Friday, October 8, 2010

Cover your Ass

The Mormon church is already changing BKP's talk. I am publishing the original and the changes to hold them accountable:

The version spoken in conference can be found here :
We teach the standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes and counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From The Book of Mormon we learn that wickedness never was happiness. Some suppose that they were preset  and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.

The version now on the churches website: edited version   We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.”
Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? (deleted) Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

Since I am writing, I want to add this; think for yourselves, think reasonable, be rational, ask questions. If something smells bad, ask why.

*I asked why. This is what I came up with: BKP said that god would not do that to people. Well:

Here is some information on what god has done to people:







If this loving God  wouldn't make someone gay, why would he make someone have Angelman's, where they are non-verbal, they have joint problems, they are violent toward their loved ones, they have difficulty learning and have low IQ, they have difficulty eating and swallowing and sleeping. The cannot sweat well and sunburn easily. They will have to be taken care of their entire lives. They cannot dress themselves without help, brush their teeth without help, sit or sometimes walk without help.

*He says that being gay is unnatural. He goes on to say that the natural man is an enemy to god. You can't have it both ways. Is it unnatural or natural? Are we as humans natural or unnatural? Which way? Confusion and conflict. 

*He says you cannot vote against the law of gravity. Has he never heard of the 3 laws of motion that govern flight? There are higher laws that allow birds and planes to overcome gravity, Mr. Packer! Know your science! There are also gay animals in all species. When an animal species is facing extinction or other extreme conditions, there is an increase in homosexuality. Homosexuality is born, not a choice, science has shown that time and again. Here is a link:
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/24596/#434109


I want to add my own personal story. When I was in college, one teacher had several students come into one of my classes. They gave their own personal stories of being gay. It was moving and emotional. After the class, I was confused, as I had been told my entire life that being gay was a choice but the stories just told where the opposite. I sought out my teacher. I told her I was having difficulty relating to the experiences just shared with the class. I told the teacher that I had never questioned my sexual identity. Her response, "exactly." That was an epiphany to me. If I never questioned my sexual identity, then how audacious was it for me to assume that people who are gay should have to question theirs.  


The Mormon church continues to say that being gay can be cured. This is their idea of trying to 'cure being gay' http://www.suite101.com/content/byu-electroshock-aversion-therapy-a33025
If God wants the Mormon church to cure being gay, then why hasn't he revealed to BKP how to do it? Electroshock treatments didn't work, behavior modification being used in an organization called Evergreen isn't working.

Where's your revelations, profits? Where?

2 comments:

Alan said...

8 Oct. 2010
Alecia, now it has been some years since I have read through the literature, but I was recently involved in an online discussion group (following the Proposition 9 issue in California) that reinforced what I read 25 years ago about whether or not homosexuality is innate. You assert that it is ignorance of science and nature to assert it is a choice. This is a very complicated question and your version is no more nuanced than the one you criticize. Lesbians and gays don't want to surrender the notion that they make choices about such fundamental matters; for public consumption they often assert the unqualified claim that homosexuality is innate, but in the scholarly literature the claims are much more qualified. The less sophisticated stance is a politically-motivated position for public consumption, including much of what one finds on the Internet. Most lesbians assert that their commitment to lesbian sexuality is a decision because women have through history so often been denied the right to make their own choices that they don’t want to endorse a new form of determinism that denies their choice in this matter. They don't want to surrender the notion that they too are making choices. Even though gay men are more likely to assert the innateness of their sexuality, still the academic literature on the topic is more likely to combine some element of choice with some measure of innateness, but again there is a reluctance to endorse a world in which people are not free in their sexuality. Among gay people I have known, some assert it isn’t a choice they make and some assert it is. Generalizations too broad are likely to be inadequate. I think you are letting your anger and your bitterness toward the church warp your arguments so they are needlessly one sided and inaccurate.
Now, if I used the same tactics you do and imputed bad faith and ignorance to be the source of this disagreement, where would that get us? It is too easy to presume that your opponents are dishonest. Then you begin to see dishonesty in everything they say and your reading into their arguments becomes so complex that it isn’t helpful. One should begin with the presumption of charity instead of the presumption of dishonesty or your criticisms begin to caricature your opponent. I think your blog entries on fallacies, on the City Creek redevelopment project, and other topics engage in this form straw man and ad hominem argumentation; I haven’t read many of your blog entries, but from the sampling I have read I think I’ll find similar difficulties. I have no doubt that you are honest and sincere, but you let your hatred cloud your argumentation and judgment.
Your brother,
Alan

Anon said...

I love my brother and all my family who are still blinded by their faith in the mormon church.

I fundamentally disagree with him and feel he is in a state of cognitive dissonance.