What will become of marriage?

quote:

---

And for you people wondering what type of Christian I am, as was discussed earlier, I believe, I'm a Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (yes it is a long name, so people have shortened it to Mormon, which our church officials have asked Members not to use).

---

Ah, no wonder you are against interracial marriage.The Mormons have been a VERY racist religion for a very long time. IIRC they didn't give full status to black men in their church until the 1970's. They still don't give equal status to women.LDS also treats the non LDS family members of converts like crap. My best friend in college was seduced by some missionaries into converting and later, when she got married to a LDS man, her parents weren't allowed to attend the wedding ceremony, even though he is their only daughter.Seems to me that LDS is really "pro-family" but only LDS families are important or wanted.I wouldn't mind this stance so much if the LDS church didn't hypocritically market itself as the cuddly and fluffy religion.Pare of that marketing strategy is to stop using the term "Mormon" and to try to emphasize the "Jesus Christ" in the name to make it appear as if Mormonism is just like other Christian Protestant religions, which it is definitely not. I imagine the church leader men will not be widely advertizing what they teach regarding how we humans came here from another planet where we were gods, etc.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-06-2004 10:33 AM

quote:

---

WE study Church history in Sunday School.

---

You study the history they want you to know about, with the spin they want to put on it.Surely you know that.

Yes, yes, yes, we all know how amazing you are.Of course, it doesn't matter how right you are if folks tend to just skip over your posts, like I usually do.Have fun at the top of the mountain by yourself, little Napoleon.

I thought that was Scientology. I thought LDS was the religion where Native Americans were actually the lost tribe of Jews or whatever.

I'm sorry but it just doesn't work like that. The Bill of Rights ensures that majority rule doesn't trample over minorities. That's rather the point of it - the Constitution restricts what the majority can decide to do.It was exactly your legal reasoning, in fact, that was repudiated in Lawrence v. Texas, the case a couple of years ago that delegitimized laws banning gay sex. Just because a majority of people believe something is wrong is not sufficient basis for laws against it. There has to be a compelling secular rationale for the law, and in the case of anti-sodomy laws, there is none.The Constitution is a really great document. You might try reading it sometime. If two infertile, hetero parents utilize one of a myriad number of medical strategies to overcome that obstacle and have a child, is that child any less theirs? Are adoptive parents not really parents? Are in-vitro pregancies not really pregnancies? If you utilize a surrgate womb, are you not really a parent?The reason you're confused is because you're applying a pernicious double standard. When hetero parents utilize someone else's sperm or egg to concieve, you don't have a problem with it. But when a gay couple does exactly the same thing, somehow they're not real parents?Gay couples have children. Like infertile hetero couples, they need help to do so, but nobody questions the legitimacy of infertile parenthood. It's inconsistent, therefore, to assert that gay parents are not really parents because they employed the exact same strategies.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-06-2004 11:08 AM

Shraff.. in "Dawkin's Preachings" I provide an answer to your post over there. If you've read it - fair enough. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-06-2004 11:14 AM

May I ask to defend my religion? Even though it is off topic.We didn't give full statue to the black men in the church for a long time. I admit it. Until the 1970s. Black men were not permitted to hold the priesthood, a power of God, until the 1970s. The reason that they were not allowed is partly for cultural purposes, and partly because, like other Christian faiths believe, God gave dark skin as a curse. He gave it to Cain, he told him that his skin would be dark, as a curse for killing Abel. He also gave it to the Lamonites, a race of people that are not in the Bible but the book of Mormon.They do give equal status to women. Women just cannot hold the priesthood. However, you cannot benefit yourself with the priesthood, you can only benefit others.We believe that women are are Heavenly Father's daughters, just like men our His son's. Women have the sacred duty of bearing children and nuturing their children. Women are equal and are loved by Heavenly Father just as much. In fact, very recently our Prophet, who is in his mid-nineties, his wife died, and I have never seen him sadder.Missionaries only teach those who express the desire to teach. If you say "no thank-you, I'm fine", they will go away and never return. I was not allowed to attend my cousin's wedding either. That is because it is a temple wedding, and only baptised individuals, over a certain age may go into the temple. I am only allowed in the confirmation rooms and the baptistry, where I do baptism for the dead, an ordinance that we do so that people that have moved on may enjoy the benefits of the temple. We also seal for the dead, give endowments for the dead, and men receive the priesthood for the dead.My father is a convert to the church, and his family has no contact with the church, out of their own free will, and his parent's couldn't attenc my mother and father's wedding either.I think you may be confusing your last part with exaltation. Exaltation is the idea, that if we are righteousn enough, we can be exalted and become like Gods, and have children of our own and our own world's and have something just like our Heavenly Father.We try to emphasize that we aren't Mormons, because many people have been mistaken and think that we worship a man named Mormon instead of Our Heavenly Father.

That is true, some of the Native Americans are some of the lost Jews, you can send me a personal message if you like, and I'll explain it.

Actually, there wasn't a war. Name the war. There was no war.

If I care that bad I'll look it up in my mom's book for Mormon, but thanks.

{Edited- silly me}About the war thing, you can start by googling Mountain Meadows Massacre.This message has been edited by Lam, 12-06-2004 11:48 AM

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

I have read diaries, with that battle, as some of my ancestors were some of the original "Mormons" and it was out of self-defense. Why don't you try Googling Haun's Mill.

Now you admit there was a war?The point wasn't about trying to point out atrocities done by this and that organization. The point I am trying to make is you can't deny there was a war especially when even you know of some historical events that directly relates to the war.It is like saying, "yes, D-Day happenned but there was no World War 2."Added by edit.Um... self defense?This message has been edited by Lam, 12-06-2004 12:22 PM

A War and a massacre between a mob a group of religious people trying to defend themselves are totally different.Did you google Haun's Mill? That is what it was like. There was a boy in the Haun's Mill Massacre who got his head blown off because he didn't escape to the wood's fast enough! It was totally self-defense!

Ok, poor Mormons who were persecuted. Boo hoo.Now, let's talk about the massacre that implied a conflict of some sort. A group of settlers on their way to California when they were surrounded for days, tricked into putting down their arms to surrender, and killed by Mormons and Indians. Would you agree that this was due in part to the U.S. military presence in the Utah Territory at the time and Haun's Mill?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!