Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"Church and State issues are separate for a reason - and your religous beliefs have no business in a state issue."<<< Best be on the warpath with all those Babtists, Catholics, Muslims, etc too gottaluv-your opinion is that no one has a right stand for what they believe. I disagree. And whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has over-stepped it's bounds or not is not for you or anyone else on this board to decide.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains ///>>>"You can nitpick over statements that are technically incorrect (polygamy is not an article of faith) but it doesn't change the facts..."<< That statement was not just technically incorrect-it was totally incorrect. Change what facts//// So someone thought it was an article of faith and it wasn't... that part so what - you corrected that! The fact is the founding fathers of your faith believed the more the marrier! Okay not literally... but they did say polygamy was <essential and the highest order of heaven>.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<Best be on the warpath with all those Babtists, Catholics, Muslims, etc too gottaluv-your opinion is that no one has a right stand for what they believe>> I am not on a warpath with anyone... If someone was on here arguing the side of the other faiths you mentioned - I would be having simular conversations with them too... But the fact is they are not here - Just so you actually know my opinion... not just assume you know - I have no problem with anyone supporting a cause or proposition or whatever - but when a Church wants to come in and push their beliefs on a group or state it's wrong. The LDS came in to California with a vengence having a letter read during services knowing that many would take that as a directive straight from the prophet himself to get behind this. There were members of the LDS on TV and in newspapers talking about how they were giving tens of thousands of dollars to this cause after the letter was read.
Originally Posted By dlkozy Just can't stay on topic can you. I am not going to discuss theology with you-you did that ad nauseam on other topics. You don't believe in what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does-you made that clear, and I personally don't care one way or the other about what you believe. But as others before me have pointed out to, your constant bashing of that religion dumbs down your message.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>" There were members of the LDS on TV and in newspapers talking about how they were giving tens of thousands of dollars to this cause after the letter was read."<<< Ahh, and that is the really nice thing about living in this country. Everyone can do EXACTLY that-give their money, and time to what and who they believe in.
Originally Posted By dlkozy Since money was not the reason that NO failed-maybe more should have given of their time.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Stating a difference of opinion and you or anyone else not agreeing with what is written is not lashing out-but that has been pointed out to you by others before.<< But you're not simply stating a "difference of opinion." For example, in this thread you've said: >>You are consistently trollish and always looking for a fight-get a life.<< >>I think that you probably have more admins that even Beau! LOL!<< >>Get a life x<< >>You are showing your ignorance on the subject.<< >>And yet another person lacking correct info.<< >>F-there wasn't anything "Good" about that arguement at all.<< >>LOL! If you can't put accurate info out there-don't post!<< >>Shame on you.<< >>You are coming off juvenile.<< These are personal attacks, dlkozy. You may think they were justified, and that's your opinion. But you cannot then turn around and act the innocent poster, simply "stating a difference of opinion." These kinds of comments are certainly seen as lashing out. >>That statement was not just technically incorrect-it was totally incorrect. Change what facts?<< Yes it was technically incorrect but not totally incorrect. The LDS Articles of Faith contain no statements about polygamy. But it's clear that the intention of the post was to stress the importance of polygamy to Mormonism in the 19th and early 20th century. But you entirely ignored the intent of the post to quibble with a non-Mormon's misstatement about where past Mormon leaders have affirmed polygamy. You took this error and attacked the poster as not having the facts in an attempt to discredit their assertion about the importance of Mormon polygamy. But of course, polygamy appears in LDS canon, in the Journal of Discourses, in the Seer, in Collected Discourses, etc., etc., etc. And what I was referring to when I said "change the facts" was the reality of Mormon polygamy in the 19th century. You are trying to change the topic by focusing on the poster's errors. But your obfuscation doesn't change the fact that Mormons are preaching about traditional marriage in the 21st century when just over 100 years ago, they were persecuted and prosecuted by the federal government for their acceptance of non-traditional marriage. Mormon leaders like John Taylor insisted polygamy would never cease in the Mormon church (and even claimed a revelation), so Mormonism's definition of marriage is fluid. It's silly of them to claim now that "traditional" marriage is the backbone of society. >>Really? You know nothing about what I know-and to say so differently is more than presumptuous on your part.<< Well, you deliberately chose not to respond to my assertions about the Mormon past. Perhaps it was presumptuous to assume that you did so out of lack of knowledge, and I apologize. It is odd, however, that you would spend time telling others that they're incorrect about Mormon polygamy, yet ignore my posts on the topic. It's hard not to jump to the conclusion that you're not as familiar with the Mormon past.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"These are personal attacks, dlkozy"<<< Wrong-they were answers to personal attacks-maybe you ought to read more carefully. Lashing out-hardly. I will not be attacked without responding. Don't like it-tough. I do not play your game of taking people's words out of context and twist them around-I am waaaaaay to busy to be bothered with games such as those. I am constantly amazed at the hundreds of hours some here on LP spend as if it is a real job, picking people and their religion, etc apart. Wow. Life is too short to spend so much time in negativity. >>>"Yes it was technically incorrect but not totally incorrect..."<<< Sounds just like a past president that I heard as he was trying to define the word IS...... The statement was incorrect-period. Attacked the poster-baloney. Disagreed and stated the facts only to have them call names, pitch a hissy fit, and blather on about how I was inaccurate-but they have yet to post what the inaccuracies were-and have now been asked multiple times to do so. LOL! This topic is not about polygamy, I don't really care what your feelings are about the subject. You are just another poster that has shown that he can't stay OT.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"however, that you would spend time telling others that they're incorrect about Mormon polygamy..."<<< You really need to spend a bit more time actually reading the posts that you seem to want to discuss. I said that the poster was incorrect because they used polygamy and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the present context. It is not. Miss that did ja?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Wrong-they were answers to personal attacks-maybe you ought to read more carefully.*** Wrong. You laid into me with your anger issue, unprovoked. I hadn't attacked you in the slightest. ***Life is too short to spend so much time in negativity.*** Better to dish it out in monstrous but short doses? Is that your philosophy kozy? Maybe you ought to re-read what you wrote (and perhaps re-read too the stuff you call a "personal attack", I see nothing of the kind here..at least not before you started hurling your anger around at people).
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"for someone that spends HOURS every week blathering on and on about 1 thing or another one would think that you could come up with a different tune. You are consistently trollish and always looking for a fight-get a life"<<< Which part of what I wrote is inexact x? You spend hours blathering Always same tune Consistently trollish Always looking for a fight Need more in your life >>>"Better to dish it out in monstrous but short doses..."<<< Gee, that's you except you should have said monsstrous but short and constant doses. >>>"You laid into me with your anger issue, unprovoked..."<<< LOL! What a convenient memory you have x. I remember just a short little while back a really nasty personal attack that got an admin real fast-you are nasty just to try a pick a fight. But as others have said about you before, you seem to get your jollies here on WE-you spend such an inordinate amount of time posting. Seems as though the NO on 8 campaign could have used some of your time-afterall just whinning about loosing doesn't accomplish anything.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Wrong-they were answers to personal attacks-maybe you ought to read more carefully.<< First, like I said before, they are still personal attacks. That you see them as a justified response to a personal attack is fine, but that doesn't change what they are. Second, you've included some personal attacks on me throughout your posts, but if you review my last post, I did not attack you. So you've gone from saying you're just stating a difference of opinion, to stating that you're responding to personal attacks, to giving personal attacks when I did not attack you. Your story keeps changing. For example: >>You really need to spend a bit more time actually reading the posts that you seem to want to discuss.<< >>Miss that did ja?<< >>You are just another poster that has shown that he can't stay OT.<< Again, these are personal attacks that you can't just pass off as a response to a personal attack, since none was made in my post. >>I do not play your game of taking people's words out of context and twist them around-I am waaaaaay to busy to be bothered with games such as those. I am constantly amazed at the hundreds of hours some here on LP spend as if it is a real job, picking people and their religion, etc apart. Wow. Life is too short to spend so much time in negativity.<< You're of course welcome to respond however and to whatever you like. You of course can also give the reasons why you might do so. In this case, you've said I've twisted words (but haven't provided any evidence) and you've said it's too negative (but haven't explained why). Again, all fine. But the point remains, you haven't responded to my posts articulating Mormonism's connection to non-traditional marriage. That's your perogative, but it weakens your arguments when you take the time to respond to one supposedly "off-topic" poster, but not another. As for the OT charge, topics morph and change all the time. I've found that when people complain about topics going OT, it's because they don't like what's being said, not because they're genuinely concerned that we all stay OT. Certainly your personal attacks on me, X, and Sara Tonin, are OT. Yet you felt compelled to do so. But you'll note that no one is taking you to task for being OT. When all is said and done, and we cut through these silly semantics games, your accusations of going OT, your accusations of negativity, your accusations of trollish behavior, etc., what we're left with is no response from you on Mormonism's keen ability to shift and change its doctrine to fit with cultural norms, but then claiming a revelation from God to do so, when all the evidence points to cultural pressure. If you choose not to respond, that's fine. But we're left to assume then that you have no response, because the information that's been presented is correct. Therefore, the point stands: Mormonism is hypocritical for once engaging in non-traditional marriage, and insisting it was the highest order of both society and heaven, then changing and saying that traditional marriage is the highest order of both society and heaven.
Originally Posted By dlkozy As I have repeated again and again-I am not going to discuss theology with you or anyone else on this topic. There have been more than enough of nasty comments on that subject on other topics here in WE You are free to believe what you want and I am free to believe what I want and both of us do not have to explain to the other our reasonings and thus I will not debate them either. I set a few posts straight on inaccurate statements-could care less that that bothers you. I will not ridicule or defame someone else's religion or lifestyle. It is a disgusting habit that seems to run rampant here on WE. And since no one cares to discuss the topic at hand-for me this topic is closed. But feel free to continue your bashing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as you seem to have a propensity for doing that.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<As I have repeated again and again-I am not going to discuss theology with you or anyone else on this topic. There have been more than enough of nasty comments on that subject on other topics here in WE>> You know I really enjoy reading the stuff ecdc writes on LDS - he doesn't come off as bashing anything - he states facts - many that even utahjosh and elderp have agreed with... But he does it objectively and not with the follow the leader mentality. I am not sure why dlk it is that your feel so threatened by ecdc other than maybe the truth is in his writings and it makes you uncomfortable when all the fluff is taken away and the facts directly in black and white. Now OT - in one of the other threads about prop H8 utahjosh and cindermom both said that the Prop H8 was more important than the LDS's tax status - and the Church would deal with it in Utah. (I do not remember which of them said either part - but it was in the yes on H8 thread started by Elderp). So if the Church is investigated and it has violated the rules then so be it - I would think all the members would rather it be investigated and cleared up then have it something hanging over their heads for years to come.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "So what is the difference? Really? Both groups believe they were started by the same Prophet - The primary difference I see is that the FLDS believes that their leader was selected to be the next prophet (well actually his father was) while you don't believe it to be their leader - but your leader was the actual prophet." Interestingly, this whole disagreement about succession is behind the rift between Shia and Sunni Muslims. It goes back 1200 or 1300 years, and they're still arguing over it. To most people outside Islam, both groups are considered Muslims. But each group considers the other apostates, and not "true" Muslims. Interesting.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "To most people outside Islam, both groups are considered Muslims. But each group considers the other apostates, and not "true" Muslims. Interesting." That's true of many Christian faiths too. Each seems to think they are the only correct one. Problem is, not all of them can be right if they are all claiming to be the truth. People on the outside may label them all "Christians", but ask a Fundamental Baptist if Catholics or Mormons are Christians and see what response you get...
Originally Posted By barboy ///Problem is, not all of them can be right if they are all claiming to be the truth./// I don't see it that way. I suppose it's very possible for all or some (or none for that matter) of the spiritual sects to be 'right' simultaneously.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<I suppose it's very possible for all or some (or none for that matter) of the spiritual sects to be 'right' simultaneously.>> Not if a fundamental belief is that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Religions that believe in that tenet can't be right along with everyone else because if everyone (or anyone) else is right, then they are wrong. Now if one argues that there is truth and that all religions possess a portion of that truth (in varying degrees of course) then I can buy that argument. However that argument goes by the wayside when one religion argues they have a monopoly on the truth. The most important and fundamental truth is that no one has a monopoly on the truth. Anyone who claims to is lying, and therefore possesses no truth at all.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt They're all wrong as far as I can tell. Spirituality must be defined by the individual, not from some list of laws created by other people. This is especially true when taking a broader view in a society where people hold different values and beliefs. Mormons and other Christian faiths ought to be mindful to remember this and keep their hands and their money out of the secular activities of government. The state issues marriage licenses, not the church.
