Jump to content

Daniel2

Contributor
  • Content count

    2,895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daniel2

  1. Crazy that mainstream media has picked up on this so quickly...
  2. Rather than bemoan what you believe to be a mischaracterization (something that happens to me as a gay man all the time on a variety of fronts, even though in this case you and others who believe the position hasn't changed being mislabeled, in your view, as victims of the 'backfire effect') and apparently attempt to poison the well in-reverse, why not just confront and deal with the issue itself, regardless of the mischaracterizations of others and prove them wrong by demonstrating how the position hasn't really changed...?
  3. Thanks for this frank and candid admission. Turns out Hope for Things was right when she said, "I predict that there will be some who are even more convinced after looking at this evidence that the church has not changed its position or evolved." (Kiwi's and Scott's posts also drive the point home). It will be interesting to see if/how the church responds now that this info is in the media spotlight. I imagine they'll likely just continue staying silent on the pamphlet and it's views if they truly do continue to believe those things today, or they may address via the Mormon Newsroom it in an attempt to dispel any misconceptions if they perceive there's been a change in any of those older statements/views.
  4. Well... it looks like Dan Reynold’s days as a member of the LDS Church are numbered... I realize most conservative members will adamantly disagree with his conclusions about members driving change, but whether or not you agree with him, Reynold’s seems to be representing a cultural wave that the church will have difficultly holding back as the older generation passes and the younger ranks assume leaderships positions. As many of us have said repeatedly, for the younger generation, attitudes about LGBT acceptance seems to be mirroring interracial acceptance of the current/previous adult generations. On a movie nerd note: I’m still stunned he got the likes of Hans Zimmer to score his film. Wow!!!
  5. Hi, Papa, I'm so sorry to hear about your health challenges. I hope you will be able to stay and continue to contribute for as long as possible, and I also hope your loved ones are taking good care of you. I recently learned something that has really helped when I accidentally delete a post I've been working hard on--if you hit the "Control" key plus the "Z" key at the same time, it will "undo" the last key you accidentally hit and bring it all back. Hope that works for you going forward! I think you may have misunderstood my point about LDS missionaries. My point was that others who don't share Mormon's values or have a good understanding of LDS culture may inaccurately judge that Mormons' lives are focused solely on one issue, because they're only witnessing one facet of a Latter-day Saints' lives. In similar fashion, you may perceive that many/most gays and lesbians are fixated on one issue; in my experience, that simply isn't true. And while that's what I focus on on this board, that focus isn't reflective of the rest of my life. I agree that it's insulting to suggest that people are living in such a way that they "wear blinders." However, I was only mirroring your words, which it sounded to me like you were suggesting is true of gays and lesbians. As it's true that it's insulting to suggest that is true of LDS missionaries, it's also true that it's insulting to suggest that's true of gays and lesbians. Support for marriage equality for same-sex couples was a defining issue for me for the last decade when it came to politics, mainly because the benefits, responsibilities, and protections marriage provides is a vitally important issue in how my husband and I protect, provide, and care for one another and our children and grandchildren; if I had to use an analogy, the liberties and protections provided by civil marriage for same-sex couples like mine was just as important to us as the Standard of Liberty was for Captain Moroni and his followers. That being said, marriage equality wasn't the only issue I cared about then, and it isn't the only one I care about now. Each candidate should be weighed on their own merits, and according to the values of each individual voter. Again, I am sorry to hear about your struggles, and I wish you health, happiness, peace, and ongoing participation here at MD&D. Best, D
  6. Hi, Papa, I'm fairly certain that I've never said that as the older generation "dies off, we'll have a better church, America, or World." While I agree that on certain topics/issues, there are generational cultural biases that will change as successive generations replace previous ones, that doesn't mean I don't find value in the older generation or that I don't appreciate the gifts they can offer to those in the younger generation, as well. Nothing is so black and white as to make the kind to sweeping overgeneralizations that says that "once older members/voters die off, then we'll have a better church/America/world," and I don't agree with such a broad overgeneralization. I love and value the now-senior-citizens in my family and community as much as anyone else does, and I am conscious that someday, I will also join the ranks of the AARP. Few people I know or am aware of center their lives around only one issue, aside from those who enter a monastic existence (which are relatively few and far between, these days). Most people I've seen can and sometimes do choose to devote time and energy to a central issue while undertaking a certain mission and/or acting within a specified role. For example, this is true of Mormons when they serve as missionaries or those acting within certain their callings. While it may seem to some outsides (who only observe said individuals actions as related to their central mission/goal) that said individuals "lives center around only one issue," the reality is that they're only observing one facet of such individuals. When not acting as missionaries, as posters on LDS-themed message boards, or within their church callings, LDS members can and do devote time, talents, and energies to a wealth of other secular topics, including family, friends, community, and personal goals and/or pursuits. And while some outsiders may suggest said LDS missionaries' "lives have almost no center, nor well rounded, and have all their hopes and dreams fixated on one issue and little else," or if they "fear that they [LDS missionaries] will miss so much of life has to offer," or accuse them of "failing to see the beauty that others see," because they believe such LDS missionaries "have been enticed to wear blinders that they never knew they had and that limit their vision to the many wonders and endless beauty that a well rounded life offers," those of us who have a broader understanding of Mormons know that missions and subsequent missionary work, service, or other church callings are only one part of Mormons' identity and life. The above is also true of those of us that know that most gays' and lesbians' lives are the same way. I suggested that Dan Reynolds' days in the church seem to be numbered because he's openly and publically criticizing LDS leaders' current stance on LGBT issues, and recent events show that individuals displaying such behaviors ultimately lead to disciplinary counsels where they are excommunicated, or said individuals ultimately choose to resign from the church itself. Do you feel that such behaviors don't often/frequently lead to those two outcomes? I understand your comment may not have been directed at me, but just to clarify, I don't feel I'm engaging in any type of "death watch," even though I believe rising/future generations will change this issue. As I've said, even when the church changes on this issue, I don't believe it's very likely I will ever return to the LDS Church, and I'm not holding my breath for anything to happen. That being said, one person's "undoing the work of the older" may viewed by others to be "finally extended the blessings to all," instead of "undoing" anything. As I've said before, a revelation allowing for marriage between same-sex couples need not repudiate anything in The Proclamation to the Family. That proclamation could remain in it's entirety, with some additional addendums about God's plan for his children who remain gay or lesbian in the eternities and don't fit the model advanced for the heterosexual majority of God's children as described in the Proclamation. Best to you, D
  7. Hm. My only comment is a response to the title of the article. Interesting how some see "doubt" as "an infection," whereas others are comfortable with "doubt" as "the attendant of truth" which preserves and protects against false beliefs. One approach is built on shifting sand, while the other is built on the rock of assurance that truth can be tested and if it is truly truth, need not be feared. One is built on fear that one's beliefs may not be true, while the other demonstrates an unflinching openness to pursue truth, wherever it may lead.
  8. While I haven’t seen any of them, this comment made me think of those trailers for all those “The Purge” movies, where in the Not-so-distant future, America designates one day and night a year where the police and law enforcement withdraw to allow citizens to do anything they want.... Bwahahahahaha.... (I don’t like those kinds of slasher movies. Ugh).
  9. Thanks for the recommendation, Hope. I look forward to listening later tonight.
  10. Hi, Scott, Kiwi also recently contacted me via PM asking what he did or said in response to one of my posts in the "Variety" thread that was so inflammatory that it got him removed from the thread. I explained to him I had no idea why he was removed---it certainly wasn't at my request, and as the target of his response, I hadn't reported nor asked for him to be removed. I have always valued MD&D as the most balanced LDS-based forum which seeks to promote respectful dialogue on all sides of these issues. I hope that doesn't change. While I may not always agree with you, I also find your input valuable, as I do many who share divergent views from my own. I hope you're reinstated and you get the relief you're asking for. While we may not always agree, I trust we all will support one anothers' rights to respectfully voice our divergent opinions with the goal of increasing understanding and mutual respect. Best to you, D
  11. I'm not sure who reported Kiwi's post here or how he was recommended for removal from the thread, but as I was the subject of his thread and took no personal offense, and in the interests of not squelching opposing voices and honoring everyone's views, can he be reinstated to allow the conversation to continue?
  12. I always appreciate the SCOTUS Blog's information on SCOTUS's cases. Here's a good sampling of their most recent round-up for this morning and the last few days, including the blue hyperlinks to several commentaries on both sides:
  13. Again, not correct. Neither side disputes that any design was even discussed before Philips turned the gay couple away, so it wasn’t based on an objection to the design that he refused service.... It was upon hearing that it was a same-sex wedding that Phillips refused service.
  14. He’s entirely free to refuse to provide Halloween cakes, divorce cakes, and Bachellorette/Bachelor cakes, so long as he doesn’t pick and choose which customers to sell or not sell them to based on any status as members of protected class(es).
  15. Not quite accurate, but close. The Baker and his lawyers are trying to suggest the case is about speech. Thus far, all the courts of appeals have disagreed and said that baking a custom cake doesn’t qualify as an act of speech. We’ll see whether or not SCOTUS agrees once they issue their ruling. But as others have noted, you’re completely off base (incorrect) that lower cases have ruled that bakers are legally required/compelled to write ANY written messages or symbols, even if they disagree with them. That simply isn’t the case, and either you haven’t read the rulings yourself or your sources are misinformed/too vague with the facts of the rulings.
  16. If it hadn’t been asked, the justices would likely have faced criticism that they didn’t thoroughly vet the issue, but previous court ruling have been consistent on that matter. Enjoy your kids.
  17. If the baker prevails, I really wonder if “creative” wedding professionals with conflicting but deeply-held religious beliefs to the contrary will be likewise allowed to refuse service to any given religious type of weddings (I including Christian and of course, Mormon), christenings, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, interracial weddings, weddings between divorcees, barren/infertile, or senior-citizen couples, baby showers for unwed couples, etc. or if the court will somehow decide its just same-sex weddings that are ok to discriminate against based on religious belief... So far, no one I’ve heard from seems to be able to suggest any compelling reason why that wouldn’t be the eventual outcome.
  18. Not really in conflict at all. Neither side (including Philips and his lawyer) dispute that the design of the cake wasn’t even discussed at the couple’s contact with the bakery. In SUBSEQUENT media reports, the couple described the type of cake they had hoped to have at their wedding. While this has been pointed out more than once on this board, Smac continues to try to cloud the issue with a laundry list of those subsequent media sources mentioning the design the couple wanted for the wedding, as if that means a there’s some nefarious or questionable aspect to the couple’s integrity, honesty, or their approach to the legal proceedings. In my experience, this is the type of ambiguity that deft lawyers seek to capitalize on in trying to make their case, despite the fact that said facts aren’t really in dispute at all, again, by either party and as outlined in both sides’ briefs and numerous amici briefs.
  19. Refusing to provide cakes with specific words/symbols are protected by free speech on either side of the issue. The fact that Philips (and other bakers) can and do refuse to make cakes with specific messages has nothing to do with this issue, which is that Philips has refused to bake the same type of cake for same-sex couples that he bakes for other couples.
  20. Refusing to provide cakes with specific words/symbols are protected by free speech on either side of the issue. The fact that Philips (and other bakers) can and do refuse to make cakes with specific messages has nothing to do with this issue, which is that Philips has refused to bake the same type of cake for same-sex couples that he bakes for other couples. Since he doesn’t bake Halloween cakes for anyone, and since he isn’t refusing to bake based on the status of being a member of a protected class, your post isnt analogous to the issue being decided here.
  21. As has been anticipated by many, the battle ground over religious freedoms vs. civil rights related to sexual orientation isn't over. The next issue seems to be public accomodations, as well as the ongoing issue of taxation of churches engaged in anti-LGBT civil rights initiatives (conservatives are likely to prefer the term "pro-religious liberty" or "defending the First Amendment" instead of being 'anti-LGBT'). Two recent issues in the press, unfortunately, illustrate these issues.
  22. In the thread titled "Circumcision," there's an interesting parallel discussion occurring about whether or not any given act is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical." The original context was regarding the law of circumcision (as originally commanded by God in the Old Testament), which has now been done away with since Christ is said to have fulfilled the law. This brought up the question of whether or not any given act (such as circumcision, polygamy, stoning by death, or even genocide) is "inherently unethical" vs. "situationally unethical." Bluebell, Scott Lloyd, Rain, Calm, and Hamba have all been involved, and there's a number of posts that are worth noting, but I wanted to enlarge this tangential conversation into more generalized terms as those that have been alluded to in the other thread. Bluebell's comments are a good starting point: My desire here is to focus on this question: If: a) Mormonism views murder (as defined as the taking of an innocent life) as the most serious/egregious/abominable/worst sin of all, save only for 'the denying of the Holy Ghost, b) If God has commanded the taking of innocent lives (i.e. genocide of non-Chosen peoples, as in the Old Testament), c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil? Would it only be 'the denying of the Holy Ghost'?
  23. Either you don't know your own church's history, or you are ignoring it. Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the pressure brought to bear on the church with regards to it's racial policies, both academically at BYU, as well as in it's sports programs. Just as 'faith precedes the miracle,' one can see that 'social pressure precedes the revelation.' I haven't seen religious freedoms come under thread yet, so far as gay rights are concerned, and as such, am unaware of any retreat. Can you cite any examples, please? It WILL happen. Sorry.
  24. Yes, but romantic love and sexual thoughts between married opposite-sex couples are God-ordained, whereas according to Mormonism's current policies and doctrines, romantic love and sexual thoughts between any same-sex couples (married or not) are never pure. Hence.... if one is being actively gay, it's a sin.... hence, if "being" is a verb, as in "proactively involved in BE-ing" gay, then it's a sin. As you yourself said earlier in this thread, Scott, it depends on what definition of "being" is emphasized; so technically, BOTH sides can be accurate, depending on one's audience. Variety isn't likely geared towards a predominantly LDS audience who are apt to understand LDS nuances over the issue. For most, it's understood that it's accurate to say that "Mormonism believes that being gay is a sin," in that, so far as a "state of being," Mormons are highly averse to even acknowledging that some people "are" gay, and certainly the vast majority believe that since it's NOT a "state of being" from an eternal perspective, any "so-called gays and lesbians" who inherit the Celestial Kingdom are likely to be 'healed' or 'relieved' of their same-sex attractions in the eternal Celestial Kingdom. D
×