LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've skimmed and skipped a bit in the last few pages, but I would just like to point out, not that it will change any minds, but I must say that wherever that "radical homosexual agenda" is, I'm glad I'm not there. I, instead, live in Vermont where homosexuality is recognized, legalized and normalized, as it should be. Shame on those pesky radicals.
 
jsfisher said:
I am curious about something. Janadele has posted some attitudes and beliefs in this thread that are, well, just plain awful. Janadele is an individual entitled to her personal prejudices, bigotry, and hatreds, and as she has freely admitted, we are entitled to respond with scorn and ridicule of her position.

However, she has stated these things in the name of the LDS Church.

So far, I have not seen any other LDS member speak out to unambiguously denounce the position she has claimed for the Church. I would have expected others to distance themselves from her morally bankrupt statements.

I find it curious this has not happened.
Click to expand...

My wife, who's a member, specifically joined this forum because she was embarrassed at what Janadele was posting. That was many months ago, and after a while, the questions became repetitive. When she could answer most of the new questions by saying "see my post #---," it just wasn't worth her time anymore, especially because she wasn't here to convince anyone that the church was true, just to show that not all Mormons are like Janadele.

I'm sure there are members who think just as Janadele does, and others who don't. But this isn't a forum where a lot of Mormons hang out, and by now the thread has gotten so long it's cycling back on itself, so I don't really think it's a sign of anything sinister if Mormons don't come here and freshly condemn Janadele each time the same old topics come up again.

Unfortunately, the forum search says that "gay" is too short, and apparently my wife never used the term "homosexual," so I can't tell if that topic was covered, but I can certainly find my wife's posts on racism.

For example: her Post #3227, which pointed out the recent president of the church's apology for its previous racism (Edited to add: and it also quoted President Hinkley speaking at the church's general conference: "Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ.") She concludes:

Cat Tale said:
What Brigham Young did to the African people is dispicable, there is no better word for it. I personally, don't believe that he was acting as the mouthpiece of God at that moment, but I believe that leaders of the church who followed never really questioned it. Most LDS at that time, and heck, even the potential converts were probably more comfortable with blacks not having the priesthood at that time, so it was never an issue until the Civil Rights movement. Why didn't God correct them? God only knows.
Click to expand...

Janadele of course was criticizing her for disagreeing, and Cat Tale said in post #2856:

Cat Tale said:
So you're saying that I can't say that I find many things in our Church's past totally disgusting? That's my most recent personal opinion. Should I sit back and pretend like racism was okay, or it never happened, what should I be doing?
Click to expand...

So there's an example of a member "unambiguously denouncing" what Janadele claimed for the church, nine months ago. Not sure of the shelf life for a denunciation, but I think it's probably still good. ;)
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
Orson Scott Card is a special case. You realize just HOW special when you read his love letter to Pedophilia, "Hamlet's Father."

In Orson Scott Card's version of this classic tale, Hamlet's father is a lousy king who sexually assaults a number of underage boys, turning them gay in the process. He gets away with this for AT LEAST 20 years, possibly longer. Even though he's murdered by one of his victims, the death is fairly quick. Even AFTER dying he gets to come back as a ghost and bully his son, the one boy he DIDN'T rape, into killing off his surviving victims, thus preserving the dead old pedophile's legacy. To cap it all off the death of Hamlet's father is blamed on Claudius, ensuring that the single surviving victim, Horatio, will be forced say nothing about what REALLY happened, or face execution for the treasonous act of murdering Hamlet's Father.

After all of this, Hamlet's father gets to spend eternity raping his own son.

The story isn't a condemnation of homosexuality as some critics assert, but a roaring love letter to pedophilia. It might as well have been titled "The Pedophile Triumphant" or "The Virtues of Molesting Little Boys."

Personally, I suspect the police would find a lot of very illegal material among his files if they ever raided Card's place. I also suspect "Hamlet's Father" is probably very popular among English speaking pedophiles.
Click to expand...

I think there's something that everyone but Orson Scott Card knows about Orson Scott Card.
 
Janadele said:
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

No, your entire religion and belief system are way, way the hell and gone further from the truth. Way, like really far from the truth. If you were at Mormon and asked someone for directions to the truth, they'd say, "you can't get there from here".
 
Pup said:
My wife, who's a member, specifically joined this forum because she was embarrassed at what Janadele was posting. That was many months ago, and after a while, the questions became repetitive. When she could answer most of the new questions by saying "see my post #---," it just wasn't worth her time anymore, especially because she wasn't here to convince anyone that the church was true, just to show that not all Mormons are like Janadele.
Click to expand...

She succeeded admirably. I did have one person in mind when I wrote my post, but it wasn't Cat Tale. If she were still paying attention to this thread at all, I figured she'd just be head in hands, shaking in disbelief, and muttering something about this being just too surreal.

I fully expect the LDS Church is struggling to reconcile the moralities of the present with the its historic stance. Other denominations are, too. The Church is conflicted (or at least I hope it is) and needs to find its way. And I don't believe the norm for the membership is the vitriol expressed by Janadele. Although her beliefs are not unique, they are not a "Mormon thing."

(If Janadele ever has a falling out with the Mormons, I do think there is a particular Baptist faction where she'd fit right in.)
 
Janadele -

Can you tell us your thoughts and feelings about President Hinckley's statement below?


President Hinkley speaking at the church's general conference: "Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ."
 
Last edited:
Also Janadele, the reason you (and many other people) make desparaging remarks about other people you don't even know, is because you are a human being. It's a very human trademark, unfortuneately.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The TRUTH is that you were born from human parents, on a planet full of humans, and you have always been, are now and will always be, a human being.

You belong to the planet Earth.

The fact that you hate people who are different from you says something about what you choose to generate in your life. You generate it, you sustain it and you can change it if you want. Decide what kind of person you wish to be.

No god required.
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
Then why, may I ask,if nothing I do influences your relationship with your 'god', and your own ability to follow your interpretation of "eternal law", is it any business of yours what my partner and I do on my land in the wilds of the New Mexico foothills? Why is my life of any concern to you at all? Why do you feel this need to tell lies, to invent stories, to twist events, to play the victim?

Upon what pretense do you base the asininity that your ideas about "eternal law" give you leave to demand legislation that affects, not you, but someone you would not recognize on a street corner?

It would be one thing is you, peronally, were being forced to participate in an act you found repugnant; it would even be another if you were insisting upon legislation to keep you from repugnant behaviour you were otherwise helpless to quit.

What possible right, or call, or commission, or mandate, can you colorably claim that licenses you to even comment upon, much less attempt to control, my behaviour, or my partner's behaviour, or our frequent and enthusiastic behaviour together; since, by your own admission, that behaviour does not affect you at all?
Click to expand...

To expand on this excellent post.
Janadale, as far as I know you claim your god is a god of love and care.
Therefore, in your view, love is a direct expression of god.
And in your faith those that love each other should be faithful to each other in the form of marriage, again as ordained by your own god.
Therefore forcing those that love each other to NOT marry can only be something an opponent of god would want.
Logic would therefore dictate that those who oppose gay marriage are actually serving god's opponent(s), rather than god.
The prophets of your church have clearly been wrong before about such things (the whole African American thing), so why not assume they have this wrong too?
Or do you consider love SO strong that two people are willing to bond for life an evil?
 
ddt said:
pakeha said:
One Mitchell and Webb episode deserves another!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LXCZRpxHpg
Click to expand...

And I'll raise you yet another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWEyY0vl4-w

BTW, is this sort-of the Mormon version of a DOC thread? Everything I've missed in the last 180 or so pages will be regurgitated anyway?
Click to expand...

Oh, a new pleasure!
I love these religion threads.

Is this a Mormon version of the DOC threads?
I'd say, very likely, but at the end of the day, enough people who actually know a great deal post and I get to learn a great deal.
And the vids.
Love the vids!

Still, the Mormons not only have all the foolish beliefs of DOC, but also the fraudulent BoA and the extraordinary BoM, so perhaps this thread rates higher than a DOC thread.
 
Last edited:
People who break the law are, of course, often summoned to court and fined. In most civilised countries, a business which supplies a service and refuses to serve someone solely because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender or sexual orientation is breaking the law. Anti-discrimination laws apply to everyone regardless of their own ethnicity, religous belief, gender or sexual orientation so they certainly cannot be regarded as harrasment or oppression of any particular group. An atheist who refused to serve a Mormon would be prosecuted under such a law, as would a Chinese who refused to serve a Caucasian or a Mormon who refused to serve a gay couple.
 
Pixel42 said:
People who break the law are, of course, often summoned to court and fined. In most civilised countries, a business which supplies a service and refuses to serve someone solely because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender or sexual orientation is breaking the law. Anti-discrimination laws apply to everyone regardless of their own ethnicity, religous belief, gender or sexual orientation so they certainly cannot be regarded as harrasment or oppression of any particular group. An atheist who refused to serve a Mormon would be prosecuted under such a law, as would a Chinese who refused to serve a Caucasian or a Mormon who refused to serve a gay couple.
Click to expand...

All true.

Except, apparently, from Janadele's post, when it involves anyone refusing to serve gays, it shouldn't be against the law. That it is is just "harassment".

She just appears more despicable with every post. :(
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom