Mormon Church - Your parents are gay? F*ck Off.

byuboundThat last bit about how the president CAN request approval for a child of a parent who 'is living in a same gender relationship' is what myself and others were basing this interpretation on. Admittedly, the statement contradicts itself in the regulations following. Also, I don't understand how you can think this policy will create additional conflict in a family. Homosexuality has been a sin in the church for forever. Having the children of homosexual couples renounce homosexuality does not mean that they are saying they don't love their parents or that their parents don't love each other. That being said, there is no way I am going to change your opinion on the issue, and there is no way you are going to change mine, so Im gonna go ski.

My point is that we shouldn't dance around the issue. Either one supports it or not but don't massage it or twist it into something it's not in order to make it more palpable.

To your last point, that's unfortunate. Since I began having opinions (or claimed to know things), I follow what the evidence and logic points to. So, if you were to present a better argument and show me to be in error, then yes I would change my mind. I would hope that any rational being would be the same but apparently I live in rational thought fantasy land.

RedPandaThis is why I hate religion. You people refuse to take any logic or reason and let it change your opinion. Blind faith is a dangerous thing.

True but its almost worth it knowing that they get planets when they die if they are a good mormon

yo but for real doe, fuck mormons and their lizard teeth

byubound. Having the children of homosexual couples renounce homosexuality does not mean that they are saying they don't love their parents or that their parents don't love each other.

You're right. Its forcing the children to say to their parents, "You care and love me and you care and love each other but you're still going to hell because your relationship is an abomination of God and I reject your relationship as anything but an evil sinful choice you've made."


Yeah, the LDS church is trying to avoid conflict within families, alright. Its funny how this rule only applies to children of gays or polygamous families (which is something as ordained as a right by God as claimed by the founders of the Mormon religion, funny right?)

There are many contradictions within religion because its tough keeping a string of bullshit consistent over the years with so many different bullshit artists pulling the shit strings.

Another fun fact: the LDS organization donates less than 1% of its total income to charitable means. Most of their charitable acts are from forcing young LDS members to commit to 2 years of paid free labor/charity work in the name of the church.

CARTMANBRUHTrue but its almost worth it knowing that they get planets when they die if they are a good mormon

I would love to be dumb enough to believe in that, id honestly be looking forward to death.

RedPandaThis is why I hate religion. You people refuse to take any logic or reason and let it change your opinion. Blind faith is a dangerous thing.

I fail to see how my faith is dangerous. I don't parade around with a 'God hates fags' sign, nor do I avoid or vote to defund scientific research just because it doesn't match what the bible says. Probably the biggest thing I remember being emphasized in my upbringing as a Mormon is to love others regardless of what they think. How is this at all dangerous or detrimental to society?

onenerdykidMy point is that we shouldn't dance around the issue. Either one supports it or not but don't massage it or twist it into something it's not in order to make it more palpable.

To your last point, that's unfortunate. Since I began having opinions (or claimed to know things), I follow what the evidence and logic points to. So, if you were to present a better argument and show me to be in error, then yes I would change my mind. I would hope that any rational being would be the same but apparently I live in rational thought fantasy land.

Fair enough. I'll be the first to admit that evidence and logic would not point you to the church. I put my trust in church leaders first and foremost because it makes me happy. It gives me a sense of completion that I wasn't finding elsewhere. If you ever get a chance, I would encourage you to read the book of Mormon. It isn't long winded and indecipherable like parts of the bible, and I think you'll find it interesting.

byuboundI fail to see how my faith is dangerous. I don't parade around with a 'God hates fags' sign, nor do I avoid or vote to defund scientific research just because it doesn't match what the bible says. Probably the biggest thing I remember being emphasized in my upbringing as a Mormon is to love others regardless of what they think. How is this at all dangerous or detrimental to society?

Fair enough. I'll be the first to admit that evidence and logic would not point you to the church. I put my trust in church leaders first and foremost because it makes me happy. It gives me a sense of completion that I wasn't finding elsewhere. If you ever get a chance, I would encourage you to read the book of Mormon. It isn't long winded and indecipherable like parts of the bible, and I think you'll find it interesting.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
- George Orwell

K-Dot.War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
- George Orwell

Ignorance does not equal faith though. I like to consider myself fairly well versed in big bang theory, and the background radiation that is our evidence of it. I understand natural selection and how you can think that our existence is a thing of coincidence and a matter of survival. Like I said in my previous post, I love science and find it fascinating. I don't avoid learning what other people think at all. Am I incredibly stubborn? Quite possibly. Ignorant? Not at all.

byuboundIgnorance does not equal faith though. I like to consider myself fairly well versed in big bang theory, and the background radiation that is our evidence of it. I understand natural selection and how you can think that our existence is a thing of coincidence and a matter of survival. Like I said in my previous post, I love science and find it fascinating. I don't avoid learning what other people think at all. Am I incredibly stubborn? Quite possibly. Ignorant? Not at all.

I know a lot of really amazing, well balanced, reasonable and scientific Mormons. That doesnt mean the leadership or the rules of the Mormon church are all of those things.

I know Mormons who are offended by the term Mormon.
I know Mormons that gamble
I know Mormons that drink
I know Mormons that don't

Mormon person does not equal Mormon church.

byuboundIgnorance does not equal faith though. I like to consider myself fairly well versed in big bang theory, and the background radiation that is our evidence of it. I understand natural selection and how you can think that our existence is a thing of coincidence and a matter of survival. Like I said in my previous post, I love science and find it fascinating. I don't avoid learning what other people think at all. Am I incredibly stubborn? Quite possibly. Ignorant? Not at all.

The LDS church is heavily based and relied upon the teachings of the old and new testament of the bible. They and even the LDS church's teachings directly contradict the scientific theories that you claim to know and believe.

Saying you believe fully in the church's leadership while also being fascinated and believing in modern scientific subjects such as the big bang is a contradiction. You either believe in science or the mystical books. There is no in between so which one? God or science aka eternal damnation? Also why are you avoiding my questions? Ah, that's right because organized religion is complete horseshit.

skiermanThe LDS church is heavily based and relied upon the teachings of the old and new testament of the bible. They and even the LDS church's teachings directly contradict the scientific theories that you claim to know and believe.

Saying you believe fully in the church's leadership while also being fascinated and believing in modern scientific subjects such as the big bang is a contradiction. You either believe in science or the mystical books. There is no in between so which one? God or science aka eternal damnation? Also why are you avoiding my questions? Ah, that's right because organized religion is complete horseshit.

I didn't answer your question because I didn't believe you actually wanted to know anything. I'm still under that impression, but Ill bite anyways.
1. Did I ever say I believed in all scientific theories? Understanding and being fascinated by them, and fully believing them, are two completely different things.
2. I do not agree at all that "you either believe in science or the mystical books." First of all, no reasonable Mormon will tell you that the bible is 100% correct, nor that it is all meant to be taken literally. That's why we have modern prophets. My personal opinion is that much of what we observe in nature is what we see of Gods creation. Did the universe suddenly expand from an infinitely dense point in space? It certainly looks that way, but that does not mean that God didnt initiate or shape the expansion of the universe afterward.
3. The fact that you think that believing in science leads to eternal damnation shows how little you actually know about the lds church. The Mormon equivalent of hell in other churches is usually referred to as outer darkness, and the only way to end up there is by denying Christ after he is revealed by God as his son. That's it. Otherwise, you are sorted into a degree of heaven based on how decent of a person you are to others.

byuboundFair enough. I'll be the first to admit that evidence and logic would not point you to the church. I put my trust in church leaders first and foremost because it makes me happy. It gives me a sense of completion that I wasn't finding elsewhere. If you ever get a chance, I would encourage you to read the book of Mormon. It isn't long winded and indecipherable like parts of the bible, and I think you'll find it interesting.

I have not read the entire Book of Mormon, only parts of it, and I think Joseph Smith was trying too hard. He was clearly trying to write the book in a style similar to the New Testament, but since no one during the 19th century spoke that way, he got much of it wrong and it sounds incredibly forced and inauthentic.

I also personally have a very hard time believing anything he says since prior to being a "prophet", he was a treasure hunter that used special seeing stones to convince people he had found treasure (to which was later tried for being a con man). There is no evidence that he had golden plates in his possession (we must take his and others' word on faith that it happened and that the plates conveniently went back to heaven). He later tried to translate Egyptian scrolls and convince people that the hieroglyphs contained a revelation that he called the Book of Abraham. He also compiled an "Egyptian Language and Grammar" that claimed to teach the Egyptian language, which was not even known yet at the time. In the 1960s he was exposed for making it all up- the scrolls contained absolutely nothing that he said they did. They were part of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and his book on Egyptian language and grammar was completely wrong.

So, when I speak of following the evidence, there is absolutely none that points to Joseph Smith being a prophet or actually revealing the word of God. The only evidence that actually exists points to him being a con man and a deceiver, and that we must believe his stories purely on faith. Why should we accept this as true? We would NEVER accept this in any other circumstance of life, so why should we now under the guise of religion?

byuboundIgnorance does not equal faith though. I like to consider myself fairly well versed in big bang theory, and the background radiation that is our evidence of it. I understand natural selection and how you can think that our existence is a thing of coincidence and a matter of survival. Like I said in my previous post, I love science and find it fascinating. I don't avoid learning what other people think at all. Am I incredibly stubborn? Quite possibly. Ignorant? Not at all.

While I would never say you are ignorant, I do think there is a problem when we believe things based on faith. Believing things on faith amounts to believing things without (or on insufficient) evidence. This is never a good basis for any understanding of any subject. We would never attempt to build a bridge or a building based on faith or insufficient evidence. We build a bridge based on mechanical principles that are proven to work. Obviously, there is a point where we do not have sufficient evidence to make a claim. The cause of the Big Bang or the cause of cellular mutation are 2 great examples. We simply don't know the cause, yet. Could God be the ultimate cause of these things? Absolutely yes, it is possible. But there simply isn't any evidence that points to it. And to make claims about the universe, ethical conduct, political rules, etc based on no (or at least insufficient) evidence is not the mark of the most rational being on the planet. We can do better than this, and we ought to.

byuboundI didn't answer your question because I didn't believe you actually wanted to know anything. I'm still under that impression, but Ill bite anyways.
1. Did I ever say I believed in all scientific theories? Understanding and being fascinated by them, and fully believing them, are two completely different things.
2. I do not agree at all that "you either believe in science or the mystical books." First of all, no reasonable Mormon will tell you that the bible is 100% correct, nor that it is all meant to be taken literally. That's why we have modern prophets. My personal opinion is that much of what we observe in nature is what we see of Gods creation. Did the universe suddenly expand from an infinitely dense point in space? It certainly looks that way, but that does not mean that God didnt initiate or shape the expansion of the universe afterward.
3. The fact that you think that believing in science leads to eternal damnation shows how little you actually know about the lds church. The Mormon equivalent of hell in other churches is usually referred to as outer darkness, and the only way to end up there is by denying Christ after he is revealed by God as his son. That's it. Otherwise, you are sorted into a degree of heaven based on how decent of a person you are to others.

So what I got out of this was that Mormons don't believe God's words (aka the Bibles) are accurate... meaning you think God is wrong on a few things. That is strange considering God is an infallible being that created existence. No one is saying its not possible an intelligent being could be behind all this but you're completely avoiding any of my points and instead respond using semantics such as, "well we don't exactly believe in Hell so your entire point is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about". How about you try defending your faith and responding directly to my criticisms and in a better way than saying "Well even though the Bibles are supposed to be God's words, they're not accurate or to be taken literally but only in spots I deem so." That's a pretty weak argument man.

onenerdykidI have not read the entire Book of Mormon, only parts of it, and I think Joseph Smith was trying too hard. He was clearly trying to write the book in a style similar to the New Testament, but since no one during the 19th century spoke that way, he got much of it wrong and it sounds incredibly forced and inauthentic.

I also personally have a very hard time believing anything he says since prior to being a "prophet", he was a treasure hunter that used special seeing stones to convince people he had found treasure (to which was later tried for being a con man). There is no evidence that he had golden plates in his possession (we must take his and others' word on faith that it happened and that the plates conveniently went back to heaven). He later tried to translate Egyptian scrolls and convince people that the hieroglyphs contained a revelation that he called the Book of Abraham. He also compiled an "Egyptian Language and Grammar" that claimed to teach the Egyptian language, which was not even known yet at the time. In the 1960s he was exposed for making it all up- the scrolls contained absolutely nothing that he said they did. They were part of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and his book on Egyptian language and grammar was completely wrong.

So, when I speak of following the evidence, there is absolutely none that points to Joseph Smith being a prophet or actually revealing the word of God. The only evidence that actually exists points to him being a con man and a deceiver, and that we must believe his stories purely on faith. Why should we accept this as true? We would NEVER accept this in any other circumstance of life, so why should we now under the guise of religion?

From what I have heard, JS did try to find treasure with seeing stones, and was tried for basically wasting peoples time with it. IIRC he was not convicted either. Keep in mind that in the early 1800s, trying to find stuff with seeing stones was not as outrageous as it seems today. The last witch trials had not happened yet. I get why this would cause you to question his teachings, which is fair, but through a modern lens it is far less legit than it would have seemed to an uneducated farm boy 200 years ago.
As for the Egyptian scrolls, the church teaches that what was written in the book of Abraham is interpretation based on what JS read in the scrolls. They focus a ton on the after and pre-mortal life, in the same way the book of the dead and whatever the other one he had was called. It's interesting, however, that the first bit of the book sounds super jumbled and nonsensical, like he was trying to straight up translate the hieroglyphs word for word. All the sudden, it flows well and actually makes sense for the rest of the book. To me and others, this was revelation from God and not translation.

My opinion on the book of Egyptian language that he wrote is that JS was desperate for some way to prove his legitimacy. Can you imagine living your whole life being attacked for things you believed you saw and did? The reason I believe JS could have written a completely incorrect book while still being a prophet is that God gives and takes the powers of revelation as he pleases. If God didn't care that Joseph wanted to prove that he could translate, which I do not think he did, then Joseph could not. Having faith in the church is not supposed to be easy. I believe that this life is a test and learning experience, that would be pointless if it was.

As for evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I won't deny there is very little. There were 8 people who claimed to have seen the plates. 4 of them also claim to have been visited by an angel. Of these 4, 3 left the church later in their life. 1 never came back. However, not one of those people ever recanted their statements. They called Joseph a 'fallen prophet,' but would not deny the existence of the golden plates or their visitation by an angel. The book of Mormon contains Hebraisms that do not occur in the Bible, along with mistakes that only would have happened had someone been speaking the words to a scribe, not if they were copied from another source. Wordprinting studies that compare the book of Mormon to Joseph Smith's writing among other early church leaders came to the conclusion that the writing matched none of their styles of writing, but that of multiple unknown authors. The beliefs of the characters in the first chapters of the book, when they are still in the Jerusalem area, match those of ancient Jewish manuscripts that were not discovered until after the the book of Mormon was written.

I know that this all sounds like a bunch of conveniences and excuses to protect the LDS church. I certainly understand if you dismiss it as such. The thing is that to me, what Smith did before and after he translated the Book of Mormon and established the church doesn't really matter at all. I know it sounds corny and ridiculous and hate all you want, but I firmly believe that the teachings of the church are true, because of the way I have felt when I have listened and followed them, and when I have not. This is what keeps me going to church.

One thing I was wondering though: If you believe that Joseph Smith was a con, what was his end game? What was he after? There is the multiple wives thing, but there were prostitutes back then too if you were into that. He was tarred and feathered, beaten, and jailed multiple times. Why would he want this?

skiermanSo what I got out of this was that Mormons don't believe God's words (aka the Bibles) are accurate... meaning you think God is wrong on a few things. That is strange considering God is an infallible being that created existence. No one is saying its not possible an intelligent being could be behind all this but you're completely avoiding any of my points and instead respond using semantics such as, "well we don't exactly believe in Hell so your entire point is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about". How about you try defending your faith and responding directly to my criticisms and in a better way than saying "Well even though the Bibles are supposed to be God's words, they're not accurate or to be taken literally but only in spots I deem so." That's a pretty weak argument man.

The Bible, besides being a historical record, is revelation received by man from God. Man's recording and transcribing is the weak link in the book, not God. My point about outer darkness and Hell was not a semantic at all. Being eternally damned for following scientific beliefs, as you put it, and being sorted into a degree of heaven are completely different, and it refutes your point that you have to choose between God and science if you want to go to heaven.

byuboundI know that this all sounds like a bunch of conveniences and excuses to protect the LDS church. I certainly understand if you dismiss it as such. The thing is that to me, what Smith did before and after he translated the Book of Mormon and established the church doesn't really matter at all. I know it sounds corny and ridiculous and hate all you want, but I firmly believe that the teachings of the church are true, because of the way I have felt when I have listened and followed them, and when I have not. This is what keeps me going to church.

One thing I was wondering though: If you believe that Joseph Smith was a con, what was his end game? What was he after? There is the multiple wives thing, but there were prostitutes back then too if you were into that. He was tarred and feathered, beaten, and jailed multiple times. Why would he want this?

I think this is a perfect case of faith seeking understanding (as opposed to understanding seeking faith). When there is a non-falsifiable position (faith) it can be understood or reasoned to any conclusion that makes sense for the person making the claim. So any objection that is brought up against it, the believer can change his claim so that it still meshes with his basic premise. It's an infinitely malleable position because there is no evidence to say otherwise.

Sometimes people don't need to have an end game- they do it purely for the sake of it. I do not know Joseph Smith's reasons or motives, I can only point to the evidence and events that took place. It could be because he simply enjoyed manipulating people and really did not want to be exposed as a fraud, so he kept up the charade at any & all costs. Or it could be that he really was a prophet revealing the word and will of God. Both are totally possible explanations, but one more closely follows the evidence and characteristics of an evolved primate than the other.

While I criticize your faith, I do give respect where it is due: almost all of the Mormons I have met have been super kind, extremely positive people. At the end of the day, I would much rather have that than nihilistic, cruel people running around. However, I do think people can easily be kind and extremely positive without needing to accept very far fetched ideas on insufficient evidence.

byuboundThe Bible, besides being a historical record, is revelation received by man from God. Man's recording and transcribing is the weak link in the book, not God

That same logic can be applied to everything the Mormon book and the LDS organization as a whole because you're just picking and choosing which rules to follow based on the belief that its possible for man to be incorrect in what God is conveying.... thank you for confirming my point that organized religion is complete horse shit.