Jump to content

california boy

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. I thought the Church has learned it's lesson to not distort the truth of history by pushing narratives that are not really true just to make those stories more preferable to children, youth and new members. Doesn't your suggestion just perpetuate that kind of deception that have hurt so many member's testimonies?
  2. Not really. Many artists creating religious art especially feel the help of God in creating their works of art.
  3. How did you feel about a religion going through the Book of Mormon and changing verses to reflect their own religious beliefs and then presenting that to people as being the Book of Mormon? Would you be bothered to have multiple versions of the Book of Mormon floating around? I mean Joseph Smith has been dead for over 100 years. Would he really be upset? Would people who liked the BoM the way it was be happy about someone bastardizing the BoM to fit their own beliefs? There are people who venerate those paintings the same way you venerate the BoM. Should any consideration be made to them? Again, should Catholics be allowed to alter the BoM to reflect Catholic beliefs and then distribute that version to their congregations? Works of art are meant to be left as they were created. Having multiple versions of a famous work of art is very problematic. Honestly, I really don't understand how this can not be a problem for you or anyone else for that matter.
  4. Are you serious? Are you suggesting that it is ok to do something like this as long as you don't get caught???? You think that people are outraged just because they are critics of the Church? You think it is impossible to be upset about the Church bastardizing artists works if they are faithful members? Unbelievable.
  5. There is a HUGE difference from parody and selective editing an image to push your own agenda. The pictures you showed are clear that the intent is a parody. What the Church did was try to impose it's agenda on a painting where the artist was expressing his own vision and presenting his beliefs. It was an expression of faith. The Church bastardized the artists beliefs. Can you not see the difference between the two examples? My background is in art. I have done gallery work most of my life. Not as a full source of income, but specifically to create things that come into my mind and express those ideas for others. I would be livid if someone modified any of the works that I have done. By doing that, they are misrepresenting what I was expressing, even though my name would still be on my piece. In the pieces the Church decided to vandalize, the artist who did the paintings is still clearly recognizable. What is not recognizable is what he expressed and what the Church did to HIS paintings, his ideas, his vision, his faith. This is like taking the Book of Mormon, rewriting the scriptures in that book to suit another Churches beliefs and then passing it to others to read, never acknowledging that the book had been modified. Think about all the confusion that would bring. Which one is the real one? Which one represents the beliefs of the author?
  6. What would be those cases? I can't even imagine any artist being ok with someone altering their paintings to push their own agenda. Do another damn painting if you don't like the one someone else did. This is disgusting. There is absolutely no justification for bastardizing someone else's creation and vision to push your own agenda..
  7. I wish that she had approached this issue in this way. But she didn't. She made it about being persecuted for her religious beliefs. That dishonesty clouded the merits of her case significantly.
  8. There, we finally got this. This case has nothing to do with prayer. Yet, did you read the title to this thread? Have you read all her fund raising and religious outcry that the woman was arrested for prayer? Have you heard her cries to the press that she got arrested for praying? The issue indeed is about silent protesting and whether any kind of protesting is allowed in an area that has been designated as a not protest area. Whether silent protest is allowed will be something left up to the courts and the facts as they have unfolded on this case. All things will be considered, including her past aggressive actions towards the clinic.
  9. EXACTLY. But you can ignore all that if you think she got arrested for praying. Cause, well, praying trumps the facts.
  10. Well evidently if you are breaking the law for protesting in a non protest area at an abortion clinic for 4 days and have a camera crew spring into action when the police come, if you say you were praying, then it makes it ok for some people.
  11. It is clear to me that some people think that religion is a get out of jail free card.
  12. In California, people have heard of the Mormon Church. Few know it by it's full name. After 6 months of campaigning for Prop 8, the image of being strongly anti LGBT is ingrained into peoples mind. 6 months of pounding that message into the people of California is never going to go away. I doubt most people have heard much about the Church since then. The other thing I hear is the whole polygamy thing probably reinforced by programs like Sister Wives even though they are not LDS, but it does take place in SLC. But even before those programs, polygamy and the Mormon Church was already tied together pretty firmly in peoples minds. It also probably will never go away. They also know about the Book of Mormon and missionaries mostly from the play. A lot of people in California have at some point had their day interrupted by two missionaries knocking on their door trying to sell them something they had not asked to hear about. To them, it is intrusive. After that, what most people know about the Church is pretty scattered and usually depending on whether they have any friends or work with a member. If most people base their opinion on those three main things, then it is not at all surprising that people have such a low opinion of the Church. To understand the lack of knowledge about the Church, just ask yourself what you know about the Jehovah Witnesses What do you know about JW's other than things like blood transfusions, the Watchtower, and their missionaries? and worshiping on Saturdays? How about the Seventh Day Adventists other than they meet on Saturdays and have some health code of some kind. Can you name 10 things about either of those beliefs? If you don't have acquaintances in those religions, probably not much more than a few basic facts.
  13. And churches are wondering why the fastest growing religion is NO religion. Literally millions are leaving organized religion every single year. People find their "we have the right to do whatever we want even if it intrudes and annoys others in the community" among other similar issues. Maybe at some point, organized religion will wake up and realize that they are their own worse enemy and leading many out the doors of their churches.
  14. Yeah maybe. What is clear is that no one knows. Whatever the theory one might have, like mine, it is just an opinion.
  15. I would agree that a new life begins at conception. That wasn't the question. The question is, when does the spirit enter that body. Logically it doesn't enter when two cells come together imo for the reasons I stated. And as you pointed out, there is no Church doctrine on that point. So people who insist that the spirit enters the body as soon as two cells come together are also just stating their opinion. Maybe that is why people have different opinions on abortion. And maybe one group should not impose their beliefs based on strictly their opinion on others who have a different opinion.
  16. Well because logically, everyone will receive a physical body. If an abortion is performed, then that spirit would have never been born and would not receive a body. So either that spirit gets another body (which means the abortion did nothing to hinder the goal of receiving a body) or the spirit doesn't enter the body at the moment of conception.
  17. I don’t think I am really up for another thread on how we should fear those in the LGBT community. You guys carry on. It seems like an important subject to bring up on a regular basis
  18. Maybe anger is the wrong word. But we have all see these ginned up OP's that devolve into justifying anti LGBT behavior and the little innuendos that come out like clearly implying that gay relationships are violent. And this is a guy that lives in a country that executes people who are gay. And that is the government that he wants to use the data from. What would you call these types of posts that seem to always come up when discussing LGBT issues? I also rarely use the whole downvote thing as well, but I do pay attention to those posts that get a lot of downvotes and who is posting those downvotes. It gives me a sense how deeply they feel about those posts. And when someone gets a huge number of upvotes, that gives me a sense that there are a lot of people on this board who agree. Evidently there are a lot on this board that feel a woman can feel less like a woman if a transperson uses that word and is something to worry about. Evidently we should all be outraged that they. are allowed to use the word women. I should just bow out of these threads and let you guys go at it. For me it is too personal and I see the attacks coming from Church members. But as you know, I have major trust issues with the Church as well, so I read it as only reinforcement of my experiences with the Church. Clearly this OP is designed to get people rilled up and fearful that their rights to push back against the LGBT community are threatened.
  19. When violence seems to be understandable. When people who are angry don't downvote those posts that find violence understandable. When there is a tone in the post that suggests things that are completely unrelated like fake iPhones makes that anger against a certain population understandable. When the purpose of the OP seems designed to stir up that anger.
  20. What you can't deny is there seems to be a lot of anger about this issue. The whole OP is designed to stir up anger. It seems to be working from the comments I am reading even if some are a bit more subtle than others.
  21. Do you feel the same about a woman who posts a photo of herself maybe 10 years younger then she actually is? Is she in danger of being beaten up because she deceived in her profile? Or is the "understandable" that someone would get up only apply to transgender profiles. For the record, I think that trans women should be upfront about who they are. There are plenty of straight men that would love to date transgender women. But that does not mean I am ok with understanding that violence may be the result. Maybe it is just me. I am not that into violence based on something I might not want to embrace myself. A simple, this doesn't work for me seems to be ok with me.
  22. Well that is the threat isn't it. If you don't follow these steps then you are choosing to not be with your family for eternity. Wait, what? I don't think ANYONE decides to not do everything the Church asks because they don't want to be with their family. So just why does the scriptures mention that if you pay your tithing you won't get burned? Is this the whole pay your tithing fire insurance thing???
  23. I am not talking about steps that have to be taken to progress. I am talking about the threat that if you didn't take those steps you will not be with your family for eternity??? Or the whole if you don't pay your tithing you will burn at the coming of Christ
  24. Fear is at the central core of the gospel. It is what everything is built around. If you don't pay your tithing, you can't go to the temple. If you don't go to the temple then you can't make the necessary covenants. If you don't make the necessary covenants, then you are not on the covenant path. If you aren't on the covenant path, then you will not be with your family when you die. If you are not with your family when you die, you will be miserable for eternity. And that is not even addressing the fear of sin and how that will also lead to a miserable place. So raise your hands. who wants to be miserable for eternity?
  25. I personally have no problem with the Church amassing its billions in stock and other investments. It is their money, they can do with it what they feel is best. I think what is happening is people need to shift their expectations they might have of the Church as a humanitarian organization when in fact it is more focused on an investment portfolio. All this publicity is just letting people become better informed about the focus of the Church. I also don't think the LDS Church is alone in not focusing on humanitarian services. I think many religious organizations have moved away from humanitarian type activities. though there are some that still keep that focus. If that is an important part of a persons religious experience, they should seek out those churches that do focus more on charity work. Does anyone thing that perhaps the shift away from charity maybe one of the reasons why religion doesn't attract the numbers it once did? Just wondering. There are certainly many worthwhile organizations that have charity as their main focus that people get involved in. I personally know people who have left religion but regularly help with "Helping Hands" and other type of charities.
  • Create New...