The Book of Mormon Joseph Smith and/or Moroni et. al.

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

The Book of Mormon Joseph Smith and/or Moroni et. al.

Post #1

Post by sleepyhead »

Hello,

In order to be involved in this discussion/debate you must register here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/g ... php?g=7076

I am the group owner (so much power for one person to have). I was active LDS for about a year, inactive for a few years and presently an inactive member of the Chruch of Christ (temple lot). My posts will largely delve into certain moral teachings of the book. If others want to go through the book chapter by chapter or to only discuss the book of Ether that's also ok.
May all your naps be joyous occasions.

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #61

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote:
stubbornone wrote: Sexuality is different, people can and do change their sexual orientation.

The sexuality cannot be changed. Not only scientific researches do say this; even people say that who were a part of this programs. Here an example:

The sharp increase in homophobic discourse, policy, and politics in the mid-70s rankled Gay Mormons. Informal social networks were effective on an individual basis, but as a few strong and courageous people gave up their "Gay shame", they realized that something more formally organized and lasting was needed in order to respond to the misconceptions and disinformation being spread by LDS and BYU leaders. In early 1977, a group of Gays started meeting quietly on the BYU campus. However, "after hearing about all the suicides taking place" among Gay Mormons (especially the suicides of Gay BYU professor Carlyle Marsden, and of two men who had gone through electric shock "therapy" at BYU the year prior with Ford Mcbridge and Dr. Eugene Thorne), the group decided to take more formal action. One of this group, 22-year old Gay convert from Davis, California, Stephen James Matthew Price (going by first by Matthew Price and then a later alias of Stephan J. Zakharias), "became very enthused at the idea of a national organization of gay LDS people and began to promote it with gusto." As Zakharias told The Advocate in the November 1977 issue, "We have said 'We've had enough.' Gay people are not second-class citizens. We are children of God. We are important people and we have just as much worth as our heterosexual brothers and sisters in the church." (http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html)
Then how do you explain this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/magaz ... d=all&_r=0

http://www.newswithviews.com/psychology/psychology2.htm

http://pfox.org/former_lesbian.html

http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/ ... ty/n_8301/

In fact, you point to a bland study, but you fail entirely to address why a community that denies it is happening has coined the term 'hasbian'? If you study says it is not happening, and Anne Heche did it publicly, what does that say about your study?

Right, it says that confronting it is bigotry?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... parenting/

So tell me, as you are making the case for sexual immutability, is pedophilia ALSO immutable? Something you are just born with and can do nothing about? Necrophilia? Auto-erotic asphyxiation?

How about adultery? Polygamy? Just born that way, eh? Sexuality is utterly immutable?

And if you do not see the legal implications of such thought, then you are being deliberately blind.

The evidential record clearly disagrees with what the homosexual community is saying. The question is why they are saying it anyway?

Clearly, its because the LDS church is a horror? Forces people to lie does it?

In history of mankind there was and there is enough examples of people;which denied their faith to save their life. Or these did not want to have the mouth within a religion forbidden to themselves. As Eugen Drewermann, the Roman Catholic theologian, or Hans Küng's, both Swiss. If somebody adheres to a faith although the evidence is overwhelming, is not faith strong but stubborn.
And yet the very fact that Christianity swept away the old religions is a testament to faith not being totally beyond reason. You cannot use a few examples of stubbornness against a back drop of mass conversion and think that you are on to something ...

Indeed, its the same problem with the first thing. Sexuality is immutable, so sayeth a single study, and yet the evidence is easily found of people changing sexuality all the time in both directions. How does that make the LDS church ... wrong?
stubbornone wrote:
Anne Heche wasn't perhaps not a lesbian and perhaps neither a bisexual? Perhaps she loved just this person, Ellen who was female? Or she thought it would be good for her career? As Kinsey and others sexual scientists proved; there are heterosexuality and homosexuality as the two Poles (which are unchanging); much which can change between the two Poles. Nobody can, however, make 100% homosexuals to heterosexual ones.
That is an entirely speculative accusation. The fact that Anne Heche was openly practicing lesbianism, publicly, and then stopped ... we are now assuming that she 'wasn't really a lesbian'?

Tell me, other than practicing as a lesbian, how do we identify a lesbian? There is no genetic marker. There is no body part that magically changes that makes this immutable quality identifiable. So what?

Right, we simply find a reason to ignore that which conflicts with out position, because sexuality is immutable - it cannot change - but a practicing lesbian ... is now heterosexual ... indicating change. And so we ignore the lesbian sexuality?

By all means explain to me how we ignore Mrs. Heche's sexuality?

I never had a problem with another opinion. She only must be founded. A "because the bible tells it so"; is not acceptable to me.
Funny, no one is saying that here.

I do not hate the LDS! I "hate" only what sometimes the LDS do. If she refuses people their civil rights or humiliates and discriminates a part of their members.
Malarkey. You've found one reason after another to find fault and ignore everything the church gets right. You demand perfection, while refusing to apply you standards of judgement to anything else. Sorry sister, but that is hatred. It may feel bad to acknowledge it, but ... well, it is what it is.
In YOUR Church Handbook of Instructions (Vol. 1, Issue 1999 or 2006) you can find THIS statement:
Homosexual Behavior
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives. In addition to the inspired assistance of Church leaders, members may need professional
counseling.
Source: p. 195, PDF

Or here:

Same-Gender Marriages
The Church opposes same-gender marriages and any efforts to legalize such marriages. Church members are encouraged "to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender" (First Presidency letter, 1 Feb. 1994; see also "Homosexual Behavior" on this page).
Source p. 196 PDF
Your church discriminates against us. your church claimed homosexuality is ill and must be cured. And your church does not want that we may get married. This is old-fashionedly, stubbornly, unchristianly and in the eyes of some Americans also un-American.


And yet, you strike out and condemn without even asking for an explanation as if you have got the Mormon's, eh?

Yep, we Christians view sexuality very differently than those who think turning a blind eye to sexuality and pretending it is harmless.

The church, correctly, view sexuality as subject to choice. If I am married, and see a hot young tart walk by and I just KNOW that I am in love with her and follow that impulse and commit adultery ... I am subjected to the discipline of the church.

Do I need to list the studies that show the harmful effects of adultery and divorce?

If I am walking along and decide that that 14 year old girl is the subject of my undying love and pursue those emotions ... the church is not likely to be impressed by the excuse that my sexual feelings are immutable and thus I was left with no choice other than a lifetime of misery and screwing a 14 year old girl.

If I happen to see a bevy of women and think that polygamy is for me, I would be IMMEDIATELY excommunicated, would I not? But I was just immutably BORN to be a polygamist?

If I happen to think swinging is a good thing ... excommunicated.

If I happen to think that sex with animals is a good thing ... excommunicated.

If I think that just having random sex is a good thing ... subject to the discipline of the church. Have you seen the harmful effects of promiscuity? Particularly in women? Do I need to list those scientific studies as well?

But for some reason, homosexuality alone defies this pattern? It alone is immutable? It alone defies the tendency to choice. And of course, the answer to disagreement is not tolerate a different opinion, it is to openly offer support to homosexuality? Because THAT is what homosexual marriage is all about. It is not about tolerance or respectful disagreement about the nature of sexuality and its role in our life, it is about funding homosexuality.

Taxes that encourage homosexual marriage are meant to mirror those that encourage heterosexual marriage. And yet, the science is clear - the BEST way to raise children is in a married household with a strong male and female role model. So why are homosexual relationships equal?

And please, tell me about the Regnerus Study, which found short comings in homosexual child rearing, and was blasted by the homosexual community ... who demanded an independent inquiry ... and got it. Tell me why that commission found the study to be valid? Indeed, explain this:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... parenting/

If you are defending you sexual choices at the cost of honor and honesty, by vilifying others at the drop of a hat ... perhaps, as the church recommends, you should examine the role of sexuality in your life.

When your 'immutable' sexuality is effecting your very malleable character ... that would indeed be the problem.

Doing what is right is not a popularity contest. And, as I have discovered over the years, it is not those who roundly and cheerfully agree with us who care about us, it is those of us who have the integrity to confront us and tell us what we need to hear that truly care about us.

What you call a clear case of discrimination, I call an honest wake up call about the influence of sexuality in our lives.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #62

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

For heavens sake! Why do you write so much? I already get dizzy when reading!
Well, I would like to pick one point from your explanations out:

Former homosexuals:

As Kinsey already stated, there is a gigantic frequency range of possibilities from heterosexuality to homosexuality. This is said that not everybody man who lives in a relation of the same sex, must be homosexual also.
But there is many (10% of the world population are appreciated), which is homosexual. and which is religious (Christians, Jews, Muslims e.g.)! And experiencing many that their sexual identity is not accepted. It is tried this to cure her,
If you investigate these cure stories divide it up into three different groups:

1. The undecided ones
It is only a phase for them, actually they are bisexual or heterosexual.

2. The anxious ones
They are homosexual, are, however, afraid of a punitive God; and the disdain of their church. Therefore they try to live heterosexual or celebate.

3. The cheater
They know that they are homosexual and lead two lives. A public in the church or municipality and a secret life with their lover.

Grave scientific examinations according to scientific standards have pointed; that homosexuality is not curable or changeable. One can force for a man to another behavior only by force for a short time. But this man widr suffering spiritually, emotionally and physically lasting damages.
Believe me I know what I talk about!

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #63

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: For heavens sake! Why do you write so much? I already get dizzy when reading!
Well, I would like to pick one point from your explanations out:

Former homosexuals:

As Kinsey already stated, there is a gigantic frequency range of possibilities from heterosexuality to homosexuality. This is said that not everybody man who lives in a relation of the same sex, must be homosexual also.
But there is many (10% of the world population are appreciated), which is homosexual. and which is religious (Christians, Jews, Muslims e.g.)! And experiencing many that their sexual identity is not accepted. It is tried this to cure her,
If you investigate these cure stories divide it up into three different groups:

1. The undecided ones
It is only a phase for them, actually they are bisexual or heterosexual.

2. The anxious ones
They are homosexual, are, however, afraid of a punitive God; and the disdain of their church. Therefore they try to live heterosexual or celebate.

3. The cheater
They know that they are homosexual and lead two lives. A public in the church or municipality and a secret life with their lover.

Grave scientific examinations according to scientific standards have pointed; that homosexuality is not curable or changeable. One can force for a man to another behavior only by force for a short time. But this man widr suffering spiritually, emotionally and physically lasting damages.
Believe me I know what I talk about!
The human genome has been mapped. There is no Gay gene. There is no gene that causes adultery. None that causes pedophilia. None that causes necrophilia, and on and on and on ...

There is no gene that causes one to be lds, or catholic, or muslim, or buddhist either.

And the simple fact of the matter is that there are several former homosexuals who have publicly disagreed with you. There are several former straight people who have publicly disagreed with you as well.

Tell me - is being lds any more 'curable' than being gay?

Why are YOUR life choices subjected to different standards than others?

And why should we change the very legal definitions that protect our society from deviant forms of sexuality because, rather than ask for tolerances in differing values and opinions between consenting adults, you want to make the specious claim that sexuality is immutable and beyond the implications of choice?

I quite strongly disagree with such a self centered analysis, and the absolute dearth of responsibility that would see such argumentation, if successful, be used by communities of truly deviant form of sexuality as an excuse.

You want to be gay? More power to you. Don't join the lds church. You want to be lds? More power to you. Don't join the homosexual community.

You want to claim that your choices make you a victim? That you are enslaved by forces beyond your control? Well, then you have just surrendered your agency ... but I for one am fully in favor of a legal system wherein we continue to hold people accountable for their actions rather than their ... genes.

Responsibility is an important thing - and sexuality with responsibility - is downright dangerous.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #64

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

Ignore the facts means, that a person is STUBBORN!
BTW, I think to leave the forum. Main reason are certain the user PASSENGER and STUBBORN. Against stupidity no herbal just has grown.

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #65

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: Ignore the facts means, that a person is STUBBORN!
BTW, I think to leave the forum. Main reason are certain the user PASSENGER and STUBBORN. Against stupidity no herbal just has grown.
Then I rest my case.

When shown clear evidence of sexuality changing in human beings (it does in animals as well BTW), and clear danger in terms of legality and how we define and punish true deviant forms of sexuality in light of 'immutable' sexual claims ...

your response is to call those who disagree with you stupid?

Perhaps you should go back and read exactly what I said about those who can only tolerate their own points of view and feel free to lash out whenever someone disagrees with their point of view in an intelligent manner.

I am sorry I won't hate Mormons for daring to stand up and remind human beings that when it comes to sexuality, we have choice ... and are not slaves to our sex drives. If that means an ex-Mormon hates me? So be it.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #66

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

I "do not" hate any people. I "hate" at the most this, what people think or do (e.g. I hate National Socialists like the plague). Facts are facts and, if a religion denies facts, this religion is stubborn, old-fashioned and not capable for the change to the thinking and behavior.
And now I hope that the Admins ban me as soon as possible.

stubbornone
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am

Post #67

Post by stubbornone »

The Ex-Mormon wrote: I "do not" hate any people. I "hate" at the most this, what people think or do (e.g. I hate National Socialists like the plague). Facts are facts and, if a religion denies facts, this religion is stubborn, old-fashioned and not capable for the change to the thinking and behavior.
And now I hope that the Admins ban me as soon as possible.
EM- the only one denying facts is you.

You earn no points, nor convert anyone to your cause by quitting - especially in result of a cogent argument.

If you think no one else in the world holds the same opinion as me, you are gravely mistaken. And when you find it there, where will you run to then?

There is room for differing opinions, but ... the subservience of sexuality happens to be a principle I hold dear. I have seen adultery, promiscuity, heart ache, and suicide ... and will not wish that on anyone simply because it makes the homosexual community feel ... accepted.

Like it of not, equality is theirs to earn, not simply be bestowed.

Sexuality may be deeply held, it may appear insurmountable, but at its core it is something that we control ... not the other way around.

User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

Post #68

Post by sleepyhead »

Moderators,

I attempted to close this topic down a few weeks ago and for reasons best known only to you, one of you decided to reopen it. The topics being discussed have nothing to do with the book of mormon. The mormons are apparently not interested in the topic and exmormon is using it to express her dislike for the LDS sect. I'm going to reclose the thread. Pleasse donot reopen it again.
May all your naps be joyous occasions.

User avatar
sleepyhead
Site Supporter
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Grass Valley CA

Post #69

Post by sleepyhead »

Moderators,

I appologize for the above comment. It's very possible I didn't close the group properly when I closed it before.
May all your naps be joyous occasions.

Post Reply