OnePassenger Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: Until the day that the Church, namely the Prophet, comes forward to say that the Church now officially teaches Jesus-Marriage as doctrine, I will treat it merely as speculation by the uneducated and I will, in my opinion, consider furthering or condoning the topic to be borderline apostasy/preaching false doctrine. You can cite scriptural references until the cows come home, but until the day you can PROVE Jesus was married, coupled with the Church's accepting it as doctrine, then this topic is merely entertainment and poorly-produced humor at that. So why don't you laugh instead of getting so outraged...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) Quote And until it is doctrine, it is pointless to debate it, because it is not doctrine. There is no official doctrine that says Jesus was not married, so why are you debating it? Quote Like I said, I believe what my Church says for me to believe and I ignore anything that my Church does not canonize, sanction, preach, announce, etc. When did the Church say that Jesus was never married? Quote I ignore anything that my Church does not canonize, sanction, preach, announce, etc. As far as I know the Church has never said that Jesus wasn't married. The claim that Jesus was never married has never been canonized, preached, or announced, so why do you believe it and why aren't you ignoring it? You are talking yourself in circles. Edited September 30, 2018 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnePassenger Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 1 minute ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: I'm not outraged. My wife, daughter and I are all laughing at you people. Anyone who thinks Christ was married deserves to be mocked, and believe me, mocking we are. This thread is being printed out so others can laugh at you guys. So, outraged? Not at all. Let me assure you I'm proud to be one of such good entertainers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: I'm not outraged. My wife, daughter and I are all laughing at you people. Anyone who thinks Christ was married deserves to be mocked, and believe me, mocking we are. This thread is being printed out so others can laugh at you guys. So, outraged? Not at all. Ether 12:26, friend. Anddenex and Midwest LDS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 Quote The Church, as far as I know, has not said he wasn't married. But they haven't said he was. Exactly. They hasn't said either way. I can only find a few statements in an official church publication (which doesn't mean it is official Church doctrine, but in a Church publication) addressing the matter. Here is a Q and A from the New Era Magazine (Issue 15, #11): Quote Question 2: Do you believe that Jesus was married? Answer: We do not know anything about Jesus Christ being married. The Church has no authoritative declaration on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 27 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: Idiots don't make me bang my head against the wall, but they do make me laugh So you're MOCKING the mentally challenged? For SHAME! There's no coming back from that, you charity-lacking bigot! Anddenex, OnePassenger, mordorbund and 2 others 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnePassenger Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 1 minute ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: LOL. Nice try. Idiots can control it, whereas the mentally ill cannot. But nice straw man. What makes you so sure...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 Quote And as for your reference, the only "fool" is the one who thinks our Lord and Savior was married. You think Joseph Fielding Smith was a fool? Wow. Quote So what you're writing here is that you can offer no canonization from the Church that supports Christ-Marriage Yes, that is exactly what I am writing. I am writing that I can offer no canonization from the Church that says whether or not Christ was married. This is because so such official doctrine exist. Since no doctrine on the matter exist, I can't say either way. Neither can you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: LOL. Nice try. Idiots can control it, whereas the mentally ill cannot. But nice straw man. Don't try to come back from your EVIL harassment of the mentally challenged! No return from that, you nasty bigoted loser, you! Anddenex, zil and Midwest LDS 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnePassenger Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 Just now, AlbanyNYLDS said: Look at our nation's president. He's clearly an idiot, but he can control it because he had quite the education growing up. Someone who makes an idiotic statement, such as the possibility exists for Christ being married, can also help it by researching Church archives and finding nothing to support the claim. if someone is an idiot because they dropped out of high school, they could have controlled that by staying in school. Get it? Got it? Good? Not quite convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnePassenger Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: Oh I'm sorry. When did it become my obligation to convince you, Princess? Surely it's not your obligation, but you're obviously trying it. 😀 Anddenex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
let’s roll Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 On 9/28/2018 at 6:33 AM, goor_de said: they go back unchecked as they came. I think they are tested in the thousand-year rich. I consider the test necessary. why else earth life. Prophets disagree. It’s a basic tenet of LDS theology. There is no more testing. They have qualified for the Celestial Kingdom. Mortality has a purpose for them, to obtain a body. And as Jesus taught, through them the glory of God is made manifest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) Quote However, as you are aware, prophets are capable of speaking merely as men. And that's what happened with that particular prophet. He very clearly stated to not "preach it." Why would that be, in your estimation? Oh, right. Because it wasn't doctrine then and it isn't doctrine now. I agree with the above. As I and others have said many times there is no doctrine either way. That's exactly the Church's position. Quote Therefore, He wasn't married and that is not up for debate it. To debate it would be apostasy. So, since the Church says that there is no position as to whether he was married or not, this means that he was not married? Sound pretty apostate like to me. True apostasy would be to claim that the Church has a position that Jesus was not married. The Church has no position. I think it's clear who the real apostate is here, unless you aren't being serious. I do suspect that though. There is at least a good chance that you are really an anti-Mormon who is just trying to make members of the Church look stupid. Either that or that you really are an apostate. Only you and God know which one it is. Either way, we'll be praying for you. Edited September 30, 2018 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) Quote (double post) Edited September 30, 2018 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnePassenger Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: Well, actually, no. Because one needn't need to convince anyone when one is teaching truth, which is what I'm doing here. I mean, seriously, this all has to be a big joke, right? No rational human believes Christ is or was married. So this is just all irony, right? Faith is not exclusively based on reason. I wouldn't call it irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
let’s roll Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, AlbanyNYLDS said: Nice straw man. I sustain JFS as a Prophet, obviously. No idiot he, but nice try. Then-Elder Smith wrote to not "preach it." Why? Oh, right, the laughable notion of Christ being married was not then and is not now doctrine. Therefore, He wasn't married and that is not up for debate it. To debate it would be apostasy. I can’t really interpret the above as anything but trolling. Anddenex, zil, Midwest LDS and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 I'm casting my vote for "troll". Anddenex, let’s roll and Midwest LDS 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnePassenger Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 15 minutes ago, let’s roll said: I can’t really interpret the above as anything but trolling. I wouldn't be so sure... check out his website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, zil said: I'm casting my vote for "troll". I thought that too, but I now think he's serious. Look at his blog on his profile page. Here is one of his blog posts concerning Sesame Street: I didn't pick up on it until I was seven or eight, but whenever I'd flip past the channels, I'd see the fictional characters Bert and Ernie and, as soon as I learned the word at six, I considered them to be faggots. As it turns out, I --and everyone else who felt that way-- was right. It comes as no surprise that the person who made these pieces of fabric queer is, in fact, a queer himself. Homosexuals and homosexuality in general disgusts me. Fags whine that they were born "that way," but it is a chosen behavior. It is not forced upon them. Our Heavenly Father loves us. Why would he force such filth, such evil on any of His children? Holy frijoles man! At the risk of sounding overly judgmental, the Church really doesn't need members like this and they really need to change. No one is perfect, but seriously AlbanyNYLDS, get some help. 😲 If you can't do this, might I seriously recommend that you look into joining the Westboro Baptist Church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, OnePassenger said: I wouldn't be so sure... check out his website. A person who believes everything they say can also be a troll: "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenglund Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 On 9/29/2018 at 8:38 AM, anatess2 said: So you are saying, Jesus is God without having the need to be perfected? It depends upon which connotation of the term "God" one has in mind. If by "God" you are referring to the divine race (Ps. 82:6) , then yes, the pre-mortal Jesus was God, even as we all were God, though not yet perfected through the resurrection, nor having as yet received of the Father's inheritance.. If by "God" you are referring to the divine office in which Jesus stood at the Father's right hand, then, yes, the pre-mortal Jesus was God and this by virtue of ordination within the priesthood that bears his name, and not by virtue resurrection. However, if you are referring to "God" as the ultimate end to eternal progression--an exalted resurrected being, then no, the pre-mortal Jesus was not "God," though he eventually became such by being born into mortality, growing in grace from perfection to perfection, and eventually dying and being resurrected (Lk 13:32--see also Mt 5:48 and compare it with 3 Ne 12:48) Furthermore, if you are referring to the ultimate name that is "God," then no, the pre-mortal Jesus was not God, but will become such when all enemies are made his footstool, and he inherits all that is his Father's. Prior to this, he has and will operate under the name of his Father, even as we have taken upon us and operate under his name. Thanks, -Wade Englund- mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 AlbanyNYLDS, if you really are real and really are LDS, you need some serious help. We all know that LDS members can be judgemental, but your "article" on LDS Church standards takes the cake. Here are some of your claims on Church standards: The Church makes it very clear when it comes to what's appropriate and what's inappropriate as pertains to hugging. As I am married, I cannot hug another woman outside of family, even if it's an otherwise innocent hug. Likewise, single or married women are not supposed to hug married men. This may seem petty and restrictive, but again, it's about avoiding the very appearance of evil. ----------------------- I would seek out a woman who is a member of the Church who adheres to the standards of the Church, who does not wear make-up..If a woman doesn't respect herself, then I can't respect her. ------------------------- I practice what I preach; I don't go out in public in shorts at all -------------------------- I do not use a public urinal, as that would be literally pissing against the wall, something that that is a sin, made clear in 1 Samuel 25:22. -------------------------- I do not go to....church dances, gatherings or anything else in like fashion. --------------------------- I neither make nor accept apologies, for if the person were truly sorry, he or she would not have done whatever was done or said to begin with. This one takes the cake though. This is literally the most appalling interpretation of LDS standards that I have ever heard, including from those who really are anti-Mormon: Social mores typically demand that one intervenes when one is in trouble --911 call, rendering CPR, or things such as that -- or in medical peril. Well, I don't participate in that. As an example, some years ago, I witnessed a woman being raped in the park in the dark of night. I did nothing to stop it, nor did I raise the alarm with police. Why? I didn't want to, and I never will, be involved. I really hope that your website is a joke. If it isn't than you are seriously messed up. That last statement is seriously the worse thing that I have ever heard from anyone LDS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 (edited) Enough said:https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Edit: This was in response to AlbanyNYLDS (now deleted) post. Edited September 30, 2018 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 It looks like the moderators canned him. I really hope that he wasn't serious and that his website was a farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 30, 2018 Report Share Posted September 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott said: It looks like the moderators canned him. I really hope that he wasn't serious and that his website was a farce. Oh, we (and the broader internet) have quite the file on our good friend Mr. Crook. zil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.