Same sex marriage. Impact begins

[Redbeard]

I know Im new to this Thread and to this site in general but I'd just like say that I believe that God uses evolution to progress his work. Look at your biology books the usefull strong genes are passed on. Therefore if you arent able to pass on your genes your genes die out. Making homosexualality not "natural" because its stopping progression.

Ok to what I just quoted. We eat because we'd die otherwise. Yes we also eat because it tastes good. But the main function of eating is to nurish your body. If God didnt make sex feel good not too many people would have children animals included. So yes and no. And yes sex is essentual the feeling is not. If we didnt have sex no one would exist. Sure we are able to make offspring now (in vitro and such) without it, but back in the day that was the only way. Im not trying to contradict anyone just thought I'd add my thoughts.

Good point!

Of course, if you want to say that sex is for procreation, should infertile hetrosexual couples not be able to marry?

The idea that homosexuality would destroy our evolution is a little bit silly if you start digging into it, if homosexual marriage was legal, would ALL people become homosexual?

Would you?

People would continue being homo and hetro sexual as they are now, it wouldn't change a thing for the future of mankind.

[Hemidakota]

Homosexual will be not around in coming years since they do not abide the Terrestial order or others who do not follow that level given laws. This happens to be one of them.

[rena_goldmoon]

Ok....um Im sorry... I was just trying to post my ideas because I thought this was a discussion not a slam down of your own veiws. I also relize this has gotten far off from the original posts and I wont post anymore because I think peoples veiws can be shared and discussed without being negative and condiscending and Im sorry if I wasnt clear enough in my first post that was not my point in the least. So I probably wont be back to post on this thread because its become pointless and I realize I wasnt helping with my last post but after reading the first post realize this has gotten way of subject and will find somewhere else to post. Again sorry.

[rena_goldmoon]

Ok....sorry pregnancy hormones. I relise my last post was a little over the top. Again sorry.

[Redbeard]

Now, seeing your own quote by using the gospel according to Wiki god, I would not even bother to waste energy with my mind in reading it.

Unless we understand our own history that is already given by the fathers that was passed down and not someone else’s biased historical accounting or a five-second of earthy scholarly fame professor, if Adam was the first man, it is most likely GOD did instruct him due to Cain murderous adventure.

Who were their forefather prior to them? It still goes back to Noah....remember the flood. History is not always truthful history presented in our textbook....something I came to accept over time.

You know Hemi, I would really like to respond to that, but there is no way I can do it without being rude.

[Redbeard]

Ok....sorry pregnancy hormones. I relise my last post was a little over the top. Again sorry.

No reason to appologize! I read your other post and it seems totally resonable. I appologize if I insulted you in any way, that was deffinatly not my intention!

[rena_goldmoon]

I guess I should explain myself. I wasnt saying it would destroy evolution. If everyone became homosexual then yes. I was not implying that everyone would become homosexual. You asked whether that was the main point of sex. I believe it is. I understand your point and part of a good discussion is being able to see all points of view. I just dissagree.

[Islander]

I think that what I find most puzzling about this forum is that there are dozen of people that seemed poised for a fight at all times. Some come to a Christian board to argue secular philosophical positions!!! Some (members and non-members) do not agree with a certain Church doctrine and they argue until they are green in the face against it. They already made up their minds and they refused to be confused by the facts.

We are all free to dissent from the Church's doctrine and the teachings of the prophets, and it is part of our agency. But if a person has decided their own course of action, it must be clear that it is an individual decision, and in clear opposition to the teachings. It is of very poor taste, not to mention somewhat naive, to argue publicly against a position or a doctrine previously addressed by the Church.

IMSNVHO, the moderators should allow for differences of opinions but with care not to appear indifferent. Recent converts, investigators or simply the well intended that desires to fellowship in the forum, come with full intent and desire to share with LDS members. There are some posts that because of the nature of the discussion, the position of the posters and the tone leave much to be desired. That is not the impression we want leave on the visitors.

Just my thoughts

[Shell72]

I do agree 100% that God is love! However, does this mean that because He is love that He will give us commmandments and don't care if they are not obeyed? Then, why give us all these teachings about "Following the Lord, keeping His commandments, obeying Him, etc.?''

God is love, mercy, forgiveness, long-suffering, not puffed up, just, law-giver, the Creator,....

The commandments that sums up all the law:

Matthew 2236 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt alove the Lord thy God with all thy bheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy cmind.

38 This is the first and great acommandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the alaw and the prophets.

We are to love God this way, and if we love Him, we follow Him, His teaching, His commandments, the way He set things, not out of our own pleasure and desires.

Jesus taugh us in John 14 (Emphasis added)

15 ¶ If ye alove me, bkeep my ccommandments.

21 He that hath my commandments, and akeepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be bloved of my Father, and I will love him, and will cmanifest myself to him.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will alove him, and we will come unto him, and make our babode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me acommandment, even so I do...

Nephi taught us:

[B]1 Ne. 17: 35 35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all aflesh in one; he that is brighteous is cfavored of God.

I feel that some people become really confused with the notion of God is love that somehow it justifies lack of obedience to His commandments and teachings. He does love all of us, but that does not justify disobedience to Him.

Alma 45: 16

16 And he said: Thus saith the Lord God—aCursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do bwickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the cblessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the dleast degree of allowance. D&C 1: 31

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon asin with the least degree of allowance;

And sin is anything that is against His teaching and will and commandments; anything that opposes Him. That's precisely where Satan stands: in opposition to all that is good which comes from God.

And about judging, we are to make judgements and were taught to do so, but not about people's standing with the Lord & final judgements (That's the Lord's place)

Ps. 7: 8

8 The Lord shall ajudge the people: judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.

We need to make judgments about behaviors, teachings, laws, choices, friendships, etc. regarding right and wrong. If not so, how could we follow His teaching to stay away from wickdeness, choose the right, the good, choose God over Satan?

Lev. 19: 15

15 ¶ Ye shall do no aunrighteousness in bjudgment: ... but in drighteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

John 7: 24

24 aJudge not according to bthe cappearance, but judge righteous judgment.

D&C 11: 12

12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your atrust in that bSpirit which cleadeth to do dgood—yea, to do ejustly, to walk fhumbly, to gjudge righteously; and this is my Spirit.

How do we judge righteously?

[B]Matthew 714 Because astrait is the bgate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto clife, and few there be that find it.

15 ¶ Beware of afalse prophets, which come to you in bsheep’s clothing, but cinwardly they are ravening dwolves.

16 Ye shall aknow them by their bfruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth agood bfruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good afruit is bhewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their afruits ye shall know them.

Moroni taugh us perfectly:

Moroni 7

5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their aworks ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.

11 For behold, a bitter afountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he bfollow Christ he cannot be a cservant of the devil.

12 Wherefore, all things which are agood cometh of God; and that which is bevil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to csin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do agood continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and benticeth to do cgood, and to love God, and to serve him, is dinspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is aevil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to ajudge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the aSpirit of Christ is given to every bman, that he may cknow good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do aevil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same bjudgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

When I judge things, behaviors, choices, places, peoples' choices & behaviors, I use HIS STANDARDS AND LAWS, not mine; this way I can make righetous choices for myself and those around me, and I can support and show my love for my God following His ways, seeking to establish HIS laws, not mine!

James 1: 5

5 aIf any of you lack bwisdom, let him ask of God, that cgiveth to all men liberally, and dupbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Ps. 119: 27, 34, 73

27 Make me to aunderstand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.

• • •

34 Give me aunderstanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.

• • •

73 Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.

Prov. 2: 2-3, 6, 9, 11

2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine aheart to understanding;

3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

• • •

6 For the Lord giveth awisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and bunderstanding.

• • •

9 Then shalt thou aunderstand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.

May we all grow in understanding as we incline our ears to hear, and our hearts to desire what God desires!

Peace & love!

We should be focusing on doing what WE believe is right in my opinion, and not on what we believe that others are doing is wrong. Let God take care of that - He is much more fair, just and wise than we could ever be. I think we all need to just focus on ourselves - we need enough work as it si

[Islander]

We should be focusing on doing what WE believe is right in my opinion, and not on what we believe that others are doing is wrong. Let God take care of that - He is much more fair, just and wise than we could ever be. I think we all need to just focus on ourselves - we need enough work as it si

I agree with you, except that there are some that are not content to do the same. They insist in, and go out of their way, to force upon the rest of us their version of society. That is where the problem resides. I could care less what people do with their lives. I do have a serious issues when they want to force me to accept it.

By the way. I think we have beaten this horse long and hard. I mean, it barely look like a horse any more. can we move on? The rift here is in an order of magnitude.

[Guest User-Removed]

Well that is Deffinatly the most creative way anyone has called me ignorant, good job

Anyway, so because my opinion differs from the majority here, I am the one who is ignorant? Pretty silly really to assume that.

Actually, there was NO assumption on my part. I was simply responding to another participant on this thread...NOT YOU...but alas, I must have hit a nerve?

I'm curious...do you ever go over to Scientology threads and tell them that L. Ron Hubbard is an idiot?

How many Catholic threads do you haunt and exclaim through the Godess Wikipedia that they're wrong???

Hmmmm....That was all rhetorical, smart folks know why you're here...

Edited June 20, 2008 by MyDogSkip

[Guest User-Removed]

You know Hemi, I would really like to respond to that, but there is no way I can do it without being rude.

Frankly...I'm not trying to be judgemental here, but it is you who is being rude. This is a Latter Day Saint site...and I understand that "we're" to be kind and yada...yada...yada.

Many of us here, hold sacred the words of our Prophets and leaders. We seek their guidence, we pray for them...as they pray for us. Even as you prey upon us...working your secret combinations to lure those weak of spirit and testimony away from a faith, you've ceased to believe in ...but many of us do.

You support and embrace Homosexuality and the Homosexual agenda....WE GET IT.

We got it with your first post way back when, where you exclaimed that you were tired of your parents or someone in your family always having to vote NO on Gay Marriage in every election.

Redbeard...we love you...not your ways, but you as a child of God. We get it...you embrace the Homosexual Agenda...while we embrace the words of our Prophet(s).

I've yet to make an anti homosexual comment...My comments have always been directed towards the issue of Gay Marriage. I fought Gay Marriage ten years ago in the form of Prop. 22. I've resisted getting back into this fight...other than to vote Yes on the Constitutional Amendment in November, alas...Redbeard...your constant promotion of the Homosexual Agenda on an LDS thread have energized me and shown me the evil that is enveloping the state of my birth.

I went online and donated $1000.00 to the campaign, in honor of you.

These are perilous times Redbeard. You've made your decision, many of us have made ours. I hold no animosity towards you as a person...I do though, find your views on this issue repugnant. Having said that, like many others here, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BTW...I've post a clip you might find interesting.....

[Redbeard]

Actually, there was NO assumption on my part. I was simply responding to another participant on this thread...NOT YOU...but alas, I must have hit a nerve?

I'm curious...do you ever go over to Scientology threads and tell them that L. Ron Hubbard is an idiot?

How many Catholic threads do you haunt and exclaim through the Godess Wikipedia that they're wrong???

Hmmmm....That was all rhetorical, smart folks know why you're here...

You know what? That post was completely uncalled for. I hope you will go over every single post I have ever made and check to see if I have ever made a comment critical of the LDS church.

[VisionOfLehi]

Theistic/non-theistic morals:

I'm absolutely certain that all the teachings "against" certain things are done so not just because "God said so" but because they do harm the individuals. Physically, sexually, mentally, developmentally, biochemically, whatever the case may be, harm can be found.

When you view it from a Christian theistic standpoint, we're taking the stance that harm should not be had. Some others say the pleasure or health benefits, whatever, outweigh the harm, but we simply say "No."

[Redbeard]

Once again, a completely rude and unnecessary post...

Frankly...I'm not trying to be judgemental here, but it is you who is being rude. This is a Latter Day Saint site...and I understand that "we're" to be kind and yada...yada...yada.

As I have also been kind in my posts, please show me a post that I have made that has been rude.

Many of us here, hold sacred the words of our Prophets and leaders. We seek their guidence, we pray for them...as they pray for us. Even as you prey upon us...working your secret combinations to lure those weak of spirit and testimony away from a faith, you've ceased to believe in ...but many of us do.

Please link a single post I have made that attempts to lure anyone away from the church. Just one. Go ahead, I'll wait. I don't care that you believe, that doesn't bother me at all, but do not post fallacies to support your claims.

You support and embrace Homosexuality and the Homosexual agenda....WE GET IT.

We got it with your first post way back when, where you exclaimed that you were tired of your parents or someone in your family always having to vote NO on Gay Marriage in every election.

Good, I am happy that you remember who I am

Redbeard...we love you...not your ways, but you as a child of God. We get it...you embrace the Homosexual Agenda...while we embrace the words of our Prophet(s).

Great, please enjoy your faith, but please do not force your faith on people who are not of your faith, that is all I have been saying this ENTIRE time...

I've yet to make an anti homosexual comment...My comments have always been directed towards the issue of Gay Marriage. I fought Gay Marriage ten years ago in the form of Prop. 22. I've resisted getting back into this fight...other than to vote Yes on the Constitutional Amendment in November, alas...Redbeard...your constant promotion of the Homosexual Agenda on an LDS thread have energized me and shown me the evil that is enveloping the state of my birth.

What evil is that exactly? Am I voting for a right to allow anyone to kill anyone? For the right to abuse children? Really, what is so evil pray tell?

I went online and donated $1000.00 to the campaign, in honor of you.

And my girlfriends family Donates a massive amount of their income on "racial purity" groups...

These are perilous times Redbeard. You've made your decision, many of us have made ours. I hold no animosity towards you as a person...I do though, find your views on this issue repugnant. Having said that, like many others here, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, you and I can agree to disagree, I don't post on these threads to convince you, I do them so that people can see both sides of a very important argument.

BTW...I've post a clip you might find interesting.....

Believe it or not, I actually watched the video, but I am a little confused on what I was supposed to find so interesting, it did say "stand up for feedom" which did make me giggle a little... but that's another story.

Anyway, I wish you would not attack me directly, as I have not done anything to attack you.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba. Thanks for your post, which provided a much-needed counter to the original post and the link provided. It was obvious (to me) that they didn't have all the facts.

Hi VOL,

You're welcome. I'm glad you like it.

But I will still disagree with you, always, that they "are" NOT homosexuals. It's not who they are, it's what they do.

So are you not a heterosexual? Or is it what you do?

Also, are saying a man only becomes homosexual if he has sex with a man? (I may have misinterpreted what you mean here. Let me know.)

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I do not know of any advanced species that is capable of reproduction by the practice of homosexuality.

If we have any understanding of evolution then we must understand that there can be no benefit to a species that in some way does not reward and value reproduction.

Do you and people who agree with you believe a homosexual's anatomy is somehow different that a heterosexual's?

Because it's not. In fact, your claim that they don't reproduce, or are not interested in reproducing, is simply not true. There are millions of children born to gay and lesbian parents. Why do you continually ignore these parents, and more importantly, their children?

More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child. Remember. Homosexuals only account for three percent of our entire population, but they are reproducing.

Perhaps you think this is not so because not a lot of children are born to gay parents? Do you understand, homosexuals only account for three percent of our entire population. Of course, the number of children they have is going to be concurrent with that figure.'

So, let’s talk about the children. Here are some more statistics:

Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of all adopted children in the United States.

More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.

An estimated two million homosexuals are interested in adopting.

An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.

More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.

Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

An estimated 14,100 foster children, in California alone, are living with lesbian or gay parents.

People who are homosexual are having children, contrary to your comments that they don't reproduce. Do they have 5, 6, 8. 10 kids that many Latter-day Saint couples have? I doubt it. But, then neither are the nation's non-LDS couples.

Additionally, people who are homosexual are taking care of children who no one else wants. If only more states would let them take foster children to raise, or allow them to adopt. These are usually children who have been taken out for their homes and have usually been abused, and given to people who will love them, nurture them, and heal them.

The species is going to do just fine with the numbers of children, foster children, and adopted children already in these homes. I wish it were more.

Elphaba

Edited June 20, 2008 by Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

Do you and people who agree with you believe a homosexual's anatomy is somehow different that a heterosexual's?

People who are homosexual are having children, contrary to your comments that they don't reproduce. Do they have 5, 6, 8. 10 kids that many Latter-day Saint couples have? I doubt it. But, then neither are the nation's non-LDS couples.Elphaba

Elphaba...To you and Redbeard...WOW...you two are BIG Red Herring fans....

Please feel free to go back and read and re read the OP. The issue is the start of "Gay Marriage"...not anatomy, not statistical propaganda as to why someone with 2 mommies or 2 daddies is better off than the rest of us.

Islander and others, including myself are concerned with the judicial activism of the California Supreme Court. We're worried about how the California Supreme Court on a split decision redefined the entire historical concept of marriage...

Now, discuss the radical redefinition of marriage by the Supreme Court...Not Homo adoption or IVF...

Alas, your arguments are right out of the Homosexual Agenda Playbook.

Again, I will remind you that this is an "LDS" web site. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has repeatedly stated their views that marriage is an eternal act...between a man and a woman.

Many of us support and sustain not only the Proclimation on the Family, but we support and sustain our leaders in protecting the sanctity of marriage.

I know of no other society in the history of the world, where Men were allowed to marry men...or women allowed to marry women. Even Augustus...during his reign as Emperor codified marriage between Men and Women. He had no problem with boys playing with boys...or girls just wanting to have fun. BUT...He recognized that marriage was an important institution between a man and a woman.

Now, you're a stickler for historical fact. Perhaps you know historically of a society which allowed Homosexuals to marry...if so, I'd enjoy reading the links you might be able to provide?

Edited June 20, 2008 by pam

[Traveler]

Elphaba...To you and Redbeard...WOW...you two are BIG Red Herring fans....

Please feel free to go back and read and re read the OP. The issue is the start of "Gay Marriage"...not anatomy, not statistical propaganda as to why someone with 2 mommies or 2 daddies is better off than the rest of us.

Islander and others, including myself are concerned with the judicial activism of the California Supreme Court. We're worried about how the California Supreme Court on a split decision redefined the entire historical concept of marriage...

Now, discuss the radical redefinition of marriage by the Supreme Court...Not Homo adoption or IVF...

Alas, your arguments are right out of the Homosexual Agenda Playbook.

Again, I will remind you that this is an "LDS" web site. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has repeatedly stated their views that marriage is an eternal act...between a man and a woman.

Many of us support and sustain not only the Proclimation on the Family, but we support and sustain our leaders in protecting the sanctity of marriage.

I know of no other society in the history of the world, where Men were allowed to marry men...or women allowed to marry women. Even Augustus...during his reign as Emperor codified marriage between Men and Women. He had no problem with boys playing with boys...or girls just wanting to have fun. BUT...He recognized that marriage was an important institution between a man and a woman.

Now, you're a stickler for historical fact. Perhaps you know historically of a society which allowed Homosexuals to marry...if so, I'd enjoy reading the links you might be able to provide?

We know from many studies and from much history that what is best for children is to be raised in a loving marriage of their biological father and their biological mother. Often there are attempts to justify something by saying it is better that something that is known to be bad. This kind of illogic or insanity would justify any treatment or abuse of children for being better than feeding them to crocodiles.

If we care about caring for children it is not about what adults want – especially if what the adults want is not really the “Best” for children. There are many reasons for the failure and destruction of loving biological families. But let us not lose sensibility and sanity and forget that loving biological families is what is best for children. That must and should always be the primary and first goal for every child. The second goal should be to maintain and keep intact the next best thing which is a marriage that is as close as possible to the loving biological family. Only the insane would argue against a loving biological family for children.

As we attempt to justify one thing or another or to put our personal feeling and “passions” above what is beneficial to society – let us be aware and diligent in recognizing the benefit that loving biological families have to the human society and that such a benefit is both needed and more important than any other possible fabrication of what can be called a family or use or exploration of children to fulfill adult desires over the best benefit of children.

Let us not dilute the best marriages of society. Especially now and today – let us recognize the best possible and call that marriage and everything else, let us label as something less than the best. Let’s not put our personal wants, desires, passions and feelings above reason, sanity and what is the very best. Let us reward and praise loving biological families joined in legal and beneficial marriages.

The Traveler

Edited June 20, 2008 by Traveler

[Elphaba]

I think that what I find most puzzling about this forum is that there are dozen of people that seemed poised for a fight at all times. Some come to a Christian board to argue secular philosophical positions!!!

What puzzles me is that time after time after time I have to keep reminding posters like you that people from all belief systems are welcome to this board. That even includes disagreeing with posters, LDS or non, when we believe they are wrong.

We are all free to dissent from the Church's doctrine and the teachings of the prophets, and it is part of our agency. But if a person has decided their own course of action, it must be clear that it is an individual decision, and in clear opposition to the teachings.

Why? I would never expect you to write a disclaimer that you have decided your own course of action, it is an individual decision, and in clear support of the Church's teachings.

Our posts speak for themselves, though they contain much more ambiguity than you seem to think.

It is of very poor taste, not to mention somewhat naive, to argue publicly against a position or a doctrine previously addressed by the Church.

No it’s not. This is not Sacrament meeting. It is a message board that allows people from all different persuasions to give their opinion, including those that disagree with yours.

IMSNVHO, the moderators should allow for differences of opinions but with care not to appear indifferent.>snip< the position of the posters and the tone leave much to be desired. That is not the impression we want leave on the visitors.

Most of the mods have made it clear that, as long as a poster is respectful to other members of the thread, people from different belief systems are welcome.

I do think it would be nice if there were a section where only those who believe in the Church and its doctrines could congregate, and those of us who do not share your beliefs would not be welcome.

Actually there is one message board I am aware of that already does this. It is Nauvoo.com, and it might be a board you’d enjoy.

Unfortunately, I think ir would be difficult to manage, as the line between "us" v "them" is not static.

Recently there have been a few posts where someone makes the thought-stopping claim that those of us who do not share your beliefs have no business disagreeing with a member's position. But as long as I treat you, or anyone else with whom I disagree, with respect, the site rules indicate I can post my opinions, as can you.

From Terms and Conditions:

2. Please be conscience of the fact that although LDS.NET is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of LDS.NET are welcome to participate and be a member of LDS.NET. . . .

Another idea I thought of is that there is a section where you can bear your testimony. I am not sure, but I believe you can comment when someone has done so, so you might find that more to your liking, as the posts are controlled by the original poster.

One more thought is that if you indicate in your Opening Post you are only interested in a discussion with people who share your fundamental LDS beliefs, I suspect that would keep your thread free of those who would otherwise debate your thread's position, including me. I do think there would be non-LDS members who would be eligible to comment; however, if I had a dissenting opinion, I know I would abide by your request.

Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

I think that what I find most puzzling about this forum is that there are dozen of people that seemed poised for a fight at all times. Some come to a Christian board to argue secular philosophical positions!!! Some (members and non-members) do not agree with a certain Church doctrine and they argue until they are green in the face against it. They already made up their minds and they refused to be confused by the facts.

We are all free to dissent from the Church's doctrine and the teachings of the prophets, and it is part of our agency. But if a person has decided their own course of action, it must be clear that it is an individual decision, and in clear opposition to the teachings. It is of very poor taste, not to mention somewhat naive, to argue publicly against a position or a doctrine previously addressed by the Church.

IMSNVHO, the moderators should allow for differences of opinions but with care not to appear indifferent. Recent converts, investigators or simply the well intended that desires to fellowship in the forum, come with full intent and desire to share with LDS members. There are some posts that because of the nature of the discussion, the position of the posters and the tone leave much to be desired. That is not the impression we want leave on the visitors.

Just my thoughts

Amen...Brother...Amen...Keep saying it as it is...It keeps those who prefer to say it as it ain't...on their toes....

[Islander]

Elphaba you miss the point.

The intent of the forum is for those interested in the faith, teachings and doctrine of the church to find accurate and readily available information about it. It also serves as a vehicle to exchange ideas and personal history in regards to the religious experience and or exposure to the faith.

If a person is not a member of the Church, is not interested in it, is a not a Christian and at times, not even interested in God, what on earth motivates that person to spend so much time arguing a point on a forum like this one? Or, if you (not referring to you personally) are a member but have decided to utilize your agency in order to do or to take a position that is clearly contrary to the teachings and doctrine of the church, I think it is dangerous for those that are perhaps investigating to see the posts and make assumptions about what the church is or is not just based on that. It is, in my opinion a disservice to those that are seeking further understanding.

I was just raising a question about the fact that some people want an audience but they pick the wrong forum to capture it. I am fundamentally an inquirer by nature. But it is my sad experience that people are not necessarily interested in inquiry. That takes time, effort and money. Often times, they read some, acquire a philosophical position to their liking and ignore the rest of the body of knowledge. After that they are fit for a fight, or so they think. Since they already made up their minds, all they do is antagonize, not with the intent of studying or considering other arguments, but to pound the opposing view into the ground. That is not inquiry thus I am not interested. It also robs the exchange of any real value

That was the intent of my post.

[VisionOfLehi]

Hi VOL,

So are you not a heterosexual? Or is it what you do?

Also, are saying a man only becomes homosexual if he has sex with a man? (I may have misinterpreted what you mean here. Let me know.)

Elphaba

It's what I do. I could choose to not do it.

Might be a little weird and disgusting for me at first, but people say the same thing about: wine/caviar/cigars/black coffee/black licorice/etc.

[VisionOfLehi]

Islander: Sometimes belief systems and faith-promoting ideas do not involve deity.

Sometimes people just have faith in humanity. :)

And I think all of us should remember that the truth stands out. That those who seek it earnestly will inevitably find it. (As we Christians say: On the Lord's time.)

[Islander]

Islander: Sometimes belief systems and faith-promoting ideas do not involve deity.

Sometimes people just have faith in humanity. :)

And I think all of us should remember that the truth stands out. That those who seek it earnestly will inevitably find it. (As we Christians say: On the Lord's time.)

I agree with you, for the most part. I was just raising a concern about how strident, caustic and constantly oppositional some posters are!! It is one thing to express an opinion which has really no baring on the truth as it has been revealed by God; it is another to argue and constantly advocate for a position that has no foundation according to LDS doctrine or tradition as if it was a statement of fact.

I guess I was really concerned about my friends reaction to what they read on the posts. They are non-members and were sorely disappointed.

"The word faith away from God is just wishful thinking", according to my grandmother.

I do thank you for your work and admire your cool and collected demeanor, VoL.