california boy

Would you be ok with live performances requiring parents to be present if a minor is viewing the performance? Or do you think the state is in a better position to know and understand the children of their own parents.

What is it specifically that you have seen happen at a drag show or a pride parade that makes you feel like the government should regulate it any more than it regulates explicit sexual acts, nudity and much more blatant immoral beavior in movies and on TV that is broadcast into homes of minors and are difficult for parents to control. After all, parents can choose to attend a drag show or pride parade with their children, but have a much more difficult time controlling what their children see in movies and on TV. Is the only difference is that drag shows and pride parades parents can make the choice and easily control what their children view as opposed to the graphic sex scenes and full frontal nudity that regularly occur in the movies and TV is that one is live and one is filmed???? Would you be ok with drag shows and pride parades being broadcast? Do you think that drag shows and pride parades are more explicit than nudity and sex shown on TV and movies? Could a drag show simulate sex acts as long as it was broadcasted?

There are reasons for laws that apply to general public safety such as age for alcohol Minors can get tattoos with parents consent, which is also appropriate and parents are capable of deciding what is appropriate for their own children. Child labor laws are put into place because parents have forced their children to work to help bring in money for the family and in doing so, may very well put their own need ahead of their children. Trying to control ponography in this day and age is a problem and is incredibly difficult for anyone to control. So your examples are not really issues that the state has taken over the rights of parents to have a say on how to raise their children. There are other reasons for state control. At least we can agree to that. Ok, let's talk about the list you have come up with that you feel gives presidents to the state to take over parental control. You do know that nudity is not illegal for minors with parent approval. Are you familiar with AANR, the national nudist association that encourages nudity for all ages including minors which has been operating in this country for over 90 years. They have over 180 resorts and camp grounds mostly in America as well as some internationally. Florida alone has Florida has dozens of organized nudist and clothing-optional resorts, communities, and campgrounds.Pasco County alone hosts around 13 major nudist resorts. All of the resorts affiliated with AANR are family friendly and allow minors. There are also hundreds of naked bike rides that occur around the country such as the one last week in Portland. Would you say that a Drag Show, Pride Parades, and all the other LGBT events you rail against more suggestive than people walking around naked in the presence of minors? Maybe you are not aware (sarcastically) but minors are constantly being exposed to all those heterosexual lewd sexual activities nightly pipped directly into their homes via streaming on their TV's, at the movies, billboard ads, magazines, on a daily. basis. Scenes of totally naked adults having sex exposing real breasts and other body parts are served up for the viewing of minors. Tell me, what specific sex acts have you seen adults perform at a drag show or pride parade that is not portrayed way more graphically and intimately nightly on every TV and movie theater in this country? Where is the outrage when parents allow THIS kind of sexual entertainment any night of the year with no need to go anywhere except their own living rooms? Yet you are outraged if parents are allowed to bring their children to a drag show or pride parade. So perhaps you can explain why you are so focused on live events and completely ignore sexual content in every single other format. Your list is pretty vague on what you mean by sexual excitement, lewd conduct and Lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts? i am having a hard time being outraged as you are by a drag show and a pride parade when minors are allowed to be exposed to all of those every single night of their lives on television, at the movies, on billboards, magazine ads etc that are far more explicit than someone dressed in drag or dancing in a speedo at a pride parade. Are you claiming now that pornography portrayal of sex is as graphic as a float going by with guys dressed in speedos? Or a strip club where men pay for lap dances and alcohol is served. That seems pretty far fetched. Maybe you could point to a LGBT event that is as graphic as your examples. Parents are empowered to have authority over their own children to control and monitor all sexual content, not the state. That is well established law in this country. Your neighbors, the city council, governor and any other elected official does not control what sex acts your children are allowed to view. When legislators start passing laws restricting parents right to allow children to view all sexual content bombarded at minors, outlawing R rated movies television programs, billboard and magazine ads and all the other constant bardment of heterosexual acts that currently have no such restrictions THEN you can stand on your soap box and demand that drag shows and pride parades be included in state controlled laws taking parents choices and guidance out of their hands. Is a sex act somehow not pornographic if a minor sees it on TV or at the movies? In short, my perspective is that you seem lazer focused on LGBT events with sexual content that parents willingly bring their children to, but have said nothing about the constant bonbardment of heterosexual content that occurs every single day where parents have far less control over what their children are exposed to. This is why many on this board find you constant attacks against the LGBT community but don't even acknowledge the sexual content minors are surrounded with that is completely legal and left for parents to deal with.

Thanks to all that answered my question, but I guess I was not clear in what specifically I was asking. I realize that people can choose to read the story of the Garden of Eden literally or as an allegory. That really wasn't my question. What I wanted to understand better is how people who hold the belief that the Garden of Eden was a truthful account that supposedly occurred about 6,000 years ago as a truthful account on how mankind came in to existence is able to dismiss the fossil records that show humans living milllenials living and dying long before the Garden of Eden takes place.

Do you find it troubling at all when the state starts to take over and decide what is appropriate or not appropriate rather than let the parents of their own children decide how they raise their children? For example should the state force children to read the Bible even if the parents find that to be inappropriate and goes against their own religious beliefs? How about forcing children to read anti-Mormon literature because the state thinks that Joseph Smith was grooming children and forcing high school girls to marry him. Would you find that offensive for your own children to experince attacks on your own moral and religious beliefs? Or is it only appropriate when it agrees with your own way you choose to raise your children. THIS is what you are advocating for. The take over of the state on issues that are best left to parents to decide what is appropriate for their children and what is actually a sexualized event. Do you have ANY REAL DATA that does show children are being sexualized by drag shows? What actually is the result of a child seeing a drag show or a drag queen reading a book in the library on a child? Just how many children have had proven harm witnessing such events and what does that harm even look like?

How does fossil records showing humans living millennials and their deaths before the time of Adam make any of this speculation work?

I’m a little unclear. Are you against all gender affirming surgery or just against it for minors?

I am going to quote this summary of John Dehlin's lawyers response because I find it hard to follow exactly what he is saying when it is sliced up so much. Summary of Affirmative Defenses "Laches and Aquiescence". This is a valid defense in trademark cases. Laches is a word that goes back to latin roots. In the law it's been used in English for about 900 years meaning negligence in the performance of a legal duty. If the party holding the trademark waits too long to act then they can't try to enforce the trademark now. A party over time may invest a lot in their brand and it's not then deemed allowed to come in after that long term investment and try to enforce a trademark. The document goes over how Mormon Stories has been in existence since 2005 (more than 20 years) and gives evidence that higher ups in the church knew about it (meetings between John and Apostle Holland for example). 2. Prior Use by Mormon Stories. John started the podcast in 2005. The church didn't get a trademark on Mormon for education until 2007. John has priority of use. 3. Genericness of the word "Mormon". Shouldn't be trademarked. 4. Fair Use of the copyrighted images. The OSF response says that 48 of the 51 images are available for free on the PR page of the church where the church says news media can use them. They claim all the images were used strictly for commentary and criticism which is a defense under fair use. I think there are some very valid points his lawyers bring up especially on abandonment issues and waiting too long to start litigating and not going after other companies/individuals using its trademarks. The musical "Book of Mormon" that premiered over a decade ago is very solid evidence of that. And the church can't claim they didn't know it was going on since it placed ads in the programs. The whole campaign by President Nelson to eliminate the use of the word Mormon I think is also pretty difficult point to defend that the church didn't actively try to abandon the trademark. If a company holds a trademark, the have to actively make an effort to enforce that trademark or they loose it. A good example of that is Venetian Blinds. Originally that name was a trademark name, but the use of the name became a common term for al blinds in that style. When they tried to take back it's usage, it was denied. Xerox had a similar problem and almost lost the trademark. Everyone started saying, just Xerox that or I have a Xerox. Every copy machine was referred to as a Xerox. The company ended up spending millions on advertisements centered around, it isn't a Xerox, it is a copy. Eventually people did change habits and started calling it a copy machine. They retained the trademark. My guess is the ruling will be mixed. Upvote131Downvote50Go to commentsRepost

I am surprised this is an issue. I remember fathers that were not active just holding their child occasionally when a blessing is given. Of course that was over 20 years ago. I personally can't come up with a reason why a mother could not do a similar thing. But hey, I grew up in California and you know ow rouge we can be.

This is exactly what I was trying to point out. When the attitude is that members should pray about what church leaders tell them came from God but if they get a different answer, then it is their fault and to keep praying means that the church's position is the only position a member should have. Not everything has sure answers even if it comes from church leaders. We have learned that over time even church leaders change their minds about what they claimed God previously told them to do. When church leaders can't even seem to determine whether something is a revelation from God or just a consensus of opinion, (Elder Nelsons proclaiming not baptizing children of gay couples was a direct revelation from God) then doesn't what they proclaim become even more fuzzy and the only acceptable answer to their prayers has to align with theirs? If it doesn't align, then they should keep praying until it does. Claims that every decision church leaders make comes from God doesn't seem too hold up over time. If it doesn't all come from God then strict adherence should not be taught or expected in my opinion. A recent example of this is the decades church leaders taught shame about bare shoulders as being immodest and a style that faithful church women should never even consider. I have to say, it was a bit shocking for me to see my daughter in law in a sleeveless tank top the first time. Nothing is ever said about all the guilt trips young women lessons and control put on women for all those decades, them poof, it is all gone. I have to ask, isn't it difficult for women to not resent all of those years of being shamed and controlled for something that evidently was just the opinion of old men that had nothing to do with the divine or morality? I personally would be a bit pissed.

You seem to be pushing the idea that the only time such an idea was expressed by the church was a single home teaching pamphlet. Are you just blowing off the fact that the idea has been repeated? I was not around when the home teaching message came out, but I was around when N. Eldon Tanner repeated this idea in the First Presidents Message in the Ensign. This was discussed in various. church meetings as a result of his message. Many members were troubled by his message. It is not just that, I provided plenty of references of church leaders repeating variations of this idea that the prophet speaks for God and if you disagree, this, as Marion G. Romney said, will lead you to apostasy. I also reference the mantra, "Follow the prophet he will never lead you astray" and the many variations of this theme. I can certainly provide more references to this quote if I thought it would make a difference. You may disagree or have figured out a way to work around this concept that the prophet is always right but is there any way at all that you can see how others might not have read a book, or sliced and diced this into an exact wording or it doesn't count kind of thinking? You seem to want to dismiss this as, in your mind, not a big deal and can't understand how this would be an issue. I think you have major blind spots when it comes to these kinds of things. Are you expecting every other person to have come up with the same conclusions as you have? Is their conclusion to be easily dismissed because it is not the same as yours? I find it interesting that Russel Nelson can testify that the policy concerning baptizing children of gay couples a revelation came from God and then when the policy is discontinued months later, you aren't asking why if it was a revelation from God was it so easily dismissed. Can you at least see that others might not dismiss such a statement easily especially if they had a gay family member or were gay and had children? Might be another area where you are a bit of a blind spot for you. My point in even posting about these issues is because so many members think that those who are leaving the church are doing so with absolutely no justification. They are just making up the problems about the past narrative the church taught. All the sudden, anything that is not currently taught should be just forgotten as if it never happened. Or, like you, members feel there is an explanation, they should just figure out a way to look at what was taught differently or changing the meaning of the intent of that teaching. I think a perfect example of this kind of slicing and dicing is your response to Mustard. "Do you see any material difference between "the thinking has been done" and "the debate is over? Many would say the words maybe different, but the intent is the same, Some might take a scalpel, like you and see a difference in intent which you may very well believe. But what you do have difficulty with is believing that someone else may consider both statements as a similar statement in meaning. In the end, I think this assumption that everyone should come to the same conclusion as you have is the biggest issue in how you approach these discussions. You seem to have a hard time understanding that other peoples life experiences has lead them to different conclusions. (Example: See numerous post you have posted that go on for pages about women seeing men as potential rapists. How could they possibly be wary of men just because they have been attacked in the past. Yet you won't let go or even acknowledge that their experiences have lead to a different conclusion.) I hope this helps you better understand why so many are leaving the church over past comments and teachings even if to you, their behavior is totally unjustified because you are still a believing member and you have been able to work through these issues, they should too or else they just want an excuse for leaving the church. For many it is one of the hardest decisions they have made. Some loose family connections because they left. Some loose their entire social structure. Some loose their faith in God. Some struggle for years to finally cut the ties. Why do you think so many make the decision to leave the church? Do you think they just haven't read what you have? Or come to the wrong conclusions because you have the right answers?

I am not claiming the quote is doctrine, but it was taught, and I definitely remember members bringing up this kind of thinking in Gospel Doctrine and other classes. And the sources can be identified as coming from church sources. It is not like it was made up out of thin air. Perhaps you could point to me where church leaders expressly said that the prophet doesn't receive direct revelation from God to guide the church? Do you believe they do not receive direct revelation? And if the church leaders do claim to be guided by God in the running of the church and policies set, then don't you believe that you are obligated to follow their doctrine and policies or go against God's will? This is where things get messy in my opinion. I think most people growing up in the church do believe that church leaders and specifically the prophet have been guided directly by God in the statements and actions the church leaders take. A good example of this is when Russel M Nelson made this statement concerning God prohibiting the baptism of children of gay parents. So did the church leaders actually have a revelation from God as claimed by Elder Nelson? Or did he just want the member to think that this policy came from God himself. When the policy was reversed a short time later, did Elder Nelson ever say that he was mistaken? Did the will of God change because the members were not ready to accept the revelation given by God? Or were church leader just plain wrong about withholding baptism of underaged children of gay parents. You might also be interested in this conference talk by Marion G. Romney when members get a different answer that is not in sync with what the prophet and other church leaders claim. From President Romney And then, of course there are a slew of statements made by church leaders assuring the saints that if they follow the prophet, they will never be led astray. This statement by Joseph Smith which I think probably started this idea that what the prophet says comes from God. “I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.” This statement by James E. Faust, General Conference, October 2005 “The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen.” This statement by Ezra Taft Benson, Conference talk October 1966 “Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.” There are a slew of other general authorities repeating this same thinking. Let me know if you want more, but I suspect as much as you study these kinds of issues, you are well aware of this repeated pronouncements. So yeah, the church teaches its members to inquire for themselves what church leaders say. But if you get a different answer than the prophet of God who has received a revelation from God concerning a policy or doctrine, then who has it wrong? Or at least who is made to feel like they have it wrong? And what if you do disagree with what the prophet says? Are you allowed to voice that opposition in church or will you be told to sit down and keep your personal opinions to yourself? So yeah, like I said, this concept that when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done is definitely expressed in different ways by many leaders of the church since the beginning and continues today. I hope you can see that my statement and the ones that I quoted were not coming out of left field, but rather from experiencing this concept regularly while I was an active member of the church. It is like one side of the mouth is saying that you should seek your own answers from God and the other side is saying that your answer better be in line with what the prophet says or as Marion G. Romney said, "you are on the road to apostasy". I realize that you may have a different point of view, but I also hope that this helps you understand where these feelings of so many leaving the church are coming from rather than just dismiss the statements of those having difficulty dealing with past and current church leaders statements with what they personally believe to be true.

This teaching has been around as early as 1945 when the church used to print a message that was to be delivered by the home teachers to the members for June 1945. The message was centered around sustaining church leaders. The last paragraph reads. This idea was also taught by Elaine Cannon at a churchwide fireside and reprinted in the Ensign in November, 1978. It was repeated by N. Eldon Tanner in the First Presidents Message that appeared in the Ensign on August 1979 I remember this idea being talked about after N. Eldon Tanner wrote this message from the First Presidency for the Ensign. This concept is reinforced by the idea that one should follow the prophet, he won't lead you astray. It was taught in primary by teaching the children this song, This same concept was taught that what church leaders say are the words of God by Bruce R McConkie in June of 2012 Posted on June 14, 2012 by ldschurchquotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following while serving as a mission president in Australia: You might also be interested in this article about how many times church member have been taught to just follow the prophet, he will never lead you astray. Hope that helps. Do you not remember hearing such teachings from church leaders about their role in leading the church?

You have certainly spent a LOT of time trying to figure out a way to dispel some of the previous messaging by church leaders. And your reading on Amos 3:7 may very well be a better interpretation of the original intent of what Amos wrote. But that is not how the church leaders used that verse. For example, that verse has been a part of the missionary discussions at least since the 70's and is still a part of the missionary discussions and is used even today to convince investigators that prophets and apostles are necessary to receive revelation from God and are the only ones that are authorized to receive revelation concerning church doctrine and policies. Rom From the current missionary discussion manual From the current church's web site He Revealeth How does the Lord communicate with His prophets? There are many ways, including: Inspiration through the Holy Ghost (see 2 Peter 1:21). Visions and dreams (see Numbers 12:6; 1 Nephi 8:2). Visitations by heavenly beings (see Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17; D&C 110:8). His Secret The original Hebrew word used in the Bible for secret literally means “counsel,” so it has to do with the Lord’s plans or intentions. His Servants the Prophets There is clearly an expectation created and taught by church leaders that God speaks to prophets of the church to reveal His will and messages. Church leaders. have even gone so far as to say "When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done". So yeah, I am glad you have figured out a way out of this very narrow box of members expectations of the role of a prophet in todays church, but there are clearly a LOT of members who have had very different perspectives that they were taught and continue to be taught that there is an expectation of revelations coming from God and the prophet is His mouthpiece. This expectation has caused a lot of difficulty when the internet has made those teachings of past prophets so easily available some of which are very troubling to them. It is why past teachings is the number one cause of many leaving the church. I don't think you can lay all the blame on them for both being upset and feeling lied to about the church's narrative they were taught.

Wow I am impressed with the thought and studying you have put into this issue. The problem I have with your analogy is that Dravot used the ignorance of the people to perpetuate a false story that he wanted to build upon for his own gain. He was not a god, but he liked being called and treated like a god. That seems problematic to me. I thin D&C 1:6 is a bit fuzzy about expectations. But the church used far more direct scriptural quotes to tie prophets directly to being a mouth piece for God himself. I remember as a missionary, using the church produced discussions that at the time, the church expected missionaries to give verbatim where we had the investigator read from Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets. ( I didn't even have to look up what that verse said from all the times I used that on my mission). Another verse that was commonly used was D & C 1:37-38 “Whether by Mine Own Voice or by the Voice of My Servants, It Is the Same”. Both of those scriptures were used so often in describing what the church claimed that I think most members could quote those verses without looking them up. And those verses paint a very different picture of how members should treat what the latter day prophets said and taught. Can you see why many that have left the church couldn't really buy into the thinking that you are now presenting? You are right. Many early members invested in the Kirtland bank with the idea that Joseph established the bank with the approval from God, which evidently was not the case. But isn't this just another example of blurring the lines of when a prophet claims something came from revelation to something they did without revelation? Isn't the claim of the Book of Abraham is that its translation came from God as it was written by the hand of Abraham himself? Did the Book of Abraham come from God or Joseph Smith. Did Abraham have any part in what is written in the Book of Abraham? When the church speaks of revelation from God, what do you think that even means? I get that you have changed your expectations of what to expect of someone calling himself a prophet of God, but I think the vast majority of people leaving the church don't share your revised expectations because they literally were not taught to have those lower expectations from so much of the doctrine that has been laid out by those claiming to be a prophet. I do like your reasoning that you have laid out here. But I honestly see a huge gap in what I was taught about prophets and priesthood authority and what you are presenting here. Like in your analogy of "The Man Who Would Be King" I feel like the church exploited what people thought a prophet was and what he really was. Maybe I could ask you 2 questions to see how your thinking answers real questions. Do you think women should never be allowed to hold the priesthood because God has ordained that only men hold the priesthood and it is a woman's role to only support that priesthood? Do you think God forbids gay couples from falling in love, marrying and forming family relationships?