[QUOTE=Xyzzy;376843][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Kelly_(feminist)[/URL]

The recent events concerning this woman and the LDS church have been interesting.[/QUOTE]

Pardon, Mike. The link doesn't go directly to the article without the closing parenthesis.

EDIT: But once one gets there, the article and some of the links are indeed very interesting.

[QUOTE=kladner;376839]EDIT: I will elaborate. I am impatient with the presumption of respect owed to the [SPOILER]censored[/SPOILER] beliefs of others. I am especially impatient when those expectations come from adherents of sects, such as LDS and Roman Catholicism, which have expended huge resources emphasizing their utter disrespect for me, mine, and all the other people who do not conform to their [SPOILER][STRIKE]censored[/STRIKE][/SPOILER] narrow-minded views concerning sexuality, attraction, and loving, committed relationships.[/QUOTE]
I identify strongly with this too. The oppression under which so many people have lived, and must still live, not allowed to be the people who they are and forced to deny their most fundamental nature, more often than not has its roots in relgious-inspired bigotry.

But it's also worth emphasising that even within the most seemingly oppressive religious cults there are reasonable people who don't go along with the official line.

I did not know about Kate Kelly and read Mike's link with interest. She is clearly a courageous human rights lawyer trying to reform her church, but she is not unique within the LDS. Here's another group of Mormons who disagree with their church's stand on same sex relationships:
[URL]http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/[/URL]
This group has been around and campaigning for years, well before the recent strong swing in many parts of the USA towards marriage for all couples.

[url]http://nielsenhayden.com/GodandI.html[/url]

is an article by a rather good writer of my dim acquaintance about the experience of being formally excommunicated from the Mormons; though in her case the motivation was Mormon opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment forty years ago.

kladner,

[quote]I am impatient with the presumption of respect owed to the censored beliefs of others.[/QUOTE]Then I have even less reason to communicate with you. Your impatience, as you put it, has continually led you to mischaracterize and misunderstand my posts and statements. Who wants to communicate with someone who cannot even be civil and logical, much less show a modicum of respect to the other party (even if they don't want to respect the other's parties beliefs)?

[quote]I particularly had in mind the millions of tax-exempt dollars which the LDS put into the Proposition 8 referendum in California. Such political activities should call into strong question their tax-exempt status, but such are the preferences and subsidies that we all have to pay to religions.[/quote]This doesn't even make sense. The millions of dollars came from the members of the church, not the tax-exempt corporation. Thus, those dollars were not subject to any sort of church tax-exemption.

[QUOTE]I am especially impatient when those expectations come from adherents of sects, such as LDS and Roman Catholicism, which have expended huge resources emphasizing their utter disrespect for me, mine, and all the other people who do not conform to their censored narrow-minded views concerning sexuality, attraction, and loving, committed relationships.[/QUOTE]I find it unfortunate that you view the actions of my church as being a form of disrespect. I find it doubly unfortunate that we can't discuss this civilly.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;376843][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Kelly_(feminist)[/url]

The recent events concerning this woman and the LDS church have been interesting.[/QUOTE]

Is there anything on these circumstances where you would find a pro-LDS viewpoint useful? (Ditto this question to fivemack.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376875]Then I have even less reason to communicate with you. Your impatience, as you put it, has continually led you to mischaracterize and misunderstand my posts and statements. Who wants to communicate with someone who cannot even be civil and logical, much less show a modicum of respect to the other party (even if they don't want to respect the other's parties beliefs)?[/QUOTE]

:goodposting:

I suspect my political and religious beliefs are closer to kladner, but my views on how to have a discussion are much closer to Zeta-Flux.

[QUOTE]Is there anything on these circumstances where you would find a pro-LDS viewpoint useful?[/QUOTE]That is a tough question to answer.

Things that we consider to be archaic a lot of people consider to be reasonable.

A long time ago [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_persecutions"]burning people at the stake[/URL] was the cool thing to do. Hopefully this does not happen today. We think everyone agrees with that, right?

Can we look back 500 years and say that any religion was "better" then than now? (Obviously, better can be used in many contexts.)

At one time polygamy was acceptable in the LDS church. A revelation occurred, changes were made, statehood was granted and now that behavior is not mainstream.

At one time blacks were not admitted to the priesthood. A revelation occurred, changes were made, a large temple was constructed in Brazil and a lot of civil-rights heat was deflected.

If radical changes within the LDS church like that can happen, why couldn't there be another revelation allowing women to be admitted to the priesthood.

Doesn't allowing a 12-year-old boy admittance to the priesthood say a lot about what the LDS church thinks of adult women in general?

Our response is a little snarky, but our defense is that almost all churches change with the times or become irrelevant. (Or really scary!)

Seriously, your thoughts are appreciated.

[QUOTE=wblipp;376886]:goodposting:

I suspect my political and religious beliefs are closer to kladner, but my views on how to have a discussion are much closer to Zeta-Flux.[/QUOTE]
It's easy, in a discussion like this, to lose sight of what people have actually written.

Kladner writes that Zeta-Flux is entitled to his views, that he does not hold Zeta-Flux personally responsible for those in charge of the LDS, and directs his attack at the religions, not at Zeta-Flux himself.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;376887]Our response is a little snarky, but our defense is that almost all churches change with the times or become irrelevant. (Or really scary!)[/QUOTE]
What is the motor behind this change?

How can it be sped up?

[QUOTE=wblipp;376886]I suspect my political and religious beliefs are closer to kladner, but my views on how to have a discussion are much closer to Zeta-Flux.[/QUOTE]

Indeed!

Let us all here please be honest to ourselves and to each other.

No one can prove that one or more deities don't exist.

Nor can anyone prove that one or more deities does exist.

Nor which is the "one and true" deity.

Many lives have be lost over the ages because of disagreements and struggles about what, at the end of the day, is really just about perception, language, power and wealth.

[QUOTE=wblipp;376886]:goodposting:

I suspect my political and religious beliefs are closer to kladner, but my views on how to have a discussion are much closer to Zeta-Flux.[/QUOTE]


I think this is an unfair characterization of Kladner's general good natured and friendly discussion style, by wrongly assuming that this subject doesn't hit so close to home that it causes him to be a bit more vigorous than normal. It should be understandable to all why.

Also New Zeta [SUP]TM[/SUP] (and I'm glad you are back! despite threats that this is only temporary) isn't exactly like Old-Zeta always was.

It is a strange loophole, even though it is true, to claim that most of the money came from church members and not from the Church. The LDS has admitted to spending large amounts of money to transport and feed volunteers during 2008 to support Prop 8. They have admitted to publishing propaganda in favor of Prop 8. They have admitted to the use of Church resources and time to "preach" to members about the importance of supporting Prop 8--which of course lead to most of the money supporting Prop 8 to come from Mormons (up to 77% of the money by some accounts).

Too bad the money/time/effort/theological wrangling was wasted and like the opposition to gays in the BSA soon the Church will be forced to change its views--like every other [STRIKE]backwards[/STRIKE] less than modern religious organization.