Ookla

13 hours ago, Wasing the want of this said:

I went to the temple earlier and this was one of my names!

 

Oh, that's excellent. 

On 5/13/2025 at 10:28 AM, Mag said:

(No you're good!! it's great to hear another perspective, I'm sorry I'm definitely not the person to be debating this with you lol)

I guess we just believe that while he was working in the spirit world, he also took the time the time to visit the Americas somewhere in there. I want to say that we traditionally believe he goes during the 3 days, but I honestly can't remember and that doesn't make a ton of sense because they touch him during his visit . . . I don't think time is meant to be an issue because as a god he just descends in America, appears a few times there over the course of a few days, and then ascends again.

If I understand correctly, I think Jesus didn't actually appear in the Americas until about a year later. If you read carefully in 3 Nephi 7-11, it looks like all the thunderings and lightnings and such that occurred at the time of Jesus' death in Israel was happening at the end of the thirty-third year after the sign in the heavens indicating Jesus' birth (as we'd expect given the timeline in the New Testament). However, though the Nephites did hear Jesus' voice a few times in the first few days afterward, Jesus didn't actually appear to them until the end of the thirty-fourth year. So that time crunch isn't an issue, because Jesus only spoke to the Nephites in those three days, and then went and finished up with the Apostles in Israel, and then a year later came back to show Himself to the Nephites.

YKYAN when you regularly use D&D terms in relation to everyday life--eg. "I really failed my Charisma check there."

3 hours ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

Yes - definitely.

There is a passage of our history (during translation) in which Martin Harris, who was helping translate, requested the papers (there was only one copy at that time) to show to his wife, who was pressuring him about his beliefs at the time.

Joseph Smith told him no, but after repeated requests, he gave him 116 pages, what we know as the Book of Lehi.

Short story, the pages were stolen. We believe that Joseph Smith refrained from retranslating them because whoever had stolen them wished to tamper with them and then essentially say that the prophet was contradicting himself.

We never got these pages back.

However, we also believe that the Lord has already provided a “backup” - but we also believe that, rather than it being a backup, it contains more detail and more prophetic guidance (Nephi wrote two books, one he called a historical record - lost, and one he called a spiritual record) - that was also translated.

After this, Martin Harris kinda sinks into sullen shame.

And so, everyone is surprised when Joseph Smith brings him back - forgives him. He becomes one of the Three Witnesses, and never once denies the truth of what he saw.

 

We don’t worship our prophets. Just like we don’t worship the prophets of old.

Well said!

8 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Do you believe that Joseph Smith made mistakes?

Yes. You can read about some of the consequences of those mistakes in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I fully accept the Bible as GOD's Holy Word, and that absolutely speaking, the original HEBREW, GREEK, and ARAMAIC was without error. I feel that with the help of the HOLY SPIRIT that the translations we presently possess are very good and again one can go back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and note that the original text we have today compares very well with that of ancient manuscripts.  Given that, I do not accept any later books found as real.  They are not ancient text and there is a total lack of historicity among them.  And such text seem to dwell on contrived human events rather than on CHRIST's linkage and HIS GRACE.  I believe in one GOD essence that has eternally existed as a Trinity.  The FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT share an eternal love and bond.  Nothing surprises GOD.  GOD foreknew and predestined to allow all events to occur as HE knew that they would, and had a plan of salvation ready at the most perfect moment in history.  

While your argument against later-found books works well enough against the Doctrine and Covenants (which members of my church believe to be revelation from God to His prophet in modern times), I would recommend doing more research into what has been found in the way of archaeological evidence that seems to support the narrative in the Book of Mormon (and also to read the Book of Mormon so you can compare what's inside it to that evidence yourself). There have been a great deal of discoveries in the Mesoamerican region that seem to support the idea that the stories in the Book of Mormonactually happened--not to mention evidences within the book's language itself, including perfect and near-percet chiasmus, among other things, that Joseph Smith would not have been able to come up with out of his own head with the knowledge and education he had at the time of publishing the Book of Mormon.

I would say that watching the "Journey of Faith" documentary series would be a good place to start in that particular endeavor, again with the caveat that actually reading the Book of Mormon, if you haven't yet, would give you the knowledge you'd need to really understand the arguments the archaeologists and liguists and such in that documentary are making.

When it comes to the Pearl of Great Price, I don't know of any direct evidence to support it (though I'm no expert), aside from the existing Bible, and for me it's a matter of, "If I believe the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God, it's not a huge stretch to believe the Pearl of Great Price was translated that way too." 

Also, a question for my own curiosity: Do you believe it possible to receive revelation or for there to be living prophets in the modern day? Why or why not?

On 4/30/2025 at 9:44 AM, ShatteredDiamond said:

God could prevent evil and I believe in some circumstances He does step in, but in order for people to choose to be good they have to be able to choose to be evil. The world is fallen and unfair. But that's the whole point of it, learning to grow and deal with challenges. Living with no challenges... you might as well not exist. A friend of mine was hit and killed by a car yesterday. Could God have prevented it? I believe so. But it isn't my job to judge when people are ready for the next life. It isn't for me to choose which trials people are going to be able to handle. I don't know which hardships are needed to make people grow. God does. He wants us to be happy, but happiness isn't found unless you are progressing. It would be like a video game where you don't have to build anything, fight anyone, solve anything. You just sit there and peacefully exist, bored out of your mind. There has to be the potential for evil for this life to have a purpose. And for there to be that potential, God can't step in and slap people on the hand every time they try to do something bad.

Ah, friend. That's rough. Wishing you all the best.

On 4/20/2025 at 5:02 PM, SpiritOfWrath said:

But what about historical art? (Like, this art is from looong ago)

Stuff that doesn’t necessarily evoke emotion, but is still useful and respected?

5 hours ago, AquaRegia said:

I think perhaps you have already answered your own question lol

I agree with @AquaRegia here--I believe a lot of historical art was intended to invoke emotion, as a lot of it has religious iconography and that was important and moving to a lot of people back then. Even though modern tastes are different, the intent to evoke emotion was still there at the time of its creation (to my knowledge) and it still had an impact on the people it was created for. And speaking of, Aqua, I really like your definition!

On 4/8/2025 at 1:35 PM, Hawks said:

Im getting sick of my softball coach. 

He cant process what sensory issues are and that my brain is wired different so some of his drills dont work for me.

like i need to actually do the play to learn it

i cant practice things halfway through.

While I was still doing Irish dance, I felt that HARD (Also, hi, I'm getting assessed for autism and ADHD through school... sometime in the next month-ish. So we'll see how that comes out!). I learned dances really slowly, and only by having someone else walk me through the steps slowly about 7-8 times, and I eventually reached the point where no one had the time to do that for me (which is why I quit).

So happy to find that this thread is a thing!

5 hours ago, SpartanBrigade said:

That Wax one is perfect lol
I think I'd probably take Jenga against Yumi since she'd be kinder when she beats me as opposed to Hoid

Accurate! Hoid will mock you; Yumi will just correct your technique.

I think art is any thing that has been created with love, thought, and care, by a person who wants to bring beauty and goodness into the world. But I also think art is a process, not just a product--it's as much, if not more, about how we develop as we create our art as it is about what we are actually creating. It's about the change it brings about within us as we experience it, both in the creation and the appreciation of it.

And the beauty of it, in my opinion, is that because every person's experience of art is subjective, there can be a piece of art out there that speaks to every person--especially if we all engage in its creation. Personally, I think that if every person focused on bringing that beauty and goodness into the world rather than trying to "win" or "get ahead", the vast majority of the conflicts and contentions on this earth would disappear.

So... I guess the shortest way to put it is that art is anything that makes the world a better place by bringing more light and beauty and goodness to it.

58 minutes ago, ConfusedCow said:

I don't like Retribution.  Shocking I know. 

What I mean is I think Honor + Odium, or Honor + Passion, ought to not equal Retribution.

Retribution is a petty, small minded feeling, unbefitting of a shard let alone two.  Incongruous with Taravangians' sweeping plans and philosophy.  It is focused on narcissistic goals of getting even or some naive sense of fairness.   It has none of the grandeur of Honor nor the consuming force of Odium.  This one detail really irks me about the book, which I think is the weakest in the series.   It undermines and cheapens this great calamity.  Oppression, Enmity, Contempt, Pride/Hubris, or even Storm would have been better.  

I guess that depends on how you're used to the word retribution being used. To me, Retribution is kinda like Justice--but in a more vengeful, hateful kind of way. I did a quick dictionary search and one of the definitions was punishment, which seems fitting enough. So at least for me, calling it Retribution works just fine, but if you're working off a differently-nuanced head-definition, then it might not be the best Shard-name for how your brain works. 

I'd say Kaladin. Heraldic power is no joke, and Nomad's Dawnshard is doing all it can to keep him from fighting. The one advantage I think Nomad has is that the restriction to his fighting abilities has forced him to get more creative with how he does things, but regardless, if he doesn't siphon off the Investiture blocking him from fighting, he's a sitting duck. Plus, Kaladin is a 5th-oath Radiant as well as a Herald, and we still don't know what that last power boost is. 

Here's my issue: ALL the Shards are a problem on their own, because they have no balance of Intents. Any one of the Shards, taken too far (which is the Shard's nature to do), is going to be an issue. Plus, all the single Shards we've seen most and gotten to understand best, the original Vessels either died, withered away in a constant tug-of-war with another Shard, or went insane before the Shard Splintered. It's not a great track record. If I had to choose a shard, I'd probably go with Endowment because, from what we've seen, she hasn't gone completely insane or been forced to do awful things by her Shardic Intent, but I also know I don't have a lot of information on Endowment's story and who she was before and after the Shard, so it's still risky. Even Endowment, taken too far, is going to be a big issue.

But, honestly, if I could have all the power I wanted in the Cosmere, I'd pick up ten thousand Breaths on Nalthis, a bead of Lerasium on Scadrial, and my Edgedancer/Truthwatcher spren (depending on which got to me first; I flip-flop between the two orders whenever I take the quiz) on Roshar, and return home content with all my favorite Cosmere powers. Dealing with Shards is way above my paygrade!

2 hours ago, CognitiveShadow said:

Would you prefer the ideal of blind obedience and devotion to one side regardless of circumstance? Are you opposed to people folloiwng their convictions with sincerity, devoted to doing what they feel is right even though it may put them at odds with the larger movement that they have previously supported? I'm all for people getting to make their own choices, and very against people being controlled by a dictator who they are not allowed to question.

Bippy the flamespren seemed pretty happy to me. And I believe that the Sibling agreed to this change because they were able to recognize that this was a good solution. It's literally no different from riding horses or having them pull a cart. If you treat them well and meet their needs, I think it's fine. If you mistreat them and torture them then it's not cool. The Sibling's very nature would not allow them to agree to this if it wasn't an acceptable one. Protecting the spren is one of their top priorities. Adonalsium made the spren, and part of that included creating the groundwork for fabrial creation. The earlier Rosharans had a better process, one that invovled spren choosing to manifest as fabrials. This only worked with true spren (higher spren with sapience), so eventually they learned to trap the lesser spren. I see this more as a growth/progress for Navani and humans at large, as they admit that their previous process was not right. So they are changing to make it so that the spren used in fabrials are well treated. 

I do and have and will again. A major part of this series is exploring oaths and their value - Honor wants nothing but the strict adherence of all oaths, believes there is no bad oath, and that keeping an oath cannot be wrong. We learn that there is quite a bit of nuance to that in the real world though and in the cosmere. I'm glad that this is represented because it makes the story feel more real than it would if everything was just black or white.

What do you have against people thinking for themselves, analyzing the situation, and making the choice that they feel is best? Do you take issue with Sigzil renouncing his oaths to save his spren?

I actually think Brandon wasn't even trying to say that ideals are dumb or anything - I think he was just opening a dialogue by showing that there is a benefit to questioning things that we think are absolute, to keeping an open mind and being willing to trailblaze instead of following the same path that everyone expects us to. I found it inspiring and enlightening. I also don't recall saying that I thought ideals were dumb nonsense for losers.... My point is that making our decisions from an internal, rational, open place is much better than making our decisions based on external pressures. When we make decisions purely because we made an oath, we aren't giving any thought to the consequences or the reasons - it's just robotic step by step.

I used to be in a high demand religion (grew up in it all my life) and that was how I lived. You make covenants, you do x, then y, then z. When I finally allowed myself to think freely and consider the truth claims I'd been taught from an objective place, my motivations changed drastically. I think it also made me a much better person as a side affect. I care more about people because I have real intentions behind each of my actions. I don't just blindly follow the motions laid out in front of me. Maybe that makes me nuanced or soulless or modern - whatever it makes me, I'm glad I am what I am, because I'm free 

Just adding one more example that came to mind because it's a scene that gets a lot of hate but one that I'm particularly passionate about: the debate scene. I think Fen made the correct and best choice as the leader of her people. She betrayed her promises and her alliance, she betrayed Jasnah, did all the things that would normally be decried as wrong. But she also put herself and her people in the best possible scenario moving forward, and even Jasnah had to admit that she would have done the same thing.

These kinds of scenarios are fascinating because we run into them in the real world. Lower stakes to be sure, but its very fun to see Brandon exploring these things and giving us great topics to discuss and questions to consider. I also loved how Jasnah reacted upon realizing her own hypocrisy and finally identifying her own blind spots. We all have them and I know that since finding some of mine (in a way that shattered my worldview of reality) has taught me to actively seek them out. I am excited to see how she progresses moving forward in the back half, and how she rebuilds. So many things to look forward to!

I agree. And again, to go back to my earlier point: the series is not finished yet. While I don't think Brandon is going to end the series with any sort of "This is the Right Answer, listen to me" ending stance, I think he will explore what it means to make oaths, and the benefits and drawbacks of both making oaths and avoiding them, so that readers can make their own decisions. His job isn't to define a Right Answer, it's to explore ideas. 

To be fair, we're halfway through the series. In tehnical story-writing terms, we're at the midpoint, which is where everything the characters have been doing and believing is typically flipped upside down and turned on its head. I don't think we're going to get the glorious, triumphant ending we want until Book 10. Yeah, we got some endings like that in the previous books, but that's because the story hadn't hit its darkest point yet, and even now I think you're right that things are only on their way down. We might get some inklings of hope along the way to help us through, but in story terms things shouldn't start looking up again until the end of Book 9, possibly even later. 

Just got into Baldur's Gate 1. I'd play BG 3, but my computer is too wimpy. But BG 1 and 2? Totally doable for it! And quite a lot of fun, too; you just have to work out how the heck things work, which is the most challenging part.

I think it's because the Oathpact wasn't fully broken/dissolved and placed onto Taln (There's a WoB [Word of Brandon] about it somewhere; someone more knowledgeable help), so when Chana went back to Braize it still applied to her. Or something. 

Side note, for the people who know, how the heck do you look up/find WoBs?

S Tier: Warbreaker, Tress of the Emerald Sea, Yumi and the Nightmare Painter, Rhythm of War, Words of Radiance, Edgedancer. I'm actually a sucker for Brandon's romance, mostly because it doesn't typically follow all the classic romance tropes you see in Hallmark movies. It might touch on a few, but it usually does so in an interesting way rather than rehashing the same old romantic plots every time.

A Tier: The Way of Kings, Oathbringer, Wind and Truth, The Final Empire, The Sunlit Man, Dawnshard.

B Tier: The rest of Mistborn Era 1 and Era 2, Secret History, Elantris, Sixth of the Dusk, Shadows for Silence, the rest of Arcanum Unbounded.

Does that cover everything? I think so? And this, by the way, covers the books in order of the frequency with which I typically reread them--A Tier being the ones I reread sometimes, and B tier being the ones that I almost never reread. I'm actually not a huge fan of Mistborn in general--I like The Final Empire because Vin stars most heavily in that book and it has the happiest ending of Era 1, in my opinion, but otherwise there are other Cosmere novels that I find more interesting and less dark.

On 1/19/2025 at 6:22 AM, Nitpicking said:

 

This wasn't just in Dawnshard. Why do you think Rushu was interrogating the Sibling about being neither male nor female in WaT?

I honestly hadn't thought about that... Makes a lot of sense, though.

19 hours ago, RedBlue said:

I mean, I could understand if Vessels can’t be more helpful for … y’know … good reasons. Like ‘my Shardic Intent says no’ or ‘I’m too busy putting out fires on my own planet’ or even ‘I think this problem will go away on its own.’

But ‘I’m giving my ex the cold shoulder’ is a really crumby reason to ignore a brewing crisis.

Oh, you're definitely not wrong. But I do wonder if this is a case where the Vessel is trying to make excuses for going against the Intent of their Shard--maybe there's a dichotomy between the two and it's causing issues where Valor is at. I mean, it would probably take a decent bit of Valor to go out and face an ex (not that I would know; I've never had an ex), even work with them without fighting in order to save the Cosmere--or whatever Hoid is doing. Especially if Valor doesn't even agree with what he's doing. I don't know. 

1 hour ago, Treamayne said:

This thread shows that some people received mis-assembled books. I wonder if they had to return a bunch to the distributor for errors like this, and that may be causing fulfillment delays. 

Your answer is probably more accurate, but I once ordered a book that got delayed and delayed and delayed... I eventually was listening to the news, and heard about that big ship crashing through a bridge in... Baltimore?... and when I checked Amazon again, guess where it said it was shipping from? I don't know where it's coming from for you, but if it were coming from California, I wouldn't be surprised if all the fires going on there are disrupting supply chains going out from that area. 

On 1/15/2025 at 9:52 PM, Ookla the Arbiter said:

Honestly, I'd say the best way to learn about our church is to read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the talks given in our General Conference. They'll help you understand what it is we believe far better than most of us could.

I agree. We can explain some things, but really, the best sources to go to are these (especially the Book of Mormon), and then you'll have some additional information to ask questions from.

I didn't catch the episode, but I do have thoughts.  

I think animation would be the ideal format for many of Brandon's books--I think Mistborn could get away with being live-action, because the effects are easier to simulate with practical effects and good sets, but with Stormlight you'd have a hard time pulling off a live-action adaptation. Personally, I think Stormlight would look WAY better in an anime or anime-Western-animation-blend style than virtually any other format.

As for the bit where live action reaches a wider audience, I think that's true--but I think that's at least in part because movie companies seem to have this mentality that anything animated MUST have a live-action adaptation (see Disney's live-action adaptations of classic fairy tales, which I admit was fun for Cinderella and Aladdin, but otherwise I felt were unnecessary; Avatar: The Last Airbender's various live-action adaptations, and the How to Train Your Dragon live-action adaptation that is in the works now). It's like they don't believe that animation can be a perfectly good and valid medium of storytelling in its own right, and frankly, that's what I feel most frustrated about in these kinds of discussions.

6 hours ago, Argenti said:

Ohh I can help for this! It's mostly old testament.

Depends who you ask, most common is Leviticus, which is weird, for reasons you've already said.  Leviticus 18:22 reads "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (Side not on this. Some Biblical scholars believe this may have referred to the practice of Pederasty, which was a newly outlawed (By Rome) sexual relationship between a young boy and a older man. Rabbi might have wanted to warn their flock to not do it, and risk legal retribution) There's also Leviticus 20:13 that reads “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (An oxford study claims it may specifically be with a married man, which does change things"

Some people claim Genesis 9:20–27 ("Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked," which some people interpret as having sex with him? Ham was then cursed. But that doesn't make much sense honestly.)

Another one is Genesis 19:1-11, the destruction of Sodom where " Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.  They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with [male angels]... But the [the angels] inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.” (This feels more like, anti-rape than homosexuality honestly. I might be missing something here.)

There's also  Corinthians 6:9-10 which says "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men" (Supposedly, "men who have sex with men" is the Greek words Arsenokoitai, often translated as the "active person in homosexual sex" which is more "men who use their power to demand sex" and Malakoi, which is traditionally translated as the "passive" man, which, at least in other at the time Greek literature, refers to those who love women to much. Weird Greek thing, being effeminate as a male was trying to hard attract the ladies, which was a bad thing, something to do with "giving into passion." )

I encourage people who are very interested in using the bible for guidance to look into what is written in the bible, rather than a translation, which often strips nuance, and can be used to push an agenda, rather than a 100% faithful translation.

Thank you! That's good to know. I still figure I'd better stick with what my church has said, but having the actual Biblical sources and interpretations is pretty interesting to be sure.

Overall, I just want to say thank you to everyone for being so patient with me and being willing to have this discussion; from my standpoint it's been really good to have a chance to actually get to know what you all think about these things a bit better. I have a lot to think about, so thank you for that.

2 hours ago, Returned said:

I think you're still doing a very good job in conducting yourself here.

I'm curious about the lines you've drawn between religious and civic duties, though. I think that many would suggest that religion is not optional for those who believe. Believing in a religion often involves strong implications about the structure and nature of reality as well as a dominant and inherently correct source for moral and ethical considerations, and many religions have duties beyond the internal and personal. They are not generally buffets where a person is permitted to take the parts they like and ignore the rest. That is separate from walking away from a religious institution (something like "I don't believe that the official church is operating correctly given what the religion teaches"), but religions don't generally consider heresy to be valid (by definition).

If God appeared to you, personally and in a manner which allays all possible doubts about the reality of the experience, and told you that your view on X was wrong and that you should instead adopt a view which was unpalatable to you, would you not feel that your duty would be to correct your position even if it were hard to do? Would a reasonable response to that event be to say "I think [some specific, other religion] fits me better, so I'm going to head over to that one, goodbye"? The idea that religion is optional strikes me as a very worldly and secular view (not necessarily wrong, but not something that the faithful of many religions can really engage with); that can only be true for people who are fundamentally unbelievers.

Government, on the other hand, seems far more malleable to me. We can probably agree that a government has an obligation to enforce its laws, but what those laws are is entirely an arbitrary decision that government can make. People then have options like moving to somewhere with different laws, trying to change what those laws are, or declining to obey, but there is a lot more optionality to these than a divine decree establishing concepts of right and wrong throughout all of reality. It's possible to break a law without anyone ever knowing, while defying a deity's command is probably less escapable. Further, for millennia there has been a lot of debate about what duty a person has to follow a "bad" law while the duty to follow a divine commandment is usually considered to be absolute.

For my part I think that we're always going to be imperfect in our understanding of morality and ethics, and that as a result we should be humble, open, and always questioning things and thinking about the topic. Society has to concern itself with practicalities, like finding a way for people with fundamentally incompatible views to live together, but that is not as true of the people who make up those societies. Seeking a middle ground is doomed to fail when one group feels that any compromise is intolerable, and in such a case why should another group compromise something they value just to not get anything from them?

That's really where subjects like the Renarin-Rlain romance draw controversy. Taking them at their word, there are groups who feel that normalizing same-sex romantic relationships via media in popular culture directly harms them specifically because it presents those relationships as acceptable and normal. As I posted above, I think that taking those groups at their word gives them far too much credit, but their position is not different even if we agree that their actual reasoning is nonsense. They are not interested in compromise or any middle ground and will not be swayed, and at least some of them will use any possible tool to oppose anything short of their favored position (like laws banning such content, social pressure to make it hard to publish or buy books that feature it, and more).

I respect your position and am glad that you have arrived at a tolerant and respectful place, but I don't think that a stance which says "it's OK, but it's not really that OK" is tenable given the reality of the opposition and the religious basis for at least some of your reasoning. (I am not terribly familiar with LDS or related faiths, so please take that last bit with more than a grain of salt). I think of your stance more like a point along the way than a conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong, and in any case "live and let live" is a great approach in the face of uncertainty, and it's hard to think of a better personal approach than compassion, tolerance, and non-judgement.

You're right. I was trying to look at things from a secular perspective, because to any atheist, religion seems optional. But it's my opinion that, if you really, truly believe in a religion, you've got to accept everything that religion says unless you want to start your own that fits your beliefs better. You can't pick and choose what parts of a person you like in a relationship, and I think religion is the same. It's a difficult discussion to have, and I'm still trying to work out what I actually think and what the right answer is. Really, what I've landed on is that I'm not sure. I actually chose the word conclusion intentionally,  because using the word belief indicates to me that I've decided what I think. Conclusion, to me, says that, based on the available information and evidence I have, and the discussions we've had, here's what I've tried to combine together. Maybe not the absolute best choice of words, but it was the best option I could think of at the time.

Ultimately, the only thing I've reached is that I can make decisions for myself, but others' decisions are their own, so I can't condemn them for that. What the middle ground should be, I don't know.

1 hour ago, AquaRegia said:

This right here.  It's taken me a long time (I'll be 58 in a few weeks) to learn this lesson: how I feel about something today is not the same way I felt last year, or ten years ago.  Ergo, my opinions may continue to change.  Intelligent people change their views in light of new facts.  If we all try to remember that we are humble travelers in this life, learning and changing as we grow, we greatly reduce the chance of hurting each other.  I'm with Sir Terry Pratchett - "evil starts when you treat other people like objects."  Hurting others is the only real sin.

I've never been able to accept a religious viewpoint.  We know religious history goes back around 30,000 years, more or less; thousands of cultures, over thousands of years, have had "gods" that told them what to believe and how to behave.  All of them said people who follow OTHER gods are wrong.  Many of them say people who follow other gods are heretics, or infidels, or sinners, and that they need to be taught the "correct" way, sometimes violently.  The idea that, of all the millions of gods that have been worshiped over the centuries, the one *I* believe in is the REAL one, is preposterous to me.  I'm happy to accept I live in a country (the US) that guarantees freedom of religion, as long as that includes freedom FROM religion as well.  I get along fine with my religious family and neighbors, I just don't share their beliefs.  I'm not an atheist; there may be a higher power, but I'm confident it's not described by any existing limited human religion.  I do believe that many religions are making an honest effort to "know" the true nature of divinity, but they invariably fall short when doctrine and dogma develop.  I accept that many people get useful benefits, both in terms of mental health and social behavior, from their religious beliefs.

I have no trouble with you practicing the religion of your choice, as long as it's not hurting anyone.  If you are burning "witches", or lynching black people, or blowing up "infidels" (and, yes, those were all done by religious people for religious reasons), your religion has crossed a simple line for me.  Disallowing a loving relationship between consenting adults seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what a loving god would want, and it's certainly hurtful.  Just ask them.

I honestly can't understand where the Christian "biblical" opposition to homosexuality comes from.  As far as I can tell, Jesus never said a single word about it.   Sure, it's mentioned explicitly in Leviticus, but the Old Testament is full of rules no modern Christian follows.  No planting two crops in the same field.  No wearing clothes made of two fibers. No tattoos. What's different about this one?

As others have said, I'm free to believe what I wish, but it's not up to me to decide how other people's behaviors measure up to my beliefs.  If I'm voting to restrict the rights of others, in cases where no one is being harmed, I'm working in favor of oppression, not love.  I'm free to say "I'm not allowed to do that," and I'm free to say "I don't like when you do that," but it's not OK for me to say "you aren't allowed to do that," except in cases where the goal is to prevent harm.

I'm not sure where other Christian religions get their no-homosexuality rule from; in my religion, the biggest piece of evidence I use in creating that distinction for myself is "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Now, there are probably people who would look at that document and say, "That's a problem, because it's pushing traditional gender norms, oh no!" I look at it and say, "This is the way God has asked me to live, so this is the way I'm going to live." But I'm probably biased, because I don't mind the traditional gender norms and actively want to be a stay-at-home mom one day.

So, yeah. I guess my real conclusion so far is just that I don't know. I know what I believe, and I hear and understand what you guys are saying. I haven't figured out how those two things fit together.