President Monson sued for teaching the earth is 6000 years old

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I meant it would make the church's leaders life easier, to not to continually fight this gay issue. 

Exactly.  Which is why CB's post doesn't make a lot of sense.

[The Nehor]

On January 17, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Tacenda said:

Yep, and a interview to boot.  Google.  But who cares right.  Half or more of the LDS don't even know that exists. 

And those that do suspect he may have sinned against the Holy Ghost and gets to go live with the devil forever. At least they should get along.

[Guest]

On January 9, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Zakuska said:

Does anyone know how this ended up?

 

Any information would be appreciated.

I don't know, but is jury not out on the whole 6,000 year idea of creation? I hope it never becomes a tenant of faith. 

[sunstoned]

On 1/12/2016 at 10:37 AM, bluebell said:

That section teaches that the earth's temporal existence is 7,000 years. 

I suppose someone could try to say that such meant Monson had taught that the earth was 6,000 years old. Seems like a stretch though. 

Since Monson did not author any sections of the D & C or the Bible it does seem like a really big stretch.

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

I don't know, but is jury not out on the whole 6,000 year idea of creation? I hope it never becomes a tenant of faith. 

It wouldn't cause me to loose my faith, but it does open a whole lot more questions.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It wouldn't cause me to loose my faith, but it does open a whole lot more questions.

The 6000 year thing is silly and is really not grounded in reality, but this belief is not something you should be sued over.

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The 6000 year thing is silly and is really not grounded in reality, but this belief is not something you should be sued over.

Agreed. However to play the devils advocate for a moment. IF it really is 6000 years old. It does open a whole lot more questions. 

Edited January 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint
spelling

[rodheadlee]

On 1/19/2016 at 7:51 AM, california boy said:

Humm this is sounding familiar. Perhaps you can understand why so many have such animosity towards the church after prop 8.  Your statement just reinforced a good reason to sue the church.  

Well get after it! 

Edited January 23, 2016 by rodheadlee

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The 6000 year thing is silly and is really not grounded in reality, but this belief is not something you should be sued over.

Good.  I'd hate to be sued for sort of believing it.

[Jim Stiles]

The UK court threw it out because it is not possible to sue over religious beliefs in a UK court.

Good thing too, otherwise they would be going to sue Ken Ham.

[Glenn101]

It is hard to understand why this is a current topic on a dead issue. I.E. Old News. maybe we should have a separate forum for the Old And Moot. 

[california boy]

On January 12, 2016 at 9:32 AM, bluebell said:

You think the church has the doctrine on ssm that it does because it makes the church's life better?  You think the church is excited when you lose something you love because it makes their life better that you have lost it?

I'm not sure how that makes sense.

I didn't say anyting about the church's doctrine on ssm.  I said

On January 19, 2016 at 7:51 AM, california boy said:

Perhaps you can understand why so many have such animosity towards the church after prop 8.  Your statement just reinforced a good reason to sue the church.  

Since you didn't seem to be able to connect the dots, or perhaps you didn't want to connect the dots, let me spell it out for you.  This is what you said.

Quote

 

Think of something you love, that you feel gives you so much happiness and makes your life better. 

 

Now for a moment, think about how a gay person loves and feels so much happiness with the person they want to spend the rest of their life with.  Think about how like you, when you met your spouse, how you wanted to marry and legally commit your life together.  Think about the rights your got to make medical decisions, visitations, make legally binding financial decisions together, raising a family together, having all the protections that marriage gives you and your spouse.  I am sure you would agree that your marriage gives you so much happiness and makes your life better.

Quote

Now, how would you describe someone who is excited about you losing that thing because it will make their life better. 

 

Now think about how excited members of the church were when they were able to pass Prop 8 and take away the right to marry ffrom gay couples.  Think about how happy members were that now gay couples had to follow the church's view on what morality was and how the church wanted to define marriage.  Think about how the church was forcing it's views on gay couples in order to keep their views of what marriage was to the church.  Think about how self centered of a position it is to think that your views of how you should live your life should be forced upon everyone even if they don't share the same beliefs as the church does.

 

Quote

 

Isn't "self centered" a reasonable adjective?

 

Yes, I would say 'self centered' is a reasonable adjective. 

It is a pretty parallel position.  Just like the guy in Britian wanted to impose his beliefs on the church,  the church wanted to impose it's beliefs on others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c?

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I didn't say anyting about the church's doctrine on ssm.  I said

 

Since you didn't seem to be able to connect the dots, or perhaps you didn't want to connect the dots, let me spell it out for you.  This is what you said.

Now for a moment, think about how a gay person loves and feels so much happiness with the person they want to spend the rest of their life with.  Think about how like you, when you met your spouse, how you wanted to marry and legally commit your life together.  Think about the rights your got to make medical decisions, visitations, make legally binding financial decisions together, raising a family together, having all the protections that marriage gives you and your spouse.  I am sure you would agree that your marriage gives you so much happiness and makes your life better.

 

Now think about how excited members of the church were when they were able to pass Prop 8 and take away the right to marry ffrom gay couples.  Think about how happy members were that now gay couples had to follow the church's view on what morality was and how the church wanted to define marriage.  Think about how the church was forcing it's views on gay couples in order to keep their views of what marriage was to the church.  Think about how self centered of a position it is to think that your views of how you should live your life should be forced upon everyone even if they don't share the same beliefs as the church does.

 

Yes, I would say 'self centered' is a reasonable adjective. 

It is a pretty parallel position.  Just like the guy in Britian wanted to impose his beliefs on the church,  the church wanted to impose it's beliefs on others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c?

 

I guess I just didn't see prop 8 as causing anyone to lose a significant other.  If people were a couple before prop 8, I'm guessing they were still a couple after it. 

But I can understand your point of view. 

[california boy]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

I guess I just didn't see prop 8 as causing anyone to lose a significant other.  If people were a couple before prop 8, I'm guessing they were still a couple after it. 

But I can understand your point of view. 

If the LGBT group took away your right to marry your husband, you might feel different.

 

you don't think getting married to your spouse brought you happiness right made your life better?  

 

Do you still think it is being self centered to force others to conform to your beliefs?

 

you were so quick to see the injustice of someone suing the church but soooo slow to see the injustice of the church activally working to take away someone's right to marry. 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

If the LGBT group took away your right to marry your husband, you might feel different.

As long as i can still get married and have the same legal rights as a married couple, i really would't care.  

Quote

you don't think getting married to your spouse brought you happiness right made your life better?  

It did.  

But that happiness doesn't have anything to do with the government recognition of my marriage.  If the government had refused to recognize it, my happiness, like my marriage, would still be the same as it is right now.  

There are legal aspects i would miss, but if they gave me those and wanted to call it a civil union, that would be perfect. If they refused even that, it would be annoying as all heck, but i would still be just as happy in my marriage.

Quote

Do you still think it is being self centered to force others to conform to your beliefs?

I think you've lost focus on my original post.  Either that or you never understood what i said to begin with.  

I never said that forcing someone to conform to your beliefs makes someone self centered.  I said that doing it because it makes your life better regardless of the sadness it causes the person is self centered.

There are lots of valid and non-selfish reasons to try to force someone to conform to your beliefs.  Doing so because you believe it's the morally right position is one such non-self centered reason.

Quote

you were so quick to see the injustice of someone suing the church but soooo slow to see the injustice of the church activally working to take away someone's right to marry. 

Again, you're confused or have missed the point.

I never said it was unjust for someone to sue the church.  And I don't think it's unjust for people to vote for laws according to what they believe is morally correct either.