Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

194 Excellent

1 Follower

About PacMan

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,055 profile views
  1. Wait...let me get this right. MiserereNobis butts into a conversation and trolls questions that I did not ask her. Then she tries to antagonize me by suggesting she just might not want to respond to me. Calling her bluff (and her presumptuousness), I take her up on her offer. And then you, without anyone's invitation, interrupt this exchange to gaslight a conversation as the self-proclaimed board police without adding anything to the conversation. And I'm the rude one? Right. Do me a favor and take a page from MiserereNovis's book...don't respond to me. Preferably, never, ever, ever. Ever.
  2. No, you shouldn't respond. Particularly where our whole interaction started with you responding to a comment I made to Julie M about disproving evidence. Unless, you are also Julie M....
  3. Glad you restated. What you believe is irrelevant to the fact that you must concede you don’t have an answer to explain it away.
  4. Not exactly. Read the corollary of your statement: 'Once something is disproven you are obliged to believe that something.' Why are you obliged to believe something that is disproven? But, who am I to judge....?
  5. Go back to page 11 to find my questions.
  6. Not in the eternities. And that’s the point.
  7. He was 24 and barely literate. I don't care if he used all 24 years to produce the BoM. You still can't explain it. And the fact of the references in the large plates of Nephi to the small plates which hadn't been translated yet, makes it all the curious of how Joseph Smith pulled it off. Unless, of course, you believe that JS had plotted for Martin Harris to lose the 116 pages years before, and staged the impact that it had on Emma Smith's pregnancy....
  8. Yeah, that doesn't even make sense. Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts.
  9. Umm, you really need to read what I write. In those situations, the parents are still the child's parents. And they can be for eternity. There's nothing regarding their family (as opposed to sinful hobbies) that the child would need to renounce. In other words, the problem isn't the kid's family. It's the parents decisions, bad habits, etc.. In the gay marriage context, the problem is absolutely the family that was created for the child. If you don't see that as different, then you have a very obscure view of what a family is and what it means to the church.
  10. The issue is whether or not the church should put itself between a child and his or her family structure--particularly when the child can't do anything about it. That hasn't been addressed. I think there's reason to think the policy is good for this reason. For being focused on the family, the church is wise to avoid making a child effectively renounce his or her family structure at such a tender age. I think it's very responsible, and it's something Bill and just about everyone else has failed to even address. And no, as I've repeatedly noted, this reason cannot be applied "to any other family where the parents are 'living in sin.'" Even if not married, the structure of having a mom and dad is still present. A child can still have these parents in the eternities. That's not so for gays and polygamists. A child that presently has 2+ moms or 2+ dads will never have them in the eternities. It's one thing for a child to encourage his mom and dad to get married so that they can have an eternal family. It's another for a child to realize that he has no hope of an eternal family with two people s/he call parents. The 2015 policy removes a tender child from needing to grapple with this reality. For crying out loud, how is this not the empathetic thing to do? How does the 2015 policy not decrease the stress, confusion, anxiety, and vulnerability of a child by removing very difficult questions that a child should not be required to answer. How does the 2015 policy not support such a child's family? Truly, after recovering from my own horror of the optics of it all, I cannot understand why people are against it. Because at its foundation, it makes a lot of sense.
  11. Because the church isn't fundamentally asking them to renounce their family structures. You're comparing apples and orangutans.
  12. You personally know of no member...? How do you personally know a negative? In any event, I think I know what you mean. You really need to get out and meet more people.
  13. As much as I abhor acknowledging naked links without original analysis, I have to say that yours was particularly unhelpful. I have no idea what your point was in including that link.
  14. Really, Bill. A copy-paste? Good grief. Still, I'm glad you did. Because it's easy to show how bad your reasoning is. This policy change diminishes agency. Wrong. This logic completely adulterates the term "agency." Agency is the ability to choose. Agency is NOT the opportunity to choose. Further, as Elder Christofferson said, no one will lack for the policy. As is the same for any other of situations where people cannot accept baptism (as in most of the world's population), all will be given the opportunity to accept or reject. Thus, the policy does not diminish agency because all will have both the ability and opportunity to choose. This policy diminishes the importance of the Holy Ghost Wrong. This has nothing to do with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is going to respect the God-given obligation for parents to act as stewards over their children. Further, to the extent that the Hold Ghost tells a child that their parents and family structure are sinful, that places an enormous and near unnavigable burden on the child. That, in fact, would take away a child's agency because such child, truly, doesn't have the ability to choose a different family structure. This violates the scripture in D&C 68:27 which calls for all 8 year old children within the stakes of Zion to be baptized and confirmed D&C68:27 – “26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized. 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.” · Wrong. This is a commandment to those of the stake of Zion. Those in a homosexual relationship are not members of the church and, therefore, not members of a stake. The command does not apply to “their children" -- being those adults in a homosexual relationship. This policy diminishes the value of ordinances such as baptism. This is just nonsense, unfounded, subjective speculation that completely contradicts and undermines baptism, including vicarious baptism for those that were not otherwise given the opportunity to receive it in life. This policy seems to run contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. What “seems” to be is irrelevant. This policy leaves so many harming possibilities. Irrelevant. The only material comparison is the net effect. There is no support for the notion that the perceived and speculative harm outweighs the benefits, namely, not creating tension between the family structure and the church. This policy seems to contradict Article of Faith #2 · What “seems” to be is irrelevant. It seems deceptive to claim the letter sent out a week later was a clarification of the original intent. · What “seems” to be is irrelevant. There was already a policy that would have covered in all likelihood most all of these situations. Irrelevant. This policy creates a litmus test where Elder Christofferson just a few months ago said there was none. Illogical. Supporting is wholly distinct from living in a same sex relationship. You are drawing the untenable similarity that is in fact further removed than even inchoate offenses. This policy encourages promiscuous homosexual sex over committed legal loving homosexual relationships. This doesn’t even make sense. I mean, if we are playing absurd, why not say it encourages gays to murder their spouses so they are no longer in a gay marriage? Your logic is inflammatorily intolerable. This motive of protecting children from confusion is implausible. · CFR. That’s not what the motive was. And, how does the plausibility of the motive make it a bad policy? In fact, there is no relationship whatsoever. This “modification” has not yet been added to the online handbook. Who cares? And, so what? The policy contradicts Book of Mormon’theology that teaches if ye have a desire to be baptized and are worthy, you are encouraged to do so. Non sequitur. Being encouraged to do something is not the same as being permitted to do something.
  • Create New...