Page 25 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1523242526 LastLast
Results 721 to 750 of 758

Thread: New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

  1. #721
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flystripper View Post
    I know this isn't breaking new ground but the policy just seems so unnecessarily divisive and foolish. I just don't get it.
    I hate it. Still don't understand it.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  2. #722
    Royal Rooter Green Monstah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Up from third base to Huntington
    Posts
    9,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Commando View Post
    ...which doesn't apply here...
    ...until the dad marries a dude...
    Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

    "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

  3. #723
    Explosivo Commando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    14,851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Monstah View Post
    ...until the dad marries a dude...
    ...and retains full custody of the kids because the mom falls off a cliff and dies on impact...
    "I'm anti, can't no government handle a commando / Your man don't want it, Trump's a bitch! I'll make his whole brand go under,"

  4. #724
    Royal Rooter Green Monstah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Up from third base to Huntington
    Posts
    9,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Commando View Post
    ...and retains full custody of the kids because the mom falls off a cliff and dies on impact...
    That’s not how it reads.
    Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

    "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

  5. #725
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,291

    Default

    Did the church ever update the wording of the policy in CHoI 1 to include the clarification they issued after the policy was first issued? I remember the original wording being very, very vague and more encompassing than the way it's interpreted with the clarification. Seems like the policy is ripe for being interrupted in its original iteration in the future if the wording isn't updated in the actual handbook.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  6. #726
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    14,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    Did the church ever update the wording of the policy in CHoI 1 to include the clarification they issued after the policy was first issued? I remember the original wording being very, very vague and more encompassing than the way it's interpreted with the clarification. Seems like the policy is ripe for being interrupted in its original iteration in the future if the wording isn't updated in the actual handbook.
    If you're authorized to know, then you'll know. If you're not authorized to know, then you have no need to know.

    Carry on.
    Last edited by myboynoah; 01-10-2018 at 05:35 AM.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  7. #727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Monstah View Post
    That’s not how it reads.
    Are you sure? I'm not. But my understanding is that it's "primary custodian" of some kind of language to that effect.

  8. #728
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    In 2012, Peter Singer wrote about these kinds of freedom-of-religion debates, giving three examples:

    1. The Netherlands proposed a law to require animals to be stunned before slaughter (contravenes Islamic & Jewish practice).
    2. In Israel, ultra-orthodox men wanted separate seating for men and women on city buses.
    3. the Obama administration's requirement to provide health insurance that covered contraception.

    In all three, Singer pointed out that, while there was definitely a lot of potential for inconvenience, none of these scenarios really prevented true adherents from practicing their religions. Muslims and Jews in the Netherlands don't have to eat meat; ultra-orthodox Jewish men don't have to ride the bus; Catholics don't have to run hospitals and universities.

    As he wrote, "Not all conflicts between religion and the state are easy to resolve. But the fact that these three issues, all currently causing controversy in their respective countries, are not really about the freedom to practice one's religion, suggests that the appeal to religious freedom is being misused." (Peter Singer, Ethics in the Real World, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2016, pp. 225-228).

    While I doubt the US Supreme Court sees the Colorado Cake Case so simply (indeed, these other three situations have already made their way to legislatures or court in their respective countries), I do think that Singer is correct in noting that the term religious freedom is misused.

    Perhaps that is why this case is also being portrayed as a Free Speech situation, in which case I think there are less compelling grounds for churches to weigh in.
    But that logic can be flipped on its head, can't it? At least in the Colorado Cake Case? It would be far simpler and less costly for the gay couple to simply accommodate the cake maker's religious objections by going to a different shop. There is no dispute that there were dozens of other bakeries willing to supply a cake. I think the baker is a moron and that refusing to sell the cake to the gay couple is wrong, but I don't think anyone in the case questions that his religious objection is sincere. So if the First Amendments guarantee of "free exercise of religion" does not accommodate sincerely held religious objections when it is easy and almost costless to do so, what purpose does it serve? It was clearly intended to protect more than internal beliefs.

    The right to "exercise" your religion entails more than merely having the right to believe what you want to believe. It also guarantees more than the right to speak freely about your religious beliefs. It has to include some right to practice those beliefs in your daily life, and running a cake shop to make a living for your family is certainly part of daily life. Anything less would make the Free Exercise superfluous. So, when the question is framed as a choice between requiring the gay couple to buy a cake elsewhere or allowing the government to force you to choose between your religious beliefs or shutting down your business, I have a hard time believing that the Free Exercise clause has little to say on that topic.

  9. #729
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    This is really tough. On one side, I agree, and I can see how not fighting inconsequential things ten steps away from the important things, could potentially make it easier for you to lose the important things 10 steps later. But on the other side, you become an asshole when you fight this way.
    It's not 10 steps away for the Church. The next logical step in this "slippery slope" is to withhold federal funding from religious schools that don't admit married gay couples (See Bob Jones University v. United States). I think the Church sees that if it can get the Supreme Court to recognize that religious objections to homosexual conduct can and should be at least tolerated in our pluralistic society, that will go a long way to distinguishing the gay marriage issue from the race issue. You may or may not agree that that is a good thing, but I think it goes a long way to explaining why the Church seems to care so much. If the Court finds that the First Amendment has nothing to say about this case, that will have far-reaching implications that will soon have a direct and real impact on Church operations (especially BYU).

  10. #730
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mpfunk View Post
    You are right I would be less thrilled about that. I also sincerely doubt that scenario falls under the Colorado anti-discrimination statute.
    The Colorado anti-discrimination statute protects LGBT but not minority religions? That would be strange.

  11. #731
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UVACoug View Post
    But that logic can be flipped on its head, can't it? At least in the Colorado Cake Case? It would be far simpler and less costly for the gay couple to simply accommodate the cake maker's religious objections by going to a different shop. There is no dispute that there were dozens of other bakeries willing to supply a cake. I think the baker is a moron and that refusing to sell the cake to the gay couple is wrong, but I don't think anyone in the case questions that his religious objection is sincere. So if the First Amendments guarantee of "free exercise of religion" does not accommodate sincerely held religious objections when it is easy and almost costless to do so, what purpose does it serve? It was clearly intended to protect more than internal beliefs.

    The right to "exercise" your religion entails more than merely having the right to believe what you want to believe. It also guarantees more than the right to speak freely about your religious beliefs. It has to include some right to practice those beliefs in your daily life, and running a cake shop to make a living for your family is certainly part of daily life. Anything less would make the Free Exercise superfluous. So, when the question is framed as a choice between requiring the gay couple to buy a cake elsewhere or allowing the government to force you to choose between your religious beliefs or shutting down your business, I have a hard time believing that the Free Exercise clause has little to say on that topic.
    I would actually say that flipping Singer's argument on his head is to say that you don't need a cake to celebrate a wedding. So asking a baker to bake a cake and a baker refusing doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Forcing the baker to bake the cake infringes on the baker's rights. The gay couple can get married and have every right granted by the government without having a cake at their wedding.

    Now, if the justice of the peace refused to marry the gay couple, it would be a different issue.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  12. #732
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UVACoug View Post
    But that logic can be flipped on its head, can't it? At least in the Colorado Cake Case? It would be far simpler and less costly for the gay couple to simply accommodate the cake maker's religious objections by going to a different shop. There is no dispute that there were dozens of other bakeries willing to supply a cake. I think the baker is a moron and that refusing to sell the cake to the gay couple is wrong, but I don't think anyone in the case questions that his religious objection is sincere. So if the First Amendments guarantee of "free exercise of religion" does not accommodate sincerely held religious objections when it is easy and almost costless to do so, what purpose does it serve? It was clearly intended to protect more than internal beliefs.

    The right to "exercise" your religion entails more than merely having the right to believe what you want to believe. It also guarantees more than the right to speak freely about your religious beliefs. It has to include some right to practice those beliefs in your daily life, and running a cake shop to make a living for your family is certainly part of daily life. Anything less would make the Free Exercise superfluous. So, when the question is framed as a choice between requiring the gay couple to buy a cake elsewhere or allowing the government to force you to choose between your religious beliefs or shutting down your business, I have a hard time believing that the Free Exercise clause has little to say on that topic.
    Also, I find Singer's conclusion unpersuasive. His conclusion is that those laws don't really impair freedom of religion because you can avoid them. Sure, as long as you don't eat meat, ride the bus, or run a business. In other words, believe as you will, but not if you intend to participate in the public sphere.

    I find that definition of freedom to be unacceptably narrow, especially when alternatives to constricting religious freedom are readily available and relatively unburdensome.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  13. #733
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I would actually say that flipping Singer's argument on his head is to say that you don't need a cake to celebrate a wedding. So asking a baker to bake a cake and a baker refusing doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Forcing the baker to bake the cake infringes on the baker's rights. The gay couple can get married and have every right granted by the government without having a cake at their wedding.

    Now, if the justice of the peace refused to marry the gay couple, it would be a different issue.
    Good point.

  14. #734

    Default

    Josh and Lolly Weed are divorcing:

    http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turn...marriage/.html

    The post is very long. But what I skimmed is gut-wrenching.

  15. #735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Josh and Lolly Weed are divorcing:

    http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turn...marriage/.html

    The post is very long. But what I skimmed is gut-wrenching.
    Dyslexics are teople poo...

  16. #736
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Josh and Lolly Weed are divorcing:

    http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turn...marriage/.html

    The post is very long. But what I skimmed is gut-wrenching.
    Sad, but good for them if this brings them happiness. I have never believed that gay people marrying straight people is sustainable.

    BTW, I noticed the following acronyms in the article:

    LGBTQIA
    LGTBTQ
    LGBTQ
    LGBT

    WTH? If gay people can't keep them straight then how do they expect us to?
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  17. #737
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Sad, but good for them if this brings them happiness. I have never believed that gay people marrying straight people is sustainable.

    BTW, I noticed the following acronyms in the article:

    LGBTQIA
    LGTBTQ
    LGBTQ
    LGBT

    WTH? If gay people can't keep them straight then how do they expect us to?
    What does the first one mean? What do I and A stand for?
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  18. #738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Josh and Lolly Weed are divorcing:

    http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turn...marriage/.html

    The post is very long. But what I skimmed is gut-wrenching.
    That was way, way, way too long to read for this guy. But from what I read, they basically admit that they thought they could outsmart biology, but they now admit they couldn’t.

    I remember thinking when they first “came out” that this would destroy the wife’s self esteem; that no matter how much she was committed to him, knowing her husband was not attracted to her would absolutely wreck her. Looks like that was a significant factor.



    Quote Originally Posted by Topper View Post
    What does the first one mean? What do I and A stand for?
    Ally
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  19. #739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    would absolutely wreck her.




    ironically, that’s exactly what she’s looking for now
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  20. #740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    I remember thinking when they first “came out” that this would destroy the wife’s self esteem; that no matter how much she was committed to him, knowing her husband was not attracted to her would absolutely wreck her. Looks like that was a significant factor.


    Ally
    That was a really sad part, when she realized that sexual attraction is, in the end, a huge part of romantic love:

    After talking about this with my sister-in-law, she said, “but you guys have such a special relationship. You’re intimate in so many other ways. Believe me, sex is not worth throwing away the connection that you two have.” From the outside looking in, I can see why she would think that, but the truth is our relationship was missing more than just a primal sexual connection . . . it was missing romantic attachment.

    Josh has never looked at me with romantic love in his eyes. He has never touched me with the sensitive touch of a lover. Whenever he held me in his arms, it was with a love that was similar to the love of a brother to a sister. That does eventually take its toll on your self-esteem. No matter how much I knew “why” he couldn’t respond to me in the ways a lover responds to a partner, it wears a person down, as if you’re not “good enough” to be loved “in that way.” And what I didn’t realize is that as human beings, we actually need to feel loved in that way with our partners.

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    ironically, that’s exactly what she’s looking for now
    Those who take your acerbic asshole shtick too seriously shouldn't forget your LOL moments.

  21. #741
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    46,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Those who take your acerbic asshole shtick too seriously shouldn't forget your LOL moments.
    o_g has always been one of the funniest posters on here.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  22. #742
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,291

    Default

    I had forgotten all about them. Too bad, or maybe not. Seems like they are both mature adults about it and will likely be happier wherever they end up.

    It’s too bad the church won’t bend to give gays a path to full fellowship in the church. I know I’m in the minority at church when I believe you don’t need a penis and vagina to create spirit children.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  23. #743
    a day late/a dollar short Sullyute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I know I’m in the minority at church when I believe you don’t need a penis and vagina to create spirit children.
    Will you expound on that in your next podcast?
    "Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.

  24. #744
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sullyute View Post
    Will you expound on that in your next podcast?
    Sure. I’ll also go into how in the next life, Ute fans won’t have either.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  25. #745

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I know I’m in the minority at church when I believe you don’t need a penis and vagina to create spirit children.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Penis and vagina is very inefficient. I agree.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Dyslexics are teople poo...

  26. #746
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flystripper View Post
    Penis and vagina is very inefficient. I agree.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    For most of this group I suspect the process is quite efficient.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  27. #747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I know I’m in the minority at church when I believe you don’t need a penis and vagina to create spirit children.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well then what do you need?

  28. #748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    For most of this group I suspect the process is quite efficient.
    Well played


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Dyslexics are teople poo...

  29. #749
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    1,590

    Default

    I haven't read this yet, but thought some of you might be interested:

    http://www.joshweed.com/2018/01/turn...marriage/.html

  30. #750
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Holy Land
    Posts
    14,453

    Default

    Umm . . . .
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •