You're the one who says you used to be Mormon. If you really were, then you'd be familiar with the doctrine that, no matter what, everyone who has ever lived on this planet will have the opportunity to hear the gospel and accept it. If not in this life, than in the life to come. That seems to make God less of an ass.

Of course He's the only way. But that doesn't mean this life is the only time when people will have the opportunity to accept him, because that would cause the abject damnation of 9/10ths of those who've lived on this planet.

I wasn't a Mormon for long. We studied with them for about a year after coming out of the CC. I know quite a bit about the doctrine more about studying it AFTERwards than I do while I was there.

Where did Christ say we have another chance after this one?

Where exactly do you have Christ's writings about anything? You have what your church fathers said that he said, but then they picked what they picked because they felt it bolstered the truth of their doctrine. What didn't, they left out.

Same question for you - where does it say we don't?

That's the wonderful thing about the LDS church - our doctrine isn't just confined to what it may or may not say in some dingy translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. I believe that there are prophets today, just like in days of old, to lead and guide us in the knowledge of God.

But for those of you so strapped to your dingy books . . .



Now, I'm sure you'll say that "that's not what it meant". To be honest, I don't care how you interpret any passage of the bible - all that matters to me is that I know that I'm on the path the Lord wants me to be on.

Nitpick, say that, like Lula, I'm "indoctrinated" or whatever crap you want to say, but in the same way that you say that what you believe is true, I know that what I believe is true.

And nothing you can say can change that.

Fine, SC. I won't say anything then.

End of discussion. I'm ok. You're ok.....OK?

Oh yeah, I'm always OK. I realize that my post sounded a little more harsh than I intended it to be. I'm just pointing out that most of the scripture bashing that goes on around here doesn't convince a anyone of anything, if you know what I mean . . .

"we've been over this before, about the people that have never heard the gospel. Let's just say, that all God wants to save, will be saved. He knows who his people are and who have the desire to follow him. Those he wants reached will be reached."

Whoa, are you really saying that god knows they will not have the desire to follow him so does not spread the word to them? So he simply condemns them without even giving them a chance since he knows they wont believe? So you think people that weren't given a chance or that failed to hear of Jesus will go to hell since they didn't repent?

"Homosexuality isn't normal. But so what? It certainly doesn't hurt anyone. Saying it's immoral because the bible says so only means something to other bible people and is meaningless to those who don't define morality based on a religious document."

Sooo, I noticed there are a bunch of people that will say it is not normal, but they wont judge or say if they want to be gay, it is their business or some even say it is not normal, but still within acceptable morals. However, when it comes to allowing gay marriage they falter and go against it. Please tell me why this is... what non-religious reason do people have to vote against this?

No, I'm not saying that. I was replying to someone worried about somebody not hearing. God is clear that we are to preach and teach to ALL people. We are not to discriminate. But God knows the hearts we don't. He knows who needs to hear the message that will bring them to repentence. He will move somebody to visit or get to that person before they die. One example I've used already is the Eunuch and Philip. Philip was moved and at the right place at the right time to speak to this Eunuch about God. In response the chariot was stopped and the Eunuch confessed and was baptized right there. God is all knowing. We are not.



it does sound hypocritical when you put it that way doesn't it? I say it's sin and it always has been until the last few years. What's made the change? And I back that up by saying we shouldn't legislate sin and allow this to become a marriage.

Insurance, government benefits, divorce, adoption, etc., etc. Just because people don't think gay sex is a problem for society doesn't mean they think gay marriage is a valid practice for society to sanction. People don't have a religious problem with illegal immigration, but you'll find a lot of people have a problem with opening the floodgates in terms of those things.

ya know SC I'm not trying to convince anyone. I know full well that's not my job. Only the HS can convince. I am just ticked at all the lies out there. Not at you or at Baker, or Lula....but where it's coming from. I know who the father of lies is and I'm on a mission to yell at the top of my voice if need be to counter him. Many people just dictate what they've been taught and shrug their shoulders when asked why they believe what they do. Alot of times I hear the same parroted over and over like gossip. I just want to have people reason with each other and examine what they believe. I don't care if they believe me. I'm not out to win a popularity contest. It's not about me anyhow.

I spend tons of time studying and teaching. He's given me a desire to share what I've learned over the years with those that are interested. I feel that I should be loyal to him and not keep quiet about it. He doesn't want me to. I never go where I'm unwanted. That's why I didn't respond to your post. You clearly didn't want me to counter what you wrote. But you need to be open and read things for yourself and not let others dictate what you should believe because you belong to a particular group. Examine what they say, and make sure it lines up with what you believe and don't get too comfortable.

"And I back that up by saying we shouldn't legislate sin and allow this to become a marriage. "

I understand why you would see it that way, however, there is suppose to be separation of church and state, so when you legislate laws, they should be based on more then "the bible says its sin". Of course people will still vote against it because they believe it is unacceptable because the religion they follow says so and may need no other reason themselves, but when making laws that control the rights of others (who may not follow the same religion) they should put their religious beliefs aside.

"Insurance, government benefits, divorce, adoption, etc., etc. Just because people don't think gay sex is a problem for society doesn't mean they think gay marriage is a valid practice for society to sanction."

Is this merely an argument on whether or not homosexuality is part of the human condition or not? If gay sex is not a problem for society how can you say it is not a valid practice to sanction? How can people say a homosexual relationship can be full of love, respect, and everything else in a heterosexual relationship, but when it comes to marriage all of a sudden they become unequal... their love becomes inferior?

Are you talking about sex or marriage? I thought we were talking about marriage. I said that people have the right to choose what their government licenses.



Because the government doesn't license sex. You don't go get a sex license from the government. When you go to get a license for marriage, you then are subject to people's democratically decided decisions about what the government will and will not license.

The same could be said for prostitution. Do you think that people who believe prostitution shouldn't be licensed and sanctioned by the government are doing so based upon religion alone? You really don't see anything but dogma in the state recognition of marriage?

Again, married status gets you more than just married. When it comes to the money other people pay in taxes, etc., it isn't just about morals and sex. Then it becomes about where we want our money to go.

Yes, I meant to say, "how can you say marriage is not a valid".

"Because the government doesn't license sex. You don't go get a sex license from the government. When you go to get a license for marriage, you then are subject to people's democratically decided decisions about what the government will and will not license. The same could be said for prostitution."

The government might not license sex, but homosexual relationships aren't just about sex... they are equal to hetero relationships.... simply 2 men or women. Using prostitution is obviously not a fair example.... Does this mean you think a homosexual relationship is just about sex and nothing more? Gay love is inferior compared to hetero love? By love, I dont mean just the sexual side, I mean the relationship as a whole.

"Again, married status gets you more than just married. When it comes to the money other people pay in taxes, etc., it isn't just about morals and sex. Then it becomes about where we want our money to go."

So gays that have been together for years should not recieve any benefit? Again, you seem to be saying the relationships aren't equal and somehow gay love stops at sex, so gays dont deserve rights.

"As far as the Dr. Laura piece SConn, you are comparing the laws given to the Hebrews and one universal one given to all mankind."

KFC, you said this awhile back.... so wait, Leviticus was given to just the Hebrews? My bible still contains that book so how am I suppose to know what is applicable to all Christians?

Should they? That would be up to the people of the state to decide. If a state wanted to stop licensing any marriage at all it would be within their rights. You seem to be saying that there is some written rule somewhere that relationships are equal. Could you cite page and paragraph?

You BELIEVE that they are equal. Others don't. There's no universal standard that says they are. It's subjective, and in a democracy you can't impose these subjective standards over the will of the people without denying THEM their right to self govern.



Why? You're implying that there aren't any reasons to legislate on this stuff outside of bias. If that's so, then are people who oppose prostitution simply imposing their morality? You allow for YOUR ideals to be universal, but you don't allow for anyone else's.

Your beliefs seem to say that there is no difference between a gay and straight relationship. Is there something, somewhere that that we can cite that gives your BELIEF on the subject superiority? You're painting this as if it is fact vs. belief, but all you have is belief, too.

You are still have been avoiding answering why the relationships aren't equal. I have already said why I think it is so.... I dont think it matters whether you love someone from the same gender or not, you are fully capable of the same type of relationship. Just because someone has the same sexual organs doesn't mean that your love has some imaginary limit to it. This may be what I "believe" but I don't see how someone could think otherwise.... why do you think a same sex marriage has boundaries when it comes to love?