california boy Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I don't see much difference between the label apostasy and God creating humans that can't find a spouse. God knows not everyone can get married. I don't understand why you are so mad at the church, you have to ask God why he doesn't allow same sex marriage. I have a question, do you want the federal government to recognize and legalize object and android marriage ? marriage to 16 and 17 year olds? If not, why only gay marriage? Just curiosity. But like I said, just because God created human feelings doesn't the all marriages are acceptable in the eyes of God. You didn't fully answer my question since you are blaming this all on God and are claiming that others are not allowed to marry. Quote Which physically disabled does God think are not worthy enough to marry and if they do the church labels them apostates?
SamuelTheLamanite Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, california boy said: You didn't fully answer my question since you are blaming this all on God and are claiming that others are not allowed to marry. I don't blame God for his will, I am just wondering why are you blaming the church? 18 hours ago, california boy said: Which physically disabled does God think are not worthy enough to marry and if they do the church labels them apostates? None, but I was replying to your statement "Mormons want to exclude gays from the joys of family and having a spouse, then so be it." God knows some can't get married because they won't find a spouse. 18 hours ago, california boy said: You didn't fully answer my question Your turn to answer my question, I am curious to know if you have a different standard Quote do you want the federal government to recognize and legalize object and android marriage ? marriage to 16 and 17 year olds? If not, why only gay marriage? Just curiosity. Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
SamuelTheLamanite Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: In time I think the Federal government will have to under equal protection. Just as few would have taken SSM seriously 30 years ago, things will be accepted 30 years from now that nobody takes seriously today. As the standards of society race to the bottom, there is no limit to what will be accepted over time. We laugh at something like this today But give it time and society will accept it. (That bride is not real for those that can't tell.) and that is a real attraction (it is a sexual orientation). The guy in the picture probably feels offended when people don't recognize his marriage. So, it is a sincere love, but it is simply not acceptable in the eyes of God. Edited August 31, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
deli_llama Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 54 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: God knows some can't get married. People with down syndrome, Elephantiasis, and many other things. They can't? Why not? And you might want to tell that to Maryanne and Tommy Pilling, who celebrated 22 years together this last July. I am also curious as to why you believe that those with Lymphatic filariasi would be unfit for marriage? Check around, spouses of those burdened with this disease deserve gratitude and praise for often devoting much of their lives to assisting and caring for their loved ones who suffer beyond my comprehension and are often left incapacitated and unable to function fully in society. Or is it that you are personally disgusted by the physical appearance of the disease and can't imagine that anyone would be in any way attracted to someone with it? Your comment leaves a foul taste in my mouth. 1
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, deli_llama said: They can't? Why not? And you might want to tell that to Maryanne and Tommy Pilling, who celebrated 22 years together this last July. I am also curious as to why you believe that those with Lymphatic filariasi would be unfit for marriage? I thought Elephantiasis was something else, I am not medical expert so I apologize. I was talking about people born with conditions like in the case of Joseph Merrick for example. I don't claim they are unfit for marriage, what I am saying is that God knows many of them won't get married because they can't find a spouse. Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) "if a young man or a young woman has no opportunity of getting married, and they live faithful lives up to the time of their death, they will have all the blessings, exaltation, and glory that any man or woman will have who had this opportunity and improved it. That is sure and positive” (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, 138). Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
california boy Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I don't blame God for his will, I am just wondering why are you blaming the church? None, but I was replying to your statement "Mormons want to exclude gays from the joys of family and having a spouse, then so be it." God knows some can't get married because they won't find a spouse. Your turn to answer my question, I am curious to know if you have a different standard First of all, I don't blame the church for anything. It is their church. They can teach whatever they want. But I don't believe for one second that God thinks gays are unworthy of marriage. No, I don't think that the federal government should legalize android marriage.. Marriage is about two consenting adults forming a relationship together to share and support each other throughout life. Marriage is the cornerstone of society that creates family units which bring stability to our world. Anyone who thinks marriage is just about infatuation has a very shallow view of what it means to have a marriage relationship. Edited September 1, 2017 by california boy
california boy Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I thought Elephantiasis was something else, I am not medical expert so I apologize. I was talking about people born with conditions like in the case of Joseph Merrick for example. I don't claim they are unfit for marriage, what I am saying is that God knows many of them won't get married because they can't find a spouse. Being gay is not a disease. Gay people have just as much of an opportunity to marry as anyone else. There is no physical reasons hy they can not share a fulfilling and productive life with someone they love. They are fully capable of forming a family unit and sharing each others burdens, joys and happiness in life just like every other couple that marries. Christ said that by the fruits you shall know whether something is good or evil. All the goodness that comes from marriage relationships are the same whether you are gay or straight. Each couple views their relationship between their spouse in very similar terms. I know that your religious bias makes you mock gay marriage, but can you really point to anything about a gay marriage that in using Christ's litmus test, produces any kind of evil? Edited September 1, 2017 by california boy
california boy Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: "if a young man or a young woman has no opportunity of getting married, and they live faithful lives up to the time of their death, they will have all the blessings, exaltation, and glory that any man or woman will have who had this opportunity and improved it. That is sure and positive” (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, 138). There is no reason why that would not be true whether you are gay or straight. Edited September 1, 2017 by california boy
carbon dioxide Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 22 minutes ago, california boy said: First of all, I don't blame the church for anything. It is their church. They can teach whatever they want. But I don't believe for one second that God thinks gays are unworthy of marriage. No, I don't think that the federal government should legalize android marriage.. Marriage is about two consenting adults forming a relationship together to share and support each other throughout life. Marriage is the cornerstone of society that creates family units which bring stability to our world. Anyone who thinks marriage is just about infatuation has a very shallow view of what it means to have a marriage relationship. Who says marriage has to be about two consenting adults? Arraigned marriages have existed for a long time for example. Sometimes the people involved are not that excited about getting married but they do it anyway. More importantly however is that since the meaning of marriage can change, why not change it to include robots? Perhaps the robot does not consent but who cares? If the human sees some deep personal connection, why should that be discounted because it is different?
deli_llama Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: I thought Elephantiasis was something else, I am not medical expert so I apologize. I was talking about people born with conditions like in the case of Joseph Merrick for example. I don't claim they are unfit for marriage, what I am saying is that God knows many of them won't get married because they can't find a spouse. I would like to accept your apology, and I might later, but I still have that sour taste in my throat. The comments you finished with didn't help wash it out either. I am a slow responder, and I see that CB said exactly what I was trying to ramble on about—so, backspace and a quote: 12 minutes ago, california boy said: Being gay is not a disease.
california boy Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Who says marriage has to be about two consenting adults? Arraigned marriages have existed for a long time for example. Sometimes the people involved are not that excited about getting married but they do it anyway. More importantly however is that since the meaning of marriage can change, why not change it to include robots? Perhaps the robot does not consent but who cares? If the human sees some deep personal connection, why should that be discounted because it is different? Ultimately from a legal point of view, it comes down to equal protection under the law. I guess when robots have constitutional rights, that might be possible. Currently robots have no legal rights. So they have no constitution protecting their civil rights do they. And from a religious point of view, according to current Mormon theology, robots do not have a soul and will not be resurrected. Edited September 1, 2017 by california boy
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, california boy said: Being gay is not a disease. True, didn't say it is. All I am saying that is not everyone has the opportunity to have a spouse. 17 hours ago, california boy said: There is no physical reasons hy they can not share a fulfilling and productive life with someone they love. I agree, but it is God that doesn't accept gay marriage, not us. The claim "Mormons want to exclude gays from the joys of family and having a spouse" is not accurate. 17 hours ago, california boy said: I know that your religious bias makes you mock gay marriage How am I mocking gay marriage? Saying that God doesn't approve gay marriage is not mocking. Please feel free to ask him why. 17 hours ago, california boy said: No, I don't think that the federal government should legalize android marriage Why not in your view? Some sincerely love objects, and will probably be more common in the future with the rise of androids and Artificial Intelligence. I don't understand why you have a different standard for android marriage, it is called Love. According to 45 year old Mr.Davecat he has a doll wife because he couldn't find a biological wife. 17 hours ago, california boy said: Marriage is about two consenting adults forming a relationship together to share and support each other throughout life. In many US states 16 year olds can legally get married. According to naturalism, "historically (and evolutionarily) this almost certainly .... the case" So again, why do you have a different standard for 16-17 year old marriage? Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
ERMD Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 If this observation was already made, I missed it. One big problem I have with the article is that he assumes that none of the Church authorities (First Presidency, Twelve) have sought the answer he desires them to seek. How does he know that sincere supplication and seeking have not taken place? 1
california boy Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 24 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: True, didn't say it is. All I am saying that is not everyone has the opportunity to have a spouse. I agree, but it is God that doesn't accept gay marriage, not us. The claim "Mormons want to exclude gays from the joys of family and having a spouse" is not accurate. How am I mocking gay marriage? Saying that God doesn't approve gay marriage is not mocking. Please feel free to ask him why. Why not in your view? Some sincerely love objects, and will probably be more common in the future with the rise of androids and Artificial Intelligence. I don't understand why you have a different standard for android marriage, it is called Love. According to 45 year old Mr.Davecat he has a doll wife because he couldn't find a biological wife. In many US states 16 year olds can legally get married. According to naturalism, "historically (and evolutionarily) this almost certainly wasn’t the case" So again, why do you have a different standard for 16-17 year old marriage? The problem with your blaming God for the churches beliefs about gay marriage is that church leaders have never claimed to have received a revelation from God about prohibiting gay marriage
SamuelTheLamanite Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: The problem with your blaming God for the churches beliefs about gay marriage is that church leaders have never claimed to have received a revelation from God about prohibiting gay marriage Okay, but that can apply to many other things. Even if you are right God is still allowing the church to prohibit gay marriage. If God wanted don't you think he has the power to stop the prohibition? You didn't answer my question about why you a different standard for android and 16-17 year marriage? Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite
california boy Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Okay, but that can apply to many other things. Even if you are right God is still allowing the church to prohibit gay marriage. If God wanted don't you think he has the power to stop the prohibition? You didn't answer my question about why you a different standard for android and 16-17 year marriage? God has allowed the church to do a lot of things that were totally wrong. Banning blacks from holding the priesthood is just one example. It only took 150 years to correct that church policy invented by a church leader I did answer your question. This is what I said 23 hours ago, california boy said: Ultimately from a legal point of view, it comes down to equal protection under the law. I guess when robots have constitutional rights, that might be possible. Currently robots have no legal rights. So they have no constitution protecting their civil rights do they. And from a religious point of view, according to current Mormon theology, robots do not have a soul and will not be resurrected. Edited September 2, 2017 by california boy
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 10 hours ago, california boy said: The problem with your blaming God for the churches beliefs about gay marriage is that church leaders have never claimed to have received a revelation from God about prohibiting gay marriage President M. Russell Nelson spoke in detail about the experience in which the November 2015 policy -- the one that brought such an uproar from some -- was confirmed by divine inspiration/revelation. 1
Marginal Gains Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: President M. Russell Nelson spoke in detail about the experience in which the November 2015 policy -- the one that brought such an uproar from some -- was confirmed by divine inspiration/revelation. When did the Church vote to accept it? Why wasn’t it announced during the October General Conference? I think it will be disavowed as being the cultural bias of flawed men, the same way the doctrine of black skin being a sign of divine disfavour has now been disavowed. But I hope it doesn’t take 150 years this time. Edited September 2, 2017 by Marginal Gains 1
california boy Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: President M. Russell Nelson spoke in detail about the experience in which the November 2015 policy -- the one that brought such an uproar from some -- was confirmed by divine inspiration/revelation. Well according to Samuel the Lamonite, unless it is in a conference talk it doesn't count. Edited September 2, 2017 by california boy
california boy Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: President M. Russell Nelson spoke in detail about the experience in which the November 2015 policy -- the one that brought such an uproar from some -- was confirmed by divine inspiration/revelation. I just read this quote YOU posted in another thread supporting what you consider was never doctrine concerning Adam/God Quote After Young's death, church leaders began to cast the various interpretations of this teaching as mere speculation and denied that any particular interpretation was binding on the church. In 1897, Joseph F. Smith, then an apostle and counselor in the First Presidency, wrote a private letter concerning Young's teachings on Adam, stating: The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth." Only the scripture, the "accepted word of God," is the Church's standard.[60] You seem to change the litmus test on what is doctrine depending on whether it fits your need at the time. Or do you have a different way at looking at these conflicting criteria for what you or maybe the church considered is doctrine. The doctrine of Adam/God was approved by the entire first presidency and eventually all 12 apostles. Joseph F. Smith is saying that since it was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification then it was never really doctrine. And you agreed. Yet you are hanging on a comment made by one apostle as proof that the October "policy" is revelation direct from God. Edited September 2, 2017 by california boy 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said: When did the Church vote to accept it? Why wasn’t it announced during the October General Conference? I think it will be disavowed as being the cultural bias of flawed men, the same way the doctrine of black skin being a sign of divine disfavour has now been disavowed. But I hope it doesn’t take 150 years this time. The Brethren are guided by revelation pretty much constantly, and it is not necessary that every little thing be presented to in conference for vote. The Church is governed by revelation from God, not popular vote. And you'll wait a lot longer than 150 years before you'll see marriage redefined or the law of chastity repealed in this or any other respect. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, california boy said: I just read this quote YOU posted in another thread supporting what you consider was never doctrine concerning Adam/God You seem to change the litmus test on what is doctrine depending on whether it fits your need at the time. Or do you have a different way at looking at these conflicting criteria for what you or maybe the church considered is doctrine. Present your evidence of the Brethren being in any way divided on the matter of marriage being between a man and a woman or any other aspect of the family proclamation. Either now or in the past. Edited September 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 37 minutes ago, california boy said: Well according to Samuel the Lamonite, unless it is in a conference talk it doesn't count. I'm not Samuel the Lamanite.
california boy Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Present your evidence of the Brethren being in any way divided on the matter of marriage being between a man and a woman or any other aspect of the family proclamation. Either now or in the past. That is a straw man. I never said that the brethren are divided about anything. But as you quoted previously on the Adam/God doctrine, every single member of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 were also united in that belief. Yet, Joseph F. Smith said that did not constitute doctrine because it was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification. So if you think the October policy is doctrine, then CFR where that policy or gay marriage was ever submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification. Nor did I imply that you were Samuel the Lamonite, but you did respond to a post where he acknowledged that God has never spoken about gay marriage because there is an absence of any record of such a revelation in any General Conference talk, which is what his criteria is for determining church doctrine. I think part of the problem is, every member of the church and every church leader seems to have a different criteria of what constitutes doctrine. And that determination depends on what doctrine they are defending or disavowing. Kind of like your two different criteria of what you consider doctrine. It would be helpful in dealing with you if you could simply state what you think the criteria is for something to be considered doctrine in the church. Is something doctrine if a single apostle says there has been a revelation about something? 2
Recommended Posts