JoCa

???? What an utterly fallacious argument. Sorry anatess you've lost this argument. Children were homeschooled for the vast majority of the time during this nations History . .. your argument == FAIL.

Also if someone is a member b/c they believe the book has "good" messages. Well what determines good? With no overarching believe that the entire thing is a Work of God, then good becomes subjective; well this part that I like is good, this part that I don't like is bad. And then this eventually devolves into . . .. moral relativism . . tada!!! Exactly what is being taught and pushed in every angle in our culture.

null

There may come a time when it needs to be on the baptismal or temple recommend question. It was/is pretty much a given that if you don't believe Mormon was a real person, that Nephi was a real person then the logical conclusion is that JS was just making it all up. So then you are left with the conclusion did JS make it all up to defraud people or was he a crackpot, or was he really inspired by God to make-up a "spiritual story". If he was inspired by God to make-up a spiritual story and if God could inspire people to make up "spiritual stories" present them as fact then could he not have inspired some man call Lehi to take his family across the sea? So this idea the JS could write down a "spiritual story" present it as history and people could be members of the Church still . . .is totally a logical fallacy. What they are really saying (through very cunning means inspired by Satan-and they may not know they are being inspired by him), is that the LDS Church is false as in God did not really call JS to be a prophet. For now, there are not enough of those individuals for it to really make a difference . . .but if it becomes a problem they will eventually end up leading a whole lot of people astray and if that happens, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be a question . ..otherwise it would destroy the Church as it exists.

Bingo. They can stay . . .but their children won't. Vibrant faith gets passed down from generation to generation. If it ain't vibrant (or if it doesn't burn within you) your children will see it and more likely than not they will not stay.

Man . .. without the last sentence I could have liked :-(. Totally agree to the first paragraph. Ultimately we have to think what is the purpose of life: 1) is the purpose of life to get a fat paycheck, get a big house, be "successful" or 2) is the purpose of life to be a good person, a good neighbor, get marriage, have kids, continue the circle of life and "education" is only an end to a means. Public school today only teaches #1, not #2 . . .it used to also teach #2, but it doesn't anymore. Public schools today only exist to cram more and more "facts" into kids brains and expose them to as many ideologies out there. No right or wrong, just different ways of seeing the world. Therefor they end up growing up extremely confused. Why do you think so many women coming out of high school are feminists and eschew the traditional family .. .b/c what they've been taught for 18 years and indoctrinated with is #1 not #2. The younger years is the exact time framer where you have to indoctrinate #2, if you do then most likely even if they take a divergent path they will come back to #2.

To whit about school and teaching: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/21/patriotic-parent-balks-at-teachers-gender-neutral-declaration-independence.html Mesa, Arizona. Now how are you going to fight against this? Be in class with your child every day, all day long? Tell your child, "let me know if they start using gender neutral pronouns"-they wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Umm. We did; his name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We also had a another tyrant . . .but he also died.

I wish it were so, but all one needs to do is look at the product of children coming out of Public Schools. Look at how many children are actively rebelling against their parents and following the way of the world. It's no secret the Church has a retention problem among the youth. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that in every totalitarian regime, the first thing they do is indoctrinate the children through schools. All one needs to do is look at history to see how completely wrong your statement is. Just look at the Hitler Youth. They were indoctrinated in schools and then ended up turning in their own parents who were arrested and killed . . .and the children felt good about it!! It's easy to figure out . . . it's because what they are being taught in school doesn't coalesce with what they are being taught at home and at Church. And I'm not talking about evolution here, I'm talking about a mode of thinking. The way children are being taught to think in schools is vastly different than how they are taught to think in church and at home. We seem to have bought into this lie that the most important learning is learning of facts. Totally wrong. The most important learning is learning how to think properly. At Church and at home we teach moral values, we teach there is an objective Truth, that one can find that objective Truth-that Truth (ultimately how to live ones life) comes about due to Truth found in the scriptures. So when a child is indoctrinated for 18 years for over 40 hours a week by teachers, peers, social pressure that truth is subjective, that all things are relative. When they get to be adults they will have severe cognitive dissonance. They will either need to cast off the thinking of the world or cast off the thinking of God. And we can all hold some bit of cognitive dissonance in our brains, but if that gulf becomes too wide something must give. I submit that the way children are taught today is vastly different than 20 years ago. Yes, moral relativism was taught, but not like it is today.

Which is why the State should get out of marriage altogether. The fact that the State is now enforcing homosexual unions and forcing children to be raised in homosexual homes is not libertarian . . .it's ugly, it's evil. It is interfering with how someone else lives their life-it is interfering with the development of a child. And this same lie, is used to justify abortion. Hey it's their life, what should I care that they are killing a child.

Yes, I see it at a society wide level. Not at an individual level. Christ dinned with sinners and publicans .. .man probably the most misunderstood and misused modern usage of scripture. Christ loved them yes, but he didn't "accept" them. Today accept is just another word for "I don't have to change and for you to tell me I should change means your a bigot". There is absolutely 0 doctrinal basis for God or Christ simply accepting us as we are. Alma 11:43"34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word." No, He may always love us as we are but He spews us out of his mouth when we attempt to be saved in our sins. The Bridegroom will absolutely reject those who are not willing to follow him, give up all their sins and strive with all their might to do nothing against His Commandments. There is not one instance in the Scriptures where a man (or woman) commits sin and God says . . .yeah that's okay I accept you, go ahead keep sinning. No, it is always, God forgives you-go and sin nomore. We seem to have forgotten the nomore part of the scriptures. There is a big, big difference between accept and love. I love my children to death, I love them more than anything except life and my wife. But I do not in no way shape or form accept bad behavior on their part. I don't accept, I expect, I expect good behavior. I know they will fall, I know they will screw up, I'm totally cool with that, but I still demand and expect them to be better. I don't accept sloppy work from them, I expect good work. I love them enough to understand that they have a much higher potential than what they are currently doing or how they are behaving (if they misbehave). I love them enough to understand what they can be and I can give them an idea of the vision of what they can be in life. Our Heavenly Father is no different. "Be ye therefore Perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect". I think that qualifies as an expectation about us on God's part. ------ Libertarianism is what you are referring to. Let's get something straight libertarianism is not libertine (it can be but it doesn't need to be). It is based on one principle, initiation of force. In other words no one has the right to initiate force against another human being unless they are being forced upon. I get it I'm a libertarian at heart. I wish the government were out of public schools, out of marriage and were only in a very, very few minor things. Unfortunately that's not the case. So we can either deal with the world as we would like it to be (as in as long as don't harm someone else) you are free to do as you please. Or we can deal with the world as it is (i.e. there is a war going on attempting to use force on people to alter their belief structures). As long as there is a war going on to use force to alter belief systems . . .I'll vote for moral laws. Sidenote: The libertarian principle can apply against homosexual adoptions b/c it can be proved (and I've linked articles to it) that homosexuals raising children can inflict serious damage on another human being. But again-this is an emotional issue so facts won't matter to you. As much as you think you are being rational . . ."equality" is one of the biggest lies ever sold.

Right, b/c it's not something that can be proven-it is something that is indoctrinated. You either indoctrinate Christian beliefs into society or you indoctrinate atheistic, hedonist beliefs into society. Hedonistic beliefs lead right where we are today. I can't imagine you enjoy or belief this is how culture should be. This is my point, the moment we stopped indoctrinating the youth (in schools and in our communities) in a Christian lifestyle is the moment things went down the slippery slope. There is no middle ground here; either we are teaching our youth in every aspect a Christian lifestyle or we are teaching them that religion doesn't matter. Look at communities who actually take their job seriously of indoctrinating the youth-the Amish, the Menonites, LDS (until recently), and you will find a very strong line of values being passed from one generation to the next. It's why if as a society we aren't careful Muslims will rule the world-they don't give a rip about secularism or any of this crap. They understand the world better than we do in many ways. It's why if as a society we don't collectively get our heads out of the sand they will end up ruling over us.

No you are brainwashed. You have a daughter 18. Question. Were you for homosexual marriage and adoption 20 years ago, 10 years ago? If not then why now? What happened what changed? Dude, yes you are indoctrinated and brainwashed. It's blunt but the truth.

I agree with a lot of what you say. But the community used to be also for protection. There are always examples and exceptions where the family isn't strong like it should be, whether by choice or by just random crap happening. The herb/village/community would help protect those by helping to reinforce the common set of values. Today that doesn't happen. It is why society is breaking down.

As for the state question. That's why it's up to the States!! That was the wonderful thing about the founding of this country. That's why Utah was a Mormon state. If you wanted to be around Mormons you went to Utah, if you wanted to be around Catholics you go north. Not hard. And it's how communities work. This idea that well we should just love everyone and accept everyone is just utter bull. Communities are based on friendship, friendship is based on commonalities, commonalities are based on well things you have in common. I've got nothing against Muslims . . .but I don't want them in my community. They have a totally different belief structure, on what basis is my friendship going to be? Talking about how the sky is blue? It's why there is such social chaos right now, b/c the basic unit of society right above the family is breaking down, communities. It's breaking down b/c everyone is buying into this lie that welp we just need to accept everyone. No, we don't. Human being are tribal at heart, it's what everything is based around. Families grew and became larger families and became tribes. Different families had different value systems which lead to different tribal values. It's okay to be different and it's okay to live in different diverse but homogeneous communities. It's why there are Asian communities and Hispanic communities, etc. etc. Today each State isn't really a separate community, it's just an arm of one large government. Sure there are minor differences here and there but they are mostly administrative rather than an actual difference of community.

Yeah, and with regards to slavery that is why and amendment was passed. I agree some things should change-slavery is one. But let's not get all self-righteous here about how evil the US was. Slavery still exists today . . .in Africa . . .with blacks enslaving blacks . . .legally. I understand you don't want teachers teaching doctrine. I do! Your job and your church . ..lol good luck with that. Let me add up the hours. A child goes to Church for 3 hours a week, a child is at home with his parents after school say 3 hours a night + weekends (10 hour days). That's 25 hours. How many hours in school? 40 hours. Which one is going to hold more sway after 18 years? The parent . . lol not if the State is teaching aethism. The Church? Not if the State is teaching the doctrine on secularism. You kid regardless of how much you want to believe isn't learning religion at school they are!! They are learning the religion of secularism. Why do you think kids today are so aethists? It's another indoctrinated lie . . oh heaven forbid my child be taught doctrine at school so we will remove religion from school. Lol you blooming fools -they are being taught doctrine, the doctrine of the world and atheism. If it weren't so incredibly sad it would be quite funny at how people seem to think of this idea "I don't want teachers teaching doctrine" . . .here's a hint for you. They teach it every single day. Sometimes in words, but mostly by action. And now they are forced to teach things contrary to their beliefs b/c of the state. If your kids are going to a public school with teachers who are not Christian . . .well good luck to ya!

To get back to the point of this. You are asking for something that in general can't be proven (at least is very hard to prove). You see one of the keys that I have learned in life is that as much as people want to say in this new, improved "enlightened" age that facts and reason hold say. The truth is they don't. Facts and reason don't mean jack. I could show you studies, I could deduce it logically but it doesn't matter. The only way you will come to believe it is and should be legally wrong is through emotion. Because the truth is that people make up their mind based on emotional responses and then find the facts that fit their narrative. It is why propaganda works, it is why the very first thing the Left did with Homosexuals was to emotionalize the issue. Never mind the facts that statistically speaking homosexuals and those that engage in that behavior are at a higher risk for STDs are at a higher risk of AIDS are at a higher risk of suicide, mental depression, illness, etc. etc. etc. Never mind that statistically speaking homosexuals on average have hundreds of sexual partners in their lifetime, never mind that statistically speaking a homosexual union (either by dating or marriage) is more unstable (as in more likely to separate) than heterosexuals. Never mind any of that at all. This issue is purely an emotional issue rather than a logical issue (and therefore one that can't be put on trial and therefore why what you are asking for is impossible to give you). Why b/c for every study that says homosexuals are not "born that way", someone will say yeah but what about this case or what about this other case. For every study about homosexual mental health problems or health problems, someone will say, yeah but look at my brother he is homosexual and it's not a problem for him. This issue is emotional (and cannot be proven logically) b/c look at how the issue came to it's current status. It came about b/c purely by propaganda. TV shows in the mid-late 90s started pushing this idea that homosexuality is nothing more like a different hair color. Look at these wonderful homosexuals-they don't show the actual perverse behaviors or the negatives, no they just simply say look being homosexual is not different than anything else. So I'm sad to say my friend, you've been totally brainwashed. I don't blame you or fault you. Society in general has been brainwashed. The speed with which homosexuality became accepted in modern society is absolutely astonishing-it took maybe 10 years to go from 65-70% against to 30-35% against. That can only happen by brainwashing. No new data came out, no new science came out . . .it was pure and absolute emotional brainwashing. My advice to you and to all is to unindoctrinate yourself: https://thembeforeus.com/marriage-married-parenthood-global-survey-gay-marriage-weakens-childrens-rights/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-13/katy-faust-ask-bigot-daughter-of-lesbians-gay-marriage-lateline/6694258 Another antidote as a society we have perverted a lot of God's laws. As much as we might say that we receive judgement in the hereafter. The vast, vast majority of commandments (and especially the big ones) were and are for the here and now. They are God's laws b/c the consequences of disobeying them are quite drastic. 100 years ago sex out of wedlock would be pretty guaranteed to give a baby. Homosexuals naturally died early and naturally didn't have any progenitors. Through the miracle or modern technology we can mask much of the bad temporal consequences for disobeying God's laws . . . except that while we can mask them on an individual basis we can not mask them on a society basis. It will cause the downfall of our society-sad to say but I believe I will see it in my lifetime. You think it's bad now . . .just wait, it's gonna get a lot worse.

That wasn't the point. The point was that immediately after and for decades later nobody thought the 1st amendment mean the things we twist and contort it to mean today. Take Public School Prayer. The idea that the 1st Amendment would prohibit a state run public school from saying a prayer ever day would have been laughed at. Again, the states were originally and primarily religious entities. Each state was in essence a mini-theocracy. It's why the southern states were baptists, the northern states were congregationalist, one or two were Catholics (and nobody in those days liked the catholics). It cannot be understated at how much religion played a role in the founding of the US. The colonies originally even compared themselves to the 12 tribes of Israel (forget there were 13). The banners they displayed during the War were Christian banners. Things like "Unite under Heaven", "Appeal to Heaven", "Appeal to God", with symbols like the fir tree (a Christian symbol-ala Christmas Tree). Each colony was in reality it's own sect of Christianity. And it was in large part due to ministers that the war was even fought-they believed in setting up Zion which couldn't be done under England. The entire purpose of the first amendment was to ensure that the United States did not come and tell each state what religion they must worship. The Baptists in Georgia didn't want the Congregationalist in Massachusetts gaining power over them via the federal government and then via the federal government telling Baptists in GA that they are 2nd class citizens or that their ability to worship God was restricted. The idea that the 1st Amendment would one day rule out for each and every State the ability to simply hold a prayer to God at the beginning of the day. They would have balked at it and they would have torn up the entire document and walked away. The idea that the Constitution would be used to justify homosexual unions would have revolted them-they would look on with disgust at us and say what did you do with what we gave you?

I agree with most of your thoughts except for 2: 1) Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents we ever had, he was (with the exception of FDR) the closest we have ever come to having a true dictator. He was a tyrant. There is a very good reason why when Booth shot him he said "Sic semper tyrannis" thus always to tyrants. There was a very, very good reason why people thought he was a tyrant. He jailed a sitting Congressman Clement Vallandigham (who was tried by a military court simply for being against the War against the South), he wasn't for succession-he just didn't want to kill those who did. Lincoln shut down newspapers (he closed over 300 newspapers), suspended Habeas Corpus. He put Maryland under military law (specifically to suppress the right of the people to vote). The man cared nothing for slaves or slavery, he only cared about "preserving the Union at the point of a gun". He had a plan to ship all the slaves back to Africa (and had he not died he would have implemented it); he didn't believe white and blacks could co-exist. Which was the exact same thing that Britain tried to do during the Revolutionary War-except they lost. Lincoln was a tyrant and he utterly ripped the Constitution to shreds. All the monsters and evils we have in the current Federal Government come back to Lincoln-he utterly and completely revolutionized The United States. edit: And the Southern States went through a actual legal process to separate, Lincoln claimed they were in "rebellion", but they were in just as much rebellion as the colonies were to England. It wasn't a process whereby somebody just grabbed a gun. No the populace actually elected representatives through a Convention process at the very local level who eventually elected leaders who represented them at larger conventions who eventually voted to leave. It was actually (both the revolution and CW) a very thorough legal process or representation. The Myth and ethos of Lincoln has grow and grow to where he is the greatest president . . .except he was the worst. Again nobody reads history, nobody studies it so we have this made-up belief of what life was like back then and it comports nothing to reality. 2) The livable portion of the Constitution is the amendment process. That isn't what I'm talking about. Over time the very definition of words change, just like the word gay, it used to me one thing now it means something different. If the Constitution had the phrase " a man has the right to pursue that which makes him gay" in the 1800s that would simply mean the pursuit of happiness. But over time once the context of the document and a proper understanding of history is lost, people will say, that yes you see right here in the Constitution it says I have a right to be homosexual. It is a ludicrous thinking, that ultimately leads down the road that words have no meaning or words mean what I want them to mean as long as I have a big enough stick to enforce that meaning. In the 1800s the Constitution protected freedoms, today it is used to justify the restriction of freedoms . . why because the definitions of words have changed, the Commerce Clause today means something totally different than it did then. The amendment process was put in place specifically for this reason, so that if one did not like the meaning of the original phrase, one could change it. I'll say it here and now, the Constitution will never be amended again (unless it is at a ConCon), why b/c it doesn't have to b/c people have twisted it to mean whatever the heck they want it to mean.

Dead wrong. You are arguing for the Constitution as a living document. The 1st amendment today does not mean what it meant to the Founders. Case in Point. Connecticut has a State Official Religion until 1818. Massachusetts had an Official State Religion until 1834. People really need to read history . . .geez. The 1st Amendment was specifically designed not so that religion would not be official state religion but so that as a whole no religion would be forced down the throats of each independent State. The United States was literally 13 separate nations with their own laws, their own religions, their own ideas about moral vs. immoral. The only reason they came together was throw off the yoke of England. The Constitution was designed to allow the States to determine for themselves what was moral and just and the 1st amendment protects the States rights to do how they please. Notice the first amendment does not say States shall not it says Congress shall not. The idea that the Supreme Court should decide this issue is just ludicrous. We are so far from anything the founders ever envisioned. Today the Constitution quite honestly doesn't matter-as GW put it . ..it's just a **** piece of paper. All of the founders were extremely religious; they would be appalled at today's justifications on what they wrote. (Sigh) why this country is going to hell in a handbasket----no one reads, understands or cares about history. At one point the Supreme Court justified slavery on the constitution at another point they didn't. What the Constitution really is today is a tool used by evil people to contort, twist and justify whatever evil ideology they want and then they get to say "SEEE, it is constitutional so you can't do anything about it, so there!" Another case in point. We actually had an amendment to the Constitution less than 100 years ago to Prohibit the sale of alcohol. Think of that . ..just think of it, we amended the constitution to do that. Then when evil men got wise and convinced enough people they said. "You don't need to pass an amendment, Congress has the power to pass a law". Then they got even wiser and said "Congress doesn't need to pass a law, they can give that power to a governmental agency". Then they got even wiser and said, "guess what we don't even need Congress to pass a law, we can just have someone sue the government and then judges can create new law based on old rules that were passed". Based on that some logic (of passing an amendment) how many amendments would we need to the constitution to accommodate today's laws? We are so far beyond the Constitution, please spare me the drivel about how the Constitution allows this evil.

One of the things nobody in today recognizes is that raising kids is an act of love for your neighbor. Raising righteous kids is important b/c at some point I will be dealing with your kids and if you have raised your kids properly, they will be pleasant to interact with, but if you do a poor job then I will have to deal with your jerk kids.

Lol . . .okay I do concede on that point. Sometimes hyperbole is useful :-).

Okay, now I believe I can claim that I've won the argument :-). I absolutely believe they can repent, divorce and find a spouse of the same sex . . . and when they do then they can adopt. I am against the agencies placing children with single parents too . . .but that's not quite as big of a problem b/c anti-discrimination laws don't come into play with it and therefore agencies are more free to do as they feel. With homosexual marriage, the State now enforces anti-discrimination laws on adoption agencies.

Again, I'm not talking about that. Two homosexuals can't reproduce. Of course the state isn't going to take the child away from the mother who lost her husband or who is divorced, b/c the possibility exists that at some point on a societal-wide basis (not on an individual basis) there is a good chance that that at some point the child can have a father and mother. With homosexuality, there is 0 possibility of it ever happening. Putting any child in a homosexual household is a bastardization of the family. Naturally a child can never come from homosexuals. At some point a child must come from a mother and a father. I'm talking about the State enforcing anti-discrimination laws on adoptions agencies (to a large extent foster homes-but again that's slightly different due to the nature of it being a State creation) to force adoption agencies to give homosexual couples the same treatment with regards to children as a stable male/female marriage.

But again this is the argument that people trot out. As if it is an either or, either go to a homosexual couple or be molested. It doesn't work like that. It's not an either or situations. And it completely demonstrates how slick the devil is-he has convinced us that homosexuality really isn't "that bad" and so people trot out these arguments when they have lost. Yeah it's bad but it's not that bad. Well were did I say that a child should be with a sexually abusive father. In a societal sense . . .yes it is that bad. One has extremely detrimental short-term affects (sexually abusive, foster care), the other has extremely detrimental long-term affects (normalization of sin).