NOM

I don’t care if they ever allows gays to marry in the temple. But I think they should stay out of politics. During prop 8 they even broke the law and spent tithing money to fight gay marriage. I don’t think they should be allowed to break the law. I don’t think they have any “religious freedom” to fight a political movement and then complain that they are being persecuted when people demonstrate against them outside their temple. If they are going to get political, then they have to accept arguments against their politics, they have to accept that people have a right to disagree and show that disagreement.

And for me, it is more about changing the hearts of members. I don’t give a s about the beliefs of the brethren. But I do care about how my sister in law treats my daughter. And by the way, love eventually does win. I care how my daughter’s in laws treat her.

Generally, I don’t care if people believe in flying monkeys. They can believe whatever they want as long as it does no harm to others. But when they believe something that harms innocent people, then I start caring. The law also cares. That is why when a kid is sick, and the parents believe only in faith healing, the state can step in and force the parents to have the child treated by doctors as well as their faith healing.

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:07 pm

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:18 am

IF YOU DONT LIKE THE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH AND IT MAKES YOU SAD THEN DONT BE A MEMBER!!!! Seriously. This has nothing to do with "acceptance" or "love." This has to do with forcing someone or some group who thinks you are bad to accept you in order to make whatever it is in the back of your head that still makes you think you are indeed bad go away. The church is anti-gay. We get it. Then don't join it. My uncle was a full fledged homosexual yet a devout member. He had to make a decision as to which meant more to him. He chose the church and lived a celibate life. He knew the rules and didn't demand that the church change them for the way he was. Should I demand a temple recommend because I like to drink alcohol? Should I demand a recommend even though I think the church is b.s.? No. I decide what is important to me and what isn't and I go my way in peace. I hate the church. But what I hate even more is the attitude that millions of people have to change their beliefs and standards because these standards make an itty-bitty minority feel bad. Go start your own church and be the leader of it. Make yourself an apostle or prophet of said church and then you can believe whatever you choose. You can exclude and include whomever you please. But don't go around demanding that anyone change their beliefs to please you because their beliefs make you feel sad inside.

I wonder...

If we all jumped in a time machine and went back 50 years, would you voice the same rant about black people?

Skin color is not the same as deviated sexual preference. If you don’t understand that, then you struggle with basic logic, or maybe you haven’t given up the “blind belief” from the cult - which requires ignoring inconvenient facts.

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:28 am

Deep down this has very little to do with the LGBTQ issue. It has to do with people demanding that a group, any group change their centuries old beliefs and practices because they don't like them. The majority of LDS people like what their leaders teach. I would say that a majority don't want the LGBTQ issue crammed down their religious throats. They don't want gays married in their temples. They don't want coffee drinker a in their temples for heavens sake. So let it be. Why does the LDS church have to allow any practice they disagree with into their church? Should Muslims be forced to allow Jews to practice in their mosques? You may think that the current policy of the LDS church is wrong and hateful. That's fine. But if you start demanding they accept practices that go against what you feel is right pretty soon everyone is forced to believe whatever someone else tells them they have to. Eventually you start fining people for their different beliefs. What's next? Taking away their tax exempt status and even right to practice their religion because they don't believe what you do i.e. "Beto" O'Rourke's statement? Then what? Take away the children from parents who teach their kids something you don't believe in because you feel it may harm them? Arrest and imprison parents who are anti-this that is the other? The church has had idiotic beliefs for decades. All church's do.

Well put. I wish more people could see through the BS on both sides like that.

The thing is, LOVE is not supporting behavior known to be harmful. 2 of my friends have died of AIDS - there’s an ugly side of the homosexual lifestyle which most ignore.

Newme wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:44 am

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:28 am

Deep down this has very little to do with the LGBTQ issue. It has to do with people demanding that a group, any group change their centuries old beliefs and practices because they don't like them. The majority of LDS people like what their leaders teach. I would say that a majority don't want the LGBTQ issue crammed down their religious throats. They don't want gays married in their temples. They don't want coffee drinker a in their temples for heavens sake. So let it be. Why does the LDS church have to allow any practice they disagree with into their church? Should Muslims be forced to allow Jews to practice in their mosques? You may think that the current policy of the LDS church is wrong and hateful. That's fine. But if you start demanding they accept practices that go against what you feel is right pretty soon everyone is forced to believe whatever someone else tells them they have to. Eventually you start fining people for their different beliefs. What's next? Taking away their tax exempt status and even right to practice their religion because they don't believe what you do i.e. "Beto" O'Rourke's statement? Then what? Take away the children from parents who teach their kids something you don't believe in because you feel it may harm them? Arrest and imprison parents who are anti-this that is the other? The church has had idiotic beliefs for decades. All church's do.

Well put. I wish more people could see through the BS on both sides like that.

The thing is, LOVE is not supporting behavior known to be harmful. 2 of my friends have died of AIDS - there’s an ugly side of the homosexual lifestyle which most ignore.

My best friend from high school died of AIDS, so I am not ignoring the ugly side of anything. Truth is, that gays in monogamous relations are just as safe from AIDS as heterosexuals in monogamous relationships. So, I just don’t buy the idea that AIDS is one of the evils spread by gays. That is why I am so firmly in favor of gay marriage. It reduces promiscuity. AIDS is an evil of promiscuity. Just like the STDs that were first spread by straights who were not monogamous. The “sin” and dangerous behavior is sex outside of monogamous marriage.

Now, granted, there are sexual behaviors gay may engage in that are also dangerous, but straights also engage in those same exact behaviors. So, warn people of the dangers of anal sex if you like, but realize it is not the only way gays have sex, nor it it exclusive to gays. There are heterosexual men who prefer that with their female partners, so don’t pick on the homosexuals with that problem, and especially don’t pick on lesbians.



And, no I don’t have to fight against all religion for crying out loud. Dammit, I get to pick my own battles. You don’t get to tell me what I can or cannot fight against, or that if I fight that I have to fight this too. My choice. Period. I get to say what is worth my time and emotional energy. I draw my line, you get to draw yours at “walk away and don’t give a ...” I understand where you are drawing your line, so just accept that my line is a different place.

Newme wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:42 am

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:07 pm

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:18 am

IF YOU DONT LIKE THE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH AND IT MAKES YOU SAD THEN DONT BE A MEMBER!!!! Seriously. This has nothing to do with "acceptance" or "love." This has to do with forcing someone or some group who thinks you are bad to accept you in order to make whatever it is in the back of your head that still makes you think you are indeed bad go away. The church is anti-gay. We get it. Then don't join it. My uncle was a full fledged homosexual yet a devout member. He had to make a decision as to which meant more to him. He chose the church and lived a celibate life. He knew the rules and didn't demand that the church change them for the way he was. Should I demand a temple recommend because I like to drink alcohol? Should I demand a recommend even though I think the church is b.s.? No. I decide what is important to me and what isn't and I go my way in peace. I hate the church. But what I hate even more is the attitude that millions of people have to change their beliefs and standards because these standards make an itty-bitty minority feel bad. Go start your own church and be the leader of it. Make yourself an apostle or prophet of said church and then you can believe whatever you choose. You can exclude and include whomever you please. But don't go around demanding that anyone change their beliefs to please you because their beliefs make you feel sad inside.

I wonder...

If we all jumped in a time machine and went back 50 years, would you voice the same rant about black people?

Skin color is not the same as deviated sexual preference. If you don’t understand that, then you struggle with basic logic, or maybe you haven’t given up the “blind belief” from the cult - which requires ignoring inconvenient facts.

Just like Blashyrkh, I know you won't answer the question as asked, but I'm still stupid enough to ask it:

Both Blashyrkh and Newme: WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY?


People don't choose their sexuality any more than they choose their skin color. Full Stop.

Unless of course Blashyrkh and Newme DID choose their sexuality. (Again, I doubt either of you will actually answer that question.)

And now I'll just enjoy the silence...

“Blashyrhk” wrote:Then you must eradicate ALL religion from the face of the Earth. All religions hurt people. All religions have some set of standards that you must conform to or else you will suffer some sort of punishment.

I think this is a great idea. The detrimental effect of religion has far outweighed the religious benefits.

Personally I’m having trouble understanding the argument against attempting to change a Church that changes as much as the LDS Church does. Are you a polygamist? Is the priesthood withheld from black members of your ward? Can that gay couple you know have their child baptized? Do you go to three hours of Church?

The argument against attempting to change the Church might make sense if it was static, but it isn’t. The Church will change - might as well be part of influencing that change.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:37 pm

“Blashyrhk” wrote:Then you must eradicate ALL religion from the face of the Earth. All religions hurt people. All religions have some set of standards that you must conform to or else you will suffer some sort of punishment.

I think this is a great idea. The detrimental effect of religion has far outweighed the religious benefits.

South Park did this GREAT 3 part series called Go God Go Cartman time travels in to a future where religion has been abolished.

**Spoiler Alert***

People just align themselves with the scientific theories that the find the most appealing/believable. And they persecute the people who don't belong to their groups. What the boys learn at the end of the series is that humans will eventually f everything up.

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:18 am

IF YOU DONT LIKE THE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH AND IT MAKES YOU SAD THEN DONT BE A MEMBER!!!!

I couldn't say what NOM represents today, but this is certainly antithetical to the original vision.


But, then I really don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the base concerns. The stated concern is too impersonal for this level of emotional intensity. Blashyrkh, how does this issue impact you? How is it meaningful to you? Or to put it simply, why do you care? If you were a member of the Church, I could understand your deep concern about anyone asking the Church to change, but that wouldn't be a very NOMish approach. Of course, neither is the stated approach, so it's rather a conundrum.

Newme wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:42 am

Skin color is not the same as deviated sexual preference. If you don’t understand that, then you struggle with basic logic, or maybe you haven’t given up the “blind belief” from the cult - which requires ignoring inconvenient facts.

This is, of course, utter rubbish, as can easily be discerned by listening to people. Or just paying attention to who they are.

It's got about as much validity as the "facts" that "women’s brains are 6% to 11% smaller than men’s" and "Women’s brains absorb information like pancakes soak up syrup so it’s hard for them to focus .... Men’s brains are more like waffles. They’re better able to focus because the information collects in each little waffle square."

(https://www.huffpost.com/entry/women-er ... e33e78606a)

It's all just fabrications to justify people's opinions and behaviors, to justify insisting people behave a certain way or being mean to them.

Thank the FSM for the ignore feature.

The best part of humanity is we have the fundamental right to our beliefs and thoughts. People can choose to love or hate.

We have to remember that the majority of people used to think the same way with slavery, equal rights, and a thousand other ways of thinking that have now progressively changed.

I’m hoping that humanity can continue to progress to the point where we stop hating, conquering, and killing each other in the name of religion, dogma, and political gain.

Unfortunately, Mopag spoiled it by telling me the ending from South Park so I don’t hold out for world peace in my lifetime.

Fortunately I can do my part and love my neighbor.

Thanks Blashyrkh and Newme for your comments and thoughts. You have the right to them and they help me to understand my own evolving position.

The best part of my faith crisis was the new ability to think for my self and decide what I want to believe in. Posts like this help with that process.

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:19 pm

The problem I have with it is a tiny minority demanding a majority change their beliefs. Let's take any subject that any group believes in. Should we demand that Muslims change their offensive beliefs?

It's not one that I have any connection to so I'm not going to get personally involved, but I see no reason others can't.

Southern Baptist? Catholics?

ditto

Should coffee drinkers unite and demand the church renounce the WofW?

Seemed to work pretty well for Coke and Pepsi so why not? But again not one that I feel compelled to support.

How about single members demand the church renounce the belief in eternal marriage?

The Church doesn't have to renounce their belief in order to be less cruel about it. I don't see why single members couldn't campaign for a change like that.

Can we try a few other examples? One very topical. Given your comments, I presume you oppose Sam Young and his efforts to Protect Every Child. Is that correct?

And a few historical ones: Would you have opposed the abolition of slavery because it was a tiny minority demanding a majority change their beliefs? Or more recent but on a similar topic, the overthrow of anti-miscegenation laws in 1967? Or what about women and property? Should women not have been allowed to vote because it was a tiny minority demanding a majority change their beliefs?

As far as I'm concerned anyone can ask someone to change their behavior or beliefs on any topic. That's pretty fundamental First Amendment stuff. They can even express it as a demand if they want and get pretty vocal about it, as Sam Young has done. Some things are worth getting involved in and supporting. If I were in Utah I would've considered attending Sam's march.

Or another headline I saw when looking up something about Sam's march, "U. students stage walkout, say school still isn't safe 1 year after Lauren McCluskey's death". That's a reasonable thing to try and change and it's hard to see that the students are wrong or evil for seeking change.

Or to look at it a different way:
Is the corollary also true?: If a minority cannot ask a majority to change, can a majority group ask, or even demand, a minority group to change?

MoJo once pointed out that there are substantially more LGBT people in the U.S. than Mormons.


When I see a rule expressed, I often end up wondering about the corollary. That's caused by doing to much math when I was younger. That stuff can really impact a developing brain. I think that's why some people wage a campaign to eradicate it.

(I'm trying to remember a quote about the success rate of oppressed groups asking nicely for change. I can't quite recall how it goes.)

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:57 pm

Newme wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:42 am

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:07 pm

I wonder...

If we all jumped in a time machine and went back 50 years, would you voice the same rant about black people?

Skin color is not the same as deviated sexual preference. If you don’t understand that, then you struggle with basic logic, or maybe you haven’t given up the “blind belief” from the cult - which requires ignoring inconvenient facts.

Just like Blashyrkh, I know you won't answer the question as asked, but I'm still stupid enough to ask it:

Both Blashyrkh and Newme: WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY?


People don't choose their sexuality any more than they choose their skin color. Full Stop.

Unless of course Blashyrkh and Newme DID choose their sexuality. (Again, I doubt either of you will actually answer that question.)

And now I'll just enjoy the silence...

So, you’re saying pedophiles - adults who sexually prefer children - are born that way? Rapists also - can’t help it - they were born to rape?

How ridiculous to think anyone is born with a deviated sexual preference! People do choose what they focus on and do. Research suggests many who have acquired homosexual preferences have been sexually abused - some at such a young age - it feels inborn but isn’t.

I was raped and sexually abused, & for a bit, I hated men - they made me sick. So I wondered about women. I didn’t follow up on that nor on a woman who made a pass at me, but I can understand how after having horrible experiences with men, some women change their sexual preference. Men can be similar - though there are other factors like the Oedipus complex (mama’s boy - too close to mom).

So yeah, I have chosen my sexuality. We all do. We are born with brains that are only 1/4 developed so we can better adapt to environmental influences. The homosexual activists stated their goals involved lying, justifying if they lied enough times and enough people believed, then even when the truth was revealed, many would reject it. My child’s AP psychology book still has a study claiming homosexuality was inborn, even though that study has been discredited. The study involved looking at cadaver brains who were homosexual but failed to note they died of AIDS which changes the brain.

I’m sorry but fact is fact. Just as I have a hard time respecting cult members who deny facts even when they’re plain as day, I also struggle to respect people who deny inconvenient facts related to homosexuality. Even worse when they shame or shun me or others for daring to state truths they don’t like.

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:19 pm

Jeffret wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:04 pm

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:18 am

IF YOU DONT LIKE THE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH AND IT MAKES YOU SAD THEN DONT BE A MEMBER!!!!

I couldn't say what NOM represents today, but this is certainly antithetical to the original vision.


But, then I really don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the base concerns. The stated concern is too impersonal for this level of emotional intensity. Blashyrkh, how does this issue impact you? How is it meaningful to you? Or to put it simply, why do you care? If you were a member of the Church, I could understand your deep concern about anyone asking the Church to change, but that wouldn't be a very NOMish approach. Of course, neither is the stated approach, so it's rather a conundrum.

This subject doesn't impact me personally. The problem I have with it is a tiny minority demanding a majority change their beliefs. Let's take any subject that any group believes in. Should we demand that Muslims change their offensive beliefs? Southern Baptist? Catholics? Should coffee drinkers unite and demand the church renounce the WofW? How about single members demand the church renounce the belief in eternal marriage? I'm sure my 50-year-old sister feels bad that she never married despite the commandment to do so. Let's demand an end to missions because they make those weaklings who can't leave mommy for two years feel bad. I could go on and on. Let's get rid of all core beliefs of all church's because in the end someone's feelings are hurt when they violate the standards of their choice method of worship.

Yeah - the double standard seems to fly by unnoticed by most engaging in it.
“You must respect me - but I don’t have to respect you.”
Rights without responsibilities.

Newme wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:34 pm

Blashyrkh wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:19 pm

Jeffret wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:04 pm

I couldn't say what NOM represents today, but this is certainly antithetical to the original vision.


But, then I really don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the base concerns. The stated concern is too impersonal for this level of emotional intensity. Blashyrkh, how does this issue impact you? How is it meaningful to you? Or to put it simply, why do you care? If you were a member of the Church, I could understand your deep concern about anyone asking the Church to change, but that wouldn't be a very NOMish approach. Of course, neither is the stated approach, so it's rather a conundrum.

This subject doesn't impact me personally. The problem I have with it is a tiny minority demanding a majority change their beliefs. Let's take any subject that any group believes in. Should we demand that Muslims change their offensive beliefs? Southern Baptist? Catholics? Should coffee drinkers unite and demand the church renounce the WofW? How about single members demand the church renounce the belief in eternal marriage? I'm sure my 50-year-old sister feels bad that she never married despite the commandment to do so. Let's demand an end to missions because they make those weaklings who can't leave mommy for two years feel bad. I could go on and on. Let's get rid of all core beliefs of all church's because in the end someone's feelings are hurt when they violate the standards of their choice method of worship.

Yeah - the double standard seems to fly by unnoticed by most engaging in it.
“You must respect me - but I don’t have to respect you.”
Rights without responsibilities.

The Church changes in response to pressure. It always has. Give me one good reason why disaffected members can’t be the ones providing that pressure and motivating those changes. Sam Young forced the Church to change - in a small way, and not nearly as much as it needs to, but he did it. Explain to me why he shouldn’t have.

Let’s apply your argument to slavery. Should the northern states have just minded their own business and allowed the southern states to perpetuate slavery?

What about the Holocaust? The rest of the world turned a blind eye to what was happening to Jews in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s - is it your position that was the correct thing for the rest of the world to do?

When I see a bully beating a kid up in the schoolyard, should I respect the bully’s beliefs and mind my own business? When the Church is the bully and the members are the ones being beat up, should I respect the bully’s beliefs and mind my own business?

Just because an organization has a belief, it does not follow that belief must be respected, nor does it follow that people inside or outside that organization should not be advocating for change in said organization.

Newme wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:20 pm

So, you’re saying pedophiles - adults who sexually prefer children - are born that way? Rapists also - can’t help it - they were born to rape?

I can't speak for wtfluff, but that's not even close. It's a total non sequitor.

How ridiculous to think anyone is born with a deviated sexual preference!

Merely demonstrates your prejudices, like your previous paragraph. The statement that it is a deviated sexual preference is a moral judgement with no foundational basis in fact (i.e., a prejudice).

Research suggests many who have acquired homosexual preferences have been sexually abused - some at such a young age - it feels inborn but isn’t.

Just no. Go ahead and cite that research if you want -- it doesn't exist. And no, Paul Cameron certainly doesn't count. He's been wholly discredited. His research was totally flawed and just obtained the prejudiced results he was looking for.

The whole notion that sexual orientation can be readily changed was pretty much destroyed when Exodus International closed in 2013. It's president, Alan Chambers, said that he had never encountered a gay person who changed their orientation. Just this past August, McKrae Game came out as always gay even though he had run a conversion therapy organization for two decades. Conversion therapy leader for 2 decades, McKrae Game disavows movement he helped fuel . It just doesn't work and it's very harmful to the people that are forced into it.

So yeah, I have chosen my sexuality. We all do.

Totally bogus. I know I never chose my sexual orientation. I have a hard time understanding why someone would be attracted to the other sex.

Newme wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:34 pm

Yeah - the double standard seems to fly by unnoticed by most engaging in it.
“You must respect me - but I don’t have to respect you.”
Rights without responsibilities.

Heh, you don't have to respect me and I'm sure you don't.

How, exactly, are you being required to respect anyone? (And for that matter where have you demonstrated that?)

Newme wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:20 pm

So yeah, I have chosen my sexuality. We all do.

Wow... I'm not sure what to say, except: You are the first person I've ever "talked" to who claims to have actually made a conscious decision as to your sexuality, so I guess you've updated my worldview a tiny bit.

Newme wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:20 pm

I’m sorry but fact is fact. Just as I have a hard time respecting cult members who deny facts even when they’re plain as day, I also struggle to respect people who deny inconvenient facts related to homosexuality. Even worse when they shame or shun me or others for daring to state truths they don’t like.

As to your "facts" and "truths" and "we all do" statements, I don't think I can agree with you there. It's not possible for me to extrapolate that because Newme chose her sexuality, more than 7.5 billion other humans on the planet are exactly like Newme, and made the same conscious decision.

Good afternoon, good evening, and good night.