It’s a little known disturbing fact that the Mormons have a set of prophecies that foretell that the Mormons will take over the leadership of the US. A candidate for the governor of Idaho has brought this out into the open — he’s having meetings to talk about saving America by having the Mormon leadership intervene.
I’ve had a few conversations with crazy Mormons who actually take this nonsense very, very seriously. They don’t seem to understand that having the country taken over by a freakish cult with dreams of theocracy would be a way to destroy the constitution.
Oooh! Like Islam, right? :)
Good thing the Hampton Inn was available.
wow.,
well..how many ways can you spell crazy, krazy hmm?
When you and especially your followers never actually read the Constitution (and certainly not The Federalist Papers – sheesh that’s like, a whole book you know and not a holy one) it’s easy to read into it whatever you like. Think of it like the Catholic Church’s medieval practice of selling indulgences. Nothing even remotely justifying that in the bible but when the congregation can’t read, how could they tell?
Dammit, Rev. BDC…
Thanks for making everyone in my office pop up from their cubicles like prairie dogs because you made me guffaw so friggin loudly.
I wonder when “barefoot in the kitchen” becomes a constitutional
obligationright for the “muffins”, like in the calendar.God, save us from your followers.
On a vaguely related note, I stumbled upon a movie in Netflix about Mountain Meadows Massacre. Mormon militiamen and their allied Paiutes killed over a hundred settlers in 1857.
Any commenters here know any good non-fiction history works about this they can recommend?
Rammel’s speech on “The Battle to Save the Constitution” is only 7-8pm? You’d think it’d take more than an hour to talk about something of such vast significance. I suppose there are only so many permutations of “goddidit” and “the U.S.
iswill be aChristianMormon Nation”.Afterward, there will be punch and pie, a circle jerk, and ritual sacrifice of GOATS ON FIRE!
There is too many fucking prophecies, there is the mormons setting up their theocracy, the dominionists setting up their competing theocracy and the apocalyptic befriending Israel so that the Jews will convert to christianity or die and bring back Jesus. To the Thunderdome for all of the fuckers. Two combatants walk in, one walk out is not good enough.
I had a conversation with two Mormon elders during the summer – neither of them looked more than 15 years old.
Steven Dunlap (#4) wrote,
Especially as the body of the federal Constitution is simply a set of directions on who gets what powers and how those powers function within the structure of the federal government.
Aside from some flower words in the preamble, all the contentious stuff about the rights of citizens and states is in the amendments.
It feels to me like Mormons always correspond well to the very stereotyped image one might have of American religious conservatives. Here is the whole “My religion is the right one so it should rule to country” theocracy wish that we often expect in those people, and then there’s the whole deal with the book of Mormon…
To me it just feels like some American Christians were very, very uncomfortable with the fact that their holy texts comes from some foreign country far away, filled with people of a different color and everything. How could red-blooded Americans like something so dogdangit foreign? So the clever Joseph Smith comes up with the idea to “find” some holy texts in New York.
Brilliant solution. Suddenly there are Real American holy books, and Real American (and white!) prophets. Awesome, finally something for the patriotic believer!
… At least that’s the feeling I get when Mormons come to speak to me about their beliefs – it just feels like they are struggling to conform to a negative stereotype about xenophobic Americans.
The Bill of Rights are amendments in the sense of not being part of the original document, but they were added before the constitution was adopted. For some states that was a pre-condition.
Every religion needs a bunch of prophecies, best that there are lots of them and they are all over the map in terms of likelihood. That way when one of them does occur the believers can say, “It was foretold!”
Steve Dunlap, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857 by Sally Denton is a good place to start. Or what for Lynna to pop in, I am sure she has a whole lot more to add.
No, no, no…
The Constitution only counts when the matter involves something that the religious right doesn’t like. Using the constitution to defend liberty, free speech and religion freedom… well… that’s just Communism.
Overthrown through corruption?
Methinks someone has gotten the cause and effect mixed up in this matter.
Oh, those crazy Mormons take all their prophecies very seriously. I got so many emails from my mother during last year’s election. “If you vote for Obama, America won’t be God’s favorite anymore!” Along with testimonies: “Come back to the One True Church! It’s the Only Way to Happiness!” And my mother is so intelligent. It just astounds me that she can believe so much baloney.
A good book about the general derangement of Mormon ideology is Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven.
See, and the problem with atheists, and the UU’s for that matter, is that we don’t have any good prophecies. Prophecies are what separate the “real” from the “made up” religions.
Yes, on this we can agree. It does not seem correct to dissociate the Bill of Rights from the original document.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
I guess the mormons will have to prove their case to the Democrats as the Republicans rejected them last year for not being TRUE Christians.
@#15
Not only that, Aphid, but those “prophecies” are almost invariably entirely open-ended, making them useless for any practical purpose. For any “prophecy” to be taken seriously at all, it should have some sort of drop-dead date. Otherwise, it can’t be falsified until, perhaps, humans become extinct. Of course, at that point, it’s somewhat of a moot point. Don’t ya think?
Three reasons while America will never convert en mass to the Mormon faith:
1. Mormon proselytes use bicycles to get from door to door. This screams of liberalism and ecowarmista hegemonic concern. Fuck that bullshit.
2. Mormons actually enforce caffeine/alcohol proscriptions. Non-mormons could easily retake control of the federal government by skipping a night* of drinking and then rising early (aided by consumption of coffee), and giving wedgies to the sleepy elders.
3. The ritual undergarment might work in the dry mountain air surrounding SLC and Provo, but in most parts of the inhabited US, summers are hot and humid. No one wants another layer of underclothing. Further, the Jesus Jammies interfere with the hottest summer fashions.
*Just one night. C’mon. Its for freedom!
Very much like the Conservative Right Wing in this country. Domination seems to be a common thread in these belief systems, they all claim to be the saviors of America …
I was raised Mormon, but even back before I became a godless heathen I though this was weird. Brigham Young said that the country would call on the Mormon ‘elders’ to save the Constitution. I don’t know what reality he lived in, but I don’t think that will ever happen: “Oh crap, the country’s in trouble. What will we do? Oh, I know, call the Mormons.”
I’ll endorse PZ’s recommendation: If you haven’t read “Under The Banner of Heaven”, do so. It’s a riveting read, even if you have no particular interest in Mormon history or theology.
I love how they describe themselves as not just “Elders” or “Elders of Idaho” but “Elders of Israel.”
Sheesh. What chutzpah. Wonder if the chief rabbis in Jerusalem got the memo that their work has been outsourced to American guys in funny underwear.
You say that like it is a bad thing. They understand alright. They just don’t care. When god is on your side, anything seems normal. Destroying a country, no big deal.
The fundies dream and hope is much bigger. God is going to destroy the entire planet and 6.7 billion people any minute.
The Mormons all know about those prophecies about taking over the USA. They are all waiting.
For a preview of what a LDS theocracy would look like check out Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Texas, or Utah. The last two states are held in check by the power of the federal government and they still oppress nonmembers, known as “gentiles” in Utah and by a variety of terms in Texas.
Ah, Rex Rammell. Real winner, that one. Last time he was in the news before his gubernatorial run was when a bunch of elk escaped his canned hunt elk ranch. Canned hunts being something that even the redneck states next to Idaho think are barbaric and have outlawed.
Rammell is also well-known for his little crack about issuing Obama hunting tags:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/27/rex-rammell-idaho-goper-j_n_270751.html
But don’t worry, he’s a fringe candidate. I think.
“I love how they describe themselves as not just “Elders” or “Elders of Idaho” but “Elders of Israel.” ”
Only one step away from the Elders of Zion. Just saying.
As a Mormon who has researched the “White Horse” prophecy, I call on fellow Mormons to reject this rumor and nonsense and stop promoting it. If you’re in Eastern Idaho, do not attend Rammell’s meeting, as you’ll be playing into a psychological trap.
I can predict what will happen in the meeting. Rammell will tell everyone that Joseph Smith said that the “elders of Israel” (namely , the Mormon Elders) will have to rush in and save the Constitution. He’ll look into their eyes and tell them that they are individually “called” to “save” the Constitution, simply because they were baptized Mormon and were ordained to the priesthood. LDS members will leave the meeting feeling better than everyone else – more special – more patriotic, just because they showed up and are breathing air! Baloney!
Mormons generally do not believe that THEY have a monopoly on patriotism or constitutional loyalty. We “the people” save the Constitution by exercising our franchise (right to vote) for men and women who believe in and claim allegiance to the Constitution and its principles.
Rammell is completely loony. Your average LDS member hasn’t ever read the Constitution and doesn’t know Constitutional issues. So, in that vein, how could THEY alone be the standard bearers? How could THEY alone rush in to save anything “Constitutional?” Rubbish!
If the Constitution hangs by a thread and someone is going to save it, then those good men and women will come from varied religious or non-religious backgrounds who have studied the Constitution and will uphold it defiantly.
Rammell is no different than an Evangelical Christian extremist who holds the Bible in one hand and proclaims divine sovereignty above everyone else, and that he “alone” possess some innate character or calling that no one else can obtain, simply because the words are coming out of his mouth. Bull!
Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims or Mormons are all qualified to “save” the Constitution if it needs saving.
If you’re not a Mormon, know that millions of Mormons do NOT believe the “White Horse” prophecy and it is not a part of Mormon canonical doctrine.
Please make the distinction between a Mormon zealot who is a loon (Rammell), and between patriotic Mormons who love the country and who save it by laboring for it like good citizens.
Historically the LDS and the Catholics hated each other. They both have popes and Vaticans. They both can’t be right.
The fundies didn’t much like the LDS on dogmatic grounds. The LDS believe there are a huge number of gods. Our god is married to an unknown and nameless but large number of goddesses. They spend all their time, well, ummmm, hmmmm, “procreating”. Making spirit babies which become humans. Jesus is just a guy and satan’s brother, another guy. They both are your brothers too.
None of this is in the bible of course.
These days that might be changing. Religions are on the skids in the USA and losing members and power. They might not like each other but they like losing power less.
If they ever got power, watch out. After they finished with the reeducation camps, the mass deportations, and turning the USA into a banana republic, they would fight among themselves like Shiites and Sunnis until only one survived.
“There is too many fucking prophecies”
I wholeheartedly agree. Every wannabe dictator claims to have some damn prophesy or other and it’s also a super-tired fictional trope. I say we declare a worldwide moratorium on prophesies for, oh, at least twenty years or so.
Seems Joseph Smith was as knowledgeable about the constitution as he was about egyptian.
Huh? Islam utterly lacks any prophecies about saving the godless Constitution…
Yeah regular mormons aren’t loons in anyway.
I mean about “taking over” in a more general way. ;)
Naturally there is a Zion in Utah. Just saying.
Raven:
The LDS leadership has no interest in taking over the country. The most fundamental principle in Mormonism is inherent personal liberty or what is called “moral agency” – that everyone has the freedom to choose.
The Mormon Church is about “saving souls” who want to be saved. Salvation through coercion is not salvation, and therfore, a powerful militant LDS theocracy wouldn’t do the LDS Church any eternal good and would be contrary to its fundamental axioms and principles.
If you ever talk to a Mormon who believes in this nonsense, ask them why anyone would attend a Rammell meeting or any other meeting when the “prophecy” alledgedly says that the “U.S Government” will “call upon” the Mormon Elders for assistance.
As you can see, the only way Mormon Elders could “rush to save it” is when the U.S Government invites them.
Nevertheless, the “prophecy” has been researched and no canonical document has ever been found and it is not part of the Mormon scriptures.
The only good that the myth can do is teach all people to read the Constitution. But we don’t need a myth to encourage that.
Beautiful place. Part of it is called Kolob canyon, named after a mormon place/planet/star near god in their mythology.
How many crazed Muslims are there in the USA, and how many crazed Mormons? How many of each are there in the USA in positions of power?
Then come all the other differences. The Mormons have a hierarchy that culminates in the President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator™. In Sunni Islam, there’s not even such a thing as priesthood, let alone a central authority.
Then as a gay man I choose to get married.
Oh, no…wait…
Crazed? Not many of either, though any number is too many I suppose.
I guess I was a bit too subtle.
As others have pointed out, these guys are not “typical” Mormons.
Richard:
Yes, and I choose to vote against gay marriage in my State. No offense.
Yes, and I choose to vote against gay marriage in my State. No offense. – James
You’re wrong: your bigotry is indeed offensive.
James, you’re not making a very good case for you not being a “loony” Mormon.
It was a deep and nasty slap in the face. Epecially given “previous” views on mormon marriage. Quite insulting.
You also tramped all over the constitution to do it. Which is why I chose to point it out in this thread.
In all the pictures I’ve seen, the Constitution is laying in a case. Considering how old and delicate the parchment is, it would seem to be very foolish for the National Archives to hang it up somewhere, no matter how many threads they use. I hereby prophesy that the Mormon prophesy will never come true.
You choose to vote for a law respecting an establishment of religion in your big-S state?
Notice something?
On the record:
PZ Meyers wrote:
“It is a little known disturbing fact that the Mormons have a set of prophecies that foretell that the Mormons will take over the eladership of the U.S.”
Facts:
1. There is no canonical Mormon prophecy regarding the alleged statment of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s response to it.
2. Within the alleged prophecy, there is no prediction that the Mormons will “take over the leadership” of the U.S.
3. Within the alleged prophecy, the Mormons would have to be invited to act by the U.S. Government.
PZ Meyers has essentially done what he claims Mormons shouldn’t do: promote a false rumor.
So children of Mormon parents can freely choose to leave the church, with no social repercussions?
James, learn to spell Myers.
Parchment? Isn’t it long-fibered, impractical hemp paper?
who?
David:
Is Maine dominated by a particular religion? If not, why didn’t they vote against gay marriage?
While there are many who vote against gay marriage on religious grounds, like they vote murder shouldn’t be punished on religious grounds, I personally vote against gay marriage because the relationship between two men and the relationship between a man and a woman is different.
A single institution, designed for one relationship doesn’t fit all relationships.
I am not against civil unions or even “garriage” for homosexual men and women, but marriage is between a man and a woman.
The relationships (homosexual and heterosexual) are not equivalent. If they are not equivalent then a single institution will not suffice.
I am actually going to feel a little sorry for James. He sounds like a minor foot soldier in the church. without a clue about half the stuff thats gone on.
He doesn’t probably realise the slapdown he’s about to get either.
Sigh…and now i have to go…and miss all the popcorn.
Well, that didn’t take long. James is a typical Mormon lying fascist bigot.
My relatives live in Utah and I’ve been there many times. I love the state. The LDS are not the best part.
Gentiles are definitely second class citizens and heavily discriminated against. What makes it tolerable is that they have nothing in common and no interest in the Mormons either.
And this is in the face of the fact that religious discrimination always has been and is illegal in the USA.
The LDS church is an extreme hierarchial, dictatorial cult that practices pervasive mind control. They even have their own notorious Mormon gulag for wayward kids.
An LDS controlled country would make Somalia or Iran look like amateur dictatorships.
James you fascist bigot. Guess what? I have no interest or intention of joining your weird cult. Stop sending those missionaries down my driveway.
In what way (other than the fact they aren’t given the same rights at the moment).
Because you decide to *define* marriage as “something that doesn’t apply to homosexuals”. Bierce’s definition is:
Sounds comprehensive enough to me.
So James will be able to tell us exactly why a marriage has to be only one man and one woman then.
Especially since the world hasn’t ended when same sex marriage (and “shock” adoption) have been allowed elsewhere.
and does that mean that your leaders’ marriages to multiple wives were invalid then?
Or is this a special american marriage…where certain people “just shouldn’t mix”…(but they are allowed to use the same bathroom so its not bigotry…hehe).
Truth:
You’re confusing love and justice. Choices have consequences. If a child chooses to disobey his parents rules (in their home) then there will be consequences.
The parents certainly have the right to say, “while living in my home, these are the rules…”
If the child chooses to “LEAVE” the Church then the child has already chosen a set of social consequences by leaving his congregational family.
However, once a child becomes an adult or moves out, parents should not shun their child because the child doesn’t accept a religious belief. However, home rules should always be respected.
The same phenomenon happens when a non-religious person joins a Church. His/her non-religious friends no longer see that friend as a part of their “group” since they no longer hold a homogeneous world view.
Er…. Please explain.
It really annoys me when Mormons troll the internet trying to put off an air of respectability while totally misrepresenting and fudging the facts about the church. What’s even sadder is when they actually believe what they’re saying and have no idea of the real history of the church – Mormons are taught perhaps 10% (a guess) of the actual history, and the rest is suppressed and labelled as anti-Mormon propaganda, when in fact much of what the hierarchy suppresses are teachings and histories by its own predecessors.
@James
Your church is full of hypocrisy, not least of which is it’s fight to keep gay people as second-class citizens. Taking away others’ rights is always wrong and always offensive. You’re forcing your religious beliefs onto secular society, which not only is unconstitutional, but a clear violation of your own professed beliefs (article of faith 11 for example).
You’re grossly under-representing how many Mormons are exactly the kind of crazy to believe the bullshit this guy is spouting. It is a fact that the first two prophets/presidents said those prophesies. There is no real difference between “official” doctrines and folk-doctrines. The doctrine is whatever the individual or group believes, regardless of whether it’s officially sanctioned. By not specifically discounting those doctrines, the hierarchy does in fact support them.
Oooo… prophecy’s such fun… Let me try…
(Eyes closed, fingers wiggling dramatically)…
Oooohhh…. Wooooo…. Ooooooo… I’m getting somethin’ right noooooow from the beyooooond…
… Specifically from Rammel’s ex-lover ‘Fluffy’ in dog heaven:
(Eyes open dramatically…)
Rowlf! In a time of great economic upheaval… Growwwwl… Unscrupulous, power hungry asshats will attempt to capitalize on anxiety by stirring discontent and wedging their way beyond their pathetic little inbred enclaves of browbeaten and bribed followers, slaves, and retainers into positions of ever greater power… Grrr…. And Rammel will still be indescribably awful in bed… Bark!
(/Hey, listen, there’s no need to thank me… Me ‘n my seer stones are just the humble conduit here…)
Raven:
You wrote:
“The LDS church is an extreme hierarchial, dictatorial cult that practices pervasive mind control. They even have their own notorious Mormon gulag for wayward kids.
An LDS controlled country would make Somalia or Iran look like amateur dictatorships.”
In the LDS Church, every congregation is led by a lay pastor called a Bishop who has been chosen out of the congregation to lead the group for 5-8 years.
There is no pervasive mind control practice in the LDS Church doctrine.
The LDS Church teaches that its leaders and its members live by these practices:
” 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.” Doctrine and Covenants 121
Every Church member knows that if he/she doesn’t try to live up to Church laws, that the member can either lose his/her membership or Church standing.
It’s that simple. No coercion. Either choose to obey or not. If a member chooses to not live by the standards of the gospel, then THAT member has made his/her choice.
No mind control – just choice and consequences.
James,
So parents should have control over what their kids think so long as the kids live with them? That’s pretty damn evil.
Oh gee. You aren’t from this planet are you. Kolob maybe?
My extended family is Protestant, Catholic, and various shades of anti-Xian and non believer. No one pays much attention or cares. Same thing with my friends. Few are xians, but some are various New Agers. No one pays much attention or cares either.
It takes a religious fanatic to define friendship or family on the basis of religion. One of my minor complaints about religion is that it is an excellent way to artificially divide people into us versus them and create conflicts.
One of my major complaints is that whenever religion gets power, the bodies piles up, the blood flows, and everything goes to hell.
And the James of the world are right there to hold the axe, gun, and noose.
@James
“The relationships (homosexual and heterosexual) are not equivalent.”
Any more unsubstantiated claims you wish to make?
Marriage is a secular, social contract which has nothing to do with yours or any church. Your personal or group definition is immaterial. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all people. Even blacks and gays. There is no one “real” definition of marriage. It, like all social concepts, has evolved drastically over time, and will continue to do so. You may live in reality or not, it’s your choice, but you haven’t the right to force your beliefs on me. Not any more – that’s why I left your church to get away from bigotry and ridiculous magical thinking like this.
James: “Is Maine dominated by a particular religion? If not, why didn’t they vote against gay marriage?”
At a guess, because of a well-funded anti-gay campaign? Funded by Mormons? That’s what happened in MY state (California), anyway.
“I personally vote against gay marriage because the relationship between two men and the relationship between a man and a woman is different.”
You, personally, can certainly feel that way. It’s when you start claiming that your religious belief is a good basis for public policy that the rest of us get annoyed.
Do you see the difference?
James,
The very real threat of ostracism not just from family, but from the community as a whole is a form of coercion. This is particularly severe in Utah where the LDS church controls much of economic scene.
James –
Then kindly explain why I was taught this in church for 23 years, starting when I was a child.
Answer this James
How?
You can believe what you want, free country.
That isn’t the issue. What gives you the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else? Nothing except the power to do so.
JC:
You wrote:
“Your church is full of hypocrisy, not least of which is it’s fight to keep gay people as second-class citizens. Taking away others’ rights is always wrong and always offensive. You’re forcing your religious beliefs onto secular society, which not only is unconstitutional, but a clear violation of your own professed beliefs (article of faith 11 for example).”
Yes, we understand that this is your view of what it means to be a citizen. But Mormons didn’t take away your “declared” rights.
Citizens across the nation have chosen to not legalize gay marriage.
It is not a religious belief that a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. This is a matter of natural identity.
You say that if homosexual women and men don’t have access to “heterosexual marriage” then they are 2nd class citizens.
I say that marriage is not for homosexual relationships because they are not equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
If men are not equivalent to women to be mothers and wives and women are not equivalent to be fathers and husbands, then why should U.S. citizens vote to legalize gay marriage? (Notice the absence of a religious argument.)
Why should Americans vote to institutionalize attraction that is contrary to human gender? Human gender has a purpose and an identity. Why should rational Americans be asked to vote to create a new kind of marriage for adults whose attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?
Red:
Because your local leaders didn’t follow the handbook of instructions that clearly states that non canonical beliefs and views should not be taught in Church meetings.
I grew up in wards where Bishops were adamant about canonical sources, not speculative nonsense like Rammell has promoted.
James,
You’re conflating husband with father and wife with mother. One does not have to be a husband or wife to be a father or mother, conversely one does not have to be a mother or father to be a wife or husband. Your strict, gendered definitions of these two roles demonstrate a deep lack of cross-cultural knowledge and a misunderstanding of how cultures construct relationships. Your ideas about marital relationships come from your religion. They have nothing to do with the secular, legal construct called marriage.
Our squidly overlord beat me to it, but:
I couldn’t agree more.
In fact, I’d highly suggest pretty much anything Krakauer has written. Although if you’ve tackled Into the Wild and Into Thin Air, then most of Eiger Dreams (but not all) will be redundant.
Just wanted to second the reccomendation.
You’re conflating presence/absence of uteruses and penises with equivalency? The question I would like answered (as would everyone else, I think) is: Why?
Should a man who is shorter than his potential wife be barred from marrying her, because they aren’t “equivalent”?
Oh yeah, Under the Banner of Heaven is a fantastic book!
The amount of controlling behaviour, lying, brainwashing, emotional manipulation, guilt, censorship of outside ideas, and fear that goes on inside the church and in most Mormon homes is really just astounding. The problem with James’ claims is that he’s stuck in the same paradigm and doesn’t see that he’s been brainwashed out of reality too. There absolutely is coercion in keeping people in the church and submissive and unquestioning – do this or you’ll go to hell/outer-darkness/telestial kingdom for ever, be separated from your family and friends for ever, blah blah blah. There is no real choice in that kind of black/white good/evil world-view. If you don’t give 10% of your income you can’t get to heaven. It doesn’t get more obviously more coercive than that.
The social consequences when a person leaves the church are usually very extreme, resulting in ostracism, extreme judgementalism, and constant recrimination. Especially those who leave because they’re gay and/or atheists, one can expect to never have their right to believe differently respected (as Raven pointed out), to be expected to conform if ever they’re allowed to visit their family (as James so ironically pointed out), and to effectively have it made impossible to have relationships with anyone still in the church because of how those who leave are daemonised. It’s commonly taught that those who leave are led away by the devil, were offended, or sinned. Those are the only reasons Mormons are given for leaving the church. Mormonism is a cult, even more so that most Christian churches, as evidenced by not only its extreme beliefs, but the censorship of information, repression of history, and treatment of those who leave.
Believe me, I’ve lived it, and so have most of my friends.
@James
You can quote all the scriptures and teachings of the prophets you like, but it doesn’t erase the reality of what Mormonism (and religion in general) is. A coercive, manipulative scheme to control and get money from the gullible and ignorant and the bigoted.
James:
I think that the Ensign would like to have a word with you concerning what it is and isn’t church doctrine.
James:
What do you have to say about this?
It seems clear that while you consider this to be from ‘noncanonical’ sources, your church and its leaders do not.
Raven:
You wrote:
“That isn’t the issue. What gives you the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else? Nothing except the power to do so.”
The right of free speech allows me to speak what I believe. The speaking out is not an imposition of my belief on anyone. You have the freedom to accept, reject, or ignore my belief.
But this isn’t about an “imposition” of belief but of democratic vote.
The gay lobby for gay marriage lost. Their arguments weren’t compelling enough. The other side convinced more people to vote against gay marriage.
And, I happen to agree. There is no compelling argument for legalizing gay marriage.
What is the basis for gay marriage? Homosexual attraction.
Homosexual attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
Why should any rational citizen vote to institutionalize an attraction that is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?
Simply saying that “you want gay marriage” or that because “two men who have same sex attraction are breathing air”, is not a compelling argument.
James, our visiting mormon, made a point @39 about “moral agency” and claimed that the LDS Church is not about coercion. If I may quote ex-mormon Stray Mutt, “Pray, pay, obey – that’s the way. Don’t stray from the straight and narrow path, don’t let go of the iron rod, follow the prophet. OK, but then what? A spiritual life is far more than not committing any fouls.”
I’ve been told by mormons trying to get me to join the church about “free agency” and “moral agency.” So I looked into how this actually works. It’s a scam. The words are repeated, but are honored only in the breach. Here are a few more comments from ex-mormons and mormons who know whereof they speak:
And here is what a church leader says about questioning the leadership, or exercising one’s moral right to criticize:
Up-thread someone asked about info on the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Here is an online source:Mountain Meadow Massacre: The Untold Story
Hee hee…
The larger question, of course, is why ‘sane Americans’ should even waste any time listening to bullshitting, pathologically deceptive weasels like ‘James’ on subjects such as these.
I mean, fuck, aren’t there any unmedicated mental patients available? I figure they’d have roughly as good points to make, here…
Speaking of, my general reaction to this thread is: I honestly never really had a lot of passion about gay marriage, previously…
I mean, abstractly, it only seems fair. And I know a few gays, figure if they really want that, sure, that’s only right…
But honestly, it’s not somethin’ I would have put at the head of my list of causes or nothin’…
But now, shit, seriously, seeing lying weasels like the Mormons getting into it, with their scummy little plausible deniability schemes, and vile little toads like ‘James’ here with his pathetically transparent excuse for an argument (no ‘religious’ argument? How ’bout ‘no discernibly sane argument that rises above the level of idiotically silly distraction and excuse’, ya windy fucking asshat), that’s enough to get me thinkin’, yeah, I’ll be adding that to my list of stuff I do really want to see happen all right…
(/It’s the principle of the thing, and not just a matter of the justice said couples deserve… It’s also that jerks like James richly deserve to suffer frustration.)
@James
Your antiquated, narrow ideas about gender roles are absurdly ridiculous. You’ve created a false dichotomy which has everything to do with the discriminatory and made-up beliefs of your religion, and nothing to do with reality.
What about trans-people? What about “effiminate” men and “masculine” women, what about intersexed people? What about cultures who define gender roles completely different from yours?
Are you so ignorant of history and sociology that you don’t realise that your religion’s gender roles are a product of thousands of years of competing ideas in western culture? Do you realise that the “institution of marriage” as it exists today is less than a century old?
With each reply you reveal more of your ignorance, stupidity and bigotry.
You make claims, but have nothing to back them up with. No statistics, no science, nothing. Just your claims which are not only laughable, but have been thoroughly discredited by modern genetics, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, – you know, science and reality.
CITATION PLEASE
This has been my experience exactly.
Why should Americans vote to institutionalize attraction that is contrary to human gender? Human gender has a purpose and an identity. Why should rational Americans be asked to vote to create a new kind of marriage for adults whose attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?
I know that James thinks that this paragraph is meaningful. But damn that is empty of all content. What is human gender?
Makes you wonder what the mormons would have done if Mitt Romney won the 2008 Presidential election… bet they were having mormgasms over that, eh? I guess they still have 2012 to stroke themselves over…
James is Making Stuff Up.
Joseph Smith made dozens of prophecies in his life. Most didn’t happen. He wasn’t very good at it. Wikipedia has a list in the article quoted above.
Several forecast the destruction of the US government. Fortunately for us, they didn’t come true. What the James of the world don’t understand. We like living in free, open secular democracies.
James, you creep. Go find a theocracy and join it. Don’t force us to join it. And if you are in Utah, you are already there. Stay there.
Lynna:
This is not complicated at all. When a person joins the Mormon Church, they make a covenant with God to strive to keep his commandments which can be summed up in “Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.”
It is no secret that Mormon religious observances are not for the faint of heart: tithing, no premarital sex, no alcohol, marriage is strongly encouraged, and family life is strongly advocated, Church and community service, etc.
Now, what if a person joins the Church but doesn’t want to “live up” to those promises or covenants?
Here’s what they do:
1. They don’t go to Church.
2. They don’t do the commandments anymore.
How does the Church respond?
1. Local members visit the member to see if they can encourage the member to live up to those promises or simply be a friend.
2. In some cases, if the member has openly committed sins or committed crimes, their Church membership could be annulled (excommunicated.)
That’s it.
The LDS Church is not a democracy. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 apostles are serious about their charge of maintaining correct doctrine, practice and policy in the Church. As well they should be.
If a member doesn’t like those doctrines, practices, and policies, then they can either remain silent in the Church, or leave the Church.
However, there is no “right” within the Church for the Church member to begin teaching their OWN version of Church doctrine WITHIN the Church.
Outside the Church, they can teach their own views to their heart’s content.
They were. Despite what James is Making UP, Mormons all know the prophecy that they will rule the USA.
They all hoped Romney was going to be it.
They all hope and expect it to happen some day.
It is not the role of government to legislate what is or isn’t “contrary” to human gender.
Because it is not a new kind of marriage. It is exactly the same kind, just where any two legal adults can enter into it. Marriage is a binding contract between two people, protected by the governement that imposes certain responsibilities and provides certain privileges to those entering into it. None of those responsibilities nor privileges really depend on the genders of the married, so it is unreasonable and irrational (and unconstitutional) to restrict that contract to only heterosexual pairs of individuals. The sex of the individuals entering into a contract should be irrelevant.
James:
Try replacing ‘strongly encouraged’ with required (well, at least if you’re male).
Homosexual attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
Why should any rational citizen vote to institutionalize an attraction that is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?
Awww. What a cute little ignorant hate-monger.
James, that system sucks for those people who were born and raised with those beliefs. They did not get to choose to be brought up in it. And they are not going to be taught the ways of the non believers. So if they so break some commands, they are cast into the wilderness, what else do they know?
Usually I think raven goes over the line with the names but in this case, I think she has your number. You are a fascist creep.
Morons is a more fitting title.
Janine:
What is human gender?
Human gender is anything the gay lobby wishes it to be regardless of its biological identity.
However, fundamentally speaking, there are two human genders: male and female.
Same sex attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
No two relationships are equivalent, because no two relationships involve the same people.
That said, I have relationships with people of both sexes, and the differences aren’t much to do with gender. They are also much smaller than the differences between my heterosexual relationship and some other heterosexual relationships I’ve seen. I’m not talking about abusive situations, here: I’m talking about things like the difference between a couple in which both partners work for money and one that includes a stay-at-home parent. Or gender roles that say that all decisions on a given topic will be made by one person, whether that’s “he’s in charge of the money” or “she decides how to decorate the house.” Then throw in personality differences: I’m happy to stay home most evenings with someone I love. A marriage in which a typical Friday evening is a game of Scrabble and a pizza is different from one in which it involves dinner out and a trip to a club, movie, or play.
None of those differences is a good reason for an outsider to tell some couples they can’t be married.
Janine:
You nailed it on the head. And it’s actually worse than that, because they baptize you when you’re 8, and then hold that over your head to try to keep you in: “You’ve been baptized, so the Lord expects more of you”, or “You’ve been baptized, so if you stop believing things will be worse for you than people who never believed because you have been given more.” Like any of those children were ever given a fucking choice.
James,
then I suppose men and women who are unable to have children should be barred from marriage as well? The ability to make a secular contract is not predicated by the ability to bear children.
You can define things however you like within your church. It is not right for you to impose those beliefs upon secular laws. The reason the US does not practice a simple majority-controls-all democracy is to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Do you think that racial equality would have been achieved had we waited for all of the good (bigoted) men and women to vote for equality. Do you really think that the majority likes to give up any superiority?
Regarding the requirement of obedience to the LDS Church, our recent discussions on Pharyngula about the anti-gay campaigns brought up a video of a gay mormon pleading with the Church to respect him. In his testimony, given during a sacrament meeting, the Bishop turned off his microphone. But not before this brave man read from a letter a close relative sent him. In the letter, his relative said she loved him dearly and respected him, but that she had been “taught to obey the prophets at my grandmother’s knee”, and she would therefore be voting as the church commanded on Prop 8.
For more info on how obedience and covert coercion actually works, and for references to canonical pronouncements, see http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm Excerpt below:
On a personal note, I know mormon men who accept “callings” for which they do not have a vocation, nor the time, but who say, “If I don’t, I’ll lose business.” I know a woman who asked to be relieved of a calling, but the Bishop told her that he and God would decide when her calling ended, that it was not her place to decide. Doesn’t sound like free agency to me.
Raven:
In the LDS Church, prophecy becomes canon when it is approved unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.
This law was instituted in 1832 in Doctrine and Covenants 107.
So, authorities of the Church can conjecture all they please, but until it is accepted unanimously by those two governing bodies, it is not scripture and it is not canon.
Mormonism as a religious philosophy, does not teach or believe in INFALLIBLE prophets like Christians believe in an INFALLIBLE Bible.
The two references you gave are up for debate which tells you that because there is ambiguity they are not sources of doctrine.
Therefore, there is no LDS Church conspiracy to take over the government. The LDS Church would never want such a responsibility.
James: look up the naturalistic fallacy.
Also note that your impressions of how nature works are also fallacious, so you are also committing a fallacious naturalistic fallacy. And a double negative doesn’t make it right.
Same sex attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
Do you want to know what is not natural about me, the titanium plate and seven screws that is in my right wrist as of the result of being hit by a van. My attraction to other women is as natural as any attraction that you have for anyone. You and your church do not get to dictate this for me. The only way to get me to act against my nature is for your church to set up their beloved theocracy.
And one more thing, you do not win any points by comparing homosexuality to murder. Fuck you, you fascist creep.
Mr. T. wrote, Yes, on this we can agree. It does not seem correct to dissociate the Bill of Rights from the original document.
Yes. Reading over what I wrote I realize I was a bit unclear about what I was saying. I was not trying to suggest that the Bill of Rights is not part of the original document, or that it would have been adopted without the guarantees and protections in the Bill of Rights.
What I was attempting to get at was that the federal Constitution is focuses on the distribution of power at the federal level in some detail. Then appends the Bill of Rights, which are not as clearly defined as other parts of the document.
I think the ambiguity inherent in the Bill of Rights is good, whether it’s accidental or deliberate I’m not sure, but it is good. For it allows each generation to define those ambiguous rights in the fashion which best suits the society they dream of. With the provision that a minority can request help from the judicial system to prevent oppression (this hasn’t always worked, but the possibility is there).
James, who has really stepped in the cacky on this thread, appears to be operating under the impression that his personal definition of the word ‘marriage’, which excludes same-sex partnerships, isn’t enshrined in law to the extent that a minority is unable to exercise the same rights a majority enjoys.
Sorry James, the word ‘marriage’ is changing its meaning to include same-sex partnerships. I had a discussion about this with my father this morning, he feels the same way you appear to, that the word ‘marriage’ excludes same-sex partnerships. His opinion is that civil unions should be acceptable and that a law should be passed in each state to make all laws which include the word ‘marriage’ or similar terms will legally include the term civil union as well.
While this would possibly work, I suggested to my father that it would be easier to simply let an updated definition of ‘marriage’ apply, one which includes same-sex couples.
My father’s only response was to suggest that he wants to avoid embarrassment. He mentioned that it would be socially awkward to invite a co-worker to dinner and to ‘bring along his wife’ without knowing whether the co-worker had a wife or a husband. But knowing it was a civil union would prevent that embarrassment.
That was a lame response, and I told him so. In the end he acknowledged that the definition of the word ‘marriage’ is changing, and that society will survive that change.
PZ:
This is not my impression of how nature works. Human gender has a purpose and an identity. Every entity does, so this is not a fallacious statement.
Same sex attraction is a condition that is contrary or in disagreement with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
The problem comes when gender is made to be abstract or so vague that it can include anything or nothing.
Great, now the dumbass is trying to tell the biologist how biology works.
@James
Like most Mormons, you conflate sex and gender and gender expression and sexual orientation. They’re completely different things.
Lynna:
When the Church read the letter in my ward, I thought that it made a lot of sense.
The LDS Church should not rationally be a party to institutionalizing same sex attraction which is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
We know that those with same-sex attraction want gay marriage but this is not a compelling argument.
…contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender…
James has his mormon duckspeak nailed.
James, our visiting mormon commenter, has brought up the issue several times that people across the nation have voted against gay marriage. This argument is supposed to validate the LDS Church’s campaigns against gay marriage.
In the Prop 8 campaign, then later through the National Organization for Marriage, mormon leaders funneled money, the time of members, phone bank activities, mailings, radio ads, and TV ads to California, Washington State, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Iowa — and the information they dispensed was full of lies, half truths, and misleading “facts” that tricked gullible people into voting against gay rights. A copy of the misleading ad used in the Prop 8 campaign was also used in the Maine Campaign There were lies about children being taught to be gay in school, lies about the laws of Maine, and on and on. Watch both videos at the link above. Read the facts about the teacher from Calvary Chapel Christian School.
For a more objective look at the doctrines of the church, (complete with comments from mormon leaders), and the effect of those doctrines on gays, on gay mormons, and on “recovering mormons”, see the coverage by ABC News.
Oh noes! What *is* your impression of “how nature works”?
Bingo.
1. There is no empirical justification for this position, nor can there be. How does one test a hypothesis of “purpose”?
2. Even if there were an empirical justification, by denying rights to homosexuals based on empirical reasoning, you have made the naturalistic fallacy*
You lose. However, this presents an opportunity for self-improvement. Quit being a fascist dickwad, James, and the common good will be served by your loss.
*What is natural is morally right. There. I looked it up for you.
James,
You keep saying this. What is the natural purpose of human gender? Also, what is gender?
This is an assertion without proof.
And what does it have to do with gay marriage, a human institution and human laws. Gravity makes things fall down. We don’t go around pushing people down stairs and out of windows.
PZ:
There is a distinction between a “natural” feeling and whether that “feeling” is consistent with the biological identity and sex of a particular gender.
All feelings are “natural” in that such originate in the human body.
However, whether those “feelings” are consistent with the purpose and identity of the entity is a different matter altogether.
Anyone remember the ’80s, when the term “significant other” (S.O.) was invented to deal with such a situation of ignorance about someone’s relationships? What the heck is wrong with the word “spouse”? And besides, if you don’t know whether someone’s spouse is a man or a woman, how will you know whther it is a civil union or a marriage? Are you going to require wedding rings to have “civil union” engraved on them? And what about all those forms that ask whether you are married or single. The IRS alone should have an interest in not having to include “or civil union” everywhere they use the word “married”.
What exactly is the point of creating a “civil union” that is exactly the same as marriage except for homosexuals? The point is to segregate and marginalize. The same as seperate but equal universities for blacks. “Seperate” is inherently unequal.
And James started out talking about those “other” Mormons that were loons.
hilarious
Rammell is a known psycho idiot. he’s been the subject of much discussion at Ralph Maughham’s excellent wildlife blog- http://wolves.wordpress.com – for his rabidly anti-wolf platform. He has gone as far as riding in parades fondling and waving the skin of a dead wolf!
What purpose would that be?
James @98
James, you just wrong here, and it’s not a matter of opinion, it is, as PZ pointed out, a matter of being wrong about the facts.
I posted the info below earlier on this thread, a thread which contains info that would do James a world of good.
This is what the Sutherland Institute (über mormon “think tank) has to say about homosexuality:
It’s a very basic mistake to assume that everyone is born either male or female. In an article titled “Either/Or”, journalist Ariel Levy describes just some of the variations in gender and appearance:
However, whether those “feelings” are consistent with the purpose and identity of the entity is a different matter altogether. – James
Teach us, O supreme master, ye who know the purpose and identity of every entity. Whence cometh this great wisdom? Is the purpose and identity of each entity tattooed on the back of its neck, perhaps?
James sez:
Well, thank goodness. ‘Cause democracies are bad. Unless they vote against recognizing that gay people are full citizens. Then they’re good.
On a more serious note, James, if your church is in fact guided by the word of god, wouldn’t it be better for the US to be in turn guided by your church?
And if it isn’t, by what authority do your church leaders lead?
Also, you are misunderstanding the naturalistic fallacy. Even if humans ‘by nature’ are set up to pair-bond for life (and I’d be very curious to see your peer-reviewed papers that suggest that to be the case, across the board.), it doesn’t matter. We call ourselves civilized, and that means that we have the option to live as we wish, rather than as we evolved to do so.
This is a good thing. We didn’t evolve to live anywhere other than the savanna. We didn’t evolve to limit the number of children we have. We didn’t evolve to work towards an understanding of tribes with different customs than ours. We didn’t evolve to get off of this little mudball of a world and explore the vast deep of space.
Frankly, you still haven’t explained why you feel you have the right to poke around in someone else’s pants simply because I have said I would like to marry them.
James, you are trying to answer my questions, not PZ’s questions. There is not need to address him.
So feeling are “nateral” and are alright until the point where it goes against how your church defines gender. I feel sorry for all of the people who, for what ever reason, are not physically able to carry out procreation. Those people have no true meaning in life.
James, I am grateful I was never raised under the restrictive regime of your church. I would not have a purpose except to be servile to some man that I am not attracted towards. And I admire the personal strength of people like Lynna, Red John, Pixelfish and the other former mormons who post here. I do not know if I am as strong as they are.
Fuck, James, just say it, stop trying to couch it in pseudo-scientific “natural identity” crap. The “purpose” of two sexes is to have sex and make babies. Yes, so what? That has nothing to do with marriage. There is nothing in the marriage contract that requires the parters to produce children. There is nothing that invalidates a marriage if it never produces children. If you deny gays marriage because they cannot “naturally” have children, then you should also deny it to anyone who is infertile. What about post-menopausal women or men with vasectomies or low motile sperm? At one time marriage was about encouraging and protecting the production of children, before that it was about protecting property. The definition of marriage adapts to the times. Welcome to the 21st century.
James: Your arguments – fallacious and contrary to what is known of reality – were used to justify miscegenation laws. It wasn’t that long ago; I remember them, and as kid I found them unpersuasive and stupid. Right and wrong is not determined by what kind of sex makes you feel yucky, and reality especially is not.
You are a bigot and can’t even consider the possibility that you are, because the brainwashing of your church prevents you from doing so. If you want to be free, you have to decide that you want to know the truth – not be right. You have to want to do the right thing, not be righteous. And unfortunately for you sociable types, you have to give up family and friends. You will get new ones, but it will take a long time.
Kermit
Anri:
You wrote:
“On a more serious note, James, if your church is in fact guided by the word of god, wouldn’t it be better for the US to be in turn guided by your church? And if it isn’t, by what authority do your church leaders lead?”
If a majority of people could be influenced to obey laws, love other people and serve them, I would argue that such influence is a good thing.
But we must distinguish between “guide” and “rule.” Mormons affirm U.S. Constitutional rule through elective government.
The purpose of the Church is to teach true doctrine and provide the authorized sacraments which represents the covenants people make with God.
Covenants teach a person how to have a voluntary lasting relationship with God for this life and the next.
There is no predestination or involuntary will in Mormonism.
Funny how that doctrine based on “Truth” can be changed at any time by revelation.
Doesn’t sound much like truth. Sounds more like convenience.
Kermit:
You wrote:
“Your arguments – fallacious and contrary to what is known of reality – were used to justify miscegenation laws”
No reality is that same sex attraction is inconsistent to and with the natural purpose and identity of human gender (male or female).
Want it to be consistent is not the same with the condition of its inconsistency.
Steve, you’re welcome to try and argue how same-sex attraction is consistent with human gender and tell us how it evolved as a integral and necessary part of the human species.
The hard truth is that homosexual attraction is not necessary within the human species – it serves no purpose.
Why should Americans institutionalize the “feelings” that are inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender?
Make a compelling argument… go ahead.
But we must distinguish between “guide” and “rule.” Mormons affirm U.S. Constitutional rule through elective government.
Your church dropped polygamy as a condition of joining the federal government. Will one of your elders have a divine revelation if LGBT marriage becomes legal?
Explain to me how marriage in “natural” in the way you are framing it.
Rev:
You wrote:
“Funny how that doctrine based on “Truth” can be changed at any time by revelation. ”
Practices can be changed in the LDS faith (such as polygamy).
However, apart from these practices, Mormonism is consistent in its revealed doctrines.
If you’d like to name a more consistent faith, be my guest.
Will you just answer the question, put to you in almost every response to you: WHAT is the “natural purpose” of “human gender”. What *is* “gender”?
James sez
Yep. And how does the track record of authritative religion stack up against secular democracies in this regard?
I get that they do, I was asking why. Either rule of people by the church is a good thing, and should presumably be extended, or it is not, and should presumably be reduced.
And this true doctrine teaches that authority to rule people comes from people, right? Because that’s what the Constitution says.
Most Christians I have encountered seem to believe that humans shoud obey the dictates of non-human agency: god.
I am assuming you have evidence for both of these positions – that the religious live better than the non-religious, and that there is an afterlife… right?
Interesting.
So, if I understand you correctly, god does not know the future, according to your doctrine?
My fucking head just exploded!
Please explain how people with dark skin got their soul. Or was you big sky daddy jerking your chain?
James wrote
This idea of “Natural Identity” is the latest iteration of the pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific approach to stripping gays of their rights and of the respect due to them as human beings.
James is repeating the lies of Robert P. George and of the Sutherland Institute (among others). George has degrees in law and theology from Harvard; a doctorate in philosophy of law from Oxford; a Supreme Court fellowship; and the endowed chair at Princeton that Woodrow Wilson once held… and he still thinks (or fails to think) along some pretty odd lines:
George advised former President Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Republicans currently working on Health Care Reform. The guy is an endless source of justification for intolerance towards gays, on the issue of abortions, etc. — and all of his justifications are nicely wrapped in the pseudo-science of “Natural Identity.”
Robert P. George in an interview at the Witherspoon Institute:
Some of the material quoted above was previously posted on the endless thread. (See comments from about 860 to 866).
James is making the christofascist fallacy.
1. He thinks he knows what the laws of nature are because his cult leaders told him.
2. He thinks he is in charge of enforcing the laws of nature. Because his cult leaders told him.
Never mind that the Laws of Nature are just something made up or that no one put the LDS church in charge of enforcing them.
He is entitled to his delusions and beliefs, it is a free country.
He is not entitled to force them on the rest of us. Not in a democracy. It doesn’t always stop them though. Women, non-Mormons, and non-whites are free and equal in the USA, not because of the Mormons but despite them. Don’t forget they fought the Equal Rights for Women amendment bitterly decades ago. It failed, but didn’t make any difference. Women are considered citizens under the US constitution no matter what the LDS church thinks. The gays haven’t fared as well.
Really, we just have to keep saying no, keep pointing out that Christofascist or Mormonofascist aren’t just words but political ideologies that are bad news for freedom and democracy.
You will never convince the James that they aren’t allowed to be dictatorial bigots. But you can stop them by just saying “NO!!!”.
No James, you can’t tell me how to live my life or what to do. I’m not a member of your cult, have no interest in it whatsoever, and don’t live in Utah. Tough being a theocratic bigot in the USA but that is the way it is.
Mary Baker Eddy’s cult has always been more consistent than Joseph Smith’s cult, and in terms of raw bullshit, Eddy shoveled a smaller pile.
James, why do you hate gay people?
James–That doesn’t answer the question.
If I ask a mathematician “what is a prime number?” they aren’t going to just say “there are two kinds of number, prime and composite” because that doesn’t answer my question.
If you were talking about the “natural purpose of water,” you’d still get a lot of argument about “nature” and your assumptions of intention, but I daresay you could explain that water is a chemical, give its chemical formula, and even say a bit about its properties.
So: what is gender? What are its properties? How can it be identified?
Perhaps this is what was prophecied by Kurt Gödel?:
http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/
Heinlein had it the other way ’round, the Mormons were supposed to help save the US after the Christian fundamentalist coup in 2012:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/robert-heinlein/revolt-in-2100.htm
Well, constitution is religious document itself, so I don’t see anything tragical here or strange. Just one gang want to take over other gang.
Tell me how you separate practices and doctrine when it is practiced by the church and the leaders who have the direct line to god on these things?
Remember the pre 1978 and African Americans?
And Mormons are just as loony-toons as any other religion (and arguably more). Based on irrational behavior and beliefs.
Tell us about your boy Smith and him being a known criminal fraud? He just carried his skills at defrauding people into creating this cult you belong to.
Lynna, you are aware that Woodrow Wilson resegregated the federal government. I would say that Robert P. George is walking in a fine tradition.
Typed that out rather quickly. Obligatory typos included.
You are welcome.
Utah’s constitution?
Not the USA’s.
Janine:
You wrote
“I feel sorry for all of the people who, for what ever reason, are not physically able to carry out procreation. Those people have no true meaning in life.”
The people you’re referring to are heterosexual couples, who, because of disability cannot have children naturally.
Homosexual couples by nature are naturally incapable of passing on their genetic code with one another. This is a clear message “from nature” concerning the necessity of homosexual couples within the human species.
The human species does not need homosexual couples. This reality is beyond sentimental feelings. It is a cold hard fact of reality.
Now, if the species does not need homosexual couples, why do children, adults or governments need homosexual couples?
The hard truth is, we don’t.
But, we understand that you WANT a government contract to recognize your “togetherness” IN THE SAME WAY that we recognize the natural togetherness of heterosexual couples, natural construct that the is NECESSARY to the species.
Since homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equivalently necessary to the species, their “unions” cannot be designated with the same legal construct or social construct.
When homosexual unions are not necessary to the species, either for adults, children or governments, why should rational thinking Americans vote to institutionalize an attraction that is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender?
Hater James,
http://www.google.com/search?q=kin+selection
And blue eyes were a point mutation about 10k years ago. Obviously, blue-eyed people are against nature.
Man couldn’t fly until about 100 years ago. Obviously, airplanes are an abomination.
The effects of plagues are massively amplified by the conditions of cities. This is a clear message that humans were never meant to socialize.
TO #146 “Not the USA’s.”
Why USA’s is different? Enlighten me.
You mean like all those people born with both private parts. Damn them for being so inconsiderate and vague eh James…
Oh by the way, how many creatures was it that showed homosexuality in the wild again? I forget how HUGE the number really was…
James, you want to know how coersive your religion is. Talk to people that have tried to leave it. You will be suitably sickened im sure. The internet is full of horror stories from the castoffs of your mormonism. They are really easy to find.
In America the majority should never tell the minority what rights they can have. You should know that, yet you chose to ignore it. You didn’t block our rights. You plain and simply took them away because you were bigger than us. Like the bullies that you are.
The Human race doesn’t need people with blond hair or black skin or short people.
Because it specifically is not a religious doctrine. Not more more complicated than that.
The human race doesn’t need the institution of heterosexual marriage either. Before civilization people screwed and produced kids just fine.
Therefore, Heterosexual Marriage is wrong.
I’m only pretending to be stupid. What’s your excuse, James?
Also, regarding PZ Meyers’ stuff:
Mormons are insane. Stop the presses! :P
OMFG go read some goddamned SCIENCE and stop parroting the bullshit your church teaches you. It’s false.
While it’s true we don’t yet know exactly why homosexuality happens (in thousands of species, including humans), there are some really good theories and research being done which show not only very strong genetic/pre-birth determination of sexual orientation, but the fact that a trait exists which would seem to decrease fertility but hasn’t yet been bred out (of thousands of species) points to rather firm evidence that it not only probably serves some purpose, but doesn’t have a strong effect on the fecundity of the human species.
Homosexuality is natural, and is completely morally-neutral. Discriminating against those who are gay is morally wrong for exactly the same reason it is wrong to discriminate against women, Blacks, the handicapped, Jews, Irish, Italians, Japanese, atheists, Mormons or any other group which has been historically discriminated against in this country.
The compelling argument has already been given, over and over, you’re just ignoring it because you have nothing to argue against it. You keep parroting the exact same thing over and over and over, despite the fact that it’s been rejected as fallacious and unsupported and unsupportable.
You’ve picked the wrong bunch of non-believers to debate with.
Ridiculous – they’re all equally inconsistent and based on the ridiculous ideas of people who ignore reality. In your case, your religion is based on a hybrid of the superstitions of bronze-aged goat-herders, and the insane rantings of a philandering con-man and his brainwashed followers. The only way Mormonism is consistent in in its crazy.
The hard fucking truth is this; I do not need your fucking approval for living my life. You do not need me, fine; I do not fucking need you. Take your hard truth and shove it up your fucking ass.
The hard truth is this, humans have not always lived with nuclear families nor your church’s original vision of polygamy. Human families lived in extended families. LGBT people played their part in human survival in helping their group survive.
James, just fade back into your all white world where your womenfolk are servile to your whims. I have no need for it.
The argument here seems to be that James’s shit doesn’t stink because everyone else’s does.
Red John, your link @80 doesn’t work.
ok, Multitaking is a failure for me today.
Doctrine should be document in my #153
I don’t care whether it did or not. It has no bearing on whether a marriage contract should be restricted to only heterosexual couples.
How about taking in the unwanted children from your crappy, broken and abusive hetero marriages?
Remember also that the human species does not need YOU. It will continue, a little better probably if you ceased to exist. Something to bear in mind.
oh good grief
The human species doesn’t need the wacky superstitions and prejudices of Bronze Age goat herders.
That is the hard truth.
Oh, regarding mormonism, it is in fact no more consistent. Whenever they happen to be wrong as the rest of us judge it, God rings up their version of the pope to let him know that the other people are right, and they change policy. See: Polygamy, ‘Lamanites’.
It’s the same as Catholicism in that regard, but their pope gets the strongerest hat.
Buddhism has Skillful Means, which means “You can drop aspects if it helps get other aspects across”, but at least it’s honest about that.
Modernized Islamic folks disregard their text as law just as quickly as Protestants do.
Hinduism /isn’t/ a distinct set of doctrines, so it’s consistently inconsistent.
Need anyone go on?
Oh, and on a personal level: Screw you and the horse you came in on. Some of us like our own gender, and want to be able to live with them. If hetero marriage is that important to you, fine, but leave the rest of us be.
I don’t understand what is meant by “not necessary to the species”. Certainly marriage itself is not necessary. We can certainly get by without any marriage contracts at all, or even monogamous pairings. Something not being necessary does not in any way imply that is inappropriate. It’s not necessary to have freedoms or rights at all. However, legal protections are useful, and help us live in a happier, healthier society. Furthermore, bans on homosexual marriage (you’d think) clearly violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The whole “not necessary” thing strikes me as complete non sequitur (along with pretty much every other argument James has used).
(Just to be clear here, I’m not advocating abolishing marriage like sometimes gets suggested.)
It doesn’t need religious kooks, religious bigots, or discrimination either.
It definitely doesn’t need Mormons. The LDS church is a recent invention and there are only 12 million worldwide.
We got along just fine for 3.6 billion years and the vast majority of the world’s 6.7 billion people don’t live in Utah and are better off for it.
That is the cold, hard fact of reality.
James’ Mormon fangs and claw are coming out again. The LDS are bigots and authoritarian kooks who would create a hell on earth for the rest of us if they could. They can’t hide that for long.
James…Still with the naturalistic fallacy. Whatever. You are not much of a reader, I guess.
However, I think that your original goal of asserting that not all Mormons are as batshit insane as Rex Rammell has been undermined by your own comments on this thread. If this is the best rhetoric Mormon’s have to offer, yawn…are there any scientologists who would like to doff a foil hat and weigh in on the grim situation facing the Microdons of the Omega-8 system?
A funny story that I think you will appreciate…one saturday afternoon, my wife’s uncle was rotating the tires on his car in his driveway, when two Moromon missionaries approached with literature. He offered to listen to their (do you call it testimony or something?), if only they could lend a hand with the tire rotation. They agreed, and soon their white shirts were smudged with grease as they finished rotating the tires, changed the oil, and flushed and refilled the radiator, all the while doing their proselytic best. When they were finished, uncle (let’s call hom Chronos?) offered the missionaries a beer, then a soda, then a cup of water, thanked them for the literature and assured them that he would read it carefully.
Now if there were only something useful we could find for you to do around here…
But Rutee, you are denying your nature human gender by not submitting to some man and pumping out a lot of white children that you can then teach how to obey.
And am sounding like raven here but James is a fascist creep. What does James want done to those people that are not fucking needed by the likes of him?
Amen, brother. Short people got no reason to live.
Rev DumbChimp:
In 1836, Joseph Smith became the first white leader of an all white Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood (Elijah Abel). This was 25+ years before the civil war.
He also appointed him to be a member of one of the Church’s governing bodies called the “Seventy.” Between 1830 and 1948, six black men were ordained in the LDS Church during those pre-Emancipation Proclamation years.
In 1848, Brigham Young instituted a practice of delaying some black men to the priesthood.
Elijah Abel continued to serve in the Quorum of Seventy until his death in 1878. Elijah Abel’s sons and grandsons were ordained to the priesthood up through 1931.
As for your characterization of Joseph Smith, your comments are absurd.
Mormons do not claim that Joseph Smith was a perfect human being, but he certainly wasn’t a criminal or a fraud in any significant sense.
By the way RevDumbChimp, did you know that credible archeological evidence or the Book of Mormon was recently found in the Southern Arabia?
That sounds very interesting. I hope you will tell us all about it when you get bored of telling us why you hate gay people.
There, fixed it for you, James. we don’t need you. If all the Mormons in the World died overnight, we wouldn’t miss you one iota.
So, following your own fallacious reasoning, it’s time to pass a law disallowing Mormon marriage, since it serves no purpose to us whatsoever – all it does is create more Mormons, which, we’ve established, we don’t need.
That sounds fair enough to me James, how about you?
Anti:
You wrote:
“James…Still with the naturalistic fallacy. Whatever. You are not much of a reader, I guess.”
Look, I know that you’d love to argue that my argument is an “is-ought” problem but you’ve failed to incorporate that genders are entities with identities and purpose.
We’re not taking about abstractions – we’re talking about measurable entities, albeit complex.
James opined,
Okay, this is even a more idiotic argument than the “homosexuality is icky” one.
Let me re-use your words in another area to see if the idiocy becomes clear to you…
James, legal systems, including governments, are not restricted to what is ‘necessary to the species’. They are, hopefully, created and evolve to promote equality between citizens of a state and provide protections to non-citizen, other life, and property.
Denying some citizens the right to marriage is failing to promote equality between citizens.
The ability for individuals to choose to become married should not be restricted by the state because of differences in traits that the state recognizes as equal in other areas of the law. The state does not prevent homosexuals from making business contracts. The state does not prevent homosexuals from buying property. The state does not prevent homosexuals from teaching school-children.
In all other areas of society gender is a trait which, legally, is not discriminated against.
Why should the state maintain the discrimination in the institution of marriage? Your insane concept of ‘natural purpose’ or ‘identity of human gender’ notwithstanding?
Oh no… See, ‘James’ is capable of squirting, presumably… even willing, presumably, to squirt sperm into vaginas… This makes him rare and essential… and… umm…
See, that’s what he’s for. That’s his purpose. And without him doing that… Umm…
Yeah… And, okay… I guess you do have a point, there, actually…
I mean, seein’ as we’re not exactly hard up for sperm, after all. Nor men averse to placing it in such locations…
And let’s face it, from his performance here, we’ve no particular reason to assume his contribution is going to be particularly top shelf material, either, for that matter…
‘Kay. So you’ve a point. ‘James’ is superfluous, after all…
And so, his having failed to justify his existence, the ‘hard truth’ is we should probably put together a nice little ballot measure on James…
(/Vote no on James. Seriously: what the fuck is that loser for, anyway?)
Uh, James… given the circumstances for your take on “credible evidence,” pardon the chuckle. How ’bout a link for that?
James, please be explain to us what a man is supposed to be and what a woman is supposed to be. Do not hide behind duckspeak terms like human gender. Explain to me how I am supposed to live my life according to the dictates of your non democratic church.
raven:
“Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
Then what happened? How did it become institutionalized by the very people who have the direct line to god? Would it have anything to do with 2 Nephi 5:21-23, 2 Nephi 30:6 and 3 Nephi 2:15?
Oh this should be good. Please point it out to us
Sutherland Institute:
Thanks Lynna at #122
This doesn’t make sense. If we can choose our sexuality “at any given time” then how can there be a bias toward heterosexuality? A bias implies that one option is weighted more than the other, thereby diminishing, if not eliminating, the desire for the opposite choice. If there is no desire for any other option, then no choice exists.
We’ll bet that James will argue that he was born heterosexual, but if gender preference really is a choice, then James would have to have been born bi-sexual at best, which means that he was or is attracted to other men, but has made a choice to remain heterosexual.
How about it James? Have you ever been or are you now, sexually attracted to men? Think before you answer. If you say no, then you are implying that your sexuality is not a choice, but a natural result of your biological/psychological makeup when you were born.
If that’s true for you, wouldn’t it also be true for a gay man?
The human species would certainly be better off without you and your merry band of religiwhackos. That is a cold hard fact of reality. You happily follow the ravings of a third rate nutcase who couldn’t get one woman, so all of a sudden he popped up with a convenient polygamy based belief. Uh huh. And don’t attempt to school me, you nasty homophobe – my husband grew up mormon and many of my relatives by marriage are still deluded. Although, I’m happy to say, more than a few have seen the light over the years and left that foul institution.
Janine is going to clean your clock, but I will note that there is no “Purpose” to gender, nor to life itself, except what purpose we decide to assign.
What about this quote from your cult Leader during the early 70s??
Janine @144
LOL. Good point. Still smiling over than one as I go back to work.
Ummm… vague descriptive coincidence does not equal evidence, you fruitbat…
I believe James may be talking about this. It’s hard to find information about it from a site that doesn’t have “mormon” or “lds” or “byu” in the domain name.
How can there possibly be credible evidence for the Book of Mormon.. in Saudi Arabia? Its a book that details Jesus visitting Merika, because Jesus HAS to visit Merika or it isn’t special. Saudia Arabia sounds like a bad place to go to study the past of the continental USA.
Individual states within the USA have their own state constitutions. These days they generally can not override the federal constitution, but prior to the incorporation doctrine, they could. Anyway, some of those state constitutions do use religious language. The federal constitution of the USA does not.
hahahaha.
Oh wait he’s serious.
Except for the fraud about knowing egyptian and getting totally exposed over the fact he made the whole thing up when the egyptian language was finally worked out…
SO I’m going to take a guess, if James thinks this “find” [snicker] in Saudi Arabia is some sort of evidence than I’m wagering that James might also subscribe to the Native American DNA silliness I’ve seen put forth by other Mormon “scholars”.
Good bet. When James said it was “consistent,” he didn’t say “with reality.”
re: “regular Mormons” – When I was a kid in Utah, and Bill Clinton was voted into office, a tonne of my neighbours started getting into militias and whatnot. My best friend’s dad was in a group that met once a month and the password was “Ruby Ridge”. (Google that if you don’t know what it refers to, and you’ll have an idea about the paranoid nutbaggery that was going on.) I remember going over to people’s houses to babysit their kids and finding and reading a copy of Bo Gritz’s manifesto on the “Hanging By A Thread” prophecy. People made up crazy theories about Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton. She was pretty much the anti-Christ as far as folks seemed to be concerned. Anyway, the atmosphere was downright paranoid, and everybody kept freaking out about the Constitution.
Enter Bush.
Suddenly all those folks freaking out about Constitutional rights? Nowhere to be found. I kept asking my family and older acquaintances if they thought Bush should be running roughshod with his free-speech zones and his signing statements that undermine the other branches of the government and the oh-so-wonderful Patriot Act. I asked if they’d like a Democrat president to have these exact powers. (Of course not, but Bush was called of God, doncha know.)
Anyway, all of these people….regular Mormons. Not crazies off in compounds, but living in the suburbs of Orem, Utah, and regularly attending church.
…
re: Gay Marriage and civil rights – Let’s not forget that the LDS church, while pretending to allow people to vote their conscience, has a history of hamstringing the votes on civil rights. The Prop 8 stuff gives me flashbacks to my childhood, when I was reading Fencin’ With Benson (the collection of Pulitzer Prize winning cartoons by Steve Benson, the now-apostate grandson of Ezra T. Benson, late prophet of the LDS church). Anyway, I come across a cartoon involving the ERA and Mormons. I ask my parents to explain it, and they explain that the ERA was designed to give special rights to minorities, and that the church had to organise to oppose it. For years I had no idea what the ERA actually was, but I figured it must be no good, because the LDS church opposed it. They’d gotten groups of Relief Society women together to go pose on the steps of their state capitals whenever the votes were coming up, much in the same way that they got call centers together to drum up support on Prop 8. They misrepresented their interference then, and they misrepresented it now.
(Incidentally, when I finally looked up the ERA–which has still never passed to this day–the Amendment consisted of three sentences, two regarding implementation of the first, which merely stated that you couldn’t abridge rights on the basis of gender or race. Nothing about minority rights or granting anything to any one group but not others.)
…
One of James’ statements above needs to be clarified. When the question of mind control was first addressed, and the LDS church was called out as a strictly hierarchical controlling church, he popped out this bit about Bishops:
In the LDS Church, every congregation is led by a lay pastor called a Bishop who has been chosen out of the congregation to lead the group for 5-8 years.
The way James phrases this makes it seems as if the congregation chooses the bishops, and that the church is a bottom-up organisation instead of a top-down one. In reality, the bishop is chosen by the stake president, who is chosen by the district president (I forget the exact title) who is chosen by a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, who are chosen by the Council of the Twelve.
It is true that from the stake presidency down, the church operates with lay clergy who are unpaid. (I do not know if the district level guys are paid or not, but I’m fairly certain the two Quorums of the Seventy get stipends, and I’m damn certain that the Council of the Twelve is taken care of by the church.)
In fact, the church does their best to make sure almost every member has a calling (a position of some responsibility) inside the church. This can be as minor as calling somebody to lock up the meeting house after church activities, or teaching primary lessons to children, or being an activity co-ordinator. Furthermore, every member gets assigned somebody else to “teach” during the month. Nevermind that you are ALL teaching from the same correlated lesson plan that was developed in SLC–the real point is that you are developing a sunk cost in terms of time, effort, and friendships. Because of how much time you have to spend preparing for your calling during the week, you may find that your entire social network is dependent on the LDS church if you live in Utah, and even outside of Utah. You are discouraged from saying no to a calling. (After all, Heavenly Father wouldn’t test you beyond your abilities, goes the reasoning.)
What is taught in church is not left up to the individual bishops or the lay clergy, but sent down from Salt Lake City via the Correlation Program. This is how they make sure that all messages are consistent with what the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency want. Occasionally, letters are issued to every church and bishops MUST read them to their congregations. These are the letters that dictated the votes on the ERA and Prop 8, although sometimes they can be soul-crushingly mundane. (When I was a kid, the church presidency issued a letter telling people not to bake treats to share at church. I was crushed, as I was about to enter the Young Women’s auxiliary program, which was known for its treat-making enthusiasm.)
Anyway, the statement that the LDS church is a hierarchical and controlling institution is perfectly accurate in all respects.
There is no pervasive mind control practice in the LDS Church doctrine.
I think it would be more accurate if we talked about the systemic indoctrination that goes on in the church as a system, rather than an overt practice. When framed as a practise, most people tend to think of things like the Manchurian Candidate, and many Mormons, filled with cog dis, will reject these claims straight out.
However, I outlined above how the Mormon church decides what information is going to be disseminated to church members. The Correlation Program makes sure that every branch and ward in the world, everywhere, are on the same page. While this makes sense on an institutional level, it does little to address individual spirituality, and indeed, spontaneous displays of worship that do not jibe with SLC’s vision, are dictated to. (Another one of those little letters from the Presidency ordered the cessation of the practise of “Temple/Tunnel Singing” wherein teens and young adults would gather at the Marriot Center tunnel or the gates of the temple and sing hymns. This spontaneous practise was squelched after a few years, for reasons I was never sure about.) Individual questioning and individual interpretation of the doctrine as it applies in one’s own life is not really encouraged. Your bishop or seminary teacher or gospel doctrine leader will over-ride you and explain where you have gone wrong. If you share your non-approved ideas, you can find yourself being restricted from callings, taking the sacrament, or going to the temple.
Every active Mormon attends three hours of church meetings every Sunday. Two auxiliary meetings, and eighty minutes for sacrament meeting, where the bishopric and pre-determined members of the congregation share gospel lessons with intermediate hymns being sung. The sacrament (bread and water, not wine and wafers) is passed, and once a month, the podium will be opened for fast-and-testimony meeting. (Once a month fasts are accompanied by a period of donating the money you would have spent on food to the church.) It’s hard not to note that high-social-pressure situation of being expected to bear your testimony in combination with 24 hours of no food can create in people the physiological and mental sensations that people are speaking with “the spirit”.
During the week, the family is encouraged to participate in activities the church deems appropriate. Monday is Family Home Evening, wherein the family unit prepares a lesson and activity about the church and its doctrine.
On Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, you may find yourself meeting for an auxiliary meeting if you are a teenager. Adults have a once-a-month meeting in their appropriate auxiliary: Priesthood activity for men and Relief Society for women. Small children had an auxiliary meeting when I was VERY small–Primary used to be on Wednesdays–but about the time I was three, they switched out that program.
Friday night is supposed to be date-night for the Mormon couple.
And once a month, if you are an “endowed” adult, you should attend the temple and do ordinance work. Teens will on a quarterly basis go and participate in baptisms for the dead, a proxy ordinance which can be fulfilled before full temple initiation. I don’t know much about the adult ordinances, since I left before getting endowed, but from what I’ve read, there’s a ritual where you change into white clothes with aprons and funny hats/veils, and chant as you watch either a movie or a play. (The play dates from before we had recordable media.) You’ve been given a special name and password and signs to show that you are one of the faithful. (This is the root of the deep and abiding irony of the Book of Mormon’s consistent railing against “secret combinations”.) The repetition of phrases sure doesn’t sound like brainwashing, does it? (She said sarcastically.) The special name isn’t designed to make you feel extra warm and fuzzy. And the funny clothes certainly weren’t going to erode any sense of self or personality upon repeated visits. Nope, not at all.
As for baptisms for the dead, you stand in as a proxy for those who have already died. You are dunked repeated in a pool, and because they have a lot of names to go through, you are given hardly any time to catch your breath between dunkings. The physical act of getting baptised for an entire European village from the time of Martin Luther will take your breath away–literally. If you are light-headed and breathless, that can be explain as the Holy Ghost and those ancestors approving your actions.
Let’s not forget seminary class. Of course, I belong to a spoiled generation in the heart of Utah who actually had released-time seminary. So I got to go to a building just off my high school campus and be taught on a daily basis about the scriptures. (I totally ruled in scripture chases, having been a voracious reader since I was about three years of age.) However, many Mormon students don’t have the same facilities or the release-time from school, so the prevailing form of seminary classes is early morning seminary class. Whee for sleep dep. Again we find that doctrine may be taught under circumstances where the body and mind may not be performing at 100%.
The active LDS person has the church woven through-out their daily and weekly life. The church makes decisions about what they can wear and when they can wear it. The church makes decisions about what they can eat and when they should fast. (You ARE allowed exemptions for medical reasons–they’re not completely insane.) The church makes decisions about what sort of media is appropriate to consume. (Nevermind that scripture about how it is a poor servant who requires guidance in all things.) The church takes ten percent of your money. (You volunteer it in theory, but you can’t attend the temple if you don’t pay a full tithe and in a close-knit community, it becomes obvious who falls into the faithful and non-faithful categories.) The church will also demand a few hours several days a week for further meetings and preparation for your Sunday duties. The church teaches your children on a near daily basis from the time they turn 15 and enter seminary. This is the system by which they control your behaviour and thoughts. Yes, it’s theoretically voluntary, but if you live in most of Utah, and parts of Idaho or Arizona, you may find that your social capital and job opportunities will depend on how well you fit into this system. And while James notes that people who choose to join the church are voluntarily taking this on, he conveniently ignores the people who were born into this system who are ground under its wheels: the spiritual non-conformists, gays, many women, and prior to 1978, those of other races. I DID NOT have a choice about entering this system, and to this day I am working on rooting out much of the psychological damage it did to me in terms of abiding by the authority of men, expectations for marriage and relationships, and my own self-worth as a creative woman. (And I’m one of the less-damaged as far as I can tell.)
This system encourages little individuality. This system teaches you to obey authority, even when it’s making irrational demands. This system demands loyalty to the system over one’s personal problems. And as far as their vaunted claims about being about family, this system does not hesitate to exclude or run rough-shod over family members who view things differently. It’s a recipe-driven life, spirituality by rote, and ultimately unfulfilling for many people.
Sorry this is so long, but the system is so pervasive at every level of the devout Mormon’s life, it’s hard to describe the full extent of it. It’s not just one “brainwashing practice” — it’s an entire culture, and as such, it’s practically invisible to the people who live and breathe it. A total case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Flex:
Nature discriminates against homosexual couples in that they cannot pass on their genetic code together.
Homosexual men are not equivalent to women to be wives and mothers, lesbian women are not equivalent to men to be husbands and fathers.
In-equivalence and inequality are already built into the nature of homosexual attraction and unions.
Seeing this in-equivalency in nature, why should Americans vote to institutionalize attraction that is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender?
We understand that you WANT gay marriage, but see no compelling reason to create a social construct that is unnecessary for children, adults or governments.
Isn’t your argument “Genders have natural identities and purposes. The purpose of gender is procreation. Therefore, we ought not sanction marriage between two people of the same gender because they cannot procreate.”
This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.
Am I misunderstanding you here?
Again, you hateful bigot, heterosexual marriage is not necessary for children, adults, or governments.
…
(/From the Yes campaign: ‘Vote Yes on James… ‘Cos let’s face it, he does bring the laughs…’)
yknow, James and his running around with the goal posts reminds me of the last mormon on here. Mind you when you have all been taught to think exactly the same way, it must be difficult without a face to tell them apart.
James representing mormonism is not exactly selling it right now, though i give him kudos for trying to go up against a load of ex-mormons, gays and other bemused atheists.
RevDumbChimp:
I would say that the quote was an expression of a personal opinion of one of many of the Mormon authorities out there in the 70s and is not “Mormon doctrine.”
It is meaningless, especially in light of what Joseph Smith did in 1836, by being the first white Christian leader to ordain a black man into an all white Church in 1836, 25+ years before Lincoln freed the salves.
That last piece by James was classic… almost directly lifted, it seems, out of the South Park “Mormon” episode…
“You haven’t heard the BEST part… the part that PROVES that Joseph Smith was telling the truth”
Heh heh…
They really believe this shit… it’s just mind-numbing.
James sounds like Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute:
I cannot speak for Rev. BigDumbChimp, but I certainly haven’t heard of any such thing. References, please?
And just where is “the Southern Arabia”? I assume “the southern Arabian Peninsula” is meant, albeit I expect the references you’ll kindly be providing will clear up (with a great deal more precision) this point.
Statements about “natural purpose” are not secular: they are teleological, based on the idea that there is a “right” way to behave, and a “wrong” way to behave, as dictated by nature — and people might choose the wrong way. But you can’t work morality into nature. Someone who chooses to diet so strictly that they end up starving themselves to death has not gone against the “natural purpose” of the stomach, and thus sinned. They made a choice which had physical consequences they didn’t want.
When you conflate teleology with human concepts of right and wrong, you can end up with people claiming that all diets, or any diet, is going against the “natural purpose” of the stomach. There are no ways to limit what nature “intends.” A secular science would only describe what will happen. It doesn’t deal with what’s supposed to happen, as planned by nature, evolution, or god of choice.
There are no negative consequences to gay marriage. And, if you are going to argue that marriage provides benefits to society, then gay marriage provides the same benefits.
That’s bull. You are aware that with modern medical science Gay men can pass on their own genetic code and have their “own” children. The idea that men can not replace the mother role or women can’t replace the father role is absurd as we do have evidence, both in nature and human society, that they can.
Celtic:
I am sure you wish it were crappola but it isn’t.
Credible evidence now exists that supports the narrative of the Book of Mormon as true history, in part.
@ Antiochus Epiphanes #25
Too bad they don’t keep up with the bicycle use. Look at the parking lot at a ward [church] on sunday morning and see the wall of Suburbans, Explorers etc in the parking lot.
You should qualify that by as internally enforcing the prohibition.
Standard Mormon joke: How do you make sure that all the beer gets consumed on a fishing trip?
Bring a Mormon.
How do make sure that you get to have all the beer on a fishing trip?
Bring two Mormons.
This was borne out to me with a conversation I had with my Mormon boss when I worked in the securities industry about the seeming contradiction between Mormon prohibitions on alcohol, tobacco, caffeine etc. He stated that he had no moral reservations about making a profit from wherever it could be made.
Another Mormon joke:
What’s the third most important holiday for Mormons?
The anniversary of the introduction of caffeine-free Coke.
Richard:
I find your personal criticisms meaningless but your lack of coherent argumentation to refute my assertions and arguments very meaningful.
Except he was the man who was the church leader and had a direct line to god. Do church leaders have the ability to receive divine revelation about church doctrine or not? What about the passages in Nephi I pointed to?
Except the church and its leaders who supposedly can alter doctrine by divine revelation practiced institutionalized racism until they magically decided to change their mind in 1978,under pressure of the IRS removing their tax exempt status. Funny that.
Do you church leaders govern doctrinal changes by divine revelation or not?
It is so transparently about convenience. Just like when they got rid of Polygamy in the 1890’s that saved the church from having assets siezed and allowed Utah to become the 45th state.
Convenient how that worked out huh?
You’re a piece of work. Do you do yoga to allow such flexibility when twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend your cult?
You complain that Richard isn’t addressing your fallacious arguments, even while you pointedly ignore the people who are.
Were you always a dishonest shit, James, or did Mormonism make you that way?
Try #195.
Only in your mind. There is tons of archaeological and historical evidence to show that the stories in the BoM is nothing but bullshit pulled up from Joey Smith’s ass.
And this “credible evidence” is what?
James #147
LOVE
They can’t? Well… not with each other, but if they felt so compelled, they could just have sex with a willing female to “pass on their seed”… the sperm doesn’t dry up and disappear because you’re attracted to men…
So what the fuck does that have to do with affording gays the right to marry, exactly?
James merrily argues that there is no coercion in religion. One presumes he has not heard of the Mormon Gulag.
*spit*
TRiG.
James #205 wrote:
Before we get into specific details on this, could you please clarify what you mean by your statement:
Do you mean that there is credible evidence which is convincing to objective historians and archeologists, and this will pass rigorous peer review to be included in neutral, secular sources?
Or do you mean that, if you are already Mormon, and looking for some small sign that your religious history is true in fact (and not just ‘true for you’), this will suffice as good enough for the purpose?
Those are different standards, you know.
The social construct already exists and it is already unnecessary for children, adults or government. People will pair and procreate whether the institution of marriage exists or not. And today even among heterosexuals, the “purpose” of marriage is more than just to support their fertility.
And being consistent with some “natural purpose” is not required by the Constitution. That the laws be applied uniformly is.
Personal criticisms? Basic history on Joseph Smith and eqyptian writings. Unless you’re on about something else. Your being incredibly vague is very telling when it comes to your criticism of me.
Also since I have made several points that others have made your argument fails on both logic and comprehension. As you have been quite happy to argue with them. Or, as a 2nd class citizen in your eyes, not being natural and all…is this my being told to be quiet and sent to the back of the bus?
There is none. The South Arabian stuff is just grasping at straws and doesn’t even really hint at it.
I actually tried to read the Book of Mormon a few times. The first few pages had American Indians riding around on horses and waving iron swords around.
Horses died out in NA at the end of the last ice age. The Amerindians never had horses until the Europeans brought them over. And they didn’t have iron swords or any iron metallurgy until the Europeans either. And they aren’t Jewish, no semitic languages, no DNA.
James is a classic example of what Pixelfish is talking about. A brainwashed robot going through life controlled by a malevolent cult. Never going to get anything intelligent out of a robot. But he is a great example of just what persistent early brainwashing can do to a potential thinking human being.
A meat robot, how pathetic is that?
Sastra:
You’ve made a categorical error. Teleological- “is-ought” philosophies or arguments have to do with whether a particular “behavior” is morally right based on whether it is naturally right to do so.
My argument is altogether different. You begin by identifying what homosexuality is. It is a kind of attraction. In the case of males, it is an attraction for members of one’s own sex.
Now, the question is whether homosexual attraction is consistent with the natural purpose and identity of a human male? The answer is no.
No teleological argumentation employed or needed.
Homosexual attraction IS by nature and by identity, inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
Why should Americans vote to institutionalize “feelings” that are incompatible with and inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender and which are not necessary for the human species?
a bit late but….
James said:
Yes, and I choose to vote against gay marriage in my State. No offense.
then you are lying to yourself about personal liberty, and living in an obvious state of denial.
Moreover, the institution of Mormon spent tens of millions to get prop 8 passed IN A DIFFERENT STATE.
how is that NOT trying to fuck with other people’s liberties? How is that not a violation of separation of church and state? How is that not a violation of Federal Nonprofit regulations even!
you’re delusional on the face of it.
no offense.
:P
There is no natural purpose of a human male. I’m sure you can’t explain what you mean by identity either.
Marriage itself is not necessarily compatible with natural process nor is monogamy. Stop falling for the naturalist fallacies dipshit. In this modern society, Gays can equally fill the roles that straights fill. You’re arguing from nothing more than bigotry.
… thank you, James for proving conclusively that while not all Mormons believe in Mormon dominionism via prophecy, they DO all believe in using the state to dictate their loony beliefs to others.
You really aren’t any different from Rammell, you just don’t appear to realize it.
… true fact: Woodruff’s 1890 ‘revelation’ that they should now cool it with the marrying ’em by the dozens thing went roughly as follows… In the precise words of the angel involved:
‘No no no… what we said was ‘Mo’ hoes fo’ Joe’…
(/’See… It was supposed to be a commandment in which his neighbours were ordered to lend him their lawncare stuff when he asked… The randy ole’ bastard had a way of hearing what he wanted to, tho’, so… well… here we are, Woody… We trust you’ll clear all this up with the flock, now…’)
Also, James, why do you hate gay people so much?
Did you always hate gay people, or did Mormonism make you that way?
Raven:
You wrote:
“There is none. The South Arabian stuff is just grasping at straws and doesn’t even really hint at it.”
The Book of Mormon predicts specific geographical features, cultural features, settlement names, geography at a specific time and place. There are over 16 separate predictions that there is direct evidence for in south Arabia including specific flora and fauna of a particular century.
Your lack of knowledge concerning recent archeological data about MesoAmerica or the evidences in that region are evident. I find most anti-mormons rely on archeological date from the late 70s for their “iron clad” evidences against the Book of Mormon.
James said:
Now, James, I realize that every single one of your points have been addressed several times, since you just ignore every valid argument and keep re-iterating the exact same points… But I wanted to take a small stab at this anyway.
You must live in a very sad world indeed if only those things that are strictly necessary should be allowed to exist.
As a rationalist I know that we have a long and beautiful life on this earth, and I suspect that we have no afterlife to look forward to, so I think that we should make the most of the life that we know that we have. Part of that is finding enjoyment in the many wonderful things in life, and one of the most wonderful of those is love.
Now, love is not something that requires marriage. People have loved each other in all times and all cultures, with or without social contracts. But in our particular, modern culture we have decided that the deepest and most meaningful relationships are best if they are formalized.
That is what marriage is about, essentially. People are fully able to have kids, raise kids, live together and have fulfilled lives without marriage. But we have decided, as a culture, that marriage is still something to strive for. Not out of necessity for the species or the country, but just as a celebration of one of the most wonderful things in the world.
This celebration is, for practically everyone, seen as a bond between two adults who love each other. It’s not a contract to procreate, it’s not a contract to have straight sex, it’s not a contract to live together – it is a bond of deep and mature love.
As we well know, not all marriages turn out to be that deep and mature love that we should be, but that doesn’t change the fact that society sees marriage as a bond of love between two adults.
That is where the bigotry comes in. The people opposed to gay marriage are often people who think that the love (not the “usefulness” of a relationship) between two people is less beautiful, less valuable if they are of the same gender. And even if they aren’t bigots, this is still what it amounts to.
Because the “usefulness” or “necessity” of straight marriage, or the historical reasons for it, really don’t play into it much. What really matters is how people feel about it in the here and now, and people seem to generally think that marriage is about love and commitment, nothing else. So every law that says that gay relationships aren’t the same as straight relationships is a law that tells people that gay people don’t love the same way (or as much) as straight people do.
Who are you, James, to tell people what worth their love has? I have felt the same love for a man that I’ve felt for a woman, and there aren’t any qualitative differences that I can see.
And you are arguing that being straight is morally right, and being gay is morally wrong.
Even though both are natural.
you idiot, every time you use the word “purpose” when describing nature, you’re using a teleological argument. things in nature don’t have purposes. they have uses.
WTF? There was no argumentation involved there at all, just an assertion tied directly to a couple of presuppositions.
Yes, I noticed that, you sly ol’ fox of an apologist, you! You have to get up pret-ty early in the morning to get us with that one! Har har!
Now, the question is whether homosexual attraction is consistent with the natural purpose and identity of a human male?
what about a female?
if a population of cockroaches has no males, females will become parthenogenic.
is that natural, or not?
in hymenopterans, (bees and wasps), many species have most individuals forgo reproduction altogether, to contribute to the queen’s reproductive success instead.
Is that not natural?
hmm, maybe you’ve just never bothered to think about how it might maintain itself in populations beyond the simplistic “males that boff each other can’t make babies – and they make me sick because I was told it’s wrong”
why not expand your mind a bit?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-06/960498851.Ev.r.html
Jadehawk:
There is no such neccessary nomenclature or restriction when using the term “purpose.”
Entities indeed have purposes and uses.
Look, I know and you know that same sex attraction neither has a ulitarian purpose or a neccesary use within the human species.
James is now running in circles. This is fun. See James, See James run. Run James run.
James, why do you own a computer when they are clearly unnatural devices? Man wasn’t meant to send messages at the speed of light.
and anyway, who says we aren’t necessary for the species. I can think of quite a few uses for gender mixed humans within society. I can name at least 2 reasons why DNA would be more successfully passed on within a group containing gays.
ah, but James is still looking down his nose at me. I’m not natural, and the fact that i’m half female (no its not just about sex, anything can be switched) means I have lower status in his cult.
Nope. Current evidence still shows the BoM is bullshit.
More writing from LDS past leaders supporting the church’s racism. This letter from LDS First Presidency including George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay in 1947 responding to criticism.
the reply
And the First Presidency’s response to the reply
Yep the Church of LDS has not been racist at all.
Open your eyes James.
No… it doesn’t…
There must be a massive scientific conspiracy silencing the truth about the Book of Mormon. If you’ve had evidence for decades that demonstrates its empirical validity, then the whole world should have acknowledged it by now. After all, we hear about the discovery of various proteins and genes all the time, and they are reported in mainstream news. There must be active suppression of the Book of Mormon, by scientists, journalists, and politicians. I’m sure you’ll overcome that conspiracy of censorship real soon now.
James @194,
There, fixed for you.
James. Your inability to see a compelling reason to expand marriage laws to treat all members of society equally doesn’t mean that reasons don’t exist.
And what the hell is this new social construct you’re talking about? Marriage is a social construct already. No one is talking about creating a new ‘social construct’ for homosexuals, all that is being asked is to allow an existing social construct to be expanded to include people who are currently excluded.
The social construct of marriage, as enshrined in current law, creates an elaborate network of rights, responsibilities, duties and restrictions. All the people who are in favor of same-sex marriage are asking is to allow citizens who are homosexual to be able to enjoy the same rights, responsibilities, duties, and restrictions as other citizens of the United States.
There is no new social construct required. All that is required is permission, and you and your Church are the ones screaming, “NO!”
Your lack of knowledge concerning recent archeological data about MesoAmerica or the evidences in that region are evident.
“Your lack of faith disturbs me.”
-DV
the final draft was on parchment, apparently. and i imagine that’s the aforementioned version
Utilitarian? Fucking feels good, and a healthy sex life contributes to happiness.
Necessary? Nothing is necessary. Heterosexual marriage is not necessary.
Did you look up kin selection yet?
Are you going to explain why you hate gay people, or do you think it should go without saying?
More
Official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 1967, pp.406- 407
raven@218 commented “The South Arabian stuff is just grasping at straws and doesn’t even really hint at it.”
It sounds like you have some idea what he’s going on about. Could you elucidate? James has, sofar, completely ignored the requests from different people saying, basically, WTF? I’m aware ldsers tend to think their holy book is factually and/or historically accurate, and have in the past offered amusingly spurious archaeological evidence as evidence, but it’s usually been in Mesoamerica. That there supposedly evidence from what I assume is the southern Arabian Peninsula is a new one on me.
Fucking CITATION, James…
That’s how it works around here… you don’t get to express shit as fact without backing it up with a link to PEER-REVIEWED, scientific evidence.
Since you are not going to find any such thing, you are going to have to accept that this is just more bullshit lies propagated by your carnie-created goofy religion.
James, the meat robot is just going to repeat himself ad infinitum, not having any thoughts of his own.
Boring, and I’m out.
But being a meat robot isn’t all that it is claimed to be. Utah is the leading per capita consumer of antidepressants. And even in that state, Mormons are only 65% of the population.
Every form of refuge has its price. I’d rather be an autonomous functioning normal human, but that is just me.
James said:
My argument is altogether different. You begin by identifying what homosexuality is. It is a kind of attraction. In the case of males, it is an attraction for members of one’s own sex.
Then WTF is MY kind of homosexuality since I’m a lesbian?
James #219:
No, your argument is not ‘altogether different’ — you’re still working morality into nature by introducing the concept of “purpose.
Is homosexual attraction consistent with the purpose and identity of the human male? The answer is yes, it is. The male sex organ was shaped by natural evolution to provide pleasure, and to enhance emotional bonds with a partner. It works with men as partner, or woman as partner, and in both cases the human male is still human, and still male.
That is how the question is answered if one does not invoke teleology, and tries to deal only with a secular understanding of “purpose and identity.”
You’re not really talking about what identifies a “man.” You’re trying to sneak in what makes a “real man.”
James @170, I’ll see your offerings of crumbs for blacks with these:
And then there was the little matter of Brigham Young sealing a black woman to a man so that the man would have a servant in heaven.
And James, please explain this photo/chart. [1.7 MB PDF] It shows all of the General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Scroll down to see one black face. This a photo that lives up to the cliché, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Wrong. LGBT people always have been in a position to help the group they are in to survive, be it farming, hunting, gathering and child care. While they may not pass on their genes, they help their relatives to do so.
Also, sexulity is not either/or. Gay men and lesbian women have had offspring period.
Except for the actual acts of giving birth and breast feeding, what is it the a man can do that a woman cannot and vice versa? Or are you going to ignore all of the gay and lesbian couples who have successfully raised children?
Humans have over come much more worrisome burdens then this.
Explain what you think what the genders should act like? The statement of human gender is meaningless until you fill in what you mean. No one should agree with anything you have said until you spell this out.
(I already know what you think men and women should be. I want you to say it.)
Rights are not given to people, they are taken. So what if you do not approve, your approval it not needed. It is my right because I claim and you cannot give a coherent reason why I should deny myself.
James, I am not sorry that the existence of people like me causes you discomfort. But any one who claims that what I do is morally wrong, like murder, deserves nothing but scorn. What I am harms no one. What you wants harms multitudes.
Fuck you, James, you fascist creep.
@235 RevBigDumbChimp: This isn’t an example of the Church’s institutional racism, but does illustrate the type of men who rose to the top. Ezra Taft Benson, thirteenth president of the LDS church, wrote the forward to a little racist pamphlet called The Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power.
Cover is here: http://www.affirmation.org/images/covers/the_black_hammer.gif
Further information Ezra T’s racebaiting is here: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon409.htm
And other info on the tacitly-condoned oepn racism by church members:
http://usu-shaft.com/2009/why-i-dont-believe-racism-in-mormon-history-and-doctrine/
I’d rather be an autonomous functioning normal human, but that is just me.
not so fast, kimosabe :)
Zab:
You wrote:
“I realize that every single one of your points have been addressed several times, since you just ignore every valid argument and keep re-iterating the exact same points… But I wanted to take a small stab at this anyway.”
No valid or compelling arguments have been made to refute or address how same sex attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of gender.
Instead, opposing bloggers have attempted to deconstruct the words “purpose”, “identity”, “attraction” and “gender”.
Deconstruction detaches meanings from realities. We can clearly see why someone of the same sex attraction type would want to detach these meanings: to create new ones which are consistent with a particular view of same sex attraction.
But these deconstructions do not change the nature of reality:
1. Same sex attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.
2. Nature has discriminated against same sex unions by naturally preventing homosexual men or lesbian from procreating together.
Why is this so? Homosexual unions are not necessary for the human species.
I love the way you cleverly used James’ whole range of evidence against him there Celtic.
I googled it and found something about a word on an inscription that might be the same as a word in the BofM but probably isn’t.
Those 10 seconds were enough, not going to spend any more time on modern day mythology. If you care, put Mormon South Arabia and similar key words in google and read.
Except it is. No blacks could be ordained. The church leaders said this to be the commandment of God. These are the people who should receive divine revelation. That is about as institutionalized as it gets. No?
Is god a racist or is the Mormon church full of shit?
I know and you know
anyone that assumes without evidence knowledge of others’ thoughts is clinically delusional.
better get yourself checked out there, Jimmy boy.
and you clearly don’t understand that nothing in biology has a purpose. that’s teleological thinking. not my fault you’re too blind to realize your religious biases, and that they don’t reflect the real world at all.
there is no purpose in heterosexual relationships either. that’s because “purpose” is not present in nature. it’s as simple as that.
not too mention that your claim that only that which is natural and “purposeful” should be practiced is contrary to your very own religion’s claim that abstinence from sex is a good thing. now THAT is unnatural and has no natural “purpose”, as you have used the word in this thread.
if you want to insist that gays shouldn’t marry because it’s “unnatural”, you’re going to have to say that no one should marry, because monogamy and abstinence are even less natural than homosexuality. and religious worship is the least natural thing of all. are you going to argue against that, too?
Nor is heterosexual union. Stop using the same fallacy over and over and over. You’re being insipid.
Which is a cultural contruct. Did you know some indigenous American’s believes that there are as many as 5 different gender identity?
No valid or compelling arguments have been made to refute or address how same sex attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of gender.
Denial: Not just a river in Egypt.
James has his head firmly wedged. He is unable to see anything but the interior of his colon.
done.
Cause you said so? Citation, please…
Don’t you fucking tell me what I know… What I know is that you know nothing that you ever took the trouble to actually learn, research or investigate yourself. What you know begins and ends with what you’ve been told by people with an agenda to use you for their own purposes…
I think you need to take a good, long, deep look inside yourself and actually try to understand exactly “what you know”…
“We understand that you WANT gay marriage, but see no compelling reason to create a social construct that is unnecessary for children, adults or governments.”
That’s fantastic for you and all, but the only reason that creating this social construct is remotely difficult is because you’ve parked your ass, sitting on its stupid book, in the way. Get out of it and I will gladly do all the work without any interference from you, and almost without taxing existing social structures. Quickly changing one definition in a book is almost effortless, so even if you /didn’t/ see a reason
And you know what? There is a reason. Not only does the government have a vested interest in allowing long term couples to have some special benefits to encourage that state, but the government has a vested interest in DECREASING population growth, because we’re already taxing our water supplies. Therefore, Homosexual Marriage stands at 2-0, and Heterosexual Marriage stands at 1-1. Well, guess that means that Homosexual marriage wins, and heterosexual marriage is abolished with a new thing to take its place.
Wait, what do you mean that would an inhuman denial of rights?
James @194,
One more thing.
Your language (‘no compelling reason’) suggests that you would change your mind should a ‘compelling’ reason present itself.
Which suggests two questions.
1. Could you enlighten us as to what would be a compelling reason for you to support same-sex marriage?
2. Could you please enlighten us as to what are the compelling reasons to oppose those who are asking for same-sex marriage rights?
as to teleology…
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
Since you won’t explain why you hate gay people, there’s no point in discussing this with you. But, SIWOTI. There is no natural purpose of human male gender. I don’t think you can define what you mean by identity, either.
Did you read about kin selection yet?
Nature has discriminated against human flight by not giving us wings.
Why should Americans allow airplanes that are incompatible with and inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human appendages and which are not necessary for the human species?
Seemed like argument from personal assertion was the only one he might listen to… ;^)
Lynna:
In the LDS Church, Mormon authorities can be wrong.
They can make mistakes and still be chosen by God. Why? Because human beings are fallible.
You haven’t address how Joseph Smith was the first white leader of an all white Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood in 1836.
Mormons do not claim that prejudice didn’t exist in amongst Mormons during that time.
It took the United States over 100 years after the “Emancipation Proclamation” for blacks to receive their civil rights in 1964.
Prejudice was interwoven into the fabric of every society which Joseph Smith tried to deinstitutionalize by recognizing black men and women as “alike unto God.”
However, the gay movement for civil rights cannot be accurately compared to the civil righs movement.
In the civil rights movement, blacks could accurately and reasonably argue that black men were equivalent to white men and black women were equilavent to white women.
However, homosexual men cannot argue that they are equivalent to women to be wives and husbands, and lesbian women cannot argue that they are equivalent to men to be husbands and fathers.
It can also be argued that homosexual unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions.
There are no real equivalencies in these arguments and therefore, it is not a case of civil rights.
surprise, surprise, another godbot who doesn’t understand how language works.
Just because you think the words mean what you think they mean doesn’t actually make it so. there is no “natural gender”; there is a natural sex, but gender is a social construct. that’s a fact, whether you like it or not.
“purpose” is also a human construct. it doesn’t exist in nature. in nature, things are used for anything and everything they can be used for, but they do no have a pre-determined purpose. that’s teleology, and doesn’t actually exist in nature.
I don’t even know WTF you think the words “identity” and “attraction” mean, that you believe the people here have been using them wrong
Or are you going to ignore all of the gay and lesbian couples who have successfully raised children?
Now don’t bring evidence into the picture….especially since the research seems to FAVOR same-sex couples.
For James, the real lives of real LGBT people is not proof enough. James is content to tell us all that our lives have no purpose and meaning. At the risk of pulling a Godwin, just how far is this from being life unworthy of life?
Thank you for that admission.
How do you decide which divine revelation is actually divine revelation and which is someone being wrong?
Is that a crack I see?
We’ve already have and were doing a pretty good job of it too. Gosh you’re so fucking insipid.
And what has THAT got to do with the completely man-made institutional idea of marriage. Or will we be seeing baboons and giraffes walking down the isle any time soon (as long as they are male and female of course)
I love how James is switching to using nature as an authority even though that should undermine his earlier arguments about choice. He’s also got this species-ego thing going on, wherein everything is all about the species, and the purpose of procreating THAT species.
…
@RevBigDumbChimp: Sorry, I should have been more clear when constructing my post. I wasn’t meaning to say that all your prior examples of church doctrine weren’t. The “this” in:
This isn’t an example of the Church’s institutional racism…
…was meant to refer to Benson’s prologue to The Black Hammer, which was written before he became President of the church, and which is not part of official church teachings. ie. This example I am about to provide is the private views of a man who later rose to power inside the church. Hope that clarifies, and sorry for any confusion. I’m not trying to argue against any of your prior points, which are all accurate AFAIK.
However, homosexual men cannot argue that they are equivalent to women to be wives and husbands, and lesbian women cannot argue that they are equivalent to men to be husbands and fathers.
No, they are all partners and potential parents.
James, go read the research. In particular, read the research comparing children raised by same-sex couple and those raised by different-sex couples. Here’s a place for you to start:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4318061.aspx
Until you’ve reviewed the research, stop talking smack. Your ignorance is showing.
James #253 wrote:
This is not a diversion; this is the main crux of the argument. You are using a specifically religious, teleological understanding of “the natural purpose of the male” and pretending that you are saying nothing more controversial than “men have testes and sperm which can result in offspring.”
But you can’t get from “men can procreate with women” to “men are naturally sexually attracted to women” to “men who are not sexually attracted to women are going against the natural way the male gender is identified.” There are huge, unwarranted leaps in there: they do not naturally follow. Men are also naturally sexually attracted to men. Men are also naturally indifferent to sex, interested in families, not interested in families, and every other permutation found in nature. And we identify all of them as “men.”
We’re not contorting anything in order to get round the obvious. You’re contorting the obvious existence of natural human variety in order to select one particular preference as not just “natural,” but the best. The end purpose.
And James can you please address the timing of the divine revelations of 1890’s and the late 1970s that conveniently coincided with the Federal government threatening to seize assets, deny statehood and remove the Church’s tax-exempt status.
Or will you ignore this as well?
(sigh)
James, I’ve heard the same kind of bigoted crap from Jews, Muslims and loads of different flavored Christian sects. Just change a few code words and it could come from any theocratic zealot.
What it comes down to is that theocratic believers all want their beliefs & only their beliefs to be law. Reality has no place in their systems.
Basically James, you & your ilk are fascist fucktards at best.
How precise are these predictions? (Translation: Can they be falsified?)
And how many predictions are not true? (Translation: How many have been falsified?)
Why does the bom refer to animals, plants, technologies, and cites/places which did not exist in Mesoamerica at the time? Like horses, which were brought by the Spanish conquistadors? Well after the bom’s ending in c.400CE.
And as others (and myself) have repeatedly asked, please provide references. At the moment, there is absolutely no reason to think you aren’t either making stuff up, or (more likely) vomiting up what has been force-fed you.
Too easy. When they’re saying something that James wants to hear, it’s divine revelation.
Has he defined “The role of the male” yet?
Because if not, I’m putting 10 bucks on “Breadwinner and Deciderer”. Any takers? I’ll give great odds.
ooops, my bad.
James, the racism of the government of the United States and it’s citizens is no excuse for the racism of your church. And mewing about human’s imperfect nature is not a good enough excuse. If your big sky daddy was that upset about your church’s racism, he could have revealed it to fucking Smith, Young and every other bloated bastard that followed in their wake.
Please address the evidence that Lynna and Chimpy has given you. And do not fucking say; But the United States was also racist.
Fucking weasel.
“You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.”
Since you hate gay people, I’m sure you think it can be argued. Why don’t you try? I’ve been waiting for you to explain where your hatred comes from.
Jade:
You wrote:
“if you want to insist that gays shouldn’t marry because it’s “unnatural”, you’re going to have to say that no one should marry.”
I am not insisting that gays and lesbians should do this or that.
I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.
Gays and lesbians WANT gay marriage but there is no social necessity for it. There is no scientific basis for it. And, it is not consistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
In the beginning of this argument I said I would continue to vote against gay marriage and persuade others to vote against it because it is not necessary for children, adults, or government.
Furthermore, the fascist lobby to make gay marriage EQUIVALENT to the societal value of heterosexual marriage is a fraud. The great homosexual hoax is now being perpetrated against children.
As an American citizen, I don’t see any reason to indulge homosexual men or women further in this pursuit.
However, I do strongly favor protections for homosexual men and women concerning access to housing, benefits, and employment.
and excuse me but who exactly decided that rights should be taken away if they aren’t necessary at the time? Is this a normal feature of american liberty? Doesn’t sound very constitutional to me.
Who decides when people should lose their rights? Do they have expiry dates perhaps?
And exactly when were one peoples rights allowed to be taken away by majority voting again? Is this also a normal feature of american liberty?
Besides, you’d expect God’s people to figure out ten years sooner than everyone else, not ten years later.
Furthermore, the fascist lobby to make gay marriage EQUIVALENT to the societal value of heterosexual marriage is a fraud. The great homosexual hoax is now being perpetrated against children.
And, we’ve got one of the more unhinged types of Mormo-bigot.
Fascist?
Amazed no-one’s linked to this yet!!!
MAJeff, I was just going to say; Fuck but that dumbfuck is dumb.
James, have you heard of pink triangles? Have you heard of black triangles? Look both of them up and learn what fascist did with gays and lesbians.
HEy, James. I just gave you an ironclad societal reason to promote Homosexual Marriage and abolish Heterosexual Marriage. An ironclad societal reason clad in actual facts. Care to address it?
Note: I don’t actually believe in abolishing heterosexual marriage. It’s inhuman. But if we’re going strictly by utility, then away it goes for a long while.
GET IT IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD! There is no purpose to either heterosexual or homosexual union in nature. You don’t need either for the “naturalistic processes.” Furthermore you are committing a naturalistic fallacy. (which is interesting since your religion isn’t need for the survival of the species either. See what I did there.)Heterosexual marriage is also not necessary for children, adults, or the government. (does that make it wrong?). And gender is a cultural construct.
We have. You’re ignoring them.
James: “Homosexual unions are not necessary for the human species.”
Lets “deconstruct” this —
1) Homosexual sex is not strictly necessary for the propagation of the human species, but heterosexual sex is. True enough.
2) Homosexual sex can be called homosexual union. Well, if you say so.
3) Homosexual union means homosexual marriage. What???
4) Propagation of the human species is necessary — as distinct from the original statement, what is necessary for the human species is it’s propagation, therefore whatever is necessary for propagation is necessary for the species. What?? The species isn’t an organism with needs.
Now, all these steps are logic, if and only if, you believe in a theology like Mormonism, where the “goal” of the human species — not its form, but it’s conscious goal — is it’s propagation; where sex is only for propagation; and where sex == union == marriage.
So, James can’t tell that everyone isn’t a Mormon. He’s like a tone-deaf musician — we’d really prefer that he play his instrument silently. He assumes Mormon theology, then rationalizes it, without EVER realizing that he’s incapable of not assuming it — and he apparently REALLY THINKS that we all are secret Mormons.
And this is why you can’t talk to folks trapped in a circle of insanity.
James @285,
What would be a compelling or valid reason?
I asked this question before, but maybe it was lost in the chaff.
If your answer is that there isn’t one, and couldn’t ever be one, then you had better examine your prejudices more closely.
I’m betting on “the one what tells the woman what to do”. After all with two men, that can’t happen. Perhaps thats the problem. Theres no heirarchy…leading to anarchy…and feminism…ooo emancipation is scary.
and James reveals his true colours. That took much longer than I thought. Teh ebil gays and their secret ebil agenda. Focus on the family. Protect the children!!! Don’t let them know that life isn’t black and white. They might learn about other people and cultures…the horror.
What exactly is the “natural purpose and identity of human male gender” and how do you know?
Actually, going on James’s own argument, males have ‘no social necessity’, now that we have sperm banks. Women are safe until the artificial womb is invented.
do you even uderstand the words you’re using?
voting on constitutional rights of others IS insisting on others “doing this or that”
the right to marry whom you want has been declared a constitutional right by the U.s. supreme court. your voting against it is unconstitutional. that’s all the social necessity that is required, and it’s the same “social necessity” that ended anti-miscegenation laws, which were argued with the same idiotic arguments of “unnaturalness”.
there is no scientific basis for monogamy and heterosexual marriage either
there is no such thing as “natural purpose and identity of human gender”. human gender is a social construct, human identity is a matter of individuals, not biology, and natural things don’t have purpose. just because your religion tells you otherwise doesn’t actually make it so.
Jamesd #285 wrote:
The burden is not on the citizen to demonstrate they have a right, but on the government to demonstrate that they do not. The government has failed to make a compelling case that being of opposite genders is necessary for marriage. What the majority thinks is irrelevant: we do not vote on rights. “Natural purpose” is simply the naturalistic fallacy pretending to be neutral.
The “social necessity” for gay marriage is the same as for straight marriage. Neither the legal needs, nor the personal benefits, change when the sex changes.
Social justice therefore leads to the recognition of gay marriage as legitimate contract, from a secular, civil stance. Religions are, of course, allowed to sanctify whatever they choose to sanctify, and refuse to sanctify whatever they refuse to sanctify.
There is a great need for civil liberties. Your arguments that we don’t “need” gay marriage all return to this point. You need gay marriage as much, as gay people need your ability to worship as you choose, and consider being gay a sin. Both sides can argue over what is “best” — but neither side can demand that the government step in and rule.
Nor should they want to do this.
OK… simple question: What are the compelling reasons for Americans to institutionalize infertile different-sex couples?
James,
You have repeatedly ignored what I have asked of you. Read up.
emphasis mine
Mesoamerica is an area extending south from central Mexico, through Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras and parts of Nicaragua. Perhaps you meant Mesopotamia, which covers Iraq and parts of Syria. Arabia (by which I assume you mean the Arabia Peninsula) does not share it’s geographic location with either of the above mentioned places.
Experts in Middle Eastern and North American archaeology and biological anthropologists and geneticists have conclusively shown the Book of Mormon to be a complete fabrication.
Your church intentionally hides these facts from its members. It does not surprise me to know that you accept church doctrine on this, but you and the church are wrong. It’s unfortunate that your innate human ability to think critically has atrophied so severely under the guidance of the LDS church.
Ah. The old linguistics game. The ldsers keep trying this one, without success (albeit the southern Arabian angle is a new one to me). The words used were either known to Smith from other sources, are incorrectly translated, are used in an impossible context, or so on. Exactly zlitch evidence that Smith didn’t make it up.
Is music necessary for the propogation of the species? James is turning into the crabby old man telling the young kids to turn their evil devil music down…and get off his lawn.
It doesn’t sound like much fun being a mormon. Even if you are a round peg in a round hole…
Are lawns necessary for the propagation of the species?
It’s hard to believe that a just and righteous god would be a decade behind the civil rights curve, even if you want to use some weaselly argument about the nation not being prepared to accept a greater law yet. Why did it take the LDS church until 1978 to give blacks the priesthood? Why not declare it when the nation desegregated? And knowing that, why should I think they are any more accurate as to any theoretical god’s demands re: glbt rights?
James sez:
I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.
If by institutionalise you mean,t hey are treating gay folks as equal members of the society which said gay folks ALREADY contribute to.
Gays and lesbians WANT gay marriage but there is no social necessity for it.
No? When studies show that partners in healthy communicating marriages live longer healthier lives? When it provides gay people with a legally recognised support structure? When gay folks prove more than willing to adopt children nobody else will take on?
If we grant marriage as a legal construct, then we have to grant it to all people equally.
If we grant marriage as a religious construct, then why can’t religions (like the UUs) that allow gay marriage be allowed to perform it?
There is no scientific basis for it.
There’s no scientific basis for hetero marriage either. You can produce offspring just fine outside of it. In fact, men could produce more offspring outside of marriage if they didn’t have pesky laws about child-support.
And, it is not consistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
Natural purpose again? Man, you are really really stuck on this species propagation thing, aren’t you?
And what weird cocktail of human traits do you actually guarantee by having exactly one woman and one man in the unit raising children? I can guarantee that the only thing I could provide a female child that a man can’t provide is empathy about the period–and it’s not like there’s a shortage of that empathy to go around.
In the beginning of this argument I said I would continue to vote against gay marriage and persuade others to vote against it because it is not necessary for children, adults, or government.
Neither is hetero-marriage. AGAIN.
However, we have granted a legal set of rights to a class of citizens and it is appropriate and humane to give those rights to gay couples as well.
Furthermore, the fascist lobby to make gay marriage EQUIVALENT to the societal value of heterosexual marriage is a fraud. The great homosexual hoax is now being perpetrated against children.
Did you pay attention in high school history class? Or to quote Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Look up the word “fascist” and learn how to use it properly.
Also, what hoax? Gay people exist. Treating them like human beings with dignity and lives and goals and aspirations is not a hoax.
As an American citizen, I don’t see any reason to indulge homosexual men or women further in this pursuit.
However, I do strongly favor protections for homosexual men and women concerning access to housing, benefits, and employment.
Wow, gracious of you. Did you want a cookie for stretching your empathy so far?
Richard Eis, a man maintaining a perfect green lawn shows that he is a responsible family man, either a damn good future husband or a damn good father.
I’d like to see a pansy like you put that kind of effort on humble plants.
‘snort’
Pygmy Loris:
You wrote:
“Experts in Middle Eastern and North American archaeology and biological anthropologists and geneticists have conclusively shown the Book of Mormon to be a complete fabrication.”
You just made that up.
You can’t list a single expert in any of those fields who have “CONCLUSIVELY” (based on their research and evidence” shown that the Book of Mormon is a complete fabrication.
And here’s how we can test it:
Name the conclusive evidence that conclusively shows the Book of Mormon to be a completely fabrication in each of those areas.
The Book of Mormon certainly has its critics but there are not experts that have conclusively demonstrated its fabrication.
James might actually mean Mesoamerica since that’s the area where the people from Mesopotamia somehow migrated, according to the bom and/or lds mythology. There is no at all evidence for this; the Mesoamerican cities the bom says exist don’t, there is no connection between the languages of the two regions, and so on.
The fascist lobby? You really are a nutter, James.
Thank you for reminding everyone that Mormons are still bad people.
How? By informing them of the empirical fact that gay and bi orientations are natural, observable in nature, and driven in part by our genetics?
Whoops, messed up one of my italics tags. This sentence from comment 305 is James’ and not mine:
As an American citizen, I don’t see any reason to indulge homosexual men or women further in this pursuit.
Please take note.
Jade/Pixel:
What is the purpose of sexual attraction in human males?
Wait… didn’t we ask you for your citation for your “proof of the bom”? I think you should go first, since we asked first… it’s only polite…
Then you can sit back and gleefully dismiss and / or ignore all the links we will send you…
You first…
You can’t list a single expert in any of those fields who have “CONCLUSIVELY” (based on their research and evidence” shown that the
Book of MormonThe Wheels Of Time is a complete fabrication.You can’t list a single expert in any of those fields who have “CONCLUSIVELY” (based on their research and evidence) shown that Operating Thetan III is a complete fabrication.
Here’s an interesting phrasing: James keeps boasting that Young was the “first white leader of an all-white church” to ordain a black man. That strongly suggests that he is aware of Christian churches that were not racially segregated, and that had ordained black people as ministers earlier.
It seems likely that “earlier” was many centuries earlier, in fact. I’m not an expert on church history, but the Assyrian Catholic church, the Nestorians among Genghis Khan’s followers, and Indian, Chinese, and Japanese people converted by Jesuits might be places to look. (No, you don’t get to move the goalposts and add “American” now.)
I read that in the voice of a petulant child stomping that made me laugh, because i so read that in the voice of a snotty child about to throw a tantrum :-p
seriously, it’s been known for a long time that genetics have conclusively shown that Native Americans are not descended from Hebrews. Of course, the Mormons have been retconning their scriptures to align them with reality, but that’s just another proof that none of them are reliable in the first place.
Uh oh, it’ll be a flogging for me.
James fails again.
http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm
Strange Gods, that was just a little odd.
‘giggle’
Recruitment, don’t ya know. We’re obviously predators bent on enticing children into the *ominous voice*HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE*
James #311 wrote:
Whose purpose?
In most cases, to find a sexual partner — or, perhaps, in some cases, for its own sake, or to act as something to resist.
It evolved due to selection for various reasons — procreation is one reason. But it’s not the only one. If it was, there wouldn’t be attraction between people who can’t procreate.
Just how are the children going to obey their ordained gender roles if they know that teh gayz can get married.
none. for the xth time, there is no purpose in nature.
OTOH, sex is used in many different ways by different animals, including humans: pleasure, reproduction, social bonding, conflict resolution, establishing hierarchies, etc. and most of it doesn’t happen within marriage, either. matter of fact, marriage is irrelevant to sex.
what is your point again?
Biologically, sexual attraction in members of a species serves as a mechanism to propagate the species. Species survive because there is a mechanism for passing on genes and evolutionarily, species that find the process of genetic material swapping pleasureable will probably find an advantage.
However, it’s not necessary for all members of a species to carry this sexual attraction for the species to propagate, and many species still utilize the nurturing aspects of those who do not end up mating. And nature makes no rules about what one does with the equipment one has at their disposal. Nature especially doesn’t say, “Hey, get hitched before going into heat!” Nature does not give a flying fuck about what any individual member of a species does, so trying to use it as an authority in an argument about a human construct is pretty idiotic.
James, when a lesbian and a gay man independently and simultaneously think “that’s the stupidest thing I’ve read in the last ten minutes,” you should probably take this as a sign from God.
oh, and also, what’s your obsession with human males?
you do realize that human females also have sexual attractions, right?
Nah, that doesn’t follow.
you do realize that human females also have sexual attractions, right?
James has never seen any evidence of this alleged phenomenon.
You’ve yet to establish purpose in any meaningful way.
Jadehawk, hush. We do not feel sexual attraction. We just want to serve a man.
‘snicker’
There is no “conclusive” evidence about the mythological creation of the Korean civilization being wrong. There are a lot evidence to show that it’s not right, but by James standard these are not conclusive. So by James logic I am a bear.
oh, and also, what’s your obsession with human males?
Sperm magic.
That, and male homosexuality is a more severe violation of the gender order–in anal sex, a man is intentionally taking the role of a woman and getting fucked. It tends to be an obsession of patriarchal types of folks.
“What is the purpose of attraction in males”
None. There’s no ‘naturalistic purpose’ in anything. But guys feeling it want sex with whoever they find attractive.
hah, too true
@Jadehawk
noooo, women are brood mares and domestic servants. We aren’t supposed to get pleasure from sex.
/snark off
With 6 billion people on this planet and rising, I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage people to recognise and embrace any same sex attraction they might have. Even if it didn’t reduce the birth rate by much, it would still be a step in the right direction for many reasons.
All this fascination with what others are doing with their genitalia traces back to warrior-priest kings trying to maximise the production rate of their future warriors. Empty wombs were the ultimate disloyalty to the tribal leaders. Too bad that their encoding these rules in religious texts was so effective and long lasting.
It is ‘natural’ for any species to reproduce at levels that are not sustainable and to eventually exceed the capacity of the environment. This is a fundamental aspect of evolution. That does not mean that the effects of over-population are good for the species or the individuals in it. It is clearly not good for all the other species that have been or are being driven to extinction.
Stop giving tax breaks to people who breed and make sex education and contraceptives readily available. This is not a point in history where ‘we’ need to out-compete the ‘other’ in the bedroom.
Wow. I just dug through this entire thread in one sitting. For anyone else joining late, here’s a summary:
James: “[Unsubstantiated claim], [unsubstantiated claim], [naturalistic fallacy], and also [unsubstantiated claim]. Therefore, [unwarranted conclusion].”
Everyone else: “Please substantiate your claim. Also, you committed the naturalistic fallacy.”
James: “Look, it’s very simple: [Repeated unsubstantiated claim], [repeated unwarranted conclusion], due to [another naturalistic fallacy]
Repeat
@ 326 Jadehawk: He may not have really considered the implications of female sexual attraction. After all, the lessons I got from the LDS church about human sexuality was that boys had to worry about dirty thoughts and masturbation and girls had to worry about modesty so we didn’t give the boys dirty thoughts and give them cause to sully their purity. While both sexes were told to not have sex, it was almost always in the framework of guys having the power and inclination and women resisting their blandishments.
For entertaining reading on human sexuality, Mormon style, consider Boyd K. Packer’s infamous “little factory” speech which was actually titled, “To Young Men Only.”
http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
(Incidentally, this is one of those areas where the church did me a lot of psychological damage, by first insisting that masturbation was evil, instead of a natural impulse, and further implying that it was a male-only problem. I thought I was the only girl with the issue, and given the other rhetoric you’ve seen about gender roles and sexuality, you can imagine the damage that did to me in terms of self-esteem.)
We just want to serve a man…’snicker’
Sure, I’ll take a Snickers.
James I’m still waiting for you to address the points I’ve brought up. it’s very convenient that you’re ignoring them. Almost as convenient as how “divine revelation” works in your cult.
Thanks blf!
James,
Ask any North American archaeologist about the claims of the book of mormon. They will tell you the claims are false. My expertise lies more in the origin and distribution of modern human populations. Linguistic, archaeological, and genetic, and morphological evidence indicates that modern Native Americans are descended from the people who lived in northeastern Asia approximately 20,000-15,000 years ago. However, modern Inuit have their origin in Asia much more recently, circa 5,000-7,000 years ago. It is the falsehood that Native Americans are descended from the Hebrews that underlies the entire Book of Mormon.
Hi All, I’m Lynna’s brother. I’m jumping in here with a few comments related to earlier parts of this thread but do relate to the subject at hand. I dated a Mormon for over a year. It’s a long story that involves a desire to gain a greater understanding of human nature, a desire to help an obviously psychologically damaged person (largely because of her belief construct) and affection. Anyway, I succeeded in gaining much more than I supposed possible regarding understanding human nature, especially in the realm of superstitions but not surprisingly failed in the rest.
Don’t worry; I don’t intend to bore with a story. What I believe I may be able to offer is a unique perspective. Not as a so-called insider or ex-mormon but simply as an individual that had a desire to learn.
Mormons are a fascinating lot – an exquisite example of the brains capability to create delusion that can be believed with heart and soul to the point of “I would die for my religion”. This type of belief of course has similarities to other religious groups across the world but the Mormon current day twists derive from what I believe is the need to function in society as a whole while maintaining a spiritual superiority. That last line “maintaining a spiritual superiority” most mormons would irritably deny. That’s just one example of numerous mind-boggling split-brain feats I witnessed.
Yes, it can be described as a cult but this a unique memetic virus perhaps because of adaptability. By this I mean the ability to exist as a group in a functioning society while adhering to a complete nonsensical belief system. Various control methods are used to maintain this system and there seems to be an ever-tightening grip seeking to control every aspect of their lives. It’s a very difficult balance because it seems to be of utmost importance to also maintain a facade of societal normality often represented by statements of respect and even admiration for groups or individuals not within “the church”. One eventually begins to recognize the falsehoods behind such exuberance.
There are of course many different levels of adherence and belief regarding the “restored gospel” among members and like all human societies they vary greatly in every day discourse. But some of the trends are an over enthusiastic patriotism, (hence the constitution hanging by a thread syndrome) a tendency to believe in almost magical cures for obesity or illness and a feeling of heartfelt trust towards other members and the opposite to non members.
Overall is it dangerous? Ask a mormon and you can imagine the answer, my conclusion is yes, it is. Mormons look at me with such disgust, as if they have laid eyes upon the “adversary” (the devil) himself when I say this. However, I have witnessed so much absurdity with regard to this construct, to conclude otherwise would be a delusion. It’s dangerous because it’s stifling to education, society, human rights (privileges) and the cognitive evolution of man and womankind.
Do the kids taste better that way? Any recipe hints? (Seems like a lot of work for a bit of fresh meat.)
preferably with mole poblano
My garden would be a wild place with butterflies, ponds, gravel and foreign plants. Chaotic but with a light touch of control. I can think of nothing more tortured or less interesting than a perfect lawn.
and lets face it, going up and down your lawn on a rideable mower is no ones idea of a hunky hunter gatherer type. It shows only that he is boring and likes dull routine.
Hey, we should do a survey on lawn maintenance based on church attendance. I bet theres a correlation.
Honestly, that whole crazy scene is just a fad, all about status… With proper marinating and basting, vastly less expensive cuts of child will do just as well.
(/Martha Stewart: ‘It’s a goood thing.’)
Do the kids taste better that way? Any recipe hints? (Seems like a lot of work for a bit of fresh meat.)
Depends on the age. I prefer fetus sliced very thin and raw, like sashimi. After they pop out, they’ve got bones and stuff, so you need to start looking at roasting. They get stringier as they age, so longer cooking times become necessary. Once they’re eight or so, they’re no longer worth eating. Then we turn them over to the Catholic priests.
James wrote:
Maybe the arguments presented haven’t seemed compelling or valid to you, but the point is that you do not even address them. Every time you’ve repeated your fallacies about natural purpose and whatnot you have gotten refutations. But you do not reply to them other than repeat the exact same arguments you made before, as if no counter-arguments had been made.
You don’t have to find the arguments against you compelling, but if you want to be involved in a rational discussion you do have to address them before repeating the same arguments again.
I have seen no deconstruction – I’ve only seen attempts to explain these words to you.
For instance, “purpose.” You see purpose in nature, but I do not. What is the purpose of tides? Eclipses? Earthquakes? Oceanic currents? Or indeed, what is the purpose of sexual procreation? All those things have causes and effects, but do you think that they have a purpose? If so, why? Without bringing religion into it, nothing like that has a purpose – it just is.
Why do you only talk about the male gender? Are women not important in your world? Or do you just not want to be mean to lesbians, because lesbian sex is oh so hot? I just don’t understand why you are singling out the male gender here.
Anyway, I see that you once again fail to address any points made. You wrote this as a response to my comment that basically said that it doesn’t matter if a homosexual relationship is “useful” or not – love is still love. So what I’m saying is that your talk about the “natural purpose” doesn’t matter even if there is such a thing as purpose in nature.
You don’t have to agree with that, but again you are just reiterating the exact same thing as you said before, without addressing why you think that I’m wrong. Again: for a real, adult discussion you have to address counterarguments before reiterating your own arguments again.
Not everyone has to make babies. Not every marriage has to be about making babies. Not every heterosexual marriage leads to babies.
Straight marriage isn’t necessary for the human species. Football isn’t necessary for the human species. Books, television, computers, cars, airplanes, music, dancing and art are also things not necessary for the human species.
This was again my point that you didn’t address – we don’t live solely for things that are strictly necessary. No one does.
So why do you just talk about gay marriage in your crusade against things that are “unnatural” and “not necessary”? Do you ever speak out publicly and vote against people’s right to practice sport or listen to music?
Why does gay marriage threaten you more than all the other activities that do not affect you in any way whatsoever? Or can you demonstrate how two dudes or two gals giving each other rings and vows affects you?
Lee your photos are amazing.
Celtic:
I can sit back gleefully dismissing your last post because it is not true.
There are no such experts that have conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication. Furthermore, there is no conclusive proof that the Book of Mormon is “true.”
However, there are no non-Mormon experts trying to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Presently, only Mormons are interested in finding evidence for the Book of Mormon.
Currently what we do have is evidence that fulfills the predictions of the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon narrative begins in Jerusalem and ends somewhere in the Americas. Based on the latest research, the Book of Mormon history most likely took place in a small geographic region in southern Mexico.
The short version is that a family left Jerusalem in 600 BC and traveled south in Arabia, taking an 8 year journey (stopping at certain locations) until they eventually launched a ship from the southern coast of Arabia and traveled to America.
While they traveled they chronicled their journey. They described geographical features, cultural features, and specific flora and fauna specific to that area and that particular century.
Of Arabia, the record makes 16 specific predictions about the area. These predictions are century specific, name specific, and based on a strict set of triangulations. To be significant evidence, all three requirements must be met.
In the last decade, the evidence to corroborate the narrative was found by non-Mormon archeologists and published in peer reviewed journals.
@Richard Eis:
My garden would be a wild place with butterflies, ponds, gravel and foreign plants. Chaotic but with a light touch of control. I can think of nothing more tortured or less interesting than a perfect lawn.
Good point. Incidentally, monocultures like lawns are more prone to disease and rot. (And thus, we wrap around to why I fled Utah as soon as I could.)
(I like your vision of a garden.)
To Serve Man! It’s a cookbook!
@ Rev. BigDumbChimp
You have pointed out THE most fatal flaw of Mormonism/Mormon reasoning:
1) Past prophets are fallible. Not everything they said is of God.
2) They were wrong on blacks/polygamy (sorta).
3) But they’re right NOW on gays (and women). We promise. Believe us.
4) We know it’s true because we had a psychosomatic reaction when praying/our entire lives will be a lie if it’s wrong. (a testimony)
Of course conveniently ignoring the FACT that the now false doctrines of yesterday were touted as true with exactly the same vocabulary as the doctrines against gay and female equality are touted today (and all current doctrines).
This is the fact that Mormons ignore, push away, and try their hardest never to think about their entire lives because it would unravel everything they believe.
James, your testimony is built upon very sandy ground. The foundation is not really there. Your faith in your apostles and prophets and bishops is totally unfounded. No matter what you’ve felt, what spiritual experiences you’ve had, it has been proven that those things do not indicate what is real and what is not, what is true and what is not, what is good and what is not. The same basis of faith you give for why homosexuality is wrong is the same basis that was given about the Adam-God doctrine, about polygamy, about blacks and the priesthood, about every discarded and conveniently ignored doctrine of Mormonism. The same testimony that lets you “know” that the church leaders are right on homosexuality is the same one that told your parents and grandparents that they were right on race. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.
I’m sorry you’ve wasted a significant part of your life believing and defending such idiocy and bigotry. It’s turned your brain to mush so that you cannot reason, cannot think, cannot argue, cannot view reality.
But if it makes you feel better, most of the world is in the same situation. Blinded and enslaved to religion.
Enjoy.
“We just want to serve a man.”
If I can’t cook, does that mean I’m screwed? Or would I be the server for another wife who’s cook?
An imperfect lawn, however, can be a fascinating little ecosystem in 2 1/2 dimensions. I enjoy watching the chickweed, clover, and crabgrass battle it out with the turfgrass, each gaining a small advantage in different weather conditions. I am a student of the cunning ways of dandelions, and the occasional total surprise of fruiting fungus or doughty colonizer or nice-try oak seedling brings a half-smile of delight just before I pulverize it with the mower (a plug-in electric mulching model). When you dig it up to plant a shrubbery, you can find the worms and slugs and grubs and centipedes underneath.
All that when there isn’t a foot and a half of snow on top, of course.
James, there are no evidence for that story. (did you even read Pygmy Loris’ post?) Archaeological and genetic evidence is clear hands down that Native Americans are not descendant from Semitic people.
Fuck cultist and their propaganda. The Korean bear in me just wants to wack them over the head
The very point I was going for and the very reaction I knew that James would have.
Gyeong Hwa Pak, just out of curiosity, what is the Korean civilisation creation myth? It’s probably more interesting and informative than James, albeit presumably less funny and much saner. I know nothing about Korea other than an acquaintance with “Westernized” versions of some dishes. (And I realize I could look it up….)
It’s absolutely believed. Growing up as a mormon this pathetic notion was constantly taught. I have no doubt, however, that this candidate is going to be contacted by the LDS leaders telling him to shut the fuck up… or as mormons would say: “Shut the fetch up”
“In the last decade, the evidence to corroborate the narrative was found by non-Mormon archeologists and published in peer reviewed journals.”
PROVIDE THE RESEARCH.
What journals? When? By whom? Who peer-reviewed the articles? What are their credentials?
You must back up your claims.
But you can’t, because it’s all in your head. The so-called research you talk about is completely rejected by the scientific community because it is ignoring the great body of evidence which disproves the BoM/Joseph’s claims, and hugely overemphasises the few bits which don’t blatantly contradict the plagiarised rambling weirdness that is the Book of Mormon. It’s the same “reasoning” that religionists use to try to disprove evolution through natural selection. By ignoring 99% of the body of evidence, and focussing on the 1-2% and pretending that’s all there is. You’re only fooling yourself and your children, which is the great tragedy.
James @350,
What specific facts presented in the Book of Mormon have been corroborated by articles published in peer-reviewed journals. You’re making a very specific claim, but have offered no evidence to back it up.
Show us 1) the relevant passages of the Book of Mormon and 2) the peer-reviewed publications of archaeologists that support the aforementioned passages of the Book of Mormon.
That is all.
I know some horror stories about LDS families, spousal abuse and so on. Stuff like that happens everywhere, unfortunately.
Just going to say it. Everything I’ve seen says that religious fanatics and kooks have screwed up minds and lives.
Pixel:
You wrote:
“Biologically, sexual attraction in members of a species serves as a mechanism to propagate the species.”
This is an accurate enough evolutionary description of the purpose of sexual attraction in the human male.
Obviously, in human males, where sexual attraction is for the same sex, we can identify an obvious contradiction (inconsistency) between the identity of a human male (formed to pass on genetic code to a human female) and the sexual attraction that the human male feels.
Homosexual men have feel a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.
Wow, lotsa comments. I don’t really have much to add, but when I read the “proof of the historical accuracy of the BoM” at the BYU site, I could not help but think of “Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Holy Grail”…Alexandretta! Of course, Bountiful was in Alexandretta! That makes it ALL TRUE.
I actually feel sorry for James…I was there once and so I feel genuine pity when I see him desperately attempting to defend his beliefs, indeed, his whole life and sense of identity.
I grew up mormon in the bible-thumping south and remember having to defend my religion every day to the ignorant gentile masses…and trust me, it wasn’t fun. Especially when your eyes begin to open and you realize that it was all a fabrication…and some of the members seem so desperate to believe…to be a part of something that is greater than themselves…something that makes them get “noticed” or have some piece of information that gets them something special…something the rest of humanity will not be privy to.
You are brought up believing that you are different, you are special, that you stand out because you have THE TRUTH. It is a tough pill to swallow when you realize that EVERYONE is different, EVERYONE is special, and that THE TRUTH is a man-made construct used to keep you in line.
Some people can’t face it and choose to return to the warm, friendly sense of community that the mormon church holds out for them…as long as they are willing to sacrifice their inquisitive intellect and deny reality for the good of the church. I guess mormonism is a lot like the other religions in that respect. More so than they are willing to admit, certainly. Because that would mean that they are not special or unique.
blf, it can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gojoseon#Founding_legend
Also different folks have different variations of the story depending on region and religions of course.
But you see calling myself a bear would be false. I have to gain muscle first then get alittle fur and beard going on…
Served with red wine of course. He aint no chicken (or fish)
James @265
Here’s some more information on this lone black man. Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder on March 3, 1836, and he moved up to become a member of the Seventy on April 4, 1841. Abel served a mission in Canada.
Per Jame’s explanation above, we must assume that the Mormon authorities were wrong in this case. They were fallible. They made a mistake. Because the veritable mountain of evidence of racism, of church doctrine and church authorities banding together to keep blacks out of the priesthood is irrefutable. Based on their interpretations of the bible, and on their statements, Elijah Abel has to be put in the “fallible men make mistakes” column.
There are thousands of instances of General Authorities and Presidents of the church reiterating why blacks can’t be equal to whites in the mormon world. There are millions of mormons who, up to 1978, conformed to this doctrine and helped to maintain it. And you hold up Abel as the exception — and nowhere do we find a canonical writing proclaiming Abel to be the black equal of any white priest. Hmm.
To add to the infamy already heaped up in the racism category, here is a story related to Native Americans, and their dark skin:
get some counseling, dude
James sez (and keep saying):
And maybe that’s so (I don’t think so, but I’ll concede the point to make a different one.).
Yet, waaaay back up at #124, I posted:
Which is an argument that slavishly obeying ‘nature’s law’ runs contrary to the entire point of civilization.
James either didn’t see this bit (which seems odd, as he later quoted some of the post…), or utterly ignored it.
I apologize, James, if I’m asking questions that are too difficult for you.
…
Well, not really.
“delightsomeness”?
Really?
You still need to explain why something that happens to be a majority in the animal kingdom should determine man-made laws about property rights and legal status.
Also, you need to realise that gender has no purpose. It simply “is”. There are still plants (and probably animals) that are asexual. So what.
You also need to tell me who a person with both gentals would be allowed to marry. since this is actually quite a common occurence in our species.
your reading comprehension sucks. that’s not the purpose of sexual attraction, it’s its source and one of its primary use.
and there you are again, jumping to conclusions about about male sexuality.
so, question: what “purpose” do you think female sexual arousal and sexual attraction serve? it’s not necessary for procreation, and yet it is natural, it has evolved, and it has uses. so what is it’s “purpose”?
also, do you know what “kin selection is”?
also, what does any of this have to do with marriage, which is not necessary for any sort of sex or procreation?
show evidence that there is such a thing as “natural identity” and “natural gender”, please. unless you can do so, you’re just talking out of your ass.
And how exactly is this relevant to the issue of marriage and denying it to homosexual couples? Like trying to argue that the only people that should have a driver’s license are those who need it to get to their place of employment.
Wrong again. Men are not “formed to” do anything. There is no intrinsic purpose to our existence.
James, why do you hate gay people so much?
That explains a lot.
Am I bad for being annoyed there wasn’t more Mormontological progroms?
I should point out at this juncture, partially in response to jcfitzner and partially in response to James’s misplaced glee, that Mormons are really fond of false dichotomies. I’m paraphrasing here, but I remember such statements like “The Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the earth,” and “Joseph Smith was either inspired or he was lying.”
What this means is Mormons have confirmation bias on anything that matches up with their experience of reality being true. Therefore a “true” doctrine or something already commonly expected, like faith, hope, and charity, only proves the Book of Mormon to be more true. Having already bought into the false dichotomy, they say, “I have evidence this is true, so it can’t be false in any way, shape, or form.”
Thus too do they resolve any display of Joseph’s fallibility. He suffered as a martyr and loved his family, ergo, he must be a true prophet.
Anyway, the Book of Mormon was declared to be the keystone of the Mormon religion (which is really funny, since NONE of the temple ordinances are in it, but are all in the D&C). And you’re supposed to believe it is the most correct of any books on earth….
Yet, much of it is falsifiable. The genetic claims are among the most recently debunked (see Murphy and Southerton) and while the apologists create population models, it doesn’t really synch with what the evidence that should have been left behind in the last 2600 years. Even the great battles that were said to wipe out the entire civilization leave no trace of their weapons.
Linguistics issues abound, and indeed, are often turned about by apologists to cover OTHER gaps of knowledge. See “curelom”. The desperate clutching of chiasmus only shows that the supposed-translator/creator of the Book of Mormon relied heavily on the KJV Bible while constructing his fantasy, and much of his errors of chronology are consistent with that.
A plentitude of European/African only animals abound, while animals of South American origin are conspicuously absent.
Basically Joe was wrong on a number of fronts: biological, linguisitic, ethnological, geological, anthropological. (And from a strictly literary perspective, the construction of the Book of Mormon leaves much to be desired.)
We know too that the Book of Mormon has undergone a series of changes over the last century and a half. Phrases like “white and delightsome” are replaced in newer editions with “pure and delightsome,” while early 20th century editions slowly cleaned up a number of grammatical errors and idioms that date to Joe’s level of education and time. Funny how God couldn’t translate more clearly.
And yet, once again, we are asked to consider this the “most correct of any books.”
The eyes, they roll.
-You also need to tell me who a person with both “gentals” would be allowed to marry. since this is actually quite a common “occurence” in our species.-
Genitals and occurrence.
I’m going to sleep now, i clearly need it…but its been fun.
Homosexual men have feel a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.
I wonder if he thinks that by repeating this disproven drivel over and over and over and over and over and over it’ll eventually start to be believed.
It’s so reminiscent of testimony meeting:
“I know that the church is true…”
“I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of god…”
“I know that Thomas Monson is a prophet of god…”
“I know that Jesus lives…”
“I know that [insert phrase here]…”
The same 4-5 phrases, said by everyone, in basically the same order, over and over in droning fashion, with a few tears mixed in for variety/obvious displays of extra-super piety.
That is what passes for “truth” in Mormonism. Just say and hear said some silly thing enough times over and over and over and over until that’s all that’s in your head and all you can think about. And that makes it suddenly true.
@jcfitzner
Just repeat the lie often enough until it becomes the truth.
James: “Obviously, in human males, where sexual attraction is for the same sex, we can identify an obvious contradiction (inconsistency) between the identity of a human male (formed to pass on genetic code to a human female) and the sexual attraction that the human male feels.”
You’re doing it again. You never responded to my deconstruction — and you’re doing it all over again. You’re equating “identity”, “mechanism of reproduction”, “attraction”, and “legal structure”.
None of which are logical without presuming a Mormon-type theology. The purpose of a human being is not to reproduce — not even with a very loose definition of “purpose”.
Genes are biologically selected to propagate themselves (aka, their “purpose”). Now human bodies contain genes — so human bodies are selected to propagate those genes.
That is correct. The modes of propagation are varied. Those genes can be propagated by direct reproduction (a queen bee and her drones, for example). But they can also be propagated by assisting relatives in reproducing themselves (worker bees, for example).
There are many, many, many biological examples of modes of propagation that aren’t strictly mother-father-child. This is particularly true among our relatives, where the cost of rearing children is so high; so, for examples, bands of sisters or brothers are common, grandmothers who are no longer fertile are common, male-male and female-female consorts are common, and so forth.
Your ignorance of what words mean is breath-taking. Your ignorance of what you mean by words is truly a lesson in what a circular argument is. Please, put that trumpet down. It’s painful.
It’s particularly funny, given that in an inbred population like the Mormons, those “other” modes of genetic propagation would be particularly highlighted. A gay Mormon, for example, in some small Utah town would be “propagating his genes” and “asserting his human identity” simply by being a productive member of the community, probably more so than by badly rearing a litterful of young.
1. what exactly is this purpose?
2. what exactly is this “identity”?
3. what is your evidence for each and all of the above? how do you know this?
human gender isn’t nearly as clear-cut as religious nitwits want to make it, nor is human attraction.
for instance, among my social acquaintances there is a bit of an odd couple. they were married heterosexually, and remained that way — a perfectly ordinary married couple — for some years.
then one of them transitioned gender. they remained married; the non-transitioning partner (who to this day considers themself purely heterosexual) came to realize that they were married for more than merely sex, that their partner was still the same person they had wanted to spend a lifetime with, and that there were more reasons left to remain in the partnership than this one seemingly obvious reason which had disappeared from the picture. they are, now, in a same-sex marriage which is technically illegal in their locality — yet they’ve done nothing which, in my eyes, deserves criticism.
James — what (if any) is the mormon church’s official position on partnerships such as theirs? what is the mormon church’s official opinion on what the non-transitioning partner in such a marriage ought to do about it, if anything at all? and most importantly of all, why?
i don’t think it’s too much to ask for an official church position on marriages of this kind. there are far more of them than the one i’m familiar with, and as gender transitioning is still increasing in frequency, the situation will tend to become more common for a while yet. this should remain so at least until the generations already old enough to have married die off, under the assumption that transfolk will eventually tend to transition before full adulthood. we’re not nearly there yet, though.
(ten bucks says jamy boy will flatly ignore this post entirely. or if not, the bigoted liar will choose to ignore all but the insults i’ve leveled against him — even if that means having to ignore this paragraph’s insults.)
I see my brother is here (real brother, not a mormon “brother”), @342. Those of you who know me will recognize some of Lee’s (Leland’s) mormon contacts as those that also labeled me as “The Adversary” or Satan. IIRC, my brother is just influenced by the devil (that would be be me presumably), while I am the actual incarnation of The Adversary.
Just wanted to do my sisterly job of one-up-man-ship here. :-)
Gyeong Hwa Pak, thanks & cheers!
RevDumbChimp:
You wrote:
“You have pointed out THE most fatal flaw of Mormonism/Mormon reasoning:
1) Past prophets are fallible. Not everything they said is of God.
2) They were wrong on blacks/polygamy (sorta).
3) But they’re right NOW on gays (and women). We promise. Believe us.
4) We know it’s true because we had a psychosomatic reaction when praying/our entire lives will be a lie if it’s wrong. (a testimony)
This is absurd.
1. Prophets are humans. By definition they are fallible. In Mormonism, we don’t claim that everything they said WAS of God. We distinguish by what is said in Church law – DC 107:
That is why IN the RESTORED Church, God instructed the Church to have canonical doctrine as approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.
As for the LDS Church being right about gays, let’s go thruogh their logic:
1. There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a third gender or a purposeful or useful condition for the human species.
2. Homosexual attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
3. Human society doesn’t need homosexual unions, but needs heterosexual unions. Children need fathers and mothers, not two dads or two moms.
4. Children have the birthright, whenever possible, to be born to a mother and father. Creating gay marriage institutionalizes this birth right being automatically removed.
5. Homosexual unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions. Men are not equal to women to be wives and mothers and women are not equal to men to be husbands and fathers.
Mormons do not read, see, or hear ANY compelling arguments why they should vote for gay marriage.
Science isn’t on your side. Biology isn’t on your side. And sociology is not on your side.
Do you see a pattern here Rev? Can you see where REALITY is pointing us?
Apart from the recent popular belief that gay couples should be married like heterosexual couples, does this idea or desire have its necessity in science, biology or sociology?
We’ve already debunked all your arguments here. Do you no read our post.
Clearly. You don’t even bother reading the evidence that we’ve presented for you.
jcfitzner: The little kids always say, “I want to bury my testimony.”
Ah, the unintentional irony.
….
James, let me explain this to you. There is NO person or institution or guiding hand to nature. This is what people mean when they accuse you of naturalistic fallacies.
You keep saying “purpose” but we say “evolutionary mechanism” or “byproduct” to describe sexual attraction as it occurs in nature.
There is no invisible hand guiding this process, and if animals discover that rubbing their bits against anything is pleasurable as a byproduct of their evolutionary mechanism, nobody tells them “Hey, that’s eeeeebil.”
And nature doesn’t care if a species dies out or not. (Witness dinosaurs.) Or evolves. (Hey, everything alive today.) If a member of a species makes a series of decisions that end up with it not passing on its genes, nature does not care.
So it’s humans who are putting the reading and judgement value on gender roles, passing on genes, and setting up legal entities for dealing with our biological quirks.
Anyway, you keep haring off after your red herring, when it’s already obvious that many marriages currently sanctioned by society already function outside the reproductive capabilities. There are childless couples and the elderly, and yet we continue to see benefit in them getting married or staying married. My widowed next-door neighbour back in Utah is marrying my widowed ex-hometeacher incidentally…and don’t expect to be producing children, or even raising any together as both are empty nesters. Could it be that they are marrying because they respect each other as partners and have a continued desire for sexual companionship? How is that so different than a gay couple?
James: “Apart from the recent popular belief that gay couples should be married like heterosexual couples, does this idea or desire have its necessity in science, biology or sociology?”
We are starting to accumulate conclusive evidence that James is just quite stupid.
There is no evidence in science, biology or sociology that marriage, of any type, is a necessity. None at all. Societies have survived for 40,000 years without marriage — some have reared children via brother-sister pairs, some have used sister or brother clusters, some have even raised a portion of their children in “gay unions”!
By your logic, we should rescind marriage altogether as unnecessary. As well as contracts, churches, governments, corporations, property rights, cities…
All that is necessary is the band and a band house.
Oh-shit-oh-dear! Once again, James is telling the scientists, including biologists and sociologists (not to mention linguists, archaeologists, and a host of other -ologists) that they’re wrong about their fields of expertise. This has been a comforting and maddening thread: comforting because of the cogent arguments brought forward on behalf of other-than-heterosexual people, and maddening due to James’ inability to see his own logical inconsistencies. Expecting otherwise is foolish, I know, because his arguments are all religious, therefore not involving logic.
James, if you can spare time from your naturalistic fallacies, how about some genuine references to the research you claim supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Hmm?
James has revealed what was obvious about an anti gay marriage stance; it boils down to sexism. It is and always has been about telling men and women what they are and how they should feel, and that we aren’t at all alike. He doesn’t want to say what the essential gender means, but I know. It means men are dominant, and women submissive. God is one sick bastard if the system he prefers is one where a group of people is fucked over constantly and the other violently takes whatever they want. The existence of gay people challenges what men and women can be to each other, and how we can interact with each other. It says that there are other ways to be happy and that there are unique people out there who aren’t defined by gender alone. We don’t have to act the way that is prescribed to us based on gender. The strict policing of people in the church doesn’t make any sense without the patriarchal order where men are dominant over women and children. It is a method of social control. How can they tell people how/when/why to fuck without this system in place? Women are still very much baby making machines out here in utah; set your watch back 50 years if you ever want to visit. Oh, the stories I could tell.
James, surprisingly still here, @363 opined,
I’ve put in bold the part you don’t appear to understand.
There is ample evidence that homosexual men don’t feel a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.
Regardless of how you want to define ‘natural’, ‘identity’, ‘purpose’, and ‘gender’.
However, as the only evidence you appear to accept is propaganda distributed by your church, I doubt you will ever understand this.
Further, this sham concern for the feelings of homosexual men doesn’t fool us. Even if they do feel ‘contrary’ to their ‘natural identity and purpose’ why not let them?
That’s very possibly James’s first accurate statement—if applied to the bom.
(This nutter really is getting quite boring now, isn’t he? The same nonsense, endlessly repeated, without an iota of evidence and ignoring the repeated requests for evidence (references), ignoring the counter-evidence presented, moving the goals, and so on. Has it done anything your typical nutter doesn’t do? Maybe a bit more persistent than many, and less illiterate, but seems just as ignorant and unwilling to challenge its own dogmatically-held positions.
I wonder which nutter will take over from it. The lds nutters once had a tendency to work in shifts, albeit I don’t know if they still copy that co$ tactic or not?)
And sociology is not on your side.
James,
This sociologist has asked you to read the research about same-sex couples raising children. This sociologist knows you are completely full of shit.
JC:
Read carefully.
You wrote:
“Homosexual men have feel a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.
I wonder if he thinks that by repeating this disproved drivel over and over and over and over and over and over it’ll eventually start to be believed. ”
How many genders are there JC? Two – male and female.
The basic purpose of the male gender in the human species is specific and identifiable.
Homosexual feelings and attractions are contrary and inconsistent with this purpose and identity in every way.
Go ahead JC, make the case for why the human species should not look for a cause and then a universal therapy that will abate this abnormality in the male human gender.
As for James, well, we tried. He’s a ridiculously porphrytic granitoid. His brain is lithified, with bits of hard mormonism scattered throughout.
As for James’ claims about proof from mesoamerica, and other rabbit-hole-like dives into the void of mormon apologetics. I refer anyone interested to “Mormon Apologetics: A Guide for the Perplexed” by Bob McCue (2006).
One of the many oddities of the mesoamerican theory, sometimes called Limited Geographical Theory, is that it places wars described in the Book of Mormon in an area that is so small that it has yet to be found:
Here’s one of many Sources (Scroll down to bob mccue, February 19, 2006)
James is a hateful little monster, isn’t he.
“I wish I would have been born into a Mormon family or one with another one of those more obviously wrong religions.” (Emo Phillips)
Poor James. He is sadly outnumbered, and he is engaged in losing arguments on not one, but two fronts (“is there a secular argument against gay marriage?” and “is there good evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.) Plus, he is on Pharyngula.
It is the holiday season, and we ought to be charitable. Thus, poor James should be treated gently. Please take the dismembered parts and place them carefully in their proper boxes, being sure that no blood drips unnecessarily. There is no need to make a mess. James will have to put himself back together again, later, because even Mormons need to eat and function in their daily lives.
Yes; it’s pointing towards our side, because your arguments don’t work. They’re weak religious apologetics dressed up to look like secular ones — and we see right through them.
I’d say you have spunk to try them out here, but it will probably be misinterpreted.
Maybe not.
James, as usual, is full of it. (post 384 in this case) He is either ignoring or has forgotten to address the fact that the LDS church claims to have continuing revelation. (TNT, or Today’s News Todays, as my seminary teacher’s called it.) They claim that the continuing revelation trumps prior revelation and that church members should listen to the general authorities at conference time and read their articles in the Ensign and take this as God’s word to the faithful. So, yes, there is canonical doctrine, which can be over-ridden at any time with a modern revelation.
Which is the system RevBigDumbChimp took on, pointing out the prior results of said system.
…
1. There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is a third gender or a purposeful or useful condition for the human species.
Also dunno where this “third gender” suddenly sprang from. Gay is not a gender. It is a sexual preference. There is male, female, and intersex people who generally present as one gender or the other, but who may not conform to the constructs defined in traditional gender roles.
[more babbling from james about purpose–a word he has failed to define and which he uses to perpetuate his naturalistic fallacies.]
3. Human society doesn’t need homosexual unions, but needs heterosexual unions. Children need fathers and mothers, not two dads or two moms.
4. Children have the birthright, whenever possible, to be born to a mother and father. Creating gay marriage institutionalizes this birth right being automatically removed.
Children need parents. While it’s preferable for the parent’s support to have more than one, it is unnecessary. Doesn’t matter what configuration they come in though. I’m still trying to figure out what you think any one female and any one male could guarantee their children that can’t be achieved through hard work, respect, and cooperation by any other grouping of responsible adults.
(Also, technically, children are born to a mother and a father no matter what. These are not necessarily the people who raise them, nor should they be raised by their biological parents, does it guarantee that their parents will be mentally healthy, sane, able to pass on their knowledge, not abuse them, or even able to emulate a healthy communicative and responsible relationship. Hello, Britney Spears? The only thing one het couple has in common with any other het couple is their tab-A, slot-B configuration.)
good! then you can specifically identify it for us. with evidence, of course.
MAJeff:
I happen to know the research to which you are referring from the 80s and 90s that was skewed because it drew upon the children who were born to heterosexual couples and then introduced to homosexual parenting later.
Currently there is no conclusive and hard research that shows that homosexual parenting is the same as heterosexual parenting.
This is yet another fantasy created by the homosexual hoax.
Here’s a social reality for you MAJeff:
* Men cannot be wives or mothers.
* Women cannot be husbands or fathers.
Children need a mom and dad and nature agrees.
Science!
The science demonstrates that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. Do you understand this, James?
That means you are discriminating invidiously against people, deciding that they cannot marry those they love, and hurting them because of their very identity which is beyond their control.
This is unjust, and evil.
The rest of the world is acknowledging this. Mormons will be remembered as those who despised gay people the most vehemently, with the most consistent hatred.
“Just wanted to do my sisterly job of one-up-man-ship here. :-)”
If you were listening to james, You’dk now that that’s just for men :|
“Apart from the recent popular belief that gay couples should be married like heterosexual couples, does this idea or desire have its necessity in science, biology or [b]sociology[/b]?”
Underlined for emphasis:
OH MY GOD YES. Well, more economic then sociology, but economics is just a facet of applied sociology.
First, we have the developing nations. These countries usually have extremely high birth rates that are being met with falling death rates due to industrialization and modernization. These high birth rates cause problems because it makes it much harder to develop and set up infrastructure for all of these new people. This is why India is still having problems. High birthrates are bad when you have lowered death rates and haven’t even set up basic infrastructure.
So there’s good incentive in a lot of the developing world. Here’s some for the US:
We’re alreadying problems sustaining our current population. It’s not food, and it’s not space, so it’s harder to notice. It’s water, that thing we consider infinite because as long as you flip the tap it flows out. For instance, see here:
http://www.lakelanier.com/20090722848/news/lake-lanier-court-case-decision-disappoints-atlanta/
This is a court case that shows thta ALREADY, water is becoming a big deal to us. Imagine what will happen if water starts to become a commodity in the US, rather then a simple necessity. We should probably not exacerbate things iwth a rising population rate! Recognizing same sex couples helps support those long term relationships that specifically can’t make an existing problem worse.
He is serving a purpose. Most people have only a vague understanding of Mormonism or meat robots produced by cult brainwashing.
Anyone who reads this threat now knows more than they ever wanted to.
James continues, @384,
Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 5:56 PM
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
James: gender != sex != identity. The assumption of identity is only true for a short list of patriarchal religions, of which Mormonism is the latest (and least aesthetically competent — check out their “meditation room” in SLC — it looks like something drunk cousin Bob did in his garage!) variation.
Wow, just one of the stupidest trolls in a long time. Do you think the inbreeding has accumulated too many recessive genes in this population?
Does it think no one notices its non-responsiveness? My dog shows more cognitive flexibility than this “James” entity. He shows more personality than this “James”.
I think James fails the Turing test for consciousness. Eliza is more varied. Rewrite the software — this programmer is incompetent.
Does anyone else think James might be on a Mission trip and is dangerously low on his recruitment numbers so is trolling the interwebs looking for suckers?
Strange:
You wrote:
“The science demonstrates that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. Do you understand this, James?”
Hurray! There’s a genetic component!
Please identify the genetic component. And did you know that that many diseases or abnormalities are caused by genetic components?
Then specifically identify it and explain how you were able to identify it.
James thinks that children with gay parents should be taken away from their parents.
Why do you hate gay people, James?
I don’t want your bigoted, hateful therapy. Will you force it upon me under your Mormon theocracy?
Insipid troll is insipid.
There is no male gender role. Nature shows that none biological parents can equally assist with reproduction of a species. Who do you think takes cares of ant larvae? It ain’t the queen its the infertile worker ants.
And again. Naturalistic fallacy. Heterosexual union isn’t needed either. Yet you can’t seem to see where your logic fails. Would your rather we abandon marriage all together and have one massive orgy. An orgy would be very better since it provides a large gene pool for humans anyway.
There is no need to treat homosexuality. Homosexual folks are productive members of society. The only thing abnormal about them is your cultural bias. There are culture who would disagree this “male purpose” of yours.
MaJeff:
Did you put batteries in that ray gun?
Mormons do not read, see, or hear ANY compelling arguments why they should vote for gay marriage.
That’s because when they see the compelling argument, they do what I did and leave the soul-sucking, hateful institution they’ve been propping up, and become Mormon-no-more. :)
One reason I left was because if I had kids while still inside the church, they’d go on the rolls automatically. And I didn’t want my kids being exposed to the poor role models the church provides in terms of human equality. I wanted my kids to respect other cultures and genders. I wanted my kids to be able to think critically.
Read, asshole. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
Like black skin, right, you racist asshole?
You really are a terrible person, James.
did you know that many cases of criminal insanity are caused by religious extremism?
(seriously, let’s list a few things that are caused by genetic components. and let’s start with biologic sex. whoops, guess we gotta get rid of those sex chromosomes!)
And did you know that that many diseases or abnormalities are caused by genetic components?
And did you know that that hair colour/number of limbs/ability to roll one’s tongue are specified by genetic components? o.O
Gosh, this science! What will it discover next?
James #394 wrote:
No, it’s not: you’re confusing “male gender” with “sperm.” You’re also using the sloppy phrase “basic purpose” to mean all sorts of different things, sliding from one connotation to the next. That is why you are being asked for specific and identifiable definitions.
Sperm fertilizes egg in human procreation. Yes. And? You simply can’t extrapolate from that to get to “natural purposes” for men, or the “real” meaning of marriage.
People have purposes, or goals. Ironically, your argument that gay couples have to “prove” their right to marry to the government gives the State power over the rights of the individual — a position which, as a Mormon, you are probably opposed to, politically. Rethink this.
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of people who are left-handed, have blue eyes, or have red hair. All of these folk are clearly abnormal, so let’s figure out the cause and develop a universal therapy that will make everyone right-handed, brown-eyed, and brown-haired.
James, the homophobic twit:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Men are capable of great nurturing, women are capable of great strength (oh, here’s news – they have brains too!) and children need loving, intelligent parents.
You’re hung up on roles of a traditional nature, nothing more. Extended families with capable adults filling all manner of obligations are great environments for kids. What they don’t need are rigid, bigoted twits like yourself, who have heads stuffed with utter nonsense and talk out their asses.
So you advocate eugenics. Skin color is also caused by genetic components. If we can treat and wipe out the gays we can do the same with a skin tone now couldn’t we.
You racist turd.
Jadehawk:
I see no reason to presuppose the problem is with his reading comprehension rather than with his honesty.
James @400,
So now divorce is illegal and widows and widowers with children must instantly remarry?
James, children grow up, that happens through the passage of time. It doesn’t happen because Mr. and Mrs. Potato head swap out more adult parts.
—–
Mr. P, “Dear, I think junior deserves an adolescent mouth.”
Mrs. P, “I don’t know, sweetie. The last time we let him have it, it only cursed because his willy is still a toddlers.”
——
How do children grow up to be members of society? By being raised by adults who are members of society. Gender doesn’t enter into it at all.
There are plenty of historical examples to illustrate this.
Homophobic Twit:
Ya don’t say. I have freckles and red hair. Many times throughout history, people such as yourself have considered those things abnormal a/o evil. Obviously, those people were wrong. You’re wrong right now, but don’t have the brains to realize it. Pity.
Llewelly:
If scientists find a universal reparative therapy for same-sex attraction, should homosexuals 1) receive it and 2) admit that all of this nonsense was based on fantasy concocted to describe a clear inconsistency with the natural purpose and identify of human gender?
If you want to know the truth already, just start with the two genders; Male and female.
What is the basic purpose of the human male in the species? What is the basic purpose of sexual attraction in human males?
Ding ding ding!
You won’t find that the answer to either of those questions is “same sex attraction.”
We don’t need science to identify that same sex attraction is an abnormal attraction that is inconsistent with male biology and gender. It is self-evident.
James @400,
Oh, and cut the ‘it’s for the children’ crap.
You keep saying that homosexuality is wrong because they can’t have children.
Then you can’t say that homosexuality is wrong because their children aren’t raised properly.
By your own argument, they don’t have any.
Contradiction.
Choose one.
The word “purpose” wakes up in a strange room and wonders, “How the fuck did I get here? And what have I been drinking?” The words echo around the room.
The word “natural” rolls over and says, “Buddy, I feel your pain…”
This natural fallacy was brought you by the letters X and Y and James the Mormon Muppet!
Flex:
You wrote:
“Children need a mom and dad and nature agrees.
So now divorce is illegal and widows and widowers with children must instantly remarry?”
No, just not gay marriage, where government forces children to be raised without a mother or a dad on purpose. I vote no.
Sastra:
You wrote:
“Poor James. He is sadly outnumbered, and he is engaged in losing arguments on not one, but two fronts (“is there a secular argument against gay marriage?” and “is there good evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.) Plus, he is on Pharyngula. ”
I don’t mind being outnumbered.
I don’t think anyone has been able to argue that homosexual attraction is consistent with male human gender or that its necessary to the species.
That is the task. Homosexual attraction by nature an attraction to one’s own sex. Get it? It’s an abnormality according to the two human genders. All of the bloggers here have yet to interact with this reality.
Presently, there are no compelling arguments for gay marriage that I can’t refute.
As for the Book of Mormon, there is compelling evidence that DIRECTLY supports the narrative of the Book of Mormon and indicates that Nephi was a real person in 600 BC. Unless of course, you’re claiming that Joseph Smith was also a time traveler.
But, as I am outnumbered, and you are all very entrenched in your biases and false views of Mormonism, mostly based on flawed anti-Mormon arguments, what’s the point?
I find that most freethinkers claim that they believe only in science and reason but when confronted with Book of Mormon evidence, quickly retreat from this hard core position and form extreme positions so that their cognizant dissonance doesn’t drive them batty.
And, it is the holidays and I have plenty more to do today, as I sit in my home office.
Anyway, it’s time to get ready for the bowl game.
It’s been fun!
Now, just imagine a million citizens asking you,
“Why should we make gay marriage legal when homosexual attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of gender?”
What evidence or proof will you propose in the national debate, next time around?
Yes you do because it’s not self-evident. We’ve given example to state otherwise. Deluded Fool.
His last 10 posts are all exactly the same. This is getting very boring.
James: “If you want to know the truth already, just start with the two genders; Male and female”
Okay, “James” is a cretin. How many times must it be said? The word you want is sex. There are two fertile sexes among mammals.
You have to have a 400cc brain to not get this point. In English, gender applies to sociological roles — it’s made up stuff. Sexes refers to biological functions. Gender comes from grammar — it refers ultimately to a system of sound concordances and related variations on grammar that are found in Indo-European languages. That metaphorically applies to social relations (Ding! Ding! Ding! you ijit).
It is self-evident.
Only absolutely morons ever say that. The closest an actual logician says is “The proof is trivial” — which usually means, an exercise for the student, which takes just as long as the rest of the proof.
Things are self-evident only to thoughtless buffoons who don’t know what a tautology is.
Well, it’s bedtime this side of the pond, so this is my last effort. It’s been revealing.
As a long time family genealogist, I find the LDS family history archives to be of tremendous value, and think it’s great that they are openly accessible to non-believers like me. …while thinking that the church members must be nuts believing that baptism of the dead stuff.
Thanks to pixelfish, I now find that some poor sod gets nearly drowned to achieve that – I was thinking that all they did was add the stuff to a computer file.. Thanks pixelfish, for all the fish…sort of.
And thanks to James the bigot, who has revealed all I now need to know of the LDS’s other activities.
Anyone who hears that tale of Joseph Smith and the ‘lost book’ of Mormon, and doesn’t immediately spot a scam has to be blind to evidence, and tremendously gullible to boot. You won’t get through to him; he is blind to stuff that is self-evident to anyone outside his sect.
We don’t need science to identify that same sex attraction is an abnormal attraction that is inconsistent with male biology and gender. It is self-evident.
All of you over educated fuckers, just give up. James knows better then any of you assholes. James has been taught by his elders that male homosexuality is inconsistent with nature. And his elders has had this revealed by god and that is infallible, except when the elders are fallible.
Please, explain to us what female sexuality is. Or does it not matter?
Occasionally I tend to feel i’ve lost out on some of the experiences Pixel, Kenbo and others have experienced on their own road to rationality. I’ve always been an atheist, in so much as having had the good fortune of being brought up without the need for religion from my parents.
Sometimes I feel a little awestruck by how level headed and moral most ex-believers seem to be, and reading this thread today has further reinforced my awe. I can only imagine the guilt, the heartache, and the pain of leaving any institution one is brought up in from birth.
Then along comes James, and i thank my lucky fucking stars i’ve never been that closed minded, that retarded, and that obnoxious, and especially not a stumpy fucktard mormon !
James. There is no “purpose.”
Why do you hate gay people?
@Janine
LOL. Good question. It’s a myth. God said so. Women don’t have sexualities. Nor indeed real free-will. They’re pleasure machines for men.
There is none. Nor is there evidence of this person existance. It’s more likely that there is vague similarities between different narrative that Joey picked up when he shitted it out. We’ve given you evidence. The genetic make of Native Americans indicate that they are of east Asian descent. There is also no archeological evidence for them being Semitic people. The technology isn’t even consistent. I see now that the LDS has corrupted your mind so hard that it’s impossible for you to lot at real evidence.
Janine, She Wolf OM:
Apparently not. James seems to be entirely phallus-focused. Women are nothing but mobile uteri in James’ little tiny world, they certainly don’t enjoy sex, especially not any perverted (read: non-procreative) kind! Snort.
Strange Gods, I think I can answer that question. Because it is inconsistent with male biology and gender.
Funny how James says nothing about female gender. What, the womenfolk cannot feel sexual attraction?
He’s talking about forcing gay people to undergo abusive brainwashing, and he’s accusing gay people of being fascists.
There are kids being raised by gay couples who’d be living in orphanages with zero parents otherwise, James. Why do you hate the children of gay couples?
It’s rather ironic to read James application of “fascism” to advocates for marriage equality, and then to see him follow that up with his eugenic fantasies.
@CunningLingus: It works both ways. Sometimes I feel like I’ve lost out on some of the experiences of growing up in a culture that supports rationality. (My parents were kinda sciencey for Mormons, but they had tremendous cog dis about it. One of my favourite buildings on WhyBeYou campus is the Widstoe science building and I have a lot of fond memories there, but I also can recall my dad dissing Sagan when he died. It’s weird how they could be so into science, and so irrational about their own beliefs.)
Still, that which doesn’t kill ya, makes you stranger. :)
Here’s the most interesting thing about James: he apparently started this thread to defend Mormonism from the slander that they were radical theocratic mythology obsessed nutcases bent on political domination.
Then he went ahead and proved that Mormonism is sexist, homophobic, inconsistent, theocratic and filled with mythology obsessed nutcases bent on political domination. Beyond a doubt, he asserts that only what he finds necessary, in light of his peculiar mythos, should be legal.
I mean, what a maroon!
This is one of the problems of Mormonism, as opposed to the older religions: their apologetics, arts, theology and architecture absolutely suck. Unlike the Roman pedophiles, the Levantine theocrats, or the subcontinent racists, these rednecks are basically incompetent. How hard is it to hire decent architects? Painters? Theologians? The world is awash with them.
Can’t we as Americans do better? If we’re going to make up loony shit as an excuse to dominate and exploit our neighbors — Mormonism? Scientology? Really — that’s the best? Sci-fi cover art and Federal buildings relabeled as church facilities? Crap that any meth-head living in a trailer can do with a spray can?
It’s really worth it visiting Mormon Vatican in SLC. The building, the food, the “museum”, the “art” — it’s execrable. You shall know them by their fruits, indeed.
The “meditation” room with spray painted walls and a Jesus with a tape-player up his ass was the high-point for me!
okay, add “refute”.
i’m making a list of words james uses without understanding what they mean.
(no, it doesn’t look anything like a dictionary at all. dictionaries have definitions in them.)
James sez: If scientists find a universal reparative therapy for same-sex attraction, should homosexuals 1) receive it
Strange Gods replies: He’s talking about forcing gay people to undergo abusive brainwashing, and he’s accusing gay people of being fascists.
Yeah, he’s exceeded the recommended daily dose in accidental irony.
If we wanted to really break his brain, we could explain the Deaf community to him, and point out that there are people who would say no to reparative therapy for deafness.
No, the task is for you to demonstrate how that is in any way relevant to the issue of marriage. It makes absolutely zero difference whether homosexuality is “necessary” to the species or not. If the state is to sanction a legal contract, it has to do so irrespective of the sexes of the people entering into that contract. Demonstrate the compelling reason why homosexual couples should be excluded from marriage.
So far, you haven’t refuted anybody’s arguments. You have only repeatedly made these baseless assertions as if they were universal truths. You have made no compelling arguments at all. Repeating the same assertion over and over does not make it so.
“….Sci-fi cover art….”
Hey now, frog, let’s not knock sci-fi cover art. (Says the sf/f reading nut who also happens to be an artist and paints what could be called sci-fi cover art.)
That said, my basic description of the Book of Mormon is “Biblical fan-fic”, with apologies to all other canons of fan-fic.
…he still never answered my question, why ‘nature’ is always inherently better.
In fact, he never even got near it.
I honestly have to wonder if it’s that he didn’t understand the point I was making, or just had no refutation at all for it.
The World May Never Know….
(Ask Mr. Owl!)
James you keep repeating this like a mantra, almost like a recovering alcoholic who needs to repeat over and over, “Alcohol is toxic and inconsistent with a healthy life in every way”. Mantras are only good for convincing oneself of something but are not very good at convincing anyone else. If you want to convince anyone else you need to add a bit more substance to the argument.
There’s a church whose founder, Joseph Smith, needed 44 wives (several already married to other men), two of them 14 when Joe decided he needed a new bed warmer. After Joe was killed, his bestest buddy, Brigham Young, needed to marry 55 women to prove his masculinity. And the church run by these two men claims it’s in favor of “traditional” marriage.
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church. They aren’t the only religion, but they mess around in politics the most. They gave quite a bit of money they didn’t have in support of voting down same-sex marriage. They were probably responsible for the majority of the “yes” votes in the cities, where RCC sheeple are concentrated.
Well documented, yes. OMNOMNOM spent heavily in Maine, though not quite as heavily as the other side, which did a great education campaign but still lost. Maine is highly rural and a great urban ground game didn’t translate into great rural outreach. Last I heard, NOM was still fighting in court with the State of Maine over failing to disclose their donors and violating campaign finance laws.
I get it.
James thinks he’s shot the arguments down because Gays aren’t people, therefore the many arguments he’s not addressed haven’t actually been made.
James @427,
So you are absolutely fine with same-sex marriage? Just as long as they don’t adopt?
So why did you vote against same-sex marriage again?
Therefore you must also be against single parent adoption, and for removing children from single parent households.
This is a perfectly true statement. James has been given no valid or compelling arguments that are valid or compelling to James. It’s highly unlikely that no such arguments exist. James will always find each and every argument invalid and uncompelling. Bigots will always reject any argument, no matter how reasonably or logical, which goes against their bigotry.
James: Anyway, it’s time to get ready for the bowl game
Go Beavers, Stomp Bring Your Underwear
Rutee @451,
Well, James’ gaydar is miss-calibrated then. He hasn’t even attempted to answer my question of why he thinks he should vote against same-sex marriage instead of not voting at all, and I’m not at all inclined toward homosexuality.
I do, however, recognize that there is no rational reason to restrict same-sex marriages, only custom. And apparently, to James’ regret, custom is changing.
? I don’t think this has been demonstrated.
Well, I am somewhat disappointed. James has taken his now assless self off to watch sporting events and has left this blood sport.
James hounded me for a reply to his example of the black Elder of 1836, so I provided an answer @367 … and, James never replied.
James kept fucking around with “proof” that the BoM is true, and PixelFish filleted his argument @376, and I added a blow @395 … and, James never replied.
BTW, PixelFish, the comment @426 was priceless
I think James may have been thinking of all the spirit babies on Kolob, waiting to come to earth via man/woman intercourse, but he was afraid to bring up yet another moment of mormon madness.
James:
You’re a fun one. Let’s take a look at some of the things you said and have some more fun:
Yeah, the Mormons are so very consistent, especially about that tricky First Vision thing. It was two personages who forgave Joseph Smith of his sins . . . no wait, it was two personages and a host of angels who forgave Joseph of his sins and told him that Jesus is the son of god . . . no wait, it was two personages who forgave Joseph of his sins and told him that the churches are corrupt . . . no wait, it was two personages, one of whom said, “This is my beloved son, hear him” and told Joseph that the churches are corrupt . . . yeah, that’s it.
But you want consistency, okay:
Then why did your founder talk about saving the Constitution? Also, why was it canonical for a long while (up until the practice was exposed to the public) for Mormons to swear in their temple oaths that they would avenge the death of Joseph Smith by bringing down the government/country that killed him? And why was it canonical to teach that African-Americans were unworthy in the pre-existence and therefore cursed all their days with dark skin and eternal servitude and strife in this life (in fact, there is still canonical scripture stating that dark skin is a curse for “iniquity” (Alma 3:6)) up until this practice was darkly (get it?) frowned upon by the general public in 1978?
The only thing the Mormons are consistent on is their flip-flopping on issues that are absolutely god’s will up until they become unfavorable in the eyes of the public.
And hey, speaking of, you might want to read this MormonTimes article in which the author says:
(The author, by the way, is Orson Scott Card. Isn’t he a sweetie? It’s okay, though, he was only following in the footsteps of the Oath of Vengeance dudes.)
Don’t Mormons believe in an infallible bible?
“Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.” — Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted here.
So the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision (which account? The one the church canonized, or the one he first recorded?), are totally infallible, or so the Mormons believe. And the Mormons believe in the Bible too, buddypal, “as long as it is translated correctly” (that’s one of your Articles of Faith! Aren’t you supposed to memorize those in primary?). Both are fallible, but at least the Bible has some actual history thrown into the mix. The Book of Mormon is just complete fantasy, and bad fantasy at that (I believe Mark Twain called it “chloroform in print” — very apt).
So you Mormons continue to scream that you’re Christians, NO YOU GUYS SERIOUSLY WE’RE CHRISTIANS, and yet when it’s convenient, you disparage the Bible that your own founders believed in. Choice!
Then why does your god continue to create them? Why do they continue to crop up?
Did you know that as recently as this past summer, scientists stated that homosexual behavior is widespread in animals (not just human animals, mind you) — and not only that, but that it might be an evolutionary response to perpetuating the species? While all the heterosexual couples are procreating, homosexual couples are seeking to adopt the unwanted and orphaned children left behind by said heterosexual couples. The Laysan albatross population was floundering thanks to a shortage of males — until females started creating pair-bonds and raising chicks. Black swans are known to engage in homosexual pair-bond/chick-raising as well. In fact, they engage in a form of surrogate parenting! Two male black swans will pair off, a female will mate with one or both of them, and after she lays the eggs, she leaves the nest to the two males, who then raise the chicks themselves.
So tell me again about your reality.
You are so full of shit, your eyes must be brown enough to shame dark chocolate. Educate yourself before you make a bigger ass of yourself than you already have — if that’s even possible.
Hey, James, if you ever get back from that game, you might find the following enlightening, as regards the racism of the LDS church. Not only were they openly racist in the past, they’re still openly racist!
Before pointing out that the quote is from the 70s, note that this quote can be found in official church documents officially distributed for the purposes of “education” for youth. (See here.) If the LDS church doesn’t support the racism in this, why do they quote it in official church publications?
Also, as for the (in)accuracy of the BoM, see this for a stylometric look into it.
What a discussion to wake up to. James, even as a Mormon you are not making a good argument.
Here’s the Mormon argument:
1) Each person on earth has an immortal soul which was theirs before they were born.
2) The purpose of birth is
a) To give the soul a body of flesh and bone, which cannot otherwise be obtained.
b) To enable the person to prove themselves worthy of the responsibilities and powers that God has promised them.
3) Souls have a gender, male or female, even before birth.
4) The gender of the body will match the gender of the soul, because God does not make mistakes.
Can you cite doctrine which says that the purpose of being male is to be a husband and father? And, please, “canonical” doctrine only.
I’m not saying you’re wrong about the position that the Church expects you to hold, but you’re espousing all kinds of doctrinal fallacies to defend it, which is misrepresenting the Church.
Flex@422: As a child, my mother died and yes, there was intense and persistent pressure for my father to remarry as soon as possible. If not, he would be removed from his leadership positions in the church, because those are reserved to married men.
pixelfish: Hey now, frog, let’s not knock sci-fi cover art. (Says the sf/f reading nut who also happens to be an artist and paints what could be called sci-fi cover art.)
Let me specify: 50’s & 60’s style sci-fi cover art with the “pneumatic” babe and The Serious Astronaut.
You should see the crap that scientologists have hanging over their dining room tables.
The Mormon “meditation” room, however, looks more like a cheap planetarium swivel to intro a Led Zepplin laser light show, right before Thor and the Half-Naked Valkeryie are introduced.
It was really hard not to laugh when the poor missionary “chicks” — that’s really how it was set up! — had to explain with a straight face of how it was “symbolic” of Jesus being the center of the universe. More precisely though, I’d have to say it was “symbolic” of the tape-player up his ass being the center of the universe.
Oh, sweet Nordic Jesus.
My first look into the Mormon Church was in Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study In Scarlet.
There’s a section in there where some of the early doings of the LDS are detailed. If you don’t want to believe they can be as bad as the fiction depicted you can look it up. They were as bad as depicted by Doyle. It could even be one of the exit routes from Religiosity. And to think Conan Doyle was duped by the Cottingly Faeries hoax.
I was looking at post 130 from James the mormon bigot, but unable to respond due to login issues. Of course, after almost 300 more posts, he has made no effort whatsoever to address the issues I would have raised, even after several people have made some of the same points. He just keeps repeating the same bullshit.
James the mormon bigot @ #130:
Oh, really? Just what IS “the natural purpose and identity of human gender”? How do you know this? Why should we believe you? Do you have the slightest speck of evidence to support this claim? Anything that even LOOKS like evidence? Anything at all?
You haven’t even shown that you have a coherent idea of what “the natural purpose and identity of human gender” is, much less a correct one. You won’t even say what you mean by this phrase you keep throwing around, nor will you even bother trying to support your claims no matter how many times you’re asked.
James the confused mormon bigot, dodging the burden of proof:
No, James, you’ve got it all backwards. YOU are the one claiming to have some special magical divine understanding of “the natural purpose and identity of human gender”, without offering the slightest speck of evidence to back up this claim. YOU are the one who claims, again without a speck of evidence, that same-sex attraction is inconsistent with this “natural purpose and identity of human gender”, which you keep babbling about but refuse to support in any way or even so much as define. So YOU, James, you are the one who is obligated to present some damn evidence to back up your claims if you expect to be taken seriously. You have utterly failed at this.
Where do you get the idea that you’re qualified to lecture a biologist on biology, when you can’t even manage to spell his name right when it’s right there on the screen in front of you? How arrogant and stupid can you get?
James the stupid arrogant bigoted failure:
You first. :P
Hell, you haven’t even managed to make an argument, much less a compelling one.
I think greenishblue summed up the pattern nicely in post 337, and James has not deviated from it one iota in all this time:
@SteveM
Unfortunately, Mormons are taught that you can gain a belief in something by repeating it often. You can’t blame James for that, his social development is stunted by his religion.
Hang on Miki Z – wasn’t your father still married to your mother (even though she had died) under Mormon thinking? Not saying there wasn’t pressure to re-marry – just that it kind of conflicts with their doctrine also, as I have understood it.
Many are missing the salient point.
1. Mormons can believe whatever fruitbat crazy nonsense they want. Free country. They aren’t alone, the scientologists believe in Xenu the Galactic overlord, the Moonies JC the second as a Korean excon etc..
The salient point. Not belief but forcing others to follow their beliefs.
2. That doesn’t give them the right to force us to believe their fruitbat crazy nonsense. To impose their beliefs on us.
But they do it anyway if they can get away with it. Thanks to most of the courts and laws, in this case, they can impose the tyranny of the majority on a small minority.
I doubt many people who learn the truth about this nasty mind control cult of fascists is going to want to join it. And turn into James, the meat robot.
According to the stats I posted above, Utah is #1 in prozac consumption. Something wrong about a religion that requires constant psychiatric support.
Joffan:
Mormons engage in “eternal” polygamy a lot. If one man has a wife who dies before he does and he remarries, he’s technically sealed to both of them; while if a widow remarries, she is sealed only to one of those men, because polyandry is wrong — just ask Joseph Smith, who would never marry other men’s wives, right? Right. Totally.
There’s plural marriage after death, it was removed from Church doctrine as something to be practiced on earth, but not from the doctrine about the afterlife. The doctrine itself has internal consistency, but only if you accept the basic assumptions does it make any sense in a larger (e.g. reality-based) context.
Stu.D: Unfortunately, Mormons are taught that you can gain a belief in something by repeating it often.
Isn’t that the defining characteristic of religion? That if it rhymes, it must be true?
James is a lost cause, all he can do is regurgitate dogma. All religious dogmatics are equally blind.
Reality has no impact on such people.
Say, Gyeong Hwa Pak – is Yongarry part of the Korean creation story? I’d like an intelligent discussion to start here.
It is particularly depressing to observe that James thinks he is one of the “normal” Mormons and not one of the loonies, which leads me to another interesting conclusion. You can google various algorithms of Mormon, fraud, affinity fraud, religious fraud, and discover that Mormons are even higher ranking in their susceptibility to being swindled than the Baptists. When you begin to understand the twisted Mormon mind (and I have gotten quite an education from James), this should not be surprising. These poor victims (and I have come to regard them as victims) spend their lifetimes trying to reconcile so many lies to make them resemble some kind of internal “truth,” they are truly incapable of objective critical thinking. This describes James perfectly. We see him for what he really is, a homophobic, misognystic, delusional, twisted and downright evil person. Whereas, James certainly sees himself an an upright patriot, Mormon paragon, and all around nice guy. There is a chasm here that is not going to be bridged, and one can only hope that mormonism will begin to dwindle when the children discover that they can research the true history of their bizarre beliefs (second only to Scientology in weirdness) and escape without being terminally damaged. Meanwhile, there is nothing to be done with those like James who have drunk the kool-aid.
@frog: Isn’t that the defining characteristic of religion? That if it rhymes, it must be true?
Bingo.
That, and megalomaniacs who decide one day that they’re some sort of divine prophet/savior of the world and use manipulation to garner a following of dupes.
James- There are more than 2 genders. There are more than 2 sexes. It is a big, complicated thing with many components. Please look into it; someone already gave you a bunch of info about this earlier in the thread. The idea that there are 2 roles for a group of people who don’t fall into 2 strict categories is hard for me to take seriously.
James wrote:
“Because your local leaders didn’t follow the handbook of instructions that clearly states that non canonical beliefs and views should not be taught in Church meetings.”
And when the church presidency had the bishops of CA teach their wards to support a political campaign with their time and money, was that canon they were sharing? Or were they in fact teaching in opposition to their canon (D&C134:9) which reads: ‘We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied’?
What really floors me James is that you are arguing the official view and completely ignoring reality, despite the fact that you are not talking to non-members with no direct knowledge of these things, but to members and ex-members who have lived and are living this reality. Stop expecting people to swallow that warm and fuzzy official take on things – by their fruits we already know them.
Actually I’d like to comment on one offical view that was quoted above – one that sounds like ‘support your leaders’ but is actually campaign for compliance over truth and respect for individuals – Dallin H Oaks saying that no member has the right to criticise a church leader, even if the criticism is true.
Now put yourself in the place of a child being sexually abused by their bishop. Put yourself in the place of that child’s parents when they find out. What does it sound like Elder Oaks is advising them to do?
When my friend told her stake president that her husband had started beating her as early as their honeymoon and was still doing so, his reply was that her duty was to obey her husband. She stayed in that abusive marriage two more years, based on his advice as a leader ‘called of god’, before she finally escaped for the sake of her kids. Another friend left her husband after many years of similar abuse – her bishop advised her to reconcile with her husband, not after his repentance and changed behaviour (which never came), but before he had even admitted he was beating her. When you add to this the fact that the catalyst for her finally finding the strength to leave was that he raped her daughter (a teenager he had raised since she was a young child and to whom he was the only father she’d even known) you begin to see how heinous that advice was.
How do you think those women felt when they listened to Elder Oaks’ teachings? I think these people feel like their painful realities are being ignored for the sake of appearances. I think they feel alienated and insignificant in the face of the church’s goal to keep the church members obedient to their leaders.
As for the original point of the post – I’m guessing that Rex Rammell is going to try to argue that the Constitution is hanging by a thread because it is threatened by same-sex marriage. This would be the climate in which to do so. I personally feel that the Constitution is far more threatened by the LDS church’s attempts (with the help of its members) to take away the religious freedom of others by legislating their religious beliefs into civil law.
Oh the horror! Someone dares to challenge homosexual views or claims!
When heterosexual citizens don’t celebrate all things “homosexual” we must be bigots, homophobes, and a haters. The horror! The horror!
Oh the emotion of the homosexual mind! It can’t bear criticism or it falls apart. Psychological fragile but, yeah! homosexual attraction is neccesary for human males. Yeah… uh huh.
The American citizenry is now clued into these fallacious rantings using hate speech and the next election will be a love-fest where heterosexuals hold homosexual feet to the fire about their “views” and their “claims.”
Phantom:
So, please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the natural purpose and identify of human male gender with whatever definition you want using definites and not abstractions. (I’ll elaborate)
Explain its evolutionary origin and utility for the human species.
Explain in detail the necessary purpose of one male being attracted to another male.
From an evolutionary point of view, is homosexual attraction serve a utilitarian purpose? If so, what is it? Can the human species do without it altogether?
Leep,
Your post almost made me cry from laughing so hard. I am sure you would have loved to have plated sinister sounding music while you narrated! It was a very humorous yet a very poor attempt at hiding the scientific facts about homosexual attraction and its inconsistency with the male gender.
Just a paragraph or to… scientifically speaking, what is the purpose of same-sex attraction within the human species?
And, what do you think those Mormon youth are going to do when they read about evidence for 16 predictions made about ancient Arabia that the Book of Mormon made in 1830 that we now have evidence for, 170 years later? How did Joseph Smith get 16 predictions right about 600 BC in a row?
Do you really think those fallacious strawman anti-Mormon arguments will have much weight?
I’ll bet that I can disprove any premise you have about Mormonism that you think undermines the faith.
BYU Cougars are up 23 to 7
Miki Z wrote:
“There’s plural marriage after death, it was removed from Church doctrine as something to be practiced on earth, but not from the doctrine about the afterlife.”
Actually, I have a friend who divorced his wife, but never got a temple divorce because he didn’t want to break the seal to his kids. He then married again in the temple. Though legally married to only one women, he is (in the eyes of the church) currently married to two living women for ‘time and all eternity’. Notice, not just for the afterlife, but ‘time’ (mortality) as well.
@ James,
When I and another consenting adult enter a legal and binding contract, it is none of your business.
When I and another consenting adult decide to live together, it is none of your business.
When I and another consenting adult decide to have sex (of any variety), it is none of your business.
When I, as an adult see a physician for a medical procedure, it is none of your business.
None of those activities has the least bearing on your relationships, or your eschatological fate, or your standing in the community. If you think that I err, please give me the information that I can monitor those activities in your life, and I apologize for having been so lax in my supervision of your activities for all these years.
Chosha:
You wrote:
“Dallin H Oaks saying that no member has the right to criticise a church leader, even if the criticism is true.
Now put yourself in the place of a child being sexually abused by their bishop. Put yourself in the place of that child’s parents when they find out. What does it sound like Elder Oaks is advising them to do? ”
This is fallcious. Elder Oaks’ direction was concerning the duties and responsibilities WITHIN A CALLING in the Church, not concerning crimes that a person had committed.
And for the record, your lost the gay marriage vote in California because the gay lobby did not convince enough people that gay marriage should be legal. Your lobby failed in California, Arizona, Florida, and recently in Maine.
You’ve got the national media to help you. Your arguments aren’t working.
How could they? It is self -evident that Homosexual attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
Claiming that the Mormons are to blame is to ignore the reality of your cause and your platforms. So be it… blame away. That won’t work either but who cares.
Oh the horror! Someone dares to challenge homosexual views or claims!
Wow, you really are speaking truth to power. Those homosexuals are just stomping on everything
Oh the horror! Someone dares to challenge carbon based views or claims!
You really are a fool of the lowest rank.
Homosexual desire is natural because it exist. But you, being a dumbfuck, would stand upon dogma over real lives.
Plummer:
As American citizens, we all had our say whether gay marriage is legal. Your lobby lost in California, Arizona, Florida and recently in Maine.
We the people say no to legalized gay marriage, but don’t let that stop you from being attracted to your own sex.
“When heterosexual citizens don’t celebrate all things “homosexual” we must be bigots, homophobes, and a haters.”
You need to reread post #468.
You’re allowed to believe what you want. You’re even allowed to say it out loud. No-one is denying your right to be a bigot, homophobe or hater. We just don’t think you should be allowed to legislate those beliefs to the detriment of the rights and religious freedom of other citizens. As a Christian, you shouldn’t even want to.
And it’s not just ‘the gays’ who think this way. I’m 100% straight, but I don’t feel the need to take away other people’s civil rights as a result.
The American citizenry is now clued into these fallacious rantings using hate speech and the next election will be a love-fest where heterosexuals hold homosexual feet to the fire about their “views” and their “claims.”
A love-fest of fire? The “hate-speech” projection? Homosexual feet? Ranting?
It all pours out — you can’t help it can you, dear boy?
Now, return to watching young men grapple with each other, pile up on each other, and pat each others’ buttocks. Go enjoy watching your Tigers penetrate the other teen-age boys, deeply into their backfield, over and over again.
More ponderous parallels from Janine and our Godless existence:
Homosexual desire is natural because it exists.
A pedophile’s desire is natural because it exists.
A desire to murder is natural because it exists.
A desire to rape is natural because it exists.
A desire to eat feces is natural because it exists.
Yeah… great argument Janine!
We the people say no to legalized gay marriage, but don’t let that stop you from being attracted to your own sex.
And here is the translation from Smug Asshole to English.
You fucking faggots can remain second class citizen. Be grateful for the air the we blown to you.
We no shit not everything they said is taken as directly from god, but when they Claim it is how do you then tell the difference?
Did you even read my quotes? Namely #236
and
#243
From the First Presidency.
Explain that?
The LDS Church has a deep history of institutionalized racism based on their doctrine. Doctrine that your god could have changed according to your divine revelation had he seen fit. That or your doctrine is just whatever the leaders of your cult see fit to spread at their convenience as evidenced in the 1890’s and 1978.
You have not put anything up that explains that. Nothing.
Do your leaders recieve divine revelation or not?
Have you even addressed the passages in Nephi yet?
Chosha:
You wrote:
“We just don’t think you should be allowed to legislate those beliefs to the detriment of the rights and religious freedom of other citizens. As a Christian, you shouldn’t even want to.”
Oh don’t worry, voting against gay marriage doesn’t harm the human species. Homosexual marriage is not necessary for the human species.
James, do you desire to eat feces?
Do you exist?
If so, why not?
James
“This is fallcious. Elder Oaks’ direction was concerning the duties and responsibilities WITHIN A CALLING in the Church, not concerning crimes that a person had committed.”
Did you read the rest of the post, where I wrote about those advised by their leaders WITHIN THEIR CALLING?
And Elder Oaks did not qualify his remarks the way you have.
This is an insanely stupid argument and you repeating it like a brain injured parrot doesn’t really change that.
nor is mormonism. hey, let’s outlaw that too!
Heterosexual marriage is not necessary for the species either.
Christ on a crutch! James is still here? I walked away from this six hours ago. Get a job, sir!
And here is the stupid asshole comparing homosexuality to murder and other assorted shit. If being good with god means that I have to be with the likes of you, I would rather be in hell.
Fuck you and everything you stand for, you intolerant pile of walking, talking toxic sludge.
chosha referred to other citizens, not “the human species” you doofus. Or I guess you’re probably just a troll.
James:
This was in a post that didn’t get posted (probably because it was too long):
Then why does your god continue to create them? Why do they continue to crop up?
Did you know that as recently as this past summer, scientists stated that homosexual behavior is widespread in animals (not just human animals, mind you) — and not only that, but that it might be an evolutionary response to perpetuating the species? While all the heterosexual couples are procreating, homosexual couples are seeking to adopt the unwanted and orphaned children left behind by said heterosexual couples. The Laysan albatross population was floundering thanks to a shortage of males — until females started creating pair-bonds and raising chicks. Black swans are known to engage in homosexual pair-bond/chick-raising as well. In fact, they engage in a form of surrogate parenting! Two male black swans will pair off, a female will mate with one or both of them, and after she lays the eggs, she leaves the nest to the two males, who then raise the chicks themselves.
So tell me again about your reality.
James,
You don’t seem to get the point of marriage being a right. No citizen has the authority to dictate the rights of a minority. The debate is about equal protection under the law (you know, from the 14th amendment to the US Constitution). How you or any other citizen feels is irrelevant. A majority of voters in Mississippi wanted to deny African-Americans the right to vote for decades. Those same bigots didn’t get to vote on whether or not African-Americans could vote. The Supreme Court answered all of the same arguments you put forward in Loving v. Virginia.
Your opinion should be irrelevant. The tyranny of the majority should never be able to dictate the rights of the minority. You allies in the gay marriage debate, the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, would outlaw your religion if they could. As far as they’re concerned you’re worse than a Muslim because your church purports to be a denomination of Christianity while turning the core ideas of the religion on their heads. Aren’t you glad that the minority (Mormons in this case) have the full protection of the first amendment and fourteenth amendment?
Homophobic Twit’s latest:
*Yawn* There’s no horror. No one here is surprised by you or falling apart over your so-called “challenge”. Your “challenge” has been met at every turn – all you’re demonstrating is an inability to think. A parrot would have a better argument at this point.
No one is asking you to celebrate, just to keep your nasty, petrified mind up your own ass where it belongs. In other words, mind your own fucking business. What other people do with their lives doesn’t affect you, no matter how much you have convinced yourself it will destroy life as you know it. Gay people (yes, that includes women!) have been around as long as people have been around. Homosexuality abounds in nature. Go back in your closet, James. You are a bigot and a homophobe. You’re also an embarrassment to anyone with a brain.
Who exactly is falling apart? I haven’t seen anyone “falling apart”. Unless you’re defining falling apart as demolishing my every
argumentbit of mindless parroting. Homosexuality is every bit as natural as heterosexuality. Being bisexual is natural and normal to me. The fact that you don’t like it simply doesn’t matter.Wrong, cupcake. Your lust to take over ‘merica and start the new inquisition is just a fantasy. One I’m sure you share with other mormons, so get back into the closet and have a nice huddle with the other good mormon men and indulge in your fantasy. Just stay the hell away from the rest of us.
As American citizens, we all had our say whether gay marriage is legal. Your lobby lost in California, Arizona, Florida and recently in Maine.
Win some, lose some.
We Americans managed to free your slaves, promote nonwhites to free and equal status under the law to whites, promote the majority of the population that are women to free and equal status to men under the law. All of which the LDS opposed at one time.
While doing all that we have kept the religious fanatics from taking power and destroying the USA. You and your cult have no power to tell me what to think, do, or believe.
Given Joseph Smith’s mostly wrong track record, I doubt that Rammel and his co-religionists ever will. I don’t think I’m going to be voting for any Mormons. Why would I vote for a member of a religious group who claims it is their sacred task to take over my country?
We win many, lose a few.
James:
“Homosexual marriage is not necessary for the human species.”
Neither is heterosexual marriage.