The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vs the Westboro Baptist Church

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you making the claim that only members of the LDS Church voted for the proposition?

If you've actually been reading my posts, then you'll know the answer to this question.

This thread has generally been about whether the LDS Church is more harmful than the WBC. It generally hasn't been about how bad the LDS Church is relative to other churches that are also more harmful than the WBC, of which there are many.

Even if the LDS Church had not supported the proposition, I would have voted for it.

So your intolerance and cruelty isn't only motivated by your religion?

You believe that any political action taken concerning a moral issue is a theocracy?

Do you really have trouble with the concept that rules for onesself and rules for society are separate things?

If you see same-sex marriage as a "moral issue," then don't get married to someone of the same sex. It's really that simple.

If your personal conscience or the rules of your church forbid same-sex marriage, then don't have one. Even go so far as to not participate in them (though realizing that your refusal to participate is your burden, not society's).

No. I never mentioned anything being "legal". I talked about someone's right to vote.

Someone having the right to do something is all the justification they need.

Your talk about rights, especially constitutional rights, was about the law.

 

[Prestor John]

If you've actually been reading my posts, then you'll know the answer to this question.

Then I suppose you do actually believe that only members of the Church voted for the proposition.

How silly.

This thread has generally been about whether the LDS Church is more harmful than the WBC.

I know. What a retarded premise.

It generally hasn't been about how bad the LDS Church is relative to other churches that are also more harmful than the WBC, of which there are many.

You have yet to prove that the LDS Church is harmful at all though.

You believe that anyone that votes different than you is harmful?

So your intolerance and cruelty isn't only motivated by your religion?

Aw, yes. The easy path. "Disagreeing with me makes you a bad person!"

If I voted down a measure that redefined marriage to allow a human to "marry" an inanimate object. I would be intolerant and cruel?

If I voted down a measure that redefined marriage to allow a human to "marry" an animal. I would be intolerant and cruel?

If I voted down a measure that redefined marriage to allow a woman to "marry" her biological father/brother/son. I would be intolerant and cruel?

You can't marry a toaster. You can't marry a dog. You can't marry your children.

Is this because I am intolerant and cruel, or do these relationships not fulfill the purposes of marriage?

Homosexuals have every right to be together, but they don't fulfill the purposes of marriage.

Me voting my conscience does not make me a bad person.

Do you really have trouble with the concept that rules for onesself and rules for society are separate things?

Not when the decision to affect the rules appears on a ballot.

Each of us has the opportunity to make our voice heard.

If you see same-sex marriage as a "moral issue," then don't get married to someone of the same sex. It's really that simple.

Is it really that simple?

I see murder as a "moral issue" as well. You're only advice to me about murder would be for me to never kill anyone?

So, if I see someone getting murdered, I should ignore it and move along?

All children in the public school system are being taught this redefinition of marriage.

Not to mention all the "Christian" business-owners being targeted by homosexual couples.

Forcing those morally opposed to the redefining of marriage to participate in their wedding or lose their livelihood?

Talk about intolerant and cruel.

No, the issue is not that simple.

If your personal conscience or the rules of your church forbid same-sex marriage, then don't have one. Even go so far as to not participate in them (though realizing that your refusal to participate is your burden, not society's).

I have every right to vote based on my conscience. Everyone does.

No one is in the wrong for voting based on their personal beliefs.

I wouldn't mind participating in a same-sex "wedding". I just take issue with the government penalizing people who don't want to participate.

Why should my refusal to participate be a burden on me or anyone?

Your talk about rights, especially constitutional rights, was about the law.

Your claim that I said, "It's okay because it is legal" is false.

Legal things can be wrong or morally reprehensible.

The claim that I made was that everyone has the right to vote based on their conscience.

There is no "right way" to vote. Everyone is free to vote the way they want to.

No one is a bad person for voting the way they want to. It is their right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then I suppose you do actually believe that only members of the Church voted for the proposition.

How silly.

Nope. Maybe work on your reading comprehension.

I never said that only LDS Church members supported Prop 8. Plenty of other organizations from other denominations also opposed it.

... but this thread isn't about whether the LDS Church is worse than the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention; it's about whether it's worse than the (edit) WBC.

I know. What a retarded premise.

First off... dude: Why the R-Word Needs to Be Removed From Our Vocabulary

That out of the way: I would have thought that it's obvious that deeds outweigh words, but a lot of people in this thread - such as yourself - seem to be struggling with the concept.

You have yet to prove that the LDS Church is harmful at all though.

If opposition to same-sex marriage isn't harmful, then why would you maintain that the WBC is worse than the LDS Church?

You believe that anyone that votes different than you is harmful?

Nope. Just people who vote to harm other people.

Aw, yes. The easy path. "Disagreeing with me makes you a bad person!"

If you think that's my argument, then you ought to read more carefully.

If I voted down a measure that redefined marriage to allow a human to "marry" an inanimate object. I would be intolerant and cruel?

If I voted down a measure that redefined marriage to allow a human to "marry" an animal. I would be intolerant and cruel?

If I voted down a measure that redefined marriage to allow a woman to "marry" her biological father/brother/son. I would be intolerant and cruel?

You can't marry a toaster. You can't marry a dog. You can't marry your children.

Is this because I am intolerant and cruel, or do these relationships not fulfill the purposes of marriage?

Tell me what it would mean for a dog to have the right to see to my affairs when I'm incapacitated. What would be the purpose of allowing my toaster to, say, sign school permission forms for my child?

Homosexuals have every right to be together, but they don't fulfill the purposes of marriage.

"Homosexuals have every right to be together?" Sounds like you're making progress. Good job!

They don't fulfill the purposes you would have for a marriage.

Obviously they fulfill the purposes they have for a marriage, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking one.

Me voting my conscience does not make me a bad person.

Not when the decision to affect the rules appears on a ballot.

That depends entirely on the contents of your conscience.

Each of us has the opportunity to make our voice heard.

Do you have the right not to be criticized for your choice?

Is it really that simple?

Yes, it is. To apply your own principles that apply to your own life, all you need is to follow your own beliefs. However, to impose those principles on someone else, an ethical approach would mean that you have to be able to justify those impositions not only to yourself, but also to that other person.

I see murder as a "moral issue" as well. You're only advice to me about murder would be for me to never kill anyone?

No. Maybe lay off making inferences. You don't seem to be very good at it.

Murder is not prohibited merely because it's incompatible with your personal beliefs or your religion.

So, if I see someone getting murdered, I should ignore it and move along?

All children in the public school system are being taught this redefinition of marriage.

Not to mention all the "Christian" business-owners being targeted by homosexual couples.

Forcing those morally opposed to the redefining of marriage to participate in their wedding or lose their livelihood?

Talk about intolerant and cruel.

It's not cruel at all to say that a business owner who serves the public has a duty to serve the whole public.

It's certainly not cruel to say that a business that benefits from an artificial reduction in competition (through licensing, zoning, etc.) should be asked to be a responsible, ethical corporate citizen in return.

No, the issue is not that simple.

I have every right to vote based on my conscience. Everyone does.

You have the legal right, yes, but I would think that any LDS Church member with a whit of sense and a bit of knowledge of their own history - replete with extermination orders and the like - would think better of suggesting that people should be able to do whatever they can make legal.

No one is in the wrong for voting based on their personal beliefs.

Again: that depends on the content of those beliefs.

I wouldn't mind participating in a same-sex "wedding". I just take issue with the government penalizing people who don't want to participate.

Why should my refusal to participate be a burden on me or anyone?

We aren't talking about merely your refusal to participate; we're talking about you trying to stop them altogether.

Your claim that I said, "It's okay because it is legal" is false.

It was a paraphrase, but a fair one.

Legal things can be wrong or morally reprehensible.

Yes: you've done a good job providing a living example of this in this thread.

The claim that I made was that everyone has the right to vote based on their conscience.

There is no "right way" to vote. Everyone is free to vote the way they want to.

No one is a bad person for voting the way they want to. It is their right.

Nonsense. You know what else is a person's right? Criticizing people for how they vote.

 

[Katzpur]

... but this thread isn't about whether the LDS Church is worse than the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention; it's about whether it's worse than the (edit) WBC.

Actually, it was never supposed to be about which of the two was the most dangerous, detrimental, evil, harmful, hurtful, injurious, nocuous, pernicious, prejudical or wicked (all of which are the opposite of benign). It was supposed to be about which one was the most benign. It was you who chose to decide to reword the question and look solely at the negative things the LDS Church has done. So far, you haven't mentioned one single, solitary "benign" action that can be attributed to the WBC. Numerous benign, positive, gracious and charitable actions have been taken by the LDS Church, and it's not at all difficult to find a record of them. I wasn't intending to respond any further to this thread, but I thought I ought to at least point that out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, it was never supposed to be about which of the two was the most dangerous, detrimental, evil, harmful, hurtful, injurious, nocuous, pernicious, prejudical or wicked (all of which are the opposite of benign). It was supposed to be about which one was the most benign.

I think I know what I meant when I used the term. I meant "most benign" in the sense of "least malignant." It was always about harm.

It was you who chose to decide to reword the question and look solely at the negative things the LDS Church has done. So far, you haven't mentioned one single, solitary "benign" action that can be attributed to the WBC. Numerous benign, positive, gracious and charitable actions have been taken by the LDS Church, and it's not at all difficult to find a record of them. I wasn't intending to respond any further to this thread, but I thought I ought to at least point that out.

The context of my use of the term was about harm. If you want to take it out of context, that's on you; don't expect me to go along with it.

 

[Katzpur]

I think I know what I meant when I used the term. I meant "most benign" in the sense of "least malignant." It was always about harm.

It may have been about harm to you, but that wasn't what it said in my OP. I used the word "benign" specifically because it was the word you used in the thread that prompted this one. You said, "Actually, I'd say that WBC is one of the more benign Christian groups." I wanted to challenge you on that and you chose to take it and run with it -- just in a different direction. I think my intent and yours were both pretty obvious, just based on how the vote went. I did not ask the question, "Has the LDS Church ever taken any action that could be seen as discriminatory against anyone?" If I had, I would have expected the vote to be different than it was. Maybe it's your comprehension skills that need some work and your closed-minded attitude that could use an adjustment. I can hate what certain Islamic extremists have done without characterizing Islam as a religion as violent and hateful. You ought to be able to do the same when it comes to Mormonism

The context of my use of the term was about harm. If you want to take it out of context, that's on you; don't expect me to go along with it.

I took nothing out of context. You're the one who decided to change the focus of the thread. Own it. You have issues with one of the LDS Church's positions (and it's one I have generally agreed with you on) and it's made you blind to everything good the Church -- everything about it that characterizes what the word "benign" means. I'm seriously done here. I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may have been about harm to you, but that wasn't what it said in my OP. I used the word "benign" specifically because it was the word you used in the thread that prompted this one. You said, "Actually, I'd say that WBC is one of the more benign Christian groups."

Definition of benign

1a: of a mild type or character that does not threaten health or life

especially : not becoming cancerous
a benign lung tumor​

b: having no significant effect : HARMLESS

environmentally benign​

Definition of BENIGN

I wanted to challenge you on that and you chose to take it and run with it -- just in a different direction. I think my intent and yours were both pretty obvious, just based on how the vote went. I did not ask the question, "Has the LDS Church ever taken any action that could be seen as discriminatory against anyone?" If I had, I would have expected the vote to be different than it was. Maybe it's your comprehension skills that need some work and your closed-minded attitude that could use an adjustment. I can hate what certain Islamic extremists have done without characterizing Islam as a religion as violent and hateful. You ought to be able to do the same when it comes to Mormonism

I took nothing out of context. You're the one who decided to change the focus of the thread. Own it.

I'm not going to "own" the words you've put in my mouth. You decided to ignore the sense in which I was using the term and latched onto a different definition. That's your doing.

You have issues with one of the LDS Church's positions (and it's one I have generally agreed with you on) and it's made you blind to everything good the Church -- everything about it that characterizes what the word "benign" means.

The LDS Church is certainly not "benign" in the sense of being harmless. And I have issues with many of its positions, not just this one.

I'm seriously done here. I have nothing more to say to you.

For now, apparently.