"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[JesusKnowsYou]

Stop pretending your comments are oh so innocent opinions and crying persecution when you’re called out on what they are... preaching. Cut the crap.

I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "preaching" - although I'm not exactly opposed to it either.

There is nothing wrong with preaching. Especially when you are asked to preach.

My comments have been completely innocent opinions.

You claiming that I am the one "crying persecution" is so funny. Kettle meet pot.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Why is God a glory hound?

No, that's not it at all. Let me try to help you work this out.

God's "glory" is synonymous with His "radiance" or "splendor" and I equate it to His - personal happiness.

God enjoys the ultimate state of existence. He is perfect in every conceivable way. He enjoys the ultimate expressions of joy, power and knowledge.

Sounds boring, doesn't it?

I mean, what is a perfect Being who transcends time and space even do? What's the point? What's there to gain if you've done everything already?

Well, God has claimed that His work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man.

What does this mean? It means that God, who has achieved everything there is to be achieved, decided to have offspring (Mankind) and decided to dedicate all of His efforts to helping them become as He is.

He wants us to achieve all that He has achieved. He wants us to become perfect, all-knowing and all-powerful - just as He is. A good parent.

This in turn - if it is successful - adds to His glory, or in other words, adds to His personal happiness. What a good parent.

Why do we need a parent?

Do you really not understand why children need parents?

If he wants us to be perfect he’s done a pretty crappy job.

No, He has done absolutely everything He can do.

He is not going to force any of His children to do something they don't want to do and that includes being perfect.

The nerve you have claiming that He somehow screwed up while also claiming that He has no authority over you and there is no reason for you to be obedient to His commands!

The path of pride does not lead to perfection. Only following the example set by the Lord Jesus Christ can lead us there.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Yep, that's the stuff. Seeing an extension of equality as "giving special privilege" is exactly what my post was referring to. Thanks for the demonstration.

That's begging the question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suppose it depends on how social you are.

I drive lyft for now, and interact with a bunch of people of all sorts of various types and demographs (about 30 total just tonight, and it would have been more but my last passanger made my car too dirty too keep going on).

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's begging the question.

Nope, not remotely. But feel free to attempt further deflection with random, inappropriate terms for logical fallacies you clearly don't understand.

Alternatively, feel free to really put me in my place by explaining in a logical and coherent manner how anything I said was "begging the question". I'll wait.

 

[Jainarayan]

There is nothing wrong with preaching.

There is on this forum.

 

[Jainarayan]

He has no authority over you and there is no reason for you to be obedient to His commands!

He doesn’t. He’s not my God. I’m sorry you don’t like that but that’s my belief. To me he’s just another deity, or even an asura or rakshasa that Lord Vishnu is letting run amok in the universe.

Believe it or not I’m actually a live ‘n let live guy except when I run into people who take the great commission to vomit-worthy levels and just don’t give up. This is why many people don’t like a lot of Christians, not all, not even most. But enough of them. They make pests of themselves with their preaching and sermonizing.

 

[Katzpur]

Congrats on your activity here and in the Church.

I don't understand why what you shared with me means you are a "square peg".

To my knowledge, the Church has always been an advocate of LGBT rights - so you aren't "square" for marching in that parade.

I understand why you'd prefer do teach a Sunday School class rather than go to the Temple - Endowment can be boring - but I just tell myself that I'm not doing it for me, but for whoever I'm standing in proxy for - so you aren't "square" in that regard either.

I had no idea that they changed the policy about civil marriages.

My wife's family aren't members, so I had to have a ceremony outside of the Temple too. I got sealed the day before. Even though I cannot come up with a reason for why a Temple-worthy couple could not be sealed first before having such a ceremony - you disagreeing with Church policy isn't "square peg-y".

I mean, if they can dissolve the High Priest Group, make us into ministering members rather than home teachers and finally take us to just two hours on Sunday - there's no reason to assume we can't question Church policy.

Do you live in the "Happy Valley"?

Thanks for your nice comments. No, I don't live in Happy Valley. I live in the Salt Lake metro area. By the way, where do you live?

 

[columbus]

But to describe Warren Jeffs as "traditional" is absurd. In what sense do you see him as traditional?

Who's attitudes towards marriage and family more resembles those of Smith and Young and Co.?
Yours and @JesusKnowsYou , or Warren Jeffs? Icky as I find him, Jeffs looks more like a traditional Mormon to me. I realize that Mormons dumped that polygamy thing a long time ago. I also realize that in some regards they were ahead of their time concerning women.
Didn't the Mormon majority in Utah have to give up Women's Suffrage in order to join a Union with more "traditional" Christians?

I don't claim to be an expert on LDS history, but I try to remain nuanced and realistic. Few things as large as the LDS are entirely good or bad. If I wanted to get all feminazi intersectional I'd point out that Mormons dumped women's rights to join the genocidal slavers back east for political purposes.
There's just no end to nuances when you're talking about human history and behavior.

The very fact that Mormons are so experienced at changing their institutional mind is why I expect them to accept and embrace marriage equality sooner than most similar groups.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Thanks for your nice comments. No, I don't live in Happy Valley. I live in the Salt Lake metro area. By the way, where do you live?

San Diego.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I drive lyft for now, and interact with a bunch of people of all sorts of various types and demographs (about 30 total just tonight, and it would have been more but my last passanger made my car too dirty too keep going on).

That's cool. I have always wondered about doing Lyft or Uber.

Is it fun?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Nope, not remotely. But feel free to attempt further deflection with random, inappropriate terms for logical fallacies you clearly don't understand.

Alternatively, feel free to really put me in my place by explaining in a logical and coherent manner how anything I said was "begging the question". I'll wait.

You are assuming that I am an inheritor of privilege and that giving special privilege is an extension of equality.

Any attempt to correct history will result in a disparity of opportunity for someone. It is illogical.

 

[Katzpur]

Who's attitudes towards marriage and family more resembles those of Smith and Young and Co.?Yours and @JesusKnowsYou , or Warren Jeffs? Icky as I find him, Jeffs looks more like a traditional Mormon to me.

Tom, you really do know far less about Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's attitudes towards marriage and family than you seem to think. Neither of them held women hostage, forced under-aged girls into marriages they didn't want or were involved in incestuous relationships. Wives and children were not "given away" or "reassigned" to men more in favor with Smith and Young. Furthermore, during the time in which polygamy was openly practiced by members of the Church, it was far easier for a woman to be granted a divorce than it was a man. Nobody crosses Warren Jeffs without severe consequences. That was not the case with either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

I realize that Mormons dumped that polygamy thing a long time ago. I also realize that in some regards they were ahead of their time concerning women. Didn't the Mormon majority in Utah have to give up Women's Suffrage in order to join a Union with more "traditional" Christians?

Women's suffrage in Utah first granted in 1870, long before Utah attained statehood (in 1896). Wyoming had previously given women the right to vote, but since Utah held two elections in before Wyoming held even one, Utah women were the first in the U.S. to actually cast their ballots. In 1887, though, the Edmunds-Tucker Act repealed women's suffrage on a national level. One provision of that act required a "test oath" against polygamy. This The opposition to this act was pretty extensive, since only about 20% of Mormons at that time were directly involved in polygamy. Anyone who refused to swear this "test oath" was prohibited from voting, serving on a jury or hold office. As part of Utah's push for statehood, women once again sought the right to vote. Eventually, the Utah State Constitution granted them that right.

I don't claim to be an expert on LDS history, but I try to remain nuanced and realistic.
There's just no end to nuances when you're talking about human history and behavior.

Well, you do a better job of that than some, that's for sure.

The very fact that Mormons are so experienced at changing their institutional mind is why I expect them to accept and embrace marriage equality sooner than most similar groups.
Tom

I wouldn't hold your breath. The Church does stand for LGBT equality in housing and the workplace, but because of our understanding of the divine nature of the family unit, I don't see such a progressive move with regards to marriage happening anytime soon. On the plus side, the Church-owned "Family Search" genealogy database has now been redesigned to provide access to records of same-sex families.

 

[Katzpur]

San Diego.

Lucky you.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

There is on this forum.

That depends on what you mean by "preaching".

When I responded to your comment I used the most common definition of the term, which is, "the delivery of a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people"

You asked me question about my beliefs and I shared my opinion to answer those questions.

The RF Forum Rules narrowly defines "preaching" as attempted to "recruit" or "convert" or to stating an opinion as a "definitive matter of fact"

It is not possible for you to claim that I did any of this since I continually claimed that I was not trying to convince anyone of anything and that everything I was sharing was my personal opinion.

Wow. You are just so upset that I disagree with you that you are doing everything you can to destroy me either by attacking my character or threatening moderation.

You don't believe in the concept of Freedom of Speech, do you?

 

[columbus]

You are assuming that I am an inheritor of privilege

Not speaking for @Kangaroo Feathers ,
but yes I am assuming that you've got the privileges Christian males of means, heterosexual, healthy, and of European extraction expect to have.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.

Perhaps you're a black lesbian pagan with HIV. I don't know.
Tom

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

He doesn’t. He’s not my God. I’m sorry you don’t like that but that’s my belief.

I honestly don't care at all what you believe.

All I was pointing out was that it is illogical of you to claim that He somehow failed you when you are the one claiming that you don't have to do anything He says.

That would be you failing Him - not Him you.

To me he’s just another deity, or even an asura or rakshasa that Lord Vishnu is letting run amok in the universe.

Ok. That's your God that doesn't care about what anybody does, right?

Believe it or not I’m actually a live ‘n let live guy except when I run into people who take the great commission to vomit-worthy levels and just don’t give up.

I choose not to believe it.

Someone who wants to shut other people up because they disagree with what they say is not a "live 'n let live" type of person.

Your desire that I "give up" means that you no longer want me to be able to share my beliefs.

You have convinced me that if you had the power you'd censure everyone that disagreed with you. I believe that is evil.

This is why many people don’t like a lot of Christians, not all, not even most.

Must be all the snowflake people with paper-thin skin who falsely equate speech with violence.

But enough of them. They make pests of themselves with their preaching and sermonizing.

If you don't want to hear us "preach" - don't come on religious forums websites.

If you really don't want us to to "preach" - you should especially not ask us to - like you did me.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Lucky you.

You think so? I want out.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Not speaking for @Kangaroo Feathers ,
but yes I am assuming that you've got the privileges Christian males of means, heterosexual, healthy, and of European extraction expect to have.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.

Perhaps you're a black lesbian pagan with HIV. I don't know.
Tom

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

What do you mean when you say "privilege"?

So far, we have been talking about systematic oppression and privilege.

At least, that is what I have been talking about.

Almost nothing you have mentioned applies to the "privilege" I thought I was discussing.

 

[Jainarayan]

I honestly don't care at all what you believe.

Sure you do. It’s your duty to bring us to your God.

All I was pointing out was that it is illogical of you to claim that He somehow failed you when you are the one claiming that you don't have to do anything He says.

That would be you failing Him - not Him you.

How can someone or something fail me that I have no belief in or have no expectations of?

Ok. That's your God that doesn't care about what anybody does, right?

Quite the contrary. He cares greatly. So much that he’s appeared 23 times already, and will appear one more time, to right wrongs. But he teaches, he doesn’t bark orders, threats or commands.

Someone who wants to shut other people up because they disagree with what they say is not a "live 'n let live" type of person.

I never throw the first punch. When someone gives me unsolicited advice or opinions, yes I will try my best to shut them down.

Your desire that I "give up" means that you no longer want me to be able to share my beliefs.

I think we all know them. I was raised with them and freely rejected them.

You have convinced me that if you had the power you'd censure everyone that disagreed with you. I believe that is evil.

Only if it were justified. There are and have been people here I disagree with and who disagree with me. But we converse. Most people know when to back off the sales pitch.

If you don't want to hear us "preach" - don't come on religious forums websites.

If you really don't want us to to "preach" - you should especially not ask us to - like you did me.

Perfect example of “my way or no way”. How about I start preaching to you about my faith. You don’t want to hear it. Yet I should not come onto a religious website that you think is for your own beliefs only? Wow just wow.