Jump to content

california boy

Contributor
  • Posts

    9,439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. For those who found this half-time performance distasteful and disrespectful, I hope you will keep that in mind next time you want to compare gay marriages to beastuality and other degrading remarks such as passing them off as not real weddings.
  2. There is an interesting article in the Huffington Post on the issues that this case brings up. On the flip side
  3. Certainly there is a spectrum of how a person interacts with God. That has always been the case even in the 1950's. While what you are describing is certain true, I don't think that a broad brush can be painted that people are leaving organized religion so therefore, people no longer have any spirituality in their lives.
  4. I am curious why you even find this article distasteful. If you are in full agreement with sending someone to fire an employee who has no idea why they are doing the firing and can't give even a hint why the firing is taking place, then what is the problem shining light on how BYU-I handles employment issues? Think of it as a public service announcement. I certainly would want to know what kind of organization I was dealing with in deciding if I should accept a job offer no matter what that organization was. Some might falsely assume that because BYU-I is associated with the Church, they would have unfounded expectations of being treated decently and with common curtesy the most secular companies exhibit.
  5. The Church and BYU Idaho are the bad guys. The story isn't about whether the professors were not living up to the agreements they made with the university, it is about the way BYU handled the firing. And it is about a professor who is pushing back because after going to his bishop for answers, none still weren't provided. It is about treating people with decency.
  6. Seriously? You are making the claim that a person going to court after a ruling has no idea why the law allows foreclosure on their property? Oh now you are claiming that you are pretty sure why the lady was getting foreclosed on. So which is it? How is this relevant to the professors situation where the messenger had no idea why they were getting fired by some guy hiding in his office? What is clear is that whoever fired the professors didn't even have the decency to meet with them. Wrong. Their day in court gave them the opportunity to confront the legal action and have it explained to they why it was happening. They also probably had multiple opportunities to fix the problem before even going to court. The complaining was because they didn't like the law. These professors not only never got the opportunity to fix the problem, they didn't even get the decency to find out what the problem was. Now you are totally speculating which has no relevance on the cowardly way the Church handles firings for its professors.
  7. People are leaving religion because they find it more a detriment in their lives than a positive. There are countless reason why people have lost their faith, don't trust those running the churches and find some commandments to be rules that don't always make them a better person and no longer believe all those commandments actually came from God. It is easy for members to see other commandments from other religions that didn't come from God (no blood transfusions for example) but find the commandments their own church imposes to be the "right" ones because it is their leaders that are telling them this time. The polls still show 81% of the population believes in God. That is only down by 17% since it's highest level in the 1950's. Maybe all these people who are leaving organized religion which tells them what and how they should believe who God is are finding out that they can have a very personal relationship with God directly and He can actually guide them in their own personal journey back to Him. They are taking that power away from organized religion and giving it back to God himself. Is all I am saying is that you can't blame everything on simply a more secular society. There is another piece to this puzzle that organized religion plays a part in.
  8. But the person was completely informed why his property was being taken away from them and I am guessing did have the opportunity to fix the problem. You didn't have some random person in your office just send them a letter that had no idea what or why the person was being convicted. You literally allowed that person his day in court.
  9. I consider the fact that they went to a newspaper to plea their case for two reasons. First, the Church has all the power. They just fire someone without giving any reason and don't even have the person who made that decision do the dirty work. To go up against an institution like the Church what options did the Church leave them? Were they able to confront their accusers and plead their case to that institution? Were they able to clarify or explain whatever that infraction was? Remember they did go to their bishop first and when he found out about it, let Church authorities know that he was giving the professors his endorsement. Yeah, the Church leader who was best aware of the actual person and had regular interaction with him, not some bureaucrat in some remote office making that decision. Second point is if that person had something really egregious he is exposing whatever that sin/flaw to the public, allowing maybe someone to come forth and expose that sin in a very public way. He risked that exposure probably because he felt like no such fireable offense was there. What one can not argue is that the Church handled their firing in a very cowardly way. If the Church had just cause for firing those professors, they should be honest about what the issue is and let the professors know exactly why they were being fired. It is the decent thing to do.
  10. Boy you really try and get blood out of a turnip don't you. Can you at least agree that many had a problem with Elder Holland's choice of words in this day and age even if you don't? If you don't think that people care about using these kinds of references in speech against the LGBT community, then hey, you should also be ok with the backlash that comes with this kind of speech. Because unlike you, a LOT of people do have a problem with an apostle going around using muskets metaphors to make his point against the LGBT community. Your post is just ugly. It saddens me to see those claiming to be follows of Christ double down on language and hate that causes real pain and sometimes leads to violence against any group. This thread reveals to me that while I have been encouraged by recent remarks by Church leaders, there are plenty in the pews that are perfectly fine with how some address and act towards the LGBT community. To answer your question, I condemn all speech that can lead to violence and hate to any group. It doesn't matter where it comes from. It is irresponsible wherever it comes from.
  11. YES. Whether that is the case or not, I don't think anyone knows at this point.
  12. Calm, I am trying to understand your position. Are you saying that using violent metaphors is never a problem for some people that might misinterpret what is being asked for? Haven't we seen many instances of that occurring? Does January 6th ring a bell? How many defendants have claimed in court that they were caught up in the moment and thought they were doing what Donald Trump wanted them to do?
  13. NO, you assumed. It is a habit you have of assuming the worst and then taking that kernel and popping a whole bag of popcorn out of your assumption. This is what HJW actually said in the link you quoted. Another assumption you made. Which actually proves the point he was making. Elder Holland did in fact use a violent metaphor and you assumed that he actually called for violence. This is exactly why violent metaphors are so dangerous to use. It was reckless for Elder Holland to use such a metaphor in this day and age where gun violence is so common and such a plague on this country. Even you believed HJW explicitly said Elder Holland called for violence when he actually said no such thing. Where is the answer to the CFR that the gay community was protesting the way Mormons voted so you could claim they were picked on when the black religious community did the same thing? Are you slithering away from that statement?
  14. How does that add a new wrinkle to this tragic story. We have seen some of the most homophobic bigoted politicians rail against the gay community and champion anti gay legislation only to find out they are gay. We have seen religious leaders with huge influence who use anti gay hatred to fuel their ministries turn out to be gay. It has almost become a cliche that the most anti gay bigots are probably gay. We have seen the outraged anti abortionists turn out to have paid for multiple abortions of their own babies. Religion and/or attitudes within our society can lead a person down a path that they end up hating who they are to the point where they commit heinous acts of violence. Is this the case here? I don't think any one knows at this point. But just because someone is gay does not mean they are not homophobic bigots.
  15. Except no one has ever accused the Church of inciting this mass shooting in this thread. Since you are claiming that there have been those accusing the Church of inciting this mass shooting, CFR just who you are referring to. The whole discussion started when BlueBell asked for examples of the church disparaging the LGBT community. Those that responded to her question were raked through the coals and disparaged for providing answers to her request.
  16. Probably the biggest thing that really bothered me about the Church going all in on Prop 8 was that they were actively working to take away the civil rights of gay citizens. The second thing that bothered me a lot is the distortion of information that campaign used to try and scare people into supporting it. Since the aftermath of Prop 8, those civil rights have been affirmed and restored by the Supreme Court. But what still goes on is the complete distortion of facts that members of the Church STILL ENGAGE in. It is like you justify your statements as being ok because you are distorting truth for God or something. This is not the first post we have had on Prop 8, but as you have done in past threads, you try and equate the black (religious) community as somehow equal to what the Church did in passing Prop 8. As if by disparaging that community, yours doesn't look so bad. Let me be perfectly clear. NO ONE has ever resented or even implied that the reaction against the Church and the hard feelings those that support the rights of the LGBT community against the Mormon Church was about the way members VOTED. That has never been the issue. And you have had that explained to you over and over again. It is pretty clear by now that you still want to deceive people into believing that the Church supported Prop 8 just like the black religious community. THAT IS FALSE. CFR anyone has ever said that the LGBT community ever complained about how members of the Church VOTED. You know darn well the the whole objection to what members of the Mormon Church did was about the 20 million dollars (more than half of the entire money for this campaign) raised to support the Prop 8 campaign. It was about providing 70% of the manpower in the campaign. It was about setting up phone banks in Utah, Idaho and other places on a proposition that was in California. It was about using it's chapels to broadcast and coordinate efforts to pass Prop 8. It was about the Church not being truthful about all it donated directly to their efforts to get Prop 8 passed until they were investigated. Stop using the black community to somehow make just voting for the proposition as the issue. How many times are you going to trot out this comparison when you know darn well THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
  17. I think he just did give an example of a church leader sowing fear of the LGBT community corrupting the school his children attend by starting a club. I also think Elder Holland's musket remark was not helpful. People draw conclusions believing they are dog whistles for calls they should literally act upon. I still have no idea why Elder Holland made such remarks given the issue with gun violence we live with in this country. Do I think he literally meant to pick up a rifle and go after the LGBT community? NO. Do I think that it was a message some people may have misinterpeted? That is possible. Church leaders need to be really careful how they address these issues. I think what Elder Holland said was reckless and put very badly.
  18. Thanks for your input. I didn't mean to imply that my decision was going to be based on how the board feels. I was really looking for an idea how members may view something like this and give me a perspective of how others may feel. Hopefully this will give me a better idea what issues my family might be dealing with.
  19. Rights are defined by law and by the Constitution that governs what laws may be instituted by the legislature. What makes them a right are the laws that are instituted by that country. if the law is unclear or if a law seems to violate the constitution then the courts get involved
  20. I am ok with that as long as a person doesn’t expect any government recognition or rights attached to that religious marriage.
  21. If you view marriage as a religious ritual, then that is exactly what it is. If you believe that marriage has legal rights, then it is a government recognized union available to all citizens. Since there is a separation of church and state in this country, you can't have it both ways, only viewing it as a religious right reserved for your religious views on marriage AND want all the legal protections of government. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court recognized that every single American has equal protection under the constitution to be entitled to marry. You or any religious organization has no legal right to impose your religious definition of marriage for all citizens. You can only define marriage within how your religion defines marriage. At some point, you really need to recognize exactly what legal rights you can impose on others. Most have figured that out already.
  22. Maybe for you it was just some definition that needed defending. For hundreds of thousands of gay couples, it meant legal rights. How could you not understand that.
  23. Well thank you, I guess. I always believed that gay couples should. not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage. Their love and their families are just as real and as important as straight couples. So yes, I am happy about not only the Supreme Court ruling, but also a bipartisan support on that ruling. But I also have to say that it has always saddened me that the Church fought so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples in California. I hope that the reason the Church has come out in support of this legislation is to right a wrong. Maybe others don't see it that way, but it does help me have better feelings about the Church in my life. My partner and I are not married. A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying. We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry. We haven't really talked about it for a long time. But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately. I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married. Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church? It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying. You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back. I am a little confused to be honest.
×
×
  • Create New...