Cal

TR2 You said: Homosexualilty evolves into extinction. That would only be true if any sizable portion of a population were homosexual. Actually, homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. The simple fact that it is common in animal populations proves that it is NOT going to extinguish a populations. Chimpanzees show homosexual activity and they have been around a lot longer than we have---they evolved from a common ancestor with us about 8 to 10 million years ago and have changed little since then. Of course, we have changed quite a bit, though mainly in the sophistication of our outer cortex (or what is called the "new mammalian brain")

Peace--you know, President Hunter never "repented" of being a lawyer, in fact, several times he mentioned being proud to help his clients navigate the intricacies of the law. Since he didn't "repent", according to you he must have been called by God inspite of his SINFUL state. Is that what you are saying? Apparently being a lawyer is no big deal to god. He has called numerous GA's as apostles and even a prophet.

Beh--You are simply wrong about due process, even when the IRS is involved. Before the IRS even gets to the point of taking your property you ARE afforded a hearing as to whether the assessment is correct. Also, there IS a tax court in which you can challenge IRS rulings. YOu are simply ignorant of these things or chose to ignore them in order to further your argument for anarchy. It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone would VOLUNTARILY obey the laws of the land. WE DON'T. So the laws must be enforced by force. Obey the law, and stay out of trouble. It's simple! Be negligent and injure your neigbor, break the speed limit, run traffic lights or don't pay your share of taxes, then I hope the government DOES force you to pay the price. Thankfully we HAVE a government, and maybe the best ever devised. Too bad you can't recognize that!

Snow-- first--you flatter yourself--I know every bit as much about mormon doctrine as you, and more. I just don't buy it all, hook-line and sinker like you. I know very well that mormons believe that God can act in situations that don't require the priesthood. They would like to NOT have to believe this--that way they could pretend that they are just that more special to God than others, and they often fall to the temptation anyway. The fact of the matter is there is no good reasoning that would have one conclude that the priesthood is necessary for anything, and you haven't provided any yourself. Again you simply state that you think it is, without providing any good reasoning. You nor AFD have yet to explain your way out of your conundrum and that is: AFD, and I assume you, believe that when a person exercises the priesthood, nothing is going to happen unless God first wills it. If that is true, then why not just call on God to exercise his will? You can assert that it is necessary, but you haven't provided a way around the question: Why do you need the priesthood if it is only exercized in according with God's will anyway? Of course you believe god acts outside the priesthood. I didn't say you didn't, mr. strawman. What I did say was that because he does, and you believe it, there is no logic that requires the priesthood in the first place. By the way as to your first premise, I challenge you to prove that it ISN'T true. Encompassed within bless, favor and heal is everything one can think of. And the ONLY thing you could even think of was "effectuating the ordinance of the gospel"? How is that not blessing and favoring? If the ordinances of the gospel are not a blessing and a favor (being required for your salvation) what exactly are they? So, when you look at it closely, it is your reasoning that is faulty, not mine.

Paul--at least you don't attempt some lame explanation that won't hold water (so to speak). I can respect you for that.

Peace---please! Sugar doesn't "cause" diabetes! No one yet knows exactly what causes it, but it is correlated with lack of exercise, obesity and a genetic predispostion.

Peace--how can it be over my head? I was once right where you are--a TBM without a doubt in the world, never having questioned, just believing everything I was told. LIke you I assumed the nice warm fuzzy feelings meant that JS was credible, that the BoM was a true history of the native americans as Hebrews etc---but I'm not there anymore, thank God, and would never want to be. I now realize that nice warm fuzzy feelings come from a lot of sources, and are not necessarily from God. They can arize in our own minds and do so with frequency. NO--the path to truth is thru objective, scientific and thoughful consideration. I found myself a very comfortable middle ground---no more cognitive dissonance---no more calling black white---no more defending the indefensible. Yes, the idea of the God YOU describe, does go over my head---on purpose. I don't want anything to do with THAT kind of God. The one that makes sinners out of gay people; the one that says that only mormons can go to the "best" heaven; the one that says that native americans are hebrews (black is white); the one that told JS to send missionaries to England so he could steal their wives; the one that killed everyone on earth in a flood because they had gotten a little rebelious or the one that says that the earth was created 7 thousand years ago, inspite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No, MY God is a God of rationality and compasion, not one of judgement, irrationality and vengefulness.

We can both agree there is a sun because there is impartial, direct, observational and scientific evidence that we can both agree upon. Now, where is the same kind of evidence for YOUR God?

AFD----so, no logical response? All you have left is to call me ignorant? I'll mark that one down as a victory for reason. :)

Peace, again, not your own opinion, but the opinion of someone I don't agree even EXISTED. What you have quoted is really JS criticizing anyone who dares disagree with him.

But Peace, that is exactly the point. Mormonism teaches that if gays behave according to how they have been created to be, they WON'T be able to achieve the highest level of the celestial kingdom. In essence, mormonism excludes gays from the same blessing as straights just because GOD HIMSELF created them that way. What kind of God is that?

This is only because we are on the earth, not in heaven...but it doesn't mean we aren't to try. We just must consider what we are up against....here where the demons have most of the power: Ephes. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Of course, this is probably just going right over your heads...

Your posting has a fundamental flaw in logic---assuming the truth of the thing you are trying to prove. Your "sun" analogy ASSUMES the truth of the existance of the sun, in the first place. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to make the argument. This is what you have done in your argument that there is a difference between you and the atheist's creed. You have had to ASSUME there is a God (or sun, in your example) before you can show there is a DIFFERENCE between the God (or sun) "believer". A proof based on an assumption of its truth is vacuous.

AFD--you are still left with the burden of showing why the priesthood is essential to God's doing, what you have admitted, is His OWN will anyway. IOW--you ask God to do his will, He does it, end of story, right?

It's one thing to control a "weakness" and entirely another for forbid one to "be" what one has been created to be. The gays I have know and talked to knew from very early on that they were not what their outward appearance dictated.That their feelings and desires were just as organic and real as straight peoples. It is too simplistic to simply say they have to control this "weakness". It is not a weakness, it is THEM.

Peace--so we agree that it is all really in the hands of God, and not the person doing the asking? Wow--we agreed on something!

PD--very nice post. thank you for being willing to spell it out that clearly. I guess I just don't have the patience. I'm afraid it probably went right over AFD's head though.

AFD--your beliefs are contradictory. You say that God will only heal your child, if he wants to. Your husband has to "be in tune" with the Spirit. That is saying that your husband's request to have your child healed must conform to God's will, right? So, why not just ask God to do HIS will? What's with all the priesthood and the laying on of hands and the whole formality? Just ask God to heal your child. IF it is his WILL he will do it, if it is not HE WON'T. Why the priesthood? God either wants the child healed or he doesn't, right?

Again, the mormon "God" is in trouble. The mormon position on homosexuality puts Him in hot water, logically speaking. The problem is this: The mormon God thinks that homosexuality is an outrage, and its practice abominable. This same God is also the one that created all living things. Made them what they are physically. Up until recently the mormons (and others) have claimed that it is not unjust for God to punish homosexual behavior because the homosexual has a choice, and that it is a life style choice, NOT AN INBORN OR GENETIC predispostion. As long as there was no proof that homosexuality is genetic, the conservative religionist was home free, so to speak. After all, no one would believe, in his right mind that God would make a sin of something HE, HIMSELF, created! Now comes the twist---genetic studies of the brain, observations of animals in nature, and double blind twin studies prove that homosexuality and sexual orientation have a strong genetic component. In essense, science has proven that sexual orientation is largely inborn. In other words, GOD IS responsible for creating the conditions for what HE, according to some, turns around and calls reprehensible. The "come back" that I sometimes hear to this is essentially this: Well, God creates heterosexuals too, and still requires THEM to control their reproductive instincts. The problem with that argument is simply that some of us find it very difficult to believe that a just God would go to the extent of not just regulating how and when one should be sexual, BUT WHETHER A BEING CAN BE SEXUAL AT ALL. What kind of God creates beings that have no legitimate outlet for their sexuality? Not the one I believe in. Bottom line: What some mormons (and others) want us to believe is that God would actually forbid someone from ever having sex at all. IOW--that it is OK for some people to be MONKS. Well, that even contradicts another mormon doctrine which says that mormons don't believe in prohibiting marriage, like the catholics do to their priests. At least the Catholics have SOME precedent for requiring complete abstinance.

Well, Peace, I have finally discovered your true sense of logic---"different" and "same" mean the same thing! I wish I could justify twisting the meaning of words that much---then no matter what I believed I could ALWAYS justify it!

All you have cite there is SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION! You have made my point for me. When you can come up with some reasoned platitudes of YOUR OWN, let me know; and base it on some real research, not on some "scripture" which is just someones authoritarian opinion. But you say, "But scripture comes from my God! So it must be true". And what or who told you that? "The scriptures!" (CIRCULAR REASONING). NO, its not circular, because I asked God myself? And why did you do that? Because the scriptures told me to! (Back to CIRCULAR REASONING). How do I know that the feeling I get from asking God are really from God? Because the scriptures told me they are? CIRCULAR. Bottom line: Religious convictions are based on circular reasoning--a logical falacy.

So, your husband can heal the child, with or without god's intervention. Too bad, the priesthood doesn't work very well---lots of people get sick and die, inspite of priesthood blessings and in fact, when people recover after a priesthood blessing, can you show that the healing is anymore likely than a recovery without it? And miraculous recoveries seem to happen all over, without the mormon priesthood. Also, I often hear church leaders justify the fact that the priesthood failed to heal someone by saying, "Well, it was just not God's will". If your husband has the power to heal WITHOUT God's intervention, then how come God seems to intervene ANYWAY? It sounds to me like it is really YOU that doesn't understand the mormon priesthood. Can you blame me for not understanding it too?

You have just agreed that they are essentially the same. The fact that the Atheist (and by the way, I am not one) and the Theist differ only in the belief or lack of belief in an entity that no two people define the same way, is hardly much of a difference, is it?