This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Joseph Smith was the Prophet, who sanctioned plural marriage. However, Brigham Young, the next Prophet, denounced plural marriage. Thusly, God Himself has denounced plural marriage and Romney is completely in the right.
So God Himself declared that plural marriage is fine, then God Himself declared that it wasn't? Was God Himself in a plural marriage at any time?
It wasn't right for us, so He took it away.
Would there be any backlash if Romney said that it was wrong for Joseph Smith to marry more than two women or that any of his concurrent marriages were invalid?
Yes, considering that at that time, plural marriage was recognized in the church and sanctioned.
Post by
gamerunknown
Yes, considering that at that time, plural marriage was recognized in the church and sanctioned.
So he should recognise that the definition of marriage shifts over time then?
Post by
Interest
Writin up the blog, writin up the blog...
Post by
Monday
Yes, considering that at that time, plural marriage was recognized in the church and sanctioned.
So he should recognise that the definition of marriage shifts over time then?
He should recognize that God declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. There is nothing else to discuss.
Post by
Noxychu
Looove is all you neeeeed ~~
Post by
MyTie
I never knew you all felt so strongly about a person's religious beliefs being so intricate to their presidency. I guess it would be pretty impossible for a devout Muslim to be POTUS.
Post by
Monday
I don't care about any president's religious beliefs. What I care about is unwarranted and grossly inaccurate attacks on my religion.
Post by
Azazel
Religion debates. Ugh.
Post by
Interest
I can haz new blog post =)
Post by
gamerunknown
He should recognize that God declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. There is nothing else to discuss.
When, exactly, did God do that? Should he use that position to determine whether someone else's marriage is valid, as DOMA gives federal permission for the lack of recognition for states of other states marriages? Could God declare marriage to be valid for man-on-boy or man-on-dog?
I never knew you all felt so strongly about a person's religious beliefs being so intricate to their presidency. I guess it would be pretty impossible for a devout Muslim to be POTUS.
Well evidently the majority of Americans want a devout Muslim atheist that attends American bashing Churches to be President.
Edit: I'll move this discussion to a new thread if you guys want.
Post by
OverZealous
U can haz advertising
=D
@MyTie: I think it's more about people wanting to pick on anything and everything that presidental candidates say and do.
Post by
Monday
When, exactly, did God do that?
Through his Prophets.
Should he use that position to determine whether someone else's marriage is valid, as DOMA gives federal permission for the lack of recognition for states of other states marriages?
Since no marriage is recognized by God unless it goes through a temple, I doubt He cares.
Could God declare marriage to be valid for man-on-boy or man-on-dog?
Theoretically, I suppose. But I doubt that He will.
Now, gamerunknown, I'm done with you. I've addressed the point I wanted to address and I don't particularly feel like answering all these questions that you're asking because you're too &*!@ing lazy to actually research and you get simple facts wrong left and right.
So, until you can actually be respectful, I'm done.
Post by
Azazel
I don't think gamer is doing anything wrong. He's just asking questions.
I mean, sure you can google it, but an inside source is much more reliable.
Post by
Monday
I'd be perfectly fine if he was just asking questions, but I'm a little miffed because he started all this by directly insulting my church by implying hypocrisy in it and then continued to try and defend his insults from ignorance.
Post by
Orranis
Because we're a secular nation, not a theocracy.
Psh, not nearly riddled with political sarcasm enough.
Because above all other Gods we worship profit.
Post by
Azazel
It's just a matter of time until somebody claims that free market capitalism is supported by God.
Post by
Monday
If I ascend, I want to be the God of Money.
Because damn, that'd be awesome.
Post by
gamerunknown
Through his Prophets.
Since you responded in this thread, I'll continue responding in this thread. I won't feel slighted if you ignore this response though.
First of all, stating that it is alright for Joseph Smith but not for his congregation is a fallacy known as special pleading. Those that engage in special pleading for their own benefit are hypocrites (it's alright for someone I like, it's not alright for someone I don't like).
Theoretically, I suppose. But I doubt that He will.
I was alluding, indirectly, to the Euthyphro dilemma.
I had no intention of singling out your Church in this manner, I've criticised Santorum elsewhere for ignoring Christ's injunctions about non-violence and giving one's wealth to the poor.
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Since you responded in this thread, I'll continue responding in this thread. I won't feel slighted if you ignore this response though.
I will ignore it, since in this First of all, stating that it is alright for Joseph Smith but not for his congregation is a fallacy known as special pleading. Those that engage in special pleading for their own benefit are hypocrites (it's alright for someone I like, it's not alright for someone I don't like).
you show that you STILL have done no research, and thus I feel no need to treat your inquiry with any respect.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.