Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Button Gwinnett

Former Mormon Becomes PM of New Zealand

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

As I wrote earlier, and which you quoted:

One of the rights that the Church claims for the children that some seem to see merely as fashion accessories is the right to be reared by a mother and father joined in holy matrimony.

Does that answer your question?

Asked and answered.

So, Caliboy: Why do you consistently ignore, and never address, the fact that exactly the same policy applies to the children of polygamist families?

If you respond to anything, please respond to that.

 

So do you view every married couple that adopts children as adopting merely  as fashion accessories or just gay couples?  You do realize that children gay couples adopt for the most part are ones that have been thrown away by their mothers and fathers that conceived them.  Often they are the children with special needs and have little chance for adoption.  And evidently you would rather see a child stay in an orphanage than be adopted by a loving gay couple.  You have made your distain for gay people quite clear.  It seems that Mormonism can easily do that to people.

I remember when this policy first came out.  We were having dinner with some of my friends.  They all know I used to be Mormon.  And I have often defended the church or at least tried to explain the beliefs of the church to help them understand why the church does things the way it does.  I explained to them the party line that the church did not want to put the children in conflict with church beliefs and their parents.  Well they didn't buy that excuse one bit.  One of them said, this is just like all the other policies the Mormon church has against gays.  It is like saying "We won't serve black people at our lunch counter, or they will become confused and think that they are equal to everyone else."  There is a lot of truth to that.  The church has clearly demonstrated that they don't believe gays should be treated equally under the laws of the constitution.  The discussion continued, "How can a church that claims to follow Christ forbid a child wanting baptism.  In my church we encourage all to come to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, both saints and sinners."  Frankly I had no answer for them.  If a child wants to be baptized, and the parents give approval, then that is enough support a child needs at home in order to come unto Christ.  Then the discussion went into the past racist policies against another minority group.  They all. saw a pattern here.  You want to know how those outside the church view Mormonism?  Now you know.  And that is why the Mormon church now polls the bottom of every religion in America except Muslins.  And they are barely above that group by just one percentage.  People are fed up with these kinds of policies directed at minorities.  They see nothing Christ-like in bigotry or racism.

As far as your polygamist question, I have no idea.  I certainly would not discriminate against anyone, gay or polygamist.  You will have to ask those that have set such discriminating policies.  

And don't blame me for the situation the Mormon church finds itself in.  I am just the messenger.  I have said repeatedly that there is a lot of good that the church does.  And if you are straight, it is a church that I feel is a good place to raise your children.  I don't regret bringing up my children in the church.  Most of them are still active.  I have never discouraged them from staying involved.  In fact, if anything this totally disproves the party line about children being in conflict with parents actions.  We get along just fine.  They certainly know that I can not be a member of the church, and they understand why.

 

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

So do you view every married couple that adopts children as adopting merely  as fashion accessories or just gay couples?

Nice dodge.

I was talking about the rights of children.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

You have made your distain for gay people quite clear.  It seems that Mormonism can easily do that to people.

Next time you want to engage in substance-free mind-reading, please note that the word is "disdain."

And no, I have not.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I remember when this policy first came out.  We were having dinner with some of my friends.  They all know I used to be Mormon.  And I have often defended the church or at least tried to explain the beliefs of the church to help them understand why the church does things the way it does.  I explained to them the party line that the church did not want to put the children in conflict with church beliefs and their parents.

So you knew this "party line" as soon as the policy first came out?

How could that be, when the official explanations weren't heard until several days later?

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Well they didn't buy that excuse one bit.  One of them said, this is just like all the other policies the Mormon church has against gays.  It is like saying "We won't serve black people at our lunch counter, or they will become confused and think that they are equal to everyone else."

No it isn't.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

There is a lot of truth to that.

There is zero truth to that.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The church has clearly demonstrated that they don't believe gays should be treated equally under the laws of the constitution.

That's false, of course.

The idea that your constitution somehow entails same sex "marriage" is a brand-new legal innovation that never occurred to anybody who actually thought the constitution means what it says.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The discussion continued, "How can a church that claims to follow Christ forbid a child wanting baptism.  In my church we encourage all to come to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, both saints and sinners."  Frankly I had no answer for them.

Scroll up a little. You'll see some perfectly valid answers.

Baptism involves making binding covenants with God. Only by pretending that Church membership is just like being in some kind of social club are you able to work yourself in to such a state of (righteous?) indignation.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

If a child wants to be baptized, and the parents give approval, then that is enough support a child needs at home in order to come unto Christ.

Thank you for your opinion.

It's contrary to the institutional experience of the Church of Jesus Christ, but thank you for it anyway.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Then the discussion went into the past racist policies against another minority group.  They all. saw a pattern here.  You want to know how those outside the church view Mormonism?  Now you know.  And that is why the Mormon church now polls the bottom of every religion in America except Muslins.  And they are barely above that group by just one percentage.  People are fed up with these kinds of policies directed at minorities.  They see nothing Christ-like in bigotry or racism.

Then why do they so ardently practice bigotry of their own?

I agree that there is nothing Christ-like in racism, anti-Mormonism or any other form of bigotry.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

As far as your polygamist question, I have no idea.  I certainly would not discriminate against anyone, gay or polygamist.  You will have to ask those that have set such discriminating policies.

Clever dodge, but I note that I had to hold your feet to the fire before you'd even admit that the polygamist case is exactly the same.

The question was not "Why are the two policies the same," but "Why do you consistently ignore, and never address, the fact that exactly the same policy applies to the children of polygamist families?"

IOW, why did you fail entirely to notice the fact that the Church has had in place - for years! an identical policy regarding children being raised in quite a different apostate family structure? Is it because that fact rather badly undermines your narrative of exclusive gay victimhood?

8 hours ago, california boy said:

And don't blame me for the situation the Mormon church finds itself in.  I am just the messenger.

The very enthusiastic author and purveyor of the message in question.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I have said repeatedly that there is a lot of good that the church does.  And if you are straight, it is a church that I feel is a good place to raise your children.  I don't regret bringing up my children in the church.  Most of them are still active.  I have never discouraged them from staying involved.  In fact, if anything this totally disproves the party line about children being in conflict with parents actions.  We get along just fine.  They certainly know that I can not be a member of the church, and they understand why.

You think one single data point "totally disproves" something?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, california boy said:

You can keep your belief that you are in God's kingdom and all those that don't believe those claims of the Mormon Church oppose God.  I don't believe that concept for one minute.  i know for a fact that church leaders claim revelation from God when they are in fact just giving them their own opinions.

And what is your basis for claiming to know that "for a fact?"

12 hours ago, california boy said:

It is a big reason why I am no longer a member of the church.  

I believe that the church is a good place for many to help them come closer to God.  But I don't for one minute think that the church helps those that are gay to come to God.  And evidently either does the church since they specifically bar gay couples and their children from becoming members.

On the contrary. We know that it is the best place to come unto God for anyone who is willing to repent and conform their will to His.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And what is your basis for claiming to know that "for a fact?"

On the contrary. We know that it is the best place to come unto God for anyone who is willing to repent and conform their will to His.

I will tell you exactly why I know for a fact that church leaders claim revelation on this issue when in fact they are giving their own opinion.  I just came off my mission, and I was promised in the name of God by church leaders that if I just marry a woman, then I would no longer be gay but eventually would be attracted to the opposite sex.  The attraction for the same sex would disappear.  I asked them specifically if God had made this promise or if it was their promise.  They assured me that it was a promise from God.  This promise was routinely given to gay men in the early 70's.  It proved to be a false promise and certainly did not originate from God.  This policy was such a disaster that eventually the church backed down on this policy and President Hinkley famously stated that marriage was not therapy which effectively put an end to this practice..  The church no longer makes that promise.  So yeah.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Nice dodge.

I was talking about the rights of children.

Next time you want to engage in substance-free mind-reading, please note that the word is "disdain."

And no, I have not.

So you knew this "party line" as soon as the policy first came out?

How could that be, when the official explanations weren't heard until several days later?

No it isn't.

There is zero truth to that.

That's false, of course.

The idea that your constitution somehow entails same sex "marriage" is a brand-new legal innovation that never occurred to anybody who actually thought the constitution means what it says.

Scroll up a little. You'll see some perfectly valid answers.

Baptism involves making binding covenants with God. Only by pretending that Church membership is just like being in some kind of social club are you able to work yourself in to such a state of (righteous?) indignation.

Thank you for your opinion.

It's contrary to the institutional experience of the Church of Jesus Christ, but thank you for it anyway.

Then why do they so ardently practice bigotry of their own?

I agree that there is nothing Christ-like in racism, anti-Mormonism or any other form of bigotry.

Clever dodge, but I note that I had to hold your feet to the fire before you'd even admit that the polygamist case is exactly the same.

The question was not "Why are the two policies the same," but "Why do you consistently ignore, and never address, the fact that exactly the same policy applies to the children of polygamist families?"

IOW, why did you fail entirely to notice the fact that the Church has had in place - for years! an identical policy regarding children being raised in quite a different apostate family structure? Is it because that fact rather badly undermines your narrative of exclusive gay victimhood?

The very enthusiastic author and purveyor of the message in question.

You think one single data point "totally disproves" something?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

You are certainly entitled to believe anything you want.  But there are a lot of Mormons and most people outside the church that see the policy completely different.  To them, it just looks like policies designed to keep gays and their children out of the church.  And in that the policies are proving to be quite effective.   

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I will tell you exactly why I know for a fact that church leaders claim revelation on this issue when in fact they are giving their own opinion.  I just came off my mission, and I was promised in the name of God by church leaders that if I just marry a woman, then I would no longer be gay but eventually would be attracted to the opposite sex.  The attraction for the same sex would disappear.  I asked them specifically if God had made this promise or if it was their promise.  They assured me that it was a promise from God.  This promise was routinely given to gay men in the early 70's.  It proved to be a false promise and certainly did not originate from God.  This policy was such a disaster that eventually the church backed down on this policy and President Hinkley famously stated that marriage was not therapy which effectively put an end to this practice..  The church no longer makes that promise.  So yeah.  

Sources, please?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Sources, please?

We actually had quite a discussion about this a while back.  Perhaps you could talk to Calm.  I know whoever I say will have no affect on you.  So it is quite pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

You are certainly entitled to believe anything you want.  But there are a lot of Mormons and most people outside the church that see the policy completely different.  To them, it just looks like policies designed to keep gays and their children out of the church.  And in that the policies are proving to be quite effective.   

They weren't all that effective for Elder Christofferson's brother.

But perhaps that's because the demagogue's interpretation you've offered is wrong. The policies are not "designed to keep gays and their children out of the church." They are designed to ensure that all who come unto Christ must come in by the same gate, namely, Faith, Repentance and Baptism.

Repentance has always been prior to baptism; for everyone, in fact.

I know that five lawyers changed the rules about marriage in the US just to suit you. If you don't let that create expectations about what everyone else is going to do, you won't be disappointed when it doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, california boy said:

We actually had quite a discussion about this a while back.  Perhaps you could talk to Calm.  I know whoever I say will have no affect on you.  So it is quite pointless.

I'm aware that various Church leaders said various things at various times, including the idea that marriage could be therapeutic. President Hinckley knocked that on the head. Some (who seem desperate to see doctrinal changes in as many places as possible) love to imagine that he was doing something other than correcting a popularly wrong notion. All I'm asking for is evidence of that.

Share this post


Link to post

KIWI5:

The US Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. Plus it wasn't until 1967 in  Loving vs Virginia that blacks and whites could legally marry each other in certain states of the US. Plus it wasn't until 1978 that African blacks were allowed in a Mormon Temple.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/22/2017 at 4:51 PM, Stargazer said:

Edited to add:

Just for information, here's the relevant text of an article that appeared in the New Zealand Herald in January 2017:

She was in her 20s when she left the Mormon faith, mostly as a consequence of its anti-homosexual stance.

"For a lot of years, I put it to the back of my mind. I think it was too unsettling. If something like religion is part of your foundation, and then suddenly you start questioning that - it's quite a confronting thing to deal with.

"Even before the Civil Union Bill came up, I lived in a flat with three gay friends and I was still going to church every so often and I just remember thinking 'this is really inconsistent - I'm either doing a disservice to the church or my friends'. Because how could I subscribe to a religion that just didn't account for them?

"It was one of the issues that became a real flashpoint. You drift along a bit, there are always going to be things you can't reconcile, but I could never reconcile what I saw as discrimination in a religion that was otherwise very focused on tolerance and kindness."

I guess I'm OK with that, if that's what she truly felt and feels.

Note that Ms Ardern said: "I was still going to church every so often..."

I've never heard an American use that expression, so I thought I should clarify in case anyone gets confused. It's a Kiwi idiom that basically means "now and then," "once in a while" or "occasionally."

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

KIWI5:

The US Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all. Plus it wasn't until 1967 in  Loving vs Virginia that blacks and whites could legally marry each other in certain states of the US. Plus it wasn't until 1978 that African blacks were allowed in a Mormon Temple.

And in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. King Charles was beheaded in 1649. The armistice that ended World War I was signed on 11 November 1918.

Any other historical dates you'd like to discuss?

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. King Charles was beheaded in 1649. The armistice that ended World War I was signed on 11 November 1918.

Any other historical dates you'd like to discuss?

Non sequitur.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Non sequitur.

Hey, I was just following your lead, since what you wrote didn't actually address anything I wrote either.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Hey, I was just following your lead, since what you wrote didn't actually address anything I wrote either.

Incorrect. You claimed that marriage is defined in the US Constitution. It isn't.

"The idea that your constitution somehow entails same sex "marriage" is a brand-new legal innovation that never occurred to anybody who actually thought the constitution means what it says". 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Incorrect. You claimed that marriage is defined in the US Constitution. It isn't.

"The idea that your constitution somehow entails same sex "marriage" is a brand-new legal innovation that never occurred to anybody who actually thought the constitution means what it says". 

Yes, I remember writing that. I stand by it, too.

What makes you think I was claiming that marriage is defined in the US Constitution? It certainly didn't occur to me that I was claiming any such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...