Dog Sacrifice And Joseph Smith

[Daniel2]

So it bothers you that God sacrificed his Son?

 

If it is true that he did so could you entertain the notion that sometimes sacrifices must be made for a greater good?

 

Was sacrificing calves during Mosaic times as objectionable?   Why or why not?

 

Just trying to figure out your point here.

 

Yes, the concept of the atonement--that there is some universal law that demands a blood sacrifice in the name of 'justice', instead of an ability to let suffering caused by the wages of sin be a sinner's own punishment--is one of the many things that ultimately caused me to doubt the veracity of Christianity (at large) and Morminism (the particular manifestation of Christianity in my own life).  I find the concept irrational, illogical, and uncompassionate.  I struggled to understand why "the universe" would thirst for blood in support of a righteous cause (to satisfy the demands of justice).

 

I can certainly understand sacrifices made in service to a greater good, such as an individual running into a burning building to save lives, or a mother or father shielding their children by stepping in front of a bullet... but the requirement of vicarious suffering via death by crucifixion on behalf of humanity, as well as blood-letting and burning the carcasses of animals, strike me as non-sensical, unnecessary, superstitious, wasteful, and unjust--and certainly not a sacrifice "for the greater good."

 

Accordingly, sacrificing animals in any generation still strikes me as non-sensical, unnecessary, superstitious, wasteful, and unjust--and certainly not a sacrifice "for the greater good," for the same reasons I already described.

 

EDIT to ADD:  BTW, I don't have a problem eating animals (though I would personally decline eating a dog, just cuz of personal preferences).  I'm not a vegan--but I do object to animal sacrifices and inhumane killing methods which increase suffering.  I worked as a shepherd at the BYU Sheep Farm shortly after my mission, and was impressed how humane slaughter methods at least minimize (or entirely eliminate) animals' suffering.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Daniel2

[mfbukowski]

I don't see any of the claims about Joseph sacrificing dogs as being credible. However, when you start defending the principle of dog sacrifice, it's time to admit that you're ready to embrace the gospel of the Deep Ones. 

Ah yes and that is because of course dogs are inherently evil while calves are inherently good.  That is why they have sacred cows in India.

 

Some of us just don't see much of a difference between dogs and cows, but heck what do we know?

 

Can you maybe explain the difference or do you think both are equally barbaric?  That would be the consistent answer I suppose.  But in that case why is it that sacrificing a dog takes us into the Deep Ones whereas sacrificing a calf does not?

Edited November 30, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yes, the concept of the atonement--that there is some universal law that demands a blood sacrifice in the name of 'justice', instead of an ability to let suffering caused by the wages of sin be a sinner's own punishment--is one of the many things that ultimately caused me to doubt the veracity of Christianity (at large) and Morminism (the particular manifestation of Christianity in my own life).  I find the concept irrational, illogical, and uncompassionate.  I struggled to understand why "the universe" would thirst for blood in support of a righteous cause (to satisfy the demands of justice).

 

I can certainly understand sacrifices made in service to a greater good, such as an individual running into a burning building to save lives, or a mother or father shielding their children by stepping in front of a bullet... but the requirement of vicarious suffering via death by crucifixion on behalf of humanity, as well as blood-letting and burning the carcasses of animals, strike me as non-sensical, unnecessary, superstitious, wasteful, and unjust--and certainly not a sacrifice "for the greater good."

 

Accordingly, sacrificing animals in any generation still strikes me as non-sensical, unnecessary, superstitious, wasteful, and unjust--and certainly not a sacrifice "for the greater good," for the same reasons I already described.

OK well that speaks for itself then.

 

In that case since you don't see yourself as a Christian anyway, there doesn't seem to be much reason to debate gay marriage and Christianity with you.  It's pointless.

 

So why ARE you here talking about SSM as if it is relevant to Christianity and/or Mormonism?

 

If you were Buddhist would you debate what Mormons believed about SSM?  And if you are not Christian- what religious position do you have- or none at all?

 

So if I say that SSM is incompatible with Christianity why should you as a non-Christian even care?

 

Do you argue that it is compatible with Buddhism on Buddhist boards?

Edited November 30, 2015 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

I don't see any of the claims about Joseph sacrificing dogs as being credible. However, when you start defending the principle of dog sacrifice, it's time to admit that you're ready to embrace the gospel of the Deep Ones.

If only it were the true gospel.

Ia Dagon! Ia Hydra! Ia Cthulhu!

[Jeanne]

If this is true of Joseph, I am sad.  What good could possibly come from killing a dog..and more than likely a pet.  This kind of ritual or symbolism is not even necessary.

[The Nehor]

If this is true of Joseph, I am sad.  What good could possibly come from killing a dog..and more than likely a pet.  This kind of ritual or symbolism is not even necessary.

A cultural conception. We kill cows and revere dogs. Hinduism has a taboo against harming cows and many Muslims consider dogs to be unclean and treat them like large rats.

[Gray]

Ah yes and that is because of course dogs are inherently evil while calves are inherently good.  That is why they have sacred cows in India.

 

Some of us just don't see much of a difference between dogs and cows, but heck what do we know?

 

Can you maybe explain the difference or do you think both are equally barbaric?  That would be the consistent answer I suppose.  But in that case why is it that sacrificing a dog takes us into the Deep Ones whereas sacrificing a calf does not?

 

I was trying to be funny, because I know The Nehor appreciates Cthulhu-related humor. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/30/2015, 3:06:29, Daniel2 said:

 

Yes, the concept of the atonement--that there is some universal law that demands a blood sacrifice in the name of 'justice', instead of an ability to let suffering caused by the wages of sin be a sinner's own punishment--is one of the many things that ultimately caused me to doubt the veracity of Christianity (at large) and Morminism (the particular manifestation of Christianity in my own life).  I find the concept irrational, illogical, and uncompassionate.  I struggled to understand why "the universe" would thirst for blood in support of a righteous cause (to satisfy the demands of justice).

I can certainly understand sacrifices made in service to a greater good, such as an individual running into a burning building to save lives, or a mother or father shielding their children by stepping in front of a bullet... but the requirement of vicarious suffering via death by crucifixion on behalf of humanity, as well as blood-letting and burning the carcasses of animals, strike me as non-sensical, unnecessary, superstitious, wasteful, and unjust--and certainly not a sacrifice "for the greater good."

Accordingly, sacrificing animals in any generation still strikes me as non-sensical, unnecessary, superstitious, wasteful, and unjust--and certainly not a sacrifice "for the greater good," for the same reasons I already described.

EDIT to ADD:  BTW, I don't have a problem eating animals (though I would personally decline eating a dog, just cuz of personal preferences).  I'm not a vegan--but I do object to animal sacrifices and inhumane killing methods which increase suffering.  I worked as a shepherd at the BYU Sheep Farm shortly after my mission, and was impressed how humane slaughter methods at least minimize (or entirely eliminate) animals' suffering.

Judaism has surrounded all forms of animal slaughter or sacrificial ritual with rigid rules designed to maintain a kosher status as well as to be as humane as possible.  They go together.  So, it is nice to hear about the humane nature of the BYU Sheep Farm.

The nature of vicarious atonement assumes that we cannot actually answer the requirements of justice through our own suffering, even though this life may be a learning experience which includes suffering and joy (the Law of Opposition in All Things).  Think of the laws of physics being unbendable -- natural law.

However, through symbolic ritual, we can perform ordinances which have saving value -- even though they seem irrational and nonsensical, for such is love and compassion anyhow.  Try applying logic to such soft concepts.  Your approach suffers from an infinitely regressive loop.

[volgadon]

On ‎28‎/‎11‎/‎2015‎ ‎07‎:‎31‎:‎06, Sevenbak said:

Cats, if cooked well, taste like mutton... Or so I'm told...

more like a stronger, gamier rabbit.

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2015‎ ‎3‎:‎06‎:‎49‎, mfbukowski said:

OK well that speaks for itself then.

 

In that case since you don't see yourself as a Christian anyway, there doesn't seem to be much reason to debate gay marriage and Christianity with you.  It's pointless.

 

So why ARE you here talking about SSM as if it is relevant to Christianity and/or Mormonism?

 

If you were Buddhist would you debate what Mormons believed about SSM?  And if you are not Christian- what religious position do you have- or none at all?

 

So if I say that SSM is incompatible with Christianity why should you as a non-Christian even care?

 

Do you argue that it is compatible with Buddhism on Buddhist boards?

Those are all great questions—thanks for asking. 

Although I don’t consider myself to be a literal believer in Christianity, I post here at MD&D for several reasons which could be summed up first and foremost by saying that I believe that inter-Faith dialogue can be informative, valuable, and productive, regardless of the divergent beliefs which we, the participants, personally hold.

Although my comments in this particular thread have not involved LGBT issues, I’ll answer your questions with the hope that this doesn’t derail the thread from it’s intended scope.

I post in other threads about SSM because it clearly IS a topic that is relevant to current events within both Christianity, at large, and Mormonism, in particular. 

As a gay man and a former Latter-day Saint who spent my 30+ years of church activity studying, teaching, and sharing LDS doctrine while attempting to understand how I and those like me could fit into the LDS Plan of Salvation, I believe I have one perspective of a multi-faceted issue that is worth sharing and may be valuable for those that are interested.

Additionally, I care about the church's approach to same-sex relationships and have a vested interest in Mormonism (as opposed to spending time on Buddhism message boards, discussing it with them) because:

1. Since I’ve never been a Buddhist, I don't know much about how Buddhism relates to same-sex relationships.  I was, however, raised LDS, and have considerable experience with the Faith.  I imagine if I lived in a predominantly Buddhist community in which Buddhism played an influential role in shaping public policy, and if I was a former Buddhist, I would be equally as active on Buddhist message boards.
2. The LDS Faith often affects regional public policies and regulations, and as a resident of Utah, those policies often have direct and measurable effects on me, my marriage, and my family.  Some of those effects are ones I would classify as negative (i.e. the church’s involvement in California’s Prop 8 and Utah’s passage of Amendment 3), and some I would classify as positive (i.e. the church’s support of Utah’s passage of the non-discrimination compromise),  Interfaith and inter-orientation (to coin a phrase) dialogue has resulted in the recent  more-inclusive, respectful, and conciliatory measures that the church has supported.
3. Beyond the purely legal ramifications, my husband’s and my families, children, and many of our friends and neighbors are LDS, and their belief system influences how they socially and spiritually relate and interrelate to my husband, myself, and our children and families.  Therefore, I feel it’s worth engaging in dialogue to find an inclusive space for same-sex families like ours.
4. I continue to have LDS family members, acquaintances, and friends who are young gay kids, but are averse to speaking out, so I try to bring awareness and cultural sensitivity to LGBT issues.  LGBT LDS kids and teenagers struggle with feelings of hopelessness, self-worth, isolation, doubt, fear, self-hatred, and suicide, so I am here to try to help them find a place of worth and value within our shared communities.
5. Finally, I am and have always been interested in religion and enjoy comparative religious dialogue, especially as it relates to the Faith I know best.

Regarding my current religious affiliation: After leaving Mormonism, I joined the Unitarian Universalist Association.  I maintain many of my values and beliefs from my days within the LDS Faith, and value many of the scriptures, stories, and teachings of Mormonism (I donated a leather-bound, illustrated “Book of Mormon for Families” to my local Unitarian congregation’s library). 

I find great beauty and metaphorical value in many of the stories of Christianity (as I find, in many other Faiths), and relate strongly with the often universal stories of the innocence of the creation story and virgin birth, the concept of the fall and death (losing one's life), and ultimately with a restoration/resurrection (reclaiming life as a new being of increased purpose, compassion, and understanding).  IMO, one need not be a literal believer to find metaphorical value and allegorical 'truth' within Christian teachings--after all, even Christ taught in parables.

In sum, my reasoning is that I find meaning and purpose in the Faith of my youth and heritage, and attempt to build bridges of understanding and shared sacred spaces with those of my community, family, and friends to create a better world. J

Hopefully that sheds some further light and understanding in answer to your questions. 

Does the above help you understand why I appreciate and find value in engaging in these types of discussions?

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Judaism has surrounded all forms of animal slaughter or sacrificial ritual with rigid rules designed to maintain a kosher status as well as to be as humane as possible.  They go together.  So, it is nice to hear about the humane nature of the BYU Sheep Farm.

The nature of vicarious atonement assumes that we cannot actually answer the requirements of justice through our own suffering, even though this life may be a learning experience which includes suffering and joy (the Law of Opposition in All Things).  Think of the laws of physics being unbendable -- natural law.

However, through symbolic ritual, we can perform ordinances which have saving value -- even though they seem irrational and nonsensical, for such is love and compassion anyhow.  Try applying logic to such soft concepts.  Your approach suffers from an infinitely regressive loop.

I understand that you believe that “the nature of vicarious atonement assumes that we cannot actually answer the requirements of justice through our own suffering.”  That doesn’t resonate with me to the extent of being a belief I can support or agree with.  If God’s mercy, grace, and forgiveness are as grand and far-reaching so as to be infinitely wise and just, it seems to me that He could come up with a better system.  After all, as a father, my children violated many rules of our home.  Many of those infractions resulted in their own suffering and pain to varying levels as a natural consequence of my kids’ failure to abide by the rules.  Through my kids’ pain and suffering and natural consequences (or bad grades, loss of time, loss of friends, inability to go and enjoy things that they could have had time to enjoy if they had complied with the rules, etc), they learned and grew.  I saw no need, as a father, to also employ some sense of cosmic pain-swapping to satisfy a nebulous sense of justice—no one else needed to suffer—my children’s suffering WAS sufficient and their lessons were learned.  So, again, to ME, the concept that an infinite vicarious atonement of someone else suffering for the sins of all others makes little sense, and as a father, I believe my ability to forgive and let go of a need to punish seems more merciful and divine that the barbarism of a god who must follow higher laws demanding for a blood sacrifice.

I absolutely believe that symbolic rituals can be valuable, and my current faith has many symbolic rituals (the lighting of a chalice during worship… ringing a chime as a call to begin prayerful meditation.. the laying on of hands in blessing children, families, and loved ones… sacraments of cornbread and apple juice, as well as apples dipped in honey to reflect on the new year… etc. etc. etc.).  A physical manifestation of a intangible concept is often valuable, as are ritual, repetition, and symbolism.  However, bloodletting, senseless killing, and burning the bodies of animals is not one that I am comfortable with, given the unnecessary harm and suffering it causes to innocent beings.  Animal sacrifice for its own sake is the hallmark of more barbarous times and superstitious peoples, and one that I personally cannot support, today. 

[volgadon]

One way of looking at atonement is that we live in a broken world full of misery and shame. The atonement manifests wondrous love because someone is willing to come here and take our suffering away when he could choose otherwise. There is a moving Armenian sentiment where a person tells another that they would take their pains in their place. Or take two examples from literature. A man exposes himself to death painting a leaf out in the cold so another will not die. A priest - not a virtuous one - knowingly walks into a trap for the sake of providing a dying man his last rites. Reaching out to another to another even at the at the cost of one's own life is a powerful declaration of love. It shows that no matter how much shame we carry, there is another way, and we are more than the sum of our misery. In Johnny Cash's "Redemption" he sees Christ's blood running down, saying as it were, that "you do have a choice."

[VideoGameJunkie]

So is this whole dog story a rumor or real?

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2015‎ ‎9‎:‎47‎:‎48‎, DBMormon said:

My sister-in-law just emailed me three different second hand accounts of dog sacrifice and Joseph Smith.  I've never heard anything like this before and it sure feels like some made up anti-Mormon accusations to me.

 

Can someone with more light and knowledge help me out on this?  Is this real or bogus? Have these accounts been debunked before?

 

-In the time of their digging for money and not finding it attainable, Joe Smith told them there was a charm on the pots of money, and if some animal was killed and the blood sprinkled around the place, then they could get it. So they killed a dog, and tried this method of obtaining the precious metal; but again money was scarce in those diggings. Still, they dug and dug, but never came to the precious treasure. Alas! how vivid was the expectation when the blood of poor Tray was used to take off the charm, and after all to find their mistake. Emily Coburn, in Emily M. Austin, Mormonism; or, Life Among the Mormons, 1882, pp. 32-33

 

-Hiel Lewis affirmed that Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the same enchanting spirit that directed Smith to make dog sacrifices. Dr. Quinn wrote, "A cousin of Smith's wife Emma reported that Smith 'translated the book of Mormon by means of the same peep stone, and under the same inspiration that directed his enchantments and dog sacrifices; it was all by the same spirit' (H. Lewis 1879)" (Quinn, 1987 edition, p. 144).

-Justice Joel King Noble, who tried Smith in an 1830 trial in Colesville, N.Y., related in a letter that when Joe Smith and others were digging "for a Chest of money," they acquired a black dog and offered it as "a sacrafise [blo]od Sprinkled prayer made at the time (no money obtained) the above Sworn to on trial. . . ." (Letter of Justice Noble, dated March 8, 1842, photographically reproduced in Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials," p. 134).

church scholar/author/apologist Samuel Brown agrees these likely occured but does not see this as a big issue when you consider the historical context.  Personally I think Joseph's treasure digging involved such things and I personally see it as bothersome.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/02/samuel-brown-holy-dying/

VideoGameJunkie,

The above post confirms to me that this story is likely true, given pro-LDS church scholar Samuel Brown's agreement they events likely occurred.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[VideoGameJunkie]

Joseph Smith killed an innocent dog. I feel a disturbance in the force.

[Storm Rider]

Recording hearsay today or 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago just means you have hearsay, but not facts or reality.  It would be different if those who witnessed an event and recorded it at the time, but what we have here is....hearsay of someone that was not present.  

I like to consider the life of the individual.  One-off, completely unique events have little value, particularly when it is hearsay.  There are too many things that make me doubt the veracity of this story in the life of Joseph Smith or anyone else.

I still think that jumping from the spire of the Salt Lake temple into the Great Salt Lake and swimming to safety is a better story and demonstrates the true heroism of young wife of Brigham Young. 

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So is this whole dog story a rumor or real?

 

It's more (or less) than just a rumour. It's manufactured gossip.

[oremites]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Joseph Smith killed an innocent dog.

Do you have proof that the dog was innocent?  I didn't think so.

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎01‎/‎12‎/‎2015‎ ‎11‎:‎20‎:‎59‎, Jeanne said:

If this is true of Joseph, I am sad.  What good could possibly come from killing a dog..and more than likely a pet.  This kind of ritual or symbolism is not even necessary.

1. I don't believe it is true. The story is late, second-hand at best, and the sources are contradictory.
2. Rural people tend not to keep dogs as pets. Indeed, they often don't have pets at all; pets are an affectation of the urban and affluent. Farmers keep dogs for work, either herding or hunting.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

1. I don't believe it is true. The story is late, second-hand at best, and the sources are contradictory.
2. Rural people tend not to keep dogs as pets. Indeed, they often don't have pets at all; pets are an affectation of the urban and affluent. Farmers keep dogs for work, either herding or hunting.

 

I think you're being a bit optimistic.  It may well be true.  But does it matter?  Folk superstitions were just that.  Superstitions, and they were just a part of the culture, (not to mention again that dog sacrifice was a practice of the Iroquois tribe in Joseph's area).

The better question is did Joseph move from his folk/pagan traditions towards new light, new truth.  We all have our false beliefs and practices that we need to move beyond.

If Joseph actually did get someone to sacrifice a dog or a sheep (the stories are all mixed up, but they all state someone else did the sacrificing) then so what?  It was a one time mistake.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

VideoGameJunkie,

The above post confirms to me that this story is likely true, given pro-LDS church scholar Samuel Brown's agreement they events likely occurred.

Yeh, well what were Sam Brown's exact words claiming that the dog sacrifices actually occurred?  http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/02/samuel-brown-holy-dying/ .  Where in that podcast?

[Sevenbak]

9 hours ago, volgadon said:

more like a stronger, gamier rabbit.

Mmmmmmm, add some taters...  Boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew...

[The Nehor]

On November 30, 2015 at 4:20:59 PM, Jeanne said:

If this is true of Joseph, I am sad.  What good could possibly come from killing a dog..and more than likely a pet.  This kind of ritual or symbolism is not even necessary.

If it happened (big if) he did it as a kid. Who has not done stupid things as a kid. If you need reassurance that he changed later remember the story of him telling the men of Zion's Camp with him not to kill a rattlesnake that wandered into camp with the admonition that the Millenial peace of the animals can never come while the saints kill indiscriminately.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/3/2015, 11:30:46, Daniel2 said:

Those are all great questions—thanks for asking. 

Although I don’t consider myself to be a literal believer in Christianity, I post here at MD&D for several reasons which could be summed up first and foremost by saying that I believe that inter-Faith dialogue can be informative, valuable, and productive, regardless of the divergent beliefs which we, the participants, personally hold.

Although my comments in this particular thread have not involved LGBT issues, I’ll answer your questions with the hope that this doesn’t derail the thread from it’s intended scope.

I post in other threads about SSM because it clearly IS a topic that is relevant to current events within both Christianity, at large, and Mormonism, in particular. 

As a gay man and a former Latter-day Saint who spent my 30+ years of church activity studying, teaching, and sharing LDS doctrine while attempting to understand how I and those like me could fit into the LDS Plan of Salvation, I believe I have one perspective of a multi-faceted issue that is worth sharing and may be valuable for those that are interested.

Additionally, I care about the church's approach to same-sex relationships and have a vested interest in Mormonism (as opposed to spending time on Buddhism message boards, discussing it with them) because:

1. Since I’ve never been a Buddhist, I don't know much about how Buddhism relates to same-sex relationships.  I was, however, raised LDS, and have considerable experience with the Faith.  I imagine if I lived in a predominantly Buddhist community in which Buddhism played an influential role in shaping public policy, and if I was a former Buddhist, I would be equally as active on Buddhist message boards.
2. The LDS Faith often affects regional public policies and regulations, and as a resident of Utah, those policies often have direct and measurable effects on me, my marriage, and my family.  Some of those effects are ones I would classify as negative (i.e. the church’s involvement in California’s Prop 8 and Utah’s passage of Amendment 3), and some I would classify as positive (i.e. the church’s support of Utah’s passage of the non-discrimination compromise),  Interfaith and inter-orientation (to coin a phrase) dialogue has resulted in the recent  more-inclusive, respectful, and conciliatory measures that the church has supported.
3. Beyond the purely legal ramifications, my husband’s and my families, children, and many of our friends and neighbors are LDS, and their belief system influences how they socially and spiritually relate and interrelate to my husband, myself, and our children and families.  Therefore, I feel it’s worth engaging in dialogue to find an inclusive space for same-sex families like ours.
4. I continue to have LDS family members, acquaintances, and friends who are young gay kids, but are averse to speaking out, so I try to bring awareness and cultural sensitivity to LGBT issues.  LGBT LDS kids and teenagers struggle with feelings of hopelessness, self-worth, isolation, doubt, fear, self-hatred, and suicide, so I am here to try to help them find a place of worth and value within our shared communities.
5. Finally, I am and have always been interested in religion and enjoy comparative religious dialogue, especially as it relates to the Faith I know best.

Regarding my current religious affiliation: After leaving Mormonism, I joined the Unitarian Universalist Association.  I maintain many of my values and beliefs from my days within the LDS Faith, and value many of the scriptures, stories, and teachings of Mormonism (I donated a leather-bound, illustrated “Book of Mormon for Families” to my local Unitarian congregation’s library). 

I find great beauty and metaphorical value in many of the stories of Christianity (as I find, in many other Faiths), and relate strongly with the often universal stories of the innocence of the creation story and virgin birth, the concept of the fall and death (losing one's life), and ultimately with a restoration/resurrection (reclaiming life as a new being of increased purpose, compassion, and understanding).  IMO, one need not be a literal believer to find metaphorical value and allegorical 'truth' within Christian teachings--after all, even Christ taught in parables.

In sum, my reasoning is that I find meaning and purpose in the Faith of my youth and heritage, and attempt to build bridges of understanding and shared sacred spaces with those of my community, family, and friends to create a better world. J

Hopefully that sheds some further light and understanding in answer to your questions. 

Does the above help you understand why I appreciate and find value in engaging in these types of discussions?

Well frankly, not really, I suppose because my reason for being here is so different.  I am here to persuade others that the gospel is "true" and not for social reasons. 

I find these issues very important.  I was formerly a Catholic and find no need to return and express my beliefs to Catholics, though I did for a time after I left that church.  Being Polish I probably come from a hundred generations of Catholics, but though I treasure it as part of my heritage, I see no need to defend their positions or to assert that their beliefs are errors, except when they engage here to compare beliefs.

As a resident of California, and opposed to same sex marriage I suppose I agree with you that that is a reasonable reason to be here, though I do not frequent gay boards to express my opinions on ssm as you express your opinions here on Mormonism.

It is sad that gay teens struggle with self-worth issues, and I agree with science that indeed "gender variant" individuals do often have special psychological needs, though I do not see any posting here, so I am not sure what need you are expressing there.http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/transgender/

Enjoying comparative dialogue?  Sure I guess we all do. But we need to understand the full doctrine of the other side before we try to correct it in my opinion.