Sickening...

Remove all ads!

If you accept that everything in the bible is the unvarnished word of God which has somehow remained untwisted by human hands. If, on the other hand, you view the Bible as being the word of God which has been tainted by human influence and prejudice, then it could be reasonably argued that some of the early Old Testament authors may well have been injecting their own prejudice into God's word.

Matthew 5:17-18- Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Last I checked, the second coming hasn't happened yet. Jewish law is still supposed to be in effect.

Exodus 21:20-21- If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

1 Peter 2:13 - Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority.

1 Peter 2:18 - Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

 

In Mormon theology, Joseph Smith was given the gift to correct the errors in translation that had crept in to the Bible, therefore we, as Mormons, have that actual word of God.

The presence of the Joseph Smith translation relieves these concerns.

Galatians 3:24 calls the old law a school master, to bring the people to faith. By teaching obedience and faith, the people were socialized to be prepared for the Coming of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 7 mentions a higher priesthood than existed under the Law of Moses, requiring a higher law. This higher law supercedes the Law of Moses.

Hebrews 9 actually comes out and states that through Jesus Christ the Law of Moses was fulfilled, not abolished. Once that was fulfilled, the moral laws (10 commandments, laws of sexual purity, possibly others that don't come to mind immediately) were maintained, but the "ceremonial" parts, like women covering their faces and men covering their heads in worship, alond with dietary restriction and animal sacrifice were fulfilled.

As for Slavery, the Old Testament it's rules were under the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled. In the New testament, it was instructing the slave how to live his life morally. It involved submission to mortal authority (government, boss). My point was that the way the slave was treated would not be in harmony with the teachings of Christ.

 

how many times must it be said that the homosexual dont want a christian marriage and therefor dosn't want recognition from you in any form, before you undestand it.

i'll try it again: the homosexuals dont want a christian marriage. now what part is it you dont undestand?

 

Thats not an out and out no. The Bible doesnt expressly prohibit it. Doesnt that strike you as strange? Slavery was still around when jesus was alive, wouldnt you think something as important as that would have been commented on by jesus? wouldnt he have said give up all your eartlhly possessions and free your slaves for no man can own another man? Yet he didnt.

I can see why gay marriage is more harmful than slavery, look at the poor gay people who will now go to hell for loving each other, how terrible. </sarcasm>

I've just come to realize something.

1. The State owns marriage. If they borrowed the term, so be it, but marriage has been around in other cultures such as the Hindi culture for thousands of years more than the christian faith even existed.
2. Even if one were to claim marriage is at heart a religious matter, which religion does it belong to? As stated above, one can still get a Hindi or Jewish marriage, in addition to thousands of other cultures that offer the same thing under a different name - the union between two people.
3. That being the case, no one religion can lay claim to it.
4. Thus changing its legal definition to not allow gay people to marry would be infringing on the rights of other religions and cultures, and frankly I dont see why the Christians demand to be treated differently in this regard. I hear some Western countries ban the wearing of traditional Muslim attire by women, for them, this is far worse than allowing gays to marry.

 

Proteus commented similarly on this as well. While I certainly cannot say that marriage is strictly a religious institution - in fact I agree with you, as marriage or marriage-like unions probably date to pre-history - but the fact remains that most modern religions attach a religious connotation to marriages. I think we are seeing a situation, where for many people their perception of marriage trumps the reality of what the state, country, etc. defines as a marraige. I would place the current President of the US in this category of people.

The actual term "sacrament" may be unique to Christian religions, but I have attended both Jewish and Muslim weddings that were religious in nature as well. I'm sure there are many other religions that I am unfamiliar with, where the marriage ceremony has religious roots as well. For example, I have never attended or seen a Hindi wedding, but my gut feeling is that such a ceremony exists.

I guess my point is that the biggest problem is not what we call it, but the fact that homosexuals do not have the right to get the same rights as heterosexuals get when it comes to having a life-long partner. If giving it a different name (i.e., anything but the word "marriage"), but the same rights as a marriage is a means of pacifying those who see it as an affront to their religious practices, then I still see it as huge step in the right direction. While I do not think this solution is ideal, it is still a hell of a lot better than what we have going on now.

I think many people don't like the fact that civil union is not a term that has been traditionally used to define a life-long partnership. By using this term, I think many people feel it cheapens their act. Perhaps a more religious neutral term could be used. How about just calling them "weddings"? A wedding is not a religious-specific term - marriage is.

Finally, I'd like to point out again that I don't disagree with Bion or Proteus. It's more that I think a less-than-ideal, but far more pragmatic solution could move the process a good deal forward than what we currently have.

 

You can think that if you want to. Personally, I think Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a fraud. The civilizations recorded within the Book of Mormon have never been substantiated by any historical evidence through either archeology or corroborated by any credible scholar or historian. Then, there's the fact that several Geographic errors from the KJV translation (the only English translation of the bible available at that time) were also repeated lock, stock, and barrel in the Book of Mormon. Then there's Smith's history as a "Money Digger".

"Money-digging" (also sometimes called "glass-looking") was a con or a fraud that was practiced in the Northeastern US at that time. The con man would have a "magic stone" which he would place in his hat, and then pull his hat over his face, excluding all light. The stone would then supposedly shine and the money-digger could locate hidden treasure. People would pay the money-digger to tell them where to dig, but there was another part of the scam. When you got "close" to the treasure, the money-digger would usually tell you that the treasure had moved. The whole thing was like looking into a crystal ball or doing palm-reading. Smith was tried and convicted in court in March 1826 for "glass-looking".

To make things worse, though, let's examine the testimony of David Whitmer, one of Smith's three witnesses, who wrote: "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery**, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear." It strikes me as odd that Smith translated the Book of Mormon using the same modus operandi he used when conning people as a money digger.

**Smith's Third Cousin.

 

They don't? Well if that was true and they had any brains they would stop trying to use the word marriage. Wouldn't that make the entire issue go away. If a "blank" had all of the rights, responsibilities, and authority as a marriage then homosexuals should shut up and be happy with a "blank" I don't see it that way. Homosexuals seem to be very keen on using the word marriage and the only reason I can think of is that it tweaks and really annoys the people who believe the origins of marriage come from religion and not from the government.

 

Christianity doesn't own the word marriage. My atheist uncle got one. I got one, and I'm an agnostic. Hindus get them, Buddhists get them, Atheists, Agnostics, and even Satanists get them....and they all use the word "marriage" when they do it. The reason that homosexuals use the word "marriage" is because everyone uses the word "marriage". Whether they are religious or not.

[ April 18, 2007, 03:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Why must they insist on the word marriage? If that is the case, then by insisting on the term marriage, they are more interested in picking a fight than the rights involved.

So yes, the "stupid people", who really don't understand what Jesus taught can try to own slaves. But the denial of freedoms was not in harmony with the desires of the Lord...

Actually, there was a wealthy young man who abided the commandments in the Old testament who wanted to know what he must do to get into Heaven. Jesus told him to divest himself of earthly property and wealth. Slaves would count to my understanding...

Debated. By Christian Doctrine, the first Humans, Adam and Eve, were married by God. This places Marriage in the Abrahamic religions, and all ohter cultures came from those two, thus Christians lay such claim.

The Abrahamic religions, by that logic. The God that they trace their origins to is the one that performed the first marriage.

As the predominant Abrahamic Religion in the western world, they believe that's their right, and any politician that feels otherwise does so at the peril of his political carreer.

It sounds to me like you are treadding on some thin ice here. I'm quite sure that blatant hatred of a religious group is against the rules here...

There is a group called FARMS that has researched this and has apparently found some such evidence. I don't have their website though...

Yeah, Many of the early Mormons found themselves dragged into court and even jail on questionable charges...

Was this recorded before or after he left the Church? If this is after, then could it be tainted by any hatred/fear he may have felt? Could such renouncement be made under Duress?

All we have is the allegations of someone who may have had an axe to grind when he gave it. Really impartial there...

Now that you've made your bigoted rant against my faith, let me ask you this: If it was indeed an elaborate fraud, then how did it not crumble after his death in 1844? And how did the Church survive another 163 years beyond that and grow from the less than 50 people in a Cottage in Kirkland Ohio on April 6, 1830 to over 13 million today? Normally, when the head is taken, the body dies almost immediately...

 

Gnaff, Christian Theology, despite its own claims, isn't the only theology on the planet.

Despite how many members a church has (a paltry 13 million compared to the near billions of other religions) it doesn't give that religion any justification in claiming that they have express ownership of the word "marriage".

I love my country and how homosexuals can get married. I love it how no religion holds any political sway in the country. I've had mormons come and see me, I even let them into my house and had a brief chat about their beliefs. I said thanks, but no thanks. Main thing that set me off them was their claims of how Mr. Smith obtained his so called revelations.

 

I can completely understand that if you think homosexuals should get equal rights and be allowed to marry, then why bother coming up with another word when what is actually happening is that they get married. While that point is valid, I really don't have a problem with Gnarff's solution of calling it something else.

I don't know anyone who is openly gay here on SP, which is unfortunate to really see how they feel about this issue. But I do have a couple of gay friends, and without exception they say what is most important is the rights and not whatever the hell they want to call the thing. Would they like it to be called marriage? Sure. But what they would really like is the tax break, inheritance rights, decision authority on serious medical issues, etc. If they get that, they are more than willing to compromise on what you call the thing. Frankly, if they get the same rights as everyone else, you could call their union "pink furry elephants" and they couldn't care less.

My point is simply this: If there is an easy fix to the current problem - even if it is not a complete fix, and even if it is not the ideal solution, is it not worth exploring if it results in a better situation than we have now? I think the problems we get with these issues is that no one wants to compromise. Gnarff's willing to say give them the rights, but just don't call it marriage - he's compromising.

 

@ Aldeth

You don't need to be gay to speak from the perspective of a gay person. Do you have sexual impulses? Do you have romantic feelings? Do you operate by reason and have a capacity for emotions?

 

I've never asked a gay person this, but I think I'd still want a marriage and not a pink furry elephant.

Think of it this way - if the situation were reversed, and the world were populated by a majority of evil, hated-by-god homosexuals, and they had marriages, wouldnt you just want to be normal and have one too? Why would you need to get a pink furry elephant just because you dont fit into their definition of normal?

 

I thought the "pink furry elephant" comments would have been accepted for the over-the-top hyperbole that I clearly thought it was. Perhaps I should have added some sarcastic slimely like to make my point more clear. I have also noted that I feel that calling a gay marriage something other than marriage is less than an ideal solution.

However, after I acknowledged that, I also made it clear that the present situation represents the worst-case situation. With the exception of people living in a few geographical areas, members of the same sex cannot get married, or any other legal equivalent to a marriage.

My proposition is pragmatic. If a compromise can be made (i.e., allowing them to use a term other than marriage that will impart the same rights as marriage) that grants them rights more in accord with the rest of the population, how can that be construed as a bad thing? Isn't a partial solution better than no solution - in effect maintaining the status quo? I agree that most gay people would prefer it be called a marriage, but would accept calling it something else if they still ended up with the same rights. But I'm not gay, which brings me to my next point:

No, but it appears you would need to be gay to be able to say whether or not you are bothered by the fact that your gay marriage is called something other than a marriage. There's no way someone who is straight can answer that question honestly from first-hand experience, unless 1.) there are straight people who want to marry someone of the same sex, or 2.) you asked someone married to a member of the opposite sex if they are bothered by their gay marriage being termed something else (which they probably would not like as they aren't in a gay marraige).

To put it another way, I'm not bothered by using a term other than marriage. Call it a civil union, or heck, call it a wedding. However, seeing as how I married a woman, I am not going to be directly effected by whatever terms they come up with. Whatever the eventual resolution is, it is not going to impact my life one iota. As such, asking someone with no practical interest in the outcome greatly increases the chance that they won't be bothered by whatever term is selected, unless the selected term is exceptionally derogatory. That's why I suggested we ask someone who would be interested in getting married to someone of the same sex if they would be offended by the term.

 

Who said I hate Mormons?

Smith was convicted of fraud in 1826. He didn't start translating the book of Mormon until 1828. He didn't publish the Book of Mormon until 1830.

After. But it's been corroborated by his wife (as told to her son)

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

Martin Harris (through his friend Edward Stevenson)

"Martin Harris related an incident that occured during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

Oliver Cowdery

"These were days never to be forgotten — to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim*, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history, or record, called 'The book of Mormon.

* "Urim and Thummim" was a common designation among Mormons after 1833 for Joseph's seer stone.

Isaac Hale

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

Michael Morse

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon I had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down

and Joseph Knight, Sr.

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes then he would take a sentance and it would appear in brite roman letters then he would tell the writer and he would write it then that would go away the next sentence would come and so on. But if it was not spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

David Whitmer never recanted his claim to seeing the plates. Given everyone who corroborated Whitmer's testimony, it's pretty obvious he wasn't lying.

Joseph Smith was convicted of fraud 4 years prior to publishing the Book of Mormon. Given that fact (a fact the LDS church acknowledges), isn't it a little unreasonable to call me a bigot for thinking him a fraud? He made his living as a "money digger" before writing the Book of Mormon, after all.

McDonalds was founded in May of 1940 by Dick and Mac McDonald. Their introduction of the "Speedee Service System" in 1948 established the principles of the modern fast-food restaurant. It started simply, with one location...and their food was not nutritious. In 1955, Ray Crock bought out the McDonalds Brothers. From this point on, the business grew without any help from the McDonalds brothers. The head was gone, but McDonalds grew into the leading global foodservice retailer with more than 30,000 local restaurants. They serve nearly 50 million people in more than 119 countries each day. Their food still isn't nutritious. The moral of my story, you ask? The number of people who eat McDonalds every day has nothing to do with whether or not the food is nutritious. Heck, the fact that 50 million people eat it every day doesn't even mean the food is good.

I have no problem with such a compromise, with one proviso. If Gays get "Civil Unions" from the government, then so does everyone else. If "marriage" is sacred, then I shouldn't be able to get one from a justice of the peace.

[ April 19, 2007, 00:20: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

True.

I accepted the pink furry elephant as an over the top hyperbole, but I decided to run with it for the sake of continuity.

Oh I agree that a partial solution is better than no solution, but you have to ask yourself:

1. If even a partial solution requires the intervention of the highest court in America, why not go for the best solution?
2. The only ones who disagree with the best solution vehemently (I know they disagree with the partial solution too) are the Christians. Should the law really take their position into account, seeing as they protest on grounds of offense only?

 

How about your blatant use of anti Mormon references?

The First Vision, where Joseph Smith sat Got the Father and His Son Jesus Christ was in 1819, at the age of 14. He had drawn criticism from the very beginning when he spoke of these things.

It sounds as if Whitmer actually saw the result of that spiritual light. Did anyone observing the fraud ever observe that?

Convicted, but was he actually guilty? For 7 years prior, he's been saying things that would have been unpopular among the local churches (testifying that he had seen God and Jesus). Would they not drag him to court with false witnesses to assault his reputation?

Doctrine and Covenents 135:7 opens with this bold statement of Joseph Smith and his Brother Hyrum:

They were innocent of any crime, as they had been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of the Carthage Jail is a broad seal affixed to "Mormonism" that cannot be rejected by any court on earth,

So that would mean that any conviction would be in a crooked trial...

Also, with McDonalds, the business model was established, and it generated profit. But with the Church, if it was not divine, then it would have crumbled upon the death of Joseph Smith.

But the Highest court is bound by precident to tell this minority the same thing they told a prior minority: Get Stuffed. They upheld the definition of Marriage in the face of one challenge, and must therefore uphold it now.

 

So... I assume you see scientology as divine then, since it did not crumble with the death of L. Ron Hubbard?

 

Which minority?

I'm pretty sure precedents can be overturned if need be. Previous rulings can be declared invalid.

So he posted some facts about mormons and joseph smith. And suddenly he hates mormons. Stop being a martyr. He was pointing out what he felt were inconsistencies in your faith. A faith shouldnt have any inconsistencies or irregularities.

I know its your religion, but only mormons believe he was innocent.