• 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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

220 Excellent

About kllindley

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

322 profile views
  1. Absolutely one can! Unfortunately, you have not done so in this discussion.
  2. This!
  3. Could you help clarify your position here? Does the "punishment" hurt non-LDS loved ones or the couple? Kinda seems like you want to have it both ways. Note on my perspective. I was raised in a very orthodox family. Of the five of us children, two have been married civilly first and waited for their Sealing. My wife's parents are not active members and were not able to attend our marriage. She was adamant that we not have any ring ceremony because she had told her parents for years that she would be getting married in the temple and asked them to be ready to be there with her, and they chose not to. On the other hand, her sister did choose to have a ring ceremony after their Sealing. So this is not just a hypothetical situation for me.
  4. Nearly 100 years the Brethren observed that the practice of having civil marriages in addition to sealings was spiritually detrimental to the couple as well as to the community. So they made the decision (which I believe to be inspired, but accept that reasonable people can not share that belief) to encourage couples to make the ordinance of Temple Marriage a priority. You seem so upset that anyone who supports the policy must not care or consider hurt feelings of family. Are you really going to fall into the same trap of not being willing to understand that some of us see that having a civil ceremony distracts and detracts from the sanctity of the temple ordinance?
  5. Why not have the wedding ceremony after the sealing? Make it everything you ever dreamed of. But really, Why bother with a sealing at all? A God who doesn't want any hurt feelings surely wouldn't keep a family apart in Heaven just because the couple chose to love their family instead of following a bunch of silly rules set up by a bunch of old men.
  6. It does seem that the first and second are blended. It makes sense that they are still actually two separate quorums, but I can't find any way to see who belongs to which quorum except from older charts.
  7. I might not go that far, though I really don't think he was comparing them in severity, but as untrustworthy groups. In that I fully agree. The HRC has a long history of engaging in bullying campaigns against those they disagree with. If it was just a few individuals, I wouldn't worry, but it's at an official level. President Packer saying that children of God are not powerless to overcome urges contrary to the plan of salvation is abusive and cruel, but calling that comment spewing lies, blaming him for suicide, accusing him of ignoring "science," and celebrating his death is just appropriate advocacy.
  8. Gotta say that's quite a convenient double standard.
  9. I thought it was the Mackintosh family on LDS.org. I find it a significant difference because the the Montgomerys believe the church is wrong, while the Mackintosh family believe the official position on same-sex attraction and choose to love and and accept their son. He in turn respects the Church even though he has left it. While I appreciate the acknowledgement that the later LGBT community mistreats LDS LGBT, there is a lot of loaded language here, and throughout the booklet. For example, they state without explanation or caveat that the church is unwelcoming. And they state that policies exclude LGBT members and their families. This is fundamentally not true. The policies do exclude certain LGBT individuals and some of their families. I also was very surprised to see a reference to North Star. Overall, I disagree that the pamphlet is or makes any real effort to be balanced. It's definitely skewed toward the HRC's agenda. I kinda think that to be balanced there would have been some content from individuals associated with North Star, or scholars who support the church. There might also be some representation of the B. 😉 At the same time, I admit the tone was not antagonistic and the inclusion of North Star was not expected. If I'm honest, I genuinely believe this was not an attempt to be respectful or conciliatory. It seems like it was meant to make the message seem less offensive to believing members while gently, if not especially subtly, pushing their own agenda, which is as you point out, is diametrically opposed to the church.
  10. I can appreciate that. I acknowledge that I greatly prefer exiting the discussion rather than defending myself. Like I wrote in response to you post with a) b) c) and d), I don't really feel the need to convince anyone that my perspective is valid and reasonable. When I get no response to a post, or portion of a post, that is open and vulnerable only to be told that I have not shared that information later, or when that response is a lot of questions that feel designed to have only one logical answer (gotcha questions), I struggle to justify the time and effort of continuing the conversation. So, yes I do respond by questioning the openness and intent of the discussion when your responses strike me as rhetorical jabs rather than attempts to understand. I can see how that would be frustrating. Some examples: 1) in this post you did not answer the question about where you would draw the line, but in this post you tell me you are just trying to figure out where I draw the line. 2) I wrote here: I still think this is fairly clear in sorting out the differences between protected class and suspect class, their different sources, and different scope. But you didn't respond to this part of the post, maybe you missed it. 3) Given the above quote about the difference between suspect class/14th Amendment/government discrimination and protected class/anti-discrimination law/private discrimination/public accommodations, and the understanding I have of that distinction (which may be wrong-I'm not a lawyer), I was under the understanding that we were, in fact, discussing which classes should be protected from private discrimination by anti-discrimination law, which does include public accommodations. With a lot of reflection, I can see how this paragraph might makes sense if you see protected class as somehow being separate from public accommodations law. My understanding was and is that the protection offered to a protected class is exactly the protection from being turned down by a photographer. If you mean that the protection offered should be protection from being beaten, killed, or harasses/bullied, I fully agree. It's just that I don't think that is what protected class means. The law already prohibits that behavior. This is why I was so off put by your list of citations about violence, and concentration camps. Especially where the link to the EEOC explains that discrimination based on sexual orientation is already against federal policy. It seemed that you were just using the severity of these crimes to prove what to me is a totally unrelated point. 4) really I would just think you missed this entire post, but for the fact taht you later do cite portions of it. Though, I feel like those are taken out of context, so maybe you really did miss it. Primarily, I don't think you sense or honor the distinction that I can agree that something is legal or illegal according to current law and not be rabid about changing it while at the same time believing that the current law is not ideal or necessarily consistent with my views of how government "should" function.
  11. I admit I was already feeling irritable prior your comment last night. I also admit that where those articles cited the SLPC, I immediately had a strong negative reaction due to that organization's history of persecuting others. Are you seriously saying you didn't have any intention at all to use the emotional aversion to the concentration camps to bolster your argument? Maybe it was just a coincidence. Your comment that we haven't been discussing wedding cakes is absurd. On the previous page your post full of questions cites denial of services and turn downs. Incidentally, that is the post responding to my very dispassionate attempt to explain my thoughts about protected classes and anti-discrimination law. Rather than acknowledging that sharing of my thoughts, you responded with a series of questions expressing outrage at what you (incorrectly) perceived to be my opinion. I still see that the majority of what your list talked about is already illegal. The first five are about violence and bullying. Violence is already illegal. Harassment is also illegal. I don't understand the argument that "because these already illegal bad things are happening, the best solution is to make any and all discrimination against this group a crime." Once again I wonder where this interest is in response to my explanations, rather than responding with outrage about how picked on the LGBT community is. You might not have noticed that I did not say they weren't. I doubted whether that is appropriate justification for creating a protected class. You have also failed to acknowledge that I have expressed repeatedly that I do not support most of the current protected classes, including religion. All of these citations you list from the google search have to do with suspect classes and levels of scrutiny. This idea of suspect class is based on the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment. This part of the constitution is designed to prevent the GOVERNMENT from taking any action (whether laws, civil service hiring, etc) that infringes on the fundamental rights or due process of an individual on the basis of a characteristic of a class. You've cited the criteria for suspect classes well. "Protected Class" comes from legislation that prohibits individuals and businesses from discriminating on the basis of membership in a protected group. Protected classes are named in anti-discrimination legislation (which generally include housing, hiring, and public accommodations). This distinction between the entity prohibited from discriminating: individual (protected class) or government (suspect class) is what I find very important. I believe there is and should be a higher standard for governmental actions than individual actions. So that is why I think it matters whether we are talking about a suspect class (can a law discriminate against gays) and protected class (can an individual choose not to provide a service or accommodation). http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/state-discrimination-private-discrimination.html Note the quote: "14th Amendment does not empower federal government to stop private acts of discrimination." also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
  12. It doesn't help me trust your sincerity when I try to follow your links and you cite the LA Times for a link to quora. Or start comparing the horrors in Chechnya to not being able to force someone to photograph a wedding.
  13. I have. In depth. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I don't think the problem is comprehension. The only options I can see are that either: 1) You just don't like them, or 2) you really are closed off to the possibility that there are other valid opinions on this issue. Either way further discussion here seems unlikely to be productive. Thanks.
  14. I don't want to misrepresent or misunderstand you. If I understand you, you believe that the criteria for "suspect class" are or should be the criteria for "protected class." It's that correct? And you cite for evidence an article that does not once use the term "protected class." Is that accurate?