22 replies to this topic

[The Nehor]

Quote

OK, let's see if I can straighten you out.

This should be good.

Quote

I guess you are very inexperienced in such things.

So instead of defining what you are saying you allow both to stand and then imagine that I am inexperienced with two mutually exclusive things happening simultaneously as indeed I am. If you are experienced in such matters I recommend a therapist of some kind.

Quote

They can do just as in the UK, where no temple sealings can be done until a civil marriage is performed.  They can take away the legal authority of the church to perform marriages unless they are willing to do SS marriage.  I forsee this happening in the next couple of decades as their power grows.

Which would end up meaning absolutely nothing. We'd just have our people do a civil wedding and then a temple wedding right afterwards....like we already do. Only change is that we'd need a Justice of the Peace or someone else instead of the Bishop IF this happens which I doubt.

Quote

Open your eyes.

Yep, heard this admonition before. Usually when someone is trying to convince me of some Illuminati-style conspiracy or that the moon landings were faked.

The twin towers never fell. It's all a conspiracy!!! Wake up sheeple!!!!

Quote

You are very naive and they are counting on that.  By the time they have their way, you will then open your eyes but it will be too late. You say you already are aware, but you just yawn.  You just don't see what is happening right now.

Who is "they"? It will be "too late" for what exactly? What exactly are you suggesting I do about it even if it is happening? Proclaim the coming of doom on a message board? Talk drearily amongst my friends of the coming government takeover of the Church? Vote for the Green Party?

I would contend instead that you are too naive in buying into the conspiracy story being peddled amongst the more paranoid amongst the faith (and other faiths). I dislike this as it means items of genuine concern will be missed in the flood of imagined threats.

[cdowis]

The Nehor, on 16 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Which would end up meaning absolutely nothing. We'd just have our people do a civil wedding and then a temple wedding right afterwards....like we already do.

Well,  I was both married and sealed in the temple with one ceremony, since this is possible by the current laws in the United States.



Only change is that we'd need a Justice of the Peace or someone else instead of the Bishop IF this happens which I doubt.

OK, I guess you do not have any problem with the government stripping away from the church the authority to perform marriages.  

No big deal.

I personally have a real problem with this possibility, and clearly the church feels the same way.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Edited by cdowis, 16 June 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[The Nehor]

cdowis, on 16 June 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Well,  I was both married and sealed in the temple with one ceremony, since this is possible by the current laws in the United States.

Yes, it is. I was responding to your comments about the UK where I lived for several years.

cdowis, on 16 June 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

OK, I guess you do not have any problem with the government stripping away from the church the authority to perform marriages.

That's not what I said. I said that EVEN IF they did it would not compel the LDS Church or any other church to endorse or perform gay marriages. It would of course not be a good thing and if the government tried to make that happen I would fight it. They are not.

cdowis, on 16 June 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

No big deal.

I personally have a real problem with this possibility, and clearly the church feels the same way.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I also would have a problem with it but it would not cause what you seem to think it will cause not is there any indication it is happening. I'm done with this red herring. You seem to retreat on every point. When I say it is not an indication of governments anywhere forcing the LDS Church to perform gay marriages you fall back and talk about how that is what "they" want us to think and refuse to clarify who "they" are. When I point out that that is a little paranoid you argue that the Church is going to be stripped of the power to perform marriages. I show that that we are not moving towards that and point out that even if we were it wouldn't cause the church to have to endorse gay marriages. Then all of the sudden you are saying I wouldn't mind if they did that and patronizingly try to explain how it would be a bad thing (which I already knew and believed).

So what point are you trying to make?