Posted on 12/30/2011 5:23:14 AM PST by Colofornian
Edited on 12/30/2011 5:44:11 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
SALT LAKE CITY
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If this issue is not your business, why are you commenting on it then, just ignore the post?
Do you have any evidence that this particular group is receiving any of those benefits?
My solution, of course, would be to end those 'benefits' entirely. But that's for another thread I suppose.
BUT...it is the Religion Forum and your view is not the view of the website owner.
"The sign on the door says Free Republic is a God, Country, Family, Life & Liberty site. And we seek to attract like-minded individuals. Those who campaign against us on our deeply-held traditional Christian conservative views are not like-minded and therefore not welcome.
146 posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 10:49:34 AM by Jim Robinson
It is my well considered opinion that consenting adults who aren't stealing Government funds or directly harming anyone else should be able to order their living arrangements any way they choose. That's called "freedom".
You seem to have a real problem with that. Perhaps it's you who's on the wrong website.
Perhaps it's you who should rethink that comment.
Because a lot of very misguided people seem to think it is their business. These people aren't harming anyone. And there's no evidence of any fraud on their part.
They simply want to be left alone to live their lives the way they choose. They're neither picking my pocket nor breaking my leg.
Then there's that pesky part of the 1st Amendment which says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" to deal with. When you figure a way around that, you let me know.
Nobody's going to pre-restrict your comments.
Go ahead. Spell it out. Say that you don't see anything wrong with three guys marrying.
You posted a thread on a legal matter pending before the Courts. I commented on it. The fact that you don't like my opinion...Since this isn't a Religous Caucus I'm free to comment
Don't confuse what I said in my #1 & #3 points with #2 -- this being a pro-family site.
When I told you to "mind your own business" -- that wasn't "handcuffs" on whether or not you could comment (external boundaries). I was merely saying that you should be consistent with your own internal worldview.
Since you go around lecturing others to mind their own business...it's obvious that's a standard of yours.
Live it.
Embody that within your posts then.
Mind your own business, then...
Despite the various freedoms you have, internally place restraints on yourself and live your standard by example.
If that's what you believe, then live it.
Otherwise, if you can't or won't, then just stop being a hypocrite about it. You can't be consistent by...in one post telling others to mind their own business and then in every post launch into others' business...
Don't you get it? Or are you the only one in this thread that doesn't understand you don't apply your own worldview to yourself? How you expect others to behave is not a standard you apply to yourself.
Are you so clueless about that?
You haven't been able to stop posting about...
...my posting business...
...or the government running their business...
...or other taxpayers' speaking out about the business of accountability for their funds.
And here I thought you told me we're all to just mind our own business -- and not get involved in the business of others!
So are you a "mind your own business" person or not? If you are, don't just preach it then; live it.
So go mind your own business then and inwardly restrain intruding upon others' business.
Another example: You want to superimpose certain emotions and actions I supposedly have...But if you're a true "mind your own business" guy, then who even cares what your commentary is about your neighbors...? 'Cause all your commentary shows is that you can't mind your own business, after all...can you?
In fact, you're making it your business to judge your neighbors.
Wow! Here you went from your first post advocating a "who cares?" approach to judging distinct family configurations in the way our neighbors live; and in each post, you can't stop falling over yourself to comment an "I care" approach to distinct word configurations re: what your neighbors post.
If you don't think we should judge "family" configurations embodied by people, then why the h*ll should you be caring about word configurations embodied by others?
Could you be any more inconsistent?
I'm not sure how you could communicate a more two-faced, hypocritical, double-standard approach to life.
Now in the future will it change, yes.
So what we have regardless of your personal feelings people breaking the law. In general nobody cares unless children are harmed or these people are taking taxpayer monies.
Because these women are not legally married they are eligible to receive welfare, and apparently they are in most cases, based on your previous comments that is your issue.
Apparently a whole bunch of people care even if no taxpayer monies are involved. Just scroll up the thread for proof. And these women may be eligible for some kind of welfare. I don't know. But there's no proof that there getting it. At least no one has been able to provide any.
Personally I agree with you that polygamy is one of those "self punishing" sort of things. But that doesn't mean I think it's the business of Government to tell consenting adults, at the point of a gun btw, that they can't order their lives the way they choose to.
These people aren't harming anyone. No one here is being forced to join this relationship and there is no fraud involved that I can see. Therefore I think the Government should butt out.
L
I have a double mind about this issue.
In a secular argument I do not care.
In a spiritual argument I am offend by the bastardization of the meaning of marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman, it is an earthly representation of Christ and His bride, the church.
There are many links to polygamists families receiving aid, however the way the government reveals the statistics, it looks like gobble gook. I don’t have the mind set to go through it today.
There are dozens of studies that show these families have long term harm on children.
Bottom line it is at the present time illegal.
Your understanding is essentially correct regarding mormon concept of becoming ‘gods’. They are working hard to put that aspect under a dozen layers of obfuscation, but it is the core of their beliefs and one of the principle reasons for their exclusive temples.
this is just the tip of the lds iceberg
It is presently illegal for insurance companies to compete across State lines, too. That doesn't mean I agree with that law any more than I agree with the law in question here.
And you didn't want to be left out.
So say the gay rights thug - and by extension the pedophiles. but keep your head in the sand, polygamy will be picking your pocket by more welfare babies. Perhaps this guy is able to pay for them all - but we can't even pay for the current polygamy of men getting multiple women pregnant without marriage - now you want that behavior to be legal. You may have preferred the broken leg before its over.
I guess you missed the multiple times I included the phrase “consenting adults”. Reading comprehension isnt your strong suit I see.
No, I understood fully. Now your capability to see the broader issue isn’t your strong suit then. You may bleat “consenting adult” till you are blue in the face. It doesn’t negate the drive to lower the age of consent for pedo’s nor does it address the quasi polygamy in our nation. Head in the sand - give them the ok to procreate to their hearts content - and let the gov’t pick up the tab - thats how it is working today, no reason to believe otherwise in the future.
If nothing else good comes out of having Romney as the GOP candidate, the MSM anal probe of him will hopefully open the eyes of many, who just like me 2 years ago, thought that Mormons were just another type of Christian.
After seeing the dark underside of the LDS enterprise over the last two years, with its codified and practical distinctions between men (first class) and women (second class), as well as its preference of power over love, I have come to believe that Mormonism, Inc., is little more than Islam in Christian’s clothing.
You obviously missed my plainly stated objections to this as well. Now why don't you scroll back up the thread and re-read all of my comments. That should only take you a day or two. Then get back to me.
no reason to believe otherwise in the future.
Ah, I see defeatism is another quality you possess. How charming. You must be loads of fun at parties.
Um...Mormons were practicing Polygamy and wanting it to be legalized over a century before Lawrence v. Texas.
Polygamy is a foundational doctrine of Mormonism, which is ironic since Smith lied about it for years while practicing it at the same time.
I think you miss the point. Lawrence v. Texas removed the legal justification keeping for the STATE to legalize polygamy.
You are correct on both counts. AFA, not publicizing doctrines, when I was training to be a Mormon missionary, I was told specifically to LIE about certain teachings (or change the subject or dissemble) because it might make people less likely to join.
Mormons tell the public one thing,(like they believe Jesus is the Son of God), but don’t tell them the rest of the story (like he is literally through sexual intercourse the son of God (and Mary who is one of God’s polygamous wives).
I’ve posted this before but will do so again here. It is an example of how the LDS twist and lie about their teachings to make it more palatable...
As to why I lied about LDS beliefs (or dissembled), there is a constantly used phrase/idea that comes down from the leadership of “every member a missionary”. It means that every member is to try to convert people to Mormonism. Couple that with the other oftused meme of “don’t do anything that makes ‘the Church’ look bad” and you have an interesting combination. The “why” gets down to these. It is easier to lie or omit things or twist words than it is to explain what the LDS really believe and risk losing a potential convert or have someone go away thinking less than glowing things about the LDS church.
Every member is expected to find ‘investigators’ (people who would be interested in converting who take the missionary discussions - similar to RCIA). There is also a lot of people who hear things about beliefs but don’t know enough to know what the LDS are saying, that they use different meanings for terms, even though the LDS usually know that Christians mean different things. A typical exchange could go like this...
non - LDS - “I have a lot of Mormon friends, and they are nice people, but don’t Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?”
LDS - No! We don’t believe that at all! Jesus is the only begotten Son of God! Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and they said that all other churches had some problems and Joseph needed to start a Church that was the same as the one when Jesus Christ was on the Earth. Why don’t you come over for dinner and we will have the missionaries talk to you? There is a set of 6 discussions that they give that shows what we believe.
non-LDS - “Well, ok, but I read somewhere that Mormons believe they will become Gods”
LDS - “That was probably written by someone who has a grudge against the Church. They probably are one of the ones who gets paid to badmouth the Church or someone who couldn’t live by the principles of the Church so they left or they were offended by someone in their ward.
Ok, lets parse this. Notice how many times “the Church” is used. For the LDS it is all about “the Church”. LDS ‘testimonies’ often start out with “I know the Church is true”.
Then there is the automatic denial that Jesus and Satan are brothers. We saw it on this a thread the other day even. Now, all LDS know that their church teaches Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers. So why would you get a resounding “NO”? Because it makes their theology look silly. By stating “No” the LDS are lying to you, but they are thinking “Well they aren’t flesh brothers, just spirit brothers like we all are, Jesus is our Elder brother”. The other day an LDS came on one of these threads and stated “Jesus and Lucifer aren’t brothers, as if by Mary!”. Notice the subtlety of it. “As if by Mary” implying they aren’t physical brothers (which no one claimed). But they left out That Lucifer was the second born and Jesus was the firstborn of the spirit children.
Next we come to what would appear to be a rebuttal to the claim Jesus and Satan are brothers. “Jesus is the only begotten Son of God!” what they are not telling you is that they mean it in a literal sense. Jesus and Satan are SPIRIT brothers (like all of us) but Jesus is God’s physical son, God came down, had sex with Mary and conceived Jesus. So it isn’t a rebuttal at all and the LDS know that. They are intentionally twisting words to make you think they don’t believe Jesus and Satan are Spirit brothers.
Next Phrase - “Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and they said that all other churches had some problems and Joseph needed to start a Church that was the same as the one when Jesus Christ was on the Earth.” This is referring to the “First Vision” (of which there are several contradictory accounts) and the Great Apostasy. The LDS will tone down things said about other Christians. In the first vision account, Smith isn’t told that other churches ‘had problems’ he was told “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-4,00.html
“All wrong”, “Corrupt” and Creeds an abomination are not the same as “some problems” and the LDS know that. But they will soften it in order to not scare people off or to put the LDS church in a ‘better light’.
Next - about becoming Gods. Notice the LDS response is to go down a rabbit hole, rather than addressing the comment. Instead they lead the person to believe that the source was unreliable, or written by someone who had something to gain (money) or a former Mormon with a grudge. The question itself isn’t even addressed (lying by omission). It also causes the person to think that they might be wrong and that the LDS don’t believe that, even though the LDS person knows they do.
Finally, the invitation to meet with the missionaries. There is an assumption by many that these are people who know more about Mormonism than the average member and that isn’t true either. Most men and quite a few women serve LDS missions (I nearly did). They don’t have special knowledge. They also don’t tell you is the goal of those 6 discussions is to get you baptized Mormon and there is pressure put on you to read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, make commitments and convert. Those 6 discussions aren’t just a summary of LDS beliefs, they are the requirements for conversion and that is their goal. But they don’t tell you that, they make it sound like this is just a friendly way of talking to knowledgeable people about what the LDS believe.
Also, there is the doctrine of ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’ or “milk before meat”, that coverts are only told doctrines when they are spiritually ready to hear them. The missionary discussions are the barest of milk. You learn one set of things in them, and then after you convert you start to learn the rest of LDS theology. Then after a year of faithful membership (sometimes more) you get to go to the LDS temple and learn the ‘meat’ doctrines and are sworn to secrecy (used to have to swear blood oaths).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2786065/posts?page=72#72
The Lds don’t have copyrights to it...because Joseph’s first wife, Emma, retained that when Smith died. Emma never went West with the Brighamite Mormons. Hence, she and her sons helped jumpstart the RLDS church, which has the copyright.
- - - - - -
The LDS claim that, but MrR and I have discussed it and the JST is now in the public domain, the LDS could use it if they wanted to, in its entirety.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.