california boy

I have a feeling the lack of a specific source doesn't make much difference to those who want to paint Joseph Smith as a fraud. It also makes it so those who do believe Joseph is what he claims as a way of discounting that story. It is still there, in history, one way or the other. As I said in my post, the bigger problem for me is that the gold plates seem to just be a prop. It makes no sense to me why the plates were even necessary. Proving their actual existence is an impossible task for either side.

For those who think that the witnesses confirm that there were actual plates, the truth is, they believe that because they want to believe that. Certainly there are other witnesses that saw something different. For example, this account. Those who want to believe in actual ancient records engraved in gold will easily dismiss this account because it doesn't fit what they want to believe. Those that think Joseph Smith was a fraud, will point to this as proof. There is NO actual evidence of any gold plates. Witnesses are unreliable because they have an agenda. You just have to believe what agenda you want to believe in. For me personally, what throws the biggest monkey wrench into this whole thing is that IF there were actually an ancient people who carefully transcribed their relationship with God, passed it down from generation to generation until it was revealed to Joseph Smith, why did it just become a prop to try and convince people of it's existence? Seems like a lot of work just to sit in the corner while Joseph Smith peeps into a hat and dictates the BoM from a magic stone. When the cloth is removed, and it turns out to be just a brick, that makes the whole thing seem even more like a prop, as if Joseph Smith just needed something physical to make his story more believable than telling people he found a magic stone.

I looked at your links. I am open to digging further and learning more about fire. I have to say, the founder gave me the impression that they definitely had an agenda on what kinds of free speech they were speaking up for. Maybe they are more than that. I wonder what they think about BYU confiscating pamphlets at BYU because of their queer content. LGBTQ groups say BYU trashed their resource pamphlets after agreeing to give them to freshmen

I listened to a podcast of an interview of the head of Fire. Honestly, I was not impressed with him, nor did think he was even handed in how he views free speech. It was clear to me that he had a very pronounced far right agenda. He talked a good game about championing all free speech at the beginning of the podcast. But as the interview went on, it was clearly coming from one side. It was more like his claims of protecting all free speech was just to give some credibility to defend far right positions. While I liked the idea, I wasn't at all impressed with his slant on what free speech means. He completely distorted that definition to suit his own agenda. Just my only real experience with Fire. Not surprised one bit by the distortion of facts about BYU law.

I am not sure you have much of a leg to stand on in this instance. Isn't 80% of the student body members of the Church?? If there is an echo chamber going on, wouldn't it be a continuation of that echo chamber having Church leaders speak as the commencement speaker??? I am thinking just the opposite of you. I think there is such a lack of diversity that many don't ever hear a difference of opinion. I think it is probably why whoever initially asked Elder Holland to speak probably never even thought about how some might not want to hear from a Mormon church leader.

The California State Supreme Court had already ruled that gay marriage was a civil right and gay marriage was already legal in the state of California. Prop 8 took that civil right away from gay couples until it was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court as a civil right for all Americans.

I think you missed the whole point of why the Church is viewed as the most unfriendly Christian church against the LGBT community in the country. It is not about Prop 8 passing. It is about the role the Church actively played in getting that proposition to pass. When a Church goes to that extent to work towards taking away the civil rights of gay couples, it is very hard to view that Church as being an organization that likes gay couples. Prop 8 is also not the ONLY thing the Church has done against the LGBT community. Pretending that the Church is being picked on and hasn't done anything to earn that reputation is delusional. You can argue that money doesn't win elections if you want. But the fact of the matter is, money and fund raising is fundamental to every political race. While money does not always determine an outcome, it is still a very vital part of a winning campaign.

I remember walking into a classroom at BYU. Someone had written on the chalk board It is a gorgeous and glorious day everywhere except Spanish Fark. There it is gargous and glarious.

The Church itself donated $190,000. According to Protect Marriage, who ran the yes on Prop 8 estimates another $20 million came directly from members. So over half of the money going towards Prop 8, which took away the civil rights of gay couples came from Mormons. The Yes on 8 used that money for advertising that lied about the consequences and to instill fear into the general population if Prop 8 passed Church members also provided the majority of the manpower to pass Prop 8 I am not going to play some kind of game with you about the role the Church played in Prop8 It is very well documented. And believe me, the Church's significant involvement in getting Prop 8 passed is well known, documented and not denied by the Church. If you really are so clueless on this subject, I suggest you watch the movie Prop 8, The Mormon Proposition. While some of what is in that movie may be up for debate, it does give an overall good idea into the Church's involvement in getting Prop 8 passed. I do acknowledge that I originally said the Church contributed $40 million to Prop 8 which was actually the total amount spent on advertising. What is accurate is that the Church and it's members contributed over $20 million which was over half of the total money raised for Prop 8. Pretending that the LGBT community dislikes the Mormon Church more than any other Christian religion just because it doesn't believe in gay marriage is delusional. The Church's role in Prop 8 and the many extreme policies against gay members that the Church has exerted such as not baptizing underaged children of gay couples or not allowing gays to kiss, date, hug hold hands at BYU among other acts against the LGBT community all have fed into that conclusion. There are plenty of reason why some students do not want an apostle from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and specifically Elder Holland to speak at their commencement. This all didn't come out of thin air. And it is NOT just because the Church is an easy target. The Church has done plenty to earn that reputation all by itself by its actions and policies.

Really? You think the LDS are just getting picked on for no reason at all? Can you name another religion that spent $40 million and provided 70% of the workforce to work to take away gay couples civil rights in California.

Westboro Baptists is one single congregation. It is not a religion.

Are you really that clueless about how the LGBT community views the Church in general? From Wikipedia Among the public[edit] The controversial policies for LGBT persons has made an impression on the general public. A 2003 nationwide Pew Research Center survey of over 1,000 LGBT Americans found that 83% of them said the LDS Church was "generally unfriendly towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people" surpassed only by "the Muslim religion" at 84%.[188] Additionally, in May 2008 a Georgia Tech gay-rights manual referred to the LDS Church as "anti-gay." After two students sued the school for discrimination, a judge ordered that the material be removed.[194] Protests[edit] The policies and treatment of LGBTQ individuals have prompted several protests and mass resignations including the following: November 2, 2008 – Hundreds of people gathered at the Salt Lake City library in a protest of Prop 8 organized by LDS mothers of gay children.[200][201][202] November 6, 2008 – In Los Angeles over two thousand people protested at the LDS temple over the LDS Church's heavy involvement in the recent passing of California's Prop 8 banning same-sex marriage.[203] November 7, 2008 – Three days after Prop 8 passed nearly five thousand protesters gathered at the Salt Lake Temple.[204]That evening a candlelight vigil by about 600 mothers of LGBT children was also held at the Salt Lake Temple.[202][201][200] October 7, 2010 – Thousands of individuals surrounded Temple Square in protest of Boyd K. Packer's "Cleansing the Inner Vessel" conference address in which he characterized same-sex physical attractions as impure and unnatural tendencies that could be overcome.[13]

Considering there are over 5,000 universities in the US, it is still a very small percentage. I personally think it is great that universities are paying more attention to who they choose as their commencement speakers. This is college graduation where all students are expected to participate, not some group sponsoring a lecture series that is more optional to attend. I also don't think that a commencement event is the proper place to try and spin some kind of "we love everyone. We are all children of God. Just not everyone is equal." kind of message when actions show otherwise. But since Elder Holland has no intention of not speaking, I have a feeling this is what he will try and spin his message. For many in the LGBT community, that kind of message feels totally hollow and insincere given the actual actions the Church has taken and continues to take among students at BYU and general Church policies. There is no room for gay companionship married or not within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That has been made perfectly clear. I get that faithful members are perfectly ok with this kind of stance. Hopefully faithful members can also see why that would not be an acceptable stance for those that are gay who are still members of the student body and really want nothing to do with the Church, including hearing Church leaders speak at their commencement.

This was the original policy Yes, I know families that fit this scenario.

I have no idea how many people had children that fell under this restriction. My children were already over 18 at the time. But I do know of other families that were affected. Mostly it is just sad that someone would use children as pawns like that. No child should be denied baptism based on the actions of their parents. And the Church should never think that it knows better than the parents what is best for those children.

I wrestled in high school. My mother always called it rasslin for some reason. She did grow up in Utah. I thought it was one of her Utah pronunciations. Kinda look roof and ruff. I told her, I wrestle. What she sees on Saturday TV is rassling. Not the same sport at all.

So you are under the elusion that people who watch porn think it is authentically showing realistic situations. And if they knew it was all staged, they wouldn't watch it?????????????????

yeah I get it as well. Mostly Mormon audience, want to hear from an apostle. That trumps everything else for that group. It doesn't mean the people signing the petition don't have a valid point. They do.

Is there a requirement that the commencement speaker has to come from the area the college is located in? If coming from the area is essential to choosing the commencement speaker, why did you exclude all of those that you listed as not being good choices for the Commencement speaker?

You really don't get it do you. It is not what Elder Holland might or might not say, it is what he has said in the past and the institution that he represents.

Ah no it is not. You made this claim. None of those religions you mentioned do the majority of the world believe have true and correct teachings of God. There is not a single religion that fits your description. They all think they have the truth of God, just like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims. Instead you give a weasel answer that does not fit what you claimed. And then you whine while people give you a downvote. Perhaps it is because you are not honest in being able to back up some of the BS that you just throw out there.

Do the majority of universities have petitions against the commencement speaker? I only hear about a few each year. How many petitions against a commencement speaker last year, or this year amongst the over 5,000 colleges and universities in the United States? Maybe I am missing something??

Is all you did is list several religion, NONE of which fit what you were talking about. This is actually what you said Which one of those religions do the majority of people believe have the true and correct teachings???

I think the choice of a commencement speaker should take into account what that person represents. There are literally thousands of people who a college could turn to from famous poets, to historians, to authors, to great humanitarians to well, the list is endless. Assuming just because a person is in the hierarchy of a religion I don't think is a great qualifier unless you are a member of that religion. And even then, aren't there plenty of opportunities Elder Holland already has to talk to those members already? The question I would ask you is "Why would Elder Holland even be considered?" Is it because he is an apostle of a predominate religion in Utah? Or are his academic achievements so significant that no one else even comes close to his academic achievements. Maybe this is difficult for you to see because as a member of the same church, you are blind to anyone who is not and how they might feel about their commencement speaker and who he represents to them. The fact that you are not sure they knew there would be such disagreement tells me you have no idea how polarizing the Church is to a lot of people. Just look at the recent PEW data. Not a well liked church. Do you even have any idea why the Church is not well liked???

Could you give us an example of just who you are thinking about? What religion or group has the majority of support and are not ridiculed by some?? And what error makes them popular with the masses?