Litzy

Members
  • Posts

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Litzy

  1. That's a question. What makes polygamy between consenting adults wrong but relationships between two consenting adults of one gender right?
  2. Another way to think of it is all or nothing.
  3. Litzy

    Baltimore riots

    I'm glad they're being charged. I hope the police go a step further and review their policies and procedures (I hate to say "fix it" every time one thing goes kaput, but it's at least worth a review).
  4. Litzy

    Baltimore riots

    I read a great education article some months ago that I can't locate at the moment, but it spoke of poverty and its effects in low-performing schools. The solution is very three-fold. The schools need to be fixed, the community needs to be fixed, and the homes need to be fixed. Yes, it's quite the challenge. You'll have the students that will push through and survive and succeed no matter what, but for a greater change all three of these components must be fixed. Leave one out and the assurance of success falls dramatically. The Church teaches so much about values being taught in the home. Everything goes back to the home. And darn it if I don't believe this whole-heartedly. But without community examples everything falls through. It's a big job. Platitudes about families and communities fixing themselves have their fair share of truth but the problem is greater than that.
  5. Thanks for that. Might I question you a little more? What gets me on the discrimination claim is that in my mind, anyway, discrimination implies an action. Questioning the abstract beliefs of various groups in order to create/enforce laws seems a longwinded goose chase. Were a church to say "Okay, we won't perform marriage ceremonies for anyone" I see that as avoiding the discrimination charge altogether as in the given example of the Church getting only in the business of temple sealings. But to take away privileges (and I concede the tax exempt status is a privilege and not a right) based on beliefs with no real actions stemming from them seems rather Orwellian. This is just me speaking, I'll have to look more into the case. I concede churches have no business getting into politics with anything more than your church luncheon political chit-chat and I'm grateful for laws that make church business dealings more clear (as has been said, those business dealings are paid for), but since you added the modifier "especially" that implies that churches by the very nature of being churches should lose the tax-exempt status. Perhaps you're right and the time of tax-exempt statuses has passed, but why just churches? A little church with no political or corporate connections... why that over a sports team or a community organization or what have you? I'm afraid I'm going to need more explanation on why churches should lose the status and no other type of organization.
  6. Yet it seems some articles I've read say the mere belief against gay marriage would be enough to lose the tax-exempt status. Is that something the courts could really have a say in?
  7. Litzy

    Baltimore riots

    I once heard (perhaps even here?) a cop's career was described as 98% being bored out of your mind and 2% being terrified for your life. If this is one of those cute statements that gets passed around the percentages probably differ slightly but amount to the same idea. As for the riots... it's a sad situation. By all means, I don't surprise mindless looting and cruelty and I think the majority of those rioters are simply taking advantage of the situation. But the root incident was terribly sad and there are so many mixed and passionate emotions in this city. I can't whole-heartedly pick a side.
  8. I am sympathetic to the fact that there are young men who for one reason or another were unable to serve or had to return early from a mission and may not have been treated in the most loving way. Of course this is wrong. But if we use the excuse of "No one should judge" to justify "I will do what feels good because no one should judge" we run into problems. I do believe those who think missions should be a choice (and they are, when it comes right down to it) have the best of intentions. But I see so many churches out there, groups of Christians, where so much of the doctrine and the lifestyle is "Love Jesus and do whatever you want". There's not much conviction.
  9. Gator, you're right and we all can be missionaries. But I don't think your kind of story and the nature of the priesthood duty of official missions necessarily are opposed. Why should it only be one or the other?
  10. I technically have no issue with female ordination, but I don't waste time thinking about it. To tangentially pick at the thread about the Bloggernacle, I think of Feminist Mormon Housewives. I know some people just love that blog, but I didn't read it very much because if you didn't weep in the temple over injustice toward females or cry over your lack of priesthood ordination, you were shunned. Probably my beginning of my distaste of the Bloggernacle.
  11. Ah. Thanks. Yet... we didn't even make a page before you mentioned it!
  12. I think, if all possible, male converts of the appropriate priesthood and age range should seek to serve a mission if so. It is a duty of the priesthood, and I tire of the opinion young men shouldn't feel some level of obligation to serve.
  13. I ought to be more loving, but I'm with Eowyn's interpretation. She (Kelly) craves the limelight.
  14. Scouting is the one area where I think people should be expected to grow comfortable over the years. The high turn-over of Scout leaders for the sake of giving a wide range of Church callings is ridiculous and doesn't do any good.
  15. In my experience temples have plenty of scriptures available for scripture study, if that is what a person wishes to do. I also seem to recall multiple advice on keeping your phone out of the temple/in your locker. Sorry about your wife, but I personally find the phones inappropriate.
  16. I'm all for this legal action. No matter where you stand on the parenting issue, no cop has the right to outright lie like that to children in custody. A cop should not be promising to take kids home, driving them around for three hours, refusing to let them contact their parents, etc.
  17. A little too meta and self-congratulatory for my taste.
  18. I think prisonchaplain wins the thread. Well-said!
  19. I used to drink coffee back when. Never was a big drinker, and personally felt no different going off of it. I know Maureen and I went around the block with medical opinion of coffee, but generally speaking I do see its share of medical benefits. Personally I feel the negatives of coffee are going to exist with individual circumstances and health.
  20. I also largely agree with the author. I agree spouses ought to be sexually open and available to them as much as possible. Now, that will vary from couple to couple and even the definition of sexuality will vary (as has been said, there are obstacles and possibly even just life that can get in the way.) I feel couples who don't reasonably seek to overcome obstacles to sexuality are breaking, if not a covenant, something (apology for vagueness, but I think it's wrong to allow misery over sex in a marriage without seeking to fix it). I don't think those incapable of sex ought to be banned from marriage (as long as the other spouse is aware and at peace with this fact) and I think the notion of "marriage must have sex to be holy" has too many exceptions to be a straightforward rule. But to whatever degree possible, sexuality is good in marriage, desirable, and should be sought after.
  21. I don't think the Church runs into any legal problem with letting private markets sell the movie for a profit. I think you're sticking to ideals. Which is good, but I don't think they're at odds with the release of this movie. I think the fact that Pedro and Betsy can buy this movie and meet those Mormons does far more good than locking this in some charity-only vault.
  22. Just caught up on the conversation and responding to this... With all due respect, it sounds like you're trying to justify carlimac as the bad guy when her initial movement was to correct some cruel LDS-mocking memes. I hope you're not saying gays have the right to do that just because they're gays. To carlimac, you did nothing wrong by responding to those memes. But one, has to be careful on public forums, as david said here. It's right to defend the Church's stance, but you need to be careful about what can be taken as name-calling. I find it wise to say one's piece and get out as soon as possible.
  23. No real personal story behind this, just a conversation with a friend that got me thinking. If you're having problems in a relationship that you feel could be helped to some degree by the other person just changing, is it fair or right to ask them to make changes? Not demand, not threaten, just ask.
  24. Always amazing to think about.