What happened to the golden plates and what did they state?

Separation between church and state is not as clear cut as you think. Rastafarians aren't allowed to smoke weed, for example.

Read the last full paragraph at the bottom.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/js?lang=eng



https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng

I have heard Mormonism referred to as counterfeit Christianity. Religions are like life forms. They evolve and branch. If humans are apes, Mormons are Christians.



No need to go after him. Fact is, I have a number of highly acclaimed books, studies/articles on Mormonism which have been lauded by individuals who are both religious and not. I think my description of Mormonism was pretty succinct. Your not exactly impartial on this issue Ivy.

According to the narrative regarding the submarine, the people were guided by God through the wilderness, and were eventually directed to cross the sea in "barges". These vessels were sealed and watertight and able to be swamped by waves without sinking.Air was obtained from outside the vessels as needed.They also brought with them animals, and food for themselves and their animals.The recorded length of the trip was 344 days.

Like anything else, one should do their own research into Mormonism and decide for themselves.

The Rastafari movement encompasses themes such as the spiritual use of cannabis. Often accompanied by Bible study; they consider it a sacrament that cleans the body and mind, heals the soul, exalts the consciousness, facilitates peacefulness, brings pleasure, and brings them closer to Jah. They often burn the herb when in need of insight from Jah. Cannabis remains illegal in Jamaica and most of the world and this has caused friction between Rastas and modern societies.

That's a good point. "Separation of church and state" certainly didn't stop the government from interfering with the Mormon church's practice of polygamy.

While those who constantly cite the phrase "separation of church and state" don't want religion interfering with the state, they rarely seem to have a problem with the state interfering with religion.

First, I object to your assumption that mankind stems from apes. But that's another topic.

Second, Mormons are not like Protestants, who actually did stem from Catholicism. It's why so many Protestants, and to a lesser extent Catholics, have often said they don't consider us Christian at all.

The statement below may be of interest. It was made by a Catholic scholar to a Mormon leader when he was visiting Utah many years ago.

"You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other position tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Roman Catholic church. The issue is between Mormonism and Catholicism. If you are right, we are wrong. If we are right, you are wrong, and that’s all there is to it. These Protestant sects haven’t a leg to stand on; for if we are right, we cut them off long ago, as apostates; and if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and came out of us. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that apostolic succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s position is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”



You started the "going after" stuff. Again, I wasn't going after Catholicism (like you are Mormonism) but your adherence to it.

I'm not sure which books you have on Mormonism but, while your description of it was indeed succinct (which means brief or short) it was hardly accurate.

And I don't claim to be impartial here. But my membership and belief in the LDS church doesn't keep me from knowing the actual history of the church I belong to. I pretty much have to know it because there has always been so much falsehoods and half truths about us.

I also don't expect anyone to take my word for it and am certainly not trying to proselytize. I just expect people to have their facts straight if they're going to bring up my religion to make a point.



This is all correct. But nowhere do you see mention of what the barges were made of or exactly how they were constructed; which was your original point.



Agreed. But make sure your research is accurate. Your's apparently hasn't been.

What else is a submarine/submersible barge with plugs on the top and bottom as an oxygen source going to be built of around 2,500 B.C. if not wood?

Nobody is going after Mormonism, you brought up my religious beliefs first so yours came into the picture right after. I respect your and other's beliefs, even if I don't necessarily believe in them.

No idea. But we probably shouldn't go by assumptions to make a point like that. But also notice I'm not saying they weren't made of wood.



Again, you'll notice that I brought up your adherence to the Catholic church. Not Catholicism itself. And, of course, I don't always follow all the tenants of LDS beliefs perfectly. But that doesn't mean I don't believe them.

And it's not that I don't respect your beliefs. I'm just surprised at times how a few posters on these forums, who are Catholic, seem to hold their church at arm's length. But maybe that's just because it's very different for most Mormons.

Anyway, I suppose a Catholic believing that the Catholic church (and religion in general) shouldn't interfere with the state is one thing. But one believing homosexual acts aren't sinful is something else. Though I'm not sure if the latter applies to you or not.

So you dont disagree. Fair enough.

Out of curiosity, you ever debated in front of an audience before? Cause I noticed the way you tackle/answer questions is exactly some of the tactics employed by good debaters. This is not a knock but rather a compliment. I debated throughout my HS through Business School years.



I dont condone it, but I shouldnt have the right to tell one that does partake in homosexual acts that they dont have the right to do it.

That's my take on it. I guess that's the main reason why gay marriage being sanctioned by the state doesn't bother me: Because I know that it will never be allowed in my Church.

If it's truly a sin, then let God deal with them. I just don't think the Government has the right. To paraphrase David Puddy, "They're the ones going to hell, not me."

That being said, if the Government ever tried to force the Catholic Church (or any other House of Worship) to perform gay marriages, then I'd have a BIG problem with it. And in my opinion, there's the separation between Chruch and State in a nutshell.

No, I never took a debate class. I've always found it easier to express myself in writing rather than speaking anyway.



I honestly don't think such future intrusion is as far-fetched as some believe. We already saw what happened with the Catholic charities involved in adoption. And the article of arguments against gay marriage I posted above brought up other incidents that have already happened. It may not happen tomorrow or next year but further on down the road.

I believe that Catholic Charities had the right to turn away homosexual couples, but I also think that the government had the right to take away their funds. I attended Catholic school as a child, and the State Education dept. offered the school some funding for textbooks. Monsignor refused, and people were very angry at him. He felt that by keeping government funds out of it, then the government can't tell you what to do. He said that if he accepted the money for books, then perhaps he could only buy the books that the government allowed. And he was 100% right. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

This is a day of reckoning! I actually agree with Sicilian Babe! PB, what's Power Ball up to? I'm buying a ticket!


Actually, I never understood why you can't have your cake and eat it to? Anyone know?

Makes perfect sense. You can't compromise your beliefs if you don't take the money.

It might be helpful and engender more respect for opinions stated on this Board if some of you would read at least the syllabus (if not the entire majority opinion) of US Supreme Court opinions reagrding the subjects that one posts about. For one regarding church and state education relationships, see Lemon v. Kurtzman or Zelman v. Simmons.

Agreed



I got a haircut at my barbershop this morning and my barber thought I had won the powerball cause he hadnt seen me in months LMAO.

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Assuming you're referring to me, this is part of the problem. Too many judges, including some on the Supreme Court, have overstepped their bounds and "interpreted" the Constitution miles away from the original meaning. To the point where "case precedent," and not the Constitution, is the real law of the land. Heck, look no further than the fourth amendment being used as a basis for legalizing abortion.

Despicable MSNBC host Krytal Ball (there's a name for you) exploiting her own daughter on this issue. Poor girl has no chance being brainwashed by this lunatic.

SC Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison) on first amendment:

Quote:

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."

Things have changed quite a bit since the days of Justice Story.

yes, but WE don't have to hide our rights in the Internet Closet!

Doesn't make a difference here. If this is a closet, you are here as well.

I don't think religious establishments would stay away from gay marriage for long. New generation would not have the same feelings about gay marriage as the old generation does. And religious establishments are always looking for new sources of donation, so if hating gays wouldn't sell anymore, why not include them? I don't think this is a "never" issue for church.

Maybe for some of the more "fad" churches but you won't see that in the Catholic, Mormon, more traditional Protestant, or Muslim religions.

I'm just saying the offering plate would determine its fate. Even the most traditional establishments would follow the money. If it doesn't sell any longer, they would drop it quietly and move on. It was a no no to have sex before marriage or have a divorce. Now nobody cares. People who do these sort of things attend their weekly thing, pay their donation, have a sense of community and get on with their lives.

How did we get on subject of polygamy and religion? I'm not only one who is against gay marriage on non-religous grounds.

She is stooping very low in that video, but is clueless or does not care. She is so happy to be indoctrinating her daughter she comes off as insane.

I posted an article earlier in this thread containing several non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

You're going on the erroneous assumption these churches only care about money. And who said nobody cares about sex before marriage? Last time I checked, that's still very much against the teachings of the church I belong to and can even get you ex-communicated. Sexual sins are considered next to murder in seriousness.