Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Why I Don't Care If You're Gay

Previously: Year End Odds & Ends

I'm frequently asked why I haven't yet posted anything on this blog about this business of gay marriage. I suppose that's because I'm concerned here primarily with topics that have something to do with my religion, and since my religion hasn't had anything to say about homosexuality one way or the other, I don't have much to say about it either.

To be sure, plenty of my fellow Saints have strong feelings against homosexuality, and gay marriage in particular. Some of these outspoken members even hold positions of authority within the Church hierarchy. But the opinions of members, regardless of rank, are not the same as a revelation from God himself, so none of them are doctrinal or binding on the church. We are not supposed to be guided by the opinions of men, but rather by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

As a believing latter-day Saint, I see no reason to become overly exercised regarding something the Lord has not yet seen fit to weigh in on.  God has expressed himself on many things that should be of concern to us in these latter days, but on this particular topic He has been conspicuously silent.

Since our founding in 1830, what has made us unique among all other Christian denominations has been the claim that our doctrines are obtained solely through revelations. That is the salient point I taught as a missionary in the first discussion: "Ever since that time, Mr. Brown," I testified, "The Lord has had a prophet on the earth to guide us and teach us his will regarding the important issues of our day."

If we are to take seriously our claim of a religion based on divine revelation, then we ought to stop parroting the tired objections of the sectarian churches on this matter and look to what God himself has revealed in the latter-days.  The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, but for some reason, the Book of Mormon does not address either homosexuality or same sex marriage. Neither is there anything about it in the Doctrine and Covenants, nor in any of the prolific speeches and writings of the prophet Joseph Smith

I haven't been able to find one single revelation from any of the latter-day prophets that would instruct us on the position we should take concerning the joining of one man to another in matrimony. There doesn't seem to be anything at all regarding same sex attraction. Is it possible this isn't one of the issues that concerns God as much as it seems to consume us? Given God's relative silence on the matter, we should at least consider that possibility.

We have no shortage of statements on the subject delivered in talks by general authorities, but none that I can find that claim to be revelations from God. Some members point to The Proclamation on the Family as an example of a latter-day revelation, but that is not a revelation. It's a position paper.

There are indeed a couple of instances where homosexuality is condemned in the old testament, but since when did we Mormons start taking our marching orders from a book which the prophet Nephi warned us would be a stumbling block in our day? A primary purpose for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, according to Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, and others, was as a corrective to the errors and misinterpretations which are present throughout the bible.

Many bible verses often used to prove God's condemnation of homosexuality do not hold up upon closer inspection. The King James Version of the bible is particularly rife with translations of words to which many have pegged inaccurate definitions.  What should be of utmost concern, however, is that in none of these oft cited verses is the Lord himself being quoted. Since when did latter-day Saints start believing in the inerrancy of the bible? Others may declare that every word of the bible is the literal word of God, but we're expected to know better.

In many areas where the bible is in harmony with God's will, the Book of Mormon confirms those teachings. But it is an article of our faith that much of what has come down to us in the bible has been  mistranslated and corrupted. A simple reading of Leviticus and Deuteronomy should convince anyone that much of what is contained therein is of no more value than the Code of Hammurabi. Why then are so many good latter-day Saints hung up on obscure bible verses, placing them front and center as though to define our creed?

For all I know, Gay marriage may be an egregious sin. But that's just the problem. I don't know. I have no way of knowing God's mind on this matter because God has not seen fit to reveal anything about it. So until he does, I think my wisest course is to continue to treat others the way I would wish to be treated. And that means abiding by the golden rule. Live and let live.

Recently on Facebook I shared a simple article by a writer who had decided his attitude toward homosexuals was less than Christlike, and wrote about his decision to stop being so condescending toward them. I was surprised by the firestorm of responses that resulted from my sharing that simple piece which I thought was fairly uncontroversial.

That thread triggered a lively discussion regarding what the bible actually has to say on the subject, and since most of the comments on both sides of the issue were intelligent, civil, and very informative, I would recommend those wanting a clearer understanding of what the bible has to say to check out that conversation here .

Of particular interest, I should think, are the bible verses that have become a stumbling block to us in our day, including the actual meanings of the words translated as "fornication," "effeminate," and the nearly indecipherable Greek phrase translated into English by the King James translators as "abusers of themselves with mankind." I still marvel that so many people who claim to revere the bible continue to believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the sin of homosexuality. Hasn't anyone read Ezekiel? He tells us plainly that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were the cruel way they treated their poor. Nephi reiterates the warning of Ezekiel concerning Sodom, and it is a warning many Mormons tend to ignore these days. We'd rather be searching around finding fault with others than looking to our own sins.

I Agree With The Duck Dynasty Guy
I don't know much about this guy Phil Robertson, also known as the Duck Commander, and I have not followed everything he has said. So I'm not endorsing everything he said recently that has caused such a row, but I do identify with this statement:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That's just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.” 
That pretty much sums up my own point of view. Same sex attraction does not strike me as logical. You can mark me down as favoring the vagina.

In the words of the Duck Commander, that's just me.

But that's not everybody. As it happens, some men don't share my appreciation for lady parts. As difficult as it may be for people like me and the Duck Commander to grasp, to some men the vagina is a repulsive thing with no more appeal than the mouth of a squid. I know, because that's how I've had it described to me by a gay friend who was permanently scarred after looking at one up close. He reported it as being as horrifying to him as the creature from Alien.

By the way, if there are any children present, you might want to have them leave the room. At the very least, you should probably stop reading this to your children out loud.

How I Learned To Stop Hatin' On Homos  
I certainly do not think all gays and lesbians are angels. Some of the most obnoxious and self-absorbed people I've known happen to have been homosexuals. But also some of the kindest, most accepting people I've known have been homosexuals, so go figure. A sizable number of obnoxious and self-absorbed people in my life happened to be heterosexuals, so it would appear that sexual orientation doesn't seem to have much to do with whether or not a person is a jerk. Acting like a jerk is what makes a person a jerk.
 
Connie and I have a handful of gay friends who we love in a way that would have seemed inconceivable to either of us just a few short years ago. One of them lives in Salt Lake City and we love her deeply. And when I say we love her, I mean either one of us would literally take a bullet for this girl.  It would be impossible for us to find fault with her because the three of us have bonded spiritually. It would never occur to me to define our friend by her sexual orientation any more than she defines me by mine.

I was dismayed to hear how angrily some in the LGBT community demanded A&E cancel the Duck Dynasty show just because some guy said something they don't agree with. I'm just as opposed to that kind of bullying as I am when I see my fellow Saints invoking God's name as justification for treating others with disdain. Since when did we decide that when someone says something we don't like, that person should be forced to go away? Why not engage them in dialogue? That way if you can't persuade them, at least you'll better understand where they're coming from.

The biggest problem we now have between some Mormons and their gay nemeses is that neither side wants to recognize the divine in the other. Wouldn't it be better if we could have our differences and still respect the other person's right to their feelings? The Lord said to his people through Isaiah, "Come, and let us reason together." We don't have to adopt the other person's view, but we should respect his right to express it.

Like a great majority of Mormons, I used to believe wholeheartedly that homosexuality was a choice. That was the official position of my Church, and that's what I accepted as truth. (Note: this was the position of the Church, not the expressly revealed position of the Lord.)

I'll admit this business of same sex attraction is a mystery to me. I don't understand it; I can't fathom what makes some people "that way."  But I'll tell you what I am now absolutely convinced of: homosexuality is not a choice. Those who are attracted to members of their own sex did not "choose" to have those awkward desires. Many would rather be dead than queer, and sadly too many young people have been so desperate to escape their own natures that they have unnecessarily taken their own lives. A gay man or woman can no more choose to turn heterosexual than you and I can suddenly "choose" to become gay, and only a fool would believe same sex attraction can be "cured" at will.

The way I came around to understanding, accepting, and respecting those with same sex attraction is the same way a lot of others have. I got to know a young man who was gay, and I learned to love and accept him in spite of his "difference."

Actually, I've known this kid for quite some time. I was present when my wife gave birth to him.

I'm not going to go into how agonizing it was for my son to come to terms with his own nature. Suffice to say that throughout his teen years he despised himself for what he was. He tried to change who and what he was, and desperately fought an internal battle to become "normal." Goodness knows girls found him attractive, so he would have had no trouble being straight if it were only possible to wish it so. Eventually Michael came to terms with who he is, and learned at long last that God did not hate him. God loves him. I'm convinced there is nothing "wrong" with my son. Not one thing. 

That's why I am dismayed when I hear of otherwise good latter-day Saint parents turning their gay children out into the street to forage and starve. This is happening way too often. It's estimated that 40 percent of the five thousand homeless teenagers on the street in Utah are gay, and most of them are there only because their parents kicked them out for being gay. Somehow these parents allowed their perceived religious conditioning to convince them that abandoning their own children was what God would have them do.

If there is an opposite to being Christlike, that would define it, in my opinion. This is a tragedy. It is callowness of the worst kind. I fear for such people at the judgment.

The Right To Contract
Back when the LDS Church was actively encouraging its members to support California's Proposition 8 -the proposal to define marriage as between one man and one woman- I opened up my Sunday paper, the Sacramento Bee, and saw a prominent feature story about an LDS family that lived about 11 miles from me over in Folsom. What I read made my heart sink. The story told of the Patterson family's response to the call from their church to donate money to help pass prop 8, and how they had obediently turned over their entire life savings of $50,000 to the cause.

The Patterson family was not particularly well-off. They had a modest home and drove a 10 year old Honda. But by living frugally, they had managed to save enough money for their children's future missions and college educations.  Now they heard the call from their Church to contribute regarding what they obviously thought was a call from the Lord, and just like that, their money was gone. Evaporated into nothing for a cause that anyone with a modicum of foresight could see would never succeed.

I sat there reading that article knowing that no amount of money would ever make a difference because ultimately the question of gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with obtaining permission from the government, from a church, or from anywhere else.  It is about the right to contract, and no government has the right to impair a contract willingly entered into by any two competent adults. Proposition 8 could very well pass (and it did), but the rights of any two people to contract to cohabit would not be affected by its passage.

The Pattersons weren't thinking about this, of course. They had confused the opinions of some at Church headquarters with the immutable will of God, and firmly believed their life savings was going to have something to do with building up the kingdom and putting evil underfoot. Because the Church had asked this sacrifice of them, God was surely behind it. Their money would contribute to a victory for the powers of Heaven.

What the Pattersons failed to realize was that God had issued no revelation to the president of the Church instructing him on support for proposition 8 or predicting a political victory. There had been no revelation given to anyone commanding him to mobilize the Saints. This project was initiated by mere mortal men, the same men who set out without any instructions from God to use Church money to construct a multi-billion dollar shopping center in the heart of Salt Lake City during a time when most potential customers were experiencing financial hardship.

I wonder when the Saints will start asking the pertinent questions that should be asked of the Brethren every time something like this is proposed: "Where is the accompanying revelation? When did God authorize you to take this action or require this sacrifice from us?"

How will the Petersons survive without that nest egg they so carefully accumulated if Brother Peterson loses his job? They, along with countless other faithful members, were goaded into throwing away their inheritance by men who had received no instructions from God asking them to do so.

And now I read how many members of the Church in Utah are up in arms about the federal ruling which requires Utah to recognize same-sex marriages. They are in a revolutionary fervor, convinced that God will reward their efforts and lead them to victory. But I ask again: where is the revelation? How do they know God wants this battle fought?

Nullification Is To Be Used Against Tyranny
Doubtless you've heard of Trestin Meacham, the Utah man in the middle of a hunger strike until the state of Utah overturns the ruling recognizing gay marriage. He points to the doctrine of nullification as reason why Utah can stop gay marriages from being recognized in Utah.

But Trestin does not understand the doctrine. I am all for seeing states nullify federal law. I've been a vocal part of the nullification movement myself for some years. But the doctrine of nullification does not apply here. If the federal government had decreed that Trestin Meacham must marry another man, or even that he must marry a particular woman; if the federal government had stepped in and declared that gay marriages -or any marriages- would be prohibited, or that the LDS Church is hereafter required to perform gay marriages, then the people of Utah would have standing to rise up and nullify those laws, as they do any time the government oversteps its bounds.

But the government is not attempting to impose a law on Trestin Meacham or on anyone else. It is not restricting anyone's rights. It is merely declaring that the same right to contract which Trestin Meacham enjoys with his wife cannot be withheld from others. This ruling should be of no concern to Trestin Meacham because it does not affect Trestin Meacham. To quote Thomas Jefferson, such a law "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

That particular federal ruling represented an expansion of rights, not a restriction of rights. If you want to see the proper and effective use of nullification, look no further than Colorado, Utah's next door neighbor. The federal government has declared the use and possession of marijuana to be a criminal offense. The people of Colorado passed a law that said, in effect, "We don't care what laws you pass. Our bodies belong to us. We nullify your silly decree and will do with our own bodies as we wish."

Some folks are concerned about Trestin Meacham's hunger strike and are worried that he could do permanent damage to himself if he continues. But I say Brother Meacham has every right to do with his body whatever he wants. Perhaps one day he'll learn that right belongs to everyone.

Update: As I write this I have just learned that the Supreme Court has issued a stay regarding issuing licenses for same sex marriages in Utah, and Trestin Meacham is now further abusing his body by gorging on pizza.

What Charity Means
Charity means much more than simply giving money to the poor. What it means is having a heart pure enough to recognize that every one of us is on our own perfect path. Charity means we allow others to find their own way. The Lord does not permit us to interfere with choices anyone else makes. No matter how repugnant and off-putting another's lifestyle may appear to us, we are required by the laws of heaven to let them be. Charity means we all get to live and let live.

Some of us Mormons tend to be overly concerned about the morality of others. If God had wanted us to get worked up about what other people are doing with their genitals, I think He would have given us those orders by now. In the entire bible, the few verses purporting to do with homosexuality don't even claim to be quoting God. So why are we hanging on them?

How To Take A Stand Against Gay Marriage
This may offend some people, but I'll say it anyway. I don't care for Homosexuality. It is not for me.  So here's what I've decided to do about it: I make it a point to refrain from participating in  homosexual acts. Every chance I get.

This is the method I have chosen that I feel would best protect the sanctity of my marriage. I'm happy to announce that my courageous stand has met with the approval of a grateful and relieved wife.

That is the limit to what God allows me to do. He does not permit me to interfere in the lives of others, regardless of how unsavory I might find their behavior. I am permitted to choose only what I will do with my own genitals. I am not charged with jurisdiction over yours.

Since the Restoration of the gospel began in 1820, God has had 194 years to tell us his thoughts about gay marriage. The fact that he hasn't said anything about it suggests to me this is not quite the issue with Him that some of us think it should be.


January 2014 Announcements! 
Come Let Us Reason Together
I suspect this post will engender some vigorous discussion on both sides of this issue, so I ask only that you remain civil and try to keep your emotions in check.  And please try to avoid posting as "Anonymous" because in no time the comment page will be crawling with people named Anonymous and it becomes impossible to know who is responding to who. Please use the drop-down box labeled "Name/Url" but if you must use Anonymous, please sign off with a user name in the body of the post to differentiate yourself from all the other people arguing under the same name.

And on the subject of arguments, Duke University is offering a free 12 week

course entitled "Think Again! How To Reason and Argue" beginning January 13th. I think a lot of latter-day Saints could benefit from learning to articulate their point of view. Getting a firm foundation in reason, logic, and common sense will also help protect you from government, media, and yes even religious figures who would try to manipulate your emotions for their own ends. Learn to spot the weaknesses and fallacies in your own arguments and become more persuasive when presenting your point of view. You can even earn a verified certificate from Duke University, and none of it will cost you a cent.

TED Talk
"The Ally Within"  is a short talk presented at TED by John Dehlin, telling his story of conversion from a typical latter-day Saint with typical Mormon attitudes toward homosexuals, to one who came to understand Christ's lessons of charity toward all mankind. John Dehlin is the quintessential Mormon. If all latter-day Saints were like him, most of the problems the modern church is currently facing would disappear.


The Passing of a Favorite Scholar
I just learned of the death of Richard Price on New Years Day. Brother Price was the co-author with his wife of  the two volume work, "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy,"a book that has had a profound impact on my own personal quest for truth.  In spite of having suffered a stroke two years back, Brother Price continued to post additional chapters free online under volume II. Richard's wife will continue to post additional research which you can obtain for free online here.

Rock On The Radio
Last week I was the guest on K-Talk Radio's Paul Duane Show in Salt Lake City. You can access and download a podcast of that show by clicking here. 


408 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 408   Newer›   Newest»
Inspire said...

Big Dave,
That would indeed be a problem if this were not the case:
"For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, 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. For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know 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. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, 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. And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."

The Lord outlined in his own words (in 3 Ne) what his doctrine is, and what it means to be "perfect." This seems like the standard to follow. If we want to go off on our own definitions of good and evil, we do so at our own peril and risk of being deceived.

Big Dave said...

Inspire:

I'm not sure what you are getting at, and what you personal agenda is. Are you saying we don't have the right to speak out against evil behavior because it classifies us as judges?

Are we really just supposed to sit back and watch the world go by, ever minding our own business, and never saying a harsh word to anyone?

It is the easiest thing in the world to sit back and do nothing. It requires no commitment, no belief, no conviction. It makes a person lukewarm about everything, and the lord says that lukewarm water is spit out of the mouth.

It seems as if you are judging me with your argument. I really don't understand where you are going with it.

Inspire said...

BD: Just asking questions. But it's interesting that you think I am judging you. Is it possible that others feel the same way about being judged regarding what you have to say?

Obviously, we're not meant to be bumps on a log our whole lives. By saying "walk a mile" with someone, I interpret it to mean that we have compassion for them, their background, their struggles, and avoid condemnation in any form "while we are in the way with them." Of course we have our personal convictions and tastes/beliefs. Rock himself said that being gay wouldn't suit him, but he is empathetic in his approach for others who favor this lifestyle.

Right now, you and I are walking together, along with hundreds of other people reading this. When I condemn your actions or you condemn the actions of those who are now walking with us, we are not "agreeing" with each others' plight. We are not demonstrating the long-suffering which the Lord exemplified.

Forgive me if you feel like you are being judged. I am responding this way because I have been in the chair of condemnation. It truly does boomerang back to us, and I would hope to spare you and others the misery that accompanies it. But I'll hush up.

Gary Hunt said...

A number of years ago I read a great quote from Thomas Pynchon: “if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.” In my opinion, both sides of the issue of same-sex marriage are asking the wrong questions.

The state took over control of marriage in the mid to late 1800’s. They did this by passing marriage and licensing laws. Some of the justifications for doing so are listed below:

1. White Abolitionists would help black slaves escape to a fee state then marry them. When the slave owners tried to get the slave back they could not because the law prevented them from taking another person’s spouse. The states passed licensing laws to prevent this from occurring.
2. White people didn’t want white people marrying black people so the states passed licensing laws.
3. Then there is that perennial favorite subject of polygamy. Marriage and licensing laws were passed to prevent this behavior.

Most people do not realize that this battle was decided a long time ago when “the people” demanded that “there ought to be a law!” If the government hadn’t taken control of marriage, I doubt it would be an issue today. People would be able to freely associate with each other under their own terms, as long as they didn’t violate the rights of others.

In reality we should be asking questions about what we can do to free marriage from the state and create a separation between marriage and state. The state would rather have us arguing over “red herring” issues such as same-sex marriage when we should be asking questions about more important issues, such as what we can do to stop the states works of deception, plunder and murder.

Big Dave said...

Gary Hunt:

I don't view SSM as the trivial matter that you and others obviously do. You make it a non-issue by suggesting that there are far weightier matters for us to attend to. I can't prevent murders. I can't prevent plunder. I can't prevent a host of other crimes other than by advocating punishment as a deterrent. What I do have a say in is SSM. Even then, it is an issue that will probably be decided by the courts, because the government has not listened to the voice of the people on this matter. But don't worry, SSM will be the law of the land soon enough, and then nobody will have a say in it anymore. Then we can turn our attention to those other matters that are really important that we have no control over either.

Esp said...

I have been taught that if we allow SSM it would cause the church to eventually close the temples?

Gary Hunt said...

After reading your response to my comments, it is obvious that you did not comprehend what I actually said. This is unfortunate because if you actually understood what I said you would see that I do not fit into your two little narrow and convenient categories of for and against.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Yes, Big Dave, acts of violence are condemned in latter-day scriptures, and abortion is an act of violence.

I do happen to be on record as standing in opposition to that particular brand of violence. For a few years when we were more able, Connnie and I were associated with the Sacramento Life Center, which assists young women in crisis, providing medical assistance, maternity clothes, baby clothes, counseling, and all the kinds of support a young frightened mother would need, including adoption services when chosen.

So I'm familiar with that battle front. I even appeared in and came up with the title of a widely distributed video, a few years back, entitled "An Informed Choice" which should tell you how this battle should be fought: not with protests or coercion or judgment, but with sympathy, charity, gentle persuasion, and love unfeigned. These tactics have proven more effective than protesting and condemning.

Again, I don't see how the crime of abortion can be compared with two people of the same sex deciding to cohabit. I may not approve of that lifestyle for myself, but unlike abortions, same sex marriage is not an act of violence against any person.

That's why I care about the abortion issue but have nothing to say about same sex relationships.

It's curious that we were the only members of the LDS church, as far as I could tell, who were associated with the aims and goals of the Sacramento Life Center, though many members of other faiths were as active as we. I believe that is because Mormons are not currently encouraged to oppose abortion, but they are encouraged to oppose same sex marriage.

In this church, sadly, most of the members must be commanded in all things because they don't seem willing to be actively engaged in a good cause unless they are approached by their priesthood leaders and assigned to do something.

James said...

We create what we speak about, we build what we give our attention to. If Saints spoke about building the Kingdom of Zion within our own selves as much as we pay attention to the sins of men, Zion would be here, and Christ amongst us.

Gary Hunt said...

Big Dave or anyone,

I have a question. Is there a difference between sin and evil?

BearDeGuerre said...

Just off the top of my head I always thought that the definition of sin was ERROR. And the definition of evil was a descriptive of being in A VILE CONDITION. But as always I could be in error, which I guess would mean I'm "sinning". Is there a difference?

garytucson said...

Rock:
This is perhaps THE best treatise I have ever read regarding what we, as latter-day saints, SHOULD be feeling and doing regarding this very touchy subject. I applaud your level-minded, even-handed and Christlike approach

garytucson said...

Within the realm of language, evil is generally accepted/used as a noun and sin is generally accepted as a verb.

Within the realm of Christianity, my take is that evil is a state of being or a way of thinking contrary to divine law, while sin is an act contrary to divine law.

Perhaps this is more semantic than you were seeking. Since a sinner is an evil-doer, apart from the semantics, the two words could certainly be used interchangeably.

Just my two-cents.

BearDeGuerre said...

Amen James. Amen.

Gary Hunt said...

BearDeGuerre & garytucson,

Thank you for your comments they are very helpful. This question has been on my mind for about the last year or so. I have alway believed they had the same meaning. It is true that there is a significant amount of overlap in the definitions of these words in the dictionaries I have consulted. Both of you have pointed out some differences. One thing I found which seems to be different is in the intent of the person committing the act. Most dictionaries added words such as malice, mischief, desire to injure or cause harm to others etc... when they were defining evil. Again thank you for your comments.

Annalea said...

I'm traveling, and the last few days have been wholly consumed with packing, prep & travel. It has given me a chance to unplug from the back & forth of the conversation, and meditate on the topic.

One day, driving somewhere, wondering why, when God showed men so clearly what today would be like--including plenty of the things I saw last night in downtown Tampa as my friends and I were hunting for some dinner at 11:45--why He didn't lay this issue out for us in more clarity and more detail. And it occurred to me that the *last* thing on earth I'd want my ward members (or, frankly, anyone) doing is weighing in on my incredibly personal relationship with my husband. That's an area of supreme vulnerability--a place where injury is so easily inflicted. I don't want to try to imagine what it must be like to have that part of someone's life under the microscope or in the spotlight.

People, we really, REALLY need to leave this one between each individual and God. "But what about worthiness? What about ordinances?" you ask. Well, the way I understand it, if we went back to the model of church membership the early Christian church used, I think that would fix a SLEW of sticky points. Back then (and there is some evidence that this was how the Book of Mormon peoples did it as well) you weren't a fellow citizen with the saints or belonging to the household of God until after the second baptism of the spirit.

The second baptism changes the countenance. It introduces a light and knowledge to the eye that's so easy to see and feel in your heart when you have received it, too. It changes everything . . . and that's what Alma was talking about when he said "Have you received His image in your countenance?" and "If ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, can ye feel so now?"

THAT should be the focus of our church work. Honestly, that's the final effect of everything Jesus ever really told anyone to go and do.

He is the Great Physician. He is the Healer of hearts. He can work in His children the changes necessary to bring them to Him, whatever they may be. And until then, our charge has ALWAYS been to love, serve, and rescue the wounded, as did the Good Samaritan.

I really can't see any justification for doing anything else.

Big Dave said...

Annalea:

I wonder what Joseph Smith's reaction to same-sex marriage and homosexuality would have been?

Big Dave said...

Without opening a huge can of worms, I would just like to say that for those of you that believe in some sort of final judgment, and Armageddon, and antichrist scenario, just ask yourself what the agenda of the powers of darkness is. How do current events in the world fit into that scenario? I think you will find that same-sex marriage is not a harmless issue; I believe it is one of many issues that fit into a greater puzzle.

P2 said...

I am new to this blog, but am finding it quite entertaining, and refreshing.

My dad was excommunicated about a decade ago for being homosexual. He was the high priest group leader, and it came as a huge blow - the news of his sexuality much more than the excommunication. It has taken me years to come around, but it is honest and loving posts like yours that have helped me really love my dad again without reservation or conditions. He tried for over 50 years - including about 30 years of heterosexual marriage and being a father to 7 kids - to "cure" himself, obviously without avail, and I am finally able to feel real compassion not only for him, but for the countless others I know of who are struggling ("in the closet") to be "worthy" by killing themselves slowly day by day, full of guilt, confusion and hopelessness. I hope that one day we will all be able to love and accept each other as brothers and sisters - as most of us claim to already be doing.

Thanks again

Anon101 said...

And what if we believe the things you mentioned are fairy tales told to us as part of Satan's plan to distract us from caring about each other and stir us up to contention?

PS - are you on the Strengthening the Members Committee?

BearDeGuerre said...

Hi P2. I want to thank you for your post. Yeah, it's truly a very heavy burden those of us who live with this condition carry 24/7 365. I completely understand what you've been through. If I might share, my dad was both in the Bishopric and in the stake High Council of the Garden Grove, CA stake. When he & my mom found out about me, they were devastated. After some years of mutual evolving, before my mom died, she told me how grateful she was that Heavenly Father gave me to her and both my parents told me how happy they were that I was their son. There's nothing in the world like a great set of parents!

Steven Lester said...

Mr. Big Dave. I realize how boring your life would seem if you didn't have a big cause to energize it, but you have made two statements which are, as yet, unproven.

The first is that "the vast majority of Americans are against it, etc". On what do you base that opinion? What surveys (recent, mind you, like within the last three months, say) have told you this?

The second is that you are not "hating someone, I am hating something, and that is a big distinction". If you would like to oppose homosexuality, please define just what about homosexuality you would oppose? If the condition itself, you can oppose it all day and all night and it would still exist unabated because it is physical and as natural as being straight, and derives from the same source. If you would condemn the expression of being gay, that is saying that you have the moral right to deny a fellow American the same right to live his life as he wishes for his own happiness, which is something that he or she does not claim over you. That is bigotry. That is not equality. If you really want to stem the tide of homo-evil, then move to Nigeria. There you would find a wonderful world of bigotry, far more brutal in its application than would ever be allowed in this country. Homosexuality exists everywhere, Mr. Big Dave. Join the people who hate it as much as you do. You would be much, much happier there. You might call it a small field for doing the work of the Lord, but they need you there, to be a soldier of the white (I'm sorry, the black) Christ through the application of hate, death, and brutality. But, don't worry, Mr. Big Dave. Jesus will still forgive you in the end. He forgives everybody, because we all are imperfect, and because Heaven couldn't care less what takes place on a tiny point of rock located in a boundless ocean of space, although religion would have you believe It does, because then they have their power over you.

Steven Lester said...

The still-present problem with the definition is contained within the question, "what Divine Law are we talking about?" There are many, as you know.

Steven Lester said...

Considering that it existed back then as well, perhaps he had nothing to say about it. It didn't pop up out of nowhere during the last 50 years, you know.

Steven Lester said...

That story makes me feel really warm inside. I'm SO glad it turned out that way for you.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I don't see how, Esp.

Permitting others to live their lives without our interference should not lead to others interfering with us.

Steven Lester said...

From an unpublished book that I was once given to review:

About two years ago a gay member of the Oakland, CA stake, gave a talk and it was given and read for him by someone else.

In it, he makes the following plea, which I personally think sums up what a lot of members of the LDS church who are dealing with Same Gender Attraction are silently asking for from their straight LDS counterparts. In his talk he states the following:

‘You know who I am. You have been seated next to me in meetings. You have greeted me with enthusiasm when you have seen me in church. You have heard my voice in prayer. Yet, I wonder how many of you would treat me less kindly if you knew the truth. I wonder if you would judge me- however mildly, however inadvertently, however silently. I don’t want pity. To pity me is to make me a victim. I want understanding. To understand me, is to love me as an equal. I don’t want tolerance. If I’m tolerated, I am disliked or feared in some way. I want respect as a fellow striving child of God - an equal in his eyes. I don’t want acceptance. To accept me is to graciously grant me the favor of your company. To accept me is to marginalize me with the assumption that I am less than you. I am your peer. I am neither above nor below you. I don't want judgment. My path may be different than yours, but it is a plan built for me by a power greater than anyone of us in this room. To judge me, is to judge the designer of that path. I do not want to be viewed as a mistake. My path on this Earth was prescribed uniquely for me, just as yours was. It was designed to give me the experiences I need to grow as a child of my Heavenly Father. To view me as a mistake is to view Him as a maker of mistakes. On a cosmetic level, we are very different, you and I. You have spouses, or the opportunity for spouses. I do not. You have children, or the opportunity for children, I do not. (Although adoption is an option in most states. SDL) You are attracted to those of the opposite gender, I am attracted to those of my same gender. What I want most of all is for you to look past the cosmetic. I want you to look at what makes us the same: the simple fact that we are all children of our Heavenly Father, and we are struggling day to day to understand how to best do his will, and how to return to Him. It is that similarity, brothers and sisters, that weighs more than all the cosmetic differences in the world.

This young man expresses my heart better than I ever could. It is filled with dignity, which bigotry ever tries to diminish, or destroy if it can.

Big Dave said...

I would say that your position is not scriptural...

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:18-32)

Big Dave said...

Steven Lester:

I see no reason for personal attacks. You are way out of line.

Big Dave said...

Esp:

It is not really a stretch of the imagination to believe that once same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states, that there will be some gay Mormons that will file law suits claiming that if they are not allowed to be sealed in the temple it is discrimination.

Given the way things have been going in out society, it would be naive to believe anything else:http://www.mormonchronicle.com/gays-to-be-married-in-the-denmark-temple/

BearDeGuerre said...

HERE HERE! Just about sums up my entire a-g-e-n-d-a (as some would like to characterize it). Thanks Steven.

Big Dave said...

A very emotional and anecdotal argument that is unsubstantiated by scripture.

Anonymous said...

Rock,
You've mentioned that a revelation from God must include 3 steps: 1. It should be specified as coming from the Lord using terms such as " I the Lord", or “Thus saith the Lord”, etc. 2. It must be written. 3. It must be pondered and prayed about by the membership and then voted on. This seems logical but is there a quote from Joseph (or other prophet) regarding these three requirements for revelation from God?
Also today, general LDS membership will declare that all words coming from general conference are classified as “modern revelation”. As such we’ve developed a culture of blind obedience being elevated over the inquisitive, seeking mind. In fact, simply asking questions regarding talks by general authorities can classify a member as rebellious or contentious. To me, this is troubling because it eliminates the agency to seek inspiration, and thus further learn, from things we read or hear in conference.
This raises the question. When Christ said “Obey my Commandments”, or “Come follow me”, should we pray and ponder before acting? Is it any different when a prophet says “obey”, or “wear one earring”?
PJ

Steven Lester said...

Mr. Big Dave,

Generally, those who are the most vocal against Homosexuality, often using scripture and hateful power-words to demean it and by extension those who are the situation itself, without empathy or love, are actually condemning themselves because they are themselves gay and hate themselves for it, and are deeply frightened that others will find out. So, they have (and will in the future) hidden (and hide) under the protection of an anti-cause of the thing they hate.

Thou dost protest too much, with too much anger, abnormally. Be careful. People might begin to suspect what the truth really is, if so.

Big Dave said...

Hey Rock'

I also have a question about scriptures.

You say that Nephi classified the Bible as a "stumbling block", and therefore you do not believe in the Bible, unless the same teachings can be found in the Book of Mormon. How is it that Joseph Smith first read James 1:5 in the Bible, and as a result initiated a chain of events that culminated in the Book of Mormon?

The Bible was the only scriptural reference that the Smith family had, and it obviously had a positive and profound effect upon young Joseph.

Anonymous said...

I love your blog and all the truth you bring to light. You're a good investigative reporter. I have noticed lately that it's hard to find information online anymore that used to be easy to find. Any search I do only brings up official LDS sites, rather than non-official sites which have more information. I've been hearing a lot of talk about the new "workforce" of missionaries with their ipads and how they are optimizing their sites so people can't even access sites the church doesn't want you to see. I'd love for you to do a story on this, if you take requests.

andrew said...

other than the 'boring' line, I see no ad hominem. he is clearly attacking one of two specific positions he has laid out, of which he is asking which side you stand. or offer a third. but either way i'm interested in your answer

Jay said...

Ezekiel 14. If we only speak the language of idols, God will talk to us "through the multitude of our idols." It was explained a couple is posts ago when Rock did a review of Daymon Smith's book.

Bert said...

Big Dave, have you read 3 Ne 12? Plenty of substance there.

PNW_DPer said...

What Steve, you mean that Romans 2:1-3 might apply to many of these highly vocal homophobes?

That being said, I do not think living a homosexual lifestyle is necessarily a positive thing, but I think we have more important issues to deal with, especially the violence that permeates society, as I have posted previously.

Big Dave said...

PNW_DPer:

D+C 123:12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness.

15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves.

17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.

BearDeGuerre said...

Dave- Are you trying to say through insinuation that all of those testimonies I've heard from others and given over the pulpit over several years...testimonies of spiritual growth, testimonies of the unspeakable joy that comes from receiving forgiveness, testimonies of the truthfulness & veracity of the gospel of Jesus Christ, testimonies of eternal gratitude;...99 (ninety nine)% of them EXTREMELY emotional and ALL of them oh so terribly anecdotal...are somehow NOT as worthy of regard because virtually none of THOSE testimonies can be squared with the scriptures? Not even indirectly.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply Dave.

(P.S. Please don't think I'm shouting with the caps; it's for emphasis only because I haven't figured out how to bold or underscore with this machine yet)

Anon101 said...

I know, I know... wrath and judgment of God, worthy of death, blah blah blah. So going by the same New Testament you quote, are YOU the one Jesus was talking about who was without sin? I knew we'd eventually find that guy. We feel honored to have you among us. So I guess you alone have the right to continue your stone-casting.

Big Dave said...

BearDeguerre:

That was not a testimony that Steven Lester quoted...it was a personal rant to serve a personal agenda.

I sympathize with your personal struggles. You are not alone. I have personal struggles as well. Forgive me for being insensitive.

BearDeGuerre said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

LDS Anarchist said...

Rock, have you read my (very many) comments on Justin's Marriage Equality post? If not, see:

http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/marriage-equality/

Also see my comments on Justin's Marriage Equality post that he published on the Wheat and Tares blog. (He linked to it on the LDS Anarchy post.)

Finally, why do you distrust the Bible so much? The Book of Mormon does not name the book that has plain and precious parts missing from it. Why do you assume it is the Bible? Also, Mormon specifically says in Mormon 7:8-9--

"Therefore repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ, which shall be set before you, not only in this record but also in the record which shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews, which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you. For behold, this is written for the intent that ye may believe that; and if ye believe that ye will believe this also; and if ye believe this ye will know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them."

So, why do you doubt the Bible?

Big Dave said...

Jay:

Here is what some of Daymon Smiths peers have to say about him:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2010/10/d-smith-is-a-sinner/

Big Dave said...

Jay: Here is what some of Damon Smith's peers have to say about him:
www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2010/10/d-smith-is-a-sinner/

Big Dave said...

LDS Anarchist:

I read your main comment on Wheat and Tares, and it is amazing. I have been stumbling around the subject but your analysis is impeccable.

Well done my friend :)

LDSDPer said...

@Orchid,

What you said was beautiful and very much the way I feel--

My crisis of faith hit at Utah State University 44 years ago--

wow--

Jesus Christ Is the answer.

LDSDPer said...

GH, you said it better than I did.

Anonymous said...

Rock,

I enjoy your blog immensely.

This post will make some people angry and upset. I apologize in advance.

My basic philosophy in life is to leave everyone alone and let them do their thing. So when this topic first starting coming up my position was very similar to yours.

However, after further thought and study, I realize that allowing state license of same-sex marriage does in fact have an impact on others and therefore I now oppose it.

1. Changing Definition.

When I entered my marriage contract, it had a particular definition. Man and woman. That definition has now been changed. It means something different. In fact, marriage no longer has any definition. I know that some argue this is not valid as it doesn't change the union you are in. This is incorrect analysis though. Anytime the state changes the definition of a contract retroactively, it affects the current contract holders. Also, it changes the value and definition in society which has its own costs.

2. Those opposed to this behavior are now forced to treat it as equal to man-woman relationship.

I am perfectly willing to let people who wish to pursue this lifestyle to pursue it. However, I have every right to not associate with those persons. This changes things. I am now legally bound to treat same-sex couples as the equivalent of different-sex couples. This is a gross violation of each of our civil rights. We are being told through legal force that we cannot discriminate based on behavior. There are already multiple legal cases where this is an issue and people are being forced to associate and interact with these couples when they don't want to.

Anonymous said...

3. Entirely different than inter racial marriage bans.

I have seen people trying to make this equivalency and they are 2 entirely different things. Inter-racial bans never tried to redefine what a marriage is. The subjects were the same. Man and woman. They tried to manipulate the adjectives. So "Black" men/women and "White" men/women wouldn't be licensed.

Same Sex marriage on the other hand is changing the subjects. While marriage has always been man/woman and the descriptors/adjectives had been regulated, we now have changed the subject for the first time in recorded history. When you change the subject, you have fundamentally changed the meaning which affects all of us.

Also, your racial heritage is a scientific fact which you have no control over. This is unproven with homosexuality. The idea that you are born a homosexual and can do nothing about it has no scientific basis at all, although it appears that most judges and same sex marriage supporters act as though it is fact. All of these ideas about civil rights hinge on the idea that people are born this way. If it is simply a learned behavior, then there can be no violation of civil rights at all.

4. Since there is no definition, everything must be permitted. And you will be legally bound to honor it.

If we have established that we can change the subjects and therefore create a new definition for the same word, then there is no reason it cannot be changed further. And you will be legally bound to treat it equally in your social dealings whether you like it or not.

Rock, there is nothing stopping you and I from getting married today for business purposes. For inheritance reasons. To avoid paying taxes on family work. Etc. Although the courts have indicated that the civil rights of homosexuals are being violated because they cannot marry the person they "love", there is no way for the courts to validate that people are homosexual prior to the marriage (nor should they). "Love" has never been a requirement in any legally sanctioned marriage. these new business relationships do affect you in a myriad of ways.

There are other arguments, but this will suffice for now.

In essence, my thoughts are this. I do not want to be forced by threat of state violence to associate and validate people who practice behaviors I do not agree with. I do not want the state to change the very meaning of the contract I entered into retroactively. Each of these is actually a violation of my civil rights.


Jay said...

Big Dave,
You are quite a piece of work. You scoff at Daymon Smith because he is a scholarly PhD, yet you support his "peers" in their accusations against him (casting stones yet again). You say you have read some of his writings, but you can't even answer your own question about the main thesis of his latest volumes.

I could go on and on about your inconsistencies, but I think you should just keep continuing the way you are, because it really helps the average reader with common sense to see the truth about your agenda, or whatever the purpose is behind your rigidity.

Inspire said...

Anonymous,
Just some quick responses to your list:

1. Changing definition: The State changes contractual definitions all the time. When slavery was abolished, there were a great many contract holders who lost their "property." Just because the State makes changes, it doesn't mean that they are immoral (isn't that the very purpose for such a flexible Constitution?). Why not rejoice with your gay brothers and sisters in that now they have an equal opportunity for "the pursuit of happiness?"

2. Forced to treat as equal: it is, of course, is a personal thing, in regards to who you associate with, but the question now is, "Do you feel superior to and claim a right to more privileges than a gay couple?" Whose civil rights are being violated here?

3. The common consensus now (based on studies) IS that being homosexual is not a choice, rather, it is genetic. Even the church acknowledges this. But now instead of telling the gay person that they should be cured of it, the church preaches that a gay person should have a life of celibacy. How joyous for them!

4. Legally bound to honor: Society evolves, and so do its laws, contracts and definitions. If the general populace agrees that if a man wants to marry his goat and give said goat all the benefits that the law extends a married couple, then I suppose that's how it's going to be. But people are reasonable. Most will realize that being gay is nothing like the scenario I described, and would clarify the definition if that becomes an issue.

My guess, Anonymous, is that you DO associate with all kinds of people who you don't agree with. At some level, that would be every person on the earth. But Christ made it quite clear that charity is not agreeing with the person next to you. It is walking a mile with them DESPITE the fact that you don't agree with them, OR it is agreeing (empathizing) with them while you are together.

My guess is that you are going to live a pretty boring and isolated life if you only associate with those who agree with you.

Anonymous said...

Inspire, I appreciate your response.

#1 - Slavery is a poor analogy. On its face, a human being being the property of another human being violated their natural right to freedom. There is no equivalency at all with same sex marriage. And I never rejoice when force is used to make people live up to the ideals of others.

#2 -- Your question is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with my statement. We should not be using violent force (the state) to violate the natural rights of others. Forcing someone to do business with and accept same-sex married couples is a violation of the natural right of property, even if you think it immoral to do so.

You have no right to have someone do business with you. You have no right to their labor or property. So obviously, the rights of those not sold to cannot be violated. I realize since the 1960's the courts have stated otherwise and treat businesses as public institutions. The courts have been wrong. Civil rights only exist in an environment where the force of the state is used to render the abstract of social justice. They do not exist in an environment where the state only protects natural rights and lets individuals live as they will.


#3 -- common consensus is simply mob rule. There is no science behind it. The Church's position is irrelevant unless it comes through revelation from God. The current attitude has no more validity than the previous attitude. And ultimately the church has nothing to do with the state, which is force.

#4 -- The Goat is rather a ridiculous straw man. I was implying non-homosexual business marriages, which will evolve into corporations of "families" when polygamous marriages are again instituted.

People may try to institute laws that violate our natural rights. However, they should be rejected at every turn.

You use the terms "society" and "consensus". Frightening terms for those who believe in individual liberty. It is under these banners that most injustice is done using the force of the state.

Inspire said...

Well, I guess I'll have to pull the ace out of my sleeve:

"...if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail— But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him."

I'm not sure about you, but I consider that a "revelation from God." And apparently it never fails, while all other things will. So then the question becomes simply, "Is my position charitable?" I won't answer that for you, but I'll bet if you asked some gay associates, if you have any, they would honestly respond.

Anonymous said...

Inspire --

I'll turn it back around. Is using force through the state charitable? Is it charitable to force others at the point of violence to support what you perceive to be moral?

I won't answer for you, but I'll bet if you asked some homosexual associated, they would honestly respond.

Inspire said...

LDSA,
I can't answer for Rock, but here is my question: who says the "record" you cite in Mormon 7 (the one coming from the Gentiles to the Jews) is the Bible as we have it? There are fruits of the prophecies made about this "book" by Nephi, Mormon and Moroni (and the Lord Himself):

1. It will be "convincing." - What we have from the Bible is a thousand different sects, all proclaiming their interpretation to be the correct one. Yet, the two Personages told Joseph that they were ALL wrong.
2. It will contain the "plain and precious truths" and covenants made to the fathers - As was stated, the things contained in the Bible are anything but plain. Otherwise, all the different churches would not be contending over its meaning.
3. It will go from the Gentiles to the remnant of Israel - As far as I know, this hasn't happened. The church, except in its very early days, hasn't even feigned an attempt to locate the Remant and bring records to them.
4. It will cause the Gentiles to come out of captivity "forever" - I guess you could define "captivity" differently than I do, but I would argue that we are still In bondage, as much or more so than Columbus and the Pilgrims were when them came across the ocean.
5. It will cause Israel to "no more be confounded" about who they are and the covenants they made with the fathers - If this has happened, I am not aware of it.
6. The Bible fits the description of the corrupted Book of the Lamb - what other book originating from the "mouth of a Jew" which would spread to all the "nations of the Gentiles" fits the description by the angel?
7. Our current understanding - the earliest Biblical transcripts we have are dated at 200 AD, and even these are believed to be based on an oral tradition. Given the changes which have transpired in the D&C, leaving us to doubt the authenticity of some of its writings (and the agenda of the "historians,") it is likely that even more changes were made to the Bible (especially knowing that there would be the formation of a "great and abominable church" who had a sinister intent).

Thus, the Bible has become the means that we Gentiles go around and around in circles. This discussion is a good example. One person tells us the Bible says that gay marriage is denounced by God, while another says Christ teaches tolerance. We bicker about it, pulling our favorite Biblical scripture (often out of context) to prove ourselves right. We did the exact same thing with the Book of Mormon, turning it into a Bible to "restore" all that historically Christian church stuff, when the Book of Mormon gives us no such commission. Where are the fruits? Where are the promised miracles: the healings, the speaking in tongues, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing? Where is Israel? Where is Zion?

This is why I doubt the Bible. It doesn't match up with the prophecies as the "book" you mention. I realize that it is a tough thing to have to toss out every theory of heaven and the nature of God that we have, and start over from scratch. But I believe this very thing IS the commission of the Gentiles: to repent. To be "born again."

Inspire said...

Touché. If you're comfortable with your charitable position, and I'm comfortable with mine, then I suppose only time will tell which one will "endureth forever." Let's meet back here in 50 years (admittedly not "forever," but at least farther down the road) and compare notes.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

The link worked for me, and it was very well reasoned. I disagree, of course, about Neo's belief regarding Joseph Smith's marrying 14 year old girls, but that is the conventional understanding of the majority of members who have not been exposed to the undoctored history within the church, so I can't fault him for that.

With that caveat, I think this is a well reasoned argument and deserves to be shared far and wide.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Dang it, Gary, you practically wrote everything I planned to way in my follow up post right there.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I don't see that happening Dave, because marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The State granting a license to two people may then give those people a legal right to wed, but it doesn't make it lawful. They would be married in the eyes of the state. No Church has to recognize a state licensed marriage.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

PJ,
As for the quote from Joseph Smith regarding the qualifications for recognizing revelations in the early church as founded by Joseph Smith, I recall reading his statements in more than one place. I'm not in a position to find the source for you right now as I'm scrambling to catch up with the comments made these past few days when circumstances have kept me away from my blog, but I'll try to find it at a later date. Life is a bit hectic right now, so if any other readers can provide that answer for PJ, I'd appreciate it as it may take me a bit of research to put my finger on it and I really don't have the time to spend here for the next few days.

Meantime, the evidence -as well as common sense- shows us the historical means by which revelations were received and recorded. It may not be a requirement to use the precise words "thus saith the Lord" but as we can see the Lord identifies himself in some way as the speaker in all those parts of the D&C that purport to be revelations.

Further, it was understood that the Saints were to get a personal witness regarding each individual revelation and then vote to affirm their acceptance of it. Years after the prophet's death, what we now know as the Doctrine and Covenants was canonized. But that still doesn't mean everything in it is the word of the Lord. We can easily tell what is and what isn't by who is speaking.

As for your last question, I find it much easier to recognize the voice of the Lord and obey that than to assume the Brethren deserve obeisance based merely on the office they hold.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Dave,
I'm left scratching my head as to what the author of the piece opposing Daymon Smith is trying to get at, and further how that has anything to do with Daymon's recent work and my review of it.

That critique was written three years ago about a dissertation of Daymon's that has nothing to do with his recent work. Still, it isn't informative in the least.

The author objects to Daymon Smith criticizing the corporate church and the efforts that LDS Inc has been making in trying to influence Mormon scholarship. Fine, I get it. But where is his argument demonstrating showing Smith is actually wrong?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

LDS Anarchist,
I should have known you already had a comprehensive dissertation on this topic, and had I been on the ball I would have searched your site for further insight.

I am so woefully behind on keeping up with your posts that it is a shame unto me. But this endless dialogue has prompted me to consider doing a followup piece on whether or not gay marriage is "Lawful", and I am resolved to finish reading what you have to say about the subject before I do.

As for your question about my opinion about the bible, I think Inspire's answer covered my views on the subject better than I could have.

LDSDPer said...

I've read through all the most recent comments about this issue, and I think it has nothing to do with the issue at all--

the fact is that nowhere in the scriptures is it found that we 'fight' evil. Nowhere does Jesus say or command that we battle anything--

we are to be righteous ourselves; we can't force others to be righteous. We know how the crusades ended; they ended badly.

I've been thinking a lot lately about some of the discussions on Mormon blogs about contention. We are commanded not to contend and not to quarrel or not to let our children quarrel with each other.

Righteousness is a choice that an individual makes, and one righteous person determining to be righteous does more good than ten people trying to fight evil--

the idea that militancy is Godly or that militancy will get *us* anywhere is just wrong-headed.

We have hymns full of 'battle cries', but the fact is that the Lord did not command that we fight anyone.

The idea that *we* are righteous if we are engaged in fighting evil is what I think is false--

and yet as LDS we tend to judge those who are engaged in fighting things as being the most spiritually alert--

rather than those who just try to live the righteous life--

big Dave said...

Rock:

The author is claiming that Damon Smith lacks the detachment of an objective anthropologist, and therefore, his commentaries don't meet the standards of scientific anthropological analysis.

Brian Johnson said...

Well this much I can say about sexual orientation. If what the church teaches is true about a pre existence and heterosexual sex was the only way to get to our second estate, I can promise you that not one soul there would have been in favor of same sex marriage. Because if abortion ends a life by choice so does same gender attraction. I do not support same sex attraction I did not come from such a union. Its backwards against nature and is missing the mark...(sin) And it concerns me that the majority of people in the world are all for it. The war in heaven continues.

Big Dave said...

LDSDper:

Your argument is one that has been used by many. God has sent a multitude of prophets out to minister to the people through the ages and to tell them that they were wicked and to call them to repentance.

The argument against same-sex marriage is not specifically condemning any one person, it is condemning a behavior. If someone crusades against same-sex marriage it is no different that crusading against war. If you are crusading against war are you condemning individual soldiers?

God warns people of their evil ways before destruction comes...he did it with Noah, he did it with Nephi, he did it with Mormon, he did it with Joseph Smith, he did it with Samuel the Lamanite, yadda, yadda, yadda. You seem to think that there is something inherently evil about warning your neighbor. God does not think this way.

The City of Enoch was taken into heaven because all evil was eliminated from their midst. This is what it means to be Zion, this is what it means to be as one. Zion can never be established as long as evil is suffered to exist in our midst, and the establishment of Zion is something that the Lord told the early saints to do over, and over, and over again in the D+C.


Doctrine and Covenants 97:21

21 Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—the pure in heart; therefore, let Zion rejoice, while all the wicked shall mourn.


Doctrine and Covenants 64:38

38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.


Doctrine and Covenants 82:14

14 For Zion must increase in beauty, and in holiness; her borders must be enlarged; her stakes must be strengthened; yea, verily I say unto you, Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments.


Doctrine and Covenants 101:41

41 Behold, here is wisdom concerning the children of Zion, even many, but not all; they were found transgressors, therefore they must needs be chastened—


Doctrine and Covenants 61:16

16 And it shall be said in days to come that none is able to go up to the land of Zion upon the waters, but he that is upright in heart.

Bible dictionary:In a wider sense all of North and South America are Zion (HC 6:318–19).

Gary Hunt said...

Rock,

Go ahead and expand on the subject on your follow up post. I just scratched the surface. I am looking forward to it.

You might be interested in this seminar on Natural Law by Mark Passio. This is the first part of a three part series. Each part is 2-3 hours long but worth the time.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUHN3gNxWo

Big Dave said...

Jay:

Who is Damon Smith that I should listen to him? Is he a prophet? He is attempting to dissemble the church by going back through historical records just like so many naysayers. I suggest you stick to the scriptures like I try to do. And yes I am casting stones at Damon Smith because he lacks objectivity, which is absolutely necessary for an anthropologist.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Dave, I can certainly understand why you would be attracted to the essay opposing Daymon Smith's Book of Mammon, because the author titles it "Daymon Smith is a Sinner" and I know how enthusiastic you are about applying that label to others.

Still, had you not been so self-righteously boastful about not reading anything Daymon Smith has to say, you would be aware that, like you, he advocates that Mormons stick to the scriptures. That, in fact, pretty much the entire point of his Cultural History of the Book of Mormon.

It would appear that your opinion about Smith has been formed by a jealous critic whose opinion seems petty and irrelevant to those of us who have actually read Smith's works. For heaven's sake, author TT's most stinging criticism is that Daymon's book is self published. Well, I don't know how things looked for TT back in 2010, but today EVERYBODY self publishes. It's the smart way to go.

Does Daymon Smith come off as sometimes snarky and abrasive? Sure, but that's what makes his writing entertaining. And I'm sure a lot of it stems from the continued frustration of seeing Mormons rely on cultural assumptions about their faith rather than the actual scriptures that have been given us.

TT seems to want to be the one who defines the parameters of Mormon Studies, and you will forgive me for being suspicious of people like that.

Big Dave said...

Rock:

Interesting that you are more than happy to criticize leaders of the Mormon church and pass judgment on them when they arguably have a claim to authority over the people on some level, even if it is just corporate or advisory. Yet you give credence to people like Damon Smith that have an ecclesiastical axe to grind and are not objective scientists, not called of god, and not sustained by the people.

Although I have issues with church leadership, unlike you I do not openly criticize them by name. I do as the lord has instructed and take my grievances to the proper authorities. Damon Smith, Denver Snuffer, JJ Dewey and the like have no authority, they have not been sustained by the membership (like all current LDS leaders are), and they are just false prophets that think they have authority to set the lord's house in order when they do not.

I begrudge the fact that you claim that I like labeling people sinners. It is you that has openly labeled the leaders of the church as sinners. I have not singled out a single individual as a sinner, not even Damon Smith. All I said is look at what a peer has to say about Smith. I suppose it is a crime to you to present a balanced view of Smith.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Big Dave Says to me:

"Interesting that you are more than happy to criticize leaders of the Mormon church and pass judgment on them when they arguably have a claim to authority over the people on some level, even if it is just corporate or advisory. Yet you give credence to people like Damon Smith."

Dave! You finally understand me!

Big Dave said...

Rock:

This is your blog and you can believe what you want. I am not going to post here anymore, because I am obviously coming across as self righteous, and you are coming across as hypocritical.

I. Willet deVale said...

Aw, darn it. I was just settling in here for my Sunday recreational reading, and now I learn the only guy keeping this comment section going has called it quits.

I would have liked big dave to elaborate on why he thinks you are a hypocrite, Rock. I should think a hypocrite would be a person who claims to believe one thing and then demonstrates by his actions that he does not.

You, Rock, have always been very vocal regarding your belief in the teachings of the gospel as revealed by Joseph Smith, but just as vocal in crying against those in the positions of gatekeepers who have been diluting the true teachings of Mormonism. You don't say one thing and do another. As far as I have seen you have been consistent in your love of the restoration and just as consistent in calling out those who have added to the gospel without any authority from God.

I guess Big Dave's definition of Pure Mormonism is blind obedience to the corporate leaders. And his definition of a hypocrite is anyone who refuses to follow the false prophets he believes in.

In my book a hypocrite is one who claims to follow the teachings of Christ but then places obscure old testament passages in the forefront of his beliefs. Even though none of those passages ever quoted the word of God directly.

This church sure is full of bible thumping baptists.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I do indeed intend to address this business of Internet Missionaries one day as I learn more. Meanwhile, the best source is the blog "One Who Is Watching" who discovered several comments purporting to be from different users all coming from a computer which he was able to trace as owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

BK said...

Big Dave,

If we have the Holy Spirit as our guide and Christ's words we don't need a prophet or church to guide us, even though true prophets are always wonderful to have around, but I don't believe there are any true prophets in the LDS Church. I believe Joseph Smith was the last true prophet and that the LDS Church is just the Church of Brigham Young, for it teaches his doctrines and not the doctrines of Christ, so it can't be Christ's Church.

Being spiritually independent is not anarchy. Most people who have lived on this planet have had to find and live Christ's teachings without a true church or true living prophets. And many have successfully done so and become so righteous that they became prophets in their own right, even without ever knowing of or belonging to a Church, let alone a true church.

So being 'spiritually independent' today not only can be done but I believe must be done if we are going to keep from being deceived by the false prophets in and out of the Church.

Only those who believe in and live exactly according to Christ's words and who can receive revelation directly from God will be able to stay righteous and stand independent of any Church today.

Righteous people do not need a middle man in their relationship to God. Prophets are only meant to help the unrighteous repent, for they don't have the Spirit to get revelation on their own, so someone else has to do it til they repent and can get their own revelation.

The righteous don't need prophets, they can receive everything and anything on their own from the Spirit, that prophets would have told them. The righteous are even prophets themselves. We must all be prophets if we want to gain Exaltation.

BK said...

Calleen,

It's nice to hear of someone else who can see that Joseph was the last true prophet that we had. And while I believe that a true prophet/s will be on the scene soon I don't believe they will have anything to do with the LDS Church, any more than they would the RLDS or FLDS or Catholic Church, for I don't believe any of them are the true continuation of the original Church that Joseph started, even if they do promote the Book of Mormon.

For I believe the LDS Church does far more harm than good, as it preaches and practices and accepts things that destroy the family and faith in God. I believe Brigham Young and those who followed him in leadership were the false prophets that Joseph warned the Saints about. But many didn't listen to Joseph and followed BY anyway and the rest is history.

It will be wonderful when true prophets finally arrive on the scene, and I agree that only those who are honest truth seekers and those who truly believe in and live Christ's teachings, will recognize them. Most of the world and members of the Church will consider them false prophets because they will preach contrary to what the Church is teaching, because the Church teaches contrary to Christ.

Lindy said...

Awesome post Willet. I wish you would respond more often, you have a great eye for the truth!

BearDeGuerre said...

I don't know about the rest of you, but this topic has me almost completely worn out! Eagerly awaiting your next topic Rock! Hope it's soon...

LDSDPer said...


@anonymous at 11:00

Satinover; I checked him out, an Orthodox Jew (some of them are really good people, many or most probably)--

and a conservative; he quotes the Talmud. I'm not saying that the Talmud isn't a useful historical tool and for many it's a religious tool that is valuable, but it is an entirely different thing from the Torah, and the use of one or the other separates Jews and pretty much tells non-Jews who have looked into it what the political and religious and societal perspectives of those holding on to either one of them might be--

That said, his credentials might be impressive in some circles, but I've spent my life around people with initials after their names--lol!

And so quoting someone because he/she has those initials doesn't do much for me--

Yes, obviously he has done research, etc.

Someone very close to me has a severe illness that is not popular with medical practitioners, because they can do nothing about it; no drugs or surgery will work on this problem; it's one of the 'invisible' illnesses--

this person has no gender identity issues and is not outside the 'mainstream' with regards to gender, but just as well be, because of the way *he/she* is treated by most mainstream Mormons and others--

it takes the medical profession about 20 years to catch up with alternative researchers, and then, finally, they will acknowledge something like MS or other invisible illnesses, but until then a person with that unacknowledged disease is on the defensive, constantly--

not only does he/she have to deal with the disease itself and its debilitating effects, but he/she has to fight off the notion that it is 'all in your mind'--

a very destructive thing for someone who has 'bigger fish to fry'--

Ah, the naysayers my loved one has met--

people with degrees in all sorts of things, not to mention medical doctors--

people with ph.d.s in so many different areas who smirk and say, "oh, you THINK you have this illness; well, ha, it's NOT an illness, so there!"--

as that person struggles with the effects of a very real illness--

red flag #1--the talmud; yes, it's important to be aware of its existence, and if you can slog through it, go ahead and read it--
but it's not the word of God, not even as far as it is translated correctly--

the Torah has the pentateuch; the Talmud is a compilation of rabbinical interpretations--

so if you want jots and tittles according to 'wise' Jews, go for the Talmud; if you want Moses, go for the Torah--

these two philosophies among Jews are often at war, almost literally--

I do NOT know if homosexual feelings/traits are genetic or if people are born with them or not--

but I won't be so cruel as to tell someone that he/she is not experiencing something he/she is experiencing--

and I know that at least one active Mormon woman who worked extensively with agricultural chemicals before and during her pregnancies with four boys--

and out of whom three of them are 'homosexual' believes that the pollutions of the last days rendered her sons homosexual. She doesn't blame THEM for what happened with chemicals when they were forming--

what a cruel thing to do--

evil and conspiring men and the things they do go VERY deep--

and yet *we* punish the victims--

it's one way that people try to validate themselves and their culture, punishing the victims--

LDSDPer said...

@anonymous at 11:00

The Talmud is a compilation of the pentateuch and rabbinical writings/traditions--

The Torah is the pentateuch (writings of Moses or first five books of the Bible)--

The adherence to one or the other of these books often defines the religious and political beliefs of particular Jews; in other words, they often do not agree; often the disagreement is intense.

Generally, Jews who rely upon the Torah alone are the ones with whom I can most easily sympathize, so when someone lists the Talmud as an 'authority' I tend to cringe.

Also, I have been surrounded by people who have initials after their names my entire life, so I'm not that impressed with Satinover's credentials, though I sense they are meant to be VERY impressive. Satinover seems quite impressed by them. *lol*

The fact is that people with initials after their names have:

--said that Gulf War syndrome is not real

--MS is not real

--MCS is not real

--fibromyalgia is not real

because these are things that are caused by chemicals (pollutions of the last days) and don't bring much money into the medical profession, because it's hard to cure people from chemicals by using chemicals (that is an overly simplistic explanation, but it will have to do)--

The fact is that when people with an illness have to defend themselves from 'experts' who say their illness if not real/valid, then they have a double burden. Not only do they live with pain and disease, they have to protect themselves from attacks by the experts that their illness is all . . .

'in their heads' or psychologically induced.

This man seems to have the same opinions, and whether or not they are true or have valid underpinnings--

I think it is cruel to tell someone that what causes them to suffer is not real--

though 'experts' are very good at doing that.

I know at least one 'active' LDS mother of four sons who has had three sons with SSA--

she worked heavily with agricultural chemicals before and during her pregnancies with all four, and three of them have SSA--

she is convinced (also because of problems she has had herself) that those chemicals hurt her boys and caused them to be homosexual--

she has chosen NOT to push them away; why blame the victim?

And yet that is what Babylon does; Babylon blames the victim, so that those who profit from hurting other people can continue to profit--

Babylon--

get the connection between the Babylonian Talmud and Babylon?

Oh well, some people can't--

the works of the evil and conspiring men and women of the world go deep--

make someone sick and then deny they are sick--

it is profitable for all who would seek to profit from the misery of others--

I have NO right to tell another person he/she is not suffering--

it is certainly not Christlike, but I am beginning to think that being Christlike is not a trait many LDS value--

LDSDPer said...

Big Dave, on another essay (the one for December)

I promised Rock and you that I would no longer respond to your posts, because you claimed I was 'goading' you--

I want to keep my promise. My hands are tied. I won't/can't respond to you. Obviously neither you nor Rock saw my apology about 'goading' you--

our discussions would never end; you have one perspective; I have another--

neither of us will change; nor will we convince the other that we have valid beliefs--

LDSDPer said...

apologies for two similar posts; I had trouble with the computer, saying it wouldn't accept the post--

and then it did.

Sorry if anyone reads both; they basically say the same thing, though not exactly--

LDSDPer said...

Brian,
You sound young, bless your heart. I'm glad that you are glad that you were born and that your parents allowed you to be born. I have the same feelings, and it's nice when we can share them.

I do know a few people who were born and whose parents were heterosexual who wish they hadn't been born--

because life was so truly horrific. But then, we are here to be tested.

The fact is that there are many other reasons why children can't be made; there are so many reasons beyond homosexual "issues" that can cause people not to be able to make babies--

sometimes the people who can't make babies are REALLY good people who LOVE babies and would give them all the love and truth and hope that any human being could give to a child, but they can't make babies--

so the logic falls . . . down.

By your logic, which really isn't logic, anyone who can't make babies is sinning--

maybe you don't see it that way. Up above Gary Hunt makes a point for learning about logic, as does Rock in another essay (one he did in December 2013)--

I find that it is very hard to discuss anything with people who do not think logically--


I admit that *I* do NOT always use good logic; oh, nobody is perfect--

but the fact is that if not making babies is a sin, then people who are born with all sorts of deformities and physical problems that affect reproduction who . . . have all the necessary heterosexual leanings, etc.--

are sinners. That is implied in your argument. I know you don't see it that way, but if you would read Gary's post about reason and logic--and if you would read the part of Rock's last essay blog about it, you might understand.

I LOVE heterosexuality, and I LOVE marriage, and I hate divorce. I feel a bit the way that Jesus did when He said, "he who is without sin, cast the first stone"--

as a heterosexual in a happy, VERY long-term marriage and only married once (both of us)--

until I can make a difference in the world by decreasing divorce--

I don't feel that I can accuse anyone who doesn't have heterosexual leanings--

of being sinful. We ALL sin; we ALL fall short of the mark--

and one sin needs the Savior as much as another.

As for calling others to repentance, it is imperative that we teach one thing:

Jesus Christ and Him crucified--

His atonement; what He did for everyone--

because we are all sinners--

all of us.

And so, yes, the war in heaven continues. But try not to take out those who are fighting on *your* side--

you never know why they might be--

and that is what is tricky about this mortality business--

*peace*

LDSDPer said...

I'm with you, Bear--

I could continue the argument about race, though, but that discussion died a happy death a week or so ago--

:)

I find that since most LDS are white, race and the priesthood isn't a big issue--

and since most black LDS are just GLAD to have had the priesthood restored, they prefer not to make a lot of noise either, because they know what it is like to be marginalized--

so that leaves just a few troublemakers like me who like to run it into the ground--

*laughing at myself*

I don't think that this issue (the SSM/SSA thing) will be resolved as long as people don't understand different political beliefs.

If you believe that marriages of ANY kind should not be state regulated, it's hard to talk to someone who wants to fight SSM--

at least we can agree to disagree, but it's very hard when someone takes a 'holier than thou' stand and accuses others of not caring about 'the gospel' if they choose not to fight the same battle--

or not to fight at all--

there are not many true LDS libertarians--

don't I know it--

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I saw it. And you are clearly wiser than me for deciding not to respond further in a debate that will never end.

Anonymous said...

I have a couple comments. I could write thousands of words on this topic but will try to keep it short with some bullet points.

1) There are several different perspectives from which we can approach this issue: Religious, Social, Secular, Political.

2) Any one of these perspectives can lead to a disagreement with the institution of gay marriage or gay parenting.

3) From the religious perspective I disagree that the gospel is silent on the issue. It's true that the BOM and D&C doesn't specifically identify homosexuality by name. Although it is given more direct treatment in the PGP. But the scriptures also don't address domestic abuse by name either. It is not meet to be commanded in all things. The scriptures are our "Constitution," from which we can, as a church, and individually, draw millions of spiritual laws. The scriptures describe a natural order which is not in keeping with homosexuality. Everything about homosexuality is deleterious to our eternal goals.

4) From a social and secular perspective the same argument can easily be made. I feel I could write books on this perspective alone. Putting it simply, there is no gay gene. Research overwhelmingly suggests that homosexuality is not natural, not a product of nature, but a product of nurture. From a biological perspective it is at odds with evolution. From a social perspective how is it good for society? We could go into a discussion about homosexual culture and discuss their behavior patterns and study how happy these people actually are. They aren't happy. Their lives are miserable. Much has been done to mask this and make them appear normal, but it simply isn't true. They are a depressed people. Homosexuality is no different than any other mental health disorders, like depression. Would it make sense to try and treat PTSD with violence? No, of course not.

5) From a social perspective it also doesn't serve to advance our society in any way... gays can't have kids. And this also raises the issue of gay parenting. Through adoption or some other means gays can acquire kids. Is this good? No, it's not. Research into child development strongly shows that kids need both a mother and a father. These genders have distinct and important roles that are essential to child development. Forcing children into the hands of gay parents is frankly child abuse. Here's a link just to show one person's perspective on this: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

Anonymous said...

6) From a political perspective there are several angles we can look at. Some seem to be of the mindset that it's not "fair" or "equal" to deny gay couples the right to marry. Well this begs the question of whether marriage is a "right"? I do not think it is. And it also begs the question: what is marriage? Historically marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is specifically a heterosexual thing and it's whole purpose is to encourage people to have children and raise families. And this is the reason for tax breaks for married couples. Having a family, rearing children and establishing a homestead is good for the government and perpetuation of our society.

8) Politically, if you're going to redefine marriage as not being about families and children, then what is the point of marriage at all? Why does government care? It shouldn't. My personal opinion is that the government should not be in the business of regulating interpersonal relationships of any type. Government should not have the authority to encourage, discourage, or otherwise enable or prevent personal relationships of any form. Do we need a sheet of paper from the government in order to have a relationship? No, of course not, and this attitude is ridiculous.

9) We can also discuss this from a Constitutional perspective. There is the attitude that it's "unconstitutional" for a particular government to deny gay couples the right to marry. I disagree. Our Constitution is meant to protect individual liberty. It is not meant to force cultural hegemony from sea to sea. Part of individual liberty is the right to define marriage. Where is the word "marriage" in the Constitution at all? It doesn't exist anywhere. State governments are not required to be in the business of marriage at all. Could a state government not simply end the practice of state-issued marriage licenses altogether? It's their decision whether they want to encourage people in their territory to enter into a personal relationship called "marriage." And likewise it's also their decision to define what "marriage" is. Wanting heterosexual couples to get married and responsibly engage in sexual activity for the purpose of adding productive members to the society is a very different than normalizing a destructive behavior.

10) Politically, the gay marriage issue also then dovetails into a number of other political issues. Like tax law, deductions, credits, etc., As well as educational curriculum in public schools. Then there is adoption and sperm banks and surrogate mothers. Do gay couples have a "right" to children? Well what does this mean? Gay couples can't have children, period. In my mind the only way they can have children is through some form of child slavery. A whole industry has to be created for the purpose of providing gay couples with these kids that they claim a "right" to. So to put this on context, what if years from now 25% of all people are in gay marriages? That's quite the child farming operation. Then there are other issues like employment benefits, as well as religious freedom. The liberals are already talking about revoking the tax exempt status of churches that refuse to practice gay marriages. So when you consider all these things, from beginning to end, we've got the government in the business of promoting a particular lifestyle, and not only promoting it, but FORCING everybody to accept it, even putting people's livelihoods at risk. If you express disagreement with the lifestyle this is a hate crime, discrimination, for which you should be terminated.

Anonymous said...

For me, as a church member, disagreeing with gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with my religion whatsoever. Even if I thought gay marriage was good and healthy behavior from a secular perspective, I vehemently disagree with the judicial precedents being set. Our country is quickly devolving into a mob. And this is something the gay activists don't' seem to comprehend at all. Grant the government this new power and a few years from now who's to say the public attitudes won't change? It doesn't look like they will, but never know. In a few decades these activists may find themselves subject to the very political lynch mob that they started.

LDSDPer said...

I have found that having opinions (whether anyone else finds them acceptable or not) doesn't change anyone's heart--

knowing that there are better ways to do ANYthing (families, health, education, work, etc.)--

doesn't cause those better ways to be implemented by anyone.

There is only one thing that can change hearts and minds and lives:

Jesus Christ.

He has to be accepted. He has to be taught. And if LDS refuse even to say His name or to talk about what He did, how He lived and died and what He taught--

there's not much hope for anything good.

Without Him all is lost.

I've seen a lot of scriptures quoted on this discussion, but seldom has anyone mentioned that Jesus Christ is the answer.

I say it now.

Jesus Christ is the answer.

LDSDPer said...

@anonymous at 8:51 a.m.

That goes for everything. I don't just pick out those who are promoting a pro-SSM political agenda--

it's happening everywhere, and it really is time for Americans and LDS to wake up--

but . . .

as long as *we* think that there are liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats and nothing else--

we remain blinded and angry--

the only healing, the only solution is Jesus Christ--

yes, bad things are happening in government and politics and in the justice system; I could tell you many things, even in my personal circle, that are happening that are gross miscarriages of justice--

and not just with regards to some kind of 'marriage'--

things are out of control in many ways--

I've been watching, and food prices are soaring, but the U.S. news media isn't talking about it--

stop watching the news--

and read your Book of Mormon is my advice to anyone who is churned up about political things and injustice--

it's everywhere; I think that when it begins to be our sensitibilities about morality, that is when LDS begin to wake up, but they only wake up a little and then fall back asleep--

Anonymous said...

I Don't disagree. This is my #3 point. If I were to make such a religious argument it would be based on the atonement and the 4 principles of the gospel.

I'm not sure what your point is though. We shouldn't have any opinions but just speak in platitudes about charity all the time? I certainly don't agree with that. Freedom is worth defending. People are influenced by opinions. If they weren't we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. Gay marriage is a thing because the prevailing attitude is that homosexuality is normal, and therefore nothing wrong with it, and therefore good.

If on the other hand you're saying people can't be forced to learn anything, I agree with that statement. This is why our policy in the Middle East has failed. Democracy can't be projected any more than religion or other moral philosophies. Nobody can be forced to learn a particular subject, understand it, and accept or reject it. And I don't think we should try to force anybody to accept anything. But what does that have to do with expressing an opinion? While others may not accept the knowledge, I still did my part by putting it out there. If it's not out there to begin with, then there is nothing for anybody to accept or reject.

LDSDPer said...

I'm reading where Mormon said that the Nephites mourned, and he HOPED they would repent, but they were only mourning over their losses, not unto repentance--

if *we* only mourn SSM and not over all the cruelty and injustice and ugliness and lack of Christian charity in the world--

then we are like the ancient Nephites, who were only sad that they couldn't 'win'--

but couldn't see that they needed to repent and accept their Savior--

there has been a lot of talk about evil and wickedness on here and warning neighbors--

but it's not about immorality we need to warn our neighbors, even if we find any kind of immorality repugnant--

it is about our mortal condition and our need for a Savior that we need to warn our neighbors--

calling people to repentance isn't about: "you have to fight liberals and SSM"; it's about, "you need Jesus in your life; you need to repent; He'll fix everything if you just accept Him and repent"--

but we LDS love to think that it's not that simple--

so much cultural baggage--

Inspire said...

I'm with LDSDPer. What did Christ teach? Mercy and acceptance. Sure, we can have our opinions about being gay or anything else. But to some reading this, being gay hits home, because they have to deal with everything that goes with it on a daily basis. So we can argue some platitude or abstract principle. But gay people aren't principles. They have feelings, desires, failures, successes and share in this human experience.

Notice what Rock said in his title: Why I don't care if YOU'RE gay. He is walking along with his brothers and sisters and addressing them directly, saying, "While your lifestyle doesn't appeal to me, I accept you and love you. A belief you have which differs from mine isn't going to divide us." At least that is the feeling I get.

Notice too that after Christ appeared in Bountiful, and his Gospel went forth on the land, that eventually, there were "no manner of 'ites' among them." Does this mean that every person who was converted became a clone of the person next to them? Common sense says this isn't the case; rather, they accepted each other despite what differences they had. Like Christ, they were "perfect" (or at least "perfected") because they happily walked a mile with their neighbor, regardless of their outward diversity. They didn't put some abstract label on them assigning them to a group (an "-ite.")

There are real people attached to these "principles." Why can't we strive to understand each other, rather than tossing out accusations and condemnations when we are just as much beggars before God as the (gay or straight) person next to us?

Annalea said...

One Little Sparrow,

I just came across your thoughts on polygamy (with which I totally agree, btw). Here's something that I think will make a lot of sense to you:

http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp18.htm

That article explains what Jacob 2 really means . . . how if Gods wants to raise up a righteous seed, "I will command my people" doesn't mean that God will tell them to get on with polygamy, but how He will be their God, and they will obey Him. That verse in Jacob has never felt right to me, not for as long as I can remember. God doesn't contradict Himself; so Him saying that he won't have His people do as they did in Jerusalem, and put His daughters through polygamy, and then turns around to say "But if I feel like it, I'll tell them to do it anyway."

Sorry, that's not the God I worship. It sounds like you don't, either. :o) You're in good company.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rock for your commentary on the 18th. Because of you I stop at every lemonade stand I cross.
PJ

LDSDPer said...

anonymous @ 8:40 a.m.

you speak of child farming--

I'm sure there is an industry--

but there are also orphanages filled with unwanted children all over the world and foster homes filled with abused and neglected and sad children all over the U.S.

The best way to prevent homosexual couples from raising these children and hurting them is . . .

to adopt them yourself.

*wink*

Our family knows several single women who adopted children from orphanages around the world--

These children don't care that they don't have a father, but they do care that they have enough to eat, hugs and a warm place to sleep at night--

and someone to take care of them.

There are terrible things happening to children everywhere, but not just heterosexual, married couples are adopting them; in fact, many such people don't want to adopt children--

most can 'make' their "own"--

the only way to 'fight' evil is to do good things--

I think you can find out on this site that there are hungry LDS children all over the world; there is a group of saints (literally) in Utah who are trying to feed them; you can donate to them--

I daresay that if someone who is homosexual or who can't bear children for some other reason or who hasn't been able to get married--

sends money to the Liahona Children's Foundation, those children won't find that food inedible.

Pure religion and undefiled is:

James 1:27--

doesn't say 'fight those who aren't unspotted'--

says "keep HIMSELF unspotted"--

that tiny point is one which many of *us* miss--

LDSDPer said...

anonymous @ 9:27--

There's not enough time in a day to do all the good that needs to be doing--

Yes, you have your opinions.

I really don't see how you can say that "everyone" believes homosexuality is "normal".

What on EARTH is normal anything?

See; we'll start talking about mores (root of morality) and norms (the word from which normal was taken), and we'll go round and round about that--

On this discussion people throw out the word 'homosexual' or "gay", and we've had several people say that they don't participate in the lifestyle, but that they are definitely experiencing those trials of homosexuality, that experience of being attracted to the same sex--

but one word alone is used--

and that is supposed to cover the entire spectrum--

Unless you are God, you do not know. There are SO many studies on SO many things, and it all comes down to which expert you want to believe.

What is normal? Nothing and everything. You say that I speak in platitudes, but I have just discovered in the last 15 years that life is not what I always thought it was--

I could have said all the things you said 15 years ago and believed it, but I don't know everything--

everyone has an agenda--

there are agendas on both sides, so I stay away from the sides--

in doing so . . .

I get involved in endless discussions on this and other things, trying to point out that Jesus Christ is the answer.

Fighting things is not. The Nephites didn't learn that, and they were destroyed.

Mormon hoped until the end.

I can't leave my home today, and I can't go out and feed anyone--

so this is what I am doing, and I am beginning to think I am wasting my time.

:)

peace--

?

Annalea said...

Big Dave,

Odds are he would respond to it the same as with any other thing he saw that didn't harmonize with God's will. Joseph was not a militant. Not Brigham Young. Not by a long shot.

Anonymous said...

Interesting thoughts

Anonymous said...

LDSPer & Inspire,

Respectfully, I have no idea what you two are talking about. Seriously, I'm not joking. I don't at all understand what you're saying. Perhaps you could put things into plain English. It sounds like you're suggesting we shouldn't express opinions...?!?! But that sounds a bit strange. So you're expressing your opinion that opinions should not be expressed? LOL.

Look, I never said things shouldn't be dealt with in a charitable manner. I have numerous LDS friends that suffer from SSM. They are my dear friends and I am proud to receive them in full fellowship. And because I love them I seek to help them through their trial, not reinforce the problem.

As for the child farming. So you think it's ok to FORCE a child into an abusive environment because, hey, they're already abused, so why the heck not? Gotta do something with them. I reject this. The fact that there are abusive heterosexual parents is quite beside the point. Perhaps we could set our sights a bit higher than the lowest common denominator. Children deserve more. They have rights too.

Also, it's a myth that there are an abundance of children who lack people willing to take them in. Simply isn't true. And also, the gay couples have a nasty habit of not being interested in adopting those who are in need. A white male gay couple for example doesn't typically want a black child and they tend to exhibit racism in their adoption preferences. So what do they do, they look for adoption overseas. This is why Putin put a ban on their children from Russia being sold to gay couples. Also, it's worth pointing out, in places like Russia children are often born specifically for the purpose of adoption. It's a business. It's not that some poor single mom did the noble thing and decided to give up her child so it could be raised in a family. Very often those kids were born specifically for the purpose of being sold under the guise of "adoption." Gay men were literally placing orders through people in Russia in this business. Want a blond white kid with blue eyes, or one with brown hair, or perhaps one mixed black and white. They can hook you up.

I find it rather disgusting actually that you would attempt to excuse this sort of flagrant disregard for the sanctity of life. Do you also defend abortion?

You say, "the only way to 'fight' evil is to do good things". What does that tripe mean? The act of opposing evil IS a good thing.

Annalea said...

Anonymous January 22, 2014 at 7:03 AM

(A quick "pretty please": could you pick a handle, leave some fictitious initials, or something, so those of us reading comments can have a hope of keeping track of things? Thankssomuch.)

I only have one thing to say: as one who has some contact with the foster care system in my county, I can tell you: there are a LOT of children who need healthy, safe homes. There's a lot of red tape between children who need homes and homes that want children. Foster care is in high need, too . . . especially for infants.

I don't know if that's the same state- or nationwide, but it's sure as hell true here.

Please remember before making sweeping statements: all generalizations are false.

Thank you. You may now return to your regularly-scheduled whatever. :o)

LDSDPer said...

anonymous who doesn't understand LDSDPer and inspire--

I know you don't understand. I can understand that.

What are you going to do about the 'evil' of same sex couples adopting children?

And why do you assume that *I* (I won't speak for inspire) defend abortion?

You are looking at things out of a liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat perspective, and you can't see anything else.

Above I read a discussion between Big Dave and Gary Hunt. Gary said something to the effect of, "you won't understand me, because I don't fit into your two categories."

For you there are the 'evil gay couples' (I don't doubt they exist) and everyone else, and children deserve the best.

Of course, they do. What are *you* doing to give it to them? Besides talk about the 'evil gay couples' who are buying children in Russia?

How many children from orphanages have you adopted, and do you have any idea how much damage it can do to those who are truly orphaned and truly abandoned . . . for you to say that adopting children from foreign orphanages perpetuates child selling?

Do you know personally? Have you gone through the process of getting a child from one of those orphanages? If you have, then I doubt you would be saying what you are saying--

and I have a fear that you will still not understand what I am saying.

All we can do, any of us, is to live a life full of light--Jesus told us to let our light shine; He didn't say "fight evil"--

there is a very big difference--

I talk about the sanctity of unborn life to everyone with whom I am on that level--

I don't carry signs--

and not all pro-life agendas are innocent--

I would LOVE to see Roe versus Wade struck down--

it is evil; it should never have happened, and I can't believe that America thinks that it has any hope as long as *it* continues to allow its unborn to be killed--

but I also believe that killing and maiming children in Iraq has been evil--

I believe that it is on America's hands that children are being born deformed in parts of Iraq because of depleted uranium (hope I have the right term)--

Maybe you have adopted a child who was conceived by rape; maybe you have adopted a child from a foreign orphanage whom nobody else wanted--

if so, then go ahead and share your experiences--

but generalizing about "evil gay couples" and Putin is really not getting anyone anywhere--

So, yes, I know you don't understand, and if you have found a way to stop the exploitation of children without adopting them yourselves--

then please share it with *us*. I'd like to hear about it--

You say, "the only way to 'fight' evil is to do good things". What does that tripe mean? The act of opposing evil IS a good thing.

your use of the word 'tripe' is very telling; show me the scripture that talks about opposing evil--and how do *we* oppose it?

Just talk about how evil evil is? And make people who aren't fighting evil feel badly--

people who are TRYING to feed hungry children and people and save children in a very personal way--

don't need a lecture on fighting evil--

you truly do not understand--

LDSDPer said...

I wonder if you are Big Dave or the other person who believes it was wrong for blacks to get the priesthood . . . come back as just another 'anonymous'--

I won't expose myself and my family to you, because I suspect your genuineness; I think you are just another 'conservative' on a rampage, trying to tell everyone how bad everyone else is--

1--I don't even know any living homosexuals, that I am aware of, but I don't think it is my 'calling' to 'fight' them--

2--if you had been on Rock's blog a long time you will know that I put my money where my mouth is--but I don't feel good exposing myself to you--

You are wrong to think that I don't believe in people having opinions. If you have opinions of your own, please share them. But don't just pass on Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly or Gilder or that film critic who has the initials of M.M. (I can't remember his name); don't just parrot Fox to me--

I don't watch tv; don't have tv; I don't spend all my time trying to look for all the dirt homosexuals have done; I'm sure they've done plenty, but people who aren't homosexual have done enough dirty things--

I don't just target one group of people with some kind of sin and say, "these are the ones I will fight"--

but you either have not been on this blog long enough or you don't care--

either way it doesn't matter--

Jesus said to let our lights shine; I've tried. He never says, anywhere, "fight evil"--

He says, "follow me"--

there IS a big difference between being good yourself and going around trying to find evil to fight--

and if you don't know that difference, I can't do anything for you--

LDSDPer said...

@anonymous at 7:03 a.m.

There was a Christian preacher/philosopher whose name was George MacDonald--

he was the person who was responsible (Lewis claimed) for helping C.S. Lewis return to Christianity--

I happen to like C.S. Lewis, and though MacDonald's books are HARD to find, I have read quite a few of them--

one of the common themes in his books is that people go to church, hear a sermon about something good and then feel that they have DONE something good--

sometimes a person, if he/she 'preaches' something good will feel that he/she has actually DONE that good thing.

Well, it's not so. You have to actually DO the good thing to get credit for it--LOL!

*bit of tongue in cheek here, but meaning it*

You can't just talk about it--

Sometimes I feel that LDS LOVE to talk about 'fighting evil' or doing good, because it makes them feel that they have actually done it--

but it takes a lot more to DO something good than just to talk about it--

one of the pitfalls of being 'religious' is that *we* go to church, hear about being good and begin to think we are good, because we listen to people talking about good things and doing good--

it's a human flaw; we all deal with it to some extent--

sometimes on this site when I hear people go on and on about fighting evil and criticizing those who would rather take evil on by following Jesus--

and actually speak up and say they are TRYING to follow Jesus (however poor their attempts at it)

LDSDPer said...

I feel that I am hearing those who talk about how they went to church today, and doesn't that make themg good?

They heard about good things, so they MUST be good.

There is no SSM issue in the state in which I live. I'm not in Utah or anywhere near Utah (thank goodness--LOL!)--

I don't know anyone who is in a SSM--

I don't know anyone who wants to be. I don't know anyone who is an activist either for it or against it. I DO know people, quite a few who are:

--tending sick people who aren't even relations, at a personal sacrifice
--taking food to homeless people who are trying to get out of their homeless state(s), talking to them, encouraging them, listening to them

--adopting or have adopted quite a few children from foreign orphanges who were malnourished, crippled, sick, abandoned, etc.

--donating things they don't need to people who do need them; picking up the messy pieces of lives that have gone off the track

These are people I know, every day. I don't personal know an anti-anything activist.

I don't like war, so I proclaim peace. I don't like the killing of babies, so I . . .--well, I've done something about that, but I'd rather not talk about it--

I don't like hunger, so I do my best there, too--my best; it's never enough; I am never satisfied--

but, seriously, I don't have time to fight SSM and do the things I feel called to do--

so I really can believe that I won't be understood by some--

sadly, I have known anti-_________ activists; I have known quite a few from the past--
some of them are not very nice people--

I know someone who spear-headed the efforts of an entire region in California against that SSM proposal back in ------------- (whenever; I'm not from California either)--

I know this person quite well, too well; I am not connected closely, but close enough to see the effects on someone of 'fighting evil'--

This person is manipulative, devious, sees good in people and tries to destroy it--

a very borderline personality--

a very sad people whose family is a huge mess, because of his ugly spirit--

that is the only person I knew who . . . was involved in that--

and I stay as far away from him (and keep my loved ones as far away as I can)--

as possible; it is good that we live almost 2,000 miles from him and his close connections--

he sees evil in everyone and everything--

not a wholesome man. But he has a temple recommend. Bishops are terrified of him (NICE bishops who are not full of themselves)--

I don't know so much acrimony can be found in one person, and it puzzles me, but it is centered in this man--

and he was a big player in the church's anti-SSM program--

He did some terrible things to some vulnerable people I know, and they weren't even homosexuals; I can't imagine what he would have done to them, had they been--

*shudder*

So, this is honesty time. I met a SSM fighter, and what I saw was frightful--
I should have said this before, and I realize there MUST be those who fight SSM who are really good people--but I haven't met one. To be fair, I only met one, and he was a doozy of a bad dude--LOL!

so I am a bit wary of those people--

but then I generalize; I am sure there are those who participated who didn't have scary spirits/personalities--

Annalea said...

Anonymous 2:43, God is not the source of bad things. God gave us weakness because He sent us here . . . mortal weakness. And even then, it can be reasonably argued that it was our first parents that gave us those. God gave unto Adam & Eve to choose for themselves, introducing the possibility for weakness. But God doesn't hand out flaws and weaknesses like Santa dispenses presents. He knew that weakness would bring us to Him (Jeremiah 2:19).

Inspire said...

Anonymous:

1. Alma 12:10-11

2. From Joseph Smith: " There is one thing under the sun which I have learned and that is that the righteousness of man is sin because it exacteth over much; nevertheless, the righteousness of God is just, because it exacteth nothing at all, but sendeth the rain on the just and the unjust, seed time and harvest, for all of which man is ungrateful."

3. When I was a child, I was orphaned. Thankfully, I had loving relatives who took me in and provided a nurturing environment where I was raised. It wasn't the same for all of my siblings, however. One of them was abused and suffered great emotional damage because of the aunt and uncle who had care over them (yes, we were split up). I can attest that it would be better to be raised in a loving house by a gay couple than to by a hetero one (faithful Mormons, by the way) who were abusive. Please do not go making generalities of how a group "suffers from Same Sex Marriage" (huh?) and has a "problem" and a "trial." (see Point #2). I know gay couples who are doting parents, the kind I would have wished for my sibling and any others who are suffering.

Anonymous said...

Uh the Proclamation to the World: The Family is an official church publication and denotes the doctrine of the Gospel in regards to the family. Just saying...

Anonymous said...

LDSDPer, I still have no idea what you're going on about. Your style of communication is very disjointed and hard to follow. Your thoughts are frankly not very coherent. What's with all the dashes and breaking things up over a zillion lines? You talk about Limbaugh and Hannity and Republicans and Democrats... what in the world are you going on about? Have I made any type of political argument? I'm glad you don't watch tv, neither do I. You continue with platitudes about Christ and showing "light," whatever the heck that hippie nonsense is supposed to mean. Say what it is you mean to say. Be specific. Are you saying it's "wrong" to oppose gay marriage? It's an evil, un-Christian act? Is it an evil, un-Christian act for LDS Family Services to refuse to place children given up for adoption with gay couples? Is it an evil, un-Christian act for the LDS church to address SSA in a loving manner and recommend that those who suffer from this seek meaningful therapy? What, truly, are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

Inspire,

What is it you're trying to say? You think that scripture in Alma means we're supposed to support gay marriage? I find this scripture reference of your hilarious. Let’s examine the context of this scripture.

It takes place around 82 BC. Alma was out doing missionary work. The story starts around Alma 8. Alma was rejected in the city Ammonihah but an angel appeared telling him to go back, where he met Amulek who accepted the gospel and was baptized. Amulek then became a missionary and went around preaching with Alma in the region.

There was a lot of government corruption at this time. Lawyers were instigating legal disputes for the purpose of supporting themselves. So to this end the lawyers of the day decided to stir up trouble with Amulek and Alma. Zeezrom was one of these lawyers. He tries to bribe Amulek into denying God. Amulek refuses. A little question and answer session ensues where Zeezrom is rebuked by Amulek. He tells him a number of things, like how Christ will not save people in their sins. This takes place in chapter 11 and continues into chapter 12.

Zeezrom was silenced by Amulek’s call to repent and began to tremble, at which point he seemed to have a change of heart and began asking questions. At this point, in Alma 12:9, Alma jumped in on the conversation and, still talking to Zeezrom, explained that he needed to soften his heart and accept the truth and repent, follow Christ, etc… which is the verse you quote.

So, what is your point with this scripture? Alma and Amulek were pretty darn blunt in calling Zeezrom to repent. They were quite intolerant of sin. They do not in any way resemble the pacifist attitude you seem to be advocating for.

I don't understand the relevance of your JS quote either, one of his proverbs, which was about the inherent fallibility of man. Yes, many justify sinful acts as being righteous, your point? This seems a perfect description of those defending the "good" in gay marriage or parenting.

I appreciate your perspective as an orphan, but still not sure the relevance. Yes, heterosexual couples can be abusive too, your point? The fact that a particular gay couple "dotes" over a child does't make it an ideal environment. Yes, perhaps there is another environment which is worse, but so what? The lesser of two evils is still evil and this is an idea I reject when casting my vote in the ballot box. As church members we teach our kids to Choose The Right and let the consequences follow. You are not choosing the right, just whatever makes you feel good.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 1:40:

Great post. Funny how Rock gets these discussions going and disappears. It is almost like he wants to see what people write so he can know how to think. Not a bad strategy for a blog.

Inspire said...

I'm glad to serve as a means of providing you humor, anonymous. So much to laugh at in these conversations!

Like you said, you just don't get what I'm talking about, so we'll leave it at that.

PS - Thank you for the compliment of calling me a pacifist. Puts me in good Company. (Christ was very "intolerant of sin," as you know). (And by the way, that last sentence was said tongue-in-cheek).

LDSDPer said...

anonymous @whenever/whichever

You find my writing style disjoined, and now I am a hippie. And I think 'gay' marriage is good?

Go ahead and criticize my writing style; that's fine. I know it's not perfect. Hippie? Where did that come from? I never was a hippie. I'm in my 60s, though, and I like to garden a lot; does that make me a hippie?

I was wrong to assume that you are like the many (many!) LDS people I know (quite a few in my ward) who put up political things on their FBs (I don't have FB, but a family member shows me)--

about 'conservative' things; they listen to people like Hannity and Limbaugh and O'Reilly, and someone on this discussion earlier was mentioning Gilder--

Most of the LDS I know listen to these people and believe they are really great men; I don't. I apologize for assuming you do, because your arguments sound very similar to theirs.

I am beginning to realize that *we* won't understand each other. Or that you won't understand me. I do understand you, because I used to write/talk the way you now write/talk. I had a life-changing experience, and I don't have the same beliefs now that I did. I do NOT promote homosexual marriage; I have pointed that out several times, but, because I don't believe in fighting it, I am 'for' it?

That doesn't make sense, but I know that our perspectives are very different--

You didn't answer my questions about adopting from a foreign orphanage by the way, if you are the same "anonymous" who mentioned how children are being 'farmed'.

Sorry the hyphens and dashes are so disturbing to you.

One thing I know is that I got one thing out of the Book of Mormon before I had my life-changing experience(s) and another out of it since.

I also know that I read the Book of Mormon much more intensely now than I did 'before'--

quote/hypen--

peace--

10 And therefore, he that will aharden his heart, the same receiveth the blesser portion of the word; and he that will cnot harden his heart, to him is dgiven the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser aportion of the word until they bknow nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the cchains of dhell.

Inspire, that scripture/verse is very applicable. Thank you.

anonymous, what ballot box? I think that not all of us live in Utah. I think there is a 'fever' there right now over court decisions regarding SSM. It does seem that Utah is not headed for good things--

Speaking of scary things in Utah, I just saw this recently:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57358599-78/police-program-utah-1033.html.csp

Or is this newspaper not the 'righteous' one in Utah? I don't know; I don't live there--
I went to school briefly in Utah over 4 decades ago, and I seem to remember that this paper is considered "liberal".

As church members we teach our kids to Choose The Right and let the consequences follow. You are not choosing the right, just whatever makes you feel good.

the words of anonymous (above), whichever anonymous--to 'inspire'--

How do you know that inspire doesn't choose the right?

Now *you*, anonymous, aren't making sense--

but that's all right--

You've come really close to ad hominem attacks, and having to do that shows that you are struggling with your arguments.

But why argue? I don't want to. I live in a state where SSM isn't an issue, so I probably don't have anything to say that will be helpful to those who are embroiled out in Utah.

LDSDPer said...

which anonymous are *you*?

Why should I answer your questions if you just laughed at my writing style?

But I'm not ashamed of my beliefs either.

Not a fan of Ron Paul; I'm not a 'fan' of anyone, though I've watched him through the years. I didn't vote for either Mitt Romney or Obama, though--
No fan of Alex Jones. I don't believe the official story on 9/11. I am not sure how 'inside' it was, but I do believe there was collusion with various government agencies. Jewish bankers? No; I don't blame Jews for anything. I do believe there is an elite cadre, but I believe it is made up of people from all ethnic groups, races, etc. I don't like the federal reserve. Are you trying to button hole me? I don't know if you are friend or foe. I'm not a collectivist. Or I try very hard NOT to be a collectivist. I am on DP, and I'm not ashamed of it, but I don't 'worship' Ron Paul. He has flaws, like any man. But he's a good Christian. I like his political philosophies, for the most part; I like how he tried to defend the constitution--

What point are you trying to make? I found Rock Waterman on Daily Paul, and I came here. I am a pro-life libertarian. I want to know the truth about what is happening in the world, and I feel that D&C 88:79 makes that acceptable.

This is the only "LDS" site I've found where a person can talk about libertarian concepts somewhat.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but I find it difficult to talk to a lot of LDS, because they put people in one of two camps: Republican or Demorat or . . .

Liberal/conservative. I don't consider myself either one. I read the Book of Mormon a lot.

Now, are you going to mention how many hyphens I used?

That wasn't exactly kind, if you are THAT 'anonymous'--

I think that Rock had a good point when he asked people to give themselves some kind of name. I have used LDSDPer from the beginning, and I have never posted with any other name.

Perhaps I had better not respond to 'anonymous' anymore--

:(

or

:)

you decide--

Now, why are you asking me these questions? I was probably foolish to answer you as much as I did.

Please get a name.

LDSDPer said...

get a name--

I don't 'fight' SSM or promote it--

and I've read the proclamation. I have a copy of it. It has some good things to say, but it doesn't claim to be revelation from the Lord. THAT is what Waterman is trying to point out.

I can tell you, also, that it wounds the hearts of those who aren't living in their biological families. It's not just about SSM or SSA or anything like that; it also makes it quite clear that divorce is not a good thing, and yet LDS people do NOT fight divorce.

The hypocrisy in that is staggering. I don't fight divorce either, but I try to support people remaining married, and I leave SSM alone--

if I have fought for anything it is for unborn life to be protected, but by supporting those who choose to give birth under terrible circumstances. If I have fought anything with regards to marriage it is that I have argued for people remaining married, even under very difficult circumstances.

I think that marriage laws need to be ended; I think the government should have nothing to do with either marriage or divorce, and I think that it is highly ridiculous that so many LDS "wink" at divorce while becoming enraged over SSM.

I won't 'fight' either of them, though. I've learned that I can't. If someone wants to divorce, they will divorce, no matter how much I plead with them not to divorce. If someone wants homosexual 'liaisons' they will find a way to have them.

I can't change what other people do, only what I do. And I have a lot to work on--



Gary Hunt said...

LDSDPer,

Don't take Mr. Anonymous too seriously. He's just trying to get under your skin. What you have written is very clear and understandable. There is no need for apologies. I have been reading through his comments and tried to figure out how many logical fallacies he has commited. Actually it was easier to list how many he didn't commit. :)

Here's a good website which lists and defines Logical Fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

LDSDPer said...

Thanks, Gary Hunt. I have a feeling I have fallen for a troll. Back in the day we called them 'hecklers'. Now I think the internet term is 'trolls'.

:)

I need to watch my step more. I am afraid I am living very much in the past in some ways--

there was more civility then, I believe. And no internet.

*chuckle*

I don't pretend to be that great with logic myself, but I DO try. :)

Gary Hunt said...

LDSDper,

We all "step in it" every now and then. These "trolls" (I prefer the term psychopaths) have a pattern. They start off sounding reasonable at first. When you challenge their arguments they get a little more bold in their response to you. When they see you are not going to accept their position, they start getting nasty and attack you personally (Ad Hominem). This is their pattern. Refer to Doctrine and Covenants 52:14. Learning about logical fallacies can help avoid falling for their traps.

By the way. The scripture I quote above was given to me by a seminary teacher, as proof, that satan is a woman. :)

BK said...

LDSDPer,

I agree with you how the Church displays hypocrisy to allow divorce while it gets all concerned about much lesser things like porn and SSM. Christ was very clear that he allows no divorce or remarriage, yet the Church completely ignores his teachings and then harps on much lesser things, which I believe they will cave and support too down the road. I think it's just a matter of time before the Church allows SSM in the temple, just like they have come to accept and allow so many other things they once called abominations, like divorce and remarriage, disrespect and inequality of women, polygamy, ignoring the fatherless and poor, etc.

But I will say that doing nothing about these things is just what Satan wants us to do. He doesn't care that we don't fight him, he just wants us to do nothing. When good people do nothing then it helps him to succeed in his plans.

While we can't stop people directly from doing evil, we can stop supporting churches that support evil and we can stop supporting people who do evil, and we can speak up and urge our relatives and friends to repent from their divorces and remarriages, or other sins, though that means they will probably not want to talk to us anymore. We can only vote for leaders (even if we have to write in Christ's name) who will truly do all they can to make abortion, divorce and remarriage and other sins illegal. We can also financially help the single mothers around us, instead of giving our money to men who will use it on churches, temples, colleges, missionary work, malls and even their own salaries, instead of using it all on the fatherless as the Lord commanded them to. No church or temple no matter how much you go there will save us if we don't completely financially support and relieve the suffering of the single mothers and their children we know, 1st and foremost. Also we should expect men to take full comfortable care of their wife and children for their whole lives, even if the wife leaves him for whatever reason, for that is his responsibility and when he makes his wife go to work then the children or grandchildren suffer and he will be accountable for it.

So there are alot of ways we can stand for the right, for doing nothing in the face of evil is evil.

LDSDPer said...

oh, GH,

GOT IT! *groan*

I seem to remember that going around in the missionfield, oh, SO many years ago--

LOL!

LDSDPer said...

@BK--

I try to follow D&C 121 on divorce--

I try to use persuasion (and gentleness) to urge people I know not to divorce, but only if they are close to me--

I won't go up to a random ward member and urge him/her not to divorce--

my words have fallen on deaf ears most of the time, but a few times close friends heeded me--

once a person DID stop speaking to me (a very close friend), but remained married.

oh well.

Inspire said...

Anonymous/Big Dave/Mr. Strengthening the Members Dude/Whoever you are:

This is the "mystery" you aren't getting which everyone is patiently trying to explain to you: In pointing at the "sin," casting stones, making accusations, etc. you are setting yourself up for a like form of judgment.

It isn't about whether something you deem as a "mental disorder" is labeled "good" or "bad." Your sins will keep you from heaven just as much as someone else's will keep them out. I don't dare point my finger at someone else, because I know there are three fingers pointed back at me when I do so. (And please don't say that I'm pointing a finger at you now. Just asking questions).

You are welcome to your opinions and beliefs, and certainly you can vote your conscious at the polls. But why not be merciful to others in your outward expressions? Do you want the Lord to be merciful to you? Is she (Mercy) going to have claim on you when all is said and done? The only way she will recognize you is if you cling to her.

I dare say that there will be more homosexuals in Zion than condemners of it. Satan is the Accuser (JST, Revelations 12:10), but Christ would not cast a stone when given the opportunity (although he would have been justified in doing so).

We are all beggars before God. My hope is that we can emulate the Lord's "long suffering" with all our fellow man. Especially those who we don't feel is deserving of the rights we have. Isn't that the very definition of mercy?

Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous said...

How am I not merciful in my outward expression? This is what makes no sense about your argument, because it is out of context. Who here is saying we should be mean to gay people in any way? Nobody, so why are you responding to logical arguments against the political policy of promoting homosexuality as being mean? The implication is that you support homosexuality. You think it's good. You think it should be promoted. There is no lynch mob here, so quit acting like there is. Your arguments are dripping in emotion and are entirely misplaced and serve no purpose in the discussion.

Be nice to those who suffer from SSA. Be nice to "gay" people. Treat them with love. Got it. I don't disagree. What does this have to do with vehemently opposing homosexual activist who are trying to ram their lifestyle down my throat using physical force? You realize that right, whenever the courts or the government bosses people around, this is done with the point of a rifle... you will recognize our lifestyle, or we will kill you.

T1000

Wa said...

*testing*

Aw said...

That is exactly how Satan is working today. He is convincing people to fell sorry for gays. "They are just like us". I've wondered how people think it is an attack on individual gays when we try to stop SSM in the courts?

I suppose god really wants us to sit back and do nothing. We can come up with all kinds of excuses to sit back and watch situations develop. Meanwhile, Satan is marshaling his forces, using the civil laws to "force" the population to do what a small minority wants.

Arch Stanton said...

Ok, I got an account. I'm T1000 and Anonymous @ 12:48 PM

Aw, you hit the nail on the head. Another way it could be put is "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Arch Stanton said...

And while you're at it, can you get rid of the CAPTCHA? As an engineer I can tell you from first-hand experience that the CAPTCHA doesn't prevent SPAM bots from attacking a site. It's understandable to use it for "anonymous" posts, but it's really annoying to have to keep typing in these phrases, and often difficult ones that I get wrong and have to do over again, after creating an account and signing in with a password. If I'm signed in that should be proof enough that I'm human.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Welcome, Arch Stanton. Thanks for the identifier.

I share your frustration with the "Load More" feature, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it. Once the comments reach 200, the system forces us to go to a new page, and as comments continue to mount up, we have to keep turning pages to get back to where we were. It's the same for me as for everyone else, and I don't like it one bit.

As for the CAPTCHA feature, I hated to have to add that, but I did so reluctantly a few months ago because this blog was getting spammed at the rate of dozens per day. It's too bad I had to resort to this because I believe using this feature limits the number of commenters; I myself have been discouraged from commenting on other blogs for the simple reason that too many steps are required. But I don't see any way around it.

LDSDPer said...

@Arch Stanton and Aw,

I can't speak for 'inspire' here, but the tone of your writing is angry.

I'm going to say that this is no longer about SSM. I am not in Utah; there are no court battles going on where I live with regards to SSM. I don't know any homosexuals. I knew "of" one who worked with one of my children a few years ago, and I know "of" one now who works with one of my children.
I'm not immersed either pro or con--

The point(s) I have been trying to make are these:

Another way it could be put is "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

That is a very vague statement. What I am taking from it in the context of this discussion is that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing about what *we* want them to do something about"--

Good men do NOT 'do nothing'--

Good men work hard at doing many good things--

repeating myself here--

back to the points, since you might be the person who derided my writing style:

--if I do good in my life and it's not the good you think I should be doing or that YOU are doing--if I am not fighting battles but trying to do good deeds, why would you be so scornful of me? Why would you be angry that I am not 'fighting the battle' you believe is worthwhile fighting?

LDSDPer said...

You are speaking of one thing here, and I am getting the idea that if a person is not at the state capitol, carrying signs, calling representatives, getting groups together to FIGHT SSM, then they are worthless, even if they are 2,000 miles away from you, feeding the hungry and working very hard to take care of people with special needs--

This is the feeling I get from the angry words of some of the people on this discussion blog. *I* am letting satan 'win' (I won't capitalize satan, but some of those on here who are ranting about how WE must fight SSM seem to like to use his name a lot)--
if I am not making phone calls to Utah and getting angry about those horrible, violent people who will force me at gun point to allow homosexuals to marry.

Then I am a good person who is going to "hell", because I am not in your camp? If this is the case, then--

there is no talking to you. I believe in doing good, TRYING with all my heart to follow Jesus, and you want to rant angrily at me, because I'm not out in Utah fighting these violent people.

I think that those who are fighting SSM and those who are promoting SSM have a lot in common, and I think they are feeding the same monster--

for one thing, a LOT of lawyers are making a LOT of money out of this--
money that could go to feed the poor--

and there are SO many things that could be forced on *us* at gun point--
in the meantime, there are people who are hungry and cold--and I'm doing my best to take care of that--

I've tried to help some on here, if they will listen, understand that for *me* it's not about fighting; it's about following Jesus.

Jesus didn't tell me to fight anything. He told me to do good--

Go ahead and fight, but stop yelling at those of *us* who don't want to fight your battles--

I assume, because of your anger, you are in Utah, and you are very angry about what has happened there. I can understand that indignation; that state of Utah sold its freedom a LONG time ago, but people didn't become outraged until something like SSM came along--

Utah has been (the government) in a highly corrupt state for a very long time (no pun intended on the 'state')--

and has allowed the loss of many freedoms--

but this is the straw that broke the camel's back for many of *you*; I can understand that. But don't tell *us* that we are evil if we are not fighting alongside you.

Jesus said:

49 ¶And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is afor us.

He that is not against us is for us--

Arch Stanton said...

I got an account. I'm the OP for this branch and anonymous @ 8:51, 9:27: 7:03, & 1:40.

Daily Pauler, I didn't say you are a hippie, I said that your argument was "hippie nonsense." I have no idea whether you are a hippie or not, but your argument certainly does resemble that of a flower child. Don't take it personal, I tend to be colorful in my speech. And yes, your style of communication is disjointed. It is very hard to follow and headache-inducing, not literally, but figuratively. Your goal should be to express yourself in as few words as possible. Your most recent post is sprawled out into 29 different blocks of text. Twenty Nine. And all these hyphens, which I truly have no idea what they are supposed to men.

Example:

the words of anonymous (above), whichever anonymous--to 'inspire'--

How do you know that inspire doesn't choose the right?

Now *you*, anonymous, aren't making sense--

but that's all right--

This is painful to read. I'm not meaning to be rude or "attack" you, I'm simply expressing an opinion. An opinion most people would agree with. If you were the author of a book, few people would get past the first page. If you were the author of a blog, like say Rock, nobody would read your blog.

I love engaging people who disagree with me. Absolutely love a intelligent debate. But I truly have no idea what you're even saying. I get the sense you disagree with me, but see no coherent argument whatsoever. I would try to respond to whatever your point is, but I honestly have no idea what that point is. Perhaps it's in that mess of words and hyphens somewhere, but I'm really just not in the mood for puzzles. And I don't mean to be rude in saying any of this.

In the future, if you can't give me a coherent reply making a clear point, I'm probably going to just ignore you. Question for others reading this, is there any way to put a specific user on ignore so I never see their comments?

One thing I've observed in perusing the comments is that you seem to comment on everything. You reply to everything and always want the last word. It would be interesting to tally up all the comments and see how active you are compared with other users. Then perhaps we could have a discussion defining what an internet "troll" really is. In short, your activity pattern says a lot about you. Which should be a message to everyone here, but it's a message to me that you're probably someone to ignore and avoid. I apologize if I'm wrong, but to me, at a brief glance, your behavior on this thread flashes warning signs. Just like that crazy bipolar or schizophrenic brother or sister that you can find in a lot of gospel doctrine classes. It's not Christ-like to kick them out of the class, but you can't take them seriously or engage them either. It becomes an act of incredible patience and tolerance. I'm a new reader and I like Rock's blog a lot. He says much that I agree with, so I'll probably hang around and participate in discussions from time to time. I just really hope you aren't a problem child that turns every discussion into a tedious exercise in frustration. That would really be a bummer.

LDSDPer said...

I'm not against you in your battle, but I'm concerned that you don't seem to understand that there is more to being a disciple of Christ than "fighting evil", and I'm doing another work--

I've been trying to explain to you that there are some of *us* out here in LDS-land (but FAR from Utah) who are doing other things, and that doesn't make us 'bad' or evil--

I don't believe in fighting. I used to fight. I am no longer young, and I will fight no more forever (no humor; I admire Chief Joseph)--

I used to battle politically; I used to do all of that--

Now I just want to follow Jesus, and I do not find where He says to fight evil. But you can, if you want to. If you see that in the scriptures, that you are to fight evil, go ahead.

This is a political situation you are talking about. This is a political battle, and it's going to put a lot of money into the coffers of greedy men and women (on both sides)--

I just don't want to have anything to do with that anymore--

There should be no regulation on any kind of marriage; regulating 'regular' marriage has caused this heartache--

as a nation (and Utah as a state) *we* are now reaping what we have sowed.

It's hard to see, but in the meantime, there is still much good to be done, and I plan on doing it as long as I can.

Just be aware that your anger is coming through. Direct it at those people you are fighting, not at people who don't want to fight your battles--

you will have the anger until you decide you don't want it anymore--

In the second part of my response I said, "this is one thing"--

I mean by that: "SSM is one issue, and it has people SO upset; there have been so many battles to fight against evil, if 'fighting evil' is what *you* think makes a righteous person; why is it that THIS battle and this battle alone brings out so much energy, such much angry energy?"

I really wonder about that--

So many freedoms have been lost; so many innocent people have been killed, and where was all this energy when that was happening?

Arch Stanton said...

I take that to mean then that there is no way to restrict the CAPTCHA box to the "anonymous" posts?

Arch Stanton said...

Have you seen these?

http://www.tech.spoilertv.com/2012/05/troubleshooting-comments-for-blogger.html

http://www.stramaxon.com/2012/03/show-more-than-200-comments-on-blogger.html

I guarantee you there are fixes. If you would like email me and I'd be happy to help you resolve some of these issues.

Arch Stanton said...

Daily Pauler, TLDR! Using my L33t hacker skills I just did a quick analysis of all the comments on this thread. At the time of this post there are 349 comments. Out of those 349 comments, 63 are yours. You account for 18.34% of the comments on this thread. Taking into account words, there are 66,829 words in those 349 comments. In your 63 comments there are 27,742 words. You, one person, account for 41.51% of the words in this thread. And I'm not even considering hyphens and all your carriage returns. I'm going to make up a number now, but given that you account for 41% of the words, with all your line spaces, you probably account for 70+% of the length of this page. Which means most of this annoying scrolling we're all being subjected to is thanks to you. Perhaps we should have a discussion about what it means to be a troll.

LDSDPer said...

wow--

well, I will definitely avoid you. I'm sorry my writing style is painful for you. No, I'm not sorry. I had a hard time following you, too.

If I am the crazy bipolar person (wow, how harsh!), then you are the ward's mean person who can't say anything nice to anyone?

Let's agree to disagree. We are definitely not members of the same faith.

Yes, I respond a lot. I guess Rock has been very patient with me. I won't expose myself as to why I have, but I'll take the hint from you, mean as it is.

I'm glad Rock isn't like you.

But I guess I'll back away. Hey, you won. I hope people like reading you more than they like to read me.

I think you are right on the edge of ad hominem with me.

I have a lot to say. If I've been mean or hurtful to anyone, I am really sorry. I hope that people will speak up and tell me if my 'last word' has been harsh or mean. I have admitted to being opinionated. I have admitted that I can be argumentative. I'm working on that. But that really isn't your business, and I don't think I owe you an apology.

I won't apologize to the bully on the playground for being in his way.

So, I guess we've agreed on one thing.

You will ignore me, and I will ignore you.

You're mean. Ad hominem or not, you're mean.

Rock, I will respond less from now on.

It's not Christ-like to kick them out of class, but by saying that, you think you are being Christ-like?

Wait a minute. But you're being patient and tolerant, correct?

I hope you've gotten your 'mean' in for today. Maybe you'll be nicer to the people you actually live with.

"bummer". Brilliant writing.

Maybe you shouldn't stop there. Maybe you can find more mean things to say--




LDSDPer said...

Rock, I don't want you to get embroiled in this or to feel that you have to defend anyone.

Arch Stanton has shown what percentage of the writing on here has been done by me (LDSDPer)--

and that it has been offensive to him.

You don't have to defend me; you have your hands full.

I will still be reading you.

But I'm not going to respond anymore.

You HAVE been patient with me.

Ha; it's kind of funny; Arch Stanton succeeded in getting me not to post so much (or any at all) by being brutal.

It wasn't an argument or logic that won anything.

I'll keep watching your blog and reading what you have to say.

Thank you. It's been a safe community here.

Inspire said...

LDSDPer,
I find that you are insightful and compassionate. I've never had a problem with your writing style. We all go about things differently, isn't that the wonder and joy of it all? Christ's doctrine is to accept each other regardless of our diversity. On top of that, it is to do away with contending.

You have stepped out of the conversation because you would rather not engage if it means there are harsh words and personal attacks. I can respect that, but I do hope you reconsider. Rather, take your own advice and just ignore those who seem to get a kick out of "the fight." If you leave the dialog then this place is no longer "safe," as you say. And there are people who will benefit from your perspective. My vote is that you continue to post when you feel directed. Don't worry about the haters, they will eventually fall into the pit that they dig for others.

Warren Fairchild said...

I deeply appreciate you sincere and honest opinion and have gained much insight from your contributions, It would be a shame for us to not have your perspective to consider. You are not preventing anyone else who wants to, from posting their opinions as well. Do not concern yourself with the judgments of men, we are not very competent at the task. There is only one whos opinion you should be concerned with. And, Thank you to everyone who has contributed their opinions to this and all the other threads here. Thanks Rock! : )

me said...

Hi Arch,
I've been reading, not replying. But I had a thought. I actually enjoy the posts on this blog and the comments mostly. I enjoy the different writing styles of each. I appreciate the scrolls and the trolls!

Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Inspire said...

" I don't think Arch is trying to be mean, perhaps overly forward, but we're all adults, right?"

Anonymous, (if that's your REAL name), if telling people they are "annoying" is the standard for being an adult, then perhaps there is a reason King Benjamin said, " men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children..."

And why Christ described perfection this way:
"And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. And blessed are all the pure in heart, for they shall see God. And blessed are all the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God....Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect."

Gary Hunt said...

LDSDPer,

I'm sorry that you will not be commenting any more. As Inspire said above, you are insightful and compassionate. I have enjoyed your comments and there is nothing wrong with your style of writing. I wish the best for you and your family.

Peace :)

Arch Stanton said...

Inspire, you seem to have a predilection for ironically misquoting scripture. King Benjamin gave an epic sermon calling people to repent. He spoke so forcefully people became overcome with fear. If King Benjamin were alive today he'd be out in the street with a bullhorn calling homosexuals to repent. He'd probably also be calling our own church leaders to repent and accuse them of being too soft on the issue. But you're getting your nickers in a twist simply from my expressing disagreement with the political aspects of homosexuality and this makes me the boogeyman?

Inspire said...

Anonymous, I mean Arch,

If copy/paste is misquoting, then you are correct in your assertion (I do try to leave out the footer letters and the chapter numbers, but maybe I miss sometimes). If what you call misquoting is just citing scriptures to support my perspective and you don't agree with the context, then it's just that you don't agree. By your standards, anything I bring up will be deemed a misquote (or annoying because it is not formatted in a way you view as acceptable), so why even bother engaging in dialog? I suppose I have my reasons.

I can see why Joseph said that the righteousness of man was sin, because "it exacteth over much." (Oops, sorry, there I go again. A "misquote" AND repetition.)

Just so you know, my knickers are perfectly straight. If you want to get your blow horn and yell repentance at all the gay people, then go for it. In fact, if you have such conviction about it, I would hope that you DO shout to the world. (Wouldn't it be great if they were ALL "overcome with fear??!!") That doesn't seem like long suffering and gentle persuasion to me (wait, do I need to put quote marks there?) I guess if I place the word "political" before it, then I can set the Lord's words aside. (Which leads me to ask... how did I misquote Him "ironically?")

At any rate, now you've got me doing it (the whole exactething over much business, and yes.... that definitely WAS a misquote). So I'll finish up here with my apologies for the sarcasm, and my thanks for showing the futility of bantering in such fashion. Perhaps someone else has been edified by this back-and-forth, but it hasn't been me.

God's blessings to you!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Arch,
Your comment at 9:56 above demonstrates, to me at least, an unhealthy fixation on the frequency of another reader's contributions. What kind of person finds it necessary to perform a numerical breakdown regarding how often someone else here participates in the discussion? I don't mind folks veering off-topic here, but that just strikes me as obsessively creepy.

You previously wrote that you preferred to ignore her comments because for some reason she has rubbed you the wrong way. Many of us find her contributions to this forum interesting and enlightening, and they almost always advance the dialogue. If you feel otherwise, why not just take your own advice and whenever you see a comment with her name on it, simply skip over it?

You asked if there was a feature here that would enable you to ignore certain commenters so you wouldn't have to read the words of someone you wished to avoid. There is such a feature. It's called "scroll down."

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Arch,
Thanks for those Blogger links. Although the first one tells me that Blogspot's Automatic Spam Detection makes word verification unnecessary, that did not seem to be the case for me. Some time ago spams were getting through with alarming frequency. Nevertheless, I've turned word verification off to see what happens. If the Auto Detection works, I'll leave it off.

Thank you especially for helping me find a way to extend the comments to one page. Although it doesn't exactly place all comments on one page, the reader can now click on "Newer" after the first 200 comments, and continue with a lot less trouble.

That feature does eliminate sub-threads which have allowed commenters to follow specific conversations, but a lot of readers did not like it when that feature was automatically introduced anyway. So we're back to reading comments in the order in which they are posted. So we'll see if everyone can get used to going back to the old way again.

Some blog platforms, such as the one used by "Wheats and Tares" automatically place numbers on the comments, which I think makes it easier for a commenter to refer to a previous comment by number. I don't see that feature available on this platform.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Arch,
Not content to merely insult one reader, you now venture to indict the entire female gender?



Boy, I wouldn't want to be you right now.

Arch Stanton said...

Rock, are you saying it's an insult to point out that women are more sensitive than men? I rather think it's one of their strong points.

Arch Stanton said...

Btw, these new comments are simply awful. It's much worse. The comment box is at the top of the page while the comment I'm replying to is who knows where. Awful.

andrew said...

wow these comments are so full of strawmen I could heat my home for a year

Gary Hunt said...

Andrew,

You better be careful or Arch will hack you with his "L33t" skills. Also there was an anonymous (Rock deleted the comment)who doesn't like us throwing out those logical fallacy words.

Gary Hunt said...

Arch,

You're changing your story. You attack LDSDPer by saying..."I maintain that her comments were illogical, incoherent, and emotional." Then you say... "Rock, are you saying it's an insult to point out that women are more sensitive than men?" I see some inconsistencies here.

LDSDPer said...

Inspire, Gary Hunt, Rock and Warren Fairchild,

Thank you for your kind words. I've always made my gender public here on Rock's blog. My husband and a daughter were following the blog and urged me to come back and read your comments.
I said that I would continue to read the blog but not comment. I will certainly not comment any more about any aspect of legalizing gender "anything". But when Rock posts again I will comment, and I will not respond to anyone who has been offended by me. I promised not to respond to Big Dave either. So, Arch and Big Dave can make comments without being concerned about any responses from me.

Inspire, you are right. It isn't safe if I run away. My husband convinced me that I should not run away.

Another person mentioned that I was "playing the victim". I suppose it would look that way. I don't think that is what I was doing. I think it was more like "getting out of Dodge". :)
But if it seemed that I was playing the victim, I apologize for that, too. Emotional manipulation is not wise, and I try not to participate in it.

My husband and one daughter read Rock's blog regularly, but they don't respond. They leave that to me, since I have a lot of words. *laughing at myself*

Thank you for your kindness.

My husband and I are both members of DP, and we have the same log-in/name; I used that name here, so that he could respond, if he wanted to, but, so far, he hasn't wanted to do so. He's a technical writer and very brief; we balance each other well.

LDSDPer said...

oh, and Rock,

Whatever you do with the format on the blog--

works for me/us.

If people care enough about what is being written, they won't care about the format. Unless they are fussy, I suppose.

I like the new format, though; it might be a bit easier for a non-technical person like me to navigate.

Keep up the good work!

Gary Hunt said...

LDSDPer,

Welcome back!

Arch Stanton said...

Gary, what are the inconsistencies you see?

Anon101 said...

Arch:
"I maintain that her comments were illogical, incoherent, and emotional."

Here you are saying that being emotional is a negative thing in your mind... on par with being illogical and incoherent.

""Rock, are you saying it's an insult to point out that women are more sensitive than men?"

Here you are insinuating that your view of women being more "sensitive" is not insulting, but a positive thing.

So the inconsistency is that "emotional" and "sensitive" seem to go together, yet you use one in a verbal attack and then back-peddle by stereotyping women as more sensitive and implying that it is a noble trait.

Seriously, if you need people to spell it out for you this way, you may want to ask yourself what else you might be missing. The contradiction (that some would call "sexism") was quite obvious, speaking for myself. Rock and Gary caught it as well, and others I'm sure.

Arch Stanton said...

Anon101, as you mature you'll learn that often questions are not for the one asking but the one answering. I don't need anything spelled out, but apparently you do. I'm going to introduce you to a concept that will totally change the way you perceive the world around you: CONTEXT. Go get some books on literary context and give them a read, it will change your life. Suddenly things people say will start to take on completely different meanings than you thought they had.

Daily Pauler was being illogical, incoherent, and emotional. I find it amusing that Rock, Gary, others, and you, don't dispute this, but instead want to paint me a misogynist all while paying lip service to "logical fallacies" like ad hominem, which you all clearly don't understand.

Back on track. While her comments were illogical and emotional, I do think that increased sensitivity is a strength among women. My observing that she's a sensitive person shouldn't be an insult. It is however a strength that offers no advantage in the context of an internet discussion forum, as evidenced by her reactionary response and overall behavior pattern.

I'm sure Daily Pauler is great at a lot of things that I am not. Having a calm, rationale, pointed, political debate doesn't appear to be one of her strong points though. And to those who are aghast at my frankness, I say the same. If you can't handle little ole me you certainly wouldn't be able to handle a live debate in a public forum.

Look how far we've gone off topic. My take away from all this is that a whole bunch of people that hail from the LDS community are sympathetic to the gay cause, and ultimately support it, because they are emotional and weak minded. They don't have a rationale argument for their position, nor a theological or spiritual argument. But instead they are bleeding hearts and if you disagree with them, just as if you disagree with the gays directly, you're a big meannie.

This is the tactic liberals approach every issue with. Don't want to pay for other people's health care? Oh, well you're a meannie. All these social programs are based on emotional pleas. Look at the immigration debate. It's mean to enforce our laws. It's mean to not support gay marriage, they just want to love each other, what's wrong with that? Why, why oh why, won't you let them love each other?

So instead of having the guts to do what needs doing, we keep giving the addict more drugs, because that is the easier thing to do. In a few years let's see where that has collectively gotten us.

Annalea said...

I've been utterly unplugged from the conversation here for nearly two weeks, (and haven't caught up). But I heard this song again the other day, I knew I needed to share it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv0C1gCuayI

For those who can't watch/listen right now, here are the lyrics (which, alone, are only about 20% as powerful as the song).
___________________________

Jesus, Friend of Sinners

Jesus, friend of sinners,
we have strayed so far away
We cut down people in your name
but the sword was never ours to swing
Jesus, friend of sinners,
the truth's become so hard to see
The world is on their way to You
but they're tripping over me
Always looking around but never looking up
I'm so double minded
A plank eyed saint with dirty hands
and a heart divided

Oh Jesus, friend of sinners
Open our eyes to the world
at the end of our pointing fingers
Let our hearts be
led by mercy
Help us reach with open hearts and open doors
Oh Jesus, friend of sinners,
break our hearts for what breaks yours

Jesus, friend of sinners,
the one who's writing in the sand
Made the righteous turn away
and the stones fall from their hands
Help us to remember
we are all the least of these
Let the memory of Your mercy
bring Your people to their knees
Nobody knows what we're for
only what we're against
when we judge the wounded
What if we put down our signs
crossed over the lines
and loved like You did

Oh Jesus, friend of sinners
Open our eyes to world
at the end of our pointing fingers
Let our hearts be
led by mercy
Help us reach with open hearts and open doors
Oh Jesus, friend of sinners,
break our hearts for what breaks yours

You love every lost cause;
you reach for the outcast
For the leper and the lame;
they're the reason that You came
Lord I was that lost cause
and I was the outcast
But you died for sinners just like me,
a grateful leper at Your feet

'Cause You are good, You are good
and Your love endures forever
You are good, You are good
and Your love endures forever
You are good, You are good
and Your love endures forever
You are good, You are good
and Your love endures forever

Oh Jesus, friend of sinners
Open our eyes to world
at the end of our pointing fingers
Let our hearts be
led by mercy
Help us reach with open hearts and open doors
Oh Jesus, friend of sinners,
break our hearts for what breaks Yours

And I was the lost cause and I was the outcast
Yeah...
You died for sinners just like me,
a grateful leper at Your feet
_________________________

I feel to repeat: sin is not ours to judge. John 16:7-8 teaches it's the purpose of the Holy Ghost to convict the world of sin. Not ours. Our work is to love as Jesus does, to walk with Him, and to do His work in this world. The only ones he condemned were those who actively hindered others from drawing closer to Him, from worshipping, (Luke 11:52), or robbed the poor in the name of obedience to the law (the moneychangers in the temple, who would slyly disfigure the animals brought to the temple, and sell a replacement for 300% of it's value).

ALL others, even those whose punishment under the law should have been death by stoning, He loved. And we should, too.

And as for threats to traditional marriage: If the Lord of Hosts is truly our God, then any problems the government or society present to us are ***His*** problems, and He's damn good at caring for His own.

Aw said...

Annalea:

Funny you say how we are not to judge others, but I point you to the the story of the Gadianton robbers in the Book of Mormon.

Helaman 6
34 And thus we see that the Nephites did begin to dwindle in unbelief, and grow in wickedness and abominations, while the Lamanites began to grow exceedingly in the knowledge of their God; yea, they did begin to keep his statutes and commandments, and to walk in truth and uprightness before him.

35 And thus we see that the Spirit of the Lord began to awithdraw from the Nephites, because of the wickedness and the hardness of their hearts.

36 And thus we see that the Lord began to pour out his aSpirit upon the Lamanites, because of their easiness and willingness to believe in his words.

37 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.

38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.

Gary Hunt said...

Annalea,

Thank you for sharing that beautiful song .

me said...

AW, Who do you compare the Gadianton robbers of the book of Mormon to today?

LDSDPer said...

Annalea,

That is one beautiful song. I have a young person listening in right now, someone who likes Casting Crowns also--

and enjoys songs about Jesus.

:)

Thank you.

Gary Hunt said...

Arch,

Context is the construction, composition; connected structure of a composition or passage, parts immediately before and after a given passage. (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology) Here are your comments in reference to LDSDPer.

“You say he is a she and that explains things a bit better. I maintain that her comments were illogical, incoherent, and emotional. Her being reactionary only reinforces that impression in my mind.”

The context in which you frame this indicates your attitude towards women. You are saying it is a trait of women to be “illogical, incoherent, and emotional.” Later you accuse “Rock, Gary, others, and you,” of painting you as a “misogynist”, which is a person who hates women or girls. None of us said you hate women or girls. There is a big difference between hating women and having an opinion about traits you believe are common in women.

In addition to this you change your story from women being “illogical, incoherent, and emotional” to women being “sensitive”.

“My observing that she's a sensitive person shouldn't be an insult.”

Initially you did not accuse her of being “sensitive”. You accused her of being “illogical, incoherent, and emotional.” If you look up the definitions of these words, you will find they don’t mean the same thing with the exception of the word “emotional”, which does have some things in common.

What you are doing in these two instances is “moving the goalpost”, creating a “straw man” argument, “hasty generalization”, and “argumentum ad hominem”. Here are four logical fallacies you have used as part of your argument. Here is a good definition for fallacies.

“A fallacy is a violation of logical principle disguised under an appearance of validity; it is an error in process. Falsity is and error in fact. Fallacy arises from an erroneous relation of propositions; falsity, from an erroneous relation of terms. A premise may be false; reasoning may be fallacious.”
-Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.C., Ph.D., The Trivium – The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric

Refer to my comments on January 23, 2014 at 9:30am. This is where I refuted your argument when I said to LDSDPer that her comments are “clear and understandable”. I can easily understand what she is saying. Why can’t you?

Aw said...

Me:

You can determine for yourself who currently fits into the Gadianton profile. The point is, many have stated on this blog that we are not to judge others. That we are to mind our own business. Nothing could be further from the truth. We see what happened to the Nephites that began to sympathize with the Gadiantons...before long the entire country was taken over by the Gadiantons.

On the other hand, the Lamanites hunted down the Gadiantons, preached the gospel to them, and destroyed the rest of them. The Lamanites would not tolerate the evil that the Gadiantons brought with them to exist in their midst. As a result, the wicked influence of the Gadiantons was completely destroyed, and the Lamanites remained righteous.

Satan uses people's natural sympathies against them - back then and also now. The Book of Mormon warns us what will happen if we do not fight against evil.

LDSDPer said...

@Aw,

I'm probably going to regret responding to you, too; you will be added to my list of growing people whom I offend.

:)

in verse 37 it says that the Gadiantons were destroyed from among them; it does not say that the Lamanites destroyed them directly. Their works were surely destroyed by the preaching of the gospel. There is a very big difference in meaning there. Those who didn't accept Jesus Christ more than likely left the places in which the Lamanites lived; more than likely they joined the Gadiantons among the Nephites.

Judging individuals for their behavior is something that Jesus commanded us not to do.

However, there are quite a few people (LDS; my husband and I were very involved) who were trying, for example, to work to place people in office who would:

--make certain the Federal Reserve was audited
or eventually eliminated and

--try to eliminate many of the 'alphabet' agencies

We were involved in campaigns to get people who understood economics, in a way that we felt was good and honest, into office, both nationally and on a state basis. Our campaign was a drastic failure, we believe, because of Gadiantons' taking over and hijacking honest reform.

It isn't easy to do that and not despise or judge those who are destroying nations and liberty. But it can be done. There are evil people in the world; we know that because they do evil things. Evil things can be addressed; evil works surely can be addressed.

By their fruits ye shall know them. (not exact quote)

However, in the LDS culture/organization there are those who are not as concerned with things such as the corruption of the nation's banking system, but they concern themselves more with what might be considered social issues, and there is no doubt in my mind that Gadiantons have infiltrated both sides of all of the social issues our society faces--

There are truly Gadiantons in the world and in this nation. Not all of *us* agree about who they are, however.

Unfortunately for us, they hide themselves very well in this modern society. I believe there are Gadiantons who are 'good' members of the church. But I won't name names.

The important thing for *us* to do is to keep from participating in or gaining from the works of the Gadiantons. A person can strive to do so. It is not easy.

LDSDPer said...

oh, and surely the Gadiantons were involved in many abominations--who would want to delve into what those abominations were? Not I. *shudder*

But their chief power came from murdering people to get gain and in becoming rich by secret combinations, which involved murdering those who stood in their way.

Today's equivalent would be a corrupt banking system.

As to social evils, I'm sure the Gadiantons took advantage of the weak and powerless every bit as much as today's Gadiantons do.

I apologize for not quoting directly about the 'works' of the Gadiantons.

Toni said...

Wow! What a lot of comments to slog through! I noticed several posts saying that Joseph Smith was the last prophet and talking about God sending another/wondering if He had already sent one. I believe He has - in the person of Denver Snuffer, who is adamant about NOT being followed or held up as someone who has all the answers. He points to Christ. He bears the fruits of true prophets, including raising the ire of the devout/religious. He speaks without fear of men or organizations. If you read his blog posts wherein he talks about scriptures in the BofM, you will see that he brings out deeper meanings and brings understanding (unless you, unlike myself, have that deep understanding already.

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/

Inspire said...

AW,
I wouldn't say that we aren't to recognize "evil," and avoid it. The point I think which is being made is that fighting is futile. Christ did not teach that we should contend against offenses, but that we should endure them and do our best to get along with others no matter our differences.

We hear battle cries all the time: "War on drugs! Fight against pornography! Battle against alcohol!" How are we doing with those things and any other fight we are engaged in? It seems to me that the stronger our efforts are to engage in a battle, the stronger the "enemy" becomes, always one step ahead.

Christ teaches a different way. It is to care about our neighbor, no matter what their perceived "sin" or offense is. It is to let the Lord fight our battles and do the judging of people, while we engage ourselves in good works and charitable acts. It is to bless our enemies and to do good to those who spitefully use us.

The Ammonites buried their weapons of war for peace, and in doing so became His people. If we can emulate this love of peace above all else, and model the mercy of Christ, she (mercy, that is) will have claim on us, and we will be called the children of God. Otherwise, the fight will continue, and we shall nowise enter into the rest of the Lord.

PS - (What do you think we are resting from? It is the fatigue caused by the "fight.")

BK said...

Toni,

I am one who believes Joseph Smith was the last true prophet and that the LDS Church is in apostasy today, and the true church will again be established in Zion.

And while I believe their must be true prophets walking the earth at this time, I do not believe that Denver is a prophet, nor does he bear the fruit of a prophet, imo.

I like how he is bringing to light much needed truth about Church history, but I don't believe he really saw the real Christ nor do I believe he believes in Christ and lives his gospel. I disagree with him on many points of doctrine.

But I believe he is helping people awake to the apostasy of the Church, even though he may not believe the Church is in true apostasy yet.

He may point to Christ in some ways, but after studying his beliefs I don't believe he follows Christ. He appears to teach contrary to Christ in many ways.

I believe true prophets preach and practice far different then Denver does.

BK said...

The best way to fight against evil is to stand and speak up for what's right, for Christ's teachings, and not support those in our family or friends or community or government who are doing evil. That doesn't mean we aren't loving and kind, but just that we let them know we won't support them and accept their wrongdoing.

And we stand for Christ most of all when we take care of and financially support the single mothers (the fatherless) that we personally know, so they don't have to leave their home and children to work.

LDSDPer said...

@Aw and Me:

I haven't read the continued discussion, but I am apologizing now for having responded to what, I realize now, was a question by Aw to Me?

What is the cyber discussion method of raising one's hand?

:)

I just dove in; I see now that it wasn't my question to answer, and Aw must have had a reason for asking Me. (not me, but Me)--

LDSDPer said...

Inspire,

You say it so well.

Yes, the fight. In our case when we got involved in a political battle to make our voices heard both nationally and on a state level, with regards to a corrupt economic system (on both sides; there is no liberal/conservative here; evil men use 'fronts' to take the flack from angry 'fighters'; we learned that; indignant people who are suffering from corruption are not able to confront, ever, in person or even to know personally those who are behind the evils; it becomes a cycle of anger and fighting)--

we were not ahead. We realized, then, that we needed to clean up our personal lives and our personal behaviors towards others, including those with whom we don't agree.

Whom we decide to serve and help is really not something we feel we should discuss; alms, you know.

:)

But, yes, the battle. Mormon realized it, almost too late, probably; the Spirit told him to stop fighting, but there he was at the end, dying in battle. I like that man. It must have been hard for him, having come from such a militant culture.

Oh, and those in the Book of Mormon who were persecuted were praised for not 'reviling again'--

Learning not to revile when you grew up in America, raised by a world war II veteran who loved guns . . .

is an interesting experience. Both of us had that experience.

Meee! said...

I've forgotten what the original post was about again...

Toni said...

Thanks for your reply, BK. Interesting perception. I'm glad you've heard of Denver.

Rob said...

Hi Alan. I saw your bit about not understanding homosexuality. Perhaps I can make it easier for you with this post from my old blog.

http://scrumcentral.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-about-love.html

Aw said...

@Rob:

The thing is, homosexuals cannot have an eternal increase, and is that not the entire purpose of the plan of salvation?

Maybe you can explain to me how two men can start an eternal posterity in the next life, because I don't understand it.

LDSDPer said...

@Aw,

I am not answering for Rob.

Not getting into legalities here (I promised I wouldn't)

and I am NOT defending SSM. I don't believe in it, and I won't defend it.

But--

the answer to your question to Rob is:

Using the argument that two men (or two women) can't start an eternal posterity is not logical, because:

a heterosexual man who never marries and fathers children, because he is horribly deformed or cognitively damaged cannot start an eternal posterity in this life; nor can a woman with the same challenges.

A child who dies before being able to reproduce cannot start an eternal postery.

All of the single women around the world who haven't been able to marry would also not be able to start an eternal posterity. Same for single men.

An infertile couple won't be able to.

MANY people, following your argument, won't be able to start an eternal posterity.

The problem with your argument, beyond the fact that it is not logical, is that it implies that only those who can and do have biological children (a couple who are man and woman, married) are really starting an eternal posterity; hence, anyone else who cannot is seen as inferior.
Sadly, it happens all the time. Anyone who is prevented by circumstances outside their control from having children is seen as inferior in our present LDS culture.
So, your argument is definitely not new. But, fortunately, it is not logical, and I believe that a God of Love doesn't accept in your argument either.

I don't believe He sends "inferior" spirits (if there is such a thing) into bodies that cannot marry or reproduce.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Thanks for the link to that song, Annalea. Very nice.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Arch, I wouldn't advise trying to explain the art of reasoning as long as Gary Hunt is in the house. He knows his stuff regarding reason and logic.

It isn't too late for anyone here to enroll in the free Duke University online course "Think Again: How To Reason And Argue." I think it's only about 3 weeks in and only takes about 2-3 hours a week. Easy to catch up from here, and you can go at your own pace.

Plus, you get a certificate from Duke University. How cool is that?

And when you're finished, you'll be every bit as able in the art of argument as our own Gary Hunt. Maybe you'll even be able to pin him down.

Here's the link:

https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I agree with LDSDPer regarding the Gadiantons. The Federal Reserve is much more dangerous to our liberty than a couple of dudes who want to live together as man and man-wife.

If memory serves, the driving motivation of the Gadiantons was to get power and gain. They did this by infiltrating the government and working behind the scenes to gradually enslave the people and deprive them of their rights. That smacks to me of today's globalists, not today's gays.

Are there outspoken gays trying to use government against others to gain so-called "rights" that deprive others of their own rights (such as a property owner's right to rent to whomever he chooses)? Yes, there are, and that seems to me a legitimate area for resistance. That's where I would definitely draw the line.

But that's not what I argue for here. I argue for the right of all to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit.

Once anyone, gay or straight, attempts to use government to enforce their will on another, they are no longer asking that their own freedom be respected, they are demanding that others be deprived of theirs.

And I believe that is something that should be firmly resisted.

Oldtimer said...

When referencing Prop 8, it is important to remember that the people of CA had already spoken and then the courts began legislating from the bench.

To pretend that any effort to protect the institution of marriage is an attempt to legislate morality, would mean that the courts were indeed legislating immorality.

"I don't care if you're gay" either.
I do care if you redefine marriage, which was instituted of God, Himself as the uniting of a man and woman for life.

Anonymous said...

@LDSDper:

I'm sorry, but your argument is silly. We know that after the resurrection, everything will be restored to its proper place, and everyone will be made whole and their bodies perfected. Those that go on to exaltation will start their own lines of posterity without any physical impairments. Men will still not be able to mate with men, or women with women.

Oldtimer said...

Rock where you said: "I agree with LDSDPer regarding the Gadiantons. The Federal Reserve is much more dangerous to our liberty than a couple of dudes who want to live together as man and man-wife."

Are you of a mind that the Federal Reserve is the Gadiantons only weapon in the destruction of all Liberty?

We have been warned from both sides of this ongoing war, Liberty/Tyranny, that marriage/family is key in the protection/destruction of all Liberty.

We have been warned of the importance of its protection just as we have been warned that Gadiantons pursue its destruction to facilitate "the greatest, most widespread, and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed men. He is working under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize either him or his methods…He comes as a thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Without their knowing it, the people are being urged down paths that lead only to destruction… [First Presidency Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark Jr., David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1942, p. 14]”

Trotskyists/Fabians/Marxist are just as forthcoming in their pursuit of the destruction of the bourgeois moralistic family to give rise to their ideal, collectivist, tyrannical utopia.

While it would seem simple to remove government from marriage altogether, we know that the natural right of marriage and family is the foundation of society, the cornerstone which supports Liberty and though not a "civil right" we do know that we will be held accountable for all laws made on our watch which facilitate the destruction of Liberty/natural rights. see D&C 134
("We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.")

LDSDPer said...

@anonymous 5:46

this is the last time I respond to an anonymous.

You obviously didn't read the person to whom I was directing what I wrote.

Of course, I agree with you--

but, because I agree with you, the argument "Aw" put forward cannot be valid.

That is the point I was trying to make.

But you didn't see it or understand it. I can't do anything about that.

Apparently, Aw's argument is not silly, because he said it about homosexuals.

It's not about whether or not you agree with what someone does. It is about the principles involved.

God is a God of love, I believe. And I don't believe the idea that anyone can start an 'eternal posterity' in this life and be 'ahead' of others who cannot--

is not valid.

The point applies to everyone, not just the people we like or don't like.

Does anyone really READ anything anyone else writes on here?

Or does it just feel good to call people's arguments 'silly'?

I wonder. But I wonder it with a smile.

:)

Peace, please.

LDSDPer said...

good heavens! I had a double negative there.

I give up.

You can call me on it.

I do not believe that anyone who has biological children in this life is ahead of anyone who cannot or for reasons beyond simple selfishness does not.

And, for future discussions, if anyone wants to discuss anything with *me*--

it's all right to disagree. It's all right to say, "I feel this or that, even if I can't prove it or argue it."

But don't pretend to have a logical argument when you are expressing beliefs. Beliefs are not always logical. And that is all right. Beliefs are in an entirely different category.

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't make him/her 'silly'.

Anonymous said...

Rock--

LOL!

I think *I* need that Duke University course!!!

How much does it cost?

:)

I can 'feel' the logic, but it is VERY hard to express it accurately.

I just fall over myself trying.

LDSDPer said...

@oldtimer--

I said that I would not discuss legalities with regards to any kind of marriage, so I won't.

But marriage is not the foundation of society in Babylon.

Money is.

Or labor. Resources. Wealth. Health.

In an ideal society marriage (instituted of God, not government) WOULD certain be the foundation of society. Pretending that it is in today's American society is one of the reasons that *we* are in such deep trouble.

People who are poor cannot realistically expect to marry (legally or otherwise) and provide for children.

People who are diseased (and unable to care for themselves and others) cannot establish families through marriage or otherwise.

It is physical and mental and social superiority which makes society possible in a fallen world.

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

The dastardly Korihor at least did not profess, while not helping the poor, that he believed that the foundation of society was the family.
But the Nephites at THAT time were trying to live a Zion society, so Korihor's teachings were very dangerous, indeed.

My husband attended early morning welfare meetings on Sunday for years because of his callings. It was typical for those in the ward who had wealth to 'laugh' at those who were 'incompetent' because they couldn't take care of their families, due to poverty and ill health and low intelligence, etc.
There was definitely a feeling that such should not even attempt to start families.

There ARE people who are poor, not very intelligent and have various health problems for which they did not bargain.

Do they matter?

Of course they do.

But we are NOT in a terrestrial world; we are in the worst of telestial worlds at this time.

In an ideal world the family would be so important that there would be no hungry babies.

But in this world it is--

what *you* can buy that matters.

And the elite, the Gadiantons, know that--

and they laugh as *we* distract ourselves with other things.

I'm not Rock, but of course the Federal Reserve is not the only weapon. It is only one and a mere one, but it is one that can be used very well to hurt families.

And it has been.

The American federal reserve affects families all over the world--

including:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56959510-180/walker-liahona-mormon-lds.html.csp

If you have been focusing on homosexual "marriage" and not on what the American CIA and the world bank (both heavily involved with the FR) have been doing in 'third world' countries for the past several decades (not to mention what European colonizers did to these same people--)

then it may not seem to be a serious threat.

Many of the people in my ward think that these people just need to 'work harder'--

or that, somehow, they are being punished for something they did before being born--

I don't know. But they don't want to talk about it or think about it.

And those of us who are heavily involved in such things offend them. I know.



then you might not

Oldtimer said...

LDSDPer said,

"marriage is not the foundation of society in Babylon"

As you directed this comment to me, I can only assume you are referencing from my comment "we know that the natural right of marriage and family is the foundation of society" correct me, if I am mistaken.
If this is, in fact the case, I would say that as you reference "Babylon" you are speaking of a "community."

I am speaking of human society, the whole race or family of man, the true and natural foundation of human society is indeed family/marriage.

Babylon is a choice. We have been counseled to come out of Babylon, stand in Holy Places, come to Zion, we have been called upon to "promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
which it indeed is.

LDSDPer also said "If you have been focusing on homosexual "marriage"

I am at a complete loss as to your assumption here.
I have stated prior 'I don't care if you're gay either...'

How you make the leap that I am unaware or unconcerned regarding the CIA/Federal Reserve is...? :)

I was merely pointing out that the attack on Family and Marriage is as much a tyrannical weapon against against all Liberty as the Federal Reserve, borne out in the communist manifesto...all of these are means to an end.

Likewise i suppose I could say to you, if you have been focusing on what the members of your ward think... and not on the stated goals of the Gadiantons to "abolish the family" to "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy" in concert with the wars, rumors of wars, theft of labor we have already mentioned via the Federal Reserve, infiltration of our schools, courts, churches, arts, and the fallacious notion that "civil rights" somehow trump natural rights... then you might give a pass to the redefining of marriage by the community of Babylon, rather than engaging in the Hope of Israel, Zion's army...rising in might with the sword of truth and right, whose warcry is to watch and pray.

My former stake president came to my home to discuss a political difference of opinion as he then held public office and I and some in my family are vocal in our beliefs...He told me it is his firm belief that it is better to be kind than to be right.

This seems to be rampant in our culture, this political correctness mentality which flies in the face of all the Gospel - Pure Mormonism - teaches us.

LDSDPer said...

@Oldtimer,

You are correct when you state that I jumped to conclusions. I was wrong to assume you didn't know about the Federal Reserve.

*I* believe that "communists" are only a small part of the modern-day Gadiantons, so I don't, perhaps, take them as seriously as some others might.

I was wrong to state, as though I am an authority, that money is the basis of our current society.

It is my belief that it is, based upon the things I have witnessed and the things I have studied about the perplexities of the nations. And the scriptures I have read and re-read and then read again. :)

It is true that you don't understand me.


The family is the basis of the ideal community, but no such community exists in this world, and I tried to make it obvious to you in the things I presented to our discussion that it does not exist, even in the church, when I pointed out that wealthier church members judge those who don't have 'enough' as being incompetent, when needy families are discussed in early morning meetings on Sunday. My husband witnessed it, and at one point he spoke out. Some realized what was happening and showed shame; others didn't even understand why he was upset. I was using that to make a point that only those with money can have families (really; it is so hard to have a family without money that many who attempt it end in divorce; others just become discouraged)--
but here I have to disagree with your saying that:

Babylon equals community.

I don't agree with that at all.

No, Babylon is definitely not a choice. Not a choice at all. We're stuck in it to see what we're going to do and if we're going to learn to feed His sheep.

Yes, we are to flee Babylon, but how can we flee Babylon if we don't know what Babylon is?

I've said enough, and I apologize in advance if I have been offensive.

LDSDPer said...

@Oldtimer--

I didn't respond to one of your comments, if you can find it in all the words below:

:)

I don't understand why you think that I should not care about what my fellow ward members think; I believe it is important that we know what those with whom we worship believe--

if we are any kind of community. Even a sad excuse for a community.

And if it's not the same thing we believe within a ward, then that is a deep concern, especially if the 'lines' are drawn between those who have and those who do not have . . . money.

As Inspire is so good at saying, we are not told to go to battle.

*We* LDS, Americans of Northern European extraction, most of *us*, have been weaned on war. *We* think that there is a righteous war somewhere--

because of the "war in heaven".

The "war in heaven" is found only vaguely in Revelations and nowhere in the Book of Mormon.

The idea of Christian soldiers and battlecries and Christ heading up an army--

is all from hymns, not from scriptures.

Yes, we love Captain Moroni. But if all wars were waged as he waged them or, more particularly, as the people of Ammon did--

there would be few wars, if any.

The term "Zion's Army" is also not found in the scriptures, anywhere.

As you directed this comment to me, I can only assume you are referencing from my comment "we know that the natural right of marriage and family is the foundation of society" correct me, if I am mistaken.
If this is, in fact the case, I would say that as you reference "Babylon" you are speaking of a "community."

Oldtimer's words above

No, I don't think of Babylon as a community, not at all. But I already said that. Since we don't agree that Babylon is any kind of community, other than a community that is based I don't use Babylon as my yardstick--
upon money—
I don't use Babylon as my yardstick—but I am not saying that you do.


It would be SO wonderful if the family WERE the basis of society. Such a society is what there will be in Zion, I believe. But it does not exist in this world. If it were, there would not be all this heartache we are presently experiencing.

Somehow I think that Zion means a different thing to you than it means to me.

To me it means

3 And they had aall things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly bgift.

That is Zion.



When I am talking to LDS, and I think we are not communicately effectively, I tend to try to use scriptures to get my point(s) across; that's the main reason I do it; all of *us* should have the scriptures in common.

LDSDPer said...

and I made a lot of typos in that post--

I apologize; I was in a hurry; running off to do something--

I hope I answered all your concerns and was kind when I did it.

:)

Oldtimer said...

LDSDPer, I am not one to take offense and you have surely not said anything offensive :)

You have however made another assumption as you state,"wealthier church members judge those who don't have 'enough' as being incompetent" based on a small sample in one of your husband's meetings.
There are un-Christlike qualities found on all points of the financial spectrum.
How has your husband deeming these wealthy members 'incompetent' at serving the needy any different?

Once more to be clear, my statement was very simply,
"we know that the natural right of marriage and family is the foundation of society"

which you then responded with "marriage is not the foundation of society in Babylon."

I then clarified, and will try once more...
"I am speaking of human society, the whole race or family of man, the true and natural foundation of human society is indeed family/marriage."

Again, Babylon and Zion are smaller communities within the enlarged human society which foundation IS marriage/family.

And yes, Babylon worships mammon, is rejecting family/marriage but contrary to your feelings all of human society does not.
There are those who reject mammon and worship a different Master, Our Lord and Saviour.

You truly cannot serve two masters and yes it is our choice which we serve.

LDSDPer said...

anonymous @5:46

I never said that men could mate with men, not now or in the eternities.

The person with whom I discussed this said that the reason men should not 'mate' with men in this world is that they would not 'start' an eternal posterity.

There are many people who cannot 'start' an eternal posterity.

I know about resurrection. I am not sure what sorts of 'babies' will be born in the eternities; there are no scriptures on it, and many of the words of early (and later) apostles on it are confusing.

I simply made the point that using homosexuals as an argument in favor of 'starting' an 'eternal posterity' is flawed, because many people cannot 'start' an 'eternal posterity'.

I don't find those things in the scriptures, but I do find resurrection. I am VERY familiar with the concept of revelation; I don't need to be taught about it; it is a wonderful thing. I'm probably looking forward to it as much as you are.

I know that I am often guilty of the same thing, but when it happens I try to point it out for the sake of a lucid discussion.


«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 408   Newer› Newest»