Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

california boy

Contributor
  • Posts

    9,761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. Sorry, but this is a bunch of nonsense. And I doubt very much you were in the middle of hedonistic gay prostitute life to know this to be accurate. It is possible that someone told you this crap, but I highly doubt this to be true. My statement comes from someone who has been living in the gay community for the past 25 years. I certainly have never heard this nonsense. Yes gay was used as a derogatory term, but it was a term used to label ANYONE who had a sexual attraction or even was a bit effieminate. If you weren't butch enough or athletic enough, you were given that slur. Maybe it would help to understand why being gay is no longer considered a slur. It is because men that are attracted to other men are no longer ashamed of that attraction. They have come to accept that attraction because it is just our natural attraction that we are born with. So why would we be ashamed of being told we are attracted (gay) to other men?
  2. You didn't have to write an entire page of Fisked response. You could have just said, I don't like the question and prefer to dodge it. I am not surprised by your answer. When the analogy goes to something that could possible relate to you, it is understandable you would want to wiggle out of answering a simple what if question.
  3. I personally don't know anyone who minds being called gay. Universally, it is the preferred term most gay men prefer to be labeled if that is necessary. I'm not saying that there is no one who prefers to not be called gay, but that is definitely an outliner. If that is the term your friend truly wants to use, then I think you should respect his wishes. I do know a LOT of gays who bristle at the term Same Sex Attraction and find that term specifically to be offensive. To most of us Same Sex Attraction is a term religious organizations tend to use to marginalize the gay community. So if your goal is to not offend gay people, please stop using that term. Gay or Queer are just fine. If however, your goal is to marginalize gay people, and use terms that are generally for the vast majority of gay people do find offensive, go ahead and continue to use Same Sex Attraction. My personal experience of people insisting on using the term Same Sex Attraction, want to imprint their own political view on gays and have no real sincere reason to try and use preferred language. If you are having trouble understanding the correct terms to use, I would recommend checking the GLADD style sheet. While there is no official spokesman for the LGBT community, GLADD comes about the closest. Addressing your question specifically, here is what they say.
  4. Kinda like calling a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Mormon. I don't get what the issue is.
  5. While I totally disagree with your position on gay marriage, I would like to ask you a simple question to see just how you are able to maintain the position you hold. So here is the situation. If Church leaders came out today and said that any couple whose last name starts with M will no longer be able to marry and all such unions with a last name that starts with M must be dissolved in order to be worthy of membership into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And furthermore, any such marriages will no longer be considered eternal marriages. There will be no possibility of reuniting with your former spouse in the next life. Former husbands and wives whose last name starts with M will be given the opportunity to marry for eternity another person. If you do this, you will still be worthy of being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and eilgible to enter the Celestial Kingdom (obviously without your current wife however). And here is the question. Since I believe your last name starts with M, would you be willing to divorce your wife, never kiss her again, never hold her hand again, never go on a date with her, never cuddle with her, never hug her, never be intimate with her EVER again, not in this life or the life to come, would you be willing to just walk away from that relationship, be celibate for the rest of your life and be given to another in the next life? I get that this does seem kinda random to just focus on people whose last name starts with M. You know, kinda like randomly being gay and also asked to do the exact same thing. So what is your conviction now? No problem? You would give up your relationship with your wife because Church leaders asked you to? No claim of revelation here, just a policy of the Church.
  6. Well you are definitely in the right church if you are drawn to rituals. The Catholics do it better than anyone else. I have also spent time in Asian countries and find some of their rituals to be so beautiful and touching.
  7. Honestly at this point, anyone who thinks that being gay and being heterosexually single is the same thing, just wants to hold on to that belief. Perhaps it is because acknowledging that there is a difference points out the destructive and inhuman nature of that policy. Simply put, humans are hardwired to seek out love, committing to be in a relationship and sharing life with someone that brings meaning into their lives. That drive is so built into the nature of what it means to be human, people can go through divorce after divorce after divorce and still not give up on being in that kind of personal relationship. Telling a person that just because they are gay, they don't need that kind of relationship in their life is fighting against perhaps the biggest driving force of how humans are hard wired.
  8. I guess I don't really see any value in joining any religious organization. Can anyone tell me what value is there in joining any religious organization? If it is just to find a social group to worship with, I don't really need that kind of social group. If it is just a place where helping others takes place, I can become involved in so many other social groups that are involved in worthwhile causes. If it is just a place to worship God, I don't really need a church to do that. Studying and discussing religious ideas can happen anywhere and at any time. There is no need to formalize those kinds of relationships. Simply put, give me just one good reason why joining any religious group would be beneficial to my life.
  9. Maybe what you might be missing is that I no longer see any value in joining any congregation no matter what their beliefs are. Following your own heart and trusting in your own relationship with God is much more spiritually rewarding than once again, allowing other people to tell you what God thinks when all of them have been wrong about that multiple times. Tell me a religion that does actually know the will of God and doesn't have leadership that has been so wrong and infallible over and over again and I might change my mind. I simply distrust that organized religion gets the things of God right.
  10. Just so I understand where you are coming from. Do you think that there are SOME cases where gender-affirming care IS in the best interest of the child? And if that care is in the best interest of the child, who do you think is best adults to make that judgement other than the parents and their doctors?
  11. It would be interesting to me to see where these people that took the survey live. In California, I rarely hear anyone ever bring up the Church. For the most part, they rarely know anything thing more about the Church except for the big three, polygamy, race discrimination and LGBT issues. Those three issues give them very little reason to want to know more about the Church. When I tell people I used to be Mormon, no one ever asks me why I left the Church. If they do, I just tell them that I am gay and the Church really didn't work for me. It is about all they need to know. I think a lot of these issues are Mormon Bubble issues. Just my experience.
  12. Yeah that never happened did it. I have to say that because I am gay, just about everything I hear about this magical Celestial Kingdom makes me have zero desire to want to be there. All the carrots they offer to get there such as multiple wives, eternal increase and being straight are just a no starter for me. I don't need to be miserable here on earth just so I will be miserable throughout eternity. And maybe that is how Mormons have designed it so that if you don't fit the mold, you will not be there. Members spend a lifetime trying to fit this very narrow definition of what they have to be to gain the golden throne. I hope all of you get what you are so desperately hoping you will get. Then you can spend eternity controlling a world, wiping out wicked people by flooding your planet, commanding your special choose few murder women, children and all the livestock to claim land that others are living on, watching human suffering and doing nothing, until it all comes to a fiery ending burning the majority of your wicked children so that a tiny few will be able to return to you. Sounds like a way anyone would love to spend eternity, right?
  13. If this is what you really believe, then the Celestial Kingdom is going to be a pretty lonely place. I hope you enjoy your cold gold throne for all eternity.
  14. Just curious. I see a big difference between writing on paper with a pen and engraving with a stylist on gold plates. Has anyone every tried to duplicate this experiment onto metal plates using a stylist that might have been used during the BoM time? And what would that stylist possibly be made out of to press fine details of an alphabet into the metal?
  15. I too used to believe that the apostles and prophets had some special relationship between God and man that normal people do not have. That seems to not be the case. If I am wrong, could you or anyone else explain the difference between the relationship the apostles and prophets have that ordinary members do not have? Thanks
  16. Maybe your first problem is you think those of us that are former Mormons are only here to insult and mock, rather than to try and find answers. Like the questions that I asked. Like the questions that I asked twice and were ignored. Like the response you give above. None of which relates to the questions I have asked. So instead of answering the question, you write your own narrative of what you think this is about and then attack the very false statement that I didn't say. You are more interested in attacking than engaging. Fine. I will keep that in mind. My question had nothing to do with Biblical scholarship. This thread is not about Biblical scholarship. Yet you have decided to make it about that. Not to answer any questions that I have asked about. Perhaps it would have been better to ask for clarification of what I asked rather than make up a statement that I didn't make and then attack that false statement. Do you even remember what I actually wrote back on page 17? This is what I wrote. I added the bold. Maybe you won't ignore that part now. I remain hopeful anyway. My question was never about past teachings about the black curse. It was about current official Church understanding of Book of Mormon scripture. Not current official understanding of Biblical scripture. You know, like what this thread is suppose to be about before you started telling everyone they were race baiting and ignoring the actual questions. My interaction with you has been very unpleasant. It is apparent you are not interested in answering what I actually am asking. I have repeated the question enough times to come to the conclusion that clarifying Church teachings is not why you are posting. Since insulting seems to be your main goal, I am bowing out. Continue to insult and misrepresent me if you wish. I will no longer respond.
  17. Juliann, the problem I have with you is it seems you only read half of what people post. As a result you end up calling people names that don't really apply to them. I do appreciate your apology. And yes, you are attacking people claiming that the Church has moved on. So I asked this simple question Your reference didn't really answer my question did it. But you seem that because the Church has disavowed black skin is a curse, that all the sudden explains what the verses in the BoM are about??? Your glib answer is not an explanation of what the Church believes those verses in the BoM are referring to. I did look on LDS.org and I see no explanation of what those verses mean. Yet you are offended when I ask what the Church's explanation of those verses are. You chastised me and yet are not able to explain what the Church now teaches those verses mean. Do you see how your insulting barbs are really unwarranted . Yes you did find something, but not answers to the questions I actually asked about. I don't mind you stating that you don't want to answer the question, but I do mind your condescending attitude you have as if it is my fault that it appears the Church does not have an explanation of those verses. And this is where I loose patience with you and your flippant answers. You are quick to insult but slow to engage in attempting to answer the actual questions. I haven't had much interaction with you over the years. But honestly, this has not been a particularly enjoyable experience. It mostly has been a string of insults.
  18. Page 12 on on this thread you said this to me. If you now are withdrawing the accusation, are you willing to apologize? You don't have to start talking about leather jackets or anything else. But you are basing your whole rant about race baiting on the idea that the Church leaders have some kind of different interpretation of those verses in the Book of Mormon that no longer are based on skin color. If the Church has moved on, just what is their official explanation on what is written in the Book of Mormon concerning the curse of God causing a black skin? If there are such statements, maybe a little educating us on what is now the official doctrine on those verses might be more helpful than accusing people of race baiting. It is a pretty hideous accusation to hurl at someone.
  19. Wait. Are you trying to tell me the reason why you are accusing me of race baiting is because I acknowledged that past leaders taught a totally different belief on what was meant in the BoM about the curse placed upon them by God???? That is the reason I am race baiting? Seriously? And to be clear, I never ever said that past racist practices by the Church have not been disavowed. They have. Do you have any official statements by Church leaders that skin of darkness now means the Laminates just put on leather jackets? Is there an official explanation to what the BoM now means when it talks about the curse from God that turn their skins black???? Just what is the official explanation on the meaning of these verses that YOU say the Church now move on to?
  20. I didn't ask for a definition of race-baiting. I asked you to show where I have done any race-baiting. Just STOP this name calling. Either provide a quote where I have said something that is race baiting or withdraw the accusation and apologize.
  21. Well being called a prophet used to mean some kind of divine authority from God. Are you throwing that past claims of prophets out?? I haven't heard anyone claiming that the Bible doesn't have some racist teachings in it. Have you? However, the BOM is the subject of this thread, hence bringing up these issues. You keep accusing me and others of race baiting. Just what do you consider race baiting that me or someone has said?? Because I feel pretty insulted getting that term hurled towards me. I should at least know what your jabs are based on.
  22. So you are berating Teancum for believing at one time that prophets and apostles claimed they had some insight in the past? But in reality, they did not have any authoritative statements on what is taught in the Book of Mormon? Interesting position for a believing member to take. And yes, past statements were indeed racist. That is not being debated is it? Now we got people who do not speak with any divine throwing out their own opinions they have on the black skin curse and we are now expected to adopt those theories??? As you said, Good Grief.
  23. If you don't think that humans can be deceived about what they are seeing up close, I suggest you watch a Netflix program called "Magic for Humans". It is very entertaining to see how people can be tricked into seeing things up close that don't really happen. And do we really know how far away the witnesses say Moroni or the plates actually were? I agree generally with what you are saying. Which is probably why I now have such a problem with multiple accounts of the first vision. And yes, I have heard all the apologetics on why different versions are out there, but I don't find them very convincing. Like you, I would think that was such a powerful moment, I would never forget the details of what happened. I am also amazed that we have no record of the witnesses recounting what happened to anyone right after the event happened. I can tell you, if I. actually saw the gold plates and an angel standing in front of me, I would be writing every single family member and anyone else I knew, telling them the incredible news of what I witnessed. But evidently that didn't happen. The only version of what happened was written by Joseph Smith, not any of the witnesses. For me that is kinda a problem. My point is to not persuade others to not believe the Church's current narrative, but rather to show that if you think the testimony of the witnesses is a proven fact of what happened, then you only believe that because you want to and not necessarily because it is irrefutable.
  24. I remember waking up one day when I was a kid and going to breakfast. My mother was looking out the window and told me she saw a monkey in our back yard. I was so excited. I tried finding it but couldn't. She kept saying, look it is over in the corner by. the workshop. Eventually, I too thought that I saw it. I became so excited and wanted to go out and capture it. Then my mother said "April Fools". She then explained to me for the first time in my life, the tradition that happens every April 1st. I never forgot that experience and at times later in my life tried to trick friends on that day to also see things that weren't there. I find the story of the three witnesses that see the angel Moroni "with their spiritual eyes" holding the plates as the very real possibility of simply being convinced of what they were suppose to see, especially when one of the participants claims to also see what Joseph is insisting is right in front of them. And Martin Harris unable to see what others are claiming is right in front of them giving up. Joseph tells him it is his own fault that he doesn't see the plates and angel because he is not worthy. Later he repents and all the sudden is now convinced that he can see it also. Maybe because he doesn't want to be thought of as unworthy by Joseph Smith. There is a strong indication of perceived manipulation. I know that those who want to believe an angel did appear with the plates will take their testimony without question. And that is understandable and fine. I know they will take my experience and explain that away as well because they strongly want to believe in the story. But that experience i had as a young boy does show another possibility that COULD have happened. Try the same experiment on your own friends. I am willing to bet some will be successful in having a friend convinced they have also seen something that is not really there. The three witness testimony is not really a particularly strong narrative that supports the truthfulness of there being real gold plates except to those who really want to believe they did in fact exist. Another example of this that might be more easy to relate to: How many believe that in Disney's Snow White, the evil step mother stands in front of the mirror and recites "Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" That is not exactly what she said, yet how many are completely positive those were her exact words.
  25. So exactly how do you get an entire nation of people to all agree to wear the cool black leather jackets? And if you are a rebellious Lamanite, do you put on a white shirt and tie to become the hoodlum of the family? I can see grieving Lamanite parents worried sick about their teenage son who only wants to wear white and hope he grows out of the rebellious phase before too long.
×
×
  • Create New...