When I read your heading yesterday, the first thing that came to my mind IS:
I was driving down Sardine Canyon into Brigham City, the city I grew up in. There was the ugly temple rising high above the small city. My boyfriend says it looks like it belongs to Scientology. And that day I was thinking about my parents (who are buried in the cemetery just at the bottom of the canyon) and sometimes I think about how they might view everything now and it occurred to me and I said it out loud to my parents if they are listening, "The temple was the BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT of my life."
What a build up for WHAT? All my years up until I went through at age 27 of how this was going to be the most special experience of my life and it was THAT? And my name is Lucy?
My dad told me it was BIZARRE after he realized I was never going back. He went through at 19 to get married and never went back until my sister got married over 20 years later.
For me, that is THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2020 10:55AM by cl2.
The unfounded intimation that a person is lying about his sexuality is offensive. The insinuation that one's true sexuality adversely affects his intellect and his work is bigotry. "Anonymous Today" understood that and hence opted, cravenly, for anonymity today.
For what it's worth, Margi is happy. Does that matter or is she hiding something that undermines her character as well?
This all sounds like what the church did to Michael Quinn, bruiting sententious rumors that his homosexuality rendered his research and his character unreliable. People should be better than such ad hominem attacks. They should address the people's ideas on their own merits.
You realize, I hope, that you are defending a statement that the author himself finds indefensible. After all, he was too embarrassed to append his usual moniker.
So the question isn't whether the poster was voicing bigoted sentiments but rather why you cannot, or cannot bear to, see it for yourself. Perhaps you should approach "anonymous today" and ask if he can explain it to you.
The offence comes with making a statement ("this guy is ...) rather than (if necessary at all) asking the question. How could the poster possibly know this in order to make a definitive statement as s/he did?
"I work with some really nice people, some of them gay/lesbian."
"He comes across as a highly sensitive, emotional person."
The poster is linking being "highly sensitive" and "emotional" with being gay. That's stereotyping, at least, which, yes, is likely offensive to at least some readers.
So I can understand why some would consider the proposition and comments to be offensive.
The poster continues: "He says that he's married, but I think he's struggling to be honest with himself."
Rampant speculation. Likely distasteful, at best, to many. And why say "He *says* that he's married...". He *is* married. No?
So, yes, it's fairly obvious why some would consider these comments to be bigoted. And wild speculation can be very hurtful to the subject. Also, as indicated above, speculating that someone is gay to supposedly explain their words, behaviour or situation is also bigotry.
I don't understand this OP. His second post below, supposedly a correction, doesn't indicate (to me at least) which word or thought he is correcting. Also, I don't get what "olympics for quadriplegics" refers to or what it's meant to mean. Sounds like a slur.
Rubicon said: "John is what I call a cultural Mormon. He likes many aspects of the modern church. He just wants to cut loose from the old ways."
John admits openly that there are still many benefits and cultural aspects of the LDS culture that he still loves and feels has brought him great happiness. I think to this day, he has not tried alcohol yet.
He avoids answering directly the question of the existence of a diety. He also likes to take an ultra subtle approach to examining the church (mixed faith marriages). He is trying to make his approach more palatable to TBM's.
However, I did see the new podcast this morning and decided not to listen. How anyone can come so far out of the BS and then go back into it, just makes me sick to my stomach. It's different to not know the shit your eating while you are eating it, rather than knowing it before, during, and after chewing and swallowing.
I thought being a closet mormon was totally repulsive, but this is just trauma on a whole other dimension.
John is completely envious of The Community of Christ Church. He want’s the church based in Utah to be more like The Community of Christ. He wants gay marriage in the church and females to hold the priesthood. He wants open temples with all the weird ceremonies gone. That being said he still wants the Mormon social vibe. John thinks the church is stuck in the old ways too much and needs to loosen up. He believes a lot of members feel the same way he does. So yeah. He’s not saying Mormonism is false and needs to fade away. He wants to reform it. He does not like how the old guys in SLC are running things.
The guy said that he is not making a decision of logic. He realizes that the facts don't add up, but he is running on his feelings and what he regards as spiritual influence. I didn't listen to all of it; I skipped around a little. But I heard enough to know (and he knows) that he is running on emotions, not intellect.
John Dehlin does sound like he wants back in the church, but they won't have him.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2020 12:06AM by Josephina.
to some of it because of what others have said about it. We do remember that John was "kicked out." He didn't decide to leave on his own. I didn't like something he wrote a while back about the good things about mormonism and how we should all acknowledge the good that mormonism did in our lives. I didn't agree.
My therapist is John's friend, though my therapist is very exmormon, though he has not resigned and, yes, he has tried alcohol (my therapist) and drinks it regularly. My therapist agreed with John's comments on the good mormon does and that we should acknowledge to ourselves what good it did. I disagreed with my therapist and he was fine with that. We have many discussions about things we agree and disagree with, like I don't agree with how he advises I deal with my son and we haven't agreed for years, but he doesn't know my son either.
But you guys have me curious now. I doubt I'll be surprised.
If they cut me a check for a billion dollars, a million dollars. I'd go back. I wouldn't believe, but I'd go through the motions. I've been poor, very poor. Yep, I'd be what? What is the word? I'm getting too old. I know there is no chance in hell they'll give me any money, so I'm not worried.
As for if he is gay, I'd tend to believe otherwise, BUT if he is, that is between him and his wife and none of our business.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2020 10:30AM by cl2.
Yeah, I guess I'm just in a fundamentally different place than some of these folks, who want to find a way back.
I put up with a lot of things about the LDS Church and Mormon culture that I didn't like, because I thought the doctrine and authority was from God--as I had been taught ad nauseam from childhood.
After I discovered the doctrine wasn't true, there just wasn't that much pull there. Sure, I was scared about the potential reaction of family and friends to my leaving the fold and what to do without the social structure in my life--but now that I've moved beyond those fears, I really don't feel any desire to go back. I believe that feeling would persist even if they reformed it into a decent sort of organization that was transparent, ordained women, changed their weird views on sex etc., because I've formed new associations and found new things to do with my life. I don't want to give any of that up just to return to Mormonism.
I'm curious, so maybe I'll listen when I've got a chance.