Notes From All Over

14 Responses to Notes From All Over

1. Adam Greenwood on January 9, 2009 at 8:44 am

   Dave Barry’s Year in Review!

   Click ‘more links’ to get it if you missed it.

2. Kent Larsen on January 9, 2009 at 1:04 pm

   Adam added to the sidebar: “New York dulls your wits”

   Really, Adam? You picking a fight with me?

   I found this line in the article particularly insightful:

   “Natural settings, in contrast, don’t require the same amount of cognitive effort.”

   Apparently, this article is based on the research of scientists who think “cognitive effort” is bad.

   Lets all go back to nature, so we don’t have to think!!!

   [GRIN]

3. Julie on January 10, 2009 at 11:07 am

   I found this snippet from the NPR piece interesting…

   Eternal marriage for Mormons always involves a man and a woman. “That’s exactly as God declared it,” Ballard says. “Because only between a man and a woman can children be born. And children are inheritance of the Lord.”

   Mormons believe that birth brings “spirit babies” from a pre-life existence into this life. This is doctrine that prompts Mormons to oppose gay marriage.

   The Sealing Room is sacred but not too sacred for a political question. Is there room in Mormon theology for gay partners, shared health and death benefits and protection from discrimination?

   “There is some very careful study, very careful evaluation being made, as to what would be appropriate and what isn’t doctrinally,” Ballard answers. “But if anything interferes with the basic fundamental principle of marriage being between man and a woman, doctrinally we’re locked in. We don’t have the capacity to call upon God and tell him to change his mind, that he made a mistake.”

   Do you think there will be an official church statement in the near future about the importance of not discriminating against gay partners when it comes to civil matters such as health benefits and rights, etc…? I am glad that the issue is being studied and evaluated.

4. PK on January 10, 2009 at 11:48 am

   Kent,

   It isn’t so much that New York dulls your wits. It’s more like, think how much smarter you’d be if you didn’t live there.

   About this:

   Natural settings, in contrast, don’t require the same amount of cognitive effort.

   That’s the point at which I stopped reading the article. You see, it isn’t true. Witness: Crocodile Dundee.

   Either the city-dwelling writer misinterpreted the scientists’ conclusions regarding their data or the scientists involved spend too much time indoors in their labs. Or both.

5. Adam Greenwood on January 10, 2009 at 1:26 pm

   Really, Adam? You picking a fight with me?

   Nah, it wouldn’t be fair. Out here in the alfalfa fields I split atoms with my mind.

6. PK on January 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm

   Adam, I fear you just made yourself a target for fundamentalist extremists.

   You probably further piqued the zombies’ interest, too.

   By the way, speaking of “pique,” thank you for giving me my new handle, “PK.” I like it, I’m keeping it.

7. WillF on January 12, 2009 at 1:39 am

   Did Marc really mean to link to the particular article tied to “Prop 8 supporters file suit to conceal donor identities”? It is full of anti Mormon propaganda. Are you sure there isn’t a better article that conveys the same news?

8. Marc Bohn on January 12, 2009 at 1:49 am

   I had intended to link to that article because it’s the only real article I’d seen reporting on it. While I haven’t seen any other press on it, in response to your comment I looked around a bit more and found a press release from the Yes on 8 campaign which the link now runs to.

9. Chino Blanco on January 12, 2009 at 5:21 am

   Re #7 & #8: the AP piece on this topic was widely reprinted: Calif. gay marriage foes want donors anonymous

   Re “ABC’s Nightline too …”: ABC has been scrubbing comments faster than you can say Jack Robinson.

10. Anon. on January 12, 2009 at 10:35 pm

    “Do you think there will be an official church statement in the near future about the importance of not discriminating against gay partners when it comes to civil matters such as health benefits and rights, etc…? I am glad that the issue is being studied and evaluated.”

    No, I don’t think there will be. The Church is not really in favor of these rights, it just chooses not to oppose them where they are already established, that is a substantial difference. Here is the thing, current doctrine does not really admit that homosexuals exist. Current doctrine states that there is “same sex attraction” but comprehends same sex attraction as a struggle, a problem, or pathology effecting heterosexuals. So actually supporting these kinds of rights for same sex couples would be a step in the direction of admitting that homosexuality is real, and not just a problem that some, otherwise heterosexual, people struggle with.

11. Rob Perkins on January 12, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    Incorrect: Current policy acknowledges homosexuality, but insists that the causes are complex and not completely known. Current doctrine permits sexual reproductive activity only between a man and a woman, married to one another, while neither acknowledging or denying the existence of homosexuals.

    LDS leaders are not idiots, and not at all the same as Chris Buttars (for one disturbing anti-gay example). They’ve made no effort to hide either their position on the subject or the thought process behind the position. It’s all on the Church’s Newsroom website for viewing.

12. Anon. on January 13, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Rob, slow down and read more carefully, you and I are addressing related but different issues.

13. Adam Greenwood on January 13, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Save the condescension, Anon. Disagreeing with you or your definitions is not the same as careless reading.

14. Anon. on January 13, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    No condescension here. There really is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual in the context of the statements made by the church.