Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

california boy

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. Well we both must be feeling very frustrated because I am feeling like you aren't really understand where I am coming from and the point I am trying to make. So probably a good place for us to both move on.
  2. When the Church teaches that it is better to be single than be married, then yes, I see the Church's position to be very black and white. When marrying a non-member means you "lost your chance at exaltation ", then yes, I see the Church's position to be very black and white. It is not my point of view that is very black and white. Gay or straight, the Church teaches it is better to be single than marrying someone of the same sex or a non-member. It is the Church's teachings that are very black and white. That is the problem I have.
  3. Yeah I have real problem with this idea. I look at the lives of people who have gotten married for mortality and see lives filled with rich experiences that children and family bring. They learn lessons of sacrificing for others, compromise, commitment, being less self centered, compassion, and more through that experience. All of those lessons and a myriad of more progress us to learn the lessons of God that are in my opinion, more difficult to learn if society was to encourage everyone to stay single. I don't see the damning that you are trying to tell me happens. Maybe you can tell me exactly what kind of progression has been impeded if they had only stayed single. Because it is not good for man to be alone. Because there is huge value in the institution of marriage. Because marriage even if just for mortality is better for the individual than a life of loneliness. Because studies have shown marriage has value to your health and your mind. Because I have seen people who have lost their spouse deteriorate quickly and fall into despair. I understand that Church leaders have decided that LGB marriages are some kind of horrible sinful immoral relationships because of the horror of gays committing to each other. But honestly, I find that position very hard to justify given what happens even for gay couples when they make that kind of commitment and live that kind of life. I find that point of view to be very sad and distorts the good and value that comes from such commitments, just as I see good and value coming from opposite sex couples marriages that are not done in the temple. Come on Calm, experimentation with same sex relationships for a year is NOT the same as actually being gay. And having a opposite sex affair during one's marriage is not the same as a gay couple choosing to marry. I find it very sad that this is what you have learned from the Church. Yeah, this idea that if you don't marry another Mormon, then you shouldn't get married at all. You should stay single and miss out all the valuable lessons that I have already reiterated and live a life without someone you love and care for. This idea is just as horrible and wrong. I have a sister that married a non-member after being single for many years. I see nothing but good coming from that marriage. She has stayed faithful to the Church and her husband who tried hard to find some kind of spirituality in the Church for many years ended up going back to Catholicism after many years of not attending. Oh the horrors. Huge setback to their progression. She was taught that she lost her chance at exaltation because she choose to marry a non-Mormon. How do I know that? Because I actually taught that lesson when I was the gospel doctrine teacher and she was in the class. That is something I still feel very horrible about. Has anything I have said given you any pause to think about what the Church teaches and the harm some of those teachings have on people like me or my sister? Think about the joy and happiness both of us have had in the decisions we have made and how different our lives would have been if we had followed what the Church had told us to do and what you are trying to convince me I should have done. I have a unique advantage point. I look at my life and the kind of person I was when I was in the Church, and I look at my life since I have left the Church. My life now is so much more filled with friends that actually love me for who I am and not some facade that I was pretending to be. I have the kind of relationship with my partner that is real and not one that was built upon someone I was not. For being dammed and progression supposably stopped, I see nothing but progress and a more honest relationship with God. Sad that the Church and its members can't see that. To them I am broken and an immoral person.
  4. Not sure how you could be confused. This is what I wrote. I don't think I could have been more clear that I was talking about non-temple marriages. To a large extent, your answer points to how deeply ingrained teachings of the Church that if a marriage is not a temple marriage, then it seems to have no value to the couple in that marriage. I strongly disagree with teaching this idea and I think it does significant harm to the importance and value of the institution of marriage.
  5. I just expected honest answers on how you view marriages in mortality that are not temple marriages. Evidently that is too difficult for you to express.
  6. I guess I believe that marriage has more value than just what happens after we die. I assumed the Church saw that value as well. But given the pushback on this simple issue, I am not quite sure now that the Church does value marriage between two people while in mortality. I also don't see God dishing out some horrible punishment to gay couple because they decided to marry on earth. I guess for me, this all seems to fall into the "God can sort this out in the next life". I am not even sure any more if the Church encourages LGBT couples to marry or if the Church prefers they just live together without marriage. I have never seen the whole celibacy option as being a healthy option for anyone that has found someone to share their life with. The latter seems like a crazy policy to me because, I do think marriage has real benefits both to the couple and to society in general. And since currently the policy prevents LGBT couples temple blessings, I kinda fall back to the next best scenario.
  7. How is this semantics? It is a simple question. Does the Church believe that marriage is an important part of our mortal existence whether inside the Church or not? Once again, this issue is not about temple marriage, but about marriage in general. Are you saying that the only important, recognized marriage is a temple marriage? Are all other marriages counterfeit? Not "real" marriages? And therefore unimportant to mankind? Do you see no value in marriage unless it is a temple marriage? This is not a difficult question. It doesn't require some kind of pretzel answer. It is not about semantics at all unless you are claiming that all forms of marriage are not legitimate unless it is performed in the temple. That would mean that less than 2% of all marriages are worthless and not really recognized by God. I don't think this applies to the subject of marriage unless you are now claiming that some bishops are recognizing LGBT marriages as being valid. If that is the case, then they would be worthy to receive the priesthood and go to the temple since neither one of those things require a temple marriage. Do you consider a marriage a blessing from God whether it is performed in a temple or not? And if it is a blessing, do you think that God purposely withholds blessings from some people that seek His love and want to partake of those blessings God offers to others? At this point, I am guessing you don't really want to answer these questions because you have been dodging and deflecting my questions for most of this thread. Maybe you could at least understand why things are not quite as cut and dried as you think. Maybe you can see why some people have a real honest problem with the current ban on LGBT couples from receiving temple blessings from God. And maybe you can see that perhaps the Church's position on this issue may not be sustainable because of the conflict with other beliefs like the importance of marriage.
  8. yup. It is a paradox that doesn't really work or make sense. Either marriage is ordained by God or it isn't. Either God's laws are for everyone or they are not. "For there is no respecter of persons with God" - Romand 2:11
  9. Yeah I am not surprised. When someone takes a position that same sex couples should be barred from marriage, they are also taking a stand against marriage in general. THIS is the very reason why the Church's position is untenable. It is also about the mixed messages the Church gives concerning marriage and why this is very on point for this thread. The Church can not be pro marriage, but insist on barring some from participating in marriage. Maybe as a Mormon you can figure out a way to rationalize that conflicting standard, but most people can not, especially when they have a gay member of their own family.
  10. Let's just talk about marriage in general. So tell me then, how important do you think marriage is in general? Is it just some minor thing that people tend to do in this life? Not all that significant? Your marriage isn't really a central part of your life?
  11. So tell me then, how important do you think marriage is? Is it just some minor thing that people tend to do in this life? Not all that significant? Your marriage isn't really a central part of your life?
  12. Because it shows the folly in assumptions made by fallible leaders. Something that should be taken into account on current policy that forbids the very thing that is so important to all the rest of Gods. Children. Marriage isn’t like giving up coffee or not having a tattoo. It is the very reason for our existence. Marriage has been a part of every single civilization that has ever formed. Literally the foundation of human existence. To prohibit marriage goes against the very thing that makes us human. It isn’t something that should be decided on by prejudices and assumptions.
  13. The Church also claimed that barring black people from holding the priesthood and temple ordinances also came from God. How did those claims work out? Assuming what God wants is far different than knowing what God wants.
  14. Whatever. Denying gay couples full participation in the church is a bit more important than dry baptism. Sorry you can't see that and just blow off this issue as being unimportant. I guess it doesn't really matter all that much. Those that don't like the policy can and do just leave the Church. It is one of the most common reasons for people leaving. Not just those that are gay, but brothers. sisters, parents and children that know people that are gay and don't feel quite as glib as you do about this issue. Not seeing that kind of thing happening over your dry baptism comparison. Personally, I don't really care all that much. I wouldn't go back to the Church if they did change the policy. I have found a very happy and fulfilling life outside of the Church. I just feel bad for those that are affected by this policy that want to desperately stay in the Church without forfeiting a chance of the happiness and experience that marriage brings. What I say to you is, just don't make some claim that this policy came from God when there is no such revelation claimed. That is my only point.
  15. Thanks for clarifying what you said. The part that confused me is when you said: "the Church’s position SSM…which I believe is based on a belief in revelation". I took that to mean you believed there was some kind of revelation on SSM. I thought I might have missed something.
  16. I wanted to thank you for posting this link to the interview. I have never listened to John Delhin before. I just thought John Delhin was an angry ex-Mormon trying to expose ugly things about the Church. Maybe he is that. I don't really know since this is my first time listening to one of his podcasts. What I do know is that in at least this podcast, I found him to want to understand why this former bishop left the Church. I found Nick and his wife Amanda to be very believable and authentic about where they came from and how they got to this point. After listening to him, it is hard to believe some of the things that have been said about him on this board. I guess since I have listened to this podcast, I should investigate what horrible things he has said on TicTok. I know most of you will never give him the time to explain himself. But at least Teddy has given me the opportunity to just click and see what he has to say unfiltered by either side of the judgements of others.
  17. Wait. Are you saying that the ban on same sex anything is based on revelation???? As far as I know, there has never been a claim about any revelation concerning same sex anything. If you have such a revelation declared, I would love to hear about such a claim.
  18. Are we really going to try and set up laws just in case there are crappy parents and crappy doctors out there? Where would that start and end. I can think of literally dozens of things crappy parents do to their children. And just who would turn in crappy parents and crappy doctors? What kind of penalties would the government impose on crappy parents that make bad decisions for their children? Take them away from them if they allow puberty blockers? Imprison them?
  19. Certainly anything like that should be taken into consideration.
  20. I sincerely believe whether to use puberty blockers is a medical evaluation along with parental consent to decide what is best for THEIR child. Everyone is different and should not be all grouped together in a decision like that. For example if the child is suisidal, as a parent I would be much more willing to take the risks of puberty blockers side effects. What I am certain about is the government has no voice in this very individual decision. I do believe that surgical alterations should not be performed on minors in almost all cases. My viewpoint is, they will have their whole lives to transition, having patience is a prudent thing to consider. Even still, it is not a decision the government needs to be involved in. It is clearly a parent/doctor/child decision. I don't fit anywhere in that equation.
  21. What the heck does this have to do with anything I have asked you?? You are just rambling about things that are not part of my conversations with you. Where the heck did you get this idea??? I never said anything remotely like this. In fact, I infaticly agree that all transgenders are not some monolith that agrees on everything. Neither is the gay community. Neither is the lesbian community, Neither is the bi community. CFR where I said anything like this or take back your accusation. What is the point you were trying to make in this story about your uncle??? That is not exactly like every single other transgender out there?? Since I agree, why did you post this? Since you have acknowledged that the trans community is NOT some monolith, just who is this group you are talking about? Tell me the data you have to make such a statement. What percentage of the trans community is pushing this. CFR. Again, you acknowledge that the trans community is not some monolith that agrees on any of this, just who specifically are you talking about here? The data that was an actual study that I presented reported that only 1% of the trans community regrets making a transition. So are you allowing this 1% to talk for the whole group??? You are good at making your own assumptions, but just tell me where you got the idea that the individuals I posted spent a lot of money to achieve a particular appearance. How the heck do you know what they spent or even if any of them ever spent a dime. I know a couple of trans women. Neither one of them have had any cosmetic surgery, and they both are beautiful and very similar to the link that I posted. I didn't have to do a huge internet search to post that link. Is all I did was go to Google Images and type in transgender women. I agree that transgender people come in all shapes and sizes. Never said they all look a certain way. That is just what Google came up with when I did a search. NOW, this post does not answer ANY of my questions that I asked that you promised that if I answered your questions, you would answer mine. So one last time, answer my questions. Don't keep being a weasel. Quit bringing up nonsense like this. Just answer the damn questions! "Now lets suppose we grant you your wish and make every person use the locker room that matches their birth sex. Let's take a look at what women that transition to men look like. Click here. It means that these women who have all transitioned to be me would be forced to use the woman's locker room. Do you want to force these women who have transitioned to men use the women's locker room? Would women be comfortable with these now men using the locker room? Now lets look at what men look like that have transitioned to be women. Click here Which group look more threatening and objectionable? Yeah I want your answer on this. Or do you think you have the right to just decree that no one is allowed to transition?" Don't give me any of your nonsense. Just answer the questions. You started this whole nonsense. You have distorted and misrepresented events and blown things way out of proportion. You take a little incident that occurred in one place that was handled and tried to make it appear as an epidemic coming down upon us in locker rooms throughout the world. just admit that your posts are nonsense and we can all move on.
  22. Just answer the questions I asked that you PROMISED you would answer if I answered your questions first. Now you are on some new tangent without doing what you promised to do. Quit being such a weasel. Answer the questions. Here is my. post again so you don't even have to scroll to the top of the page.
  23. Oh so the Mormon church is not the only true and living church on the planet because it reversed the ban against blacks that had been doctrine for over 150 years? What do you do with that? If that is the criteria, that ship has already sailed.
  24. No and no. NOW answer my questions. Don't be a weasel. Man up and answer the questions.
  25. I have been reading your posts in this thread and realize you are trying to make a huge case that what? Transgender people shouldn't exist? Is that the goal of your posts? Do you think you have some God given right to control peoples lives like that? Or maybe you are trying to scare everyone that transgenders are invading bathrooms and locker rooms and we should all be up in arms about that. But you seem to be arguing this from a point of incredible weakness. You skip over all the facts, and even if you had presented all of the facts that greatly reduce your reasons for outrage, it is only a small handful of cases in the entire world. WORLD! You had to go to Canada which has different laws than the U.S. So out of a population of 40,528,396 in Canada and 339,996,563 in the U.S, you found just how many cases to be outraged about???? Can you not step back just a little to see how ridiculous your argument is? Honestly, I wish there was only a handful of murders like this, which seems much worse to me. Don't see you going on for pages about that. Why not????? Murder is ok, but a transgender using a locker room is outrageous and should be blown way out of proportion???? Now lets suppose we grant you your wish and make every person use the locker room that matches their birth sex. Let's take a look at what women that transition to men look like. Click here. It means that these women who have all transitioned to be me would be forced to use the woman's locker room. Do you want to force these women who have transitioned to men use the women's locker room? Would women be comfortable with these now men using the locker room? Now lets look at what men look like that have transitioned to be women. Click here Which group look more threatening and objectionable? Yeah I want your answer on this. Or do you think you have the right to just decree that no one is allowed to transition?
  • Create New...