I know there are a lot of LDS people here

[b_line]

well, like Trout might say about a proposal like mine above, NO HOMO. Just a principled view that human nature is what is, and will not be changed either by religious or ideological political ideals espoused by a few intellectuals. . . . and tolerance for the human nature in us that provokes us to different views sometimes.. . . and confidence that traditional values that have returned time and again after various societal experimental values will again return after this cycle.

And b_, do you know how much that SCIENCE costs. Well, maybe no object to Kicky, come to think of it.

Yes it is pretty expensive. But surrogacy and adoption are a fair bit cheaper.

Also, I encourage you to look into the science of homosexuality. It is pretty well documented that 3 to 5 % of human population will be gay. This will not change, barring a pretty significant change in our evolutionary process. It's also been documented in around 1500 species of mammals in similar percentages.

Have you ever heard about the gay uncle phenomenon in mammal populations? Studies show that mammals with gay siblings tend to have more offspring, compensating for their gay kin.

In other words, gay people are not just going to die off. It's not a trend. It's not something new, and it isn't going away just because the lds church doesn't like them.

 

[colton]

"LGBTQ advocates see spike in suicide calls after announcement of LDS policy change, officials say"

https://fox13now.com/2015/11/10/lgb...ouncement-of-lds-policy-change-officials-say/

Wow, is that a horrible article. It gives no source at all for the claim that suicide calls have been up since the announcement. That may or may not be true, but that article certainly gives me no reason to believe it.

 

[colton]

This is such a loaded question. Do you realize that Mormons still practice polygamy? Many members of the Quorum of the 12 are married to more than one woman.

You're talking about widowers who remarry? Not quite the same thing.

 

[green]

You're talking about widowers who remarry? Not quite the same thing.

So, a man who is sealed to multiple women won't have multiple wives?

It is exactly the same thing.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Gay marriage is a bigger issue in America than it is in many other countries.

nah it isnt, only problem in america is FORCING others to "join" in the gay marriage shenanigans. aka you don't wanna bake me a cake? WTF BAKE ME ONE NOW!
instead of okay i am taking my money down the street you just lost on a sale.

IT IS FORCING others to celebrate with you. to accept it wholeheartedly

and that always leads to trouble.

over here no church was ever forced into accepting or hosting a gay marriage!

 

[JAZZGASM]

On my mission, I'd tract into people who would say, "no thanks, I'm Catholic. Or Orthodox. Or whatever." I'd try to talk to them and show them holes in their religion. They'd respond, "My parents are Orthodox, their parents are Orthodox. I go to Church on Easter and Christmas. I'm Orthodox." We'd part ways and I'd be amazed that they could feel like that.

I get it now.

All Church's have issues. All have problems and I'm not sure God is guiding any of them. Too much money involved.

That being said, I'm not going to change. I'm mormon. My family is. My friends are. My kids friends are. What's the point of changing now? I'll continue to do what I do. I'll read my scriptures every day, like I do. I'll attend Church often, like I do. I'll baptize my kids LDS, because if I don't, where do I baptize them? Catholic? Protestant? In my backyard pool? I'll also be open and frank with them in my discussions and if they choose to live a little lax...well, I won't think they are going to beat their wives if they drink a barley drink on a Friday night, as allowed by the Word of Wisdom.

It is easy to stay in the status quo, but if we did that we'd have a King, we'd believe the world is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth. Often the right choice is the hard choice. If you know in your heart that something is not right, question it, fight against it, if you accept the status quo you assent to what is going on. For me, once I knew without a doubt the LDS religion was false, I walked away. Best decision I ever made. Up until this most recent policy, I still defended the religion as a good one that had good values. I see the change as hypocritical against some of their central tenets, and will no longer defend them.

 

[JAZZGASM]

nah it isnt, only problem in america is FORCING others to "join" in the gay marriage shenanigans. aka you don't wanna bake me a cake? WTF BAKE ME ONE NOW!
instead of okay i am taking my money down the street you just lost on a sale.

IT IS FORCING others to celebrate with you. to accept it wholeheartedly

and that always leads to trouble.

over here no church was ever forced into accepting or hosting a gay marriage!

Our country has constitutional protections (some states have more) that protect people's rights. People used to make similar comments to yours about refusing service to black people. Are you against equal protection?

 

[RJF]

So, a man who is sealed to multiple women won't have multiple wives?

It is exactly the same thing.

Not really the same...

 

[b_line]

So, a man who is sealed to multiple women won't have multiple wives?

It is exactly the same thing.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[fishonjazz]

So, a man who is sealed to multiple women won't have multiple wives?

It is exactly the same thing.

My dad is sealed to my mom and both of my sisters.
So he is sealed to multiple women.
Only one wife though

 

[One Brow]

The Church cannot, and should not punish children because of what their parents have done. You will find no backing for this in the Bible, not anywhere.

You can examples both de facto and de jure. Children of non-believing parents killed, refusals to admit Egytians to status of Israelites for ten generations, etc.

 

[One Brow]

Is this a good place to post all the recent studies about how raising kids secular might make them better people?

It's more important to raise them to be considerate; to consider carefully why they believe what they believe, and to consider the rights and opinions of others with care and caution.

 

[RandyForRubio]

You can examples both de facto and de jure. Children of non-believing parents killed, refusals to admit Egytians to status of Israelites for ten generations, etc.

Vastly different. One has to take context into consideration. We're talking about the church for this discussion. Will you find any record of the church refusing to admit children because of a parent's sin in the Bible?

 

[One Brow]

Please enlighten me here.

A detailed and balanced resource:

https://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

 

[One Brow]

Vastly different. One has to take context into consideration. We're talking about the church for this discussion. Will you find any record of the church refusing to admit children because of a parent's sin in the Bible?

I am not confused that you are discussing the current policies of the church. I was just pointing out the falseness of your claim that punishing children for their parentage is never seen in the Bible.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I am not confused that you are discussing the current policies of the church. I was just pointing out the falseness of your claim that punishing children for their parentage is never seen in the Bible.

I was referring to how the Church was ran in the Bible as evidence. I probably should have stated that, but I thought it was obvious.

Let me try again: When we look at how the Church was ran in the Bible, we will find no evidence that this is a right and proper thing to do. That better?

 

[One Brow]

Again, they are not required to disavow their parents. They are required to disavow their parents' *actions*. If you don't see a difference, then there's no hope for this conversation.

Do you think that there are actions that are so fundamental to the identity of a person, that you can not disavow the action without also substantially disavowing the person?

 

[One Brow]

Let me try again: When we look at how the Church was ran in the Bible, we will find no evidence that this is a right and proper thing to do. That better?

I don't think you describe anything in the NT as being a single Church, but outside of that, OK.

 

[colton]

So, a man who is sealed to multiple women won't have multiple wives?

It is exactly the same thing.

No, not necessarily. "Serial sealings" don't guarantee polygamous relationships in the hereafter. After all, there is no opportunity for the deceased spouse to agree to the plural marriage which would need to be a requirement.

 

[green]

No, not necessarily. "Serial sealings" don't guarantee polygamous relationships in the hereafter. After all, there is no opportunity for the deceased spouse to agree to the plural marriage which would need to be a requirement.

Source?