"Duck Dynasty"...is our freedom of speech being stifled?
Quote: Beethoven9th(EDIT: I just noticed that your link was to an essay written by a big gay marriage supporter. How objective of you. http://www.connellodonovan.com )
Do you really expect people to believe that the Mormon Church's official position was, "Interracial marriage is totally wrong!!..........but we won't ban it"??? *facepalm*
He is also a professor of Mormon history specifically gay and black Mormon history. So unless you can find fault in credentials other then he supports gays. I mean I bet you are also the kind who complained about Reza Aslan because he is Muslim even though he is also a historian.
(HINT: There was no church ban)
Quote: Beethoven9thAll you've proven is that some Mormons have opposed it. So what? You've said nothing so far about an actual ban like the ban on blacks entering the priesthood. Come back to me when you have some hard facts, bro. All you're doing now is repeating the same (lame) line.
The ban was made by Brigham Young and the council of priest. What did you want it to come from on high. Again you realize who Brigham Young is and who the prophets he made those rules with are right. This is the equivilant of the pope making a law it is not just some guy saying it.
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't care where he teaches. The ironic thing though is that you linked to a piece that DOESN'T even mention an official church ban on interracial marriage. lol
(HINT: There was no church ban)
In 1897 George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency, said in a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve:
he had understood President Taylor to say that a man who had the priesthood who would marry a woman of the accursed seed that if the law of the Lord were administered upon him, he would be killed, and his offspring, for the reason that the Lord had determined that the seed of Cain should not receive the priesthood in the flesh; and this was the penalty put upon Cain, because if he had received the priesthood the seed of the murderer would get ahead of the seed of Abel who was murdered.[22]
And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the ownly way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children.[20]
Doing it can carry a death penalty but doing it is clearly not illegal right. Murder isn't illegal you just get executed if your caught doing it right.
Brigham Young had a personal view, but it was NOT AN OFFICIAL CHURCH BAN.
I already gave you an example of a real ban (e.g., blacks & the priesthood). I'm still waiting for you to do the same.
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't know how many times I have to say it. There was NO ban. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nil. Nada. NO BAN.
Brigham Young had a personal view, but it was NOT AN OFFICIAL CHURCH BAN.
I already gave you an example of a real ban (e.g., blacks & the priesthood). I'm still waiting for you to do the same.
I did it is the Quorum of the Twelve which said that interracial marriage carried the death penalty. How is that not an official ban. Do it and we'll kill you and your children but don't worry there is no church ban against it.
Quote: TwirdmanThis is the equivilant of the pope making a law it is not just some guy saying it.
Seriously, are you purposely trying to post wrong info? If so, you're doing a great job. The Pope CANNOT change church doctrine:
Can the Church change its doctrines?
Answer: "No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can..."
Guess you know as much about the Catholic Church as you do about the Mormon Church. lol
Quote: TwirdmanHow is that not an official ban.
Because Mormons were still allowed to marry outside of their race. DUH!
Here's what a Mormon spokesman said after the 1978 reversal of the ban on blacks & the priesthood:
"So there is no ban on interracial marriage. If a black partner contemplating marriage is worthy of going to the Temple, nobody's going to stop him..."
Did you read that, bro? NO BAN ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE!!! There was NO written church policy that banned interracial marriage. The ban only exists in your head.
Quote: Beethoven9thSeriously, are you purposely trying to post wrong info? If so, you're doing a great job. The Pope CANNOT change church doctrine:
Can the Church change its doctrines?
Answer: "No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can..."
Guess you know as much about the Catholic Church as you do about the Mormon Church. lol
Well actually thats wrong the pope can change laws by issuing certain papal bulls, I mean what do you think an ex cathedra is supposed to do, but that is immaterial now as I said this is the formation of the church and as such the formation of the doctrine. Clearly you would say Jesus, Peter, and Paul were all capable of making doctrine so why wouldn't Joseph Smith and Brigham Young founders of the Mormon church be able to formulate doctrine. Which is exactly what Brigham Young did concerning most of the doctrine of the Mormon church.
Quote: Beethoven9thBecause Mormons were still allowed to marry outside of their race. DUH!
Here's what a Mormon spokesman said after the 1978 reversal of the ban on blacks & the priesthood:
"So there is no ban on interracial marriage. If a black partner contemplating marriage is worthy of going to the Temple, nobody's going to stop him..."
Did you read that, bro? NO BAN ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE!!! There was NO written church policy that banned interracial marriage. The ban only exists in your head.
That is in 78 I was talking about the 19th century up until 1965. Yes 13 years after the date I said they rescinded their ban there was no longer a ban. I mean unless 1978 comes before the 19th century in your mind those two aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote: TwirdmanWell actually thats wrong...Quote: Beethoven9thThe Pope CANNOT change church doctrine:
Can the Church change its doctrines?
Answer: "No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can..."
Hahahaha!! So all the Catholic scholars & theologians are wrong, but a guy named Twirdman on WoV is right??? LOL
Quote: TwirdmanThat is in 78 I was talking about the 19th century up until 1965
There was NO ban prior to 1978. (Not sure if you're aware of this, but that also covers the years prior to 1965.....DUH)
Quote: Beethoven9thThere was NO ban prior to 1978. (Not sure if you're aware of this, but that also covers the years prior to 1965.....DUH)
How do you figure. In the US there were bans on sodomy in many states until roughly the start of the 21st century. I can say now there is no ban on sodomy in the US does that mean there was never a ban on sodomy? Does your time work in some other direction then mine. I mean what about what he said makes you think there was no ban prior to 1978. His sentence saying there is no ban does not mean there never was a ban. Just like saying there is no ban on sodomy in the US does not mean there was never a ban.
Quote: TwirdmanIn the US there were bans on sodomy in many states until roughly the start of the 21st century. I can say now there is no ban on sodomy in the US does that mean there was never a ban on sodomy?
It's quite easy to prove that there were sodomy laws. A quick 2-second Google search can verify that there were such laws.
OTOH, I can't prove a negative about your imaginary ban. All I can do is try to appeal to your common sense & convince you that this ban you keep harping about is all in your head. For example, it was written policy that blacks could not enter the Mormon priesthood. There was NO SUCH POLICY against interracial marriage. It may have been discouraged (similar to the way some blacks discourage their kids from marrying non-blacks), but there was NO OFFICIAL CHURCH BAN AGAINST IT. None.
Do you understand? NONE
Quote: Beethoven9thIt's quite easy to prove that there were sodomy laws. A 2-second Google search can verify that there were.
OTOH, I can't prove a negative about your imaginary ban. All I can do is try to appeal to your common sense & convince you that this ban you keep harping about is all in your head. For example, it was written policy that blacks could not enter the Mormon priesthood. There was NO SUCH POLICY against interracial marriage. It may have been discouraged (similar to the way some Jews discourage their kids from marrying non-Jews), but there was NO OFFICIAL CHURCH BAN AGAINST IT.
I have put numerous laws that were put in place I don't know what further proof I can give. Here is another incident with a far lower penalty
As proof of that belief, year later, Joseph Smith, as Nauvoo’s Justice of the Peace, fined two African American men $25 and $5 respectively for “trying to marry white women.
So if there was no ban in place why were all these people being punished for doing it. I mean in this world if you are punished for doing something it means that something is banned.
Quote: TwirdmanSo if there was no ban in place why were all these people being punished for doing it. I mean in this world if you are punished for doing something it means that something is banned.
The only thing you proved was that there was a local ban on interracial marriage (which I've never disputed). The term "Justice of the Peace" should have given you a hint. *facepalm* Anyway, I repeat, there was NO CHURCH BAN at all.
NONE
Quote: Beethoven9thThe only thing you proved was that there was a local ban on interracial marriage (which I've never disputed). The term "Justice of the Peace" should have given you a hint. *facepalm* Anyway, I repeat, there was NO CHURCH BAN at all.
NONE
You realize that area was a Mormon settlement ruled by Mormon laws.
Also
The First Presidency was confronted with another case in 1895 when “a white Sister who married a negro man entreat[ed] for permission to receive her ordinances.” Franklin D. Richards, who was present, wrote only in his journal, “but [she was] refused.” A month later, in September 1895, Richards again recorded in his journal a case so similar that it must refer to the first case. This case involved none other than Mary Bowdidge Berry herself, the white mother of Laura Berry. Now that her mixed-race daughter had married a good Mormon man and she herself had married a white man, Mary Bowdidge wished to be endowed and sealed to her new husband and their son. However, as a penalty for having previously married a black man, she was denied entrance into the temple.[35]
So again this was a church only punishment. So if there was no ban on it why was she punished?
Either you guys Mormon?
Might want to start a new thread
Quote: terapinedNot taking sides, just curious.
Either you guys Mormon?
Might want to start a new thread
I'm actually atheist and was raised Catholic.
Quote: WizardI do. Then again I envy men who are in the double-digits too, let alone five digits.
Define sex. Are we using the Bill Clinton definition, where oral doesn't count? :-)
Yes, and local laws are NOT synonymous with Church law, regardless of who's in charge. Example: Mormons currently control Utah, but that does NOT mean that Utah state law is synonymous with Church law. *facepalm* (I can't believe someone actually has to explain this to you)Quote: TwirdmanYou realize that area was a Mormon settlement ruled by Mormon laws.
Because the guy obviously had some sort of personal problem. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. You're simply trying to indict the entire Mormon Church for the actions of particular individuals, and it's ridiculous to do that.Quote: TwirdmanSo if there was no ban on it why was she punished?
For example, if I'm in the Catholic Church, and I punish a guy by not allowing him to receive communion because he's a Lakers fans, then that does NOT mean the Church is officially anti-Lakers. All it means is that I'm a d-bag. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Quote: kewljDefine sex. Are we using the Bill Clinton definition, where oral doesn't count? :-)
Heck if you go with some of the people now anal doesn't count either. And given neither count gays are perpetual virgins.
Tells me more about what type of characters we have on these boards :)
Quote: TomspurThis thread has morphed about 10 times......
Sorry about that. Guess I'm an enabler...lol
It's just bizarre when people try to equate personal behavior with skin color.
Quote: Beethoven9thYes, and local laws are/were NOT synonymous with Church law. Example: Mormons currently control Utah, but that does NOT mean that Utah state law is synonymous with Church law. *facepalm* (I can't believe someone actually has to explain this to you)
Because the guy obviously had some sort of personal problem. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. You're simply trying to indict the entire Mormon Church for the actions of a single guy, and it's ridiculous to do that.
For example, if I'm in the Catholic Church, and I punish a guy by not allowing him to receive communion because he's a Lakers fans, then that does NOT mean the Church is officially anti-Lakers. All it means is that I'm a d-bag. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
This guy was the leader of the Mormon church at the time. Honestly I can't see how you are arguing there is no ban when the leaders of the church punished people from it and not just a single leader multiple different leaders. Multiple people also routinely discussed how interracial marriage was against church teachings. I don't even begin to know how I could prove there was a ban on it.
Here is an excerpt from a meeting between Brigham Young and the 12 so the leaders of the church.
If a black man & white woman come to you & demand baptism can you deny them? the law is their seed shall not be amalgamated
So this is a clear ban on interracial marriage. I mean if you don't think the leaders of the church at its foundation make the dogma where do you think it comes from. If they do make dogma then clear this is a part of their dogma. You can't just say its people being douches because you disagree with it they clearly were leading the church and multiple different leaders of the church all affirmed the same thing.
Quote: Beethoven9thSorry about that. Guess I'm an enabler...lol
It's just bizarre when people try to equate personal behavior with skin color.
People have some weird beliefs but I guess we have to respect them for what they believe and what they think they believe.............
Still pretty far out though :)
Quote: TomspurThis thread has morphed about 10 times......very interesting takes on religion and politics, two subjects I purposefully try to avoid at all costs but interesting opinions none the less.
Tells me more about what type of characters we have on these boards :)
People are consumed by politics and religion in this forum. I don't think this is unusual for our group. I think its the internet. Among people face to face, its usually a subject avoided unless you are among good friends. With the internet, its easily discussed as no subject is taboo when it comes to the internet.
Hey B9. I've been a bit snarky towards you lately. sorry.
On a civilized note, curious about your religion. Not taking your side in this Mormon debate(don't know enough to take a side) but you seem to know a lot about Mormon. Are you a Mormon. If you choose not to answer, I understand. Its a personal question.
I'm atheist. Raised that way most of my life, my father was a scientist.
connecting tomorrow am in ATL. lights out for now
Yeah, and he had some racist views. I never disputed that. Many people back then did. You're trying to extrapolate from that the notion that somehow his views were one and the same with church doctrine. It wasn't.Quote: TwirdmanThis guy was the leader of the Mormon church at the time.
Anyway, I did notice that you avoided my other point. If I'm in the Catholic Church, and I punish a guy by not allowing him to receive communion because he's a Lakers fans, then that does NOT mean the Church is officially anti-Lakers. But according to your logic, that's exactly the conclusion you'd come to. *facepalm*
What's so hard to understand about this anyway??
I don't either because there was none.Quote: TwirdmanI don't even begin to know how I could prove there was a ban on it.
So what? They all agreed on something that was NOT part of church doctrine. Big deal. If Pope Francis decided to change church doctrine on abortion, can he do so? NOQuote: TwirdmanYou can't just say its people being douches because you disagree with it they clearly were leading the church and multiple different leaders of the church all affirmed the same thing.
Cardinal Dolan: "A second common misperception is that a new Pope can “change doctrine.” That, of course, is impossible..."
Dude, don't ever worry about that. I love sarcastic humor. ;)Quote: terapinedHey B9. I've been a bit snarky towards you lately. sorry.
Nope, I'm non-religious. I know lots of Mormons though, and they're fantastic people. Very generous and very willing to help others, including non-Mormons.Quote: terapinedOn a civilized note, curious about your religion. Not taking your side in this Mormon debate(don't know enough to take a side) but you seem to know a lot about Mormon. Are you a Mormon. If you choose not to answer, I understand. Its a personal question.
Quote: Wizard23 pages of posts in a day and a half. This must be a new record.
Youre welcome.
Quote: Beethoven9thYeah, and he had some racist views. I never disputed that. Many people back then did. You're trying to extrapolate from that the notion that somehow his views were one and the same with church doctrine. It wasn't.
Anyway, I did notice that you avoided my other point. If I'm in the Catholic Church, and I punish a guy by not allowing him to receive communion because he's a Lakers fans, then that does NOT mean the Church is officially anti-Lakers. But according to your logic, that's exactly the conclusion you'd come to. *facepalm*
What's so hard to understand about this anyway??
I don't either because there was none.
So what? They all agreed on something that was NOT part of church doctrine. Big deal. If Pope Francis decided to change church doctrine on abortion, can he do so? NO
Cardinal Dolan: "A second common misperception is that a new Pope can “change doctrine.” That, of course, is impossible..."
If you are the pope and you along with the council of cardinals decide that lakers fans can no longer receive communion then yes it is church doctrine. Your right there is technically a difference between creating new dogma and what the pope does. The pope ellucidates existing dogma.
"At least, the Pope exercises an 'infallible teaching function' (infallibile magisterium) when he defines a doctrine ex-cathedra; and in so doing he is endowed with 'that infallibility, in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals, wherewith the Redeemer willed his Church to be equipped'. " So the pope acts as a vessel which God uses to issue new statements of dogma. http://vatican2voice.org/8conscience/butler.htm
I will admit ex-cathedra statements are rarely used but have been used at least twice once to confirm the immaculate conception of the virgin mary and another one to confirm the assumption of the virgin mary. Now from an educated position you are right he is not changing doctrine these things have always been true and the pope simply made it a part of official doctrine.
Both of these are immaterial though since the Mormon church works differently and in this case you have the leader of the church and the council of 12 saying that this is what the law is. You can't argue these are just some assholes these are the people who define church law. So unless you have some reason to reject what these people said is church law you cannot simply say it is not law.
Let me try one last time. Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, few (if any) of the founders truly believed that since they owned slaves. But according to your logic, you'd argue that the Declaration was anti-black back then because of the personal beliefs of Jefferson and the rest of signers.
And I'm telling you that's BS. The personal opinions of Jefferson and the rest of the signers are completely SEPARATE & DISTINCT from the Declaration itself. It doesn't matter if everyone in the country ignored the Declaration; that doesn't change what it says. You can't seem to grasp the fact that they're not identical to each other.
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, sure...the analogy breaks down at some point. ALL analogies do. That's what makes both things different. *facepalm*
Let me try one last time. Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, few (if any) of the founders truly believed that since they owned slaves. But according to your logic, you'd argue that the Declaration was anti-black back then because of the personal beliefs of Jefferson and the rest of signers.
And I'm here to tell you that's BS. The personal opinions of Jefferson and the rest of guys who signed it are completely SEPARATE & DISTINCT from the Declaration itself. You seem to have this fixation on both being one and the same.
Where do you think church doctrine comes from if not its founders and leaders. The document can in some ways be distinct and seperate from the signers. But its hard to say whether they can form a country that is seperate from all their views.
The thing is though I did point out they made a rule. Its not just these 13 guys believing blacks and whites shouldn't marry they discussed whether they should be able to get baptism and the rule they decided was no. That is quite different from a private belief.
The only way your opinion holds water is if you believe that the president and council of 13 can't establish church law but they clearly can and that is what they were doing here.
Why do you keep repeating yourself? I already said about 5 times now that church doctrine is NOT synonymous with every opinion of its leaders. Why can't you understand this simple sentence?Quote: TwirdmanWhere do you think church doctrine comes from if not its founders and leaders.
OK, simple request. Give me the exact time in history when your (imaginary) ban became part of church doctrine. Be specific too.Quote: TwirdmanThe only way your opinion holds water is if you believe that the president and council of 13 can't establish church law but they clearly can and that is what they were doing here.
Quote: Beethoven9thWhy do you keep repeating yourself? I already said about 5 times now that church doctrine is NOT synonymous with every opinion of its leaders. Why can't you understand this simple sentence?
OK, simple request. Give me the exact time in history when your (imaginary) ban became part of church doctrine. Be specific too.
December 3, 1847 Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve, pp. 6-7. Sorry can't give you the exact hour. Also the two are not synomouse but church doctrine does come from the pronouncement of church leaders. And this was one such pronouncement defining church law.
Quote: TwirdmanDecember 3, 1847 Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve, pp. 6-7.
You took that straight from the webpage of that gay marriage supporter...lol!
Anyway, I hate to break the news to you, but expressing an opinion doesn't automatically make it part of church doctrine. Like I said before, if he had expressed a preference for eating oranges back then, that doesn't automatically make it part of church doctrine either.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou took that straight from the webpage of that gay marriage supporter...lol!
Anyway, I hate to break the news to you, but expressing an opinion doesn't automatically make it part of church doctrine.
Yes I did because he is a historian of Mormon history specifically black Mormon history so its not just some schmuck also the document is there if you want to read it yourself. The Quorum of 12 and the first presidency are the governing body of the Mormon church why would you think this pronouncement was simply their opinion rather than official church law given when they gather their goal is to establish official church policy. I mean if the council of cardinals and the pope got together and had a ruling on some decision it is far more than just opinions they happen to have it would almost definitely rise to the status of official church policy.
Let's say that 9 people and I start a new city and write up a charter. And let's also say that all 10 of us are huge 49ers fans. Then over time, other people start moving to our city. When they come, the 10 of us pressure them to root for the 49ers, and we punish them if they don't.
Well, according to your logic rooting for the 49ers is now part of the charter because the 10 of us are the ones who wrote it!
Can't you see how ridiculous this logic is???????????????????????????
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, I'm a glutton for punishment, so I'll try yet again.
Let's say that 9 people and I start a new city and write up a charter. And let's also say that all 10 of us are huge 49ers fans. Then over time, other people start moving to our city. When they come, the 10 of us pressure them to root for the 49ers, and we punish them if they don't.
Well, according to your logic rooting for the 49ers is now part of the charter because the 10 of us are the ones who wrote it!
Can't you see how ridiculous this logic is?????????????????
No but if they are punished for not rooting for the 49ers then their is a rule against not rooting for the 49ers so it is a law of the city. You seem to think dogma is set in stone upon formation of the church but no it changes. So was interracial marriage banned from the start of Mormonism from so rule handed down on high, obviously right now just pretending that Mormonism is true, is arguable since it is condemned in the old testament which is part of their holy book. But for now lets pretend it wasn't, I'm not arguing Brigham Young and the Quorum of 12 made it suddenly part of the holy book I am saying that there ended up being a rule banning it.
To use your analogy the Decleration of Independence and Constitution do not forbid murder but we punish murders. Now does that mean murder is banned in the constitution or Deleration of Independence no those documents are already written. What it means is we made a law banning murder just as your city made a law banning not rooting for the 49ers and the Mormon Church made a rule banning interracial marriage.
Basically if a governing body punishes you for doing something then that body bans something.
Quote: TwirdmanI mean if the council of cardinals and the pope got together and had a ruling on some decision it is far more than just opinions
If the Pope and every single cardinal got together and all agreed to support abortion, that does not make it part of church doctrine.
Major *FACEPALM*Quote: TwirdmanYou seem to think dogma is set in stone upon formation of the church but no it changes
Dogma does NOT change: "The content of a dogma has truly divine origin. It is considered an expression of an objective truth and does not change."
No, no, no...I didn't say that a law was passed to require people to root for the 49ers. I simply said that those who didn't root for the 49ers were punished. (You do realize that you can punish someone without a law, right?)Quote: TwirdmanWhat it means is we made a law banning murder just as your city made a law banning not rooting for the 49ers...
Yes, so murder is no more a part of the Declaration or the Constitution than interracial marriage is part of (Mormon) church doctrine. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!Quote: TwirdmanTo use your analogy the Decleration of Independence and Constitution do not forbid murder but we punish murders. Now does that mean murder is banned in the constitution or Deleration of Independence no
Quote: TwirdmanBasically if a governing body punishes you for doing something then that body bans something.
It stands to reason Mormons would consider marriage a central and important rite, and govern it tightly. The idea that they operated on whims is ridiculous.
You've made a good argument.
Quote: Beethoven9thIf the Pope and every single cardinal got together and all agreed to support abortion, that does not make it part of church doctrine.
http://voices.yahoo.com/history-abortion-catholic-church-5886362.html?cat=37 clearly rules on abortions have changed many times based on the ruling of the pope. Now I will admit somethings are beyond the ability of the current or any pope to change. A pope cannot reject the physical resurrection or the physical assumption of Jesus into heaven as these are biblical teachings. Also its arguable whether the current pope could overturn statements another pope made as an ex cathedra statement like the assumption of the virgin mary or the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary. But they can overturn many things. You can argue one cardinal saying he can't do it but given I have at least 5 popes who did change rules concerning abortion. They changed everything from when it could be from 12 weeks, to the time of the quickening, to banned at all times. They've also changed the penalty for it and the penalty based on factors like pre or post quickening. I will admit no change has happened for about 150 years but that does not mean changes can never happen as history dictates they can.
THANK YOU VERY MUCHQuote: TwirdmanNow I will admit somethings are beyond the ability of the current or any pope to change.
Quote: Beethoven9thMajor *FACEPALM*
Dogma does NOT change: "The content of a dogma has truly divine origin. It is considered an expression of an objective truth and does not change."
No, no, no...I didn't say that a law was passed to require people to root for the 49ers. I simply said that those who didn't root for the 49ers were punished. (You do realize that you can punish someone without a law, right?)Yes, so murder is no more a part of the Declaration or the Constitution than interracial marriage is part of (Mormon) church doctrine. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!Quote: TwirdmanTo use your analogy the Decleration of Independence and Constitution do not forbid murder but we punish murders. Now does that mean murder is banned in the constitution or Deleration of Independence no
You may not have a de jure rule in place but there is a de facto rule in place. You realize dogma in most churches in the world is found through revelation so even if you argue that dogma never changes that does not mean interpretation of dogma never changes. Also you realize the Mormon church has an entire book based on changes to doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants the Catholics have a series of statemenets and different books as far as I know there is no single thing that collects it all.
Quote: TwirdmanAlso you realize the Mormon church has an entire book based on changes to doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants
Yeah, and nowhere does it mention a ban on interracial marriage. (I love it when people unintentionally prove my point...lol)
_____________________
P.S.-And on that victorious note, I'm out. (Time to hit the craps tables!!)
Quote: Beethoven9thYou don't seem to understand the difference between church dogma and church discipline. Church discipline (such as clerical celibacy) can be changed. Church dogma cannot.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
You realize the thing you cited abortion was something that can very much change and as I showed has historically changed. The two things I mentioned are matters of biblical fact The assumption of Christ and the physical resurrection. There is also things in Mormon law that cannot change for instance the historocity of the revelation of Moroni to Joseph Smith. Interracial marriage is not in the same category it can change just as the ban on black priest in Mormonism can change.
Quote: Beethoven9thYeah, and nowhere does it mention a ban on interracial marriage. (I love it when people unintentionally prove my point...lol)
_____________________
P.S.-And on that victorious note, I'm out. (Time to hit the craps tables!!)
How can you be continually shown wrong and claim victory. You might be right it might not be in D&C I am not of the mood to read the whole thing right now but lets pretend you are right though I have no idea how you got through it so quickly. It may not be included since it could be viewed as a reaffirming of scripture rather then a new law that needed to be established. For instance stealing is banned in the Mormon church but I don't believe it is mentioned in the D&C since there is already bible law dealing with it. Similarly they may have viewed that
"And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell" Genesis 24:3
Banned interracial marriage and as such they only needed to reaffirm the rule rather than design a new rule.
Quote: Beethoven9thIf the Pope and every single cardinal got together and all agreed to support abortion, that does not make it part of church doctrine.
I suppose you're a sedevacantist, then?
(Or in Beethoven9th-approved verbiage: maybe not exactly, but an ecumenical council git-together of churchy folks could.)
