• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

kllindley

Members
  • Content count

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

234 Excellent

About kllindley

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Idaho

Recent Profile Visitors

354 profile views
  1. Again, this argument is faulty. You are relying on the same false, totalizing view of sexuality. It's a lazy argument. 😕
  2. I'm one of them. I'm devastated by this announcement.
  3. If you remove the apostrophe, it makes perfect sense. Assuming there is a desire to understand.
  4. So, like when people try to impose their belief that same-sex relationships are completely equal to heterosexual unions through laws and ordinances that compel individuals to compromise their beliefs? Or is that okay because you agree with the belief being imposed? It is indeed a ridiculous assertion. It would be even more ridiculous if I had made it. I don't answer CFRs for assertions I didn't make.
  5. So, can you even try to understand how a person could reasonably hold to the belief that the marriage covenant is still between one man and one woman? Is it completely outside the realm of possibility for you that someone might genuinely see gender as a more salient feature than number? I wonder whether you are fully aware of how much your argument here relies on multiple false premises and semantic bulldozing over any nuanced understanding. My guess is that you aren't. At least I hope, you aren't. For others who might read this thread: This argument assumes a categorical gay/straight dichotomy, in which all people are either gay or straight, and that this trait is fundamental and unchanging. It depends on erasing from public awareness, if not from existence entirely, individuals with any degree of bisexuality or who have experienced any change in sexual attraction. For a group who claims to resent their own history of being suppressed and having their experiences invalidated, they sure are quick to do the same to others.
  6. I think you are taking what he said out of context, but whatever. Just don't be surprised that people see this as hostile and unwilling to actually engage in dialogue.
  7. Because the actual covenant\ceremony is still between a man and a woman.
  8. That's an inappropriate CFR. He never claimed that in the least. Are you deliberately trying to misread him or do you genuinely not understand what he means?
  9. So, California Boy, this comment really confuses me. I guess I don't know whether you genuinely don't understand the LDS perspective or you are just so convinced your way of seeing things is the only valid one.
  10. So, just a brief aside, Scott. I can see how thesometimesaint might feel internally consistent here. Historically in the mental health field, it was seen as an imposition of value for the therapist to even state what he or she personally believed or valued. The client is seen as being in such a vulnerable and susceptible frame of mind in therapy, that knowing what the therapist believes might sway them. Luckily, this view is becoming rarer.
  11. So, you agree that you don't have any evidence that John takes the time to be familiar with his faithful guests. So his criticisms don't really carry any weight, right?
  12. This is phenomenal work. It has taken thousands and thousands of hours on the parts of the researches to achieve some common ground and mutual respect. They have already published some guidelines and recommendations. I'm excited to see what the data shows. Thanks for sharing this.
  13. I mean, I still can understand and respect people who disagree with him and /or the current policy. What I have struggled with throughout this thread is the dogged insistence that there is "no justification" for prioritizing a temple marriage. It seems dishonest to me, but maybe it's just (un)intentional blindness.
  14. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball_marriage-honorable/ https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/02/the-marriage-decision?lang=eng
  15. So you didn't read Kimball either?