Jump to content

ALarson

Contributor
  • Content Count

    7,212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,513 Excellent

3 Followers

About ALarson

  • Rank
    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,447 profile views
  1. I think most members aren't even aware that one of the Prophets went through a legal divorce (let alone the entire story here). I knew because I'd researched Joseph F. Smith pretty extensively at one time. I agree that their story is a fascinating one....thanks for going to the effort to post a more thorough telling than I did 👍
  2. So, if you had a member of your ward (or family) who is gay, would you identify them as such? Would you say "they are gay"....or only say "they have same sex attraction" when referring to them? I haven't seen anyone asking for that on here.
  3. You're funny Scott....I see you still refuse to answer certain questions here and it appears you are actually the one who will never use certain language or terms (such as saying that someone "is gay"). That's fine and your choice, of course. But I have not issued some sort of ban on using the term "same sex attraction". That is a misrepresentation on your part. Even california boy posted that he knows some are fine identifying with that term (or even prefer it).
  4. Yes...I've read the history there. I just posted the brief version But I agree that there was more involved....there usually is when it comes to divorce.
  5. Once again, you are misrepresenting here. We've only stated that when one has asked you not to use that term when describing them, that you be respectful and honor their request. If something offends someone, most people will avoid doing that. No one has asked that it never be used (from what I've seen here). However, you do seem to not want to refer to someone as "being gay". Or are you ok with stating that someone "is gay"?
  6. Oh, I don't know if that's true. I think there were a great number of the first, legal wives who were unhappy....but they did not divorce their husbands (most of them). I think there needs to compassion and understanding for both parties involved when there is a divorce (the men and the women). Each situation is different from what my experience has been.
  7. Yes (as I posted above) it was after he took another wife that they divorced. There's was different only in that it was a legal divorce (they were legally married since she was his first wife).
  8. Yes, it was mostly plural wives who divorced past Prophets. However, Joseph F. Smith and his first wife divorced (Levira):
  9. Thanks. Interesting.... Because it's certainly used (homosexual) in a positive way from what I can tell (by doing a search).....and used extensively.
  10. But if you do a search for "homosexual", there are dozens of results (positive from what I can see....but I'll try to look at all of them). It appears to be a word that is used often and with a positive connotation. "Same sex attraction" gets zero results (in the search I did on that site). Where do they state to avoid the term "homosexual"? (Just curious....)
  11. CFR that have not been "civil" (I have not posted anything that wasn't relevant to this topic in trying to understand what your views are or if they've changed since you posted what you did. You have refused to answer the question and I said I'd drop it.)
  12. I never said this thread didn't "appeal to me".....it's just that you've really brought nothing new to the discussion since the last thread was closed, IMO. HappyJackWagon's post expresses that well. And I'll continue here if I choose to as long as I remain respectful (which I think I have). I have not asked you about anything that you have not stated in the past or anything off topic. But I will drop that part of the discussion because it's obvious now that you still hold to the view that someone who is gay has a malady. I get why you don't want to address that and I'll drop it now.
  13. Yes, he's stated this in the past on here (I linked to it in the last thread). He used the word "malady". And, when asked about it (on this thread and the other one), he refuses to answer and just continues to avoid answering ....which does imply he still believes this is true.
  14. Now that is really ironic coming from you. Why start this thread if not to just rehash all that was stated in the other thread (which turned ugly so the mods locked it)? And yes, my question is relevant. If you still sincerely believe those who are gay suffer with an ailment or disease as you posted in previous threads, it does explain why you would refuse to stop saying that a person who is gay "has same-sex attraction" even after many have explained that it's offensive because it's like saying a person who is gay "has a disease". I do find it remarkable that you would still believe those who are gay do suffer with a malady....I'll be honest about that and had hoped you'd educated yourself more regarding this topic.
×
×
  • Create New...