Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

[Madam_Mim]

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Gay marriage and Black Priesthood are 2 unrelated scenarios.  Gay marriage is an Eternal Principle, Black Priesthood is a dispensationary restriction.

Yes, it's different and I don't expect the church to make changes that would contradict with one of their most important teachings, that wouldn't make sense. I was only referring to the way people try to make sense of it and tried to find reasons why it was justified. 

 

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

To see if you can look at homosexuality differently, I’m going to ask you a few questions:  Do you believe that Gender is interchangeable?  Do you believe  that there is nothing about Motherhood intrinsic to female and there is nothing about being a Wife intrinsic to female?  And similarly for Fatherhood and being a Husband to male?

Do you believe that Sexual Attraction is always first for Love to follow?  Define Love.

I don't think gender is interchangeable. But I'm not too familiar with this topic. I am aware that there are people who feel like they are born in the "wrong" body - and sometimes you can really tell that someone just behaves and even looks so much like the opposite gender and I understand that they want to change and I have no issue with that at all. I'm only saying that I don't think you can just decide that you're the other gender now (without having any surgery or treatment first).  - Sorry for the long answer

Sure, in general motherhood is intrinsic to female. And it probably is best for a child to have a mother and a father. But if two males or two females want to have a child, I don't have a problem with that either. A child doesn't grow up solely with the parents - there are usually enough people within the close circle of the family to have a child experience male and female influences. 

I'd say you love someone if you care deeply about another person, want to spend as much time with them as possible, treat them affectionately and care about their well being. And if we're talking about love for a partner and not just a friend, there usually comes the desire to also express this love physically. But which (love or sexual attraction) comes first might vary, I think. 

[Madam_Mim]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The answer is simple....  If God exists (and has the attributes we claim).  Then he knows for a fact what brings to pass the greatest well being of humans and tells us so all we have to do is follow his instructions...   Without God we are blown from one thing to another trying to guess what is "the best for humans"  Take health and diet how many people are really willing to do what it takes to live healthy?  If you read the headlines science is all over the place and often contradictory.  And that is for something as simple as physical health that should really be the low hanging fruit of "doing what is best".   Then you have things like mental and emotional health which are much harder to understand.  Then assuming God exists there are "eternal health"  How to we even begin to evaluate what might be "Best" for eternal health? 

Thus following God is putting the well being of humans first, because we trust that God is the only one that can see clearly what that is.

But can you relate at least a little bit to my position - that it doesn't seem reasonable to adjust your life to rules of a being that we don't know for sure exists? 

Especially when we see that different religions seem to get different "messages" from god. 

[Madam_Mim]

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s no accident that both eternal marriage and eternal increase *only* exist in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

Are you saying that in the other kingdoms there are no babies and all the singles are there? Now THAT sounds like heaven to me!  

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

But can you relate at least a little bit to my position - that it doesn't seem reasonable to adjust your life to rules of a being that we don't know for sure exists? 

Especially when we see that different religions seem to get different "messages" from god. 

What other people do is what other people do.

Our concern is what disciples of Christ do.  Yes, we do encourage other people to become disciples of Christ, but that change must be initiated between God and that person.   

[Madam_Mim]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

What other people do is what other people do.

Our concern is what disciples of Christ do.  Yes, we do encourage other people to become disciples of Christ, but that change must be initiated between God and that person.   

I just have to mention that after all my critical comments lately: Even though I may not like many things that the church teaches, I still feel like especially members of your religion are some of the best people ever! Just had to throw that in here 😊

Did you never think of people from other religions who seem to be just as convinced as you are? I don't know how you can be so sure that this is the "right" religion when there are others who claim the same thing.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Regarding your two examples (marrying a relative or an animal): What does that have to do with gay marriage?

They have to do with your logic that mutual consent alone gives moral authority. They demonstrate that your claim is false.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I have to admit, when I read all of your arguments on why gay marriage is "wrong", I couldn't help but think that people probably argued quite similarly before the priesthood ban was lifted ("god knows better").

They did. And they were right.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I'm not relating exclusively to gay-marriage now, but just speaking in general: Since I'm not convinced that a god even exists, it's very difficult to understand why anyone would put god's will (well.. or what people claim to be god's will) above the well being of humans.

If you reject the authority of law, well then, of course you're going to doubt the law's truthfulness. But I would think that any rational person, whether or not she believed in God, would understand why those who do believe in God would accept his authority. Are you really incapable of this simplest act of empathy, of putting yourself in another's shoes and seeing the world through a viewpoint other than your own?

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I know that you are all trying to do good things and don't want to harm anyone intentionally. It's just difficult to watch from "outside" when people get treated poorly because others are so convinced that this is what must be done to please god.

Please provide examples of us treating homosexuals "poorly". I disbelieve this.

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Are you saying that in the other kingdoms there are no babies and all the singles are there? Now THAT sounds like heaven to me!  

Then that will be your eventual location. Eternal life and eternal increase are for those, and only those, who want such things.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Madam_Mim said:

I just have to mention that after all my critical comments lately: Even though I may not like many things that the church teaches, I still feel like especially members of your religion are some of the best people ever! Just had to throw that in here 😊

 

*Thumbs up*

Just now, Madam_Mim said:

Did you never think of people from other religions who seem to be just as convinced as you are? 

I completely acknowledge their convection and right to practice their beliefs.  The 11th Article of Faith is a HUGE deal to the Church and especially to me personally.

Just now, Madam_Mim said:

 I don't know how you can be so sure that this is the "right" religion when there are others who claim the same thing.

@Madam_Mim, you have beleifs that you hold dear, correct?  You have reached these beliefs after pondering and study, correct?  And hold to these beliefs, while respectfully disagreeing with other folks whom have done their own studies and reached different conclusions?

We are the same in that regard.  

[Madam_Mim]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Are you really incapable of this simplest act of empathy, of putting yourself in another's shoes and seeing the world through a viewpoint other than your own?

Oh come on... don't do that. I could say the same thing about people who don't seem to show a lot of empathy towards gays. 

Regarding the other topics I've asked questions about it was easier for me to see things through your viewpoint and accept that. With this topic it's more difficult because we see how people suffer from it today. 

 

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Please provide examples of us treating homosexuals "poorly". I disbelieve this.

Making them believe that the way they feel is wrong and not allowing them to express their love is pretty cruel in my opinion. Teaching them that having gay sex is one of THE worst sins. And not allowing kids of same sex-couples to get baptised until they are 18? Conversion therapy? The church supporting Prop. 8? 

The fact that some gay members feel like they have to marry someone from the opposite gender that they don't feel any physical attraction to... I can't even imagine how frustrating such a life must be. 

Of course they could just leave the church to avoid all of that - but I assume it's not that easy when you're a believer and your whole family and friends are part of the church.

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

@Madam_Mim, you have beleifs that you hold dear, correct?  You have reached these beliefs after pondering and study, correct?  And hold to these beliefs, while respectfully disagreeing with other folks whom have done their own studies and reached different conclusions?

We are the same in that regard.  

Again... you're right, as usual. I know others are saying the same thing, just in other words, but somehow it's always your posts who make me realize that I should be more accepting.

Maybe I should just let that topic go. 

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Oh come on... don't do that. I could say the same thing about people who don't seem to show a lot of empathy towards gays. 

Regarding the other topics I've asked questions about it was easier for me to see things through your viewpoint and accept that. With this topic it's more difficult because we see how people suffer from it today. 

 

Making them believe that the way they feel is wrong and not allowing them to express their love is pretty cruel in my opinion. Teaching them that having gay sex is one of THE worst sins. And not allowing kids of same sex-couples to get baptised until they are 18? Conversion therapy? The church supporting Prop. 8? 

The fact that some gay members feel like they have to marry someone from the opposite gender that they don't feel any physical attraction to... I can't even imagine how frustrating such a life must be. 

I have a friend (male and married) whom is sexually attracted and infatuated with a different married woman, and the infatuation was returned.  Do you find it equally "cruel" that LDS Christians believe that these two individuals not to pursue each other?

3 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Again... you're right, as usual. I know others are saying the same thing, just in other words, but somehow it's always your posts who make me realize that I should be more accepting.

Maybe I should just let that topic go. 

I'm all for explaining different perspectives-- I find that learning how other people think & value things to be a critically important step for empathy and loving other individuals. 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Making them believe that the way they feel is wrong and not allowing them to express their love is pretty cruel in my opinion.

Ah. So merely holding and voicing moral opinions qualifies as poor treatment and cruelty. In that case, I accuse you of immorality and cruelty because you hold opinions, you horrid, awful person! Just give me a few hours to determine what vomitous opinions you hold so I can lecture you on your cruelty and foolishness for daring to hold opinions I don't.

Seriously, Madam_Mim, do you actually think through things you write, or do you just sort of respond in a knee-jerk manner as a flow-of-consciousness thing?

8 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Teaching them that having gay sex is one of THE worst sins.

Um...yes. That is the word of God. You're not required to believe it, any more than you're required to believe that promiscuity results in STD infections. I suppose you probably excoriate those who connect promiscuous sexual activity with STDs, right? How DARE they (speak the obvious truth)!

10 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

And not allowing kids of same sex-couples to get baptised until they are 18?

Since you're whining about us refusing to baptize minor children of homosexual couples, I guess that means that you would be perfectly fine with us baptizing those young children and teenagers, and then teaching them that their parents' actions are wrong, sinful, and evil. Right?

13 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Conversion therapy?

So you think that if someone asks for help in changing their mindset and beliefs, it's immoral to accommodate them. Right?

14 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

The church supporting Prop. 8?

Of course. Why wouldn't the Church support Proposition 8? That was a law approved by the majority of voters, then overturned by judicial fiat in a blatantly illegal power grab that the higher justices refused to address. Do you have any problems with that? Or is slavery okay with you, so long as the cage is gilded to your tastes?

15 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Oh come on... don't do that. I could say the same thing about people who don't seem to show a lot of empathy towards gays.

So...you are justified in your childish refusal to understand another's point of view, because you think people are mean toward homosexuals. Right?

I'm assuming you are very, very young. Please learn to at least try to keep an open mind and not believe whatever your press presents to you. And if you are not in fact very young, I don't know what to say, except that you need to grow up, morally and intellectually.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

But can you relate at least a little bit to my position - that it doesn't seem reasonable to adjust your life to rules of a being that we don't know for sure exists? 

Especially when we see that different religions seem to get different "messages" from god. 

Of course I can.  But I did not go to you seeking understanding...  You came to us.

As for not being sure that God exists... That is a personal thing between you and him and has always been.

However when faced with a group that thinks and believes "differently" do not presume that they do not have the "best interest of humans" at heart.  We simply disagree with what that best interest is.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Ah. So merely holding and voicing moral opinions qualifies as poor treatment and cruelty. In that case, I accuse you of immorality and cruelty because you hold opinions, you horrid, awful person! Just give me a few hours to determine what vomitous opinions you hold so I can lecture you on your cruelty and foolishness for daring to hold opinions I don't.

Normally I don't agree with Vort at all, and I don't agree with him being quite so blunt here.  But I do agree with his point: holding a different view than someone and disagreeing with their actions is not "cruelty" at all.  

 

I"m going to share some perspective here---

21 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Teaching them that having gay sex is one of THE worst sins. 

Correction on the belief here: there is NOTHING special about homosexual sexual activity that makes it so bad.  ANY sexual misconduct is a horrible sin, because it is misuse of the powers to create and bond lives.  

24 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

And not allowing kids of same sex-couples to get baptised until they are 18?

Would you prefer us to evangelize young children and tell them "hey, God created sexual activities to be between a husband and wife.  Your daddy's and papa's relationship is a huge offense to God."

 NO!!! That is a horrible situation to put a kid into!!  We are not going to make a little kid go through that, therefore such kids are off-limits to evangelizing and baptism.  We don't want to put anyone in that predicament.  An adult can grasp and weigh the bigger picture, but we're not going to put any kid there.  

24 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

The church supporting Prop. 8? 

The USA is a democracy, and people are allowed to vote for issues as they see them.  2008 for this issue was simply an example of democracy functioning as intended.  I didn't vote in Prop 8 (I'm not in California) but I never feel bad about studying out an issues, having a viewpoint, and voting about it.   I did so last election cycle and intend to so every other cycle as it is part of my civic duty to do such research and vote.  

[Guest Mores]

9 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Regarding your two examples (marrying a relative or an animal): What does that have to do with gay marriage?

It's not a question of what the examples have in common with gay marriage.  It is an attempt to get you to look at your methodology of how you arrive at truth.  You gave a justification to believe that "there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.  The justification was "there is nothing wrong with a consensual act between two consenting adults."

To test whether that criterion is a valid test, then we must determine if it is consistent in other situations of sexual morality.  I gave two other situations where that same justification could be used by two consenting adults to validate their behavior.  If you think there is nothing wrong with either of these examples I gave, then I guess you're at least being consistent.  If, however, you believe those acts are wrong, then you have to consider that the justification you gave was insufficient cause to verify that the act was morally "OK" with God.

9 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I have to admit, when I read all of your arguments on why gay marriage is "wrong", I couldn't help but think that people probably argued quite similarly before the priesthood ban was lifted ("god knows better"). Most of you would agree that it's a good thing the church got rid of it, but back then people probably tried to justify it too.

We could make the same argument about the Law of Moses.  I truly acknowledge that it was a fantastic and wonderful thing to have gotten rid of the law of kosher eating.  As we all know bacon wrapped lobster is a gift from heaven.

But that doesn't change the fact that it was indeed a law given by God to man.  And it was correct for the time that it was supposed to be enforced.  Now, it is not supposed to be enforced any longer.  And I can eat bacon wrapped lobster to my heart's content.

9 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I'm not relating exclusively to gay-marriage now, but just speaking in general: Since I'm not convinced that a god even exists, it's very difficult to understand why anyone would put god's will (well.. or what people claim to be god's will) above the well being of humans. 

There is the fundamental thing.  You've validated my comment I made before.  To justify such a thing as gay marriage requires that we put our own will and our own wisdom before the Lord's will and wisdom.  This is an easy thing to do for an atheist or agnostic.  But for one who has known of the miracles of God in his own life, and had communion with Him, it is impossible for me to intentionally do that.

If you don't believe in God, then obviously, you have to have different criteria by which to judge.  You judge everything from the view that God either does not exist or is not worth it.  We come from a position that we've come to know that He is a benevolent and wise being to guide us into a happier life.

9 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I know that you are all trying to do good things and don't want to harm anyone intentionally. It's just difficult to watch from "outside" when people get treated poorly because others are so convinced that this is what must be done to please god. 

"Treated poorly".  Again proving the point I made earlier.  I get the impression that people who make this argument really cannot fathom how to separate the sin from the sinner.

If you have a loved one who is ruining their life due to some bad behavior, is it treating them poorly or harming them by telling them they really need to stop?  No.  It is a great act of love to tell them that the behavior they are engaging in is going to ruin their lives.  They can change that behavior and have a much happier and fulfilling life.

[unixknight]

11 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

It's just difficult to watch from "outside" when people get treated poorly because others are so convinced that this is what must be done to please god. 

It's not clear to me how we are treating homosexuals poorly.  We don't go around harassing them.  We don't bully them.  We don't shun them.  What, exactly are we doing that is "treating them poorly?"

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Yes, it's different and I don't expect the church to make changes that would contradict with one of their most important teachings, that wouldn't make sense. I was only referring to the way people try to make sense of it and tried to find reasons why it was justified. 

“The Church” doesn’t make changes.  God asks the Church to make changes.  So it is really a matter of whether one believes the Prophets and Apostles when they declare, “thus sayeth the Lord”.  Nobody can prove anything one way or the other.  Faith is something everyone has to figure out for themselves.

 

Quote

 

I don't think gender is interchangeable. But I'm not too familiar with this topic. I am aware that there are people who feel like they are born in the "wrong" body - and sometimes you can really tell that someone just behaves and even looks so much like the opposite gender and I understand that they want to change and I have no issue with that at all. I'm only saying that I don't think you can just decide that you're the other gender now (without having any surgery or treatment first).  - Sorry for the long answer

Sure, in general motherhood is intrinsic to female. And it probably is best for a child to have a mother and a father. But if two males or two females want to have a child, I don't have a problem with that either. A child doesn't grow up solely with the parents - there are usually enough people within the close circle of the family to have a child experience male and female influences. 

You say that a child needs a Mother and a Father.  Then you say you are ok with a child growing up without that need fulfilled.

It’s different when a child grows up with a Single Parent or a child grows up without parents or a child grows up with turbulent parents.  Nobody is saying, “When I grow up, I want to be a Single Mother”, or “I’m going to marry so I can become divorced or widowed”, or “I’m going to have children so I can leave them orphans”.  But that’s exactly what gay marriage is doing - “I’m gonna have children so I can deprive them of a Mother and a Father”.

 

Quote

I'd say you love someone if you care deeply about another person, want to spend as much time with them as possible, treat them affectionately and care about their well being. And if we're talking about love for a partner and not just a friend, there usually comes the desire to also express this love physically. But which (love or sexual attraction) comes first might vary, I think. 

So a person who marries and then leaves the spouse to fight a war... is lacking in love?  A person who cares so much for his spouse he locks her in the house worried that if she gets out she’s going to get hit by a truck, attacked by the neighbor’s dog, molested by a sexual predator is Love?   A person who desire to treat somebody with so much affection he goes and spends the entire night wining and dining until the night culminates in sex without marriage because it’s Love? So a couple where one is happy doing something that the other one doesn’t like and vice versa - can’t Love?

No.  None of those is Love.  Love is that all encompassing desire to bring someone with you to Joy.  Not just happiness but Joy.  For Christians, Christ has set the example of what brings Joy.  To will what God wills is perfect joy.  So love is, therefore, bringing someone with you closer to Christ.  Not just someone closer to Christ, or you closer to Christ... it’s both of you closer to Christ.  So when some teenager says - I’m going to have sex with you because I love you... does not love you.  Someone saying, I’m going to lock you in the house because I love you, is also lying.  I’m gonna let you abuse me because I love you..  also lying.  None of these lead to Joy.  Especially when innocent children become victims of their profession of false Love.  This is the same with homosexual relationships.  They do not lead to Joy.

Edited March 23, 2019 by anatess2

[NightSG]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Nobody is saying, “When I grow up, I want to be a Single Mother”

You're a little behind the times: I've heard that exact desire expressed by teens more than once over the last few years.

[Madam_Mim]

 

15 hours ago, Vort said:

Ah. So merely holding and voicing moral opinions qualifies as poor treatment and cruelty. In that case, I accuse you of immorality and cruelty because you hold opinions, you horrid, awful person! Just give me a few hours to determine what vomitous opinions you hold so I can lecture you on your cruelty and foolishness for daring to hold opinions I don't.

This is not about holding opinions in general or holding opinions that I might disagree with - it's about voicing moral opinions that are discriminating and dismissive. 

I mean... maybe you think being racist is "just an opinion" too, but if you voice this opinion to people of a different race, that is obviously cruel. 

15 hours ago, Vort said:

Um...yes. That is the word of God. You're not required to believe it, any more than you're required to believe that promiscuity results in STD infections. I suppose you probably excoriate those who connect promiscuous sexual activity with STDs, right? How DARE they (speak the obvious truth)!

Of course the risk of getting STD infections is getting higher when you have sex with more than one person (not sure how many people one must sleep with to be called promiscuous). But the huge difference is that I don't have to "believe" that - we can actually test and demonstrate it. Which can't be said about god. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with gay sex. I'd assume that gay members of the church don't want to sleep with tons of people - all they want is the same rights as same-sex couples. 

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Since you're whining about us refusing to baptize minor children of homosexual couples, I guess that means that you would be perfectly fine with us baptizing those young children and teenagers, and then teaching them that their parents' actions are wrong, sinful, and evil. Right?

This isn't about what I want. I was just stating what same sex-couples with kids seem to be struggling with. I have no idea why they still want their kids to get baptised. Maybe they are still active believers and don't want their children excluded from all those important "rituals" that their schoolmates and friends experience. Or the kid simply wants it.

I have to throw this question in, because I don't know how this works: What if a child from an atheist household wants to get baptised? Do they have to be a certain age as well, or can they just decide that, independent from their parents' opinion? 

16 hours ago, Vort said:

So you think that if someone asks for help in changing their mindset and beliefs, it's immoral to accommodate them. Right?

Without religion telling them that something's wrong with them, they wouldn't even feel the need to change their mindset. And how did anyone expect this to be a successful form of therapy? You can't just pray the gay away. 

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Of course. Why wouldn't the Church support Proposition 8? That was a law approved by the majority of voters, then overturned by judicial fiat in a blatantly illegal power grab that the higher justices refused to address. Do you have any problems with that? Or is slavery okay with you, so long as the cage is gilded to your tastes?

It just seems strange that they were so engaged and financed campaigns, when this has nothing to do with their church. It seems a little over the top to try and make gay marriage illegal for a majority of people who aren't even LDS and just want to get married. Telling "their" people what they are allowed and not allowed to do is one thing, but promoting something that largely concerns people outside of the church? And (to come back to the topic) it showed same sex-couples how determined the church is to keep them from getting equal rights and how little progress it makes.

Of course I'm not surprised that they supported it - but you asked me to state examples of gays getting treated poorly and that was just one of them. 

16 hours ago, Vort said:

So...you are justified in your childish refusal to understand another's point of view, because you think people are mean toward homosexuals. Right?

I'm assuming you are very, very young. Please learn to at least try to keep an open mind and not believe whatever your press presents to you. And if you are not in fact very young, I don't know what to say, except that you need to grow up, morally and intellectually.

What? No. I was just pointing out that I'm not the only one here who has a hard time to understand another person's point of view. 

I'm 35 and I was today years old when I found out that not every member of the church is super nice.   

 

Wow.. I feel like a gay rights advocate - I've never spent so much time talking about this topic and I never even cared that much. But your comments sounded so condescending - the way you try to make every one of my statements sound ridiculous, so I just had to address them. 

So far, I was really happy with this thread and that we all managed to have civil conversations, even about "touchy" subjects but now it's getting a bit strange. 

 

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

 

This is not about holding opinions in general or holding opinions that I might disagree with - it's about voicing moral opinions that are discriminating and dismissive. 

 

Funny how your definition of discrimination and dismissive is targeted directly at people who disagree with you...

Lets take an example..  A toddler reaches out to touch a hot stove.  The parent who dearly loves the child sees this about to happen so they yell out and maybe even slap the child hand away.  Now we can see how the parent was motivated by  love and interest of the child, even if the response might not have been ideal.

But what is the toddler's view?  The parent was mean.  Yelling and slapping hurt their feelings. The parent was discriminating and dismissive, after all the parent plays at the hot stove every day but the will not let the toddler do so. That is discrimination and dismissivness.

Now you might say that there is a difference between a toddler a full grown person with homosexual desires... Of course there is.  But this is not an example about mental capacity, but rather and example of trying to warn and protect people from dangers they might not even see (or refuse to believe exist).

Instead of understanding that we are trying to help and protect them we get called hateful bigots.  For a group that claims to be all about toleration of differences and how we all need to let people be "true" to themselves... they are mighty bigoted when it comes to someone who they disagree with.

[Madam_Mim]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Instead of understanding that we are trying to help and protect them we get called hateful bigots.  For a group that claims to be all about toleration of differences and how we all need to let people be "true" to themselves... they are mighty bigoted when it comes to someone who they disagree with.

I agree, and I admit that I'm not tolerant enough when I'm talking about church doctrines or decisions that I disagree with (I'll try to get better at this). Even though some things might look harmful to me, I know that nobody has the intention to make anybody's life miserable - especially not the "normal" members who don't have anything to do with certain decisions or actions made by the church. 

But I'm sure you can at least somewhat understand my position when you think of things members from other religions do, for example muslims who want the death penalty for apostates or kill for their god. I'm sure most of them think they're doing the right thing too. 

 

That would lead me to another question: When or how did you find out for yourself that your religion is the right one and the others are wrong? And what convinced you? 

 

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

When or how did you find out for yourself that your religion is the right one and the others are wrong? And what convinced you? 

I always believed and knew for myself, but it wasn’t till I wasn’t till I was 18-19 that I developed a strong conviction.

What brought it on? The spirit originally, but Lots of studying and logical thinking confirmed it. I realized a long time ago that everything in our church makes perfect sense when (and only when) you accept EVERY aspect and claim the church has to priesthood, doctrine, and the way it is run. 

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

I agree, and I admit that I'm not tolerant enough when I'm talking about church doctrines or decisions that I disagree with (I'll try to get better at this). Even though some things might look harmful to me, I know that nobody has the intention to make anybody's life miserable - especially not the "normal" members who don't have anything to do with certain decisions or actions made by the church. 

But I'm sure you can at least somewhat understand my position when you think of things members from other religions do, for example muslims who want the death penalty for apostates or kill for their god. I'm sure most of them think they're doing the right thing too.

 

There will always be those that abuse and take advantage of whatever and whomever they can for personal gain and power... Religious belief is not immune to this any more then anything else is.  But just because someone abuses such, does not make the system itself wrong... Or the other followers partakers or supporters of the abuses

[Vort]

Let's give this a sober review. Madam_Mim should not be dismissed out of hand. Her sincere questions should always be taken seriously, and her opinions not ignored unless and until she proves herself trollish.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

This is not about holding opinions in general or holding opinions that I might disagree with -

Indeed? Then what, pray tell, is it about?

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

it's about voicing moral opinions that are discriminating and dismissive.

"Discriminating" means "able to distinguish between two things". That is not a bad thing. "Dismissive" means "unwilling to consider a thing". This is a false claim.

Which part of "discriminating" do you dislike? And why are you mischaracterizing Latter-day Saint morality and viewpoints as "dismissive"?

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Of course the risk of getting STD infections is getting higher when you have sex with more than one person (not sure how many people one must sleep with to be called promiscuous). But the huge difference is that I don't have to "believe" that - we can actually test and demonstrate it.

Yes. As you can with moral claims.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Which can't be said about god.

Of course it can. With this statement, you openly demonstrate your own ignorance and prejudice.

Now, being ignorant is not an evil thing per se. You aren't bad because you're ignorant—or else everyone is bad because everyone is ignorant. And being prejudiced by your previous experiences and lifetime teachings is part of the human condition, so you can't be blamed for that. But if you are unwilling to consider—really consider, not merely hear stated—the ideas and experiences of others, then you will remain ignorant and prejudiced, and it will be your own fault.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with gay sex.

Several times now, you have betrayed the idea that you don't really understand logical discussion very well. Allow me to explain.

When we are talking about Topic X, and I bring in an example from an outside Topic Y, that is because I'm trying to provide some clarification. For instance, if we are talking about comparative religious experiences and I say, "Just because I like lilies doesn't mean I hate roses," that statement ought to be understood in the context of comparing religious experiences. When you then say, "Well, I really don't understand what flowers have to do with going to church", it suggests you can't—or won't—make seemingly obvious connections that allow honest, goodwill conversation.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I'd assume that gay members of the church don't want to sleep with tons of people - all they want is the same rights as same-sex couples. 

Your assumptions aren't really relevant, and your statement is false on its face. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. It is worth noting in the context of this discussion that heterosexuals do not have the "right" to marry whomever they want. The same restrictions that apply to homosexuals apply also to heterosexuals.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

This isn't about what I want. I was just stating what same sex-couples with kids seem to be struggling with. I have no idea why they still want their kids to get baptised. Maybe they are still active believers and don't want their children excluded from all those important "rituals" that their schoolmates and friends experience. Or the kid simply wants it.

So you think it's legitimate for you to express an opinion about a topic that you admit you don't really understand? And we're supposed to take your openly ignorant opinion seriously—why? You rail against the Church for practicing "discrimination" on a topic about which you have only the most tenuous grasp. Your opinion on this is of very little worth, even to you. Surely you can see that holding a strong opinion on a topic you're almost totally ignorant about is a bad idea. You do see that, right?

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I have to throw this question in, because I don't know how this works: What if a child from an atheist household wants to get baptised? Do they have to be a certain age as well, or can they just decide that, independent from their parents' opinion?

Minor children cannot get baptized without parental consent, period. In addition, minor children who live in a household whose very constitution is intrinsically hostile to the Church and its precepts (including polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual households) will not be baptized until the child is of legal age, and able both to understand and specifically disclaim that aspect of the household they grew up in. This is at least as much for protection of the child as for protection of the Church, despite the false cries of "Discrimination! Hatred!" from the foaming-at-the-mouth politically correct.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Without religion telling them that something's wrong with them, they wouldn't even feel the need to change their mindset.

To be blunt: Duh. Without religion telling people for many thousands of years that murder was wrong, no one would have felt the slightest inclination to stop attacking and murdering their neighbors in the next valley over, or raping the pretty young thing, or doing all manner of other unspeakable evil that comes most naturally to human beings in an atheistic context.

Religion is not about merely telling people what they already know. As the term implies, "religion" (Latin religio, from re- "again" + ligo "bind") is about tying us back to God. Since God knows a lot more than we do, the very idea of "religion" will naturally mean teaching people moral precepts that they do not already know. How this is not obvious to you escapes me.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

And how did anyone expect this to be a successful form of therapy? You can't just pray the gay away.

Interesting (and unsurprising) that you would put forth this popular pro-homosexuality phrase as a serious argument. Let's look at it. How do you know that "you can't just pray the gay away"? What about those people who have claimed to do exactly that? How do you account for their claims that they were homosexual, but that they prayed and asked God, and eventually lost their homosexual desires?

You can't just ignore them—at least, not if you're honest. Your choices are: (1) Say they're lying; (2) Say that they were never really homosexual to begin with; or (3) admit that you are wrong. If you follow #1 and say they're lying, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it. If you follow #2, you're cherry-picking in the most shameless manner, effectively saying, "No examples that counter my claim will be accepted, because by definition, homosexuals can't change their orientation." In other words, your argument is circular. If you follow Possibility #3 above, then you have my sincere respect.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

It just seems strange that they were so engaged and financed campaigns, when this has nothing to do with their church.

Are you serious? Society itself "has nothing to do with their church"? Tell me, what other social and moral causes should churches not give input into? Should churches avoid campaigning against elective abortion because it "has nothing to do with" them? Should they avoid campaigning against the slaughter of those not of their faith, which by very definition "has nothing to do with" them?

Why would you so blatantly restrict the freedoms of those who seek to influence society JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES? Do you love freedom, or do you not? Or do you only love freedom for yourself and those who think like you do?

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

It seems a little over the top to try and make gay marriage illegal for a majority of people who aren't even LDS and just want to get married.

This sentence is filled with errors. Let's investigate.

"make gay marriage illegal": Proposition 8 was not about "making gay marriage illegal". So-called "gay marriage" was ALREADY not a recognized thing, any more than "marriage" to your dog or your horse or your favorite planet was a thing. Proposition 8 was about formalizing what had already been known and practiced for literally thousands of years: That the term "marriage" referred exclusively to a formalized public social relationship between a man and a woman.

And the majority of Californians approved it. It was law, until a corrupt judiciary said, in effect, "We do not do the will of the people as decided in open election. Instead, we do what we think is correct, the unwashed masses be damned." Do you support this?

"for a majority of people": Homosexuals do not comprise a majority of people. So I don't know what you're trying to say here, but whatever it is, you're wrong.

"who aren't even LDS and just want to get married": Their religious status is irrelevant. And as for just wanting to get married—THEY COULD. No one stopped them from getting married. They had EXACTLY the same right to marriage as anyone else.

Of course, they were not allowed in a legal sense to marry their pet cat or their barbecue grill or the wind or the rain or the concept of justice. The law allowed them and everyone else to marry according to the following rules:

(1) Their partner in marriage needed to agree to marry them

(2) Both partners were of legal age to enter into a marriage contract;

(3) Neither partner was already married to someone else; and,

(4) There was no close consanguinity (i.e. the two were not closely related to each other);

Oh, yes, and of course, establishing the entire purpose of marriage, and so obvious that few in the past ever considered that it needed to be stated explicitly:

(0) The two were of opposite sex.

Note what the pro-"homosexual marriage" people were doing: They wanted to redefine the word "marriage". This was about redefinition, not rights. The Prop 8 foks (including the Restored Church) openly said they were not opposed to giving homosexual couples legal recognition, inheritance rights, etc. But that is not marriage, which by very definition is a formal relationship between individuals OF OPPOSITE SEX. It is the union of the sexes. Go ahead and allow homosexuals to cohabitate, the Prop 8 people said. Give them legal recognition. No problem. We're not opposed to that. Just don't call it "marriage", because that already has an important meaning. It is the very foundation idea of our society. It is much, much more than a legally recognized sign of love between two adults. Marriage itself is not actually about "romantic love" at all, though that's the association we usually make. It's about families, and families need a man and a woman.

So obviously, you approve of homosexual "marriage". Fine, whatever. But stop misrepresenting what happened. No one was trying to stop people from getting married. No one was trying to stop adult people (legally) from engaging in consensual homosexual relationships. No one was trying to stop homosexuals from cohabitating, owning property in common, having inheritance rights, or any other such thing. Prop 8 was an attempt to defend the very definition of marriage, the most important relationship we form in life. At least be honest in representing what the issue was and what people actually believed.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

And (to come back to the topic) it showed same sex-couples how determined the church is to keep them from getting equal rights and how little progress it makes.

This is an open lie. The Church did not seek to keep people from "getting equal rights". People already had those rights, and the Church has never done anything except defend those rights. Your phraseology is dishonest.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Of course I'm not surprised that they supported it - but you asked me to state examples of gays getting treated poorly and that was just one of them. 

And it was a lie, a non-example. The Church did not treat "gays" poorly. The Church, together with a majority of California's voting population, sought to defend the very idea of marriage.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I'm 35 and I was today years old when I found out that not every member of the church is super nice.

Boo hoo. What a traumatic revelation it must have been to you, to discover that when you speak untruths and slander about an organization of people, some of those people might actually point out your duplicity. Dang. I bet that smarts.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

But your comments sounded so condescending - the way you try to make every one of my statements sound ridiculous, so I just had to address them.

So let me understand the rules here. You are allowed to misrepresent the Church's actions, call names, and throw around accusations. All of that is fine. But I am not allowed to point out that your actions are objectionable, your definitions are inconsistent, and your charges are dishonest.

Do I have that right?

Okay, then. I reject those rules. Here are my rules: You are allowed to offer opinion and insight. I am allowed to counter your opinion and show your insight to be false. And when you start name-calling, then you don't get to pout and object when others return the favor and label you in ways you don't like.

Deal?

Edited March 24, 2019 by Vort

[Madam_Mim]

Just a quick last comment for today:

I apologize if I stated nonsense about Prop. 8. and I have no problem with you correcting me or disagreeing with my view but I found it inappropriate to get personal. You may find my comments about the church offensive but I never attacked or insulted anyone on here personally, so I don't know why you think your attitude was justified.

[estradling75]

22 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Just a quick last comment for today:

I apologize if I stated nonsense about Prop. 8. and I have no problem with you correcting me or disagreeing with my view but I found it inappropriate to get personal. You may find my comments about the church offensive but I never attacked or insulted anyone on here personally, so I don't know why you think your attitude was justified.

Because we take our religion personally.. Therefore an attack/insults/derogatory comments on the church is an attack on us.  This is why Rule One of this Site's Rules is what it is. (Rules you agreed to when you signed up.)

Honesty and truly for someone that came to us (presumably to try to understand us better) you have spent much more of your efforts trying to get us to understand you. Rather then understanding us.