BYU - Call to Arms


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Oh okay. Thanks. 
 

If he just gets expelled, then he should consider himself incredibly lucky. 

Why would that be, Mr. Libertarian? ;)  What else, beyond expulsion, could possibly happen?  AFAIK, he’s committed no crime.  He’s expressed speech—odious speech, to be sure, but speech nonetheless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Why would that be, Mr. Libertarian? ;)  What else, beyond expulsion, could possibly happen?  AFAIK, he’s committed no crime.  He’s expressed speech—odious speech, to be sure, but speech nonetheless. 

:: snickers :: nice try @Just_A_Guy

Legally, nothing should happen to him. He has the right to be profane and use those words. 
 

I’m saying “If all he gets is expelled and the story ends there, he should fall to his knees in thanksgiving.”

Being expelled is nothing compared to being known nationwide as “That guy from BYU who used a gay slur.” That will ruin his life. Ask any of the Karens who went viral lately. 
 

So...yes. If he just gets expelled, he should go get some lottery tickets that day. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

:: snickers :: nice try @Just_A_Guy

Legally, nothing should happen to him. He has the right to be profane and use those words. 
 

I’m saying “If all he gets is expelled and the story ends there, he should fall to his knees in thanksgiving.”

Being expelled is nothing compared to being known nationwide as “That guy from BYU who used a gay slur.” That will ruin his life. Ask any of the Karens who went viral lately. 
 

So...yes. If he just gets expelled, he should go get some lottery tickets that day. 

Oh, I think he could always get a paid ministry in one of those looney “the Mormons worship a different Jesus, aren’t right-wing enough, and have been co-opted by the New World Order” type churches . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, I think he could always get a paid ministry in one of those looney “the Mormons worship a different Jesus, aren’t right-wing enough, and have been co-opted by the New World Order” type churches . . .

Where they have pictures of John Schmitz instead of Christ on the wall. 
😉

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my much younger years, back when @Vort was still in his 70’s, I spent a lot of time pondering the question of what sort of person I should try to be, until finally I stumbled across the obvious –

27  .  Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be?  Verily I say unto you, even as I am. 3 Nephi 27:27

It’s only this morning, as a result of this discussion, that I’ve started to question if this answer is gender specific, ie, only applying to men.

If more guidance is needed as to what sort of manner of man one should be, then the next best answer would be the proclamation. Between the proclamation, relevant conference talks, and 3rd Nephi 27:27, I’m not sure if any further guidance is needed in answer to the question of what manner of man one ought to be.

On a related side issue, Matthew 8:20 makes me think about how Jesus took care of any responsibility He may have had to meet the accommodation needs of His wife and family, if He had one at the time.

20  And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two following articles are a representation of my greatest concern about the LGBTQ+ movement and acceptance within the church.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/gay-mormon-happily-married-husband-father-puts-faith/story%3fid=16806146

Followed by this 4 years later.

http://www.newnownext.com/gay-mormon-josh-weed-divorce/01/2018/

I just did the google search 15 minutes ago.  Never heard of their story.  Found the first story, read it and then I looked for the second story (which I knew I would find).

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion as an omniscient commentator.  I wanted to yell at the characters “No, stop! You are making a horrible mistake.  No good can come from this.”  But then watching it unfold anyway.

There were so many signposts, STOP THE TRACKS ARE OUT!

This should never have happened!

 

Yes, we should love all men.  Including men (and women) who struggle with LGBTQ+ orientation, ideology, and lifestyles.  But not to this extent…?

It’s like looking at a Where is Waldo? book with a group of people looking over my shoulder.  And no one can find Waldo except for me.  Because to my eye, Waldo is wrapped in a rainbow flag.

 

I could deal with one of my sons being gay.  I would be crushed to find out that my daughter (married in the temple with children) is a Beard. 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to make one more clarification to Elder Holland’s Trowel Musket analogy.

We aren't out here hunting and killing LGBTQ+ combatants.  We are trying to build a temple and we are holding a musket as a deterrent to keep those away who wish to trespass on our property and tear down our temple that we have the right to build.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion as an omniscient commentator.  I wanted to yell at the characters “No, stop! You are making a horrible mistake.  No good can come from this.”  But then watching it unfold anyway.

There were so many signposts, STOP THE TRACKS ARE OUT!

This should never have happened!

I followed Josh Weed's public story I think since near the start.   I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.  What is the "this", that never should have happened?  What is the train wreck?  The divorce?  The marriage in the first place?  Making it all public?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I followed Josh Weed's public story I think since near the start.   I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.  What is the "this", that never should have happened?  What is the train wreck?  The divorce?  The marriage in the first place?  Making it all public?

 

His story is just more sad than anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I followed Josh Weed's public story I think since near the start.   I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.  What is the "this", that never should have happened?  What is the train wreck?  The divorce?  The marriage in the first place?  Making it all public?

 

yes, yes, and yes.  As well as much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

yes, yes, and yes.  As well as much more.

Well, ok.   I suppose many marriages that end in divorce could be considered a train wreck by spectators - sometimes before the marriage even happens.  But I think I'm still sort of missing your point.  Maybe this might help - here's a list of Josh Weed's milestones.  You're indicating things never should have happened - which ones?  I've titled the list "gay people shouldn't".  I'm assuming there will be things on this list with which you disagree, perhaps you could tell me which ones?  

Gay people shouldn't:
- come out to their parents at 13
- be supported and loved by their parents 
- reveal your SSA to your teenage friend, and fall in love with her
- get married to the opposite sex and try their best to make the marriage work
- get sealed in the temple to the opposite sex and try their best to make the marriage work
- talk about their personal lives and marriages in public
- become a licensed marriage/family therapist
- mutually agree to an amicable divorce after deciding platonic love just wasn't good enough to hold a marriage together
- be LDS in the first place
- be born in the first place
- exist

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Gay people shouldn't:

- mutually agree to an amicable divorce after deciding platonic love just wasn't good enough to hold a marriage together
 

This one. Though "platonic" should be replaced with "Christ-like". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mikbone said:

As an orthopedic surgeon I deal with people trying to work the system all the time.

And I always ask people what they do for a living.  The number of people who state that they are disabled is amazing.  When they tell me that they are disabled, I always ask why they are disabled because it is rarely obvious.  Some of the answers are ridiculous.

Many of the patients ask me if I will fill out their disability papers.  I always let them know that I am a fix you get you back to work kind of a doctor.

Male to Female ratio of the slackers.  9:1

I actually *could* be on the disabled list if I could ever find the time and money to get in, see a doctor, and get the proper physical evaluations. 

Problem is, I have to work for a living, and my Exchange insurance eats about 60% or so of my pay each month for a policy so terrible I have to pay out of pocket for blood work. 

(Arrhythmia because of a birth defect + scoliosis + at least one blown vertebrae + deformities in my hips, legs, and shoulders caused by that scoliosis + nerve damage in my hands from medical malpractice + blood pressure so high it's become a game whether I'll "defeat" a blood pressure gauge)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[Which one do you disagree with]
Gay people shouldn't mutually agree to an amicable divorce after deciding platonic love just wasn't good enough to hold a marriage together

This one. Though "platonic" should be replaced with "Christ-like". 

I can hang with that.  And after going to Weed's Twitter account and seeing the triple helping of ultra-woke Seattle blather he's routinely emitting, we can see what such worldly notions can lead to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

I actually *could* be on the disabled list if I could ever find the time and money to get in, see a doctor, and get the proper physical evaluations. 

Problem is, I have to work for a living, and my Exchange insurance eats about 60% or so of my pay each month for a policy so terrible I have to pay out of pocket for blood work. 

(Arrhythmia because of a birth defect + scoliosis + at least one blown vertebrae + deformities in my hips, legs, and shoulders caused by that scoliosis + nerve damage in my hands from medical malpractice + blood pressure so high it's become a game whether I'll "defeat" a blood pressure gauge)

I applaud your ability to continue working.  You are a Texan though, so I would expect no less.

Come to California.  I swear you can be disabled for almost anything here.  

Responses that I have heard for disability, I am not kidding...

I'm dumb

I did too many drugs.

I have PTSD.  <oh yeah, what branch did you serve in?>  What? oh, I didn't serve in the military.  My mom was mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mikbone said:

As an orthopedic surgeon I deal with people trying to work the system all the time.

And I always ask people what they do for a living.  The number of people who state that they are disabled is amazing.  When they tell me that they are disabled, I always ask why they are disabled because it is rarely obvious.  Some of the answers are ridiculous.

Many of the patients ask me if I will fill out their disability papers.  I always let them know that I am a fix you get you back to work kind of a doctor.

Male to Female ratio of the slackers.  9:1

I'm now curious about their reasonings. Only I belong to this group that is about local needs that I watch 90% because of dumpster fires and no one is able to do anything because they're disabled and it's always so vague...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

Why didn’t I recognize that I was straight at an early age?

I recall liking boys in elementary school and junior high. When I was a teenager, I got a job at Mervyn's (that dates me) and I often worked ships in the men's department. Some of the models they used on the walls to advertise slacks and button-down shirts, well, I don't think I had impure thoughts, but I did state once I was pretty sure I was straight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I recall liking boys in elementary school and junior high. When I was a teenager, I got a job at Mervyn's (that dates me) and I often worked ships in the men's department. Some of the models they used on the walls to advertise slacks and button-down shirts, well, I don't think I had impure thoughts, but I did state once I was pretty sure I was straight. 

I noticed that girls were prettier than boys in 7th grade.  I don't think I considered kissing a girl till I was in 8th grade.  Had to bridle my passions in High School.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I applaud your ability to continue working.  You are a Texan though, so I would expect no less.

Come to California.  I swear you can be disabled for almost anything here.  

Responses that I have heard for disability, I am not kidding...

I'm dumb

I did too many drugs.

I have PTSD.  <oh yeah, what branch did you serve in?>  What? oh, I didn't serve in the military.  My mom was mean.

I live by Fort Hood. 

It's a rare day when we *don't* have military aircraft flying overhead, usually either cargo planes coming / going from the main airfield or helicopters (typically the AH-64D Longbow Apache, UH-60 Blackhawk, or CH-47 Chinook) on training operations. 

Wheeled vehicles like Humvees and cargo trucks often cut through city streets when going between training areas, or might even be on the streets so someone can learn how to drive in an urban environment. 

You can hear the loudspeakers throughout the base playing various songs at specific times of the day, often from miles away. 

If we've got a unit going to or from Fort Irwin for training, you'll see trains hauling tanks and other heavy vehicles. 

Range fires are common in the summer, usually the result of a hot shell casing hitting dry grass. 

The local newspapers remind everyone when the base is going to do artillery or bombing practice (yes, sometimes the Air Force shows up) so that we're not bothered by the inevitable explosions and we have time to secure loose valuables lest they rattle off the shelves. 

It's life. 

So when I read pieces like "the National Guard was doing training in this major city and people were freaking out" or "this editorial writer claims to have emotional trauma from firing an AR-15", I ask myself how they'd handle living down here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I can hang with that.  And after going to Weed's Twitter account and seeing the triple helping of ultra-woke Seattle blather he's routinely emitting, we can see what such worldly notions can lead to. 

This isn't necessarily a reply...just sharing more thoughts on the matter.

The problem with the whole "gay" ideology (and I'm talking specifically in the church where we, theoretically understand sex and love and commitment and relationships and all that stuff from an eternal perspective) is that it tends to claim something that isn't really ultimately true for anyone. It's like this special case that applies to gay people but no to one else. That claim is of two parts. That they need to be "attracted" to be sexually fulfilled, and that they cannot be happy if they aren't sexually fulfilled.

Like this is the party line: Heterosexual Latter-day Saints get to be sexually fulfilled but homosexual Latter-day Saints have to not be and commit to never being fulfilled that way for the rest of their lives.

But when you consider that it falls apart really quickly. First, what is "fulfilled"? I mean what does that even mean? Sex with someone who's attractive to you? Is that really what fulfillment means? Or can an individual actually have a fulfilling sex life with someone who isn't their idea of attractive? The latter is, actually, true. Myriads of faithful husbands know this. But everyone likes to pretend the first, shallow, meaningless idea of sexual fulfillment is true. But that's not true and never considered requisite in heterosexuality in LDS circles. When some guy goes around saying he'll only marry and stay with someone who REALLY turns him on, everyone knows immediately how shallow and short lived that idea actually is. Heck, even when I was a young man and seeking that super-model ideal, I knew it was shallow and I ought to grow up and consider other things than symmetry and size of facial and body features.

Which brings me to my second point. That stuff is short lived! It's not for the rest of their lives for heterosexuals either. What every man ought to know is that even if he gets lucky enough to actually marry the exact perfect woman that's ideally attractive to him, that doesn't last. That especially doesn't last if one has the priority to procreate and have a family. Babies ruin bodies. Everyone knows that. Stretch marks. Fat. Saggy breasts. Hemorrhoids. Scars. Spider veins. Cellulite. And that's adding to the reality of old age where all of those things might ultimately happen anyhow...not to mention the wrinkles and graying.

But a lot of people know and expects two things in the heterosexual world: 1. Even if your wife gets unattractively fat and wrinkly and has stretch marks and saggy breasts YOU DON'T LEAVE HER OVER THAT! And 2. You can, actually, still have a satisfying and fulfilling sex life even when that becomes the case. You can learn, change and adapt. I'm not saying cellulite and stretch marks become attractive. Maybe...I guess...some guys... shrug. But you can learn to find sexual fulfillment despite those things. That I know to be true.

I don't buy for a second that the theoretical inability to have sexual fulfillment justifies any of the lies being told by that progressive Latter-day Saint crowd. Yeah, not getting what you want sexually can be a struggle. It can be difficult. Get over it and move on. All men who don't will turn into lecherous adulterers.

Nor do I buy the lie that you can't find fulfillment if you aren't being sexually stimulated by what ideally turns you on. I do, very much, understand the challenge of it. I don't accept that because it's a challenge (which fidelity is for ALL men at some level) it justifies any level of infidelity in thought or deed.

Every man ultimately ends up with a wrinkled, unattractive person as their spouse, because eventually they're going to be 80, and what young man looks at an 80 year old woman and thinks, "Oooo baby!?" None of them. Because they aren't attractive unless the man adapts and learns to appreciate (or at least look past) things that aren't necessarily naturally attractive to them. Some men don't adapt and leave their wives for younger models. But everyone kind of knows that 70 year old with a 20-something-year-old on his arm is probably a creep. But in the gay world the idea of leaving someone you've made promises to who doesn't turn you on for someone who does makes you a hero?

The hero is the person who puts their lustful, sexual, shallow, meaningless selves aside for a higher way, and learns sexual fulfillment despite the lack of perfect attraction. The hero is the one who, even when his wife is fat and old, or disabled, or has issues that make arousal difficult so they don't have much of a sex life at all, but they stay true and committed and actually love their wives anyhow! That man walking tenderly and lovingly next to his aged wife, round-bellied, breasts sagging down, hunched over with age, wrinkled and decrepit, spider veins and cellulite everywhere... that man's a hero. That's the man we should all strive to be -- and we all darned well know it!

Yes...men lose their libido and can be, in many cases, less interested in sex, and therefore less concerned about the attractiveness of their spouse when they age up. But that simply argues even more for how short-term and shallow the idea of putting the ideal of perfect sexual fulfillment as a priority in one's life -- especially when one understands the temporary state of this life and what a blip in time it will be in the eternities, and if we just show a bit of willingness to sacrifice and bind our passions what glory and joy can be ours.

So at best one could argue that for a relatively short period of time those with homosexual drives in the LDS world are asked to live differently that those with heterosexual drives. How long that time is won't be consistent. One man might have his wife remain relatively thin and attractive until she's quite old. Another may have his wife get into a disfiguring accident on day 2 of their marriage. Another might be more mature than I was and actually look at things other than looks and marry the chubby girl I never would have taken a second look at because she's awesome, and then learn to find sexual fulfillment with her despite the fact she was not what he'd have chosen as the ideal physically. Etc. etc. 

Worst case, we live a SHORT life. A couple more than a hundred years at best. More likely around 70 to 80.

I understand those outside the gospel having this messed up in their heads. In the church -- it's sad. We should understand these things better. We understand the eternities. We understand life-long marriage and commitment. We understand baby-making and the trials it brings and that it's worth it. We should know better, regardless of what particular natural perversion we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share