fiona84 Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Pale reaches over and punches a hole in the wall, cause he agrees with Emma....wow.....what is this world coming to.... one of favorite lines is....when a member states......they can't see how a church memebr could be a democrat....wow...I have alot of democrat friends that belong to the church. I also know we have and there have been several general authorities that are democrats.Sorry this slightly off topic...I'm a Democrat.... and when I was in Singles Ward I became a social pariah as far as dating was concerned once that got out after a few dates... So sad! *sigh* I am so glad the church doesn't tell us who to vote for. In any case, I firmly belive Jesus would be a Democrat.... well, a socialist. And as a poli sci major who gets my kicks from this type of debate I happily invite dissent as to my opinion......and I don't think I know enough about the LDS stance on homosexuality to comment on it. I haven't had any personal experience with a member suffering 'same sex attraction' but I do have a good gay guy friend and I know he didn't choose it...and I am not going to ever judge him. It's not our place to judge anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Topspin Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 "I remember Elder Oaks saying not to let homosexuality define one's personality- I agree with him- but I also remember him saying that homosexuality is, in most cases, conquerable. It is important to note the Church's fundamental belief that simply because one feels impulses towards one behavior, that does not mean such action must follow suit. (I got that tidbit from the article) It is also important to note that feelings of SSA, no matter to what degree, may be related to, but not the ultimate factor in, a lack of heterosexual attraction. No offense Elphaba, but being a faithful, studying member of my Church who attends all the classes I can, listens and ponders the words of the leaders, and prays to my God above, I believe I know more about what the Church actually teaches than someone who is not." We've heard what Elder Oaks has said on the issue... But Holland has said that many may overcome the attraction here in mortality, but others may not and will have to wait for God to fix them up in the resurrection if they can't overcome the attraction to marry in this life... These apostles have laid out the conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Topspin Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Is the SSM horse dead yet? 'Thwack, Thwack Thwack.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 They are all in Utah, and aren't aware of the California initiative the Church actively spoke out against. "Emma"Elphaba...you are very quick to respond to any post where you feel like you can make a stand for your "Intellectual Superiority"...Please read and reread the above quote of yours. Please tell me what California Iniatitive that the Church actively spoke out against.For someone such as yourself...one who ALWAYS demands proof and citations, I now ask you to post a citation as to which initiative you're referring to.TIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Skip, remember, those who inherit the Terrestial Glory are those of Honorary Title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Skip, remember, those who inherit the Terrestial Glory are those of Honorary Title.Call me a little slow here...but how'd we get from Gay Marriage to Kingdoms and titles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Is the SSM horse dead yet? 'Thwack, Thwack Thwack.'You mean like this top.....:deadhorse: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elphaba Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Elphaba...you are very quick to respond to any post where you feel like you can make a stand for your "Intellectual Superiority"...Not to "any." I wouldn't have time to get to them all.Please read and reread the above quote of yours. Please tell me what California Iniatitive that the Church actively spoke out against.I was speaking of Proposition 22. I misspoke when I wrote "against."For someone such as yourself...one who ALWAYS demands proof and citations, I now ask you to post a citation as to which initiative you're referring to.No need. Thank you for pointing my error out to me.Elphaba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Sorry this slightly off topic...I'm a Democrat.... and when I was in Singles Ward I became a social pariah as far as dating was concerned once that got out after a few dates... So sad! All this says, is that some men resent women smarter than themselves. If they were smarter, they would realize it was their loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Sorry this slightly off topic...I'm a Democrat...Continuing in the off topic vein...I've been amazed in my lifetime to see Utah and Latter Day Saints move soooooooo far to the right and into the fringes of the GOP.Lest anyone forget...It was the Party of Lincoln that persecuted the Saints almost into the early 20th Century.When the Federal Government finally forced Utah to abandon their own political parties and choose between Democrat's or the GOP...the Church had Stake Presidents go from ward to ward. In each meeting, the Stake President would stand at the pulpit and would motion his hand to create an imaginary line...everyone sitting on one side of that line would henceforth be Democrats...everyone on the other side of the line would henceforth be GOP.David O. McKay tells the story of his Father returning home from one such meeting with a look of horror about him. McKay's Mother inquired as to the problem...his Father replied...something to the effect..."Momma...tonight we became Republican's...I'm so ashamed I don't know how I'll ever show my face around town again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Hey, the only Leno I like is Jay Leno -- unlike the other late night hosts he is actually quite funny.And I do support the Church position on this issue.As for the slippery slope argument here's a perfect example. In the 1960s birth control was still ilegal in many states. The US Supreme Court then used a non-existant phrase in the constitution called "hte right to privacy" to throw out these restrictions on birth control. They would then use this same precedent to validate Roe v. Wade a decade later. And then a bit over two decades later they returned to this idea and invalidated every state law banning sodomy. Now if you had said back in the 1960s that the courts essentially making birth control legal throughout the USA would lead to the legalization of homosexual acts nationwide I think most people would have thought you were really pusing it. Yet...Fiannan....Now...do you think you can explain it to my buddy Redbeard??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Friends - Political parties, just like people and society at large. We should be concerned with the what the parties and the specific candidates stand for TODAY not 200 years ago. I tend to be more flexible in terms of political affiliation. I vote for whomever I believe represents my values, aspirations and ideas about what the country should be and how we are to get there. I must admit, in the last 15-20 years I have found that certain GOP candidates (not all, by the way) hold philosophical viewpoints closer to mine than the average Democrats. I have only been LDS for 8 years, so go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbeard Posted May 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Fiannan....Now...do you think you can explain it to my buddy Redbeard???Sigh... slippery slope arguments are not good arguments not because they NEVER come true, but because no one can KNOW what the future holds, therefore assuming is utterly asinine."Slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal."Try reading up on logical falicies: Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope or Atheism: Logic & FallaciesLets do another example:If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 I have to admit, the Wiki gospel is wrong on this subject. Go back and review history for factual evidence. Even this country will surcomb to the evil secret combinations in the coming years. We are entitled to warnings by the Spirit or GOD. Redbeard, here is one for you, every country in the world with exception of America and Israel will fall in the last day. So, for it to be a prophecy, we need to wait until it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbeard Posted May 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 I have to admit, the Wiki gospel is wrong on this subject. Go back and review history for factual evidence. Even this country will surcomb to the evil secret combinations in the coming years. We are entitled to warnings by the Spirit or GOD. Redbeard, here is one for you, every country in the world with exception of America and Israel will fall in the last day. So, for it to be a prophecy, we need to wait until it happens. If you believe the LDS and christian gospel than you are correct. However, the majority of people in the world do not I do see where you are coming from though.Sorry, Hemi, what were your referring to when you wrote- "I have to admit, the Wiki gospel is wrong on this subject. Go back and review history for factual evidence."? I didn't quite get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 If you believe the LDS and christian gospel than you are correct. However, the majority of people in the world do not I do see where you are coming from though.Sorry, Hemi, what were your referring to when you wrote- "I have to admit, the Wiki gospel is wrong on this subject. Go back and review history for factual evidence."? I didn't quite get it.Oh...Redbear your response is :roflmbo:Of...Course I seem to recall a period in history, when all the world thought Noah was a nut....Hmmmm....Wonder what happened to them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Yes, Topspin, I beleive the SSM horse is now officially dead. ...unless someone wants the address the substance of Elphaba's post on laws in California that the Church has seen it necessary to influence the voting public on... HiJolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbeard Posted May 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 Oh...Redbear your response is :roflmbo:Of...Course I seem to recall a period in history, when all the world thought Noah was a nut....Hmmmm....Wonder what happened to them....Umm... the Noah story has also never been proven completely factual... so... good job using a questionable story as support Seriously though, you are using a theistic story to prove a point to a non-theistic person? What are you trying to prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 Umm... the Noah story has also never been proven completely factual... so... good job using a questionable story as support Seriously though, you are using a theistic story to prove a point to a non-theistic person? What are you trying to prove?:deadhorse::deadhorse:Time to close yet another thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 Seriously friends, we should stop beating the horse hoping it will move. It is long dead. Again, the argument is totaly and completely philosophical. Either God matters or He doesn't. That is the issue and no amount of debate or argument is going to make a difference. God has an objection to homosexuality and to ALL other sexual behavior outside of marriage. People want to engage in sexual behavior without constrains of any kind. So, we must agree that we disagree on the subject since we hold the word of God to be true and absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 People want to engage in sexual behavior without constrains of any kind. So, we must agree that we disagree on the subject since we hold the word of God to be true and absolute. Knowing there is disagreement does not seem to be the best time to silence dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 Knowing there is disagreement does not seem to be the best time to silence dialogue.I'm really curious here...Moksha, do you agree with the Prophet's stance on Homosexuality and the Laws of Chastity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 I think you miss the point. In order to agree with you, at any level, will require me to either ignore the word of God or assume that He has changed His mind on the subject. I will not do either and you have chosen a position on the other side of the divide. Once we have exhausted the argument and no change in position has occurred it seems only logical NOT to continue the exchange. It is going nowhere. Again, it is a philosophical argument. You have chosen to reject the word of God on the subject which we hold to be the ultimate authority on the matter. From a humanistic standpoint you can (an people do) choose anything they desire. And that has proven to change from time to time in every subject, including the issue of sexual behavior. God's word, in the other hand, has not changed. Since you do not recognize God's authority on the issue while I hold on to it regardless, the exchange ceased to be productive a long time ago. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest User-Removed Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 I think you miss the point. In order to agree with you, at any level, will require me to either ignore the word of God or assume that He has changed His mind on the subject. I will not do either and you have chosen a position on the other side of the divide. Once we have exhausted the argument and no change in position has occurred it seems only logical NOT to continue the exchange. It is going nowhere. Again, it is a philosophical argument. You have chosen to reject the word of God on the subject which we hold to be the ultimate authority on the matter. From a humanistic standpoint you can (an people do) choose anything they desire. And that has proven to change from time to time in every subject, including the issue of sexual behavior. God's word, in the other hand, has not changed. Since you do not recognize God's authority on the issue while I hold on to it regardless, the exchange ceased to be productive a long time ago. Just a thought.AMEN...and AMEN...Islander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted May 27, 2008 Report Share Posted May 27, 2008 I think this is another thread where the subject has been beat to death. Time to close it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts