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.
Janine:
You wrote:
“You *** faggots can remain second class citizen. Be grateful for the air the we blown to you.”
No Janine, it’s not the citizenry that has made homosexual relationships inferior to heterosexual relationships as it relates to its value to the human species, NATURE has made homosexual couples naturally incapable of passing on their genetic code together. NATURE has determined that reality.
We’re not going to pretend that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships. They are not the same and they are not equivalent.
gah; whatever it is, it ain’t that! Evolution does not work that way.
that’s…not the same thing at all.
Once again, I will reiterate that James initial mission was to inform us all that most Mormons were nowhere NEAR as microcephalitic as Rex Rammell. Mission accomplished! Your bike is on the porch! You may leave your literature on the mat and depart!
[quote]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![/quote]
Non sequiter. Homosexuality is moraly neutral, and causes no harm to any individuals, or society. Everything else you listed is antisocial and causes harm. I can play this game:
A desire to watch football 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.
Down with football!!!
You have repeatedly failed to provide any argument other than “a penis and a vagina are capable of making babies, therefore homosexuals do not deserve equal protection under the law.” Amazing that people don’t find this convincing. Purpose != is capable of performing a particular function.
Chosha:
You wrote:
“Neither is heterosexual marriage. ”
No, you’re wrong. Heterosexual marriage is necessary for the long term foundation of civilized societies.
Homosexual unions are not necessary but heterosexual unions are.
Raven:
You wrote:
“You and your cult have no power to tell me what to think, do, or believe.”
Yeah, but we can lobby against gay marriage.
Yes, James, all those things you mention is natural. It doesn’t make it right or wrong. Natural is neutral. That’s a naturalistic fallacy. We as humans however have an interest to better our society and the lives of the people living it. Keeping gays second class is not bettering their lives. I can’t see why that hasn’t gone through your thick head. You keep repeating that it’s not necessary. Neither is heterosexual marriage. We can propagate the species with out any sex at all.
over 300 post and you repeat the same thing.
The family in recorded history is an economic unit. The word “economy” comes from the Greek for “household” the basic unit of production in ancient Greece. As a social construction, it serves purposes of increased ability to survive through improved food production and manufacture of useful products (tools, clothing, etc). The genders of the members of a household and their sexual relationships have no effect on the family as an economic unit.
Social behaviors give primates (including humans, we are primates, James) survival advantages. Economic relationships certainly have served that purpose, although at times some economic relationships have included coercive practices (slavery comes to mind, and Walmart).
Marriage affords very tangible legal and economic benefits, regardless of the “genders” of its participants. According to one of my college anthropology professors, in Nigeria a single woman who has a business to run can hire a “wife” to perform the tasks a wife in a marriage typically does. Looking at marriage as only a matter of sex and reproduction remains very limited and arguments excluding all other functions of the institution evade examination of everything else that a couple does aside from procreation.
Hee. Hahaha. Nice job satirizing your own argument.
Per your (James’s) comment in #485, all you are doing is finally coming around to noticing that the naturalistic fallacy is (surprise!) fallacious. Thank you for defeating your original argument!
If your church is pushing and organizing it, at the risk of your 5013c status.
Homophobic Twit:
No it isn’t. Sweet Zoidberg Jesus, you’re an idiot.
All this talk about Mormons makes me want to get drunk and watch Orgazmo. What a movie!
Oh shit
I see some new divine revelation coming!
Hey, asshole, if you are going to quote me, quote everything. And fuck you very much! With a splintery broomstick! Sideways!
Yes they can. They’ve been doing so for a while now. Furthermore, it isn’t necessary for all the member of a species to reproduce. I’ve already discussed this.
James beter figure out whether things that are natural and right are supposed to be good for the species or for–what was it?–yeah, the long term foundation of civilized societies. Because I could imagine some situations where those interests might conflict.
James,
As the SpokesGay, it’s my contractual duty to represent The Official Viewpoint of Teh Ghey:
1. You are a bigot.
2. You are a deluded moron who believes in the most ridiculous, cockamamie myth, second only to Scientology in its transparently created provenance.
3. You are actively promoting oppression and evil against your fellow citizens.
4. Your disturbing claim that people should only have rights if said people are “necessary for the species” is not only profoundly un-American, but also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Western conceptions of liberty and law. (Don’t bother arguing “I didn’t say that.” Yeah, you did.)
5. You can rationalize your position by telling yourself all your critics are “homosexualists,” that they “persecute” you for your religious beliefs, or that our mothers dressed us funny (which would be rich, considering the P.S. below). But in truth, reasonable people recognize you for what you are – a brainwashed adherent to a lunatic cult, and a direct threat to the American ideal of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People are laughing at you. Lots of them.
P.S. – Your Magical Underwear should require a prescription – I know birth control pills less potent that.
P.P.S. – Your day is rapidly coming to a close, and GLBT people will have equality in my lifetime, and probably yours. Suck it Moroni.
P.P.P.S. – Fuck you.
James has shown he is a meat robot with fascist tendencies. No big deal, we see Moslem and Xian extremists all the time, might as well toss a Mormon extremist in the pot as well. Religious fanatics are all about the same.
Rumor has it that the LDS church has a hard time keeping members these days and they are voting with their feet. Not everyone wants to be right wing extremist, follow whatever hate scripts the Geriatracy dreams up, or live in an ugly theocratic dictatorship. My attempts with google to get some numbers were unsucessful. The LDS church hides those numbers and no one really believes them anyway.
I’m not aware of any mind control cult that has lasted too long in modern times in a democratic society. Without the power of the gun, noose, and stake, they really can’t do that much damage.
At 6 million in a country of 310 million, they have a long way to go. If history is any indication, before long they should start to shake themselves to pieces. Or maybe I’m being too optimistic.
Gyeong:
No, the natualistic fallacy is a telelogical argument having to do with the “ought-is” argument.
Gays and lesbians are not 2nd classes citizens because they can’t marry like heterosexuals. By nature, their union is not equivalent to heterosexual unions.
Many homosexuals get confused over what is “biological” and what is an entity’s natural function, purpose, or use.
All things are “natural” because they are composed of matter, but this does not mean that all things are functioning normally just becaues they are natural. See the point?
Homosexual attraction is biologically inconsistent with the biological identity of a human male.
It occurs to me that football actually does cause harm, in the form of injuries and such, and maybe some riots, so you could even argue that it actually worse for society than homosexual marriage.
Anyway, this seems relevant here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y&feature=player_embedded
Daaaammnnnn, Josh. The picture of the magic underwear is almost enough to make a person swear off sex.
Or is that the point?
Odd fact. There is an army base right above Salt Lake City. It is there just in case the Mormons try to secede and set up their own country. Again. They went there originally to set up their own country called Deseret or Zion or some such.
It is Fort Douglas and the guns of the base point down into SLC.
I don’t think too many people trust the Mormons very much. After reading about their “prophecies” about ruling the USA, why should we?
I have just begun breathing again. Funniest thing I have read all day.
Bak! Polly wanna cracker?
What identity. The male “identity” is nothing but a deluded construct. As I’ve stated before, different cultures define gender according to their own concept. And as stated by so many others, a man + woman family is not needed. You still haven’t figure that we can have successful procreation without males.
They have no purpose. For all nature cares we could parish and our ecological roles be replaced.
Antiochus Epiphanes:
Sarcasm aside, your last post made me laugh out loud. Point taken.
Look, I am presenting a “secular” argument against gay marriage. With many homosexuals, if a person is anti-gay marriage then you believe they MUST be homophobic, gay hater etc.
This isn’t the case with me. While I am very emphatic about the argument I am making, I an not unreasonable about the civil rights that all citizens have.
Gay marriage is a new social construct and a new social experiment that is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Sorry, but I am not going to bend from that position.
Gyeong, you should know by now; fuckface is not going to explain what his church taught him what gender roles are. It is much easier for him to quack about human gender and tell people that bthey do not know shit about the fields of knowledge that they have studied.
No apologies to fuckface that I have no desire to life how he thinks I should.
I guess I missed that part where you, like, presented an argument. You just keep typing the same assertions over and over.
It’s not working.
James sez:
So… you’re utterly close-minded about this point, then?
I guess I should quit asking you difficult questions – you’ve made it clear you can’t, or simply won’t, answer.
Homophobic Twit:
Hahahahaha. Oh, you couldn’t be more wrong, bigotbuns. Ya see, we aren’t little religioparrots running on petrified brains. We are autonomous individuals, who don’t allow a cult to define our function, purpose or use.
Your particular cult has only one way to keep it going, breeding. Breed, breed, breed. You little idjits have that so pounded into you, you forget the rest of us haven’t signed our lives over to a whacko cult.
How so?
James, even assuming that same-sex marriage is inherently inferior to different-sex marriage, how do you get that gay marriage should be illegal? Even if people in a non female-male relationship can’t fulfil their “natural roles” due to whatever reason, why does that mean that they should be denied the legal benefits of government-sponsored marriage?
Raven:
LOL
“It is Fort Douglas and the guns of the base point down into SLC.”
Fort Douglas has no weapons, that is why it is called “historic” Fort Douglas. It’s at the site of the University of Utah surrounded by beautiful suburbs.
I think what you mean to say is Hill Air Force base North of SLC?
By the way, the NSA is building a brand new center in South Salt Lake County, over the next few years.
The trust that the U.S. Government has in the people of Utah and the LDS Church is huge.
The Mormons aren’t worried.
Here is the entirety of a secular argument against gay marriage:
[begin argument]
Men and women have inherently different legal rights. Marriage rights arise from the differences between the legal rights of men and the legal rights of women.
Ergo, two men cannot get married to each other, because their legal rights are the same, so they do not mesh. Similarly, two women cannot get married to each other, because their legal rights are the same, so they do not mesh.
[end argument]
part deux:
Necessary and utilitarian are two words that make James scary. Here’s a short list of behaviors that do not serve any “useful” purpose as narrowly defined by James, (survival and/or procreation):
Music
Art
Tourism
Dance
Movies
Fiction
Sailing (without any particular destination)
Masturbation
Space exploration (debatable, but I’ll chuck it in anyway)
And I saved the best for last:
Religion
If a given behavior has no utilitarian purpose, is not necessary, according to James, it is therefore unnatural. If it is unnatural it is wrong.
This is fun. It reminds me of when fundies try to use the Old Testament as a club to whack homosexuals over the head. As I like to say: abominations, you can’t eat just one. Along with stoning for gay sex we also have stoning for eating shellfish or wearing clothing with fibers of two different kinds (better get rid of those cotton/poly blend shirts if you know what’s good for you – or- just clip off the labels or get clipped!). If you use a given argument, such as the bible says so, then you have a bit of a problem reconciling everything the bible tells you is bad with the realities of modern life, like polyester. In the same manner, if you’re going to use the syllogism: if there’s no purpose to it then it’s unnatural, if it’s unnatural it’s wrong, if it’s wrong stop it; then how do you not stop practicing religion? Will giving up Mormonism kill you? If so, how? If you make arguments regarding the alleged benefits of religion, then how do you exclude arguments related to the family as an economic unit as I made in my earlier post? Why apply this syllogism only to one activity and not all human activities?
whenever jamey doesn’t understand something, he just keeps mindlessly repeating it over and over. i wonder what he thinks this will accomplish?
James: Sorry, but I am not going to bend from that position.
Snicker.
(I’d suggest that James re-read his entire thread — if he was capable, it would blow his mind and cause him to run off and join a modern dance troupe. It’s almost like James’ worries that the entire population of SLC is going to join a White Night party and abandon all procreation without a strong hand applied to their bottom)
Steve:
You wrote:
“If a given behavior has no utilitarian purpose, is not necessary, according to James, it is therefore unnatural. If it is unnatural it is wrong. ”
This argument is not about acting on homosexual feelings, the argument strikes at the heart of the homosexual identity.
Homosexual ATTRACTION is not consistent with the biological purpose and identity of human male gender.
Attraction to one’s own sex is a contradiction of function, purpose and identity of the largest proportions.
James: Attraction to one’s own sex is a contradiction of function, purpose and identity of the largest proportions.
Translation: I’m a dick, literally.
no it isn’t.
it just plain isn’t. it isn’t, because identity doesn’t work that way.
now prove me wrong. you could start by explaining what you think “identity” means.
Some minds are like concrete: thoroughly mixed and permanently set.
Even the Mormon church doesn’t agree with James on that, though. They recently supported gay rights legislation in Utah (once their religious exemption was in it) and do not discipline members for “Homosexual ATTRACTION”, only for homosexual acts.
“In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations,” (Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as reported by CBS news one month ago).
The idea that religious organizations’ rights include dictating legislative policy is something else, but James, you might want to discuss your unhealthy obsession with your Bishop and ask what the current doctrinal position is.
If all there is to human function is fitting Tab A into Slot B, then James would be right.
Unfortunately for our little mormon bigot, humans are much more complex and have many other functions than simplistic reproduction. I’ve never lived my life as if my sole purpose were to find a pair of functioning ovaries that I could shower with semen, but apparently that is the LDS ideal. And they accuse scientists of being naive reductionists!
Homophobic Twit:
You have done no such thing. All you’ve done is parrot the party line of your cult. You’ve made one fallacious “argument” after another. Person after person has shown you how you are wrong.
I have news for you – you are very unreasonable.
The fuck it is. You are so full of shit. Marriage is marriage. Marriage confers specific legal benefits, it isn’t magic fairy dust that gets sprinkled over your hearts. One gay couple I know, they’ve been living together 40 years. Recently, they married. Another couple I know, living together for close to 20 years. I’ll be attending their wedding next year. There’s not one damn “new social construct” thing there. Just people who love one another, and have built a life together.
Oh yes it is, it’s equivalent in every way. You’re one of the fucked up bigots that would tell me my marriage is worthless because I never wanted to breed and didn’t. You just don’t want any marriage which doesn’t follow your happy little pattern to be considered actual marriage. Tough shit, you nasty, evil-minded bigot. It’s not up to you.
This is news? We’ve all seen which way you tend to bend, bigot boy, with all that focus on phalluses.
Then how is it possible for the male human brain – an entirely biological organ – to allow it to happen? Is it magic? Are you saying they’ve been taken over by the demons of gayness?
Hmm, maybe that’s what the magic underwear protects against.
Wow, it’s a game of “let’s chase the goal-posts!” By side-stepping the questions of behavior you can duck my questions entirely. Nice dancing.
OK, so could you explain, James, why this argument pertains only to humans? How is the “biological purpose and identity of human male gender” different from the biological purpose and identity of bonobo male gender?
Ever hear of Bonobos? The norm for them is bisexuality. Penis fencing and vaginal rubbing are common. We can’t interview the Bonobos but we can infer that there’s an attraction there.
What’s going to happen now? Will you lead the great Mormon Bonobo hunt to rid the world of these unwholesome creatures?
(Don’t worry folks, I’m pretty sure the Bonobos are safe. James can’t tell Arabia from Meso America so I doubt he could track down a lame duck in a shallow pond at the zoo).
If you pull it out of your butt, it may be a secular argument, but it isn’t rational.
Also, a quick thank you to Janine and Lynna for the books/link about the Mormon Meadow Mountain Massacre. Interesting reading.
Well, here’s the rational secular argument against gay marriage:
[begin Argument]
[end Argument]
James, you do hate gay people. You are a textbook example of a homophobe.
If you did not hate gay people, then you would not be trying to harm them. You do not try to destroy people’s families unless you hate them.
We can only judge you by your behaviors, by which you declare unequivocally that you despise gay people and want them to suffer.
It is possible that you have a desire to stop hating gay people, and start living your life as a better and more decent person. But that must involve ceasing to do harm to gay people. I doubt that you want to find some semblance of human decency so badly that you are willing to work to change your prejudices.
James wrote:
“No, you’re wrong. Heterosexual marriage is necessary for the long term foundation of civilized societies.”
You mean the kind of civilised societies where family units (and the stabilising influence they create) are recognised? Where lines of inheritance are clear? Where a person’s next of kin can be readily recognised?
Marriage (of some description) is necessary for that kind of thing. The legalisation of gay marriage is appropriate because their are families in our ‘civilised’ society being denied these simple rights.
James you talk as if marriage has always had only one meaning. This isn’t so. Also, gay marriage is not a new social contruct. There is evidence that same sex marriages have been formally and socially recognised as far back as Ancient Greece, Egypt; from the 1500s in China and Europe; indigenous societies in America and Australia…and the list goes on.
Marriage also has, for the bulk of history, been a societal phenomenon, not a religious one.
It has been tied to procreation (in particular to ensuring that a man knows the paternity of his children – we don’t need marriage for that any more and it only ever guaranteed legal paternity, not actual paternity) but not exclusively so. We certainly don’t prevent infertile or impotent people from marrying. Even where a heterosexual couple choose not to have children, their marriage is not invalidated.
Committed homosexual couples also help to stabalise society and their marital relationships should be recognised legally for what they are. Same sex couples who choose to adopt do a great service to society in doing so, as do those raising their own biological children wisely and compassionately.
Your arguments are fallacious. You need to reconnect with reality. You are right that ‘it’s natural because it exists’ is a weak argument easily applied to other things, but other excellent, evidence-based arguments have been put forward and you have ignored them. Do you really want to consider the truth, or only justify your prejudice?
That made me grin.
@ James,
At this point you have repeated yourself so many times that it would save much space if you just number your sentences, and just parrot back the numbers for us when you come to continue your rant.
Minds are like parachutes; they only work when they’re open.
I suspect that the bishop packed your ‘chute.
Given overpopulation, I think civilized societies ought to encourage pair bonds between those who are unlikely to reproduce and discourage pair bonds between religotards who plan to beget a quiverfull.
Does anyone other than James want more people like James in society? Does anyone other than James think he’s made a valid point here? Does anyone other than James thinks he’s illustrated the notion that not all Mormons are like Rex Rammell?
I find people like James far more detrimental to civilized society than homosexuals; People like James are too likely to breed and thus far more likely to pass on their stupidity. Where can I vote to have their rights taken away?
Mormonism is not natural or necessary by James own arguments. Moreover, James illustrates the harm that can be done to children brainwashed into the religion.
On the positive side, I do enjoy the way the nutters always drop by to provide an illustration of the point PZ was making. This thread has provided me with hours of amusement. I have special admiration for the honesty, wit, and wisdom of the former Mormons.
Hey, James must be one hell of a Merikan football player, see how he runs those goalposts.
First, Heterosexual Marriage was necessary for human life. At some point, he remembered tat there’s a long time prior to civilization where we have the human race.
Now it’s necessary for long term civilization..
Raven, I think I can help with the numbers. They’re hard to come by, but not impossible. Let’s start with a pro LDS blog, which despite a tendency to inflate numbers has to report a decline:
The blogger compares church growth from this last decade, the 2000’s to the 1990’s. [kudos to an ex-mo who uses the handle “bender” for this info] clear growth is way down.
http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2009/12/end-of-era-church-in-2000s-and-beyond.html
And here is some information from insiders, information that shows declining activity
I think controlling our population is more important to long term civilization than heterosexual marriage.
No. I read the whole thread, and he’s singlehandedly made me think even less of Mormons and Mormonism than I did before. He doesn’t even respond to counterarguments (and by “respond,” I don’t mean just repeating the same evidence-free assertions over and over and over).
“Does anyone other than James thinks he’s illustrated the notion that not all Mormons are like Rex Rammell?”
Who even remembers how crazy Rex Rammell is by now?
I wonder what “non-loony” Mormons think about raising a bunch of elk in an enclosure in the woods in order to charge men with tiny penises to “hunt” them.
Raven, here are some more reality checks about the LDS Church and it’s “growing by leaps and bounds” lies.
Raven, here’s some more info on actual shrinkage of LDS Church membership and activity, posted today by ex-mormon Crathes:
PZ:
You wrote:
“Unfortunately for our little mormon bigot, humans are much more complex and have many other functions than simplistic reproduction. I’ve never lived my life as if my sole purpose were to find a pair of functioning ovaries that I could shower with semen, but apparently that is the LDS ideal. And they accuse scientists of being naive reductionists!”
Now watch closely gay advocates….
Mr. Biologist, please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.
Explain the evolutionary purpose of same sex attraction.
Explain the necessary utility of homosexual attraction within the human species.
Will these questions drive you to madness too? Will you make personal attacks rather then long lists of answers?
BYU 44, Oregon 20
I think the spread of information via the internet is the death knell for many a cult.
Lks lk yr wbst s ndr ttck frm sprntrl frcs…
http://dyn.pltc.cm/mmbrs/frms/thrd.cfm?ctd=2&sbctd=7&thrdd=3449994
y rlly nd t dd cmmnt mdrtn t yr blsphmy…
Raven, here is some insight from ex-mormon Deconstructor about the psychology behind the false number of members, numbers of baptisms per year, etc. projected by the mormons:
You have had every single one of these questions addressed and answered. Parroting the same crap will not get you the answers you want.
James, you disgusting, hateful troll.
You keep asking about purpose.
There is no purpose.
Did you read about kin selection yet?
Why do the Mormon troll’s posts fixate so consistently on male gender/sex/genitalia?
James: Is there something you’d like to tell us?
Lks lk yr wbst s ndr ttck frm sprntrl frcs…
http://dyn.pltc.cm/mmbrs/frms/thrd.cfm?ctd=2&sbctd=7&thrdd=3449994
y rlly nd t dd cmmnt mdrtn t yr blsphmy…
@ James,
Those strange feelings that you have periodically must be pretty frightening. It’s a very lonely experience that there’s nobody that you can share those intrusive thoughts with. All of your life you’ve probably had friends and relations who seemed to think just as they were trained to think. Now you have nobody that you can trust to share those scary feelings with. You know that everybody that you might talk to would get points for squeeling to the bishop about you.
You could get some real friends, but only out in the less judgemental wings of society.
James, you’re using your religion as an excuse to deny equal rights to same-sex couples. It’s just bigotry – same as how Mormons used to view minorities (I’m old enough to remember, in case you are not, and I live in a Mormon state.).
You refuse to define your terms (“natural purpose”, ” identity of gender”) because you know you can only define them in terms of your belief in the supernatural.
The contract of marriage is not defined by natural purpose with heterosexual marriage to being with, so your argument fails. There is no ONE gender identity – you are defining nature through the lens of your religion but it does NOT match what we observe. Nature provides us with straights, gays, intersex, non-gendered, etc. It’s perfectly natural to be homosexual.
If nature doesn’t want homosexual people, then why does it keep creating them?
Why do you keep insisting that legal contracts be defined by nature?
Why do you keep insisting that procreation is part of the issue?
Do you think a 3-way contract between you, your spouse, and the government is natural; that it was created by nature and not the legal system?
Do you even understand the definition of “marriage” as defined by the law or why it was created?
Just like the propaganda spread by LDS in Cal, Maine, and elsewhere, you’re using strawman attacks to sidestep the issue of rights by blabbing about the natural world as defined by the supernatural. Can you not see the difference?
In no state has anyone ever asked voters to institutionalize homosexuality. You keep saying that you are voting against the existence of homosexuality itself like it would go away if s/s union contracts didn’t come to be. Not voting for gay marriage is not the same as voting against the existence of homosexuality. It is going to exist forever, just as it always has, and rights for everybody is only a matter of time. What do you think is gained/protected by refusing the marriage contract to s/s couples?
Each of your reasons for denying gay rights are based on the supernatural but the fact that you won’t admit this, while we can all see it plainly, makes you dishonest, which in your world is against the covenant.
BTW, in Utah there are nearly 3000 people that were born intersexed or without a clearly defined gender. Nature provided this and they stand next to you at the grocery store without your knowledge. Should I just assume that you want them excluded from equal rights as well?
Now, go ahead, finally answer the question everybody keeps asking you:
How do you define “natural purpose” and “identity of gender”? Bonus points for not defining the natural world by using the supernatural.
James homophobic bigot for Mormon Jesus&trade wrote:
Please define the terms ‘natural’, ‘purpose’, ‘identity’ and ‘gender’, citing objective sources for your definitions.
Oh good grief James. We’ve already answered those questions. Several times.
INSIPID, INSIPID, INSIPID
As explained ad nauseum, this question makes no sense. And the way you keep repeating it verbatim, especially with the weird undefined word “identity” in there, is creepy.
Presumably, your point, if any, is something like: biologically, there are males because there is sexual reproduction. OK.
Yeah, we
Mr.biologists don’t really talk about the evolutionary “purpose” of stuff, but I think I know what you think you mean here too. The genetic basis, much less the adaptive significance, if any, of homosexuality is/are far from clear. So what? It doesn’t matter for your “natural” criterion because not everything that’s natural is biological and not everything that’s biological is genetic and not everything that’s genetic is evolutionarily adaptive.What the fuck is that even supposed to mean, “necessary utility”? It’s just such a weird mantra to keep repeating.
but enough of James
Lowell @ 568:
This has been noted and commented on by many. James has steadily ignored any questions about his obsession with all things penile; he’s also ignored any questions about females when it comes to his continual whinging over homosexuality. Like a good little cultist, only dicks matter in his little world.
Articulett:
If the internet is the death knell for Mormonism with all of its “true answers” about the “Mormon cult” then why has the pace of building chapels and Temples remained steady or increased since the early 1990s when anti-mormonism made its leap onto the digital page?
Why has Mormonism increased significantly in the United States in the last 20 years?
The LDS Church continues to baptize 250,000+ converts a year, just like it has for the last 10-15 years. It adds a new congregation about every day of the year, and builds a brand new chapel about every day of the year.
Since Pres Obama took office until the next election in 2012, there will be over one million new Mormons in added in the world, over 1000+ congregations and 1000+ new LDS Churches built.
Shrinking we are not.
Don’t get too worked up, Gyeong. James isn’t a real person – he’s a Turing Test. Easily defeated, of course, because he runs off an IBM punchcard. All very predictable.
P.S to James – Are you wearing your
Magic UnderwearTemple Garment right now?James,
WHAT ABOUT WOMEN!!!!!
Women are sexual animals, you fuckwit. Every argument you have made specifically cites “human male gender.” What about lesbians? bisexuals?
Joseph Fucking Smith, you’re a dense little bigot. Every point you have made has been refuted, repeatedly. You ignore others’ points and think your circular repetitions are somehow answers to their points.
Address my points about the Constitution made way back in comment #498.
The stupid, hateful, bigoted troll is stupid, hateful, bigoted and trollish.
Reality ∞, James 0
Mmm, yet stupid you are!
Late to the party,today we are discussing some fringe cult’s aspirations to world dominion, apparently.And we have a live one !
PZ said @ 543 :
I was under the impression the ideal of the male mormon is to find as many ideally underage ovaries as possible to shower with semen.
That’s what mormonism has in common with Islam, it kinda rocks if you are a hetero male with defective morals.
Last try, James, then I’m done.
AKA Equal Rights Activists, but that sounds too positive, so let’s move along.
Mr. James, please explain why civilized people must be limited by biological imperatives.
Explain why humans must always remain slaves to their evolved behaviours.
Explain why anything humans do must be ‘necessary’ to be acceptable. Be certain to include music, art, and fine dining in your discussion.
Will these questions drive you to ignore them just as you ignored the questions I asked about your view of god too?
Will you be personally evasive rather than giving your own long lists of answers?
What do you say, folks, who’ll give me odds?
I’ll check in tomorrow to take a lil’ look see.
Citations, James. Citations. Is Mormonism flourishing? I don’t know, but I doubt it. One thing I know for sure, though: you haven’t provided a sliver of evidence for the proposition that it is.
Don’t you get it? This place is frequented by skeptical thinkers who expect positive claims like that to be backed up with evidence. Objective evidence that can be scrutinized by neutral parties. What is so hard about that?
@576 James says the internet is not a death knell for mormonism, and he goes on to claim that the mormonism is growing. It’s true that the LDS Church is fond of announcing new temples, etc. However, it is not true that they can fill these buildings. And certainly, the information available on the internet is filling the sails of those who want to leave the church. Here’s a post from Simon in Oz (dated February 18, 2008, and titled “Apostasy hits Australia and New Zealand”:
Sven:
Do you believe that homosexual attraction and hetrerosexual attraction are equally neccesary for the human species? Yes or no?
If yes, is there a neccsary purpose for the existence of homosexual attraction in human males?
Does this compliment human male gender or detract from it?
How dare you bring your Imperialist Objective Western Facts into this discussion, Missy? Hmm? Ruh-spect mah ru-lig-i-ositah!
/cartman
One can not control one’s desires. One can only control one’s own behavior. A given desire exists, regardless of any purpose. That a desire exists contrary to some sort of perceived purpose says more about the perceived purpose than it does about the desire. Focus on “attraction” to avoid questions of behavior leads into the same trap anyway. Apply the same question to other desires/thoughts/attractions and see what you get:
Please explain how
homosexualattraction to Mormonism is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of humansmale gender.Explain the evolutionary purpose of
same sexattraction to Mormonism.Explain the necessary utility of
homosexualattraction to Mormonism within the human species.Abominations, you can’t eat just one.
Conjures up the image of the body being a Rube Goldberg machine.
Bigot Boy James:
You seem to have conveniently skipped posts #560 and #565.
Regarding the LDS church growing- I blogged about this awhile back (in response to ksl’s claims about the church being really fast growing). It is really hard to get your name removed from the church records if you leave. Several lawsuits have been filed over that exact issue. There are plenty of people who leave and don’t try to get their names taken off the records, but are still counted as being LDS. It is safe to assume that the church’s count is inflated because of this.
If you go to sources where populations self report their religious affiliation (like the pew center for research) you will find that LDS membership has kept about the same proportion of the population over time. So the church grew, but at the same pace as the population in general.
James, you hounded me by name, personally goading me for a reply to your example of the black Elder of 1836 as proof that the mormons are not racist, so I provided an answer in comment # 367 … and, you never replied.
Did you just decide to drop that part of your argument, realizing that the Latter-day Saints have been overwhelmingly racist, and have treated black people and Native Americans abominably (at least up to 1978)?
250,000 new converts baptized every year? Uh huh.
1) Source plase.
2) How many are left when you take away all the supposed “converts” who were baptized after death, as Mormons are wont to do?
Are you fucking retarded, James? What is it about the idea that PEOPLE deserve autonomy, and civil rights, irrespective of whether they’re “necessary for the species” (a ridiculous concept anyway) that you don’t get? What is it?
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? I bet you’re anti-abortion, right? Well then, considering way more babies are born than the planet will be able to sustain, what’s “necessary for the species” about over-breeding? But you wouldn’t countenance abortion, even if it meant the survival of the species, would you?
Are Down Syndrome people “necessary for the species?” You know you wouldn’t approve of their murder.
Are nuns, who presumably don’t procreate, “necessary for the species?” You wouldn’t deny them any rights.
Are infertile hetero couples “necessary for the species?” Something tells me you wouldn’t deny them rights.
Once again, fuck you.
The claims about the growth of LDS adherents are akin to the claims of the Scientologists for their cult: Grandiose, but not credible.
Skeptifem @ 590:
True. My husband hasn’t been able to get his removed, and he left the whole mormonism circus 39 years ago, which was the soonest he could leave home. He’d stopped believing long before that.
Perhaps James doesn’t rail on lesbians so much because there is only one passage mentioning them in the Bible. Here is Romans 1:22-32 (KJV):
My emphasis. Those are some insane run-on sentences, aren’t they? Paul must have eaten some of John of Patmos’ mushshrooms….
FUCKING INSIPID!!!!!!!!!
And also stupid, don’t forget.
lttl sh*t pz thnks h cn dbnk Gd..
y r gng t b trtrd nd mrdrd wtht mrcy…
Lks lk yr wbst s ndr ttck frm sprntrl frcs…
http://dyn.pltc.cm/mmbrs/frms/thrd.cfm?ctd=2&sbctd=7&thrdd=3449994
y rlly nd t dd cmmnt mdrtn t yr blsphmy…
Josh @ 593:
Josh, mormons believe masturbation is killing the babies; all those souls are waitin’ on bodies, ya know! When my husband (who grew up mormon) was around 12/13, he and his friends were so tired of getting lectured on the subject, on their next church camp out, they went for a hike and had a circle jerk to ‘kill’ a million souls.
I do believe you mean “complement”.
HAHAHAHAH! Hawt. Best I’ve heard all day. . still giggling.
lttl sh*t pz thnks h cn dbnk Gd..
y r gng t b trtrd nd mrdrd wtht mrcy…
Lks lk yr wbst s ndr ttck frm sprntrl frcs…
http://dyn.pltc.cm/mmbrs/frms/thrd.cfm?ctd=2&sbctd=7&thrdd=3449994
y rlly nd t dd cmmnt mdrtn t yr blsphmy…
Okay, it looks like James is committing the cardinal sin of Pharyngula: being boring. Time to drop the banhammer.
Josh @ 602:
That’s his favourite memory of his time with mormonism. :D
Nah. Unless they’re really uppity, of course. Then it’s a matter of preserving the moral fabric of society, or some such bullshit.
Fair warning: the following will contain material not considered suitable for Good Mormons to view by the Mormon leadership, as it is suggestive, lewd, and immoral. You’ve been warned.
I don’t know whether big throbbing cock in tight wet pussy to be more disturbed by James’s poor “defense” of lesbians licking each other’s cunts “traditional” marriage and the Mormon viewpoint on such homosexuals in loving and equal partnerships things or by my continued hope that he eagerly licked his cum out of his husband’s asshole not all Mormons are this hateful.
I grew up an atheist in a Mormon household, knowing that I could not blacks have always been equal, not just since 1978 speak up about that. I told myself that women are not just cock-sheathes it might be that some Mormons took things too far, that intolerance was not deep in his ass a necessary result of the doctrine. When I finally moved out on my own and started studying philosophy and religion all people deserve equal rights I realized that Mormons did not have a monopoly (or even a very good grip) on “good” ideas. Now I just hope that the kind, loving Mormons I knew as a child will someday wake up and realize that their goodness is being used to justify hate and bigotry. But, I guess we know the tree by its fruit. And James is that fruit, which makes me sad that fruit is used to refer to homosexuals, because I’m not trying to insult them by that statement. non-reproductive non-utilitarian fucking
Dammit, why didn’t I have any circle jerks or other homoerotic encounters when I was Mormon?
Some assholes get all the fun.
Regarding Jame’s optimistic numbers of baptisms, do you see a trend here?
1999 – 306,171
2000 – 273,973
2001 – 292,612
2002 – 283,138
2003 – 242,923
And those are the numbers reported by the church. They do not take into account the number of people who are baptized as new converts, but never show up in church again, or who become “inactive” soon after baptism. Read the accounts of missionaries who return to their mission field a few years later, only to find that not one single person they have baptized remained active in the church — yet the church still counts them as members. Or the stories of missionaries pushed so hard to come up with numbers that they invented them. See http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon120.htm … and scroll to the bottom for more stories from missionaries.
Miki Z @ 607:
Absolutely the best kind of fucking.
You’re right. I have ignored the burning in my bosom that should have corrected my Imperialist Objective Western Facts — make that should have erased my presentation of objective facts in order to allow the flowering of mormon fantasies.
Damnit. “atheismisdead” is dropping spam/troll turds all over the thread, and when PZ disposes of them, the comment count will be screwed.
Lynna:
If the exmormon site is accurate, why haven’t they shown the 2004-2009 numbers?
In 2009, the number was back up to 279,000+ Did you figure that into your trend?
Also,
Australia
LDS Membership was 73,000 in 1990, today its’ over 125,000 members.
New Zealand
LDS Membership was 76,000 in 1990, today it’s over 100,000 members.
So much for the internet and its impact on Mormonism which is an exmormon pipe dream.
Well, I thought “Uppity” was pretty much a given, (at least according to King James, the Original Troll, and maybe Paul) when we’re talking about the following grievous sins worthy of death from that rambling final “sentence”:
not convenient, debate, whisperers, backbiters, despiteful, proud, boasters, disobedient to parents, implacable, and “have pleasure in them that do them”.
Wow, grade-a stupid and he just keeps on digging the hole deeper.
James,
I understand that I am coming very late into this discussion. Could you answer a few questions I have:
1) Why does stimulation of the prostate (e.g., by my partner’s penis) lead to pleasurable sensations and orgasms of greater intensity?
2)What is the “natural purpose” of this? And be honest, by natural purpose you do mean gOd’s purpose, right?
3) If digital prostate stimulation by mormon females during coitus enhanced fertility through increasing orgasmic intensity and subsequent sperm deposition, should it be endorsed by the LDS as official doctrine?
4) If homosexual attraction is against natural purpose, why is it so commonly observed in nature? Why are animals who are all natural and stuff going against their own nature? (you could start looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_Safety_Society
It just keeps getting funnier…
James sez:
Hopefully that will change once more people understand your batshit insane beliefs.
Here are Rammell’s “Ten Principles to Govern America”, taken straight from his website. The commentary is mine, of course.
TEN PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN AMERICA
* America was established by God for a righteous people. If American turns away from God she will fail. — News to the “founding fathers:, and interesting to hear that not only is God a women but needs America for her success.
* The Constitution was inspired by God. The original principles set forth within its body are true and when strictly adhered to will keep us free. — Okay… by “original” do you mean “ignoring those annoying amendments”?
* The proper role of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. — No argument from me, but I may have very different ideas about how that should be done.
* Rights can only be taken away or limited when they interfere with another’s rights. Privileges on the other hand are subject to the will of the majority. — Ooh, ooh, one guess as to who decides which is which?
* The Federal government should do only those things which the states can not do for themselves. State government should do only those things which the counties can not do for themselves. County government should do only those things which the individuals can not do for themselves. — I guess this is where you need to undo some of those amendments. Good thing you kept that option.
* Never ask a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. The smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide, to correct, to keep it solvent, and to keep our freedom. — So… something like terrorist cells?
* He who governs least, governs best. — I would like to help you govern best. Absolutely best. Here’s my plan: don’t run, and you won’t be governing at all. If least is best, none is bester!
* Capitalism advocates the principles of competition and choice in a free market setting and if allowed to operate without government interference is a proven formula for prosperity. — Yes, of course. So, you believe in choice, freedom, and freedom from government interference? So you’re pro-choice and against government intrusion into private life? Oh, wait, you’re just talking about money?
* Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life. — So… um… more fishing? What is this supposed to mean? Is it a reference to the miracle of the bakery jobs and fishing poles?
* The key to success of a free nation is a well informed electorate. — Free campaign advice: this is probably not a good strategy for you.
wow, I have had this same discussion with my family during the Prop 8 battle here in California. Like James, they repeatedly hold the churches statements on marriage as fact rather than opinion and help it up like a shield to deflect any truth or evidence that might come their way.
My mother at least was honest, stating it was what she believed to be true. My sister told me that she didn’t believe gay people should raise kids, and when I told her Prop 8 had nothing to do with the adoption laws, threw out the kid should have a mother and father. As a caseworker who worked with troubled teems for many years (in Utah no less), I know many kids who would have been better off without their parents in their lives.
For me the Mormon view on homosexuality crystallized when I was younger and still in the closet, doing my best to be a good Mormon boy so I didn’t lose the love and support of everyone I knew. I had an uncle who was beat up leaving a gay hangout in Salt Lake. This bright young man was left for dead, brain damaged and in coma. My good upstanding family said simply, well, he shouldn’t have been there…
So James can repeatedly spew the rhetoric he has been given, believing himself safe behind his walls, and you can throw fact and truth and studies and all manner of scientific information, and he will not see it. Mormons have a great capacity to ignore the world around them when it does not fit with their belief system. Furthermore, the belief that Mormons are a “peculiar” people make them feel that any persecution they feel is because others don’t see the truths that they clearly see and understand as revealed to them through the prophets.
And yes, being out now, my family and former friends have abandoned me to my sinful “gay lifestyle” and have told me I will never find happiness. And they will never understand that on my worst days now I am happier than I ever was in that conformist hellhole known as the LDS church. When I first left I was rather apathetic towards the church, but even though I left I find them intruding again on my life and trying to force me to live according to the tenets of their belief system and frankly, that is intolerable.
“you are going to be tortured and murdered without mercy…”
SaIZ the guy who was found hogtied and wearing two wetsuits…what was it they found up your backside again?
“Hammer Time!”
I’m sure no one cares, but I was in the middle of writing a response to James (which touched on some of Anomic Entropy’s points regarding baptism of 8 year olds) when some dumbass ran into a a telephone pole outside my office and killed the power. When I got home from worked and checked the thread there were 600+ comments, so I guess I’ve got some catching up to do.
And, lest we forget that this is a science blog, here is Rammell on global warming. The words are his, the emphasis is mine.
“Carbon dioxide is one of the most vital gases in our environment. It feeds plant growth. If the world continues to warm (the last ten years it has cooled) and the amount of carbon dioxide rises, we will see a greener more vibrant world. Agriculture land will produce more food for man and animals and energy demand for heating during the cold months will decrease. I see no down side to a slight increase in the temperature to the globe. The catastrophic consequences predicted by the doomsayers are evidence of their lack of faith in a Supreme Being who holds the creation and the future of the world in His hands.”
So now you know. Deny that global warming is a problem (if it even exists) or you’re denying God.
I care, Red John. Your adventures have certainly been more exciting than James’ posts on this thread. I don’t think you’ve missed much… just that James’ keeps repeating things about the purpose of male gender identity and entities (or something like that) –so much so that many have come to think that he’s a closeted homosexual trying desperately to convince himself he’s not.
(Don’t you kind of wish we could witness the cyber equivalent of “bumfights” between mabus and James? I mean I know it’s wrong to take advantage of the mentally ill, but still…)
articulett:
I think if Mabus and James were in a bumfight, it may never end. They would keep tickling each other in the same places without landing a single blow.
So, to answer your question: no, I honestly do not want to witness that.
Oh, I see. Very interesting… :)
While I am not gay, this is similar to what has happened to me. My parents tell me that I’m not (and can never be) truly happy. I contend that I was never really happy until I left. Best wishes to you.
I see James came crawling back from his football game, only to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum. (And yet, they are getting viler and viler with every iteration. I see he’s regressed to equating homosexuality with pedophilia.) I fail to see how he has advanced a “secular” argument. I would say this shows an unexpected degree of reasoning on his part, except that he doesn’t seem to have the slightest idea of what a secular argument would actually look like. He seems to think that by omitting the word “god” he can dress up a naturalistic fallacy in secular clothing. Instead he’s merely substituted his god with an anthropomorphised view of nature and given his false idol some silly goals which he calls “purpose”. We ask him to define his terms and he fails to do so.
…..
Anecdotally, I’d say the Mormon church is on a slope of attrition. They’re still producing like mad, because that’s part of their modus operandi, ie get married young so you can boink. If I had to venture a guess based on my own generation and circle of friends (Gen X/Y, children of the 80s and 90s) they are losing 1 in 5. While that currently leaves 80 percent of that generation, it’s still not an insignifican number, considering that the generations before that were MUCH lower. (I mean, I didn’t know of any actual apostates until I was in my late teens and my friend’s parents left the church. Incidentally, they were among the scholars at WhyBeYou who were kicked because their own studies and research didn’t jibe with what the church wanted, a classic case of academic suppression. Google “David P. Wright Hebrew studies” or read this: http://www.lds-mormon.com/dpw.shtml )
So growing up, I never knew any “anti-Mormons” and YET within a few years of reaching adulthood, I had not only left the church, but two of my best friends had as well–all of us coming to the decision separately. One of my cousins also left, and when I discovered on his website that he had left, I was overjoyed because here at last was family to share the journey with. Every year, one or two of my friends comes out about their non-belief. One of my friends messaged me a few months back on Facebook with the message, “Holy crap, did you know Joseph Smith was a total fraud?” Me: “Welcome to the club!” It’s long and slow, but I find it heartening whenever one more of my friends slips the bonds of irrational belief and starts eyeing everything more critically.
Two quick clarifications to my post at 628:
A) “I would say this shows an unexpected degree of reasoning on his part….” should be followed with “to understand that we would not accept supernatural explanations”. But as I explain further, I’m not sure he actually does GET that, since he seems to have a nigh-cargo-cult attachment to his arguments. Wash, rinse, repeat.
B) I first state that I didn’t really know any apostates and then I said I knew David P. Wright. This is true, even if it seems contradictory, because at the time that David P. Wright lived by my family, and at the time his daughters and I were friends, he was very devout indeed. However, he and his family moved away, following pressure from WhyBeYou to suppress his academic studies. (At the time, I was a wee kid, and all I knew was my playmates were having to move away.) Dr. Wright himself had nothing to do with my personal choices, but upon later finding out about his family’s experiences and their eventual choice to leave Mormonism, a lot of little background pieces sort of fell into place.
@144 Janine
Thanks for the tip. I Googled it and landed on a pbs page about Woodrow Wilson and Black leaders Garvey, du Bois, and Trotter (the last was a new one to me). I never knew that about him but it helps explain a lot. Sick. A Southerner, too? Quel choque. Oh forgive me, you know I keep trying to hold onto that talking point that Northerners are really much more vicious racists than Southerners, but reality keeps intruding and confusing me.
James the mushy-headed Mormon blurbled:
You know what, I think I have this figured out. Mormons don’t grok any sort of population control or population stasis or anything like that. Their concept is exponential growth forever. I mean, there’s, what, 500 billion stars in this galaxy alone and maybe 500 billion galaxies? Keep pumpin’ ’em out because all those stars need to be populated with spirit babies.
Gays and uppity women offend them because they aren’t down with the baby-pumping-out agenda. How dare they–disbelieve? What if Mormonism isn’t true? You mean I tithed, did unpaid volunteer work 5 nights a week, and went gray and then bald raising six kids for nothing?!? When I could have been living it up with new gadgets and vacations to Aruba? Noooooo! It must be true! And it’s true for everyone else too! Because SHUT UP, that’s why!
I’m an atheist, gay ex-Mormon (4th generation in every direction!). I have some good news for Caine and Skeptifem.
First, some background. I was enrolled in doctrine classes from the age of 3 and earlier (Primary and the usual Sunday School). Their all-pervasive system of viewing the world is carefully instilled through meticulous indoctrination and powerful psychological tactics (known to many religious sects from the dawn of Humanity).
Skeptifem @ 590 wrote:
Caine @595 replied:
Resigning from the Mormon Church. Some clever Good Samaritans with legal savvy and hearts of gold have outlined some specific steps which make it easy. In the USA, you can completely sidestep getting drawn into the Church’s system (their Bishop’s Courts with the Orwellian monicker “Courts of Love”) by legally resigning from the Church and withdrawing your consent to be treated as a member of such. In the USA, you can withdraw your consent at will, and The Church is legally constrained from embroiling you in any ecclesiastical proceeding.
I did it to protest the Church’s unforgivable support of California’s Proposition 8! (Granted, I did not believe in The LDS Church’s tenets since 1990.)
I followed the steps published (at one time) at MormonNoMore.Org, but I see they have removed that information from their website. Still you can email info@mormonnomore.org and they will email you the steps on how to leave the Mormon Church on your own terms.
Do it! It feels great!
What is slightly frightening about James is how he can repeat the same 2 mantras (go on guess which two) verbatim over several hours. I’ve seen circular logic and repeating (generally) the same points but he is so set in his thinking, he’s a walking coal shed.
What is truly frightening is how he has COMPLETELY ignored the females. He even blanket ignored the matter of the beatings and rapes mentioned. Its quite clear that that sort of thing doesn’t matter to mormon males.
What a truly horrible, relentless, crushing and oppressive religion this must be. I am so glad I was never part of it.
Has your ward grown in numbers James?
Are you happy?
James is a loon obviously. And mentally crippled beyond being able to think. No one with that much hate and that little cognitive ability could be sane.
Between 1 and 2 million people leave xianity every year in the USA. US xianity is declining at 0.5-0.9% per year.
People are sick and tired of brain dead christofascists telling them what to do and trying to destroy the country.
People like you are killing the religion.
The fastest growing religions in the USA are Wicca, Islam, and No Religion. The No Religions run around 20% of the population, 60 million people. There are 6 million LDS in the USA.
I realize Mormons are not Xians but for people sick of fundies, they are even worse.
The USA is projected to fall below 50% Xian in a few decades. Good luck trying to take over a country that is over half ex religion and No Religion. Isn’t going to happen.
James @534:
Doesn’t surprise me. If you want something technical done, or someone to make you money, or someone to repair your knee, the a Mormon would be a good person to do the job. But if you want someone to make aesthetic or ethical choices, Mormons would be close to last on that list.
& @526
Uh, no. You don’t seem to understand the concept of secular. All of your arguments have had theological suppositions. And, frankly, being against equal rights is homophobic. You, James, are just not as bad as a large proportion of the population.
Uh, no. Wrong, as usual. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History and
Yale historian John Boswell’s books – Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century and Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
So, spread ’em
And a comment on magic underwear:
Definitely not a good birth control method – see the average family size among Mormons. More like recreational sex control.
Well good luck with that. Gay women can have kids any time they want, and many do. When you possess a functioning uterus, in our society it’s yours to do what you want with. 25% of US births are to single mothers, most heterosexual.
A lot of gay males have children as well. Karl Rove’s father was gay. They get married, find out they aren’t happy and by that time there are a few kids. Or they want kids and meet a woman who wants kids and hasn’t had much success finding a spouse. Or they go through a gay deconversion program, become straight, get married and discover it didn’t work.
Life is much more complicated that the LDS’s simple minded views. I haven’t even got to the bisexuals.
One of my minor complaints about the religious kooks, especially the LDS but they are all about the same. They really have this one mold that everyone is supposed to fit into. For the LDS everyone is straight, gets married (you can’t be a church official without being married), goes on a mission, pumps out as many kids as possible (homes for the spirit babies and more mormons to brainwash), becomes a right wing extremist and LDS bigot, and so on. They used to have to be white* or at least brown but turning white as they become more saved or some stupid superstition referenced above in this thread.
Humans are far more diverse than that. IIRC, 30% of the US population these days ends up childless for a huge variety of reasons. Some people were sterile, many just decided it wasn’t what they wanted to do, many came from horrible disfunctional households and didn’t think they had the psychological stability to be good parents and so on.
*Mormons believe that a brown or black skin is because your distant ancestors screwed up and got punished by god. Asian, Indian, African, Italian, Greek, Eskimo, Latino, Arab it’s all your ancestors damn fault that you don’t have blue eyes and blond hair. Lamanites the lot of you. They also used to believe even a few decades ago that if you had the misfortune of being brown and joined the LDS church and were a good Mormon, you would turn white. It was flat out in the Book of Mormon, straight doctrine. These days they seem to be dropping it. They even changed the phrase in their book from “turning white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome”. You’d never know the religion was made up by white Northern Europeans.
I’m sure most of them still look on the Chinese or whatever as people with ancestors who were cursed by god but if you join our church you too can have blond hair. Yeah, good luck with that pitch.
Even if that were true, that is a pathetic rise. Lets play Maths.
So thats a rise of 52,000 in 20 years.
Australia has increased in population from 17 to 21 million in those years. That means 20% of that growth is just due to population increase.
That means you have grown about 41,600 people in 20 years from new converts. Although that may be lower if you have larger families than the rest of australia.
Now thats only people that are called mormons. That doesn’t mean they participate. They do however make the numbers look good.
Of course a nice healthy 20 year period nicely hides the fact that new converts could all have come in the first 5 years. With minimal new people. How many people in the last 5 years James?
Oh, whats this I hear about Utah being DOUBLE the national average for anti-depressents. They even have a name for it “mother of Zion syndrome”. Women have to say yes to everything, and like good little robots do as they are told… and take their dulling pills.
James has stopped responding to this line of questioning because the evidence is so overwhelming he can not refute it. And the few times he’s tried he’s stumbled into the problem of which divine revelations to believe.
He still will not answer me about whether LDS leaders receive divine revelation, the quotes from Nephi, the First Presidency’s quotes or the convenient timing of their “Divine Revelations” in the 1890’s and 1978.
When I lived in WY I heard a term about Mormons for the first time. I heard Mormons referred to as “scoops”. As in, When they joined the LDS church, they opened up their head and had a scoop taken out.
I think this is appropriate term considering how James has performed here dancing around the answers given to his questions and the questions posed to him.
DANCE PARROT, DANCE!
Wow. In a 1996 census. Only 45,000 people actually identified themselves as mormon. That would pretty much back up the claim that about 50% of supposed mormons don’t even bother with their religion.
That means your total “proper” mormons in Australia is 75,000 members. So about 1000 people per year above population growth. Hardly stunning. This is before you factor in fudged numbers and the fact that mormons have larger families than the average Asutralian.
In Australia, you are almost an endangered species. Low numbers, weak population growth and loss of habitat (we rulez the internet).
This is science!? What a bunch of hypocritical bigots you anti-Mormons, anti-Jews, anti-religionists are!
By the way, “Stepping up to save the constitution” which is the document that provides for freedom of religion, freedom to not believe and human rights freedoms for all no matter what they believe is a whole different thing than “Taking over the country”! For “scientists” so many of you can’t seem to get beyond reading something and then into comprehension of what you read. Very funny!
(Un)Holy fuck… Um, take it slowly:
Modern society is, basically, humanity escaping from it’s evolutionary roots.
Marriage is a social construct. God didn’t invent it, men did.
What the fuck do most of our societies’ rules (official/law and unofficial/custom) have to do with propagation of the species? We have advanced far enough to have the luxury of promoting fairness because we – mostly – aren’t spending all our time scrabbling for food with a life expectancy of 17.
Meeeeh. Record’s stuck with our Moron friend. Needs to fuck off back to the stone age when maybe some of his arguments might have more weight*. Although probably not.
* I wonder if teh ghey were the ones who did the cave paintings at places like Les Eyzies** as they always seem to have the nicest homes? I’ll get my coat.
** If you ever get the chance to see these in person, do. They are truely unbelievable.
Yes, but if you were paying attention you would have realised that none of those things mentioned (freedom of religion, human rights etc…) are supported by the LDS. Quite the opposite actually. That being the entire point of all those cogent points.
So do please continue to tell us about how hypocritical we are…although I don’t think it means what you think it means.
did you throw anti-jew in there because you think that has more impact. I’m not anti-jew or anti-mormon. I’m anti silly cult religious nonsense.
Stand back folks my irony meter is going thermonuclear.
okbyme, you might want to review the definition of the word “hypocrisy”. To quote a great movie, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
In more than 600 comments, you’re only the fifth person to mention Jews, and the other contexts are quite clear in their meaning.
I think the problem may be that the people here can read and then infer from not just words but actions. People’s actions don’t always match their words, and people don’t always mean what they say they mean. The word “hypocrisy” might come in helpful here.
Who said this is science? There are some explications of basic biology, but this is a blog by someone who is a scientist. Not everyone who comments is a scientist (I’m certainly not), and even scientists are allowed to have opinions (still!).
So, if I have James figured out correctly, I would be of more value to humanity if I got a woman pregnant by raping her than I do as a gay man. After all, the only reason we men exist is to deposit sperm in women! Mormonism rocks!
Yes, let nothing thwart you in your natural purpose and identity!
My purpose is clearly to be an invisible person who does not speak or matter to anyone. Like a mormon woman…without the womb. Oh, and i don’t get as many rights as everyone else. They get taken away from me because apparently I don’t need them.
You damn gays and your special treatment. Next thing your know you’ll be wanting driver’s licenses and voting rights.
I understand that this is the usual response of prolonged exposure to James.
@612
The exmormon site is accurate. I took the figures from an older post and didn’t have to time to look for a newer post, or find the the 2004-2009 figures myself. So, blame my laziness, if you like.
The number from 2009 includes a lot of bogus baptisms from places like Brazil, where missionaries report dunking the desperately poor, the drunks, the druggies, and other vulnerable people … only to have their baptized converts never show up again.
The number of baptisms claimed in 2009 is misleading, and yet it still does not match the earlier number from the 1990s … and that’s despite population growth. Did you even read the post where a missionary reported 3 to 4 percent retention rates of baptized persons?
The whole missionary program seems to be effective mostly in creating aggressive salesmen for use in multilevel marketing schemes that bilk the gullible. And to think that the missionaries themselves have to pay for this dubious experience, then return home and lie about it to their congregations.
Miki @618
Thanks for posting Rammell’s ten principles. The one about governing best if you govern least is hilarious coming from him. Apply it to his beloved LDS Church with it’s incredibly top-heavy hierarchy, and with it’s intrusion into every aspect of a person’s life, right down to the underwear.
I’ve found that you can learn much more about an organization like the Mormon church from ex-members rather than current members. Current members are still under the influence of their leaders and still lying to themselves.
I also learn a lot from the questions the adherent avoids. Moreover, the “arguments” they use on us are, apparently, the arguments that worked on them to get them to believe whatever it is they believe. I find this revealing.
I want to add that I thought okbyme’s interjection was silly given the Rammell invitation that started this thread. And his cry regarding our incomprehension of what we read in an incomprehensible sentence was the icing on the cake. I do so love irony.
Rev @638
Yeah, I couldn’t help but notice that James didn’t reply to you either. The quotes from Nephi were spot on, as were the racist statements from the First Presidency. When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done — until we decide that the prophet was speaking as “just a man” — what bullshit. Joe Smith was right, except when he was wrong.
OOHHHH!!! Fresh troll meat.
The LDS church is an extreme authoritarian gerontacracy. A dictatorship of old white men who practice every form of mind control and brainwashing known to humankind.
There is no doubt what their idea of “saving the US constitution” would look like. Somalia, Iran, Afghanistan or some other well functioning theocracy.
Religions always lie and use dog whistle code phrases and doublespeak. As a cult, the LDS church has that down.
satan’s slave = a member who dropped out.
US Patriot = wait till we take over
gentile = next victim
Saving the US = Hell on earth theocracy
We know what an LDS takeover would look like. Wherever Mormons are a majority they discriminate pervasively and obviously against the pagans. In Utah it is minor insults like liquor stores far and few between and having seminaries right next to public schools and de facto functioning as part of the school. More ominiously, they haver mercilessly gerrymandered the state so only Mormons can be elected.
In a state with 65% LDS, IIRC only 2 state legislators are nonLDS. Depriving nonmembers of voting privileges de facto is evil and anti-democratic. They did it anyway, it is obvious, and they don’t care who knows it.
“More ominiously, they haver mercilessly gerrymandered the state so only Mormons can be elected.”
Not just that, but there is no independent ethics commission. The legislature “investigates” its OWN ethics violations – i.e. cronyism and corruption is rampant because no one’s accountable, and they’re even worse than regular Mormons like James because they’re the power-hungry ones.
I don’t know why I live here.
And to think that the missionaries themselves have to pay for this dubious experience, then return home and lie about it to their congregations.
I mean this: go fuck yourself. I spent 2 years of my life in a third world country of desperately poor people, among the bottom three in per capita income in the world. You can either give them money, which will help them for a little while, or you can give them something else to hold on to, which will help them for as long as they hold onto it. We helped them build their houses and we taught them that their situation was temporary–that God loved them, and even though they were destitute, if they did their best and loved others and cared for their families, they would know God loved them and they would be all right in the end.
My companion and I once came across a young woman who was dying of malaria. She couldn’t walk. She was laying on the ground outside of her one-room closet-house. Her sister ran to us and begged us to bless her. She had no idea who we were or what church we were from. We came over to her and gave her a blessing. We told her to be comforted and search for God, for his love, to know that she was not alone. Then we got up and began to walk away. The sick woman got up out of her bed and began walking to us. She and her sister sobbed and thanked us, and we left. Never saw either of them again. I’ve never breathed a word about that experience since that day, until now.
Who are you to say I came home and lied about anything? Who are you to marginalize me and what I did? Who are you? What have you done? Who are you to criticize myself and my family for voluntarily giving time and money to something we believed in?
You should be ashamed of yourself. YOU are the ignorant, the bigot, the close-minded and self-righteous. It’d be easy for me to hate you, but I was taught better.
Well Utah is totally fucking beautiful.
Bottom line is that the LDS church, like all other churches, is ruled by prophecy.
If you believe that the future is seeable then religion is for you. All other physical rules can be ignored and ANYTHING is possible. Feel free to redefine any word, term or reality you wish.
If you believe that it is logically and physically impossible to see the future then tell people like James that he is full of it.
James – You are full of crap.
Building houses and giving aid is nice and I commend you for that., Giving them the false hope of religion in hops of building your member numbers is not nice.
Nice that you spent time with the woman, but worthless that you gave her false hope that some imagined deity would be doing anything for her.
Why wasn’t he there to keep her from getting malaria in the first place?
So’s Kentucky, but I think it’s safest to steer clear of both, for essentially the same reasons.
And did you meet your quota for the higher ups?
Did they fund you or did you pay for it yourself?
How were you treated while out there? Did you actually feel like you were making a difference?
Your concern is noted bravestarr.
I’ve done a lot of charity myself, I even help build a school in Uganda. But I’ve never done it with the purpose of spreading Gods word nor have spread false hope to the people about a deity. Why they hell do you need to be a missionary to do good deeds?
If you believe that the future is seeable then religion is for you.
There are physical realities that allow for the “seeing” of events which, to us, have not yet occurred. That’s science, not religion.
For the LDS everyone is straight, gets married (you can’t be a church official without being married), goes on a mission, pumps out as many kids as possible (homes for the spirit babies and more mormons to brainwash), becomes a right wing extremist and LDS bigot, and so on. They used to have to be white* or at least brown but turning white as they become more saved or some stupid superstition referenced above in this thread.
You really do hate Mormons, don’t you? Why is it ok to hatefully, spitefully, negatively stereotype Mormons but not gays or blacks or Jews?
I’m not brainwashed. I’d love to see you try to prove that I am. I’m not right-wing. I’m moderate, as are most of my family and friends. I know and work with gay people and I sympathize with their position. At the same time, I recognize the LDS Church’s position as one of moral imperative: they believe homosexual behavior to be immoral, and allowing gay marriage is sanctioning homosexual behavior. They oppose it on moral grounds, which they have every right to do. Just like the LDS Church believes pre- or extra-marital sexual relations of any kind to be immoral.
I’m not married. I may never get married. What Mormon culture does and says very often has little to do with the actual doctrines that are taught. Unfortunately, people like you who hate Mormons and/or their church as well as Mormons themselves have a very hard time distinguishing between the two.
And then there are others here who whip out utterly unsubstantiated “facts” about Mormons and Utah, just to put us down, like that we consume proportionately more anti-depressants than any other state or group.
The insanely ironic thing is that the attitude you people have towards Mormonism, with all your enlightened, progressive intellectualism, this is the same dehumanizing attitude you rail against that you think all Mormons have. It’s the same attitude that leads to discrimination, persecution and hatred. Quite honestly, it disgusts me.
shorter bravestarr:
“I’m a good person and have done good things, therefor you’re an asshole for condemning my religion or calling the stupid stuff I believe in stupid.”
Really, you need to stop confusing one (you being a geed person) with the other (your religion)… they really have nothing to do with one another, and if you think they do, then you are not a very good person. And if you don’t know why that is, then I’m sorry… can’t help you.
bravestarr why does the LDS church also send their good little brainwashed soldiers out to my upper middle class neighborhood? Couldn’t they be doing better work elsewhere?
If you had all the mormon funding from prop 8… how many malaria tablets could you buy?
Ah, playing the your a bigot for calling us a bigot card. You may be moderate in social and political issues, but that is not how your church doctrines thinks. Furthermore, criticizing the foundations of your religion is not bigoted. There is legitimate concern over it and the evils that it has brought up.
You lied to them.
“There are physical realities that allow for the “seeing” of events which, to us, have not yet occurred. That’s science, not religion.”
On the star Kolob possibly but not in this reality. Could you get me an example and BTW I have been a Mormon elder for about 50 Years now.
I’m sorry, but your personal anecdotes about how you live your mormon life do not impress me as representative of mormonism as a whole. What you describe, while commendable, is not what we have seen from Mormons (see James for example), nor what we know to be the teachings of the Mormon church… and before you even think about questioning our knowledge of what is taught by the mormon church, you’d better spend several hours reading through the hundreds of comment s put forth on the subject by very knowledgeable people w.r.t. the mormon church.
You can be offended at our perceptions of mormonism all you want, and ignore that you are the exception, not the rule… but you are blaming the wrong group for it… blame your fellow mormons like James here.
Oh… and by the way…
No they do NOT have the fucking right to try to force anything upon the rest of society based solely on their religiously derived morals… and if you were reading, you’d know that is the argument…
@bravestarr
No, go fuck yourself.
I’m sure you had a great experience on your mission, blah blah blah, but guess what? It’s all a lie. Everything you taught them about the church was a whitewashed version that only vaguely resembles the truth, if at all.
I’m not sure what happened with your little “miracle” there, but whatever it was, it wasn’t the supernatural. I know you’ll never believe that though. That you think your god is “good” because he deigned to “heal” one woman out of millions is just inane. If your god actually existed, he’d be the biggest fucking asshole ever.
As one who went on a Mormon mission myself, let me say it was one of the most useless, pointless, soul-crushing (if such a thing existed) experiences of my life. You go door to door selling false hope at the price of 10% of their income, their social standing, their freedom of choice, their reasoning abilities, and ridiculous amounts of time. I’ll admit I was brainwashed into (mostly) believing the lies, but I, unlike you, woke up from the delusion.
Your self-righteous outrage is just ridiculous. The Mormon inability to accept any sort of critique or less than glowing adoration is indicative of the weakness of your position.
Why you deigned to “breathe” a word of that holy, sacred experience to a bunch of atheists and sceptics is beyond me… Have you never read Matthew 7:6?
This is the phenomenon usually known as jihad-envy, but bravestarr is a traditionalist who still hates gays and blacks and Jews more than Muslims.
You chose to be Mormon.
Black people are born black, why would i have anything against that? Maybe you should ask your church. They have a long history of racism ingrained in it.
I don’t rail against Jews as a “race” (see above) but find their religion almost as full of nonsense as your cult.
Just because your beliefs are sacred to you doesn’t mean I have to respect them when they are so incredibly obviously full of shit.
I will however tolerate just fine until they start to impose themselves on others. Something the Mormons are trying damn hard to do. In fact I don’t know any atheists personally outside a few distant friends. So I do just fine respecting the person and tolerating their beliefs, but I am under no mandate to respect their beliefs. Especially ones so full of a total lack of adherence to reality.
Nobody’s disputing their legal rights.
I notice you fail to say that the LDS church is wrong about homosexual behavior being immoral.
So are you a hateful bigot like the rest of them, or are you a moral coward who’s afraid to speak up?
@bravestarr
“There are physical realities that allow for the “seeing” of events which, to us, have not yet occurred. That’s science, not religion.”
A simple reference to such a thing would help me understand what your talking about.
Got one?
@bravestarr
No, go fuck yourself.
I’m sure you had a great experience on your mission, blah blah blah, but guess what? It’s all a lie. Everything you taught them about the church was a whitewashed version that only vaguely resembles the truth, if at all.
I’m not sure what happened with your little “miracle” there, but whatever it was, it wasn’t the supernatural. I know you’ll never believe that though. That you think your god is “good” because he deigned to “heal” one woman out of millions is just inane. If your god actually existed, he’d be the biggest fucking asshole ever.
As one who went on a Mormon mission myself, let me say it was one of the most useless, pointless, soul-crushing (if such a thing existed) experiences of my life. You go door to door selling false hope at the price of 10% of their income, their social standing, their freedom of choice, their reasoning abilities, and ridiculous amounts of time. I’ll admit I was brainwashed into (mostly) believing the lies, but I, unlike you, woke up from the delusion.
Your self-righteous outrage is just ridiculous. The Mormon inability to accept any sort of critique or less than glowing adoration is indicative of the weakness of your position. Why you deigned to “breathe” a word of that holy, sacred experience to a bunch of atheists and sceptics is beyond me… Have you never read Matthew 7:6?
We’re not stereotyping Mormons here, we’re speaking the truth. You’re so blinded by the brainwashing you can’t separate out objective reality from the fantasies in your head.
You’re not being persecuted, you’re not being discriminated against. Your beliefs are being criticised. That’s not persecution, that’s our RIGHT.
Oh, and there are tons of people here (including me) who are/were Mormon, who know way, way, way more about Mormonism than you ever will, live in Utah, went on missions, etc. Complaining that we don’t know what we’re talking about and are stereotyping is just a silly accusation.
Another Mormonofascist troll. Damn, they are monotonous.
Read the whole thread. Look at all the hateful nonsense James posted in dozens of posts.
I wasn’t a Mormon bigot yesterday morning. After reading this thread I am now.
Don’t persecute other people and then claim persecution. The fundies have that one copyrighted.
Got it backwards scoopy do. Mormons create anti-Mormons sure as the sun rises. Don’t insult, oppress, and discriminate against pagans and they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass what your cult does to its members.
But Mormons will never, ever do that. When god is on someone’s side, they always turn into monsters. And there are always people who just don’t much like fascist monsters. Deal with it.
Building houses and giving aid is nice and I commend you for that., Giving them the false hope of religion in hops of building your member numbers is not nice.
False hope? It’s all a matter of opinion, belief and faith. You can see that, right? You’re essentially telling me that my own intuition and the way I see the world is incorrect because.. you believe it to be so. You do see total failure in your logic, right?
Why wasn’t he there to keep her from getting malaria in the first place?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of my point, my religion, and my God. I’d explain, but somehow I don’t think you’d listen.
And did you meet your quota for the higher ups?
Did they fund you or did you pay for it yourself?
How were you treated while out there? Did you actually feel like you were making a difference?
What quota? I had no quota to meet. I was instructed to build a foundation for the church in a country that had been ravaged by civil war and colonialism for literally hundreds of years. The church was to give hope and unity and family to people who wanted or needed those things. I suspect you don’t mean to intentionally cheapen or dismiss their CHOICE to be a part of something that makes them feel better, that lifts them out of their situation. If not, your presumption is ugly and demeaning and you should feel bad for having asked the question.
What does money have to do with anything? Why are you asking?
I was treated in turns wonderfully and horribly. Turns out racism does swing both ways. And yes, I did feel as if I made a difference. Without question.
I’ve done a lot of charity myself, I even help build a school in Uganda. But I’ve never done it with the purpose of spreading Gods word nor have spread false hope to the people about a deity. Why they hell do you need to be a missionary to do good deeds?
More with the false hope. If you can prove that negative, then I’ll gladly agree with you. You can see nothing but white geese your whole life, but you’re never safe in the assumption there are no black geese, and all it takes is seeing one black goose to prove your lifelong assumption wrong. True, you don’t need to be a missionary, but that wasn’t my point now, was it?
shorter bravestarr:
“I’m a good person and have done good things, therefor you’re an asshole for condemning my religion or calling the stupid stuff I believe in stupid.”
Really, you need to stop confusing one (you being a geed person) with the other (your religion)… they really have nothing to do with one another, and if you think they do, then you are not a very good person. And if you don’t know why that is, then I’m sorry… can’t help you.
No, you’re an asshole for calling all Mormon missionaries liars and dismissing something you don’t remotely understand, something a great many people find meaningful and imporant, as garbage. That’s practically the definition of “asshole.”
I’m not confusing anything. You are. I am the sum total of my experiences and my environment, and my religion is a fundamental part of both. Dismissing my religion as garbage is dismissing me as garbage. Thumbing your nose at my experiences, missionary and otherwise, is thumbing your nose at who I am. I happen to like who I am.
@ bravestarr
Again – I say you and your entire religion is based on the idea (hope) that someone in your church can see into the future.
You cannot, Jos. Smith could not, B.Young could not not now, not ever (Sam I am).
One example that shows me wrong (or even hints at it) and I’ll restart my 10% gross donation, and start healing by the ‘laying on of hands’ again.
bravestarr sez:
Nope.
Protip: If you have trouble telling the difference between religious preference and biological factors such as race or sexual orientation please don’t get involved in debates dealing with them.
Well, that’s something, I suppose.
“Some of my best friends are…” “Really, they’re almost just like real people – you can’t help but feel sorry for them…”
And if I believe, on moral grounds, that women should remain silent in public, will you support my efforts at legistation?
If I believe, on moral grounds, that children who sass their parents should be put do death, do I have your vote?
If not, why not? Make certain to cite your source for moral decision making.
Translation: my group of people are just as hypocritical as other people – they’re no better.
Nope and nope. Speaking for myself, I hate beliefs that are rediculous and cause me and those I care about (and, heck, those I haven’t even met yet!) undeserved pain.
This could be easily investigated, I suspect.
Well, again, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t hate Mormons, nor do I consider them subhuman, inferior or dumb. I do think that they have bought into a set of silly beliefs that are deeply at variance with the real world (which they are free to do, of course) and then they insist on building voting blocks based on these silly beliefs (which I will oppose as well as I can).
I have prejudices. I wish I didn’t. When I find myself thinking that a given group of prople is inferior due to something innate, I make an effort to bring myself up short, and feel shame at those bigoted knee-jerk reactions.
What I do not do is pretend that those feelings come from a perfect, all-knowing worthy authority. I do not tell myself that certain people are inferior because god tells me that they are.
People who have prejudices and are proud of them – that’s what disgusts me.
I’m telling you there is exactly zero evidence that god is going to do anything for these people and you telling them that he will is giving them false hope. I’m telling you they way you see the world is fine and dandy for you but there is no reason to believe that it has any basis in reality when concerning supernatural events or beings.
You have a fundamental desire to prop your religion up as truth despite there being nothing that actually does that. If you’re telling a malaria stricken woman that god will be there for her, that rings awfully hollow if you happen to join reality and realize that he has forgotten her so far. And the arrogance it takes to believe that speaking to a couple of well meaning but useful pawns for their church is going to change that for her is pretty damn astounding. You’d be doing her a world more of good if you took her to get treated for her malaria and left the proselytizing alone.
Nope, Bravestarr your the one who don’t see the point. We’ve explain plenty of times up thread that spreading this God of yours is false as he doesn’t exist. It’s false hope because you are telling people to rely on something that doesn’t exist and clearly doesn’t care. The point I made was that I hate it when people claim they do charity because it’s God’s will. Basically, you’re only doing because someone is telling you to do it.
Your one anecdote doesn’t out way the info provided about the evils of your church. If you feel offended, you should it’s your belief. But that in no way means we’ll stop criticising your evil cult. Like Raven said, believe that the gays are evil all you want. But you’ve no rights to make that a law and tell the rest of us to discrimate againts gays.
Actually, assuming anything about what people you’ve never met and know nothing about understand makes you the bigger asshole, dude… you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Do you have any idea how many ex-mormons and religious historians there are on this site, in this thread alone?
I could give a rat’s ass how fucking “meaningful and important” anyone finds the bullshit you spout, a meaningful lie is still a lie. Just about everything Joseph Smith put forth was a lie… and an obvious lie now that we have the ability to actually look into the claims he made. It’s abjectly silly. Reading “The Secret” may give some a sense of comfort and meaning, it’s still fucking bullshit fiction.
Your beliefs get no special accord…
Mysterious ways, blah blah blah… that’s a hand-waving non-answer… and you wonder why your beliefs are ridiculed. Just answer, asshole… why would your god randomly choose certain people to heal while leaving millions of others to suffer needlessly, apparently? You won’t even attempt to answer that question with any intellectual honesty and you know it.
If you are unable to separate the two or even contemplate how you could be as good a person without it, then yup… you got it.
Good for you… as long as you keep the religious part of it to yourself, you’ll have no problems with me… and I can’t speak for you, but your mormon religion isn’t content to do that, so fuck your religion, and fuck you for coming in here and needlessly defending it like you were being personally attacked. Fuck off already.
@bravestarr
OK – Look. Most of the other posts in this thread espouse individual opinions of right and wrong and I can understand how your opinions can be so different from others. Not a problem.
But you said that you knew of some way to see into the future. This isn’t an opinion or a belief. It either is or is not a scientific fact.
Please help me understand what you mean.
bravestarr why does the LDS church also send their good little brainwashed soldiers out to my upper middle class neighborhood? Couldn’t they be doing better work elsewhere?
If you had all the mormon funding from prop 8… how many malaria tablets could you buy?
They do work elsewhere. They also believe that spreading their religion is of fundamental importance. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
Ah, playing the your a bigot for calling us a bigot card. You may be moderate in social and political issues, but that is not how your church doctrines thinks. Furthermore, criticizing the foundations of your religion is not bigoted. There is legitimate concern over it and the evils that it has brought up.
The church by and large stays out of political issues. Mormons are expressly told not to listen to anyone in the church who pushes them in a certain direction. Several Mormon leaders are Democrats.
Who’s criticizing the foundations of my religion? I’m not seeing that. I’m seeing vitriol spewed at everything in range. I’m not seeing intelligent discussion of supposed “evils.” I’m seeing a lot of words like “brainwashing” and “bigotry” being carelessly thrown around without anything to support them. This is a large echo chamber, and it’s easy to get away with it.
On the star Kolob possibly but not in this reality. Could you get me an example and BTW I have been a Mormon elder for about 50 Years now.
“This” reality? I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking for. An example of physical properties that would allow for someone to “see” into the future? Um, ok: light.
I’m sorry, but your personal anecdotes about how you live your mormon life do not impress me as representative of mormonism as a whole. What you describe, while commendable, is not what we have seen from Mormons (see James for example), nor what we know to be the teachings of the Mormon church… and before you even think about questioning our knowledge of what is taught by the mormon church, you’d better spend several hours reading through the hundreds of comment s put forth on the subject by very knowledgeable people w.r.t. the mormon church.
Fine. Believe what you want to believe. I’ll believe what I believe based upon having been in and around the heart of Mormonism my entire life. My personal anecdotes may not be representative of the reality you inhabit in which your confirmation bias leads you to the conclusion you have, in fact, already come to. I’m not going to try to convince you of anything. It’s a waste of my time and your time.
No they do NOT have the fucking right to try to force anything upon the rest of society based solely on their religiously derived morals… and if you were reading, you’d know that is the argument…
Forcing what now? Mormons aren’t trying to force anything. Issue isn’t black and white. This isn’t about denying gay people anything, or forcing anything, it’s about denying couples something. The question is what is that “something.” Is it a right guaranteed us by the Constitution, or is it a benefit extended to us by the government?
There is no clear cut answer here, sorry to say. It depends on your interpretation of precedent court cases (Loving v. Virginia, for instance) as well as the Constitution and the relevant Amendments. Depending on how you phrase and approach the question, marriage is one or the other. If it is a benefit, then there is nothing morally, legally or Constitutionally objectionable about the refusal to extend a benefit to gay couples that has been, in our society, predicated on opposite-sex unions of two people–-same as how we don’t legally marry one man to more than one woman at a time.
If we take marriage to be a right, then the government’s refusal to grant it to gay couples is unconstitutional on the same grounds as Loving v. Virginia (interracial couples).
So, for example, if it’s not a right but a benefit, the government doesn’t have to deny permission for couples to get married, it simply has to refuse to recognize them because the benefits are not extended. The fact is that while the Supreme Court has upheld the right of all people to get married, there is absolutely no constitutional compulsion for the government to recognize all marriages and extend the accompanying benefits.
At any rate, religious groups like the LDS Church have every right and reason to attempt to block the legal recognition of gay marriages–-they believe homosexual activity to be immoral, and to allow gay marriage is a blanket sanction of homosexual activity–hence, a legitimate, moral objection. whether or not it has a legal basis, again, depends on the questions above. So while you may disagree with the LDS Church’s stance on the issue, they are well within their rights. To say otherwise is to betray a total lack of understanding when it comes to how these things work in our country.
Bravestarr: Since you weren’t here before to share YOUR experience, maybe you could have taken two seconds to rub some braincells together to figure out that people were talking about OTHER people’s mission experiences. And many OTHER people have had the experience of going out, trying to gain a testimony while on their mission, having a horrible time, and coming home to family and social pressures that demand they put a bright shiny face on it. Just because you haven’t experienced it personally doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
…
For everyone else:
That said, how did I leave the mission out of my post on the systemic indoctrination that pervades Mormon culture?
Mormon youth (mainly the guys) are encouraged to serve missions from the time they turn 19. The message from the leaders of the church is that EVERY WORTHY young man should go. I say, “encouraged” but once again, this may very well determine a lot of your social capital and especially your dating life as a Mormon. I know of girls at WhyBeYou who wouldn’t date anybody but return missionaries (or RMs as we called ’em). They developed “tests” to see if a guy was wearing Gs, a sign that he’d probably been on a mission. They’d check for the “celestial smile” –the line of the neck of the garments sometimes is visible faintly through dress shirts. Or they’d pat the guys on their upper arms, trying to unobtrusively see if they were wearing the Gs.
The mission is the key to dating most of the girls in the culture–we’ve been trained from birth that “You marry who you date, so only date people you would marry.” And of course, we’re told to only seriously date guys who have served missions and hold the priesthood.
On top of that, going on a mission is one of the checkmarks in the average Mormon’s recipe-driven life. Got your Eagle Scout Award? Check? Alright, young man, next up: mission! We sing songs in primary about how we want to be a missionary, when we have grown a foot or two, we hope we will be ready to preach and teach and work like missionaries do! There are big farewell parties and big homecoming parties that the entire ward (congregation) often attends, so that everybody can see the visible rewards and approbation that attend making this choice. Nevermind that if you don’t have a testimony or something holds you up from the hoop-jumping you gotta do, it’s going to be VERY visible to everybody in the ward too.
Boys who have reached 19 but haven’t turned in their papers are subject to a lot of scrutiny. I’ve heard of parents or relatives that will try to soft-bribe their kids into going on missions to maintain the perfect Mormon family record. You can expect questions about your medical history (if people are polite and optimistic) or insinuations about your potential sexual misdemeanors (if people are cynical and snoopy).
So you have parental pressure, family pressure, community pressure, and hormone pressure. And you’re 19. Some people may know who they are at 19 but a lot of people sure don’t. And there is a sort of attitude common to bishops and many folk where they will encourage the young man to go even if he doesn’t have a testimony, because surely this act of faith will cause one to sprout. (Usually not though. Oftentimes, it causes stress, mental breakdowns, and acting-out.) I know my brother (in a rare display of honesty for church meetings) admitted in his homecoming talk that he wasn’t always sure he was feeling the Spirit. Another friend of mine went on his mission, and then tried to run away. He was turned back at the Canadian border and returned to his mission president, who gave him a talking to and convinced him to stay–much to his detriment later. (The full story behind Bill’s mission is MUCH too extensive, but it is also kind of hilarious and sad at the same time, and well worth a listen to: http://www.shunn.net/podcast/terror.cgi He’s documented the full epic story of how he got kicked out of Canada on his mission and podcasted it. He also goes into detail about the mission experience and dubious PR practises of the LDS leaders.)
Anyway, if and when you succumb to the indoctrination and peer pressure, you are interviewed by your bishop and stake president. You send in your papers, and eventually you get an assignment. You will go through the temple to receive your endowment and then you will be “set apart” as a missionary, from which point you must follow ALL the rules expected of missionaries. Then you report to the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah for your training. Domestic or English-speaking missionaries usually have about two weeks of training, while foreign-language have up to two months, while they learn all the lessons in their mission’s language.
Missionaries are expected to rise early (usually by six or seven–I don’t know the exact rules). They can never, with the exception of using the bathroom, leave their companion alone. They can not be alone with members of the opposite sex. They have to follow all the regular rules about diet. They must wear their garments at all times. They should refrain from calling home. They aren’t supposed to masturbate–can be grounds for being sent home, although usually the mission president just rolls his eyes and counsels the young man to repent. (Sins are self-reported, but masturbation is the most common reason a missionary will be sent home from the MTC. Once they are out “in the field” rules seem to be more winked at, because the mission president doesn’t always have the logistical resources to deal with every missionary who slips up.)
The missionary spends all his days reading the scriptures. His media access is supposed to be prohibited during this time–no movies, no TV, etc. When i left the church, missionaries weren’t supposed to use the internet either, and I don’t know if that’s changed.
It used to be that missionaries would pound the pavement and collar people on the street, but it seems even the LDS church is getting wise to the fact that those tactics annoy more people than they get. So now many missionaries act on referrals from various church media and member campaigns. Part of their new duties include member reactivation–as I know all too well, since they kept showing up at my door until I told them my male roommate was gay. (True. Also true: Mormon missionaries are discouraged from teaching gay men, probably because they think the boys are more vulnerable to Satan’s attacks during their missions.)
You’ll notice I’ve been using the male pronoun throughout this, and you may be wondering about the sister missionaries one occasionally bumps into. Well, the fact of the matter is that girls aren’t eligible for missions until age 21, unlike the boy’s age 19. This is ostensibly so we have time to get married off, which is our primary purpose according to the church. If for whatever reason, we haven’t snagged ourselves a man, we are reluctantly allowed to apply as missionaries. (And they STILL will try to discourage you.) Women also only serve a year and a half instead of the full two years men serve. (My mother was an exception to this, as she was a sister missionary under a short-lived program in the late 60s/early 70s where they let women serve two years.)
Anyway, many missionaries have a hard time readjusting to “regular” society when they come back. After two years of having your every move scheduled and overseen, it’s a bit weird. Factor in the whole “fake it til you make it” mentality and some are suffering from severe cog dis, but trying to convince themselves that it was the greatest two years of their lives–two years they will certainly never get back.
(This is not to say that some don’t have a wonderful time, but those who were sorta shoved into because of family and societal pressures rarely fall in that category.)
If you DON’T go on a mission, and you are a guy, you can expect a lot of judgement and maybe some ostracism. Older relatives may take you aside and sternly lecture you on whatever they think is keeping you from fulfilling your duty to God. And for the rest of your mormony life, you will have well-meaning idiots ask where you went on your mission. It’s one of those icebreaker questions in Mormonland.
And in the end, when the unbelief and evidence piles up, you may find yourself bemoaning two years spent trying to encourage other people to believe in a repressive system.
@bravestarr
“This” reality? I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking for. An example of physical properties that would allow for someone to “see” into the future? Um, ok: light.
Well in fact I do know what I’m talking about. Since light is what you sense when a photon of electromagnetic energy strikes your eye, a photon that may have been emitted by a star millions of years AGO (as in the past) how will that help you see into the FUTURE?
That’s a pretty astounding piece of doublethink you’ve acheived there. It often takes a great deal of institutional effort to shoehorn such beliefs into an institution’s adherents. I like how in the first sentence you accept that they are gay, that it’s a defining characteristic, and in the rest of it you (or rather your church) attack(s) their deviant “behavior.” Fuck you and the cognitive dissonance you rode in on.
Oh, is that why your church spent millions to revoke the right of gays to marry? To put them back in their immoral box? I refer to the comment above, substituting hypocrisy for cognitive dissonance.
If you think we’re an ecochamber you’re sadly mistaken. Fuck hell, people on here disagree with each other all the time. Furthermore, I’ve only come to this conclusion recently, before that you were no different to me than any other denomination.
You’re being a hypocrite calling us bigots. You clearly haven’t read any of the evidence that we supplied about the evils of your church.
And yes, gay marriage is civil right. Every heterosexual has that right to marry but not gays. And they are only denied on the basis of religious bigotry and that’s discrimination. And yes your cult can oppose it all we want. And we’ll call them bigoted and evil. Criticism in not a stifling of free speech. However, you’re pushing that belief on other folks and that’s not cool.
@bravestarr
Focus sir focus.
Since the title of this thread is ‘Mormon Prophecies’ and I say no one can see the future and you say they can the thread can be resolved by a simple example of ‘view into the future’
Who said anything about telling, I asked you why?
And?
Read up thread. Pay attention to Divine Revelation.
Did you really type that out, look at it, then think it was a coherent argument that makes your side look good?
Only if the church wants to risk their 5013c status. Something that has happened before in 1978 but suddenly by surprise a divine revelation said it was ok to allow blacks to be ordained. How convenient.
Maybe it is YOU who are betraying a total lack of understanding when it comes to how these things work in our country.
As long as you keep insisting that religiously defined morality has anything to do with legality, you will continue to remain a birdseed-headed moron… you can have a legitimate moral objection to anything you want… it does not follow then that you have the right to legislate it as law. And that you think that is the way our country works is exactly why we hate your fucking religion and exactly why we will continue to rail against people like you, who believe that this country is, and should be, legislated according to their personal religiously-driven morality.
It absolutely does NOT work that fucking way and I will expend my last dying breath fighting against assholes like you and the rest of the religious fuckwits in this country that think it does and are actively lobbying to turn this nation into a theocracy. So again I say to you and your religion… fuck right off.
It must suck thinking that your salvation hinges on believing a crazy story.
Bravestarr, there is only one truth, and you don’t seem to have it any more than a Scientologist does. There is no more evidence for your magic story than there is for theirs. In fact, the evidence points to them both being equally delusional… equally on par with the myths you reject as well. So why should we treat you differently than you would treat a Scientologist inflicting themselves on you? (Say, a good clearing can get rid of those nasty engrams which are making you so bitter.)
Reality doesn’t really care what you believe,bravestarr, though it is interesting to see the lies you tell yourself so you can feel humble and righteous and deserving of everlasting goodies– maybe even your own planet and multiple spirit wives to fuck! Yee Haw. And all you had to do was exactly what you don’t want the Scientologists, Moonies, and Jehovah Witnesses doing to you or the ones you love. No one here sees you as the hero you imagine yourself to be. It’s the honest folk that are my heroes, not the delusional, arrogant, and self-righteous. Shame on YOU for trying to manipulate the feelings of others here the way your church has manipulated you. That stuff only works on the brainwashed, you know? It’s fascinating that it’s worked so well on you, but it’s completely useless here.
The world would be much happier if people kept their religions as private as they kept their fetishes and bowel habits. I prefer to think of people as rational,and it’s impossible when they wear their embarrassing magical thinking on their sleeve.
Consider that do-unto-others thingie? Don’t you think the world would be a much better place if you didn’t ask for respect and privileges that you wouldn’t want to grant to Scientologists or other people of conflicting faiths? I can’t help but think that the world would be a much better place if religionists were as private with their supernatural beliefs as they want all those other wacky cults to be!
I see no reason to give one brand of superstition any more deference than any other. There is only one truth, and so far, the scientific method is the only proven method for illuminating that truth.
BTW, as an ex-Mormon in this thread, many of us (I won’t speak for all of us) prefer the term ex-Mormon to the loaded anti-Mormon. Many of us have family who are still Mormon and we love them dearly and wish they could deal with their cog dis, but realise this may not occur.
The term anti-Mormon is used by the church to divide those who don’t believe from those who do. They also tend to reinforce the “anti-Mormon” stereotypes by saying that people only leave the church because A) they have sinned and want to keep on sinning (ie, drinking, sex, whatevs) B) they were offended by a fallible mortal member of the church C) they are weak and led astray by anti-Mormon literature or D) peer pressure. (They are now including the Internet in the list of reasons, I see from a quick googling.)
Do you see a big fat glaring omission in this list?
‘Cause I do.
Belief.
There’s no room in the Mormon cultural paradigm for a good devout Mormon to leave because they don’t believe in the church teachings, or because they believe the church is an oppressive institution. There is no room in their world for me to exist: the obedient, never-smoking, never-drinking*, abstinent, scripture-reading, church-camp-going, Young Women’s volunteering, little nerd that I was. I wasn’t perfect, but I didn’t leave the church because I wasn’t going to church or wasn’t reading the scriptures or because I wanted to sin. In fact, reading the scriptures REPEATEDLY and reading the Ensign and reading all kinds of church material kept opening up little fissures in my strata of belief.
And when I said to my family and friends, “Hey, guys, I don’t believe,” I got all kinds of crap about how I shouldn’t be offended or how this was just a phase. I particularly loved the bit about how I must be rebelling at long last–nope, can’t give me credit for having a thought in my head, I must be reflexively rebelling against my culture.
(Incidentally, when I did leave, I didn’t even ramp up the “sin”. I started drinking at the age of 25–approximately four years after my first statement of disbelief–and while my Mormon mother is convinced I’m an alcoholic, all my non-Mo friends laugh at the one drink or so I have every few months. Of course, they were also convinced that blue hair = slipper slope to sex and drugs. Nope, when I left the church, after my year at Ricks College, I was a non-smoking, non-drinking, speed-limit obeying virgin with scripture chase certificates in her scrapbook of doom.)
[quote]At any rate, religious groups like the LDS Church have every right and reason to attempt to block the legal recognition of gay marriages–-they believe homosexual activity to be immoral, and to allow gay marriage is a blanket sanction of homosexual activity–hence, a legitimate, moral objection. whether or not it has a legal basis, again, depends on the questions above. So while you may disagree with the LDS Church’s stance on the issue, they are well within their rights. To say otherwise is to betray a total lack of understanding when it comes to how these things work in our country.[/quote]
Thank you for having the courage to admit that the belief that homosexuality is immoral lies within your religious beliefs. Fortunately, a particular religions beliefs about morality are completely irrelevant to legislation, particularly legislation about rights and privileges of a minority group. I’ll repeat that. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant. You have the right to belief them. You do not have the right to legislate them. And what about the religions that do acknowledge same sex couples? Wicca, for instance, has absolutely no qualms with this. Would you restrict their religious rights to conduct same sex marriage? Second easy mistake to make is that “Murder is illegal, and that’s based on religion.” No, it’s not actually based on religion. It’s an antisocial activity that if not regulated, causes severe harm to the society. Because of this, every society has had regulations on when you can murder and when you can’t, and this has been reflected in the various religions. Homosexuality is not antisocial. It does not cause harm to anyone. In fact, pretending to be straight when you’re not can cause severe psychological harm. So, really, oppressing homosexuality, even if it’s inspired by your religion, does cause societal harm. Furthermore, the entirely artificial, economic social construct of marriage provides very real social benefits, and extending these benefits to same sex couples provides those same benefits. And if you’re worried about teh HIV (which, if you’re not up on the memo, is in no way unique to homosexual males), consider the beneficial effects of giving these people a socially sanctioned route to monogamous life pairs.
This is not a radical new experiment, many countries have already granted it, and with great success. Just try it, I guarantee that in a few years you won’t even notice, any more than you notice the absence of Jim Crow laws.
@bravestarr
Dismissing my religion as garbage is dismissing me as garbage.
Ouch! Seriously, you need to be your own separate person from the LDS church. But, I understand how you’re indoctrinated to be in lockstep with the Brethren. I remember my dad being very proud of the fact that he could change his mind on a dime on any given doctrinal subject if he found out that the Prophet held a different opinion. No need to dig any deeper than the famous line, “Once the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.”
BTW, I just want to add that my mission was the worst two years of my life. Hated every moment. Funny how no missionary ever says that when he/she gets home. They all have to spout the obligatory “(choking back a sob)…It was the best two years of my life…”
@everyone else:
Love this thread! Very entertaining. I know that bravestarr would probably like to distance the likes of James from the so-called “mainstream” LDS culture. But, unfortunately, James IS representative of the mainstream, active LDS. Those Latter-day Saints who are more in-line with mainstream America are the ones who are completely inactive or have gotten out completely.
@James:
James, we need more people like you. You are the best anti-missionary any of us could hope to be. I applaud your efforts in enlightening potential converts on the realities of LDS thought and biases. I believe that much of the decline in the church’s growth can be attributed directly to people like you. Keep up the good work, my friend! :o)
@bravestarr
I hope you haven’t left the thread without telling us what you know to be true about seeing the future. Your entire religion is predicated on this ability as are all other religions. In fact the very name LATTER day saints tells us that you know when the latter days are going to start.
So please stay with me on this one. Ignore all the other posters until we get this very important concept settled.
How can you (or anyone else) see the future?
Sounds a lot like Scientology.
BraveStarr, you made at least more of an attempt than “James” to address the gay thing.
but….
You removed access to government and legal rights from people because you find their bedroom antics “icky”. Well, no thats not quite right. You did it because the people above you told you it was icky and you went along with it. Even though you probably don’t believe it yourself.
That was unconstitutional. Majority should NEVER…EVER remove rights from a minority by voting. That is DEEPLY unamerican. There is also the matter of your churches involvement in government business which is not allowed because of your tax exempt status.
It is also the height of hypocrisy to slam gay marriage by saying one man one woman when you know full well that several church leaders in the past took multiple wives.
You are the 5th person to talk to me about their time as a missionary. The other 4 loathed it and it was a contributing factor in their leaving the church. 5/1 against is not good odds. So excuse me if i keep my opinion that missionaries don’t exactly save many souls.
I’m seeing a lot of words like “brainwashing” and “bigotry” being carelessly thrown around without anything to support them.
Firstly, I have a post in this very thread detailing the control the LDS church exerts over its members in their daily lives. (194, I think it was.) This knowledge was derived from my own experiences as a wee little Mormon in Happy Valley. (Utah Valley to the outsiders) in the 80s and 90s.)
Secondly, this is not the first such thread on Pharyngula in which Mormon culture, doctrine, and beliefs are discussed and dissected. Lynna, Red John, Kenbo and many others have contributed from their stores of knowledge and personal experience. Adding to this, each of us has spent time in ex-Mormon communities and has a fund of both anecdotal experiences, as well as numerous links and resources which we’ve shared with our curious friends here.
Thirdly, some people here have been on the receiving end of Mormon policy when it translates to bigotry in real life. Recent LDS intervention in the Prop 8 race has actually impacted the lives of people that you don’t even think about.
Well, if a star a million lightyears away exploded a million years ago, well, yes, we would only be seeing it now (and without the use of scary quotes). But I rather doubt that’s what’s meant; could you please elucidate?
It’s all a lie. Everything you taught them about the church was a whitewashed version that only vaguely resembles the truth, if at all.
What, because you’ve done the reading into the histories and the journals and the records? Guess what? So have I.
I’m not sure what happened with your little “miracle” there, but whatever it was, it wasn’t the supernatural. I know you’ll never believe that though. That you think your god is “good” because he deigned to “heal” one woman out of millions is just inane. If your god actually existed, he’d be the biggest fucking asshole ever.
I never said it was a miracle. I brought it up to illustrate the genuine nature of many experiences you hear. I don’t know if she got up to walk under her own power or if it was something else. I’m inclined to believe the former. But again, that’s not the point. You can believe whatever you want about my God. I don’t really care.
As one who went on a Mormon mission myself, let me say it was one of the most useless, pointless, soul-crushing (if such a thing existed) experiences of my life. You go door to door selling false hope at the price of 10% of their income, their social standing, their freedom of choice, their reasoning abilities, and ridiculous amounts of time. I’ll admit I was brainwashed into (mostly) believing the lies, but I, unlike you, woke up from the delusion.
Your mission experiences were yours, not mine. Go ahead and think I have no freedom of choice, or that I’m brainwashed and that I haven’t woken up. You don’t know anything about me. You don’t know anything about my mission. I don’t mind you pretending that you know what I’m “going through” and that you’ve “been there,” as though you’ve moved onto bigger and better things. If that makes you feel good, I’m happy to let you say or think anything you want. Just remember, your perceptions aren’t any more valid than mine simply because you have them.
Your self-righteous outrage is just ridiculous. The Mormon inability to accept any sort of critique or less than glowing adoration is indicative of the weakness of your position.
I can field honest criticisms. That’s not where my outrage came from. My self-righteous outrage came from self-righteous hatred on the part of those here and my reaction was entirely reasonable.
Just because your beliefs are sacred to you doesn’t mean I have to respect them when they are so incredibly obviously full of shit.
I didn’t say you had to respect them, I said you should be ashamed for using the same tactics to denigrate them that you hulk-rage about when other people use them against groups your liberal sensibilities think need to be protected. Hypocritical, condescending and patronizing. That’s what I get tired of.
I notice you fail to say that the LDS church is wrong about homosexual behavior being immoral.
Wrong according to who? According to whose morals? Who’s the authority here?
Don’t persecute other people and then claim persecution. The fundies have that one copyrighted.
I didn’t claim persecution. I said your attitude is the type that leads to persecution. Not necessarily against Mormons, just against those who you disagree with. And then you admit to being a bigot towards those who you disagree with in this instance (Mormons). At least you’re being honest.
Don’t insult, oppress, and discriminate against pagans and they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass what your cult does to its members.
I’m not. Mormons aren’t. Your assertion that Mormons “create” anti-Mormons holds about as much water as saying evolutionists “create” creationists. Your prejudices are your own, and what you choose to direct them towards is your choice.
I say you and your entire religion is based on the idea (hope) that someone in your church can see into the future.
Not true. Anyway, I have far too much to keep up with right now to discuss this. Maybe later.
And if I believe, on moral grounds, that women should remain silent in public, will you support my efforts at legistation?
I’d absolutely recognize your right to think what you want to think, even if I completely disagree with it. Unfortunately, you’d get nowhere. Supporting legislation is a COMPLETELY different question from supporting someone’s right to think what they want to think. You’re all convinced the LDS Church and its members can’t think what they want to think, that they should be disbarred from having thought or opinions that differ from yours.
Translation: my group of people are just as hypocritical as other people – they’re no better.
Absolutely, and I agree with you. People, in general, are selfish, short-sighted and hypocritical. Mormons are certainly no exception.
I do think that they have bought into a set of silly beliefs that are deeply at variance with the real world (which they are free to do, of course) and then they insist on building voting blocks based on these silly beliefs (which I will oppose as well as I can).
Fair, and you have every right to do so. But to act as though there’s some issue of legality in the Church’s tactics or position is absolutely ridiculous.
What I do not do is pretend that those feelings come from a perfect, all-knowing worthy authority. I do not tell myself that certain people are inferior because god tells me that they are.
That’s fine. I’ve gone through hell and back from others and from myself about my beliefs in God and my religion. You can believe that I am pretending all you like, and I will continue to believe that God is there and nobody gets hurt. But to imply that I think certain people are inferior because God tells me? No. That’s not how it works.
I’m telling you there is exactly zero evidence that god is going to do anything for these people and you telling them that he will is giving them false hope.
You’re telling me? As though you were there and you know? And you’ve established a criteria for what constitutes “evidence?” You’re joking, right?
I’m telling you they way you see the world is fine and dandy for you but there is no reason to believe that it has any basis in reality when concerning supernatural events or beings.
Actually, Mormons believe God is anything but supernatural. That’s why we’re not considered Christians by other religions. Mormons also believe miracles to be simply applications of natural laws that we do not fully understand–you know, like the ones that science discovers and plays with every day.
And the arrogance it takes to believe that speaking to a couple of well meaning but useful pawns for their church is going to change that for her is pretty damn astounding. You’d be doing her a world more of good if you took her to get treated for her malaria and left the proselytizing alone.
You are joking! I knew it! You call me out for my arrogance for telling a woman that I believe God is there for her, with the implication being that you know better! That you’d tell her, what, that God (probably) ISN’T there? Or just stay out of it, because you don’t want to get involved? You’re making a choice! Either you’re arrogantly telling her the opposite of what I have, or you’re choosing to leave it alone. If you leave it alone, what if you turn out to be wrong? Or what if a false hope based upon your false belief gives her enough strength to make it through the day? You’re criticizing me for something you have barely even thought through.
Oh, and since you don’t seem to have read the entire story, I didn’t attempt to convert either one of them. Like I said, they never even knew what church we were from.
The difference being that the Mormon church isn’t trying to make pre- or extramarital sex illegal, nor are they opposing homosexual behavior, they are opposing same-sex marriage, which are two separate things. They can do whatever the fuck they like within their own little tiny world, but when they start pushing legislation that infringes on the rights of minorities, they’ve lost all their “we are acting within our rights” privileges.
oops 6/1 against…thanks Kevin of Utah.
Not looking good there Bravestarr.
See into the future.
Well I expect that BraveStarr can’t defend this at all. That always happens when you challenge a Mormon about the meaning of the name Church of Jesus Christ of LATTER Day Saints.
How they could defend a multi billion dollar organization with this single concept as its core principal is past all understanding.
BraveStarr – I you are still reading this think it through one more time for your own sanity.
[quote]I’d absolutely recognize your right to think what you want to think, even if I completely disagree with it. Unfortunately, you’d get nowhere. Supporting legislation is a COMPLETELY different question from supporting someone’s right to think what they want to think. You’re all convinced the LDS Church and its members can’t think what they want to think, that they should be disbarred from having thought or opinions that differ from yours.[/quote]
Are you illiterate? The repeated thing has been “Fine, think what you want on your own time, but don’t legislate it!”
And you know I do this how? Which things? Talking out of your ass I see.
What religion and your church thrive on.
Please provide this evidence and I’ll be happy to concede.
Explain further please.
If you’d care to provide somethign establishing that God actually helped this woman I’d be happy to admit I’m wrong. And not I wouldn’t tell her there was no god, I’d do what i could to help her with real actually issues.
False dichotomy, there are other choices.
No again it is you who have not thought it through.
I notice you ignored some of my comments above, specifically dealing with 5013c status and what the church has done in the past with the ordination of blacks.
“You wouldn’t understand” is not an answer. Answer the question. Why doesn’t your god prevent malaria?
It’s your problem that you feel that way, not ours. Your religion is bullshit. It does not follow that you are a worthless person.
Applying your logic consistently, Mormons believe that all other religions are bullshit, so you must believe that everyone following those religions are worthless people. But you don’t quite feel that way, do you? So in your own experience, it is obviously possible to believe that a religion is bullshit without believing that its followers are worthless.
Loving requires no interpretation. It is as explicit as it possibly could be. Here, look, I’ll quote it for you:
“Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man”
You aren’t qualified to speak about morals, bigot.
The denial of a benefit, such as Medicare, based on nothing more substantial than invidious discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation, is quite obviously morally wrong. It is deliberately choosing to harm one person, relative to others, because you hate them for their sexual orientation.
The denial of a benefit, such as Medicare, based on nothing more substantial than invidious discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation, is also legally and Constitutionally wrong. It is the denial of the equal protection of the law because you hate them for their sexual orientation.
So even if marriage was a benefit — and it is a right, but for the sake of argumentation — it would still be morally, legally and Constitutionally wrong to deny it to one group and extend it to others based upon sexual orientation.
Still sore about losing polygamy?
It’s not the same, because polygamy concerns marrying several people, while the arrangements in question here concern marrying only one person. With gay marriage, everyone would at least be permitted to marry one person who they love. There is currently no restriction upon straight people marrying at least one person who they love. The right to marry this one person is being denied only on the basis of sexual orientation.
Mind you, I’m not saying that polygamy should necessarily be illegal. It’s just not the same thing.
The repeated flameouts on this thread are precisely why I hope I can stop myself at, “I don’t believe in the supernatural, and therefore I don’t espouse your religion or any other,” and don’t get to the part about, “And furthermore, the institution you support espouses evil beliefs A, B, and C, and is carrying out X, Y, and Z injustices in the world.”
The first part is easy enough for them to accept, although I frequently receive their pity. It’s when they tell me they feel sorry for me that I start bringing up the latter until they call me a horrible bigot for ridiculing their beliefs, ignoring everything I’ve actually said.
Bravestarr is very good at not answereing certain questions and in fact returning questions when things get awkward.
Oh and to answer your earlier claim :
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,640196840,00.html
It is noticeable that although Utah takes more anti-depressents than ANY other state (possibly up to twice the US average), it is apparently the happiest place on earth…
…well, according to the mormons.
Again, nobody’s disputing their legal rights.
I notice you fail to say that the LDS church is wrong about homosexual behavior being immoral.
So are you a hateful bigot like the rest of them, or are you a moral coward who’s afraid to speak up?
Probably a moral coward, bravestarr, since you are currently running from the question.
False dichotomy… It wouldn’t occur to me to tell anyone what my personal delusions are, nor to go out of my way to argue, de-facto, that god doesn’t exist. I think doing either of those things uninvited is fucking anti-social.
What, you HAD to make a choice to do one or the other? It didn’t occur to you to just mind your own fucking business about the existence of god to this person? Like I said… anti-social…
Wow… took a long time, but Pascal’s Wager finally makes an appearance. Well done, moron… I mean mormon…
Nice thing to say… now prove it. There are lots of ways to encourage someone and give them hope without having to lie to them about rewards that don’t exist… that’s as dysfunctional is telling kids they will burn in hell if they misbehave… sure it might get the desired results, but there are going to be unintended consequences when you use slimy fear / false-hope tactics to bring about desired behavior.
Shiny, shiny mirror…
Bullshit! Don’t you dare sugar-coat your uninvited proselytizing about your god by saying you ‘left out some details”. You were trying to spread the word about YOUR god and YOUR beliefs to people that did not ask you for it. Keep it to your fucking self. Why can’t you get that?
I’m done discussing opinion with people. It’s a waste. If you want to think the church is evil, go ahead. If you’re an atheist, enjoy yourself. I disagree on both points, but that is my belief and my opinion. I’m not going to keep trying to convince you of the fact that you’re not any more correct in your beliefs and opinions than I am. If it helps you to sleep at night knowing God doesn’t exist and the Mormon church is out for world domination, knock yourselves out.
Actually, assuming anything about what people you’ve never met and know nothing about understand makes you the bigger asshole, dude… you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Do you have any idea how many ex-mormons and religious historians there are on this site, in this thread alone?
I’m an asshole why? Because I defended myself and my family and friends against a blanket accusation of being liars? What does who is here have anything to do with that?
Mysterious ways, blah blah blah… that’s a hand-waving non-answer.
Be careful about criticizing me for hand-waving, because that’s all anyone here seems to be doing to me.
If you are unable to separate the two or even contemplate how you could be as good a person without it, then yup… you got it.
Missing the point. I never said I couldn’t be a good person without it. I stated the fact that part of WHO I AM comes from those sources.
but your mormon religion isn’t content to do that, so fuck your religion, and fuck you for coming in here and needlessly defending it like you were being personally attacked. Fuck off already.
Ok.
Look, I’d love to stick around and have a decent, honest discussion with anyone willing but as you might guess I’m not feeling very welcome. Not only that, but I have work to do. I’m not really big on these kinds of long, drawn-out, go-nowhere, debates anyway, and my intention wasn’t to get sucked into one. I commented because I was offended by the insulting generalizations being thrown around towards people I know to be honest, straightforward, good, decent, admirable human beings and an organization which throughout my entire life has served to foster those qualities in its members. Maybe commenting was a mistake, because all most here seem interested in doing is bringing the whole thing down. For what purpose, I can only guess. But I’m not going to become a better person by pointlessly defending a point of view you all have absolutely no interest in considering, and I have other things I can be doing.
If anyone is actually interested in discussing instead of telling me why I’m wrong, list an email address. I’ll check the thread later and send you an email. One on one, I can do that. But no more of this mess here.
Oh look, I found the coward’s evasive answer:
You, bravestarr. I am asking if homosexuality is wrong according to you. If I wanted to know the fucking church’s opinion I would read their fucking website.
What a shitty, pathetic, cowardly evasion that was. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Do you want a medal or something? If you’re too blind to see that your church’s foundation is not “a rock” but rather a steaming pile of shit, that just makes you an idiot, not some super-special soldier of “god”.
Take your persecution complex and be gone…
OH NO GUYS, HE’S LEAVING BECAUSE HE’S OFFENDED.
I’ll accept your invitation to discuss ‘Seeing into the future’
My email is Jim @ SETI dot net
Looking forward to it.
If Bravestarr wanted a more open and less hostile thread he should have come before James started talking to us. I’m afraid he left us less than impressed with mormonism. He also left us angry and brought up old resentments (there are ex-mormons her yknow)
Look Bravestarr, i’m sure you are a nice guy really, but you took rights from my people in underhanded and unconstitutional ways. You did it on the say so of people you don’t really agree with and then you tell me that you don’t like being told off for it, and that we are bigoted for doing so.
The actions of the mormon church have hurt many people. Some are right here on this thread. It isn’t directly your fault, but you waded into the middle of it, so now you are involved.
Welcome to Pharyngula. Be careful what you say. It will be used against you.
Why is it SO HARD for people to read the entire thread for full comprehension?
A) Plenty of people said they didn’t care what Mormons believed, as long as they weren’t backing legislation to deprive them of their rights. The church as an institution ACTED to deprive people of their rights, with the implication that if members didn’t fall in line, they wouldn’t be supporting the authorities WHILE denying to the mainstream public that it was a church action. They took the battle to other people. They are TOTALLY open for criticism on that point.
B) Once AGAIN: The generalisations you are jumping up to defend against come with context and history–there are OTHER people sharing their stories, and THAT is what people were commenting on. Since Bravestarr hadn’t been commenting in this thread til that point, we couldn’t very well have been commenting on his family and friends specifically, but rather on the previously mentioned anecdotal evidences shared by ex-Mormons in Pharyngula. (As stated multiple times, this is not the only time we’ve discussed Mormon culture or the experiences of ex-Mormons and Mormons.)
C) People who would love to have a decent honest discussion defending their religion don’t storm an atheist/secular board, throw around religious assertations, while starting off by saying “Fuck you.” Also, presumably people who would love to have a decent honest discussion defending their religion might reasonably admit that the HONEST experiences shared by ex-Mormons here are true, even if they haven’t had those experiences themselves. Instead there seems to be a presumption that all the non-Mos are speculating and making shit up.
Are all the trolls gone? I still have popcorn…
Nobody expects the Mormon Inquisition!!
Seriously, I do love seeing a troll get skewered, but it’s 72 degrees and sunny out here, and we don’t get a lot of that in Texas. SIWOTI is killfiled. I’m going to the park.
He’s run to hide in his delusion.
He can’t stand the fact that we think his religion is as much a lie as he thinks all the other religions he doesn’t share are! He can’t stand to know that from an objective perspective he has about as much “higher truth” as he thinks a Scientologist has. People get very sensitive when the scope they use to judge others is used to examine them.
I notice that religious folks have a hard time separating a fact from an opinion. I can’t tell if religion makes people stupid or if the stupid are just more likely to exhibit the gullibility of the religously deluded. They don’t seem to have any awareness as to how the majority is perceiving them.
They are cute when they are angry though. I’m glad he stopped by to inflict his self righteousness upon us. The replies were wonderful.
So he’s telling himself he stopped by this website to defend his religion because he can’t separate it from himself and those he loves. His religion is good because he believes it to be good.
I think he stopped by to gain some points in his head game.
So are the non-Curlys, but I’m not so sure about the non-Larrys.
I suppose some congratulations are in order for someone, possibly some Moes, for producing trolls who are a bit more literate than the usual stone-for-brains. That is, they can write intelligible sentences within common norms of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Expressing coherent thoughts seems rather iffy, and actual reasoning is rare-to-nonexistent.
There’a all the usual goal moving, avoiding questions, yadda yadda yabba dabba doo. Plus an astonishing unwillingness to even try and see another person’s point-of-view. And not enough goats on fire.
I think it’s funny that he railed on us for not considering his point of view while he didn’t even seem to read much before jumping in with his opinions, presumptions, and insults of the entire group.
And then he tells himself that he was just trying to have an honest decent conversation– as if saying something makes it true.
Religionists demand respect for their opinions that they never give to those with conflicted faiths. They see their bigotry as “free speech” and our responses as a personal attack to them, their family, and all others who’ve been indoctrinated with the magical story they feel so damn special for believing.
I’m quite sure that if one of us popped up at a woo site, they’d be far less inviting than we are here. I don’t go to woo sites, but when they spout off here, I feel like they are giving me a personal invitation to share my opinion of them with them(“do unto others”…)
bravestarr @664
Hello, bravestarr, I understand and commend your comment requesting proof for the statement that residents of Utah use more anti-depressant drugs than those in other states. That research has been presented numerous times on previous threads. We tend to assume that everyone is aware of it, including Utah residents (it was covered in the Salt Lake Tribune, among other sources).
Please feel free to google a report done in 2001 by Express Scripts, or check the Eli-Lilly website. This report covers health and psychological problems in Utah in a more general way. It includes statistics for suicide, Prozac usage, and other mental health issues. Here some an excerpts:
@Red John (#70):
Isn’t it obvious? You misunderstood.
For 23 years.
(Probably because you’re a hellbound ex-mo unbeliever like me.)
#727
Yes but you need to understand that the bitter resentment, crushing regime, abuse, substance abuse, suicides and lies documented time and time again by OTHER ex-mormons are all perfectly balanced out by Bravestarr’s happy and iydillic existence.
Their blatant attacks on the constitution, mistreatment of women and interference in californian politics are all because they love us and want us to be happy in our magic underwear.
bravestarr @657
You are quite right to call me out for generalizing about the experience of returned missionaries when I should have specified that I was reporting the experiences of specific returned missionaries. However, it should be obvious from the context that I was not accusing you of lying. You had not even appeared yet in this thread. I don’t know what the fuck you mean by “marginalize me and what I did”. My intention is to put you front and center.
I’m glad to hear that you had a good experience on your mission, and, again, I apologize for generalizing when I should have been specific. Here are some specifics:
Now let’s turn to the question of who am I and what have I done that might even remotely compare to your great sacrifices? I give money to people like Doctors Without Borders, who can do things I can’t do. Here’s what I can do, I shovel the long driveway and walks of my neighbor who has heart trouble. I’ve done this for five years. We get a lot of snow. When my right arm was in a sling for three months, I did the shoveling one-handed (with a foot-kick at the shovel to put the snow up on the piles). I have never expected anything in return, and I don’t take advantage of my neighbor’s vulnerability. I do not expect her to listen to my philosophy or beliefs. I’ve never even spoken to her about her religion, except to find out when she drove to church so that I could make sure her driveway was cleared in time.
I raised two wonderful children, and I have gone without so they could eat and be clothed. I help my brothers and my neighbors whenever they need my help.
“Shame” is a strong word for generalizing about missionaries, so, no I’m not ashamed of myself. But I did apologize, as you should consider doing.
How did she get from “lying on the ground” into a bed that she got out of?
Perhaps you were not lying, but were mistaken, or left out important details.
What are you referring to, here? What “events” can be seen that have not yet occurred?
In contrast to James’ insistence on “secular” and teleological arguments based on the naturalistic fallacy — or so it might appear.
How is homosexual behavior immoral?
So they’re in favor of denying people rights based on religious bigotry. How is this not in violation of the Constitution?
Interesting. Are you not attracted to members of the opposite sex? Does this have something to do with your sympathy for gays?
I am.
Assuming that enforcement would live up to the letter of the law, if they (the LDS church) want to keep their 5013c status they can not do what they did.
Once again referencing 1978 where the IRS threatened taking away their tax-exempt status if the ban on ordaining blacks was not lifted.
It a total surprise, the leaders received a divine revelation that it was now time to allow the
nigge..blacks be ordained.PixelFish @696
LOL. Just had to repeat that, because I love it. :-)
Whoops, sorry PixelFish, the quote from you, the one I’m loving, was in comment #695, not 696.
Brigham-Fucking-Young-with-a-dildo it’s taken me fucking DAYS to sign in here. FUCK.
This sign-in system needs a major fucking overhaul.
Oh, and the Mor(m)on idiots who’ve breezed through here- a hearty and heart-felt FUCK YOU for your concerted and despicable bigoted actions against your fellow citizens. SCUM.
bravestarr says:
“If we take marriage to be a right, then the government’s refusal to grant it to gay couples is unconstitutional on the same grounds as Loving v. Virginia (interracial couples).”
Well holy, sanctified shit! So, you know, when I was young, this kind of thing would have slipped past me. But being married to a black woman for a couple decades and having a mixed ethnicity child will change a guy…
Are you really trying to use Loving to justify the legality of taking away the rights of gays to marry as they choose? Because Prop 8 was voted up. That’s what took away the right that gays already had to marry in California. Proposition 8 amended the constitution because it any mere ‘law’ against gay marriage was unconstitutional.
Because your statement sounds an awful lot like “well, we lost on interracial marriages, but we haven’t lost yet on teh gays.” The mind boggles. When I first left the Church I used to defend it as a decent social system that I just lacked the faith to belong to, but the more present-day Mormons I encounter, the more I realize that not only is it full to the brim with bigots now, but that it always was. More and more, I conclude that not leaving the Church is a moral failing.
In the Word Of God (so far as it is translated correctly) of Luke 6:43
“For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
Good catch about the bed, owlmirror. The whole story is so anecdotey that it’s hard to tell what, if anything, actually happened. I mean, why would he “never breathe a word about that experience” UNTIL NOW? What was the point of such an anecdote? Weird.
And who asks white strangers in funny clothing to bless them? Do other religions give out blessings? Where would someone get the idea to ask some passing stranger for a BLESSING rather than actual help?
The more I think about the little anecdote, the more untrue it sounds.
Glad this thread is winding down. The Mormons didn’t get to the “we’re going to herd all you pagans into concentration camps and gas you” stage. Yet.
With 6 million US Mormons, 60 million No Religions, and 310 million citizens, there is a big disconnect from what they want to do and what they actually can do. And Fort Douglas is still there just in case.
Just going to point out that some states and many countries do have gay marriage. Canada is one IIRC. Guess what? The world didn’t end. No one is being forced to marry their dog at gunpoint.
What did happen is….nothing much.
This is what happened when the USA promoted the majority of the population, women, to full citizenship. The Mormon church fought the ERA bitterly seeing as how they are an incredibly male dominated, patriarchal misogynistic religion. What happened after the ERA was de facto passed by the courts and laws was….nothing much. Roughly half of all med, law, and vet school students are women and the world didn’t end.
Raven @ 739: Just to nitpick a tiny bit…when you say nothing much happened, you mean nothing much happened to the people who were already privileged with regards to marriage. Their marriages did not cease functioning, their lives continued on as normal.
However, for many many glbt folks, being able to participate in legally recognised marriage is a BIG thing. It’s just that it didn’t end up causing the apocalypse the way the naysayers imagined.
I point this out because I don’t want straw-graspers to say, well, if nothing much happened, then why’d you fight so hard for it.
The privileged folks often don’t see the immediate results of the changes.
Hey bravestarr –
You can go fuck yourself. Multiple times. I wasted two years of my life on a mission for your fucking church. I got called to Salt Lake City of all places. Not only do I know from having seen what the other missionaries would pull to get some baptisms to report, I had the privilege of meeting hundreds of returned missionaries (many from countries like the one you describe) who told me the stories of missionaries pulling all kinds of shit: inviting people to ‘pool parties’ and then baptizing them, getting district leaders to sign blank interview forms and filling them out right after meeting someone so they could baptize them on the spot, etc. In fact, with the kind of stuff that happens in the LDS missions, how anyone can still think that some kind of intelligent god is in charge of them is beyond me. There is something seriously fucking wrong with you, so spare me (and the rest of us) the self-righteous bullshit you came here to spew.
@Lynna
Here, let me try again, in case anyone is still interested.
@brent.rasmussen
Yeah, and god is going to answer our prayers one day; it will just be in his time. We just need to keep trying :)
I note that bravestarr complained about being referred to as brainwashed. I really can’t see why. It seems to me that people were just being polite.
Given that modern science has shown that much of the book of mormon is complete hogwash, you’d either have to be brainwashed, or a complete moron, to believe it.
Thanks, Red John, for the corrected link @741. And look, an early adopter of excessive exclamation marks!!
A model, perhaps for future fanatics.
I have just read this thread (except for some of bravestarr’s longer screeds, TL;DR).
Damn, James kept repeating his fallacies even after the holes were pointed out. I guess he figured that if he kept repeating himself everyone would accept his arguments. He didn’t know about how Pharyngula is permeated with SIWOTI syndrome.
bravestarr came charging in here with a massive chip on his shoulder. In his very first post, #657, he told us:
He then got bent out of shape when nobody fell over themselves apologizing about not being in love with the Mormon church. Finally he left in a huff.
All in all a good thread.
Pixelfish, I just read your post at #194. Very nice. I could fill in details about the temple stuff should anyone want it.
@Lynna
Wow, 16 in one sentence. Impressive.
Please do, Red John.
Red John: Share away. I know most of it already because of reading various ex-Mo sites, but I almost never address the particulars, it being the one thing I don’t have actual experience of. (Well, and going on a mission, but there’s no big secrecy surrounding a missionary’s day-to-day life, and I know a lot from letters from brothers, cousins, and friends.)
Raven,
Just a nitpick here: The LDS Church claims 6 million members in the US, but that number includes people like me — secular humanists who haven’t yet jumped through the hoops necessary to remove our names from their infernal rolls. In fact, there’s a large percentage of that 6 million that are completely lost to the church. It doesn’t know where the people are, or whether they’re even still alive. So, just to be safe, the LDS Church keeps them on the rolls until they would be 110 years old.
So, of that 6 million “members,” only 3 million, at most, are actual church-goers. And, probably only about 2 million are stalwart enough to pay tithing and go to the temple, etc. — i.e., the Kool-Aid drinkers.
Maddening that such a small number can buy so much political clout, isn’t it?
750 comments yet the thread could have ended at around 300. Gosh the SIWOTI was just too strong.
I just spent the last several hours reading this thread from comment 50 to comment 725. It’s now past 3 at night. If James has returned, he’s probably been banned for insipidity and stupidity, and the guy who called himself “brave” has fled, because his delicate sensibilities were offended, instead of staying and discussing all the way to agreement like a scientist would…
See?
As has meanwhile been explained in comments 204, 230, 300, and 349, the idea that anything that wasn’t deliberately made by a living being has a purpose is a purely religious argument.
“Purpose” implies intent. When there’s nobody to have intent, there’s no purpose. There are just things that happen.
Thus, as I implied in comment 49, there has never been an argument against gay marriage that wasn’t founded on religion, ignorance, or both. (The combination is the most common of these three.)
And this means that to vote against gay marriage is forbidden by the First Amendment – never mind the Fourteenth!
What have I overlooked?
Well, “involuntary will” is a contradiction in terms anyway, so… :-)
It didn’t, it’s much older than that. As has been pointed out repeatedly, homo- and bisexuality have both been observed in every single vertebrate species that has been watched for long enough. They are by no means exclusive to humans.
Completely irrelevant what they are. Marriage, love, sexual attraction, and sexual acts are four different things.
Marriage is a social affair, a certain kind of contract between private persons and society at large.
Please explain yourself.
Verily, thou understandest the duties of a sibling. It is a delight. =8-)
1) Because it doesn’t harm anyone?
2) Why do you specify “male”? Is homosexuality in the female human sex* OK with you? Where’s the difference?
3) What makes you think a therapy is even possible?
* Not gender. That’s something else, as has been explained repeatedly by now.
Porphyritic. Four syllables. :-)
Male homosexuality runs in families and is correlated to increased female fertility in the same families. This is really hard to explain without a genetic component.
At the same time, there does seem to be one other cause: the more older brothers a guy has, the more likely he’s to be gay.
Male homosexuality is also correlated to the relative lengths of the index finger and the ring finger, which means hormone levels in early pregnancy are involved.
It’s telling that I’m not aware of research into female homosexuality, except that I seem to remember that the finger length correlation holds for lesbians, too.
I have no qualms whatsoever about saying that all of these are natural.
Note I didn’t say “good”. I said “natural”. You are the one here who confuses these terms.
Here you go again, mixing up terms in order to confuse yourself.
Marriage – that contract template I mentioned above – is necessary for civilized societies? Show me.
“Union”? I think you’re using that word deliberately so you can claim that sex is the same as marriage – which, well, it’s not.
And why do you suddenly mention civilization? Is civilization natural?
Sounds like a misunderstanding on your part. Show me it’s not one.
Oops, the link in my comment should go here.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask about that.
I also forgot to ask James to provide the evidence he claims was predicted by the Book of Mormon. So far, he has asserted several times repeatedly that such evidence exists, but has never mentioned any. Put up or shut up, as we scientists say.
Well, this is pretty accurate:
Do you have to do the whole rigmarole every time you go to the temple… or just the first time?
And I thought that Catholic mass was weird. Thanks for the summary.
Tal Bachman says that he asks Mormons, “If Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet, would you want to know?” before he discusses his leaving the church with them.
I think that’s an interesting question.
I’ve seen Normalbobsmith ask a similar question: “If God didn’t exist would you want to know?” (If they said yes, I’d follow it up with, “how do you imagine you’d find out?”)
@articulett:
You can either do several initiatories (just like you do multiple baptisms for the dead each time you do that) or one endowment session each time you go back. The first time is the only time you have to do both together.
And something weird that I just thought of: why does the Mormon church want to keep all of this so secret? Do they think that you can fool god at the veil if you know all this stuff or something?
Probably because it sounds like a run-of-the-mill cult indoctrination. Easy to blow off academically, but it can be a powerful experience in person, as can any cult, especially to those with low self-esteem or weak minds (No offense to you as an ex-Mormon, we’ve all been sold a bill of goods once or twice).
I think the idea of a secret is to make it something more valued via “the grass is greener” kind of thinking. It also encourages an us vs. them mentality– in group amity and out group enmity.
The Mormon church lets people in their church before they bless it or consecrate it or whatever it’s called, and then after that only “temple worthy” folks can go in. It makes people want to see what they’re missing when, otherwise, they’d never go into a temple.
I think religion is all about making the members feel like they have something special that others don’t have. Believers believe they are in on “higher truths” and have the “gift of faith”– something you “can’t be truly happy (or moral) without”, etc. It’s easier to think than non-believers as “missing out”. The atheist makes all believers aware that their beliefs are as “silly” as those other beliefs they privately mock. And for good reason. So the faithful are stuck in a loop where they must surround themselves with constant proof and supportive folks that confirm their beliefs are true.
I found the Normalbobsmith site where he asked people whether they’d want to know if there was no god: http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail200.html I think he has some great flyers too. (Warning: this site is extremely offensive to christians but great fun for most heathens.)
I always wonder what brings believers in “magic” to skeptic sites and why they feel compelled to comment–what do they imagine the result will be? And why do they seem to expect so much more respect than they give? I wonder how they’d treat someone with a conflicting superstition that invaded their gathering of like minded folks. Why don’t they recognize that the arguments they use could be used just as easily by someone with a belief they find nutty?
The Mormon forum link was interesting… especially the pix at the top (white kids in white robes) and the various avatars. The posters seemed so naive. It reminds me of the “rapture ready” forum. But I’d never comment at such a site, so I’m always curious when they inflict themselves on skeptics. It seems like they need us to believe that we are missing something or that we want to be more like them in order to convince THEMSELVES their woo is true. Bravestarr came in here telling everyone “fuck you” and then told us WE should be ashamed of OURselves? The Dunning-Kruger irony is simply astounding in the religious. I don’t think any one here needs to be ashamed of anything except those who are apologizing for a crazy religion that causes real harm.
I had Catholicism inflicted on me as a kid, but my best friend was Mormon, and I spent many a slumber party being told that I wouldn’t go to the “highest heaven” because I’d heard the truth (Mormonism) and rejected it.
So what you are saying, and what BraveStarr was probably thinking was that no true Mormon would ever need Prozac.
Ah yes…
and if they needed Prozac, they were clearly not a true Mormon.
I suspect that not talking about it was because (looking at it from a biased Mormon post-hoc perspective) it sounds like boasting.
That is, I think the implication or inference hinted about the two events — the giving of the blessing, and then the woman being able to get up and walk — is that those hearing about it are supposed to think that they were causally connected, or might have been causally connected, possibly via some supernatural healing event.
Perhaps the request actually was for help, and the blessing was given afterward. But I agree that the story sounds very confused. Of course, the comment was very angry and agitated, so what was left out might not have been entirely deliberate.
I’m not sure that it’s untrue (well, I think the inference that the supernatural was involved is false) so much as missing important details, and a skeptical analysis.
——————
There were many responses to James’ naturalistic fallacy, but some thoughts did occur to me.
The term “father” can refer to an individual who has different roles in someone’s life. It can mean both the originator of the sperm that was the source of half of that person’s genome, or the person who was the primary male caretaker of that person during infancy and childhood. Usually this is the same person, but stepparents and adoptive parents demonstrate that this need not be the case.
For that matter, the originator of the sperm need not be the one that delivers it to where it can swim to the egg. Again, this is usually performed by the same individual, but in the case of donated sperm, the fertility clinic doctor handles that part.
So someone could have three fathers: the man that originated the sperm, a (male) doctor who delivered the sperm, and the man who helps raise the child.
According to Christian scripture (specifically, Luke 1), this was pretty much what happened with Jesus: God the Father produced the sperm, God the Holy Spirit delivered the sperm, and Joseph provided the caretaking of the infant and child Jesus.
Jesus had three daddies.
Note that the one that actually married Mary was the caretaker. If Joseph could marry Mary without being the provider of the sperm that became Jesus, two women could just as easily marry each other despite not being the father of any children they might have as a couple.
Of course, neither sperm delivery nor caretaking require testicles nor penis, and so the ones responsible for those could be women just as easily.
Analogously, the egg provider, womb provider, and (other) caretaker are usually the same woman, but need not be, with egg donation, host mothering, and adoptive parenting and stepparenting.
Although, now I come to think of it, there’s the recent research into the biology of the gonads which suggests that they could be treated with a suite of hormones and/or hormone blockers such that they might produce gametes of the opposite type — ovaries producing sperm, and testes producing eggs. Add artificial wombs or even just make host mothering easier, and any two people at all could have children.
——————-
All the above is beside the point inasmuch as marriage is distinct from parenting. It need not even have anything to do with any sexual attraction between the man and the woman involved. Despite James’ pathetic protestations about being against marriage “institutionalizing” same-sex (or same-gender) attraction, there is nothing in any marriage license that requires the partners involved to have heterosexual attraction.
It would explain the incredulity expressed here: Because being Mormon makes you happy and satisfied, and not being happy and satisfied belies your “true” Mormonism, then you’re not likely to share the fact that you’re taking antidepressants with your Mormon friends. Hence the incredulity and offense at us disrupting their negative feedback loop.
Sorry, that last post was @Articulett, 761. I thought such a quick post would immediately follow, but this is a very active thread.
“Perhaps the request actually was for help, and the blessing was given
afterwardinstead.” FIFYarticulett- “I always wonder what brings believers in “magic” to skeptic sites and why they feel compelled to comment–what do they imagine the result will be? And why do they seem to expect so much more respect than they give?”
I wanted to add my perceptions to what you’ve noted here.
(Caveat- I’m a 48 year-old gay man who has lived his entire life in a generally hostile culture, although my own road has been fairly turbulence-free. I was brought up without religion, and my friends and family have accepted me for who I am. Loki, your post tore me up. I’m so sorry for the rejection you’ve had to endure as you walked your own path. No one should have to experience that on the road to maturity.)
Anyway, up until the prop 8 fiasco in California, I had very limited experiences with Mormons. I held my own opinions about what little I knew of their loopy beliefs. But I was a live and let live kind of guy. But after repeated confrontations with Mormons here on Pharyngula and elsewhere, I have an entirely different attitude about them.
The pattern is always the same- apologist LDSers show up to confront us on our “intolerance” and “bigotry”. Their initial stance is anger at the expressed vitriol to their actions in the political sphere. We have misunderstood their position, and are attacking a strawman. They have a rational, entirely understandable position as to why they fight so hard to deny gays our rights. We are looking at the situation from a completely fallacious angle. They show up willing to discuss the issue and clarify their position, as long a we can maintain a civil discourse.
But what invariably occurs is a gradual disintegration of that “civil, rational” stance. That polite, “it’s nothing personal” veneer is just that- a veneer. And the longer they stay, the more apparent it becomes. Eventually the mask slips, and what is revealed is a monstrous, nearly inhuman arrogance that starts with the presupposition- gays are not fully human, therefore in no sense do they deserve equal civil rights. Sooner or later, they reveal the hate beneath their actions. It’s like they feel some kind of need to be open about it eventually, usually after their “arguments” have been repeatedly demolished by the other posters, and they fall back on the only thing that remains- the truth. Why do they stay when this point is reached? They seem to need to come clean about it. Is it pride, or a buried sense of guilt? A need to demonstrate the massive hubris usually hidden from outsiders? Only they know.
But the pattern is always the same. Every. Frickin. Time.
These days, when a Mormon shows up, I know exactly what to expect, because I have a much more accurate idea of the kind of brainless, thoughtless anti-human stance these people are asked to embrace by their “church”.
I didn’t used to know this, but I do now. Because they’ve shown me.
RickR,
My experience with Mormons is similar to yours. There were some very civil people willing to put up a decent argument and than others who just spewed bigotry. But every one of them end up with them just afraid of their beliefs being shattered.
RickR,
Having worked for a company founded, run, and managed by Mormons (the SLC fundamentalist kind), I’ve also found that in addition to their initial overly-agreeable, sunny disposition, they seem to have no qualms being cheerfully ruthless in business. I’m not accusing Mormons of being criminals, and also I don’t doubt that many, probably a majority, of Mormons aren’t like that, but it seems to be a pretty rampant problem. Perhaps it has something to do with (1) being part of God’s chosen people and (2) doing so much “good” elsewhere, what with giving all that money and time to the LDS Church and even giving dead people a chance to enter Heaven.
GHP, I would say that, from what I’ve seen, it isn’t fear that their beliefs might be shattered, it’s offense- offense that their view that they are indeed our “betters” is being questioned and confronted. Of course their beliefs should be privileged and enshrined in our laws. This idea that all people are equal under the law is wrong. We are, indeed, less than fully human, and they really are entitled to tell all the rest of us how we should live, and what rights we should have. It’s simply an unspoken certainty. It lies at the bottom of all their arguments. I see it over and over, whether from a “raving loony” or the sober “rational” poster. Eventually it boils down to this simple idea-
Some are destined to rule, and the rest are destined to serve.
(I don’t think this view is restricted to gays. It’s just that we are the current target of their efforts. But all non-mormons are in this “other” category.)
Bravestarr said:
Fixed it for you.
Yes, they need to do a lot of semantic gymnastics to see our conversation about Mormonism and Rammell’s delusions of grandeur as bigotry against “Mormons-in-general” (including them…) while their own bigotry against gays is merely free speech justified by god.
I’m really interested in hearing the questions they work so hard to avoid. Why are women never mentioned? Why would an organization spend so much money in denying rights to others– spreading hatred and fear? Aren’t there much better uses for such funds? (Of course, it wasn’t just the Mormons,the Catholics did it too.) What do they think will happen if gays are allowed the same rights as heterosexual couples? What the hell does James mean about every entity having an identity? What about his creepy illusion to ways of “seeing the future”? What was it that caused them to drop by this thread and how much did they read before they jumped in? What was their desired outcome?
While people can believe what they want–beliefs have consequences that affect others, and I don’t want Mormon beliefs influencing society any more than they want Muslim or Scientology beliefs influencing society. That’s the whole idea behind our secular government. I also think Mormonism gives heterosexual men a sense of exaggerated importance (they’re gods-in-training after all). I generally feel sorry for Mormon women because I think I’d need major doses of Prozac to survive in that religion too(talk about Stepford wives!), and I’m sure that it totally sucks to be a homosexual Mormon. I do wonder if those with the greatest homophobia are those who fear such desires in themselves.
On the other hand, I have a growing admiration of those who find their way out of this miasma. And I learn a lot in hearing from their experiences. To me, Mormons always seemed to be all about style without any attention to substance (or truth). It’s a shame that Joseph Smith has caused such damage to future generations. How long before this nuttery runs its course?
I think we live in really interesting times because it’s becoming increasingly obvious that there is no evidence for any kind of consciousness absent a material brain (not gods, demons, thetans, souls, angels, nor gremlins)– and yet humans seemed to believe in these things just as readily as they perceive the earth as flat. If there WAS evidence for any such things, scientists would be refining and honing that information, but the evidence keeps pointing back to the fact that humans are very good at making up entities and explanations when they don’t know an answer. And even if there were invisible undetectable entities, the fact that they have no measurable qualities means that no-one could know anything about such entities. There is no way to tell such entities from imaginary versions of such entities.
But every believer that comes here thinks that– not only do such entities exist– but they’ve been in touch with such entities! They KNOW what such entities think and want!! And yet they want to call us the arrogant ones! Incredible.
articulett @771: I’ll comment on 771, but several of your posts on this thread were a joy to read. It’s nice to see someone getting into the minds of mormons and figuring them out.
You’re right that mormons are often about style, about appearances. They work so damn hard on all that church stuff, with so little return (and so much boring repetition)– but their surface is polished enough to get the temple card. If it looks good to the Bishop, and to other church members, it is good. [Hand me the Prozac, honey.]
Lots of fronting goes on, including the ample display of smiles behind which no kindness lies. Frantic efforts to preserve positive PR values for the LDS Church also speak to a concern about appearances, at the expense of reform. (Dalllin Oaks and his don’t-say-anything-bad-even-if-it’s-true attitude.)
I think it’s likely that any reforms we do see in the future will be driven by financial needs, with concerns about doctrine (especially obedience) used as a false front for monetary concerns.
I’m a little worried about you articulett. Be careful wielding that skill of being able to think like a mormon. ~:)
Oh, yeah, one other comment you made struck a cord, and that’s the unbelievable sense of entitlement that comes wafting off mormon males so strongly that you can smell it even on the interwebs. You should see it in action on a daily basis. [Peter O’Toole scream].
Re: the question, Why do the faithful visit skeptic sites?
I’m sure there are several reasons why certain types of people like James and others bear their testimony on sites like this. But, one new, recently-added reason is this speech from Elder M. Russell Ballard to a graduating class at BYU-Hawaii, Dec. 2007:
…in the middle of a discussion about the internet and its impact on shaping people’s views about the church…
One thing the Jameses and Bravestarrs haven’t mastered is this requirement from Ballard, though:
So, my “prophecy” is that Pharyngula and other sites will continue to have an increased traffic of the Mormon faithful bearing their testimony and trying to “correct your misunderstandings” about their beliefs.
Personally, I think this approach will eventually backfire, at least in the short term. I don’t think the faithful have been sufficiently inoculated yet against the notions that cause the most cognitive dissonance to Latter-day Saints — i.e., The Book of Abraham, the way polygamy was actually practiced by J.S., et. al, Native American DNA and the Lamanites, and so on. But, it’ll be interesting to watch in the meantime.
Heh. ‘brave’starr ran, bravely ran away.
The ones who showed up here all acted like Zombies. Not metaphorical Zombies but like real ones. Robotic, not reading the thread, repeating the same church soundbites over and over like they were programmed.
It was very spooky and very alien. These aren’t the people I see every day or even run across once in while. I can see that either the cult brainwashing takes and you end up a Zombie or you leave the religion.
About the male entitlement. The few Mormon males I’ve met were mostly converts and most of them were the sad cases that cult religions scoop up. I’d have to defer to people who actually deal with the hardcore in Utah and Idaho.
But I can see how it would happen.
1. The LDS are told they are the Real Jews. That is why the call us “gentiles”. I always correct them and claim to be a pagan. The Israeli Jews are gentiles too. They lost the title of god’s chosen people somewhere. Calling themselves the Real Jews is important. It means they are now god’s chosen people.
2. The men get to be gods someday. They have 4 afterlives and the Celestial heaven leads to being a god. With your own planet just like earth and an unknown but huge number of goddesses to marry. The god and his harem of goddesses seem to spend most of their time fucking. We are all their chidlren, spirit babies pumped out by the wives and sent to earth.
So the Mormons are god’s chosen people and the men get to be gods someday. Women are perennial second class citizens and get to be eternal baby factories. Supposedly we have a god father and a god mother. Everyone knows about god, his favorite kid, jesus, and his bad kid, satan. No one knows anything about the nameless wives who do nothing but reproduce.
So I guess if you are god’s chosen people and heading for your own godhood, you can be smug. I can’t understand why the women hang around but I guess that is what all those prozac prescriptions are for.
None of this bears any resemblance to xianity and most xians do not consider them xians. There is also, of course, exactly zero proof for any of this. The scientologist’s Xenu the Galactic overlord and the Thetan ghosts are just as well documented.
:D
:D
:D
As I said way upthread, mormonism and Islam rule if you’re a hetero male…:-)
I’ve been thinking about the Mormon perspective on encountering sites like Pharyngula. There’s a number of things that almost always turn off a Mormon’s brain before it actually has a chance to engage:
Firstly, early Mormon history as it was taught to Mormons, is certainly full of persecution for their beliefs. They’ve been trained to think that this persecution (which did include being driven from their homes and in some cases, killed) is the efforts of Satan to keep the true church from spreading. They almost certainly have NOT been told that Joseph Smith had his own baby Mafia (the Danites) and destroyed a printing press (suppressing freedom of speech) and they only barely acknowledge the bloc voting tactics that did not endear them to their neighbours.
So the average Mormon has been taught that the outside world has a lot of misconceptions about Mormons. Thus they jump on errors like confusing mainstream Mormonism with the FLDS, even though both branches hold that Joseph Smith and his successor were true prophets. These little errors are the confirmation bias the TBM (True Believing Mormon) needs to show that his rhetorical adversaries have been lead astray by false knowledge. As I explained above, Mormons are really into the false dichotomies, so that means they will likely reject a number of factual statements if any of them come bundled with other errors. That’s why James probably clung so hard to his black elder–rather than seeing it for the statistical anomaly that it is, he regards it as proof that we were all wrong about the Mormon history of race. Nevermind the preponderance of evidence in the other direction, he has ONE thing proving us wrong….or so he thinks. And if we harp on him about it, it’s proof that Satan is working through us to get to him.
Another thing is: If you read my post at 194, you can imagine that most Mormons don’t have time to associate with other non-Mormons except maybe at their jobs. (And in Utah, as you might expect, there’s plenty of Mormons to hang out with in the workforce.)
My experience here is primarily about Utah Mormons (which is what I was) but they live in a monoculture for the most part. It’s not super healthy, although it’s hard getting them to realise it. One of these things is that you ALMOST NEVER see the results of what your privilege does to the non-privileged. Generally, they don’t know any out gay people. Generally, they know approximately two or three non-Mormons. (Maybe more now, but when I was a kid, I could tell you of only two non-Mormon kids in my circle of acquaintances initially. I met a few more when I went to Girl Scouts. The LDS may have their fingers all over the Boy Scouts, but they don’t have the same control over the Girl Scouts and I think that made a difference in my life.)
Anyway, take it as read that most Utah Mormons don’t know anybody other than….more Utah Mormons. And what they see is people who love their families, who work hard inside the church, blah blah blah. So when an outsider points out the effects of the LDS culture-machine that they haven’t seen to this point, they first deny. Then they become angry. This is their privilege being punctured and they have to either admit that their lifestyle lets them live a sheltered life while contributing to the suppression of others, and nobody likes thinking of themselves as the spoiled effete class. Specially when the oppression is systemic–they will deny their own place in the system, thinking, “I’m just living my life, why can’t they leeeeeave me alone?!” (Insert Chris Crocker here!) At some point you have to either realise that you are contributing to homophobia, misogyny, and racism by tacitly condoning the actions of the leaders, or you can bury your head back in your comforting dogma which privileges you.
When an angry gay or shrill feminist or uppity black person calls them out on their behaviour, they duck behind the safe curtain of dogma. “This is what I believe. You don’t have to believe it. If you don’t believe it, then just leave.” They ignore the cost of leaving, or ignore the notion that their actions could affect somebody who doesn’t believe as they do. Or in the case of Prop 8, REALISE that their actions affect people who don’t believe the same way they do, but think it’s justified to protect their own bubble of privilege. And because the church and the monoculture in which they live promotes ignorance about the conditions of these other people, they’ll throw them under the bus without thinking about the implications of that action. To them, all they’ve done is maintain the boundaries of the bubble. (Not that they can see they are in a bubble.)
Because they can’t see this privilege, they get befuddled and angry when you point it out, and again, they tend to switch off their empathy or brains as they retreat into defensive mode.
This is one of the reasons I regret leaving Utah, because sometimes I think I could do a lot of good just living around my family and friends and being an example of non-Mormon belief. On the other hand, the mental toll of being constantly bombarded with that privilege while lacking it (even if it’s through my own choice that I lack it) is pretty high. For my own sanity, I chose to leave.
Second mortgage anyone? Heheh. I wnder what the long term personal cost of all those donations were…
In defense of Bravestarr, I don’t think his story was supposed to be a miracle. She just got up and thanked him. She still had malaria.
Also if missionaries had been through before with supplies and medicines it wouldn’t surprise me if they knew the uniform. I’m quite willing to believe that he thought he was making a difference and she may well have asked for a prayer to be said. Its not that uncommon. Benefit of the doubt on this one.
Thing is, it didn’t compare to everyone elses horror stories. Nor was it that relevent to the thread…a strange thing to pick up on given all the other things he could have commented on.
Everything you need to know about mormons though has been said by James :
“Yes, and I choose to vote against gay marriage in my State. No offense.”
Fake smile, cold heart.
Give mormons any power and they will beat you into submission with it, and they will sell grandma to do it if they have to.
“struck a chord” — I knew that, and then let “struck a cord” get past me anyway. And that’s not the only typo I contributed. In fact, I can claim so many typos in this thread that I think I may have set a new personal record. Now I’m ashamed.
But, ashamed of calling the LDS Church on the bullshit aspects of its history and doctrine, no, I’m not ashamed of that even though our visiting mormons told me, “You should be ashamed!”
Well, they sorta, kinda get what they wanted.
BTW, Elder Ballard (see 772) was a major player in founding the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the organization that is intent on causing difficulties for our fellow citizens. He should have been more specific in instructing the mormon minions to bear their testimonies on the internet. He may not have realized that he needed to tell them, “Don’t begin the conversation with ‘Fuck off'”; and “Don’t prove that you’re a loony.”
After stirring up more controversy than he expected, Rex Rammell held a news conference in Idaho Falls yesterday. And I saw excerpts on local news last night. Rammell read a prophecy from former First President Ezra Taft Benson (adding more fuel to the prophecies quoted at the top of the invitation PZ posted). Then Rex added that he does not represent the LDS Church. Cognitive Dissonance anyone? He may not officially represent the church, but the effect in the real world is that he is representing The Church quite accurately.
My local news outlets are reporting that the LDS church had “no comment” on Rammell, but of course they issued a statement that did amount to a comment, saying that The Church is “politically neutral” and doesn’t support any candidate or platform. Right
If you want to go to Rex’s meeting, you can.
Source.
RevDumbChimp:
Your complete obfuscation of U.S. cultural treatment of the black race with its institutionalized racism of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc up through 1964 is astounding. Founding members of the LDS Church came out of this cultural setting and have lived in it for 130 years.
When you fail to account for all of the statements of LDS leaders from 1830 to the present, you paint a picture of LDS relations, policies and doctrines on the matter that cannot fit reality during any time in history.
As I stated before, Joseph Smith set the ideal order in the Church at a time for which Church members and the United States and even the world wasn’t completely culturally ready. He was the very first white leader in an all white Christian Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood – equal with whites in 1836. Your failure to acknowledge this is stingy, stubborn, and self-serving. Soon after, Joseph Smith put than man in a position of authority in one of the Church’s quorums of leaders: the Seventy.
This was no accident. This was a message from God. Blacks and all other races are equal in God’s sight.
The Book of Mormon emphatically teaches that “all are alike unto God.” The message has always been there – the doctrine has always been there.
Personally I would apply this to those who have same-sex attraction as well. But where the GLBT community gets it wrong is when they claim that same-sex attraction is “an equivalent ideal and naturally complimentary condition” for human females or males the same as heterosexuality.
Skin color is very different. Black males are equivalent to white males regardless of skin color. White females are equivalent to black females. The original basis for the contract of marriage was the complimentary relationship between male and female and their inherent founders of the human race as procreators, fathers, mothers, husbands and wives. Homosexual unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions by nature, function, use, identity, and action. Trying to paint the LDS Church has a “racist” organization to explain why they are against gay marriage is absurd. Why? The ONLY reason why the LDS Church is against gay marriage is because of 1) the reality that there are only TWO genders in the human species with a basic recognizable traits that are necessarily biologically complimentary for the existence, survival, and natural happiness of the human race; 2) there is no biological or anthropological purpose for same-sex unions within the human species; and 3) the belief that in the resurrection, there are no attractions of same-sex and there are no provisions for same-sex unions in eternity.
The GLBT community attempts to categorize these necessary gender realities as mere “roles” of human action that can be mimicked enough to provide an equivalence of the essence of that particular gender or sex. These attempts have failed and will continue to fail. They will not unite humanity or only serve to weaken or diminish the complimentary and necessary connections that human beings need to survive and thrive.
GLBT persons laud scientific discovery of the evolutionary origins of all life but fail to recognize its necessary identities. They deconstruct al entities related to gender in order to redefine any contradictions between their feelings and biological realities. For the GLBT community, nothing is “real” in the sense that it has definite identities – with GLBT advocates, all genders are nothing, indefinable, interchangeable, transcendent, and insignificant.
I believe that these beliefs betray the very essence and the true identity of what is “male” and what is “female” within the human species, and in that vein, in a small sense, are ignorant enemies against the human race.
Gay marriage will only continue to perpetrate this global homosexual hoax that gender is indefinable and insignificant. Such a pursuit is unacceptable to me.
Scientifically, homosexual attraction does not constitute a universal third gender. For some, homosexual attraction can be minimized or eliminated altogether.
When universal therapies exist to help human beings with same-sex attraction to align their attraction with their biological identity, what will the GLBT community do?
Will it fight against or halt scientific salvation or will it exalt the true nature and identity of what is male and what is female?
There’s a video of Rex Rammell responding to the controversy here http://www.kidk.com/news/local/80030117.html (you have to select the video below the invitation picture).
James, I see that you continue to insist that there are “only TWO genders” when the science showing you to be wrong was presented in comment 122, with a link to more information on that subject. This excerpt about the biological aspects of maleness and femaleness is only one part of the story, but you may as well start with it to correct your misapprehensions, since this is the easiest set of facts for you to digest without running into doctrinal difficulties.
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:
James (who has seems to have shown up again), previously said:
Again: References, please? (James has sofar not provided any references, citations, or so on, hence the asking yet again.)
Also again: And just where is “the Southern Arabia”? I assume “the southern Arabian Peninsula” is meant, albeit I expect the references James will kindly be providing will clear up this puzzle (with a great deal more precision).
Lynna, I think it says a lot about James’ ability to look at reality when he ignores all of the literature you have posted about the rank racism of his church and ignores you. Instead, he jumps all over Chimpy. Wait, but you are just a girl. No need to addess the likes of you.
And more of this gender shit. Quite telling that he goes out of his way to say that men are equal to men and the women are equal to women. I wish James would be honest and lay out what sort of role men are suppose to lead and those that are laid out for women.
Also what is very amusing is that James is treating something that he and his church conciser to be a sin as a medical condiction that can be “cured”.
James is being more verbose but it is still the same rank pile of shit he dumped out the other day.
Merry fucking Christmas, fuckface.
Boys keep swinging. Boys always work it out.
I am not a fan of Bowie but I just could not resist.
Firstly marriage is a world phenomenom with multiple variations and reasons. You do not speak for the world, nor its religions and in fact yours is one of the least recognised religions in the world. England had no problem seeing marriage for what it is. A legal contract shrouded in pointless sophistry and religion. It did the right thing.
Secondly you have still failed to tell me where a person born with both sex organs should fit. And I CAN’T wait to see what “universal therapies” you will use there!!! (Get religion, lose your uterus, keep your balls)
I also can’t wait to see you explain why nature should be referenced for a legal document. Or why said legal document should be denied for someone based on “nature”. Especially when animals in nature are quite happy to “go homo”.
Really, you are embarrassing. And what is worse is how little you realise how bad your arguments are.
Janine, you’re right that James did not address the scientific facts I presented, nor the historical record of The Church when it came to racism being overwhelmingly well-represented, but he did bother once to tell me that “it’s simple”. I could join the church, and if I didn’t agree with the principles, I would be excommunicated. Simple as that.
Yeah, I couldn’t help but notice that black women are equal to white women in James’ doctrine, but never shall those women, (be they black, white, or nicely brown), attain his exalted status of mighty penishood.
Wow. Okay. James is back. And he brought a shit-ton of bullshit with him.
Cite your claim. Otherwise you’re full of shit.
Bullshit. You’re conflating two concepts and falsely accusing a minority of dividing them. You have a bit to learn about sociology. And we gays didn’t make up sociology.
That’s just stupid. Do you even know any GLBT people? Genders are real, definable, permanent, and VERY significant. Just because part of gender is a social construct doesn’t make it nonexistent or insignificant.
Enemies of the human race?! You really are insane. Because we’re infertile? Jesus, what do you do with barren women? Old people?
I’ve already addressed this one. Gender is definable and it’s significant that it affects our existence to the core. It is you who minimalizes gender.
Third gender? What, like eunuchs? And the second statement is not only a non-sequitur, it’s patently and harmfully false. Left-handedness can be repressed, but it doesn’t make one less left-handed, and it certainly doesn’t eliminate one’s handedness.
Oh, is the LDS Church working on that, now? They don’t, and won’t exist.
Scientific salvation? Seriously, dude, WTF? Okay, considering you’ve repeated the same talking points from the word go, I think our conversation should have ended before it began.
Wow, Janine. I haven’t thought much about that. So it’s not just the homos they want to oppress? I guess that’s why every time I’m around a Mormon family I feel like I’ve been transported to 1962. They even talk like they did back then.
James in #781
You lost me with most of that. Must be because I’m a layperson. However, with this:
“The ONLY reason why the LDS Church is against gay marriage is because of 1) the reality that there are only TWO genders in the human species with a basic recognizable traits that are necessarily biologically complimentary for the existence, survival, and natural happiness of the human race;”
What I think you’re saying here is that males and females naturally complement each other and make babies togetehr. They cannot be happy unless they are together. You also seem to assert that this is an inherently biological attraction, and that it is necessary for the propagation of our species. Do I have it right so far?
“2) there is no biological or anthropological purpose for same-sex unions within the human species;”
Do you mean that same sex attraction does not have a selective advantage? Or that same sex attraction has no function?
“3) the belief that in the resurrection, there are no attractions of same-sex and there are no provisions for same-sex unions in eternity.”
Well, this is entirely a religious argument, and it isn’t even disguised as a secular one. I actually appreciate your honesty here that there is religious doctrine behind your opposition to marriage equality. However, you cannot draft legislation based upon your beliefs about an afterlife, anymore than Jainists could outlaw hamburgers to protect your karma.
I’d like to specifically address one and two, though. I’m not even going to say naturalistic fallacy. While you didn’t specifically say so, you seem to imply that men and women need to be married to make babies, and that this needs to be in a married environment to achieve maximum happiness. While I do not agree that reproduction and child-rearing (two completely different things) are a necessary purpose of marriage, I’ll ask a question with child rearing in mind. Who would make a healthier parents for a child: an abusive, heterosexual couple, or a kind, loving homosexual couple? Do you believe that the homosexual couple are incapable of rearing a child at all, or that it’s slightly less effective? Why do you hold your particular views on this?
As for no. 2, I’m still not going to say “naturalistic fallacy”. If you meant that it doesn’t not have a selective advantage, wouldn’t you have expected it to be kinda rare? Or not around at all? Its certainly very common in a wide variety of species, including humans. If you mean that it serves no function, we dont’ know for sure (important ‘yet’ here) but there are actually good hypothesis that have been proposed. Someone above mentioned kin-selection. Put simply this means that I can pass on my genes a couple of ways. I can make babies, of course. This is expensive, and uses a lot of resources. I can also help nieces and nephews, who have a very good chance of sharing genes with me. This is a lower resource cost, because I don’t actually have to do all the gestationy stuff, and have more resources for myself. Homosexuals, because they’re less likely to reproduce directly, are in a very good position to benefit from kin-selection. Some recent studies also found that a lot of bisexual and homosexual males had female relatives who were more likely to have a large number of children. Here’s an article that talks about that. http://www.medindia.net/news/Hyper-heterosexual-Female-Family-Members-may-Pass-on-Bisexuality-Trait-40674-1.htm
Neither of your first two points are actually arguments against marriage restriction. They just seem to assert that 1: heterosexuality exists, and 2: I am not personally aware of any function or advantage to homosexuality. Neither case implies a need to limit a social contract.
The third case actually is an argument against gay marriage, but only if you assume a cosmology particular to the Mormon religion. I do not assume this cosmology, however, and neither does anyone who is not Mormon. It is not only irrelevant to US law, but it would be wholly, blatantly unconstitutional to make a law based upon this argument.
Mormons already have a program to
reprogramtorture gay people. See http://www.evergreeninternational.org/And in the past, mormons ran a program at BYU to shock the beejeezus out of the genitals of gays. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-8BmFwGIc&feature=channel Note that this is a presentation that has three parts. I linked to part 2, put parts 1 and 3 are well worth watching.
Lynna:
You haven’t presented any scientific data that establishes a third gender. In the human species there is male and female genders with definable and measurable entities with specific purposes, functions, uses, and actions.
The term “invisible” is not a scientific quantity. There is either indirect or direct detection of a particular entity but no “transcendence” within nature.
Hermaphrodites are abnormalities of a male or female identity with complete integrity.
There is no anthropological purpose, use, or benefit of same-sex attraction within the human species. These are the hard scientific facts.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t have compassion on those who struggle with same-sex attraction.
But to ignore the natural purpose and identity of human gender does harm to the human species.
But legislation SHOULD be employed to protect homosexual citizens from physical abuse or discrimination relating to housing, employment or other benefits.
Equivocating homosexual attraction to heterosexual attraction betrays the integrity of necessary anthropological distinctions between the male and female identities.
To all,
I have some last minute shopping for the 9 -year old girl,so I’ll try and address the rest of the posts later to further explain my position.
Perhaps while I am gone you can intelligently address these points:
1. The only basis for gay marriage is homosexual attraction.
2. Homosexual attraction does not necessitate or constitute a third gender.
3. Homosexual attraction serves no anthropological function, use, or benefit within the human species.
4. Homosexual attraction is inconsistent with the anthropological identity of human males and females.
If you make an appeal to science, reason or logic, I will listen. If you make an appeal to
emotion, ridicule, or verbal abuse, I’ll ignore your posts.
and who should they marry? Husband or wife?
I’m only struggling against people taking away my rights based on their scriptures. Scriptures which seem to change constantly whenever its convenient.
When will it be convenient for your scriptures to change and allow gays. Thats what I want to know.
“But legislation SHOULD be employed to protect homosexual citizens from physical abuse or discrimination relating to housing, employment or other benefits.”
Except marriage…because what? its fake love? because we can’t raise adopted kids? because I want to have to needlessly pay more for my legal documents should my husband go into hospital and I want to see him?
Don’t give me 90% of your rights and tell me thats good enough for “people like me”.
James, please read the entire article for which a link is provided in comment 783. Sex, gender, and attraction are more subtle than what you may discern by looking between someone’s legs.
Your insistence on our producing evidence for a “third gender” is one of your repetitive mantras that doesn’t make sense.
I think you have learned the brainwashing power of repetition, but have not learned how to think. In fact, you have a noticeable skill for not thinking. You’ve trained your brain to operate in LDS Church mode. Lithified Brain Syndrome. LBS.
FFS, James, you sound like a broken record. I can’t believe you’re still going on about this nonsense after so many eloquent posts explaining just how stupid this argument is. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you incapable of understanding what you read?
From James:
“You haven’t presented any scientific data that establishes a third gender. In the human species there is male and female genders with definable and measurable entities with specific purposes, functions, uses, and actions.”
What third gender? What does that mean? You’re the only one who’s said anything about a third gender.
“There is no anthropological purpose, use, or benefit of same-sex attraction within the human species. These are the hard scientific facts.”
No one cares if there’s a benefit or purpose. It’s irrelevant. It has nothing to do with marriage. It has nothing to do with peoples rights or freedoms. It does not matter. Even if there was absolutely no purpose whatsoever, if there were no advantage at all, it wouldn’t make a difference. It would be both immoral and unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to marry. That’s a cold hard fact.
“This doesn’t mean that we can’t have compassion on those who struggle with same-sex attraction.”
Thank you for your compassion. It means a lot to me.
“But to ignore the natural purpose and identity of human gender does harm to the human species.”
Expecting a gay person to act straight and get married, and pray the gay away does very real psychological harm to that individual. It’s extremely demeaning.
“But legislation SHOULD be employed to protect homosexual citizens from physical abuse or discrimination relating to housing, employment or other benefits.”
Benefits like marriage? Actually, there does seem to be a movement to in Utah, supported by the LDS, and even Senator Buttars, to provide at least some basic rights to GLBTs. http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-ones-stuffing-gay-rights-down-utahs.html
Oh, and by the way, females are equal to males. Males are also equal to females. I know, I know, these things come as a shock.
To all,
I have to run out and so some last minute shopping for the 9-year old girl, and will try to address your posts later.
While I’m out, try and intelligently address these points, if you can:
1. Same-sex attraction is the basis for a gay marriage amendment to current marriage laws.
2. Same-sex attraction has no scientific anthropological purpose, function, use, or benefit within the human species.
3. Same-sex attraction is inconsistent with the anthropological identity of human males and females.
4. Same-sex marriage is not necessary for children, adults, or governments in civilized, sociologically rich societies.
5. Gay advocates want gay marriage but have proven no scientific evidence for its necessity in human anthropology or sociology.
Therefore, a new social experiment called gay marriage should not be institutionalized by government.
If you can intelligently respond to these points using science, reason, or logic, I’ll respond to your posts. Appeals using only emotion, ridicule, verbal abuse, or absurdities will be ignored.
Sorry for the double post. The page timed out.
Lynna, whilst I might have missed something in this thread (approaching 800 posts!), I’ve yet to see any indication in James’ ramblings he has read any of the links offered, be they about lds racism, human sexuality and gender, lds tax shenanigans, the bogusity of the bom, and so on. If you can get him to read anything (other than, I assume, the bom and other lds propaganda) I’ll be impressed. And astonished if he exhibits any kind of understanding, even if it’s only to argue coherently against whatever you’ve managed to get him to read. The insistence on using repetitive dogma and false dichotomy, plus the inability(? unwillingness?) to see things from someone else’s point-of-view is overwhelming in this one.
I see James, like most bigots, get things assbackwards. We don’t need to justify gay marriage, he needs to justify his bigotry to the world, but that is impossible to do to rational people who understand the evidence. Of course, James can’t and won’t recognize the evidence since that would contradict his religion. Since that can’t happen within his cognitive dissonance addled mind, the evidence can’t exist or be allowed to be recognized.
Well this is true, and obvious. I’m considering marrying my female roommate for tax purposes because she’s not considering marriage and I’m not allowed to. Here in Texas, I don’t blame the LDS Church for filling our state with bigots (we have plenty of our own), but I’m sure they happily lent a hand.
Why do you keep saying this? I have seen others challenging your naive concept of gender, but I don’t even see the point of that. We’re talking about gays and lesbians, are we not? Gays and lesbians are men and women, who love men and women. Two genders. Transgendered people already have the right to marry.
You have been shown evidence to the contrary several times. Your claim is false. And even if it were true, so what? Marriage is beneficial to society. It protects the individual from being left out in the cold, and it protects society from footing the bill when catastrophe strikes. And it’s good for babies.
No it isn’t. If it’s necessary to your definition of the “anthropological identity” (any anthropologists here care to tell me what this means?) that males have sex with females and vice-versa, then you have defined me out of being male, not anthropology and not society at large. This “third gender” nonsense is just a fallacious construct that you’re using to prop up your own homophobia.
“While I’m out, try and intelligently address these points, if you can:”
I’ll try, but it does seem like we’re operating under different basic assumptions, and it’s making meaningful communication difficult.
1. Love is a basis for marriage, regardless of the gender of those involved. There are other factors, to, probably at least as many as there are couples.
2. We’ve been over this, but it’s irrelevant. I have red hair, and am left handed. The red hair is completely neutral. The left handedness can actually be a slight disadvantage. It is still illegal to deny my basic rights due to either my redheadedness or my left handedness.
3. This is a restatement of 2, except with vaguer terminology.
4. We’ve been over this one, too. Marriage is not necessary. It’s useful, though.
5. ‘Gay advocates’ don’t need to. We don’t wait to give people rights until they can scientifically proove their ‘necessity.’
It doesn’t have a number but:
“Therefore, a new social experiment called gay marriage should not be institutionalized by government.”
It’s not a new social experiment. But just for fun, let’s try this experiment anyway, and see what happens!
“If you can intelligently respond to these points using science, reason, or logic, I’ll respond to your posts. Appeals using only emotion, ridicule, verbal abuse, or absurdities will be ignored.”
By your standards, what constitutes an absurdity?
Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and your family.
“But to ignore the natural purpose and identity of human gender does harm to the human species.”
James, with the population of the world approaching 7 billion, do you seriously think that the human race is in such dire need of sustainment that it can’t handle a few gay marriages? I mean, I know it would deeply trouble your little cult, but I think the human species is doing okay for itself in places where gay marriage is legal.
“Skin color is very different.”
No, I can still use the same rhetoric about “natural identity” with regards to race, and it would be eaten up by bigots the world over, and it still wouldn’t fool any of us who actually know a thing or two about science. There’s really no difference, you want to take rights away from citizens based on some arbitrary quirk of their biology. Just admit that you’re a bigot already.
“Black males are equivalent to white males regardless of skin color. White females are equivalent to black females.”
And a sexist.
“This doesn’t mean that we can’t have compassion on those who struggle with same-sex attraction. ”
Right. I could probably fit your compassion in a matchbox and still have room for the matches.
DJSutton,
Oh, please don’t bring feminism into this. He’s already frothing about teh gays.
“Oh, please don’t bring feminism into this. He’s already frothing about teh gays”
Sorry, my bad.
I will try to shape a short answer to James using only small words.
1) Legal rights are NOT defined by nature. There is no justice or equality in nature. It is a BAD role model. Give it up.
2) Giving some rights to some people and not others (because YOU don’t think they need them) is wrong. All humans created equal under the law.
3) We DO need gay marriage because then we can adopt and start looking after the kids that have been left to die by their oh so caring hetero parents. Or would you rather they starved than had a nice gay home?
4) Marriage is a contract of love. If it wasn’t, infertile couples wouldn’t get married. Old people wouldn’t get married. There would be “No Need” as you keep telling us.
You are therefore wrong. Either you stop old people from marrying or you let us marry. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.
Not to worry. He’s ignoring everything to do with gender equality. He’s just here to try to justify his Church’s actions on Prop 8 and Question 1. He won’t respond to anything he doesn’t have talking points for.
“5. Gay advocates want gay marriage but have proven no scientific evidence for its necessity in human anthropology or sociology.”
“If you can intelligently respond to these points using science, reason, or logic, I’ll respond to your posts. Appeals using only emotion, ridicule, verbal abuse, or absurdities will be ignored.”
I am going to avoid the verbal abuse you deserve just to see if you’ll actually respond to the things you promised. Figures I freaking closed the relevant tabs so I have to find it again, but..
http://www.lakelanier.com/20090722848/news/lake-lanier-court-case-decision-disappoints-atlanta/
http://mb-soft.com/public/waterfl.html
http://gov.ca.gov/issue/water-supply
There are too many people. This isn’t a space issue, and this isn’t (just) a food issue. This is a water issue, and that makes it much harder. Putting aside for a moment that so much of our industry (including agricultural) damages usable water, and that more people means more industry, we’re running out of potable water in a lot of places. The reason we’re having these problems is we’ve got too many people, ultimately. The government has a vested interest in not letting more people be born, because the economic harm that a graying of the population causes is not as bad as the human (And economic!) costs of ‘importing’ water (Which will probably leave someone else to die of dehydration).
The government has a vested interest in preventing overpopulation. According to you, the intent of heterosexual marriage is to increase the population. Therefore, it follows that the government should only allow homosexual marriage; That way, babies aren’t born.
To address points in specifics:
1. You had to get something right. Bravo.
2. Well, I’ve addressed THAT.
3. I don’t see how you can say that without defining the anthropological ‘roles’. Do so, and we’ll talk about that! If you do not define what you mean, you logically have an empty phrase, by the way, so don’t not-do-it and then claim I haven’t looked at your stuff with logic.
4. It’s necessary now that we’re running out of water.
5. Yo. Sociological evidence in the hizzouse, as the kids like to say.
“The ONLY reason why the LDS Church is against gay marriage is because of 1) … 2) … 3)
One reason is three? Are you sure you’re not Catholic?
“the belief that in the resurrection, there are no attractions of same-sex and there are no provisions for same-sex unions in eternity.”
Oh yes, not at ALL loony like Rex Rammell!
I hear that there’s no beer in heaven either.
Need I mention again that lobbying to take rights away from people based on the teachings of one’s religion is really frowned upon in a pluralistic society?
Hmm, I think we need to point out to James that “equal under the law” and “equal = same” are two very different things.
He is easily confused, bless him.
If you make an appeal to science, reason or logic, I will listen. If you make an appeal to
emotion, ridicule, or verbal abuse, I’ll ignore your posts.
I do loves me some low comedy. Listen, fuckface, I know you will not address what I say here but I know you are reading. (But with no comprehension.) Not once have you used science, reason nor logic. You have made assertions that we are supposed to accept at face value. And the reason why, because it is what your church dictates it true.
You have shown scorn for what biologists have to say. You have dismissed what sociologists have to says. You have no use for archeology because it does not show a connection between ancient mesoamerican culture and Middle Eastern culture. You have dismissed geneticists because they also show the same disconnection.
There is one simple reason why you get verbal abuse. You have said the same things at the beginning of this thread as near the end of this thread. People have given you facts and historical documents that shows that your are wrong. You have stated that a segment of the population is an enemy of human life for the simple reason that this segment demands the same rights as the majority.
Because of all of this, you have removed yourself from being a debating partner and are now a troll that we play with. Shit, I swear at you because it annoys you so much. As I write this, I am drinking coffee. As I write this, I am debating if I want beer or wine with dinner tonight. You are a plaything, a chew toy. Deal with it. If you want to be taken seriously, you better follow the same fucking rules that you spelled out. Use science, reason and logic. Not once have you done so.
Until you actually do so, fuck you, you fascist fuckface.
Well the LDS church is just lying as usual.
Ezra Benson was the last Chief Revelator or a recent one. He is dead now IIRC.
They claimed that the prophecies of Smith and Young that the LDS wouldn’t take over the US government weren’t official church doctrine or something like that.
Obviously it is. The LDS church is a complete dictatorship with a Pope and no one can contradict the chief prophet who was Benson.
Oh well. The fact is that Joseph Smith made dozens of prophecies listed in an article in Wikepedia called The prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr. Most of them were flat out wrong, never happened.
In the Old Testament, False Prophets were common. It is always tempting to try to borrow the authority of the Cosmic All Powerful Invisible Supernatural Spook. So common, that the bible has a method of determining who is a false prophet and what to do about it. If they are wrong, stone them to death. Of course if they did that, they wouldn’t be many religious leaders left.
Ha– James says:
as if he’s capable of science, reason, and logic! I’ve seen no evidence of this. To me he sounds as brainwashed and repetitive and nonsensical as Tom Cruise in his infamous Scientology tape. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
–oh, and the Messiah complex is identical too. And the persecution complex.
I find it much easier to talk about such people than to talk to them. Their anosognosia regarding how insane they sound makes them fabulous study subjects but impossible conversation partners. Everything he says reveals the brainwashing that “worked” with him. James thinks he’s making sense just like Tom Cruise appears to think the same. So many words… but nothing actually said.
Thanks for all the cool links Lynna, et. al. and the BYU Hawaii talk. It fills in a lot of the details behind visitors like James. I wonder how James sees himself in comparison to the Tom Cruise video? I know he must think that he sounds more sane and that he has “the truth” while Tom is delusional, but I also know he won’t answer the question. He’s as impenetrable as Tom Cruise. And as sure of himself. It’s fascinating to watch the craziness unfold. It’s intriguing watching James continually try to justify his bigotry toward homosexuals and blacks while completely pretending women don’t exist at all (except as the “purpose” for “male gender” “entity” penetration and “spirit baby” production–ha!).
Good guys and bad guys and afterlife dramas on other planets… do Mormon men ever grow up? Would they want to know if their beliefs were wrong? Does anyone else thinks that James is probably gay and desperately trying to convince himself (and the invisible guy in the sky) that he’s not?
@destlund, #803:
yeah, but do they have the right to stay married after one of the partners transitions? this is by no means clear under current law.
Good point, nomen-nescio. I wasn’t thinking about pre-transition marriages. I guess I was trying to argue that “It’s all about me!” ;-D
Wikipedia says he died in 1994 (c.15 years ago!), and was the 13th lds president. The current loon-in-chief is Thomas Monson, who is the 16th (again, according to Wikipedia).
Nomen-nescio.myopenid.com, (I wish you had a better moniker.) a couple of years ago, there was a lesbian marriage in Texas but that was because the couple played with a loop hole. One of the partners is a transgendered woman and the state of Texas does not recognize her desired gender. So they took advantage of Texas seeing her as a man and got married.
I wish I could remember more details so that I could track down the story.
So it isn’t their fault that they claimed that God willed racism, and insisted that black skin was a sign of Satan? And that they continued to do so even after the culture around them changed?
It’s all because of how they were raised? They claimed to know exactly what God wanted, because of their culture?
Just like they are claiming to know what God thinks about gays?
Your failure to acknowledge that Joseph Smith claimed that God was racist, and put that racism into the Book of Mormon, is itself stingy, stubborn, and self-serving.
Funny how Mormons were perfectly happy to ignore a message from God for more than a century. Say, I wonder what other messages from God you’re ignoring?
So what?
There’s the same “biological or anthropological purpose” as there is for any childless heterosexual union.
And again, so what? It’s no reason to deny people their civil rights.
So what? Even assuming their make-believe is true is no reason to deny people their civil rights in this life.
An obviously false statement; a lie by the omission of a critical point: The point is not that genders are “nothing”; it is that they are irrelevant with respect to the law and civil rights.
I believe that you are lying about there being an “essence and true identity” of what is male and female, and in using the naturalistic fallacy to deny people civil rights, you are a malevolent enemy against the human race.
You repeating your malevolent lies is unacceptable to me.
And denying them civil rights is malevolent.
Another malevolent lie.
——–
A lie. The basis for gay marriage is civil rights in a society that recognizes universal human rights.
Meaningless word salad.
Meaningless bigotry.
You haven’t made any appeals to science, reason, or logic.
You have done nothing but make appeals to bigotry and the naturalistic fallacy to deny people civil rights.
Before Proposition 8, I was convinced that the LDS Church was less harmful than the Church of Scientology. Mormons always sort of seemed like happy, well-adjusted, if occasionally ruthless people. Even their missionary work was occasionally more productive than bicycling around the suburbs peddling the Book of Mormon. Also their flat-rate tithing seemed more like single-payer heaven insurance than the Scientologist’s bank-breaking fee-for-service system.
Prop 8 convinced me that they were a dangerous cult with messianic convictions that was willing to throw its weight around in the political arena to get its ideology passed as law. Now that I’ve seen this thread, the testimonies and evidence shown by former Mormons, I’m convinced also that the LDS Church not only seeks sweeping legal harm to nonmembers, it does harm to its members. Scientology is just a scam, mostly harmless to nonmembers (although very harmful to members), unless one falls victim to one of their (many, many) lawsuits.
I have a Mormon coworker who I know would go for the jugular if I questioned her beliefs, and of course such discussion is inappropriate in the workplace (although she seems to have no qualms). All I can do is avoid the subject and worry for her in private.
Raven, You are right that Ezra Taft Benson is dead, but also a recent President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator. E.T. Benson was a rabid racist. See http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon409.htm
Ezra Benson (August 4, 1899 – May 30, 1994) was the thirteenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1985 until his death and was United States Secretary of Agriculture for both terms of the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. His predecessor was Spencer Kimball, and his successor was Howard Hunter. The present High White Dude is Thomas Monson, and the High Dopey One before that was Hinckley. (Note that presenting the names of Exalted Fanatics without their middle initials and titles is considered an insult. So be it.)
just call me NN, Janine.
i’d heard about that Texan case, but it (and others like it) play around with a tangle of legal complications. since some (most?) jurisdictions do recognize gender changes for purposes of marriage, transfolk almost inevitably end up with partnerships that are recognized in some places and not in others.
and note that, as long as only one of the partners is post-transition (or transgender at all), it doesn’t really matter if the marriage is same-gender or not (taking the transition into account, of course) since there’ll be localities that consider it same-sex — and possibly illegal — either way. it’s a situation ripe for a test case to go up to the supreme court, but what sane person wants to be that test case?
i’m not holding my breath for any of our mormon trolls to weigh in on the matter, but i can imagine they’d have nothing productive, useful, or kind to say about it. i don’t know if their church has formally taken any official position on gender transitioning as it applies to marriage rights yet, but it’s going to have to do so eventually, and five gets you twenty it’ll be a nasty piece of stinking bigotry when it comes out.
NN, I think that was the point of the marriage, (Well, besides wanting to be married.) to show just how silly and arbitrary the marriage laws and laws about gender expression are.
I am sure that fuckface would insist on addressing a transperson by their discarded gender. I wonder if fuckface thinks if intersex people are, by their act of living, abominations of natural human gender and sinful. And are they enemies of human existence?
Every time a Mormon apologist crops up here, it confirms my hypothesis that the second “m” is superfluous. James’s “argument” is no more cogent than if he just said what he and his Church really think: teh Gay is icky. Well James, I find your sacred underwear a bit icky (and also, of course, completely inconsistent with the anthropological identity of sane human beings), but I don’t propose to ban Mormons from marrying each other on those grounds. How about extending others the same tolerance?
James, fuck you very much.
TRiG.
Fortunately, I’ve never been under that illusion. I’ve always considered both groups of nutters to be highly dangerous. In the case of the lds it’s because my family lived in Utah at one time (no-one’s ever been an ldser—dad was a rocket engineer at one of test firing ranges—but living behind the zion curtain is a great vaccine for ldsity), and in the case of co$ it’s the patently obvious stupidity and greed. (I concur that, superficially, some ldsers seem not-stupid, but as this thread shows and others have said, push an ldser a bit and it goes batshite insane.)
Yes, but that would actually BE icky. Rather than just a bit kinky to some people. I always find it amusing that I get auto-kinky points for being perfectly normal. Other people have to work at it, and buy all the gear.
Actually, in response to the “normality” thing…is there anyone on this thread who “hasn’t” got at all kinky with the same sex?
(That includes circle jerks…and James :)
@Janine:
yeah, but that’s a lose-lose proposition for him. then he ends up having to give sanction (however grudging) to some marriages that are, to all outward appearances, indistinguishable from a same-sex marriage. because, of course, they are same-gender marriages… but if he can’t accept that detail, he has to accept the marriage, and that’s the camel’s nose in the tent flap.
that last point i am convinced the church authorities know; if they let folks who appear to be of the same gender remain married, soon there’ll be no way the lay followers will be able to object to marriages between folks who are of the same (birth-)gender. i wonder if they’ve had time to ponder the implications and start fearing them, yet.
This anthropologist still thinks your insipid and stupid. We’ve already site where you are wrong. 839 commments really? Is really taking you this long?
I’m afraid nothing will break his autoresponse. He has been well programmed. This is more for the other people reading through who might learn and wonder.
Gyeong Hwa Pak,
When he says the following: “4. Homosexual attraction is inconsistent with the anthropological identity of human males and females,” what does he mean by “anthropological identity?” Is this a term used by anthropologists? He seems to be sort of gliding freely among anthropology, sociology, psychology, physiology, and theology, and not getting any of them right except possibly the latter.
There was the other one, “brave”-something-or-other. Whilst both were clearly reading at least some of the replies, neither gave any indication they read anything referenced by the replies. Just repeated dogmatism repeatedly repeated and repeated, plus either false dichotomy or false dichotomy, et al. Repeated.
I wonder if we should start playing it-said-it-again!-BINGO!? Each time it repeats an unsubstantiated claim, the first to post BINGO! wins a free take-home lds troll to share-and-enjoy. (No, please do not start posting BINGO!, that would probably annoy Little Poopyhead Pee Zed.)
counting fail. lol
The closes I can bring up about a “anthropological identity” is the concept of identity construct used by groups of people in response to some socio-political phenomena. Like how Balinese youths form death metal bands in response to urbanization.
In response to the idea that Homosexual male can’t reproduce (which he kept repeating), in Java it’s a common practice for gay men to reproduce and is often the case Women had to assume to roles that were “traditionally” reserved for men in western concept. Likewise in the Philippines men have to take the mother role as the Women go out to find money.
I’m not sure he’s getting that right either. I think bravestarr above was more honest when saying “I recognize the LDS Church’s position as one of moral imperative: they believe homosexual behavior to be immoral”
I kinda doubt that the LDS hierarchy uses James’ convoluted naturalistic fallacies and pseudoscientific rationalized jargon.
No, they’re much simpler: The Chruch thinks gays are icky; they say that God thinks that gays are are icky; therefore gays should be prevented from marrying each other because they are icky and their ickyness would be obvious to everyone.
Bleah.
While religion may be a crutch, the Church is not a Chruch.
Oh I don’t know, I might start using the hybrid term, “Chrutch.”
I found this regarding transexuals in Texas http://slate.msn.com/id/2096495/ and also this: http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/PregnantMan_2.htm
I don’t think the government has a right or interest in knowing what peoples’ chromosome types are nor which gender their assorted private parts correspond with. I don’t care how James and his religion have chosen to justify their bigotry, marriage ought to be a right between any two consenting adults. After watching the videos linked, I think it’s far more harmful to grow up in a Mormon family than to grow up with gay parents. The Mormon guy in the video said he knew of 3 gay suicides at BYU! I know of one possible one myself. Clearly it would have been better for those people to grow up in gay families rather than in Mormon families.
The government has a vested interest in controlling population growth– whereas, there is no compelling reason for the government to involve itself in the non-reproductive things people use their naughty bits for.
The video on BYU’s “reparative therapy” was horrifying. The way the church prods people (including teenagers) about their masturbatory habits is vile and prurient. The fact that this church thinks it has a right to information about the sex lives of others or that they should play a role in legislating morals or “restoring America” is egregious, and it’s a great fun to see intelligent people put the self-appointed gods-to-be in their place.
Plus it’s funny to watch. Clearly these prigs aren’t used to women, homosexuals, or actual scientists who don’t recognize their authority– who answer back. It puts a spring in my step to observe the dismantling of the self-important. Who cares if James (or Bravestarr) respond or not? The responses they’ve inspired already are well worth them stopping by.
Oh, I see James returned. Oh. Boy. What. Fun.
One wonders why James is magnanimous enough to declare housing, jobs, and protection good enough for these immoral gays while trying to claim marriage as off-limits. Surely he knows that letting them have food and shelter will only encourage them.
Or does James realise that he will look like a Really Inhumane Bigot, were he to deny these basic human needs? Food. Okay. Shelter. Okay. Love and support….not okay?
There is no secular argument to deprive GLBT folks of legal marriage. None.
As Richard Eis already pointed out, relying on natural circumstances to define legal constructions is a poor mapping tool. And that’s even if you had the “nature” part of it right, which James does not. It’s obvious that homosexuality occurs in nature, and that there are benefits, and that species have evolved their own mechanisms for taking advantage of this recurring homosexuality. (See kin selection.)
Poor James. He wants an authority somewhere to back him up on his inhumane ways, to pat him on the head, and tell him he’s really a nice person. James, that authority exists! Find some fora dedicated to Mormons and LDS culture and tell them your tale of woe, and you will get lots of head-patting, I promise.
Here, you will not get head-patting for advancing an inhumane argument over and over. You will not get head-patting for reiterating questions that have long ago been addressed. We did the homework and we showed how we reached our answers, but you, you never do. At best, you have to retreat from your so-called “secular” arguments and rely on Mormon doctrine. Which we do not accept as an authority.
James, we understand that you and your cult think that what homosexuals do in bed is icky. You’ve still not explained why homosexuals should be denied civil rights.
The first time I read that, I read Cthulhu.
The Cthulhu of Loony Stormtroopers? Hum… maybe, lds is quite terrifying and very evil.
@destlund
None taken. I didn’t so much buy into it as have the unfortunate luck to be born into it. And I know lots of people who think that the temple ceremonies are pretty much the greatest thing ever, so you’re right. It can be powerful for some.
Pixelfish:”One wonders why James is magnanimous enough to declare housing, jobs, and protection good enough for these immoral gays while trying to claim marriage as off-limits. Surely he knows that letting them have food and shelter will only encourage them.”
He’s that magnanimous because the church elders said it’s okay, at least for now, as in that news story I linked above.
1. Same-sex attraction is the basis for a gay marriage amendment to current marriage laws.
OK, kind of hard to dispute definitions.
2. Same-sex attraction has no scientific anthropological purpose, function, use, or benefit within the human species.
Now, hold on a wee minute. Are you contending that the happiness of being with the person you love more than life itself has no anthropological purpose, function, use or benefit withing the human species? I would take issue here. There are plenty of studies showing that married people tend to live longer and be happier than unmarried people. Are you contending that this happiness should be reserved only to heterosexual couples. There is also the issue of inheritance–the security of knowing that once one has built a life with one’s person, it won’t be taken away.
3. Same-sex attraction is inconsistent with the anthropological identity of human males and females.
Nope. Sorry, dude, but there are rituals among native Americans, Indians and other societies that can only be performed by gay men or lesbians. In any case, identity is not a matter to be imposed by society, but rather a matter for each person to work out on his or her own.
4. Same-sex marriage is not necessary for children, adults, or governments in civilized, sociologically rich societies.
Well, is any marriage necessary? Marriage rates in Europe have declined dramatically, and the societies there are kicking our butts.
5. Gay advocates want gay marriage but have proven no scientific evidence for its necessity in human anthropology or sociology. It is not an anthropological argument, but a legal one. It comes down to whether we will allow anyone to marry the person of his or her choice–as long as they aren’t gay. Pray, how is this different from outlawing interracial couples?
I have a problem with your reasoning. My wife and I don’t have children. By your reasoning, does our marriage serve no anthropological purpose? Will you deprive my wife of inheritance rights when I die?
DJSutton @844:
He’s that magnanimous because the church elders said it’s okay, at least for now, as in that news story I linked above.
I know the elders do the thinking for him and many other Mormons, but you’d think they’d eventually say, “Why am I letting some old coot in Salt Lake City dictate my level of humanity?”
There’s a scripture in the D&C that even says ” For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.”
And I’m thinking if a reasonable and rational god existed, they would find it absolutely appalling that civil rights and basic humanity had to be dictated and spelled out before their flock did the right thing? I know I find it appalling.
“3. Same-sex attraction is inconsistent with the anthropological identity of human males and females.
Nope. Sorry, dude, but there are rituals among native Americans, Indians and other societies that can only be performed by gay men or lesbians. In any case, identity is not a matter to be imposed by society, but rather a matter for each person to work out on his or her own. ”
Really? Can you get me some citation on that? I’ve never heard of that, and it seems interesting.
I don’t know much about the special rituals, but it sounds like he’s talking about berdache or two-spirit people among Native Americans, and the Hijra of India. I don’t think it’s a very useful argument, and to James it’s just going to come off as a confirmation of his third gender fallacies.
Here in the United States, we no longer force gender roles on people due to their sexual orientation; assumptions like that lead to the “Which one of you is the wife?” kind of questions, which are absurd. That sort of thinking would have stay-at-home dads called “housewives.” It’s funny that the Mormon religion is threatened by the fact that men are no better, and for the most part, no different than women.
How anyone who knows Benson’s views on civil rights can remain a member of the LDS church is mystifying. As mentioned in the link that Lynna provided, he stated in General Conference that the civil rights movement was created by the communists to destroy America from the inside. For those that don’t know, teachings from General Conference are approved by the Church, and one needs look no further to realize just how fucked up this church is. Of course, you don’t hear this much now. I actually didn’t find this out until after leaving the mormon church.
Not only was Benson a racist, but he played a big role in the growth of the John Birch Society. There are still active John Birch Society members in Idaho and in Utah. From people who have attended their meetings I hear that “protect the constitution” is used as a sort of catchall for anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-federal-government rhetoric.
Rex Rammell is the guy who got in trouble for joking about issuing a license to hunt Obama. Somehow, they have conflated getting rid of President Obama with “protecting the Constitution”.
As for men being no better than women: as I understand it, as the embryo develops, being female is the default position. Male attributes come later in development. Men and women are much closer in what James would call “identity” than people realize.
Oh you bet these guys are still alive and well and crazy as bugger-all.
I don’t know if anyone else noticed or not, but James used the phrase “enemies of the people” — a phrase more common in the anti-communist campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, this phrase matches Ezra Taft Benson’s obsession with commies, and with civil rights being a commie plot to overthrow the constitution.
James sounds odd to us, but in his ultra-conservative mormon circles, he may be hitting all the right notes. Not all mormons are like this. There even mormons who remain within the Church, but continue to campaign for gay rights. On the other hand, Rex Rammell and James are signs of a sizable contingent that seem to be stuck in the past, and getting crazier by the day.
There are still birchers around? Good grief, I thought those clowns had evaporated yonks ago. Or were assassinated by specially trained ninjas operating from the UN’s Black Helicopters.
BLF: Glenn Beck, a Mormon convert, is a big fan of Cleon Skousen, a prominent Bircher. I know my (Mormon) dad and lots of other people made fun of the Birchers, but apparently lots of folks still take them seriously indeed.
My dad makes fun of them but also notes every time that he has been invited to join, so it isn’t sour grapes.
Eh? I just searched this thread, and the only use by James of “enemies” was @780, where he babbled (my emphasis):
That phrase doesn’t ring any bells for me, albeit it does sound regurgitated. A quick check using Generalissimo Google™ suggests it’s been used by various wingnut commentators to refer to terrorists.
blf, hit the link that destlund provided. The paranoid conservative wing of the Republican Party has done such a good job of kicking out their more centralist members that it has gravitated to the Birchers. His link goes to the leftist Wonkette. Or you could check out Little Green Footballs, which has disowned what this brand of conservatism has become.
Dear Pixelfish,
Having read your thoughtful and fascinating analyses of Moron sensibilities, and your dogged deflections of James’ insanity, I think it is high time you were nominated for a Molly. It’s overdue I think, as your comments are always worth reading.
Awwww, thanks, Leepicton. :) I’m just following in the footsteps of Lynna and Red John.
1. Same-sex attraction is the basis for a gay marriage amendment to current marriage laws.
Is opposite sex attraction the basis for one man one woman marriage laws? Because there are an awful lot of sham marriages out there. The basis for allowing same sex couples to marry is to allow them the same oppertunities in marriage as straight couples, regardless of their reason for marrying. It is a matter of fairness.
2. Same-sex attraction has no scientific anthropological purpose, function, use, or benefit within the human species.
How so? Humans are social creatures. We need each other, a society where people contribute in order to live good lives. Gay people contribute as much as anyone else to the society we live in, and we all benefit from that. Sterile people and the elderly aren’t purposeless because they aren’t making kids; some contributions come in the way of charity or having unique ideas or inventing something or whatever else. Who a person dates has nothing to do with how beneficial they are to the human species. The view of human beings as cogs in some kind of machine instead of individuals whose uniqueness improves the world is a very sad one, in my opinion.
3. Same-sex attraction is inconsistent with the anthropological identity of human males and females.
I need to know what the identity is before I can say that it is inconsistent. It seems like this is self referencing, like the ‘identity’ of females and males IS being attracted to the opposite sex. Is this correct? If so you are saying something like “not being attracted to the opposite sex is inconsistent with being attracted to the opposite sex, and it’s not good because it is inconsistent”. That isn’t a real argument, it is a statement without any real reason supporting it. You have been asked politely (and not politely) to explain what you are actually trying to say. It isn’t possible to respond scientifically/rationally to a statement that needs clarification when you will not provide any.
4. Same-sex marriage is not necessary for children, adults, or governments in civilized, sociologically rich societies.
I have to disagree here. Civilized societies (in my view) try to improve the condition of their citizens. Something like same sex marriage would improve the condition of citizens who are gay and married (by giving them stability and decision making abilities for their partner/children), their children, and the condition of all gay citizens by not excluding them. It is painful for gay people to live in societies where discrimination is institutionalized against their group. I don’t think that civilized societies would dismiss the benefits for its citizens based on the idea that it ‘isn’t necessary’. The government could revoke regular marriage on the grounds that it isn’t necessary, but it would be cruel and strange to take something away that clearly improves the lives of citizens.
5. Gay advocates want gay marriage but have proven no scientific evidence for its necessity in human anthropology or sociology.
Necessity isn’t why laws like this are proposed. It is a matter of fairness. Not understanding why someone would do something doesn’t mean that it should not legally be allowed. If we all had to understand why someone would want to exercise right _____ before they were allowed to then we would still live in a time when only write property owning dudes had rights. The government should grant rights fairly and equally unless they are given a compelling reason not to. This whole “you need to make me understand why you want these rights before you get them” thing is absolutely silly. its not anyone’s business why gay people want to get married, they should not have to prove anything to have the same rights as other people. What I want to know from you is how is it FAIR to keep them from having those rights?
Speaking of the John Birch Society, Rachael Maddow has just reported on thier co-sponsoring of a major conservative rally.
Janine, I did quickly read destlund’s link. But ever after doing so I was (and still am) surprised there’s any active brichers around. I suppose that’s because they make zero (or so close to zero it might as well be zero) news outside the USA I’d leaped to the conclusion(? hope?) they effectively died out, leaving only perhaps a few elderly idiots gathering in their isolated fallout lodges every week for some beers and bitching. Wikipedia does claim, albeit without any citations, numbers, or analysis, that the loons had dramatically declined by the time I last lived in the USA, so I suppose memories of that evaporation from back then contributed to my surprise.
And since they are thugs, it doesn’t surprise me in the least the Thugs are attracted to them.
Rey Fox 804
I would say that James does have a lot of compassion, but empathy is lacking. He really, really does feel sorry for you, you poor pathetic homo. As for respect for your feelings, ability to love, desire not to “get fixed” or play Alex in A Clockwork Orange? That’s different. Are you really struggling? The word “struggle” amply shows a lot.
James first claimed this @170
Absalom Jones was ordained by the Episcopal Church in 1804. Wikipedia article
I guess that James should be careful about the propaganda he gets.
An interesting tidbit from the Wikipedia article on Abel:
As a carpenter, he assisted in constructing the Salt Lake Temple; however, in 1853 he was barred by Young from receiving his own Endowment. While there is some speculation that it had to do with race, there is no recorded history of why he was denied.[citation needed]
@844
I seem to remember seeing an article that showed that marriage rates have gone up and divorce rates have gone down in Sweden since gay marriage was legalized. And Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. So much for destroying marriage.
While Joseph Smith admitted Blacks to the Mormon priesthood, his successor Brigham Young proclaimed:
That Blacks carried the “seed of Cain” was expressed in their skin color. Quoting Young again:
Quotes are from Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss Neither White no Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church.
blf @855
You’re right. My bad. Note to Self, never trust your memory.
Thanks for posting the correct “enemies” quote.
Nice discussion re the John Birch Society thanks to my mistake.
~:-)
Well, it looks like James and Bravestarr have retreated to the comfort of their delusions. I wonder how often True Believers™ are sent out on such quixotic missions as arguing against skeptical people with intact critical thinking skills. It seems to be some sort of trial by fire for them to ensure that their faith is iron-clad against reality.
re: “anthropological identity”
I’m pretty sure that James pulled that out of his ass, or someone else’s ass that is equally full of shit.
I am pretty sure that few or no anthropologists believe the crap James is presenting as “anthropological” and “scientific fact.” Maybe a few fundies who managed to get a Ph.D. in anthro anyway, but this kind of reasoning is well-known to be discredited.
I’d written a long post about the anthropology of identity, but signing in to Movable Type seems to have eaten it. :-(
Nice dodge James. Whether the US had racism or not doesn’t excuse the Mormon church when they claim their racism is dictated by god.
You fail.
Please address my points about 1890’s and 1978 convenient divine revelations and all the quotes from Nephi as well as the additional information others have posted about the racism not only practiced by the Mormon church but mandated by it until 1978 (and beyond).
Shame there is now a 870 comment thread on exactly what is wrong with moronism for next time this happens. Everyone got educated…well, except for two people. Next time the takedown will be even faster and more precise.
Just in case anyone wants it, here is the more recent statement of the so-called White Horse Prophecy that Rammell came up after the LDS Church dissed the Joseph Smith and Brigham Young quotes as not being historically researched:
The LDS Church has been handling doctrinal conflicts by saying that the prophets were fallible men who sometimes spoke as just men. They’ve been performing that tap dance for some time. But in this case, they are still in trouble. Official church documents advise mormons to go by the conference reports, and by what living prophets and apostles say in Conference. Rammell was wily to switch to a more recent conference quote from Benson.
There’s an even bigger problem if one follows the logic of the White Horse Prophecy not being canonical because it hasn’t been proven with historical research. Nothing Joseph Smith and Brigham Young proposed as prophecy and as doctrine can be propped up with historical research. You can prove they said it, but you can’t prove what they said was true.
More relatively recent White Horse Prophecy statements from holders of mormon priesthood (not as old as the Joseph Smith prophecy anyway, and not the presence of George Romney, relative of Mitt Romney):
“In my commencement address I gave the language and sources of the prophetic utterance made by the Prophet Joseph that the Constitution of the United States would hang by a single thread, but be saved by the elders of Israel. I hope you will read those sources so you will be well-informed as to this prophecy and be prepared to do your part in its fulfillment.” – Dr. Ernest L. Wilkinson, BYU Speeches, April 21, 1966, p. 7
“Now what has happened in our country during the time we have been plunging toward socialism? Are we actually at that point where the Constitution may be hanging by a single thread and we need to step in to save it?” – Dr. Ernest L. Wilkinson, BYU Speeches, April 21, 1966, p. 9
“Anyone can look at the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith… Brigham Young and others…. I have always felt that they meant that sometime the question of whether we are going to proceed on the basis of the Constitution would arise and at this point government leaders who were Mormons would be involved in answering that question.” -George Romney, interview in “A Man’s Religion and American Politics: An Interview with Governor Romney,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1967, v. 2, p. 25
“[T]here will be a complete change of government. Washington, D.C. will cease to be capital. The present national bureaucracy will have its end. The internal conflict will sweep away the current system of governments and will pave the way for the political kingdom of God and the millennial kingdom through which Jesus Christ will rule and reign…. A new government will be established among the saints and that political Kingdom of God will espouse and uphold the principles of Constitutional government.” – Duane S. Crowther, Prophetic Warnings to Modern America, 1979, pp. 315-316
No no, thats a pretty good prophecy from Little Smithy. Soooo, he says that liberties have been taken away. The church had a hand in the crisis. That the consitution is under attack and that his followers would either be blind, destructive and/or won’t care about it.
I think thats pretty accurate actually.
Let’s assume for a moment that the mormons do take over the USA. What would this mean for women? There’s a nice hint in the description of the latest revisions for the Young Women’s (YW) program:
So, if you want to elevate mediocrity to a virtue, and formalize eternal put-downs for females, support the White Horse Prophecy.
If you can bear to look, there’s even a photo of this demeaning claptrap at http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=12476
Who they are:
2nd class citizens
How precious they are:
Easily replaceable (before the first wife was gone if they would be allowed)
Great roles and responsibilities:
To have quiverfuls and do as they are told.
but you do get (have) to be different to boys because you get pink things….ooooh. Anyone want to make pink triangle badges?
Lynna, I really liked this paragraph. (Eyes roll so far back that I could be looking at the crown of my skull.)
In addition, the Young Women medallion has been redesigned and now includes age group historical symbols for Beehives, Mia Maids and Laurels, and has a ruby. “I want every young woman to realize that she is more precious than rubies,” said Sister Dalton.
I had to look up Mia Maid. How appropriate that they give their teen age girls the title of a servant. And what kind of logic is this where there is a picture of a ruby in order to have their serving girls think the are worth more then rubies?
(Head crashes onto desk.)
FWIW, I don’t think that was the intent (although I wouldn’t entirely put it past them).
Think “maid” as in “maiden” (as in “maidenhead”).
Janine, it gets even worse. The ruby comes from Proverbs 31:10 (KJV): “Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.”
Incidentally, I got smacked by a nun in 3rd Grade for asking, “What was Ruby’s price?” I knew I’d get smacked but I just couldn’t resist.
Owlmirror, the use of the definition you are offering is too paternalistic for my taste.
I am sure that surprises you.
Funny how a mormon organ is more forthright about gender role than James ever was.
(I approve of the use of the term “mormon organ”.)
I don’t think the LDS Church is planning death camps for women yet. At least not the straight ones.
LOL I’m totally using that in my toast tonight: “[Birthday girl] your price is far above rubies. And Ruby charges $50.”
$50 for Ruby, eh? Well now we know how much to charge if we want to be above the price of a Ruby.
‘Tis Himself, I wish I could have seen that scene. A classic!
Sister Dalton scares me … and I’m fearless.
It was more about singling people out for 2nd class citizenship… and making sure they know it… but then of course there are the gulags.
isn’t “maid” just old english for girl/young unmarried woman? the maidservant part then meant a young female servant… and then eventually got shortened again to where maid means maidservant…
well anyway, it’s debatable whether the use is supposed to be in the original (unmarried girl) or the secondary (female servant), but I bet it’s altogether convenient for them to just conflate the two concepts as if there were no difference (i.e. a young woman is by default a female servant)
Yknow 115 more comments and the “thread that will not die will have a pet” to keep it company.
This would make a good online poll: “Which is the most misogynistic religion?”
(a) Roman Catholicism
(b) Mormonism
(c) Fundamentalist Protestantism
(d) Fundamentalist Islam
Tough choice.
We’re probably safe… unless they mate.
You would get a hybrid thread about zombie mormons. How would we tell the difference?
Except for the bacon ;)
An ex-mormon who goes by the handle “Taddlywog” posted a pic of Mitt Romney on a White Horse (Mitt is replacing a George Washington in an historic painting): http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddzsn9t3_4hcnk87ff
This doesn’t mean that we can’t have compassion on those who struggle with same-sex attraction.
Your “compassion” is without value. It is a worthless lie. Go fuck yourself.
“What was Ruby’s price?”
Twenty dollars, same as in town.
A little late to the game aren’t MAJeff, lol.
I must agree that I am struggling. Finding a good boyfriend is hard these days, especially one that is attracted to you. It’s a challenge but I’m up for it. ;)
A little late to the game aren’t MAJeff, lol
blizzard. parents’ house. no wireless.
Mitt Romney on a White Horse (Mitt is replacing a George Washington in an historic painting)
That about fits Willard’s ego.
I do agree with an earlier point made that a big leap seems to have been made from “saving the constitution” to “taking over the USA and turning it into a Theocracy”. That’s an oddly specific interpretation of the text. Where did it come from? Maybe I am missing something?
Either way, I don’t agree with the blurring of political and religious agendas which is manifestly implied.
On another note, James has thoroughly convinced me of the power of confirmation bias.
@bravestarr:
Incidentally, if you do see this then I’d be interested in a civil discussion. I’m available at fragile.laicite@gmail.com
Apart from comment 864 (where, BTW, the link doesn’t work), I bet the Catholic Church did that centuries earlier, perhaps in the Congo or in Angola…
Number 1 is irrelevant – what do marriage and biology have common?!? Marriage is just a social contract that people conclude so they can live together, own stuff (including apartments and bank accounts) together, visit each other in hospital or prison, provide for children together, inherit from each other, and so on (see 802). I don’t see where biology comes into this.
(Yes, sure, married people usually have sex with each other, but that’s just because romantic love hardly ever comes without sexual attraction, and because people who don’t love each other hardly ever see a reason to marry. But that’s it.)
Number 2 fails because there is no such thing as a purpose in biology. There are just consequences. It also seems to ignore the fact that there are tens of millions of heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children… where’s the biological difference between that and a homosexual pair that chooses not to adopt children? The outcome is the same.
Number 3 is a religious reason. The First Amendment, as amended by the Fourteenth, forbids making laws for religious reasons. In other words, you admit to having committed incitement to high treason. Nice own goal you scored there.
What, if anything, do you mean by that essence? ~:-|
Hello? Homosexual couples are already allowed to marry in several countries and several US states. Where is the failure?
Show me.
Where does that “when” come from? Only gene therapy could change a genetic condition.
Where does that “help” come from? Do they suffer? Should a running system be fixed?
Then why is male homosexuality, as I have already mentioned, correlated to increased female fertility in the same families?
And what about kin selection, which is mentioned in this thread again and again and again?
Why do you ignore these scientific points?
No, it’s homoromantic attraction. There are asexual people who are homoromantic (while others are heteroromantic, others are biromantic, and still others are aromantic).
So what?
I don’t get your point, assuming there even is one.
What, if anything, does that mean?
Explain what, if anything, you mean by “anthropological identity” first.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is true both for homo- and for heterosexual marriage.
Why have you never even tried to address this point?
You don’t seriously want to argue that only necessary things should be allowed by law, do you.
Assuming that you mean emphasis by using scare quotes, yes – I have never found a man sexy (let alone acted on that). I seem to be incapable of it. Not everyone is bisexual.
In those societies, such people are a third gender. James just means sex, not gender – and indeed there’s no third sex among animals. (There are slime molds with up to 13 or 23 sexes, though – probably one of my sources contained a typo. The advantage of this is that every sex can reproduce with every other sex, unlike in other eukaryotes where, hermaphrodites excepted, half the population can’t be your breeding partner.)
“Sad”?
That’s quite the understatement. I hereby godwin this thread: I know what happened last time when an ideology was in power that saw “human beings as cogs in some kind of machine instead of individuals whose uniqueness improves the world”.
petitlait @894
See comment #873 and #872
While the LDS Church is busy spinning away from Rex Rammell’s “constitution hanging by a thread” talk, records show that most mormons are acquainted with the prophecy, and that they’ve heard it repeated fairly recently. Ezra Taft Benson repeated it, and Senator Orrin Hatch repeated in 1999:
Not the original Joseph Smith, but a later Joseph Smith who was the sixth President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator for the LDS Church, wrote in “Gospel Doctrine”, page 403:
There are pages and pages of similar quotes, predictions or prophecies … whatever you want to call them, they are certainly well-recorded in Conference Reports, in “Doctrines of Salvation”, in BYU speeches, and so forth.
From this statement and others made by James and bravestarr, we can tell that they prefer to believe that everyone arguing against their evidence-free, anti-gay tripe on this thread is either gay or bisexual. Most of us ignored the question, but since David M. answered, I will also answer. No, I have not “got all kinky with the same six” — I argue against the anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay actions from a humanist perspective. I’m also a middle-class white woman, with children, heterosexual, single, and relatively close to the middle of even a mormon version of “normal” when it comes to sexuality.
The assumption that only gay or bisexual persons would stand against James’ viewpoint in the fight for equal rights is crazy — one more layer of crazy, one more layer with an alarming dearth of empathy.
Lynna, OM @896
Thank you for pointing those quotes out, but I’m not letting you off that easily! Of all of the quotes which you gave, only one of them (deniably) mentions any sort of subversion by the Mormon church.
Who is this Duane S. Crowther character who is being quoted? Whatever the answer to that question, it seems like nobody really cares. It isn’t easy finding anyone who has even bothered to write about him besides himself – on his own website, no less. He certainly claims to have held a great many positions of authority within the Mormon faith consistent with the old, balding, sight-impaired white US male stereotype which is portrayed in his portrait. In any case his years of slavish service appear to have amounted to no position of sufficient importance which would lead me to take his views seriously as official or even popular Mormon stances.
I can accept that his book hints that his school of thought may have at least a small following in Mormonism, but I don’t see his interpretation of the prophecy as a compelling argument for either its intended meaning or its popular interpretation by the Mormon church agreeing with how we are construing it. Is the intellectual flatulence of an irrelevant Mormon author honestly the best that we have to support that stance?
petitlait @900, You are correct to say that the concept of mormon Elders “saving the constitution” is open to interpretation. This is also typical of mormon doctrine. It means one thing at one time, means another later — or it may be quietly discarded. In this case an old prophecy was not-so-quietly resurrected.
What exactly do church leaders mean? Some mormons do see the LDS Church Elders riding to the rescue, and that includes Mitt Romney as President, and many other mormons in positions of power. Some mormons see the church Elders as only working to protect their stance against gay marriage, against abortion, against what they see as a liberal bias in the Supreme Court, against the easy availability of porn, etc. Some mormons think the whole thing is a crock and that we should ignore what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said because the present General Authorities haven’t said something similar in Conference.
Okay, fine. But with the John Birch Society connections, and with Rex Rammell having voiced his opinion that it might be nice to issue an Obama hunting license (not to mention the wording of the invitation), it looks like, smells like, a move to gain political power, or at least to gain political influence based on theology.
I think we’re all more or less having fun with this pretense to power, rather than taking it seriously. I do not expect all of us women to start wearing pink, voting for Romney, and softening our brains in the name of the mormon brand of “feminine.” Nevertheless, one should pay attention.
petitlait, you sound like some moderate mormons who want very much for this whole PR disaster to disappear. You can bet that the General Authority will be adept, as usual, at saying nothing, or at labeling the prophecy as not doctrinal, while all the while nurturing followers of Skousen in their midst. There will never be an official doctrine that is coherent. You may as well chase the wind.
“An Open Letter to Latter-day Saint Detractors of W. Cleon Skousen and His Works” — excerpt:
Read the comments as well as the articles for the links above, if you want to get a feel for the “save the constitution” groups. The present “Living Prophet”, Monson, praised Cleon Skousen.
Satire is a powerful tool when it comes to toppling flawed ideas off their pedestals. If the satire includes assuming a mormon takeover, and what that would be like, then take the satire for what it is. It’s satire, not dogma.
petitlait:
I don’t think the White Horse Prophecy is about subversion.
In it’s earliest written record, the White Horse Prophecy was apocalyptic in nature. It was related in a quasi-parable fashion, where the “White Horse” represented the Latter-day Saints tucked safely in the Rocky Mountains, the “Red Horse” represented the Native Americans who would join the White Horse in fighting off the wicked United States invaders, the “Pale Horse” was the good-hearted people of the U.S. who had sympathy for the Mormons (i.e., potential converts), and the “Black Horse” represented the African American slaves.
In it’s earliest written form (1843), the prophecy foretold of a time in the near future when the Saints would settle in the Rocky Mountains, and find so much gold and silver there that gold would be virtually worthless among the Saints due to its abundance. The Saints, of course, would use that gold to become powerful in relation to the U.S. (at this time, the Rocky Mountains would have been outside the U.S.’s borders, and the Mormons would essentially have their own country, separate and distinct from the United States). The Saints would then use that power and wealth to go back to Jackson County, Missouri (where the New Jerusalem is to be built) and rebuild the temple before the 2nd Coming of Christ.
The prophecy then goes on to say that, “A terrible revolution will take place in the land of America, such as has never been seen before; for the land will be literally left without a supreme government. And every species of wickedness will run rampant. Father will be against son, and son against father, mother against daughter, and daughter against mother. The most terrible scenes of murder and bloodshed and rapine that have ever been looked upon will take place. Peace will be taken from the earth and there will be no peace only in the Rocky Mountains.”
England will stay neutral until she can no longer stand how much killing is taking place in the U.S., and will intervene, militarily, to “stop the shedding of blood.” Joseph Smith goes on:
Because of the anarchy in the U.S., there is no government. The good people in the U.S. who want to get away from the bloodshed and anarchy will try to get to the Mormon’s empire in the Rocky Mountains where there is a stable government.
Also associated with this prophecy is the idea constantly running throughout Mormon ideology — the idea of the “gather of Israel.” In a nutshell, the Jews are only one tribe of Israel. The other tribes are “lost.” According to LDS theology, the other ten tribes made it to Europe, and therefore, according to the White Horse Prophecy:
Because of all the gathering of Israel to the Kingdom of Zion, located (temporarily, at least) in the Rocky Mountains, all these nations will recognize the importance of the LDS Church, and will surrender to the Kingdom of God voluntarily.
Then, Jesus comes back to Earth, which means that the headquarters of “Zion” — by this time synonymous with the LDS Church, as the Kingdom of Zion is a true Theocracy — gets moved to it’s permanent location, which is Jackson County, Missouri. From there, Christ (assisted by the Mormon leadership, of course) will run the world.
According to LDS thought, the temporal matters, i.e., the laws of the land, will be dictated from the New Jerusalem (Jackson County, Missouri), while the spiritual matters will be dictated from the Old Jerusalem.
Anyway, that’s the context for the White Horse Prophecy. It was an apocalyptic “revelation” that was supposed to have taken place within everyone’s lifetime that was living in 1843.
Since then, due to the blatant inaccuracy of the revelation, subsequent LDS leaders, starting with Joseph F. Smith (president of the Church around the turn of the last century) started backpedaling on the revelation, calling the earliest written-down version inaccurate. But, he retained the idea that the Constitution would hang by a thread, as has all subsequent leaders.
But, the idea behind the saving of the Constitution (whether it was the original 1843 notion, or its latest interpretation, has always been that things will get so bad in the U.S. that the “Elders of Israel” will come in and save the day! The good people of the country will somehow recognize how wonderful the church is, and clamor for it’s influence to help restore order. No one’s quite sure about HOW that’s supposed to happen exactly, though.
Here’s an example of how conservative mormons (and other conservatives as well) mix the issue of gay marriage and preserving the constitution, states rights, etc. Excerpt:
There’s a scary video as well. Paul Mero has been described as charming and likable, as hospitable and polite, even by gay leaders. Nevertheless, the policies he wants to institute regarding gays are more restrictive than presently exist, and he wants to put education back in the hands of fundie parents, with no federal guidelines. His is the smile behind which evil consequences lie. I’m sure he means well.
Kevin from Utah @902: That was a great summary! I’ve read the apocalyptic background for the White Horse Prophecy before, but yours is an excellent roundup of the essential elements.
Since we have a problem with people taking LDS pronouncements from the the 1960s to the present day as not being relevant to current Church doctrine, I wasn’t going to muddy the waters further with the second-civil-war predictions, but that was a mistake. There’s far more fun to be had if one goes all the way back to the beginning.
Worst Performing Stocks: Zion Bank Corp. is in trouble. Let’s hope this is a sign of the times. If so, there will be less money in the mormon pot. The LDS Church is associated with loads of for-profit companies that are supposed to funnel funds back to the church. Beneficial Life Insurance failed recently. If there’s less money to fund the Elders of Israel, all the better.
Accounting practices? Well, well, well. There’s a huge shock…not.
Richard Eis @906: Yeah that acknowledgement of worries about accounting practices caught my eye as well. It would certainly create a kerfuffle in the morg kingdom if financial practices were made public. Zion Bank Corp. has to report because the company is listed on the stock exchange, but I’m sure they still manage to hide a certain amount of questionable practices.
I was reading just yesterday a note from a Ward clerk (non-believer, but still serving as a clerk for family reasons), and the clerk said he regularly sends about $750,000 in tithing to Salt Lake City per year, and that the Salt Lake headquarters would send back about $7,000 per year for the Ward budget. This year, he’s only sent about $620,000, so that’s a pretty hefty decrease, close to twenty percent. If this is happening all over mormondom, it may put a crimp in their $3-$6 billion mall/downtown renovation plans.
One can’t help but be surprised by the low budgets that Salt Lake City enforces on the wards. From active mormons, one hears that it’s always been that way, but that now the budgets are even tighter, with headquarters refusing to let a Ward buy a color printer, refusing to hire cleaning crews, and using “volunteer” work from members to run everything. There were complaints this year about stingy Ward Christmas parties, with no decorations and low-quality food. In the meantime, President Monson’s apartment was renovated for $500,000; and General Authorities continue to vacation in Hawaii, and on ranches the morg owns in Utah.
The for-profit companies (with General Authorities on the Board of Directors, or even acting as owners) send a big chunk of their profits to the LDS church as donations or as tithing. Sometimes the church goes to great lengths to hide their financials, including settling out of court on sex abuse cases because an in-court battle would require them to reveal the financial info. (The Church always claims they are not responsible and are settling only to protect the victims from further injury, etc.)
Regular members have no idea how their tithing money is used; no idea, that is, beyond the announcements for new temple-building projects, etc. Some of the Ward clerks, and ex-ward clerks got together to try to piece out part of the story. Excerpt:
Other folks have tackled this, but I see that James has finally figured out that speaking about biology by itself is not going to cut it.
I mean, he doesn’t acknowledge that he was off-track earlier, but that’s ok – he’s moved the goalposts and expects us to keep up.
So, James sez:
No. Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are the basis for allowing marriage without having to check in anyone’s pants, or measure the level of sexual, or other, attraction the two conesnting adults have for one another.
Incorrect. Due to kin selection, communities with gay populations would have been more stable, and more closely-knit than those that drove out or killed portions of their populations for deviating from the percieved norm.
Also, given (1), above, this point, even if true, is irrelevent.
Same-sex attraction is consistent with the identity (I’m not sure what an ‘anthroplological identity is – reference please) for a gay human male. Unless you believe gay men are not human, or not men, or not actually gay, I’m not sure how you can deny this.
Also, given (1), above, not relevant.
Many things that are not necessary are nonetheless within the rights of citizens. The essense of government in a nation of free people is that the government may not make something illegal just because it is not required. Mormonism isn’t required for children, adults, or governments in civilized, sociologically rich societies. (We know, because such societies have existed prior to it.) Should it therefore be made illegal?
See (4), above. Things can be unnecssary and yet not illegal.
It’s not new. Brief study should reveal that other societies have provided for openly gay relationsships being granted state approval.
Marriage is already a governmental institution (rightly or wrongly – but that’s another debate). All people are saying is that it not be denied to people based on their taste in sexual partners.
I’m not sure why I didn’t notice this earlier. Anyways, the APA has already ruled that Gay Therapy is bullshit. Homosexuality isn’t something that needs to be fixed, either.
Oh and Lesbian Albatrosses are known to raise chicks, so much for them gays having “no societal uses” as James would put it. Wonder where he ran off too.
#907
Two words.
Animal Farm.
When you win an argument with this kind of person they just run off and hide. He will pop up again eventually. I’ve had this a few times. Its how you know you have won.
Some people can’t ever be wrong… He is probably complaining to his friends right now about how we didn’t know ANYTHING about history and biology and just kept making fun of him instead of answering his questions.
In the late 60s as a young man I was a professional water moccasin collector. That took me to the swamps of NE North carolina where I chanced to become friends with the local head of the KKK. One dark and stormy night he invited me to stay at his house. In the morning he said, “I’ve shown you my hospitality so it only seems right and fittin that you might listen to a few words of my personal philosophy”. I agreed, so he whipped out a special edition of the Book of Mormon, and explained that Mormons were more holy than Baptists. Then he said, “I’m an edjumacated man and know all about science” and pointed to a passage about an invisible crystal planet that orbits earth. He asked, “didja know that light has’m a speed to it?” I said I had heard that, so he said “learned theologians (how did he know that word?) have asked why the crystal planet is up there? I figgur that god uses it like a lens. When you die god flies into outer space faster than teh speeed of light and uses teh planet to focus in on your life. If you’ve been good you get to go to heaven, but iffn you’ve been bad you are shit outta luck!”
Sleazel, that is so…
so…
…
…sigh.
Did you feel the intelligence being sucked from your brain by the gravity of his vapid stupid existence?
In other news of financial woes in the land of religious ho’s, Rick Warren has been reduced to begging.
Sleazel @911
Sleazel, that is one helluva good story! And if there were some sort of prize for the best opening line in a comment, I think “In the late 60s as a young man I was a professional water moccasin collector.” would qualify. LOL.
Richard Eis @912, I’ve felt that when in the mormon suck (credit to Josh for “in the suck”). There’s so much negative knowledge there that it’s like a black hole. Don’t get too close to the event horizon.
The Hot Mormon Muffins are still making news.
Comments below the news/opinion piece are revelatory. A few examples:
Mormon (and ex-mormon humor): See http://hotmormonmuffins.com/video.php
Sleazel – That is the most piss poor imitation of a hillbilly I’ve ever read. Sheesh!
Digging deeper into mormonism, and how it has created a theocracy in Utah, The New Yorker printed an article titled “Lives of the Saints” in January, 2002. Excerpt: