Jump to content

Amulek

Members
  • Content Count

    743
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

957 Excellent

About Amulek

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

1,292 profile views
  1. Unsurprisingly, I don't find this weird at all. The church doesn't usually go out of its way to try and excommunicate people - especially if there is a chance they may have a change of heart and repent. So, a gay couple who is living together today may happen to be in violation of the commandments. However, at some point in the future (as has happened in at least one case that I know of personally), they may decide that the blessings associated with faithfully living the gospel, attending the temple, etc. are more important to them than the happiness they receive from violating the commandments. At which point they can begin the repentance process. However, a gay couple who has chosen to marry hasn't merely violated a commandment; they have violated a commandment and made a public declaration that they have absolutely no intention of adhering to the commandment going forward. In my mind, it is that willful intent to no longer follow the gospel that separates a sinner from an apostate.
  2. When it comes to navigating to the church's website, I very much prefer lds.org to the new web address. Maybe I'll get used to it though. However, so long as lds.org continues to redirect to the church's main page, as I assume it will (in perpetuity), it doesn't really make any difference.
  3. I haven't noticed that, but I have noticed that the link at the bottom of the page now reads "GO TO TOPIC LISTING" instead of "Back to General Discussions" or something like that.
  4. Nothing in the script jumps out at me as really being on point with respect to that either. Wonder where they are getting that from then. The PEW surveys possibly?
  5. Ah, good ole fat Eeyore Strong Sad. I miss that guy. I actually thought about using Homestar as my Avatar at one point, but then I got distracted and never did anything about it (obviously).
  6. Actually, it is because of my experience listening to women that makes me skeptical of the claim in the article that church is the "only" place where these particular women experience discrimination.
  7. I agree. I'm highly skeptical that church is the "only" place these women ever experience what they consider to be discrimination.
  8. Amulek

    Veganism

    Speaking of squalid, cramped conditions, you know they literally shove plants underneath the ground and cover them with feces, right? I don't care how bad animals think they've got it - plants get it 100 times worse. It's totally barbaric. Sorry, but I'm with this guy.
  9. The problem the early Saints had wasn't with the lack of laws prohibiting physical assault, destruction of property, etc. The problem was that the people responsible for making and enforcing the laws weren't interested in helping the Mormons. I don't see how having additional unenforced laws would have made any difference.
  10. I know this wasn't directed at me, but the obvious answer is 'yes,' under the current law in most jurisdictions this could be classified as a hate crime. That being said, I would be perfectly fine if there were no hate crime laws whatsoever. I think society can get by just fine without them. I think we need to be careful about what we are talking about here. It is true that the law has long considered intent. However, the law differentiates between "motivation" and "intent." And, prior to the creation of hate crime laws, motivation wasn't really an element of any criminal law. Motivation was sometimes used in the sentencing phase of criminal trials, and motivation was applicable in certain civil cases, but I don't believe it was ever an element of a crime prior to the existence of hate crimes. Intent has always been an element of a crime, but motivation is a relatively new addition (and it only applies to certain crimes).
  11. Hey, I'm pretty sure you're not my wife. Okay, technically, it was more than twice, but it certainly wasn't often. Rugged individualism runs strong in my family. My father has it; I have it; my...siblings have it. Still, I recognize that not everyone is the same, and I'm pleased that the new changes will open up opportunities for those missionaries who might benefit from increased contact.
  12. It's not the woman who is suspicious, per se, it's the behavior: spending time, alone, with someone other than your spouse. And I don't know about you, but I get along quite well with my sisters - we're really good friends, in fact. If we were to take a walk around BYU, we would likely walk closer to each other than I would with, say, a co-worker or an employee. We would smile and laugh a lot more as well. And we would probably make physical contact more often as well. To an outside observer, do you know what that sort of behavior resembles? It looks quite a bit like flirting. It isn't, obviously, but that's what it looks like to someone who doesn't know better...which would be pretty much everyone. They know his presumed character, but they don't really know anything about him. I attended BYU and met the president of the university exactly one time. We visited for all of about five minutes - tops. He seemed like a genuinely nice guy. Here's the thing though - I've known nice people who have cheated on their spouses. So, there's that.
  13. I have always considered the right-handed taking of the sacrament to be more along the lines of a "best practice" kind of thing rather than an actual requirement. I always use my right hand, personally, but if I see someone doing differently I don't flip out about it.
  14. This pretty much tracks my experience as well - only we did it last week at the beginning of EQ. A member of the bishopric announced that we are still participating in scouting this year and that we should give generously, just as we have in previous years. No guilt or pressure. It was more of a 'let's finish strong / go out on a high note' kind of thing.
  15. I don't really care for hate crimes legislation. However, if you are going to have hate crime laws, then I definitely think they should include protections for LGBTQ people.
×
×
  • Create New...