.
-
Your posting is revealing your true maturity level...take heed.
I would if someone other than a 49 year old who posts like a teenager was telling me. So I guess you don't care to answer my CFR. That is fine. I just like to be clear about what is doctrine, what is taught by the church, and what sort of folklore is passed off as such.
-
The following link is to a very interesting story about Same-Sex Marriage and the Persecution of Civil Society. It brings up some very interesting points about the direction our society is heading.
Allowing homosexuals - fellow US citizens - to exercise the same freedom to marry that heterosexual couples enjoy is a persecution of civil society? You can't be serious. How?
Some of my thoughts on the article...Have we now lost part of our freedom? To allow others their free agency to commit sin is one thing but to force us to contribute in their sin – doesn't that take away our free agency not to be apart of someone else's sin?
Holy smokes. This makes no sense. I guess the answer to your question (is it really a question) is an enthusiastic NO WAY. First and foremost, no one is forcing "us to contribute in their sin" by any stretch of the imagination.
How did you arrive at such a conclusion?
Just when did we allow our government to force us to partake of something we view as morally and religiously wrong and which we do not want to partake of?
Never. No one is forcing you to attend a gay couples wedding. No one is forcing you to watch them have intercourse. No one is forcing you to partake of anything. I can't believe the irrationality, intolerance, and ignorance being displayed here. Truly a sad sight to behold.
How are we contributing in their sin?
I asked you this question.
Will all churches be force to marry gays?
No. And you can't honestly believe that they would be.
Will all teachers in all church owned schools be forced to teach that gay relationships are not a sin but acceptable?
No. Are teachers in church owned schools forced to teach that gay relationships are sinful?
Will all doctors be forced to perform an artificial insemination on lesbian couples?
You are posting in the United States, right? You know this is a free country, don't you? Why are you insinuating that this is a step towards communism? Propaganda? Shock value? Attention grabbing? You honestly can't believe what you type. I hope you don't.
Will a photographer be forced to participate in a Gay marriage by taking photographs of the event or be sued for discrimination? Will all these be forced on us regardless of our moral or religious beliefs?
Sigh. This is so dissapointing. Might I say that this poster and his/her comments are not representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it's members, former members, future members, Christianity in part or in whole, or Americans in general. Sorry, but I really needed to put some distance between your opinion and mine. I would never want people to think I agreed with your hateful post.
Have state governments started rewriting God's commandments? I fear this is just the beginning.
I really doubt even YOU believe this.
We are living in the last days, but still, let's pray that the Marriage Amendment in California passes!
We have been living in the last days for thousands of years. Every generation has thought theirs was the last days.
I live in California and my family and I are voting for it. If it fails, I believe it will affect the whole country.
How on God's green Earth would it affect the whole country? Are you aware of Shirley Phelps Roper? Do a google search, and take a good hard luck at the company you are in.
It is not about gays but rather the people votes were overruled.No, it's about intolerance. You are clearly intolerant of others beliefs, yet you expect people to tolerate yours. You expect to live in a free country, yet you want it to conform to your standards. Would that be hypocritical?
It is about teaching my children at school about same sex gender when it is my responsibility to teach my own children and not the state or nation.
Nothing in the court ruling even hinted at revising school curriculum. This is a straw man argument. You are right' date=' it is your responsibility to teach and care for your own children. So do it. If you don't want the state to teach your children, I hope you aren't sending them to public school.
It is about allowing one special interest group having its way and then another, then another. Where does it stop? The Lord will come and intervene. Am I right to say this?
You are so wrong. If the Lord is going to intervene, why do you feel the need to?
So I see this as way more then gay marriage. Gay marriage is simply the vehicle which will seal the fate of whether or not WE THE PEOPLE still exists.
My goodness. A little dramatic, eh? Holy smokes. I can't believe some people really think homosexuality is the great moral crisis of our time. I'm glad to see other members that are a little more tolerant, Christlike, and respectful of our country's freedom.
Same-Sex Marriage and the Persecution of Civil Society
in Current Events
Posted
Well I am sorry to hear that. I assure you my intention is to engage in conversation. And I would be lying if I didn't say my intention in this thread is to steer people away from what I find to be an ignorant and intolerant way of thinking. I think it is possible to reason your way out of that sort of thinking.