"Duck Dynasty"...is our freedom of speech being stifled?
Quote: Beethoven9thJust curious, are polygamists born that way?
Actually, yes. Humans are naturally polygynous to a small degree (one male, a few females). Modern social structure has imposed monogamy on most of humanity, but many prehistoric civilizations were polygynous. There were significant biological advantages to this structure, but because men make the rules and are -- somewhat counterintuitively -- generally better off under monogamy, that's what we have today.
Think about it -- in a world where males are free to have as many wives as agree to be with them, the successful males attract the females who would, in our monogamous society, have to "settle" for less successful males. That would mean a lot of men would die without reproducing. In other words, polygyny leads to a reproductive-success gap in males. Historical human polygyny is evident in the sexual dimorphism you see around you, human males being taller and bigger than their female counterparts. (Sexual dimorphism is correlated with polygamy, not monogamy.)
Quote: MathExtremistActually, yes. Humans are naturally polygynous to a small degree (one male, a few females)...Quote: Beethoven9th
Ah, an answer! I was actually hoping that one of the pro-gay/anti-polygamy people would answer though, so I could nail them on their hypocrisy. ;)
Quote: Beethoven9thAh, an answer! I was actually hoping that one of the pro-gay/anti-polygamy people would answer though, so I could nail them on their hypocrisy. ;)
I don't think "pro-gay" means what you intend it to mean. Nobody's suggesting that everyone should be homosexual.
Also, hypocrisy is a natural part of the human condition. Tolerance for (or disgust with) various aspects of our world is not uniformly distributed. If that's hypocritical to you, then everyone's a hypocrite. To demonstrate:
a) Imagine yourself having a three-way with two attractive members of the opposite gender.
b) Imagine yourself having a three-way with two attractive people, one of each gender.
Chances are your disgust reactions to both scenarios are not equal.
Quote: EvenBobHere's a shocker. A name is not a disorder
and a disorder is not a name. Perception
is reality. The majority, vast majority, of
the world perceives homosexuality as a
disorder. That's the reality. Screw what
some book says, they're all written by
people with an agenda. Including the
religious books.
So if its just what people find as inferior again in the 50s and before then being black was considered inferior so was that when we should have developed a pill to cure it. What else should we consider pills for. Maybe being attracted to fat people lots find that unusual.
This is just ridiculous the majority don't just get to dictate what is a disorder, given disorder has a clinically established definition, much like they can't say the sun revolves around the earth or the world is flat since all those words have established definitions.
Quote: TwirdmanSo if its just what people find as inferior again in the 50s and before then being black was considered inferior .
Why do you keep mentioning black people,
it has nothing to do with anything. Try and
stay on topic.
Quote: MathExtremistActually, yes. Humans are naturally polygynous to a small degree (one male, a few females). Modern social structure has imposed monogamy on most of humanity, but many prehistoric civilizations were polygynous. There were significant biological advantages to this structure, but because men make the rules and are -- somewhat counterintuitively -- generally better off under monogamy, that's what we have today.
Think about it -- in a world where males are free to have as many wives as agree to be with them, the successful males attract the females who would, in our monogamous society, have to "settle" for less successful males. That would mean a lot of men would die without reproducing. In other words, polygyny leads to a reproductive-success gap in males. Historical human polygyny is evident in the sexual dimorphism you see around you, human males being taller and bigger than their female counterparts. (Sexual dimorphism is correlated with polygamy, not monogamy.)
+1 Without it a few Ice Ages and Plagues might have doomed us all, or worse, thinned the genetic strain too narrow.
Quote: EvenBobWhy do you keep mentioning black people,
it has nothing to do with anything. Try and
stay on topic.
No its an analogy why is it ok to "fix" homosexual people if its not ok to "fix" black people. Both are something that you are born as and both are or were seen as inferior. Both lead to a number of problems because of societal views on them. The reason you think it is a non sequitur is you think homosexuals are inferior and you don't think black people are inferior.
Quote: MathExtremistI don't think "pro-gay" means what you intend it to mean.
Actually, I used the term "pro-gay" because most of these people like to label anyone who disagrees with their political views as being "anti-gay". (For example, if one believes in traditional marriage, then he/she is "anti-gay") The media does this all the time.
Quote: TwirdmanNo its an analogy why is it ok to "fix" homosexual people if its not ok to "fix" black people. Both are something that you are born as and both are or were seen as inferior. Both lead to a number of problems because of societal views on them. The reason you think it is a non sequitur is you think homosexuals are inferior and you don't think black people are inferior.
Why do you keep bringing up your comment regarding black people? Don't you know how offensive that is?
Some religions preach that homosexuality is an abomination. They don't teach that being black is an abomination.
Lastly, weren't you trying to tell us earlier that homosexuality was a choice? However now are you trying to tell us that you're born that way?
Which is it?
I believe that many are born that way, or with a predisposition towards it. This is why some scientists are researching potential causes and looking for a cure.
I believe that it would be humane to one day offer a cure for homosexuality. There are many conflicted religious people that would choose to be cured, rather than die homosexual. Especially in Muslim countries.
Quote: Beethoven9thActually, I used the term "pro-gay" because most of these people like to label anyone who disagrees with their political views as being "anti-gay". (For example, if one believes in traditional marriage, then he/she is "anti-gay") The media does this all the time.
Thats because that makes you anti gay. Don't worry though your in good company up until the 60s racist were protecting "traditional marriage" by banning interracial marriages.
Quote: KeyserWhy do you keep bringing up your comment regarding black people? Don't you know how offensive that is?
Some religions preach that homosexuality is an abomination. They don't teach that being black is an abomination.
Lastly, weren't you trying to tell us earlier that homosexuality was a choice? However now are you trying to tell us that you're born that way?
Which is it?
I believe that many are born that way, or with a predisposition towards it. This is why some scientists are researching potential causes and looking for a cure.
I believe that it would be humane to one day offer a cure for homosexuality. There are many conflicted religious people that would choose to be cured, rather than die homosexual. Especially in Muslim countries.
I never said that being gay was a choice. Also Mormons regarded blacks as something less than whites for decades. There are also other cultures and religions that view blackness as a punishment from god. And exactly the point is to be offensive. Why is it OK to view gays as something wrong that needs fixing but not blacks. Because a religious book written millenia ago happens to condemn it.
Also why is religion suppose to be something above reproach. And why the random picking and choosing. We don't suggest people go to therapy for eating a bacon cheeseburger but pork is an abomination as is eating cheese and meat together.
Quote: TwirdmanThats because that makes you anti gay. Don't worry though your in good company up until the 60s racist were protecting "traditional marriage" by banning interracial marriages.
OK, then if I'm "anti-gay" for opposing gay marriage, then you're "anti-Christian" for supporting it.
Quote: TwirdmanDon't worry though your in good company up until the 60s racist were protecting "traditional marriage" by banning interracial marriages.
Ah, and I had such high hopes for you, but now you've reverted back to using the same lame liberal arguments that always fail. FYI, opposing interracial marriage has never been part of church doctrine. Doubt you're intellectually honest enough to admit this though.
You can't force people to think differently. Often times religion if far more important to some of these people than homosexuality is it to them. In the Muslim religion and to a lesser extent the Christian religion, incest and homosexuality is considered to be an abomination. These people aren't going to openly except such things over night, since they find both to be very offensive. You can't safely force your views on them in many countries. The US is one of the few places that will tolerate it.
Regarding race: I don't know why you're being so racist. The color of someone's skin should not be an issue. Making it such and issue and comparing it to other issue is very offensive.
+1Quote: KeyserRegarding race: I don't know why you're being so racist. The color of someone's skin should not be an issue. Making it such and issue and comparing it to other issue is very offensive.
Totally agree. Many black people find it totally offensive to be compared to gays. When gays are put in chains & sold as slaves, then they can make the comparison.
Quote: Beethoven9thAh, and I had such high hopes for you, but now you've reverted back to using the same lame liberal arguments that always fail. FYI, opposing interracial marriage has never been part of church doctrine. Doubt you're intellectually honest enough to admit this though.
Thats wrong mormons fought against interracial marriages. And the bible condemns mixing of tribes. There are a number of other churches but mormons was the most obvious and one of the big ones right now fighting against gay marriage.
Quote: Beethoven9thTotally agree. Many black people find it totally offensive to be compared to gays. When gays are put in chains & sold as slaves, then they can make the comparison.
+4
Excellent point. Totally agree! Twirdman's argument is shocking and very offensive indeed!
Quote: KeyserTwirdman,
Regarding race: I don't know why you're being so racist. The color of someone's skin should not be an issue. Making it such and issue and comparing it to other issue is very offensive.
Thats the point it meant to be provocative. I would never want to cure blacks but why do you think it is wrong to condemn gays and not wrong to condemn blacks. The truth is neither should be condemened. If a church says it is wrong that church is wrong. Also why is this the one abomination christians seem hell bent on fighting. I can go down to any jack in the box and get a bacon cheeseburger and no church fights that. Hell at the super religious chick fillet I can get a cheese chicken sandwich and again no outrage gays though definitely got to fight that. As for the mistreatment of blacks don't act like gays aren't mistreated in this country there are plenty of cases of gays being beaten to death for the mere act of being gay.
Quote: TwirdmanThats wrong mormons fought against interracial marriages.
So what? I know a Mormon guy who drinks coffee. That doesn't make it part of church doctrine. (Another epic fail by Twird)
Quote: EvenBobMost, not all, of the Gay men I knew in Calif
were obsessed with sex. With 'doing' as many
men as possible in their lifetimes.
Why do we think that is wrong with gay men, while we envy men like Gene Simmons and Magic Johnson who claim to had sex with over 10,000 women?
Quote: WizardWhy do we think that is wrong with gay men, while we envy men like Gene Simmons and Magic Johnson who claim to had sex with over 10,000 women?
I don't know of anyone that envies either or the two men for having had so much sex. Especially Magic Johnson. I believe he was known to participate in deviant high risk sex. Didn't he contract HIV as a result of it?
It's important to understand that the majority of people are completely grossed out by the thought of homosexuality. Seeing it in public in the form of kissing tends to make many people want to loose their lunch. This is because only a very small percentage of the population is gay.
Quote: KeyserIt's important to understand that the majority of people are completely grossed out by the thought of homosexuality. Seeing it in public tends to make many people want to loose their lunch. This is because only a very small percentage of the population is gay.
So true. It makes me want to vomit. It's frustrating too because one time I made such a comment, and one of my liberal friends told me that it was kind of a bigoted thing to say.
I was like....WTF???? How the hell is it bigoted if I find 2 guys kissing to be disgusting?!
Quote: KeyserI don't know of anyone that envies either or the two men for having had so much sex.
I do. Then again I envy men who are in the double-digits too, let alone five digits.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo what? I know a Mormon guy who drinks coffee. That doesn't make it part of church doctrine. (Another epic fail by Twird)
"If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. That is a statement by Bringam Young, leader of the Mormon church after the death of Smith. So seems pretty official to me. Also in 2013 official pamphlets while not banning it do still say to avoid interracial marriage. So yeah definately official church doctrine. Now I will say they actually stopped banning it by at least 65 when the president of Bringham Young said interracial marriage was discouraged but not banned.
Quote: KeyserI don't know of anyone that envies either or the two men for having had so much sex. Especially Magic Johnson. I believe he was known to participate in deviant high risk sex. Didn't he contract HIV as a result of it?
It's important to understand that the majority of people are completely grossed out by the thought of homosexuality. Seeing it in public in the form of kissing tends to make many people want to loose their lunch. This is because only a very small percentage of the population is gay.
Oh and just because you find it disgusting doesn't mean it should be banned or they shouldn't be able to get married. For the most part I find the sight of people making out disgusting so can I say almost no one is allowed to get married. Or almost everyone is disgusted by the sight of old people making out does that mean there should be an age limit for marrying maybe 55 since otherwise its just gross.
Quote: TwirdmanSo yeah definately official church doctrine.
I get it now. So everything he ever said in his entire life is automatically part of church doctrine now?? What if he had said, "I need to take a dump!" According to your logic, that's part of church doctrine too.
Quote: Beethoven9thI get it now. So everything he ever said in his entire life is part of church doctrine?? What if he said, "I need to take a dump!" According to you, that would be part of church doctrine too.
What is your definition of church doctrine. When a bishop condemns gay marriage official church doctrine when the head of the Mormon church condemns interracial marriage not official. They had a biblical justification and Brigam Young condemned it I can't get more official then that. It is generally understood most statements about doctrine made by a church leader are official doctrine unless there is some reason to dismiss it. This is an issue where he was talking about punishments for interracial coupling and as such is seen as an issue of doctrine and given there was nothing at the time to say it wasn't church doctrine yeah it becomes church doctrine. Him saying "I need to take a dump!" not church doctrine since it has no doctrinal significance. For instance when Pope Benedict got rid of Limbo of the Innocent that became official church doctrine.
I mean how do you think something becomes official church doctrine.
You're just arguing semantics now. I should have expected that. If your point is that there may be Mormons out there who are/were racist, then I don't think anyone's going to disagree. However, when you claim that such a position was part of official church doctrine, that's just liberal baloney.
All you're trying to do is bolster your bizarre point of comparing being black to being gay (which, again, is very offensive to black people, so please stop).
EDIT: BTW, take the Roman Catholic Church, for example. If interracial marriage was against church doctrine, then why did the Church support it in Loving v. Virginia?
Quote: Twirdman"If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. That is a statement by Bringam Young, leader of the Mormon church after the death of Smith. So seems pretty official to me. Also in 2013 official pamphlets while not banning it do still say to avoid interracial marriage. So yeah definately official church doctrine. Now I will say they actually stopped banning it by at least 65 when the president of Bringham Young said interracial marriage was discouraged but not banned.
Seems pretty official to me too. It should be added that conservative mainstream Christians also oppose it. Bob Jones University had a rule against it until the year 2000, and I think they only dropped it against a public uproar about it when George H.W. Bush gave a speech there. If I were to take up a religion I would seriously consider the Mormons because it is a mutable religion. They can admit they got some things wrong and change the rules. Mainstream Christians are stuck with a bible that says men sleeping with men is an abomination and punishable by death. Chapter and version available upon request.
Quote: KeyserIt's important to understand that the majority of people are completely grossed out by the thought of homosexuality. Seeing it in public in the form of kissing tends to make many people want to loose their lunch. This is because only a very small percentage of the population is gay.
It's about 4%, give or take, but rarity isn't what gives rise to a disgust reaction. Roughly the same percentage of the U.S. population has red hair, but you're probably not disgusted by redheads.
What's really important to understand is that disgust reactions should not, in an enlightened society, form a basis of criminal law. That's the way primitives behave. In early rules-based societies, something that caused a disgust reaction would typically be made illegal. The bible outlaws intercourse with a menstruating woman, masturbation, adultery, and cooking a calf in its mother's milk. In more recent times, interracial intercourse and marriage were illegal, and oral sex was against the law in several U.S. states until the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas, decided only ten years ago:
The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens' declaration in his Bowers dissent, that "`the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,'" ante, at 577. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.
The point is that just because something makes you want to lose your lunch shouldn't make it illegal, and as of ten years ago, it doesn't.
But set aside your disgust reaction for a moment and consider this: if, as you say, "the majority of people are completely grossed out by the thought of homosexuality," and homosexuals have low reproduction rates compared to heterosexuals, then why does the prevalence of homosexuality remain roughly constant over time?
Quote: Beethoven9thAnother *facepalm*
You're just arguing semantics now. I should have expected that. If your point is that there may be Mormons out there who are/were racist, then I don't think anyone's going to disagree. However, when you claim that such a position was part of official church doctrine, that's just liberal baloney.
All you're trying to do is bolster your bizarre point of comparing being black to being gay (which, again, is very offensive to black people, so please stop).
EDIT: BTW, take the Roman Catholic Church, for example. If interracial marriage was against church doctrine, then why did the Church support it in Loving v. Virginia?
Brigham Young isn't just some Mormon he was the leader of the Mormon Church after Smith and designed and codefied their doctrine. Hence why BYU is named after him. I mean yeah if all I pulled up was some Mormon you'd be right to call me on it but I pulled up Brigham Young. He is roughly comparable to Peter or Paul in most Christian doctrine.
Also I never said all churches opposed interracial marriage. The Catholic Church is an exception. Though in that vain gay marriage isn't against church doctrine since many Episcopalian churches allow gay marriage. That sounds ridiculous right and it is since different denominations can have vastly different views and as such one denomination saying it is ok is not the same as saying there is no official church doctrine of any church condemning it.
Quote: TwirdmanBrigham Young isn't just some Mormon he was the leader of the Mormon Church after Smith and designed and codefied their doctrine
OK, now don't ignore my question this time. So is everything he said in his life (after the Mormon Church was founded) part of church doctrine then?
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, now don't ignore my question this time. So is everything he ever said in his entire life part of church doctrine?
No but every matter of doctrine is. Are you suggesting that eternal punishment for interracial mixing not a question of doctrine. The pooping is not a question of doctrine so does not become church doctrine. But this is not one of those scenarios. Also here is a http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Brigham_Young/Race_mixing_punishable_by_death official statement saying that it is no longer church doctrine. That means at one point it had to be church doctrine. So yes interracial marriage was banned by the Mormon church.
You're arguing in circles now. First, you claim that church doctrine is based on what Brigham Young said. But then you claim that only what he said about church doctrine is church doctrine (re: your previous post).
Sorry, bud, but your verbal acrobatics aren't gonna work. Try again.
Quote: Beethoven9thNo, no, no...stay with me on this...
You're arguing in circles now. First, you claim that church doctrine is based on what Brigham Young said. But then you claim that only what he said about church doctrine is church doctrine (re: your previous post).
Sorry, bud, but your verbal acrobatics aren't gonna work. Try again.
NO I said things that answer doctrinal questions are doctrine. So views on afterlife or morality.
Also I just showed you that the church now rejects that doctrine you cannot cease to accept as doctrine something which was never doctrine to begin with.
YESQuote: TwirdmanNO I said things that answer doctrinal questions are doctrine.
Let me try this again. (I don't know if your quote about Brigham Young is accurate, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree that it's true)
For example, let's pretend that Brigham Young held these 2 views:
1) Interracial marriage is wrong
2) Eating oranges is wrong
According to you, the 1st statement is automatically part of church doctrine because it's 'doctrinal', while the 2nd statement is not part of church doctrine because it's not 'doctrinal'. But then when I ask what makes something 'doctrinal', your reply is, "Whatever Brigham Young says." WTF???
Like I said, you're arguing in circles.
This is such a silly discussion anyway. All you're trying to do is argue that: Brigham Young opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE interracial marriage was against church doctrine...THEREFORE the Mormon Church at one time opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE a major religion opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE this is no different from major religions today that oppose gay marriage.
What a stretch (and an epic failure). *FACEPALM*
Quote: Beethoven9th: Brigham Youngg opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE interracial marriage was against church doctrine...THEREFORE the Mormon Church at one time opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE a major religion opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE this is no different from major religions today that oppose gay marriage.
Good stuff B9. totally AGREE. You are starting to make sense. Keep it up, good job.
By the way hope Robertson gets back on TV so you get your sanity back. You've been going nuts on this thread.
See, I want Robertson on TV. The exact opposite view you think I have.
See, I'm a good guy. You tell me a word is offensive, I don't use it due to 1 person on the planet. Tea bag with an "er" on the end. Wont find me using it because it offends B9
I tell you a word is offensive, you revel in using it repeatedly. B9 loves offending me.
I'm an, I'm OK, you're ok, kind of guy.
Due to your view of gays, You are an I'm ok, you are not ok, kind of guy.
Yes we are very different. Very Very Very different.
Quote: Beethoven9thYES
Let me try this again. (I don't know if your quote about Brigham Young is accurate, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree that it's true)
For example, let's pretend that Brigham Young held these 2 views:
1) Interracial marriage is wrong
2) Eating oranges is wrong
According to you, the 1st statement is automatically part of church doctrine because it's 'doctrinal', while the 2nd statement is not part of church doctrine because it's not 'doctrinal'. But then when I ask you what makes something 'doctrinal', your reply is, "Whatever Brigham Young says." WTF???
Like I said, you're arguing in circles.
This is such a silly discussion anyway. All you're trying to do is argue that: Brigham Young opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE interracial marriage was against church doctrine...THEREFORE the Mormon Church at one time opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE a major religion opposed interracial marriage...THEREFORE this is no different from major religions today that oppose gay marriage.
What a stretch (and an epic failure). *FACEPALM*
No saying its wrong does not make it doctrinal saying that those who do it are condemned to hell makes it doctrinal. That gives a punishment directly related to belief in the church. Just like food prohibitions like eating an orange can be doctrinal if they carry a consequence that is related to the church. For instance had he said eating oranges is wrong because god has forbid you to eat them and eating them condemns you to hell that answers a doctrinal question ie what is the punishment for eating an orange. If he said eating oranges is wrong because they taste icky that answers no doctrinal question so does not become official church doctrine. Similarly if he said interracial marriage is wrong because its gross that answers no doctrinal question and hence does not become church doctrine.
Also even if you don't want to take that definition the church officially said it was no longer doctrine and hence it was at one point doctrine.
Also I am objecting to you calling me a liar for saying religion wasn't used to condemn interracial marriage and I showed you a case where it was. Now you have to point out why Mormons were wrong to condemn interracaial marriage but you are right to condemn gay marriage. Both are based on what I assume are deeply held religious beliefs.
Quote: terapinedI tell you a word is offensive, you revel in using it repeatedly.
Quote: terapinedYou are an I'm ok, you are not ok, kind of guy.
What in the world are you talking about?? LOL
Quote: Beethoven9thWhat in the world are you talking about?? LOL
B9
Somebody get Robertson back on TV. B9 is going nuts, 43 posts in a one day thread.
Going for Evenbob's record?
OK, we're starting to get somewhere, but you still haven't given a clear-cut answer to what is/isn't 'doctrinal', and that's what I'm trying to figure out. In your opinion, what EXACTLY makes something 'doctrinal', and what EXACTLY does a person have to do to make it such?Quote: TwirdmanNo saying its wrong does not make it doctrinal saying that those who do it are condemned to hell makes it doctrinal...
I know you think I'm being petty & splitting hairs, but I'm serious. You're taking a controversial statement made 150 years ago and making a mountain out of a molehill. For example, the Mormon Church DID have a policy against blacks entering the priesthood, but there was no such explicit policy against interracial marriage. None.
Quote: terapinedB9
Somebody get Robertson back on TV. B9 is going nuts, 43 posts in a one day thread.
Going for Evenbob's record?
I'm bored. (Fridays are always slow for me) lol
Quote: Beethoven9thOK, we're starting to get somewhere, but you still haven't given a clear-cut answer to what is/isn't 'doctrinal', and that's what I'm trying to figure out. In your opinion, what EXACTLY makes something 'doctrinal', and what EXACTLY does a person have to do to make it such?
I know you think I'm being petty & splitting hairs, but I'm serious. You're taking a controversial statement made 150 years ago and making a mountain out of a molehill. For example, the Mormon Church DID have a policy against blacks entering the priesthood, but there was no such explicit policy against interracial marriage. None.
I can't explain it any simpler. Any statement made by the leader of a church, that does not contradict past doctrines that he is not able to contradict, which answers a question about salvation or damnation, morality, or church rules. Brigham Young as the head of the mormon church said that a white man mixing his seed was a sin. Thus it answers a question of morality specifically the question "Is it morally ok to marry outside your race." it also answers a question of punishment "What is the punishment for interracial marriage?" It did not contradict former church rules in places so Brigham Young was within his power to instill a ban on interracial marriage as a matter of doctrine. Thus his statement becomes a matter of doctrine. I mean why would you say that it is not a matter of doctrine.
Quote: TwirdmanAny statement made by the leader of a church... [snip]
For whatever reason, you seem to think that every single thought going through his mind was synonymous with the Mormon Church. *facepalm* Let me try to make this simple for you. I started a business years ago. (Don't have it anymore, but that's a different story) Anyway, even though I started it, the policies of my business were NOT 100% consistent with all of my personal views.
Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
Also, why did you ignore my point about the Mormon Church NOT banning interracial marriage? There was a ban on blacks entering the priesthood, but there was NO ban on marrying black people. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. NONE.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Quote: Beethoven9thFor whatever reason, you seem to think that every single thought going through his mind was synonymous with the Mormon Church. *facepalm* Let me try to make this simple for you. I started a business years ago. (Don't have it anymore, but that's a different story) Anyway, even though I started it, the policies of my business were NOT 100% consistent with all of my personal views.
Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
Also, why did you ignore my point about the Mormon Church NOT banning interracial marriage? There was a ban on blacks entering the priesthood, but there was NO ban on interracial marriage. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. NONE.
No I specifically pointed out what it was. Stop reading only the first sentence. Given Brigham Young did not feel he was God when he said whites would be damned for marrying blacks he was clearly talking about what he felt the Mormon God would do as such it is doctrine. Also http://www.salamandersociety.com/blacks/mormon_black_white_marriage/ points to cases where blacks were prevented from marrying whites. This points to Brigham Young making laws forbidding it and saying blood atonement was necessary so you are clearly wrong about there being no ban on interracial marriage. That article actually gives a nice rundown of Mormons first disallowing interracial marriage and then finally accepting it though still saying it is to be avoided.
Quote: TwirdmanStop reading only the first sentence.
First off, I'm quoting the first sentence so that others know that I'm specifically address YOU. I don't need to quote the entire message though because it's in the posts that directly precede mine. DUH
Second, that's a really lame link. Actually, I should take that back. It was a good link because it proved exactly what I had said: The Mormon Church banned blacks from entering the priesthood, but there was no similar church ban on interracial marriage. Epic FAIL on your part. (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*
Quote: Beethoven9th
Second, that's a really lame link. Actually, I should take that back. It was a good link because it proved exactly what I had said: The Mormon Church banned blacks from entering the priesthood, but there was no similar church ban on interracial marriage. Epic FAIL on your part.
*
What are you talking about it talks about a blood attonement for those engaged in interracial marriages so clearly they were banned. If something is not banned you can't be punished for it.
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.
Black-White Marriage in Mormon Theology
With this meeting of Young and the other apostles, we have the first LDS attempts at formulating a theology that prohibited black-white marriage. Below are the seven main theological points I have found in authoritative LDS statements throughout the decades (although some slightly overlap with each other). Most of these points originated at the December 1847 meeting of Young and the Apostles with Pres. Appleby. Again I point out how similar most of these points are to current LDS theological arguments against homogamy, or same-sex marriage.
It is prohibited and contrary to church doctrine from ancient times – “The law is their seed shall not be amalgamated”
It would lead to the annihilation of the human species, since mixed-race children cannot reproduce - “Mulattoes are like mules”
It and the reproduction of mixed-race children requires blood atonement for those who are Latter-day Saints – “this will always be so”
It is a “great sin”
The interracial marriage of Ham & Egyptus brought “tainted” black blood – and its priesthood/temple curse – through the universal flood
Racial segregation is a necessary evil to prevent black-white marriage en masse and total genetic chaos of white and black races, leading to the complete loss of the priesthood on earth, the destruction of the LDS Church, and the loss of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom for all humanity - “When they mingle seed, it is death to all”
It is a “virus” and will spread contagiously
Now I will admit there were cases of mixed race marriages carrying no consequences, but it was clearly banned even if the ban wasn't always enforced. The same is true of the priesthood ban.
Very lame. Just because you say that it was banned doesn't make it true. I can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but does that make it true?Quote: Twirdman...but it was clearly banned even if the ban wasn't always enforced.
Basically, all you've proven is that some Mormons gay marriage. So what? I never claimed otherwise. BUT there was no official church ban like there was regarding blacks entering the priesthood.
Come back to me when you have some actual evidence of an official church ban, bro. All you're doing now is repeating the same (lame) line.
