FOR THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT
EARTHLY TERM, 2012
CASE NO. 12-1842
JESUS CHRIST,
APPELLANT
v.
THE CORPORATE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
APPELLEES
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF KINDERHOOK
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT
ERIK M. KULICK
ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT
Erik Kulick shared a link.
20 February near Salem
What happens in a Mormon church when someone tries to share a differing view.
YouTube
m.youtube.com
Like · · Share
Rex White Jr likes this.
Brittany Turner didn't come up :(20 February at 07:34 · Like
Jason Piedrasanta Not worth my time...20 February at 07:38 · Like · 1
Brian Harris You get slapped down20 February at 07:42 · Like
April Nunez um let me guess..you are told you are wrong and to repent?20 February at 07:56 · Like
Erik Kulick Here is the link... I guess the Apple Youtube and Facebook apps don't like each other...
www.youtube.comAs can be seen in the video. A Mormon steps up during a "Testimony Meeting" at h...See more
20 February at 08:09 · Like ·
Erik Kulick That's the problem Jason.20 February at 08:10 · Like
April Nunez You can't share your testimony on issues if they don't conform to church standards. Members do not care that they are taking away the agency of another group of people because they are told that it will destroy life as they know it. They must then be forced to marry gays in their church and to have gay agenda taught in their schools etc etc. They must stop the gay agenda before it starts to take down the church.20 February at 08:23 · Like
Brittany Turner wow. inspiring, sad, disappointing, and frustrating.20 February at 08:23 · Like · 1
April Nunez More power to him for speaking out.20 February at 08:25 · Like · 1
Daniel Murphree Oh come on now. Video camera prepared in the audience and a script to speak from? This guy wasn't defending some deep seated belief, he was trying to stir up trouble. He was up there just to make this video and probably hoped that they would wrestle him to the ground or something. If someone walked in to your house and insisted that your [insert belief here] was totally wrong and he had that straight from [insert authority you actually care about] you wouldn't just let him talk on and on. Especially if he was reading it from a script and had a camera behind him.20 February at 09:07 · Like · 2
Brittany Turner so what if it was staged? the reaction certainly wasn't. it's important to shed light on the issue, and i applaud him for doing so (whether the event was spontaneous and wholly authentic or not).20 February at 09:10 · Like
Daniel Murphree You have no idea how far the staging went. For all you know people who would go to the trouble of staging a script and camera to stand up in a private religious meeting to cause contention would have no qualms about staging a whole meeting to stand in front of so they could make sure they got the reaction they were hoping for. You don't know this guy from Adam, and you have no way of saying that anything is authentic. Not that I am saying the entire thing was staged, just that you have no idea yourself that it wasn't.
As for bravery for standing up, this guy showed no more bravery doing this that the idiots who dress in costumes and harass people so they can post a video on you tube like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MicK7DrFUAw
He was videoing a reaction, just like kangaroo man there, and wasn't "getting a message out". If he want's to get out a message, video the message.20 February at 09:19 · Like · 1
Brittany Turner Fair enough. But the point remains intact - the LDS is engaging in discriminatory, unfair, and essentially un-Christian behavior by continuing to shun, abuse, and malign the LGBT community. The fact that LDS has extended those same behaviors to any who criticize these practices also remains true.20 February at 09:22 · Like
Rex White Jr It is interesting how people are so quick to point out discriminatory behavior when it is coming from Mormons but so slow and non-existent when it is discrimination being hurled at Mormons. Go back and read Reynolds v. US and tell me that there wasn't religious discrimination taking place in that decision. Mormons are upholding the Constitution, the Defense of Marriage Act and support legislation that does the same.20 February at 10:14 · Like · 1
Daniel Murphree The LDS defense of proposition 8 has almost nothing to do with maligning the LGBT community and everything to do with defending the definition of marriage, which is a religious concept and remains so. The Church has expressly stated that it is not opposed to homosexual civil unions being permitted and rewording of laws that are concerning to homosexuals because of the definition of marriage in such a way as to handle civil unions and marriages the same, we are just opposed to marriage being redefined. If the LGBT community were extending the same respect they are demanding from everyone else then they would respect this and if they were really mainly interested in equal treatment under the law then they would be fine with laws being changed so that civil unions would count the same as a marriage under the law. People in a civil union are still free to, and customarily do, refer to themselves as married without asking the law to redefine the definition of a word that has had the same usage for centuries.
But the resounding message (though not spoken) is that the community wants to dictate what churches are allowed to believe in. As April said above, if marriage is allowed to be redefined how much further until religions are forced to allow marriages that are against their beliefs? The adoption thing she also mentioned is a prime example since there have already been issues in that field. The Catholic church had to choose closing down adoption agencies in Massachusetts because the alternative was going against their beliefs and allowing homosexual couples to adopt from them. This is a clear violation of their religious freedom, it is not like there are no other places that people can adopt from so why should the Catholic church be required to allow the adoptions?
Required acceptance of the LGBT community is akin to required acceptance of the BDSM "community" to these churches and (hopefully) no one is asking for people to accept the BDSM community as normal just because some people enjoy it.20 February at 10:15 · Like
Brittany Turner not sure why pointing out the flaws with mormonism somehow implies that there has not been discrimination against mormons, as well. no one was suggesting that they haven't also experienced adversity, but two wrongs certainly don't make a right...20 February at 10:15 · Like
Daniel Murphree I'll stop there because I know I can't change your mind, and you know you can't change mine. I've had my say, just hopefully you could try to be as open minded as you are asking others to be.20 February at 10:16 · Like
Brittany Turner daniel, that's the third time you've tried to redirect the discussion from the actual issue at hand, and i think it's wise to stop engaging in the comments. if you wanted to talk about the actual topic instead of bringing up unrelated and extremely sensationalized "arguments," it'd be a different story. i think i am a very open minded person, but it doesn't change the fact that i believe discrimination is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.20 February at 10:17 · Like
Rex White Jr I am referring to discrimination toward Mormons on the very issue of marriage.20 February at 10:17 · Like
Rex White Jr The Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress of this Country defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Until that changes there ins't much to talk about other than you (Birttany) can attempt to influence others to vote for politicians that will repeal it and I will continue to attempt to influence others to vote for politicians who will uphold it.20 February at 10:19 · Like
Daniel Murphree Sorry, I must have missed exactly what the issue at hand is after all. Are you upset they were discriminating against that poor fellow who staged a talk? I thought the issue was discrimination against the LGBT community, which is what I addressed since the discrimination is supposedly being shown by the whole gay marriage question.20 February at 10:23 · Like
Mitchell Peterson Daniel, you fairly criticized the staging of this video as a disrespectful stunt. Why do you think the church was against Prop 8 assuming the church isn't opposed civil unions as you said?
Do you think this is similar to the adoption flap and that the real issue is money? When churches didn't want to place mixed races together after civil rights legislation the feds threatened to withdraw funding if church adoption centers continued to segregate races so the churches began that practice in order to not lose their subsidy from the government.
Such that the issue here is about the potential for the feds to hold/withdraw funding, making this a fight for subsidy not for recognition of "eternal principles".
It's about government muscling in on churches historical priviledge. If that's the case I have some (limited) sympathy for the church-nobody likes to lose power; though the controversy is also of their own making. If they were to accept gay marriage then there would be no controversy and no loss of power/funding. I predict that American legislation will beget a revelation about love for all of God's children throughout the world.20 February at 12:06 · Unlike · 1
Dave Kyle So what is the "reaction" I was supposed to see in that video?20 February at 12:22 · Like
Rex White Jr Mitchell, that revelation you speak of has already come out in "The Family: a Proclamation to The World." It clearly states that all are loved by our Heavenly Father. It is also clear that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Homosexuality is a choice. Until a gay gene is scientifically proven there is no other discussion about it. Lots of money has been poured into finding this elusive gene that could have been spent feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless. http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-teacher-resource-manual/family-proclamation?lang=eng&query=family%3A+proclamation+worldOld Testament Teacher Resource Manual The Family: A Proclamation to the World
www.lds.org
20 February at 12:36 · Like ·
Dave Kyle Guy in video: "The Holy Spirit has guided me here today to talk to you and tell you the Church has it all wrong..." = Progressive, enlightened, good, true Christian, 'un-orthodox' Mormon views, we must all listen to him.
Any other faithful member of the Church: "I know this is Christ's church and we are led by a living prophet of God..." = Tripe, idiot following with blind faith, repeating words with no meaning, racist, homophobe, close-minded intolerant.
Is that about it?20 February at 12:38 · Like
Laura Sheffield What about that ward in the bay area that has tried really hard to reconcile with its former and current lgbt members and families? http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52486958-78/mayne-gay-lds-ward.html.csp
I know this is only a drop in the bucket to repair the rift between the LDS church and the lgbt community. I just think it is an okay counter example to that weird video.
Anecdotally, in my family there is no place for bigotry. My parents, who are active members of the LDS faith, love their gay friends and family. When they say their church is true, they mean it. I don't know jaw they deal with the dichotomy of rights for their lgbt loved ones and their faith's views on it.
Frankly I'm hoping for a turnaround like the religion did with the priesthood and black people or polygamy. Change is change. Gay Mormon named to key local LDS leadership post in San Francisco | The Salt Lake Tribune
www.sltrib.comWhen members of San Francisco’s LDS Bay Ward want to meet with the bishop, they’ll call Mitch Mayne.
20 February at 12:51 · Like ·
Diana Kyle · Friends with Dave Kyle and 2 others
I wonder if the word "church" and the phrase "some people in the church" were exchanged, it would be a more accurate statement and accusation as to how anyone that does not share the same beliefs as another member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does is thereby shunned. I know that I am a member of this church, I do not shun, I am not taught to shun....and I am taught to love my neighbor and to judge not lest I be judged. I do know however there are people of all faiths that do feel it is their duty to shun and somehow do not relate this practice to judging others. Well there is my 2 cents.20 February at 13:43 · Like · 2
Daniel Murphree @ Mitchell One quote I'm thinking of is this, straight from an LDS Press release:
"The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
The Church isn't saying homosexuals should have not rights, just that they should not be allowed to usurp religious rights or terminology.
The "adoption flap" goes beyond mere money since denial of state recognition of a religion goes beyond just beginning to charge that religion taxes. It is officially declaring that one group of people's belief (LGBT) is more important than another group's (in that case Catholics) to the state. That's expressly against the first amendment. In other countries where the precedent has been set to rule against churches in favor of the LGBT community we see further suppression of religious freedoms, such as here
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/swedish-pastor-faces-jail-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/
Things like this are what the Church is against and the real issue in contention.
Also, seeing as there was no response to my query about if the issue here was discrimination against this particular video producer I will have to assume that was the real question for Brittany. To that I have to say that I did address this issue in my first post. This man wasn't discriminated against. Even if he was a church member, which we can't know, he was an invited guest at a private meeting on private property. This wasn't discrimination any more than asking someone with distasteful opinions that is just trying to get a reaction to leave your house. If I had stood up at a Gay Rights rally at the podium and started with "You know I was reading some research and I've decided you are all wrong. Homosexuality is clearly not hereditary or a correct practice..." I would expect a similar reception and definitely wouldn't have expected to be allowed to finish saying my piece. Would that make me brave? I'd be standing up for what I believe in too, though in the most stupid way and stupid place possible. If it's not discrimination from one group, you can't count the same as discrimination from another.The Divine Institution of Marriage
www.mormonnewsroom.orgIntending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the f...See more
20 February at 13:47 · Like · 2 ·
Dave Kyle Daniel, you're WAY more eloquent and patient than I am! Thanks...20 February at 16:30 · Like
Erik Kulick The main point for posting the video was to show how poorly dissenting views are generally handled by church leadership. Back in the day Brigham Young and Orson Pratt publicly debated over the nature of intelligence, now, if you don't put on that white shirt and tie and maintain allegiance to the leadership and their directives, you are likely to find yourself in a very lonely place. Even if this entire video was staged, it still does a decent job at conveying what such an experience would entail.
Dave, the point of the post wasn't to try to prove the correctness of a particular dissent, but to show the danger of wholesale acceptance of religious teachings. That's not to say that listening to religious leaders automatically creates those forms of intolerance, but it is unfortunately a common breading ground for such hatred.
Laura, I'm glad to see that there are pockets of the faithful who are going above and beyond what is expected of them, I just hope that love and tolerance can win out over hatred and bigotry at the end of the day.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, just because some religious institutions have doctrinal stances specifically defining marriage to be between a man and woman only, doesn't mean that there aren't valid religious (or non-religious) views which are inclusive of homosexual couples in their definitions. The biggest problem with the way the church has handled this situation is they have used the rights of others as shields for their own. I can understand and will even defend a religious institution's right to refuse to participate in activities that go against its doctrine, but that line should not be drawn in such a way that it subsumes the rights of another.
Rex, homosexuality isn't a choice or genetic, its the product of hormonal exposure.
mormonstories.orgYesterday (9/23/2010) Dr. William Bradshaw of BYU's Department of Microbiology a...See more
20 February at 16:58 · Like ·
Rex White Jr I'll side with the person who speaks with God and receives revelation for the entire world. It is an interesting take on where it originates from but there is far from enough proof to substantiate such a theory.20 February at 17:09 · Like
Erik Kulick Just because you believe that your religious leaders speak to God, doesn't mean they actually do; there are a few other thriving religions who believe their guys possess that authority, and equal weight should be given to their religious rights.
The idea that homosexuality is a biological restraint on overpopulation created in a mothers womb makes more sense than insisting that individuals who struggle in vain to change their sexuality in order to comport with their religious convictions have a choice in the matter.20 February at 17:21 · Like
Dave Kyle Erik, you keep refering to 'rights'. What are these rights that are being subsumed? No one is stopping you from living with another boy, or 8 or 10 for that matter. Why must we call that 'marriage'? What you seem to want is to live by whatever rules you think are right, AND be counted among the worthy members of a church that believe that these things are fundamentaly wrong. ??? Why is that?
All this makes about as much sense as me joining another faith and standing up to preach the Book of Mormon to them. Then, of course, I'd be offended when they said they didn't believe in that. I'd then say, "But I'm just a Methodist that has un-orthodox views, I believe in the Book of Mormon!"20 February at 17:22 · Like · 2
Erik Kulick I don't care if I'm counted among the "worthy" members or not. The idea of worthiness is one of the most hypocritical and self-serving concepts ever conceived by the religious.
The church's stance on gay marriage and decision to interfere with it is just one of many qualms I have with the church and its teachings. Even though I no longer associate with the church personally, I have children who attend, so you better believe that I will be scrutinizing what they do and don't do.
I don't want to live by whatever rules I think are right, I want those who are deciding what those rules are in our society to do so objectively instead of just accepting what pious people insist to be truth. That's not to say that all religious doctrines are wrong, just that there may be exceptions to rules which are only discoverable when one drills down in to the reasons why something is right or wrong.20 February at 17:35 · Like
Rex White Jr Well said Kyle. Erik, I know you have a jaded view of some of the doctrines and I accept that. Not sure what exactly it was that put you down that path but I suspect is was someone who didn't read section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants very well. In my experience that is the source of a great majority of the time. I have several friens who engage in homosexual behaviors. I still love them and so does God. God still loved the Romans who carried out the execusion of His Son and the Pharises who condemned Him to death. God's love does not translate into acceptance of sinful behavior. Love the sinner not the sin. I love my friends but do not approve of their lifestyle. People have different challenges in this existence. My challenges are different then your's. The bottom line is we are all going to be held accountable for how we used our agency. That is something you fought for in the pre-existence. That is why it is sad when people use that fought for agency to blatently disobey the commandment of God. Homosexuality being a sin isn't a made up Mormon doctrine it is very clearly stated in the Bible (old and new testaments).20 February at 17:40 · Like · 1
Daniel Murphree @Erik How exactly did the leadership handle that poorly? That was a sacrament meeting, not a public debate forum. It was neither the time nor the venue to bring up views that are directly contradictory to the views expressed by the Church, debate is not what fast and testimony meeting is about. I'm not familiar with the Brigham Young and Orson Pratt debates, though early Church leaders debating would not surprise me, but I would be willing to venture that they did not hold these debates during sacrament meeting. There is a proper time and a proper place for everything, and the only thing this man showed is that he has no concept of this fact. It seems to me that these church leaders acted quite appropriately as far as was able to be seen on camera. I would hope that later they took the time to explain to the poor confused individual what the word appropriate means.
Also, it does seem pretty clear that you do not want to have everyone live by whatever rules they believe to be correct, like you said, because you believe that only people who agree with you should be allowed to set the rules. You want to be justified by "society" in the rules you want to follow while others are not allowed to live according to their beliefs.
You seem to think, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm only going off of your statements here, that my belief in my church leaders is some sort of blind faith and it is inconceivable that anyone might have studied these things out for themselves in their own heart and mind and come to a different conclusion than what you have. Frankly that is quite insulting. I've never followed the church doctrines blindly and I don't think that church leaders asking the members in California to stand up for what they believe in (yes what the members believe in because one of the first tenets of our religion is that the prophet DOES speak to God) is the church "using the rights of others to shield its own" any more than the Wikipedia blackout protest was Wikipedia "using" the rights of its patrons. The Church was calling attention to an issue that affects it members. The members were still free to vote however they chose, no apostle stood in the booth with them pointing a gun or even asked how they voted after they came out.
As to homosexuality being genetic or environmental, what does the cause really matter? Humans enjoying sex is a deep seated genetic trait, almost every church I know still teaches against premarital sex. Teaching that sex is sacred and only to be used in the proper type of relationship, oh hey unless you happen to be gay! That would be a hypocritical double standard. But Dallin H. Oaks says it much better than I, about the 9th bold face question down:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
Unfortunately also relevant:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/16.2?lang=eng#120 February at 19:59 · Like · 2
Erik Kulick What set me down the "path" of disbelief was actually an intense desire to learn things that would help me defend the church from its "attackers". I believed in the church and everything it teaches for a long time. I even had miraculous experiences which I automatically attributed to God, and used as confirmation of all the things the church teaches (as we are endlessly taught to do). It is a myth created by church leaders that most people who disaffect do so as a result of increased levels or different varieties of sin. There may be a behavioral adjustment as the individual tries to figure the world out for themselves, and unfortunately, sometimes that person gets wrapped up in some messy stuff as a pendulum reaction the oppressive nature of their experience, but it is disingenuous to assume that they lost their faith as a result of something that can be written off easily.
Personally, I just got to a point after listening to all of the arguments for and against the church, where I realized that the whole idea that people receive divine revelation or aid from deity was problematic. I realized that just because the world is wondrous and certain ideas and principles that are pondered by the religious touch upon the deep and profound, doesn't mean that there necessarily is a God. Alternatively, if a God exists, he or she would be unlikely to involve him or herself with the affairs of men. That being would abstain from interfering, simply because any level of interference would unduly aid or burden the individual or those around them. I still believe that there is something great and wondrous going on in conjunction with our existence, but I am now hesitant to definitively say exactly what that is. Besides, I have found that the more people seek to be better people for the sake of being better people, the greater their success, and the more that people try to be better people in order to avoid eternal damnation (or celestial demotion) or gain salvation (or exaltation), the more limited that growth ends up being.
To insist that someone's behavior is sinful is still judgmental and presumptuous. It's one thing to observe the general benefits and consequences of specific behaviors and try to advise people on how to live a happier and more productive life, it's another thing to presume that the moral severity of another's actions is greater than the actions of one's self. If there is a God who actually cares about the things we do, then let her sort it out.
I think the leader handled it poorly because he quietly rebuked and silenced the individual instead of letting him speak what was in his heart. A testimony meeting should be about people sharing what they believe, not a ritualistic echo chamber repeating the same mantras over and over and telling stories that confirm the party line. That sounds eerily similar to something called a rameumptom. While I no longer believe in the divinity of those early leaders callings, I have gained a new found respect for the way they were able to create and lead such a progressive religion for their time. They would be shocked to see how much the organization they put so much of their blood sweat and tears into, has devolved. They used to encourage questioning, now its viewed as a weakness at best.
I never said that only people who agree with me should be able to set the rules, I just want who ever is in charge of that task to exercise a bit of logic, reasoning, and compassion as they go about their job. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to live according to their beliefs, I just don't approve when they use their beliefs as justification to infringe on the rights of others to live according to theirs.
Whether or not you personally operate on blind faith or have studied things out matters little to me. How you personally operate is up to you, and I will gladly defend your right to pursue which ever path you chose in whatever way you chose it.
The church may believe it is doing the right thing when it encourages its members to vote against the rights of others, but that doesn't automatically make it right. It may not believe that it is using the rights of others to shield its own, but it is. Just because the church didn't use threat of violence to influence their members, doesn't mean they were mere bystanders in the equation. They have the ability to mobilize large numbers of well organized and talented individuals in order to exert great influence on the outcome of weighty matters, so they need to be extra careful when wielding that power. People have a right to be treated as equals, and if that means letting homosexuals marry and partake of ALL of the benefits of such a union, then so be it. Religious institutions should be allowed to refuse to directly participate in things that are contrary to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean they have a right to obstruct the freedom of people with whom they disagree.
It matters greatly if it turns out that God cares about sexuality and homosexuality is biological instead of elective. Boyd Packer said it best in the line that was omitted from the official transcript of his divinely inspired talk:
“Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what
they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the
unnatural,” he said. “Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that
to anyone?”
I have known multiple people in the church who have tried with all their might to "be straight" in order to comply with what the truly believed to be God's word, yet their efforts were futile. To create people who are unable to be attracted to the opposite sex and expect them to conform with rules that would prevent them from ever experiencing the fullness of love is the most sadistic thing a being could do, so if a God exists, he is either flawed, or our assumptions of what she expects of us is flawed. Dictating the sex lives of its membership is one of the most harmful things that the church has done. Far too often Mormons end up with dysfunctional or unsatisfying sexual relationships as a result of the gender-specific conditioning that goes on with the young men and women. The females are taught that they are impure if they lose their virginity before marriage, and are often taught with object lessons that entail passing around a treat that is somehow defiled through poking it or spiting on it, and comparing them to the cupcake if they are not chaste. The males are taught to be chaste as well, but the emphasis is not as strong as it is with the females. This results in women who are afraid of sex and men who are ready and raring for the opportunity to finally have church sanctioned sexuality. Needless to say this doesn't often mesh well.
If anything, that Oaks response reinforces the argument that they should be allowed to marry, that way they can finally have God-approved sex.20 February at 22:49 · Like · 1
Dave Kyle Erik, what you are saying is chaos. Do you think the world would be a better place if there was no right and no wrong, which seems to be what you are describing?
“Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what
they FEEL are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the
unnatural,” he said. “Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that
to anyone?”
He is saying that some believe they were preset to be attracted to the same sex that they are. And then he says that our Heavenly Father would not do that. The; "Not so." means no one is preset with those tendencies. I know you don't like definitive statements of right and wrong, but do you really not understand what he said there?21 February at 04:40 · Like · 3
Daniel Murphree I really do need to leave this be now. I've always know better than to enter debates on Facebook on any subject that really matters since nothing is ever accomplished by it. Really I think the main reason I commented at all here is that I remember enjoying our discussions in Logan and how refreshing it was to talk with someone who actually thought things through instead of just accepting. I'm sad that we reached different conclusions, but I hope you are at least happy with the truth you have decided on.
I do agree with Dave about the Boyd K. Packer quote, he is alluding to the fact that God would not tempt us above what we are able to bear. Able to bear is not necessarily the same as do bear. When I set a test for my students I always put questions that they have the tools to answer on the test, but that does not mean that everyone gets 100%. I reject the idea that someone cannot experience the "fullness of love" without sex. I love my children will all that I am, but I do not want to have sex with them. Sex is the fullness of physical attraction and the fullness of lust and can be used, in the right time and in the right way, to strengthen loving relationships but it is not required for someone to love someone else. The only thing it is really required for (required for, not used for or good for) is to produce offspring.
Interestingly enough, I'm not sure about the unnatural part of his statement. Something like that would be a debate you might expect to see if church leaders really thought that mattered to the morality of the question since as you can see Elder Oaks didn't say it was unnatural. I am still sure the debate would not be held in a sacrament meeting. Homosexuality may be natural or it may not but natural doesn't equate with right. Pedophilia is natural, promiscuity is natural, cannibalism and murder are also natural there are animals that engage in all of these behaviors and I think you would be stretching yourself to say that there are two of these that are not clearly wrong actions. But man is not just an animal and that is the point. All of God's commandments have to do with building self control and over coming these natural tendencies to make more of ourselves than mere animals.
From all I have studied I find it impossible to believe that there is no God. Newton's laws show that disorder only increases, so how can we also believe scientifically that an ordered universe came from disorder with no outer power to counteract this law? And so, from the basis that the is an outer power, that would have to be God because the power shown is far beyond our own capacities. But then the human body is even MORE organized than most matter, being created from atomic matter that has to be positioned exactly right, even down to how it is bent once it is joined (learned this from studying enzymes for some knot theory research). Science can barely replicate the formation of any cell structures from atoms, it is nowhere near answering how to create even a stable phospholipid bilayer to contain a cell. Are we supposed to believe that all happened in the primordial ooze then? With no help? That would again violate the law of entropy so we have to conclude that the same power that had the power to violate Newton's laws (or something with the same power, but where did that come from?) also created us in some manner that we cannot replicate. So now accepting that there is a God and that He created us, I cannot bring myself to believe that he would do this for no purpose. Creation would clearly take some sort of effort, would He do this for no reason? I don't think so, not to just wind it up and watch what happens or for some art project. So that leaves me with the other explanation, that God did it for a purpose and, being a thinking and therefor conceited being, I assume that purpose would be for humans. Possibly all of this was done for the benefit of dolphins, but again I just can't believe that though I don't have the a line of logic yet for that one. So believing that God created everything for us and has a purpose for us, I can't believe He would leave us unguided to find that purpose. That would be pointless, how would we figure out the purpose of a being that far beyond us with our limited abilities? So I have to believe that He would interfere to help us find the purpose. To do that He would either have to be present Himself or have some representative among us. Since He isn't present that leaves us with the representative. The rest of my belief comes from there, but that is where I'll leave this because I was just giving the reason I believe that there IS someone to whom God speaks now and there has been in almost every generation. If He revealed His plan before, there would be no reason to believe He would then change tactics and stop revealing his plan to people. I believe that the man who leads the Mormon church and claims to speak to God is the one who is His current representative, and believing that I would have to believe his words unless I believed that God is just playing silly buggers with us, which I do not.
I believe that God wants to teach us self control because we are his children. I want to teach my children to be functioning adults and so I let them learn from their mistakes from time to time and I sometimes give them guidance instead of punishment to help them get past things they do that are incorrect. Am I any better at raising my children than a being who has the power to organize a universe? I doubt it. God allows us to have temptations so that we can have the growing experience of overcoming them. If failure were not an option, some of us (not all) would not grow any more than some (not all) of my students would learn math if they knew they would just get 100% on any test anyway. I believe that God loves us exactly as a father loves his children because His representatives in all generations have said that He refers to us as His children. Sometimes love means letting someone fall, even if it hurts them and it hurts you to the very core.
I'm leaving it there, sorry to have kept posting on this. I hate to cause arguments and waste people's time when I know noone in this posting will be convincing anyone else here to change their mind. But I do miss you Erik, and our discussions. It's been a while. Incidentally and completely off the subject, we still use that big heavy table you gave us when you moved out of Aggie Village. I love that thing, it's as tough as a tank!21 February at 08:58 · Like · 3
Rex White Jr D&C 12121 February at 11:10 · Like
Mitchell Peterson Really good discussion here.
I believe that acceptance is a foundational principle of love.
Is it fair to say that homosexuality, for Daniel, David, and a guest star appearance by Diana :), is learned (like through confusion as a result of having a weak father figure) or chosen? This topic seems to always distill down to that as the basis you use to marginalize gay people; that gayness is a choice, or that gayness is a mortal "condition", similar to cerebral palsy for example, that will get "straightened out" in the next life.
The church teaches that the greatest joy in this life and even exaltation within the celestial kingdom is reserved for the temple married. And that sex, within marriage, is to be celebrated, and can even act as a kind of glue to enhance and support the union (Packer). So sex is celebrated and encouraged in marriage.
The LDS position continues to marginalize gayness as a negative "feeling" that is to be mastered or overcome like anger, rather than to be explored and even (gasp!) celebrated as a kind of glue within the bounds of matrimony. The church has a well defined pathway for hetero's to act on their sexual feelings through marriage.
Church culture encompasses a sort of liberalness about sex in that whatever is mutually satisfying within the marriage bedroom, is acceptable. There are no authoritative teachings against any specific sex act within marriage. Marriage is the gateway to sex.
Because gay's can't marry they can't express the fullness of their feelings, or even explore them, within any church sanctioned relationship, they are therefore excluded from the highest joy's only marriage can bring. Hence, there really is no choice for gay people to explore or celebrate sex in the church-only a life of absolute chastity- a lifestyle not at all celebrated by the church (see many articles/teachings/references to encourage all to marry as soon as possible to get on track to ultimate joy and the celestial kingdom.)
Some members say "they can choose to leave the church if they want to act on those feelings". However gay members also want exaltation in the celestial kingdom. In fact gay people generally want all of the same things as heterosexual people. They are like regular people, just with same sex attraction (and better interior decorating.)
I personally think the church will overcome its same sex attraction phobia, but it will take a couple more generations of Apostles who were born in the 1960's and beyond to be prepared to more fully accept God's children. A year or two ago Elder Oaks seemed to open up a bit about gayness when he wrote on the church website (not authoritatively) that same sex attraction is "not well understood", but continued the old saw that it's definitely a choice to act on any sexual feelings-just like heterosexuals).21 February at 11:12 · Unlike · 1
Dave Kyle Since man has been on the earth, God has taught his prophets that this is wrong. Just like any other sex outside marriage. But, as soon as He calls an Apostle from the 60's generation, He'll see the light and realize He's been wrong all along because some people 'feel' they can't help it?
It sounds like the issue is whether or not the Church is led by the Lord through a prophet, or a group of old guys in suits trying to pull one over on us. You can only answer that question for yourself, that's not something you can be sold on, or convinced of by someone else.21 February at 13:08 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick As far as my use of the Packer quote is concerned, I was using his wording to illustrate the impact that the source of homosexuality has when it comes to members of the church who struggle to reconcile their spiritual conflict.
This is the danger in putting so much stock into whether or not a leader or text has the authority to speak for God. It causes inadvertent and unnecessary judgement of individuals for their actions (or beliefs). Even with conscious attempts at separating the "sin from the sinner", far too often the "sinner" becomes marginalized or worse. To maintain the concept of worthiness does nothing but inflate the pride of some people, and instil a feeling of worthlessness in others. Even presuming everything else we've been taught about God and existence were true, to believe that you possess a worthiness for some future reward that others are unworthy to receive has zero positive value and is a blatant contradiction of the core principles upon which the vast majority of religions are founded.
It is one thing to believe passionately in the teachings of a specific institution, it's another to treat that belief as a knowledge when it doesn't really need to be. The fact of the matter is that all religious people are banking on numerous assumptions, and although these assumptions may be well founded, there is no definitive way to prove any of it. At the end of the day, it will be up to who ever or what ever is behind the curtain to settle our earthly matters.
Daniel, the fact that it seems blatantly obvious that SOMETHING is going on out there doesn't automatically equate to the existence of a being with the capacity or desire to interfere with human affairs. Even if there is a God out there who had a hand in our creation, it is highly unlikely that she would actively participate in the affairs of men. The cost of tipping the scale for or against an individual would be way to high to justify sharing things with us that we'd be better off discovering on our own in the first place. I know that kind of god sounds like a cold and impartial being, but impartiality is a critical trait for someone who is supposed to be all loving.
I completely respect and support everyone's ability to believe what ever their hearts desire, but when people think that faith is a synonym with knowledge, they have unnecessarily crossed into dangerous territory. What I seek is not chaos, only a weariness of becoming so married to something that it impedes the intentionally endless journey that is the search for knowledge and truth. Just because religious leaders are so frequently making proclamations of truth and righteousness, doesn't mean they are the sole authorities on the subject.
Rex, I've read the Mormon religious texts numerous times over. While I have found many great and inspiring things within their pages, it doesn't automatically follow that everything else that gets packaged along with those things are true.
Frankly, I'm glad you guys are willing to engage on these subjects. I've had far too many of my Mormon friends unfriend or block me as a result of the dissonance some of the things I say creates. My goal isn't to sway you guys from believing in God, but rather to help you realize the fact that those beliefs are ultimately assumptions, and hence the need to exercise great care when throwing around definitive statements regarding the "worthiness" of others.21 February at 17:16 · Like
Dave Kyle Some things are very simple, but that doesn't make them easy. All it takes to climb Mt. Everest is to put one foot in front of the other untill you get to the top. Fundamentaly simple? Yes... Easy? Not hardly... incredible discipline, hardship, mental anguish, preparation, etc. but still not complicated.
To say something is wrong or sinful doesn't mean to imply that it's easy to turn away from. Not hardly, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's wrong.
Saying we 'love the sinner, but don't condone the sin' is also simple in principle, but not always easy to do.21 February at 18:40 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Whether or not something is morally wrong doesn't change the fact that abstainers from that "sin" are just as guilty as the obvious transgressors because they themselves transgress in different and more subtle ways. It is for this reason that under key tenants of Christianity, no-one can be more "worthy" than another. Just because something has more obvious consequences, doesn't make it more "evil".
21 February at 19:10 · Like
Dave Kyle I'm quantifying one thing as more evil than another, I'm saying there is right and wrong. That seems to be what some don't want to hear. That's all...21 February at 19:13 · Like
Erik Kulick It's not that people don't want to hear that there is right and wrong, they just don't want people imputing that they are somehow more flawed or evil than the person doing the finger pointing. If something IS morally wrong, then people should still be permitted to do those things, as long as they're not the kinds of actions that cause other people harm. 21 February at 19:52 · Like
Dave Kyle I still don't get it... who's stopping you from doing anything?21 February at 20:06 · Like
Dave Kyle Are you saying that the Church should teach that anything that doesn't cause others harm is OK?21 February at 20:24 · Like
Erik Kulick No, I'm saying that when it comes to the imposition of morality on people through the political process, it should only be permitted when being used to prevent harm to others.21 February at 21:01 · Like
Erik Kulick Bringing it full circle to the prop 8 issue ;-)21 February at 21:01 · Like
Rex White Jr No one is stopping homosexuals from having sex. Prop 8 doesn't say gays can't get it on. Prop 8 only defines marriage between one man and one woman and the majority of the voting populace agreed with it. WhatKs the problem with that. They can contine to have sex with each other all they want.21 February at 21:24 · Like
Erik Kulick The underlying reason for preventing homosexuals from marrying is the purported immorality of the acts that take place within such a union. To insist on preventing homosexuals from using a term to describe the greater level of commitment they are seeking to establish is a blatant imposition of morality on people who are in no way harming anyone. That should not be permitted.21 February at 21:41 · Like
Dave Kyle But what you want shouldn't be seen as an impossition on those of us who are married?
We could vote on a proposition that says 'fat' shall mean that you wiegh at least 500 lbs. Then I, for one, wouldn't be fat any more... ;)
(I know, but it's getting late)21 February at 21:55 · Like
Erik Kulick What exactly does gay marriage do to imposition you in your marriage?21 February at 21:57 · Like
Rex White Jr Marriage belongs to religion. The state took over for several reason one of them being a way to generate revenue. Gays being allowed to hijack the term of marriage is one more step in removing it from where it belongs which is in the church.21 February at 22:19 · Like
Erik Kulick Just because something originated in religious ceremonies, doesn't mean religion has some kind of property interest in it. Besides, gay marriage is only opposed by SOME religions, and therefore other religions should be allowed to incorporate gay marriage into their definition of marriage. The right to marry homosexuals would then be a protected right on par with any other right the government protects for religions. 21 February at 22:33 · Like
Rex White Jr Why do gays want so bad to have the tile of marriage? Is that going to make their sex life better? What is wrong with having commitment ceremony and call it a garriage? ;)21 February at 23:01 · Like
Erik Kulick Why did you want to get married? I'm sure your sex life is better now that you're married, given your religious conviction, so why shouldn't a person who believes similarly to you (with the obvious exception) be allowed to treat their sexuality as "sacredly" as you?21 February at 23:11 · Like · 1
Rex White Jr Erik you are smarter than your last comment. I wasn't having sex prior to marriage unlike people who are participating in a homosexual behaviors. I'm sure there is some exception out there where a gay couple waited to have a civil union prior to sex so that isn't analogous to what you are trying to argue. A person cannot just have "one obvious exception" if they believe similar to me. That obvious exception effects a lot more than just the marriage question. You never answered my question. Why isn't a civil union good enough? It obviously doesnt make the sex better regardless of how you took that bait and came up short to draw a correlation.21 February at 23:47 · Like
Anthony Slaninka Christ is the only way to Salvation...22 February at 00:03 · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, just because a person is a homosexual, doesn't mean they are a nymphomaniac or even promiscuous. If a person has too many exceptions to your personal belief system, they don't deserve to have their religious rights protected as well as yours?
Whether or not a civil union is close enough to a real marriage to satisfy someones conviction towards commitment, religious or otherwise, makes no difference. It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to deny someone the right to marry based on the genders of the parties involved.
That is an assumption, Anthony. But even conceding the possibility that your statement is true, I highly doubt that Christ would have wanted Christians to marginalize people who believed differently than them, or infringe on the ability of those individuals to make their own personal decisions.22 February at 00:15 · Like · 1
Anthony Slaninka that is true but the bible it self according to the Lord, he boldly states against homosexuality...but says in love to " love the sinner not the sin"22 February at 00:21 · Like
Rex White Jr Erik you are putting words in my mouth. If you havent learned yet in your 1L year it should become very obvious that doing such is very dangerous and isn't looked very favorably upon by judges. Your second argument about it being against the equal proteoction well that hasnt been decided by the highest court so that is your opinion rather than fact. Maybe it is just late but your arguments ar getting weaker the longer this goes on. I am reminded of Korihor in the book of Alma. I suggest you review that nugget of doctrine. ;)22 February at 00:33 · Like
Erik Kulick Again, you are assuming that the Bible is infallible. Don't forget that the Bible also says that virgins should marry their rapists and virgins should be taken as spoils of war. There are many wonderful things littered through out both the Bible and Book of Mormon, but that doesn't mean that all of their stories are true or that any of it really was a product of divine revelation or intervention. Why can't people believe what they will about deity and stop trying to dictate to others what they should believe or need to do to get to heaven.
The irony in all of this is that throughout history, the most significant and influential religious leaders were vocal dissenters to the religious status quo.
Pardon me Rex, I didn't realize I was before the bar. Just think of me as a seer of the future.22 February at 00:37 · Like
Anthony Slaninka Because it clearly states in the Bible From Jesus's mouth himself, I am the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. JOHN 14:6 That is clearly telling all mankind the only way to get to Heaven is through Jesus Christ himself, as per being the Son of God..22 February at 00:47 · Like
Rex White Jr Korihor also thought he was a seer. Interesting.22 February at 00:49 · Like
Anthony Slaninka There is no doubting or misconception that Jesus, Himself was and always was there from the beginning. John 1:1-3 explains it, in its entirety...22 February at 00:50 · Like
Anthony Slaninka You are completely "WRONG" But if you just accept Him as your Lord and Savior your sins will be forgiven, and give you, your rightful place in the Kingdom of Heaven, there are no other ways to go their except through Christ himself...Why don't you comprehend this, the mormon bible is a false teaching of the bible in its entirety...I'm sorry to drop this misconception on you and all who believe the mormon word...22 February at 00:56 · Like
Anthony Slaninka You are not going to be the QUOTE, rulers of your own worlds, and thinking that you can get a dead relative or friend to believe and stay in places to stay there22 February at 00:58 · Like
Erik Kulick That's right Rex, I'm the reincarnation of Korihor. Isn't it nice that you can liken people to scriptural heroes or villains depending on whether or not you agree or disagree with them?
Anthony, no matter how definitive the authors of the Bible make their works out to be, it doesn't change the fact that you are relying on the same internal confirmation that Mormons rely on when they pray about the validity of the things that they've been taught. It really is ironic that "Christians" tend to criticize Mormonism as being a "works" based religion, yet they put the same arbitrary weight in the beliefs of the individual as Mormons put in works and belief. You guys have so much more in common than you realize, yet are willing to throw away the chance at having consistent support for a Republican nominee. Don't worry though, a Christian Republican will be elected: Obama will have a second term. 22 February at 07:33 · Like
Rex White Jr You put words in my mouth again. Poor debating form my friend. What I did say was that you are recycling an argument much older than you are which was proven erroneous. People tend to conform their beliefs around what behaviors they want to justify when unfortunately the principles of the gospel don't change. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The old saying of rationalization and justification is just like masturbation you are only screwing yourself, is very applicable to the great majority of the agruments you have proffered in this discussion.22 February at 09:01 · Like
Erik Kulick If people are drawing inferences from what you say that are not in line with what you are trying to communicate, it is at least in part due to a lack of clarity in the original communication. The fact remains that you are using potentially fictional characters to make your argument.
The existence of real world consequences for specific actions doesn't automatically prove the existence or involvement of deity. All that really is required for an individual to discover right and wrong is to view all potential actions through the lens of equal love for others and self. If an action produces conflict in that paradigm, then it seems safe to say the action is wrong.
22 February at 15:12 · Like
Rex White Jr "potentially fictional characters" falls under that headline of rationalization and justification. Right and wrong is based on unchanging principles. Love thy neighbor as thyself is only one of those principles. Deity being unchanging is also another of those principles. Deity has already spoken on the issue of homosexual behavior.22 February at 15:17 · Like
Erik Kulick I understand what you *believe*. There is the possibility that you are right, but that doesn't automatically mean your belief equals a verifiable knowledge. There is great danger in confusing the two concepts, yet the practice is maddeningly common. 22 February at 15:28 · Like
Rex White Jr Way to much evidence exists contrary to any claims proffering the non existence of deity. Again people will adjust their beliefs to justify the immoral behavior. That is the natural man!22 February at 15:47 · Like
Erik Kulick Why does it matter? Why does the historical accuracy need to be true? Anything that was purported to have been said by Jesus that was in line with the one principle he chose to espouse above all others would have practical application regardless of the existence of any deity. IF Jesus was divine, then a certain reality was omitted from the records through the passage of time: Jesus would have wanted to have us see him and any other rendition of deity as equal with ourselves and each other. A purportedly perfect person would have to be humble enough to desire all others to see her/him as equal to them. That way we all realize the enormous potential that lies in front of everyone.
That is the beautiful thing about Buddhism and many other eastern religions. They help people realize how to deal with the obstacles in their way instead of telling people what to do, what not to do, what to believe, and what to distrust, like most of the western religions. That's not to say that the religions in the west have been devoid of those more helpful instructions, but far too often these gems get pushed to the background as the people strive to maintain the appearance of righteousness; if only people would work harder on loving others than worrying what goes on in someone else's bedroom.22 February at 21:44 · Like
Rex White Jr To paraphrase "Billy Madison," "nowhere in that complete bunch of rambling was there any resemblance of a correct answer, we are all now dumber from having read that, I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul!" ;)22 February at 22:14 · Like
Erik Kulick I beg to differ =O22 February at 22:51 · Like
Rex White Jr If your dog is lost you got to go out there and find that freaking dog or cow for all the buddhists out there.22 February at 23:24 · Like
Erik Kulick It really is ironic that a religion with such a rich doctrine regarding the importance of agency is so insistent on micro-managing its members.23 February at 00:41 · Like · 1
Charlie Luerssen I like the great old quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." This in the true heart of the faith whether leaders live up to it or people believe it! My own testimony confirms this to my soul, but you must find the truth for yourself beyond the facts of men through study, prayer and tasting the true? knowledge at it source... Happy hunting my fellow "rider on the storm."23 February at 01:38 · Like
Erik Kulick The problem is the correct principles are mixed in with conflicting principles, and so the lens of love must be used to discern which are which.
If the religions were practicing their core precepts properly, they would be inclusive of people with completely different views, and wouldn't be so hung up the differing "imperfections" of the people seeking to share in their religious experiences. I am eternally (if I get to exist beyond this life) grateful for the enlightened teachings that have found their way into the texts I was taught during my formative years, but I can no longer be so presumptuous about the factual accuracy of any religious text, nor can I bring myself to care whether or not deity exists. I prefer to try to understand the world around me through investigation and reflection, and act based on an honest assessment of the implications and potential affects a decision would have on all parties involved. I find this to be a much more efficient and effective way of living than allowing a hope or fear regarding the "world to come" to cloud the process of decision making.23 February at 02:10 · Like
Charlie Luerssen That sounds a little like the religion secular humanism which worships at the altar of political correctness which in itself is very exclusive to the mocking of those who disagree with them. I prefer the simple religion of Jesus Christ to practice the golden rule and to worship God or whatever according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all men the same privilege let them worship how, where, or what they may. Being an old time democrat I've learned to be able to disagree without being disagreeable or to agree to disagree. I find the box that many try to put those of faith into a little off putting and disingenuous. I think a rereading of "Animal Farm" would help many better understand the world around them in a more honest light... lol23 February at 06:24 · Like · 1
Rex White Jr I think you are confusing micro-managing with holding people accountable for their use of agency. Come on Erik you are brighter than that. Don't get mad at the church. Take resposibility for your rationalization and justifications, own it and make the changes necessary before it becomes to late. ;)23 February at 08:20 · Like · 1
Charlie Luerssen Erik in addition to reading "Animal Farm" which is a short read with a big bold timeless message... May I suggest you read Alma 32 again with an open mind and heart for it will help you gain that knowledge, experience and light as you investigate and reflect to gain an honest understanding of the world as it truly is IMHO... lol23 February at 09:23 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick I love Orwell. I consider him on par with the good fictional and non-fictional writers found through out all the religious texts.
I think Alma 32 touches on some fundamental truths about the nature of humanity, but I find the only value in its mention of God is the potential it has in helping people contextualize the struggle. Unfortunately most Christians miss the point; they think the "fact" that it is about the word of God is what makes it so important, instead of the fact the the "word" is love. If God and love just so happen to really be one in the same, then great. I have confidence that a God so inline with such a timeless principle would be more understanding than we could ever imagine or deserve.23 February at 12:17 · Like · 2
Rex White Jr You used the correct word in a Freudian slip kind of way. God is "just," that is obviously clear throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon. God loves us unconditionally but that doesn't mean that he will look the other way and not hold us accountable for our choices.23 February at 12:21 · Like
Erik Kulick There is truth mixed into all sorts of things. The trick is to use the right lens to discover those things and to not assume blanket truth of everything that comes with. Question your leaders. If something is true, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny.
Charlie, regardless of what it sounds like, it is effectively the same thing as simply following the golden rule, which is really all that Christ specifically required of us. The boxes we end up in are often of our own construction. The best way to get out of those pigeon holes is to prove them wrong.
Rex, there is zero value in man trying to exercise moral dominion over another individual. If we are ever to be held accountable, it will be by someone or something beyond this mortal coil. It's one thing to try to help someone by offering them counsel, its another to put on the mantel no man is fit to wear.23 February at 22:33 · Like
Rex White Jr The golden rule was the second great commandment. The first was Love the Lord they God with all they heart, might, mind and strength. When you truly love God then you obey his commandments (all of them). Homosexual acts are clearly a breaking of His commandments. Bishops are common judges in Israel and one of their many functions is to help people through the repentance process. Unfortunately some people are so full of pride and think they know a better way to do things. The scriptures are full of examples of such thinking. Never quite works out the way they were hoping did it? Pride is enmity toward God. You are in essence telling Him "you know those commandments, I don't think those are really necessary, I would rather eat drink and be merry because in the end you will just beat me with a few stripes and I will be saved at last." Isn't that sad that this is the type of thinking that is becoming more common place? I sure wouldn't want to fall on the wrong side of that risky bet. Neither do you.23 February at 22:44 · Like
Erik Kulick People take different risks for different reasons. While your rationale for behaving the way you chose may very well be sound or even "inspired", that doesn't negate the fact that no matter how valid you reasoning for behaving, or how authoritatively you state your claim, there are only self-serving gains to be had by passing out moral judgement.
Again, you are making definitive statements about claims that may or may not be true. You still haven't answered my question: Why does it matter if God exists? The only answer you can give would reflect a primary concern for yourself and those you love. While this isn't in and of itself harmful, it conflicts with the principle of loving others as thy self.
Even if there is divine sourcing of the Christian holy books, I would not at all be surprised to find out that the first great commandment was an after thought by a well meaning spiritual leader. The second great commandment is powerful enough to encompass the first.24 February at 00:11 · Like
Rex White Jr God's existence gives perspective for where every human being came from, why they are here and their divine potential. Your choice to settle for less is sad especially because you know better and you are letting that pride word be a stumbling block. As a father of children you already know the responsibility bestowed upon you from God to raise tbhem in righteousness. By kicking against tbe pricks as Paul puts it you are failing in the example you committed to be in the pre-existence. Lastly, failing to know what the first and great commandment is/was and then trying to word your way around it makes me question how much studying of scripture you really have done. My guess is you went straight for the deeper doctrines before you had the foundation clearly set and established. This has proven to be a fault of many who have awesome potential but proudfully proceed against the counsel of loving leaders. It"s not to late Erik. It is amazing how liv ing the gospel solves a lot of family problems that would otherwise tear them apart.24 February at 08:27 · Like
Charlie Luerssen Erik I love you like my own children and like my own children you have your own mind and agency which at times troubles me... However, I trust in God and his loving plan to allow all his children to fine their own way at their own rate. For those of us who believe in this plan we need to act more like the Planner...24 February at 11:11 · Like
Erik Kulick Mere existence is sufficient to inspire. The most important truth that can be extracted from Alma 32 is that if you can *seek* (it's about the journey not the finish line) the most love filled path with out being *compelled* to do so, you are more likely to be successful in attaining the "greatest results". The problem is, when people don't place the "second" great commandment first, their perception of what the "greatest results" are becomes skewed. People want a God to exist because they are afraid of the idea of ceasing to exist: this blatantly conflicts with the effective practice of the "second" great commandment. Whether or not there is or isn't a reward or punishment awaiting us at the end of this faze of existence, the reality is that using the expectations created by worrying about the possibilities only serves to compel.
Why is it that just because you guys find things in a text or leader that you approve of, and then automatically feel compelled to just accept the whole part and parcel as true? Do you not want to expend the effort to figure things out on your own? Are you afraid you will be misled and lose out on your reward? IF it just so happens that I'm right, I'll let you have mine if it makes you feel any better.
Rex, the rest of your comment was a judgement you placed upon me. Do you feel better now? You assume that since a significant number of my beliefs or actions differ from your own, my path is somehow inferior to yours. You think that just because I don't rely on God, that I'm somehow against her. I'm sorry that the "doctrine" that I gleaned from my reading of "scripture" doesn't match up with yours. I've always been curious how the more dogmatic members of churches justify their Pharisaical behavior while purporting to champion the message of Christ. You know, when I was living in UT, a member of the Stake Presidency was astonished that I would chose a path that would deprive my children of a "moral up-bringing". I'm so glad that God was so loving that he bestowed a religion, whose membership constitutes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the worlds population, with a monopoly over morality.
The only way to act more like the "planner" is by establishing as even-keeled balance of love between all beings as possible. I have another hypothesis. IF Christ's mission was divine, he wasn't perfect in how closely he followed the law, but rather in the way he was able to balance out that love. This evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice for the greater good (as opposed to the vast majority of followers, who support economic rhyme schemes that are driven by selfishness).24 February at 12:55 · Like
Rex White Jr Rationalize and justify how you will, but it will never change eternal principles. Don't wait until it is too late that is all I am saying. There is a danger in that, your children may grow to resent you and you risk their unhappiness because of your selfish behaviors based on pride. I would highly suggest you read Ezra Taft Benson's talk on that very subject.24 February at 13:02 · Like
Erik Kulick Why is God's justice void of due process? At least a criminal trial would require the proving of a mens rea; you just assume the presence of the element is a given. You are free to assume and oversimplify if it will help you sleep at night. What you don't know shouldn't be held against you.
I didn't realize the purpose of raising children is to keep them from resenting you. I think what my children have at their disposal is rather remarkable. They have two parents who love them dearly and want to do what is best for them. While their parents disagree on what some of those things are, they strive to work together to provide stability without compromising what lies in their hearts. They get to go to church with their mother and benefit from the myths of their ancestors, while they get to learn about different spiritual points of view from their father. They have the freedom to learn and grow, and to chose the path that best suits them. I suggest you read some holy texts from eastern religions. You will at the very least get better at being the kind of Mormon you strive to be.24 February at 14:01 · Like
Rex White Jr With an omniscient being there is no need for due process, you either did or did not, He already knows the intent of your heart. I took two separate classes in my undergraduate degree focusing on Eastern Religions not taught at a Mormon school. I have done my homework. Thanks for assuming otherwise though.24 February at 14:05 · Like
Charlie Luerssen I think I chose Alma 32 because it supports your freedom to search out the truth in almost a scientific way... Seek, search and experiment upon the word and if you practice the teachings you might just find what you need is true. However, if you are bold enough to read farther into Alma you will learn how Alma changed his thinking about the moralistic church his father ran. Then how years later Alma tried to explain his conversion and teachings to his own troubled and challenged children. You know like Alma I had a troubled youth, but I kept seeking the meaning of true love, peace and freedom. This led me to Woodstock were I nearly died, but I refected upon childhood belief in Jesus Christ and called upon him to save me. He did and has led me by the power of the Holy Ghost to where I am today. I know what I know not by reading a book or by following a leader, but by the power of God in my life and the holy witness of the Holy Ghost. I respect yours earch and freedom... I'm not your Bishop I am friend and friends don't judge each other or tell each other what the other knows or don'tknow.24 February at 14:10 · Like
Charlie Luerssen You might not know God lives and that is fine, but please don't tell me what I know. I know God lives, that Jesus Christ is the son of God and my savior, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is true and the word of God to me. This is my testimony which I gained by the power of the Holy Ghost and I share it with like my children in love so you might know there is hope in seeking and praying. God Bless you on your journey your friend Charlie...24 February at 14:21 · Like
Erik Kulick Are you that omniscient beings personal agent? If not, stop putting words into her mouth. Maybe you should go back and ponder the eastern texts instead of treating your experience with them like a trip to the zoo.
I understand why you chose to cite Alma. I was just pointing out the most valuable principle it espouses. If a person is looking for something, they are more likely to find it.
Why is it so difficult to see that there are more options than the binary? Standing up to the traditions of one's father doesn't automatically equate to a decision to carelessly toss all wisdom to the wind. This is the problem with assuming blanket truth with things like this; instead of trying to discern between which principle is a practical truth and which principle is a man made attempt at trying to reconcile the unknown, the assumer tries to use mental gymnastics to bend all the pieces into a suitable place, and ignores the remaining pieces left over.
Please don't forget the difference between belief and knowledge.24 February at 14:35 · Like
Rex White Jr I made a covenant at baptism, so did you.24 February at 14:35 · Like
Rex White Jr Keep digging...24 February at 14:37 · Like
Erik Kulick It's too bad they took out the blood oath before I went in for my endowments.
You know it is ironic that you are accusing me of being prideful in my statements, when I'm not the one making definitive proclamations and judgements.24 February at 15:08 · Like
Rex White Jr So you acknowledge you also made a covenant but have not fulfilled your end? "The wicked taketh the truth to be hard," I am not calling you wicked but if you are offended by my straight shooting then maybe some inward searching maybe necessary on your part. Everything I have said to you I can back up with scripture. You can attempt to rationalize those scriptures away but those are the same scriptures to testified to a priesthood leader to be true when you were baptized, if you went to the temple which I think your statement was more flippant than true, than you have certified your belief in the same later in your life as well. Pride, again, is thinking you can do it a different way than what God has prescribed and get the same results. I am not telling you to do anything different than what the scriptures prescribe. Next!24 February at 15:18 · Like
Erik Kulick Who said I was offended? I strive to love you as equally as I love myself, so the practical application of that principle would be that I shouldn't take offense. I am no better than you, so why should I act as if I am? This is where you'd be well suited to revisit that eastern philosophy and earnestly ponder it. Everything I say can be backed up by scripture. That doesn't mean an authoritative seal should be affixed.
I made promises of assumed importance, without realizing all of the implications. If the Mormon church's bundled services happen to be what I was supposed to stay subscribed to, then I hope that the Mormon god will take into account my motivations. If not, I guess I'll go burn in hell or get denied access to your gated communities in the celestial kingdom. Just make sure to wave when you pass me on your way to your throne in heaven.
So pride is questioning the establishment? Wow, I could have sworn it was being over-confident in your beliefs and abilities, and seeing yourself as being better than someone else because of the righteousness under which you operate.24 February at 15:37 · Like
Erik Kulick Besides, I thought that according to the BoM, God is against secret combinations. I don't understand how re-purposed Masonic rituals as the gatekeepers of righteousness fits within that framework.24 February at 15:40 · Like
Shannon Maureen I admire your courage, Erik.24 February at 15:45 · Like
Rex White Jr The first part of your pride definition is exactly what I have told you at least 3 times now. I'll always wave to you Erik you know this. Have I ever passed you in the halls of school without acknowleging your presence? Why would it be any different when you get your act together and your mansion is across the golden street from mine? ;) Secret codes and combinations are what the natural man does to imitate sacred ordinances. Where do you think the Mason's got their stuff. Have you ever thought that it was passed down through the generations from the original but because they have lost the spiritual meaning it has changed. You do know that even though they are similar they are very different at the same time right?. Besides that, it is the covenants that you make at the temple which is the focal point. You are a child of God, never forget that.24 February at 16:04 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick It would only be courage if there were anything to fear ;-)
Shannon, it has been my good fortune to meet people like you which has helped me to see that no group or individual can monopolize truth or righteousness. I used to be so sure that what I had been taught was infallible, but then thankfully I got to see the beautiful spectrum within which love can be expressed. I met atheists who are some of the most genuine and thoughtful people I've ever met. I met homosexuals far more qualified to provide a loving and nurturing home than many of their heterosexual peers. I couldn't make assumptions about their righteousness or fates any longer; I'd gladly die for those people's "sins" any day. Would you do the same, Rex?
I'm sorry Rex, it is my opinion that you have a flawed definition of pride, among other things. I would gladly return the wave and smile, supporting your right to gate yourself off. I don't have any intentions of acquiring that kind of real estate. I would rather spend eternity caring for the huddled masses gathered outside your community. That's what I think our hypothetical Christ would do. Never forget that.24 February at 16:36 · Like
Rex White Jr Huddles masses outside, hahahahahahahahahahaha....hahahahahahahaha. will it be an occupy the celestial kingdom protest? That does sound like something the adversary would try to pull off at the last minute hahahahahahaha ;) Remember the promise that all will be happy where they end up but that burning deep inside will be the regrets for not using the atonement and qualifying yourself to be washed clean through the blood of Christ? You have more accountability because you have been taught and turned away. The awesome thing is that it isn't too late to make it right. I don't have to die for anyones sins. That's the beauty of the restored gospel. That price has already been paid. It is up to you whether it applies or not for you, through your actions and keeping of the covenants you have made. Would I be willing to lay down my life for others...well I did serve a mission in the middle of the ghetto of baltimore ;) but seriously of course I would. Why do you think I am so frank with you? It isn't because I lack law books to read. I saw a struggling soul reaching out for attention by attacking the church. You have my full attention and as you can see I don't back down and I don't mix words. So I will contine to call out smoke screens and rationalizations. That is what friends do.24 February at 17:46 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick So let me get this straight: Atonement = pass the buck
If Jesus' death did anything, it showed people what someone who actually lived the only great commandment (Do unto others) would do for anyone, including Hitler.
The trouble with accusing people of rationalizing, is that the "sins" that you yourself rationalize away are no better than the "sins" of the accused.
You need to take off your struggling soul goggles. What you struggled to see was a man looking out for the injured.
Don't worry, I'm sure your benevolent God will put up an effective barrier.24 February at 21:56 · Like
Erik Kulick Oh, and just to be a technical pest, words are minced, not mixed. Words, I well be too mixed guess can.24 February at 21:58 · Like
Rex White Jr There is another smoke screen. When are you going to be ready to address your real feelings. Stop hiding.24 February at 22:18 · Like
Erik Kulick How am I hiding? I am effectively standing in the middle of on coming traffic, as is evidenced by this 100+ comment post, that incidentally will end up being longer than the appellate brief I'm also working on.24 February at 22:33 · Like
Rex White Jr Trafiic analogy and referrences to a brief = smoke screen.25 February at 00:19 · Like
Rex White Jr Trafiic analogy and referrences to a brief = smoke screen.25 February at 00:19 ·
Erik Kulick Would you rather I point out every assumption you have made in the conversation again? I don't see how making conversational observations is a smoke screen...25 February at 01:23 · Like
Rex White Jr Every time you have raised a doctrinal issue I have answered it. I still stand by my assumptions about D&C 121 and when you admitted your conversation with a stake president in Utah it confirmed my assuption. It obviously has stuck with you and it has resulted in you dig your (high) heels ;) in even further. You are a smart man there is a great danger in looking beyond the mark, if you have studied the Old Testament in depth you know exactly what I am talking about. Somethings are not meant to be overthought.25 February at 09:51 · Like
Brian Harris By saying "somethings are not meant to be overthought," only support the idea that the church's literal adherence to doctrine is asinine? This is my beef, the church (and many other religions) use religious authority by cherry picking what they like (e.g., hot drinks = coffee, wtf!) and take what they do not like as metaphor (a rich man is last to enter the kingdom of heaven). I find that to be senseless hypocrisy. The bible is a good book, but to use as weapon to bludgeon people on moral points without looking at the plank that is stuck in your eye is a great travesty of justice. That is why I no longer want anything to do with the institution of religion. I know people who would follow the pointless doctrinal rules (e.g., no sex before marriage, no coffee) and then commit unethical acts all because they were "right in the eyes of the church," and those ethical lapses were counteract because they were a good tbm. I rather be an ethical atheist than an unethical, gutless follower.25 February at 14:07 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Rex, if you really studied the old and new testaments, you'd see that there are numerous blatant contradictions.
I'm glad that your learning, without context, that a leader made the same comment to me removed any doubt about the accuracy of your assessment of me. What about the time when, after learning that a homosexual friend of mine had been formally disfellowshiped for homosexual activities (while the High Priest/Temple worker who participated in those acts was merely discretely reprimanded), I on a whim traveled to UT to speak to a general authority, and as a result my stake presidency was overhauled?
Blind (or short-sighted) obedience is overrated.25 February at 14:25 · Like
Marni Zollinger What an awful thread. Some dude gets to insist that the point of gay marriage is to insist on a new definition of a religious term? Boloney. CIVIL marriage is a CIVIL contract invented by a govt. not God (that's the religious rite) and it never was anything but that. Of course everyone should have access to a domestic civil agreement. Some gal thinks that this video was a staged event, when it was clearly taken by iPhone video (raise your hand if you bring one to church every week) and the man is reading (raise your hand if you've prepared remarks when speaking in church). Erik, in my opinion, by virtue of the lack of logical thought displayed, these folks are just trolls.25 February at 14:45 · Like
Erik Kulick That may be so, but even trolls deserve to be given an opportunity to understand. Besides, at the very least, those despised fence sitters who Supposedly deserve to be spit out of God's mouth can get a better perspective on the issues and make and informed decision XD25 February at 14:54 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Besides, I think it's a lovely thread =D25 February at 14:57 · Like · 1
Nikki Schaefer Religious people (most of them)= insane people. Marriage is societally constructed and started out as a way to get rid of women (who were property). It doesn't mean anything to God or anyone else and if Kim Kardashian can get married, then the gays should be able to as well. If they want marriage and not just civil unions, what's the big deal? ITS NOT HURTING ANYONE!25 February at 14:58 · Like
Marni Zollinger And, I have such friend-trolls on my wall, too. Let there be big tent civics. Respect.25 February at 14:58 · Like
Erik Kulick What bothers me most about the gay marriage issue (among other things) is that people would rather obstruct the freedom of others, through the use of political and societal means (see: causing harm), than have two people who love each other and want to reap the greatest potential benefits that are available to their fellow citizens, be able to realize equality (see: not causing harm). If this really is the nature of God's standards and commandments, then I respectfully want to opt out of that individual mandate. Rex, you are more than welcome to continue pulling out doctrinal authority to respond to my honest inquiries and statements, but it does nothing for the furtherance of understanding and truth. Might I suggest an alternative again. Take off those "poor soul" goggles, and start looking through the lens of loving ALL equally.25 February at 15:18 · Like
Marni Zollinger Well, as Mormons, we can even look at this *our* way, which is that we a) believe that the law is designed to punish crime but not constrain conscience b) Mosiah very clearly told Alma "I judge them not" even when Alma was wrong and Alma couldn't see it c) Dallan Oaks explained that the judge that found that the mobs that had killed Joseph and Hyrum was *wrong* to believe that the law had a place in removing civil rights and processes from the minority, due to the will of a majority. He named it "majority tyranny". Never mind that it is hard to get that paper anymore, it was right then and it is right now. and I guess d) no matter how they try to scare people with specious rhetoric, children will not mistake men for women or women for men. (that was one of several dire predictions they unfortunately put in writing)25 February at 15:22 · Like
Rex White Jr Thank goodness for the Book of Mormon. That si why we believe the BoM to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Many errors have creeped in and are set straight by the BoM. Funny how you don't point that out yourself. It doesn't help your argument very much so I can see why you chose to omit. I'm glad to hear the right thing was done in the end with the Utah homosexual behavior. I would have done the same like most everyone else I know so playing the hero or martyer role for it gets you no sympathy from me.25 February at 15:22 · Like
Marni Zollinger And, as Elder Jensen observed, we have one more thing to hold to our hearts: the elderly spinster has a promise that there will be, for her virtuous life, every opportunity for marriage and family in the next world. But the gay or lesbian has no such thing to look forward to. As this Church is the church of revelation, and inasmuch as God loves all his children and there are no children of a lesser God, I look forward, in the process of time, to understanding the Plan of Happiness for gay and lesbian people, whenever it is revealed.25 February at 15:27 · Like
Nikki Schaefer Maybe the gays and lesbians don't care about a Plan of Happiness. Aren't the Mormons the ones who believe that black people turn white if they become Mormons?25 February at 15:37 · Like · 1
Marni Zollinger hey, we have grotesque racists, like every other religion. And the original word in the BOM was "white" but JS changed it to "pure" immediately, and then Brigham Young changed it back to "white". Of course everyone has a plan of happiness. For instance, what would you like in the next world-- happiness or not?
When I think about these things, I think about God, dealing with this Church, and all its baggage. I cannot think that God has any other opinion than that everyone should have equal footing before the law. So, why would the Mormon church have been directed this way? THe answer to my mind is that God knew that the current Mormons were too snotty to be equitable to others, so.... how to solve that? Answer: have the Mormons do what we would naturally do-- but put our name out in front. Then, the whole country would sit up and take notice and it would trigger a tsuanami of interest and conviction that the Bad Mormons will not be telling *anyone* that they are second class citizens. Hence, with just a little of our work, and showing the meanness that can be had inside the Mormon curtain *and leaked out of it* then in a few short years, I think we'll have equal standing for everyone. Per the Plan of Salvation. :)25 February at 15:51 · Like
Marni Zollinger And, what this really means is that God wasn't really sought in the first question at all. I cannot believe that God would say "let's put people out of civil protection" so that means to me that God was never sought at all. And, God doesn't impose where He is not sought. The Church hierarchy was on auto-pilot, which is to say, it was on "stop me if we're wrong but we don't think we're wrong so we won't wait more than a minute for your angel and then we're going to go ahead and do what we want."25 February at 15:53 · Like
Andrea Turner Erik, you sure know how to get a conversation going! Nikki Schaefer, you crack me up! I think you're confused by the idea Mormons believe that white people were punished by being turned into Native American's because they fell from grace or stole fire from the gods or something, I don't remember, but South Park has an educational episode on the matter. I guess Mitochondrial DNA has as much clout with religious narratives as global warming does with the GOP.25 February at 15:56 · Unlike · 1
Marni Zollinger Na, there is enough history to show that Nikki is right- our early Mormon leaders did believe that blacks were black for sin-issues. And, that they will be changed white, later. Gotta love the internet. I think those discourses belong in the "we really wish they had kept their mouths shut" category but hey, it is our real, live heritage.25 February at 15:58 · Like
Erik Kulick Thanks Andrea, I wonder if I could use the contents of this thread to opt out of doing the brief =P
Rex, was that a Freudian slip when you said that you believe in the BoM as long as it's translated correctly? The problem with the BoM is the same as it is with the Bible. The only difference is that the BoM was written by Smith and maybe a few close friends instead of by a bunch of different people over a longer period of time, and it was written more recently. If you can't see that errors creep into everything that humans touch, you should remove your hands from your eyes.
I don't understand your statement that you would have done the same thing: You would have done the same thing as the local leaders who chose to scapegoat a young man who was involved in the same activities as the individual who had a family and serious church responsibilities, yet would have swept the latter man's "transgressions" under the rug? Or are you saying that you'd have done the same thing as Elder Eyring and the Seventy who came to my Stake to rebuked the local leaders for thinking they were above the congregation because of their "callings", and to dissolve and rebuild the entire presidency?25 February at 16:32 · Like
Weslaw Garcia http://25.media.tumblr.com/aeapb27nkq6wa18f0nphTw6go1_500.jpghttp://25.media.tumblr.com/aeapb27nkq6wa18f0nphTw6go1_500.jpg
25.media.tumblr.com
25 February at 16:38 · Unlike · 4 ·
Erik Kulick Thank you Wes; I needed that. How's the show?25 February at 16:45 · Like
Weslaw Garcia So far pretty good, I keep coming back. I'm tempted to get sucked in but I've already got enough distractions from law school. :P25 February at 16:50 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick I am starting to wonder if Law school is the distraction =P25 February at 17:07 · Like
Nikki Schaefer I think I deserve a nice "reincarnation" or whatever comes next besides dirt just for this stupid brief! Thanks Andrea! I will watch "South Park". They always know what's up.25 February at 17:33 · Like · 1
Rex White Jr No fruedian. The bibile has gone through many translations. The BOM has gone through one into English. If you really think Joseph Smith wrote it with some friends you may not be as smart as I originally thought. Every scholar who has tried to prove such has failed miserably. You really need to read Rough Stone Rolling by Bushman. Written from a neutral stance and gives you a better historical perspective then you will ever get chasing internet links and South Park for heavens sake. Or is that another some screen you are throwing out there to cover up why you are really mad. With the Utah situation, the later is what I would have done, I think it was handled correctly by removing the leadership and I hope the elder man lost his membership as well. Any more rationalizations or smoke screens you need me to call out for you?25 February at 18:07 · Like
Rex White Jr Wish you would have been in attendance at the Stake Priesthood session wihich ended about 45 minutes ago. I am possitive it wouls have helped you be a better father and help you take the steps to keep your family.25 February at 18:13 · Like
Erik Kulick Where did you come by the knowledge that people who've challenged the BoM's validity have failed miserably? Let me guess: someone within the organization. I personally don't care whether or not Smith is the original author. The problems with Mormon, and even Christian doctrine abound regardless.
The simple thing you are failing to realize, is that no matter how many times you want to quote "scripture", you are still making definitive and authoritative statements about things which you do not "know". I appreciate that you think what you have is best for anyone and everyone, but that doesn't change the fact that you are telling people that they're unquestionably wrong about their beliefs and views, even though it is only your opinion. I'm glad I didn't go to a place that would have the balls to tell me what I can do to be a better anything without being willing to honestly consider any input I have in response.25 February at 18:18 · Like
Rex White Jr Yet another rationalization and justification. I would hope you would fight.a little harder for your family that get mad at people who don't "mince" words. Simma down, drop the proudful act and be the Father, Heavenly Father wants you to be not the one of the philosophies of men mixed with scripture.25 February at 18:35 · Like
Rex White Jr Hope to see you at the adult session, 7pm at the Boone Bldg that is if you aren't to prideful.25 February at 18:37 · Like
Brian Harris Rex: I hope see you at the Portland Gay Pride Parade; that is if you are not prideful.25 February at 19:40 · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr Hahahaha. I will stand in holy places. Thanks for the invite though. How come you arent here either? You made the same covenant at baptism.25 February at 19:50 · Like
Andrea Turner Hey there, Rex! How about you simmer down with the ad hominem over there! Erik is a great dad and a good person. The thing I've always admired about Mormons is how nice they are. Be the nice.25 February at 20:04 · Unlike · 3
Rex White Jr Hi Andrea, my name is Rex. Nice to meet you. Thanks for your words of encouragement.25 February at 20:13 · Like
Brian Harris Yeah I made the same covenant, but when I realized that the complex realities of morality are best determined and discovered through indepedent thought instead of some delineated code by a group of hierarchical, self-rightous solons; I decided that I rather spend my time and money elsewhere.25 February at 20:21 · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr Love ya Brian.25 February at 20:29 · Like
Brian Harris Same to you Rex White Jr25 February at 20:31 · Like
Brian Harris Just stop the ad hominem attacks on Erick, we are law students and we all like debate, but saying a person will be a bad father just because he does not follow the book of mormon to the letter is just a fallacious form of logic that I do not appreciate.25 February at 20:38 · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr I appreciate the concern. As someone who doesn't have children or a spouse I don't expect you to understand.25 February at 20:58 · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, Joseph Smith took wives that were already married. Why do you revere this man, but despise me?25 February at 21:02 · Like · 1
Brian Harris Just because I do not have a spouse or children, I do understand the right to respectful dialogue and privacy which is an universal human belief. So be a human and cut that crap off.25 February at 21:03 · Like · 1
Andrea Turner Rex, I am a spouse and a mother and I do not understand. I give to those in need and find the greatest virtue is being kind and compassionate. I don't need any Man's book to tell me that. What I do understand is that when one is out of good arguments they attack another's character. It seems to be the consensus between Brian and myself that you have crossed a line. I'll leave you to draw the inference.25 February at 21:16 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick
www.youtube.comDavid Bazan with Casey Foubert at the fahrenheit house, New Haven, IN - 12/13/09.
25 February at 21:21 · Like ·
Rex White Jr I understand both of those concerns. Unfortunately it isnt a personal attack, it is a fear that he will lose what he holds dear because of pride. I don't fault him for having questions and concerns, those are natural. This whole thread started with Erik attacking the church. I will never stand by the wayside and let others attack the church unrighteously. That line was crossed with the initial post. What has transpired from there has been smoke and mirrors, not on my part but on his part. I call that crap out in person, in class and on FB. Brian, I don't have a beef with you or Erik. You have your style of debating and I have mine. If you don't like mine don't read it.25 February at 21:28 · Like
Erik Kulick To be honest Rex, I don't take offense to your criticism. I am sorry that you have grown to love an institution and/or deity more than your fellow man. I think the real Jesus would facepalm over that kind of reading of "his" message. I would just rather burn in Hell for eternity for trying to help the kinds of people with whom you refuse to stand, than toe the party line in order to save myself a seat on the titanic.25 February at 21:35 · Like
Deanna Mayne I've only skimmed a little, but sheesh! You guys need to drop this. Rex and Erik this is getting a spiteful. Aren't you all supposed be writing some 20 page paper?!25 February at 21:37 · Like · 1
Brian Harris Look no one is telling you not to debate, unlike church leaders we like to hear arguments and not crush dissent. However, for the love of all that is holy, stay in the freaking scope and do not attack his parenting. Stay in the substantive focus, by using personal attacks all you do is make Erick's point and prove the church is not true and is in fact a bunch of tripe. Lastly, your argument about not reading your post is just plain silly, here is a better point why don't you show some maturity and stop posting that kind of filth. Really not only are you law student, your also an adult and just because you do not like what Erick is saying, does not give you the right to attack him personally. Use logic, use evidence, hell even use scripture, but when you suddenly when you say a person is a bad father only demonstrates ignorance and bad character.25 February at 21:37 · Unlike · 2
Deanna Mayne Erik can be a damn good father when he isn't caught up with this kind of bull crap. His kids adore him and miss him when he's gone.25 February at 21:41 · Like · 1
Rex White Jr Mmmmmmmk Brian!! My point was just proven, "when he isn't caught up with this kind of bull crap" I'll take that as when he isn't trying to bash the church :D25 February at 21:50 · Like
Deanna Mayne The real question is, who is going to be the "bigger man" and just walk away from this post. You're obviously not going to convince each other to see your point of view, so just move on and do your stupid homework. Please.25 February at 21:53 · Like · 1
Rex White Jr I'll respect your wifeKs wishes since you won't. I'm out! Peace. Shalom.25 February at 21:59 · Like · 1
Deanna Mayne thank you for stopping, but that was a low blow. be nice.25 February at 22:07 · Like
Brian Harris Rex, seriously you are personifying the reasons on why I left the church in the first place.25 February at 22:10 · Like
Marni Zollinger Rex, as a Mormon and a person with a psych degree, seek help. Other people will then be able to like you almost as much as you do. 25 February at 23:30 · Like
Erik Kulick I think that the picture Weslaw posted is what God really is.25 February at 23:31 · Like
Nikki Schaefer Rex is in law school? That's scary! I wouldn't want someone like that representing me!26 February at 10:10 · Like
Marni Zollinger I think his infantilism in this thread may be sarcastic. 26 February at 10:14 · Like
Nikki Schaefer How can you be sarcastically infantile? It seems to me you either are infantile or you aren't- but hopefully if you are in law school you are beyond those argument tactics. Lawyers don't run around courtrooms yelling "Nah-nah-nah! Stick it in your ear!".26 February at 10:19 · Like
Marni Zollinger I think it unusually translates as passive aggressive. 26 February at 10:29 · Like
Brian Harris I think you need to hang out in more courtrooms, some lawyers really do say "Nah-nah-nah! Stick it in your ear!"26 February at 10:49 · Like · 1
Nikki Schaefer Haha. Maybe so, maybe so.26 February at 11:16 · Like
Erik Kulick
26 February near Salem via Facebook for iPhone
Jesus Christ is Satan's attorney. Pass it on.
Like · · Share
Brian Harris Any chance I can put Jesus on retainer? I hired Zeus and so far he has done jack squat because he has been too busy chasing nymphs. Maybe I can hire Shiva; she would totally kick Jesus's butt.26 February at 14:04 · Unlike · 2
Deanna Mayne write your paper26 February at 14:25 · Like · 2
Kacy M Bryce Brian, you need Kali. She's a real bitch of a deity.26 February at 14:33 · Unlike · 1
Meghan Kerins- Walker i think law school made you take trip or long fall erik ? lmao maybe you need some rest or good people surrounding you- like your children theyre the best at healing a hurt heart26 February at 14:40 · Like · 2
Charlie Luerssen I think he is more the prosecutor while God the Father was the Judge and we the human family the jury who found him guilty of treason. You know the punishment he and his kind suffer as they try to get into the hearts and minds of weak humans who are often blinded by the philosophies and Honor's of men... IMHO26 February at 16:23 · Like
Blain Nelson Did you say "Jesus Christ! Satan's an attorney!"?26 February at 22:33 · Like · 2
Erik Kulick Meghan, my heart is fine. I just realized the extent to which an atonement would reach if it were real.
Actually Charlie, I think it's only the self-proclaimed Christians who have it out for this Satan fellow. I'd imagine a real Christ would let bygones be bygones and give Satan a big old hug.28 February at 05:18 · Like
Justin DeCarlo Jesus may be first chair but Satan's got Johnny Cochran right next to him chewbacca defense at the ready28 February at 06:51 · Unlike · 1
Charlie Luerssen I agree the heavens wept when he was casted down to this world as an evil spirit to help try and test the human family to see if they would love God more and support his laws, commendments and plan of salvation. Christ came suffered, died and atoned for the sins of all mankind not evil spirits who don't have human bodies and never will. Yes, he hugged to him and said be gone to the place you will love most Outer Darkness to rule and reign with all the devils for all eternity... Remember Satans plan was and is to control and force others to do and obey and be like him while God gives us the freedom of choice. Chose you this day who you will follow Christ or the devil, ying or yany, like or darkness, good or evil... I know God can help lead you into greater exalted light to rule and reign with Him and Christ in Celestial Glory for all eterinty if you chose of your own free will to grow (change or repent)... God Bless you in the study of the law our forefathers have given us from their Judo-Christian traditions... lol28 February at 15:51 · Like
Erik Kulick If Jesus can't forgive his own brother, then I have serious doubts about his divinity; I've met bona fide humans with more compassion in their little pinkies.28 February at 17:55 · Like
Steven Christensen *If* the atonement were real?? Wow.28 February at 17:59 · Like
Deanna Mayne Erik, do your homework and stop trying to start riots.28 February at 18:14 · Like
Erik Kulick When I say *if*, I'm not implying that I *know* it isn't. If it *is* real, then everyone will get cleansed by a benevolent God, if it isn't, then I guess we better hope that, *if* there is a judge waiting for us at the end, he thinks our sins are more forgivable than our enemies'.
I also find it curious that so many Christians are obsessed with the idea of Christ having to be perfect; would they accept the sacrifice of an imperfect Christ?
"if no heavy breath blew up these lungs, while dirt and wet spit hung a ghost in the air, well we're still here."
www.youtube.comDavid Bazan - DC House Show - Heavy Breath 5-10-10
28 February at 18:18 · Like ·
Erik Kulick I am doing homework; I just like to share things in the interim.28 February at 18:22 · Like
Charlie Luerssen Study hard, but always remember where most of that law came from... We owe a great debt to those faithful men and women who wrote their thoughts, ideas, dreams, revelations and visions down so they could be studied and organized for us their children. With the law written down as a standard civilization can grow in greater light and wisdom. As a future offiicer of the court you will both defend the law and the defendants before the Judges to whom you will bow as verdicts are issued. The law will be administered as fairly as humanly possible and men will be punished or freed by juries of their peers. Some will be forgiven and others sentenced to death and wished to hell by their victims... Can you support that God given system?
28 February at 21:30 · Like
Daniel Murphree You forget the atonement has to be accepted to be effective. You think Satan would accept? His fall was because He didn't accept in the first place. I'm sure if He had a change of heart then Jesus would plead for Him just as hard as any of us. He's a good attorney like that.28 February at 22:17 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Why is the place were a law originates relevant? If a law helps society, then it has value. Who cares if it comes from hard working religious folks, who may or may not have been inspired by deity, or a three year old? I'm all about reaping the benefits of historical precedent, but to treat anything like it's sacrosanct is an insult to the process by which those rules were attained. If we are unwilling to challenge even our most basic assumptions, we will continue to repeat the same mistakes that have plagued humanity through out history. I won't end up an officer of the court if I can help it; I'd rather not have to end up with my fall back occupation.
The current system of jurisprudence in America is far more just than the kind of system most Christians envision awaiting us on the other side. Go back and listen to that song,"When we fell" to understand why.
Why would the atonement of an all-loving being need to be accepted to have an effect?28 February at 22:52 · Like
Charlie Luerssen Are not all attorneys officers of the court? Are you planning to teach, be a community organizer or a politician?28 February at 23:43 · Like
Erik Kulick Politics is my main goal, but I'd rather be a policy analyst or community organizer than an attorney. 28 February at 23:46 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
An attorney is defined as an advocate. Confused?29 February at 00:36 · Like
Erik Kulick I'm not sure I understand your point, Mike.
Also, Charlie, given the merciful implications of an atonement, there's no way Jesus would be any kind of lawyer, other than a public defender. 29 February at 00:56 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
Jesus Christ is Satan's attorney.???29 February at 01:01 · Like
Erik Kulick What is wrong with that statement?29 February at 01:03 · Like
Erik Kulick Just like the "second" great commandment subsumed the "first", Jesus' status as public defender means that he would be willing to defend Satan. 29 February at 01:05 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
Advocate: one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of
another before a tribunal or judicial court. 2. : one that defends or maintains a ...29 February at 01:05 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
Good and bad minions in the middle me and satans dicodomy obviously.29 February at 01:07 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
di·chot·o·my [dahy-kot-uh-mee] Show IPA
noun, plural -mies.
1.
division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.
2.
division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action.29 February at 01:10 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
Jan 19, 2012 ... Creating a false dicotomy. Appropriate evangelical political involvement.
Religious conservatives involvement in the public arena and in ...29 February at 01:10 · Like
Charlie Luerssen And Romney beat them in Michigan due to the Catholic and women vote... lol29 February at 02:33 · Like · 1
Steven Christensen "Why would the atonement of an all-loving being need to be accepted to have an effect?"
Because of the role of faith, which changes the equation alltogether.
If you were talking about man's laws, I would agree - they are applied without regard of the person on whom the law is designed to apply. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
But with the atonement, the person who receives the benefits is personally involved, but accepting Jesus Christ and having the faith needed to "apply: the atonement personally in his or her life (I know, "apply" is an imprecise word in this context, because what it means varies on the individual). We must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and follow His teachings.
Free agency also comes into play, as the "all-loving being" recognizes that not everyone will accept and take advantage of His atonement.
The justice of God is something which has some absolutes - you do A, then B happens (i.e. you sin, you are removed forever from the presence of God). When you involve Jesus, His atonement allows you to escape the "B."29 February at 03:32 · Like
Daniel Murphree Why would the atonement need to be accepted to have an effect? Why does cancer treatment need to be accepted to attempt to cure you? Or food need to be accepted to keep you from being hungry? An all-loving being isn't going to force His love on people when they do not want it, nor would He force people to escape the consequences of their actions when that would just cause them more grief.29 February at 06:19 · Like · 1
Charlie Luerssen It is said a person who prefers sinning to obeying God's commandments would not enjoy being forced to live in the presence of a perfect exalted being. God will force no man into heaven against his will. Nor will he force his atonement upon any. The free gift of immortality is given to all, but to live as God lives in heavenly Glory one must be clean of all sin and the desire to sin through being washed in the blood of the Lamb. This you must desire with all your heart, mind and soul asking God to forgive you and then being willing to live his teaching the best you can knowing he will make up the difference which is his mercy and grace to all those who acknowledge and love him. His light and glory are joy and comfort to the repentive sinner, but fire and burning to the prideful sinner. You are free to chose life or death, good or evil or being a saint or a devil, ying or yang... IMHO29 February at 09:06 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick "This line is metaphysical; on the one side the bad half live in wickedness, and on the other side the good half live in arrogance; there's a steep slope, with a short rope; this line is metaphysical and there's a steady flow moving to and frow." - Bazan, the wise observer.
I'm sorry Mike, but I'm only getting the intros to most of your comments; there is no "see more" option available to expand the comments. From what I can read, it seems you are firmly rooted in the "knowledge" that there are two forces competing for our love, affection, and exclusive subscription. I don't see a dichotomy, because I don't agree with this oversimplified assessment of existence. Compartmentalizing good and evil and using it to describe a being, even if it is the mythical Satan, doesn't have any practical value; helping people discover how to live in a way that is mindful of their neighbors' right to seek happiness through the lens of equal love does.
I'm sure being able to read Mike's comments would help me to understand where Romney fits into this context, but let me just take the opportunity to state the obvious. Cheer up; even though the religious know-it-alls on both sides of the Mormon-Christian (false) dichotomy are ruining the Republican party's chance at winning the presidential election, we will still end up with a "Christian" Republican remaining in office.
You guys speak of the atonement like it's something being peddled by Ron Popeil; Accept Now! Limited Time Offer! I don't know about you, but I don't forgive someone only if they will accept my forgiveness; I don't see how a "perfect" deity would chose to operate that way either. Why is it that "God" is so wise and powerful, yet when "his" policies conflict with simple logic or compassion, we are supposed to just accept that some of the ways of God are unknowable, or some other malarkey? ***IF*** there is such thing as an atonement, the forgiveness would be extended even to stubborn bastards like Satan. Of course the ball would be in Satan's court, but he himself would be the only impediment to his own divine potential; I highly doubt that God has constructed guarded barbed-wire fences between the different realms based on worthiness.
Just a friendly service reminder:
Belief does not equal knowledge.29 February at 16:02 · Like
Charlie Luerssen Some know, some just believe and others just don't know and some believe that nobody can know because they don't believe... However, I know we all can know when we ready and able to see the fulness of the truth...29 February at 17:41 · Like
Erik Kulick What is gained by the graduation from belief to "knowledge"? The only thing that I can see coming from it is a self-imposed obstruction on what new things one can learn. 29 February at 18:44 · Like
Erik Kulick And a badge of authority to limit others in their own journeys. 29 February at 18:45 · Like
Charlie Luerssen When you know you then you understand not taking anything away from those who don't think they know. The apostle Peter spoke of a sure witness not to boast off, but to give hope to those who want to believe, but don't know. The Lord put it simply; Ye shall know the truth and the truth will make you free. Now we can argue over the definition of words put the truth spirit of God enlightens the mind so we can see eye to eye and be one on a co-equal level not one above another.29 February at 21:29 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
ABC News projects that the 30 delegates awarded based on Michigan’s Tuesday primary will be evenly split – 15 delegates for Mitt Romney and 15 delegates for Rick Santorum.29 February at 23:02 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
Turnout for Michigan's presidential primary was 16.6% of all registered voters -- or 1,213,834 out of Michigan's 7,286,556. In the 2008 presidential primary, the turnout was 21%. Interpret that.29 February at 23:21 · Like
Charlie Luerssen He won the popular vote and earned the moral victory not mention the clean sweep in AZ... He is the dem's worst nightmare and that is why they are down spinning it the best they can... lol29 February at 23:27 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
So 41% of 16.6% propels Romney forward. What will the 59% do in MI? The absentee ballots still need to counted.29 February at 23:54 · Like
Mike Stein · Friends with Charlie Luerssen
I cannot find AZ turnout.29 February at 23:55 · Like
Erik Kulick Don't worry, the Republicans will marginalize their own candidate to the point that black Mitt will win anyway.
You still haven't told me the value of treating an unconfirmable belief in a deity and the things he was purported to have said to fallible individuals as a "knowledge". If a man has gained enough wisdom to temper his over confidence in his "knowledge", he is still likely to impede his own growth by having become calcified. 1 March at 01:01 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Steven, how does faith change the equation?1 March at 01:03 · Like
Charlie Luerssen We as humans can try to intellectualize truth, knowledge and faith until the cows never come home... lol ; However, one of the greatest intellectual spiritual leader I ever read is Alma. From Alma 32 to the very end of his book he hashes this debate with the rich, wise, poor, greedy and his own children. If you read it as it is written without trying to challenge it's source with an open mind unbiased you may understand why I am as I am and reason the way I do on these topics. Happy rereading and know I love and respect you just the way you are. Life is for learning which I know you have a passion for. We do well in it if we spend more time creating new or better ways focusing our creative energies promoting good will rather then trying to destroy things we don't like or disagree with!
hings we don't like 1 March at 14:14 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Charlie, I still value the character of Alma the Younger, even though I have seen a significant amount of evidence that has me quite convinced that he is a fictional being; nevertheless, I still respect much of what he said and did. I don't agree with the assumptions to which he stakes many of his (often) well-reasoned arguments. I really like much of his discussion on faith, and the great potential he sees in the use of faith. I just find it unfortunate that you guys are so adamant about accepting so many of the teachings of the church, its scriptures, and the assumptions derived from these things as true on a wholesale level. I happen to believe that many non-religious folks tend to overlook the value of faith; and many religious folks tend to misconstrue the meaning and reach of faith.
Faith is a belief that you hope for; it is a means to channel your spiritual/contemplative/emotional energy toward a pursuit/goal/desire. If I recall correctly, there is a passage which comes from Alma which explains that through faith all things are possible, even if used in an "unrighteous" way. This speaks to the universality of divine potential, and the free reign we are purportedly given through our free agency. I think that Joseph, through Alma was trying to advance some pretty progressive views on Christianity, and it's a shame that so many members are blind to the good and bad implications of many of the doctrines that Joseph tried to advance, as well as blind to the extent to which some of the subsequent "prophets" have misrepresented and altered parts and aspects of his doctrine for the worse.
My recollection of Mormon scripture and theology is better than you give me credit for. You appear to assume that because I stopped believing in the literal nature of religious texts and teachings, that I have for some reason thrown the baby out with the bath water, and written off the vast majority of the things Christians purport to believe in. I really don't care which of the versions of Christianity any of you personally subscribe to; I just wish that more of you would be more cautious with confidence in absolute truth and your ability to know it.2 March at 00:58 · Like
Charlie Luerssen Yes, I agree some within the many faiths can behave in a blind manner. Paul H Dunn a former 70 told this story; "When I attended a christian college back east I dated the Pastors daughter. One Sunday I was invited to her family dinner. During dinner her father ask me, Paul what do the Mormons believe on Isaiah 53? I quickly answered I don't know, but we are right and you are wrong." I get your point and he had your point about his Mormon people back 40 yrs ago. Mormons have grown to realize their many weaknesses, but they have also matured enough to be able to laugh at themselves as they continue to try to do good. Testimony is often misunderstood by the world and for that reason the world hates the testifier. One can know something which he may never be able to prove to a skeptical world or person, but it doesn't change the truth of the testimony. That is the beauty of our first amendment. Keep seeking, studying and learning and try to leave the judging to those officers of the court you never want to be!2 March at 06:18 · Like
Erik Kulick Have no fear, Charlie, I will be a physician to many, but I do not desire to make anyone *believe* in anything. I just would like to help people understand how easy and important it is to see each other equally; do you know why Joseph wrote about secret combinations?
"Some" is a serious underestimate when referring to the desire to walk blindly, especially in the religious communities. This is not to say that I think all religious folks are completely blind to *everything* in the world around them, but their desire to have "blessings" for themselves or to avoid "curses" will far more often than not cause them to close there eyes to the full picture that is in front of them. They think that just because they see these apparent, and sometimes real consequences occurring as the result of certain behaviors, they think that they have the definitive scoop on the person(s) involved and/or behavior(s) engaged in. The problem is, they far too often fail to look at the different factors involved, and how different circumstances or decisions can affect the very "goodness" or "badness" of something. They jump to conclusions about the character and abilities of the parties involved, yet refuse to see that the "sins" of the other people they are criticizing are often no worse or often better than their own. They fail to see that they very well could learn something profound from the person they just dehumanized; if only they would stop being so worried about their own eternal well-being and tried instead to make that heaven they long for in the here and now.2 March at 21:19 · Like · 1
Charlie Luerssen That is why the Lord needs people like you to radiate your love and knowledge to those within who may only be following blindly for the wrong reasons. If you go away for a time please consider coming back in the future to share the wisdom you have gained with his lowly sheep!2 March at 21:54 · Like
Erik Kulick Why would a sheep be lowly? I thought even one was worth going back for ;-)2 March at 22:02 · Like · 1
Charlie Luerssen The good Lord took upon him the name of Lamb of God and chose to be born among the lowly animals in a humble stable to teach us worth of souls. If he being the King of kings was born in a simple setting can we complain about our station in life? Yes we can, but it only shows when we complain that we are missing our very purpose of our creation. Jesus descended down below all so he could rise up above all to teach us the way to the plain where we all see eye to
eye in Lord where we are one and equal. Revelation 3:19-22 speaks to one such as you... I believe or maybe know that you have eyes that see, ears that hear, a open mind and a heart, spirit and soul that feels. You are a choosen child of God to help others to see and understand this oneness and equality in a better light, but like many spiritual practical beings you are misunderstood by those who should be helping you. They hurt you like they hurt Christ and tried to drive him out of his own church. However he endured well and led the way saying, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."3 March at 00:02 · Like
Erik Kulick I would postulate that the people who think they are *defending* Christ are more obstructive than the one's who doubt in the divinity of Christ. In the thread from the post about Mormon dissent, it was the faithful Mormon, Rex, who's "knowledge" of the "truth" led him to wisely imply that I am an inferior parent. Additionally, Deanna informed me that her "therapist" who, although generously appointed free of charge by the church, thinks that Deanna and the kids would be better off just leaving me and going back to UT. Last I recalled, Jesus was purported to have spent much of his quality time associating with the dregs of society. It was the religious people who hurt Christ the most, not the "sinners" that the religious people see as evil and inferior.
Don't worry, I won't hold the attempts by the "righteous" to obstruct my ability to better serve humanity against them.3 March at 13:07 · Like · 1
Charlie Luerssen I know during my struggle with my first wife I felt I was being misjudged by those in the church. We had no major sins in our relationship, but my progresses thinking, faith and experiences coupled my strong will and passions gave her the ability to paint me in a dark way. At one point the Stake President threatened to have the church hire an attorney for my wife so she could divorce me. Wrong! That was wrong on so many levels. The church is not to take sides or hire attorneys, but they are to respect the family unit and the agency of individuals. They can recommend a therapist or call legal authorities if they know of abuse in the home. However, I suffered through this trial trusting that God knew my heart even if men didn't. That faith has served me well and led me to Beth after Darlene divorced me. Today you can see a picture of both my families together in a happy time during my son David's wedding at the Garden of the Gods. Go to my facebook home page and see and feel the joy and healing... God Bless you Erik your friend Charlie...
3 March at 14:07 · Like
Erik Kulick It precisely for these kinds of reasons that insisting that one has knowledge pertaining to deity and the future that awaits us is so harmful. Even if there was solid evidence of the existence of an anthropomorphic deity, unless that deity was directly, actively and consistently instructing humanity and meting out her rewards and punishments for behaviors, there would be no way to know for sure if 1) we were even enforcing the precise rules desired, or 2) properly handling the mitigating or aggravating circumstances present in each scenario.
I can feel within my soul that there is something magnificent awaiting us after we awaken, but I don't need to know that anything is guaranteed in order to see the wholistic affect that continually striving to treat others as one would like to be treated has on humanity. The self assurance one gains in treating religious beliefs as facts isn't worth the great potential to harm another or limit one's own growth present in holding do confidently. Even IF it were a knowledge, it should never be treated as such for these reasons. That's not to say that we shouldn't use our beliefs to help others, just don't do I in a way that is likely to make someone feel like you think you are superior to them. 3 March at 17:03 · Like · 1
Heaven forbid we allow someone to make an adult decision regarding the consumption of substance which is much safer than alcohol and almost as safe as caffeine.
Why Can't You Smoke Pot? Because Lobbyists Are Getting Rich Off of the War on Drugs | Truthout
www.truth-out.org
John Lovell is a lobbyist who makes a lot of money from making sure you can’t smoke a joint. That’s his job. He’s a lobbyist for the police unions in Sacramento, and he is a driving force behind grabbing Federal dollars to shut down the California marijuana industry. I’ll get to the evidence on this...
Like · · Share
Corrine Strano, KellyAnn Neville and 8 others like this.
Andrew Schneider Fuck jon lovell!!cant be buried wit money u greedy bastard!..lol11 March at 12:08 · Like · 1
Andrew Schneider White owl n zigzag is gettin rich also..ha lovell!!11 March at 12:15 · Like
Erik Kulick They'd be even more rich if the politicians stopped pandering to the greedy lobbyists and know-it-all religious folks ;-P11 March at 12:29 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker erik it alters your way of being sorry its the truth it might make you feel good n just chill- but when it is all said n done your problems are still there and you just spent money on ?....what?.... why cant humans get high off their own persona ive done it for years and im the weird one? go figure- every place has their own rules or theories or laws that is what makes the world unique to some degree- but if we all lived the same and thought the same id want to jump off a 2ft bridge and stub my big toe OUCH- life doesnt have to be so painful -if you drop all the rights n wrongs and just live breath and pay bills - ok that is a tad bit painful lol11 March at 12:42 · Like · 1
Meghan Kerins- Walker i am thinking of you erik you have such a great heart dont let it get lost in being vengeful the church may not be your thing or your answer right now- but it has help you, n kirs , your mom , me - they have some strict rules but its mostly for our health i believe- not everything is 100% until you pass on and go to whever you believe you go then you are 100% because there is not BS or humans dictating your journey- its up to you in this life and the after i believe that so much - you play you pay theory - i liked the darker men im not pushing other people to do it , i LOVE MJ im not pushing it on anyone else - although I'd love to , lol just live for yourself erik NO ONE else - well your children too cause your responsible for them- Please erik do not play around with the fatherhood thing, you will only go down its not good if your children arent first before you or any person in a separation- the children have to come first , not pot not gay rights - not the BS of Mans thoughts - the children come first or the next generation is screwed11 March at 12:49 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick So we need to limit people's ability to make decisions for themselves to avoid cultural homogeneity? I don't follow your logic.
Why is the church so much like the mafia? They helped my family, so I should be forever indebted to the organization? That's so Christian: We help you to gain your loyalty. It really is ironic that religious folks are hell-bent on having absolute control on the morality of their fellow citizens, but Allah forbid any attempts to regulate economic activity.
Your analogy is flawed, Meghan. Arguing to prevent someone from choosing to smoke pot is more like living in a society where interracial marriage is illegal, and arguing to prevent people from changing that status quo. Just like you weren't pushing that kind of relationship on anyone else when you married Stan, pot smokers aren't pushing pot smoking on anyone else by fighting for their right to make their own choice to smoke or not.
I'm sorry, but that whole "live for yourself" completely conflicts with the core principle of Christianity. Play around with the "fatherhood thing"? By fighting for individual liberty, I AM putting my children, and everyone else's for that matter, first. The true BS of man is the insistence on controlling the behaviors of others when said behaviors don't harm others.11 March at 13:08 · Like · 3
Daina Ivie Erik i am so happy your kids don't have facebook and they can't read yet!!!11 March at 13:14 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick I wish they could; they would see the hypocrisy of that exists in society.11 March at 13:15 · Like · 2
Deanna Mayne you can't put your children first if you are focusing so much attention elsewhere. you're just as much of a hypocrite as the rest of us.11 March at 13:37 · Like · 1
Meghan Kerins- Walker no the church is not like the mafia Erik i know that for a fact lets just say that - we dont owe the church anything - and they dont have a cement block with a name on it ready for the queens river, and no one is welcomed but family usually to a mafia homes - the church welcomes everyone- they just ask if you want to be more then a member you live right that is all- but dont worry erik i was just trying to reach out to you but im not getting involved with people WHO CAN READ on FB when they are 18 and allowed to have a account unless they lie and ignorant parents dont check up on them but anyway erik i wasnt looking for a debate cause i grew up with debates you know that also- the worse kind of them - again i was just trying to reach out that is all- sometimes i type how i speak and it doesnt come out right - then there is my scapegoat so whatever then - your still my cousin and im glad you can read- but i feel like you just insinuated that if your kids could read i would be a hypocrite????? im far from a hypocrite erik please far from it dear- and i love all your mom you n kirs and your children so paint me as you will erik - even the mafia has more love for their family then this? its sad the whole thing - and i wasnt speaking to you daina Ivie or asking for your snide comment - this is my cousin i used to change his freaking diapers - he baby sat my kids- hey erik so you still fell aharon is going to be a great person and change things ? or has that change im just wondering if that has changed too? i love ya erik we all do - keep up good work at law school-11 March at 15:52 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker please i know you werent asking my opinion for what you posted i was given it because i felt compelled to being that your erik kulick my cousin11 March at 15:53 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker im family erik remember to respect that- out of all what you believe , respect your mom, most of all respect your family ( your kids) im a BIG HUGE advocate for kids - just by the way i grew u-p and what i saw and what i went through - i guess my big reason for writing you is to remind you of your kids - screw gay rights , screw pot etc etc etc - pay attention to your genes what you created to be better people then most of us,you only have onshot at that erik they grow up so fast and then what? you will be an old man holding up protest signs common - its never going to change that quickly the laws n stuff- but your kids change so fast - open your eyes and heart not your mind and LOGIC? - go ahead and hate me erik but im saying this to you in place of many who are concerned for you i have nothing to lose but everything to gain if you just listen come off the protest block and look at what is really important besides law school , ur health, it is your CHILDREN11 March at 16:00 · Like · 1
David Follett "you can't put your children first if you are focusing so much attention elsewhere." Oh that's a load of crap. The very statement 'put children first' implies a list, first on that list: children, then bothering to try to combat insanity with reason. Im sure he puts: dealing with this high road abuse at about 57 on his list of most important things, if it rates that high. You can not convince irrational people with rational arguments.11 March at 16:21 · Like
Richard Atkinson It's pretty insulting to suggest that someone who believes in legalization of marijuana somehow doesn't care about their kids. I could say the same thing about someone who thinks it should stay illegal -- since the illegality of marijuana makes us all less safe (by creating criminals) and makes us all waste tax money on completely pointless imprisonment. I want my kids to live in a world where it is legal, because that world will be a better place.11 March at 16:26 · Unlike · 2
Meghan Kerins- Walker move to jamaica then? or mexico where lots of things are legal - have fun raising kids there -get rich and let your kids be burn outs- eventually it causes lots of problems- In eriks family ( he knows whom im referring too) it has destroyed so much-like his cousins( my sister) , to himself, to many others close- it does nothing but destroy eventually over time- its not pot that is causing problems in jai-l its parents who are not there- or just dont give a shit & their kids just fall- theres no guidance- not limits - n no self respect- buddy - i lived through people using drugs in my own family it is a freaking problem and it always ALWAYS runs down to the people who dont need it, or didnt ask to be part of it, whether its stealing , lying, criminal incarceration - it is the most destructive thing when its behind a person who has problems to begin with- let alone drug use on top of mental problems, - that is why there is counselors and advisers and groups to help good people who want the help-why should a plant that is natural ( i know of that) be legal if it alters your mind your physical and if you have mental problems like people in my family it will heightened a really bad problem which can become dangerous for everyone close involved - its a no brainer why such value for a drug- it speaks volumes of a desperate and low self esteem to be so for a drug, hey pick a hunger organization or something geeze? maybe erik next time ill write you personally since the voices in the background wont encourage your poor respect towards your older cousin who loves you- theres more involved then some pea heads wanted to insult your family - i love you erik adn so do a lot of more important people like your little children your their daddy - what an accomplishment - you are a dad !!! and they are so cute and just love you11 March at 16:43 · Like · 1
Meghan Kerins- Walker you cant talk to people who are high either cause you make no sense David and richard WOW are you fathers too? can i say scary - and BTW im am speaking with my cousin i didnt ask for your thoughts about my concerns for erik kulcik who should be above this stupidity - hey smoke pot if you want go for it- but you cant force it on people nor force it to be legal move to Ca and get a doctors note? i dont know -fall down a flight of stairs and get on disability ins then move to Ca and complain of pain then you will be happy? ok so can i now get back to my cousin erik - I am a fierce red head who has been through more crap then this we are talking about - ive been there done that, ive experienced things so im not speaking out of my rear ill just tell you that- anyway my purpose of this whole craziness - i have my opinions just like everyone else- i was just trying to reach out to my cousin , but i guess vultures are circling looking for an outlet to make a fight with someone you dont even know?11 March at 16:57 · Like
David Follett People who have problems, especially mental problems... have problems outside of pot. A person with mental problems has them, high or not. "you can't put your children first if you are focusing so much attention elsewhere." is idiotic, and you endorsed it, and its insulting to your cousin, who i have always known to be a gentleman and i have no doubt his parenting is beyond reproach.11 March at 16:58 · Like
David Follett Meg, i don't know you, and you don't know me, but some of the comments here i felt were an attack on him, and i like him. So i was defending him and his totally rational statements, against statements that are not rational, made by people who were turning what he said into a personal attack against him.11 March at 17:01 · Like · 1
David Follett And this is facebook not email, so if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.11 March at 17:02 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker learn how to cook beofre you enter my kitchen - i didnt know i was writting to you or the other guy? i was reaching out to my cousin- and i NEVER said he wasnt a gentleman and he is a big boy he knows what he can say to me out of respect thank you - i never asked for your thoughts if you thought i was attacking erik is your excuse - i dont think so i think you are speaking for your own personal reasons? CHILDREN do come first if you are a GOOD DAD - which erik is but he is losing focus on what is important - and i did write id email erik next time - so i dont have to hear such ignorant people butting into something personal like family- talk about attacking?11 March at 17:15 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker WOW man i thought i was on my space my bad man wow i must be totally out of it man ---- PLEAASE i know this is FB that is why i said maybe i should of wrote erik on his message again do i need to repeat what i wrote or copy n paste to make it easier for some folks]11 March at 17:16 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker im done cause now my son is upset with this erik thing people who have no regards to family suck - it seems you hold pot to a higher regards that to me is really scary and speaks volumes about how scary certain individuals can think what is real and important by being under the influence11 March at 17:19 · Like
David Follett case and point: this is why you cant argue rationally with the irrational... I yield madam, and good day.11 March at 17:35 · Like
Brian Yee Caffeine is more dangerous than THC. People have actually died from one. Both should be legal in a society than claims to be founded on freedom and liberty.11 March at 17:53 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker you make you own DMT drug in your body which creates halucinations11 March at 18:38 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker and im not irrational but i can be lord fark wod ?11 March at 18:39 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker you can die from to much water if your an idiot and drink more then your bady can consume and disperse11 March at 18:40 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker that should of said body11 March at 18:43 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker not bady11 March at 18:43 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker my irrational fingers are out of control oh my11 March at 18:44 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker what ever your bod yneeds man peace out cub scout i have to do something irrational HUM maybe pick my nose in sequence to the national anthem lmao you guys need to stop inhaling helium11 March at 18:45 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker erik can you chose better friends really how can you stnad up to pot n not stand up to people talking badly to your blood your family that makes no sense but thanks erik - i still love you and believe you will do the right - i gtg the jolly green giant plant is calling -its my crutch to cope with life- LMAO j/k around now - ok i gtg do some irrational thinking to- UFO's R my GOD they will be coming for me one day= i think marrying an martian should be legal - oh yeah beastuality to lets start lobbying this ? crazies muffin you were cooked to long= crispy critters lol- ok now im being totally immature n just as ignorant - i have better things to do11 March at 18:52 · Like
Erik Kulick Deanna, you know I love our kids, and I know you don't agree me on these subjects, but please don't impute that I don't care about them. When stating that I am putting them first, I mean for the greater good. I know that my career choices are going to take me away from them way more than I care to even think about, but I can't just sit idly by with everything going the way it is in the world, and not try to do something about it. I'm sorry that I'm not perfect and that I still have selfish moments; I'm sorry life is hard.
Meghan, I never intend insult when I make my sharp statements. I just get fed up when people trivialize the rights of others, even if it is to make poor decisions. Besides, the point that David was eluding to about mental illness is the real issue. When people have "drug problems" what they really genuinely have is mental or emotional problems that are showing themselves as a symptom of over consumption of substances. This doesn't make these people bad, and it certainly doesn't make them criminals. There are better ways of with dealing with the people who abuse substances to the point where it interferes with their lives. Turning them into stigmatized ex-cons is NOT the answer.
I understand where you are coming from, Meghan, but your emotional reaction to a situation that requires more than blanket assumptions is ineffective and insensitive. I am sorry that I stirred up such a hornets nest, but in order for our society to be "free", we need to understand the implications of the multitude of restrictions we are capable of placing on each other, through both government intervention and religious/social pressures.
I believe in the potential of all your children, religious or not; that goes for every other humanoid I've met.
My friends are glorious. There are people, including David and Richard whom I haven't talked to in years, who have commented on and/or "liked" my post. Just because they don't agree with you and use sharp language (which you used as well), doesn't make them "bad" people.
If we don't fight for the freedoms of those with whom we disagree, we will eventually loose our own. It really is sad how Mormon theology paints such a beautiful picture of agency, with the whole "pre-mortal decision to chose agency over the well-intentioned, but oppressive regime that Satan wanted", yet so few Mormons realize the extent to which such a belief should extend.11 March at 22:03 · Like
Deanna Mayne This is why I don't get involved. no matter what anyone tries to argue contrary to whatever you post a big mess of hurt and name calling (and embarrassment) gets posted all over face book. I just have a hard time with it. I know you love them, just like you love the bum on the corner. I guess I selfishly was hoping you loved them more. silly me.11 March at 22:18 · Like
James Guerin Bake with it and it is just as safe if not safer and less addictive than caffeine.12 March at 08:00 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker deanna im just going to sing "puff the magic dragon lived by the sea" from now on - lol i think its mutant hippy fade ? i dont know people are lost when on drug i like the bake with it comment lmao then youll be like the mom on transformers " ill do anything for an A " lol to comical i can act like that NATURALLY without a substance - erik you lost me sorry mate- i am very passionate because my sister has lost her whole life to drugs its not good its starts off with a little green stuff then on to the bigger crap- please erik if you cant handle life you sure as heck cant handle drugs- and your friends werent part of my conversation n shouldnt be speaking to me period you should tell them to have respect- i dont care what cause your beautifying i was speaking to you directly NOT THEM - kids really have no respect after my generation you can see it blantly- i still love you erik and i know your mom raised a good man so step up to that plate- deanna is not telling me anything about what i know what is going on - i just felt you were sensible enough to listen - i was mistaken- and erik when im attacked by people i dont know - im not one to take it after everything ive been through- i was speaking to you - and i should of done it personally - but your friends need to grow up and have respect simple as that- but they have pot so far up thieir crappers their farting leaves out and bongs ? im sorry youve been upsetting a lot of people - it hurts me to see it sorry erik if you dont understand that- i know your school keeps you busy but the only mindless crap really- you cant save the world - or if you can then start with yours first- erik what i say is out of love - i used to live with you , kirs remember? I have a poor opinion of men - but i thought more highly of you - is that wrong? or should i say am i wrong? actions prove everything not words - anyway i have to go save the whales now, j/k around with you erik i am a smart butt for fun but serious when needed- be well erik n just stand back for a second from what you in - stnad back and just think- clear your mind for 5 min and think about what is right taht is all i ask of you i ll never comment on you again - and that is sad one by one you are pushing your family away and adding what you calls friends to your priority lists? that is not a good balance in life is that what pot does? that is all i have to say-DMT is you own natural drug made in your body maybe synthesize that to good use if you need a drug so badly enough to lose your family and reality over it? in our family erik drugs are not good you know that - i can name many names of our family but i wont because it is not my goal - my goal was to reach out to you- i have much better things i can be doing - but i took time for ou erik- GOD bless you always or whomever you believe in - ???????12 March at 10:14 · Like
James Guerin There is no need to be condescending. I'm no longer an avid pot smoker, mind you. I was just commenting on the topic of the original post.12 March at 11:51 · Like
Erik Kulick Meghan, speaking condescendingly to people without even trying to listen to what they are saying isn't an effective way of communicating with people. I am sorry I don't meet your standards, or the standards of anyone else who feels so inclined to judge me, but I am working hard to defend the freedom so many of you take for granted. You insist on indicating your knowledge of how the things I support have such a wholesale destructive effect on society, yet you refuse to acknowledge the good that has, and will continue to come from my decisions. In addition to the numerous threads that I have diligently addressed in the past couple of weeks, I wrote a 14 page Appellate Brief on how the failure of HMO's to disclose the existence and nature of their physician incentive plans is a breach of the fiduciary duty they have to hold the interests of participants and beneficiaries first and foremost. I am sorry that a specific substance was one stepping stone on a path to ruin for so many people, but to generalize and insist that just because people have mishandled something that we need to outlaw it is an unnecessary and unhelpful reaction.12 March at 14:36 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker living with my father then stan i think the more professional some get the more they think they can do anything without consequences - im not saying that is you - and i do know you love your kids erik- and im glad you are addressing HMO's - america i think should have Australia's medical plan- my opinion and i think japan has the same kind of medical plan ITS FREE- But us Americans have to be so controlling- ill admit I am controlling in some areas so that is all i say. I wasnt being condescending i was defending - just like your friends were doing defending - im sorry you thought that - well i gtg sykpe with mariah n lailah that is more productive for me lol ttyl Erik - I adore you n kirs though we dont see each other anymore12 March at 17:53 · Like
Erik Kulick shared a link.
Tuesday
Support The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012
signon.org
I just signed a petition to Rep. John Kline (MN-2), The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama: Since 1980, average tuition for a 4-year college education has increased an astounding 827%. Since 1999, average student loan debt has increased by...
Like · · Share
Rex White Jr and Gretchen RocktheCasbah Lambert-Wiltbank like this.
Steven Christensen So you voluntarily enter into a contract with a bank for a loan, and now you want someone else to pay for it?!?
Wonderful...Tuesday at 14:34 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick All education should be federally funded in the first place, because society as a whole benefits from having a educated (and healthy) citizenry.
My issue isn't with having to pay back a debt, it's with having to amass the quantity of debt necessary to successfully compete for the few decent paying jobs that are available. In addition to a loan forgiveness act, Congress also needs to enact legislation which forces corporations to uphold the inherent duty which arises as a result of the protection created by that lovely socialist tool, incorporation. The responsibility of the corporation should be proportionate to its size and success, but to simply not demand something like this in return for society is foolish. Don't worry Steven, if this kind of legislation can be enacted, we wouldn't really need to worry about things like debt forgiveness. But in the mean time...Wednesday at 00:54 · Like
Steven Christensen If the thrust of your argument is "All education should be federally funded" then you do a disservice by distracting the issue with this issue of contract law.Wednesday at 10:36 · Like
Steven Christensen The issue of loan forgiveness should not enter into the discussion. If you want to make points about the high cost of education (which I agree with), then how a person pays for it does not enter into it.Wednesday at 10:36 · Like
Erik Kulick This issue of contract law is just an indirect means of accomplishing at least part of my goal to eventually see federal funding for all education. This because it is the govt whose obligation it is to cover the losses incurred by the loan providers anyway. I will wholeheartedly agree with you on the blatant inefficiency of such a system, but this is what you get when you endlessly cater to the temper-tantrum throwing lobbyists. Wednesday at 12:06 · Like
Erik Kulick shared a link.
10 March
Tennesse Lawmakers: We Need To Chat
vimeo.com
What the Hell is Up with Tennessee Legislators and Their Anti-LGBT Crusade? Hear My Fireside Chat and Offer To Help
Like · · Share
Anthony Gonzalez likes this.
Andrew Schneider I live in tn..eh11 March at 00:08 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker weird not natural- keep it private in a classy way - gays have their choices n own opinions -but him bashing what is legally right isnt helping- the KKK have thier ways of living but thhey can keep it in thier back yard- i just feel that same sex is a choice between 2 peole not the whole world - if we can talk about GOD in schools why is it right to demand teachers talking about other crazy crap to further the problem - i think we are all selfish - what really matters is how you feel and not what the world dictates- so keep a journal n be classy about things i dont see married people being so flamboyant about being married, a piece of paper is a legality it doesnt dictate what a person really feells or else there wouldnt be DIVORCES that should be discussed to children and next generation - then there wouldnt be divorce lawyers sucking you dry as if the family coming apart isnt bad enough now let me make them broke ontop of it- and please i am for a person having their own choices but just dont SHOVE them on every dam time place and thnig - we as humans need to clean up our acts not start more drama to the acts?11 March at 12:35 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker i meant to write if we CANT talk about GOD *11 March at 12:36 · Like
Andrew Schneider :\11 March at 12:51 · Like
Meghan Kerins- Walker i love you erik i hope you know that you know where i am coming from and what ive been through - so i feel for you, but i know when you area strong person you dont need to fight for substances or rights - you are happy just living and being grateful especially being a dad to 2 adorable children show them how its done erik ok i know you are a big mush so i believe in you11 March at 12:59 · Like
Erik Kulick I'm sorry Meghan, but I don't understand anything you just said in your first comment on this thread. If you are implying that gay people should stop fighting for their right to call their relationships whatever they want, just because it bothers people who "know" that gay people are acting immorally, then you don't understand the concept of agency, nor the importance of individual liberty.11 March at 13:13 · Like · 3
Anthony Gonzalez Meghan, YOU'RE the weird one because you equate racism with love. To call the teaching of tolerance "crazy crap" makes you far more like the KKK than gays are. Of course being gay is natural. Why would anyone be if it weren't? Do you know any gay people?
I see straight people flaunting their sexuality all the time, yet gays are expected to "keep it private." What the world dictates does matter when discrimination and bullying are excused because of the perpetrators' "religious beliefs." Frankly, religious beliefs are what should be kept private.
Maybe opposite-sex couples aren't "flamboyant" about getting married because THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT in 42 states where same-sex couples are not. How about we take away your rights and see if you consider yourself "strong" enough not to want them back?11 March at 20:03 · Like
Ryan J. Wolsey
Yesterday at 12:05 ·
Why does he talk so defensively. Almost like he is hiding something. Looks guilty to me.
LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland "This Man Doesn't Seem Like a Dodo"
www.youtube.comApostle Jeffrey R. Holland of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as interviewed by John Sweeney for "The Mormon Candidate" on the BBC
2Like · · Unfollow post · Share
15 people like this.
William Wilson because he is a liar?Yesterday at 12:06 · Like · 3
Brandon Richardson you know, Jeffrey R Holland has been one of the few lds leaders to defend gays. I still like this guy. There's just a lot of church history stuff that lds leaders don't want to be released, it's a touchy subject for them. I taught seminary for 6 yrs, and have studied a lot of it's history.There's some bad stuff in there.Yesterday at 12:08 · Like · 1
Laura Bailey Fauchier Whether or not he seems like a Dodo is obviuosly a perfect argument as to whether or not he is leading a cult.Yesterday at 12:10 · Like · 2
William Wilson yes there is. and they don't want you to look at the man
behind the curtainYesterday at 12:10 · Like · 2
Heather MacLean Crespin The man is an ass.Yesterday at 12:14 · Like
Michael Lee Hayes Thats true. The church tries to distance itself from the past and what early prophets said that now has become a little taboo for them. I think they are rewriting church history and leaving out a lot of the controversial stuff.Yesterday at 12:17 · Like
Erik Kulick Well, intentioned lies are still lies. Maybe if they'd read the Miracle of Forgiveness, they'd repent of that sin and come clean to the membership... I certainly don't envy the position their in.Yesterday at 12:18 · Like · 1
William Wilson they have enough money and investments to come clean, stop their hurtful practices, and weather the stormYesterday at 12:20 · Like · 1
Michael Lee Hayes they don't want to stop because the have a beliefYesterday at 12:21 · Like
James Hafen http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2012/03/church-unhappy-with-bbc-interview-of.htmlYesterday at 12:25 · Like
William Wilson I cant believe that the top echelon,Yesterday at 12:25 · Like
William Wilson are in it for anything but the money and power. except maybe Pecker and a few othersYesterday at 12:26 · Like
Tyler Young Holland grabs his scriptures each time he lies. Watch again closely...Yesterday at 12:28 · Unlike · 5
James Hafen "Osama... err..."Yesterday at 12:31 · Like · 3
Joyce Johnson The church leaders probably would be willing to just take the money and run, but let us not forget........THE POWER!!! WHO COULD GIVE UP ALL THAT POWER? Pretty heady stuff.Yesterday at 12:36 · Like · 1
CJ Markham Tyler Young "Holland grabs his scriptures each time he lies." I commend your ability to spot a tell, but remind me to never play poker with you.Yesterday at 12:51 · Like · 2
Greg Maeser "that's an incidental matter" huh?Yesterday at 12:53 · Like
Ashley Pettey Merback I don't think he has to be a lying jerk to get defensive. The interviewer just hit the nerve of something he's emotionally tied to. He feels attacked. That's normal, right?Yesterday at 12:55 · Like · 1
Insana Dee He isn't a do-do. He's a basset hound. Only more evil than any basset hound I've ever known.Yesterday at 13:03 · Like · 1
Nick Humphrey oh man, he is sweating bullets!Yesterday at 13:06 · Like
Nick Humphrey 0:47 lying for the lord. the first time was when he said in GC that he was holding hyrum smith's copy of the BOM.Yesterday at 13:19 · Like
Insana Dee I loved it when he just about jumped across the desk and demanded to have the names of those who spoke against the church so they could have a little "Conversation" about their differences. Yeah, that's a great plan.Yesterday at 13:22 · Like · 4
Nick Humphrey i'd show up in a heartbeat to talk to that lying sack of shit ;)Yesterday at 13:23 · Like · 1
Nick Humphrey @Laura "Whether or not he seems like a Dodo is obviuosly a perfect argument as to whether or not he is leading a cult."
right, holland uses several logical fallacies in his rep-lies... ;)Yesterday at 13:27 · Like
Insana Dee Does anyone with the technical savy know how to do a Santorum on Holland so that when his name comes up on a google search it refers to a Do-do? Now that would be priceless.
Holland sure comes across shifty and anxious as he tries to spin his lies.Yesterday at 13:31 · Like
Alex Tingey Pure gold. I'm not sure I like the approach the interviewer takes on the cult issue.. "Are you a cult?" "No." What does he hope to get from Holland other than a few rustled... jowels?Yesterday at 13:31 · Like · 1
Nick Humphrey Alex, i totally agree, sweeney should have listed some attributes of a cult and asked if they applied to mormonism, e.g. take some stuff from the "BITE model applied to mormonism"Yesterday at 13:33 · Unlike · 2
Anders Tronsen Mormon leaders are used to Preaching To The Choir; outside, they feel like a Skunk at a Picnic... Adulation will do that for ya; just sayin'Yesterday at 13:35 · Like · 5
Mark Wade OSAMA?!Yesterday at 13:35 · Like · 3
Kim Guanzon slow clapYesterday at 13:42 · Unlike · 2
Nick Humphrey "nice.....clapping".....Kim (SNL: sarcastic clapping family from southampton)Yesterday at 13:43 · Unlike · 2
Gerrolyn Anderson Jeffrey R. Holland is a great man!Yesterday at 14:32 · Like
ChrisandDiana Ralph ... but not a great liar.Yesterday at 15:21 · Unlike · 2
Allen Reed I'm still waiting for it to leak from the Romney campaign he is going to allow polygamy when he is president.Yesterday at 15:37 · Like
Brian Harris I feel that the worst part is that because this is a BBC documentary that will be watched by countless Europeans who will see the toxic effects that religion has over American politics; no wonder Europeans think that Americans are a bunch of morons.Yesterday at 16:26 · Unlike · 2
Erik Kulick I noticed that too, Tyler.
I'm surprised that Holland agreed to do this interview; you'd think he'd of sent out the PR cronies. Yesterday at 16:40 · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson Perhaps it would be more productive if people let go of their grievances and moved along in the direction of their own choosing. Everyone has their own choices to make and can believe what they feel comfortable with. Believe what you want to believe, and give others the same consideration.Yesterday at 16:45 · Like
Erik Kulick Gerolyn, you do realize that is the point of questioning Holland about the old blood oath and brining up concerns about the cult-like qualities of an authoritarian religion like the Mormon church: why can't you let your non believing members be, and stop making it seem like they're bad people, or "sinning", when they doubt. Yesterday at 17:01 · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson I didn't say anything about "bad people or sinning or anyone doubting." Let me clarify myself. I believe Jeffrey R. Holland is a man of God. Erik, you and others, have the right to believe what you want and make the choices that you want...See more
Yesterday at 17:09 · Like · 1
David Townley Gerrolyn I believe you are half right. He's a man... but the problem is he has accepted and assignment that makes others think he speaks for God and he's less-than forthcoming on the history as if he's defensive and evasive and omits facts ...See more
Yesterday at 18:05 · Like
Paul Marascalco Let's see if there is ever a day when thirty apostates get to chat openly with any general authority. Never happen. Holland a "great man". ? I doubt that anyone but a mormon would make that assertion. Especially if they know the facts.Yesterday at 18:42 · Like
Paul Marascalco Oh and one more quick point. You cannot be a mormon apostle and be an honest person. The two are incompatible.Yesterday at 18:46 · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson Wow!!! I find this fascinating. Conditional and unconditional love? Where are we going with this? Perhaps you could reread the posting and point out to me the unconditional love that the is being shared. Sorry, I missed it.23 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson I am a mormon, Paul. I believe in the church and it's teachings, and I am a very honest person. Nothing incompatible about that.23 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson Paul, why would 30 apostates want to openly chat with any gerneral authority. If you have left the church, so be it. Enjoy your decision, and let others do the same. Why all the attacks??? I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make.23 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson Hey, take care. It has been very interesting, indeed. I wish the best for all of you. I believe it is best to agree that we disagree. Truth will always stand the test of time. :) Gerrolyn23 hours ago · Like
Brynn Johnson "..well it's uh..similar to a masonic relationship..."
"...I'm not on that committee..so I don't know.."
Wha???? I thought he was a General AUTHORITY.
...See more
23 hours ago · Like
Elliot Morris I love how people that hate the church and/or have left it, somehow can't leave it alone...23 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson Agreed..... That has been my observation.23 hours ago · Like
Paul Marascalco Best to you Gerrolyn. We will be here to support you should you ever choose to decamp mormonism.23 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson :)22 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick Gerrolyn, while the comments you have read regarding Holland reflect varying levels of bitterness, there are multiple reasons why people like myself and many of the others here feel the way we do. Telling us to move on and leave the church ...See more
17 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson Erik, it is very evident that you have been hurt. I know that God is aware of you and loves you, as he does all of his children. Take care of yourself. Gerrolyn Anderson12 hours ago · Like
Paul Marascalco I have read Eriks" experience thousands of times. This is not an anomaly. The mormon leaders are personally responsible for this ongoing attitude in the mormon church.9 hours ago · Like
Brynn Johnson I love how people who say that "people can leave the church but can't leave it alone" statement send their sons and daughters on missions to knock on everybody's doors and are probably the same people who show up unexpectedly on a Sunday afternoon (after meetings) on the doors of the inactives to tell them they are wrong for feeling disaffected and that they need to repent and come back to "God".9 hours ago · Like
Brynn Johnson I just find it sad that these General Authorites can't even handle difficult questions without gulping, sweating and sounding like DODOs but they expect general lay members who don't benefit from tithing dollars to do it for them. This kind...See more
9 hours ago · Like
Paul Marascalco And when they are administering the church affairs they are shrewd and nimble. Meh. These men are morally bankrupt. The average mormon lives a much more circumspect life.9 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson What can I say??? I love the church, God, and these men. Take care, and I hope the best for each of you.8 hours ago · Like
Ryan J. Wolsey Find it interesting how "they" always love the church before their god... Thanks for confirming Gerrolyn.7 hours ago · Like
Gerrolyn Anderson Oh my!6 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick Gerrolyn, having been a believing member of the church, I completely understand your feelings toward the church and it's leaders. I spent many years in your position defending LDS doctrines and practices, because I followed the admonitions ...See more
4 hours ago · Like
Paul Marascalco Erik all you are doing is leaning to the understanding of man. Trust the counsel of your leaders. Then if things go to shit it will be .... Your fault.3 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick I'm sorry Paul, I forgot how similar religious and political leaders really are: pass that buck! It's no wonder UT has some of the worst air quality per capita and spends the least on education per pupil. Monopolies aren't just bad in economics; why do Utahns insist on having them in religion and politics?28 minutes ago · Like
Paul Marascalco Erik a glimpse into what the world would be like governed by mormon leaders.25 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Paul Marascalco But a great boon for the porn industry.22 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Elder Cunningham
And it came to pass that Heavenly Father changed His mind about the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, to punish the Nephites for their wickedness in violating the 11th Article of Faith.
Unlike · · Unfollow post · Share · 30 March
You, Sandi Miller, Kacy M Bryce, Ryan J. Wolsey and 91 others like this.
13 shares
Gary Parker Do you think the church would cry persecution if these started showing up on the lawns of every chapel?30 March at 10:32 · Like · 3
Mike Norton They'll cry persecution over ANYTHING. Apparently it's cool to have secret...sorry...SACRED ceremonies that mock protestant faiths, complete with a protestant minister being hired by Satan to deceive people AND have it as part of their scripture that ALL other faiths are "corrupt" and "abominable whores of the earth" but if anyone so much as looks at them funny they scream foul.30 March at 10:37 · Like · 8
Derek Snarr Ironically, the church believes that the constitution was divinely inspired, yet they funded and advocated for the passage of blatantly unconstitutional discrimination.
"Sorry God, we know you intervened in human affairs for centuries, just so we could have this constitution, but keeping gays from being treated equally is more important that that."30 March at 10:37 · Like · 10
Elder Toady The Lord works in mysterious ways!30 March at 10:46 · Like · 4
James Belmont The Mormons love playing the persecuted victim. Always have. Of we question their motives, we're merely spawns of Satan. 30 March at 11:02 · Like · 1
Dave Barton They..er..the lord has changed his mind before, re. blacks holding priesthood. Maybe when BYU gets sued for discrimination against LGBT someone will have another "convenient revelaton"30 March at 11:07 · Like · 6
Barbara Brull Kudos to whoever wrote "you fail" over that Prop 8 sign. My sentiments exactly.30 March at 11:07 · Like · 5
Erik Kulick Ha! 11th article of faith... I never really thought about that one. At least they are consistent in their hypocrisy.30 March at 11:26 · Like · 2
Jeremy Compton Dave you don't seem to understand the concept of a privately owned school. That is just the kind of thing some people worry about the church being attacked for, discrimination against LGBT. people might start saying Mormons must allow gay marriage by the church and in the temple. I think that's an entirely unfounded slippery slope argument that won't happen in a country based on religious freedom but your comment about discrimination charges against BYU feeds those fears. 30 March at 11:36 · Like · 2
Erik Kulick You're right about the private school thing, Jeremy, but the political involvement and failure to disclose finances should force them to lose their tax exempt status. Tax exemption shouldn't be allowed for any religion, but they way the church comports itself should make that doubly so.30 March at 11:51 · Like · 2
Jessica Argyle At first I thought that said, "YOU FAT!" Still funny.
But yeah the idea that Mormons would be forced to marry queers is patently absurd. I mean you can't even get married in the temple if you DRINK COFFEE. Hell, you can't even ATTEND a temple wedding in that case. Hence, my father's mother wasn't at his own wedding. For that.30 March at 12:10 · Unlike · 4
Michael Lee Hayes Funny thing is most of them have no clue the church was behind prop 8 and those who have heard do not believe. They figure its better for gays not to get married than a whole nation to dwindle and fall30 March at 12:13 · Like
Erik Kulick But the church created a dummy corporation... Shouldn't that be enough to remove the taint?30 March at 12:19 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick *to fund prop 8.30 March at 12:20 · Like · 1
Elder Cunningham You said taint.30 March at 12:21 · Like · 2
Erik Kulick I was wondering if anyone would notice XD30 March at 12:22 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Hey Elder, do you really play Josh Gad in real life?30 March at 12:25 · Like · 1
Elder Cunningham LOL! If I told you yes, would you believe me? If so, congratulations! You are a perfect candidate for baptism into the Church of Arnold!30 March at 12:27 · Unlike · 4
Chris Bublik Seriously!!! NO. Jeremy Compton does NOT have a "good point" with his private school argument.
In fact, this is the same bullshit they tried to pull in the late 70's when faced with a ton of lawsuits, NCAA sanctions, and a Justice Dept investigation.
WHY, you ask?
Because the fact that BYU is a "private" school means exactly bupkus, because they still accept federal research grant money, their students still accept PELL grants, and their buildings are resting on lands they pay ZERO taxes on.
They (and every educational institution that accepts fed funding) must comply with Title IX.
\\No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...
—United States Code Section 20//
Take your sanctimonious bullshit elsewhere pal. We're done waitnig for you mormons to haul your arses out of the 19th century.30 March at 12:31 · Unlike · 4
Erik Kulick If so, that is pretty kick-ass that the real guys from the musical are in control of their characters on FB. Not to mention, the awesome movies and DAILY SHOW shit!!!
(by shit I mean awesomeness... Shit, I should have just said that in the first place. Oh, well, it's not like there is a delete button...)
So what do I need to get baptized? Do I need to vow not to watch Fox news or something?30 March at 12:34 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach I'm sorry to read this thread and see so many old and discredited items still surviving.
1) Prop 8 is constitutional, in fact it is the constitution of California.30 March at 13:03 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach 2) Whether or not marriage is neutered of "man and woman" in its definition impacts how people see marriage to be. If you don't believe me ask anyone you know who wants to neuter marriage if they a) Believe marriage to be about responsible procreation b) believe children have any claim at all in knowing and being raised by the parents they share an identity with, and c) believe the man, woman, and children they potientially have together are unique and valuable in their rights and responsibilities in each marriage.
If you don't agree with all three, you've already denied human rights and equal recognition of those rights.30 March at 13:06 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach 3) As many in the civil rights movement agree, homosexuality is not another race. There are parallels, but it is not equatable to being black, which is a gift of one's heritage. No behavior, no matter how benign or overly attacked and in need of defense of those practicing it, has that same footing.30 March at 13:10 · Like · 1
Elder Cunningham 1) Not according to the California District Court, or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.30 March at 13:11 · Like · 3
Elder Cunningham 2) I don't know what testicles have to do with marriage. Even a neutered man can be married.30 March at 13:11 · Like · 4
Michael Jared Farnbach 4) Even Christ in the New Testament said that churches are like a field of mud, with a treasure that someone may or may not find.
I honestly sympathize with the parent issues that make people hate religion, but for all that is loving, you are adults now, its time to put your parent issues aside and do the best you can.30 March at 13:12 · Like
Elder Cunningham 3) Equal protection of the law applied to gender.30 March at 13:12 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach Elder, You should actually read the 9th circuit decision. But for now even the 9th circuit put their decision on hold until another court reviews it.30 March at 13:13 · Like
Elder Cunningham 4) So that's where all the mud came from that was slung at Christ's LgBT children. THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!30 March at 13:13 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach 2) Who said anything about testicals? Its about rights. I hope you can avoid your fascination enough to deal with the real subject.30 March at 13:13 · Like
Elder Cunningham You said neutered marriage?30 March at 13:14 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach 3) And marriage is about gender equality, unless you believe Judge Walker, and even the 9th couldn't eat that horse.30 March at 13:14 · Like
Elder Cunningham 3) Gender is a quasi-suspect class under the 14th Amendment.30 March at 13:14 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach 4) Mud's thrown at everyone in this world. There is no right to be a mud thrower and be protected from mud slinging.30 March at 13:15 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach 3) Again, read Judge Walker who said that marriage no longer is about gender issues, because otherwise it would be rational to expect integration of a man and a woman in marriage. That's called real marriage equality.30 March at 13:15 · Like
Elder Cunningham 4) Correct! Your point about mud and churches is irrelevant to the right to marry.30 March at 13:16 · Like
Elder Cunningham 3) So now you support Judge Walker? The reality is there are several theories for finding marriage inequality unconstitutional. One of them is based upon gender and the 14th amendment. The other is based upon the rational basis test, as applied to homosexuality, and that is the one the 9th Circuit embraced because it has the lowest threshold for Constitutional review, and Proposition 8 still failed.30 March at 13:18 · Like
Elder Cunningham Thus, it is unconstitutional unless and until the Supremes reverse it. Start praying, Brother!30 March at 13:18 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach 4) You brought up the mud slinging. Protecting the equal rights of the man, woman, and children they potentially have together is not slinging mud. But if one is going to be so sensitive as to take it that way, then they should remember the constitution isn't about protecting fragile identities. Its about protecting and supporting self governance, equality, and our human rights -- which hopefully do promote strong identities.30 March at 13:20 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach 3) Its not about supporting Walker. He wasn't even supported by the 9th because his decision went awry so many ways. One of them was in ruling that even though gender is a heightened class, marriage cannot be about gender equality. And he said that because that is how he needs it to be. I never said I support that.30 March at 13:23 · Like
Elder Cunningham 4) I know, right? I hope those fragile Mormon identities can withstand the inevitable tide of equality!30 March at 13:23 · Like · 1
Elder Cunningham 3) You are naive. The 9th handed the Supremes the ability to deny cert. That is all it did in choosing the most restrictive reading of the opinion below.30 March at 13:24 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach At best the 9th disagrees with the California Supremes on whether it is constitutional or not. And my hope is that people better understand the rights at stake, especially the 9th. Unfortunately they seem to not care about equal rights or equal protection, otherwise they would support the institution that recognizes the man, and the woman, and the child they potentially have together as equal in their claim on each other as a matter of rights.30 March at 13:25 · Like
Elder Cunningham 4) Proposition 8 wasn't about protecting heterosexual marriage, procreation or anything about heterosexuals at all. The Constitutionality of the law must emanate from the words of the law itself, not the purpose of marriage as a whole.30 March at 13:25 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "they" who don't care in the previous comment being the 9th circuit. The California Supremes certainly had no problem with the procedure of how prop 8 came to be, and even judged it according to a much more strict equality clause than is in the Federal Constitution. In that we see just how far out on a limb the 9th has climbed.30 March at 13:26 · Like
Elder Cunningham I guess we will just have to wait and see whether the Supremes agree with you. But for now, its a two forum smackdown for Prop 8.30 March at 13:27 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach 4) Proposition 8 was about protecting the equal rights of the man, woman, and children they potentially have together. We do that by recognizing that children come from a "man and a woman", the similarity with the definition of marriage is no coincidence. That the 9th felt they could tell the voters who supported Prop 8 what they really were up to is just more shady divination by the blacked robed overseers.30 March at 13:28 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach So here's a question, if we can't support marriage equality as the equal recognition of the rights of the man, woman, and child they potentially have together because that is too "heterosexist" then what can? Because the humanitarian rights that marriage can protect when its equality "man and woman" and child they potentially have together, are real rights. That the 9th wants to deny rights while claiming that rights were denied is again indication of how far they are climbing out on a limb.30 March at 13:30 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "The 9th handed the Supremes the ability to deny cert." At this point I don't even think you know what you are saying anymore. Do you?30 March at 13:31 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "The Constitutionality of the law must emanate from the words of the law itself, not the purpose of marriage as a whole."
Unfortunately that comment is naive about the process of equal protection scrutiny. The purpose behind a law is the very rational purpose that we expect to answer all claims of discrimination.30 March at 13:33 · Like
Chris Bublik your argument deals solely with the perceived 'morality' of marriage.
Knock that shit around in your brain for as long as you want to Brother Farnbach.....this is about legal equity. nothing more.30 March at 13:34 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Okay, anyone here not a south-park-esque straw man that can give me more valid arguments?30 March at 13:34 · Like
Allystair Jones <---- is in grad school at BYU studying evolution. I like it here.30 March at 13:35 · Like · 3
Michael Jared Farnbach Chris, interesting take. But since when is "the equal value of the rights of the man, woman, and children they potentially have together" not about legal equality?30 March at 13:36 · Like
Chris Bublik and please stop trying to justify the "will of the people" when it comes to Prop 8. We do not live in a pure democracy sir. We are an elected representative Republic that relies on its duly elected officials to make the tough decisions. Prop 8 was just another attempt to pass the buck of blame on the "will of the people" by pussy politicians more worried about their re election than doing the right thing.30 March at 13:39 · Like
Chris Bublik of course all this becomes moot when (not if) the "prophet" comes out with his newest revelation regarding homosexuality.
they tend to do that only when the public pressure threatens the tithing coffers....and it is right now.30 March at 13:43 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Chris, the 9th is wrong even by their own standards. By overlooking the rights associated with procreation, it violated its own decision about taking away rights.
While it did so by disagreeing with the California majority, the real problem was that instead of having a rational disagreement, they showed bad form in calling the voters (a majority the same size that elected Obama in the same election) bigots.
Again, their reasoning is wrong and self-contradictory. Their name calling is just bad form.30 March at 13:43 · Like
John Brodie I think Mormons should be OK with gay marraige and Gays should be OK with mormons plural maraige. And in the mean time I'll have a diet Coke.30 March at 13:43 · Like · 7
Allystair Jones From an evolutionary stand point polygamy makes sense if you have capitalism for your economic set up. Monogamy only makes sense if you have equal distribution of wealth :)30 March at 13:45 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Chris, I have to say that you bring up the most interesting diversions in the conversation.
In stead of playing each diversion, could you answer the question I asked you above about equal rights in marriage?30 March at 13:46 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach For the record, before I get to far into my defense here, I should point something out.
I can honestly say I support gay marriage being legal. And not just legal, but recognized with benefits through Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, etc...
What I do not support is removing the recognition of rights associated with procreation by neutering "man and woman" from the legal definition of marriage.
I don't support claiming that without neutering marriage of "man and woman", gays are discriminated against by the government or any other institution. Thats a bridge too far, its simply wrong.30 March at 13:51 · Like · 2
John Brodie I hope this isn't a stupid thread that deletes all opposing opinions the next day. Especialy after the "Fragil identity" comment earlier.30 March at 13:51 · Like · 1
John Brodie Mike very well said. If someone disagrees with that statement they will be showing their own lack of tolerance.30 March at 13:53 · Like
John Brodie I teach my kids high religious morals which includes telling them whats wrong but olso to not judge others that are doing what I consider wrong. Some people think thats hypocritical but those people are stupid. OOPs did I just judge someone OK turns out I'm a hypocrate after all. hahaha30 March at 13:55 · Like · 2
Allystair Jones My father is gay and has been with the same partner for 20 years. I have deep seated emotions regarding gay marriage but I support people voting to define what they want to call marriage.30 March at 13:57 · Like · 2
Janna Russell Brown Elder Cunningham, Absolutely well said, and parried. I don't know if you would rather call it verbal ping pong, or a tennis match of ideas, but you were magnificent ♥ This is what I've been waiting for since I friended you and started reading all your posts. I told you when i met you that i thought that you had a great sense of humor. I suspected that you also had a great mind and I am sooo glad that I finally got the chance to see it in action.
I'm also thrilled that you are finally receiving all the success and attention and applause that you so well deserve. ♥ My sister told me once when I was depressed, about all the things i hadn't done yet. Anyway, what she said is that what I was looking for was Accolades, and that everyone needs them. She said that every one needs to know that what they HAVE done has been noticed and appreciated... ♥ ...You are getting Accolades Elder, and you have so earned them ♥ ♥ ♥30 March at 14:02 · Like · 1
Joshua Rose Brother Farnbach, please explain exactly what rights would be removed if marriage were expanded to include two men or two women. For the record marriage as defined "between one man and one woman" does not include "any child they might have." A family includes the children they might have but the children are not included within the marriage itself. And marriage is not about procreation, otherwise we should not allow women beyond their child bearing years to marry, and not only do we allow it, we celebrate it.30 March at 14:08 · Like · 4
Frieda Ellen Fisher Which makes not a whit of difference - it's none of his business.30 March at 14:08 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach Hey Janna, so what argument do you think was his strongest? I personally would like to see something of value in his arguments, perhaps I missed it?
I appreciate his effort, but I'm still waiting for a more compelling argument. To be honest I've been searching for an argument to remove "man and woman" from the government's expectation for marriage licenses, and after talking with Jon Rauch (who does a much better job than Cunningham), and many other noteworthy gay-marriage supporters, I've been swayed by many appeals which amount to Civil Unions. But never seen a humanitarian reason to actually remove recognition of equality and rights associated with procreation.
Elder Cunningham came up very short on that. Chris came up with things that I think don't matter to marriage very much at all, in other words of all the things I have considered in equal rights recognition, humanitarian concerns, and helping gays and lesbians, the whole tithing coffer is rather irrelevant.
Perhaps you can help them out?30 March at 14:14 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Joshua, do you mean specifically by removing "man and woman" from the expectation of a marriage license?30 March at 14:17 · Like
Elder Cunningham Re denial of cert - I most certainly do know what that means, and that is exactly what the 9th was trying to do by drawing the opinion so narrowly. As it stands, the Supremes can deny cert while still upholding the ability for other states to vote on marriage. The way Walker's opinion was worded, the Supremes would have to accept Cert, or all states with bans on gay marriage would instantly have those bans invalidated. Because the 9th chose to follow the path of Romer v. Evans, they gave the Supremes an 'out.'
I'm OK with emotional cheer-leading. Thanks, Sister Brown! Considering that both Walker and the 9th Circuit agree with this reasoning, I'm pretty OK with standing in their company.30 March at 14:18 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Also your comment is wrong. The expectation of children is tied to our understanding of marriage. Marriage is a matter of family law. Many gays and lesbians expect marriage rights in order to help facilitate their having children too. Even in the child's rhyme we find that first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes ... ? Everyone knows how that rhyme goes.
I'm honestly waiting for someone who, can argue how we promote the equality needed in procreation (man, woman, and children they potentially have together), in other words how we can recognize human rights and equality with marriage while still neutering it of man and woman. Instead I see over and over again people like you who can think of no other retort than to claim marriage doesn't have anything to do with responsible (equal recognition of rights for) procreation.
In short, you seem to be validating my point about what changes in marriage by trying to con me into thinking the rights being lost were never real to begin with.
I don't support such attempts, and I find them to be contrary to civil rights and human rights.30 March at 14:22 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach Oh, you mean how they hear the case. You are betting the SUpremes won't hear the case because of how Reinhold crafted it to be about anything but marriage equality.
Its an interesting tactic, But in doing so he wound up arguing Prop 8 has less to do with marriage and more to do with two gays who want to get an apartment together. And thats just another of the many ways his decision is climbing out too far on the limb.
There are many legal professors (like Eugene Volokh) who support neutering marriage, but think that Reinhardt's tactic was too clever by half.30 March at 14:25 · Like · 1
Elder Cunningham Well, unfortunately for your argument, all but one of the judges who have considered it in your case have rejected it. MARRIAGE may exist in part to facilitate procreation, but the DENIAL of marriage rights to homosexuals does not promote responsible procreation at all.30 March at 14:25 · Like · 3
Elder Cunningham Yes, Cert means whether the Supremes will take the case. My guess is they might not, which brings us full circle: Prop 8 = FAIL.30 March at 14:26 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Cunningham, actually the total number of judges that support my argument are greater than those against. There have been more decisions in favor of protecting marriage than neutering its requirement of a man and a woman in the US, and even abroad in Europe.
That the two in the 9th can't even support Walker's arguments which do address marriage equality is also is very telling in that regard.30 March at 14:29 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Actually "cert" can mean many things especially in the legal world. The term you are looking for is "Certiorari" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CertiorariCertiorari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.orgCertiorari (/ˌsɜrʃⁱəˈrɛəraɪ/, /-ˈrɛəri/, /-ˈrɑri/)[1][2] is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine,[3] and other law. Certiorari ("to be more fully informed") is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare ("to show, prove, or ascertain"). A...
30 March at 14:30 · Like
Elder Cunningham LOL. In another life, when I practiced law, we just called it "cert." But I didn't go to the wikipedia school of law, so that might be the problem.30 March at 14:34 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach "MARRIAGE may exist in part to facilitate procreation"
I'm not worried about facilitating procreation, I'm interested in promoting the equal recognition of the rights of the man, woman, and children they potentially have together.
Only in marriage do all of those rights have a chance of being valued equally. How can an institution which by law cannot see any difference between a "man and woman" and two men or two women, see the rights of the man and woman equally?
Its simply a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction spelled out in Brown vs Board of Education which ruled that only though integration can we fully and equally recognize the rights of those participating.30 March at 14:34 · Like
Elder Cunningham I comprehend the argument. I simply disagree with it.30 March at 14:35 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Cunningham, in your other life when you practiced law, I bet you were less ambiguous :)30 March at 14:35 · Like
Elder Cunningham You obviously don't know many lawyers. LOL!30 March at 14:36 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Prop 8 = valid recognition of human rights. It is a shame you call that a "fail".30 March at 14:36 · Like
Elder Cunningham Yaawwn. Oops, I fell asleep. Are you repeating yourself again?30 March at 14:37 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Cunningham, what you pretend to know about me is also very telling :)30 March at 14:37 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Oh boy, now you are diving right for the playground pranks! Like I said, is anyone here not a south-park strawman who can put up valid arguments?30 March at 14:40 · Like
Natalie Sperry Mandelin Elder Cunningham's page! Land of trolls!30 March at 14:43 · Like · 4
Michael Jared Farnbach Cunningham *is* a troll, what are you saying?30 March at 14:44 · Like
Elder Cunningham It's a line from the Most Correct Musical on Earth. The Book of Mormon!30 March at 14:46 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach trolling for a diversion like Chris did? Why on earth would you want to do that?30 March at 14:47 · Like
Elder Cunningham Boredom?30 March at 14:48 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach I can't cure boredom, but I bet if you had a valid argument left to offer you wouldn't be half as bored.30 March at 14:50 · Like
Elder Cunningham I've already won.30 March at 14:51 · Like · 3
Michael Jared Farnbach Either way, sounds like you've left the meaningful part of the discussion for good now. I've at least had fun. Thanks for letting me have a say. Take care and here's hoping you continue to entertain.30 March at 14:52 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Sure you did, you entertain and win, I'll keep informing and win with reason. That way we both win.30 March at 14:53 · Like · 3
Elder Cunningham Thanks, Brother Farnbach! It's been a great chat, and proof that, as Mormons, we *are* really fucking polite!30 March at 14:55 · Like · 4
Chris Bublik Sorry, I had to cook dinner and live my life.
I will answer your "question" when I get more time.
Stay tuned Bro Farnbach.30 March at 15:11 · Like
Janna Russell Brown And well spoken, especially when talking about something in which we actually believe. As for Michael Jared Farnbach, I have absolutely no desire to debate with you, as you suggested a million comments back up there. I did however greatly enjoy reading the sparring match that you had going with Elder Cunningham. It was the part where you started numbering all your points, and Elder, was answering them point by point, but due to computer and/or typing delay, your arguments were juxstiposed with his answers but I could keep track of what each was saying to the other by following the numbers. Anyway, it was a most interesting interplay ♥ ♥ ♥30 March at 15:55 · Like · 3
Janna Russell Brown Both bow and return to your corners, and let's see what the judges have to say.30 March at 15:58 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Michael, I don't understand how allowing two men or two women to be legally recognized as married and affording them the same rights (kids or no kids) as their hetero neighbors, some how harms the rights of a hetero family unit. 30 March at 16:34 · Like
Rob Donaldson Mr. Farnbach:
I am a California attorney of some years' experience. I graduated from BYU Law School where I was on law review. I have been outside counsel to the LDS Church. I am a former temple sealer. I am admitted to state and federal bars, including the United States Supreme Court bar.
I have studied Judge Walker's opinion thoroughly, as well as the 9th Circuit's opinion. I am familiar with all arguments on both sides of this debate.
I have also read all of your posts in this conversation. And I must say, sir, that I don't know what you are talking about, and I suspect you don't either. From simple factual errors such as calling 9th Circuit Judge Reinhardt "Reinhold" to more egregious ones like saying Judge Walker "wasn't even supported by the 9th because his decision went awry so many ways" and more, your comments bespeak a hobbyist's play with things he claims to know but really doesn't, rather than the tempered, reasoned, consistently accurate voice of a true expert.
What seems to be your original premise of gender differences being essential to "true marriage" and how it is "simply wrong" to deny that or set it aside was an issue addressed squarely in Judge Walker's opinion. If you did not know this, then you have been deceptive in this conversation. If you knew it but forgot, you have at best been hasty and spoken before thinking.
If you knew it when stating your premise, you did not understand Judge Walker's analysis or how it was based strictly on civil law and not on anything else. To say, as you have, that eliminating that distinction is "simply wrong" is not a sufficient basis for law in the American system. You must have a credible legal basis and evidence for your position. So far, I have seen none.
So, I will ask you straight out. Have you read Judge Walker's opinion, and if so, tell me your understanding of his analysis of gender distinctions in civil marriage in California. Any other basis for criticizing the result is a red herring.
I am genuinely interested to read your response.30 March at 17:11 · Like · 5
David Cottle Now, if only Michael Jared Farnbach put this much time and energy into finding a job.30 March at 17:30 · Like · 2
Michael Lee Hayes Michael, whats the big deal if they get married? Why can not they have the same benefits we have? If its gods law, then its gods judgement and he can deal with that on judgement day. In the mean time on planet earth, we have to live together. There are different variations on beliefs and cultures in our society and if we want to be fair and accepting then we have to tear down these walls. I do not know how gays getting married effects marriage. Give them the same rights. If it makes the world an evil place then Jesus can come back faster if not then at least gay can get the same benefits. beside didn't this thread start with the Mormon church breaking its own articles of faith by funding this bill? Were they not being deceptive? So if we start back at the beginning then we wouldn't even be having this fight with the supremes because the church wouldn't have started it.30 March at 19:20 · Like · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Erik, and Michael. Thanks for replying, I'll have to point you upthread to where I said I do support gay marriage. What I don't support, and have yet to hear someone argue in a way that increases equality, human rights recognition, that we should remove "man and woman" from the requirements of marriage. Again that is all explained upthread.
Cunningham appears to be an adult version of a disneyland character greeter, but I'm a real person who's fully interested in understanding both sides. If you have that argument, I would like to hear it.30 March at 19:37 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach David, that was pretty funny. As an attempted invective it actually came across as droll as Cunningham yawning to increase his entertainment value in this thread. Yet it shows how much you want to believe stereotypes, or pigeonhole people, and have nothing to really add to understanding the issues here. And that, in its own way, is funny.30 March at 19:42 · Like
John-Henry Cottrell Rob, what I have found is many that are pro-gay marriage are the most intolerant people; quick to jump to conclusions that ideas are based upon hate or phobias. This makes any discussion almost mute and pointless. It makes many become automatically defensive, and when people act defensive, they are not concerned sometimes of really expressing themselves well (which of course only adds to the divide within the discussion, and possibly adding to the idea that the difference is based upon hate and phobias). The discussions become so laser-focused upon individual rights, that the structure of society is never really discussed. Pro-gay marriage tend to be most concerned with individual rights (and many of the things they say are valid), while those against are looking at a larger picture of societal impact (and many of the things they say are valid). Unfortunatlely those on one side rarely ever really put any considerate thought in what the other is saying.....30 March at 19:46 · Like
Natalie Sperry Mandelin But John, civil rights are individual rights, and marriage is a civil right. Therefore, when discussing the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, it makes sense to talk about marriage in terms of individual rights. That is how marriage exists Constitutionally. It isn't really fair to say that pro-marriage equality people are "the most intolerant people." In my opinion, it's just that pro-marriage equality people do not believe the "larger picture of societal impact" demonstrates any real harm whatsoever relating to expanding marriage rights to include gay couples.30 March at 19:56 · Unlike · 1
Natalie Sperry Mandelin So basically, it has to be based on myth, or fear, or something besides evidence.30 March at 19:57 · Like
Natalie Sperry Mandelin I'm still waiting for Michael Jared Farnbach to respond to Rob Donaldson's questions!30 March at 20:00 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Rob, now there's a real discussion.
On Reinhardt vs Reinhold, you are right. Thanks for the correction.
On the style points of voice, you might have a point there. But ultimately style isn't important to me as the basis of the arguments themselves. So without delay, I'll head into them.
"premise of gender differences [...] was an issue addressed squarely in Judge Walker's opinion"
You are charitable to say he addressed it squarely. He wrote... "Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals."
Historically, marriage was the only means by which women could obtain some rights that only men were recognized with. Historically, marriage has not always solved the problem of inequality between men and women, but it has been the only means of increasing the equality for women.
I'm happy that today women don't need marriage to have access to those rights, yet the inequality of marriage between the man and the woman is yet to be fully addressed even today. Kay Hymnowitz's discussions on the "Marriage Gap" show that women who aren't married today still suffer from more poverty, more abuse, compared to married women.
Even women who do work earn less than a man, and are afforded less opportunity in rigorous research and scholarship. One prime factor mentioned over and over is that women feel more responsibility to their children and ask for more flexible schedules from their employers. The correlation is strong enough to suggest that the wage gap is just another extension of the marriage gap.
In other words, while women who are married so not seem to make more money, however they are entitled to more of the money that the man makes, equalizing the income between them.
Another source to find the inequality of responsibility for children comes from divorce, where a marriage had children but is now dissolved. The Father's rights movement outlines the discrimination they feel against them often.
In both cases, the discrimination for genders is verifiable and charted, and much more common than the discrimination against gays. Now I also want to see discrimination against gays rectified, but my point is more to show how Walker got his judgement exactly backwards, straining at gnats (as it were) and swallowing camels.30 March at 20:03 · Like
Rob Donaldson Mr. Farnbach:
You have correctly identified the "money quote" from Judge Walker's opinion. I believe that paragraph is the single most important one of the entire opinion.
And while the rest of your comment is no doubt interesting, it is and would have been irrelevant to the merits of the question before Judge Walker. Courts cannot and should not decide questions of statutory and constitutional interpretation based on collateral social or cultural issues not germane to the merits of the case.
This is why I find your previous comments confusing. You seem to be arguing that Judge Walker was wrong because he failed to consider all these other issues you raise. But at the risk of sounding patronizing (which is not my intent), this is where it becomes clear that you're not a lawyer.
It is not the function of civil marriage law to try to remedy alleged income inequality which may be based on gender, or other types of alleged gender discrimination, or other perceived socio-cultural problems or issues with child-rearing, or family responsibilities, or whatever. The question in the federal courts is a narrow one: does Proposition 8 violate the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law?
That's it. That's the ONLY question. Judge Walker would have been wrong to go beyond it, and he knew that. His opinion, though long and thorough, sticks to that one theme, and analyzes it based on exhaustive review of binding legal precedent. Not on theorizing as to "broader social impact". That is not his place. He is there to interpret the law, not make or comment on social policy. In my opinion, his decision is virtually air-tight as to why Proposition 8 does NOT pass Constitutional muster, and I have seen and heard many legal scholars far more accomplished than myself who've said the same thing.
So you are certainly free to look at these other aspects of the definition of marriage. But from a legal perspective, they are irrelevant to the function and role of the judges in this case and to how they must interpret the law.30 March at 21:05 · Unlike · 1
Rob Donaldson @John-Henry:
No doubt there has been much unnecessary demonizing and shouting past each other on both sides. Any such behavior is of course regrettable. I've said previously that if I'd been in the crowd in front of the LDS temple in Los Angeles during that protest in which an elderly woman supporting Prop 8 was knocked down, I would have immediately tried to shield and defend her even though I absolutely oppose Prop 8 myself.
You sound like a reasonable person. So I hope you will reasonably and in good faith consider the possibility that, from a broad historical perspective, far more discrimination and bigotry and damage has been inflicted on gay people by Christians than the other way round. Louis Crompton's exhaustive "Homosexuality & Civilization" chronicles centuries of Christian-sponsored violence against gay people, including imprisonment, torture, burning at the stake, hanging, and more, all done in the name of God. Blaise Pascal said "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Christian treatment of homosexuals for the last thousand years is a perfect example of that.
We now live in a time when God's gay children are standing up and saying "No more." Just as the Jews stood up after the Holocaust and said "No more. We will no longer accept this treatment from you. We will die rather than allow it to continue. We deserve full and equal rights to pursue happiness just as you assume for yourselves and we will not rest until we have them."
Now, as to the question of "societal impact." The best we can do is look at the record so far in states and countries which have adopted marriage equality. So far there is no sign that any of the fears promoted by the Prop 8 crowd are happening. Danish clergy fought marriage equality fiercely many years ago, lost that battle, and have since conceded that their fears were unfounded. Massachusetts, first to adopt marriage equality, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Study after study indicate that children raised by same-sex couples are just as happy and well-adjusted as children of "traditional" marriages; in fact, I recently saw a study which said that children raised by married lesbian women did even better by all measurements than children from "traditional" homes.
My own father believes that homosexuals will cause the downfall of Western civilization. Why? Because that's what Spencer Kimball said in a book. What was Kimball's source? Honestly, I'm not sure. But he was certainly no historian. He blamed the gays for the downfall of ancient Rome, but missed the fact that Rome fell long after the Christians took over and presumably began trying to curb gay behavior.
Homosexual behavior has been a part of human history since earliest recorded times. I have studied this subject extensively and have found no indication that "the gays" ever caused any civilization to fracture or fall apart. If you have credible evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
Lastly, I invite you to consider this perspective. Gay men and women are not seeking to destroy marriage; in fact, they are honoring the institution by wanting access to it. They _want_ to take on the responsibility, the obligation of fidelity to a spouse, the duty to care for one other through thick and thin. British Prime Minister David Cameron has just this week said he fully supports gay marriage not in spite of being a conservative, but _because_ he is a conservative. He understands that marriage is a conservative institution, and that by allowing gay people to marry, society will in fact _promote_ stable, healthy, monogamous gay relationships and reduce much of the unhealthy behavior that heretofore has been the only alternative for gay people, because Christians have fought to keep it so. In the words of my 10 year old daughter when first presented with this question: "How does two guys getting married hurt somebody else's marriage?" It doesn't. Nor does it hurt "society." It helps everyone.30 March at 21:33 · Unlike · 4
David Cottle MICHAEL JARED FARNBACH, YOU ARE SO SMART, TELL US MORE.30 March at 21:56 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Rob, you have some interesting views. And I appreciate the time you take to articulate them...
"Courts cannot and should not decide questions of statutory and constitutional interpretation based on collateral social or cultural issues not germane to the merits of the case."
Most likely what I expected you to respond. However, the case is about social and cultural issues. Where you draw the line as to whether or not they are germane should be consistent.
For instance, the plaintiffs argued that social issues surrounding the title and term of marriage were germane to the case when discussing potential harm to homosexual couples. Reinhardt even discussed the social trend of putting one's marriage proposal on a jumbotron in his decision. Of the harms listed and recognized in Walker's findings of fact, many were social and completely out of reach of judges to regulate under current law and powers.
Even the Goodridge decision (and I remember the Supreme Court quote loosely) recognized they could not effectively touch all of the social ramifications of prejudice, but they could not let them stand or support them in their decision either.
Surely the standard of what social ramifications are germane to marriage should be equal for considering homosexual couples denied marriage as well as the gender inequality both in and outside of marriage.
"You seem to be arguing that Judge Walker was wrong because he failed to consider all these other issues you raise."
His failure is chiefly one of special pleading. To repeat he states, "Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents." Yet the evidence you claim is not germane clearly shows that women put their obligations to children higher than their obligations for a career than men do.
He's right in that there is no state mandate to a woman's obligation, and I'm happy to recognize that. But there's no state mandate to propose over a jumbotron either, or to extend your health care coverage to your spouse either.
As I said before, its straining at gnats and swallowing camels.30 March at 22:36 · Like · 1
Nathan McBride Wow, so that's where the stolen sign went...30 March at 22:43 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Rob's comment continued...
"The question in the federal courts is a narrow one: does Proposition 8 violate the United States Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law?"
Baker v Nelson ... answers that question decisively and concisely. I would appreciate where in Walker's decision, when he spends so much time on the question of a right to same sex marriage in the 14th amendment, he discusses that most relevant Supreme Court precedent?
Note that Reinhardt explicitly avoided the question of a right to same-sex marriage in the Federal Constitution, and subsequently argues that means (among other things) Baker v Nelson isn't relevant to his case. Walker doesn't have that dismissal available to him, as he clearly uses the 14th amendment to argue a right for same-sex marriage.
In answering pre-trial motinos Walker claimed that there is enough latitude with subsequent rulings to ponder the question of Baker v Nelson. Where in his decision did he wind up answering it?
So to sum up, if that is the only question to be answered in the trial, then either Walker erred in pondering the rational basis of gender equality through expected integration in marriage in the first place (which one might believe considering Reinhardt's explicit dropping of the issue), or he erred in not giving it equal value and standing as the social and cultural considerations afforded to homosexual couples in the trial.30 March at 22:54 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Rob says, "Gay men and women are not seeking to destroy marriage; in fact, they are honoring the institution by wanting access to it."
I appreciate that probably more than you know. However, removing "man and woman" from the definition of marriage is a curious way to do that.
To me marriage is the institution responsible for promoting the kind of precaution and execution of tolerance and concern that two people need when having a child between them.
What worries me is that while you promote Walker's decision as your personal favorite addressing of this issue, it states in no uncertain terms that responsible procreation -- or anything else -- even gender equality itself -- relating to procreation, is explicitly no longer a concern of marriage.
That is a very far cry of saying you appreciate or even tolerate what marriage is and means to me. What you say is you appreciate and want to enter an institution is free of the humanitarian needs and desires to promote equal recognition of rights that are relevant to a child and the two people who combined their identity to create the child. The very thing that everyone who ever was or will be a child deserve to have recognized.
While I'm very sympathetic to the issues of identity for homosexuals, don't you agree they should not be incompatible with or diminish in any way our recognition of our basic human identity?
The UN recognizes the right to know your heritage, and to know and be raised by the two people who you share an identity with -- the two people who created you between them. The US signed onto that charter. Marriage is the institution which recognizes and protects those rights, if one doesn't accept that is by design then I submit it is still evident marriage does that by sheer efficacy in naming the relationship (man and woman) that creates the child. Only through their expected integration, love and tolerance can we recognizes all that should be recognized in the bond created by the act of birth between all three.30 March at 23:25 · Like
Nathan McBride How can marriage be a civil right if you have to ask (and pay) the government for a license? Marriage has always been an arrangement for the eligible. It has always been a bond for men and women so they have legal claim of the other to aid in fostering the next generation. People never had to prove love for their fiance in order to get married. Love was never a requirement. Being single, and of proper age and gender, has been (plus other qualifications depending on where one lives.)
I personally would not stand in anyone's way who is of age, sound mind, and consenting, to celebrate a gay union recognized by the state. No one should be forced to live alone.
But let us all stop pretending that my marriage to my wife and our children produced from this union is exactly the same as a same sex couple and their union. It is different. If it were the same they would be spawning kids from their combined DNA. They cannot.
Instead they can be there for each other. Fabulous. Everyone needs that. However they can't give grand kids to their parents, using the shared DNA passed down. Harsh? Perhaps but it is as true as sunrise. No judge can change that.
Men and women are different. A union of two men is different than that of one man and one woman. For example in a union of two men who gets the alimony when they divorce? There are different considerations because the arrangement is different.
I didn't make us male and female with all the realities it brings. I just know that my marriage will never be the same as a gay one.30 March at 23:37 · Like
Nathan McBride "Today gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other and to their dependents."
How is this a true statement from Judge Walker? Has he been to many divorce court proceedings lately? I scratch my head over this statement. Men and women do not get unisex consideration in family law.31 March at 00:05 · Like
Rob Brann After all this rhetoric, a single question lingers in my mind: how would my marriage to the man I love more than any other on this planet change what marriage means to any other human on this planet?31 March at 06:48 · Like · 2
Natalie Sperry Mandelin No two marriages are alike. There is no biological element of marriage. Equality will prevail and everyone will survive it. 31 March at 07:44 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Good question Rob. No state in the USA stops you from being married to the man you love. No cops show up to break up your wedding ceremony, or living together. Many even recognize your relationship with benefits through Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.
But do you honestly think that changing the government definition of marriage to remove its equal gender representation (man and woman) doesn't "change what marriage means"? When you change the definition, it changes what it means. And it is changing what it means for the government, keeping it from being able to truly recognize and protect real marriage equality -- the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman and children they potentially have together.31 March at 07:47 · Like
Rob Donaldson Michael:
Thanks for your thoughts. Let’s be precise here. I said "Courts cannot and should not decide questions of statutory and constitutional interpretation based on collateral social or cultural issues _not germane to the merits of the case.”_ Sure, the case has to do with social and cultural issues. But it is _decided_ based on interpretation of the law. And that means evidentiary standards and following the rules for constitutional analysis laid out by the United States Supreme Court.
Yes, Plaintiffs did argue harm to homosexual couples. But you have ignored the larger context and reason for that argument. The question was whether Prop 8 passed strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny or rational basis review for constitutionality. Within that context, the plaintiff’s argument was not just whether there was harm, but whether that harm was related to and overcome by a larger more justified government interest served by Prop 8. The answer was “no.” Further on that point, you said that “Of the harms listed and recognized in Walker's findings of fact, many were social and completely out of reach of judges to regulate under current law and powers.” You confuse the court’s review of those harms with whether the court has the right or the power to “regulate” them. Again, the question was not whether the court had that power, but merely whether Prop 8 passed constitutional muster under established rules for deciding that question, e.g. strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny, or rational basis review tests.
Your cite of Reinhardt’s jumbotron example is, with respect, a red herring. Even within a judicial opinion, there is a difference between binding legal analysis and obiter dicta.
It was not Walker’s job to go out and dig up whatever evidence might be relevant to what he was thinking about. A judge decides cases based on the evidence presented to him by the parties.
So “his” alleged “failure”, as you put it, is not Walker’s. If it is a “failure” at all, you must attribute it to Charles Cooper, lead attorney for Prop 8 supporters, who is nationally known for his litigation skills. It was his job to present anything and everything of what you’ve discussed here if he thought it was relevant or persuasive or germane to the case. Cooper is not dim. He is extremely smart and known to be so. He has decades of experience at this, and he & his team had a long time to prepare their arguments in this case. It is not possible that any of what you’ve argued here was not considered by them. To the extent they did not argue as you have done, I must conclude that it’s because they did not agree with your approach or think it correct.
You cite Walker’s statement that "Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents." You then assert that evidence shows women put their obligations to children higher than their obligations for a career than men do. This is a non sequitur and a tautology, not “straining at gnats” or “swallowing camels.”
Your discussion of Baker v. Nelson likewise gets things backward. The federal constitutionality of a Minnesota county clerk’s refusal to issue a marriage license under settled state law is a very different issue than the constitutionality of a popular election which revoked a recognized and existing civil right under a state constitution. Just because the results seemed similar does _not_ mean the legal analysis is the same or even overlapping. Baker was affirmed by the Supreme Court on summary judgment and does _not_ answer any Prop 8-related question either “decisively” or “concisely.” That’s why Walker and Reinhardt both essentially ignored it. In addition, it is over 40 years old. Plessy v. Ferguson, which found “separate but equal” racial treatment to be constitutional, was unanimously overruled by Brown v. Board of Education 58 years later.
Thomas Jefferson said "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Baker v Nelson will be overturned just as surely as Plessy v. Ferguson was.
Your “sum up” gets the cart before the horse and does not seem to consider the various levels of analysis for constitutional scrutiny of a statute as established by the United States Supreme Court. Please take some time to study them. Doing so should help you understand better the reasons why Judge Walker and the 9th Circuit ruled as they did, and in fact why Charles Cooper apparently did not follow your line of argument.
As to “removing man and woman from the definition of marriage” being a “curious way” to honor the institution, it may be so only if again you assume your conclusion. Another tautology. To you, “marriage is the institution responsible for promoting the kind of precaution and execution of tolerance and concern that two people need when having a child between them.” But time and time again, it has been shown that _as a matter of civil law_ (which is what we’re talking about here), procreative ability is not a credible basis for denying access to marriage.
I believe you engage in another non sequitur and tautology when you claim that this means “responsible procreation” is “explicitly no longer a concern of marriage.” There is a huge difference between a threshold requirement and a result. Marriage between a man and a woman does promote responsible procreation, no question. That is a result, and a laudable one. But the ability to have and raise children in a stable environment is a _result_ of marriage, not a gating requirement. We don’t require prospective spouses to certify fertility or put up a performance bond redeemable on the birth of their first child.
“Responsible procreation” does not have to be guaranteed in advance in order to be “a concern of marriage.” None of those benefits fostered by “traditional marriage” will change if marriage is made available to gay couples. You seem to be stuck on the concept that two people “combine their identity to create” a child and that blood parentage is the only thing on the table here. You cite a UN charter in that respect. But UN charters are not binding law in the United States, and even if they were, the “identity” one shares with parents is forged by what they DO, not whether their genetics match their kid’s. Parents are the ones who nurture, shelter, feed, raise, teach and love a child. This does not require that they give birth to that child. Otherwise adoption laws would be out the window. As I noted in another comment above, study after study indicate that children raised by same-sex couples are just as happy and well-adjusted as children of “traditional” marriages; in fact, one recent study said children raised by married lesbian couples did best of all, even better than kids in "traditional" homes with their bio-parents. So, with due respect, when I see hard evidence like this I can’t give your theoretical arguments any weight. Actual experience contradicts them.31 March at 08:16 · Unlike · 3
Elder Cunningham The Prophet's friends are so smart! This just proves I'm true! ♥31 March at 08:19 · Like · 1
Allystair Jones @ Elder Cunningham. At first this discussion was simply emotional nonsense, then, some people took it to an intellectual level without attacking one another, and now you introduce an inflammatory remark to take it back to intellectual gutter? You sir, get a face palm. Heres some fun ideas that will not directly effect the outcome of the situation but, I hope, may help some people understand homosexuality a bit more. I see things from an evolutionary perspective and I look at different forces causing evolutionary divergence in allele frequency. The alleles coding for homosexual behavior may have expressed themselves differently in different environments. So, humans 100,000 years ago were in a different environment and the alleles were probably expressed differently. This means the argument that homosexuality could not have evolved is probably short sited (Richard Dawkins has books on this). For fun, however, we can also look at what a homosexual genome would do in a paleo-anthro environment. If someone were to not mate and produce offspring they still can obtain fitness by making sure their siblings are successful in mating. This is Hamiltons inclusive fitness hypothesis. While to some this may have been off topic I see a correlation in that the information can help how we approach the topic.31 March at 09:07 · Like
Sami Harmon http://www.churchofsatan.com/31 March at 09:18 · Like
Jolene Stelter Moody Mr. McBride, so what about the thousands upon thousands of couples who cannot have their own DNA produced children? How many children are adopted each day in this country? Do you propose that just because a man and woman adopt a child that it magically changes the child's DNA to match the man and woman but not the same sex couple? 31 March at 09:23 · Like
Elder Cunningham Now my feelings are hurt. But it's OK. Tomorrow is a Latter-day and we are here for us! :D31 March at 09:32 · Like · 2
David Cottle Like how we arent really "voting" in the traditional sense in this era, because by allowing blacks to vote, we changed the definition of voting. A wise man once said: "When you change the definition, you change what it means"31 March at 10:45 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach Rob, I appreciate the dialog. I'm somewhat reminded that our discussion is happening in a venue hosted by a character greeter seeking to make sure people are amused more than informed. And I appreciate you've been rigorous and courteous gives a real hospitality to this thread that I want to personally thank you for.
"The question was whether Prop 8 passed strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny or rational basis review for constitutionality."
The language of the readings makes it clear that the question is more which level of scrutiny to apply. When the judge finds that, they take to answer that single level of scrutiny, though they will often speculate openly whether other more rigorous levels could be met, but they do so with deference.31 March at 11:05 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "Yes, Plaintiffs did argue harm to homosexual couples"
As they should, and nothing I wrote should be construed that they shouldn't. However, I can and did explore whether the bar you set in accepting the harms done to regular couples in either a weakened or even significantly changed institution of marriage would impact or diminish the ability for the plaintiffs to do so.
My opinion is yes, there is a double standard being set by yourself and Walker. And it is evident in the different reaction to each that is presented.
When confronted with the social and cultural need heterosexual couples have in gender equality in marriage, you raised a very fundamentalist approach, claiming that only one question is or should be considered. You spent this latest post arguing the need for deeper and more liberal review and understanding for the homosexual couples harm.
What you haven't done is provide a unified approach which we can apply equally to both sides. But you don't have to, you can also provide an explanation of the difference in standards. You've not explained the need for that difference in a way that I find adequate.
Sure there are reasons one can lift or lower that bar that are completely legitimate. Unfortunately I've not seen your argument move beyond the possibility of those reasons and actually spell out how those reasons apply or don't to both.
The consideration of impact to heterosexual couples is different in only one way that I can see in the deliberation of impact on homosexual couples... one provides the evidence of discrimination and one answers the basis of that discrimination.
As the King of Hearts shows in Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland", exactly wrong decisions are possible if only one controls what is "important" and "not important", or what I fear would easily be put just as well in your terms of "germane" and "not germane". Reasons exist, but they should (especially in a case about equal protection under the law) be either equally applied to both plaintiff and defendant, or rationally explained based on some recognizable purpose. Walker's decision should have not only preached about equality under the law, it should have practiced it and set the example for it.31 March at 11:24 · Like
Rob Donaldson Michael, I have time for only two quick thoughts in response.
First, Judge Walker expressly asked Mr. Cooper during the trial what harm would be done to heterosexual couples if gay couples were allowed to marry. Cooper thought for a moment and said "I don't know." Nor did he put on the stand any witnesses who were able to show any such harm. You may disagree, but when the lead advocate for Prop 8 admits in open court that he can't think of any harm to heterosexual couples, you must concede that it's reasonable for me to say there is none.
Second, as to your statement that "one provides the evidence of discrimination and one answers the basis of that discrimination." In fact that is what happened in the trial. The plaintiffs provided ample evidence of that discrimination. Respondents had full opportunity to "answer the basis of that discrimination." Mr. Cooper said he could think of no actual harm. His expert witnesses could not show any, and in fact one ended up supporting the plaintiffs' case.
But again, you can't stop the analysis there. The question is not just whether harm can be shown, but whether that harm passes the appropriate test for constitutional acceptability in the service of some government interest. Judge Walker chose the lowest of all possible thresholds, "rational basis," the standard easiest for Mr. Cooper to meet in support of Prop 8. And after applying the appropriate tests set by the Supreme Court, he found that Prop 8 did not pass even that easiest of all possible tests. I put it to you that the standards _are_ in fact equal for both gay and straight couples, and that's exactly the approach Judge Walker took.31 March at 12:01 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "Baker was affirmed by the Supreme Court on summary judgment and does _not_ answer any Prop 8-related question either “decisively” or “concisely.”"
I appreciate that you took more time than Walker to explain what was clearly recognized by...See more
31 March at 12:07 · Like
Elder Cunningham Praise Christ that this Prophet is simultaneously anusing and tolerant in letting the dialogue proceed in his space, unfettered! I am truly my Brother's Greeter.
Let all the feelings out! The respectful discussion in this thread is a tender mercy to me. In the name of the widow's mites, Amen.31 March at 12:16 · Unlike · 3
Elder Cunningham Oops, amusing. Translation error!!!31 March at 12:16 · Unlike · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach "Cooper thought for a moment and said "I don't know.""
I'm glad you brought that up. Its another interesting study in double standards by Walker. Walker was determined to get a specific event prophesied by Cooper, and Cooper rightfully st...See more
31 March at 12:24 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach " I put it to you that the standards _are_ in fact equal for both gay and straight couples, and that's exactly the approach Judge Walker took."
Unfortunately that is not born out on the choice of rational basis alone. In fact, that decisi...See more
31 March at 12:35 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Cunningham, well you are trying to be amusing at least. I appreciate the effort!31 March at 12:37 · Like · 2
Elder Cunningham Thanks, Brother Farnhold!31 March at 12:56 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach well played :)31 March at 13:01 · Like
Elder Cunningham :D31 March at 13:01 · Unlike · 1
Tim Fairchild even though I am L.D.S., I totally agree that The Church should butt-out.31 March at 13:05 · Unlike · 3
Tim Fairchild So glad I have your approval Elder Cunningham.31 March at 13:09 · Unlike · 2
Irminsul Harp Marriage is older than the Bible - even same sex marriage is older. So this tortured discussion over gender inclusion cannot be based on actual history, but religious preference which, I would remind Elder Farnbach, is a no-no intrusion into our system of laws.31 March at 14:02 · Unlike · 3
Leslie Leigh I don't give a rat's ass who marries whom. Live & let live. Let's not get distracted by this silly diversion. We need to give priority to what's really wrong w/this world...climate change, Republicans, corporate take-overs, poor medical care, disparity of income, unemployment, poverty, homelessness. The list goes on.31 March at 14:11 · Unlike · 4
Michael Jared Farnbach Irminsul, you should re-read above. I'm all for gay marriage as its been practiced historically, which amounts to Civil Unions.
Leslie, I'm all for the freedom of association you talk about. Gay marriage is already legal, no one breaks up gay weddings, or kicks gays out from living with each other. When they say they are married at a cocktail party, I don't tell them they aren't.31 March at 14:37 · Like
Erik Kulick You have such a beautiful smile, Elder Cunningham: that is why I liked that specific comment.
Leslie, don't forget to add Democrats to that list; at least the Republicans don't pretend to care about the plight of us commoners.31 March at 15:24 · Like · 3
Kevin Maxwell Michael, you are for Gay Marriage! Whew we have settled that one after all this verbiage! What we have issue with here is having our civil rights put up for vote for the whims of the majority to decide on, that is what referendums such as P...See more
31 March at 21:24 · Like · 1
MotherIn Heaven EVERYONE should be allowed to marry ANYONE!
There.31 March at 23:14 · Unlike · 1
Nathan McBride @ Jolene. I'm glad you asked that question. Usually when men and women marry each other there is an expectation of children. Sometimes tragedy happens and couples are unable to have kids. Like my own sister who for almost a decade could no...See more
1 April at 01:03 · Like
Nathan McBride From where I'm sitting, it appears gay couples want state recognized relationships. Ta-da. There you go. Again, I never was for bed checks in peoples homes.
For guys like Farnbach and myself it was never about that. It was about the state...See more
1 April at 01:36 · Like
Alexander Nicholaou If I cant get married, you should not be able to get divorced :)1 April at 02:37 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach Probably the biggest misconception, and for some people I know it is a deliberate lie, same-sex marriage is not illegal. No jack-booted government officials come in to break up same-sex weddings, not in any state of the union. No cops show ...See more
1 April at 08:44 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach One more thing. To equate homosexuality with infertility means you are calling homosexuality a disability like infertility is. Infertility means something isn't working right, the person is disabled from doing something they normally could ...See more
1 April at 08:47 · Like
Nathan McBride @ Alexander. I have no desire for a divorce. I have been married for over a decade and my love for her is only stronger. I don't believe in no fault divorce and want to see it become more difficult to divorce except for cases of neglect, a...See more
1 April at 13:51 · Like
Erik Kulick Nathan and Michael, while the union of marriage should and does protect procreative rights, If I were to lose my testicles, and decide to remarry another woman, that marriage would be recognized as a legitimate marriage, even though I would...See more
1 April at 15:14 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Erik, when losing your reproductive organs is the same thing as being homosexual, you might have a point.
But as it is, when someone is disabled we still find ways to teach them to read, or have access to buildings. We even help them with ...See more
The Opine Editorials: CLASP on the importance of biological parents staying together
opine-editorials.blogspot.comDefending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity. Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy.
1 April at 16:26 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach "How do you feel about a homosexual couple in a civil union adopting a child?"
I have no problem with a gay couple raising a child together. There are a lot of circumstances where that is the best they can do.
Whether or not that is adop...See more
1 April at 16:35 · Like
Erik Kulick 1) I'm a parent; I know how to reproduce.
2) If you are really are going to defer to the UN again, I'd imagine the idea of allowing everyone the opportunity to marry whomever they want, as long as they are legally able to consent, would f...See more
2 April at 00:59 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach 1) When people understand marriage better they'll know how to responsibly reproduce.
2) The UN recognizes knowing and being raised by the parents where possible. Death or abuse and neglect by those parents are the only cases that isn't po...See more
2 April at 07:40 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "then no-one should stand in the way of these people and their happiness"
What is interesting is that by "these people" you only meant the couple themselves. Not the child, who may develop identity issues and suffer the loss of not knowin...See more
2 April at 07:49 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "If it weren't for donors, those children wouldn't exist, so how about looking on the bright side"
Again the double standard. When we are looking at what you want, then we only look a the positive outcome and disregard the negative outcom...See more
2 April at 07:53 · Like
Elder Cunningham And it came to pass that this thread was longer than the flippin' Book of Mormon, and almost as interesting!2 April at 08:05 · Like · 4
Elder Cunningham You should friend me, Brother Farnbottom, because that way I can have all kinds of conversations on your wall, too! It's the nice thing to do!2 April at 08:08 · Like
John N David I work hard, I own my own business, I have tons of friends and my name is John Bridger I am NOT a mormon, I am a homosexual!2 April at 08:15 · Like · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach That would be fun. For now we can continue to meet through the only one here who knows me as "Elder Farnbach", that is my old mission trainer Nathan R Kennard. If you had a real-name account, I'd be happy to add that one to my friend list.2 April at 08:15 · Like
Kate Sannicks-Lerner Rob, way to go! Love your counterpoint!2 April at 08:24 · Like · 1
Elder Cunningham I'm real! I promise! If I wasn't real, you wouldn't be spending sooooo much time talking to your imaginary friend.2 April at 08:27 · Like · 2
Chase Twede I totally forgot about articles of faith, apparently so did they.2 April at 09:02 · Like · 1
Dallas Street Boba Fett 2 April at 09:23 · Like · 3
Erik Kulick Don't worry Elder Cunningham, I believe you are real, and since my belief has the ability to transcend unto knowledge, I have immutable proof that you are precisely who you say you are. Additionally, I can write to you and receive a documen...See more
3 April at 00:54 · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Erik, thanks for replying. We'll pick this up again sometime, no doubt. In the meantime, I'm happy to rest on what I've said and the points I made.3 April at 09:27 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick It's a shame you want to stop now: we were finally boiling down to the real reasons you oppose marriage equality. I'm sorry if my comments get a bit snarky sometimes, but the reality is there is no legal or moral leg that the anti-marriage ...See more
3 April at 21:55 · Like
Elder Price WOW - 178 comments! The is a new Church of Arnold record!3 April at 22:20 · Unlike · 2
Elder Price We might have to split the ward if things keep up like this.3 April at 22:21 · Unlike · 2
Erik Kulick As long as I don't get stuck with 9am sacrament, I'm down.3 April at 22:24 · Like · 1
Dan OLeary I hate ward splitting. There's always fights over who gets to keep the sacrament trays.3 April at 22:27 · Like · 2
Elder Price I think that we should tell the ward members that we will divide the sacrament trays and give half to one ward and half to the other. The ward that shouts that they do not want to see the sacrament trays divided will be the true owner of all the trays.3 April at 22:42 · Unlike · 2
Michael Jared Farnbach Erik, many thanks. As far as the "real reasons", it was sad to see you ignore the issues that children have and their natural needs and concerns about how they are conceived and raised.
There's fundamentally two questions that people are t...See more
4 April at 07:58 · Like
Erik Kulick Again Michael, while I agree with you about the value of having the two people who created a child also involved in the raising of that child, none of the arguments you've made explain why there shouldn't be marriage equality. You have made...See more
Thursday at 00:37 · Like
Elder Cunningham And it came to pass that Brother Kurlieque and Brother Farmhand debated into the eternities. And it was good. -Book of Yawning 42:42.Thursday at 08:06 · Unlike · 4
Erik Kulick It's a good thing the Book was abridged: it would have otherwise been known as the Book of Snoring. Thursday at 10:51 · Like · 1
Erik KulickRex White Jr
about an hour ago near Salem ·
I see you misplaced this wonderful video. I'd hate to see you or your friends miss out on the spiritual benefits that come from pondering these two musical scriptures.
DAVID BAZAN - Level With Yourself / People
www.youtube.comVideo by Mitch Fillion (www.southernsouls.ca)
Unlike · · Unfollow post · Share · See friendship
You like this.
Rex White Jr I listened to it. I also listen to another song of his that you posted a while back. I removed it because I don't endorse it and never have. I will give you pleasure of seeing it on my wall for the next hour and then it will be removed. Ready, set, go 59:59....about an hour ago · Like
Erik Kulick I don't endorse the ramblings of the men you put on my wall, but I don't feel the need to sensor your communications.
What don't you like about the songs?58 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr You did at one time. That is why I placed that little caveat in my response. I don't like it because it promotes and encourages a lack of accountability for choices people make in our lives. It is very Korihor-ish. 55:31 ;)55 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick How does it do that?54 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr how doesn't it do that? 52:0852 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick If anything, the first song promotes accountability:
Wake up in the morning
Check your revelation
Making sure you know it as well as you can
...See more
40 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Just level with yourself
Level with yourself
Level with yourself
And be at peace with thee
...See more
39 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Riches I heed not
Nor man's empty praise
Means fuck the gate keeper, cause I'm fine outside the gate
(This is just the natural conclusion that comes from pondering the words of Christ. Losing one's self to find one's self.)39 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr "Cause it won't make a difference
If everyone believes it
But you don't believe it"38 minutes ago · Like
Rex White Jr That is mocking37 minutes ago · Like
Rex White Jr Contains profanity - strike two37 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick I want to level with myself
I want to level with my friends
I want to level with my kin
And be at peace with them
...See more
36 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr But yet doesn't want to be held accountable by anyone but himself.35 minutes ago · Like
Rex White Jr hence the lack of accountability35 minutes ago · Like
Rex White Jr 33:2034 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick It's not mocking; he is saying that it won't matter to your own personal spiritual growth if you are merely preaching shit you don't really understand.30 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr It is sung is a mocking tone and even if it wasn't it is presumptuous of him to assume he has the proper interpretation of the "revelation" Can he trace his Priesthood authority to Christ?28 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick Bazan carefully uses "profane" language to better drive home a material point. You used a swear when trying to cleverly deconstruct arguments made by Brian and myself; at least his was original and on point.25 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr The word ass is within the bible and book of mormon. Referring to feces by using the "S" word is not.22 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick I don't see where you get the idea that he doesn't want to be accountable to anyone but himself; the most this song implies is that he personally *does* want to be accountable to himself, but doesn't feel the need to prove himself to the Pharisees that try to stand in the way between him and "God."21 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr You call it a Pharisee, I call it a Common Judge in Israel. Go back and re-read the system that Moses set in place through Priesthood authority.18 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick "Shit", in this song, is used in the context of "things", not feces. Your obsession with profanity just shows your focus on the "letter" and not the "spirit" of the law.
Question Rex, what was the problem with the Pharisees?
"Go back and re-read the system that Moses set in place through Priesthood authority." I'm sure something similar was said to Jesus himself by a Pharisee.17 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Bazan never claims in this song that he has a proper interpretation of any "revelations", so again, I'm not seeing the point of your complaint regarding his lyrics.15 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr It doesn't matter what context he put it in. Profanity is profanity.3 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick No response? I was really hoping I could get a worthy priesthood holders view on Pharisees...3 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr What system did Christ put in place? Look up Ephesians 4:11-13.2 minutes ago · Like
Erik Kulick I'm not sure I trust Paul's account of what Christ wanted... It's that whole problem with the telephone game...about a minute ago · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr And what authority did he give them. Where is this artists authority?about a minute ago · Like
Erik Kulick What is a Pharisee?A few seconds ago · Unlike · 1
Jared Jones shared a link.
Yesterday
This video should be viewed by all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
YouTube
www.youtube.com
The environmental agenda has been infected by extremism—it's become an economic suicide pact. And we're here to challenge it. On Earth Day, visit www.freemar...
1Like · · Share
Steven Christensen and Gordon Treadway like this.
Lisa Handel King Wow, this is fantastic. It's scary how true it isYesterday at 12:34 via Mobile · Like
Steven Christensen "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." - B. H. ObamaYesterday at 12:39 · Like
Erik Kulick The thing everyone should be most worried about is the economic harm being perpetrated by the all powerful duopoly and their corporate overlords. The extreme stances by environmentalists is just the sloppiness of treating any ideological conviction as if it or the magical forces behind it are infallible. It would be most wise for everyone to vote Jill Stein for president and Green for Congress, but I'd still be pleased to see people voting libertarian if they still refuse to see the flaw in getting to close to economic anarchy. Yesterday at 13:22 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick -E. M. KulickYesterday at 13:22 via Mobile · Like
Lisa Handel King Last time I checked it was the "corporate overlords" who supply jobs and all the products and services that we use. Unless you happen to be living on a deserted island somewhere you rely on corporations, we all do. From the bed you sleep on, the car you drive , to the computer you are writing this on. Corporations also employ people. So they make money, we should all want to make money. That is the American dream. But making money and being successful now makes you evil? But living off the government is a good thing??..well the scriptures do say..good is bad and bad is goodYesterday at 14:09 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick The scriptures say many things, both valuable and harmful, but when people cling to ideologies like they're the only acceptable option, they miss out on the many good things their "opposition" offers.
You must remember an effective and just government involves the input of its people. This cannot be achieved effectively when our power structures (politics, religion, economics) are so incestuously limited. Corporations wouldn't have the power they do if it wasn't for the protections they are provide by the people through the government. This should require certain unfortunately arbitrary limitations to protect the need to provide for the basic happiness of the citizenry. It's Constitutional. Yesterday at 14:19 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Stuart Layton I agree this video should be viewed by all but for different reasons. Its a classic case of fear mongering and promoting an us vs them view of the political scene. Instead of trying to promote political discourse between groups with opposing political ideals it simply seeks to vilify and classify anyone who doesn't agree with the video as "un american"Yesterday at 14:19 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Precisely Stuart, it's the oldest trick in the book being pulled by the duopoly; divide and keep conquering. Yesterday at 14:21 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Lisa Handel King Erik, Did you just say the scriptures say things that are harmful? WOW, well I was going to continue this political debate but I can see that I am not qualified to address the issues that you have..good luck to youYesterday at 15:53 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Are you afraid to see the limitations of your own belief systems? I thought fear was the opposite of faith. I am not trying to sell you on a belief system excluding the potential of all others, I am merely trying to help people understand the harm of thinking you *know* what you really believe. Even if there is a deity who cares, but is imperfect enough to interfere with her creation to actually "inspire" certain people to better understand a "divine truth", or bless some and curse others, that deity is unlikely to want people to accept *everything* they're taught by men who are well intentioned, but as flawed as anyone else. Just because something possesses significant wisdom, doesn't make it the source or direct result of "absolute" truth. Yesterday at 16:53 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Jared Jones Stuart while I agree with your comment in the use if "fear based politics" on both sides of the isle... There are some points made here that are so economically solid and accurate it deserves some degree of added emphasis.
And Erik, right is right brother and it always has been. There's a long line of people who have tried to argue truth and I've never seen it work out well for them. The real question is are you willing submit your will to something larger? Until you can answer yes to that question you can't expect to really find truth. Yesterday at 17:59 via Mobile · Like
Carol Lorenz Thanks for posting this Jared - I was about to look for it for so I could post it - saw it just the other day and was very impressed with it. The scary part is that he is SO right - just look at what is happening!18 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick Are you referring to @Korihor, Jared? Just because JS got creative and tried to simulate an argument between two (nearly) equally talented, yet spiritually opposite people, doesn't mean he was right. I am not arguing against Christ, or any deity for that matter. I am merely urging people who feel the need to think that "true belief" and "knowledge" are one and the same have been, like their forefathers, clinging to a flawed attempt to obtain property rights in a celestial outcome at the end of this life. You all want authority to say what is acceptable or not on an eternal level because you don't want to be wrong about your own self-assessments, and your own failure to attain perfect love has made it easy for emotion to cloud your decision making.
I actually really admire JS and JC and many of the other holy-rollers, now that I see them as just humans. If we are really to attain deification, it will because we will have finally attained the only perfection that really mattered: Perfect Love. It is really sad that JS, BY and JC would all be barred from entering LDS "sacred" places because of their failure to comply with Temple Recommend restrictions. JC was upset about people selling things in the temple, yet LDS folks have no problem with their organization charging admission to enter those "sacred" places. JS created a document meant to be wise counsel, but Prohibitionist era LDS leaders wanted to out do the Feds on moral policing, so they turned the greeting into eternal legislation. At least the Federal government partially realized the error of their ways and repealed prohibition. The sad reality is that the LDS community is no more prepared to receive their "Messiah" than the Jews were. Insisting on full conformity to the law from the few people with the courage to stand up and speak out against injustice is a rather curious way to treat your servants. Would you accept the sacrifice of an imperfect "Messiah"? If your gonna dump your sins on him, it's the least you could do in return.
The same goes for your political and economic ideologies. You tend to treat the good offered by the ideologies as proof that it excludes all other. Your pride has left your realizable potential limited. This is the sad, harmful result of demanding obedience and conformity to the extent that many churches do. If we don't stop supporting such harmful practices by people in power, it will be our faults that our posterity doesn't have a beautiful world to exist in. What happened to stewardship? What happened to the United Order? There are many things that differing ideologies have to offer, and if you actually ponder them instead of treating them like zoo creatures, maybe we could find a solution to our problems.7 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Oh yeah, and vote Jill Stein.7 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Mobile Uploads
Back to Album · Raymond's photos · Raymond's Profile
Previous · Next
Raymond Cigna
Like · · Unfollow post · Share · 3 June via BlackBerry Smartphones App
5 people like this.
Erik Kulick The same goes for voting for a Republican. 3 June at 12:25 · Like
Raymond Cigna Historically speaking. That is not true. 3 June at 12:28 · Like
Erik Kulick I don't agree with you there, but even if you were right about the past, the truth is that now a vote for either is a vote for the collapse of our nation.3 June at 12:34 · Like · 3
Kenneth Smith Bass I love it!3 June at 13:09 · Like
Raymond Cigna Look at tax rates and party control.. There were High rates with Carter, and Lowered rate with Raegan. I'm not making it up. These are true facts in history, not just my beliefs3 June at 13:34 · Like
Tom Carpenter Rocky Anderson for 2012!!3 June at 13:38 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Just because tax rates were lower under Reagan, doesn't mean things were better all around under Republican rule. Either way, the point about voting for either party now still holds.3 June at 13:39 · Like
Raymond Cigna Lower tax rates spur growth. That's a fact proven by history. Things were better. Lower unemployment and exponential job growth. People live better when they have more money and oppurtunity. Yes, This election will be between a borderline communist and a northeast lib running as a republican. You Occupy folks can complain all day but I'm gonna vote for the guy who's opinions coincide most with mine.3 June at 14:14 · Like
Erik Kulick Ray, the tax rate on the wealthy is lower now than it was under Reagan. I understand how having lower taxes can help an economy, but it certainly isn't the only factor that spurs economic growth. I though market diversity was a principle th...See more
3 June at 14:25 · Like · 1
Raymond Cigna Government doesnt create ANYTHING. the private sector free market does.
An business that government runs tends to fail. ie fanny and freddy, social security etc
The Revolutionary War was fought over less tax then we are dealing with right now.3 June at 16:44 · Like
Raymond Cigna I understand that you dont like government but this year is an election year. we all know that its gonna be Romney and Obama. with that. who do you pick and why?3 June at 16:45 · Like
Erik Kulick Ray, the government does create jobs with money they get from other people, but you are failing to see that people who earn, do not earn in a vacuum, and while people value the value of other people's skills differently, that doesn't mean t...See more
Monday at 00:45 · Like
Raymond Cigna Governments job to to protect the rights and security of it people.. Not to employ you. The private sector is the job creators, the inventers. That's what makes America great. The taxes brought in are for infrastucture. If the governmen...See more
Monday at 04:53 · Like
Erik Kulick Ray, you're thinking in dichotomy. I'm not arguing for government to replace the private sector, but to find better ways at keeping it honest.
Keep voting Republicrat, and the opportunities will decrease; talk about inefficiency.Monday at 20:38 · Like
Raymond Cigna Is there another way to vote??? when was the last time Ross Perot won???Monday at 21:00 · Like
Erik Kulick Ray, the only reason voting for third parties hasn't significantly registered in the political arena in a long time is that people simply don't vote for them. That's where free social media comes in; like with this conversation right here. ...See more
Monday at 21:37 · Like
Raymond Cigna unfortunatly people always get dishonest when money is involved. that goes for everyone. I vote for smaller government this way the theives have less money to "PLAY" with!Tuesday at 09:40 · Like
Erik Kulick If you vote Republicrat, your voting for bigger, less efficient, authoritarian govt. a vote for third parties won't eliminate greed, but if successful, could create the environment necessary to effectively limit the corruption that comes from money before it taints the newly successful parties. Tuesday at 11:49 · Like
Raymond Cigna And voting for independant typically takes votes away from the republican candadate (because the independant party is closer to repubs then libs comparatively speaking) and leaves us with the libs in the win which is the disaster we are experiencing at the moment.Tuesday at 11:53 · Like
Erik Kulick Just a tip, neither candidate is honoring true conservative OR liberal values, so it matters not if a couple more opportunist politicians get jobs during an election cycle or two while we shift the political atmosphere. Tuesday at 12:04 · Like
Raymond Cigna kinda true.. Mitt is a lib and Obama is a socialist.. all to the left of where they claim they stand. im a guy for a true conservative like Gingrich.Tuesday at 12:06 · Like
Erik Kulick Even he's a phony, my friend. I'd say a true Conservative is Ron Paul or Bob Barr. Mitt and Obama are not conventional socialists; corporate socialism is far worse, and is what makes them both fascists. Tuesday at 12:09 · Like
Raymond Cigna Ron Paul policies for America are great! His foreign policies would be his mega fail. far too much of an isolationist.Tuesday at 12:11 · Like
Erik Kulick Not all of his policies would be great, but at least he acknowledges the fact that corporations are socialism. The biggest problem with him is he doesn't seem to have a solution to protect the Americans from that socialism when it gets out of control. Tuesday at 12:21 · Like
When #Mormonism teaches it's followers that certain sins prohibit them from being "worthy", it makes some feel superior and others worthless
See more Tweets about #Mormonism
twitter.com/search?q=%23Mormonism#Mormonism is a hashtag on Twitter. Follow this topic and join the conversation.
@emkulick on Twitter · via Twitter
Unlike ·
You, Anna Dworak Fredenberg and 2 others like this.
Talia Platt yes4 June at 18:20 · Like
Lisa Smith Loynd And you have to pay worldly money to get to the celestial kingdom?? Subject change, I know, but seriously! 'Tis a bunch of bollocks, especially when the LDS corp is off building 4 billion dollar malls.4 June at 18:36 · Like · 1
Allystair Jones I disagree with the word "make" here. Any church will teach doctrine and that some things are right and other wrong. The doctrine does not "make" people feel superior, our evolutionary history that promotes the creation of hierarchy in groups is the main influence behind that "superiority:. As social animals, humans, or hominids, have always created elitism in an attempt to sequester more resources than another. The general doctrine of christianity, and by extension mormonism, teaches to resist those urges to become superior. So, people that try and feel superior to others because they are obeying doctrine are actually sinning themselves. I am not sure why you choose mormonism as your target; perhaps it is because Mr. Rommney is Mormon but trying to paint just mormons in the bad light is a bit short sighted.4 June at 18:55 · Like · 3
Talia Platt this was posted on FB, what does it visually signify to you? https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsm5gvosss6q3ge/bom%20the%20advengers.jpgbom the advengers.jpg - Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
4 June at 19:52 · Unlike · 1 ·
Lisa Smith Loynd It isn't short sided if you were raised in it your entire life, just to find out all of it is a fraud. It is actually pretty painful. And if more people would use their intellectualism and some logic, they would also find out the same truths that many of us ex-members have. You have to be brave enough to look behind the curtain, though. The one that they tell you not to look behind. Hmmmm... I wonder why?4 June at 20:04 · Like · 1
Allystair Jones As a scientist I question empirical evidence all the time. One thing I have learned in my science education is that someone can have a belief regardless of any and all empirical evidence to the contrary. This means it doesn't matter what is behind the curtain or how many times people look behind it. Different people will interpret whats behind the curtain in deferent ways based on what they want to believe and not necessarily based on what is actually there. I can delve into evolutionary history and why humans have evolved the ability to lie to ourselves but ill only do that if you are interested :)4 June at 20:08 · Like
David Benston So how exactly does that distinguish Mormonism from any other religion? I hear you can even buy indulgences from the Vatican again. Wonder if they take Amex?4 June at 20:18 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Lisa Smith Loynd Type it up and read it yourself, because you are still standing in front of a closed curtain. I would rather know why people lie to others, but in the case of the LDS Church and its history, I already know the answers to that. Sex, control, money, and more money. All tax-exempt. Joseph Smith was a pervert. I would like to know why he thought it was sacred to have so many wives, including the 14 year old Helen Mar Kimbal? And why did the church only tell me about Emma all through church, EFY, seminary, mutual, and Girl's Camp? Why did the church never tell me about why Joseph Smith was really in Carthage Jail? Why did they hide his translating with his head in a hat? Why did they believe that if people followed the gospel that their skin would become "white and delightsome"? Why is the temple ceremony so much like the Masonic one? Why is the Native American DNA from Asia and not from the Israel? Why does a temple ceremony that is "so perfect" keep changing? Why are animals and grains mentioned in the BofM that have absolutely no archeological history of having been here at that time? I have way more too, but that is just a start.4 June at 20:32 · Like · 1
David Benston Again, how does that make them different from the catholic church, or a Ghadaffi pool party?4 June at 20:41 via Mobile · Like · 1
Lisa Smith Loynd They aren't. This is just what some of us know best, because we were brainwashed into it since birth.4 June at 20:43 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Allystair, let me rephrase: the concept of worthiness is a trigger that sets off the ingrained urge (which can be overcome) to see one's self as better than others. The Mormons are just better at playing the righteousness card when it comes to guilting and scaring people into refraining from specific behaviors and beliefs. Also, even though I was raised by a Born-Again and Catholic-Mormon mother and a Jewish-Mormonism convert step-father, Mormonism was my main influence, and the religious culture I most understand. There are many things that Mormons and other Christians do in this world, it just doesn't excuse the bad that comes from the practices no-one bothers to question and challenge, given that hierarchy of well-meaning, but out of touch old men running many of these churches.
The most damning evidence against the historical accuracy of the Mormon church's teachings is the Kinderhook plates. That aside, I actually admire a bunch of the things JS and the early leaders did, I just don't approve of things like marrying 14 year-olds.4 June at 21:29 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick It's kinda hard to fit all that in a Tweet, Allystair ;-)4 June at 21:32 · Like · 2
Allystair Jones Erik, my mother in law is way better at playing the guilty card than any other church can be. Sorry, she wins hands down :)4 June at 22:59 · Unlike · 2
Erik Kulick Was she raised Mormon?4 June at 23:12 · Like
Erik Kulick The problem is not as much with the guilt as it is with the family destroying practices of exclusion that comes from temple recommends.4 June at 23:13 · Like
Solange Abbate As one of my churchmates, a former Mormon put it, she left her church, her husband, and her family all in one day. Despite this, she did state that it works for some people, just not her. I think this is very true. What's sad is the situation it creates for people it doesn't work for.5 June at 04:27 · Unlike · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach I like how you put it in one sense, a moral code is going to give some people a sense of superiority over others. The problem is that you singled out one out of many -- including the one you subscribe to -- to criticize for the nature that they all share.
On the other hand, when we find out these people are in fact sinners also, instead of finding the commonality that your criticisms find lacking in their actions, we tend to condemn them as hypocrites.
We need to all just chill and realize we are all human and help each other with the stumbling blocks we see a few steps ahead of the other person, rather than demean them for tripping over them.5 June at 06:08 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick I hear ya, Jared. I'm not arguing for the destruction of religion, I'm arguing for people to stop treating it like a weapon to beat "real sinners" into submission. When any church requires obedience toward even potentially helpful standards, or belief in some higher power, they are using guilt and fear to motivate.
To have holy buildings where admission is charged and where people who break that "greeting" that Smith himself didn't even adhere to are prohibited from entering, and then to hold eternal implications over the heads of those who don't make the grade, takes what other Christians do to a whole new despicable, capitalistic level. 5 June at 11:38 via Mobile · Like · 1
Erik Kulick The religious people who see these problems with the way that many of their parishioners and leaders deal with these issues, and remain silent, are just as much a part of the problem. 5 June at 11:39 via Mobile · Like
Allystair Jones @ Erik, lol, no my suegra (she is a good person despite my semi-negative dipiction earlier) does not like organized religion. She had a problem with a non-lds-christian religion a ways back. I like to think of guilt as a knob that can be tuned and altered by the person and the environment. Some people have a tendency toward high guilt and some people do not feel guilty no matter what. Then there are peoples whoes guilt knob goes to 11 (little spinal tap humor). Each persons tendency toward feeling guilty is due to the genotype*environment interaction and untill its legal to experiment on humans we will never know how much each of these influences our guilt. This means you cant blame the environment completly and you cant blame the person completly, nor can we state that the environment (or religion) is the largest influence on guilt. It is just not possible, sorry Erik but your energy is being misplaced here.5 June at 13:09 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Just because you can't blame an institution completely, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't call them out on the bullshit they are involved in and/or allow to happen in the organization's name. 5 June at 13:15 via Mobile · Like
Allystair Jones That may be a valid point you have there.5 June at 13:15 · Unlike · 1
Allystair Jones I leaving for lake powell for several days in about 2 minutes but I will consider what you have said:) I appreciate the discussion.5 June at 13:16 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Thank you, Allystair. I'm glad you are willing to see that I'm not just trying to destroy the church, but instead looking to help it get more in line with the simple precepts that permeate the vast majority of religions. 5 June at 13:25 via Mobile · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach No, I don't see it as a war on religion. Your brush is even more broad then that. You appear to be attacking anything anyone might be better at all, from IQ to artistic ability, wherever there are qualitative assessments to be made.
Replace God with any sense of advantage for any quality, and it also fits in your condemnation.
Even to where encouraging people to not steal, or telling people "you can" when they've repeatedly failed, is ruled out because of the danger you present.
If there is a distinction you want to make between the chains of morality and the chains of any kind of standard and encouragement to reach that standard, could you present it for us?5 June at 19:42 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Jared, I don't mind when people work hard and benefit from the good things they produce. I just bristle when I see religious, political, and other corporate institutions taking advantage of people. Some might have better stories they tell themselves to remain well intentioned, but that doesn't eliminate the harms that occur as a result of greedy and self-righteous practices.
I don't condemn anyone, let alone some imperfect deity. I just think it's foolish to worry about whether or not someone is out there watching over your shoulder. It's like forcing a smile too hard for the camera.
The "chains of morality" are an evolving/devolving set of social standards. Look through out history... especially Mormon history. The early days of Mormonism saw JS drinking, smoking, marrying married women and 14-year-old's, and now, the church has changed so much that a resurrected version wouldn't be permitted to enter the hallowed halls; he'd have to wait out side with his buddy Jesus, the wine imbiber. It's too bad; Jesus would have had fun kicking of the garment rental booth.
The one great commandment, aka the golden rule, lays bare the doctrines of men.7 June at 01:35 · Unlike · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach In some ways you are talking to the right person, and some ways not, in discussing this with me. Either way, thanks for sharing.
All I'll say is that Jesus Christ is someone I genuinely have an appreciation for among other things. For someone who we don't have much of what he said, the little we do have seems to keep coming up over and over again as insightful no matter how in depth I get into life around me.
And I think there is a reason Christ said the one great commandment is to love God.
I've experienced meditative enlightenment from Buddhist meditation. I've been similarly seduced by the cosmological elegance that so enchants Hawking and Einstein. I've gained a sense of deep connection looking at the billions of years of natural history told in a rock cliff. I've been edified by Temple worship, and inspired by pulpits on fire. I've also read and experienced the brain functions behind these and other experiences, and felt a sense of wonder behind Shakespeare's observation about humans how we are, "in comprehension like a god", but prone to folly also.
The love of God experienced through any of those means gives a universal connection which inspires and motivates in a level which is meaningful and impressive. It is as common and available as sunlight, and personally how I interpret Christ's words that God causes his sunlight to shine on the wicked as well as the righteous.7 June at 07:00 · Unlike · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach From that love comes the inner peace and the charity that helps us fulfill the second greatest commandment, to love one another. When you feel the love the universe is shedding down on you, the encouragement of the universe, you no longer feel like someone who's crossed the finish line as a failure, but as someone who's still in the game with people cheering for you on all sides. You feel like even if people are mean to you, it doesn't matter, you have a sense of inner peace anyway.
You feel a part of everyone's folly and that everyone is a part of yours, we are all in this together. And I think that is the main feeling you wish everyone had to motivate a natural sense of inclusiveness, support, and endearment.
If all you are saying is that one can obey all the commandments, but still have nothing without this sense of charity gained though experiencing this sunlight available to all living things, then I agree. So does Paul from the New Testament, ironically perhaps, but true.7 June at 07:13 · Unlike · 1
Michael Jared Farnbach So in short, I can agree but I have to disagree. I agree that morality is lorded over others by people without charity. But I disagree that the answer is to do the same thing back at them, to condemn them for being imperfect also. And definitely not to condemn a church for what the imperfect people it is meant to help do with it. But the answer is to use the same hope and encouragement the universe is so ready to give you, and give it to others also.
Or even more succinctly, the first commandment is to love God, the second is like it, to love your neighbor even as you love yourself. Its as much a process as a priority.7 June at 07:18 · Like
Erik Kulick I know I'm talking to the right person, because you're a person who, although believing in deity, are willing to engage someone else that you barely know in a public forum on respectful level while actually paying attention. Additionally, you engaged me on my twitter post thread, where dozens if not hundreds I other people will only read, for one reason or another. I admire your decency and courage, and it will be through having dedicated members willing enough to stand for positive changes that are in line with the only "commandment" of relevance.
I think that If Jesus really said those words, then it was an inferior way of trying to help people strive to maintain the humility that comes from realizing that you really are part of something bigger; to love all equally would still cover a deity of he or she or it exists.
Inspiration can happen in all sorts of cracks and crevices. That doesn't give anyone the moral go-ahead to capitalize off of the needs of others.
To feel loved is grand; to want that love so bad that one would try to enforce eternal judgement implications in this life in order to "strongly encourage" others to comply with *even* wise council is more akin to Satan's purported premortal plan.
Jared, I can show you FB threads that demonstrate quite clearly the kind of hostility that can occur towards someone who was merely pointing out flaws in doctrines and ideologies; contradictions with the one rule to live by. While some folks are fortunate enough or self-preservation oriented enough to stay low enough under the radar to continue receiving that kind of encouragement and love, many lose families because not enough tolerant Mormons are willing to stand up for the battered, bruised, sick, and afflicted.
We are in this together. I know that much more confidently than I do what awaits us after the mortal coil.
That is part of what I'm saying, but I'm also saying that morality shouldn't be lorded of anyone, even with charity.
I have condemned no-one. I have merely laid the doctrines of men bare with the one tool (the golden rule) we have to decipher right and wrong. The institution still teaches people to take personally attacks on its teachings, so even the most openminded Mormons still see condemnation.
My advice doesn't conflict with yours; I just won't call it a commandment.
7 June at 16:33 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Allystair Jones I promised a response when I got back. I am going to present empirical evidence that the Mormon Church should keep its high standards. This is non-spiritual, if you are looking for spiritual reasoning for my responses, facebook probably isnt the best place for it. I have already talked about how and why we evolved the feelings of guilt in our society and if you want peer reviewed science on that I can provide it ☺. The evidence I will present will show that Mormonism does not make people feel guilty as you suggested.
Erik stated, in reference to Mormonism, you were.."looking to help it get more in line with the simple precepts that permeate the vast majority of religions." Here is a non-spiritual answer as to why Mormonism should not "get in line". Check Iannaccone, L. R., 1994. "Why Strict Churches are Strong", American Journal of Sociology, 99(5) pg 1180-1211. I am not suggesting that his conclusions are correct but I did check his analysis using principle component. The question asked was, “Does the denomination emphasize maintaining a separate and distinctive life style or morality in personal and family life, in such areas as dress, diet, drinking, entertainment, uses of time, marriage, sex, child rearing, and the like? Or does it affirm the current American mainline life style in these respects.
I treated the final four variables as responses characterizing different aspects of the churches memberships. Attendance is the average percentage of weeks that individuals attend church meetings. Non-Church Organizations is the average number of secular organizations to which members belong. StrongPCt is the percentage of members that describe themselves as being strong members (yea, I know this is a weakness in the study, there are several). Ave Annual inc is the average income of the members.
Here is the raw data:
Denomination Distinctness Attendance Non-Church Organizations StrongPCT Ave Annual Inc
American Baptist 2.5 25.6 1.01 50.6 24000
Assemblies of God 4.8 35.4 0.68 58.6 27100
Catholic 3 26.4 1.43 40 32900
Disciples of Christ 2.1 24.3 2.58 47 28600
Episcopal 1.1 17.3 1.93 32 39000
Evangelical Lutheran 2.7 23 1.71 41.5 33700
Jehovah's Witness 6 33.6 0.38 60.6 26300
Methodist 1.8 19.1 1.56 30.6 32800
Missouri Synod Lutheran 3.6 27.5 1.76 47.7 35100
Mormon 5.4 37.8 1.73 70.2 31600
Nazarene 4.5 33.1 0.86 48.1 31600
Presbyterian 1.6 21.2 1.88 32.4 37100
Quaker 4.1 29.6 1.89 58.3 32500
Reformed Church 2.8 36.7 1.12 61.4 30400
Seventh Day Adventist 5.8 28.5 0.61 58.7 29700
Southern Baptist 4 25 1.13 44.8 30400
Unitarian 1.6 13.2 2.79 40.8 42700
United Church of Christ 1.3 19.2 1.56 33.6 40200
Here is a copy of my analysis:
Eigenvalues
Number Eigenvalue Percent Percent Cum Percent ChiSquare DF Prob>ChiSq
1 2.9285 73.211 73.211 46.772 9.000 <.0001*
2 0.6403 16.008 89.219 12.533 5.000 0.0282*
3 0.3272 8.179 97.398 5.295 2.000 0.0708
4 0.1041 2.602 100.000 0.000 0.000 .
Eigenvectors
Prin1 Prin2 Prin3 Prin4
ATTEND 0.54322 0.28645 0.28790 0.73483
NONCHUR -0.44960 0.71477 -0.47834 0.24115
STRNGPCT 0.50170 0.58490 0.08395 -0.63177
ANNINC -0.50107 0.25483 0.82538 -0.05230
Bivariate Fit of DISTINCT By Prin1
Linear Fit
DISTINCT = 3.2611111 + 0.7737321*Prin1
Summary of Fit
RSquare 0.701545
RSquare Adj 0.682892
Root Mean Square Error 0.890196
Mean of Response 3.261111
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 18
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 1 29.803590 29.8036 37.6095
Error 16 12.679187 0.7924 Prob > F
C. Total 17 42.482778 <.0001*
Parameter Estimates
Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|
Intercept 3.2611111 0.209821 15.54 <.0001*
Prin1 0.7737321 0.126166 6.13 <.0001*
This gives decent empirical evidence that the Mormon church should not conform to standard society’s ideals but rather continue to “be extreme” in order to be successful. This was a non spiritual, empirical support that demonstrates the rules the Mormon church have are not unique but rather ubiquitous, and for good reason.11 June at 11:50 · Like
Erik Kulick Allystair, thank you for the response. I'm glad that I have Mormon friends like you and Jared. You give me the hope that Mormonism has the potential to make positive changes. I only fear that the calcification that has occurred in the Mormon Hierarchy will continue to stay the same stubborn course, like their two political party counterparts, and prevent thoughtful and more "insightful" folks like you guys from making a real difference on a macro level.
I'm not arguing against having moral guidelines, I just find enforcing them in ways that are supposed to have eternal and extra-human ramifications to be much more akin to "lucifer's plan."12 June at 14:10 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Michael and Allystair, now do you see why I have a problem with churches that try too hard to micromanage their members' "spiritual worth"?17 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Erik Kulick, Yes, I see. I share the sentiment myself. Its somewhat dishonest for me to discredit it while I have it to a large degree. Yet, I do react instinctively because I have seen where I have cut myself off from understanding and helping and relating to others because of the habits that created that sense in me.
I remember about June last year while meditating, something connected in my brain. It was amazing. But the newfound perspective gave me nothing but guilt for how I'd acted in the past.
It was a deep, intense, burning guilt over something most people consider trite. I couldn't stand that I had shut out and closed myself off from really getting to know people. My stoicism had kept me at arms length, critical and I regretted the perfect condemnation people had for me for how I treated them.
My anger, pedantry, and self-righteousness -- I thought was more than justified. I learned I was wrong.
So I wrote on Facebook to many old acquaintances, asking for their forgiveness. A few wrote me back saying they understood, but most of them probably thought I went crazy. I didn't care, I needed to at least let them know at some basic human level I was wrong. Very wrong.
So I was one of those micromanagers. I freely admit it. I'm also someone who as a micromanager was guilty of using other's micromanaging as an excuse for my own.
I also saw that I don't ever want to let something come between me and relating to others again. Even if they are completely wrong, I'd rather share responsibility with them and be with them than any rational judgement that protects me from that pain, because to be honest the pain of regret is even worse.
So even if people are doing it wrong, and lets be honest we all are in one way or another, I vowed to hope it works out rather than fear that everything went wrong (or erred from the plan of perfection). I see mistakes all the time, and now I join them (even if I don't commit them myself) rather than dissociate.
I have an undying hope that by doing so we will all work to become better, lifting each other up, rather than cutting a potential lifeline because in its haste it was made out of near by bramble.16 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick I just hope more active members gain similar realizations, and collectively you all begin to stand up and challenge the doctrines and members that/whom contribute to the micromanagement. I know there are a decent amount of you out there; I've received personal messages from some expressing their sympathy when micromanagers have taken it to ridiculous extents in my FB threads. I just wish those more understanding members would valiantly address those issues instead of remaining silent while families get torn apart and members feel abandoned.16 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach But why would I challenge the doctrines that lead to that experience?16 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick Because actively or passively supporting doctrines that enhance the feelings of superiority and inferiority, which are harmful to the "inferior" and his kin, aren't necessary in order for one to come the realizations which you achieved through your own experiences.15 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach People will always cut themselves with knives, kill people with cars, etc... Religion has been one of the very meaningful avenues that has saved me from myself (see story above), I cannot help but encourage people to hopefully (but not guaranteed) find the same benefit in their life.15 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick I'm not advocating for the destruction of religion, just the willingness to recognize when a doctrine conflicts with the only great commandment. If that turns out to be one in the same for a lot of people, that should be OK.15 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach Well, I see that we simply disagree on what conflicts with the great commandment then. Given that we disagree on that, what do you think that should mean?15 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick Requiring people to effectively meet certain standards (including an admission price) in order to participate in things that are taught to be crucial to our eternal outcomes, places unnecessary wedges in the middle of families and communities. This directly hurts people all the time; I hope you decide to stand up to things like that.15 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick Any doctrine that divides families goes against the principle of love.15 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach And at the same time, vices are vices because they really do harm your own capacity to love anything but the vices themselves.14 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach I've seen so many broken families. I've seen children hate their parents because they didn't get something from some toy to money for their addictions. I hope you stand up against addictive selfish vices that ruin lives, and can cause so much heart ache for a family who loves each other.14 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach I've seen starving children, because the father would rather use the money (and sell the groceries people gave them for money) to buy drugs. I've seen the life long anguish of children who's father's abused their wives -- never when sober but when drunk. I've seen the life long anguish of two girls who came home one day to see a new mommy, the father's mistress, take the place of their loving mother only because his sexual needs drove him that way.
I've also seen the families where a child was shut out by their parents because of something they were doing that the parents didn't agree with. I've seen parents do so because their child was changing religions, or going to college or not going to college, or running off to elope.
I hope to help all of those families heal, and work to keep other families from being harmed by those things. You bet I stand against things that drive families apart.14 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick That's true, but allowing fear of and ignorance regarding vices to generate rationalizations which allow manipulative doctrines to stand unchallenged, is not the same thing as trying to deal with those very real issues that plague society. People who struggle with addiction need medical and mental help, not ostracization and and guilt complexes.14 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Helping those families heal doesn't include the prevention of troubled family members' participation in rituals they've been convinced are important to their eternal well-being.14 hours ago · Like
Michael Jared Farnbach "but allowing fear of and ignorance regarding vices to generate rationalizations which allow manipulative doctrines to stand unchallenged, is not the same thing as trying to deal with those very real issues that plague society."
Amen. I believe we can best leave it right at that because doubtful either of us really have grasped how deep and broad the ramifications of that statement can be.
They aren't the same thing. And they shouldn't be confused for one another.14 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick If only the LDS church had a dozen M.J. Farnbachs as apostles ;-P14 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick shared Americans for Safe Access's photo.
25 July
At the very least he could honor his word. Is that too much to ask? What was all this talk about how he used to make his buddies hold their hits in until nothing came out, or they'd get skipped? We need to legalize the medicinal plant that
is no more harmful physically than a coffee or soda; decriminalization (where one can be hit with $500 dollar fines and potentially bench warrants) and the few fortunate medical patients that don't get hassled by the Feds (yet) is not a sufficient substitute for allowing people their right to simply consume a substance that is quite safe.
Join us in protesting President Obama's broken promises when he appears in Oaksterdam this afternoon.
1Unlike · · Share
You, Lisa Smith Loynd and Christopher Weick like this.
Mike Schiele Dude.....*NONE OF THEM* honor their word...I would think YOU of all people would realize that. Doesn't matter if you put a creepy old white guy or a dynamic young black man in said suit, he is still an EMPTY SUIT.
25 July at 03:04 · Unlike · 3
Erik Kulick Oh, for sure, but the vast majority of Americans must be dense, because they seem to think they'll get different results by voting the same.
25 July at 12:10 · Like · 1
Mike Schiele They won't get different result from voting different, either.
25 July at 14:55 · Like
Erik Kulick Not by itself. After voting differently, the people need to demand a few Constitutional amendments to counter the affects of corporate influence.
25 July at 16:31 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Mike Schiele Oh yeah...and the corporate interests will let that happen. Dude...these assholes stopped being scared of the "people" a long time ago...so you can forget that, too.
25 July at 16:46 · Like
Erik Kulick At least if the people try to use the democratic outlets, and still fail, they will be justified in taking more drastic measures.
The corporations exist as a result of the socialism afforded them by the tax payer. We need to start exercising or civic rights and duties again, or it certainly will be too late.
30 July at 02:35 via Mobile · Edited · Like
Mike Schiele Have you SEEN our citizenry? It ain't happening. These people wouldn't even know how to put food in their bodies if McDonalds closed.
25 July at 18:52 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Haha, you may be right. I've been thinking a lot about why the founding fathers were weary of democracy lately; it's all starting to make sense...
25 July at 18:55 via Mobile · Like
Mike Schiele It's not just US, dude...it's EVERYONE. The Greeks, The Romans....anyone who starts off as a republic ends up an empire. It's an inevitability. The hope is to get in on the ground floor of whatever the next revolution is....IF there is a revolution coming....and even then, we're just building another failed model.
25 July at 18:57 · Like
Michael Ross Olsen This is a side comment. I don't recall anyone getting high on soda and creaming through another car.
25 July at 19:37 via Mobile · Like
Mike Schiele ^Nobody is encouraging people to DRIVE while high on Marijuana. It's spin like this that gets us nowhere, dude.
25 July at 19:40 · Like
Mike Schiele The comparison between soda and Marijuana is a basic, MEDICALLY based breakdown of what the compounds in the respective substances do to the human body. Nice try though, dude.
25 July at 19:41 · Like
Erik Kulick Mike's right; there's a difference between legalizing it and determining what the policies should be regarding consumption and motor vehicle use.
Most people who drive while stoned tend to be much more cautious; for a person who smokes regularly, the effects of pot are weaker than a single pain killer, so as long as the person isn't distracted by a phone or whatever, they're no worse than a person driving slightly tired or slightly too old.
It's the teenagers who are terrible drivers to begin with, who are playing with their phones and passengers while stoned, or people who have a cocktail of substances in them causing the accidents if pot is involved. If a person can't handle it, they need to be honest with themselves and not get behind the wheel. If someone is under the influence of something and it's affecting their driving, cops should be able to notice and pull them over for driving poorly.
25 July at 19:54 via Mobile · Like
Aoife Browning Stoller They did a NON clinical study on the news here in colorado (legal here) recently, where a man who did not use pot regularly smoked and drove He did not do well on the driving test. However, they also tested a guy who smoked regularly and he did more than fine on the test. it wasn't until they added alcohol that he did poorly on the test. It's like many medicines that are prescribed. Don't drive until you know how you will behave on the medication. As far as sodas effect on the body. I think Soda is much worse than pot. There are so many horrible things in sugary drinks. high fructose corn syrup. caramel color... i could go on and on about the horrible stuff we put in our foods that is giving us cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure...etc and for some reason we still don't let people smoke pot. Ridiculous laws. And now L.A. city council has shut down all it's dispensaries. totaling around 900. All those people are now out of work. And it was a unanimous decision. Sounds pretty fishy to me. Great job politicians. You put a wonderful economic and medical choke hold on our country!! Way to be in the pockets of our pharmaceutical companies. Partnership for a drug free america MY ASS!
25 July at 22:16 · Unlike · 1
Michael Ross Olsen The part you missed in my comment that you are comparing apples to oranges
28 July at 20:55 via Mobile · Like
Michael Ross Olsen Is soda bad for the body? Undoubtedly yes, but all of the issues you have listed are a known consequence too the user. As stated before, when someone uses the plant irresponsibly it can hurt others. Those other people had no say in what happened. That's is where you are comparing apples to oranges.
28 July at 21:04 via Mobile · Like
Michael Ross Olsen Do I care if someone uses the plant? Not alot, but the moment their decision starts to affect others..... that's where I draw the line.
28 July at 21:06 via Mobile · Like
Michael Ross Olsen Sorry for the bad spelling. My computer is packed up, so I am swyping these posts.
28 July at 21:08 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick It's not a total apples to oranges comparison. Soda is significantly more unhealthy than marijuana, and technically a person can still get into an accident as a result of eating or drinking any beverage in a car while driving; just like any distraction. The study that Aoife mentioned doesn't surprise me one bit. Pot really is less intense for many people than a single, low dose painkiller. I can understand wanting to prevent teens from purchasing it; being unfamiliar with any unfamiliar consumable chemical compound and driving is always a bad idea, especially when driving is unfamiliar or difficult to begin with.
The bottom line is, the way that marijuana and real drugs are handled in this country is itself criminal (much like a lot of things these days), and if we keep supporting this broken political system the way we've been doing, nothing is going to get better and most everything will likely get worse.
30 July at 02:50 · Unlike · 2
Erik Kulick
20 July via Twitter
Why do people insist on clinging to others like they have property rights? It's one thing if one chooses to be monogamous, but to legislate?
Unlike · · @emkulick on Twitter
You, Diana Mike Lehn and 2 others like this.
Brittany Turner I struggle with this.
20 July at 00:05 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick I understand not wanting male dominated, Republican-esque relationships; there would need to be bounds and democratically determined limitations. It's a healthier and safer way than sneaking around or getting divorced and remarried to sooth the conscious and maintain the "upstanding citizen" image.
20 July at 03:00 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Erik Kulick Ignoring the rights of others doesn't make them go away.
20 July at 20:17 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Diana Mike Lehn I agree
22 July at 22:17 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick recommends a link.
9 July
Mormons quit church in mass resignation ceremony
news.yahoo.com
SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - A group of about 150 Mormons quit their church in a mass resignation ceremony in Salt Lake City on Saturday in a rare display of defiance ending decades of disagreement for some over issues ranging from polygamy to gay marriage. Participants from Utah, Arizona, Idaho and e...
Like · · Share
Brittany Turner likes this.
Erik Kulick "I went to [my local leader] looking for a faithful perspective. He called my wife and told her she needed to find a new husband," Fielding said.
Despicable.
9 July at 22:01 · Edited · Like
Steven Christensen The amazing thing is that this is even news. 150 people voluntarily left an organization that in no way was forcing them to be members. Radical!!!
Also, I suspect there is more (or different) information concerning the circumstances around the man you quoted...
9 July at 22:09 · Like · 2
Jennifer Barborka It's very believable when you know people that's happened to. And by people, I do mean more than one or two.
9 July at 22:39 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick This group that left consisted mostly of a couple who have a podcast that deals with Mormonism and a bunch of their listeners. For that many people to leave collectively in one day as a result of a simple podcast that most Mormons are unfamiliar with is a pretty significant chunk. The church may not actively hold a gun to members' heads regarding their participation and membership, but they do manipulate people into rigidly conforming to a selection of arbitrary rules by holding familial and social relationships their heads and charging admission to temple services that are supposed to give you a leg up on that whole "exaltation" thing. That is probably an even bigger reason why the number who resigned was as small as it seemed to be.
The fact that you automatically suspected more nefarious reasons for the destructive advice given to his wife behind his back, clearly demonstrates the careless and cocky assumptions that are generated by members as a result of their conditioning by the "loving" leadership.
9 July at 22:42 · Like
Steven Christensen I never said "nefarious" - only that the full information isn't in that convenient little sound bite.
Again, it's a voluntary organization. People are free to leave (and many do). That's what free agency is about.
10 July at 04:43 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Yes, but it contradicts with the principles of free agency and love when the organization teaches doctrines that promote over reactions, ignorance, hatred and fear, and these traits often make the lives of those who leave or openly doubt miserable. The church can teach its members wise counsel without turning them into moral bullies.
11 July at 21:49 · Unlike · 1
Jon Adams
Wednesday at 23:43 near Salt Lake City, UT ·
To my LDS friends who celebrated Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day by ordering chicken, consider these words of wisdom from the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89: 12-13):
"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."
Unlike · · Unfollow post
You, David Matthew Stewart, Sara Long, Mark Wade and 56 others like this.
John Yelland OHHSNAP!! Where is your god now?!
Wednesday at 23:44 · Like · 1
Tom Grover LOL.
Wednesday at 23:44 · Like
Mark Wade EPIC, Jon.
Wednesday at 23:44 · Like
John Yelland he's at Chic-fil-A supporting the suppression of equal rights!
Wednesday at 23:44 · Like
James Patton Haha. Since when is a chicken a "fowl of the air"?
Wednesday at 23:44 · Like · 1
Izzy Beh Nice try john... dumb argument
Wednesday at 23:45 via Mobile · Like · 1
Jon Adams How so, Izzy?
Wednesday at 23:45 · Like
John Yelland John or Jon? You don't wanna mess with me, I can annihilate anyone. I AM GOD
Wednesday at 23:45 · Like · 1
Baron Von Brewer Instigator
Wednesday at 23:48 via Mobile · Like · 3
Chase Bartholomew One could argue that this is indeed a time of famine, at least from the believer's perspective, a famine of values. But really, I'm just responding to your slightly ridiculous post with a slightly ridiculous argument.
Wednesday at 23:49 · Like · 3
Jon Adams What's ridiculous about asking believers to take their scriptures seriously as opposed to selectively interpreting and applying them?
Wednesday at 23:50 · Like · 19
Parker Jones You're kinda contradicting yourself by putting that scripture up there. It says "I the Lord have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving". No valid argument there.
Wednesday at 23:50 via Mobile · Like
James Patton The ridiculous thing about that is the idea that they actually *would do that*.
Wednesday at 23:51 · Like · 1
Seth Ellis Barrow Awesome.
Wednesday at 23:51 · Like
John Yelland OHHSNAP! Jon wins this one!
Chase, a famine of family values? What family values? The rampant divorce rates we have? There's nothing wrong with gay marriage so I don't know what your'e talking about, unless you have evidence to support those bigoted claims (I have yet to see any which are credible) CHECK MATE
Wednesday at 23:51 · Like · 4
Logan Chadwick CHECK MATE
Wednesday at 23:52 · Like · 2
James Patton Parker, where is the contradiction?
Wednesday at 23:53 · Like
Tom Grover I find it hilarious that the "Word of Wisdom" is now a placeholder for many doctrinal positions that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT D&C 89. Barley for the belley anyone? Wine for sacrament?
Wednesday at 23:53 · Unlike · 2
Landon Pope I read it in conjunction with 89:4. The WOW was written to protect us from the evils and designs that will exist in the hearts of conspiring men.
And I would place eating the chicken of a bigot with a political agenda completely out of line with the WOW and place Dan Cathy as one of those conspiring men.
Wednesday at 23:53 · Like · 1
Chase Bartholomew Jon, you and I both know the word of wisdom is taken as commandment only to a certain extent. And to John, you are far too abrasive and quite frankly annoying to merit my time.
Wednesday at 23:53 · Like · 2
John Yelland My friends, we have just engaged in deicide. Let's pat each other on the back
Wednesday at 23:54 · Like
John Yelland Good, goood, let the butt-hurt flow through you
Wednesday at 23:54 · Like
Logan Chadwick It makes you stronger
Wednesday at 23:54 · Like · 1
Tom Grover Also, why are Mormons so desperate to join ranks with the knuckle-dragging Evangelicals? Don't my fellow Mormons realize the Evangelicals hate us as much as they hate the gays?
Wednesday at 23:54 · Like · 5
Parker Jones It says He ordained it for our use. It's not just there to waste. If you remember, He also doesn't want us to waste anything He has given to us.
Wednesday at 23:55 via Mobile · Like
Eric Boothe Uh oh I sense a circle jerk coming on.
Wednesday at 23:55 · Like · 1
Tom Grover "And to John, you are far too abrasive and quite frankly annoying to merit my time." TRANSLATION: I have no substantive argument.
Wednesday at 23:55 · Like · 7
John Yelland Oh man, I'm getting all hot and bothered
Wednesday at 23:55 · Like
Jon Adams Circle jerks, mind you, are also contrary to LDS teachings.
Wednesday at 23:55 · Like · 10
Logan Chadwick Parker. We can't waste something that we mass produce as an industry. We could stop doing that, thus fullfilling gods command
Wednesday at 23:56 · Like · 2
Logan Chadwick Nah its open to interpretation ^
Wednesday at 23:56 · Like
Tom Grover Boyd K. Packer gave a talk about circle jerks once.
Wednesday at 23:56 · Like · 3
James Patton "What's ridiculous about asking believers to take their scriptures seriously as opposed to selectively interpreting and applying them?"
"It's open to interpretation"
Just like all scriptures everywhere for all of time.
Wednesday at 23:57 · Like
Logan Chadwick See this verse "And thus the lord said unto us, you shall jerk in a circle, and thus shall spill your seed for the lord in sacrifice."
Thats in the book of mormon i SWEAR
Wednesday at 23:57 · Like
John Yelland OhohohohoLogan no you didn't! Stop hittin' us with that logic!
Wednesday at 23:57 · Like · 1
Chase Bartholomew Nice try Tom, but the fact is that John just doesn't come across as very educated. And I have spent far too many hours of my life arguing with uneducated people.
Wednesday at 23:58 · Like · 1
Eric Boothe I only have so many limbs, my constraints are more physical =(.
Wednesday at 23:58 · Like
Tom Grover "Uneducated people" TRANSLATION: People who disagree with me.
Wednesday at 23:58 · Like · 3
Logan Chadwick What is your argument then, prove that you are more educated than him and we will accept you. However, if you cant then you lose.
Also agree with grover here.
Wednesday at 23:59 · Like · 1
James Patton Jon Adams, uneducated? I don't think I've ever seen him accused of that.
Wednesday at 23:59 · Like · 8
Tom Grover Listen Chase, I'm educated and have massive student loans to prove it. Make your case against marriage equality and/or for eating in a fast food restaurant as a substantive form of political protest.
Wednesday at 23:59 · Like · 2
John Yelland Contrary to my loony online behavior I am quite confident that my intellect surpasses yours, evidence for this is that my stance has actually been backed up by a hefty load of evidence and support. Yours carries..well..not that much. I actually reciprocate the sentiment, which is why I have a hard time making intelligent conversation with conservative bigots :)
OH GOD YES I AM SO HARD NOW
Thursday at 00:00 · Like · 1
Jon Adams We can have fun with this conversation, but let's keep it civil, folks (not that it's gotten terribly out of hand...yet).
Thursday at 00:00 · Edited · Like · 2
John Yelland Not to mention my stance is more morally right ;)
Thursday at 00:00 · Like
Logan Chadwick I hate Jon Adams. I am so uncivil right now....god.
Thursday at 00:00 · Like
Parker Jones Logan- even mass-producing it like we may, there are still tons of people going hungry. Hmm, what does that sound like? Can you say famine? And what verse is that scripture? I have my Book of Mormon right here next to me.
Thursday at 00:01 via Mobile · Like
Chase Bartholomew I will not go into the morality of gay marriage, but as far as freedom of speech goes, well I guess that is sort of self-explanatory. If you expect me to be tolerant of homosexuality, why is it that you cannot be tolerant of my belief in traditional marriage?
Thursday at 00:02 · Like · 2
Logan Chadwick It sounds like Capitalism driven famine. Is there anything about capitalism in the book of mormon?
Thursday at 00:02 · Unlike · 1
James Patton I'm pretty sure that mentioning famine means that you should be feeding the chicken *to the people experiencing famine*. Not the overweight white dudes in SUVs.
Thursday at 00:02 · Unlike · 10
John Yelland I have tolerance of your beliefs, I just think they're backwards and funny. To quote Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"
Thursday at 00:03 · Like
Logan Chadwick Chase. Why aren't you tolerant of hitler's hatered of Jews! Oh my god!
Thursday at 00:03 · Like
Logan Chadwick You bigot!@
Thursday at 00:03 · Like
Tom Grover GOD: Parker, why did you eat meat not in times of famine? I mean, dude, you were pretty flagrant about eating beef throughout the year. PARKER: Well, it WAS a famine, God. GOD: REALLY?! PARKER: Yeah, when I was gorging myself with greasy beef, there was famine so this is obviously all a misunderstanding on your part. GOD: [FACEPALM].
Thursday at 00:04 · Like · 4
Jon Adams I respect persons, not beliefs.
Thursday at 00:04 · Unlike · 7
Brody Day Logan, it probably had something to do with what he did with his hatred... not that he hated them (yes, sarcasm)
Thursday at 00:04 · Like
Jon Adams And if ever you've felt disrespected by me, Chase, I apologize.
Thursday at 00:05 · Like
James Patton "I will not go into the morality of gay marriage, but as far as freedom of speech goes, well I guess that is sort of self-explanatory."
Chase Bartholomew complains that his opponents are uneducated, yet does not understand that the First Amendment provides protection from government censorship, and not protection from criticism by others in the marketplace of ideas.
Lulzy.
Thursday at 00:05 · Like · 4
Tom Grover For your information, James Patton, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!
Thursday at 00:06 · Like · 1
Logan Chadwick I am tolerant of your ideology Chase, however, I am not tolerant of you supporting the stolen freedom of marriage from homosexuals. You are telling others what to do, against their will, and that is what cannot be tolerated, the destruction of freedom.
Thursday at 00:07 · Unlike · 1
James Patton This isn't Nam, Tom. There are rules.
Thursday at 00:07 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Which, according to the spirit of the law, given the abundance of fresh produce year round, would require at least near vegetarianism, while beer consumption, given its mention as being good for the belly, would be good in moderation. Jesus also drank wine like Smith, Young and Co.
I guess they wouldn't be temple worthy unless the leadership stopped trying to micromanage its members like the three I mentioned would have obviously wanted anyway.
The sad thing is that many members will look at this statement as just some nefarious attempt to convince people to do "evil and harmful" things, but instead it's an attempt at helping them understand the concepts of free agency and love.
There's a difference between sharing wisdom and trying to force people to behave a certain way through social, familial, and eternal pressures. Much of what Mormonism shares is based in wisdom, the problem is with the secret combination way they include, because by default, others are excluded. Not. Equal. Love.
Thursday at 00:07 via Mobile · Unlike · 3
Tom Grover This is why Joseph F. Smith WAS a vegetarian. He actually took the WoW at face value to his credit.
Thursday at 00:07 · Like · 2
Logan Chadwick Boom. Checkmate. ^
Thursday at 00:08 · Like · 1
Parker Jones The point is not who is getting the food; it's that it apparently isn't getting to those who need it most. In famines in times of old, kings and more wealthy people always had their fair share of food cause they could afford it. Sounds pretty similar to this day and age to me. And how is that capitalism?
Thursday at 00:08 via Mobile · Like
Eric Boothe Eating there was a motion of protest to the act of not eating there, also in protest. It makes sense actually. You can make fun of this, but a few days ago everyone was crappin' their pants about boycotting them to support marriage equality. All of this is fueled by a cesspool of e-activists, and I think there are better ways to waste your time. Jon actually commented on this with a previous status update. It's all some what silly, in my opinion. I support marriage equality....but not with chicken, or lack of.
Thursday at 00:09 · Like · 2
Brian Tonkin So... how long before it's ok to go into Chcik-Fil-A without coming off as Anti-Gay. Because I'm a big fan of chicken and this is a hard time for me.
Thursday at 00:09 · Like · 2
Logan Chadwick Yeah, those kinds were shamed in the eyes of god because they were engaging in gluttony and greed when there were people less fortunate (who jesus would have fed...like he fed the hungry).
Thursday at 00:09 · Unlike · 1
Logan Chadwick ITS OVER, JUST REPOST THIS.
This is why Joseph F. Smith WAS a vegetarian. He actually took the WoW at face value to his credit.
Thursday at 00:10 · Like · 2
Mark Wade This is a fucking trip to read.
Thursday at 00:12 · Unlike · 2
Parker Jones Erik, we all know wine is much different now than it was back then.
Thursday at 00:13 via Mobile · Like
Parker Jones And tom, let's not get blasphemous trying to quote God. And PS, I do eat meat sparingly.
Thursday at 00:14 via Mobile · Like
Chase Bartholomew Well I would love to respond to all of your accusations, but seeing that I am slightly outnumbered right now, given the crowd to which this was posted, I will simply say this: a) I did not eat any chicken today b) I believe traditional marriage is ordained of God and provides for the best possible environment under which a child can grow up c) I understand that you don't necessarily share those beliefs with me d) I still feel like I have the right to express my support for my beliefs e) If you feel like that is a personal attack on you, I'm sorry. It's really not.
Thursday at 00:14 · Like · 4
Jon Adams Parker, how is wine much different today?
Thursday at 00:15 · Unlike · 3
Logan Chadwick Chase REPOST : "I am tolerant of your ideology Chase, however, I am not tolerant of you supporting the stolen freedom of marriage from homosexuals. You are telling others what to do, against their will, and that is what cannot be tolerated, the destruction of freedom."
Thursday at 00:15 · Like
James Patton Chase, to which traditional marriage do you refer?
Thursday at 00:19 · Unlike · 2
James Patton Probably not this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattel_marriage
Thursday at 00:20 · Unlike · 2
Parker Jones It has more chemicals and not natural things in it, Jon. There are some that have additives that make it more addictive etc. Back in the times of Christ, it was very similar to our grape juice.
Thursday at 00:20 via Mobile · Like
Jon Adams It still had alcohol in it, however.
Thursday at 00:20 · Unlike · 2
Chase Bartholomew Ok Logan, I"ll take the bait. I think it really comes down to the fact that marriage is a fundamentally religious institution. Therefore, religion has the right to have a say in its parameters. It's not about taking something away from the homosexuals. If you are going to go down that road, I can claim that it is actually the homosexuals that are trying to take away marriage from us.
Thursday at 00:21 · Like
James Patton "marriage is a fundamentally religious institution"
You need to take an anthropology class.
Thursday at 00:22 · Unlike · 4
Chase Bartholomew I understand you can find non-religious roots in marriage, but let's face it, marriage would be practically non-existent in America without religion. I dare you to argue otherwise.
Thursday at 00:23 · Like
Brody Day Considering the assumption that everyone is at least mildly educated here, I would respond by supporting the term marriage for what it is. However, I do not oppose civil unions. This may cause backlash, but I disagree with the change or manipulation of the word marriage
Thursday at 00:23 · Like · 1
Parker Jones If you read in d&c 89: 6 it says "behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vibe, of your own make." Not alcohol.
Thursday at 00:23 via Mobile · Like
Logan Chadwick Marriage is recognized by the state and has legal ramifications therefore it has become detached in some form from religion, therefore any link to the state or federal government means that it needs to be distributed equally. Homosexuals have never tried to say that ANYONE shouldn't be married.
Also you are just wrong that marriage is religious. I dare to argue otherwise, the concept of 2 people being made a pair by a legal institution would still exist for tax reasons etc...
Thursday at 00:23 · Unlike · 2
Parker Jones Vine*
Thursday at 00:24 via Mobile · Like
Logan Chadwick Civil unions are hollow shells of marriage that don't allow the most basic of rights to homosexual partners. They wont work.
Thursday at 00:24 · Unlike · 2
James Patton Since you're talking about "changing the definition of marriage", let's get some actual definitions up ins, shall we?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage: "Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony."Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.orgMarriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are ...
Thursday at 00:26 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Kristoffer Lauritzen "Nice try Tom, but the fact is that John just doesn't come across as very educated. And I have spent far too many hours of my life arguing with uneducated people."
-The man who believes in flying snakes, talking bushes, magic stones, and his right to govern the thoughts and actions of others.
Thursday at 00:26 · Like · 1
Parker Jones Now if you'll excuse me, I have some zs to catch. Work starts early in the morning.
Thursday at 00:26 via Mobile · Like
Logan Chadwick Your tangent of a debate was kind of dumb anyway. ^
Thursday at 00:27 · Like
Brody Day They should find a way for them to work. Again, manipulating what marriage is should be abandoned.
Thursday at 00:27 · Like
James Patton "If you read in d&c 89: 6 it says "behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vibe, of your own make." Not alcohol."
Doctrine and Covenants is not an accurate source of archaeological information.
Thursday at 00:27 · Unlike · 3
James Patton I mean seriously.
Thursday at 00:27 · Like
William Wilson "And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."
Does anyone else think that the LORD is kind of a bad writer?
Thursday at 00:28 · Like · 1
Kristoffer Lauritzen If John is anything like me, and I've never met him, he makes light of these conversations so as to not lose his sanity after countless arguments against illogical and irrational arguments with no empirical evidence to back them up.
Thursday at 00:28 · Like · 1
Eric Boothe Wine still had alcohol in it though, even if it is your own vine. It helped keep it clean and free from parasites. The bacteria that eats the sugars and turns it into alcohol is just floating in the air, any graps left out will ferment.
Thursday at 00:28 via Mobile · Unlike · 3
Logan Chadwick Why, Brody, are you so attatched to the word "Marriage" just meaning a man and woman, if "Civil Unions" would be the exact same thing. Are you that vain that you just want them to have a different word for it? Are you five?vv
Thursday at 00:28 · Like
Erik Olson Lol @ 19th-century ethical code written in half-assed 16th-century poetic style.
Thursday at 00:29 · Edited · Unlike · 5
Kristoffer Lauritzen I do admire our current upholding of the tenants of marriage here in Utah though... A single 16 year old mom can raise a child so much better than two grown males or females...
Thursday at 00:30 · Unlike · 4
Chase Bartholomew Regardless of wikipedia's definition of marriage, its existence today in America is built on a foundation of religious devotion dating back centuries. To take it and completely redefine it to appease a minority that probably wouldn't even give a crap about marriage if not for their ulterior motive to stick it to anything and everything related to God, is hardly a worthy cause.
Thursday at 00:30 · Like · 1
James Patton Most ancient people drank a bunch of alcohol because it was safer than water because water sanitation sucked because it was before the germ theory of disease.
Thursday at 00:30 · Like · 1
Logan Chadwick Oh totatlly ^ Expecially if they do meth
Thursday at 00:30 · Like
James Patton Chase. That's the definition that anthropologists use.
Thursday at 00:31 · Like
Kristoffer Lauritzen Ummmmmm, you think gays want marriage to stick it to religion? Wut?
Thursday at 00:31 · Like · 2
James Patton Read up on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship
Thursday at 00:31 · Like
Jon Adams "To take it and completely redefine it to appease a minority that probably wouldn't even give a crap about marriage if not for their ulterior motive to stick it to anything and everything related to God, is hardly a worthy cause."
This signals to me that you don't know many gay people, or at least those in committed relationships.
Thursday at 00:32 · Unlike · 12
Logan Chadwick "its existence today in America is built on a foundation of religious devotion dating back centuries."
This is WRONG and you have NO EVIDENCE. Stop asserting stupid things.
Plus homosexuals want marriage so they can visit their family members in hospitals and be respected by the laws. OH YEAH, AND ALL HOMOSEXUALS ARE ATHEISTS. ARE YOU STUPID.
Thursday at 00:32 · Like
Logan Chadwick You should do some research chase rather than just asserting things that your opastor told you.
Thursday at 00:33 · Like
Eric Boothe Jon Adams, you've certainly gained some interesting "friends" recently. I remember when these debates were more civil, mature, and free from ridicule or personal attacks. I'm disappointed with many of these comments. All good things come to and end, I suppose.
Thursday at 00:34 via Mobile · Like · 5
Chase Bartholomew Easy with the caps lock, Logan.
Thursday at 00:34 · Like · 1
Logan Chadwick Easy with the evidence Chase.
Thursday at 00:35 · Like · 2
James Patton Rule #281: When you are unable to respond to the substance of an argument, simply attack its form instead.
Thursday at 00:35 · Unlike · 6
Logan Chadwick Obvi
Thursday at 00:36 · Like
Parker Jones "Most ancient people" doesn't refer to most LDS people. Mormons haven't been a majority in thousands of years. Mainly back to Adam and Eve.
Thursday at 00:37 via Mobile · Like
Jon Adams And for the record, the nonreligious DO "give a crap about marriage." In fact, atheists have among the lowest divorce rates in the country (but this is also a function of atheists being disproportionately well-off and educated).
Thursday at 00:37 · Unlike · 7
James Patton I've linked to a bunch of wiki articles, but since you're making claims about the role of marriage in the United States, here's another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_StatesMarriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.orgMarriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.[1] However, marriage can also be the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.[1] Ma...
Thursday at 00:37 · Like
Trevor Weller Yes, marriage is a religious institution...which is why both times I got married we had to raise our right hands and pledge that we didnt give the county clerk any false information. And when I got divorced I had to pay the government $300 for a judge to say we are no longer married. It seems that if it was a religious thing I would have had to say a prayer or something somewhere in there...
Thursday at 00:37 · Like · 4
Jon Adams Parker, does it even make sense to claim that Adam and Eve were Mormon?
Thursday at 00:38 · Like · 1
James Patton "Most ancient people" doesn't refer to most LDS people. Mormons haven't been a majority in thousands of years. Mainly back to Adam and Eve."
Yeah, I gather that Mormons haven't been a majority of anybody prior to about 1820.
Thursday at 00:38 · Like
Chase Bartholomew You are confusing my terms. When I say marriage is a religious institution, I mean it is what it is today because of religion.
Thursday at 00:38 · Like
Logan Chadwick That isn't what "religious institution" means
Thursday at 00:39 · Like
James Patton No, that's simply untrue. Here's a one-word rebuttal: miscegenation.
Thursday at 00:39 · Like · 1
Jon Adams Eric, I've already made mention that I disagree with the tenor of this debate. But I don't take ownership over anyone's comments here and would rather people self-moderate.
Thursday at 00:39 · Like · 2
Trevor Weller So you are saying there were never any social pairings in human nature before religion?
Thursday at 00:56 · Edited · Like
Chase Bartholomew I am saying marriage carries the weight it carries today because of religion. I said nothing of the ancient origin of social pairings.
Thursday at 00:40 · Like
Logan Chadwick Prove this. You have no warrant.
Thursday at 00:41 · Like
James Patton You're really gonna need to start getting out all the citations you're keeping behind your back.
Thursday at 00:41 · Unlike · 1
Jaten Lee McGriff Marriage is a sacred act. It is something highly personal and individual to each person, culture, and time. I would like the freedom to marry whom, when, and how I would like. Marriage isn't "because of religion". It is because God gave it to us, and I'll be damned if I let a man take it from me. It is the capstone of life.
Thursday at 00:42 · Like · 2
Parker Jones They believed the same principles that we do now, barring some revelations that have come necessarily for certain times and ages. So even though they were before Christ officially set up His church on the earth (and before the book of Mormon), and also to make it easier to say for the sake of this debate, yes, I could argue they were Mormon.
Thursday at 00:44 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Marriage can have a religious connection, and religions can have what ever restrictions, reasonable or otherwise, but marriage provides many crucial benefits for people who decide to live in a committed relationship, sexual or otherwise, and to even dream of surviving in this corporate socialism saturated world, people should be allowed the few benefits the Dempublicans still allow us. If people also want to have their own personal religious validation in a denomination compassionate to wed two people in love, they should be allowed *that* religious freedom.
Thursday at 00:46 via Mobile · Unlike · 3
James Patton This is a side topic to the thread, but Parker, I think you missed what I meant. Mormons didn't exist anywhere prior to 1820.
Thursday at 00:46 · Like
Chase Bartholomew Alright, I'd love to stay up all night and argue, but this isn't getting anywhere. We all know where the other stands. And we all know that isn't going to change. I appreciate those of you who tried to keep this somewhat civil, and to those of you who didn't, I wish you happiness in life. I really do. May all of us do our talking with our ballots!
Thursday at 00:50 · Like · 2
Parker Jones I was mainly responding to Jon. And they did exist, but were just known under a different name. They were members of the church of Jesus Christ. The term "Mormon" is not a self-induced name, but rather a nickname given to us by other people to make it easier to say. So yes, technically, "Mormons" didn't exist, but the people believing the same principles as "Mormons" did, under a different name. Our official name today is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Thursday at 00:51 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Additionally, studies have shown lesbian parents are in some ways superior to "traditional" couples.
Thursday at 00:53 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Nathan Hadfield I do think it's interesting how the vegetarian aspect of the Word of Wisdom gets ignored by most LDS (including myself, I must confess). The prophet's brother Hyrum clearly understood that the WoW advised against the eating of meat for ethical reasons: "Let men attend to these instructions [the Word of Wisdom]... let them be sparing of the life of animals; 'it is pleasing saith the Lord that flesh be used only in times of winter, or of famine'--and why to be used in famine? because all domesticated animals would naturally die, and may as well be made use of by man, as not." -- Hyrum Smith Word of Wisdom Sermon as recorded in Times and Seasons Vol 3 No. 15 (June 1, 1842).
Thursday at 00:54 · Like
Erik Kulick I love when people try to rationalize their skewed way the church enforces the WOW officially; it starts with a greeting not a commandment.
Thursday at 00:54 via Mobile · Like
James Patton Parker, I'm not gonna be able to actually get through to you, but suffice it to say that "people believing the same principles as Mormons" did not exist anywhere on Earth until Joseph Smith put the thing together in the 1820s. You have some strange ideas about the history of Christianity and Judaism. Long story short, your church does not stretch back to the dawn of humanity in the "Garden of Eden".
This is all tangential and irrelevant to the thread anyway.
Thursday at 00:59 · Edited · Unlike · 4
Erik Kulick It's odd that people who purport to most value the teachings of Christ and JS, wouldn't permit them on a latter day visit to one of its "holy places" on account of their human habits or admonitions. It's hard for the Pharisees to compassionately see.
Thursday at 01:03 via Mobile · Like · 1
Jaten Lee McGriff The Church made me whom I am today. I love it. One thing it gave me was my will to fight for what I want most. For more than most of my life I dreamt of marriage, a self proclaimed hopeless romantic. Then I accepted my sexuality and my dreams of a temple marriage, and this whole idea of an ideal life built for me as a right and inexplicable blessing, simply vanished. That was probably the hardest part for me, realizing that my life as a gay man would be "different"-- and so in my eyes, lesser. But after years of living and fighting, as I was taught by the church, I realized I can and will have my dreams of a holy matrimony. Something deemed worthy by God, because it will be love. I'm grateful the church gave me the strength to overcome dark times of doubt and fear. Now I press forward knowing that I will be happy, and in marriage. It's just a matter of time. If the state doesn't endorse it, it is just an obstacle; I will have a real marriage, cause God will support me. I just know that. The churches ideology of marriage has made it the incredible thing that it is to me. Without it, I might not want marriage as I do.
Thursday at 01:07 · Unlike · 3
Jonathan Blackham Very interesting debate, gentlemen (and ladies if I missed them in my brief skimming of the 100+ comments). I've always known that I can visit Jon's wall (or "timeline") for wonderful and thought provoking conversations/debates.
As for my opinion with regards to the original topic at hand, I find this whole situation hilarious and completely ironic. Yes, the Word of Wisdom, although originally not included in the determining of a devout Latter-day Saint, has explicitly said to eat meat sparingly. Modern interpretation (I say revelation) of this commandment through the prophets has altered the original meaning of this word of counsel from the Lord. While I don't claim to eat meat sparingly, I am aware that dieticians claim that diets centered on grains, vegetables, and fruit are more healthy. *insert citation to the food pyramid we all know and . . . love?*
I believe that Jon found the portion of the Word of Wisdom that is most commonly ignored. I also believe that popular culture in the Latter-day Saint community has turned the Word of Wisdom into a list of "Don'ts" and ignored the preceding two verses. If you remember the 10 Commandments given in Exodus 20, the Lord gives "Do's" AND "Don'ts." Again, good show Jon. I hope you don't mind if I enjoy a chuckle along side you at this "peculiar people" that the Latter-day Saints have definitely become. :)
Thursday at 01:21 · Like · 3
Miriam Blackham Een Jonathan . . . the Food Guide Pyramid is SO last year! The current food guide recommendation is "Choose My Plate". AND as long as we're quoting scripture related to eating meat (or not) don't forget Doctrine & Covenants 49:18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;
19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.
Thursday at 01:35 · Edited · Like
Miriam Blackham Een Here's the link to the new food guidance system. It came out last summer after the 2010 Dietary Guidelines were released (in January of 2011, but still considered the 2010 Dietary Guidelines because by law they were supposed to be updated in 2010). http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ChooseMyPlate.gov
www.choosemyplate.govTK
Thursday at 01:29 · Like
Steven Russell I'm Gay and a Mormon and I know that marriage is both s religious and non- religious institution! To those that say marriage is only the domain of religion: non religious marriages have been happening for centuries and for thousand of years long before Christianity ever existed! I know that Heavenly Father loves me and is proud of my decision to be honest, come out, live the life that makes me so happy instead of living a lie that made me so miserable!
I have a right to be happy and if i find a man who I love and long to live my life with him, then I would want ti get married! I wouldn't expect it in a church or any other organization that is against Same Sex Marriages, I'd just want to get married as equal to any other marriage Under Law!
Any one has a right to their opinion or belief and I will always respect that! But I have a right to get married 'Equally Under the Same Law'.
I won't call opponents bigots coz that's just playing into the hands of nastiness! I won't do that!
Instead I'll keep defending my own rights and look forward to the day it happens, And it will! :)
Thursday at 02:11 via Mobile · Like · 5
Ryan Knighton I feel like the conundrum of wanting to eat at Chick-Fil-A to support traditional (and not bible-based) marriage and to refrain from eating too much fried chicken would make a great Onion article.
Thursday at 03:21 via Mobile · Like
Federico Rodriguez Damn! I missed this thread!
Thursday at 04:47 · Like · 2
Luke Provost I read about half of this and I saw someone said that homemade wine is ok to drink?
Thursday at 06:13 via Mobile · Like
Ann-Michelle Taylor All i can say is i am lds but with a fantastic brother that is gay. He respects me and i respect him. If you are truly christlike you have no room for hate or singling out someone. I would not eat at Chick fil a.
Thursday at 06:29 via Mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Thompson Chase, learn something from this post. Most people who comment on Jon's posts usually are bigoted in their own opinions and prejudices. They will never understand that spiritual side of any argument because they need cold hard facts which are never present in important things like love, belief and spiritual knowledge. What you need to learn is to not get sucked into a post because these empirical bigots will always bully you because more of them will post than those who read and realize that they are missing out on everything on a much deeper level that they will never understand. Just wanted to say thanks for sticking up for those who believe like you do and know like you do.
Thursday at 07:54 via Mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Thompson Ps. Chick fil a has amazing chicken and those who protest it for political reasons will eventually come back because of its awesome goodness.
Thursday at 07:54 via Mobile · Like · 2
Glenn Nielson Hang on wait wait wait, Kyle says the people who are more open to equal rights, and intellectually challenge the LDS church are bigoted?
Big gold star for you bud.
Thursday at 08:09 · Like · 1
Trevor Weller Kyle, for some of us God and spirituality are found inside empirical facts. We not only can, but do appreciate many things in a deep spiritual way...we just don't use fairy tales to justify those feelings, instead using knowledge and facts to help up better understand our universe and developing our spirituality and soul.
Thursday at 08:12 · Like
Glenn Nielson I find it hilarious that you also claim that people without faith are essentially robots. When in fact I would say that they are potential of more love and care than any bigoted (see how I turned that around on you?) member of the LDS faith.
Thursday at 08:14 · Like · 1
Mark Sullivan Chicken is good. Chick-fil-A is gross. Studies show- everyone's a scholar, but I think you're all idiots with lame arguments all around. Who wants ice cream? We can buy Ben and Jerry's low fat to appease all parties.
Thursday at 08:44 · Like · 1
Glenn Nielson Chick-fil-a is very gross, I had a free sandwich from there once and was not impressed.
Thursday at 08:44 · Like
Duffy Brent Nielson can't gays just be miserable like the rest of us?
Thursday at 08:56 · Like
Nick Sloggett can someone recap this for me..
Thursday at 09:05 · Like · 1
Sean Weinle This was and probably still will be great read! Keep the posts coming!
Thursday at 09:17 · Like · 1
Grey Soxx thank you jon.
Thursday at 09:41 · Like · 1
Parker Jones James- it's not that tangential if you look at the whole thread. And yes, there were dark ages- where there were no (to make it easier) LDS people on the earth. Hence WHY we needed the restoration to take place in 1820. However, Christ was the one who set up the church in the first place when He lived on the earth. That's when we had Apostles and Prophets. Hence, why we call Joseph Smith's actions a "restoration" and not an organization. It isn't easy to prove that our religion goes back to Adam and Eve (I can't prove it myself), but there is scripture we have about it, that I'm pretty sure no other religion believes. I could be mistaken. There's my own two cents about that. In the end, people will believe what they will believe, and I'm not going to stop them. We all have that privilege as it says in our articles of faith: number 11. Good day all. :)
Thursday at 09:41 via Mobile · Like
Mike Miller I don't understand when people argue personal interpretations of doctrine. As we all know, anybody can (and somewhere out there surely will) take away anything they want from scripture and to them it's logical and justified. Therefore I will not argue what I think but rather post a link that I feel you should all read and take away from this what you will.
http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw
www.owldolatrous.comThis post is all I have to say about the Chik-Fil-A controversy. It sums up various posts on the issue and all the various points made by my friends and I. From now own, rather than spend time debating this issue person by person, I'm going to point people here. My hope here is to find common ground...
Thursday at 10:52 via Mobile · Like · 1
James Patton Parker, I'm just gonna link this and call it good. You're on a different plane of existence. And for what it's worth, I've read every comment in this thread and this is definitely a tangential subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
Thursday at 11:04 · Like
James Patton "They will never understand that spiritual side of any argument because they need cold hard facts which are never present in important things like love, belief and spiritual knowledge. What you need to learn is to not get sucked into a post because these empirical bigots will always bully you because more of them will post than those who read and realize that they are missing out on everything on a much deeper level that they will never understand."
Oh yeah, you bastard? BA-BOOOM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gUThe Most Astounding Fact - Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.youtube.comAstrophysicist Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was asked by a reader of TIME magazine, "...See more
Thursday at 11:08 · Like · 2
James Patton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtWB90bVUO8We are all connected - Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.youtube.comNeil deGrasse Tyson talks about the Universe and us, humans. just enjoy.
Thursday at 11:08 · Like · 2
Alex Tarbet "Here's my raging opinion, without any evidence to support it. Now I will be ignoring your keen rebuttal, but wishing you happiness in life and posting smiley faces."
Thursday at 11:10 · Edited · Like · 1
James Patton It's incredibly ironic to me that you call what you believe "spiritual knowledge". I actually find your form of spirituality to be immensely limited, unimaginative, human-centered and small. So, honestly, have fun believing what you believe. Mine's better.
Thursday at 11:13 · Edited · Like · 1
Parker Jones All right, James. Whatever floats your boat. :) And I like my plane of existence, thank you very much. I appreciate you noticing that I am different than others. Who wants to be the same?
Thursday at 11:16 via Mobile · Like
James Patton
Thursday at 11:17 · Like
Alex Tarbet Parker - You've convinced me. I'm in. Let's all wear black and white suits on Sundays and live the exact same lifestyle, taking everything one guy says as the absolute truth.
Thursday at 11:17 · Like · 1
James Patton Wait, won't black and white suits make us all the same?
Thursday at 11:18 · Like
Alex Tarbet Oh, and let's protest against the rights of those who are physiologically and naturally different than we are through a fast food chain.
Thursday at 11:18 · Like
Parker Jones Haha I love your skewed views on that. I don't wear a black suit. And the point is, not many people (relatively) in the world aren't members of the LDS faith. So you can come along, or you can stay right where you are if you'd like. We're still the minority, but I don't think that's such a bad thing. :)
Thursday at 11:22 via Mobile · Like
Parker Jones Oops, smart text correction, not many people are* members.
Thursday at 11:23 via Mobile · Like
James Patton I've lived in Utah all my life. I do not have skewed views of the LDS. Believe that.
Thursday at 11:23 · Like
Parker Jones Well them if you think we're all the exact same, maybe you've only met one LDS person...that's the only way that makes sense.
Thursday at 11:24 via Mobile · Like
Parker Jones Then*
Thursday at 11:24 via Mobile · Like
Alex Tarbet Not many people aren't members of the LDS faith? Was that a typo?
Thursday at 11:25 · Like
Parker Jones Yes, Alex, refer to my correction right after.
Thursday at 11:26 via Mobile · Like
Alex Tarbet Oh, woops. But earlier you seemed to be saying that all pre-Smith Christians can be called Mormons?
Thursday at 11:28 · Like
James Patton All those who didn't live during an apostasy, apparently. I honestly wonder if this would include, like, Moses.
Thursday at 11:29 · Like
James Patton And if so, does the LDS church really need another way to annoy Jews?
Thursday at 11:31 · Like
Alex Tarbet To Kyle Thompson: Half-truths, mythologies, and group tribalism are not the only route to love, belief, and spirituality. To say so is horribly scary. What a tiny world you must live in.
Thursday at 11:33 · Like
Parker Jones Don't misinterpret what I said. There was a time before the restoration that was a dark age. Actually, several times. The times where the gospel of Jesus Christ was on the earth with a prophet etc are called "dispensations". Indeed, Moses was a Prophet of a dispensation. But I'm not saying that all Christians could be called Mormons. Just the ones that stayed with the true doctrine of Christ and didn't fundamentally change beliefs. But they were all persecuted and killed. Then the dark age would follow. It's a cycle that has repeated I believe 5 or 6 times.
Thursday at 11:35 via Mobile · Like
Alex Tarbet There's nothing about empirical skepticism that eliminates love, belief, joy and such things. In fact, allow me to do an interpretative dance using a dead fish right now. -flutters-
Thursday at 11:36 · Like
Alex Tarbet Ah, yes, Parker. The "Harry Potter" history of the Universe. Christians who don't fundamentally change beliefs? You're...talking about Mormons? Really?
Thursday at 11:37 · Like
James Patton Man, what *evidence* do you have for that? Moses was a prophet of a dispensation of Mormonism. Presumably he followed the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
I'll let the Jews know.
Thursday at 11:38 · Like · 1
Alex Tarbet If I recall, Jesus was machine-gun adamant about avoiding riches. Let's start the Mall/charity conversation, if you want to talk about those who -enlightened gasp- "truly follow Christ".
Thursday at 11:39 · Unlike · 1
Alex Tarbet Mmm. Classy. Almost as classy as protesting at a freakin' Chic-fil-A. Dignified. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-03-05/mormons-proxy-baptism-holocaust-jews/53372816/1Mormons warned against baptizing Holocaust victims
www.usatoday.comThe LDS church issued a mandate to its members: Do not submit names of Jewish Holocaust victims or celebrities for proxy baptism.
Thursday at 11:40 · Like
James Patton Oh, Holocaust baptisms are nothing compared to co-opting the entire cultural heritage of the Hebrew people. Guess what? All your prophets? They're actually our prophets and taught what *we* believe.
"Let my people go . . . to City Creek Mall for fantastic shopping!"
Thursday at 11:43 · Like
Alex Tarbet "3...2...1... Let's go SHOPPING!" -Jesus applauds-
Thursday at 11:43 · Like · 1
Jon Adams I'd come to the defense of Mormons baptizing Holocaust victims (because I frankly don't find it that objectionable), but it's way off topic.
Thursday at 11:44 · Like
Alex Tarbet All Mormons are now gay liberal atheist feminists. Why? Because I said so, here's my alternative history of the Universe. You see, ancient Greece was actually in Antartica, where a polar bear named Pericles wandered amidst the mincing forces of Japan. The deadly samurai attacked frequently, never withholding the precious Bottle of Jai'Jin which causes demonic mushrooms to... (writes it down and uses it to convince adolescent girls to have sex with him.)
Thursday at 11:45 · Like · 1
Parker Jones Avoiding the love of riches, yes. And there is a book of scripture from Moses that people in our church read and believe. And Alex, what are you referring to? And not just any Christians, TRUE followers of Christ. There are thousands of Christan churches that have changed things from the original doctrines that Christ taught without any legitimate reason. I'm not going to be able to get through to you guys, apparently, but you'd just have to read and pray about the truthfulness of the book of Mormon with an open heart to understand where I'm coming from. Over 14 million people have done it. You should try it out. :)
Thursday at 11:46 via Mobile · Like
Alex Tarbet -twitch-
Thursday at 11:46 · Like
James Patton Jon, I didn't actually know that Moses was considered a prophet of a dispensation of Mormonism. Am I understanding that correctly? What's the Jewish opinion on that?
Thursday at 11:47 · Like
Alex Tarbet Parker - read a different book. Over 14 million people have done it. You should try it out. :)
Thursday at 11:49 · Like
Parker Jones I have. My favorite book is still the book of Mormon. :)
Thursday at 11:50 via Mobile · Like
Alex Tarbet All arguments invalid.
Thursday at 11:51 · Like
Alex Tarbet Jon - what's not objectionable about one faith baptizing another faith's believers? Frankly, I don't care because I don't belong to either of them. But were I a Jew, believing in such things as afterlives and magics, it would seem like a spiritual attack. Much like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Tj_l4PcPsCartman vs. psychics
www.youtube.comfrom Cartman's Incredible Gift. S08 - E13
Thursday at 11:53 · Like
Trevor Weller Parker, what's your advice to those of us that have read and prayed about it and didn't get the warm fuzzies so we went and read some Carl Sagan and felt much better about things.
Thursday at 11:58 via Mobile · Edited · Like · 1
Trevor Weller Alex, maybe a few of us can get together and start baptizing mormons to atheism...
Thursday at 11:58 · Unlike · 3
Jon Adams James: Mormons regard him as a prophet in the same tradition as Joseph Smith. Mormons don't believe that Moses and Smith taught the same things, however, because Smith not only restored old truths taught by Moses but also new revelations. But needless to say, Mormons do understand Moses as a Mormon now--he supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland temple and bestowed to him the keys to the priesthood.
Thursday at 11:59 · Unlike · 2
Alex Tarbet Trevor - give me a high five under a shimmering burst of champagne?
Thursday at 11:59 · Like
Jon Adams http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/MosesMoses - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism
eom.byu.eduFew prophets are more revered in ancient and latter-day scripture than Moses, wh...See more
Thursday at 11:59 · Like
Trevor Weller If its a double high five I believe it converts 2 for 1
Thursday at 12:00 · Like
Within Wisdom Holy shit yet again. So much anger over a second rate fast food joint (they have great chicken? seriously?? Popeye's blows them out of the water) having a political belief and donating to certain groups. I don't boycott them but I don't need to, just as I don't boycott the corporations endorsing gay marriage either. I am more concerned that some mayors have decided to ban the stores because of their beliefs. If you like it just because it fits in with "your side" then don't bitch if it happens to you too. The "kiss in" tomorrow is equally embarrassing. Instead of argument they presenting a circus act. Nice job.
i love the "harry potter" version of history Alex :D good one, I've never felt comfortable with the Mormon concept I was taught that "we just fix everything up". And the restoration sure was handy for stopping genocides and wars and slavery and religious persecution. Just. Handy.
Oh wait, you weren't crying with the presence of the holy spirit when you typed that were you? Therefore your opinion is invalid ;)
Thursday at 12:03 · Unlike · 4
Within Wisdom "they are presenting" this is me, not Ryan Lochte.
Thursday at 12:03 · Like
Within Wisdom Trevor, you were obviously not sincere enough, you should whip yourself with a spiked necktie and carry an actual book of golden plates around your backyard to further increase your praying sincerity amount
Thursday at 12:05 · Like
Nate Wood The little deal about true Christians that didn't change any core beliefs keeps coming up. What about when God (according to LDS beliefs) changed his stance on black people and plural marriage? Those seem like pretty big deals. And as late as the 1970s.
Thursday at 12:05 · Unlike · 3
Parker Jones Trevor, sometimes you don't get an immediate answer. Or it could be that you skipped a step, or did something not quite as it was intended. Every time I read an Pratt about the book of Mormon, I get a confirmation that it is true.
Thursday at 12:06 via Mobile · Like
Parker Jones And pray*
Thursday at 12:06 via Mobile · Like
Alex Tarbet You get a confirmation that you believe it. But it's not necessarily true. Unless you can explain how Native Americans are descended from Asians, not elephant-riding Jews. We *actually* know this. And anyone can get a "confirmation" through genetics, regardless of how they feel about it.
Thursday at 12:08 · Unlike · 2
Alex Tarbet I know you're not going to read this. A confirmation is good enough, if it makes you feel good. Right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_MormonAnachronisms in the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.orgJesusAbinadi · Ammon Alma (elder) · (younger)King BenjaminBrother of JaredSamuel the LamaniteCaptain Moroni · EnosHelaman · Lehi · NephiMormon · Moroni
Thursday at 12:09 · Like
Alex Tarbet And I suppose the 9/11 hijackers' confirmations about their faith were just horrible, awful and wrong. They didn't know anything that was true. They were just brainwashed and felt so strongly that they acted crazy.
Thursday at 12:10 · Like · 1
Within Wisdom If it makes you feel good do it, I'm about to go do some cannibalism in that spirit.
Thursday at 12:10 · Like · 3
Alex Tarbet I'll join. Let's eat James Patton.
Thursday at 12:10 · Like · 3
Within Wisdom I prayed and got a warm feeling, so it must have been right. That or james was coming back up on me. Something like that.
Thursday at 12:11 · Like
Alex Tarbet So because I feel like it's true, then it must be true. I suppose the Confirmation from God that Jonestown received was just...wrong. Or something. Right, Parker? I mean, they were Christians. And they felt the burning bosom strong enough to feed cyanide to their babies. They had pretty strong faith. They must have had the TRUTH man! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWr45bKWpEJonestown Massacre Documentary
www.youtube.comMy group's project for AP Lang. We had to recreate a tragic event in history using creative and appropriate rhetoric techniques. FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONL...
Thursday at 12:12 · Like
Alex Tarbet As opposed to science, which celebrates what we don't know, and is generally true whether or not we feel like it.
Thursday at 12:14 · Like
Within Wisdom Ah, to be fair there, that was an atheist community. but similar problem.
Thursday at 12:14 · Like
Trevor Weller Parker, Oh I get it...I must have just forgot a step...maybe I should re fax in my last 5 years of tax information or double up my tithing to 20% or something so that God will know I really want an answer.
Thursday at 12:15 · Like · 1
Alex Tarbet Atheism with a christ-like figure who performed "healings." Jones was certainly religious. But yeah Will, I was wrong to call it Christian.
Thursday at 12:18 · Like
Parker Jones You know what's funny? I have a friend who is Native American, yet looks Asian. :) and you're right. I don't need to read that anti stuff. Millions of people have tried in futility to disprove the book of Mormon. So I guess it must be true. Plus, it only teaches good things. Whatever teaches of good things is of God. Lots of religions have many good things, and its truly great if any religion teaches someone to be a better person, but there can only be one completely true church.
Thursday at 12:20 via Mobile · Like · 1
Alex Tarbet HAhahahahahahahahah Ok, we're done here
Thursday at 12:21 · Like
Parker Jones Thanks for allowing me to share my opinions with you. Take care.
Thursday at 12:22 via Mobile · Like
Alex Tarbet People protest gay rights for this reason ^ and I'm the one who's a dickhead. Wonderful.
Thursday at 12:23 · Like · 1
Within Wisdom The closest religion you could compare it to would be Buddhism, it placed its emphasis on a man and was a communist "temple" (at least as jones describes it during the suicide portions of the tapes I've heard)
By the by, even a hardened metal head like me shuddered at the sound of women just giving babies deadlyl poison and rationalizing it as "not feeling pain". AT LEAST alex we can all agree that's beyond fucked up.
Thursday at 12:25 · Like · 1
Alex Tarbet Absolutely. I was way off. The point is, they had a religious ideal that was true because of its emotive response. This is hardly different than the "burning bosom." In my opinion, this doesn't lead to truth. It leads to belief, which is weak without evidence. All too Humean.
Thursday at 12:28 · Unlike · 1
Within Wisdom absolutley, the mentality is the same. We're still comparing arsenic spiked chocolate milk to cholera covered steak. Both suck.
Thursday at 12:30 · Like · 1
Within Wisdom Just because I'm a religious man doesn't mean I respect dogma. My position on gay marriage I'd like to think is actually "evolving" because I'm trying to take in the full real conversation. Obama or the likes of Sherri wolfe may be "on my s...See more
Thursday at 12:33 · Unlike · 1
Alex Tarbet I just want to hear a single good argument against gay marriage.
Thursday at 12:34 · Like
Within Wisdom Marriage is a concerpt that does not allow for a homosexual union.
Thursday at 12:35 · Like
Within Wisdom By that logic, it would be like a 4 sided triangle.
Thursday at 12:35 · Like
Within Wisdom James Humphries of the Log Cabinbin repbus has a great response too
Thursday at 12:36 · Like
Within Wisdom 5 seconds
Thursday at 12:36 · Like
James Patton argument by definition
Thursday at 12:45 · Like
Within Wisdom Its the funny thing about language, terms have definitions. if you are going to promote gay marriage as a matter of justice, it would follow that term has a meaning, and important that its not contradicting itself.
Gay marriage isn't "banned" it isn't recognized as eligible for benefits which are still available although at a FAR higher cost. Some gays also oppose or don't care for gay marriage because they don't consider it something they get to participate in. It has a cultural meaning and should be left alone provided no crime is committed.
The thing humphries (log cabin republicans are republicans/conservatives in the lgbt community) brought up was whether or not government can recognize who is in your family, and therefore dictate it. Its the same as the government being unable to dictate who is a part of your religion or whether or not it is a religion.
Thursday at 12:57 via Mobile · Like
Robyn Graham Wasn't Jesus jewish?
Thursday at 13:04 via Mobile · Like
Within Wisdom Born of a centurion actually, when his mother was raped....well at first she was....
Thursday at 13:16 via Mobile · Like
Kristoffer Lauritzen "Chase, learn something from this post. Most people who comment on Jon's posts usually are bigoted in their own opinions and prejudices. They will never understand that spiritual side of any argument because they need cold hard facts which are never present in important things like love, belief and spiritual knowledge. What you need to learn is to not get sucked into a post because these empirical bigots will always bully you because more of them will post than those who read and realize that they are missing out on everything on a much deeper level that they will never understand. Just wanted to say thanks for sticking up for those who believe like you do and know like you do."
So if I drop acid and angels tell me gay marriage is now ok I can go around forcing my new found wisdom on other people? Just because you "believe" something, or have a strong emotional connection to something, gives you no right to tell anyone else what to do as long as they aren't infringing upon your rights/freedom. It's fine if you want to disallow gay marriage within the LDS church. Nobody here is trying to change that. If you want to eliminate the desire for gays to be married then we need to eliminate any financial/legal/etc. benefits of getting married. That's where the real inequality lies.
Thursday at 13:59 · Like · 4
Gary Lauritzen Nevertheless??? For a supposed quote of God, that does not sound like Godspeak. If Joseph'sMyth wrote the book today he may have siad; "what up dogs, leme tell ya sumpin... hmmm
Thursday at 14:39 · Like
Zachary Isaiah Lobato So I'm thinking there's a business idea in these posts for an untapped (pun possibly intended.. :) market here. Vine of Old - "Let us praise glory today as was done in the former." Who wants to make a Kickstarter video with me?! Something like this for the box...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Maler_der_Grabkammer_des_Userhêt_%28I%29_006.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Maler_der_Grabkammer_des_Userhêt_(I)_006.jpg
upload.wikimedia.org
Thursday at 16:35 · Like
Erik Kulick Parker (addressing the capitalism comment from yesterday:), Greed rears its ugly head in all times and places. Allowing capitalism (an economic ideology inherently based on the selfishness of man and is in contradiction with the teachings of #Christ [what great irony]) to run unchecked, greatly exacerbates the starvation and other atrocities that occur throughout the world. Keep auto-voting for #Dempublicans and relying on corporate church leaders to provide your moral guidance and instruction, and we're guaranteed to see tons more of it.
Thursday at 21:23 · Edited · Like
Diego Ballesteros I honestly would like to know what religion or religious actions has done in your lives to prove a point that you should keep a man from any rights he may or should have. I'm not a man of heavy beliefs. I believe there is a god and that's good enough for me. The facts and figures can appear whenever they need be relevant. I don't allow religion to run my life, and I can hardly say it guides it either. I'm my own person, as are all of you. How is it that you may tell someone your whole hearted, dying belief for your own religion, share your own opinions on the belief, but deny another of their own PERSONAL belief? That's what I don't understand. It all comes down to "faith" and there are no facts. So... question being... why is it that soo many people on this Earth allow faith to dictate or persuade their actions in life? No matter the religion, at the end of the day we're left with each own's faith, but we're all only human. I say, allow any other their own belief or whatever you'd like to call it and carry on with your own life. Yeah?... or am I missing something?
Yesterday at 01:39 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Jon Adams I don't think that opponents of gay marriage are denying anyone their personal beliefs. We can believe however we see fit. What's being denied, on my view, is the right to marry. I, for one, am not sure there is such a right, but so long as our straight counterparts have it, we should too.
I'm not upset that conservatives are wanting to impose their beliefs on other's in the gay marriage debate, because such impositions in a democratic society are impossible to avoid. I, for example, support Obama's health care mandate, which is itself an imposition of my personal beliefs on society.
Any law is an imposition upon those who disagree with it. So my problem with gay marriage opponents is not that they're imposing their faith-based beliefs on the gay community. My problem is that they don't have any compelling reasons for doing so.
Yesterday at 08:31 · Like
Diego Ballesteros That makes more sense, but to me this status looks like it's been turned into an argument about religion. And my stance on religion and politics are two different opponents. Religion is based on a belief; Where as I see politics being driven by an agreement (give or take) of laws we Americans choose to live by. In my eyes, religion always seems to trifle its way into a political outlook. That's what I don't get. I'm just voicing my opinion, which again is neither fully supported on each opposing side. I would just like insight on both sides is all. (:
Yesterday at 10:32 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick It originated as a thread about religion too, Jon just used the current ironic display of hatred (or rather non-love, if it makes the haters feel better about their feelings), fear, ignorance and/or whatever lousy reason for the open display of bigotry coming out of Christendom, to point out the hypocrisy of the way the LDS church treats its greeting-turned-heathcare-mandate Word of Wisdom.
The reasons why people interfere with other people's sexuality is the same reason they interfere with their dietary and grooming habits; people want to win, whether directly or vicariously. It's why people are openly willing to make extremely irrational decisions in the name of a god or a president(ial candidate).
The maddening reality is, even though there is more verifiable evidence of the flaws in the Dempublican and Republicratic dogmas and ideologies than there is of the religious ones (given the difficulty of actively proving or disproving things associated with deity and its habitat), countless people still insist on defending atrocious behavior while obsessing over a handful of relatively minor issues (symptoms really) and continuing to trust in Dempublicratic "truths."
That's why these conversations get inextricably linked... Oh, and Jon has had the great fortune of meeting a diverse array of people willing to discuss these issues, so its often an inevitability anyway.
6 hours ago · Like
Write a comment...
Steve Nunez shared Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's photo.
Are not all men equal?
Don't let up!
Unlike · · Share · 23 July at 13:03 ·
You, Dave Parrish, Solange Abbate and 35 others like this.
Obsidian Otakunai Yuck..
23 July at 13:04 · Like
Brennan Christensen ^???
23 July at 13:13 · Like
Erik Kulick Homosexuality does not equate to pedophilia or rape. There are many good queer men and women who are quite capable and trustworthy enough to lead the youth in the scouting program.
23 July at 13:16 · Unlike · 4
Bonnie Beck Why yuck, Obsidian?
23 July at 13:28 · Like
Obsidian Otakunai I'm not a homosexual supporter. And I can have that because I have the freedom to speak out.
23 July at 13:30 · Like
Erik Kulick What do have against people who have different sexual orientations than you, Obsidian?
23 July at 14:09 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Fred T Wood Because he's an idiot and is afraid of things he doesn't understand.
Simple as that.
23 July at 14:42 · Like · 1
Obsidian Otakunai I'm against the idea. Not the individual like some people are.
23 July at 14:43 · Like
Fred T Wood That's even stupider.
23 July at 14:43 · Like
Obsidian Otakunai Then we're at a stalemate because we don't understand where the other is coming from. Sorry you feel that way.
23 July at 14:44 · Like
Fred T Wood Taking one look at your facebook page, you like Tegan and Sara. Which is a lesbian band. All of their songs are about the relationship between two girls. They're the biggest proprietors of gay marriage I can think of in the musical world.
23 July at 14:48 · Like
Obsidian Otakunai I had the notion they were sisters.
23 July at 14:50 · Like
Brennan Christensen They are sisters. They are also both openly gay.
23 July at 14:52 · Like
Obsidian Otakunai Also I don't listen to them all that much. Never really have.
23 July at 14:52 · Like
Obsidian Otakunai And so. I like couple songs. And so what? Music is music. I listen to more bands besides Tegan & Sara. So try again.
23 July at 14:53 · Like
Brennan Christensen Just took a quick glance at your facebook page. All I have to say is... http://i.imgur.com/LXXm7.jpg
23 July at 15:13 · Like
Obsidian Otakunai What? Nothing wrong with liking movies. just a movie. I like Killer elite, Avengers, Ironman 1 and 2. So I like any type of movie. So try again.
23 July at 15:18 · Like
Erik Kulick You don't have to like sex between people of the same sex to realize that sexual orientation has no effect on the "goodness" or worth of an individual. To react out of disgust when reading a post advocating for equal treatment within an organization that many people respect and value, reflects an opinion that queer folk are inferior or evil.
23 July at 15:54 via Mobile · Unlike · 5
Fred T Wood Also if you hate the idea and not the individual, why the fuck are you against these individuals being in Boy Scouts?
23 July at 16:18 · Like
Obsidian Otakunai Boy Scouts being gay?
23 July at 16:31 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Gay Boy Scouts? WHAT?! Not only will they be helping the old lady cross the street, they would be doing their hair, decorating their houses, and helping them shop for clothes! UN-acceptable!
It's contrary to God's plan!
23 July at 16:58 · Unlike · 3
Obsidian Otakunai does that mean your..
23 July at 17:00 · Like
Brennan Christensen It means he's being sarcastic.
23 July at 17:02 · Like · 2
Rich Guggenheim Plus we all know there has never, in the history of boy scouts, ever been a gay orgie, or doughnut frosting event. EVER. Scouts honor.
23 July at 17:06 · Like
Brennan Christensen If we allow gay boy scouts, what's next? They might allow black and white people to marry, or even give women the right to vote. Where will the madness end?!
23 July at 17:07 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Or worse, black men and white women to get married and vote together! :-O with their pit bull, golden retriever mix.
23 July at 17:08 · Like
Andy Virella When were men really men? I love women does that make wrong? Wow I didnt know God made Adam and Cleave not Adam and Eve.
23 July at 18:38 · Like
Lori Pincock Well, the difference is that the Boys Scouts is a private organization and can make any rules they want. Sorry.
23 July at 18:45 · Like · 4
Andy Virella Here Here!! Keep your noses oout of it!!!
23 July at 18:55 · Like
Micah Clements Nieman As a private organization, the Boy Scouts are free to make whatever rules they want for their organization. Agree or disagree with them, it's their decision to make. I, for one, think it isn't right for us to bully or insult them into making the decision we think is right.
23 July at 19:28 · Like
Andy Virella Who thinks it is right????
23 July at 19:29 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Really, there are so many other options. Options not bought out and paid for by the LDS church.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/255240_10151045818508840_408923815_n.jpghttps://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/255240_10151045818508840_408923815_n.jpg
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
23 July at 19:30 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Andy, your first post really didn't make a whole lot of sense, barring maybe the last part, and that was based off of a text that has some pretty disturbing things being advocated in it, so I'm not sure there is much use appealing to it.
And while I'm fully aware that the Boy scouts (and Chick-fil-A for that matter) are private organizations, but we'd be doing society a disservice if we didn't make the public aware of their hatred and bigotry through social media and voting with our dollars, ballots, feet, and asses.
23 July at 23:33 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Rich Guggenheim Erik, the problem is *MOST* (not all) people with sit here and whine about it on Facebook, then, when it comes time for action, do nothing. It was kind of like Prop 8 in California. There was all this momentum against the LDS church after it was passed....then...just as quickly as it came...it went. T reminds me of the song by Katy Perry. Firework. Glorious and beautiful for a moment. then forgotten. I'd like to see people do more than post and tweet for a few days.
As for their values. They have decided to take a stand, and I commend the groups you mentioned. Chik-Fil-A, and BSA. Although I believe they are wrong, I support their right to make their public stance against equality. However there is an extremely fine line that the GLBT community is walking when they begin to demand that these organizations adopt their ideals. In doing so we become no better than the christian right who impose their values and standards on the rest of society and deny equality to individuals and groups who become disenfranchised in the process. I believe the GLBT people and community to be much better than that.
24 July at 05:58 · Like
Erik Kulick I support their right to be bigots too, but as in any market, information is (at least a modicum of) power, so in addition to doing something in the real world in school and government, I will utilize free social media to help inform people of any excessive hatred, selfishness, or deceit being fed to or poured out upon the populous by the private or public sectors, specific groups, or individuals.
Pointing out ignorance and hatred isn't the same as demanding compliance, so I'm not so sure how fine that line really is regarding the way the LGBT community as a whole has handled the stupidity of the people they protest.
24 July at 11:59 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Andy Virella I have seen a generation go from loving GOD as saviour, to a narsictic self asorbed generation of children, who in their minds eye are smarter than any other generation. GOD's word rings true, for thousands of years it has been the standard. We as a nation were founded on christian beliefs and morals! The problem for most of your generation is that you do not know what to beleve in, so it leaves you with a scewed view of life. Stupid it is such a negitive word.................Facts not attacks!!
24 July at 13:22 · Like · 1
Andy Virella Erik if you feel so moved to spead the word, therefore imposing your thoughts on us of the right wing, are you NO better?? Do you not now become the GLBT peacher? So compelled? Why is it that all have the right to express thier opinions but the right. Hmmmm sound a little hipocritical??
24 July at 13:34 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Andy, true as in which part? Which standard? Please explain.
24 July at 13:36 via Mobile · Like
Andy Virella At the end of the day there is only one truth
24 July at 13:36 · Like
Edward Sokoloff People can live the way they want to. I know many gay people and they are nice people. I don't like gays in the military or gay marriage. I also don't like the idea that they are trying to force their ideas on me and on the public. Especially our kids.
24 July at 13:52 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Andy, I have seen that "truth" changed and manipulated. What was "true" 100 years ago seems to be trivial and irrelevant today. That standard of truth I hold to is the one Jesus himself gave. Love God, Love your neighbor. It's that simple. When I see the hatred for others in this country, that is what I fear will bring about the fall of our nation before gays in the military or wedding chapel.
24 July at 13:58 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Andy, again your logic doesn't hold. Trying to manipulate people into doing what you think is right is different than pointing out perceived flaws in another's ideology; you must have me confused with a mainstream church official.
Whether or not a God exists, doesn't really matter as far as us earthlings are concerned. If we die and there is someone or something somewhere else waiting to interact with us (for better or for worse), then we'll deal with that there. I have no problem with wanting to be the best person you can be, but sitting around worrying about if God exists in the here and now reflects excessive selfishness. Hence the proclivity of most Mormons and Christians to ironically embrace Neo-Con capitalism, and the tendency of the leaders (and many other members) to want to control other people's beliefs and behaviors.
If there is a God, I have a strong feeling that her focus on Love would be so great as to reflect a reality more in line with what Rich just wrote.
Meanwhile in Neo-Con America (since people have repeatedly shown they don't care if their Democratic politicians swing that way too), we are allowing each new administration to dismantle the constitution and the countless wage, labor, trade, and environmental laws that took years to develop. America is selling itself and it's neighbors out for some toys and fast food. Oh, but the gays and godless youth are the ones to blame...
25 July at 12:12 · Edited · Like · 1
Andy Virella Rich my thoughts are that the truth will always be right, we as a people can claim our interput things differently now, but that does not change the truth. As far as hated we are all guilty as charged. With out Jesus in our lives all we can do is hate the things we do not understand. Love comes from GOD it is the force that changes the thoughts of man.
25 July at 13:10 · Like
Andy Virella Erik, See the first problem with this train of thought is that GOD created you whether believe this or not. I challenge you to disprove this fact. You talk about the constitution, yet it godly men who wrote it, founded on GOD, perhaps you should read it. Also what have you done to change our goverenment, or are you just alot of talk. Oh I am not confused about who you are. Your words tell me volumes of the lack of knowledge you have of CHRIST, GOD, and any real relationship with JESUS. I am sorry for for the way things have gotten out of hand with our government, but if you read the word it must get worse before it gets better. the real chouce is yours what are you going to do with your life?
25 July at 13:23 · Like
Erik Kulick So how can truth, aid, or punishment be administered fairly and effectively by deity to man, Andy? I understand people wanting to be a part of something bigger, and for all I know maybe something bigger exists out there, but trusting any man's interpretation of what a god would want out of us is really risky. The problem with the concepts of "revelation", "blessings", and "curses", is that if Deity involves itself in man's life, she will be giving people unfair advantages or hindrances. Loving everyone equally requires giving everyone the same inborn potential and freedom.
Here's some traditional Biblical marriage for you... Is this what God demands of us?
see more Funny GraphsSo, You Believe in Marriage According to the Bible?
graphjam.memebase.comClick for all your memes. (Share this post and spread the meme!)
25 July at 13:23 · Like ·
Andy Virella THe real and only thing you must do is ask GOD for forgiveness Romans 10:9,10 that is it If you love GOD with all your heart, the rest will work it's self out!
25 July at 13:27 · Like
Erik Kulick Andy, I was reading (and understanding) the Bible (and Book of Mormon for that matter) by the time I was 7. I actually love the example and words that people claim Jesus presented. Practical truth will always be useful, but historical not so much. There is one concept found in the Bible and among the various faiths and traditions that really matters: Love all equally. If there is a God out there, such a being would fall within the bounds of "all", so "The First Great Commandment" is subsumed by the second. IF a God exists, it is highly doubtful that she would care about what we believed, let alone some rather arbitrarily selected set of rules (like paying tithing to enter a temple or participate in other rituals, abstaining from specific substances, being married in order to be intimate, etc...).
So I should ask for forgiveness for being an imperfect being? I thought that was a product of my creation...
25 July at 13:34 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Ugh. All this Jesus talk is making me sick. It all is a matter of personal interpretation and belief in something. No evidence supports this stuff, and yet it is referred to as "truth".
The truth is no one knows for sure when it comes to matters of faith and spirituality. It cannot be tested, analyzed and proven, hence it is faith, a belief. Not science. So who is anyone to say what is morally right or wrong based on some text that is thousands of years old, subjected to interpretive flaws, and viewed through the lens of society and it's ideals?
And to say that the bible is God's word is to limit that being to this e words. When in fact, God is omnipotent.
25 July at 13:36 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Virginia Emily Tran I agree with the Boy Scouts ban, only because we are talking about a private club in which children are involved. Children are not adults.
26 July at 13:11 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Children should still be taught the values of acceptance. Children are more likely to be hurt or molested by heterosexuals. So how you can agree beyond recognizing their right as a private organization to make the stance they have is beyond me.
26 July at 13:30 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Andy Virella Never was a Boy Scout were you Rich? Or you Erik?? I did not think so. I was a Scout Master 732....I am proud of the stand they take and willl defend their RIGHT to do so. After all it is about rights after all??? SAD very SAD.
26 July at 19:42 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Actually, I was a scout. So, yeah...um......
and just because it is a right, does not mean it is right.
It used to be a white business owners right to refuse service to a negro. Didn't mean it was right.
Look at it this way. Jesus told Peter to take the gospel to everyone. In Acts, Peter even had a vision, when a blanket full of unclean meats were presented for him to eat, Peter replied that he could not eat, because of the meat being unclean,. The Lord replied to not call the things he has cleaned unclean. The new testament teaching by Jesus are clear. Love, don't discriminate, welcome everyone. Even those you don't agree with, welcome everyone, be hospitable, extend kindness to everyone.
26 July at 20:07 · Edited · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Yeah, ditto on the scout thing; every good Mormon boy is...
26 July at 21:56 · Like
Rich Guggenheim The only thing worse than being a scout is coming back from your mission and getting a calling to work with the Young Men. I am not a fan of high adventure camps, etc.
The callings alone were enough to drive me into inactivity.
WHICH leads me to my next point. I cannot help but feel that because the COJCOLDS is so heavily invested (hell, it practically IS) in the BSA that they are the reason for this policy. I remember the LDS church when I was home from my mission in California, and this big thing abut gay scouts then came up and the LDS church said if the policy did not pas the LDS church was pulling out.
My philosophy on that would best be summed up by the phrase "when in doubt, pull out."
27 July at 05:55 · Unlike · 1
Andy Virella You can not take a one verse of the bible with out taking all of it. What about Romans 1:17-32. Read it! you and Rich.
27 July at 13:24 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Andy, that is exactly what you are doing! There are 8 verses in the entire bible which are purported to condem homosexuality.
Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.
This raises the question: Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? The book of Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.
The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.
What is "Natural”?
Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.
Reference to Lesbianism?
Romans 1:26 is the only statement in the Bible with a possible reference to lesbian behavior, although the specific intent of this verse is unclear. Some authors have seen in this passage a reference to women adopting a dominant role in heterosexual relationships. Given the repressive cultural expectations placed on women in Paul's time, such a meaning may be possible.
So. I read it, explained it. Now what?
27 July at 19:15 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Why do I need to believe the words of a man who never knew Christ over the purported words of The Dude? Loving all equally requires us to treat others as we would be treated; banning someone from an organization, because of their inborn sexual orientation, conflicts with this simple message. So does excluding ppl from "holy places" who don't comply or agree with certain "commandments", and telling someone they're going to Hell for not believing in deity.
27 July at 20:19 via Mobile · Like
Andy Virella Hey let us talk about nature Rich, hmmm do animals of the same gender try to mate? Survial the fitest. The species would die out, why you ask? Two males can not create, nor can two females. God created us like we are, not as we would like to be. Hey Erik read John 3:16 and then 3:17,18 then tell me about not believing in THE only one deity.....................
28 July at 05:24 · Like
Rich Guggenheim Andy, homosexuality is recorded in animals. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. Roy and Silo, penguins from the New York Central Park Zoo is a perfectly good example of that.
And, much tho the chagrin of you closed minded conservatives who think homosexuality is still, after all this biblical and scientific enlightenment, against nature.
In April 2008, Prof Karim Nayernia, Professor of Stem Cell Biology at Newcastle University, made headlines by taking stem cells from adult men and making them develop into primitive sperm.
This has opened the door for two men to create offspring using their own DNA. Additionally, just this year British scientists who had already coaxed male bone marrow cells to develop into primitive sperm cells have now repeated the feat with female embryonic stem cells.
so soon, I am sure, lesbian women and gay men will be ha ving natural, biological offspring of their own, using their own DNA.
As far as survival of the fittest. That is a Darwinian theory that has been proven invalid. Look at the human race. I for one will go on the record for stating that I believe an intelligence test should be mandated before we allow our species to breed. Only the fittest, most intelligent would be allowed to pass their genetic material on to another generation.
28 July at 07:48 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick I'd agree with that last statement if I didn't personally know the value of having the opportunity to raise a child and feel that everyone deserves that opportunity if they desire it.
28 July at 15:37 via Mobile · Like
Rich Guggenheim Intelligence, sadly, is not genetic though. What I was really saying is that it is truly a sad statement that some parents are...well...for lack of better word.... intellectually challenged. That is why we see children who are left in hot cars, among other things. Parents need to be responsible.
28 July at 15:52 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick Yeah, I've read those passages countless times, Andy. Just because someone wrote it down, doesn't make it true. In verse 18's case, this ever more apparent, as a deity who condemns a "non-believer" doesn't practice equal love and as a result doesn't have the right to claim perfection, nor should they be in the business of "saving" people.
30 July at 03:02 · Unlike · 1
Write a comment...
12 hours ago near Salem ·
Hey Rex, would you accept the sacrifice of an imperfect "Messiah"?
Like · · Unfollow post
Rex White Jr No, it had to be a sacrifice without blemish in order for the atonement to be infinite. Great book to read on this topic is "Infinite Atonement" by Tad Callister. I have it if you want to borrow it, or even Jesus the Christ would be a great book to read.7 hours ago via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I didn't ask what "it had to be", I asked if you'd accept the sacrifice of an imperfect "Messiah." 6 hours ago via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr I already answered that question.5 hours ago via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr Stop with the apostacy.5 hours ago via Mobile · Like · 1
Erik Kulick That's not an answer. 3 hours ago via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick And what does an honest question about the standards you maintain for "saviors" have to do with apostasy?3 hours ago via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Why do you think the Jews Crucified Jesus?2 hours ago · Like
Rex White Jr 1) the Jews didn't crucify Jesus, the Roman soldiers did. 2) He was accused of blaspheme by the pharisees for His claims of being the Son of God. 3) He was crucified by the Romans because He claimed to be the "King of the Jews." Pilot foun...See more
about an hour ago via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick If the Jews had the choice to set him free, and chose not to, I don't see a difference. There is still something a little fishy about this story we've been told though. If Jesus was perfect, you'd think it would be blatantly obvious and cause the Romans and Jews to reconsider such a crazy plot. I find it more likely that he was imperfect, and this was what bothered them (how dare some one claim to be the Son of God, lest he be perfect? What blasphemy!). I think that Christ's followers were so enamored with what he did and stood for, that they began to hero-worship, and the blemishes gradually vanished over time through filtering story after filtering story. It's kind of like what happened with JS. He married Mia Maids and married women, and ordered the destruction of a printing press, yet there are Mormons who think that the worst he ever could have done was think a semi-unholy thought about someone else.
Are you afraid to answer my question?
about an hour ago · Like
Rex White Jr Erik 1) lay off the weed, 2) the pharisees were not happy that He could perceive their thoughts and they thought Him imperfect because he trangressed some of their temporal (looking beyond the mark) laws. 3) you have never heard or read me saying Joseph Smith was anywhere near perferct nor did Joseph himself claim to be perfect. 4) the Savior allowed to Himself to be crucified, he could have at any point stopped the Romans from carrying out that act. There was nothing they could have done to kill him (being the only begotten) he had to give His life, it could not be taken. 5) I didn't know that you were the expert on what most members of the church believe. Speaking in generalities only exposes your bitterness and further apostacy. 6) my comments to you are as the scriptures describe "casting pearls before swine. " 7) I am done entertaining your apostacy, take it up with your Bishop. 8) I've extented the olive branch as far as it will reach. I wish the best for you and as you already know you will reap what you sow. My energy is best used else where. 9) All further comments by you will be deleted including posts that attack my religion. I take the scriptures seriously and they warn not to cast pearls before swine.
41 minutes ago via Mobile · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Rex, 1) It's lovely how you look for some perceived flaw to start out your response, just so you can pretend to be arguing from the moral high ground. 2) If there were laws that were being broken by Christ, then it is proof that he wasn't perfect. Why else would they have scrutinized him so? It's too bad you won't admit to yourself that you wouldn't accept a sacrifice from a less-than-perfect "savior." Jesus Christ drank alcohol, yet the Saints of the Latter Day wouldn't even let the poor guy do proxy baptisms for his 1st century pals if he wanted to. I suggest you really go back to your scriptures and examine the interactions between Christ and the Pharisees. There are some enlightening situations which have great practical truth. 3) I never said that you claimed he was near perfect, only that there are some who I've personally met. 4) Just because a man is willing to serve to the extent of losing his life, doesn't excuse the self-righteous behavior that precipitated his death. Your responses to me show that (along with many other LDS and Christians) you'd be just as quick to write of the "Savior" if he were in our midst. 5) I never even implied a majority of members who believe that way, only that there are some who do, and that is scary. The fact that you read bitterness and maliciousness into my comments only shows your own personal judgement and resentment of me. 6) Also a rather crude and cliche judgement. 7) you are only entertaining your own intolerance for me and other people you don't understand. 8) If I saw an olive branch, I would have grabbed it. Your energy would be better spent giving thoughtful consideration to the points I've made about the Church and Mr. Christ. 9) I take the scriptures seriously as well. The fact that you would defend an institution who's doctrine blatantly contradicts the supposed teachings of Christ shows that you care to much about pearls and not enough about swine. It really is a shame that you still refuse to answer my question. For your sake I hope that imperfect Jesus guy will forgive you for not being willing to accept an imperfect sacrifice. I hope you don't stop telling me what to do on Facebook. It's sad that you will delete all these wonderful threads and censor my message. It's too bad I've already made docs of them =)2 seconds ago · Like
Aleece Sobrio White · 4 mutual friends
Erik, this is Rex's wife. I am growing tired of your constant posts, ATTACKING my religion. Grow up... get a real hobbie, and maybe spend some of that time focusing on your own hypocrisy! Your "opinion" has stemmed from bitterness towards the church, for what ever reason. Likely having something to do with your alchohol and drug problem. Or maybe the fact that you are emotionally abusive to your wife. I am an abused women's advocate, have been for the last 10 years. Your wife has confided in Rex and I the things that you have only "supposidly done", and that is the only reason that Rex has felt a need to continue any discussion with you about the church... for the sake of your family, in hopes that he might have something to share with you that would turn your heart back to the truth. All I can say is Wow, to your stubborness and arrogance~!! You have really allowed the adversary to work with your mind, and it is sad that you are dragging your family down with you. Just so you know (from pervious posts you have commented) Rex and I have never given Deanna advise to "leave" you. Simply we told her we thought she was doing the right thing by praying about it in the temple, and that we both believed that she would recieve her own answer on what is best for her family. That if there was any hope of you getting your life in order, that Heavenly Father would be the only being in heaven or on earth that could help her make the choice she is facing. This is a choice, by the way, that YOU have forced upon her. Take ownership for your actions... stop harping on this commandment of "love your neighbor as your self". God did command us to love one another, no matter what... but he never said love the sin! You, in several posts have tried saying that the church is wrong because we don't condone Homosexuality, or abusing our bodies by breaking the word of wisdom, etc etc... and all because we need to love the sinner. LOL did you miss the part about not loving the sin... repulse the sin. You are saying that there should be NO RULES, that everyone should be able to do what ever they deem "okay" and never be "judged" for it. Well, hate to break it to you, but judgement is part of everyday life and you, as a hypicrite, judge people all the time (evident in all of your posts) whether you will admit the truth of it or not.
The seriousness of the things that you say and do are tormenting your wife... stop being selfish. Be a righteous head of your home... give your wife the oportunity to spend all of her happy days with you. Don't continue to push her away, just to make a point to defend your moral choices. Stop posting on my husbands wall, and try to find something better to do with your fb time then harrass and verbally abuse other members of the church. You are not only dragging your self down, but you are taking your wife and kids with you, along with the random people who read your posts and don't know anything of the church but what garbage you fill their minds with. You don't want to have that on your conscience. Alma the Younger did a lot of things that he had to live with... That even after he got his "act" together he still had all the memories of the things he had said and done and they haunted him throughout the rest of his life. It is my prayer that you are able to be as strong as Alma the Younger. Please consider the eternal weight that the choices you make today will have for you, your wife and kids.
6 hours ago · Like · 1
Aleece Sobrio White · 4 mutual friends
p.s. as you can see your posts will not be tolerated any longer... they will continue to be deleted to the point of blocking you if necessary. Your opinion is not wanted. Please "walk the other way" and bother us no more.
4 hours ago · Like
Deanna Mayne http://youtu.be/647hE6n4Wzg
Annie Lennox & Al Green - Put A Little Love In Your Heart (HQ)
www.youtube.com
1988 release from the "Scrooged" Original Motion Picture Soundtrack Courtesy of A&M Records, Inc./ Paramount Pictures
3 hours ago · Like
Erik Kulick Hello Aleece, its so nice to meet the other half of the pact that would insist on revocable parent rights than differing beliefs in the home. I am not attacking your religion, I am just trying to help stalwart members like your righteous husband understand the harms that come from some of it's doctrines and practices. I happen to think the Mormon church has quite a few good things to offer, and I appreciate the wisdom that is found in many of its texts and teachings. The fact that Rex refuses to even open his eyes to the few harmful things I pointed out shows he cares more about the people HE thinks are righteous enough, than he does the people who don't quite fit the mold. This shows that he has absolutely no clue what Christ, that wonderful human being, was really trying to teach. He can pretend its a differentiation between hating the "sin" and loving the "sinner", but callously laughing and mocking me when I told him about the harms that I've witnessed, shows he doesn't really see a difference between the "sin" and "sinner."
Your insistence on assuming where my disaffection originated shows, like Rex and your sacrosanct leadership, that you are unwilling to see the flaws in your own belief system and the harms inflicted, and care much more about religion than family. I am not judging you for this, but merely observing a tragedy. I really hope for your kids sake that they are good at pretending to toe the party line if they disaffect or turn out to be homosexual. I'd hate to find out you and/or Rex abandoned them for "apostasy" or "real sin."
I know that Deanna is unfamiliar with things that fall outside of "acceptable Mormon behavior", so I can understand why she might have some concerns, but for you and Rex to think you know for a *fact* that I am emotionally abusive towards Deanna, that I have a "problem" with anything, or that I am "dragging" my family toward some terrible place, with out even trying to get both sides of the story, shows that you are both are ill equipped to offer any advise or judgement. It's a good thing you weren't foolish or arrogant enough to advise Deanna to take the kids back to UT like her righteous Bishop, church appointed counselor, and all the other "Saints" who *know* what's best for families. That still doesn't mean that your pretentious displays of righteousness and judgement are harmless. I really hope that the church leadership wisely refrains from ever bestowing leadership positions upon you or your husband once they read all the FB conversations that we've had; I plan on dropping them off at that Church Regional HQ building on Commercial. The sad thing is, such an insensitive way of handling things will only be welcomed. Rex will likely be a shoe-in for a GA position, and will get those coveted property rights in an extra cosy mansion in the Celestial kingdom, so that you and all his plural eternal wives and posterity (who don't fall of that believing, heterosexual track) can enjoy the eternities in comfort.
I am taking ownership for my actions. That is why I am not banking on the morbid sacrifice of some poor man that had better have been perfect for it to have worked (who the hell would accept an imperfect sacrifice!?! Yuck!).
Harping on the most important thing Christ ever taught... Yeah, why focus on the teaching that we all need the most work in?
The church has been proven wrong about homosexuality by science. IF you really are so grossed out by it, take it up with God. IF She really had a hand in our creation like you guys believe, then she is the one who made people who are attracted to members of the same sex, not "sinners" like me. I NEVER said that the church was wrong for advising people to be careful what they consume. I think this greeting that JS wrote has a lot of wisdom. I just find it odd that something that was originally intended as a *word of advice*, indicating wine and liquor are things we should be extra careful for, but beverages made with grain (beer) are OK, has been turned into one of the most important determinants for worthiness, especially since JS and BY were notorious for consuming the substances that would bar them from those "holy" buildings today. This ironic result of obsessing over pet "sins" shows the real hypocrisy that comes from placing one's own since higher on the "worthiness" ladder than the kinds of "sins" one despises. Maybe instead the church should *really* strive to guilt its members into obedience, and enforce the spirit of the second half of the WoW. This would result in a ban of any meat eating, as modern refrigeration and produce transportation has made it unnecessary to allow for such evil behavior. Maybe the church should refuse to permit members who exceed an unhealthy BMI to enter those "holy" places, and even encourage healthy spouses to leave their "fatties." After all, we wouldn't want fat parents to teach their children to defile their bodily temples. I think this last point should really be prayed about; it would do wonders for the shedding of tons of evil dead weight from the body of Christ.
Not ONCE did I say that I am against rules. I think rules are great. I just think we owe it to ourselves and the people we claim to care about, to constantly reassess what the rules are and why. I never said there weren't potential consequences for excessive behaviors, or even that there isn't "God" awaiting to throw the book at people who didn't make the cut. I honestly don't know, and don't care. Regardless, the fact that there are temporal consequences for certain behaviors, and even a potential for eternal ones, doesn't get you around the reason why you were advised by your "Messiah" not to judge. I really think the church needs to go back and clarify to its membership what constitutes a judgement. Here's a hint: Pointing out harms that one has personally observed is not, but telling someone what fate awaits them after this life does. You are more than welcome to go back through everyone of the "conversations" your husband has had "with" me, but you will not find an instance where I judged him or anyone else.
Whether you or Rex believe me or not, I *am* striving to do what *I* think is right. Deanna was the one who wanted the romantic aspect of the relationship to end and made efforts to enter into new relationships, not me. While there is always stuff we can ( and will) do to make what remains of our relationship better, and stuff we can do to better care for our children, that doesn't mean that I am the sole (or even main) person to blame in the failures that have occurred in our relationship, nor does it mean I'm too "unworthy" to work out a way to remain in my kids' lives.
IF your husband can't handle the fact that there are some serious problems with the way his favorite corporation operates, it's not my fault. If he doesn't want me to keep posting, then maybe he should just stop posting on my wall and replying to my comments. Maybe he should just "unfriend" me if he can't resist that evil temptation. Either way, I will always stand on that Zarahemlan wall and announce the severity of the LDS injustices; I owe it to the people who's minds have not yet calcified.
IF you really feel the need to report this comment to FB like you did the last, instead of dealing with it like responsible adults, I'll just return the favor like I did by reporting that video he posted on my wall of an arrogant talk by HW Hunter.
A few seconds ago · Like
Erik Kulick shared Being Liberal's photo.
28 May
The Republicrats care about mothers.
(M) This is really sad.
1Unlike · · Share
You, Mark Wade, Emily Jane Price and 7 others like this.
Erik Kulick Everyone of these politicians' mothers who are still living should smack the hell out of their kids for this sad reality alone, let alone all the other terrible things they do while representing "the people."29 May at 12:45 · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
This is misleading and wrong. If a person has any vacation or sick time built up they are paid while using the FMLA. The FMLA is for 12 weeks and can be extended through short term disability depending on the state they live in. If they have used all of their vacation and sick time then it is unpaid but the job is still protected. Knowing the facts prior to passing on graphics is highly encouraged.29 May at 13:35 · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, that's not the same as having mandatory paid leave. Yeah, maybe some folks luck out and get jobs that have their own paid maternity leave policies, but a law that simply prevents those on leave from being fired, without making sure that individual gets paid, is a joke.29 May at 14:03 · Like
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
Main point is this graphic is an over generalization and as a law student I am surprised that you are peddling such.29 May at 14:09 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick It's not an over generalization; we don't have mandatory paid maternity leave, and that's all this graphic says.29 May at 14:13 · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
If you can't see that it is an over generalization good luck on the issue spotting exams in the future.29 May at 14:15 · Like
Erik Kulick This graphic has NOTHING to do with companies who provide maternity leave, so illustrating the fact that our nation provides for zero mandatory paid weeks, while even the least generous of the other industrialized nations provides 12, is not an over generalization. It's a simple, accurate fact that should disturb American voters and help inspire them to stop supporting the greedy bastards running our country.29 May at 14:20 · Unlike · 5
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
So you are advocating for non-working women to be paid to have children by the government? Nice!!29 May at 14:53 · Like
Marty Forsling @ Erik; Greedy Bastards is correct! Couldn't have said it better myself! We need a 3rd party!!!29 May at 15:46 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick If a skilled woman has a job, and happens to become pregnant, it does our economy and society good to encourage responsible procreation. 29 May at 16:06 via Mobile · Unlike · 4
Erik Kulick And allow her to keep that employment while she still has money to provide the constant care babies need. 29 May at 16:07 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Erik Kulick Keep drinking that paradoxical Christian Capitalist Ayn Rand doctrine, Rex. 29 May at 16:12 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
If a skilled woman has a job she is most likely covered under FMLA or OFLA (in Oregon) and has vacation time that she would have been building up ever since she became aware of the pregnancy. Nice attempt at twisting the argument though. Unskilled workers is where you should have taken the argument. I am glad you are voting 3rd party because it is one less vote for Obama with your socialist views. By the way, Christ was never about forcing anyone to do anything. Forcing people to pay for others through taxes is the farthest thing from the teaching of Jesus. Capitalism allows people to make money and then CHOSE to help others. Agency was Christ's message.29 May at 17:01 · Like
Martin Klein A skilled woman. Bahahahahahahahahahahaha29 May at 17:04 · Like · 1
Jason Deffenbaugh At best Rex's argument is that the graphic should include US state law. And Rex's view of society, where we allow people to choose to provide for the common wealth ware, is not the picture of a just society. 29 May at 19:50 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Jason Deffenbaugh @Marty: A third party is no savior. Open government and accountability are where the battle exist. Billionaires extract money from the government by buying influence and controlling the boundaries of public discourse.29 May at 20:15 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Erik Kulick Rex, not every pregnant woman is fortunate enough to live in a state as moderate as Oregon, nor are they all fortunate enough to be "skilled" enough to work for a company prestigious enough to offer paid maternity leave. That doesn't make them worthless, nor does it make them any less important in the economic big picture. That is the problem with the Ayn Rand religious philosophy: too short sited and selfish, and the precise reason it is in complete conflict with the doctrines of the men you worship. Christ never said anything about Capitalism or Socialism (things not on his 30 some odd B.C. radar), but he supposedly said something about giving unto Caesar what is his, and far more often then not encouraged people to give up all they had and help others, regardless of the quality of person you're dealing with and hung out with prostitutes and the "dregs" of society while imbibing. I don't know about you, but that sounds like the most perfect imperfect gods I ever heard of. I love his example and you should too. Forcing others to repay the debts they don't think they owe for their own reaping of socialist benefits (the existence of corporations endows them with), is a crude but necessary way of dealing with the imbalance that comes from the first form of socialism. Can I get a Libertarian amen?30 May at 01:19 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
Although this isn't completely spot on it sums up my argument quite well http://www.boortz.com/news/news/local-education/commencement-speech/nCG7H/The Commencement Speech
www.boortz.comI am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's abou...See more
30 May at 07:28 · Like · 1 ·
Jason Deffenbaugh Well your argument is all rhetoric and no reality. There is nothing of substance. Try again! :)30 May at 14:08 · Like · 1
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
There is a lot of truth to what Mr. Boortz wrote and said. That was my educational experience at a state school and so far at law school. We are being crammed into a mold and I refuse to buy into the "rich need to be forced to give up their wealth because they are obligated to do so" argument.30 May at 14:12 · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, for a pretty moderate alternative outlook on the issues covered by that arrogant article you posted, you should check out the article, "Beyond Corporate Capitalism" which I recently posted to my wall, and my post rebutting his "success = hard work" equation. The big factor that guy doesn't get, is that the existence of corporations is a result of socialism, and therefore anyone succeeding while being incorporated is not just benefiting off of their own hard work, but also from the insurance provided by the government through tax funds taken from other citizens. I know the Constitution doesn't say anything about a living wage, but it also doesn't say anything about the right to earn unlimited wealth without being responsible to the people and environment that allow a person to have a place and protected way to be so successful. I prefer not having to arbitrarily take things from people, so I tend to be more for better regulations, public take overs of industries that can't get their shit together, and fiduciary duties placed upon the beneficiaries of corporate socialism.Taxing and spending is necessary to make up for areas where private parties fail to sufficiently invest, so while it shouldn't be indiscriminate taking, there needs to be a balance which properly reflects what the wealthy owe to society; just because they work hard, doesn't mean their value is hundreds or thousands of times greater than the less "skilled."
How you can even pretend to understand what Christ taught and still listen to the greedy drivel of that author, is beyond me. People certainly should take responsibility for themselves, but Jesus never said that the rights of the individual trump the rights of the group. If anything, his focus on caring for each other shows he would have preferred to have seen a responsible level of socialism, rather than winner take all, survival of the fittest, pure capitalism. When Jesus spoke of agency, I highly doubt it was for the wealthy to earn unlimited amounts of money; call it a "through the eye of the needle" hunch.30 May at 17:19 · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
Two thought. First, have you noticed that anytime you disagree with the author of a text you inevitably call that person arrogant? Second, I encorage you to go back and truly study the new testament. Never did Jesus advocate forcing anyone to give to the poor at most he told a person to sell all he hath and give to the poor and come follow him. It was still a choice. Socialism is the forced redistribution of wealth. Pretty sad that you can't see that distinction but frankly I'm not surprised.30 May at 17:51 via Mobile · Like
Jason Deffenbaugh You must mean the redistribution of wealth towards the top 1%. I agree with you that that sucks.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729
Voluntary taxes? Good luck with that society. The big winners in the marketplace should be required to pay at least as much as everyone else and more for the very very top. Their investment in roads, education, marketplace regulation (read law), public safety, public health, etc, help ensure their own status as well as a chance for others to be successful and a consumer base to buy their goods. What is a bigger economic driver? One crazy rich guy who buys 300 cars or 3,000 middle class people who each buy 1 car. Not to mention if you provide a shelter for a homeless person, you not only put a roof over their head, you get them the fuck out of my way when I'm trying to walk around the street; I don't want the hassle of having to turn down beggars. Everyone wins. Seriously, this is 101. Conservative friends, don't be too slow to realize your party is being taken over by the crazy billionaire club.
And I'm not sure why either of you is talking about Jesus in a discussion about secular government. Come on kids... figure it out! Ok, I'm checking out of this post. Rex you make me sad.30 May at 18:42 · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
It is an honor to know that I have an effect on your emotions. Keep on preaching that robinhood fairy tell of stealing from the rich to feed the poor so you can feel better. How about you sell all your possessions and feed the poor yourself instead of hiding behind liberal entitlement programs.30 May at 18:47 via Mobile · Like · 1
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
Typical liberal resulting to name calling. You know you have outwitted a progressive when they start calliing names. Thank you for not braking the mold.30 May at 18:58 via Mobile · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Rex, if by every time, you mean this time, then yes. I referred to him as arrogant, because he sold himself that way on purpose; hence his commentary about how much everyone in academia hates the conservative truths he's enlightening everyone with, and how all the professors in the room look like they practically want to lynch him. That is blatant, intentional arrogance. Like I said, he does make a good point about choices, and he also makes a good point about the potential for harm that the govt is capable of, but the actual harms regarding the economic sector have had more to do with the dismantling of the regulation system (by both parties since the dreadful Reagan era), and less to do with taxes (which are lower for the "job creating" wealthy than they've been in a long time).
The biggest harms our govt is involved with have more to do with the expansion of the Executive power and the restriction of the constitutional rights of the average citizen.
You can keep whining about the sanctity of earning ridiculous sums of money, and you can insist that Christianity is compatible with pure Capitalism, and try to use the fact the Jesus was silent on social programs as proof that he would rather have pure Capitalism, but that doesn't change the fact that everything he was purported to have taught was much more in line with the idea of having a responsible govt that tries not to take to much from those who work hard, but also tries to make sure it is trying to keep effective regulations in place and enough of a safety net to help people effectively get on their feet. This is obviously a difficult task, but one that seeks to maintain a productive, healthy, educated society. You can try to generalize and demonize, but the fact remains that both your religious and political philosophies are in conflict.
If you don't acknowledge and properly deal with all the variables in a society, they will cost more in the long run, and we will have done practically nothing regarding the issues that Jesus was encouraging us to solve. You can label imperfect tools that are designed to keep economic activity and opportunity flowing as "freedom destroying", but until you realize the simple fact that "job creators" rarely if ever get to where they are on their own, you'll never see the necessity of properly maintained social programs.
30 May at 20:29 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · Friends with Deanna Person and 3 others
You missed the boat again but I have come to expect that. Labeling of arrogant has been placed on this author, Howard W. Hunter, Thomas S. Monson, Brigham Young in fact I'm not if there is a latter day prophet you haven't labeled as arrogant yet thoughout our conversation all stemming from things you disagree about. Just wanted to give you a heads up that you use tha title rather loosely.
I completely agree with your second paragraph but the rest of you argument is a straw-man logical falicy. The only argument that I have made remotely close to Jesus supporting capitalism, which I don't think he supports any form of govenment, is when I said capitalsm allows people to chose to help the needy rather than have it forced upon them through a socialist form of govenment or policies.
Remember it wasn't Christ's plan to force anyone to do anything. Socialism is forcing people to do something that although may have benefits to society is still removing the agency of the members of that society. Christ's plan was absolute agency with 100% accountability. You are advocating taking away people's agency.30 May at 20:49 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Sorry to break it to ya, Rex, but I went back and checked those posts of those inspired men you left on my wall, and not even the BKP one had me labeling anyone arrogant. That must have been the insult filter that dedicated Mormons are endowed with, to help them see through what doubters and critics say about the "prophets." Or was that just the result of listening to "wise" men demand that the everything the church teaches is true and authorized, or else it would be the greatest fraud ever. Gotta love those false dichotomies and how well they encourage compliance through fear. additionally, I originally called the article arrogant, not the author. The difference is that I wasn't speaking anything to the character of the author beyond the article he wrote.
Just because you didn't explicitly say Jesus would prefer capitalism over socialism, doesn't mean you weren't implying it, so I don't see that of being much of a straw man. I was merely reacting to an argument many conservative Christians make regarding Jesus and how he'd likely come down on economics.
Not only were his teachings more in line with a more responsible society, the argument that socialism infringes on "God-given" agency is hollow, because the concept of agency, as contemplated by Christianity, is intended to keep God from infringing on man, not man from enacting laws. Your logic would mean that any law restricting a persons freedom, whether to murder, rape, or steal, conflicts with "God-given" agency. 30 May at 21:20 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
You are mistaken about that logic. The law doesn't force people to not kill people, it simply provides a repercussion if that choice is exercised. Socialism forces people to surrender earnings to redistribute wealth.30 May at 21:27 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Also, go back and check the posts not necessarily on the GA talks that I have left for you to listen and ponder but the other discussion where you have called all sorts of church leaders arrogant. You may even want to check Brian's wall and there are probably some on the posts that I deleted where you crossed the line.30 May at 21:29 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Bottom line this graphic is an over generalization and socialism propaganda and you peddling it is further prove that you are in love with Marxist ideology. Deport yourself.30 May at 21:31 · Like
Erik Kulick Again Rex, you are assuming that the person who "earned" what they have, did so in a vacuum. We must never forget the socialism that gave so many wealthy people the opportunity to invest in riskier ways than they would have otherwise, through incorporation.
The logic holds, Rex, because it is a system that restricts ones freedoms as a result of (usually) abhorrent behavior.
I really don't feel like having to dredge those threads just to prove to you again that you took something out of context.
Bottom line is this graphic represents one of the many terrible things we allow our government to do and not do, and a vote for a Republicrat is just ensuring things will only get worse. It's only exacerbated when people are so stubborn and judgmental that they over simplify and demonize things that, coupled with their own potentially good ideas, could make difference in this world.
Thank you, Rex, for sticking up for the poor needy, sick and afflicted. 2 June at 11:06 via Mobile · Like
Martin Klein Why do women need time off when giving birth? Since when is childbirth disabling?2 June at 12:06 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
That logic does not hold. I am starting to wonder if I will see you at the graduation ceremony in '14.2 June at 12:13 · Like
Erik Kulick So says the all-knowing Rex.
Telling the judge that your opponent's logic doesn't hold without showing him how won't get you far while you're arguing for righteous clients in divorce court. 2 June at 13:08 via Mobile · Like
Micah Smith I love people who use God as their argument for everything. I view them similarly to the way I view a small child, in the sense that you might as well be arguing with a brick wall.2 June at 13:22 · Unlike · 4
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
I already pointed out the flaw in your murder logic. Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.2 June at 15:14 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, I understand the difference between prevention and punishment; I'm speaking of free agency and freedom. *IF* a god is some kind of granter of agency that wouldn't otherwise be present on an earth like ours, the point of the agency that being is granting is to allow you the individual to make up your own decisions independent of the deity. By allowing us all such freedom, it is inevitable that some people will decide to restrict the freedom of others for either their benefit or detriment; economically, physically, psychologically, etc... This is not necessarily the same as removing their agency. If you physically confine them, then they have no choice (i.e. agency), if you take their stuff, they still have the ability to chose what they want to do, they just might have to do illegal or otherwise desperate things to get to where they want to be. You're the one linking together the week argument and refusing to acknowledge the fact that I wasn't talking about the differences between prevention and punishment. For you're information, I will still be attending Willamette Law next year, and all though my application was a little last minute for the MBA program, I am hoping to get into that this year, and if not, next. See you in the fall, buddy.2 June at 17:08 · Unlike · 1
Whitney Rose Petrey Voting third party isn't going to fix this, lol. This is a wider cultural problem.2 June at 17:27 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick I'm not saying third party voting alone will fix things, just that it is a step that should be taken by everyone, because it has great potential to shift the political environment sufficiently enough the get the reforms we need.2 June at 17:29 · Like
Martin Klein I still don't understand why women need time off at all. They didn't get any for thousands of years and the species survived. Should I get days off after prostate or rectal exams?2 June at 18:42 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
I hope you do get into the MBA program, it will be very interesting seeing you flail around trying to rationalize socialism in classes designed to help people maximize capitalism. Talk about irony.2 June at 19:41 · Like
Whitney Rose Petrey Martin-maternal mortality was as high as 1 in 8 in the 17th and 18th centuries. Having had a post-partum infection myself, I think you are being extremely myopic in addition to historically inaccurate.2 June at 20:21 · Unlike · 3
Martin Klein Whitney, how is making the statement that "our species survived" "historically inaccurate"? Maternal mortality had to do with lack of prenatal care and lack of proper care during delivery.2 June at 20:29 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, do you have anything better to do then to post shitty arguments on my wall (even after your wife had to step in for you and censor me on your own wall) and insult me? I'm willing to have dialog with you, I just tire from having to deal with your illogical argument-fueled temper-tantrums. 2 June at 21:00 via Mobile · Unlike · 3
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....hahahahahahahaha2 June at 21:04 · Like
Erik Kulick I'm surprised she lets you keep playing with the fire of Satan, Rex, or was that a condition of the covenant you made with her to rid the world of evil?2 June at 21:07 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
“Profanity is the weapon of the witless” - Mark Twain. “When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both” “Profanity is the attempt of a lazy and feeble mind to express itself forcefully” and last but not least “Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple.”2 June at 21:08 · Like
Erik Kulick Where have I used profanity to *support* an argument?2 June at 21:27 via Mobile · Like · 2
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
In your ad hominem attack 3 posts back.2 June at 21:29 · Like
Whitney Rose Petrey Your assumption that women do not need time off is historically inaccurate. Many women did rest while sick, but unfortunately, it usually ended in death. You also need to research the leading cause of maternal mortality historically and today. Bleeding out and post partum infections are at the top of both lists.2 June at 22:17 · Unlike · 1
Whitney Rose Petrey And for what it's worth, the profanity wasn't used in relation to the topic at hand, but was used as a description of Rex's ongoing behavior, which considering that follow up responses from Rex, seems accurate. And expressing frustration with someone's behavior, is not an ad hominem attack, lol. "Shitty arguments" is not "to the man", it is to the argument.2 June at 22:35 · Unlike · 2
Micah Smith Saying shitty arguments are shitty doesn't make them any less shitty. True story.2 June at 22:56 · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Calling someone's argument that because you don't agree with it is the poor man's way of skirting the issue. You support strong arming people out of money that isn't yours so that you can feel better about yourself. Here's an idea why don't you volunteer more of your time feeding the poor, or better yet why don't you just move under the bridge with them so you can get a "true sense of their suffering". I'm sure your wife would actually enjoy not having to deal with you on a daily basis. Maybe if you would have served a mission you would have seen the flaws of the socialist tendency of certain areas of our government and you would understand that it produces more failure than success. I still find it hilarious that you want to pursue an MBA in capitalism when you hate it so much. Hopefully they catch that in the face to face interview.2 June at 23:47 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick "Rex, do you have anything better to do then to post shitty arguments on my wall (even after your wife had to step in for you and censor me on your own wall) and insult me? I'm willing to have dialog with you, I just tire from having to deal with your illogical argument-fueled temper-tantrums."
True story.David Bazan-Wolves at The Door
www.youtube.comDavid Bazan Wolves at The Door
3 June at 01:10 · Unlike · 1 ·
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Calling someone's argument that because you don't agree with it is the poor man's way of skirting the issue. You support strong arming people out of money that isn't yours so that you can feel better about yourself. Here's an idea why don't you volunteer more of your time feeding the poor, or better yet why don't you just move under the bridge with them so you can get a "true sense of their suffering". I'm sure your wife would actually enjoy not having to deal with you on a daily basis. Maybe if you would have served a mission you would have seen the flaws of the socialist tendency of certain areas of our government and you would understand that it produces more failure than success. I still find it hilarious that you want to pursue an MBA in capitalism when you hate it so much. Hopefully they catch that in the face to face interview. http://peaceamidchaos.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-socialism-will-never-work-in.htmlPeace amid Chaos: Why Socialism Will Never Work (in a nutshell)
peaceamidchaos.blogspot.comUtopia, the perfect society, or according to one well known Senator, the perfect...See more
3 June at 08:53 · Like ·
Erik Kulick Hey Rex, I'm not arguing for one system or another. This is the difference between you and I. I see that the best solutions are hybrids of sometimes significantly differing ideologies. You apparently think everything is just black and white; one or the other. Unfortunately a lot of voters have trouble seeing the world differently than you, so they tend to support the same lousy types of candidates that you do. 3 June at 11:48 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
I am all for taking care of the poor, but give it back to the church to oversee it. They can run it far more efficient than a bloated government.3 June at 19:10 · Like
Micah Smith And plus they can use that money to molest lots of children3 June at 19:25 · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, the church won't even disclose their finances; your a fool to give them another cent. Hey, at least your tithing money went to that mega mall and condo complex in SLC, so at least they'll get a return on your tithing to build more fancy Masonic lodges. 3 June at 22:44 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
The fast offering money is what is spent on the welfare program. Churches aree not required to disclose their finances nor should they because its none of your business. I never said the government should give churches money. I am saying lstop taxing people for welfare programs and allow them to choose to donate to churches so they can care for the poor. Keep harping on the building project, it only exposes your bitterness that you are CHOOSING to harbor just like you are CHOOSING to lose your family. There are several positives that have come from that project especially the jobs it created.Monday at 07:28 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick But tithing, the real big chunk of income goes to much more than that, including the BILLIONS that lavish luxury mal and condo complex. I wouldn't be surprised if the church gave less than that much to charity in the last decade. I wouldn't know, because that tax exempt organization doesn't have to (or have the honor to) disclose their finances. I thought the Book of Mormon looked harshly upon secret combinations; re-purposed masonry to hold eternal fate over members heads, undisclosed finances, and political activism involvement through tithing funded separate corporations doesn't sound so up and up to me...
Until you understand the concept that people shouldn't be allowed to pay themselves and their friends hundreds of times more than laborers they think are worthless, you'll never understand the necessary "evil" of social programs funded through taxation, and regulations limiting what people can do with the earnings and activities of socially-backed corporations.
Keep resorting to personal attacks, its very becoming.
What happens in my home is none of your business. I deserve to see my family as much as anyone else, including you. I just hope your children are good at lying to you about the things they will do that would disappoint you. I'd hate to see them get ejected from your family for being "unworthy", like you said you'd do to your wife if she ever became that way.Monday at 20:55 · Like
Erik Kulick Creating a few temporary jobs for the poor while you crowd them out of your religious space doesn't count as "positives."Monday at 20:56 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Pure speculation. That is all your argument amounts to. Speculation is never admitted as evidence but I don't expect you to know that since you haven't taken that course yet. Go read D&C 84 regarding the oath and covenant that you took regarding the priesthood and refresh your memory of how much forgiveness you will be receiving for your sins in this life and the life to come with the choices you are making to dissolve the family you had. The scriptures sure are clear about covenant breakers. Deanna deserves so much better than your cowardly attacks on the church and covenants you have made some of them with her. Good luck bro.Monday at 21:05 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, when a man and a woman (or adopting homosexual parents) fall in love and decide to bring kids into their lives, sometimes the romantic relationship doesn't work out, but they're still mature, loving, and responsible enough to put aside their difference and preserve the family structure that those kids need. Just because you've been taught such a narrow definition of "acceptable family" doesn't mean there aren't others. My attacks aren't cowardly; I'm not doing it behind anyone's back like some "worthy" members out there. I am willing to sacrifice all that I have to help people. The most cowardly covenant I've ever heard of is the one you told me that you made with your wife revoking parental rights of an "unworthy" parent. It's not too late to turn your family into a more stable and loving family by revoking such a covenant before it does any harm.Monday at 21:42 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
I'll make you a deal, you start living up to every single covenant you have made including the ones you have made with your wife and I will discuss it with my wife wether or not we will consider letting each other out of the covenant we made.Monday at 21:47 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, I am living up to the two promises I've always sought to keep, the best that I can: Love everyone as equally as possible, and try to make the world a better place than it was before I came into it.Monday at 21:52 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
You have made more covenants than that.Monday at 21:53 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, you worry about your covenants. I don't need anything in return for me to honor the promises that I am still able to keep.Monday at 23:11 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
You are ABLE to keep every covenant you have made but you are CHOOSING not to.Tuesday at 07:33 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, I refuse to honor "covenants" made that conflict with the one great commandment, and again, you should worry instead about the harmful nature of some of the ones that you've made, instead of worrying about enforcing promises that you have no business enforcing. Tuesday at 11:43 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I would refuse a temple recommend on principle alone; any church that requires admission to participate in "sacred" rituals, is a church that is clueless about what Christ is purported to have taught. Any "covenants" they try to push in such an exclusive place would be void if there is a God out there. Tuesday at 11:46 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Nice attempt to skirt the issue, Every covenant you have made within the church isn't in conflict with the two "promises" you allegedly follow. Nice try though.Tuesday at 11:50 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
How will anyone be able to take you seriously if you can't keep covenants you have made. Are you going to abide by the professional rules of responsibility or are you going to find it convenient to break your end of that promise too?Tuesday at 11:52 · Like
Erik Kulick Maybe so, but they were done at the behest of an organization that manipulates people into compliance, so my contract with the church is voidable. Tuesday at 11:53 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I'm not skirting anything. I'm finally being true to self, neighbor, and living deity if there is such a thing. Tuesday at 11:54 via Mobile · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Again nice try to skirt the issue, you have not been manipulated to make covenants. You made them of your own free will and choice.Tuesday at 11:55 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
D&C 84Tuesday at 11:56 · Like
Erik Kulick I'm so glad that you are in a position to know my heart and what I've been through. Maybe I should just sign my agency over to you. You'd obviously live my life better than I ever could. Tuesday at 11:57 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Rex, I honor promises I make if they don't conflict with the one great commandment. I do not support the concept of religious covenant making; religious men aren't in a position to make promises on behalf of any deity, perfect or not. Tuesday at 11:59 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Just because JS wrote things and passed them off as "God's word" doesn't mean I'm a bad person for disagreeing. Tuesday at 12:01 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Again, you haven't made a covenant that isn't in line with the one great commandment which is actually the second according to Christ.Tuesday at 12:02 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Nope your right, it just means that you made a covenant regarding the priesthood when you did agree with it and now you will be held accountable for that covenant. The consequences of breaking that covenant are pretty severe which is why I continue to urge you to refresh your memory of D&C 84.Tuesday at 12:03 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Just so you stop making the same mistake over and over and over again here is the link to what Christ said. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.39?lang=eng#38 - Matthew 22:39
www.lds.orgJesus gives the parable of the marriage of the king’s son—Pay tribute to Cæsar a...See more
Tuesday at 12:07 · Like ·
Erik Kulick Again Rex, you assume that those men who wrote the covenants have power to speak for deity and enforce those covenants at an eternal level. Tuesday at 12:12 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick And just because the uber-Jew who wanted Christians to be better at following the Jewish law than the Jews were wrote the book of Matthew and claimed to be relaying Christ's message, doesn't mean he spoke for deity. Tuesday at 12:16 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
You declared that those men had the authority to speak for God which goes back to the main point of you made a covenant and have now broken it.Tuesday at 12:19 · Like
Erik Kulick If I declared it in the past, it's because I was duped by people I've always been told to trust. Tuesday at 12:22 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
You have no idea who wrote the Book of Matthew. It is your pure speculation on who wrote it and your use of "uber-Jew" to characterize a person you think may or may not have written it is bad form, not admissible into evidence and exposes your biases and ignorance.Tuesday at 12:22 · Like
Erik Kulick Even if they *do* speak for deity, I refuse to blindly follow their dictates in an effort to save myself. Tuesday at 12:23 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
You made that declaration of your own free will and choice.Tuesday at 12:23 · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
No one has ever asked to to follow blindly, that is your sucker punch way of trying to skirt the covenants you have made.Tuesday at 12:24 · Like
Erik Kulick Wow Rex, you are batting a thousand when it comes to seeing into my heart and soul. How do you do it? Is it the holy ghost?Tuesday at 12:27 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Discernment.Tuesday at 12:36 · Like
Erik Kulick While my discernment calls bullshit on yours. Tuesday at 12:42 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Wait, how do we tell which discernment, if any, is correct?Tuesday at 12:42 via Mobile · Like · 1
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Your covenant breaking doesn't make it hard for others to use discernment.Tuesday at 12:44 · Like
Kacy M Bryce Guilt. With a side of lunacy. Yum!Tuesday at 12:50 via Mobile · Unlike · 4
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
I know right Kacy, all of his lashing out at the church is based on his guilt and his ideas about socialism are straight lunacy!! Glad you can see it too ;)Tuesday at 12:51 · Like
Kacy M Bryce Funny. Thought I laid that sarcasm on pretty clearly. Keep protecting your bubble in that christ-like fashion ;). Tuesday at 12:55 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Oh, I caught the sarcasm and I though it was pretty funny. I just didn't want to start it with you too lest you esteem me to be your enemy.Tuesday at 13:01 · Like
Erik Kulick Wait, you're my enemy, Rex? I thought it was normal for righteous people to insult their "friends" and accuse them of being abusive and unfit to parent. Tuesday at 13:12 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Did I say you are my enemy or are you putting words in other people's mouth to fit your arguments, rationalizations and justifications?Tuesday at 13:13 · Like
Erik Kulick You implied I esteem you as my enemy because of the conversations we've had, by telling Kacy that you don't want to get into it with her too and allow her to see you as an enemy. Tuesday at 13:20 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Re-read what I wrote, you are not mentioned in that post whatsoever. I think you read yourself into that post because of the narcissism you harbor.Tuesday at 13:33 · Like
Kacy M Bryce all i can think of: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=tea+rex&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1920&bih=1024&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=2oMOU-_r-FHCaM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fieffinglovedinosaurs.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F1216189130&docid=aeB2IfIKqk1GhM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_l9jtq4k1lk1qa79cyo1_500.jpg&w=500&h=500&ei=FW3OT93mDOHW2AXD68XMDA&zoom=1Google Image Result for http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9jtq4k1lk1qa79cyo1_500.jpg
www.google.com
Tuesday at 13:36 · Unlike · 2 ·
Erik Kulick Rex, I didn't say that I was mentioned in that post, but I said it implied that you think I esteem you as my enemy; I don't esteem anyone as my enemy. You and your wife have given me more than enough reason to with your accusations of abuse and neglect, but i know that the reason you do so has a lot to do with the lyrics of that song I posted earlier in this thread, so I won't hold it against you. I esteem you as a person unwilling to challenge your own preconceived notions about morality and existence. You can change, Rex. I have faith in you. Tuesday at 14:17 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Glad you have faith in something although it is in the covenants that you made and will be held accountable for. D&C 84.Tuesday at 14:21 · Like
Erik Kulick I don't worry about my own salvation. I'd rather help "the chosen people" to understand the imperfection of a deity that plays favorites, when he's supposed to have equal love. Tuesday at 14:39 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Book of Erik 12:21Tuesday at 14:39 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Philosophies of men minvgled with scripture. Nice!!Tuesday at 15:11 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick It's just as flawed as the doctrines of men found in your holy books. Tuesday at 15:51 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Those books you attested were true and covenanted to abide by the principles contained therein?Tuesday at 16:03 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I believed them to be "true", because the organization that pushes them is so good at convincing people to accept the whole part and parcel, even though the good things they teach are found in simple common sense. Tuesday at 16:06 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
So you broke at least one covenant?Tuesday at 16:08 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick That was made by a human corporation through fraud, so, it's voidable. Tuesday at 16:16 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
We already established that you made them of your own free will and choice.Tuesday at 16:42 · Like
Erik Kulick I was young and foolish, and fell for their barnacle-ism. If there is deity out there that wants to hold me to those masonry rituals as literally as the LDS leaders would want me to, then I guess I'm screwed =\Tuesday at 17:32 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
You were older than 18, you made the choice of your own free will. Own it. Just proclaim your are a covenant breaker, I mean in your fantasy world that deity that you are unsure of the gender of may have some mercy upon the man who cannot even get the order of the first two great commandments straight. Love how you blame masonry also, talk about a red herring. You are full of all sorts of rationalizations and justifications. Did you schedule your name to be removed yet?Tuesday at 17:49 · Like
Erik Kulick There's that tyrant rearing his head again. I would rather burn in hell for time and all eternity than watch one person succumb to the judgment of some imperfect deity.
I told you, I gave no desire to remove my name from church records; the church left me. Tuesday at 19:15 via Mobile · Like
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
God is the same yesterday, today and forever. You did all the moving. Nice try though. Que up the justification band.Tuesday at 22:19 via Mobile · Like
Erik Kulick So the church is your God?Yesterday at 00:23 via Mobile · Unlike · 2
Whitney Rose Petrey Erik, you should really quit being friends with this guy. Anyone who falls back on chastising others religiously, and in a public forum, shows a real lack of character. Your morality is not for him to judge, he is not your religious leader, not a family member (as far as I know) and has absolutely no right to be telling you this stuff even within the framework of the church. Also, imo, it is one of the most manipulative and evil things you can do to attempt to gain political power through the religious persecution of others.Yesterday at 07:49 · Unlike · 2
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Christ is at the head of our church that you and I have made covenants in. No slick slithering around that one. Nice attempt to skirt the issue.Yesterday at 07:50 via Mobile · Like
Whitney Rose Petrey Rex, please stop. You using the church as a bludgeoning tool is incredibly disturbing and far more damaging to the church then anything Erik has said.
Erik, sorry for telling you what to do. How you handle Rex is your decision and I respect that. I was just really, really horrified by his actions.Yesterday at 08:03 · Unlike · 1
Rex White Jr · 4 mutual friends
Thanks Whitney for your concern. There is a lot of truth to your message. I am not sure how long you have been associated with Erik on FB or in life in general. I apologize for coming across as a bulldog when it comes to religion. My reasoning is Erik has made several sucker punches at the church over the past year that I have known him mean while his marriage has fallen apart because he cares more about tearing down the church than trying to salvage his what could have been an eternal marriage. I only started in with him when he started attacking the church in an open forum. Yes, I have gotten very personal many times and probably shouldn't have but as far as I have seen no one has had the metal to hold him accountable for his actions and hypocrisy in tearing down a church that he made very specific covenants in. He has continued to hide behind many rationalizations and justifications that he doesn't agree with how the church allocates its money when in reality I would question when the last time he actually paid a penny of tithing and even if he did, once it is donated he has no say whatsoever. I will de-friend him with these parting words, Deanna is a very forgiving person and am willing to bet that if Erik quit the marijuana, drinking, bashing the church and step up to the plate to be the HUSBAND AND FATHER that he covenanted to be when he took upon himself the oath and covenant of the Priesthood she would probably welcome him back with open arms. The choice is his and his alone and if he chooses not to...well D&C 84 is explicitly clear what the consequence is.Yesterday at 08:46 · Like
Erik Kulick Don't worry, Rex, when I go to outer darkness and run into my fellow alcohol imbibers, Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ, I'll explain to them why they aren't hanging out by the pearly gates. My relationship with Deanna never was your business, and contrary to your vile predictions of future abandonment, I will have the great fortune to watch my beautiful kids grow up right before my eyes, for as long as I may live, regardless of when Deanna and I finally separate legally. You didn't have to unfriend me, but if you can't handle hearing about the harms your favorite institution commits, then I guess you're better off not peaking into the Pandora's box that is my Facebook wall. See you in the fall, old buddy!
Whitney, don't apologize. I met Rex early on last fall at the beginning of law school, and tried to warn him that I wasn't a conventional Mormon. I guess he didn't realize that I actually had a few solid arguments that call the church out on a few of their hypocritical and unchristian behaviors. While I don't enjoy having to read such hateful stuff coming out of that guy, I tend not to revoke friendships, and like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so even though he finally defriended me, I wouldn't have a problem if he grew up eventually and refriended me.Yesterday at 12:12 · Like
