You don’t understand the fact that the rules require gays to be celibate if they want to enter the church? You don’t understand that the rules say ‘no sex outside of marriage - oh, and some of you can’t get married?’ The discriminatory part is pretty obvious.
It is what it is. No more discriminatory than not allowing women in certain professions, or certain age groups from engaging in certain adult activities. You have to follow the rules to participate in certain things. If I don’t follow the rules I don’t participate. The rules may change and accommodate me, they may not. I can’t explain it any clearer.
Would someone offended by the Church’s rules of temple attendance want to become a member of the Church? Would they want to be a member if the rules changed to accommodate them? I don’t know, but that isn’t the reality in this case. The rules say no sex outside of marriage or you can’t get married in the temple until you go through the repentance process. Temporal marriage isn’t regulated by the Church, they can’t tell people who want to get legally married who they can and can’t get married to by law, but they have every right to make rules about who can marry in their temples.
Yes, it’s discrimination.
Yes. Those are also discrimination. We can discuss whether they’re right or wrong (I object to denying jobs to women and I don’t object to restricting the activities of children), but what they are is very straightforward.
You don’t need to explain it; I understand exactly how it works. I am telling you you should call it what it is.
They might want that, yes. This is a bad excuse. The LDS church can create its own rules. Members of the church (or people who would like to be members) have every right to change the church’s policies if they don’t like them. The Mormon church has done this plenty of times over the years, after all. I am sure you are well aware of the fact that black people were denied the priesthood until 1978. And in any event, organizations that say “It is what it is, leave if you don’t like it,” tend not to last very long. In reality organizations have to be sensitive to some degree to what the membership wants.
This is an absurd position. I don’t hate short people, I just think it’s sinful for them to eat until they are tall..
It’s simple. God doesn’t change. What he expects people to do thus can’t change. Thus having a constantly changing outlook on what’s right means that you are not getting your information from God.
Now, that works in other religions who are trying to figure out God. But Mormonism doesn’t do that. It claims that their decrees come from God himself through his prophets. The fact that it is constantly changing is thus evidence that this is inaccurate.
As are people who keep trying to rewrite history. Or who try to claim that people who reject something are somehow more biased than people who accept something.
God isn’t changing, He is the same now and always. He does however reveal things to his people. The “changes” you refer to are simply an evolution of what He has reveled to His people. He introduces lesser law to His children then elaborates or replaces that law as his people are prepared for it. That is the way it has been since Adam. I suggest you refer to your Bible, esp Moses. You think God ceased to be God when he introduced the 10 commandments to the people of Israel because it was a change for them and the hadn’t given that before?
This is so fucking unbelievably rude and condescending.
Do you find anyone telling you that they are sorry you are being duped by that institute and hope that someday you will finally wake up and realize you’ve been taken for a ride?
You owe those that you’ve insulted an apology. Yea, bury your nonapology in the end of a post, but that doesn’t cut it. I don’t give a rat’s ass if you specifically exclude me from that apology because I’m calling you on your shit.
The only thing I like better than a Mormon who takes off her gloves first is an insulting, uninformed Mormon who has taken off her gloves first.
After making some highly charged claims that ex-Mormons don’t know how to be honest in argument, you’ve made some very specific claims for which people are asking you for cites.
We’re waiting.
Yes, I’ve prayed about it. But thanks for the invitation.
Also, thanks for posting Section 89 word-for-word. I think it really makes my point, which was that Scripture is not necessarily regarded as Doctrine in Mormonism. If a General Authority says something vile at General Conference, the faithful can dismiss it by saying it’s only doctrine if it is canonized in scripture. But then this scripture is being completely ignored. Sure, every Mormon knows that the Word of Wisdom is contained in D&C 89, but they don’t seem to realize that the scriptural version bears little resemblance to the modern Word of Wisdom.
Verses 1-4 explicitly state that this Word of Wisdom is not a commandment; it is merely a principle with a promise". But in today’s Mormonism, WoW is certainly a commandment. You can’t go to the temple if you indulge in tobacco or liquor, and are thus inelegible for Eternal Life until you repent. Definitely a commandment, and thus verse 2 is ignored.
Verses 5-7 advise against wine and strong drink (do we agree that this means strongly alcoholic drinks?) except for the sacrament (a.k.a. communion). Verse 6 states that the sacrament wine should be homemade. Are we supposed to re-interpret this to mean unfermented grape juice? Or tap water?
Verse 8 advises against tobacco use. This hasn’t changed, except that the “word of wisdom” is now a commandment.
Verse 9 advises against “hot drinks”. “Hot drinks” include hot tea, iced tea, hot coffee, decaf, and iced coffee. It does not include hot cocoa. The debate about caffeinated soda went on for decades; Gordon B Hinkley told Mike Wallace that LDS youth don’t partake, and then a couple weeks ago the LDS.org newsroom announced that caffeine was never really discouraged. I find it amusing that the scriptural “hot drinks” has to be defined by the PR department nearly 2 centuries later.
Verses 10-11 endorse herbs and fruits. Verses 12-13 endorse meat, but only in winter, cold, or famine (this is ignored by the saints). Verses 14-16 endorse grain, and again advise against meat except in famine.
Verse 17 endorses wheat for man, other grains for animal feed, and barley “for mild drinks, as also other grain.” So when a Mormon goes to his bishop and confesses that he has indulged in mildly alcoholic drinks made from barley and other grains, why is he denied access to the wonderful blessings of the temple? Again, none of this was a commandment and beer is on the healthy list!
And then the remainder of the section promises that cold beer and the rest of this health code will endow the partaker with “health in the navel, marrow in the bones,” wisdom, knowledge, endurance, and protection from the destroying angel (often interpreted as lung cancer and liver disease).
Now this thread isn’t really about the WoW, but it is about defining Mormon doctrine. I think this whole Section, compared to how the Word of Wisdom is understood today, demonstrates that the LDS pick-and-choose what is doctrine and what is ignored.
Was that “truthful” enough for ya?
This board is far too set in it’s way to entertain any discussion of a religious nature without the use of words like delusion, invisible unicorns, etc. One side demands proof of that which can’t be seen, using the subsequent lack of proof as the cornerstone of their argument against any religion. It’s always been like that here. Until those who feel the need to vent their negativity towards all religion sits quietly back and allows a thread to develop as the OP desired, this won’t change.
We need a religion forum and a forum ignore feature. Then everyone will be happy.
A disconnect so large it should be submitted to Guinness.
Did you mean to post this in another thread? What we are discussing here are Mormon beliefs, and some have brought up obvious contradictions in written LDS teachings. Even if the teachings are accepted without proof(or even evidence) the contradictions still stand out for all to see.
No. Actually, it is in the correct thread. The OP asked about a specific Mormon doctrine, and in post 3, the thread went sideways IMHO. It’s typical for this board. My point is that, at the very least, allow the OP to get answered before taking the thread sideways.
So you want a religion forum where, what, former Mormons aren’t allowed to post? Or atheists? You realize they have those, right? I’m going to blow your mind, but there are even forums where only faithful Mormons like you are allowed to post! If you want an uncritical discussion of Mormon beliefs, go there. I spent many years at just such forums and websites.
I guess you missed post numero two-o, then. In my opinion the thread didn’t go “sideways” with the talk about contradictions because that is the very reason the questions asked in the OP are so hard to answer.
Marley23 did a decent job in post #2. Bartman and Rhodes clarified not long after. It’s not like we’re still waiting for an answer.
Oh, I was already aware of the official LDS and Mormon websites, as well as the “anti-Mormon” websites called “wikipedia” and “google”. byu.edu has a fair amount of anti-Mormon stuff on it too - have you read the Journal of Discourses? All five sites have been extremely informative, thankyouverymuch.
And I know all the contact info for the local Church members, and they know mine. In fact, I’m on their naughty list. 
You guys are going to scare her off. I was looking forward to an assiduous historical researcher coming to terms with Joseph Smith’s extensive philandering (under the guise of Celestial Marriage). Not to mention all the rest of the unflattering church history that most members are unaware of. The fact that she had never heard of Fanny Alger or polyandry does not bode well for her future research. I can imagine her head exploding when she finds out about post-Manifesto polygamous marriages.
I didn’t write that post, but since I love the silliness of it all, I’ll take a shot at it.
Maybe he(?) is talking about Kolob?
I’m not sure what he’s referring to, except maybe for the hats worn in the temple ceremony.
Scroll down on the page to see a picture of men wearing the temple hats.
Lots of Mormons believe this.
I’m not sure what he is referring to.
That’s what this thread is about.
This one is easy. See the Mormon church for this.
OK, they don’t necessarily guaranty success, but they say that by paying it, you will receive temporal blessings
April R seems to be doing fine and based on the fact that she went after some other posters pretty aggressively in this thread, I don’t think she’s going to scare off quite that easily. Yes, you can find anti-religion commentary in most threads about religion (and we moderate it when we think that’s necessary), but not every religion-related thread gets derailed by that commentary. This one has drifted a little bit but there’s been some serious discussion here.
I gave resources and you do or do not want to use them. You may already have. It’s all I got. Prayer is the answer to my spiritual questions, and it may or may not be yours. I can’t force that.
Also, you know I didn’t mean any harm or condescension by my comment. It was a sincere wish for you or anyone who may be questioning their beliefs or faith. If you feel no need to think about why you left the Church, then what harm did I do by what I said? You disregard it and move on. Anger isn’t going to serve you in any way.
Avoiding offense means that we don’t accept each other as equals.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
When you are offended at any man’s fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings. Then you will forget your anger.
Epictetus
I never said I know everything nor was I trying to come across as I have. I even thanked you all for giving me more information and things to learn about and consider. I am still grateful for this conversation. You can be offended and angry at me, but it is displaced. You aren’t really angry at me, you are angry at what has happened to you for whatever reason to leave the Church which has nothing to do with me personally. Again, I am sorry you feel the need to be angry with me, but I can’t fix that for you.