Jump to content

David archuleta steps out of the closet as a member of lgbtq+


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And a clinician’s opinion about religious organizations is worth what?

 

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It would have to be. 

Clinicians deal with reality (raw data), rather than with wishful thinking.  They tend not to follow woke societal demands, and instead tell us the unpleasant truth.  Hence, Peterson is unpopular with ideologues.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Clinicians deal with reality (raw data), rather than with wishful thinking.  They tend not to follow woke societal demands, and instead tell us the unpleasant truth.  Hence, Peterson is unpopular with ideologues.

Wow, I would not have taken you for someone who repeats culture war slogans. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Clinicians deal with reality (raw data), rather than with wishful thinking.  They tend not to follow woke societal demands, and instead tell us the unpleasant truth.  Hence, Peterson is unpopular with ideologues.

Or he is just wrong.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I found the internals about the committee pre-kimball looking into it interesting. (going off https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq )

Yes, a brilliant article.  They do mention the pressure from Brazil, where an LDS temple was being built, and that Brazil was a heavily black country, making it almost impossible to distinguish Caucasians from Africans, and thus to decide who could be allowed temple entry.  Both Jan Shipps (the non-LD historian) and Apostle LeGand Richards discussed this problem openly.

The primary problem, in my opinion, was the complete lack of historical information by the Brethren.  Pres Kimball did not even realize at the outset that Joseph Smith was not responsible for the policy -- which was instituted by Brigham Young, despite vociferous argument against it by Apostle Orson Pratt.  As usual, well-intentioned people created their own miasma.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

A lot of colleges and universities have nice intramural sports programs (healthy mind in a healthy body, and all that), but the truly serious schools don't have any place for big time sports teams.

You know the Ivy League is Division I, right?  So, really, you don't think Harvard, Yale, Brown, Penn, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Princeton, and Penn are "truly serious schools?"  You really don't think Stanford is a "truly serious school?"

My former FIL has a PhD from Stanford and was a full professor at Penn.  I'll have to let him know that his whole career was not spent at "serious schools."

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Thanks but I believe that David deserves his own dedicated thread.

Me too, I was the one that brought it up on the other thread because I can't start threads. And maybe that way there won't be too much of a derail.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course.  However the knee-jerk assessment of Peterson being wrong is somewhat suspicious.  He has his ducks in a row, and the statistical evidence supports his version of reality.

Your venerated Jordan Peterson went to University of Alberta, Grande Prairie Regional College and McGill University; are those "truly serious schools?"

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Wow, I would not have taken you for someone who repeats culture war slogans

This board is replete with all manner of nonsense, including bias and projection.  Any one of us might be guilty of such nonsense, without even realizing it.  We are prisoners of our own flawed understanding, and perhaps not self-reflective enough to make an independent evaluation of anything.  Is this the existential dilemma you point to?  Is any sort of accusation automatically justified, instead of coming to grips with the facts?  Are we doomed to nihilism?  Never able to make sense of anything?  Is the claim that one is merely repeating culture war slogans an adequate evaluation of the facts?  Are logic and reason useless?

If all of us are equally wrong all the time, does that bode well for a successful human future? Or does it even matter what we think?  Must we always come back to nihilism?  Well, if facts don't exist, and if everything is merely socially structured, then what is there to discuss?  The council of Athens did not appreciate Socratic dialogue, and so sentenced Socrates to death.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You know the Ivy League is Division I, right?  So, really, you don't think Harvard, Yale, Brown, Penn, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Princeton, and Penn are "truly serious schools?"  You really don't think Stanford is a "truly serious school?"

My former FIL has a PhD from Stanford and was a full professor at Penn.  I'll have to let him know that his whole career was not spent at "serious schools."

I was thinking more of schools like CUNY, MIT, CalTech, Oxford Univ, Cambridge Univ, Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, etc.  Those Ivy League schools you mention are pretty weak academically.  They are woke.  I'll given them that.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Your venerated Jordan Peterson went to University of Alberta, Grande Prairie Regional College and McGill University; are those "truly serious schools?"

He has also had a career teaching at Harvard, and now at Univ. of Toronto.  His broad experience as a clinician is what gives him him gravitas.  He is not beholden to the woke SJWs at various Canadian schools, and has done public battle with them (in favor of free inquiry and freedom of speech, which the woke crown cannot abide).

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Honestly I don't know what it will take, I'm just of the opinion that it will happen.  At some point in the future the church will change its LGBTQ+ policy and treat all of god's children equally.  But as with other social changes, the church will be the last to change and only after doing everything in their power to prevent the inevitable from taking place.  I find it amazing that everyone except those called as Seers can actually see how this will end up.

To renounced revealed truth is to place oneself outside of the blessing of God. The Father loves all his children but He despises sin and can not look upon it with any degree of allowance. God is totally different from us and no effort to anthropomorphize Him will succeed in reconciling our fallen, broken sinful desires and nature with His eternal laws. The ONLY thing that makes the Church of Jesus Crist of Latter-day Saints different to all others are unique and exclusive claims to revealed truth. To acquiesce to political pressure on this issue or any other future "social" issue would be to renounce those truths and it would the end of it. 

It is time for the American Church and its members to prove once and for all they will obey the laws of God or bow down to those of men. For the government will not stop to promote laws that clash with those of God. After all, this earth is satan's domain and in this battle we will lose but we will win the war at the end.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course.  However the knee-jerk assessment of Peterson being wrong is somewhat suspicious.  He has his ducks in a row, and the statistical evidence supports his version of reality.

It is not knee jerk. I have read what he has written and listened to what he had to say. He is wrong.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Islander said:

To renounced revealed truth is to place oneself outside of the blessing of God. The Father loves all his children but He despises sin and can not look upon it with any degree of allowance. God is totally different from us and no effort to anthropomorphize Him will succeed in reconciling our fallen, broken sinful desires and nature with His eternal laws. The ONLY thing that makes the Church of Jesus Crist of Latter-day Saints different to all others are unique and exclusive claims to revealed truth. To acquiesce to political pressure on this issue or any other future "social" issue would be to renounce those truths and it would the end of it. 

It is time for the American Church and its members to prove once and for all they will obey the laws of God or bow down to those of men. For the government will not stop to promote laws that clash with those of God. After all, this earth is satan's domain and in this battle we will lose but we will win the war at the end.

 

The history of the church does not support your statement.  Under pressure, the church has changed core revealed "truth".  The topic of polygamy or as they use to call it, the new and everlasting covenant, has been beat to death on this forum, but the fact is, it was core doctrine and rightly or wrongly, the U.S. government forced the church (and apparently God) to shut it down.  It took twenty years, but it was ended by outside pressure. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

The history of the church does not support your statement.  Under pressure, the church has changed core revealed "truth".  The topic of polygamy or as they use to call it, the new and everlasting covenant, has been beat to death on this forum, but the fact is, it was core doctrine and rightly or wrongly, the U.S. government forced the church (and apparently God) to shut it down.  It took twenty years, but it was ended by outside pressure. 

And, I always contended, is one of the issues that the Church has never explained with any degree of theological certainty. That is why I maintain that if such a thing happens again it will be the end of it. No amount of political or religious justification would do. I welcome the opportunity of seeing whether the Church will stand and endure the wrath of government and men or if it breaks under pressure. Too long have we enjoyed health, wealth and leisure when none was promised by the Savior. The worth of soldier is not proven but in battle. So, we'll see.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This board is replete with all manner of nonsense, including bias and projection.  Any one of us might be guilty of such nonsense, without even realizing it.  We are prisoners of our own flawed understanding, and perhaps not self-reflective enough to make an independent evaluation of anything.  Is this the existential dilemma you point to?  Is any sort of accusation automatically justified, instead of coming to grips with the facts?  Are we doomed to nihilism?  Never able to make sense of anything?  Is the claim that one is merely repeating culture war slogans an adequate evaluation of the facts?  Are logic and reason useless?

If all of us are equally wrong all the time, does that bode well for a successful human future? Or does it even matter what we think?  Must we always come back to nihilism?  Well, if facts don't exist, and if everything is merely socially structured, then what is there to discuss?  The council of Athens did not appreciate Socratic dialogue, and so sentenced Socrates to death.

I was just saying I was surprised to hear you using the rhetoric I associate with talk radio and certain political ideologies. I am indeed surprised. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This board is replete with all manner of nonsense, including bias and projection.  Any one of us might be guilty of such nonsense, without even realizing it.  We are prisoners of our own flawed understanding,

Couple of weeks ago a board member posted about how critical race theory is the key to understanding how systematic racism works. The post got 5 upvotes. 

   We are doomed as a society. Save your money, pay off your house and have somewhere your kids and grandkids can shelter. Because we are on the fast track to dismantling everything that is good about America and the train has no brakes.

  

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was thinking more of schools like CUNY, MIT, CalTech, Oxford Univ, Cambridge Univ, Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, etc.  Those Ivy League schools you mention are pretty weak academically.  They are woke.  I'll given them that.

oB0l4s.gif

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was thinking more of schools like CUNY,

Hey! I made the cut! ! ;)

I strongly recommend Eugene Fontinell's philosophy/ theology, one of my profs while I was there

Very applicable to the LDS view

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As long as Brother Archuleta remains true to his covenants (and it sounds like he intends to) and does not try to agitate in contravention of the word of God, he’ll be fine in the end. 

He's got a rough life ahead of him, either way.

Link to comment
Just now, katherine the great said:

Idk. I think he insinuated that he’s kind of asexual. Maybe he will not need as much physical intimacy as most people. Maybe he’ll be comfortable alone. 

I don't think asexual necessarily implies no intimacy at all.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...