Thanks guys. There is an incredible amount of material out there and my problem was that one thing kept leading to another. It also made me think, which I haven't been doing much of lately.

One of the more interesting parts of this was delving a little into the background of the people and organizations referenced in Justamere's article. I'll provide some stuff on them at some point. They are a lot bigger than just the marriage equality issue and i think what they are up to is an appropriate topic for the religion board.

The size thing started I think because of one of my responses to shoeshoe and others to their goading that I have not provided evidences or proofs to back my religious beliefs. They fail to understand that spiritual things are proven in spiritual ways, not by empirical methods. That's why there are organizations called churches where spiritually minded people can interact with like minded people who share common beliefs and a fairly common lifestyle, in the case of Christian churches, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I suggested that there are millions of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all over the world. They are members because they freely choose to be. That fact should be indicative that there are a whole lot of people who disagree with shoeshoe's contrary beliefs about the LDS Church and its members. People who share shoeshoe's disdain of LDS doctrine tend to voluntarily disassociate themselves from the Church, as shoeshoe has done.

You provide evidence of being an honest man Tyo and since you admitted that you have a horse in the race regarding the California political issue, I expect you to mount a good defense if you feel that your group may not succeed in permanently changing the laws of the land. I appreciate the civil manner in which you have been posting lately, perhaps I lumped you in with the impolite others earlier, for which I apologize if I did. At least you are not thinking I'm about to break your arms with a cattle prod or waterboard you while whispering sweet nothings in your ear, as someone else recently fantasized I might do. (Masochist?)

But before you get too carried away with your research, if it is directed towards me (maybe it's not) don't forget that I put a disclaimer in post 792 which is the one you are reacting to:

"It is not my intention to defend or further reference the details in the following but because you persist with your demands for my personal motivations, my stand on the issue at hand is based on information such as the following article published by one of the many groups that are fighting to defend the traditional family as the basic unit of society and not allow it to be corrupted by other state-mandated forms of "marriage"."

I read a bit of your defense and of course disagree with most of your conclusions already, as you no doubt expected I would. But in any event it is not my choice to argue politics with you or anyone else. I was at one time quite involved but gave up party affiliations of all kinds when I concluded that politics, power, and corruption all too often go hand in hand and that my true desires were to help others prepare for the forever life that comes for all of us, for some much more suddenly and unexpectedly than for others. There is a Christian saying that this life is a time to prepare to meet God. It is my hope as a Christian that each of us is doing that.

So don't expect me to get involved in deep discussions about the California situation, though I may make a comment now and again for as long as I choose to participate on this board that has turned so vile lately. Good luck with your research, I'm sure you will have a lot of support from those who write in this thread.

Nope, you are wrong. No goading, just repeated and unanswered requests for any evidence of your claims. You are using circular logic; you are begging the question. You are saying that writings in your book of mormon somehow prove that your beliefs based on that book are true. Sorry, no. Stating that your beliefs prove your beliefs makes as much sense as do the rest of your posts....none.

You state that "spiritual things are proven in spiritual ways, not by empirical methods." Nonsense. Spiritual things by definition are not provable in any way, shape or form. If they were, they would not be spiritual, they would be factual. C'mon man, you are really becoming more and more unglued with every post. If your "spiritual things" are what is being questioned, you cannot logically use those same "things" to prove themselves. If we follow your convoluted logic, you also believe in Leprechauns, Trolls, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and EVERY other false claim anyone could possibly make! I could thereby prove their is an Invisible Pink Unicorn because the IPU's website says so (http://www.palmyria.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm).

No, you are not relieved of your obligation to provide some evidence for your beliefs. However, it's nice to finally see you admit that you are unable to do so. Thus, by definition you are delusional.

And it means nothing that similarly minded deluded people gather together. And since you bring it up, let's see your evidence for a historical jesus. Should be the simplest thing one can do, to demonstrate that the creator of the Universe hung around here on earth, eh? I won't hold my breath for that evidence either.

And to utilize your logical fallacy, a VAST majority of the world's people do not disagree with shoe shoe's comments, and no, just because people choose to remain deluded does not make that decision truth-based or valid.

Again, still looking forward to any possible testable evidence. This is not goading, despite your claim. It is a genuine request...evidence...ANY...which supports your claims.

Justamere, I understood from the outset that you were not planning on debating this. If you change your mind at some point, that's great but I don't expect a response from you and I'm not trying to goad you into one. I am grateful to you for posting the piece in question however. Is was exactly what I needed. I'm not sure if that's a sign of masochistic tendencies or not

Is so perhaps I was a sadist in doing it.

Thank you for explaining my point from yesterday, I never returned figuring anyone who believes in a religion where you have to do certain things to reach certain levels of heaven and that Jesus came to North America was not worth my time. And another point I thought Christians are suppose to be excepting of everyone. And really do you know how god feels about gay marriage, have you asked him lately. Please don't quote the bible on this either. And as mormons are always saying they are apart of the Christian religion shouldn't you be excepting of everyone. And really how does gay marriage really effect you!

So what.

Literally BILLIONS of people believe Shiva is the God of Death. BILLIONS more have believed the same thing over the past 5000 years.

Doesn't make it true, any more than your Moroni blowing on a bugle is true.

This post by justamere10 has an entirely different feeling about it, in my experience.

I agree that spiritual things cannot be always be proven or confirmed by empirical methods (that's where faith comes in). The spiritual and temporal worlds are separate but intersecting realities. However, we are told in the Bible that "By their fruits, ye shall know them." So we should, apparently, at least be on the lookout for temporal confirmation of spiritual realty (since the two overlap so much).

For instance, when Joel's Army member and Christian Dominionist "healer" Todd Bentley says he was instructed by God to "kick an old woman in the face with his biker boot" during a Christian revival healing service, we can be fairly sure by the incongruity of this unnecessary and gratuitous violence that it wasn't God who gave him that suggestion.

Likewise, when an Amish village comes together after the mass murder of their children in a horrible school shooting to forgive the wife (widow) of the shooter and offer their love and fellowship to her as individuals and as a community, it's not at all hard to see this as evidence of God (Good).

I'm not at all well versed in scripture, but I do recall several pointed warnings to be on the lookout for false prophets and false doctrine. So, again, it does seem important to try to distinguish between the real and the fake when it comes to things of the Spirit.

How, exactly, do you do that?

Good question.

Each in his or her own way, I think. By holding up various proposed truths against the backdrop of one's own conscience and whatever measure of integrity and light one has been able to develop over the course of one's life (that's my approach)?

As justamere10 correctly points out, I think, one will probably, at least occasionally, have to stand alone without objective proof of one's spiritual understanding (in my own experience, one of the biggest problems is simply trying to put spiritual experience adequately into words in the first place). But that doesn't mean others shouldn't try to challenge that subjective experience, especially when it's offered to others without request, however politely (as missionaries do when proselytizing).


Again, I appreciate what I experience as the entirely different spirit of these comments by justamere10.

First of all, as I've said all along, on a number of occasions, I could be wrong in my assessment of the LDS church, its culture, history, and leadership. Although I think my assessment is correct, I can never be sure that my human perception exactly (or even approximately) matches reality. If it weren't for what I see as rather glaring inconsistencies in theory versus practice in the church, I would probably still be an enthusiastic supporter of the church, as I've been in the past. I certainly believe that the LDS church can, and has a great many times "made bad men good, and good men better" and improved the lives of people and families all over the world. For some reading this thread, the LDS church may be the right and best path to God. If you think you may be one of these people, I encourage you to check out justamere10's links in his signature, and consider investigating the church. But don't just investigate the church through official channels; I strongly suggest you also check out the various contrary views, and the reasons for those views, as expressed by writers on this thread, and elsewhere. Again, it's just common sense to get as many opinions on a particular question or issue to be studied as possible ... not just the official position (or just the contrary position).

So, I hope it's clear that I do NOT "disdain" LDS doctrine, even though I disagree with significant parts of it. On the contrary, as a very active member for a very long time, I have a great deal of respect for the LDS church and for those (past and present) who have comprised its membership and leadership ... even as I'm strongly disappointed with what I see as certain serious failings of the church, which I feel both a desire and a responsibility to speak out about. Though I've tried to make all that clear, I don't think I've succeeded in getting that message across, completely.

I may have overdone my "cattleprod/waterboarding" comment toward you, justamere10. I was frustrated in not being able to get you to recognize the fear I have (and that I think many have) of the very real threat of theocracy, including Christian theocracy, that does indeed have great potential to do enormous evil in our country and in the world (indeed, it already has, if one looks back only a short time in history). I see this negative potential within my own church, the LDS church, and this greatly bothers me. For this reason, I feel I must speak out about my concerns. That doesn't mean that you have to agree that my concerns are legitimate or well grounded, but I hope you'll at least understand that I do sincerely have them, and that they weigh heavily on me.

Again, I may be completely wrong. I hope I am. (It would only be about the millionth time.)

But in the meantime, I've got my conscience to contend with. To me, that's my primary duty as a person. Despite my imperfect obedience to it, I do love that which I contact through following the Light I've been given, and hope with all my heart to always remain true to it.

This appears to me to be an honest message shoeshoe, and written the way civilized people normally discuss things online, even things they profoundly disagree about. It seems that your broken arms healed quickly and the waterboarding left no scars.

I agree that it is always prudent to gain as much temporal knowledge as we can. But Latter-day Saints believe that it is God, speaking Spirit to spirit who converts good-living people to His Church, not temporal knowledge. Those of us who have had that conversion experience and go on to keep all of God's commandments and our sacred covenants with Him, enjoy the constant companionship and guidance of the Holy Ghost. To others, such as probably some of those writing in this thread, that is something to mock and sneer at, they cannot comprehend such a thing, it is beyond their experience, they have not experienced God in their lives in a positive way, only as some distant fearsome 'dictator' who commands them not to do some of the things they choose to do to gain fleeting never permanently satiated pleasure from.

In my opinion the people in our time to be most afraid of are the terrorists, not the Christians, though Christians being millions of people there may be some individuals in our midst as there are in all groups of numerous people that one should be cautious about. My observation of the Latter-day Saints is that most of them are the kindest most caring people you could ever hope to find. They go about doing good, not plotting acts of violence against their neighbors, the furthest thing from their minds.

You express a fear of "theocracy". It is our belief that will happen, but not until the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ, a thousand years of PEACE, love and understanding all over the world when even animals will cease to prey upon each other and the lion will eat hay; nothing to be fearful of, the very contrary, something to move towards, not something to shrink from or fear.

The "Theos" is God, a LOVING Heavenly Father and His son Jesus Christ. There is nothing to fear about the genuine article, but much to fear about counterfeits and false Christs such as Jim Jones and others. We will all know together at the same time at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ that the genuine Theocracy has been introduced into our world. He is the Head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Saints strive daily to become more like Him, to LOVE our neighbor even more, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, to allow, as God does, the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE GOOD OR EVIL to everyone. To attempt to force people to your will or religious beliefs is to be on the other side of God's plan for mankind. He could not judge us righteously if we had been forced to do evil.

Your fear of the Latter-day Saints is wholely unfounded, you should know better than that, and you should not instil and promote such a fear of that which is good and right in our world. Focus if you must on those who would kick others in the head and change our Constitution so the voice of the people is of no effect and our freedoms are forcefully diluted and eventually destroyed by the state.

You have the potential, the passion, to do much good shoeshoe. It is my opinion that at this time in your life you are leading people astray. Why not try studying the scriptures, the word of God to man, daily, and humbly and sincerely praying with your family each day, as you may once have done? Why not try replacing pessimism, fear, and anger with the joy of being alive each day (a gift from God) and righteous doing, loving and caring for your neighbor and those in need? Why not try rubbing shoulders again with those who are faithful, whose testimonies continue to burn bright within them because they keep the commandments, the instructions from God that lead the way back to Him. Maybe some of that will rub off...

That's how I see it.

Enjoy the day shoeshoe.

Continuation of post 843

Professional Licenses


This contains the interesting assumption that once gay couples are able to marry, a gay couple with a troubled relationship is going the be clamoring for the privilege of sharing the most intimate details of their lives with counselors who consider their relationship an affront to God. Or that gay couples with kid problems will seek out family service providers who view same sex relationships as objectively disordered. And that they would sue these providers or complain to the licensing board if they didn’t agree to take them on.

Hmmm… I just don’t know about that. Seems to me that people, whether gay or straight, who are in the middle of a relationship or family crisis probably have more pressing things to worry about than suing people who won’t or can’t help them. It would seem that a provider of services like this who was opposed to homosexual relationships would simply have to say up front that he or she didn't feel competent to be of help and that would be the end of it.

But the licensing issue did interest me so I did some quick and by no means exhaustive checking. In terms of licensing , there is nothing I can see in the California Board of Psychology’s existing license application that addresses the applicant’s opinion of gay relationships or behavior. Or any particular behavior aside from the assumption that standard rules regarding relations with patients will be adhered to.

I can find reference to sexuality in only one section. Among other educational requirements, you have to document that you have successfully completed the required number of hours in Human Sexuality training at an accredited institution.

Presumably no accredited institution is going to let you assert that homosexuality is “objectively disordered” without your weighing in with some new evidence to back up your position. The authority of the Catholic Church or the Mormon prophets would not be sufficient here. But this requirement is in place now and I’ll bet it has been for years. Someone will need to explain to me how marriage equality will change this or similar existing requirements for related professions.
http://www.psychboard.ca.gov/licensee/licpsych.shtml
http://www.psychboard.ca.gov/applicants/supp-app.pdf

Religious Employers

How does marital status matter here? You can’t discriminate against someone for being married, you can’t discriminate against someone for being single. Isn’t it orientation that they are concerned about? Are they saying that a summer camp would have no problem with gay employees as long as they weren’t in a same sex marriage? The basis for the discrimination is not marital status but sexual orientation, which seems to me to be a totally separate issue.

Religious Colleges
Stern makes no distinction here between colleges that receive public funds or research grants and those that don’t and I think that makes a difference. But the thing I really I don’t understand here, as above, is how the policies of an institution that currently does not allow out gays to enroll will be changed in any way by the fact that the gay applicant is in a same sex marriage.

The issue for them again is orientation, not marital status. How will a gay in a same sex marriage have any more leverage with the college administration than an unmarried gay? The argument that marriage will confer on gays additional power in situations like this crops up again and again in anti-equality literature and I don’t get it. I must be missing something big.

What I can say is that the use of “could”, “might” “may” in these arguments doesn’t invalidate them but it makes it hard for the reader to evaluate them or the actual probability that any of these fears will actually be realized. But I think that they must know that someone who is already disposed to reject marriage equality will be quite happy to assume the worst and simply replace “could” with “will” in their mind.

There is also the question of exactly how many gays and lesbians are going to seek admission to institutions which view them as immoral and disordered. All I can say is that I went to a public university where we were treated equally. It never occurred to me to seek admission to a religious college that didn’t want me.

Public Accommodation Laws


This one strikes me as not just bigoted, but sick. I knew that there was a Judeo-Christian thing about being cursed by God to the umpteenth generation but I thought it had kind of fallen by the wayside. Guess I was wrong. So the Right is worried that they won’t be able to deny a kid who has committed the sin of having two daddies a place on a Little League team. What about the daughter or son of a gay couple who grows up and marries someone of the opposite sex and they have kids together? Will those kids be banned from Christian Camp because they have Lesbian grannies?

This is even more evidence of the fear the Christian right has that GLBT folks and their families will be integrated into American society. Not only is it necessary to discriminate against gays, you’ve got to make sure that their kids are kept out too. Of course it’s hard to imagine any Gay or Lesbian parent sending a kid to one of these Christian Taliban indoctrination camps anyway so in practical terms I don’t think the Fundies have much to worry about there.

As for the question, the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate against gays and atheists on the strength of the Scouts’ loose and vague religious underpinnings. Seems like a church camp would have a far stronger claim to religious exemption in that it could justly assert that their camp was an extension of the church itself or at least that it was an overtly religious institution rather than a commercial enterprise. I can’t imagine many gay or lesbian parents having a problem with that. But Little League? A gym? Pumping up for Jesus? I don't know.

Masterful arguments. Great research.

Thanks, Tyo!

you're welcome And don't worry. I'm done now

Too bad you just can't seem to bring yourself to return the favor.


Question, justamere10:

Is it possible that YOU are entirely wrong, justamere10? Does there exist a possibility, even just the very slightest one, that YOU could actually be mistaken?

Have you ever been wrong before about something of great importance?

Please answer yes or no, as I've done. I don't think you can do it. I don't think you're capable of admiting the obvious true answer to that question. I've done it ... but you can't, or won't. I think that says a lot about who's being honest, and who isn't, in this thread.

Let's see if you can say it, as I have done: "I could be wrong in my assessment of the LDS church."

Whether you can or cannot, will or will not, will in my opinion establish, for any with a shred of honesty and objectivity, your essential integrity or hollow pretentiousness and stark untrustworthiness.

Notice that justamere10, no matter how many times I do so myself, cannot bring himself to admit that he even the slightest possiblilty that his perception of the LDS church could be wrong.

Why can't you consider this possibility, justamere10? Why must you continue to arrogantly assume that there is simply no way your own view could be wrong? Why won't you follow Christ's commandment to?

That's what's so disingenuous about your presentation. It's obvious that I could be wrong, and I admit it. It's obvious that you could be wrong, but you won't admit it.

Your patently unrealistic, arrogant, self-righteous position ("there's no way I could be wrong") ruins your credibility and demonstrates your hypocrisy you habitually ignore Christ's instruction to first seek to remove the beam from your own eye before ranting about the speck in someone else's.

You're obviously unable to tell the truth, the obvious truth that you, as a human being, could simply be wrong ... even about something you feel certain about. You need to be in the superior position, and refuse to leave it, again in violation of a central Christian edict (that of humility).


How dare you tell me what I should or shouldn't feel? What I should or shouldn't honestly and sincerely perceive? You've got no right to intrude on my dignity as a human being, that way.

This is a taste of the values justamere10 thinks should rule the world. Wow.

What amazingly offensive putrid hypocritical authoritarian crap this is!

Who made YOU the judge, justamere10, of which heartfelt fears of others are justified, and which are not?

What UNBELIEVABLY incredible arrogance, how deeply disrespectful, violent, and oppositional to the notion of personal equality, how unChristian and hypocritical – to presume to tell someone else what they should FEEL, what opinions they should sincerely hold!!! Hard to believe, and very disturbing, coming from someone who says his way is the only way to God. What a travesty.

This is the kind of arrogant, holier than thou, hypocritical "I can't be wrong so you must be and therefore I have the right to tell you what you SHOULD and SHOULD NOT feel and do, how you SHOULD and SHOULD NOT exercise your freedom as an individual" attitude is just so absolutely exemplary of the grotesquely dysfunctionality I see within the LDS church. Really people, in my experience, this kind of attitude is endemic within the LDS church, unfortunately. Terribly wrong, and terribly disappointing.

(If these thoughts seem a little disjointed, my apologies. There's just so much garbage in justamere10's post that I don't know how to organize it.)

Are you deaf, justamere10? I DON'T THINK THAT THE LDS CHURCH IS ENTIRELY "GOOD AND RIGHT IN THIS WORLD!"

Why are you SO terribly threatened by Mormons holding views that differ from yours? What in the world is so bloody dangerous about freely and openly expressing one's honest opinion? You expect to be able to express yours ... why do you want mine silenced?

Oh yeah ... I almost forgot: you really ARE an LDS Totalitarian! (I was starting to fool myself there for a minute into thinking your active mindset might be based on something less toxic).

Totalitarianism is your ethos. And anything you do (lying, deceiving, oppressing, silencing, controlling, and worse) is justified by your sick inverted ethics of the end justifying the means, and your self-serving moral code based on the assumption of the infallibility of your spiritual perception.

You YOURSELF would change the constitution to actively fashion into law your own vision of what's right and best for America ... but then you complain about others doing the very same thing!!

This is it, people. This is exactly what the kind of anti-democratic, fundamentalist religious totalitarianism were up against in the upcoming presidential election. justamere10 puts in right up to our faces on this thread.

You're really unbelievable, man. You've been given opportunity after opportunity to bring yourself down off your high horse and admit that you too are human and could be entirely wrong about the LDS church. But will you do it? OF COURSE NOT. Because you don't have the integrity or the honor to do that. You'd rather try to control what others do and believe, telling them what they should or shouldn't feel.

Don't you get how ugly and repulsive that is?


THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU TELL SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THEY SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT FEEL!!!

Get it?? Don't you see this is YOU, justamere10?

Are you that unable to examine yourself?

I've said I could be wrong in my perceptions, but you will not! YOU ARE JUST RIGHT! PERIOD! THE END! And anyone with a different perspective should just shut up and not express it. That's fascistic ... the only word that fits (and man, does it fit).

What total, unbelievable, dishonorable, hypocritical, lying, stinking crap!!


After picking my jaw off the floor, I realize that NOTHING I could possible say about this particular remark – so illustrative of justamere10's condescending, patronizing behavior and that of so many in the Mormon orthodoxy he represents – could better prove the sad and disgraceful chosen set of values at work here than the above comment does all by itself.

This is the kind of utterly disgusting, hypocritical, unChristian,dominionistic crap you'll find in SO many orthodox Mormons, like justamere10. His unsolicited words and behavior say it all. If you think this is the way a member of the "one and only true church on Earth" should act and treat others, then, frankly, I think you're cracked.

This is nothing but bullying, and that's NOT what God is about, at least not any God I want anything to do with.

But that IS, as we so clearly and frequently see here, EXACTLY what justamere10 and his brand of "Christianity" is about. It's about belittling people, controlling what they speak, even what they feel, and NEVER, EVER admitting the possibility of error – and then lying about it and putting on a veneer of politeness and caring as they put you in your proper place below themselves, the superior masters in the "chosen race" favored by God. This cruelty, dishonesty, and dishonor is painful to me in the extreme.

This jaw dropping response of justamere10 to someone like myself who actually lets his guard down and reaches out to him is exactly the kind of unadulterated crap that finally convinced me that the LDS church isn't whole. It's broken. The "one true church of God" wouldn't allow allow this kind of atrocious attitude and behavior to exist within its senior members in such amounts.

"By their fruit ye shall know them." Wow. This garbage is the kind of fruit justamere10 offers. And as he says, he represents the current orthodoxy of the Mormon church. It's up to each of us, despite what justamere10 says, to decide how to react to this example.


Notice the attempt to hide his scorn for me.

Really ... you're acting like a jerk, justamere10. You're not fooling anyone with your faux politeness, which only underscores your deceitfulness and lack of authenticity.



Haven't you been paying attention AT ALL??

What about CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS?? CHRISTIAN FASCISTS??

Why aren't you equally concerned about them?? Do you have your head buried so deeply in the sand or in some other very dark place that you can't even see that the world has just as much to fear from the many Christianist extremists as from Islamic ones?

You're a real piece of work, an absolutely perfect example of all that's rotten about the LDS church.

justamere10 is it, people. The real deal. No kidding.

Imagine his world, if he could make it the way he'd like, as evidenced by the amazing hubris and self-appointed right to kingship he claims, including the right to decide for people what they should and shouldn't feel and what opinions they should have and express. Is there anything more ugly or dangerous than that?

But that's what orthodox Mormonism stands for, people ... exactly that kind of belittling and domineering behavior, all wrapped in a nice, polite veneer. You've seen it yourself, right here, time and time again. And no doubt we'll continue to see this kind of gross ugliness proffered as righteousness by justamere10.

I think it's all he knows.

You're a better man than I am, shoeshoe. I was done long ago.
However, you may enjoy this:



Draw what conclusions you will from this.

Thanks, pestone. How appropriate.

I especially like your signature: never argue with a pig (for obvious reasons).

Problem is that this "pig" also sells used cars, and is showing a penchant for taking flood-damaged vehicles and mongering them as being in great shape without full disclosure, and then insisting or even strong-arming customers into expressing the opinion that they actually like getting hosed.

I don't like bullies or ripoffs. Especially bullies or ripoffs who pull their crap "in God's name." Really pisses me off.

Just to be clear and accurate ... utter crap is not ALL that orthodox Mormonism stands for, in my opinion.

I should have the statement above by saying "... that's part of what orthodox Mormonism stands for ..." There is, as I've said repeatedly, also unquestionably a remarkably positive side to the Mormon church, as well (though I'm hard pressed yet to see evidence of that in justamere10, I must say).

How such evil and such good can co-exist so equally in the same church is a real and disturbing paradox to me. How does such good fruit and such bad fruit grow from the same tree? Weird.

Nevertheless, such is definitely the case, in my experience, with regard to the LDS church.

This is one of your very best rants shoeshoe, congratulations, you are getting better and better at what you choose to do. It takes a whole lot of anger from somewhere to write that way to another human being.

There were times in history when aggressors and conquering armies became so agitated that their enemy would not deny the Christ that they put them to death for not doing so. Those people died because they KNEW the Christ and loved Him and His ways more than life itself.

I will not deny what I know to be true. But I admit that I am a human being and as such not infallible about anything, I think almost everyone else would take that for granted, it's a non-issue except perhaps in your own mind.

I speak the truth as I know it in the best way I am capable of communicating it. Does that satisfy your aggressive demands?

I'm no church expert but i think those churches whose leadership claims to be in direct communication with or is authorized to speak for god and that insist that there is but one way to salvation seem to be more of the study in contrasts that you describe than churches that are less.... totalitarian.

You bet it does. As I just wrote in another post, if really pisses me off when someone has the gall and audacity to use the name of God to bully and rip people off.

Let me get this straight:

You're not admitting that you could be wrong, but you're admitting that you could be wrong? Correct?

Huuhhhh? What?

This is a joke, right?

justamere10 takes his latest self-contradictory statement straight from the classic manual on Orwellian "double-think" so revered by tyrants big and small throughout history. Where have we heard this kind of thing brazen "sky is green and grass is blue" upside-down illogic before ... ? Hmmm. Oh yeah! Bush/Cheney/Rove! I knew it sounded terribly familiar.

You do such a an incredibly good job of proving my points for me, justamere10.


I don't demand anything of you, justamere10.

I'm not prepared, though, to let you lie, obfuscate, and proclaim that garbage is gold without challenge.

Great job throughout shoeshoe. However this post took you over the cliff. Non-existent "spiritual things can never be proven. How convenient for those who hold those beliefs. Also, I would be interested in knowing your definition of spiritual. Thanks.

"They knew no better, but I do not propose to follow the example of a barbarian because he was honestly a barbarian.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Limitations of Toleration"

After thinking about it, I'm inclined to agree with you, enufaldry, that the notion of "proof" necessarily excludes spiritual things, almost by definition.

I guess at this point I'd have to define "spiritual" as simply "that reality (subset? superset?) which is not temporal," thus dividing reality into two strangely distinct sets of phenomena that nevertheless (paradoxically) are able somehow to affect one another.

As a math teacher by profession, I spent some time studying the concept of "proof" and certainty. And again, without doing a lot of thinking about it, the whole notion of "proof" seems only applicable to temporal things, since "proof" necessarily requires objectivity (i.e. distinct temporal "objects" or phenomema of some kind, even if these objects are only mental ones, like communicable ideas or postulates) and spirtuality exludes any possibility of objectivity, being (by definition) entirely subjective and personal in nature.

But see, this is where I'm sure justamere10 would disagree. In the classic Mormon view, the spiritual realm is just a more refined physical realm (though perhaps outside of time), with beings possessing "perfected bodies of flesh and bone," a particular planet or star (Kolob) where the Creator of this universe hangs his hat, etc. Metaphysics is almost entirely absent from Mormon thinking, as far as I know. Things, even spiritual things, are essentially objective and physical (though perhaps so refined physically that humans cannot perceive them), and certainly not "metaphysical" in any meaningful way.

Who knows? As I've said until I'm blue in the face trying to get justamere10 to acknowledge it, this orthodox Mormon view of reality could be 100% correct. I doubt it ... but what do I know.

I only know what I know, which isn't very much.

Does the Mormon Church have a system of primary and secondary schools like the Catholic Church does and to a lesser degree the Episcopalians, the Seventh Day Adventists and some other denominations do? I Wikied this and the answer would appear to be no, except for one in Mexico and several in the Pacific Islands, mainly in Tonga.

As far as I know, the answer is no, as you surmised.

The LDS Church at one time did have a lot of academic schools, particularly in the South Sea islands, but has backed off from that in favor of thousands of early morning or release time "seminary" religious classes often taught by volunteers, and college/university level "institutes" taught by professionals with graduate degrees. Then there is a large private university (largest private university in the USA) with several campuses, one in Jerusalem, and a business college (I think that is owned by the Church, not sure.)

The LDS Church is very big on lifelong learning of all subjects, but does not offer graduate degrees in theology as we do not have a paid priesthood.

They do have a strong program of keeping mormons busy with other education and extra church activities. I was raise in the LDS church from birth. In my time church was of course held on sundays, but there were other programs as well. From age 6 to 12 I went to 'primary' held on thursdays after school as well as cub scouts held on tuesdays. After age 12 I went to 'mutual' held on wednesdays as well as boy scouts held on tuesdays. Saterdays, there were several different programs or activities - including a dance for ages 14 to 18. At age 14 I also attended seminary in the mornings before school started for an hour and a half. Also monday nights were set aside for family home evenings.
My sister is still active in the mormon church and has home schooled their children all the way through high school. Most of my nieces and nephews have gone on to attend mormon colleges.

I think New York University is the largest in the US. Although some sources say the University of Phoenix.

It's possible that I have my facts wrong, my understanding is that LDS owned Brigham Young University is the largest church-owned private university in the USA. Thanks for correcting me if your information is more accurate.

Yes, I can relate to that though I was an adult when I converted to the LDS faith. It's not so busy anymore, the emphasis has been placed more and more on time at home with family rather than constant organized church activities that sometimes did take away from family togetherness time. Thanks for sharing that.

I acknowledge shoeshoe that the "orthodox Mormon view of reality could be 100% correct." You can take a deep breath now and let go of your anger.

Put a cork in it, justamere10, would you, please?

Duh, of course YOU'd say that.

My point, in case you missed it, is that I've been trying to get you to acknowledge the fact that I've stated over and over again ad nauseum that it's possible I'm wrong and that the "orthodox Mormon view could be 100% correct," which you never seem to want to do, preferring to ignore half the message I'm making in this thread (i.e. the positive half of my message about the LDS church, along with the negative half).

I realize it would be asking way, way too much that you too admit the truth that you could be wrong and that the orthodox Mormon view could actually be flawed – since admitting the simple fact that any human being's perceptions and understanding about any subject (including yours about Mormon doctrine) always carries with it, inherently, the possibility of error is anathema to your fundamentalist moral ethos and the assumption of your own superiority and right to rule.

To help critics better understand the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter, I've decided to copy below a few excerpts regarding the California "Proposition 8" situation from an article posted on an official LDS website titled "The Divine Institution of Marriage":

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds ��" including same-sex marriage ��" does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.

Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts ��" six out of eight state supreme courts ��" have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins ��" 4 to 3 in both cases.

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation."

The entire article including references can be read at:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/co...arriage#current

Under the CSC ruling the adherents of Mormonism or any other religion will continue to define and regulate marriage for the members of their flocks. If the Mormon Church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman only then that's how Mormons will put it into practice. But Mormon religious laws have no bearing on me or any other non-Mormon.

Heterosexual couples of any faith or no faith will continue to marry or not as they choose exactly as they do now. The may have their marriages sanctified by a religious institution they may not, exactly as they do now. Nothing will change for them.

The idea that youth are so fragile in their identities that the existence of same-sex couples will confuse and lead them astray is laughable. Didn’t work that way in my school. Funny how it seems like most of the people who make this argument are or claim to be secure in their own sexuality and relationships. It is always someone else who is weaker and needs to be protected.

It's not enough for you to have the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, you want everyone else to follow your rules as well. If the CA ruling stands it will make it harder for you to achieve this. It's all about control. It always is with people who assert that they have direct knowledge of God's will and therefore an obligation to impose it on the rest of us.

In connection with this, Sarah Palin has got to be a dream come true for you guys. Or so you think. Dream on until she and people who believe like she does take over. Then your truth is going to get stomped by their truth big time. You and I just might end up in the trenches together.

Just in case there are board members reading this thread who are open minded enough to consider it a possibility that God might have a living Prophet and Apostles on earth today, as He did anciently, here is what those Apostles have to say about the family:

In 1995, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” This proclamation is a declaration and reaffirmation of doctrines and practices that prophets have stated repeatedly throughout the history of the Church. It contains principles that are vital to the happiness and well-being of every family. Family members should study the proclamation and should live by its precepts.

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

“All human beings "male and female "are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

“We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. ‘Children are an heritage of the Lord’)". Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives "mothers and fathers "will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” (Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102).

All the god stuff is fine, Justamere, if you chose to believe in it.

But religion in and of itself is not a basis for making law in a secular state. Especially since Christians themselves can't even agree on what they believe and what they don't believe and the relative importance of those beliefs. For centuries they have been oppressing and killing each trying to sort it out and there is still no end in sight. If you guys can't even run your own house why should I trust you with mine?

Maybe Utah should secede from the Union. Then you would be free to establish a Mormon version of Iran where God's law as you interpret it would be supreme and the rest of us wouldn't have to worry about you.

We are already in the trenches together Tyo, facing each other, about 1/4 mile apart.

But I'll cover you if you want to switch to the winning side. We've even got God over here, and we've written down most of the things He told us, you could catch up on them. But don't worry, He said He or one of His delegates will meet you after you die anyway, I hope that won't be for a long time yet.

Are you ready for the big vote? People of California vs The Four Judges. I hope the people turn out for the vote and don't favor the judges. But if they sleep too long in California and vote for the judges, we'll stand with the other 48 states who voted against rule by activist judges.

Take care now, keep your powder dry, the sun's shining in your eyes...

Your mere mortal mormon friend from the other side.

What he said.

Again, Tyo hits the nail on the head.

[Raucous, grateful applause. More applause. Louder applause. Even louder applause.]

Sexual behavior in and of itself, and activist judges, are not a basis for making law in a nation where the people cherish constitutional freedoms and century's (perhaps millenia) old definitions of marriage and family.

Yes, there are many brands of Christianity, but all of them accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Redeemer, and all of them are composed of human beings who often act well, human!

Mormons in particular are adamant that everyone be given the freedom to choose between good and evil. It is not the Christians who are the aggressor in this matter. Christians are not taking away anyone's choice who or what to have consensual adult sexual relations with in private, or how to do it. It is a small minority group who do sex differently than the majority who are clamoring for special rights and privileges that the people do not want to give them because they value and cherish Christian values and the traditional family.

But I understand your felt need to fight for your side even though it's the side of rule by activist judges, which if you think about it, you would probably not really be in favor of.

I'm actually not too concerned about the vote. Cautiously optimistic, but if it passes it passes. Constitutional amendments can be undone. You think yours is the winning side? I don't know. I'm encouraged by the way the tide is turning in our favor in other parts of North America, in Western Europe, Latin America, even Asia.

And it may be that some places have to serve as a home to superstition and fundamentalism and maybe the United States, or at least large parts of it is one of them. If we are pariahs in our own land I think we'll have plenty of options when it comes to places that are more welcoming. Would hate to see it come to that, but you guys deserve a place to live too. Problem is you make difficult neighbors.

Tyo is on fire, today!

[Loud, raucous applause. Big fist pumps]

Unfortunately, Utah wouldn't be enough. Fundamentalists are by nature totalitarian, and that means "total" control. Taking over a mere state like Utah would only satisfy the urge to control for a little while. The goal for religious fascists of any particular "faith" is total domination, "in the name of God," and "for our own good."

Iran, LDS totalitarians, Saudi Arabian Wahhabis (Bin Laden), Christian Dominionists like Palin, all have the same goal. But each first needs to wipe out all the others. That's the problem.

No nukes for religious fanatics, please.

Would these be "activist judges" like the ones that ordered that votes in Florida in 2000 should not be recounted to be sure the totals were accurate, acting in effect to appoint the man who would become the new President of the United States (and usher in a period of domestic and international disaster for America)?

Like those activist judges, justamere10?

True.

Those who habitually bully, cheat, lie, steal, and do all kinds of horrible things (as we all do, at least at times) have a right to exist and do their thing.

Let the "good times" roll!

Sadly, from my point of view, I agree with you, immorality and evil is growing stronger throughout the world as the enemy of righteousness is allowed (for the purposes of sifting those who choose good from those who choose evil) to manifest his final wrath prior to being banished from this world for a thousand years.

This was prophesied many times, over thousands of years. We're expecting even more and more people to reject God, morality and goodness, and turn to pride, worldliness, and a constant round of parties and pleasure seeking, as it was in the days of Noah before the flood, and even worse. We're expecting ever increasing wars and natural calamities to take place as all over the world, with the rejection of God's influence, anger replaces charity and loving and caring for one's neighbor as oneself. These last days are difficult times for everyone, it was always so prophesied.

In the end it will be Jesus Christ once again who will come to restore goodness and morality to a dark world. This time, he has assured us that although his Church will continue to pass through much tribulation and persecution, it will not fail.

In the end God is always the winner...

I invite you to cross over to the winning side, while there is still time as we know it.

It's my understanding that this basically the same argument (religious prerogative) given long ago as to why blacks should remain slaves, or (in the recent past) why laws prohibiting people of different races from marrying should be upheld.

You're in "good company," jusatmere10.

hehe. Justamere wasn't going to discuss this any further, but he brought it up again. Why not just wave a red flag in my face? You know, I think I'd probably like Justamere if I were to meet him. Totalitarians can be very charming in person. In fact I think that the best ones usually are.

And you sure have gotten the totalitarian thing down, shoeshoe. Reading your exchanges with Justamere really brought home to me how similar the religious ones are to the political ones. And now what's becoming even more clear is that when it comes down to it, both are the same.

Totalitarianism by nature must be "total" It must incorporate the political and well as the religious into one whole. In one version you have the cult of personality (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim) and the infalibility of the Party or the People to satisfy the religious urge. In the other you have God's plan for the "good" society and God's laws which must be implemented to acheive it to address the political urge. Both versions use the same tools and both have the same net effect.

I'm sorry but this argument has no meaning for me. I do not accept the basic assumption so I can't address it.

"Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God "he will justfiy in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark...."

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/28/7-8#7

Agreed: God (Good) is ultimately, somehow, the winner.


Which side is that?

• The LDS totalitarian side?
• The Christinan Dominionist side?
• The Wahhabi Islamic (Bin Laden's) side?
• The Jewish Defense League's side?
• Aum Shinrikyo's side?
• The Klu Klux Klan's side?
• Etc.

Each of the above will tell you exactly what justamere10 said, about their own narrow interpretation of religious theology ... that they're on the side of God, and that you should join them (in oppressing and dominating and even killing others e