Child-Abducting Judges

Father not Visitor


Below are the handful of critical comments I’ve received from folks on-line about the abduction of my kids by my ex as a result of my Mormon activism and the rubber-stamping by every level of Oregon court. My Appellate Brief succinctly explains my arguments against the abduction. I will also be arguing in my cert a lack of due process from the courts when both levels of Appeals AWOPed me and refused to discuss the fact that the lower court didn’t provide an analysis for its curious decision.

I will be adding any other comments that I receive and my responses to this post in order to prove that there is no reason that this kind of thing should be happening in my case or any other. This is the kind of institutional reform we desperately need during the Sanders political revolution!

Please share my story far and wide to bring justice to my kids! We need all the attention we can get for the US Supreme Court to be willing to take a case this big.

My ‪#‎LDS‬ ex, Deanna Mayne, at the behest of her ‪#‎Mormon‬ mother, Mormon Salem attorney, Ryan Johnson, & church leaders, abducted our kids to UT, and the Oregon state courts rubber stamped this criminal action!

Here’s the transcript from the divorce proving it which the Oregon Supreme Court refused to provide due process to; please share far and wide so my kids Grace & David can have justice in the US Supreme Court!

LikeShow more reactions


Nancy Winfield
Nancy Winfield Oh Erik, I’m so sorry! How old are your kids?

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick My son will be 6 next month and my daughter 8 in June.

Erik Kulick
Write a reply…
Thomas Edwin Hughes
Thomas Edwin Hughes Kids go with Mom 99% of the time. I only have mine bcz she gave me them. The church has zero to do with that.

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick No, her Mormon lawyer told her she could leave after the judge opened up the case, and her mom incessantly pushed her to move as well, thanks largely to this response from the LDS church:

I hope the LDS corp still stands behind their endorsement of me and overturns my…
Erik Kulick
Write a reply…
Kelly Majeroni Rigby
Kelly Majeroni Rigby I read the document. There isn’t any violation of due process. You should know that as a law student. Did you end up graduating?

Aren’t you violating a court order by calling her an abductor and posting this all over the Internet? And I’d say what she did was legal. Not commenting on right or wrong. And certainly smoking pot 7 times a day wouldn’t help your case for full custody. Sounds like a shit show.

Hide 12 Replies
Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick Kelly, I invite you to show *how* due process was provided, when there was no explanation by Judge Geyer as to why he made the decisions the way he did. You also ignore the fact that I’m a medical marijuana patient, not to mention seem to have a narrowSee More

Kelly Majeroni Rigby
Kelly Majeroni Rigby Oh I don’t forget that you’re a medical marijuana patient.

Kelly Majeroni Rigby
Kelly Majeroni Rigby And I already read all of the original. I don’t need to read one more word to know this has zero to do with the lds church.

Kelly Majeroni Rigby
Kelly Majeroni Rigby And no comment on your violation of the court order preventing you from plastering her name all over social media and calling her an abductor and posting this document? All spelled out for you by a judge. Yeah. I have no more to read or comment. Just wanted people in here to not be swayed by your title of abduction.

Regarding pot. I have zero issue with it. However if your back is sooooo bad and you need to smoke pot SEVEN times a day then you really aren’t in a condition to safely watch your kids. Not to mention the time you were high driving.

Best of luck to your exwife and children.

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick I already made a comment on your claims about my comments and posts, Kelly. I implicitly said it was a violation of my 1st Amendment rights for the courts to have such restrictions when I invited you to explain why it wasn’t. I will also say that posting about the fact that my ex abducted my kids and posting the divorce transcript do not violate the order, even though the judges would disagree. The judges refused to get into the details about the abduction. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Also, I’m not saying anything about the character of my ex when I state facts. This is far different than when she has made comments online about how she is the “bigger person.”

Just because a judge says something is so, doesn’t automatically make it true. Our courts need serious reform to address these failures on their part to adequately do their jobs.

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick Kelly Majeroni Rigby Regarding pot, you obviously *do* have uninformed issues with it. You are making claims about my fitness to parent and operate a motor vehicle after I’ve consumed the plant, when you have *zero* evidence to back up your claims about it. I’d love to see some studies that show habitual users have any measurable effects to their facilities in ways that impair their ability to parent or drive.

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick Kelly Majeroni Rigby Not so fast, Kelly. I can show that the LDS church also wrongly assaulted me and had me jailed for crossdressing to churches in solidarity with the Wear Pants to Church Day folks. These leaders of the stake that my ex and I were attending most certainly influenced my ex in her decision to abduct the kids. My ex’s Mormon mother was also influenced by the bigotry pumped into her head by the LDS church when she spent months convincing my ex to do take this unimaginable action against her own kids and ex. Her Mormon attorney most certainly was influenced by those teachings as well when he advised her *after* the divorce was re-opened to take off with the kids.

Are you sure that I’m not in a TBM group? You’re either trolling for TBMs, hung up on your prejudice against ganja users or are struggling with some latent sexism. Either way, I invite you to prove me wrong in any of my comments.

I hope the LDS corp still stands behind their endorsement of me and overturns my…
Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick Kelly Majeroni Rigby Are you giving the group legal advice Kelly? If you’re a practicing attorney, you should stop now. Clients deserve representation willing to get into the details, instead of someone who spouts opinions and then tries to shut down the conversation with a refusal to continue.

You’re a strange person to come on here making claims about my case, as if you know full well what my situation is and should be, yet you refuse to get into *any* of the details. Hopefully the propensity of exmos to have developed critical thought while working their way out of the church will prevent those in this group from listening to your shallow and obviously biased comments.

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick Kelly Majeroni Rigby You seem familiar, Kelly. I’m beginning to wonder if you are also friends with my ex or some of these folks with the same aversion to critical thought and propensity to slander that you seem to have:

This post was deleted from the “Liberal” Mormon Facebook group, ‘LDS Left’, for being…
Kelly Majeroni Rigby
Kelly Majeroni Rigby . No. I just happen to have reading comprehension skills.

Carry on.

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick Kelly Majeroni Rigby Reading comprehension wasn’t ever called into question. You obviously are smart enough to know how to read. It’s your apparent lack of critical thinking skills and human emotions like compassion that have me worried. If only you had responses to the legitimate issues I brought up or any of my refutes of your biased claims!

It’s cute that you’re willing to come on here and belittle someone who has had someone in their life selfish enough to hurt them and their kids by unnecessarily separating them. Maybe if you keep it up, the few people on here who value your opinion will see how heartless you really are. How many mothers have you helped do this to their families? Did you do it to your own? You seem awfully defensive and presumptive for a disinterested person.

Erik Kulick
Erik Kulick Kelly Majeroni Rigby Maybe you should do some research about the affects of ganja on driving before you start making false accusations about people and the substances they use.…/this-might-be-the-best-marijuana…

Erik Kulick
Write a reply…

My #LDS ex, Deanna Mayne, at the behest of her #Mormon mother, Mormon Salem attorney, Ryan Johnson, & church leaders, abducted our kids to UT, and the Oregon state courts rubber stamped this criminal action!

Here’s the transcript from the divorce proving it which the Oregon Supreme Court refused to provide due process to; please share far and wide so my kids Grace & David can have justice in the US Supreme Court!

LDS Child Abduction Divorce Transcript.pdf











Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams Having just finished reading this in its entirety, my first thought is how pleasantly surprised I am at the courts findings, conclusions and rulings. This outcome is the best that could have been hoped for in sense that both you and Ms. Kulick have shortcomings as parents (albeit in different ways).

I will sound judgey in this comment, I bear no ill will towards either of you, and hope you can work things out for the sake of your children, but as you decided to post this transcript with a message that is untruthful, I will be honest in my opinion (which you do not have to take notice of).

Although you were both credible witnesses, as concluded by the court, you were somewhat a less credible witness, also concluded by the court. This was more apparent during your Mormon line of questioning where you stated members of the church assaulted and threatened you but later you never received any threats from anyone in the church. While I agree the Mormon church’s actions were unwarranted (referring to the comments made on females wearing pants and yourself crossdressing) and general non- progressive stances, I don’t understand why you still attend Mormon church (I think I gathered that correctly from around p167?). I am pleased that you are willing to let your children decide the religion (if any) they want to follow, very pleased.

Ultimately, Oregon state court came to the obviously the right decision and is really a shining example of how well the court can be in a best case example. Just because it is not the result you wanted it doesn’t mean it is wrong and it Is no wonder Supreme Court refused it.

I see you are still making derogatory comments about Ms. Kulick being an abductor after being told not to by courts previously and at the end of this preceding. It was explained, not only is it false (an exaggeration), it is very damaging to the wellbeing of the primary caregiver of your children (and thus indirectly your children), but also directly to your children, when they read about this online as they grow older. While I agree it seemed a rash action on behalf of Ms. Kulick to leave with the children in the middle of the night without telling you, I can understand her position of irrational fear, and thought you may try to stop her leaving by force. Although you should’ve known she was leaving as you were given many documents stating the progress through divorce proceedings, as was stated by Mr. Johnson and the court. This doesn’t diminish the panic you must have felt when you found the children gone and Ms. Kulick definitely should have at the very least texted you as soon as possible after leaving the house, stating what had happened.

Don’t mistake my apparent leaning towards Ms. Kulick’s side as my opinion. It is only an artefact as I am responding to your facebook post, which used lies and deceit to further your goal. From the sound of it, it would seem like Grace would be better off with Ms. Kulick at present and David with yourself (if it were not for the fact that splitting up siblings brings much harm) and so should stay where they are at the moment. But, I do think that If you pass the bar and get a steady job that both would be better off with you as you seem a much more capable parent. You would also have to be less reliant on marijuana as you are and understand that despite how some of us want it to be the world is still a very biased place against things like cross dressing and as the court concluded, you need to think of your children first if your cross dressing will affect them in a bad way. Ms. Kulick, according to testimony, falls short as a mother on basic things as nutrition and exercise. Grace seems to being doing much better, and is enjoying her time in Utah at the moment according to her teacher, but David is not.

Like · Reply · 2 · March 14 at 10:56pm

Erik Kulick

Erik Kulick Here’s my Appellate Brief. Care to reassess, Andrew, Phil, or Laura?

LDS Child Abduction Divorce Appeal Brief.pdf


Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 13 hrs · Edited

Erik Kulick

Erik Kulick Phil Clark If Andrew Williams had the time, energy, and wherewithal to make such definitive claims about me, my ex, AND the judge’s analysis of our situation, then I would hope he also has those qualities going for him when I posted a MUCH shorter document which I personally wrote in appeal. I will not waste my time PMing people about this. It needs to receive the necessary attention to force the Supreme Court of the US to address these issues that I am pointing out. Besides, Andrew obviously skimmed the transcript too quickly to notice that his assessment of what the court found was inaccurate. I don’t really have much confidence in his ability to legally analyze.

This is the trouble with kicking in your opinion on something that you haven’t bothered to fully investigate. You trust Andrew’s opinion, and have taken it as gospel truth. You even believe that his opinion wasn’t expressed in a negative manner, simply because he used words to preface his comments to make you feel at ease. This is why we need to be careful not to get trapped by dogma, whether religious, political, or otherwise.

Dogmata Ecclesiasties


Like · Reply · 1 hr

Erik Kulick

Write a reply…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Trump Chronicles


What transpires below is an ongoing conversation between friends who possess a difference of opinion on politics. The Hillary Trumps and Donald Clintons of this world intentionally divide people like us, often causing us to falsely believe that we are far too different to discuss, much less agree on anything relating to politics.

Let’s keep this conversation going and prove them wrong, John & co.!

Erik Kulick:

TUE 1:37PM

You unfriended me?

Kind of odd behavior for someone who once called me “brother.”

TUE 6:47PM

John Kenneth Watson:

WHEN did i unfriend you??

If I unfriended you HOW are we talking?? LOL

It’s bizarre!

Erik Kulick:

Technically we can still message, so long as one of us doesn’t block. Welcome back, John!

John Kenneth Watson:

On yeah!! I do not know why you were unfriended…FB does that somethimes…

Erik Kulick:

Maybe they’re trying to fuck with us folks challenging the status quo…?

John Kenneth Watson:


I am pissed today…I waited all week for “Super Tuesday” to vote…but somehow despite Arizona being a super tuesday state…we had NO POLLS available to vote at!!!   I jst got off the phone with the local media guy making an appointment to be interviewed tomorrow on tha matter….even our local headquarters and the Library voter info center said there was no voting today???? Fucking County wide conspiracy….

Erik Kulick:

TUE 8:16PM

It’s nuts! They just want pals Trump and Clinton to win, and will stop at nothing.

John Kenneth Watson:


Erik Kulick:

Then you shouldn’t worry about the elections!

John Kenneth Watson:

RIGHT, since when did you develop such a defeatest attitude??

I just joined a Trump support group to get a headquarters out here….just to make sure we are represented !!

Erik Kulick:

I’m not defeatist. I’m just stating you shouldn’t worry about the GOP mom if that’s who you want. Definitely participate and call out folks for their shit.

If you care between HillNo and Trump, its the generals you should worry about.

John Kenneth Watson:

OH I am active….and will remain so…

Erik Kulick:


John Kenneth Watson:

I am very uncomfortable with your very liberal like asscoiation of Trump and Hillary…He was playing big business when the wedding shit took place….he has since grown and become wise to why he needs to be his own man in politics…

I have noticed that normally only low info voters use such rhetoric against him…

Erik Kulick:

They’re friends! He’s a fiscally conservative dem who also happens to be racist enough for the GOP!

John Kenneth Watson:

I of course am slightly biased as I have worked with Trump directly in the past…and have a dealing with his daughter coming in April…


He is a registered Republican since 2008…stop swallowing the leftist propoganda bulsshit

Erik Kulick:

Either way, politically speaking, they’re far closer than you seem to realize.


Not even a decade ago!

John Kenneth Watson:

I KNOW HIM WELL..personally…his whole family and mine have eaten and worked together closely

Erik Kulick:

That says nothing about the details about which we’re discussing. He’s a economically conservative racist liberal.

John Kenneth Watson:

OK..I warn you now…keep repeating such propogandist bullshit and I WILL unfriend you rthis time…I have no tolerance for people so easily lead around by their noses up others asses

He is NOT liberal…NOT racist…

Erik Kulick:

If you disagree, why don’t you show me.

John Kenneth Watson:

I dont know where you get your bullshit info from, but it is woefully ignorant

Erik Kulick:

Merely claiming I’m wrong does nothing for the conversation.

John Kenneth Watson:

Because I debate all the time and I know your game…no matter what I show you , you will somehow denigrate it…

Merely claiming things about trump does nothing for the conversation…prove me wrong!

Erik Kulick:

That’s not true. I would gladly discuss any evidence you have backing your claims up. You’re the one supporting him and making statements like you have extra special reason to know what you’re talking about on the issues. I’ll gladly show you why my stance is the way it is when I get back to my computer.

John Kenneth Watson:

You’re the one that started out by calling him a racist…prove it

Erik Kulick:

How about this. I prove that he’s not racist, and you prove he’s not liberal outside of his fiscal policies.

John Kenneth Watson:

Why would you prove Him NOT RACIST, I already know he is not


Defund Planned Parenthood. (Oct 2015)

Planned Parenthood is important, but abortions must stop. (Aug 2015)

I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)


Keep mortgage interest deduction; knock out carried interest. (Nov 2015)

Make economy dynamic; bring back jobs from China & Mexico. (Oct 2015)

Use increasing debt ceiling as bargaining chip. (Oct 2015)

Strong on debt limit; ask for a pound of flesh. (Oct 2015)

Grow the economy at 6% annually by ending inversions. (Oct 2015)

Add recent promise to cut EPA and EDU other such agencies failing at their positions


I’m “fine” with affirmative action, for now. (Oct 2015)

After Supreme Court vote, gay marriage is a reality. (Aug 2015)

I’m no misogynist; I put women in charge of construction. (Aug 2015)

Disinvited from RedState gathering for misogynistic comments. (Aug 2015)

Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem. (Aug 2015)

Obama’s presidency has done nothing for African Americans. (Aug 2015)


Get U.S. money back into U.S.: address corporate inversion. (Nov 2015)

I’ve used bankruptcy laws to do a great job for my companies. (Aug 2015)

2002: Participated in development boom of Jersey City. (Apr 2012)

0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs. (Dec 2011)

Fight crony capitalism with a level playing field. (Dec 2011)


The police are the most mistreated people in America. (Jan 2016)

Black lives matter, but we need strong police presence. (Aug 2015)

Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is. (Jul 2000)

Death penalty deters like violent TV leads kids astray. (Jul 2000)

Hold judges accountable; don’t reduce sentences. (Jul 2000)

For tough anti-crime policies; not criminals’ rights. (Jul 2000)


Brother died of alcoholism; so Donald never touched alcohol. (Jan 2016)

Study legalization, but don’t legalize now. (Nov 2015)

Yes to medical marijuana; otherwise, decide state by state. (Oct 2015)

1990: Drug enforcement is a joke; 2015: only medical pot. (Oct 2015)

Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education. (Apr 2011)

Never drinks, smokes, nor does drugs. (Feb 2011)


Cut Department of Education and Common Core. (Oct 2015)

We spend more per student than any other nation. (Jun 2015)

Common Core is a disaster. (Jun 2015)

Cut the Department of Education way, way down. (Jun 2015)

Founded Trump University to teach the art of deal-making. (Jun 2015)

Opposes Common Core. (Feb 2015)

Americans don’t know their roots: study your ancestry. (Apr 2010)

Comprehensive education instead of limiting subjects. (Apr 2010)

Teach citizenship; stop “dumbing down”. (Jul 2000)

End “creative spelling,” “estimating,” & “empowerment”. (Jul 2000)

Bring on the competition; tear down the union walls. (Jul 2000)

School choice will improve public schools. (Jul 2000)


Climate change is a hoax. (Jun 2015)

No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood. (Dec 2011)

Jobs will slump until our lifeblood–oil–is cheap again. (Dec 2011)

Enough natural gas in Marcellus Shale for 110 year supply. (Dec 2011)

Libya: No oil, no support; no exceptions. (Dec 2011)

It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil. (Mar 2011)

Oil is the lifeblood of all economies. (Apr 2010)


Cut the EPA; what they do is a disgrace. (Oct 2015)

Won’t go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights. (Mar 2015)

Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects. (Apr 2010)

Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)

FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US. ()


Stress importance of a strong family, & a culture of Life. (Jun 2015) UNCHANGED SINCE ARRIVAL IN PUBLIC VENUE



Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia. (Sep 2015)

Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him. (Sep 2015)

We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes. (Sep 2015)

China is our enemy; they’re bilking us for billions. (Dec 2011)

When you love America, you protect it with no apologies. (Dec 2011)

By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy. (Dec 2011)

Things change; empires come and go. (Apr 2010)

Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement. (Jul 2000)

Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker. (Jul 2000)

Support Russia, but with strings attached. (Jul 2000)

China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development. (Jul 2000)

Be tougher on China-we’re too eager to please. (Jul 2000)


Too risky to take in Syrian refugees. (Nov 2015)

Let Russia bash ISIS; let Germany defend Ukraine. (Nov 2015)

Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria. (Oct 2015)

US should not train rebels it does not know or control. (Oct 2015)

Better to have Mideast strongmen than Mideast chaos. (Oct 2015)

Good that Russia is involved in Syria. (Oct 2015)

More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel. (Jun 2015)


TPP is a horrible deal; no one has read its 5,600 pages. (Nov 2015)

Restrict free trade to keep jobs in US. (Oct 2015)

We don’t beat China or Japan or Mexico in trade. (Aug 2015)

Disastrous deals because we don’t have smart negotiators. (Jun 2015)

China and Japan are beating us; I can beat China. (Jun 2015)

35% import tax on Mexican border. (Jun 2015)

Stupid people negotiate our trade bills, & trade won’t work. (Jun 2015)

20% tax on all imported goods. (Dec 2011)

Fair trade instead of embarrassing deal with South Korea. (Dec 2011)

Repatriate jobs that China has been stealing. (Dec 2011)

Embrace globalization and international markets. (Jan 2008)

Renegotiate tougher & fairer trade agreements. (Jul 2000)

President should be nation’s trade representative. (Dec 1999)

World views US trade officials as ‘saps’. (Dec 1999)


SuperPACs are a disaster and cause dishonesty. (Oct 2015)

Candidates should disavow PACs. (Oct 2015)

I’m not accepting any money from anybody. (Sep 2015)

Get rid of the regulations that are just destroying us. (Sep 2015)

I give to politicians; and they give back: that’s broken!. (Aug 2015)

Two-term limit on NYC mayor is a terrible idea. (Sep 2010)

Government scrutiny is greatest threat to American Dream. (Jul 2000)

Ban soft money; but allow unlimited personal contributions. (Jul 2000)

Government should do public works & safety & little else. (Jul 2000)

Rebuilt Wollman Rink in 4 months; city failed for 6 years. (Jul 1987)


Mass shootings are due to a huge mental health problem. (Jan 2016)

No limits on guns; they save lives. (Jan 2016)

Keep enemies of the state away from guns. (Nov 2015)

Gun-free zones are target practice for sickos. (Oct 2015)

Gun ownership makes US safer, not more dangerous. (Oct 2015)

Mental health more important than gun control. (Oct 2015)

Laws are ineffective in preventing gun violence. (Oct 2015)

Gun violence is inevitable; regulations won’t help. (Oct 2015)

Protect the Second Amendment, but address mental health. (Sep 2015)

Take guns from good people & bad people have target practice. (Jul 2015)

A very strong person on the Second Amendment. (Jun 2015)

I am against gun control. (Feb 2011)

Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns. (Jul 2000)


Replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts. (Oct 2015)

I’m for vaccines, but in smaller quantities to avoid autism. (Sep 2015)

The insurance companies have total control over politicians. (Aug 2015)

We didn’t have a free market before ObamaCare. (Jun 2015)

ObamaCare is a catastrophe that must be repealed & replaced. (Jun 2015)

Don’t cut Medicare; grow the economy to keep benefits. (Jun 2015)

ObamaCare deductibles are so high that it’s useless. (Jun 2015)

Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone. (Jan 2015)

Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight. (Dec 2011)

Increase insurance competition across state lines. (Dec 2011)

1988: Flew sick kids cross-country on his private jet. (Apr 2010)

We must have universal health care. (Jul 2000)


Benghazi was a disaster; Gadhafi couldn’t have been worse. (Dec 2015)

New Jersey Muslims celebrated after 9/11. (Nov 2015)

Bring back waterboarding and other interrogation methods. (Nov 2015)

Surveil mosques but don’t close mosques. (Nov 2015)

New Jersey Muslims cheered on 9/11. (Nov 2015)

We worry about Iranian nukes but why not North Korean nukes? (Nov 2015)

We have a problem with radical Muslims. (Sep 2015)

Fix veteran’s hospitals, and pay private doctors for them. (Sep 2015)

Enhanced interrogation a non-issue, compared to terrorism. (Aug 2015)

Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work; it’s 30 years old. (Jun 2015)

Increased Veterans Day parade audience from 100 to 1 million. (Jun 2015)

Defeat ISIS and stop Islamic terrorists. (Jan 2015)

American interests come first; no apologies. (Dec 2011)

All freedoms flow from national security. (Dec 2011)

Business students should read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”. (Apr 2010)

3% of GNP for military is too low. (Jul 2000)

Missile defense is inappropriate; focus on terrorism. (Jul 2000)

Prepare for bio-terrorism attack. (Jul 2000)


No apology for banning Muslims from entering America. (Jan 2016)

Need to keep database of Muslim refugees. (Nov 2015)

We must stop illegal immigration; it hurts us economically. (Nov 2015)

I don’t care how they come in, if they come in legally. (Oct 2015)

Syrian refugees are a Trojan Horse. (Oct 2015)

Syrian refugee crisis partly our fault; but don’t take any. (Oct 2015)

We’re only country dumb enough for birthright citizenship. (Sep 2015)

Illegal immigrants populate many criminal gangs. (Sep 2015)

This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish. (Sep 2015)

Half of the undocumented residents in America are criminals. (Jun 2015)

We need strong borders; we need a wall. (Feb 2015)

Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission. (Mar 2013)

351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B. (Dec 2011)

Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. (Dec 2011)

Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US. (Dec 2011)

Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. (Jul 2000)

Limit new immigration; focus on people already here. (Dec 1999)


Ship millions back to Mexico, like Eisenhower did. (Nov 2015)

Walls on borders work; just ask Israel. (Nov 2015)

Mexico will pay for wall, but not through tariffs. (Nov 2015)

I can get Mexico to pay for border wall; politicians can’t. (Oct 2015)

The border wall will be well-managed and built correctly. (Aug 2015)

We need wall on Mexican border, but ok to have a door in it. (Aug 2015)

Mexican government is sending criminals across the border. (Aug 2015)

Building a wall will save money because it stops bad dudes. (Jul 2015)

OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. (Jul 2015)

Make Mexico pay for wall with severe economics. (Jun 2015)

Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists. (Jun 2015)

Build great wall on southern border; have Mexico pay for it. (Jun 2015)

Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border. (Dec 2011)


Don’t raise minimum wage; it makes us non-competitive. (Nov 2015)

I have relevant experience by creating jobs and assets. (Nov 2015)

Don’t raise minimum wage, but create more opportunities. (Aug 2015)

Take jobs back from foreign countries to lower unemployment. (Aug 2015)

Real unemployment rate is 20%; don’t believe 5.6%. (Jun 2015)

Raising business tax causes businesses to move jobs overseas. (Dec 2011)

Unions fight for pay; managers fight for less; consumers win. (Jul 2000)

Foreign companies are taking jobs from US. (Dec 1999)


I will negotiate until American is great again. (Oct 2015)

My old liberal political views evolved like Reagan’s did. (Aug 2015)

I want to win as a Republican, but might run as Independent. (Aug 2015)

In NYC almost everyone is Democrat, but I’m Republican. (Aug 2015)

Stoked Tea Party suspicions about Obama’s legitimacy. (Jan 2012)

No more morning in America; we’ll be mourning FOR America. (Dec 2011)

5-point plan to return America to her former greatness. (Dec 2011)

USA is the greatest force for freedom world has ever known. (Dec 2011)

Bad students (like Obama) shouldn’t go to Harvard. (Apr 2011)

If I run & win, our country will be great again. (Feb 2011)

Greatest fear? I don’t have any; I only have “concerns”. (Apr 2010)

I’m more humble than people might think. (Apr 2010)

3 principles: One term, two-fisted policies, zero excuses. (Jul 2000)

Non-politicians are the wave of the future. (Jul 2000)

Burned by press too often to be available any more. (Jul 1990)

Toughness is equally strength, intelligence, & self-respect. (Jul 1990)

Business Principles

I never forgive people who deceive me. (Oct 2015)

I believe in the toot-your-own-horn theory. (Apr 2010)

Build your reputation as “responsible, professional & loyal”. (Apr 2010)

Never give up; look at the solution, not the problem. (Jan 2008)

To negotiate well, prepare and know as much as possible. (Jan 2008)

In the best negotiations, everyone wins. (Jan 2008)

Failure is not permanent. (Jan 2008)

Tell people you’re successful or they won’t know it. (Mar 2004)

Good management requires hiring good people. (Mar 2004)

Lessons: stay focused on big picture. (Mar 2004)

Surround yourself with people you can trust. (Mar 2004)

In business & politics, stands for getting things done. (Jul 2000)

Appealing to middle Americans leery of political elite. (Nov 1999)

Rules for surviving the perils of success. (Jul 1990)

Personal Background

Attended military academy & Wharton Business School. (Jun 2015)

One hour to produce my birth certificate; Obama should too. (Feb 2011)

Separated from Ivana after long less-than-perfect marriage. (Jul 1990)


I’ll give up my Social Security; leave it to each person. (Sep 2015)

Cannot change Medicare or Soc.Sec. and still win elections. (Mar 2013)

Social Security isn’t an “entitlement”; it’s honoring a deal. (Dec 2011)

Disability Racket: $25B in fraudulent disability filings. (Dec 2011)

Pay off debt; put $3T interest savings into Trust Fund. (Jul 2000)

Let people invest their own retirement funds. (Jul 2000)

No government investment of retirement funds. (Jul 2000)


Cut taxes by $10T but don’t increase deficit. (Oct 2015)

Repeal estate tax; it’s double taxation. (Oct 2015)

Estate tax is unfair double taxation. (Oct 2015)

Do away with carried interest; it’s unfair. (Oct 2015)

OpEd AdWatch: Trump more liberal on taxes than Democrats. (Sep 2015)

FactCheck: Proposed 14% tax on wealthy in 2000, but not now. (Sep 2015)

No net increase in taxes, but increases on wealthy. (Sep 2015)

Raise graduated taxes on hedge fund managers. (Sep 2015)

One-time 14% tax on wealthy to pay down national debt. (Jun 2015)

4 brackets; 1-5-10-15%; kill death tax & corporate tax. (Dec 2011)

Cutting tax rates incentivizes a strong national work ethic. (Dec 2011)

Previously supported wealth tax; now supports Bush tax cuts. (Apr 2011)

Repeal the inheritance tax to offset one-time wealth tax. (Jul 2000)

Simplify tax code; end marriage penalty & other hidden taxes. (Jul 2000)

Opposes flat tax; benefits wealthy too much. (Jul 2000)

Personally avoids sales tax, but knows many people like it. (Dec 1999)

One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999)

Tax assets over $10 million, paid over 10 years. (Nov 1999)


Close our Internet up, to fight ISIS terrorist recruitment. (Dec 2015)

FactCheck: 24% of our bridges are in trouble, not 59%. (Aug 2015)

Rebuild our infrastructure on time & on budget. (Jun 2015)

Emmy award & Hollywood Walk of Fame for “The Apprentice”. (Jun 2015)

China threatens US with cyber warfare & industrial espionage. (Dec 2011)

Took chance by starting Clear Channel radio program. (Apr 2010)


Assad is a bad guy, but his replacement could be worse. (Nov 2015)

Let Russia make moves in Syria; it’s a quagmire. (Nov 2015)

Strengthen military, but act defensively. (Oct 2015)

Good that Russia has entered Syrian conflict. (Oct 2015)

Radical violent Islam that must be feared, not Islam itself. (Sep 2015)

I’m pro-military but I opposed invading Iraq in 2003. (Sep 2015)

If Obama had attacked Syria, we wouldn’t have refugees now. (Sep 2015)

Opposed Iraq war in 2004 & predicted Mideast destabilization. (Aug 2015)

Disgraceful deal gives Iran a lot & gets nothing for us. (Aug 2015)

Bomb the oil fields in Iraq to take on ISIS. (Jun 2015)

Boots on the ground to fight ISIS. (Jun 2015)

I said “don’t hit Iraq,” because it destabilized Middle East. (Jun 2015)

Hit ISIS hard and fast. (Feb 2015)

Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims. (Mar 2013)

Iraq should pick up the tab for their own liberation. (Dec 2011)

Stop Iran’s nuclear programs by any & all means necessary. (Dec 2011)

John McCain’s actions in Vietnam were not “heroic”. (Sep 2000)

Use force to stop North Korean nuke development. (Jul 2000)

Support Israel, our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier. (Jul 2000)

No humanitarian intervention; only to direct threats. (Jul 2000)


I don’t like firing people; work makes people better. (Dec 2011)

Food stamps should be temporary; not a decade on the dole. (Dec 2011)

Apply welfare-to-work to 76 other welfare programs. (Dec 2011)

Let “saints” help teen moms; restrict public assistance. (Jul 2000)

The man at this point seems more than fairly Conservative by his many LISTED platform policy quotes….so to rrepeat some left wing propoganda about him being liberal is just beyong ignorant


SO…your response??

Erik Kulick:


NowThis on Twitter

“This argument between CNN analysts over the KKK was the most bizarre television of #SuperTuesday”

Trump blames bad television ear piece for KKK comments

Republican front-runner declined to denounce Ku Klux Klan during weekend interview

The 199 Most Donald Trump Things Donald Trump Has Ever Said

Would you vote for this man?

Of course I meant prove he IS racist. I’m dyslexic, so sometimes I miss-speak.

As you can see from his own words, he’s either racist, or pretending to be in order to secure the “conservative” vote.

The Secret Genius of Donald Trump, the Democrat?

What if everything Donald Trump was doing or saying in his “serious” bid …

Is Donald Trump a Democratic secret agent? – BBC News

As concerns grow that Donald Trump is doing lasting damage to the Republican brand, some conservatives are speculating that the New Yorker could really be working for the other side.

11 Liberal Quotes From Donald Trump (VIDEO)

Liberals see Donald Trump as a racist and a fascist, but conservatives see him as a closet Democrat, and they’ve got the liberal quotes to prove it.

You know what, I take back my statement that he’s a racist. He maybe old and politically incorrect, and willing to sell himself as anything, including a racist, but his inner liberal shows that it really is just a show.

Sometimes you think you know someone, eh John?

Maybe you should ask him why he apparently thinks its such a good idea to support Hillary if you’re such close friends…

Isn’t it ironic that what I was wrong about proved what you were wrong about? The trouble is that Trump and Hillary are not really liberal or conservative, they’re corporate. This is why life will be essentially the same under either. #Dempublican

You should ask Donald why so many of the things you quoted to prove he’s a Republican were changes of stance which came after that famous call from Bill Clinton in May…

John Kenneth Watson:

As I predicted…ya know, wether you can admit it or not, you argue just like every alynskite I come across…are you sure you’re not a closet leftist?

In closing I assure you Trump is ny way of comparison, far more conservative than the likes of you

Trump has now over 20 times disavowed Duke and other racists…yet media refuses to drop the issue…Cruz has been busted lying again yet Cruzbots refuse to acknowledge such lies.

Rubio is playing attack dog on repeat…

Kasick has all but given up, and Carson h as all but folded….what are people like you doing…lol…attacking the only strong man on stage…its rather pathetic.

Erik Kulick:

This goes to show how little you’ve paid attention to what I’ve said or linked. Nothing you’ve just replied with addresses why you think I’m wrong, and I’ve always been more progressive than conservative, but only in as much as is necessary. We just need folks like you who think they disagree with “the other side” to pay attention for once and engage in critical thought, especially when it comes to subjects like religion and politics. Then we will be able to overcome this false division of our citizenry and come together like our founding fathers.

John Kenneth Watson:

I read everything you have posted in comment…

Erik Kulick:

Yet you refrain from providing a thoughtful analysis…

John Kenneth Watson:

Much of what you posted is media propoganda that has been confronted by Trump and debunked

Erik Kulick:

Reading with too strong of a filter on doesn’t do much for critical thinking.

Prove it.

John Kenneth Watson:

Refrain….OMG I gave you actual fed me media leftost bullshit….stop wasti g my time

Erik Kulick:

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I could have claimed that you are unable.

John Kenneth Watson:

As I predicted, no matter what I post INCLUDING DIRECT FACTUAL QUOTES, is immediately brush off by you…another Alynski tactic

Erik Kulick:

But of course you’re reading what I say with anger, so you can’t see that I’m not trying to be condescending. I can read your derision in your capslock.

John Kenneth Watson:

You would be assumptive beyond assini e to make remarks against my education and ability to comprehend…

Erik Kulick:

I didn’t. I said I *could have*.

Implying that my choice of words was more selective and less presumptive than that.

John Kenneth Watson:

No anger here, I simply type expressively….placing mon existent hatred in a debate…another Alynski tactic

Erik Kulick:

Then please carry on with that evidence and analysis that I requested if you care about the subject.

John Kenneth Watson:

I am growing tired of this doscussion die to its onvious leftist tilt

Erik Kulick:

Don’t get stuck on left right.

Dempublican Lamentations

Michael HicksErik M Kulick 9 November at 17:01 near Salem · Okay, Facebook has been around for three election cycles now and in each one the third party candidates together have failed to garner 2%…

John Kenneth Watson:

I wil not change my stated position, yherdfor I need not go any deeper in analysis on your end…your sources are bias as are your every quote..

It is you that cannot directly quote Trump, telying instead on long debunked leftist sites

Erik Kulick:

So you claim, but still you have yet to explain the convenient timelines. My links did quote Trump, and the timeline backs me up.

John Kenneth Watson:
From left biased sources….try direct qoutes from Trump as I did

Erik Kulick:

If only you could produce *non-economic* evidence that shows Trump was GOP prior to May of last year…

John Kenneth Watson:

Ok I have to go run a business…be back later

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dogmata Ecclesiasties


Having walked to dozens and dozens of religious services over the course of two years and having spent the last five years attending law school, I have come to realize that dogma is one of the most dangerous and ubiquitous ideological tools employed by people within society. For society to function as a unit, the vast majority of its members must be willing to use their brains to analyze enough of the right kinds of data to make informed decisions, especially within their communities and electoral systems. Critical thought is necessary when analyzing these types of data, which is why dogma is so dangerous. A dogma is the kind of idea which those who hold to be true are unwilling to seriously consider any alternatives.

While the most dangerous forms of dogma are found in the religious and political realms, dogma can always creep in where ever people are unwilling to critically think about any specific subject. Even in groups that seem to be above such intellectual laziness, dogma abounds. While most dogmata can be clearly identified within our primary social groupings, plenty of dogmata go unnoticed as a result of of them coming from our subconscious behaviors. The dogmata of popularity, though tough to pin down compared to those of politics or religion, are present nonetheless.

The primary dogma of popularity, “ALWAYS strive to BE popular”, feeds all of the other dogmata associated with the acquiring of that elusive social capital. This can manifest in various ways, as everyone has different standards for what it means to be popular and among whom, but strive we so often do. While there is nothing wrong with desiring to make friends, far too often people are willing to jeopardize the social capital of others if it means increasing their own. This is especially true when that “other” is not a part of the popular group.

The idea that someone perceived to be a victim is to be fully trusted while the individual perceived as the offender must be distrusted is a common dogma related to this dogma of popularity. Again, our standards differ on when and why someone should be perceived as a victim or an offender, which makes it similarly difficult to track the way these dogmata manifest. Other difficulties with this dogma are that hardly anyone is ever likely to have all of the facts straight and very few people are actively trying to harm others in the first place. This means that most “victimizations” are unintentional. That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of reckless people out there or that people are always imagining harms, but just because someone has a negative reaction to another person’s behavior, doesn’t mean there was malicious intent. Unfortunately these popularity dogmata often go unchecked by those who are able to recognize them, usually because even these folks simply don’t want to risk taking a hit to their own social capital.

Coming to law school, especially in the NW during this technological renaissance we’re in, I thought I would find plenty of fellow legal minds courageous enough to be dedicated to advancing social justice. Sadly, it seems I was mistaken. Lovely platitudes about the subject are found all over campus at Willamette University and in the language of its students, but debt and desire seem to have driven even this student body toward self-centered attitudes and intellectual apathy. I was even falsely accused of staring at school employee Evann Zuckerman AFTER she clearly UNfriended me instead over our interaction online. The school administrators took her word without even examining the evidence and slanderously reinforced her false claims by banning me from the school cafe and attempting to drag me through a separate disciplinary hearing over separate, innocuous reasons. I currently have an investigation open with the Office of Civil Rights against Willamette University for the reverse discrimination they have perpetrated against me by refusing to properly investigate these claims.

Here’s how the few friends from the Willamette National Lawyers Guild Student Chapter who even bothered to speak up recently reacted when I broached the subject:

Tarron Anderson

I have no words.

2 people like this.
Aaron Johnson

Aaron JohnsonThe comments on popcorn worthy.

Tarron AndersonMan, I just took a look… Definitely on that Mike Jack meme.

Kyheim ShallahSmfh LMFAO…. like, what did I do

Kyheim Shallah's photo.

Aaron JohnsonHow is this different than blaming the actions on one person who happens to be Muslim on all Muslims?

Marcus GipsonWow…. To an extent, I would agree or find amusement…. White privilege is real. It exists. But give me a break. This is about as racist as saying the malls of South Chicago only sell baby clothes and sneakers.

Kyheim ShallahThere’s this thing called “Cause and Effect”… See Americans like to play slow or crazy about the reasons why we are so hated around the world. Oppression from the Caucasian has been felt by many races, not just blacks. I don’t see how this is “racist” when it’s pointing out the obvious. Now it was suppose to be a little tongue n cheek because who is actually persecuting white folks?

Kyheim Shallah's photo.

Kyheim ShallahAaron, Trump could probably answer that better than me because that’s his way of thinking.

Marcus GipsonYes, I completely won’t continue this discussion since you completely won me over with that Trump comment.

Kyheim, have a wonderful day. Cheers.

Kyheim ShallahLol no doubt… Peace to you bro! Enjoy the rest of your day.

Tarron AndersonI must be dreaming, Marcus did not… Good on you Marcus and all the participants on this thread.

Marcus GipsonWhen the focus is on differences, negativity and division prevail. Division ultimately leads to extremism and hate.

The fact is, “Ain’t nobody got time for dat.” (Yes, I actually knew that lady, she lived down the street from me in OKC) No time for that; especially when people like Donald are in the mix.

Cheers to you my friend, and best of luck on this last week.

I vouch (and invite all others to vouch):



Erik KulickTarron Anderson If only the same could be said about how you’ve handled the thread.

Erik KulickThankfully, at least Marcus Gipson is usually here to help you get your foot out of your mouth, Tarron.

But I wouldn’t know, cause I’m never on your wall…

Erik Kulick
Write a reply…
Kyle Torseth

Kyle TorsethThat family looks like they have it rough. They probably had to settle for the HSE Range Rover instead of the Supercharged as a result of the oppression.

Kyheim Shallah^^^^ lol the Supercharged Sport

Tarron AndersonThey are really a good looking family, I hope they have the Supercharged Range Rover.

Jason HoganDad looks lime his hitting mid life, probably just picked up a new Charger Hellcat. But, he got a great deal.

Kenneth Boydsorry white people

Kenneth Boyd's photo.

Erik KulickDoubly so when we’re *cis male* white folk……/who-is-the-willamette…/

Juliana Cohen, writer for the Willamette Collegian arranged for Elize Manoukian to write the article, ‘Who…
Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrsErik Kulick

Erik KulickOh, but if a white, straight, cis male tells a joke about ANYONE else, THEN it’s time to privilege check? I asked you and the rest of my law school pals In the Portland Nlg student chapter to put some thought into my run-in w/ the reverse discrimination that resulted from Evann Zuckerman’s slanderous abuse of the school disciplinary system, and all I got was apathy and ‘tude from y’all. Then to top it all off, a bunch of kids from the undergrad side of campus who had been invited in by Jonathan to help him talk shit kept harassing me until a fellow admin who prefers popular opinion over due process ironically kicked me out of the group affiliated w/ the National Lawyers Guild. WTF, man.…/dad-did-you-draw-dicks-on…

Tarron Anderson
Like · Reply · 1 · 21 hrsTarron Anderson

Tarron AndersonIf you want to do this, I mean really do this. Let me know. I am ready to go all the fuck the way in.

Erik KulickAll the way in where? The subject of discussion I invited y’all to broach in the Portland Nlg group? Or distracting meme land? Am I typing English when I try to communicate with folks on FB? I swear I get far more virtual blank stares than I ever thought humanly possible on the Internet.

Tarron AndersonThis is not that. I am not gonna feed into your Martyr complex. All you do is point the finger outward and never inward. The whole world is against you. You are perfect. You can miss me with that shit man.

Like · Reply · 1 · 21 hrs · Edited
Erik Kulick

Erik KulickWhy do you say I have a martyr complex? I was wronged, and I pointed it out, but that doesn’t make me a martyr. I invited y’all to discuss the situation. How does that equate to pointing fingers? All you have done since posting “interesting” on the thread of mine in the comment above is make accusations like the last one after seeing your friends do so.

Why do you bother to reply if you don’t want to get into the actual details of what happened? Is this how you’d reply to a letter from an opposing attorney, much less a friend?

I say again, WTF, man?

Tarron AndersonRead your thread again. Try to be objective and you might find the closure you seek.

Erik KulickWhat a lovely way to avoid honest questions. Maybe you should look to get into a field of law that doesn’t deal with tough subjects that affect folks personally.

Write a reply…
Erik Kulick

Erik KulickI guess the caption for this meme you posted is correct; you have no words, at least, like most folks, when it comes to getting into subjects that butt up against your social circle too uncomfortably.

Unfortunately, the only folks who ever do have words are the angry trolls, so folks like me will always be discriminated against.

It’s no wonder racism and all the other minority-centered phobias still exist today. If only educated folks could figure out the meaning of that “I have dream” speech…

Tarron AndersonPlease, talk to me when you comment on my posts about systemic racism, gay rights, women’s rights, people of color repeatedly being killed unarmed…until you do that, your opinion does not mean shit to me.

Like · Reply · 1 · 20 hrs · Edited
Erik Kulick

Erik KulickSo, because I haven’t been killed, I’m in no place to talk? I WAS assaulted by LDS leaders and police for being someone that they despise, which is no different in principle than any of those poor folks who have experienced the extreme.

Have you experienced something like this, or are you the one in no place to talk?

I again invite you to put some actual thought into what happened to me during ANY of these times that folks have abused me through manipulating the system.

Tarron AndersonNo, because you come on my wall with your personal shit, and don’t comment on the issues I talk about any other time. You can kindly fuck off.

Tarron Anderson

Tarron AndersonYou, you, you! You are not the only person who has got a raw deal. Get the fuck on with your life man. What you are doing does not work. Try a different tactic like investing in other people’s shit, and maybe they will care about yours too!

Like · Reply · 1 · 20 hrsErik Kulick

Erik KulickNo, that’s just an excuse. Had someone else popped up on your wall w/ evidence of some injustice that had befallen them at the hands of someone you weren’t already acquainted with, you would probably jump on the injustice bandwagon. You just happen to have relationships with some of the people becoming involved with this fiasco, so you dig your heels in and growl even more at me.

Move on? My life is supposed to BE Willamette! I payed a goddamn mortgage to develop a reputation which nearly an entire school seems hellbent on destroying or ambivalent about defending. What am I doing, Tarron? I’ve tried to engage with the people at school who I *thought* were passionate about social justice, but instead I continually run into people more concerned with their own reputations than anything else. Oh well, what did I expect coming to a school preparing folks for a field designed to feed or destroy those precious images of ours?

Tarron AndersonYou obviously don’t come to my wall at all.

Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrsErik Kulick

Erik KulickOh, but I do. Just because I don’t spend every lunch break hanging out here doesn’t mean otherwise. I’ve shared plenty of your shit and you’ve shared some of mine.

Write a reply…
Tarron Anderson

Tarron AndersonApparently you don’t know how I treat pretentious people who only comment when their narrative is affected. I have given you more responses than you deserve. I talk about inequality and systemic racism but also talk about accountability. Especially personal accountability. The world is fucked up and the there are many boogie men and women out there. As individuals we have to be introspective of our relationship with society. You feel wronged and young people felt creeped out. Regardless whether right or wrong something you did set off alarms. As a white male with privilege you may find it difficult to comprehend how your society turned on you. Here is my thought, who gives a fuck? There are populations who will never be afforded the opportunity you have squandered because you refuse to wear a suit or don’t understand how you creeped out undergrads. So a bit of advice that someone once gave me. Get over your fucking self. With that, good luck, graduate, and move on. Focus on your kids and the rest of your life.

Erik Kulick

Erik KulickI don’t only comment on things when only my narrative is affected, but even if I had, what the fuck does it have to do with a person coming on to your wall and talking about a subject you invited conversation on by posting a dumb ass racist meme in the first place? It’s kind of like when Juliana Posted that politically charged image in the school group she created, criticizing the university no less, and then ironically had the nerve to start criticizing me for political comments after she and her friends got a good round of shit talking in about the university.

It was this thread, which I posted via comment above, which set off the school paper/bistro employee to allege that I had stared at her AFTER she friended me and she and all her friends were gawking at me!

Thanks to society’s propensity to always trust purported victims so long as they’re non-white cis males, she convinced all her long time coworkers that I had stared at her. Even though such a behavior should always be seen as a non-offense on its own, it still bothered enough of them for them to rally behind her. For what? How could any of them have suffered, even if there had been staring going on? I will gladly take accountability for anything I’ve done or not done in my life. I’m just waiting for you or someone else to let me in on what that is in this case.

Is it because I’m white that you assume I’m privileged per se? Just because I haven’t experienced society turning on me for my race or gender, doesn’t mean I haven’t had society treat me like shit for significant periods of my lifetime for different, still unnecessary reasons. Just because there are people with less opportunity than me, doesn’t make me privileged either. I have been as poor or poorer than the majority of Americans that I meet for much of my life, so again, I’m not sure where this default privilege you see hanging off me is coming from.

So that’s what this comes down to? You think I haven’t achieved success yet because I don’t like wearing male suit styles? I have worn proper dresses to interviews and legal functions of all sorts, including court, because that IS how I identify. Whether or not my gender matches precisely the type of people your or Jonathan think deserve to wear it is irrelevant.

Write a reply…
Tarron Anderson

Tarron AndersonMy reputation is built on my actions and reactions to positive/negative feedback and criticism, as well as how I respond to each. Please do not come at me with your shit anymore I have more important battles to fight than to affirm your privilege being revoked.

Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs · Edited
Erik Kulick

Erik KulickIf you have more important shit to deal with, go tend, bro. I’m sure your reputation of inadequately addressing details and falling into crowd-think will get you far.

Write a reply…

Erik KulickSorry Kenneth Boyd, I just had better shit to do for a bit there than humor this unwarranted bigotry. IF only y’all had the courage to actually address the details, instead of filling your wall with platitudes and ad hominem attacks at people who thought you were their friend enough to share with you, then maybe all of our time would be better spent.

Write a reply…
Erik Kulick
Write a comment…
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Book of Erik

The book of Erik

Book of Erik

This is my journal from the first time that I decided to be an activist in a religious community. Instead of serving a mission, I went on a quest with a dear friend of mine who was wronged in order to stand up and do something about the injustice being meted out by our regional leaders. (Said adventure begins on page 66)

My religious views and feelings about morality have changed significantly since this time in my life, but I still have the passion and conviction that drives me to emulate my heroes, whether fictitious or not.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Who is the Willamette Collegian?

Business as Usual

Juliana Cohen, writer for the Willamette Collegian arranged for Elize Manoukian to write the article, ‘Who is the Crossdressing Mormon?” about me, and then invited me to a group that she created called ‘Willamette Collegian (Before our Time)’, in which her rules explicitly prohibited “political” comments.

Shortly after, she posted this image from the Willamette Collegian archive, not realizing the inherent political nature of the image or the comments which were bound to follow.

As a result of the following conversation that ensued on the photo’s thread, Evann Zuckerman took harassment claims against me through the Willamette University Title IX department, claiming that I was “staring at her for over an hour,” (an impossible task, as I was busy writing a pro se appellate brief and an asylum brief for a client acquired through my law school clinic during this time), and that I said “hi” to her on a different occasion. Instead of dismissing this ridiculousness after I presented this evidence, Willamette University HR director Jackie Balzer decided to arbitrarily enforce a ban from the campus cafe because Evann was able to slander me sufficiently to her long-time co-workers for some of them to request this collectively.

If this doesn’t resolve in a equitable and just manner, I will be taking law suits against Willamette and any employees involved in this personal attack, student or otherwise. I hold no grudges against any of these people, but refuse to idly watch people abuse the very process that they ironically felt the need to talk shit about.

Juliana Cohen

February 25 at 5:07pm


Unlike ·  · Share

  • Seen by 94

    You, Kevin Newton and 20 others like this.

    Jacob Pajos HendersonFebruary 25 at 5:23pm · Unlike · 1

    Erik Sandy Love. So true especially today. We a small university that acts like a dipshit big one

    February 25 at 5:27pm · Unlike · 1

    Erik Kulick Business as usual.

    February 25 at 6:44pm · Like · 1

    Evann Zoe Zuckerman Aka why fraternities (breeding grounds for violence) are back on campus!

    February 25 at 9:32pm · Unlike · 2

    Genevieve Anne Gahagan Also that now Willamette is apparently trying to downsize financial aid in a really big way….

    February 25 at 9:51pm · Unlike · 2

    Alex de Man#relevant

    February 25 at 10:27pm · Like · 1

    Erik Sandy This is too real not to yell at someone about. Can we get a yell sesh in soon?

    February 25 at 10:35pm · Like · 2

    Erik Kulick It sucks that they got rid of the education grad program. They should be adding and improving grad school options, not scaling down.

    February 25 at 10:41pm · Like · 1

    Evann Zoe Zuckerman I’m more sad that the University I dedicate a lot of ‘time and money to cares more about increasing profits than student safety.

    February 25 at 10:44pm · Unlike · 1

    Erik Sandy Black tieover wehms wtf

    February 25 at 10:47pm · Like

    Erik Sandy Im seriously embarrassed when people ask me wherre I goto school

    February 25 at 10:47pm · Like · 2

    Erik Kulick Safety certainly is important, but if we really want to see it improve, we need to think far bigger than campus security. That’s not to say there couldn’t be improvements in the way security is handled at school, including increasing funding, but it really is more macro. Do you all care about Salem, the valley, Cascadia, the planet…? Let’s set a better example while improving this gorgeous place that we live in.

    February 25 at 11:12pm · Like

    Erik Kulick So is anyone interested in trying to fix things with me? I see a ton of potential in all of you, but feel like no-one ever really wants to be honest with themselves or each other when a call to action comes; it is far easier for people to disassociate themselves from the kinds of things or people that cause them to feel compelled to question their most dearly held “truths.”

    By the way, I brought a copy of the article that Elize wrote about me to the Statesman Journal, and they said they would like to set up a time to meet with me. I also have a City Manager review scheduled for the “internal investigation” that was kicked around by Salem PD when they looked into the incident that my sign directs folks to. I don’t need any of your support to accomplish the things that I’m capable of, and y’all don’t need mine for the inverse, but what a waste of an opportunity it will be if we don’t at least try to seize this day.

    4 hrs · Like

    Evann Zoe Zuckerman I mean, I took action in some way, I worte an article for the collegian about sig chi moving on campus.I don’t believe that a general campaign to fix campus will work. Unfortunately, it seems necessary to tackle each issue at a time.

    3 hrs · Unlike · 2

    Erik Kulick I don’t mean to imply that y’all are sitting around on your asses doing nothing. Tackling issues and brainstorming about them are very different things. If we want to see the issues for what they really are, instead of getting tripped up over the symptoms, we also need to focus on the latter task. Most people usually avoid this step, because it feels like it produces so little work product for so much energy, but it really is crucial for true success.

    2 hrs · Like

    Juliana Cohen Sorry everyone, but I’d like it if you could move serious discussion elsewhere. This is meant to be a casual and light-hearted page, not a community organizing platform.

    36 mins · Like

    Erik Kulick I would gladly move it anywhere that it can be productive, Juliana. Why the limitation though? What harm is there in having a serious discussion on these threads anyway? After all, this throwback you posted touches on a very serious topic; it should get us passionate. I can understand not wanting to have to deal with contention, but the conversation had actually deescalated from what almost felt like vitriol toward the university to the start of a productive discourse on at least the idea of working together.

    31 mins · Like

    Juliana Cohen I don’t want this group to be divisive or off-putting to people who just want to chill out and look at old photos. Let’s end this conversation right here.

    28 mins · Like · 1

    Erik Kulick What is divisive or off-putting about the way the tone of the conversation went? I’m not looking for that kind of thing on these threads either, but if you’re going to post photos that have divisive subjects, why even have commentary open in the first place? The conversation shouldn’t end there, because I asked legitimate questions that should apply to the moderation of all forums. That is far different than me continuing to rant on about a specific questionable topic.

    If some of you have some new-found issue with me, please confront me about it. It would be a real shame for this forum to become unnecessarily fettered all because of opinions that people have about one individual or subject. I care about Willamette and the Collegian even if some of you don’t.

    17 mins · Like

    Juliana Cohen Um, I work for the fucking Collegian. I started this page… I obviously care. If you’re going to be a jerk to me, stop right now or leave the page.

    And as I said before, this conversation has ended.

    14 mins · Like

    Erik Kulick I didn’t imply that you don’t care personally, Juliana. I implied that from the comments in this thread that other folks don’t seem to, at least at this juncture. Why not put limitations on people when they resort to things like ad hominem attacks instead of putting a blanket ban on the very topics that some of these photos are “talking” about?

    Do you really feel like I’m talking down to you? If everyone here cares about these things, they should do more to show it. That’s just me expressing my opinion. I’m sorry if I always have a response, but that’s just me showing I care about all of you. After all, isn’t that what journalism and critical thought are all about?

    Just now · Like

    Posted in Politics, Religion | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

    Leviticus School

    Have y’all read the LDS Epistles? Some fellow law students helped me write them!

    LDS Epistles
    The text bellow is a compilation of most of the Facebook conversation threads I participated in during the appellate brief writing portion of law school this past spring. I delivered a bound copy t…
    • Seen by 148
    • Christopher Day Just be an atheist and stop worrying about it.
    • Erik Kulick Why do you assume I’m an atheist, Christopher?
    • Christopher Day I didn’t. But you should be.
    • Christopher Day Then you won’t have to worry about this kind of stuff
    • Erik Kulick Ah, but that’s where you’re wrong. My Mormon wife abducted the kids and moved back to UT. It’s this assumed “abdication of parental rights by apostate spouses” mentality found in these epistles that causes this kind of thing to happen.To be honest, I really don’t care if deity exists or not; I like the golden rule regardless of what awaits me.

    • Aaron Lenox Erik, I don’t know you but I feel saddened to hear that your wife left you and that you were excommunicated from your church. You seem upset, with lots to say. I have been a member of the church for over two decades. before then I went church to church. My life is so much better because of the church, its teachings, service opportunities, and fellow members. I am sorry that you have not found the same. I hope other areas of your life are a relief from these current difficulties. One of the best experiences of my life was baptizing my uncle who had been excommunicated over twenty years prior. I hope through repentance you are able to take what personal responsibility is yours and make your way back. A good friend once told me it does not matter how far away you may feel from The Lord because no matter where you are there is always a direct path back to him and that path is through the gift of repentance. I hope things improve for you and those you love in the coming days and months.
    • Erik Kulick For what should I repent, Aaron? I appreciate your kindness, but if anyone needs to repent it should be the leaders of the LDS organization who feel compelled to assault and legally threaten members of their organization who feel compelled to question and draw attention to serious issues that the church needs to address.

      I hope the LDS corp still stands behind their endorsement of me and overturns my excommunication by local leaders who assaulted me after my less than glowing review of their doctrinal practices in …
    • Aaron Lenox What issues do you feel need to be addressed?
    • Aaron Lenox keep in mind the church is theocratic rather then democratic. Any attempts to change church doctrine will not happen. The doctrine is viewed as Gods teachings and are as eternal and unchanging as He is. And despite modern trends and political changes the Church is unbending to personal opinion or societal pressure (which I deeply appreciate). Also keep in mind, although the doctrine is regarded as perfect the church members (including leaders) are not held out as perfect. If you were mistreated, I am deeply sorry for that. Perhaps for you then the challenge will be forgiveness for those you feel have behaved wrongfully against you.
    • Christopher Day Before 1978, the LDS church didn’t consider people of color to be worthy of being full members of the church (“holding the priesthood”). The church viewed(s?) them as bearing “the mark of Cain”. Which is of course horribly racist. Before the church changed course, it got to the point where colleges were refusing to play BYU in athletic events to protest the racist policy. Then, suddenly, black people become OK in 1978. The point is, the church obviously felt pressure to change or lose it’s place in society. The same is starting to happen with LGBT rights.
    • Aaron Lenox True, for over 100 years of the LDS church’s history, blacks did not hold the priesthood. The church was restored in 1830 during times of slavery. Racism and slavery were ubiquitous among governments, churches of all denominations even among the LDS church. And despite Joseph Smith having translated and published the Book of Mormon that teaches “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33), it took generations for the body of the church to purge entrenched views regarding blacks.Interestingly, Christians (LDS included) believe in the church that Jesus Christ restored during his mortal ministry. During his ministry the Lord restricted the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews only. Sometime after the Lords crucifixion and ascension into heaven Peter, the presiding Apostle, received a revelation directing him to extend the blessings of the Gospel (including the priesthood) to the Gentiles also. At the time this was a monumental change in church policy, a change even the Apostles initially disputed. But, once the revelation came they put aside their personal views that were in disharmony with the newly revealed direction and supported the Gospel being taken to the gentiles full heartedly.

      The revelation on blacks holding the priesthood in the LDS church in 1978 functioned similarly. For years prior to 1978 the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball and the members of the 12 Apostles were desirous to extend the priesthood to all, including blacks, but felt the Lord, for reasons unknown to them, had restricted it. When conditions were ripe the Prophet and Apostles fasted and prayed for many days to know the will of the Lord, whether to extend the priesthood or not. Subsequently, the Lord manifested His will to extend the priesthood to all worthy males.

      Prior to this revelation, many of the Apostles and prophets did not believe the blacks would ever get the priesthood, however after the revelation this changed. One of the Apostles who was present for the revelation and who previously had shared his opinion that blacks would never receive the priesthood said this statement following the recite of the revelation:

      There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.

      (Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, Part II – The mission of the Holy Ghost, Chapter 9 – Revelation on the Priesthood 1989).

      I eco Elder McCinkie’s sentiment and am grateful for a modern Prophet and twelve Apostles who receive like Peter did modern revelation. One of the fundamental beliefs of the LDS church is and has always been “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith #9).

      Does Church doctrine change? No. Does church policy change? Yes. The doctrine of the priesthood did not change, the policy concerning who it was extended to did – which I, like you, am grateful for!

    • Jon V Green I tried to ask a god to confirm some of this info, but they don’t exist
    • Kim Jones Haha Jon, to each his own
    • Kim Jones Granted in legal writing, it’s his or her own. Ha!
    • Jon V Green I have had to endure painful dialogues with professors about how people are either “he” or “she”. I use “they” as a default to respect transgender folks…
    • Rob Sobotka This is why I worship Satan.
    • Jon V Green…/Praise-Seitan…

      Herbivore Clothing celebrates cruelty-free culture and fashion with all vegan belts, wallets, clothing, and accessories as well as a huge collection of vegan cookbooks.
    • Tim Downin Isn’t religion FUN?!?! 8}
    • Aaron Lenox Chris, I am not sure what you were referring to when mentioning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints position on LGTB issues, but just in case there is any misunderstanding or doubts I have provided the Church’s OFFICIAL position in the links below, thanks:Same-Sex Attraction: The links this cite includes under “Notes” are fairly comprehensive and highly informative of my favorite sites on this topic:

      How the church feels about Chastity in general and why:

      LDS Church’s response to recent Typhoon…/church-providing…

    • Aaron Lenox This is the latest press release from the LDS Church concerning the Church’s official stance on same-sex attraction (released Nov 7th, 2013).Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage

      Salt Lake City —

      Media outlets are reporting that in an informal press gathering Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid made comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay rights.

      As the Church has said before, elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.

      On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the Church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.

      Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.…/church-responds-to…

      The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. The Church’s doctrine on this matter is not changing.
    • Erik Kulick Um, lets start with assault and threats being meted out by official representatives of the LDS church towards people who believe differently than them and are not afraid to bring up issues when congregated with other Mormons, or the common practice of church members abducting their children from non-believing spouses, often with the help of Mormon attorneys, Aaron.Your distinction between doctrine and policy is amusing. Harms caused by either are still harms, and both doctrine and policy is treated by TBM’s with the same level of reverence, so in practice there really is no difference. Bringing up the backpedaling by “apostles” of yesteryear only further exposes the problem with the concept of “revelation” and the need for people to take the words of ALL humans with a grain of salt.

      Daniel, this is something that is happening here at Willamette College of Law. As a matter of fact, Rex White Jr, helped me write this blog post. Maybe we can start discussing why it is that LDS lawyers feel like its OK to tell TBM divorcees that its OK to abduct their kids from the other spouse and move to UT. After all there are a lot of Mormon students here who could face the same fate, and I’d hate to see it happen again.

    • Kary DeVaney I don’t have a horse in this race, but I find this to be an appropriate venue to discuss legal issues, even if they are personal and intersect with religious doctrine. Mr. Kulick merely shared something he felt was relevant. How others respond is not his responsiblity.
    • Carleigh Caprice Anable Hey guys. You do know that finals are coming up right? Maybe you could focus your energies there. Or don’t I guess. It’ll help the curve.
    • Aaron Lenox For general info. Some may think the LDS church is benign to the wolds suffering, check out this very brief window into the Church’s ongoing efforts world wide.

      Style Guide Note: When reporting about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please use the complete name of the Church in the first reference. For more information on the use of the name of the Church, go to our online style guide.
    • Erik Kulick By all means stay focused on your studies. I sure have been, otherwise I would have been back on here to check on Aaron‘s response to the issues I’ve presented sooner. I’ve been waiting for a response from Carleigh for quite some time regarding similar issues on a different post, as well. Thanks for reminding me, Carleigh!
    • Carleigh Caprice Anable I do not care to respond to these issues nor will I be bullied by you Erik Kulick. If you continue to harass me I will go to the Deans and to the police. Please respect my wishes that you please leave me alone.
    • Aaron Lenox Erik, I would love to help you with the personal issues your having with the church and your family but I really don’t know how. Problems like these usually are a matter for you and those involved to figure out. Keep in mind your experience with a couple church members, whether leaders or not, is not representative of the church as a whole, they are just individuals like you and I. And your experience of your wife leaving you and being assisted by a mormon attorney is not the experience of most mormons, but again I am sorry you are going through this. Erik, the LDS church, your wife, Church leaders etc. are not the problem. Sooner or later we all need to look in the mirror, myself included. I know the consequences to poor choices stings terribly and can negatively impact our thinking and bring seemingly endless emotional suffering. You appear to be in a battle, you think it is with Church leaders and other external issues, but really Erik the battle is and has always been with yourself. I wish all the best for you, feel free to come talk to me anytime, I will see you in the halls.
    • Erik Kulick Bully you, Carleigh? In what way have I bullied you or even given you the slightest reason to threaten to call the cops AND the dean on me? You’re the one who came on here making snarky comments about finals and how keeping it up will affect the curve. All I did was invite you to be the first active Mormon to explain why they’re OK w/ their church treating “eternal family members” this way:

      Aaron, how can you definitively say that “the LDS church, my wife, Church leaders etc. are not the problem?” Have you even listened to the audio of the link included in this comment? You say I have a need to repent, yet you still haven’t cited the reason, even though I’ve repeatedly asked you to. You claim that you and the other church members “love” me, but your collective shallow attempt at tolerance belies the real truth.

      If you want to be able to honestly claim to care about others, you need to be willing to dig into the issues. Hopefully y’all will give your clients a bit more thorough thought than you have given the plight of your “eternal brother.” I have been cross-dressing and walking great distances to religious services of all types, and only the LDS corp has felt the need to k…
    • Aaron Lenox Erik, you raise an interesting issue, that of tolerance. I would like to share my view on this important topic so hopefully there is no misunderstanding regarding my position towards you as an “eternal brother.” I do so respectfully of course.I believe in a Supreme Being who has established absolute right and wrong in human behavior. I believe that the existence of God and the existence of absolute truth are fundamental to life on this earth, whether they are believed in or not. I believe that all persons are brothers and sisters under God. I also know that evil exists and that some things are simply, seriously and everlastingly wrong. Some of the evils that exist today are: murders, pornography, degrading sexual indulgence, drunkenness, dishonesty, hatred, foul language.

      Tolerance is defined as a friendly and fair attitude toward unfamiliar or different opinions and practices or toward the persons who hold or practice them. I believe that our obligation to tolerance means that none of the before mentioned behaviors, or others we consider deviations from the truth, should ever cause us to react with hateful communication or unkind actions. To me this means we may stand intolerant of transgression but tolerant of neighbors with differences they hold sacred.

      The Lord drew boundary lines to define acceptable limits of tolerance; He taught us that we need not tolerate evil. Even though He loved the sinner, The Lord said that He “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” When He faced the woman taken in adultery, Jesus spoke the comforting words of tolerance: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Then, as He sent her away, He spoke the commanding words of truth: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). This example shows us both tolerance and truth: kindness in the communication but firmness in the truth. My commitment to the Savior causes me to scorn sin yet heed His commandment to love each other.

      Today, devoted disciples of the Lord are required to be just as firm. Real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation – not acquiescence. REAL LOVE DOES NOT SUPPORT SELF-DESTRUCTING BEHAVIOR. The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance. Do not be deceived, behind that façade is heartache, unhappiness, and pain.

      To tolerate without limit is an erroneous assumption and could lead to spineless permissiveness. The weaker one’s belief in God and the fewer one’s moral absolutes, the fewer the occasions when the ideas or practices of others will confront one with the challenge to be tolerant. For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes. This belief system can tolerate almost any behavior and almost any person. Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and that there are certain moral absolutes that should be observed – tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned.

      I believe we must stand up for truth, even while we practice tolerance and respect for the beliefs and ideas different from our own and for the people who hold them. However, while we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their right to explain and advocate their positions, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT AND TOLERATE WRONG BEHAVIOR. (To save time and help express my views I barrowed some ideas and quotes from two LDS General Authority talks)

    • Erik Kulick Look, Aaron, telling me that you *believe* certain things to be inherently wrong doesn’t explain WHY you think all those things are wrong *per se* nor does it explain why you still seem to think that what the church leaders do to people like me is OK. Telling me that Jesus is purported to have criticized “immoral” behavior is not an answer. The fact remains that you and the vast majority of members that I know including a good many of my family continue to keep silent concerning these issues, both online and in the meetinghouses. Do you actually have any answers for WHY my actions are harmful, why you still refuse to see harm in the way your leaders deal w/ these types of situations, and why your collective failure to act is anything but acceptable?BTW, tolerance in this context is offensive in and of itself because it implies that y’all see yourselves as better than people who behave differently than you, making it difficult for TBM members to treat “disobedient” Mormons w/ anything less then disdain. True “eternal love” can only breed compassion; anything less can only be lip service at best.

      That’s not to say that people should have to put up w/ others taking advantage of them, but there is a huge difference between getting your garments in a bunch because you don’t like the way your neighbors’ habits smell or the potential risks associated w/ those habits and being concerned about abusive relationships. It’s like y’all are taking a page straight out of GWB’s “preemptive strike” handbook…

    • Aaron Lenox Erik, give me some time with the Holidays to respond thoughtfully to your post, until then I hope your visit with your kids and others in Utah goes very well, no doubt your little ones miss you, they are so cute! I just want to say that I love you for loving your kids so much, take care. P.S. hope you feel good about finals.
    • Aaron Lenox One last quick thought, just don’t let what’s going on right now spoil your thoughts, conversation, and time with the little ones, I am sure they are just needing some pure, simple Daddy love right now.
    • Erik Kulick Don’t worry, I’m purchasing a sign that says “Google Crossdressing Mormon” to wear on my back when I walk from SLC up to Brigham City to get my car back and see the kids. America WILL know what LDS leaders are allowing in their churches. Hopefully it will force them to come clean and stop these horrendous assaults, bans and child abductions being meted out against “eternal family” members. Once I’m with my kids I will have a blast and so will they.
    • Erik Kulick Hey, check out the audio from the testimony meeting that caused the leaders from every LDS church I visited after to assault and threaten me! Don’t forget to factor it in when you reply, Aaron!…/lds…/

      Here is my first podcast release made from the audio recorded when I crossdress to religious services. This podcast is the audio of the LDS testimony meeting that caused my local LDS leaders to ass…
    • Aaron Lenox Hi Erik, you asked me to respond to why some of your actions are harmful to members of the LDS faith (and perhaps those of other faiths). Please bear with me while I lay the foundation to my response.The only fight the Church wages is against sin. Sin is disobedience to the commandments of God. God has given his commandments to divinely chosen prophets since the beginning of man and He does so today and can be found in scripture. For this reason scripture is considered sacred and of highest import to God’s children because it is literally God’s revelations to us, directing fallen man and woman on how to be redeemed through Christ’s atonement.

      When some criticize the Church for at times becoming involved in politics, the Church only does so when defending or promoting God’s commandments becomes necessary – a divinely given prerogative of the LDS Church. Same-sex marriage is a modern example of this. The LDS Church has repeatedly voiced its unchanging position on this critical issue and has encouraged its membership to be politically active in supporting traditional marriage in accordance to the commandment of God; that marriage be only between and a man and a woman.

      Additionally, faith in God and a personal witness of God’s saving truths (called a testimony) are of primary importance in any individuals life who seeks to follow God. To LDS members possessing faith, testimony, and God’s forgiveness by compliance to his commandments constitutes spiritual life, to loose these or deny them constitutes spiritual death, or complete separation from God (both physically & spiritually). Spiritual life while on earth brings inner peace, comfort, joy, satisfaction, love, knowledge of spiritual truths, humility and contriteness of soul. On the other hand spiritual death on earth brings confusion, hopelessness, despair, contention, and misery. Eternally, spiritual life and death is the difference between entering God’s presence or being forever cast out. Consequently, anyone or anything that leads away from or destroys faith, testimony, and obedience to God’s commandments (i.e. spiritual life) is viewed as not only harmful and disrespectful but antichrist and is to be forthrightly cast aside and rejected. This form of discrimination is viewed as divinely sanctioned and expressly commanded. Thus not all forms of discrimination are bad or wrong in our view, when employed to preserve that which is true, good, or essential to life (spiritual or physical) – even if those guilty of acting contrary to what is true, good, or essential to life are harmed in some way – like being removed from a church meeting house by force if necessary, or being prevented from speaking further to the congregation, or being prevented from coming on to church property (although these are last resorts).

      This is why to LDS members generally and the LDS Church, guarding and preserving faith, testimony, and obedience to God’s commandments (spiritual life) are more important than anyone’s desire to address or otherwise have access to the Church’s private and sacred meetings of members who are gathered only to strengthen and bless one another.

    • Erik Kulick Who is Kris?I think you need to retake Con law, Aaron. Equal protection under the law doesn’t mean protection only for the “righteous.” By continuing to dump millions of tithing dollars into campaigns against gay marriage, the church is attempting to diminish the affect of the Constitution, which is consequently a violation of the church’s 12th article of faith. Sounds to me like the current first presidency and quorum of the 12 are guilty of leading the members astray, and should therefore be given a taste of their own “excommunication medicine.”

      The “sacred covenant of marriage” isn’t affected at all when states like UT recognize the right to contract between same-sex couples (yay!) the way heterosexual couples can, so I’m not so sure about that divine prerogative you speak of.

      I respect the rights of others to believe what they will. You still haven’t articulated WHAT it was that I said or did to affect the “spiritual welfare” of the members while I attended testimony meetings or when I refused to be quietly whisked into an excommunication trial where I was explicitly told my evidence would not be heard and I was prevented from peaceably engaging with the members (whom I never got to meet) of the stake implicitly approving of such blatant violations of church law (even the way I was excommunicated conflicted with D&C & the official church handbook). I again implore you to go through the audio and cite the harms to Mormon “spiritual welfare” you speak of. The fact that you liked Carleigh Caprice Anable‘s accusations of bullying and threats over the non-existent harms she complained of makes me doubt you ever will address the issues honestly, though.

      You know what is most frightening? The way you speak of acceptable discrimination reminds me of the part of the Book of Mormon where Nephi claims divine justification for his beheading of Laban. With these kinds of warped justifications for serious violations of the law, it makes me think that the only thing that separates mainstream Mormonism from Islamist extremism is desperation and corporate protection. Logic help us.

    • Jon V Green Keep wearing dresses to church and in public spaces, Erik! This is vital as we confront a hella transphobic, dogmatic populace…
    • Erik Kulick Thanks, Jon! Oh, I won’t stop cross dressing to churches or anywhere else anytime soon. There is far too much work to be done. I just can’t wait till there’s enough public opposition to the church’s treatment of me and the other “sons and daughters of perdition” that they’re forced to deal with what happened instead of keeping us swept under the rug with all the rest of their “dirt.”I’m so tired of Mormons feigning “Christ-like love” towards people who are different than them or silently standing by as families are destroyed by their self-righteous friends and family.

    • Aaron Lenox The LDS church itself does not use tithing funds for campaign donations, nor does it directly contribute monetarily to political campaigns. The “millions” $ given to support traditional marriage (speaking of proposition 8) was all donated by individual members to the campaign directly of their own choice w/out consequence for not doing so; their donations were not tithing and were not given to the LDS church. The Church itself did donate NON-MONETARY support to the campaign in complete harmony with the Church’s policy to be an influence on contemporary moral issues.…/tithing/question/purpose-of-tithing

      The financial strength of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints derives primarily from the commitment of its members to the scriptural principle of tithing and other forms of voluntary contributions and service. The collection and disbursement of all funds are carefully managed according t…
    • Jon V Green The Stone ages are over. Smash the gender binary!
    • Erik Kulick That’s all you have to say, Aaron? An explanation for how the money the church gave to political campaigns “technically” wasn’t tithing? Any money the LDS corp has IS a result of tithing, and no matter how many times they invest it in property or pass it through non-profits, it will remain the result of tithing.I’d appreciate actual answers to the questions I’ve presented, instead of the repeated attempts to make me look wrong and the church look right like the way every other TBM Mormon who has offered their opinion on the matter has.

      Doesn’t anyone else find it troubling that so many Mormons refuse to exercise critical thought while in law school?

    • Erik Kulick Aaron Lenox, if your run-on paragraph with which you replied to me in secret explains your point of view so well, why don’t you share it here? In that giant paragraph you pointed to the accusations of “teaching false doctrines as church doctrine and scaring children” in the letter from my stake president excommunicating me and banning me from all church property, but you never went on to explain HOW my actions fit the accusations, nor did you explain why a person so accused deserved to be assaulted, banned, and excommunicated for such behavior, especially when I wasn’t even present to present the evidence I was told wouldn’t be heard in the first place.I refuse to reply to your secret communications. If you want to come off as a sincere person when you actively and publicly engage people like me, you need to finish what you started and address the issues.

      I reiterate my concerns regarding Mormons and all others who refuse to critically think but insist on the practice of law. This is why the cases in Con law and Crim Pro I are so depressing.

    • Jon V Green This is reminiscent of some of my crim law classmates making jokes about rape and questioning the survivor’s account of their experience. Hella depressing if these tools end up as DAs or judges…
    • Aaron Lenox My feeling is that, in this circumstance, it is inappropriate to address your personal indiscretions and behaviors publicly. Yet, I still attempted to answer you on the side out of respect. But if you would like to focus on the issues (e.g. equal protection, church tribunals etc.) instead of the details of your life, I am more than willing to explore these topics with you.
    • Erik Kulick Why is it inappropriate to address? If you are so confident in the correctness of your evaluation of the situation and your advice given, then why are you afraid to share it publicly? Your inferences regarding my behavior have already brought you down to the level that you seem to be trying to avoid, so why not get it all out? After all, it is me who risks shame, not you, right?Even in private you failed to articulate an actual harm. Instead, you pointed to the unsubstantiated claims in the one paged excommunication letter that I received from the man who called himself my stake president as being harms per se. You then went on to state how I am in the grasp of Satan which has caused me to “speak out against the church and everything about it, including the people in it”, while accusing me of other prior and current iniquities which you confidently claimed are prerequisites for “excommunicable actions” such as mine. Finally, you followed your hollow accusations up with a lecture on the deceitful and controlling powers of Satan (a conundrum you fail to recognize) and the saving power of the atonement (a parasitic concept that breeds spiritually laziness).

      While I do speak out about practices of the LDS church and some of its doctrines, unlike the church has taught you, criticism toward the ways someone does things does not equate to an attack on the individual and everything she’s about. Like every other Mormon who has had the courage or audacity to engage me on the subject, you overstate the extent of my criticisms and underestimate the extent of things that cause people to see things like the LDS church differently.

      Maybe if you could stop making such closed-minded assumptions about me (and people like me) and start getting honest with yourself and your classmates, we can finally have a fruitful conversation about something. I’m not sure you want to get into those other more difficult subjects if you’re having such a tough time addressing my simple questions.

    • Aaron Lenox To all,I feel that I need to apologize to all of you who have followed this thread for these several months. Initially my only desire engaging in this thread was to offer the alternative view to the negative and untruthful things Erik was posting about the LDS Church and religion.

      But I have taken it too far by persistently engaging with him directly and personally after seeing that his goal was to argue and that his method was to share mistruths and twist my words.

      I am deeply sorry for carrying this on so long, I feel responsible for this. And so I am done with this thread. Next time, I promise to do better. And I thank all of you who have taken the time to share with me your views and respond thoughtfuly and sincerely to what I have posted and who have given me feedback as well. I have learned a lot and have valued your input.


      Aaron W. Lenox

    • Erik Kulick So instead of actually addressing the issues, you are going to simply back out of the conversation? Is this how you intend on practicing law? I have asked you legitimate questions about important issues which affect the very community you claim to be a part of, and this is how you replied?:

      “Erik, repetadly you have asked me to comment on my view of why exactly your actions are harmful or wrong. Though I answered this question already, I think you want me to references specific behaviors that are wrong and harmful. The letter you received from your Stake Presidency has already informed you why you were excommunicated. You taught as Church doctrine teachings contrary to the Church and God’s teachings despite leaders asking you not to and young children became afraid of you. You have taken the position that you are doing nothing wrong, that you are on a mission of your own to visit churches and declare your message concerning modern social and political issues. You seek to influence private Churches, including and especially the LDS Church by visiting them during their meetings of worship and addressing their members openly. You dress, groom and behaive in a manner consistant with your message and the feeling it brings. You have specifically spoken out against the lds church, its doctrines, members, leaders, and practices. I know one such as yourself does not reach this point of activity and perception without prior and current iniquities to get where you are. Often such iniquities or personal sins have caused those around you to lose faith and trust in you and replace these with fear and feelings of betrayal and disappointment. Such personal sins often are in the realm of drug use and abuse and perhaps sexual perversions of one kind or another. Adopting views inconsistant with what God has revealed is also a way that Satan gains power over his subjects. If he can blind you through the comission of your personal sins, and take hold of your mind via inconsistant and contrary views as well as inflame your emotions blaiming others regarding consequences YOU have caused, HE HAS YOU. You are not your own anymore. This is exactly how subtly Satan works to insare the souls of men. Now you are going about doing his bedding, sharing his message and sturing up the people to contention ans strife. I declare in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ that you have been decieved and have succombed to his power. Now, if I know him at all, you will be angry with this message “for the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center,” and he will try and have you think well I don’t beleive in this so it is not true and if I don’t believe it than it doesn’t exist. WRONG, he is real, he exists, just as you and I do. Some things are real even though you cannot see them (like gravity, not seen but felt), he is one of them, a real being, with power to bind you soul down with lies, desceptions, until you are his, until you suffer with him in his own place. The many bad things you have been experiencing with the law, family, and at school is not because your course of action is right – it is because you are doing wrong and by the fruits/the results of these actions you may know that what I say is true. Erik, there is in reality a living God, a perfect individual whos children we are. But you know this. We have been given this time on earth to repent and prepare to return and live with him after we depart this life if we have sought to obey His commandments and follow His Son Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world; But you know this. If you do not repent sincerely and return unto The Lord and seek forgiveness for the wrongs you haved committed against Him and your family you will be judged by Him accordingly. For He will judge your thoughts, words, and actions to see if you have any of His truth in you, to see if you have any of His divine spirit in you, and if not you are delivered up unto he who you have listened to more than Him, Lucifer, your new father. For NO UNCLEAN THING can dwell in the kingdom of God. And how can we become clean from our sins if we do not repent? We cannot, thus all who are in a state of rebellion against God and His Church cannot be cleansed and cannot enter His kingdom. But you know this. For on one hand the Spirit of The Lord is humble, meek, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things The Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him even as a child. On the other hand, the Spirit of Lucifer is a liar from the beginning, an acuser of his brethren day and night, one who stirrs up the hearts of people to anger, contention, division, and war. He would have us fear, he would have us loose sight of God and our family, But you know this. For all things of God invite and intice us to believe in Him, that he is, and that He is a rewarder to all those who follow Him in Faith, however, all things that invite and intice us to disbeleive in God, to fear or to contend are not of God. By this you may know that your actions have been contrary to your God. You have sought to declare your own message, not His message, you have adopted the iniquitous ways of the world, and the patterns of lucifer such that even you have difficulty discerning why your actions have become wrong, such that you need to ask me why what you are doing is wrong and hurtful. If anything you should at least be able to look in the mirror and see what you have become and ask yourself have my actions blessed my life, have they blessed my wife and children, have they advanced me in my life? The answer is NO, they have not, your actions have rewarded you nothing but contention, anger, inner pain and pressure, you have become a kind of outcast because of your rebellions against God, society, and his people. But you know and feel this. Repentance heals our souls, our hearts and our itchy minds. It removes, hostility, anger, and the deceptions of Lucifer, it renews our strength and grants us clarity of thought and purpose, repentance returns us to the right path NO MATTER WHERE we have gone. You can repent, you can be healed, you can restore good to your life and relationships if you are willing to. You can remove throught the power of the Saviors atonment Satan’s grasp on you in your life. You are worth it, you are important to God, you are desired by him, He wants your life to be corrected and improved, He wants you to learn from your mistakes and move on, on the right path to Him. You must acknowledge your wrongs to Him in prayer and humbly seek His forgiveness. You must anew begin to read His words which will immediately begin to weaken and remove Satan’s power in you life and heal you. Do this and do not stop until The Lord has claimed you His once again. Go to your Stake President and seek his help when your ready.”

      Not one part of that run-on paragraph explained your position, and now you leave me hanging after I called you out on it?

      What HAVE you learned from our input that you value?

    • Erik Kulick I don’t like people worshiping anyone, Rob, although, unlike Aaron‘s comment, I imagine your statement about Satan worship was in jest.Nevertheless, I post this recording for your listening pleasure:

      I do not own any rights to this song or image. Lyrics: I’ve got wheels of polish…See more
    Posted in Politics, Religion, Religitics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

    LDS Left Exodus

    LDS Vistors Welcome

    This post was deleted from the “Liberal” Mormon Facebook group, ‘LDS Left’, for being “anti-Mormon.” The poster Heather B. even went as far as to report this blog post for “copyright infringement.” Fortunately, mere conversation is not generally able to be copyrighted.

    If you’re in the area and can make it, please do! Otherwise invite and share!
    11 August at 18:00
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 4550 Lone Oak Rd SE Salem, OR 97302
    You went

    Like · · Unfollow Post · 11 August at 14:51 near Salem

    Here’s the latest!…

    • Glee V: People need to remember that Social Media, especially facebook, makes it very difficult to stay private, even with a pseudonym on a separate facebook account. Even a retired tech dummy like me can find out stuff – as long as you have connections with folks who are tech savvy. Especially if before you were retired you were a journalist
    • Karyn S: Why not just go, have his say, and be done with a church he doesn’t agree with on so many, many different levels?Why turn this into a circus?
    • Glee V: Because, Karyn, IF this is the one and only TRUE church, and IF going through THIS church is the one and only way you can have a bona-fide relationship with Jesus, and therefore, with God, then, golly gee, what happens when the HUMAN BEINGS who run it make a human mistake? Do you just say, oh gosh darn it, I’ll just leave, and never go to Heaven, and never be reunited with the people I love? Or do you say, the HELL I am going to let other human beings follow their own prejudices and hang ups instead of Heavenly Father’s living WORD. The HELL I am going to let THEM stand between me and the Gospel, and my eternal Salvation. I am going to stand up and see this through.I mean, IF this is the one and only way, wouldn’t you?
    • Erik Kulick: They never said so, Ingrid, but I’m sure it was a big part of it.
    • Erik Kulick: I insisted on having a trial by Mormons who actually *know* me, but given the mandatory geographic assignment…
    • Erik Kulick: The point is, Karyn, my kids still go to this church. My sister and her family. My mother, aunt, uncle, and some of my cousins still go to this church. I may not worry about whether or not a God exists or whether or not JS translated golden plates, but I am a Mormon still and I have a right to fellowship as such.Additionally, I attend ALL types of religious services, not just Mormon ones. Speaking of “true churches”, Glee, the LDS church is the ONLY one to kick me out, let alone to set up a court which *they* turned into a *circus* by assaulting me and trying to pretend they were the police as they started the arrest without authority to do so.The members of this church need to wake up big time if they’re going to salvage their once precious religion.
    • Wendy D: If you want to make a change in any organization, the reality is that the best way to do this is within the framework of that organization. Radical thought and action is not part of the LDS culture and will be freaked, misunderstood and fought.
    • Wendy D: I meant feared…but freaked sounds better.
    • Andy L: They’re also, presumably, the only one in which you’re a registered member, so in some sense they’re the only one who could attempt to kick you out in this type of manner.
    • Keith L: Please tell me that you have denounced the book of Mormon, published your new name, cheated on your wife, taken a second wife, taken a second husband, started a mormon offshoot church, or served some kind of very alcoholic fluffy jello salad at a ward party and got the whole relief society drunk off jello shots and they you are not being excommunicated because you wore a dress!
    • Karyn S: I have a cousin who was ex’d and he still maintains family relationships. I have a friend who left the church voluntarily before they had a chance to ex him. He still maintains all of his family relationships. No one needs to be a member of this church to maintain family relationships.You attend other religious services and that’s fine. Have you officially joined them by taking their lessons and committing to them? If not, you are just attending – as you would be able to if you were not a member of the LDS church. The sign on the building says that visitors are welcome.
    • Karyn S: Glee, there are many ways to have “bona-fide” relationship with Jesus Christ. If it were not so, then there would be no other Christians other than just a few members of this church.The church does not exist to drive people away from either the church or from their relationships with Christ or their family. The church exists to bring people to Christ and solidify families.The church disciplinary hearing is a chance to explain actions and understand consequences.What I am at a loss to understand is, why is this church disciplinary proceeding being posted where “all are invited” to attend. The church does not decide the outcome of hearings by popular vote.If moral support is what is sought for this, then take a friend or family member along.
    • Colin S: This is a quote from the page. “Yo Johnson- Isn’t it funny how his excommunication hearing had nothing to do with the cross dressing…it had everything to do with interrupting meeting, attacking the church, vandalizing church buildings by taping anti-mormon literature to the doors, and smoking pot.”Me thinks we aren’t getting the full story here.
    • Colin S:…Likening paying tithing to money changers in the temple.


      I decided to symbolically overturn a money changer table this morning at church, since I didn’t get to on Palm Sunday. — with Money Changer Table symbol at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
    • Colin S: It’s all a little much if you ask me…
    • Jeremy J: There usually is more to the story when it comes to excommunication. Unfortunately the church cannot defend itself when the person decides to speak publicly about it.
    • Colin S: And this is what he was posting on the doors.
      My sympathy is limited. If this was purely an issue of wearing a dress to church I would absolutely agree with you, however I feel as though you have been rather confrontational about it.
    • Colin S:

      The Mormon Reformation – Posting 95 Theses is still alive & well! our new Facebook Group at:
    • Wendy D: I read several sources on this including the story about the arrest. I got the impression that Erik dressed in a similar fashion to Christ. Am I making that up? I got that impression from a story I read not really related to the church court. I am guessing there is more to this than a wardrobe choice.
    • Jared W: Well we ARE supposed to strive to be Christ-like.
    • Karyn S: If wardrobe choice were the issue, then all the women who participated in the “Wear Pants to Church” day would be receiving letters, too.
    • Colin S: Like I said, I am all for wearing dresses. And all for stiring the pot a bit. Not just taking everything we are taught at face value. But the list he was posting is filled with the sort of drivel you get on anti mormon sites. I know the church isnt perfect, but that doesnt change my desire to have a strong testimony, and that kind of crap just isnt testimony building.
    • Karyn S: Was that 95LDSTheses from Erik?
    • Colin S: Even if he didn’t write it, he was posting it in church buildings.
    • Jeremy J: That’s what’s so galling to me about the fact that he chose to post this here. He thinks that because we’re politically liberal that we’d be more willing to be disloyal to the church.
    • Karyn S: Men can wear attire such as Jesus did – if that were the point. Scots wear kilts. Some observant visiting Muslim men wear “dresses” – they are the formal attire for Middle Eastern men, too.
    • Karyn S: Oh….he posted that on church buildings?? Sorry, I’m going with the church disciplinary council on that one.
    • Colin S:…


      Another set of theses delivered to a meetinghouse I walked to: — with 95 LDS Theses at Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

    • Karyn S: From the look of these links, it appears that the possibility of excommunication is merely a formality in the detachment process.
    • AstrandaLynn W: This whole story is shocking, but it doesn’t really surprise me. For personal and doctrinal reasons, I dropped out a few years ago, and I’m not going back. But I think I will just stay inactive rather than risk this kind of punishment for apostasy. My path now is the Middle Path of Zen Buddhism. It brings me peace. Peace, Love, Light and Namaste.
    • Keith L: Eric you’re not being excommunicated for wearing a dress. You are not being genuine with us. You’re being excommunicated for apostacy. Your “95 theses” we’re not an attempt at “reformation.” They are nothing but typical antimormon talking points. You’re not trying to change the church. you’re just trying to attack and bringdown. Don’t pretend you’re being exed for wearing a dress. what you did was disrespectful and inappropriate. and I’m not talking about what you wore.
    • Andy L: I very rarely ever encourage people to leave or join any church in this group (or elsewhere for that matter) since I generally don’t care if someone is or isn’t part of a particular faith. I have one exception though, people should be somewhere they actually get something fulfilling from. Eric, you have more issues with the church than I do and I’m the one who chose to leave in order to be honest about my belief, or lack thereof.
    • Keith L: This kind of reminds me of when the founder of Mormonthink told the media that he was being excommunicated for writing critical articles about Mitt Romney. He was excommunicated for publishing anti mormon materials on his website. Sorry dude, but going in to a church, any church, even your own church, for the purpose of making a scene and informing people of how wrong they are is just douchy.
    • Erik Kulick: Here’s another link to a post about what happened when I was assaulted by LDS leadership:…


      I was assaulted by #Mormon leaders and then charged with ‘Trespass II’ and *theiSee more
    • Erik Kulick: Um, Karyn, I’m not sure why my level of activity at other religious services has to do with anything. I’ve informed ALL of the people I’ve fellowshipped with of my intention to return, and even have already taken the opportunity to do so with the local Muslims half a dozen times. If visitors are *truly* welcome at *every* LDS meetinghouse, then they should at least pretend to tolerate different types of people at least a fraction as much as the other denominations seem to be able to.A true “chance to explain actions and understand consequences” that pertain to a person about to get exed shouldn’t be mandatorily held in isolation, unless there are actual victims to protect. There is nothing wrong with inviting people to attend an event where such serious accusations are being made, so long as those involved refrain from interfering with the scheduled meetings and from preventing the inflow/outflow of other members to and from the building.The ladies who started ‘Wear Pants to Church Day’ are actually shutting down their group, likely because of church push back over my church attendance, so I wouldn’t be so sure there wasn’t action taken.First-off, Colin, you are posting the opinion of a person who seems to be someone who was at least present, if not involved in the altercation, so I’d be careful when relying on such sources. I am not “attacking” the church (though the LDS corp tries to convince members otherwise when dealing with dissent), I never interrupted a meeting that wasn’t already interrupted by another member or leader of the church first, taping theses (which weren’t “anti-Mormon) to buildings isn’t vandalism, and smoking pot, likening the *mandatory* condition of paying tithing for temple participation to money changers, and sharing information with members about issues that people have with some of the church’s doctrines and practices shouldn’t be excommunicable offenses. The fact that most of you feel quite the contrary is telling.Keith, you mean like Jesus, Abinidai, and Alma the younger?I never claimed that cross-dressing was the ONLY thing that I was being exed for. As a matter of fact, this post links to the event where a picture of the letter sent to me (only two days before the trial) notifying me of the churches *actual* charges against me is posted.You assume too much about me, Jeremy. I already realized from my experiences talking to most liberal Mormons that dogma reigns supreme. After all, why would y’all keep autovoting Dempublican, even when politicians from both sides of our one-political party’s isle attack due process and step up the sanitation of war with drones? What I figured is that I’d share this with ALL the Mormon groups I’m involved with, not just the “liberals.”
    • Andy L: I’ll autovote for the party that wants stronger banking regulations, environmental regulations, health reform, higher taxation on the rich, while protecting civil and voting rights, even if their war position is “the same as that other party except we aren’t in Syria or Iran like they could very well be”.
    • Andy L: Your level of activity at other services matters because you can’t be excommunicated from a church you don’t belong to.
    • Andy L: Seriously though, what did you expect? You mimicked the actions of someone who thumbed his nose at the Catholic church and went on to form his own church the end result being hundreds of years of wars in Europe between these reformers and the establishment.
    • Jeremy J: “You assume too much about me, Jeremy. I already realized from my experiences talking to most liberal Mormons that dogma reigns supreme. After all, why would y’all keep autovoting Dempublican, even when politicians from both sides of our one-political party’s isle attack due process and step up the sanitation of war with drones? What I figured is that I’d share this with ALL the Mormon groups I’m involved with, not just the “liberals.””Did you do that before I said anything? If so, I apologize for assuming too much.
    • Adam S: Erik-every person I know that has the issues you’re agitating about has chosen to leave rather than continue in an organization they feel is hypocritical.
      Be genuine. Be yourself. Intellectually, can you see how excommunication is a logical progression to your actions? You can’t behave out of doctrinal standards, visibly protest church policy and expect no response to be taken.What leads you to conclude your public behavior is not meriting a church response?
    • Karyn S: Grandstanding is not going to do anything except create fireworks and drama. That seems to be what the goal is.
    • Daniel D: “why would y’all keep autovoting Dempublican”really? how dumb
    • Jeremy J: I’ve found that many of the folks that reject the church for not being perfect are the same folks that reject the Democrats for not being perfect.
    • Wendy D: For me, being LDS is a choice. I grew up Lutheran and chose this church when I was 20. I read Martin Luther’s theses, I read the 95 LDS Theses. There was nothing that surprised me, but I though that several were a “stretch” and somewhat hyperbolic.I feel like change comes from within an organization even if the external pressure is the catalyst for initiating change.In my experience, every religious organization has inconsistencies and imperfect doctrine. The doctrine of the Virgin Mary being an intermediary to Christ is new-ish in the Catholic church (just to note one example). The problem that our church has is one of supreme exclusivity on “the truth,” and the “one true church.” I do not embrace that. I certainly don’t teach my kids that. I choose to stay in the church because it is the right thing for me, and I choose to believe that the pathway to God as we have prescribed is correct. All of the rest of the stuff is just noise. I have no idea how the Book of Mormon came to be, but I know that when I read that Book (irrespective of the controversy of its origins), I am enlightened, inspired, and my understanding is increased. Am I an apologist justifying historical anomalies and outright untruths to convince myself that this is the right church? Nah. I have my eyes wide open and know that this is right for me despite of human frailties, inconsistencies and historical things that I’m embarrassed about.I try to pick my battles wisely and build consensus for my ideas amongst trusted friends. I do feel that there are meaningful ways that the church has changed..even since I’ve been a member.I admire civil disobedience, but I’ve never seen it an effective way to affect change in a meaningful way.Peace!
    • Erik Kulick: I still value lessons from the BOM, even though I see that it is likely that JS made it all up. After all, I agree that “secret combinations” are bad, I just don’t understand how JS and co. felt that using re-purposed Masonry rituals to reenforce church loyalty jives with such teaching.Karyn, you can continue to speculate on my motivations like the LDS corp has chosen to (See judge not lest ye be judged), but that doesn’t negate the real motivations that exist.Andy, as far as the other religious groups are concerned, I’ve made my intention to return to those places quite clear. Heck, I’ve already been to the mosque a half dozen times…Adam, I can’t just *leave* the church alone, because they still think they have claims to *my* eternal family. Maybe they should rethink this eternal family concept if they can’t stand to be around entire swaths of of their “brothers and sisters.”
    • Jeremy J: If it’s all just fake, it makes no sense to care one whit what the church thinks about your family. People have the right to go to church, even if you think it’s fake and wrong, without you disrupting it. The same is true of any religious group.
    • Karyn S: If the reason you “can’t” leave the church is because you consider your family to be held as eternal hostages of sorts, then there must be some part of you that still thinks it all MIGHT just be true and your lashing out at it seems more like fighting within yourself more than against the big bad LDS Corporation. It would be a good idea for you to make your peace with it one way or the other. Continual conlict, whether internal or otherwise, is unhealthy.
    • Daniel D: why the hell would you care what a religion thinks about the after life if you think it is fake? makes absolutely no sense to me.
    • Adam S:Erik, you’re framing the fallout from your behavior as an “us” vs. “them” battle. You are not a David vs. a Goliath. You chose to violate church standards. You chose to publicly defy church teachings.If it is *your* eternal family, why aren’t you behaving in a way that your family would feel safe with you? You are playing fast and loose with your behavior. What makes you think that your Church family feels safe with you when you foment discord?Nobody in this forum has said they “can’t stand to be around entire swaths of their brothers and sisters.”What are your expectations? And, no, I didn’t ask you to leave the Church alone. Take off your filters and be honest with us about what your aims are. What do you want?
    • Karyn S: And, your FB profile lists your relationship status as “separated.” If I were about to lose my family on earth, I’d be doing everything I could to try to maintain the eternal aspect of it.
    • Adam S: Your own mother is calling you out for mistreating an older man at church :”I heard the man you initially confronted was a white-haired older man….. really Eric?”Pontificating about how the church is destroying families when 1. You’re separated and 2. Your mother is publicly calling you out on your behavior. Really??
    • Aaron P: Sorry this is happening. I know nothing about you or about the disciplinary council. All I can say is, “well, this sucks.” Everyone, we don’t really have adequate context to be judging this person. In fact, we don’t have adequate context to judge any person. People have been excommunicated wrongfully before, but whether or not that is the case here, let’s acknowledge that this must suck for Erik Kulick. Erik, the whole story sounds super weird. Social media is scary. I hope you and the people around you are doing alright.
    • Aaron P: I used to hold the opinion that disciplinary councils were in general always right, and that excommunicated people were all jerks, but that is simply not the case. people get put into disciplinary councils for “coming out” as LGBTQI (still happens despite the policy/doctrine changes), for standing up to bullying in Church by leadership, for mental health problems (I suspect the numbers would surprise us), for outing unethical business practices by fellow members, etc. Let’s withhold judgment.
    • Karyn S: Based on the information Erik has publicly posted…
    • Aaron P: Yeah, it’s weird…
    • Erik Kulick: I don’t *care* whether or not religion is fake, I care about the fact that far too many of my *fellow* Mormons are more worried about adherence by members to their precious commandments and the image of the church itself than they are about “Christ-like” love and how to exhibit it. For so many of you to make such bold, ignorant, and intolerant statements about me and what I’ve done shows that LDS Mormonism has a long way to go.My relationship with my family is MY business. It is also REALLY important to me. It’s precisely because I have two children who actively attend church with their mother, who I’m STILL legally married to, that I included Mormons in my ‘Cross Dress to Church’/’Dress Like Jesus to Church’ project.I will be releasing the audio/video of my trial day and of all the 30 some-odd services that I’ve attended, and y’all can see how much worse Mormons in general have treated me. I will gladly admit there were a couple of wards that at least showed tolerance if not compassion, but on the whole, the church is gonna have some ‘splainin to do.
    • Jeremy J: On one hand you say you’re a Mormon, on the other, you’re attempting to prove the Mormon church false, propagandize against the church, and make the case that Mormons are bad people. You’re disingenuous at best. Really, you’re just a straight up anti-Mormon.
    • Wendy D: What makes one anti-Mormon?
    • Jeremy J: Disrupting church services and posting anti-Mormon tracts inside churches, for one. Turning an excommunication trial into a circus might be another.
    • Daniel D: imagine that, making a fool of yourself on a day when people are trying to commune with the Lord and you expect them to treat you nice. I’m shocked, SHOCKED i tell’re proving one thing about Mormons. They’re just regular folk like everyone else. They treat people nice to their best ability, and they have short tempers just like everyone else. what are you trying to prove exactly? that no one is really following the principles Jesus taught us? i’ll tell you dude, you didn’t need to make a fool of yourself to prove that.
    • Karyn S: Jeremy Jensen, “Really, you’re just a straight up anti-Mormon.”It sounds like the anti-Mormon antics and the break-up of his family are connected, but which came first? Either way, it seems to have resulted in a massive case of the bitter bug.
    • Adam S: If family is so important to you AND just your business, what do you call splattering them all over FB, getting your mom calling you out, and ruining worship services for many other families?Jesus said in Matthew 22: “love god with all your might, mind and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself.” You are NOT acting loving. It’s been pointed out you’re behaving bitterly and trying to destroy faith. How can you honestly claim concern about Christ-like love when YOU WON’T LIVE IT??If your family is so important, and if it is so important to you that people are Christ-like in their love, what in the world are you doing by fighting people during their worship of the God of Love? Where is YOUR love and respect? If we are so deficient, teach. Not destroy.That’s why I ask (and you still haven’t answered): what do you hope to get out of this?
    • Erik Kulick: I have answered, Adam. I hope that people finally wake up and begin to treat each other like we are ALL God’s children.Why is sharing issues that one has concerning the way an organization is run with friends and family who also value that organization such an offensive thing?
    • Adam S: Ok Erik, you want people to wake up and treat each other like God’s children.You’re certainly not treating anybody like they’re worthy of love and respect. Sharing issues is one thing. Getting “in your face” and confrontational like you are- is a completely different thing.
    • Erik Kulick: How am I getting “in your face” confrontational? I was the one assaulted by THEM, remember?
    • AstrandaLynn W: Having listened to both audios, it sure sounded to me like tempers flared, common sense went out the window, and unnecessary force was used.
    • AstrandaLynn W: Erik, do you have video footage, so we can actually see what happened?
    • Bob: Hi my name is Erik and I’m a victim. *sniff sniff*
    • AstrandaLynn W: I read the 95 LDS Theses, and not all of them were anti-Mormon. Granted they were not faith promoting, but it does seem the Church has often had an anti-intellectual bias. What about what happened to the September Six, the liberal BYU professors who were ex-communicated for writing about Heavenly Mother, etc. ?
    • AstrandaLynn W: Really, I have come to the conclusion that all religion is man-made and therefore flawed. Religions have borrowed from each other, even Christianity. There is evidence that Jesus studied Buddhism, and many of his teachings parallel Buddha’s.There are stories that Buddha did many of the same miracles that Jesus did. Why not? Both were Enlightened Ones. And that is the case for many of the religions. Enlightened Ones tried to share their experiences, and their followers made a religion out of them.To me, Joseph Smith was an Enlightened One, and tried to share his insights and a whole cult of worship sprang up around him. One theory I read that made sense to me is that he was the last of the Reformers, nothing more, and never meant to start his own church. As it is now, I’ve read that Mormonism is well on its way to becoming the 4th Major Abrahamic Religion. Who knows, the story is not ended.
    • Adam S: So they came to you and assaulted you without provocation, is that it?Lets see. In this group alone, you’ve said the following things:
      – accused a poster of being “dempublican”
      – admitted to posting theses that contain anti-Mormon content in LDS chapels
      – accused members of not being able to “stand to be around entire swaths of their brothers and sisters”
      – admitted to trespassing and refusing to leave when asked to do so
      – admitted to apostasy
      – admitted that you won’t leave the church alone, though you have been asked to do soThat fits the common-sense view of being in-your-face confrontational. And that’s just on FB. If you’re doing these online, it’s a given you’re doing these IRL and triggering huge defensive reactions in people’s safe-zones. That’s like walking into a Muslim service and asking everyone to break halal, or going into a Jewish synagogue and passing out yellow Stars of David for members to wear on their clothing. You’re attacking Mormons where they practice belief. And then you’re getting mad when the Mormons get mad at you.Are you being equally obnoxious at other religions’ services?
    • Aaron P: dead horse. we’ve hashed and re-hashed the story. we’re at the analysis phase now, i think. Excommunication shouldn’t be used as an emotional reaction, no matter how logical it may seem.
    • Adam S: Agreed.
    • Karyn S: Excommunication is not being used as an emotional reaction. It is being used appropriately as a consequence for unrepentant behavior.
    • Adam S: And that’s the gist of it, Erik. Your behavior caused this consequence.
    • AstrandaLynn W: For what cause should he repent? For him speaking his truth, for cross-dressing, for being unorthodox and flamboyant in his way of presenting his message? He was within his right to free speech and assembly. And if he was being polite during Fast and Testimony meeting, it seems to me he had a right to speak his mind, like everyone else there, even if it wasn’t what the people wanted to hear, and not be escorted out of the chapel.
    • Karyn S: ^^ for posting anti-Mormon literature on the church doors.His “free speech and assembly” rights??? ::facepalm::
    • Andy L: There are no free speech and assembly rights when it comes to private organizations/churches.
    • Andy L: And if you watch the videos, he details some of what he talked about at F&T meetings and it was hardly polite.
    • Heather B: Andy it was something about voting republican and blood on their hands right? That isn’t polite and ideas my kids don’t need to hear about at church. I would be upset at having to explain that to my kids. Testimony meeting is sacred to me. It is chance for people to profess their love and belief in Christ it isn’t a time to use the pulpit to discuss politics. I don’t care whether I agree with the view or not.
    • AstrandaLynn W: Sorry, I stand corrected. I didn’t realize that, about the restrictions on free speech and assembly. And I didn’t know the details on what he said in F &T meeting. It sounds like he was out of line. I tried to wade through his long, VERY long blog post where he posted what seemed to be just about every detail of his whole journey, and a heated debate with his friends, family, and others. I couldn’t read all of it. It was too much, and too angry, and some of it was way above my head.
    • Aaron P: Since when did the law define what was decent and kind and polite and what Churches could allow to be said within the confines of their private property?
    • AstrandaLynn W: Honestly, Aaron, I wondered the same thing. I have always been of the opinion and understanding that the right of free speech and assembly had very few limitations. If I’m wrong, then what about the anti-abortion protesters that publicly assemble outside private clinics and harass women who are simply minding their own business and trying to do what they feel they need to do, what about the Westboro Baptist Church that go to funerals of service men and gays and harass the mourners, what about the protesters who show up in Temple Square at General Conference time? What about peaceful protests in general, Anti-war rallies, Gay Pride Parades, etc. Others may not like what they stand for, but, as long as they don’t cause trouble, aren’t they within their rights to speak their minds? Why would churches be any different? Are churches any different?
    • Andy L: Here’s an example: The Deseret News has moderators for their comment threads. That’s a limit on free speech but since they’re a private organization they can limit that sort of thing how they see fit.(I just realized I used the church owned newspaper as an example… that was coincidentally convenient for me).
    • Andy L: WBC protests still have to stand behind a certain line for their things and as for Temple Square… well if they’re standing on church property the church COULD do something about it (after all they once arrested two gay guys for kissing there)… they’re choosing not to in order to not make more of a scene I imagine.
    • Wendy D: I highly recommend taking a Con Law class. There are absolutely limits of speech in private AND public places. The WBC and anti-Mormon folks at TS are all on public property. Free speech is protected there. I’ve been to an anti-war rally on public property. You have to have a permit to assemble, and at my rally, the cops were everywhere to make sure things didn’t get out of hand. One of the reasons that the OWS movement ended in many places, SLC included was that it became a public safety issue when people died. Private property has even more restrictions than public property. “Free speech” does NOT mean that you can say whatever you want whenever you want.
    • Andy L: Are they? (the anti-mormon folks at TS) The church does own that part of state street. I don’t know if they set up inside or outside church property though.
    • Wendy D: The church bought part of Main Street in about 2001. You are not allowed to protest on church property. I was opposed to the purchase of Main Street. The case related to protestation on that once public street went all the way to federal district court and was remanded back to Utah.
    • Daniel D: Heh free speech in America isn’t what some people think it is. There really are limitations to what you can say and where you can say it. A church is private property. Your “free speech” is limited there.
    • Aaron P: I hate to say it AstrandaLynn, because you liked my comment and everything, but it was actually a comment advocating for people at church having the prerogative to tell people to go away for saying certain stuff, that is, legally, anyway. It was also basically a statement that just because we have laws that make it *legal* to do things doesn’t make those things moral or very nice.
    • AstrandaLynn W: Sorry, I misunderstood. That happens on the internet sometimes, you know. No problem. Anyway, this whole interchange of opinions and feelings has increased my knowledge, and understanding, and that’s a good thing. I hope I haven’t inadvertently offended anyone with my views and beliefs, either. That was never my intention here.
    • Aaron P: Nah, much more offensive stuff goes down than this thread!
    • Cara G: After reading all the comments, it does sadden me these church leaders who actually called him to the meeting are not willing to hear Erik out by allowing him to at least plead his case. I get the fact that they are unable to do anything to promote the changes he is proposing because (a) they most likely disagree and (b) have a specific prescribed role in the church. They are simply following excommunication protocol. However, he still is a member of the church and should be treated just like any other member in my opinion.
    • Heather B: Cara he was allowed, he was told to come back 6 and if he needed to reschedule he could. He choose not to do that.
    • Karyn S: Given his seemingly volatile behavior, it might have been unwise to allow him to just hang out for two hours.
    • Cara G: I agree, he should have either waited until 6:00 or rescheduled at that time. However, church leaders are often willing and even happy to see other folks even if it happens to be outside of their regularly scheduled appointment times. I could tell by the recording they were not at all happy to see Erik from the beginning.
    • Karyn S: Exactly, Daniel. All “freedoms” have limitations…and consequences.As President Hinckley, and probably others, said: You are free to choose your actions, but you are not free to choose the consequences.
    • Karyn S: A church disciplinary hearing is not a drop-in occassion.
    • Cara G: Not for somebody trying to change the rules.
    • Karyn S: ^^^ not for somebody who doesn’t play by rules or think they apply to him.
    • Daniel D: I’m glad we’re giving Erik a platform to spout his anti-Mormon rantings. This is exactly the purpose of the LDS Left. Imagine if a conservative Mormon shows up here. We are strengthening their view that liberalism is a fetid pool of members without a testimony who need not show up at church anymore.
    • Karyn S: It is time to stop commenting and let his thread die. The more people post other content and start new threads, the further down the page his goes.
    • Erik Kulick: AstrandaLynn, I will be releasing the video eventually, as well as all the audio from the 50 or so religious services I’ve recorded while attending this year.What ever happened to the post with the audio from the day of the apostasy trial, anyway? Did the admins finally cave to the demands of the masses and delete it? I didn’t receive a notice that the post was deleted; is it protocol to just get rid of posts with out letting the poster know when it happens and why?
    • Erik Kulick: Adam, to rebut your baseless assertions:1. Not once did I call a person from this group a Dempublican, but were I ever to do so, it simply means they belong to the singular political party that runs our govt.See More


      So I guess the #LDS corp didn’t have as solid a case as they thought. #LGBT #Mormon #Jesus

    • Heather B: Just to be clear, are you claiming that SLC ordered your ex’ing?
    • Daniel D: Lol the train wreck continues
    • Wendy D: “What ever happened to the post with the audio from the day of the apostasy trial, anyway? Did the admins finally cave to the demands of the masses and delete it? I didn’t receive a notice that the post was deleted; is it protocol to just get rid of posts with out letting the poster know when it happens and why?”Erik, had the admins “caved to the masses” or been reactionary in any way, your post would have come down much sooner. A few weeks ago the admins had decided to let your post run its course and not censor you or it. When we thought the thread had run its course, you posted to it again poking at the near dead embers. It was then a majority decision of the admins to go ahead and delete it.There was an attempt to notify you, but your message box was not taking messages. I was not the one who deleted or attempted to message you, but this is what happened.I find this group and its members to be quite open minded, but I don’t think you have a lot of support here for your ideas. That in and of itself is not cause to censor. However, some of your ideas are anti-Mormon. The admins have followed your posts and the external content you referenced. It is the anti-LDS sentiment that has been worrisome (and I’m speaking only for myself right this second). You may not see it as anti-LDS, and that is OK. It is not my goal to convince you that some of your actions have been anti-LDS. You don’t have to embrace that interpretation of things.One of the things that has concerned me is that this group has been used as your forum for promoting your own personal agenda. I say that because, in my recollection, the only time you post is when it has to do with your excommunication issues…the invitation to your meeting for your church disciplinary hearing, the link to your audio account of what happened. I don’t see you being a contributor to this group in other ways. While that is certainly not required, it leaves me to deduce that your goal is in advancing a personal agenda. It seems to me that you are not interested in a “conversation” but rather that you’re interested in trying to convince folks that you are justified in your cause, your behavior and your actions.You are not finding support for your cause here. This is by and large a group of LDS faithful (with varying degrees of activity/engagement on that spectrum). When folks have read and listened to evidence as you have asked, they’ve drawn their own conclusions. When you’re not happy with the conclusions, you continue to try and bully people into seeing your point of view. IMO, that is not what this group is about.It was the continual pushing on the topic (and I’m not going to lie….many public and private pleas to remove your content) that finally prompted the admins to remove that post. You’ll find strong admins who try to be open minded, not censor and let conversations flow. Just because folks ask us to take down content or block individuals from the group, that rarely happens. There is a breaking point, however, and consensus was that you crossed it.You are entitled to do whatever you choose with your personal life. You are entitled to continue to advocate for changes that you feel need to occur in the church. That doesn’t mean that we all have to agree with your ideas, your advocacy positions or your methods.

      The group is an amalgam of invited participants–all somehow associated with the church. If your ideas continue to be largely anti-LDS, this may not be the right forum for advancing your message.

      I just wanted to try and provide you with an objective point of view. I sincerely hope that helps.

    • Alicia J: Erik, after discussing the previous post with the other admins, we decided to delete the previous post. I was the one who pushed the delete button after all was said and done. I tried to contact you directly to explain, but you could not receive messages, it wasn’t an option. I’m truly sorry for not being able to personally message you, but what Wendy said sums up the message I had planned to write you perfectly. I genuinely respect what you were trying to do, but continually pushing your personal platform in such a seeminly aggressive manner here and fairly out and out anti-Mormon sentiments has crossed a line and the previous post needed to come down. I would encourage the other members of our group to discontinue posting on the thread and let it sink. If you would like to further discuss Erik’s situation with him, feel free to contact him privately (fairly difficult though) or perhaps he could set up a group or page to further his platform and answer questions, etc. Erik, you’ve been a member of the LDS Left for over a year, you know from following posts that we, as a group are an eclectic mix of people. You also know that we as admins try not to censor our members, but there are also guidelines that we try to make sure are being followed. I want you to know that we appreciate you and we’re sorry for the outcome of your disciplinary hearing. We hope you continue to post and add another voice to the discussions; however this is not the platform to continue discussing the events surrounding your excommunication and pushing resentment for the leaders or advocating for apostasy. It is, however, appropriate to discuss transgender issues at Church in a global sense. Many thanks.
    • Erik Kulick: The trouble is no-one has actually pointed to ANYTHING that is anti-Mormon from my posts, Wendy and Alicia. Just because it took a while for the admins to feel the pressure from the group, doesn’t mean the post was taken down for any less of a knee-jerk reaction. Also, I *have* engaged with other posts in this group, I am just an infrequent visitor to FB. I have no desire for self promotion. I hate it actually, I just happened to realize the harms of clinging to dogma and the need to wake people up to the reality of the fact.Ignoring our problems won’t make them go away. You can continue to sensor the only LDS voices actually bringing attention to the problems, but it will only lead to more suffering in the long run.
    • Erik Kulick: No response? If the LDS church and its members want to claim to value the message of Jesus, they need to be willing to engage others on sticky issues like this one. The corporate church has taken the official position that people who challenge church dogma in LDS meetinghouses will be banned from all church property. At the very least they should remove “Visitors Welcome” from their buildings if they want to remain remotely honest.
    • Daniel D: Dude, let it go.
    • Aaron P:

      See more funny on
    • Adam S: Aaron: you win for best comment-thread hijack EVAR.
    • Aaron P: Thank you. That brightens my day. Seriously. Another thread-hijacking gem I use is “but Obama!” I never explain it, just leave it in there and let it ferment. People make it mean whatever they need it to mean so that they can get pissed off
    • Keith L: Seriously there is no response because the last post was on 10/3. It’s now 10/25 and we’ve moved on to debating drones again. Your tantrum inspired “the church is so terrible because they wouldnt let me make a scene at sacrament” pity party is not that important to us.
    • Heather B: Also Keith it is just the same go round over and over.
    • Adam S: I’m seeing a parallel here: we just saw a political battle fought because a certain party believed they were above the rules, that “they were saving everyone” from a certain, horrible fate. As we saw, of course that bit them in the butt. And they’rewhining about being not heard. Sorry. When protesting umpteen times doesn’t get your way and going round and round over and over doesn’t get you your way, you don’t get to dictate the outcome. Tantrums are so tiring and frankly, stupid.You’re being tuned out. You’ve ceased being relevant.
    • Karyn S: Some people create their own storms and then get mad when it rains.
    • Alicia J: Erik, your Oct 3 post did not warrant a response. As requested, please let this issue lie as we have moved on to discussing other issues, not your issues with the first presidency, your local leadership, doctrine, culture, etc. If you feel called or inspired to wear a dress, rock on, just keep your legs shaved and remember to wear panty hose, tights, or leggings in the winter, it gets drafty and cold. Keep fighting the good fight for equality, but after 120+ comments, you’re beating a dead horse. I wohld, however, encourage you to take a less belligerent approach, i think you’ll find that, instead of starting fist fights, it does more good. Also, people don’t wish to engage with someone that they feel is being over the top or narcissitic. They also tend to stay away fr or become frustrated with those that they find hijack boards and groups. Again, I encourage you to start your own group so you can focus entirely on this issue, that way an old thread that folks have stopped commenting on long ago can be let go. Please direct any response to me or anything else you wish to say to the admins via pm. We will noy spar with you any longer, but for the last time, please move on.
    • Alicia J: (Please excuse typos)
    • Bart T: Move on Erik. You are not finding much sympathy among LDS Left groups. . Your cause is going no where.
    • Jared W: Somebody needs to get off his cross. (looks at Eric)
    • Phil B: I’m sorry, but the Church is not the place for your particular political arguments – I don’t like it when either side (right or left) uses the pulpit to preach politics any more than I like it when Michelle Bachmann continuously professes her faith in Jesus from the floor of the House.Something tells me there’s a lot more to this than politics.
    • Erik Kulick: Alicia, my October 3rd post DID warrant a response IF you want to maintain a group that encourages dialog. I refuted your claims, yet you (and every other group member who felt inclined to post on either thread) failed to produce ANY evidence that show how my posts here or elsewhere were anti-Mormon. Just an update, my LDS wife was told by her (I’m assuming Mormon) lawyer that she could move to UT w/ the kids, even though he helped her write up a divorce motion that indicated that I would be able to watch the kids while she was at work at the very least. Thankfully the judge set aside the divorce, but I still have to wait till at least December before I see the kids.If only y’all would speak up in church about these terrible abuses of “apostate” members…
    • Daniel D: okay time to block Erik Kulick.
    • Erik Kulick
      Write a comment…<span id=”mce_marker” data-mce-type=”bookmark”></span><span id=”__caret”>_</span>
    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

    Unorthodox Revelations


    Eugene Fitzpatrick Cross Dress to Church Day

    17 December 2012 at 08:59 via Mobile ·
    This is not going to be helpful for anyone. Its just going to aggravate the issue. No good will be done by transvesting; no real point made.
    Like ·

    4 people like this.

    Cross Dress to Church Day The point to be made is more for those who aren’t too heavily invested in organized religion. People need to see the extremes in reaction to really understand the harms of clinging excessively to dogma.
    17 December 2012 at 11:33 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick But I think that merhod wont achieve your aims; just aggravate the very people you wish to reach.
    17 December 2012 at 14:16 via mobile · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day I wish to reach everyone. If people are too stubborn to be reached, valuing themselves and their loved ones more than people they find to be too unlike them, then I will have to respect their agency to remain close-minded and unwilling to understand differing points of view; I can’t force anyone to be Christian.
    17 December 2012 at 15:18 · Unlike · 2

    Gretchen Spadinski I agree with the principle of advocating tolerance and challenging conventional gender rules and agree that many religions openly oppress people based on their sex, sexual preference, an so on. However, people also choose religion. If they disagree, they can leave. Forcing one’s values and beliefs on others is exactly what bothers me about religion. Basically, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.
    22 December 2012 at 21:57 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day The Mormon church actively spends tithing money on political campaigns that restrict the rights of others and actively proselytizes.

    They have always tried to maintain a reputation of being loving and accepting of all people, especially lately with their seemingly softened tone on sensitive issues like sexuality. An organization that insists on taking such an aggressive approach to increasing its membership and manipulating public policy should be given more opportunities to put its divinely inspired doctrines into practice.

    Besides, going to church in drag is not forcing one’s beliefs on others. It’s putting people in a position where they have to face their own prejudices.

    If they don’t want to have people popping in on their services, they should stop selling and advertising their religion and refrain from spending their tax-free tithing donations on lobbying the government and voters to limit the rights of others.
    22 December 2012 at 23:03 via mobile · Unlike · 2

    Gretchen Spadinski You make a lot of good points, and I believe that people should challenge what they are ‘taught’ in church and use their own moral compass to make decisions. But it is hurtful and insulting to some members if the church to try and convince them to adopt practices they are not comfortable with. Like I said before, people make the decision to belong to a particular organization, and no one is forcing them against their will. The way I see it, the church is a positive thing for many people I know and care about, and it seems disrespectful to belittle it. You don’t have to agree with something to tolerate and accept it. (sound familiar? kind of like the negative attitude church memebers have towards the gay community).
    23 December 2012 at 09:27 · Like

    Gretchen Spadinski I see no harm in wearing non-traditional clothing to church. But you are not going to change the organization overnight. Angering or offending church members is only going to solidify the beliefs and practices that you are opposing (an “us vs. them” situation).
    23 December 2012 at 09:31 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Isnt the whole point of religion to teach the truth? I mean, nobody joins a religion because they believe it to teach falsely; each person goes towards or stays with what they believe to be truth (and I say this knowing not all religions are truthful, but I believe mine to be the fountain of truth).

    So that said, if a church teaches its wrong to cross-dress, then the people in that ought to believe it. So if you show up to church with the sole intention of flouting the beliefs of that church, you’ll only cause a problem. If you’re upset that they are forcing their views on others, you can’t fix it by forcing your views on others. The people are at church because they already agree with the beliefs of that church and are there to worship God; nobody is there to see theatrics or see people make political statements. It’s a disturbance of the peace you want.
    23 December 2012 at 14:37 via mobile · Like · 6

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Nobody’s mind is gonna change because some dude shows up irreverently in a dress, and implies that everyone now accept his dress or remain small-minded, backwards change-a-phobes. Reverent people, who want to know and worship God, are there to do just that. Perhaps cross-dressing might not be pleasing to God? Why did God invent gender anyway? Just so those genders could be blurred, mixed and confused? And where do we draw the line? Today you’re imposing cross-dressing because you think it ought to be accepted in a house of worship, but what’s next? Tomorrow will be “go naked to church day” because its not right to tell people to wear clothes to church. How dare they! Next week will be “dress as a clown to church”, followed by “tell everyone in church their beliefs are dumb” day. Is there any religion that’s allowed to practice something you personally don’t agree with? Must every church submit to everyone’s personal whims?
    23 December 2012 at 15:04 via mobile · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day It is hurtful and insulting (and should be illegal) when apostatizing members have their children taken from them by “well counseled” family members and church leaders as a result of something as innocent as questioning what you are told.

    Like I said before, the Mormon religion and many other religious groups and individuals are not just passively worshiping. They are spending millions of dollars on campaigns intended to mobilize voters in ways that blatantly limit the “god given” rights of others and send their members cold selling their corporate idolatry to lonely and lost souls seeking clarity out of the fucked up mess that we call humanity. They then convince their followers that everything about the doctrine they are preaching is crucial to their eternal success, and demonize those who do not see eye to eye with them.

    I’m not looking to change anyone overnight, and I’m not gearing my message solely to members of any organization. If simply showing up to fellowship “Christians” in an outfit far more like Christ’s is all it takes to anger his chosen people, then I guess they’re not as good at that whole “slow to anger” part of his message as they portray themselves either. This criticism isn’t judgement of them or their followers, but their doctrines help convince their followers otherwise. Teaching people that doubt is the greatest sin will do that to a community.

    I understand where you are coming from. I know that what I am about to do will shake up the worlds of many of the people we care about in our lives, but preserving their tranquility when all is not “well in Zion” isn’t fair to those who have to our loved ones who have to silently suffer and go through the motions out of fear of becoming an outcast rather than express too unorthodox of a view.

    Speaking of censoring dialog, what the hell is truth anyway, Eugene?
    23 December 2012 at 15:31 · Like

    Erik Kulick Do you know what a hermaphrodite is, Eugene?
    23 December 2012 at 15:34 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Truth; yes it exists- and you must think it does, since you’re going to lengths to try to prove it. Hermaphroditism; yes, Erik, I.d hope by adulthood, we’d all know what that it- and it should be implicitly understood that it has nothing whatsoever to do with one’s clothing. (In the Cimarron region of New Mexico, I once had a terrifying encounter with a hermaphroditic grizzly bear, which was only terrifying on account of the creature’s teeth and claws, and not for it’s genitalia; true story. It’s not something to be feared- but neither is a person’s actual gender status to be paraded around or manipulated by others t make a point.)

    It is clear that you don’t want to engage others through constructive dialogue, to try kindly to show them the error of their ways. (Who knows? What if your position is the erroneous one? If you even question the validity of truth, as you did above, then why are you trying so hard to prove others wrong?) What you want is to disturb people in their worship. That’s the purpose of people getting together at church. If a church has restrictions on clothing- all they need do is ask the person to abide by respectful codes of conduct. Nothing more. And likewise, if a person sees those codes of conduct as somehow hurtful or not Christlike, then it will not achieve anything by simply disregarding those codes of conduct, since they were first instituted for a reason.

    I can see how you think it might help the situation, but please see that your plans for bringing people to a new understanding will likely backfire and produce greater stringency.
    23 December 2012 at 17:15 · Like · 1

    Erik Kulick I didn’t ask if truth exists, I asked you what it was. You said the point of religion was to teach “truth” (I disagree), and so I want to better understand what you mean by “truth.” Also, how does a religion become a “fountain of truth”, as opposed to a “trickle”, or even “drought of truth?” Please take this last question seriously, because I would like an honest answer.

    You glossed past hermaphroditism without even thinking about why I would bring it up.

    If a person can be born with their bodies physically possessing a combination of both or neither gender’s sexual reproduction organs, to have a doctrine that arbitrarily restricts even these individuals from attaining “the greatest glories” shows a deficiency in deistic dope delivery. To not even believe people who tell you they honestly feel more like a different gender than their body belies, after having physical proof of other types of ambiguity within human systems, reflects a desire to preserve ignorance for yourself and/or others.

    I wouldn’t care at all if I were proven wrong by someone. My goal isn’t to advance “my” truth, it’s to advance dialog, something the LDS leaders actively limited when they formed a human wall to prevent me from speaking to their apostle. I was still able to publicly deliver a new set of epistles ( to the head goon. He assured me it would be delivered to the brethren after I warned him that I had more copies and was going to publish them either way. If the church was really open to dialog they would be actively trying to bridge gaps with their dissafected members, not treating their leaders like untouchable celebrities.

    Telling me what I want implies you are in my head. How about you ask me a question instead?

    There are no current explicit restrictions preventing me from entering a LDS meetinghouse in a dress. If the Mormon corporation wants to further restrict people who associate with it after it’s been trying so hard lately to come off as sympathetic to “different sexual feelings”, then I want it to publicly do so. I’m tired of all these companies falsely advertising, nevermind when they purport to have eternally significant keys.LDS Epistles

    23 December 2012 at 19:13 · Unlike · 1 · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick As to your first and second questions, yes, I know Truth, but to be entirely honest, I feel that I should not say what Truth is, but rather Who Truth is. Christ is truth. Christ started but one Church, which can be shown historically to be what is called the Orthodox Church today. That body, which we Christians regard as Christ’s own body, is the fountain of truth; and Christ promised that the gates of hades would never overcome it and that the Holy Spirit would guide that body into all truth..

    I know you’ve been burned by the LDS church, but your experiences in Mormonism doesn’t discount the truth within Christianity. We could talk more on that later.

    If a person has real gender issues regarding worship, they need to discuss that privately with their priest/pastor/elder along with their family. Cross-dressing probably wont be the solution. If however, a person without any biological anomalies merely wants to dress up in clothes for the sake of making a point to people who are not gathered to discuss politics or dogmatics, nothing but a big argument will ensue- it certainly will not speed along dialogue for what you’re looking to discuss.
    24 December 2012 at 00:05 via mobile · Like · 2

    Cross Dress to Church Day Those aren’t answers to my questions.
    24 December 2012 at 13:58 via mobile · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Interestingly… Christ… or the story of him… is NOT actually truth. It is a religion based upon plagiarized ceremony, pomp and circumstance, historical scriptures from other eras, and created-out-of-thin-air doctrines… created to control political uprisings for the Roman Empire, circa 320 CE, by the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Niccea.

    Jesus closely imitates Mithra, Horus, and a bunch of other “virgin birth messiah” mythological cosmologies.

    You stating your belief in your version of Christianity does not make it truth. It simply makes it YOUR truth. I will honor your beliefs, if you would kindly honor mine, and not shove yours down my throat.
    24 December 2012 at 18:44 · Unlike · 4

    Dominique Equality Storni As for speaking with my pastor about what I decide to wear, as kindly as I can put this… GET STUFFED!!!

    70 years ago, boys wore pink.. because it was a shade of red, and showed masculinity and all the strength (and even rage) that real men should show. Girls wore blue, because it was soft and pretty like the sky. In the Victorian Era, MEN wore makeup, frills, lace, and makeup.

    Who makes up these binary bullshit rules? Obviously someone stuck in dogma who can’t or won’t read history. (Or even worse, rewrites history to suit their dogmatic declarations of self agrandising power grabs)
    24 December 2012 at 18:47 · Edited · Unlike · 3

    Dominique Equality Storni
    1.The quality of being religious. 2. Excessive or affected piety. 3. My God is better than your God 4. If I force my religion on you, and you refuse to submit, I’M the victim. I am a spiritual person with a devoted spirit path. It is the forcing of one’s beliefs on others where I draw the line.
    by: Dominique Equality Storni

    24 December 2012 at 18:58 · Like · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni One more little scientific ditty… (not that True believers have any use for science)

    No.. there’s no sex in this…!Cross Dressing | Wild Sex Ep07 said gender benders are for humans only? From male snakes that harness the power of oestrogen to girls that moonlight as boys, cross dressers from all co…

    24 December 2012 at 19:04 · Edited · Unlike · 1 · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, I’ll expound.

    (In my opinion) Not every religion has a lockdown on truth; this includes atheism and agnosticism, which people may assert aren’t religions, but they certainly are statements on religion and statements of faith. (Atheists have faith that there is no God, but lacking concrete proof of this, they often disregard their own belief that they only believe where they have proof. Agnostics have a less self-contradictory approach, but cannot assert that truth exists, which is funny, because they’re asserting that the only truth that exists is that no truth exists- or that if truth does exist, it cannot be known; yet they know that truth, so apparently truth can be known. So, the only position on truth that isn’t self-refuting is that abslute truth exists, absolutely.) But none of that leads to any religion, specifically. It only refutes atheism and agnosticism, if God is truth. But how do I regard my religion as the “fountian of truth”, as I stated earlier?

    There are lots of religions and philosophies. If truth exists, how do I know if any such religion is entirely truthful? (In my opinion) I believe that every religion and philosophy has some element of truth; some kernel of concrete divine truth which is self-evident, and for which reason, many adhere to one religion or another. Man has always had religion; there was never a time when man was and religion was not; so society, no tribe, no empire that was purely secular. In fact, religion has been the central focus (the primary obcession, the social glue, the constant thought) for all human societies since humans had societies. It would seem that if anthropology has shown modern Western man but one thing: Humans are religious creatures.

    And they haven’t worshiped in vague ways; we can’t speak of “religion” so generally as to assume some general fantasy paganism of bygone eras. Each religion is highly specific, with specifc beliefs and practices. (Come to think of it, atheism and agnosticism are probably the vaguest and fuzziest beliefs held by people, ever.) So each religion states something specific,

    (hold on, I gotta drive to ong Island, brb)
    24 December 2012 at 19:25 · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Wait… “I know truth” … YOUR WORDS…


    “Not every religion has a lockdown on truth”


    Do you really listen to yourself?
    24 December 2012 at 19:29 · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Difference in religion and atheism/agnosticism.

    Religion: Don’t do evil things, or you will go to hell and burn in eternal agony in hellfire and brimstone.

    Atheist: Don’t do bad things to people.. because it’s just fucked up, dude.

    Just what the H-E-double hockey sticks is so fuzzy about that? Because you don’t know what they believe, that makes YOU fuzzy.

    (btw, I’m a recovering Mormon/Christian with a deep and daily spiritual life. I just hate religiosity [the need to prove one’s religion superior to all others])
    24 December 2012 at 19:32 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Dominique: You most likely haven’t studied the history of Christianity, but you probably have watched Zeitgeist. I, not to sound like a pedant- but to prove to you I know what I’m talking about- have studied the history of Christianity at a major secular university, a university that has a distinctly anti-Christian bent. I have two degrees in history, a BA and an MA in history, with the overwhelming focus of my master’s in Christian history.

    Having stated my background, I can say with confidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You really do not. You don’t know the first thing about how Christianity started, where its scriptures come from, what its teachings are or how its dogmas came to be.

    And you most likely don’t know the history of atheism. You haven’t studied the history of 20th century Europe and Asia, and how militant atheistic regimes have killed more people in modern history than at any other time in human existence. The actions and philosophies of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot mean nothing to you, and somehow, you don’t think of them when you think of the word “atheist”.

    But in your ignorance, you should know that the movie Zeitgeist is so full of invented and completely false material, that it would take us days to cover just Part 1 of the movie.

    Until you learn about the history of Christianity and atheism, try not to hold such strong and completely outrageous opinions. Keep an open mind on things you don’t possess knowledge on. You have not progressed this conversation about cross-dressing, or truth in the least.
    25 December 2012 at 00:15 via mobile · Like · 1

    Dominique Equality Storni I could have taught the Zeitgeist people 35 years ago… before the concept of “ZeitgeistMovie” was a twinkle in their mama’s eye.

    I first discovered the discrepancy of the foundation of “Christianity” in University history class in 1975. I further studied about it after running into another discrepancy of Mormon theology while studying the gospel on my mission.

    Btw.. History minor to go along with my Spanish Literature Major… and couple that with scriptural and historical research with a MA in Sociology/Psychology.

    Your ilk just makes me absolutely furious with your mindless bollocks. You go ahead and pray whether or not your mythology is true, and continue ignoring the factual data. Hitler? Mao, Stalin? Pol Pot? ALLLLLL of them used religious mythology to gain power over sheeple who were afraid to research and use critical thinking skills. Hitlers brand of Christianity is why the world is still killing Jews.

    OH.. and thanks for playing the “I say stupid stuff and point fingers” game, Eugene… brought to you by Faux Noise.

    YOU’RE the one who went off on a tangent, too, btw.
    25 December 2012 at 00:28 · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Care to venture a guess on what Jesus said about gender-bending people?
    25 December 2012 at 00:29 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Incorrect. I was trying to answer Erik’s question, as he asked. But you’re really into some crazy stuff. I can’t take you through a history of the world class, but I think your latest paragraph should convince others that you opinions are beyond outlandish.

    I’m not pointing fingers to embarrass you or call you ignorant; I’m saying you don’t know what you’re speaking of, because people reading this thread need to understand that you have neither the educational background or present understanding of history or religion. You’re just angry at religion in general because of your experience in the Mormon church.

    And no words in the four Gospels address transvestites or “gender-bending”, but we do have the teachings of the Orthodox Church, which is the original Christian body, passing Christ’s oral and written teachings down to the present day.

    And just to take a small sample of your crazy ranting as an example of your outlandish version of history: Hitler didn’t have a brand of Christianity; he instituted a state-backed neopaganism with incredibly anti-Christian rites. There was nothing even remotely close to Christianity in the heart or mind of Adolph Hitler. And no, the world is not “still killing Jews”, as you state. Sadly common on the internet, you are as uninformed about Christianity as you are opinionated.

    Try not to sidetrack us again please.
    25 December 2012 at 00:49 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Erik, dude, this is wearisome. We can have a truth chat on truth group page. In short, cross-dressing to church is a surefire way to accomplish nothing.
    25 December 2012 at 01:21 via mobile · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Eugene: “I’m not pointing fingers to embarrass you or call you ignorant;”

    and Eugene: “But in your ignorance, “

    Again.. WTF??? Hypocrite much?
    25 December 2012 at 01:25 · Edited · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Doing anything contrary to marching orders in church is a surefire way to accomplish nothing. Hence.. conservative… conserve the vain traditions of their fathers at all cost.
    25 December 2012 at 01:26 · Like

    Lolcat Wolf “But it is hurtful and insulting to some members if the church to try and convince them to adopt practices they are not comfortable with.”

    Um … what practice would that be? The practice of not placing ALL the worth of a person on the color of their clothing and whether or not that clothing is joined or separated between the legs? The practice of ACCEPTING or REJECTING people based on appearance? Surely you’re not trying to say that by someone wearing clothing that isn’t what you’re used to, that a person is trying to convince EVERYONE to wear such clothing?

    If this is what you think, you’re missing the point. VASTLY missing the point.

    Would you allow someone to wear clothing to church that was accepted by the church in, say, 33 A.D.? In other words, could a man wear a wool or linen robe to church, with no skivvies on underneath? Or has your god dictated the existence of the suit and tie? Is this suit and tie combination dictated in the D&C? Who was god’s tailor?
    25 December 2012 at 05:14 · Edited · Unlike · 2

    Lolcat Wolf Speaking of god’s tailor, is there a particular set of “revealed” patterns we should be aware of for use in a Mormon building? For example, can Mormon men wear pictures of ducks? What about bunnies? If a man had a tie with kittens on it, would that be acceptable? I realize they wear garments as adults, but if a sixteen year-old boy wanted to wear boxer-shorts with big flowers on it, is this against god’s will? And for women, can one of their not-joined-between-legs clothing items have pictures of “masculine” things such as footballs or front-end loaders? I’ve seen fabric with those printed on them, so I’m just asking …

    As for colors, where might I get a copy of god’s color wheel? Did Joey Smith have a color wheel or did this come in later revelation? How exactly did god etch the lines in the Holy Color Wheel so that it was clear which colors were acceptable for boys and which for girls? Was it a process similar to writing on the stone tablets? And was this Holy Color Wheel shared with the toy companies of the 1950’s and 60’s, the original RECENT source of pushing the color pink on girls and blue on boys?
    25 December 2012 at 05:22 · Like · 1

    Lolcat Wolf I am also curious where you get your definition of atheism, Eugine. We base truth on scientific research. There is NO evidence of god and NO evidence of no-god. We do not, as a rule, have “faith” that there is no god; any atheist worth their salt will tell you that there is no way to prove that there is no god–we simply assume that we can live our lives as if there were no god, because we also live our lives on the assumption that we are not squishing pink fairies underfoot with every step we take, or any number of other POSSIBLE but UNPROVEABLE things.

    I base my morality on what is good for other human beings and for myself, and on what is good for my planet–which is also what is good for other human beings and myself, because if someone nuked the planet into a state of sterility, that would be very bad for humans. It hurts other people to steal or lie, and it would hurt me, too, if I want to be trusted by friends. All those other things we consider to be morals also just HAPPEN to be scientifically proveable as “the right thing to do” for all humans–because they increase our success as humans.

    Funny thing about that; these morals also happen to be taught to all human children throughout the world (where religion has not perverted these morals, such as in cults that teach boys that they are better than girls and it’s okay to beat girls), not because all religions are right, not because all parents follow the science of how to increase success, but because, like a baby fawn knowing to hide and be still in the bushes, it is a survival trait. You want successful kids? You teach them not to steal.

    I dropped everything for the past three days and went to the house of my best friend to care for him after he dislocated his arm. It happened to be his fault that he suffered this injury–he got drunk and got into a fight with a police officer. There are any number of reasons I could have judged him–but I love him enough that I have come to know his reasons for getting drunk, his reasons for being in that fight, and I was just so relieved that he will be okay after his arm heals. I love him so much it made me cry to see him in pain. That’s why atheists do things–same reason you do things, because we love other people. There are a lot of people who would also add a big dose of judgment to that compassion. I see no point in it. I’ve never known a more compassionate, forgiving, sweet man–the dummy just needs to stop drinking, a conclusion he’s reached on his own, without any guilt-trips from me.

    Survival-trait morality is not universal. If you were a hummingbird, it would literally kill you to stop what you are doing and help another hummingbird (other than offspring). They’re the most homocidal of all vertebrates we’ve ever studied, because if they stop eating, and stop protecting their own food-source from other hummingbirds (to the point of murdering rivals), long enough to help another of their own species, their metabolism will burn through all their resources and they’ll starve to death in less than a day. In the hummingbird’s world, what I spent my xmas vacation doing would be the most morally absurd thing possible.
    25 December 2012 at 05:38 · Unlike · 2

    Lolcat Wolf I wouldn’t usually leave so many long posts, but Eugene did so I’m taking a leaf from his book.

    Whenever religious people don’t like what you say about their religion, they say you have not studied it. I have not studied Islam or Hindu or Buddhism, but I would say that both Dominique and I have studied Christianity to within an inch of its life, and the history surrounding its origins–Eugene, you have no idea the number of similarities between the Osiris story or the Mithras story and your Jesus mythology, do you? But it’s pretty easy to just say that Dominique must not have studied religion much. WOW. What arrogance.
    25 December 2012 at 05:50 · Unlike · 3

    Lolcat Wolf Also called agnostics and atheists “probably the vaguest and fuzziest beliefs held by people, ever…” So what you’re saying here is, you have never, ever, sat down with an atheist and asked them what they believe, and listened? You’ve only, ever, told other people what atheist believe, OR listened to what NON-atheists have told you about what atheists believe, OR you’ve gone through a period of your life when you didn’t believe in some specific thing and you thought that THAT was atheism?

    I am an atheist, with a clearly defined belief system that holds far fewer internal contradictions than any religion I have encountered. Would you like to know more?

    Hey, Dominique! He thinks it’s okay to treat atheists the way he would assume we’re treating Mormons! Not knowing what they believe, or listening to people who make shit up about them … even though we’ve both been inside the Mormon thought-process, and he’s never been inside atheism, obviously …

    BTW, just for reference, Dominique and I are not of the same belief system. I am a Happy Atheist. Dominique, you strike me as more of an Animist. Were I to choose something “spiritual,” it would be Animism.
    25 December 2012 at 05:57 · Unlike · 3

    Lolcat Wolf One GREAT thing to come of wearing the ‘wrong’ clothes to church. Some sweet, innocent little kid who feels different than everyone else might see an adult role-model that they can relate to, and that would avert a suicide in years that follow.
    25 December 2012 at 05:58 · Unlike · 3

    Dominique Equality Storni Lolcat… you always come to my rescue with such simple, yet elogant and eloquent explanations. I just go to damn blinded by (nice) rage of Eugene’s misogynist, privileged, condescention, that everything you’ve written her was in my head, but couldn’t make it’s way to my fingers.

    Thanks again. I love you, sister.
    25 December 2012 at 11:18 · Unlike · 1

    Dominique Equality Storni Christmas Elements Have Pagan Roots : Video : Discovery News
    news.discovery.comParts of our Christmas celebrations have roots in Pagan Roman festivals. Discovery News’ James Williams unwraps the details.

    25 December 2012 at 20:40 · Like · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni Here’s some more “made up by Zeitgeist” information for our dear Eugene: Photos
    Images here were either created, taken, composed, or modifed by Atheist and Rational Thinker Atheists and Rational Thinkers

    25 December 2012 at 22:20 · Like · Remove Preview

    Erik Kulick You still haven’t answered my questions, Eugene. You went off on a tangent about the differences between theists and non-theists, morphing the word “god” into the word “truth” as you went along, and then, after changing my second question, explained that you believe every religion and philosophy has some “self-evident” divine truth without bothering to mention how to determine which is a “fountain of truth” and which is a “drought of truth.” Without using god or any other deity euphemism, explain to me what “truth” is, and then tell me how to determine which religions are “fountains of truth” and which are “droughts of truth.”

    Just a word of advice, bragging that you have masters degree in a subject, and then telling someone else that your background allows you to state with confidence that they are clueless on the subject doesn’t reflect a whole lot of academic wisdom.

    You also forgot to explain how a doctrine prohibiting cross-dressing makes any sense given the fact that hermaphrodites exist in this “god created” world.
    26 December 2012 at 01:17 · Like · 1

    Erik Kulick You make great points about morality, Lolcat Wolf.
    26 December 2012 at 01:18 · Unlike · 3

    Eugene Fitzpatrick My second attempt to answer your questions were meant to include more information.

    Several things should be said here before we continue.
    26 December 2012 at 07:21 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick 1) If you think I was bragging about having two degrees in history, you didn’t read why I stated that information. I made that very clear when I said it. I stated it because I’m speaking about Christianity and atheism from having been educated on them specifically, twice, and from a large university with a secular, if even slightly anti-religious bent, to show that my education was not biased towards my own personal beliefs. Nothing Dominique has said yet shows that she knows anythng about this topic, whatsoever. Her assertions are factually incorrect. She has stated so many things are simply never happened in history, that refuting her would take another thread entirely. This is why it’s important for me to show that I do have two higher-level degrees in this subject. This is not a brag, Erik, and I don’t expect you to be impressed. This is to show that there is a huge gap between the opinions held by Dominique and I; one person who has been educated on this very subject, and the other who hasn’t. Any reader to this thread should understand that this is not a discussion between two people with equal knowledge on the subject. (And simply reading what Dominique has already written shows clearly that she has no understanding of atheism in the 20th century, let alone Christianity for the past 2,000 years.) Stating one’s credentials is not bragging, but helpful for deciding which person’s opinion is the more informed. As far as the above convo went, Dominique simply resorted to ad hominim attacks that don’t even make sense.

    2) Erik- The word “God” and “truth” are completely morphable. Nobody believes in a God which they know to be untrue. This is elementary. The God of the Christians, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God, is believed by them to be Truth incarnate. (This is why I believe my religion to be the “fountain of truth”.) Any God or god that is untruth is no god at all. (Plus, “drought of truth” is your prase; I didn’t use it- and I don’t think anything is existence is entirely devoid of truth; as stated earlier, generally speaking, I see almost everything in existence in possessing some kernel of truth.)

    3) Erik, you should know that “your question”- is itself a huge tangent away from your original group in the first place. I could answer your question- and I had started to, before I literally drove to Long Island and back to enjoy a Christmas dinner with my parents, and then needed to deal with the buffoonery written above- but I’m under no obligation to. Just for the record. I will answer your question, but it will be a long answer, and “what is truth” is a huge step away from “cross-dress to church day”.

    4) Lolcat Wolf- you have no morality at all that hasn’t already been derived from the Judeo-Christian society that you already live in. And there exists no standard, no creed, no founding figure, no summary of beliefs that bind atheists together and shows how their values stem from atheism. There’s no way to judge if atheist beliefs line up with atheist behavior. This is why I described atheist and agnostic beliefs as “fuzzy”; there’s no saying what code of conduct is permissible within atheism. And history shows this. Atheist regimes in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China and Cambodia killed thousands of millions of people in the 20th century- a century hallmarked by scientific achievement. You might have a different personal standard of atheism, but there’s no telling that your version of atheism is the “real” atheism; in fact, being that you existed after these regimes did their killing, its more arguable that the violent atheism of the 1900’s is the “real” atheism, and your personal philosophy is more accurately called “lolcatwolfism”.

    5) The supposed “pagan roots” of Christmas don’t exist, and its poor historical presentation that makes them seem so.
    26 December 2012 at 11:53 · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Eugene: “Nothing Dominique has said yet shows that she knows anythng about this topic, whatsoever. Her assertions are factually incorrect.”

    typos aside.. show me where I’m factually incorrect, and you are superior in intellect? you have done nothing but assert your irrational emotional beliefs. you have not argued with fact based critical thinking at all.
    26 December 2012 at 12:06 · Like · 1

    Dominique Equality Storni As for your higher degrees… pity it taught you only to condescend and denigrate in an effort to force your self aggrandized authority. I have 2 BA’s and 1 MA. I also hold 3 PhD’s from the SOHK acadamy. I am auto-didactic. I dare say that I have read more on the subject… for fun… than you did in ALL your academia.

    Again, your arguments are emotionally based. Your testimony is “faith based”… meaning, you cannot prove it, nor are you inclined to feel the need to. “Faith”, as defined by Mormonism, is belief in things that cannot be proven. So you feel no need, based solely on your ecclesiastical power and religious dogma, to explain anything critically. Every one of your arguments is emotional based.

    Opinions are not facts.
    Facts are not opinions.

    I agree 100% with Bill Maher (yeah, another godless liberal).. “I can’t have an intelligent conversation with conservatives, because we simply can’t agree on facts.”
    26 December 2012 at 12:12 · Edited · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni One last question, Eugene… why have you not said anything about the links I’ve posted… FROM OTHER SCHOLARS… who disagree with you?
    26 December 2012 at 12:29 · Like

    Lolcat Wolf Eugene, once again–where do you get your information on atheism? (It doesn’t seem to be any better than your information about the origins of Judeo-Christianity.)

    You’re certain that my version of atheism is only my view, but you have not told me what you think “fuzzy” atheist beliefs are, nor given evidence of where you’ve gathered this information. What book are you citing from? Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens? Sam Harris? (Have you ever heard of any of these men–the current preeminent teachers of atheist thought?) You think that atheist morality is based on Judeo Christian beliefs, yet the basic precepts of human morality are nearly universal across all religions: murder of a kinsman is universally forbidden, one is always supposed to obey ones parents, incest is almost always bad, bravery is good and cowardice is bad, lying and stealing are bad–everywhere. In every religion. These are not Judeo-Christian concepts. These are human concepts, without which no society will succeed.

    By the way, while we do not believe in being sheep following one single leader, we do have many common precepts–the primary one being so obvious you and nearly everyone else misses it. SCIENCE. Atheists are fairly universal in their adherence to science as a way of viewing the world. However, if you would like to follow your authority-hungry need for an “organization” to search out an atheist version, here’s one of several organizations that helps solidify and present the atheist point of view.

    Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist, and the fact that you have repeated this oft-repeated myth is NOT good evidence in support of your assertion as Grand High Pubah on all matters we’re discussing. In fact, it seems to support the “I read a pamphlet about atheists that my preacher wrote and I’m sure it’s true” method of fact-collection.

    I’m not sure how you have managed to conflate “atheist regimes” with “communist regimes.” The operative word there is regime, not atheism, and communism is not a religious belief, it is a political system. Many communist systems have advocated atheism. That does not mean that atheists were all for communism. Some communist governments have been highly oppressive and violent. Some theocratic dictatorships have been highly oppressive and violent. And of course, disintegrated governments with little ability to function have allowed religious warlords to murder on a grand scale–e.g. Rwanda. Australia is headed by an atheist–Australia is not a regime, it is a well-governed democracy in which madmen cannot commit murder on grand scales for any philosophical reason, and while the PM would not likely WANT to commit murder in the name of atheism, she could not if she wished to. Communism isn’t a bad idea, but it consistently has led to abuse of power, whereas democracy seems less likely to do so. Why? Democracy allows for everyone’s voice to be heard, including people of different religious beliefs. That’s POLITICS. Not religion.

    You seem intent on ignoring our core questions and factual information. Please do tell–which books have you read by Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris? Because I can find books that tell me that Christians are barking mad, and say that’s the authoritative voice on the matter, or I could actually go study xianity’s own statements and be able to compare the internal beliefs with the external observations to arrive at a well-considered view of the truth.

    Concerning Xianity, I have actually gone through this process, and arrived at the following conclusion:
    The average Christian is a sane human being muddling through life with little thought for religion or God except on specific occasions, such as car accidents and Christmas mass. These people are nice and make sense.
    The adamant evangelical or missionary-type Xian is barking mad. They are less nice and make less sense the more you ask them to explain themselves.Skeptic » About Us » A Brief Introduction
    http://www.skeptic.comThe Skeptics Society is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific and educational organization whose mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for thos…

    26 December 2012 at 15:58 · Unlike · 3 · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni All brilliant points, Lolcat.

    May I add, re: books one has, or has not, read. In our efforts to learn and assimilate, we investigate Mormonism and Xianity, as you said, to the Nth degree (ad nauseum even). Lolcat and I have had many a discussion on our theocratic backgrounds.

    I find it ironic, sad, distressing.. that I have probably forgotten more about Mormonism than most Mormons know.. yet I can still quote Mormon scripture as good or better than most. THAT is how well versed I was. I had two 4’x8′ shelves full of LDS books, and another full of LDS movies and tapes.

    I still have some of my LDS stuff. I also have a Qu’ran, a Torah, a Bhagavad Gita, some interesting JW literature, and a smattering of nearly all philosophical, religious, and spiritual thought.
    26 December 2012 at 17:19 · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Well both of you, its difficult for me to respond, not because I cannot, or wish not to, but because doing so would be a supremely time consuming task. As I said earlier, you don’t know the history of Christianity. Hitler was not a Roman Catholic, btw. He fell out of communion in both faith and practice, and he effectively invented a new paganism for Nazi Germany. When i say that I have more education in Christian history than you, its not an intellectual boast- its simply stating what Ive been trained in. Sure, you may have an equivalent degree in some other subject, but between us in this convo, our backgrounds are not equal.

    Lolcatwolf- I can’t cite sources here- its a Facebook conversation. Its enough to cite my education. Again, not as a boast. Yes, there are professional historians who take varying opinions, but like any subject, the majority opinion os what usually has the most evidence. The (vast) majority of scholars on Christianity know that it is not an conglomeration of pagan beliefs mixed together. Christianity is Jewish. Its Temple Judaism with a Messiah. This is significant because in the ancient world, the Jews were the anti-pagan. They eschewed pagan association and borrowings from any type of paganism into their religion/culture. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled; the Christian holidays are Jewish holidays celebrated in light of Jesus of Nazareth and his public ministry. There is no pagan basis for Christianity.

    Just to make that abundantly clear, let me elucidate: is Easter (properly called Pascha) a pagan vernal festival with bunnies and eggs as symbols for fertility and renewal? No; its the Jewish Passover celebrated with leavened bread and only connected to the public crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Bunnies are a cultural attachment in lands with German peoples, but have no part of the religion. Is Christmas a hodgepodge of pagan festivals, where numerous celebrations of the births of other pagan gods are morphed into the birthday of one fictional Jesus? No. Most of the information concerning the Dec. 25th birthday of other pagan gods is itself a modern fiction. Christmas, or properly called “Nativity” was never a very large holiday on the Christian calendar. Its date of Dec. 25th was chosen by counting 9 months forward from the feast of Annunciation (where The angel Gabriel told Mary she would conceive the Messiah) which is always celebrated on March 25th. It was never regarded as being the exact day on which Jesus was born, so no one cares if Jesus was born in the spring, fall, summer or winter. Other pagan festivals around that time, like Sol Invictus, the festival of the unconquered sun, and associated with the winter solstice, are not the basis for Christmas. Sol Invictus as it turns out, was an attempt to give pagans something to celebrate as the society around them was rapidly converting to Christianity.

    We could do this all day- but who has that kind of time? My thumbs are as weary from typing this on an iPhone as my battery life is short.

    But from all that you’ve said, its quite clear you don’t know. The “New Atheist”, writers like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are not so spectacular- their works are routinely filled with huge historical misconceptions and shoddy assumptions. Dawkins and Harris are the bigger culprits here; Hitchens a little less so. But books like the God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation are not great works. They are quite uninformed, historically; and aren’t convincing to people who know how Christianity began.

    How is atheism fuzzy? Yes, Ive answered that twice now- and you, lolcatwolf have actually helped me prove me point- there is no single statement of faith for how atheists should believe and act. Should they kill others? You might say no, but Lenin or Stalin would have disagreed; and there’s no telling who is the more devout atheist since atheists have no standard to guide them. Not even science binds you together, since modern science has shown that our five senses and human minds are NOT well-equipped enough to prove without doubt that our observations about anything are accurate. As it turns out, even believing in our senses takes faith, believing in no god takes even more faith.

    If Ive ignored any other question, dont worry about it. I cannot sit here all night and argue with two crones who spout nonsense. This post was about how wearing gender confusing clothing would not be helpful.

    This group is not about searching for truth, or who is angrier at the Mormon church. Its about how gender is perceived in Christianity and Mormonism. This is my last post here; my thumbs cant take any more tiresome typing on things I went to college for.
    26 December 2012 at 19:11 via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

    Lolcat Wolf Where did you go to college? What are your degrees in? I mean, you say you can’t “cite sources” but you can “cite your education.” But to the best of my knowledge, you haven’t cited your education, and I don’t know what would keep you from citing sources … I have, though not in any great degree. You didn’t look at Dominique’s sources so I don’t think going into detail would make much difference.
    26 December 2012 at 20:31 · Edited · Like · 1

    Lolcat Wolf What do you think atheists believe? You have been asked this numerous times and not answered it.

    “Not even science binds you together, since modern science has shown that our five senses and human minds are NOT well-equipped enough to prove without doubt that our observations about anything are accurate.”

    This is the most absurd statement I can recall reading for a very long time. No scientist is going to tell you that, because our senses are tuned to perform certain specific tasks very well, but are not tuned to perform other tasks at all (because there is no survival value in my seeing the urine trail of a mouse, I cannot see in ultraviolet), that we cannot test for information or agree on the results of a test. We use X-rays to check luggage for dangerous objects, because machines are perfectly capable of accurately reading the amount of radiation being transferred through or absorbed by an object; you may try to carry a gun through the airport in your luggage with the argument that the screener’s vision is faulty, but it won’t get you very far.

    What you are looking for is an “atheist’s bible,” a credo that is universally accepted as being The Truth. The way your view of religion is absolute, the ultimate unchangeable truth. That is the great sin of Christianity and monotheism in general; the rejection of all other people’s points of view as being untrue because YOU are right and no one else can be right and there ARE no shades of gray! BECAUSE! I! SAID! SO!

    A scientist is by definition open-minded. Scientists are forced to specialize by virtue of the huge quantity of knowledge required to be at the research-edge of any field. And scientists consider argument about an uncertainty to be a good thing–let’s hash this out, let’s find areas where ideas need to be proven or disproven, so we can nail down our right answers and our WRONG answers and move on to the next cool new curious thing. So in any field, you will find someone way out there at the end of a research specialty arguing with someone else way out there in a similar research specialty. But back at the root of the question, there is so much agreement that no one is arguing the fundamentals.

    Should Christians murder other human beings? You may say no, but the Inquisitioners would not even have granted you the humanity to have a say, yes or no. You may say no, but a what Christian dictator might say would be up to the whim of the moment. What Stalin may have said is not relevant. Should I bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre and call that the entirety of Mormonism? You bring up one or two examples of power-mad dictators and say that they represent all atheists. Hitler not being a Christian–being, instead, a neo-pagan–specifically clarifies that HE WAS NOT AN ATHEIST, AND YOUR “LOGIC” IS BIZARRE!!! The Mormon high priest who raped his daughter–my best friend as a child–does not represent the average Mormon father, and I would not be fair to say so.

    You’re looking for an atheist’s prophet, but we don’t believe in revealed knowledge. We believe in research, facts, science, and the possibility that something we think we understand could be proven wrong, back to the drawing board–which doesn’t even vaguely resemble believing in nothing. Do you have any idea how many ideas have been tried on cancer to attempt to kill or suppress it? And how many have failed? Yet the basic theory of cells as the building blocks of life, the idea of cell specialization, concepts of genetic regulation, have not been diminished by those failures.

    What do you think your average atheist believes about where we come from, where we go, why we’re here, and how we ought to treat each other? What do you think the average atheist finds inspiring about their lives or the lives of others? Would an atheist point of view keep a person from despair or suicide, and how? When an atheist has a moral conundrum, what do you think they do to resolve it–who do they consult?
    26 December 2012 at 20:43 · Unlike · 3

    Lolcat Wolf Oh, and Eugene, I can’t remember what the discussion was about different parts of the bible being written in completely different styles by obviously different sects of Jewish society. Was it just sects or subsets of the society, or was it whole different tribal origins? Could you remind me of just the names of the different groups or writing-styles? I’m not even sure where to start to look it up.
    26 December 2012 at 20:52 · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni And could you, please, answer why you say nothing about the experts I cited.. experts in YOUR field, who disagree with you? Are they as stupid as you insist I am, because they don’t agree with you? Even though they are experts in YOUR field?
    27 December 2012 at 01:13 · Like

    Dominique Equality Storni Here you go. I’m sure you hate WIKI, too, because it contains factual data. Here’s one.. with all the citations included: views of Adolf Hitler – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.orgAdolf Hitler was raised by a Catholic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood and supported the Deutsche Christen church which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel. [1] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements…

    27 December 2012 at 01:14 · Like · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni Religion of Hitler
    http://www.infidels.orgHitler was a Christian, not an atheist as the Christians would like everyone to believe.

    27 December 2012 at 01:14 · Like · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni’s religious beliefs and fanaticism
    http://www.nobeliefs.comPeople often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or s…See more

    27 December 2012 at 01:15 · Like · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni This is the only one I could find that comes anywhere close to what you say about Hitler. (The search I input was simply, “What religion was Hitler?”) Straight Dope: Was Hitler a Christian?
    http://www.straightdope.comIn my numerous online debates in various chatrooms, I have learned the following…See more

    27 December 2012 at 01:18 · Like · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni So 4 articles, all saying that your “expertise” is flawed. I submit that your expertise is flawed, precisely because of what Lolcat has said… you state opinions based upon emotional influence and want us to believe you “BECAUSE! I! SAID! SO!”

    I’ve given sources.
    You have not.

    I don’t believe bullies just because of their feeble attempts to force me to do so. You, sir, are a bully. Just like your religion.
    27 December 2012 at 01:22 · Like

    Erik Kulick Eugene, I really don’t care why you bragged about your academic background. It wasn’t very convincing anyway, given the way you insisted that it automatically gave you more academic authority on the subject that a person you don’t know.

    Telling me that people have historically viewed “God” as “Truth” still doesn’t even come close to answering my question. Of course people who believe in a deity are likely to see it as connected to “Truth.”

    Of course you don’t have to answer anything, but you did feel the need to inform me that what I’m doing will have no positive effect and that I don’t really want to engage people with constructive dialog, without even taking the time to actually ask questions in order to better understand what I am doing. If standing for dialog really is important to you, then you should take my questions seriously.

    Questions about truth and how one determines where to find it has a lot to do with an event that you are trying to stop because of “truths” you privy to which need to be enforced. You appealed to academic and spiritual authorities, but haven’t shown why those authorities make you more right on the subject than someone else. All your posts have done is make me want to include an orthodox service to attend; if you’re unwilling to have the dialog that explains your belief system, I’d like to find someone else within your faith who is willing to have that conversation instead.
    27 December 2012 at 18:02 · Edited · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Sigh. One last post in a futile attempt to snap you guys away from some of your crazier notions. Again, and again, saying that I have an academic background is not a brag; but it does give me more authority than someone who hasn’t had that same background. That’s the point of getting the paper degree.

    1) Posting a couple of internet articles is NOT the same thing understanding what the majority of historians would agree upon. Anyone can post a slew of fringe internet pages in support of their side; but that’s not necessarily showing one side is the weightier case. It’s not a bad try, however, provided your sources are reliable. However, in this dialogue (between a person trained in this history, and two or three who are not) I’m not telling you you’re wrong because I’m emotional, or biased, or whatnot; I’m telling you that as of 2012, your statements thus far are outwieghed by more arguments which are not included in those articles. I know you’re wrong, not because “I said so” but because “most other scholars say so”. Sure, there will always be a few here and there who disagree, for any subject. But the existence of dissenters is not proof enough; they’re in the minority, and tend not to get that much credit.

    2) Why latch onto the idea that Adolph Hitler was a Christian? Is this where you make your stand? You think you’re gonna win THIS one? (Need I remind you, that as a Christian, I might know a bit more even without the history degrees?) This is so easily disproved; yet your tenacity in clinging to this absurdity, again, is a major indicator of how misinformed/uninformed you are about both 20th century history and Christianity in general. (Yet you’re so adamant, it’s mind-boggling.)

    a) You can watch as Hitler’s allegiance to Christian doctrines and principles (not ever well-understood by him in his writings) decline throughout the 30’s into the 40’s. He was always much more a nationalist and an ethnocentrist than a religionist; he was against the Roman Catholic church if it stood against Germany and somehow interpreted Christianity as political force against ethnic Jews. (Despite Christianity being a Semitic religion founded by a Jew, originally composed entirely of Jews, and in its essence, Temple Judaism with a Messiah. In Hitler’s twisted mind, as evidenced by his writings, he considered Jesus of Nazareth to be an Aryan. This is a gigantic indication that his Christianity was already bizzare and unorthodox, even before his rise to power.)
    27 December 2012 at 19:35 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick b) If you knew anything about Christian history at all, you’d know that a person just can’t “be a Christian” on their own assertion. They have to be “in communion” with a Church body to be considered “in” Christianity. This means that you can’t just stand up one day and say “I’m a Christian” and have it be so. You need to be baptized, and recieve communion (eucharist) somewhere. But, in order to be baptized and given communion, the person needs to live a certain way. Even after being baptized and having communion, that person needs to keep living a certain way (Christ’s way, to be exact) and to imitate Christ’s character in their daily life. If they fail to continue living like Christ, and if they do not stay “in communion” with a church, they’re no longer living a Christian life. They’ve fallen off the wagon, they have become self-excommunicated. (This is where your hope of Hitler being a Christian falls apart.) In no ways did Hitler imitate Christ. Christ was sinless. He did good to all and loved everyone; even the Jews and Romans who wanted him dead. Jesus eschewed worldly power and violence. Hitler was one of the world’s most notorious murderers. He killed 6.6 million Jews and many more, and he answered to no God or church. He felt accountable to nobody but himself. In fact, his soldiers (Nazi Einstatzgruppen in the Slavic Eastern front) were notorious burners of churches. Very often, the Einstatzgruppen would round everyone in some poor Belarussian or Polish or Russian village, push them inside the local church, lock the doors and burn it down.) What part of Hitler’s campaign included “loving thy neighbor” and “doing good to those who hate and wrong you”? As the war progressed, the Nazis even began locking up and killing German Protestant preachers, and some Roman Catholic clergy. Nothing he did could be considered “Christlike”, nothing he did was pro-Christian; his actions are so against Christian morality and so unlike Jesus, that it is clear (to everyone who knows about Christianity) that Hitler couldn’t be called a Christian by any stretch of the imiagination. (You might yet still disagree, but if you do, it won’t be based on anything real.)

    c) Not only did Hitler hold numerous personal beliefs that contradicted Christian beleifs, and not only did he live an abhorrently anti-Christian life (ending in suicide, also against Christianity) but he personally instituted a whole calendar of seasonal festivities which were in essence a wierd neo-pagn national religion, centered around major festivals and parades in Berlin, worshipping the strong Aryan man and fertile Aryan woman living in remembrance of their fallen Volk in an ever-friutful and abundant Vaterland. This new religion and its liturgics were largely the construct of Albert Speer, at Hitler’s request. The festivities were so grand, and the ideology and iconography so broad, that it cannot be seen as anything less than an attempt to create a new religion for Nazi Germany; something OTHER than Christianity, which was mainly present in Germany in it’s Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist communions. Nazism had found these lacking, difficult to control, and still containing remnants of/or a connection to Judaism; Hitler’s new religion would solve those problems and promote his godhood.

    I could go on. I could tell you about Hitler’s attempt to gain control of Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany; how many complied or resisted his efforts; how many Christians he killed, or how many churches he destroyed. I could tell you about his obsession with the occult and his plans to loot Christian and pagan holy sites and his lust for power. None of these things are Christian, either. But you don’t have to believe me. You can believe what youi e whatever you want. I’m not going to “bully” you as you’ve said; I’m not “privledged” or a “misogynist” as you’ve labled me. But I did attend a university to earn a BA in European History; and returned for a Master’s in the same subject with the majority of my courseload focusing on Christian history, and graduated this past May (so it’s still fresh in my mind) with a published thesis. (Not a brag.) And I am a Christian, who knows somewhat about the religion that he converted to. (Also not a brag.) I’m just a graduated Grad student, with no PhD and only one published paper; so I’m no heavyweight. Yet, I can tell you haven’t even looked at Nazi Germany or Christianity. You hold such strong and yet such clueless opinions.

    Here’s some of the books I had to read about Hitler before writing numerous papers on Nazi Germany. (They’re taken off the second shelf of one bookcase underneath the titles dealing with Christian history.) Cited, MLA style, sorry, no italics; just quotes. (This is Facebook.)

    Aly, Gotz, Peter Chroust, and Christian Pross. “Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene”. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Print.
    Benz, Wolfgang. “A Concise History of the Third Reich”. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Print.
    Baronowski, Shelley. “Strength Through Joy: Consumerism and Mass Tourism in the Third Reich”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
    Fritzche, Peter. “Life and Death in the Third Reich”. The Belknap Press: Cambridge, 2008. Print.
    Gellately, Robert. “Backing Hitler: Consent & Coercion in Nazi Germany”. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2001. P.
    Hunt, Irmgard. “On Hitler’s Mountain: Overcoming the Legacy of a Nazi Childhood”. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.
    Jantzen, Kyle. “Faith and Fatherland: Parish Politics in Hitler’s Germany”. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
    Kaplan, Marion. “Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany”. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.
    Mazower, Mark. “Hitler’s Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe”. New York: Penguin, 2008. Print.
    Spotts, Frederic. “Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics”. Woodstock: The overlook Press, 2009. Print.
    Wette, Wolfram. “The Wermacht: History, Myth, Reality”. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.

    This concludes my conversation here. DES, Lolcat: you’re uniformed. Erik: Your quest for truth doesn’t involve me, and yes, you CAN speak of God as Truth. Most religions do. This conversation was about clothing. It’s become a stupid defense of my education and sidelined eight ways till Sunday about other topics, revolving around religion, about which you know very little. Good day.
    27 December 2012 at 19:35 · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day I asked you simple questions which you made no real attempt at answering, but instead chose to go off on Hitler and Christianity. You steered the conversation right down that track because you were more concerned with proving yourself an authority on a subject than you were with even pondering “Truth”, let alone discussing it. I paraphrase my previous statement:

    I look forward to the search for “Christians” willing to have real dialog like any “True” savior would prefer.
    28 December 2012 at 02:37 via mobile · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day Orthodox Christianity is a heavy consideration for visitation 1/20/13. If not this time then next; I plan on making this yearly, and I’m really curious about authoritative religions out there like the Mormons and Catholics.
    28 December 2012 at 02:42 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Don’t try it Erik; Orthodox Christian churches usually have guards at the doors, and have had such since Roman times. If they see someone walk in for the sole purpose of mockery, you’ll just be asked to leave. Respect our American freedom to practice whatever religion we want; and if you don’t like it, sleep in on Sundays.

    Everyone can see that you only want to produce disruption and sacrilege; you have no real good intentions. You don’t really care about truth. You’re not even a cross-dresser in daily life; so this is clearly you attempt to act out on your frustrations at organized religion, you child.

    Do something a little more adult with your life besides dressing as a woman and trying to make people stare at you. If you have kids, why not go play baseball or something with them; they probably need more attention than you do.
    28 December 2012 at 06:05 via mobile · Like · 2

    Dominique Equality Storni I’m going to steal from a post on another thread, and apply it to here:

    Eugene, why should we even try to investigate anything from any point of view, when it is abundantly clear that YOU have made up OUR minds on everything, because of your so-called educational and ecclesiastical superiority?

    YOU, my friend, and your ilk, are the reason so many are leaving Mormondom for greener pastures. (yes, there are more leaving the church than their missionary force can recruit)
    28 December 2012 at 10:14 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Not the Orthodox; Orthodox Christianity has a very high conversion rate. And yes, I’m convinced. Because I’ve been educated.
    28 December 2012 at 12:30 · Like

    Erik Kulick Are the guards there to protect god’s chosen? Do you even realize the problem with the concept of a birthright?

    I will not be there to mock anything. I will be there to seek answers to the questions you were unable to address. You still haven’t even addressed why a god would create hermaphrodites and then doctrines in her church that could prevent some of her children from being permitted in. You also haven’t addressed what “Truth” is or how to determine superior sources to acquire it from.

    I’m actively trying to challenge laws and traditions in society that limit the freedom of “gods” children, but that doesn’t equate to an attack on the religious. The religions have very cleverly positioned themselves in way that makes their members feel real pain when doctrines are challenged. This is the glaring proof that the institutions don’t value “Truth”, but rather the salvation of themselves and their “loved ones.”
    28 December 2012 at 12:34 · Like · 1

    Erik Kulick the Fall? question worth asking. My rendition of When We Fell, by David Bazan. That reminds me. Don’t forget to pass this along:

    28 December 2012 at 12:54 · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, if the convo is going to steer back to its original intent- I’ll happily discuss it from my own view.

    First- In Christianity, we have no such concept of a birthright. I presume thats a Mormon thing. (Remember that Mormonism is very far separated from Christianity in doctrine, practice and dogma.). The presence of doorkeepers in an Orthodox Church serves several purposes; the most ancient of which was to usher all unbaptized persons out of the church at a certain point in the service before communion. This kept non-Christians from receiving communion, and also helped to save the lives of unbaptized persons. (in the chance that violent persecutions from the pagan or godless authorities broke out and Christians were being killed for their beliefs, those unbaptized people could be exempted from punishment and death, as they weren’t yet Christians; even then, many unbaptized believers chose martyrdom anyway.) in modern times, the doorkeepers greet people, help parishioners with requests for candles and bread, and help keep order in the church. People are at church to pray and worship God- no other reason. If visitors who aren’t Christian have arrived misclothed to disrupt the worship and ignore people’s freedom to worship, then the doorkeepers will ask them to leave.

    But why have standards of dress? Why wear any clothes at all? Because clothing is meaningful to humans.

    All societies, (and a religion is a type of society bound together by common belief and practice) place emphasis and meaning on clothing. This is why in Christianity the clergy and laity wear specific clothing. The laity come dressed to church in respectable clothing (hopefully) since it is the ancient Christian belief that Christ Himself as God is present in the bread and wine.

    As far as hermaphroditic (intersex) people; don’t you worry about them Erik; you’re not one and probably wouldn’t be a good advocate for their needs. They’ll pick the appropriate clothes to come to church in if they are serious about worshipping God.

    Remember: what you’re angry about didn’t happen in a Christian church. You’re bad experiences occurred in Mormonism, and you cannot transfer your angst onto Christianity. The two- while sharing some recognizable similarities- are worlds apart; and its quite poor of you to assume that the ideas and reactions of your old congregation would be exactly the same elsewhere.

    Besides- as I stated in the first place; you (or anyone) attending church will not achieve any constructive dialogue. No one is going to take you seriously; any person would think you’ve arrived only to mock them or God. Its not the path towards understanding. If you persist, it demonstrates a childish desire for disturbing people who are just trying to live.
    28 December 2012 at 20:52 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Look at you impugning motives again. Im glad the “unbaptized” are being guarded against. I still look forward to seeking someone willing to answer the questions you don’t have the answers to. I was hoping those degrees would give you a little more insight on the subject.

    You still don’t get why I bring up hermaphroditism, do you? Do you really think that a god would create people who don’t clearly belong to one sex, but fail to tamper with people’s gender or orientation? How about you stop and listen to those who are different than you and try to understand what they’re actually saying instead of making false accusations concerning the motivations, intelligence, or Moral fiber of those With whom you disagree.
    28 December 2012 at 21:23 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, if you read my last post, you’d see that the door guards escorting the unbaptized out was for their own protection. At a time when Christians were being violently persecuted, the unbaptized could still avoid being killed, since they had not yet been initiated into Christianity.

    And yes, I got your question. But transvesting is not the same as being born intersex. However a person is born, put on some decent clothes and come to church. If you have no real issues, put on some decent clothes, and come to church. I don’t see what your big point is.

    Church is about taking our focus away from ourselves and our worldly problems and fights, and laying them aside to focus on worshiping God. Its not about us.
    28 December 2012 at 21:30 via mobile · Like · 2

    Daniel Patrick O’Leary Classic and epic conclusion. “It’s not about us.” Church never has been, contrary to what we want to believe. I cannot tell you how often I’ve heard “I am just not being fed at that church.” As if church was about us, not about worship. What God did was for us. All else is for Him.

    With this issue, if you came to church with pants on, shorts on, or just underwear on just because that is who you are, that is entirely different than disrespectfully and purposely showing up in garments that will piss people off and distract them. I get it, kind of, but it is not helpful.

    I will say that a church that actually goes crazy over this misses the point too. No church should see someone walk in and be so distracted that their worship is entirely hindered – unless of course it is a blatant act of disrespect that needs to be addressed immediately (which transvesting to church is hugging that line, simply because you’re doing it on purpose with the reasoning that somehow they will “see the light” and allow any and all sin to be blown off). Where do you draw the line?

    No, this will not help. Love to others will. Pissing people off on purpose will not.

    But I don’t know. TL;DR?

    It’s not about us. Checkmate.
    28 December 2012 at 21:45 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day I understood what you wrote, but given the apparent unwelcoming nature of the guards toward transvestites, it appears the explanation you gave me for your church preserving this antiquated service is just a poor excuse. If Jesus kicked over a money-changers table, I highly doubt he would stand for his “fountain of truth” church barring reverent and modestly dressed individuals from attending services and inquiring about his truth.

    I am really excited about learning more about this religion. Thanks for outing it on my radar, Eugene!
    28 December 2012 at 21:53 · Unlike · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day Checkmate? I have honest questions, but you two fine Christians would rather find a reason to discourage me from attending your religious services and impugn malicious intent than attempt to explain to me this “Truth?” If “it’s not about us”, then why do you insist on preserving the individual comfort of closed-minded partitioners, rather than encouraging Christlike love among all humans?

    28 December 2012 at 22:06 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, because it’s readily apparent you don’t care about truth; that’s not your real motive. And that’s obvious enough just from your goal. If you were truly interested in a dialogue, you’d do it without donning drag on Sunday. You seem just to want to disturb others.

    And the doorkeepers are hardly there to turn people away- quite the opposite. But they are doorkeepers- church is not a place for clowning, and if outsiders cause an intentional and malicious interruption, they will kindly ask the interloper to take a hike. Its not about our comfort- the service itself actually makes the Christians uncomfortable- both physically spiritually- but it is more about being quiet and worshipping God than paying attention to earthly distractions. Six days a week we focus on earth- give people one day in Heaven. You never know Erik- a real intersex person might see you faking around in a dress in church messing up their opportunity to worship, and might rightly slap some truth into you. You don’t know if real intersex people share your childish angst.

    But again, and again, your quest for truth is beyond the scope of this group Erik. And I can only give you the answers I know. You don’t know much about Christianity; just Mormonism. Relax a bit.
    28 December 2012 at 22:22 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Readily apparent… You haven’t stopped pointing fingers about motivation (judgement) and bragging about your superior intellect on Christian and other historical subjects, nor have you stopped making up excuses for not having the answers to the questions I asked or for why your religion has such a manipulative system still in place, and I’m the one who doesn’t care about truth.

    Christ said to be like the little children, so I guess “childishly” attempting to challenge Christians to be Christlike is just what I need to do.

    Mormons and “Christians” are far more similar than you realize; both ironically Insist belief is necessary for salvation.
    28 December 2012 at 22:57 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Lets hope the Orhodox, LDS, and Catholic churches, and any other sects fortunate enough to be visited next month are as polite and accepting of their guests as this UK Border Force officer was to this transgendered woman. Border Force – Funniest interview ever with transgender Canadian woman is the funniest interview I have seen on UK Border Force. Transgendered woman ariving at London Heathrow from Canada.

    29 December 2012 at 02:09 · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick In all seriousness; No, the Mormon beliefs are very very far from Christianity. You’re constantly lumping the two together in your mind. But that’s a mistake, due likely to the fact that you only know Mormonism.
    29 December 2012 at 05:35 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick And you’re also constantly equating transvestites, transsexuals, and interex people, as if they were somehow collectively banned from church, or held the same opinions as yourself. You have no personal experience in either of these categories. If transanything people are serious about going to church, then they’ll do it, respectuflly. But you’re not serious. You incorrectly perceive flaws in Christianity- a religion you’ve never studied or practiced- and have drawn a bunch of half-thought conclusions. Knock it off.
    29 December 2012 at 05:49 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Have you given thought to people who wear the other gender’s clothing? Perhaps tranvestites might not want you giving them a bad name by causing ruckuses in churches, temples, synagogues and mosques across the coutry. Perhaps this idea of yours (a truly bad idea, btw) might backfire and embarrass real transvestites? Then they might feel obligated to apologize to everyone, for you Erik, an impostor transvestite- for causing increased friction between various religious groups and people who do cross dress in real life. Your simply causing trouble between two groups that you’re not even a part of.

    You’re neither religious nor a transvestite. Why don’t you cancel this stupid idea before you cause real problems between real people. You’re ramming your uninformed nose into other people’s business.
    29 December 2012 at 09:00 via mobile · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick One more thing, for your edification: Orthodox Christian church services do not just pray for the salvation of the faithful and their loved ones as you’ve incorrectly assumed. Multiple prayers are said everyday in Orthodox churches, monasteries and by individuals for the salvation of the entire world- all peoples and all times. It’s the Orthodox Christian understanding that Christ’s death on the cross ad resurrection has already saved everybody; the whole universe has been redeemed and saved from ignorance and death. But people must embrace that salvation; they can willfully reject it- but its free and for all. We Christians are NOT called to just love ourselves. Everybody does that. But for the past 2,000 years, Orthodox Christian churches have been praying for the salvation f everyone- even as they were being killed for it.
    29 December 2012 at 10:28 via mobile · Like · 1

    Daniel Patrick O’Leary I have to side with Fitz on this one 100%. You should really knock this off. Cancel the event and delete this page, please. I assure you, proceeding will only do harm.

    And to add to this, I need to address that I am a pastor of a very “progressive” non-denominational church. We have the motto “church for people who don’t like church” and “church for people who church people don’t like”.

    Here is a snippet of what we once put in our bulletin:

    “The Kingdom of God is for the burnouts, the broken, and the broke,
    The drug addicts, the divorced, the HIV positive, the herpes-ridden, the hopeless,
    For the outcasts that have been created by the church,
    And for the outcasts of our society that have been created by us.
    The Kingdom of God is for the brain damaged, the incurably ill, for the barren,
    For the pregnant too many times, and the pregnant at the wrong time.
    This is for the over-employed, the underemployed, the unemployable, and the unemployed.
    This is for the swindled, the shoved aside, the left aside,
    The replaced, the incompetent, and the stupid.
    This is for the emotionally starved and the emotionally dead.
    The Kingdom of God is for the bigoted, the murderers, the child molesters, the brutals, the drug lords,
    The terrorists, the perverted, the raging alcoholics, over consumers, the incredibly ugly,
    The dumb, the ignorant, the starving, the filled, and the filthy rich.
    The Kingdom of God is for everyone and the Kingdom of God is for me.”

    This is another one:

    “We extend a special welcome to those who are single, married, divorced, gay, filthy rich, dirt poor, yo no habla Ingles. We extend a special welcome to those who are crying new-borns, skinny as a rail or could afford to lose a few pounds.

    We welcome you if you can sing like Andrea Bocelli or like our pastor who can’t carry a note in a bucket. You’re welcome here if you’re “just browsing,” just woke up or just got out of jail. We don’t care if you’re more Catholic than the Pope, or haven’t been in church since little Joey’s Baptism.

    We extend a special welcome to those who are over 60 but not grown up yet, and to teenagers who are growing up too fast. We welcome soccer moms, NASCAR dads, starving artists, tree-huggers, latte-sippers, vegetarians, junk-food eaters. We welcome those who are in recovery or still addicted. We welcome you if you’re having problems or you’re down in the dumps or if you don’t like “organized religion,” we’ve been there too.

    If you blew all your offering money at the dog track, you’re welcome here. We offer a special welcome to those who think the earth is flat, work too hard, don’t work, can’t spell, or because grandma is in town and wanted to go to church.

    We welcome those who are inked, pierced or both. We offer a special welcome to those who could use a prayer right now, had religion shoved down your throat as a kid or got lost in traffic and wound up here by mistake. We welcome tourists, seekers and doubters, bleeding hearts … and you!”

    So please, understand that my heart breaks for those far from God, and I get where you’re coming from, which is why purposefully pissing people off will only do harm.

    If you were a sincere transvestite, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. But this is an event. A plan. And it should really be cancelled. I am telling you, you will not teach anybody anything new or bring people closer to accepting different cultures. Since it is merely a shock & awe planned event, I see no way in which this turns out good. What would be good instead would be to enter in serious dialogue and/or respectfully attend a service. Talking with a priest or pastor about this is not a bad idea, either. This will end up being a mockery to both church and transvestites.

    For the love of God, cancel this.
    29 December 2012 at 16:08 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick And for the love of people, cancel this event.
    29 December 2012 at 16:43 via mobile · Like

    BradandTina Zarzana How but just don’t cross dress to church. No 15 minutes of fame. Don’t try to make a point. Just leave it alone
    29 December 2012 at 16:44 via mobile · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day The love of which people, Eugene? “God’s chosen?”
    29 December 2012 at 17:04 via mobile · Like

    Daniel Patrick O’Leary Erik, I believe it is? When the heck was “God’s Chosen” ever brought up in this convo with that context? You really aren’t interested at all in dialogue, are you? I’m beginning to think this is all just a stunt to you. Check yourself on this. It really makes no sense. You’re attacking Eugene with some straw man argument about something he actually doesn’t believe in. Stick to the topic – which is this is an INCREDIBLY bad idea.

    God loves you too, man. Sorry you had such a terrible experience with church and church people. But this will not help.
    29 December 2012 at 17:29 via mobile · Like · 2

    Daniel Patrick O’Leary By the way, before you mentioned we were discouraging you from attending a service. That could not be more untrue. Please, come to a service. And if you come in drag, I hope people treat you the way they would treat Jesus, in a kind and loving manner. But to encourage other people to dress drag? There is no point. I know it’s been said 100 times already, so ill leave it alone, but it doesn’t make sense. Cancel it.
    29 December 2012 at 17:34 via mobile · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick No Erik, for the love of people. Just people.

    Cross-dressers prolly don’t want you hijacking their thing; love them and don’t impersonate something you’re not. Faithful people have gathered at their places of worship; love them by not interrupting their services. Don’t make transvestites look and feel bad; don’t make Christians and Mormons frustrated and feeling like their being mocked in their own home churches.

    Its a terrible plan; be sensible ad give it up.
    29 December 2012 at 17:50 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick If you want to worship God, good! God deserves nothing less than our utmost. Look presentable, as a serious-minded adult. If you just want to be an annoying teenager and mock people on their weekend, stay home and sleep in like a teenager. Leave the adults alone.
    29 December 2012 at 18:04 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Eugene, if you really want to be a successful negotiator, stop telling everyone you disagree with that they don’t know anything of the subjects you discuss. I’m not going to cancel the event, no matter how long or hard you try to falsely paint it’s motivation or insult my intelligence. If you gents really cared about dialog, you’d answer my questions instead of telling me I’m wrong and that I don’t know anything.

    I’m not canceling this, and it will be annual.

    Keep going, you’re just proving how similar “Christians” and Mormons really are.
    29 December 2012 at 21:00 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day I hope my LI friends find a nice Orthodox Church in the Sayville area to attend. It sounds like they should be welcome with open arms if Daniel is right about Christians.
    29 December 2012 at 21:01 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok chess player. Are you prepared to take personal responsibility for all the people who participate in your shenanigans? What is your goal? To start a discussion? You can do that without the drag. What do you want to achieve? To teach people a lesson? You don’t know about the religions you want to teach a lesson to. Do you want to increase church attendance? Aren’t you an atheist?

    What if something goes wrong? What if your plan hurts someone? Are you ready to get sued? Are you personally calling yourself the leader of a group seeking to infringe on people’s right to worship peacefully? Have you checked out all 50 state laws regarding unlawful intrusion and disruption of church services? How will you deal with the media, and/or multiple lawsuits? Do you have money for a lawyer? Do you have children? Are you prepared to explain to your son why you were on the evening news in a dress? Are you ready to ruin your own Christmas dinners with your religiously-minded family for the next couple of years? Are you ready to have the Westboro Baptists picketing your grandma’s funeral and your kid’s winter musical?

    I noticed you didn’t call the event: “Cross-dress to a Mosque Day”. What if you instigate people to offend other religious groups who don’t show the non-violent self-restraint traditionally demanded in Christianity?

    The truth is, you haven’t thought that far ahead. To you this is just a big joke on Facebook- but you really are putting yourself -and others- but mainly yourself- in a very bad position. One of the safest results is that you might get sued. Probably by both religious communities and transvestites. And if this happens, you’ll be personally responsible for making the USA suck a little more for everyone.

    It won’t really be bringing people together, because crossdressers can already go to church. There are all sorts of churches these days, many with very little to do with Christ and following His teachings; some churches already have homosexual minority bishops. Are you going to teach a lesson in being a liberal to them? But churches have never ever been in the habit of turning people away. Unless those people have no interest in God or church anyway. So what are you trying to accomplish?

    Since you’re an ex-Mormon, and you’re angry at Mormons, and this incident that kicked your brain into revenge mode occurred at a Mormon temple, and since Mormons clearly have their own unique rules regarding clothing….. I fail to see why you’re targeting Christians. Everything you’re angry about is Mormon. Christianity is a different religion. Why are you inviting others to invade Christian churches?

    Ok- tell me how you’re not going to get sued/ arrested.

    For your own good, and the good of your family, stop your adolecent madness and cancel this stupid event.
    29 December 2012 at 21:59 via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day That was the craziest rant of a response I’ve read in a while. How about you take a breath, answer my questions, and formulate rational follow-up questions, instead of reflexively telling me what I don’t know and insisting evil intent on my part.
    29 December 2012 at 22:08 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick A rant? Rants don’t include that many question marks. But honestly, “your questions” (the ones about truth) are vague, and not really what this group is about.

    You started this group. It’s aim appears to be to intrude on any house of worship and disturb those worshiping. That’s probably illegal.

    Who cares about your questions if you’re only going to be a public disturbance? Certainly not a judge.
    29 December 2012 at 22:13 · Edited · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day No. Attending a service in the clothing of the opposite gender is not illegal.

    I’m still not impressed with your excuses for not answering my questions, and hope I luck out and find a more reasonable orthodox fellow to explain what you can’t.
    29 December 2012 at 22:14 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick No it’s not illegal to come improperly dressed for church. But that’s not your aim. You want to shake things up a bit, and show these narrow-minded, straight-laced squares how the real world works, don’t you? If you’re there in a dress, fine- but you’d probably have to respect the rules of the house if they think your clothing is in appropriate. (I’ve been asked to leave an Orthodox church once for being improperly dressed, and I was Orthodox! I shudda known bettah. I went back home, changed, and returned.) But if you’re there to cause a disturbance, then THAT’S likely to be illegal.

    So what’s your plan Admiral? Let’s see how far you’ve thought ahead. You’re gonna show up to church in a dress? Fine. Then what?
    29 December 2012 at 22:24 · Edited · Like

    Mandrew George LOL Ryan.
    29 December 2012 at 22:27 · Like · 2

    Mandrew George All this time you spend arguing with these guys we could be hanging out or something. lol
    29 December 2012 at 22:28 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m hanging out with Erik Kulick.
    29 December 2012 at 22:31 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m actually helping him; trying to stop a bad idea from happening. Apparently, he’s got nothing better to do than stir up trouble.
    29 December 2012 at 22:32 · Like

    Mandrew George It’s all good bro, but if someone wants to cause trouble nothing will stop them, and besides if someone walks into a church just to be a tool they’re gonna get kicked out. lol
    29 December 2012 at 22:36 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m trying to save him some money so he doesn’t get sued. I’m trying to save his family’s Easter dinner from being totally awkward. I’m doing him a favor, and still he argues with me.
    29 December 2012 at 22:36 · Like · 1

    Mandrew George Haha thats why I love you man.
    29 December 2012 at 22:37 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Backatacha bud. Say hi to the baristas for me.
    29 December 2012 at 22:39 · Like

    Mandrew George Pfffft. I’m getting out of there man! I’m joining the Army.
    29 December 2012 at 22:39 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Oh WHAT! Right on! Congratulations and thank you!
    29 December 2012 at 22:40 · Like

    Mandrew George If you’re on Long Island before January 14th were hanging out!
    29 December 2012 at 22:40 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Prayer for Protection of Soldiers during War

    29 December 2012 at 22:43 · Like · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Prayers

    29 December 2012 at 22:43 · Like · Remove Preview

    Cross Dress to Church Day Ah, more acquisitions and condescension to inspire cooperation and harmony.

    Instead of wasting your time repeating your credentials, reading my mind, and reporting your findings, why don’t you answer the simpe questions of this lonely seeker?
    29 December 2012 at 22:44 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, what question?
    29 December 2012 at 22:44 · Like

    Mandrew George LOL
    29 December 2012 at 22:45 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Just one.
    29 December 2012 at 22:45 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick For now.
    29 December 2012 at 22:46 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick A question Erik?
    29 December 2012 at 22:49 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Accusations*
    29 December 2012 at 22:49 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day They are at the beginning of this thread if you need refreshing.
    29 December 2012 at 22:50 via mobile · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I need refreshing. Reask it. (Forgive me. It’s a wonder you ask me anything, thinking me so foolish.)
    29 December 2012 at 22:52 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Just one; you pick it.
    29 December 2012 at 22:56 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, I’m going to bed. Figure out which question you want me to “answer” for you; I’ll give it a shot on Monday.
    29 December 2012 at 23:01 · Like

    Mandrew George Ain’t nobody got time for that!
    29 December 2012 at 23:02 · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day I reiterate my reiteration. You’re not some prophet-genie able to grant me some magical glimpse at “Truth” (aka God). Go back and read my questions if you want to demonstrate your superior religious knowledge.
    29 December 2012 at 23:03 via mobile · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick You’re darn right I’m not. Here’s what I can tell you: some stuff about church history and some stuff about European history; preferably on Antiquity and the Medieval period. That’s about it.
    29 December 2012 at 23:26 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick (And maybe some stuff about why this group’s intent is not a good idea.)
    29 December 2012 at 23:27 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day You also made claims of knowing truth, yet can’t answer simple questions concerning it.

    You’ve stated your opinions about me and my event, but haven’t listened to a word I’ve said.

    I’ve seen these two behaviors manifested in the same person far more times than I care to remember.
    29 December 2012 at 23:39 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Yes, I can say I know Truth; at least in part, for what I know.

    Jesus Christ is that Truth. He was crucified and rose again on the third day. That is what I know.
    29 December 2012 at 23:42 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Why am I up so late? It’s already Sunday. To bed!
    29 December 2012 at 23:42 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick “There was a time when people put on their “Sunday best” to go to church. By contrast, there is today not an insignificant backlash against such propriety. Many contemporary churches innocently flaunt a “come as you are”; pitch as part of their advertising ploy. Though God does not demand us to “dress up” for Him (as though He is in any way impressed by our external appearance), the fact is, as followers of Christ in all areas of our life, we should offer Christ our “best” and not just our “leftovers” (c.f. Cain and Abel). Our dress should always, especially at church, be becoming of a Christian. We dress modestly, not in a flashy way that merely brings attention to ourselves.
    Some Guidlines:

    The above guidelines may be adjusted for services outside of Divine Liturgy, i.e. Vespers. It is better to be in church for prayer, than to not come at all for mere lack of a change of clothes — as may be the case when coming from a Saturday outing, or work-party, etc. Finally, this is not a call for someone to buy a whole new wardrobe just to be a part of the church! Use your best judgment and good taste when it comes to church. You don’t go to church to be seen by people — you go to present yourself before, and to worship, God.”

    From: Etiquette
    http://www.xcsavior.orgIn the Orthodox Church there are numerous customs and traditions that are important parts of our worship. Some of these customs are universal to the Church, while some may vary from parish to parish, or cultural tradition. The following section addresses questions most often asked by those new to th…

    29 December 2012 at 23:43 · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni Oh, c’mon, Eugene.. You can always justify breaking the Sabbath to condescendingly verbally assault those you deem unworthy.
    29 December 2012 at 23:44 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Eh, sure, I suppose I could. But that’s not what I’m doing.
    29 December 2012 at 23:44 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I don’t deem anyone “unworthy”. (I probably have bigger sins than the both of you put together.)

    Unworthy? No; we’re all unworthy. Uneducated? That’s just you two; when it comes to Christian history, or Nazi Germany (cough cough).
    29 December 2012 at 23:47 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Alright, good night chaps. Let’s be gently belligerent the day after tomorrow.
    29 December 2012 at 23:49 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Photos
    Press the “SHARE” button to help us grow. Post our URL on your wall and favorite pages: Helping Youth Resist Religious Brainwashing Exploitation & Mental Terrorism

    30 December 2012 at 13:32 · Like · Remove Preview

    Dominique Equality Storni Yup, CDtCD.. gotta love contradictory beliefs.
    30 December 2012 at 13:38 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick We could discuss some of the percieved contradictions in Christianity, (or any religion, including atheism) but what makes you think you have the right to start disrupting church services?
    31 December 2012 at 09:34 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Also- Erik, if you want to discuss the group of questions you stated at the beginning, fine. But your questions are philosophical in nature, and are not religious. There’s a difference between the two: philosophy is kinda airy and people can speculate with out end. But religion is fairly concrete in comparison because religion takes place within history. For example, people can speculate and disagree on what truth is, and still nenver know; but Jesus Christ was a real person, who really taught publicly in Jerusalem, and was really crucified by a real Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and was really buried, and really rose from the dead three days later. Those are things that occured in time, and are much more solid than philosophizing.
    31 December 2012 at 09:43 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick As always, if you want to go to church fine. But what do you think your cross dressing is going to accomplish. No one’s going to have time for a discussion because the service will be going on. You’re going to have to just sit there and judge people (which is what you already accuse church folk of doing) and then when the service is over, people go home. So what’s going to be accomplished?
    31 December 2012 at 09:46 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Is that what you do at church, Eugene? Sit there and judge? Or was that another attempt at reading my mind and pre-judging me?
    31 December 2012 at 13:11 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day I will not be disrupting church services. I will be modestly dressed in a beautiful red dress. If people are so judgmental that they’d rather disrupt their own service because of a prejudice they could easily temper, that’s there fault not mine. I don’t know where you get off blaming me for someone else’s fear, hatred, or ignorance.
    31 December 2012 at 13:14 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day I don’t dispute tat Jesus is a man who was unjustly killed. I dispute the zombie claim; just because your ancestors tell you it happened, doesn’t make it so. This is a big problem with appealing to history to validate the supernatural.
    31 December 2012 at 13:16 via mobile · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day I asked two questions in response to your statements indicating that religion is a place people can go to receive “Truth”, and that your religion, the Orthodox religion, is a “spring of Truth.” Telling me that Jesus is “Truth” is telling me an empty statement without real meaning.
    31 December 2012 at 13:25 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Just because Jesus existed historically, doesn’t make him “Truth.” Even if it some how did, the fact that there are numerous interpretations of what that “Truth” is makes it impossible to determine which is a spring, and which is a trickle of “Truth.”
    31 December 2012 at 13:28 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day I will be at multiple religious services on 1/20/13, in a dress. I will do it every year until its no longer necessary.
    31 December 2012 at 13:32 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick If you’re merely arriving in a dress, as a man, and being respectful, most Christian church services will probably continue as normal. People might ask you “why are you in a dress?” But it’s probably not going to cause the stir you might expect in a Mormon temple. If you show up to a mosque, (I don’t think you’re that brave or foolish) you’d likely get assaulted. If you show up to an Orthodox church, you’ll probably be asked to dismiss yourself since your garments show you to be disrespectful of the church. If you bring your son, he’ll probably be confused and embarrassed to see his Dad being a public spectacle.

    I beleive Christianity to be true, even the resurrection part. It’s the most plausible explaination.
    31 December 2012 at 14:50 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Thanks for the profound info. I’ll keep it in mind.
    31 December 2012 at 14:59 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick So profound.
    31 December 2012 at 15:14 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick But you’re not going to prove anything. Either you’re going to just sit there, or be asked to leave. I don’t know what will happen if you go into a Mormon temple.

    Remember, your outrage was initiated by what occured in Mormonism. You consistently forget that your plan has nothing to do with anything except Mormonism.
    31 December 2012 at 15:18 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick What is your goal again?
    31 December 2012 at 15:19 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Organizations that use manipulative doctrines to compel behaviors are all harmful to society. Just because Mormonism tried to compensate for some of the more paradoxical beliefs held by other Christians, doesn’t make them less deserving of the now mostly meaningless title than anyone else.
    31 December 2012 at 15:57 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Im glad that your crystal ball has revealed the results of my event; are you sure you haven’t been channeling the spirit of Joseph Smith w/ your prayers?
    31 December 2012 at 15:59 via mobile · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I don’t think so.

    Organizations that use manipulative doctrines, eh?

    So you’re the final authority on this? How do you know a religion’s doctrines are or arent manipulative? You don’t even know what doctrines are in Christianity. You’ve never been a Christian. Just a Mormon with a bad flavor in his mouth; you don’t know any other religion.
    31 December 2012 at 22:31 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day You don’t know, you don’t know, you don’t know, you don’t know….
    31 December 2012 at 23:34 · Like · 2

    Cross Dress to Church Day Is that your favorite phrase?
    31 December 2012 at 23:34 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Here’s one: you don’t know my history, an have assumed I’ve always been Mormon. It’s the same as Christian, BTW. At least as far as the stones they both tend to throw.
    31 December 2012 at 23:36 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick So tell me your story.
    1 January at 00:02 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick And the stone throwing is the same for everyone. Even enlightened atheists.
    1 January at 00:03 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick But, please- tell me your journey through religion.
    1 January at 00:19 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day The only difference is non-deists don’t try to capitalize on the hopes and fears of others.
    1 January at 00:53 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Answer my god forsaken questions.
    1 January at 00:53 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick You answer mine for a change. What is your religious background and what do you hope to accomplish?
    1 January at 01:21 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick (Non-deists? You mean like every politician and commercial marketer selling a product? You mean the secular, atheistic Bolsheviks offering the dream of prosperity? You mean Dawkins and the New Atheist authors offering hope that there is no God? Sir, you’re as sorely mistaken as they.)

    Whats your religious background and what do you hope to accomplish?
    1 January at 01:24 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day “[F]or a change” implies that you’ve actually answered mine in the first place.

    I’ve already answered the latter question, and, given the way you’ve thus far spoken to me, I’m not sure you deserve to know the answer your former question.

    Why don’t you read the LDS epistles if you want to know more about me.
    1 January at 03:18 via mobile · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Because that’s too much research. I’ve answered a ton of your questions here. The sheer volume of my posts speaks to that.

    If you’ve never been a Christian, just say so. It takes only a couple of seconds to type here, for the viewing of all, your religious background.

    In fact, you probably owe it to everyone here, reading this, or seeing your CDtCD idea, what your religious beliefs are. You’re inviting anyone in the world to potentially create a big disturbance with a bunch of people they don’t know, and within religions they potentially know nothing about.

    Take our friend Dominique Equality, for example. Nothing she’s written in this thread indicates she has the first clue about any type of Christian beliefs, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox. But my gosh, does she have her mind made up about who all these people are and how stupid they are.

    You’re doing something similar. You spent the greater number of years in Mormonism, you might have attempted some other religion, but hoever unlikely that is, you’re clearly just a secularist now. Yet you’ve witnessed bad thing in Mormonism, the incident that spawned this group was only in Mormonism, and then you go and blame Christians.

    Your justification for this error? You say: “At least as far as the stones they both tend to throw. The only difference is non-deists don’t try to capitalize on the hopes and fears of others.”

    How simple-minded. How untrue. Is not your confusion apparent to everyone who reads this thread?
    1 January at 09:03 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick If you want to talk about truth Erik Kulick; message me personally. This group is about your plans to “invade” churches, and this particular thread is about what stupid idea the whole plan is.

    Let’s stick to the topic at the top of this thread.

    What do you think cross dressing to church is going to achieve?
    1 January at 09:06 · Like · 1

    Damien Pagán figured i’d chime in. religious and secular people are equally guilty throughout history of exploiting peoples’ hopes and fears to attain certain ends. i think one thing most people, regardless of faith or lack thereof, can agree upon is one fundamental maxim which might be phrased thusly: “don’t be a dick”. by that i mean, don’t slight or short-change someone just because you don’t agree with them.

    something like “cross dress to church” first of all undercuts any point you might be trying to make because it’s completely ridiculous on its face, and secondly, it insults people who actually do struggle with their gender identity, hijacking a lifestyle which has nothing to do with you (unless you yourself are legitimately transgendered).

    so if you really feel like you are a woman living in a man’s body, by all means, go cross dress to church. i don’t believe in god, but if i did, i would posit that he’d still love you even if you were a cross dresser. otherwise you’re just being a dick.

    if you want to debate actual issues of the soul, or of church and society, there are few better equipped than Eugene; we have had many spirited debates on the topic(s) without having to resort to douchebaggery.
    1 January at 11:08 · Like · 1

    Damien Pagán there are many more rational theists than we atheists acknowledge and i think a much better way to learn about one another and to grow in ourselves is to continually ask questions, and to not sacrifice respect for the satisfaction of landing a quick jab.
    1 January at 11:11 · Like · 1

    Erik Kulick Great advice with that l last post. It’s what I was trying tho get out of Eugene, instead of this week long rant about the poor choice I’m making, filed with insults and derision. Maybe if you guys actually engaged me with questions and answers to my inquiries, this thread wouldn’t be filled with so much “douchebaggery.”
    1 January at 12:38 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick So will you cancel this event? Its not the thread that’s full of “douchbaggery” but the whole idea in the first place.
    1 January at 12:40 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick You’ve answered none of the questions I sought answers to, Eugene. If you were as educated a scholar as you claim to be, you’d stop with the mind-reader bullshit.
    1 January at 12:41 · Edited · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Will you cancel this stinkin event? I’m under no obligation to answer your questions.
    1 January at 12:41 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick I’ve told you before, no.
    1 January at 12:42 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick We can exchange messages regarding your questions.
    1 January at 12:42 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick You and your friends acting like dicks is DEFINITELY not going to change that.
    1 January at 12:43 · Like

    Erik Kulick Yet you still feel an obligation to waste your breath repeating your arrogant statements…
    1 January at 12:44 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick What? We’re not the ones creating events like this. I think you better look in the mirror.
    1 January at 12:44 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick I really hope someone finds an Orthodox church in Sayville.
    1 January at 12:44 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick There isnt one.
    1 January at 12:45 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Then I guess they’ll find the next closest.
    1 January at 12:45 · Like

    Erik Kulick Childish retorts don’t work either.
    1 January at 12:46 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Like that’s going to be especially grievous to me. What are you hoping to achieve?
    1 January at 12:46 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Maybe you’ll happen to be visiting folks on that day and you will get an opportunity to explain to them the things you were unable to explain here.
    1 January at 12:47 · Edited · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Look- you came up with this idea to try to get back at the Mormons who flipped out over a cross dresser in their temple. Why are you so intent on forming a plan that everyone acknowledges is a bad idea?
    1 January at 12:48 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick If you really understood Mormonism (which according to your logic you can’t, given the fact that you never practiced it), you’d understand why I am standing up to ALL harmful ideologies.
    1 January at 12:49 · Edited · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick This is between that person and the Mormons. You’re not involved. Other religions are not involved. Other people are not involved.
    1 January at 12:50 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Wrong.
    1 January at 12:50 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Did the Christians do anything against transvestites? No. Did the Buddhists? No. Did the French? No. You’re turing an isolated incident into a potentially harmful situation by blaming all religions at once.
    1 January at 12:53 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Even other atheists can see your plan is ridiculous. Give it up and start asking yourself how you can help other people instead of aggravating this situation.
    1 January at 12:54 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Why do you bother continuing to engage me if you’re not willing to change your strategy? Simply answering what “Truth” actually is and why your church is so exceptional in disseminating it would have gone a long way. Instead, you, TL;DR, and Damien feel the need to tell me how wrong I am and to attempt to shame me into shutting this down.

    Wait… I think its working! No, sorry, false alarm.
    1 January at 13:02 · Edited · Like

    Erik Kulick Damien, I never said that other non-religious individuals never use hopes and fears to manipulate others, but rather that groups of non-deists tend not to spend their time doing so.
    1 January at 12:59 · Like

    Erik Kulick You are missing the point Eugene.
    1 January at 13:00 · Like

    Erik Kulick So you found me another Christian and an atheist who think this idea is a bad, and I’m supposed to suddenly see the light?
    1 January at 13:01 · Like

    Erik Kulick Nice try Eugene.
    1 January at 13:01 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick No, I’d hope you’d listen because your legally an adult and you have better hopes of achieving your goal through discussion.

    You keep getting at the “Truth” idea. I’m all for talking about it, but not here. Message me.

    This is idea is not a solution to the problems you percieve.
    1 January at 13:04 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick What is your cross dressing going to fix?
    1 January at 13:05 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Sorry, I will not discuss things with you privately. Tell me what “Truth” is here.
    1 January at 13:05 · Like

    Erik Kulick Is your memory really that bad? Insults WILL NOT change my mind.
    1 January at 13:06 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick As I said before, Christ’s life is Truth.

    Now you answer me: how is your cross dressing going to solve the problem you percieve?
    1 January at 13:06 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick You haven’t answered my questions; what makes you think I’m going to answer yours?
    1 January at 13:07 · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I just did.
    1 January at 13:07 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick That’s not an answer.
    1 January at 13:07 · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I believe that Christ’s teachings and actions are truth. That’s my answer.
    1 January at 13:08 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick And I said that days ago.
    1 January at 13:08 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Oh, NOW that makes sense.

    I’m glad we finally cleared that up. Looks like there’s no problem then, as Christ never said anything about cross dressers.
    1 January at 13:09 · Like

    Damien Pagán for the record, are we distinguishing between deists and theists in this conversation? because there’s a difference.
    1 January at 13:09 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m not sure- but I think its a side issue.

    But Erik, what do you think your goal in cross dressing is? What is it going to solve or accomplish?
    1 January at 13:11 via mobile · Like

    Damien Pagán i consider myself nominally a deist because i believe in a higher order fractal symmetry to the universe which to me isn’t indicative necessarily of a personal “God” in the sense which Eugene believes, but in the sense that consciousness is a universal phenomenon, not merely a local one. so, yea. just sayin.
    1 January at 13:11 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Damien, ask Erik what his goal is.
    1 January at 13:13 via mobile · Like · 1

    Erik Kulick That will work.
    1 January at 13:14 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Just spit it out man!
    1 January at 13:14 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick I’m waiting on you.
    1 January at 13:14 · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick How do you think this plan will help people?
    1 January at 13:14 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick 2 real answers to my 2 real questions.
    1 January at 13:15 · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick We’re not talking about truth! That’s not that point of this thread. Stop being dodgy and face the question.
    1 January at 13:15 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I couldnt have stated my answer to your question more succinctly. No answer mine.
    1 January at 13:18 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick BTW, you could have had your answers if you actually read what the event was for in the about section of this fan page.
    1 January at 13:19 · Like

    Erik Kulick You’re right. Your answer was WAY too succinct.
    1 January at 13:19 · Like

    Erik Kulick You know, Eugene, instead of trying to convince me to shut the group down for the past week, you could have formulated thoughtful answers to my questions that actually explain what “Truth” means, beyond the Christian cop-out: “It means Jesus!”
    1 January at 13:26 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Would that have made you shut this group down? No.

    What that what I came here to discuss? No.
    1 January at 13:28 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick And this group’s fan page does not address what wearing opposite gender clothing will achieve. That’s why I asked you.
    1 January at 13:31 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick See, you didn’t even want to discuss. You’re whole purpose was to simply shut the group down.

    I don’t think you really know what “Truth” is, because you seem allergic to the real way of determining it.
    1 January at 13:31 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m not here to discuss truth. I’m here to discuss what your plan will accomplish. Stop stonewalling.
    1 January at 13:32 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick If people want that answer, I’m willing to give it, but not to people who are trying to manipulate me into doing so. It’s really annoying.
    1 January at 13:33 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick You cant reason with the unreasonable.
    1 January at 13:33 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Im not manipulating you; Im just asking.
    1 January at 13:33 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Reason requires being able to question your own beliefs on an issue.
    1 January at 13:34 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Just say it.
    1 January at 13:34 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Something you have CERTAINLY displayed here.
    1 January at 13:34 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Whats your goal?
    1 January at 13:34 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick What is reasonable? A zombie savior compensating for his earthly failures?
    1 January at 13:34 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick What will you accomplish?
    1 January at 13:35 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick How will cross dressing teach the Mormons a lesson?
    1 January at 13:35 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick I’m still waiting for real answers from you before I answer any of your questions. That won’t change, so nagging is pointless.
    1 January at 13:35 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick That was a real answer, and you cant dismiss it. Now get to your purpose.
    1 January at 13:39 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick No it isn’t. It doesn’t make sense. please explain yourself.
    1 January at 13:40 · Like

    Erik Kulick Photos
    We need parents like this in 2013 too!Conceived this wayby: LGBT News

    1 January at 13:40 · Unlike · 2 · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick You’re only looking for truth answers from me; no one else. Damien; ask this kid what his purpose is.
    1 January at 13:40 via mobile · Like

    Damien Pagán what is your purpose?
    1 January at 13:41 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick So if you want truth answers from me personally, personally message me. Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand.

    Thanks Damien.
    1 January at 13:42 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick BTW, you or one of your lovely friends was concerned about what my son would think? He likes wearing girl clothes sometimes. I will love him the same regardless, and unlike those righteous Orthodox guards, will always let him into my house.
    1 January at 13:42 · Like

    Erik Kulick In that case…
    1 January at 13:42 · Like

    Erik Kulick No.
    1 January at 13:43 · Like

    Erik Kulick I’m still waiting….
    1 January at 13:43 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick So you refuse to answer Damien’s question?
    1 January at 13:43 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Yes, it came from you.
    1 January at 13:43 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I think Damien really wants to know. I think you owe us all an explaination.
    1 January at 13:45 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick I won’t answer questions from you, Damien, Mandrew, or Daniel “TL;DR” O’Leary.
    1 January at 13:46 · Like

    Erik Kulick At the very least until I get my answers.
    1 January at 13:47 · Like

    Erik Kulick
    1 January at 13:47 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick So if you’re not willing to discuss this group’s purpose (and I’m at least willing to discuss things with you privately), it becomes clear that your purpose is just to harass others. If you harass others in their own churches, I’m fairly sure thats illegal.
    1 January at 13:49 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day I’m glad you’re the one in law school.
    1 January at 13:50 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day And I’m perfectly willing to discuss it, but not with trolls like you guys.
    1 January at 13:50 · Unlike · 2

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Its a bit funny when you log in under your own name to like your own comment. As if the CDtCD account wasnt your own.

    We’re not trolling you- We’re asking you directly, and we’re asking you to stay on point.
    1 January at 13:54 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Liking posts gets more attention to them, just like all of your pointless rants.

    I don’t give a shit what you or anyone else thinks of it. It’s not about popularity for me, it’s about standing against oppressive hypocrisy and manipulation.
    1 January at 13:57 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick But will your actions change people’s minds?
    1 January at 13:58 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick And how?
    1 January at 13:58 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day You’re trolling me because you just admitted the whole point was to get me to stop. This means you don’t want dialog, you just want to push your POV.
    1 January at 13:58 · Like

    Erik Kulick None of your business, troll.
    1 January at 13:59 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick How will you wearing a dress change people’s minds?
    1 January at 13:59 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I think the religions you attack are none of your business, troll.

    That’s your real purpose: you aim to troll churches.
    1 January at 14:00 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Checkmate. (With Danny Daniel Patrick O’Leary)
    1 January at 14:01 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day No, the difference is I won’t be there to just prove a point. I’m willing to engage with people who show they’re willing to do so with me.
    1 January at 14:03 · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick That’s trolling. Because you can do that same thing without a dress on a different day of the week.
    1 January at 14:04 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Checkmate.
    1 January at 14:04 · Like

    Erik Kulick No. It’s making a statement without words that can easily be engaged with loving curiosity, rather than insults and derision, which you and your friends have displayed here.

    Keep in mind that I haven’t banned you or your thoughtful companions from my page. A move you apparently would feel justified seeing happen to me in your “Christian” church. You don’t value truth, you value being right.
    1 January at 14:08 · Unlike · 1

    Erik Kulick IF that last statement weren’t so, you’d have come seeking understanding in the first place, not as a cover-up for your intended event snuffing.
    1 January at 14:10 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Youre trolling. Offline. In the real world. Its not helpful. Knock it off.
    1 January at 14:14 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Nope.
    1 January at 14:26 · Like

    Michael Ross Olsen If I may insert my one and only comment on this. Arguing like children will not help anyone. That is what you are doing. Eugene, you have not been willing to see things from the other perspective. From what I can tell you will not change. Erik, I am and always will be your friend. You are letting this turn into something that resembles an argument between two elementary school children. Eugene, Erik knows where my beliefs lie, and that they are not always the same as his own. You are doing more damage than good. You both want to be heard, but neither of you are willing to listen. Dialogue will not proceed if none of the involved parties are willing to listen.
    1 January at 15:12 · Like

    Michael Ross Olsen If I may insert my one and only comment on this. Arguing like children will not help anyone. That is what you are doing. Eugene, you have not been willing to see things from the other perspective. From what I can tell you will not change. Erik, I am and always will be your friend. You are letting this turn into something that resembles an argument between two elementary school children. Eugene, Erik knows where my beliefs lie, and that they are not always the same as his own. You are doing more damage than good. You both want to be heard, but neither of you are willing to listen. Dialogue will not proceed if none of the involved parties are willing to listen.
    1 January at 15:15 · Like

    Daniel Patrick O’Leary I commented here twice because I wanted to know what you thought you were going to accomplish. The TL;DR was a poke at myself because I wrote a lot. None of my comments were egged on from Eugene. After reading this I now realize you are a child and nee…See More
    1 January at 15:33 via mobile · Like · 1

    Mandrew George LOL. This is ridiculous. 269 comments. Hahahahaha.
    1 January at 17:34 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick It’s certainly towing a very thin line. From a lawyer friend: “It probably would be a disorerly conduct charge, aka “disturbing the peace.””

    New York Penal Law

    § 240.20 Disorderly conduct.

    A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
    public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk

    1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
    behavior; or

    2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

    3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
    obscene gesture; or

    4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or
    meeting of persons; or

    5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

    6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
    comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

    7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
    which serves no legitimate purpose.

    Disorderly conduct is a violation.

    It says it is a violation, but if you breach it, the cops come, you ignore the cops, the cops will usually arrest you. Also, they can bring a criminal trespassing charge against you too. If you fight them on the arrest, they usually throw in a resisting arrest for good measure.
    1 January at 19:52 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick$$PEN240.20$$@TXPEN0240.20+&LIST=SEA25+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=55494226+&TARGET=VIEWLaws of New York

    1 January at 19:52 via mobile · Like · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick I don’t think anything you do will lead to that, if you’re just there in a dress. But if you’re hoping for more, that’s when you are trying to tow the line.
    1 January at 19:54 via mobile · Like

    Mandrew George “Daddy, why is that man wearing mommies clothes?”
    1 January at 20:37 · Like

    Frank Bonanno Ew Fitz I can’t believe you took the time to look at the grizzly bears no no bits whilst being attacked. You’re sick. I read some of this, not all 300 odd comments and here’s my 2 cents. First, I say go for it on account of the fact that religious types (not you Fitzy) have certainly never shown any sense of remorse or concern about where I am when they feel the need to start their recruitment speeches. They’ll come up to me on the street or while I’m at work. One time a guy brought his adorable cute as could be 6 year old daughter with him to make her hand me the literature so I definitely wouldn’t refuse it. And lord knows I didn’t want to see those fetus heads on display blown up huge back in the U Albany days. Or even something as benign as the but jobs on the corner of hollywood blvd screaming that were all sinners and must repent. Religious people with a point they just need to convey do not think twice about invading our space and quite honestly as much as it annoys the shit out of me when anyone preaches anything unsolicited its their right to do so and more power to them. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and if the rest of us have to put up with it cordially, especially those of us who may or may not think its all a load of cacka any “you” are not imbued with any special authority from an imaginary character, then “you” need to extend the same tolerance. If you’re one of those “heels dug in, wont listen, not interested in change” types, then roll your eyes and look away like we have been doing for you for ever. Let the thing play out though for those who want to take part. As long as no one gets violent then who cares.
    1 January at 20:39 via mobile · Unlike · 2

    Michelle Olsen Tip: If you don’t like it, ignore it?
    1 January at 21:00 · Like · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Yeah, I think that tip works both ways. If Erik doesn’t like religion, he should ignore it. There are two spheres; the public and private. What goes on in the public sphere is fair game- if Erik wants to wear drag in public, ok. If he wants to enter a religious house of worship to go worship, he (and anyone) should be respectful of the rules of that house. Its pretty straightforward.
    1 January at 22:00 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick NY State Law:

    240.21 Disruption, or disturbance of religious service, funeral, burial or memorial service.
    A person is guilty of disruption or disturbance of a religious service, funeral, burial or memorial service when he or she makes…See More
    1 January at 22:02 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Its better if you simply dialogue with church leaders outside of church. You can wear whatever clothes you want. And if you decide to go to church, it should only be to worship God- not to harass others.
    1 January at 22:14 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick Michael, Eugene has made it clear that he disapproves of my event. I’ve considered his reasoning, and feel that it is not convincing enough to override my decision. If he want’s to avoid my questions while drawing more attention to my page with his repetitive rants, then I guess that’s his choice.

    Daniel, taking a page out of your buddy Eugene’s condescending playbook isn’t going to win any favor, even if you post flowery messages about how inclusive your church is or how much Jesus loves me afterward.

    Thanks for the legal advice, Eugene. I’m not going to church with the intent to disrupt anything, so those laws don’t apply to me; I honestly hope everything carries on completely uninterrupted. Maybe then people will start letting go of their prejudices.
    2 January at 02:03 · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick That’s at least a little reassuring- that you’re not going there to make a scene.

    Although, as an open group event, you may have invited other one-time cross dressers who might participate elsewhere with less constraint.

    But your actions start with a presumption: that churches who expect people to wear gender-appropriate clothing are prejudiced. That’s not the case, at least for my church.

    For my church, gender is a main point in human identity. “Male and female, God created them in the beginning.” Crossdressing therefore represents some level of confusion on behalf of the person- or it superficially demonstrates the person is intentionally trying to make a scene. But if a person is male or female, dress in appropriate clothing, which is an outward sign of your identity and respectfulness. If a person is born intersex, they can discuss things with the priest and still dress appropriately.

    It’s not prejudice.
    2 January at 05:55 via mobile · Like

    Daniel Patrick O’Leary Erik, have I been condescending? Just matching your attitude, buddy. I have invited you into serious dialogue and gave you the benefit of the doubt when I asked what your purpose was. You refuse to post it other than some vague, “Let’s show the world that religion has rules that I don’t like and some of them make other people feel really, really bad.” And I actually agree with you. Hypocritical religion is what Jesus was sick of most (ie the Pharisees). But this idea you have doesn’t create the enlightenment you desire, just a disturbance. And you’ve been nothing but condescending and rude, refusing to own up to this idea, which is a bad one.

    I am totally serious about what I said. I’m not being flowery. But since Mormonism has hurt you so much, I truly am sorry for all of this. It really does stink how much hate they have left you with. I assure you, that is not the love of Christ.

    And I’m not looking for your favor. I’m just asking you to be respectful. You don’t have to be. It’s a free country. I just thought I’d reason with you first. These antics don’t scare me at all, nor do they threaten Christianity.

    Seriously. Go for it. Have fun. My only request is that you are open to the love of Christ. If you are merely going to get a reaction, you will get one. I just wish you would let us all know what the point is. The vague one you gave earlier doesn’t help. Especially since you have both Christians and atheists telling you it’s not fruitful and won’t do any good.

    This has gotten far past the level of childish on both sides. The bickering has just left both sides unhappy and more steadfast in what they were already doing, without actually engaging in real conversation. So if we speak again I want it to be in private message form, if you’re up for it. Let me know and we can talk. i don’t have all the answers, but I think we could help each other in real dialogue. This thread is not helping. At all.

    May you find Christ.
    2 January at 06:32 via mobile · Like

    Daniel Patrick O’Leary And honestly, since you’re encouraging people who don’t normally go to church to go to church, that is a huge plus. Just know that some people won’t be so welcoming. But I think you already know that. And don’t mistake a respectful dismissal (if there is one) for somebody judging you. There is a difference.
    2 January at 07:03 via mobile · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day I am not accountable for the actions of others. If anyone chooses to participate, I’ve made it clear that we need to be reverent. Anything otherwise would he legally classified as a disruption or disturbance. If a parishioner makes a scene, then that individual should be charged, not the one peacefully attending a service in modest attire.

    2 January at 16:52 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Creating an arbitrary rule regarding gender, when we can all acknowledge intersexed people are humans too, is illogical and prejudicial, regardless of the organization appeals to some ancient quote to back it up or not.
    2 January at 16:56 · Unlike · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day Daniel, you’re the one coming here w/ your buddy telling me the value of my idea and its outcome w/o engaging ME. I had simple questions that you, the self proclaimed pastor of Christ’s fold, or Eugene could have made half-assed attempts at answering. You didn’t. Instead, all I’ve received was criticism and accusations.

    2 January at 17:03 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day If you guys really sought dialog, you’d engage instead of repeating your assumptions about me. What it seems you really seek is vindication. Read the LDS epistles and stop assuming I “haven’t found Christ” if you really care about “Truth.”
    2 January at 17:06 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day PS, a respectful dismissal is still a judgement being meted out, even if it isn’t personally held by the dismissor.
    2 January at 19:22 · Edited · Unlike · 1

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, we did engage you in dialogue; just not on the subject you were hoping to discuss- but on a more immediate topic- the point of this thread.

    As Ive said ten and twenty time already, if you want to discuss truth, fine, just message me personally.
    2 January at 19:53 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick And as I’ve said before, I will only have discussions with you and your friends here.

    You did not engage me in dialog. You all came to tell me to knock it off without even once attempting to really try to understand what I was doing. You can pretend to redefine words, but it doesn’t change the simple reality.

    At the very beginning of this thread you insisted that the whole point of religion is to teach truth. You then indicated that since this is the case, a person should just accept what they’re taught by religious leaders as truth. This was the whole basis for why you felt there was no point in me carrying out the event. As a result of your ludicrous assertions, I need to better understand what “Truth” is and how one can determine the degree to which “Truth” exists in an organization if I’m going to make a rational decision regarding the event. You refuse to cooperate and provide what should be rather clear and straightforward info, so I guess I’ll just have to stop by an Orthodox church on the 20th. After all, the Orthodox church is supposed to be the “Spring of Truth”, but you can’t answer my questions, even though you asserted your academic superiority on the matter, so off to a service I will go.
    Sunday at 00:18 · Edited · Like

    Erik Kulick BTW, your attetmpt at private messaging me only further convinced me of the similarities between the types of Christianity practiced by the Mormon and Orthodox churches. Trying to squish OT & NT deity together into one being is illogical. That god would be a walking, or flying, paradox.
    2 January at 21:40 · Like

    Erik Kulick But alas Paul and Matthew were obsessed with solidifying the Jewish link to Christianity, so we have self-contradicting “Christian” groups like the Mormon and Orthodox churches.
    3 January at 01:47 · Edited · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Little of these last three posts makes sense.

    I sent you a message- ergo, that demonstrates similarities between Orthodoxy and Mormonism? I fail to see your connection.

    No matter how similar or different you correctly or incorrectly compare Mormonism to anything else, two facts regarding this group remain immutable:

    1) The trigger-event which inspired you to create this idea took place at a Mormon temple, and only at a Mormon temple.

    2) The cross-dressing community, to which you do not belong Erik, and which is full of big grown adult men who can handle their own business, had not responded to this incident in the same manner as you.

    You are well-intentioned ( at least you think you are), but you’ve been told by all different types of people with a wide variety of beliefs that your idea is terrible.

    Stop trying to be some sort of moral teacher, heroically and quietly exposing hypocrisy and illogic in the world. You haven’t taken the time to study other religions. Stick to the religion you know; stick to religion where this incident took place.
    3 January at 07:33 via mobile · Like

    Eugene Fitzpatrick And let transvestites speak for themselves. They dont need you doing it for them.
    3 January at 07:34 via mobile · Like

    Erik Kulick The *content* of your message only further convinced me of the similarities between Mormonism and “Christianity”, Eugene. Yeah, your act of messaging me is what further convinced me…

    1) The “trigger event” that inspired this did not take place at a Mormon temple, and even if it did, it doesn’t change the fact that Mormons aren’t the only community infected with paradoxical doctrine.

    2) One of my more vocal transgendered friends was scared off by your incessant closed-minded arrogance, but that doesn’t change the fact that I love her as much as I love everyone else on this Flying Spaghetti monster forsaken planet. I am still willing to do something as benign as dressing up as a different gender and respectfully attending multiple church services in honor of all those who’ve been marginalized, oppressed, or harmed in any way by people claiming to communicate with some higher power as justification, no matter how hard you try to convince me to change my plans.

    You bringing on a token atheist and hipster pastor to tell me off doesn’t constitute a group of “all different types of people with a wide variety of beliefs” telling me my idea is terrible. Even if it did, I’m not doing this to please anyone, so unless you want to at least pretend to care about “Truth” and discuss it, you’re wasting your time here.

    Oh you mean like Jesus? That is why he is purported to have clung to so much of that Judaism in his teachings after all…

    Have you counseled with a large segment of the transgendered community before making that determination?
    Sunday at 00:38 · Like

    Erik Kulick PS, it’s almost time to ask Facebook to help pick the dress! Aren’t you excited?
    Sunday at 00:40 · Like

    Cross Dress to Church Day Photos
    You see?Conceived this wayby: LGBT News

    Sunday at 11:30 · Like · Remove Preview

    Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, if I’ve never been made to eat my shoe before….

    How many posts do I have in this thread? How many minutes spent in fervid key mashing?

    And tonight… Well, I’ll just tell you:

    So, I found out tonight about a certain man, who is living as a woman. He was married to a woman once; she bore him a child before dying when his daughter was 13. This man would beat his wife and child, and do other loveless acts towards them. After his wife’s death, this man began to don woman’s clothing, and eventually abandoned his daughter to pursue his life as a female. He took a woman’s name, and under NY law, recently married another man. His daughter wants no contact with him, or with the family she’s started.

    And this man occasionally attends services at an Orthodox monastery near my house. In drag. In the monastery, which has even stricter regulations about gender than any regular parish church. And what’s more remarkable, he is sometimes communed, although under his baptismal name, which is male.

    This is very surprising to me.

    The difference here however, is that this man comes to church not to discuss the sins of of others, but simply to pray to a God he believes in. Not to discuss, not to debate, or seek a reaction; and not to just stand there as a disbeliever with nothing to do on a Sunday.

    This is my last post here; I won’t be bothering to read any replies.

    Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
    9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

    Frank Bonanno Way to end it. Way to end it. Althought we should bat it around till we hit an even 300. Seems sad to fall just short. How was your day you magnificent man.
    9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1

    Cross Dress to Church Day Who ever Jesus was, this is why his purported advise to “judge not” is so profound. If a person has done harm to another, then society is under obligation to step in one way or another to rectify the situation. Beyond that, there is no need to criminalize behaviors or assume malicious intention toward anyone unnecessarily. I don’t need to view the man as a savior to gain value from any wisdom attributed to him.

    I hope you do read the responses and reply; it would be a shame not to further benefit from this learning experience.
    8 hours ago · Unlike · 1

    Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

    Dempublican Lamentations

    Below is a Facebook conversation between Willamette University law students about the strategy of autovoting #Dempublican, compared with the strategy of pushing to collectively find a candidate worth supporting on a sufficient number of issues. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate running a campaign in 2016 who meets this threshold AND who also has the experience and popularity to win!

    Lets encourage Bernie to completely discontinue the use of weaponized drones on our fellow humans when he is president. He may not be a war hawk like the others, but he can use a little help crafting better foreign policies. I have confidence in his willingness to see the views of others, given his record, and am sure that reason could always be talked into him if there is a better course of action.

    Avoid the mistakes of my classmates–Be sure to vote for Bernie and for #SandersDems in Congress as well to ensure this a political revolution instead of just another election!

    Michael HicksErik M Kulick

    9 November at 17:01 near Salem ·
    Okay, Facebook has been around for three election cycles now and in each one the third party candidates together have failed to garner 2% of the vote. Obviously, the social media plan isn’t working. If you are going to take this 3rd party stuff seriously, the focus needs to shift from running presidential candidates to gathering local seats and gaining respect for the party from the bottom up.
Like ·
    Michael Jared Farnbach, Jennifer Beth and 2 others like this.

    Erik Kulick: You still don’t get it Michael Hicks.
10 November at 11:32 · Unlike · 1

    Erik Kulick: Do you understand the concept of a long term strategy?
10 November at 11:32 · Unlike · 1

    Erik Kulick: It’s not my fault so many Americans love their religious obsessions. Don’t worry, I won’t give up on you guys. I have patience. It’s required for long term strategies. You still haven’t explained how you and the rest of the loyal Dems plan to undo the harms your party is ramping up with its Siamese twin, the Repub party.
10 November at 11:35 · Like

    Edwin Shoaf: Also, i think what Hicks just described there is the very definition of a long-term strategy.
10 November at 11:48 · Like · 6

    Erik Kulick: The point is that if we don’t demand necessary changes from our politicians like creating political market diversity, eliminating money from elections completely, heavily restricting the ability of politicians to earn and access money during and even a for a number of years after their service, and the creation of a pro-jury, any attempt to get anything of substance out of any politician, Dempublican or not, for the long term will be futile.
15 November at 18:28 · Like

    Erik Kulick: The odds of Democrats or Republicans touching these things with any seriousness is fairly slim. There may be a few rouge standouts, but if after those standouts are edged out by more mainstream candidates, like Dennis Kucinich was by Obama, to continue to vote for candidates who have proven themselves to be beholden to corporate interests in the main elections only further legitimizes their agenda and emboldens them to take bigger steps in the wrong direction. Like I told Michael yesterday at school, I have no problem w/ people registering as Dems or Repubs and trying to use the primaries to influence the direction of the party, but to keep supporting the party after it has selected candidates who have proven themselves unwilling or unable to represent the voters by at the very least preserving their Constitutional rights is asinine.

    Michael insists that the Obama administration must keep pushing the section in the NDAA as a function of his office, but like the cops who could have refused to give me the $1000 ticket for smoking a bowl in protest before the election on the sidewalk next to the capitol building, as a human being he could refuse to fill the administrative role of his job in protest of the unjust law. Besides, Obama has a greater duty to uphold the Constitution, so as a former Conlaw prof, he should be more sensitive to this fact.
15 November at 18:40 · Like

    Michael Hicks: How is that even slightly analogous? Besides you are mischaracterizing my position… again. I never said it was merely a function of the office.
16 November at 09:21 · Like

    Erik M Kulick: In both cases, executive officers decided to uphold functional duties of their jobs, when neither, as rational beings, had to follow through.

    “The Obama administration insists that the indefinite detention provisions of the legislation are necessary are necessary for the safety and security of our nation, a claim that Hedges and his colleagues have condemned whole-heartedly in the ten months since the NDAA went on the books. Journalists and human rights activists insist that Section 1021 actually allows the government to label any American citizen as a suspected terrorist and then treat them accordingly.” Court upholds NDAA; stay extended on indefinite detention injunction — RT 
rt.comA federal appeals court has extended a stay on the injunction blocking the notor…See more

16 November at 18:39 via mobile · Like · Remove Preview

    Michael Hicks: I love it, you don’t trust any information coming out of our government. But if the story is coming from a fully federally funded source in Russia, then that info is solid.
16 November at 19:48 · Like

    Erik M Kulick: I’m not sure why you’re getting defensive over the quote and its source; This motion for an immediate stay reflects its accuracy quite clearly: Motion to Stay 2nd Circuit

18 November at 20:03 · Like · Remove Preview

    Erik M Kulick: Also, you avoided my other points.
18 November at 20:05 · Like

    Michael Hicks: My point is that you’ve become so blinded by ideology that you’ll grab onto anything that supports your view, even trash journalism like RT. I avoided your other points because they’ve been rehashed many times over by now. If you want me to address your point, go read page 3 of the motion, it’s clear as day there. They want a decision from the supreme court. That’s all you are getting out of me. You aren’t looking for a discussion, you are just looking for an audience to shout at.
18 November at 22:10 · Like

    Erik Kulick: I’m glad to see that your political religion has counseled you well on the sources of truth. How do you know your news sources aren’t selling you out?

    I referenced an article which explained that Obama is insisting that the provision is important for the safety and security of our nation. This is not in conflict with the message given in the motion, so I’m not sure why you’re getting so worked up about the source. The Obama admin is pushing to go to the Supremes BECAUSE he insists that section 1021 is necessary. I said it a dozen times already, I’ll say it again: Obama does NOT have to push to check the validity of the law. It’s blatantly obvious that the law is attempting to limit the right to due process for someone, even if it is supposed to only be “terrorists” who are affected. He can let his successor dare to push on the initial rulling and he can stop insisting on an emergency administrative stay while he’s at it. 

I find it odd that you still view the actions by the Obama administration as attempts at trying to prove the law to be unconstitutional. Even if it can be loosely argued that the provision can’t be applied to Americans, to support the deprivation of due process of any living soul is appalling.

    You can hide behind your derision of my tone all you want. The bottom line is you’ve got shitty reasons to support a war criminal. I forgive you, just don’t make the same mistake next time.
20 November at 21:29 · Like

    Michael Hicks: A war criminal? You’re acting like I voted for Kony (what a joke, after that whole Kony2012 campaign, the dude wasn’t even on the ballot). You forgive me? Don’t make the same mistake next time? I’ll exercise my right to vote however I please. I don’t respond well to tacit threats, you can kindly go fuck yourself.
20 November at 21:49 · Unlike · 2

    Erik M Kulick: You can rationalize you support of a politician who actively uses remote controls to kill inferior humans all you want. Hopefully America can look back on its mistake and better understand the Germans of Hitler’s day. Milgram strikes again!
20 November at 22:17 · Like

    Joe Scovel: Lol, Nazi references. The fringe lunatic hail Mary pass.
20 November at 22:38 via mobile · Like · 3

    Michael Hicks: Godwin’s Law telling me this conversation has gone on too long.
20 November at 22:40 via mobile · Like · 1

    Erik M Kulick: Yes Joe, bringing up Nazi’s invalidates my arguments. How are Hitler’s actions worse than those of our presidents? Number of deaths? Motivation? Because we are trying to defend our nation from legitimate threats our leaders’ actions are justified? Do you guys not understand the terrible precedent we’ve set by allowing the use of remote control in war? At least Hitler had the goddamn balls to send humans in to do his dirty work.

    This nation is doomed if you guys are the kinds of lawyers American institutions are churning out.
Wednesday at 14:52 via mobile · Like

    Michael Hicks: Yes… it does. I suggest you take a good look at the third video, you sound just like the ideologues on Hannity’s panel.—hitler-reference—sean-hannity-s-holy-sausage-festDaily Show: A Relatively Closer Look – Hitler Reference 
www.thedailyshow.comPlease stop calling people Hitler when you disagree with them.

Wednesday at 17:24 · Like · Remove Preview

    Michael Hicks: I didn’t realize this shit was being broadcast to people on my friend’s list. They shouldn’t have to be subjected to this. I’m deleting the thread in the next day or so, get your shots in while you can.
Wednesday at 17:27 · Edited · Like

    Joe Scovel: I’m not quite sure what I just saw there. The argument to the absurdest claim that Obama=Hitler is that Hitler was better than Obama? W-H-A-C-K-O. As long as we’re playing fast and loose with the analogies. I will submit that the Vikings were the greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the world has ever seen, ergo, anyone who looks like a Viking probably expounds their rapacious philosophy. NO arguments. ipso post facto ergo tanto, donzo.
Wednesday at 17:36 · Like

    Erik M Kulick: What a shame Michael, I thought you’d like to have your friends see you defending your hero’s honor.

    Joe, I’m arguing that both the holocaust AND drone usage are terrible war crimes. ANY number of people dying as a result of cowardly behavior is inexcusable. You can rationalize your support for murdering regimes all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re downplaying the severity of the leaders you defend because you THINK you have no other options. It really is a shame that so many people succumb to this faith-based error.
Thursday at 19:41 · Like

    Michael Hicks: … I don’t think the guy is a mass murderer and suddenly he’s my hero. Besides, contrary to your view on things, the people I know deserve to be able to live their lives without being browbeaten into agreeing with me on everything issue. I’d like for the people in my life to continue to be able to tolerate my presence.

    “ANY number of people dying as a result of cowardly behavior is inexcusable.” Says the guy using electronics made in Chinese sweatshops. (Don’t think I haven’t forgotten your bullshit reasoning that it is okay for you to do it because ultimately you are using the electronics to help “change the system”). Also you mention getting busted for smoking pot in front of the capital. Can you 100% confirm your source is completely local? Up to 2/3 of the marijuana in the country has ties to Mexico and the cartels. You could very well be financially supporting the violent deaths of thousands of civilians.
17 hours ago · Like

    Michael Godfrey: Congratulations, everyone in this room is now dumber for listening to your answer and may God have mercy on your soul…
14 hours ago via mobile · Like

    Erik M Kulick: It’s a good thing you’re so specific Michael Godfrey. The fact that you replied under Michael Hicks’ comment and didn’t direct it toward any individual makes it look like you were talking to him.

    How many kills puts someone at the level of mass murder, Michael Hicks? Do you really believe that because Obama is only targeting “terrorists”, it makes his murders more acceptable? At least I’m actively trying to show people why they shouldn’t support the corrupt and incompetent politicians who allow our nation to do business with those places.

    You still haven’t actually addressed any of my questions. You really are good at the whole “speaking without saying anything” technique your president used to get himself elected.
A few seconds ago · Like


    Posted in Politics, Religitics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

    LDS Epistles

    The text bellow is a compilation of most of the Facebook conversation threads I participated in during the appellate brief writing portion of law school this past spring. I delivered a bound copy to an LDS apostle this past August right after a Mormon regional conference in order to help draw attention to the many issues within the church and in American society at large.

    Please excuse the unedited nature of the document; unlike the original epistles, I wanted mine to have the full conversation preserved as completely as possible. If truth can emerge from anything, it’s dialog, not the religious rantings of one man.

    EARTHLY TERM, 2012
    CASE NO. 12-1842








    Erik Kulick

    shared a link.
    What happens in a Mormon church when someone tries to share a differing view.
    • Jason Piedrasanta Not worth my time…
    • April Nunez um let me are told you are wrong and to repent?
    • Erik Kulick Here is the link… I guess the Apple Youtube and Facebook apps don’t like each other…


      As can be seen in the video. A Mormon steps up during a “Testimony Meeting” at h…See more
    • Erik Kulick That’s the problem Jason.
    • April Nunez You can’t share your testimony on issues if they don’t conform to church standards. Members do not care that they are taking away the agency of another group of people because they are told that it will destroy life as they know it. They must then be forced to marry gays in their church and to have gay agenda taught in their schools etc etc. They must stop the gay agenda before it starts to take down the church.
    • Brittany Turner wow. inspiring, sad, disappointing, and frustrating.
    • April Nunez More power to him for speaking out.
    • Daniel Murphree Oh come on now. Video camera prepared in the audience and a script to speak from? This guy wasn’t defending some deep seated belief, he was trying to stir up trouble. He was up there just to make this video and probably hoped that they would wrestle him to the ground or something. If someone walked in to your house and insisted that your [insert belief here] was totally wrong and he had that straight from [insert authority you actually care about] you wouldn’t just let him talk on and on. Especially if he was reading it from a script and had a camera behind him.
    • Brittany Turner so what if it was staged? the reaction certainly wasn’t. it’s important to shed light on the issue, and i applaud him for doing so (whether the event was spontaneous and wholly authentic or not).
    • Daniel Murphree You have no idea how far the staging went. For all you know people who would go to the trouble of staging a script and camera to stand up in a private religious meeting to cause contention would have no qualms about staging a whole meeting to stand in front of so they could make sure they got the reaction they were hoping for. You don’t know this guy from Adam, and you have no way of saying that anything is authentic. Not that I am saying the entire thing was staged, just that you have no idea yourself that it wasn’t.

      As for bravery for standing up, this guy showed no more bravery doing this that the idiots who dress in costumes and harass people so they can post a video on you tube like this guy:

      He was videoing a reaction, just like kangaroo man there, and wasn’t “getting a message out”. If he want’s to get out a message, video the message.
    • Brittany Turner Fair enough. But the point remains intact – the LDS is engaging in discriminatory, unfair, and essentially un-Christian behavior by continuing to shun, abuse, and malign the LGBT community. The fact that LDS has extended those same behaviors to any who criticize these practices also remains true.
    • Rex White Jr It is interesting how people are so quick to point out discriminatory behavior when it is coming from Mormons but so slow and non-existent when it is discrimination being hurled at Mormons. Go back and read Reynolds v. US and tell me that there wasn’t religious discrimination taking place in that decision. Mormons are upholding the Constitution, the Defense of Marriage Act and support legislation that does the same.
    • Daniel Murphree The LDS defense of proposition 8 has almost nothing to do with maligning the LGBT community and everything to do with defending the definition of marriage, which is a religious concept and remains so. The Church has expressly stated that it is not opposed to homosexual civil unions being permitted and rewording of laws that are concerning to homosexuals because of the definition of marriage in such a way as to handle civil unions and marriages the same, we are just opposed to marriage being redefined. If the LGBT community were extending the same respect they are demanding from everyone else then they would respect this and if they were really mainly interested in equal treatment under the law then they would be fine with laws being changed so that civil unions would count the same as a marriage under the law. People in a civil union are still free to, and customarily do, refer to themselves as married without asking the law to redefine the definition of a word that has had the same usage for centuries.

      But the resounding message (though not spoken) is that the community wants to dictate what churches are allowed to believe in. As April said above, if marriage is allowed to be redefined how much further until religions are forced to allow marriages that are against their beliefs? The adoption thing she also mentioned is a prime example since there have already been issues in that field. The Catholic church had to choose closing down adoption agencies in Massachusetts because the alternative was going against their beliefs and allowing homosexual couples to adopt from them. This is a clear violation of their religious freedom, it is not like there are no other places that people can adopt from so why should the Catholic church be required to allow the adoptions?

      Required acceptance of the LGBT community is akin to required acceptance of the BDSM “community” to these churches and (hopefully) no one is asking for people to accept the BDSM community as normal just because some people enjoy it.
    • Brittany Turner not sure why pointing out the flaws with mormonism somehow implies that there has not been discrimination against mormons, as well. no one was suggesting that they haven’t also experienced adversity, but two wrongs certainly don’t make a right…
    • Daniel Murphree I’ll stop there because I know I can’t change your mind, and you know you can’t change mine. I’ve had my say, just hopefully you could try to be as open minded as you are asking others to be.
    • Brittany Turner daniel, that’s the third time you’ve tried to redirect the discussion from the actual issue at hand, and i think it’s wise to stop engaging in the comments. if you wanted to talk about the actual topic instead of bringing up unrelated and extremely sensationalized “arguments,” it’d be a different story. i think i am a very open minded person, but it doesn’t change the fact that i believe discrimination is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.
    • Rex White Jr I am referring to discrimination toward Mormons on the very issue of marriage.
    • Rex White Jr The Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress of this Country defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Until that changes there ins’t much to talk about other than you (Birttany) can attempt to influence others to vote for politicians that will repeal it and I will continue to attempt to influence others to vote for politicians who will uphold it.
    • Daniel Murphree Sorry, I must have missed exactly what the issue at hand is after all. Are you upset they were discriminating against that poor fellow who staged a talk? I thought the issue was discrimination against the LGBT community, which is what I addressed since the discrimination is supposedly being shown by the whole gay marriage question.
    • Mitchell Peterson Daniel, you fairly criticized the staging of this video as a disrespectful stunt. Why do you think the church was against Prop 8 assuming the church isn’t opposed civil unions as you said?
      Do you think this is similar to the adoption flap and that the real issue is money? When churches didn’t want to place mixed races together after civil rights legislation the feds threatened to withdraw funding if church adoption centers continued to segregate races so the churches began that practice in order to not lose their subsidy from the government.
      Such that the issue here is about the potential for the feds to hold/withdraw funding, making this a fight for subsidy not for recognition of “eternal principles”.
      It’s about government muscling in on churches historical priviledge. If that’s the case I have some (limited) sympathy for the church-nobody likes to lose power; though the controversy is also of their own making. If they were to accept gay marriage then there would be no controversy and no loss of power/funding. I predict that American legislation will beget a revelation about love for all of God’s children throughout the world.
    • Dave Kyle · 4 mutual friends

      So what is the “reaction” I was supposed to see in that video?
    • Rex White Jr Mitchell, that revelation you speak of has already come out in “The Family: a Proclamation to The World.” It clearly states that all are loved by our Heavenly Father. It is also clear that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Homosexuality is a choice. Until a gay gene is scientifically proven there is no other discussion about it. Lots of money has been poured into finding this elusive gene that could have been spent feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless.
    • Dave Kyle · 4 mutual friends

      Guy in video: “The Holy Spirit has guided me here today to talk to you and tell you the Church has it all wrong…” = Progressive, enlightened, good, true Christian, ‘un-orthodox’ Mormon views, we must all listen to him.

      Any other faithful member of the Church: “I know this is Christ’s church and we are led by a living prophet of God…” = Tripe, idiot following with blind faith, repeating words with no meaning, racist, homophobe, close-minded intolerant.
      Is that about it?
    • Laura Sheffield · 2 mutual friends

      What about that ward in the bay area that has tried really hard to reconcile with its former and current lgbt members and families?

      I know this is only a drop in the bucket to repair the rift between the LDS church and the lgbt community. I just think it is an okay counter example to that weird video.

      Anecdotally, in my family there is no place for bigotry. My parents, who are active members of the LDS faith, love their gay friends and family. When they say their church is true, they mean it. I don’t know jaw they deal with the dichotomy of rights for their lgbt loved ones and their faith’s views on it.

      Frankly I’m hoping for a turnaround like the religion did with the priesthood and black people or polygamy. Change is change.

      When members of San Francisco’s LDS Bay Ward want to meet with the bishop, they’ll call Mitch Mayne.
    • Diana Kyle · 2 mutual friends

      I wonder if the word “church” and the phrase “some people in the church” were exchanged, it would be a more accurate statement and accusation as to how anyone that does not share the same beliefs as another member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does is thereby shunned. I know that I am a member of this church, I do not shun, I am not taught to shun….and I am taught to love my neighbor and to judge not lest I be judged. I do know however there are people of all faiths that do feel it is their duty to shun and somehow do not relate this practice to judging others. Well there is my 2 cents.
    • Daniel Murphree @ Mitchell One quote I’m thinking of is this, straight from an LDS Press release:

      “The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”

      The Church isn’t saying homosexuals should have not rights, just that they should not be allowed to usurp religious rights or terminology.

      The “adoption flap” goes beyond mere money since denial of state recognition of a religion goes beyond just beginning to charge that religion taxes. It is officially declaring that one group of people’s belief (LGBT) is more important than another group’s (in that case Catholics) to the state. That’s expressly against the first amendment. In other countries where the precedent has been set to rule against churches in favor of the LGBT community we see further suppression of religious freedoms, such as here

      Things like this are what the Church is against and the real issue in contention.

      Also, seeing as there was no response to my query about if the issue here was discrimination against this particular video producer I will have to assume that was the real question for Brittany. To that I have to say that I did address this issue in my first post. This man wasn’t discriminated against. Even if he was a church member, which we can’t know, he was an invited guest at a private meeting on private property. This wasn’t discrimination any more than asking someone with distasteful opinions that is just trying to get a reaction to leave your house. If I had stood up at a Gay Rights rally at the podium and started with “You know I was reading some research and I’ve decided you are all wrong. Homosexuality is clearly not hereditary or a correct practice…” I would expect a similar reception and definitely wouldn’t have expected to be allowed to finish saying my piece. Would that make me brave? I’d be standing up for what I believe in too, though in the most stupid way and stupid place possible. If it’s not discrimination from one group, you can’t count the same as discrimination from another.

      Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the f…See more
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      Daniel, you’re WAY more eloquent and patient than I am! Thanks…
    • Erik Kulick The main point for posting the video was to show how poorly dissenting views are generally handled by church leadership. Back in the day Brigham Young and Orson Pratt publicly debated over the nature of intelligence, now, if you don’t put on that white shirt and tie and maintain allegiance to the leadership and their directives, you are likely to find yourself in a very lonely place. Even if this entire video was staged, it still does a decent job at conveying what such an experience would entail.

      Dave, the point of the post wasn’t to try to prove the correctness of a particular dissent, but to show the danger of wholesale acceptance of religious teachings. That’s not to say that listening to religious leaders automatically creates those forms of intolerance, but it is unfortunately a common breading ground for such hatred.

      Laura, I’m glad to see that there are pockets of the faithful who are going above and beyond what is expected of them, I just hope that love and tolerance can win out over hatred and bigotry at the end of the day.

      As far as gay marriage is concerned, just because some religious institutions have doctrinal stances specifically defining marriage to be between a man and woman only, doesn’t mean that there aren’t valid religious (or non-religious) views which are inclusive of homosexual couples in their definitions. The biggest problem with the way the church has handled this situation is they have used the rights of others as shields for their own. I can understand and will even defend a religious institution’s right to refuse to participate in activities that go against its doctrine, but that line should not be drawn in such a way that it subsumes the rights of another.

      Rex, homosexuality isn’t a choice or genetic, its the product of hormonal exposure.


      Yesterday (9/23/2010) Dr. William Bradshaw of BYU’s Department of Microbiology a…See more
    • Rex White Jr I’ll side with the person who speaks with God and receives revelation for the entire world. It is an interesting take on where it originates from but there is far from enough proof to substantiate such a theory.
    • Erik Kulick Just because you believe that your religious leaders speak to God, doesn’t mean they actually do; there are a few other thriving religions who believe their guys possess that authority, and equal weight should be given to their religious rights.

      The idea that homosexuality is a biological restraint on overpopulation created in a mothers womb makes more sense than insisting that individuals who struggle in vain to change their sexuality in order to comport with their religious convictions have a choice in the matter.
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      Erik, you keep refering to ‘rights’. What are these rights that are being subsumed? No one is stopping you from living with another boy, or 8 or 10 for that matter. Why must we call that ‘marriage’? What you seem to want is to live by whatever rules you think are right, AND be counted among the worthy members of a church that believe that these things are fundamentaly wrong. ??? Why is that?
      All this makes about as much sense as me joining another faith and standing up to preach the Book of Mormon to them. Then, of course, I’d be offended when they said they didn’t believe in that. I’d then say, “But I’m just a Methodist that has un-orthodox views, I believe in the Book of Mormon!”
    • Erik Kulick I don’t care if I’m counted among the “worthy” members or not. The idea of worthiness is one of the most hypocritical and self-serving concepts ever conceived by the religious.

      The church’s stance on gay marriage and decision to interfere with it is just one of many qualms I have with the church and its teachings. Even though I no longer associate with the church personally, I have children who attend, so you better believe that I will be scrutinizing what they do and don’t do.

      I don’t want to live by whatever rules I think are right, I want those who are deciding what those rules are in our society to do so objectively instead of just accepting what pious people insist to be truth. That’s not to say that all religious doctrines are wrong, just that there may be exceptions to rules which are only discoverable when one drills down in to the reasons why something is right or wrong.
    • Rex White Jr Well said Kyle. Erik, I know you have a jaded view of some of the doctrines and I accept that. Not sure what exactly it was that put you down that path but I suspect is was someone who didn’t read section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants very well. In my experience that is the source of a great majority of the time. I have several friens who engage in homosexual behaviors. I still love them and so does God. God still loved the Romans who carried out the execusion of His Son and the Pharises who condemned Him to death. God’s love does not translate into acceptance of sinful behavior. Love the sinner not the sin. I love my friends but do not approve of their lifestyle. People have different challenges in this existence. My challenges are different then your’s. The bottom line is we are all going to be held accountable for how we used our agency. That is something you fought for in the pre-existence. That is why it is sad when people use that fought for agency to blatently disobey the commandment of God. Homosexuality being a sin isn’t a made up Mormon doctrine it is very clearly stated in the Bible (old and new testaments).
    • Daniel Murphree @Erik How exactly did the leadership handle that poorly? That was a sacrament meeting, not a public debate forum. It was neither the time nor the venue to bring up views that are directly contradictory to the views expressed by the Church, debate is not what fast and testimony meeting is about. I’m not familiar with the Brigham Young and Orson Pratt debates, though early Church leaders debating would not surprise me, but I would be willing to venture that they did not hold these debates during sacrament meeting. There is a proper time and a proper place for everything, and the only thing this man showed is that he has no concept of this fact. It seems to me that these church leaders acted quite appropriately as far as was able to be seen on camera. I would hope that later they took the time to explain to the poor confused individual what the word appropriate means.

      Also, it does seem pretty clear that you do not want to have everyone live by whatever rules they believe to be correct, like you said, because you believe that only people who agree with you should be allowed to set the rules. You want to be justified by “society” in the rules you want to follow while others are not allowed to live according to their beliefs.

      You seem to think, and please correct me if I’m wrong because I’m only going off of your statements here, that my belief in my church leaders is some sort of blind faith and it is inconceivable that anyone might have studied these things out for themselves in their own heart and mind and come to a different conclusion than what you have. Frankly that is quite insulting. I’ve never followed the church doctrines blindly and I don’t think that church leaders asking the members in California to stand up for what they believe in (yes what the members believe in because one of the first tenets of our religion is that the prophet DOES speak to God) is the church “using the rights of others to shield its own” any more than the Wikipedia blackout protest was Wikipedia “using” the rights of its patrons. The Church was calling attention to an issue that affects it members. The members were still free to vote however they chose, no apostle stood in the booth with them pointing a gun or even asked how they voted after they came out.

      As to homosexuality being genetic or environmental, what does the cause really matter? Humans enjoying sex is a deep seated genetic trait, almost every church I know still teaches against premarital sex. Teaching that sex is sacred and only to be used in the proper type of relationship, oh hey unless you happen to be gay! That would be a hypocritical double standard. But Dallin H. Oaks says it much better than I, about the 9th bold face question down:

      Unfortunately also relevant:
    • Erik Kulick What set me down the “path” of disbelief was actually an intense desire to learn things that would help me defend the church from its “attackers”. I believed in the church and everything it teaches for a long time. I even had miraculous experiences which I automatically attributed to God, and used as confirmation of all the things the church teaches (as we are endlessly taught to do). It is a myth created by church leaders that most people who disaffect do so as a result of increased levels or different varieties of sin. There may be a behavioral adjustment as the individual tries to figure the world out for themselves, and unfortunately, sometimes that person gets wrapped up in some messy stuff as a pendulum reaction the oppressive nature of their experience, but it is disingenuous to assume that they lost their faith as a result of something that can be written off easily.

      Personally, I just got to a point after listening to all of the arguments for and against the church, where I realized that the whole idea that people receive divine revelation or aid from deity was problematic. I realized that just because the world is wondrous and certain ideas and principles that are pondered by the religious touch upon the deep and profound, doesn’t mean that there necessarily is a God. Alternatively, if a God exists, he or she would be unlikely to involve him or herself with the affairs of men. That being would abstain from interfering, simply because any level of interference would unduly aid or burden the individual or those around them. I still believe that there is something great and wondrous going on in conjunction with our existence, but I am now hesitant to definitively say exactly what that is. Besides, I have found that the more people seek to be better people for the sake of being better people, the greater their success, and the more that people try to be better people in order to avoid eternal damnation (or celestial demotion) or gain salvation (or exaltation), the more limited that growth ends up being.

      To insist that someone’s behavior is sinful is still judgmental and presumptuous. It’s one thing to observe the general benefits and consequences of specific behaviors and try to advise people on how to live a happier and more productive life, it’s another thing to presume that the moral severity of another’s actions is greater than the actions of one’s self. If there is a God who actually cares about the things we do, then let her sort it out.

      I think the leader handled it poorly because he quietly rebuked and silenced the individual instead of letting him speak what was in his heart. A testimony meeting should be about people sharing what they believe, not a ritualistic echo chamber repeating the same mantras over and over and telling stories that confirm the party line. That sounds eerily similar to something called a rameumptom. While I no longer believe in the divinity of those early leaders callings, I have gained a new found respect for the way they were able to create and lead such a progressive religion for their time. They would be shocked to see how much the organization they put so much of their blood sweat and tears into, has devolved. They used to encourage questioning, now its viewed as a weakness at best.

      I never said that only people who agree with me should be able to set the rules, I just want who ever is in charge of that task to exercise a bit of logic, reasoning, and compassion as they go about their job. I never said people shouldn’t be allowed to live according to their beliefs, I just don’t approve when they use their beliefs as justification to infringe on the rights of others to live according to theirs.

      Whether or not you personally operate on blind faith or have studied things out matters little to me. How you personally operate is up to you, and I will gladly defend your right to pursue which ever path you chose in whatever way you chose it.

      The church may believe it is doing the right thing when it encourages its members to vote against the rights of others, but that doesn’t automatically make it right. It may not believe that it is using the rights of others to shield its own, but it is. Just because the church didn’t use threat of violence to influence their members, doesn’t mean they were mere bystanders in the equation. They have the ability to mobilize large numbers of well organized and talented individuals in order to exert great influence on the outcome of weighty matters, so they need to be extra careful when wielding that power. People have a right to be treated as equals, and if that means letting homosexuals marry and partake of ALL of the benefits of such a union, then so be it. Religious institutions should be allowed to refuse to directly participate in things that are contrary to their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they have a right to obstruct the freedom of people with whom they disagree.

      It matters greatly if it turns out that God cares about sexuality and homosexuality is biological instead of elective. Boyd Packer said it best in the line that was omitted from the official transcript of his divinely inspired talk:

      “Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what
      they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the
      unnatural,” he said. “Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that
      to anyone?”

      I have known multiple people in the church who have tried with all their might to “be straight” in order to comply with what the truly believed to be God’s word, yet their efforts were futile. To create people who are unable to be attracted to the opposite sex and expect them to conform with rules that would prevent them from ever experiencing the fullness of love is the most sadistic thing a being could do, so if a God exists, he is either flawed, or our assumptions of what she expects of us is flawed. Dictating the sex lives of its membership is one of the most harmful things that the church has done. Far too often Mormons end up with dysfunctional or unsatisfying sexual relationships as a result of the gender-specific conditioning that goes on with the young men and women. The females are taught that they are impure if they lose their virginity before marriage, and are often taught with object lessons that entail passing around a treat that is somehow defiled through poking it or spiting on it, and comparing them to the cupcake if they are not chaste. The males are taught to be chaste as well, but the emphasis is not as strong as it is with the females. This results in women who are afraid of sex and men who are ready and raring for the opportunity to finally have church sanctioned sexuality. Needless to say this doesn’t often mesh well.

      If anything, that Oaks response reinforces the argument that they should be allowed to marry, that way they can finally have God-approved sex.
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      Erik, what you are saying is chaos. Do you think the world would be a better place if there was no right and no wrong, which seems to be what you are describing?
      “Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what
      they FEEL are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the
      unnatural,” he said. “Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that
      to anyone?”
      He is saying that some believe they were preset to be attracted to the same sex that they are. And then he says that our Heavenly Father would not do that. The; “Not so.” means no one is preset with those tendencies. I know you don’t like definitive statements of right and wrong, but do you really not understand what he said there?
    • Daniel Murphree I really do need to leave this be now. I’ve always know better than to enter debates on Facebook on any subject that really matters since nothing is ever accomplished by it. Really I think the main reason I commented at all here is that I remember enjoying our discussions in Logan and how refreshing it was to talk with someone who actually thought things through instead of just accepting. I’m sad that we reached different conclusions, but I hope you are at least happy with the truth you have decided on.

      I do agree with Dave about the Boyd K. Packer quote, he is alluding to the fact that God would not tempt us above what we are able to bear. Able to bear is not necessarily the same as do bear. When I set a test for my students I always put questions that they have the tools to answer on the test, but that does not mean that everyone gets 100%. I reject the idea that someone cannot experience the “fullness of love” without sex. I love my children will all that I am, but I do not want to have sex with them. Sex is the fullness of physical attraction and the fullness of lust and can be used, in the right time and in the right way, to strengthen loving relationships but it is not required for someone to love someone else. The only thing it is really required for (required for, not used for or good for) is to produce offspring.

      Interestingly enough, I’m not sure about the unnatural part of his statement. Something like that would be a debate you might expect to see if church leaders really thought that mattered to the morality of the question since as you can see Elder Oaks didn’t say it was unnatural. I am still sure the debate would not be held in a sacrament meeting. Homosexuality may be natural or it may not but natural doesn’t equate with right. Pedophilia is natural, promiscuity is natural, cannibalism and murder are also natural there are animals that engage in all of these behaviors and I think you would be stretching yourself to say that there are two of these that are not clearly wrong actions. But man is not just an animal and that is the point. All of God’s commandments have to do with building self control and over coming these natural tendencies to make more of ourselves than mere animals.

      From all I have studied I find it impossible to believe that there is no God. Newton’s laws show that disorder only increases, so how can we also believe scientifically that an ordered universe came from disorder with no outer power to counteract this law? And so, from the basis that the is an outer power, that would have to be God because the power shown is far beyond our own capacities. But then the human body is even MORE organized than most matter, being created from atomic matter that has to be positioned exactly right, even down to how it is bent once it is joined (learned this from studying enzymes for some knot theory research). Science can barely replicate the formation of any cell structures from atoms, it is nowhere near answering how to create even a stable phospholipid bilayer to contain a cell. Are we supposed to believe that all happened in the primordial ooze then? With no help? That would again violate the law of entropy so we have to conclude that the same power that had the power to violate Newton’s laws (or something with the same power, but where did that come from?) also created us in some manner that we cannot replicate. So now accepting that there is a God and that He created us, I cannot bring myself to believe that he would do this for no purpose. Creation would clearly take some sort of effort, would He do this for no reason? I don’t think so, not to just wind it up and watch what happens or for some art project. So that leaves me with the other explanation, that God did it for a purpose and, being a thinking and therefor conceited being, I assume that purpose would be for humans. Possibly all of this was done for the benefit of dolphins, but again I just can’t believe that though I don’t have the a line of logic yet for that one. So believing that God created everything for us and has a purpose for us, I can’t believe He would leave us unguided to find that purpose. That would be pointless, how would we figure out the purpose of a being that far beyond us with our limited abilities? So I have to believe that He would interfere to help us find the purpose. To do that He would either have to be present Himself or have some representative among us. Since He isn’t present that leaves us with the representative. The rest of my belief comes from there, but that is where I’ll leave this because I was just giving the reason I believe that there IS someone to whom God speaks now and there has been in almost every generation. If He revealed His plan before, there would be no reason to believe He would then change tactics and stop revealing his plan to people. I believe that the man who leads the Mormon church and claims to speak to God is the one who is His current representative, and believing that I would have to believe his words unless I believed that God is just playing silly buggers with us, which I do not.

      I believe that God wants to teach us self control because we are his children. I want to teach my children to be functioning adults and so I let them learn from their mistakes from time to time and I sometimes give them guidance instead of punishment to help them get past things they do that are incorrect. Am I any better at raising my children than a being who has the power to organize a universe? I doubt it. God allows us to have temptations so that we can have the growing experience of overcoming them. If failure were not an option, some of us (not all) would not grow any more than some (not all) of my students would learn math if they knew they would just get 100% on any test anyway. I believe that God loves us exactly as a father loves his children because His representatives in all generations have said that He refers to us as His children. Sometimes love means letting someone fall, even if it hurts them and it hurts you to the very core.

      I’m leaving it there, sorry to have kept posting on this. I hate to cause arguments and waste people’s time when I know noone in this posting will be convincing anyone else here to change their mind. But I do miss you Erik, and our discussions. It’s been a while. Incidentally and completely off the subject, we still use that big heavy table you gave us when you moved out of Aggie Village. I love that thing, it’s as tough as a tank!
    • Rex White Jr D&C 121
    • Mitchell Peterson Really good discussion here.

      I believe that acceptance is a foundational principle of love.

      Is it fair to say that homosexuality, for Daniel, David, and a guest star appearance by Diana , is learned (like through confusion as a result of having a weak father figure) or chosen? This topic seems to always distill down to that as the basis you use to marginalize gay people; that gayness is a choice, or that gayness is a mortal “condition”, similar to cerebral palsy for example, that will get “straightened out” in the next life.

      The church teaches that the greatest joy in this life and even exaltation within the celestial kingdom is reserved for the temple married. And that sex, within marriage, is to be celebrated, and can even act as a kind of glue to enhance and support the union (Packer). So sex is celebrated and encouraged in marriage.

      The LDS position continues to marginalize gayness as a negative “feeling” that is to be mastered or overcome like anger, rather than to be explored and even (gasp!) celebrated as a kind of glue within the bounds of matrimony. The church has a well defined pathway for hetero’s to act on their sexual feelings through marriage.

      Church culture encompasses a sort of liberalness about sex in that whatever is mutually satisfying within the marriage bedroom, is acceptable. There are no authoritative teachings against any specific sex act within marriage. Marriage is the gateway to sex.

      Because gay’s can’t marry they can’t express the fullness of their feelings, or even explore them, within any church sanctioned relationship, they are therefore excluded from the highest joy’s only marriage can bring. Hence, there really is no choice for gay people to explore or celebrate sex in the church-only a life of absolute chastity- a lifestyle not at all celebrated by the church (see many articles/teachings/references to encourage all to marry as soon as possible to get on track to ultimate joy and the celestial kingdom.)
      Some members say “they can choose to leave the church if they want to act on those feelings”. However gay members also want exaltation in the celestial kingdom. In fact gay people generally want all of the same things as heterosexual people. They are like regular people, just with same sex attraction (and better interior decorating.)

      I personally think the church will overcome its same sex attraction phobia, but it will take a couple more generations of Apostles who were born in the 1960’s and beyond to be prepared to more fully accept God’s children. A year or two ago Elder Oaks seemed to open up a bit about gayness when he wrote on the church website (not authoritatively) that same sex attraction is “not well understood”, but continued the old saw that it’s definitely a choice to act on any sexual feelings-just like heterosexuals).
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      Since man has been on the earth, God has taught his prophets that this is wrong. Just like any other sex outside marriage. But, as soon as He calls an Apostle from the 60’s generation, He’ll see the light and realize He’s been wrong all along because some people ‘feel’ they can’t help it?
      It sounds like the issue is whether or not the Church is led by the Lord through a prophet, or a group of old guys in suits trying to pull one over on us. You can only answer that question for yourself, that’s not something you can be sold on, or convinced of by someone else.
    • Erik Kulick As far as my use of the Packer quote is concerned, I was using his wording to illustrate the impact that the source of homosexuality has when it comes to members of the church who struggle to reconcile their spiritual conflict.

      This is the danger in putting so much stock into whether or not a leader or text has the authority to speak for God. It causes inadvertent and unnecessary judgement of individuals for their actions (or beliefs). Even with conscious attempts at separating the “sin from the sinner”, far too often the “sinner” becomes marginalized or worse. To maintain the concept of worthiness does nothing but inflate the pride of some people, and instil a feeling of worthlessness in others. Even presuming everything else we’ve been taught about God and existence were true, to believe that you possess a worthiness for some future reward that others are unworthy to receive has zero positive value and is a blatant contradiction of the core principles upon which the vast majority of religions are founded.

      It is one thing to believe passionately in the teachings of a specific institution, it’s another to treat that belief as a knowledge when it doesn’t really need to be. The fact of the matter is that all religious people are banking on numerous assumptions, and although these assumptions may be well founded, there is no definitive way to prove any of it. At the end of the day, it will be up to who ever or what ever is behind the curtain to settle our earthly matters.

      Daniel, the fact that it seems blatantly obvious that SOMETHING is going on out there doesn’t automatically equate to the existence of a being with the capacity or desire to interfere with human affairs. Even if there is a God out there who had a hand in our creation, it is highly unlikely that she would actively participate in the affairs of men. The cost of tipping the scale for or against an individual would be way to high to justify sharing things with us that we’d be better off discovering on our own in the first place. I know that kind of god sounds like a cold and impartial being, but impartiality is a critical trait for someone who is supposed to be all loving.

      I completely respect and support everyone’s ability to believe what ever their hearts desire, but when people think that faith is a synonym with knowledge, they have unnecessarily crossed into dangerous territory. What I seek is not chaos, only a weariness of becoming so married to something that it impedes the intentionally endless journey that is the search for knowledge and truth. Just because religious leaders are so frequently making proclamations of truth and righteousness, doesn’t mean they are the sole authorities on the subject.

      Rex, I’ve read the Mormon religious texts numerous times over. While I have found many great and inspiring things within their pages, it doesn’t automatically follow that everything else that gets packaged along with those things are true.

      Frankly, I’m glad you guys are willing to engage on these subjects. I’ve had far too many of my Mormon friends unfriend or block me as a result of the dissonance some of the things I say creates. My goal isn’t to sway you guys from believing in God, but rather to help you realize the fact that those beliefs are ultimately assumptions, and hence the need to exercise great care when throwing around definitive statements regarding the “worthiness” of others.
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      Some things are very simple, but that doesn’t make them easy. All it takes to climb Mt. Everest is to put one foot in front of the other untill you get to the top. Fundamentaly simple? Yes… Easy? Not hardly… incredible discipline, hardship, mental anguish, preparation, etc. but still not complicated.
      To say something is wrong or sinful doesn’t mean to imply that it’s easy to turn away from. Not hardly, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s wrong.
      Saying we ‘love the sinner, but don’t condone the sin’ is also simple in principle, but not always easy to do.
    • Erik Kulick Whether or not something is morally wrong doesn’t change the fact that abstainers from that “sin” are just as guilty as the obvious transgressors because they themselves transgress in different and more subtle ways. It is for this reason that under key tenants of Christianity, no-one can be more “worthy” than another. Just because something has more obvious consequences, doesn’t make it more “evil”.
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      I’m quantifying one thing as more evil than another, I’m saying there is right and wrong. That seems to be what some don’t want to hear. That’s all…
    • Erik Kulick It’s not that people don’t want to hear that there is right and wrong, they just don’t want people imputing that they are somehow more flawed or evil than the person doing the finger pointing. If something IS morally wrong, then people should still be permitted to do those things, as long as they’re not the kinds of actions that cause other people harm.
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      I still don’t get it… who’s stopping you from doing anything?
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      Are you saying that the Church should teach that anything that doesn’t cause others harm is OK?
    • Erik Kulick No, I’m saying that when it comes to the imposition of morality on people through the political process, it should only be permitted when being used to prevent harm to others.
    • Erik Kulick Bringing it full circle to the prop 8 issue
    • Rex White Jr No one is stopping homosexuals from having sex. Prop 8 doesn’t say gays can’t get it on. Prop 8 only defines marriage between one man and one woman and the majority of the voting populace agreed with it. WhatKs the problem with that. They can contine to have sex with each other all they want.
    • Erik Kulick The underlying reason for preventing homosexuals from marrying is the purported immorality of the acts that take place within such a union. To insist on preventing homosexuals from using a term to describe the greater level of commitment they are seeking to establish is a blatant imposition of morality on people who are in no way harming anyone. That should not be permitted.
    • Dave Kyle · Friends with Tracy Christensen and 3 others

      But what you want shouldn’t be seen as an impossition on those of us who are married?
      We could vote on a proposition that says ‘fat’ shall mean that you wiegh at least 500 lbs. Then I, for one, wouldn’t be fat any more…
      (I know, but it’s getting late)
    • Erik Kulick What exactly does gay marriage do to imposition you in your marriage?
    • Rex White Jr Marriage belongs to religion. The state took over for several reason one of them being a way to generate revenue. Gays being allowed to hijack the term of marriage is one more step in removing it from where it belongs which is in the church.
    • Erik Kulick Just because something originated in religious ceremonies, doesn’t mean religion has some kind of property interest in it. Besides, gay marriage is only opposed by SOME religions, and therefore other religions should be allowed to incorporate gay marriage into their definition of marriage. The right to marry homosexuals would then be a protected right on par with any other right the government protects for religions.
    • Rex White Jr Why do gays want so bad to have the tile of marriage? Is that going to make their sex life better? What is wrong with having commitment ceremony and call it a garriage?
    • Erik Kulick Why did you want to get married? I’m sure your sex life is better now that you’re married, given your religious conviction, so why shouldn’t a person who believes similarly to you (with the obvious exception) be allowed to treat their sexuality as “sacredly” as you?
    • Rex White Jr Erik you are smarter than your last comment. I wasn’t having sex prior to marriage unlike people who are participating in a homosexual behaviors. I’m sure there is some exception out there where a gay couple waited to have a civil union prior to sex so that isn’t analogous to what you are trying to argue. A person cannot just have “one obvious exception” if they believe similar to me. That obvious exception effects a lot more than just the marriage question. You never answered my question. Why isn’t a civil union good enough? It obviously doesnt make the sex better regardless of how you took that bait and came up short to draw a correlation.
    • Anthony Slaninka Christ is the only way to Salvation…
    • Erik Kulick Rex, just because a person is a homosexual, doesn’t mean they are a nymphomaniac or even promiscuous. If a person has too many exceptions to your personal belief system, they don’t deserve to have their religious rights protected as well as yours?

      Whether or not a civil union is close enough to a real marriage to satisfy someones conviction towards commitment, religious or otherwise, makes no difference. It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to deny someone the right to marry based on the genders of the parties involved.

      That is an assumption, Anthony. But even conceding the possibility that your statement is true, I highly doubt that Christ would have wanted Christians to marginalize people who believed differently than them, or infringe on the ability of those individuals to make their own personal decisions.
    • Anthony Slaninka that is true but the bible it self according to the Lord, he boldly states against homosexuality…but says in love to ” love the sinner not the sin”
    • Rex White Jr Erik you are putting words in my mouth. If you havent learned yet in your 1L year it should become very obvious that doing such is very dangerous and isn’t looked very favorably upon by judges. Your second argument about it being against the equal proteoction well that hasnt been decided by the highest court so that is your opinion rather than fact. Maybe it is just late but your arguments ar getting weaker the longer this goes on. I am reminded of Korihor in the book of Alma. I suggest you review that nugget of doctrine.
    • Erik Kulick Again, you are assuming that the Bible is infallible. Don’t forget that the Bible also says that virgins should marry their rapists and virgins should be taken as spoils of war. There are many wonderful things littered through out both the Bible and Book of Mormon, but that doesn’t mean that all of their stories are true or that any of it really was a product of divine revelation or intervention. Why can’t people believe what they will about deity and stop trying to dictate to others what they should believe or need to do to get to heaven.

      The irony in all of this is that throughout history, the most significant and influential religious leaders were vocal dissenters to the religious status quo.

      Pardon me Rex, I didn’t realize I was before the bar. Just think of me as a seer of the future.
    • Anthony Slaninka Because it clearly states in the Bible From Jesus’s mouth himself, I am the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. JOHN 14:6 That is clearly telling all mankind the only way to get to Heaven is through Jesus Christ himself, as per being the Son of God..
    • Rex White Jr Korihor also thought he was a seer. Interesting.
    • Anthony Slaninka There is no doubting or misconception that Jesus, Himself was and always was there from the beginning. John 1:1-3 explains it, in its entirety…
    • Anthony Slaninka You are completely “WRONG” But if you just accept Him as your Lord and Savior your sins will be forgiven, and give you, your rightful place in the Kingdom of Heaven, there are no other ways to go their except through Christ himself…Why don’t you comprehend this, the mormon bible is a false teaching of the bible in its entirety…I’m sorry to drop this misconception on you and all who believe the mormon word…
    • Anthony Slaninka You are not going to be the QUOTE, rulers of your own worlds, and thinking that you can get a dead relative or friend to believe and stay in places to stay there
    • Erik Kulick That’s right Rex, I’m the reincarnation of Korihor. Isn’t it nice that you can liken people to scriptural heroes or villains depending on whether or not you agree or disagree with them?

      Anthony, no matter how definitive the authors of the Bible make their works out to be, it doesn’t change the fact that you are relying on the same internal confirmation that Mormons rely on when they pray about the validity of the things that they’ve been taught. It really is ironic that “Christians” tend to criticize Mormonism as being a “works” based religion, yet they put the same arbitrary weight in the beliefs of the individual as Mormons put in works and belief. You guys have so much more in common than you realize, yet are willing to throw away the chance at having consistent support for a Republican nominee. Don’t worry though, a Christian Republican will be elected: Obama will have a second term.
    • Rex White Jr You put words in my mouth again. Poor debating form my friend. What I did say was that you are recycling an argument much older than you are which was proven erroneous. People tend to conform their beliefs around what behaviors they want to justify when unfortunately the principles of the gospel don’t change. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The old saying of rationalization and justification is just like masturbation you are only screwing yourself, is very applicable to the great majority of the agruments you have proffered in this discussion.
    • Erik Kulick If people are drawing inferences from what you say that are not in line with what you are trying to communicate, it is at least in part due to a lack of clarity in the original communication. The fact remains that you are using potentially fictional characters to make your argument.

      The existence of real world consequences for specific actions doesn’t automatically prove the existence or involvement of deity. All that really is required for an individual to discover right and wrong is to view all potential actions through the lens of equal love for others and self. If an action produces conflict in that paradigm, then it seems safe to say the action is wrong.
    • Rex White Jr “potentially fictional characters” falls under that headline of rationalization and justification. Right and wrong is based on unchanging principles. Love thy neighbor as thyself is only one of those principles. Deity being unchanging is also another of those principles. Deity has already spoken on the issue of homosexual behavior.
    • Erik Kulick I understand what you *believe*. There is the possibility that you are right, but that doesn’t automatically mean your belief equals a verifiable knowledge. There is great danger in confusing the two concepts, yet the practice is maddeningly common.
    • Rex White Jr Way to much evidence exists contrary to any claims proffering the non existence of deity. Again people will adjust their beliefs to justify the immoral behavior. That is the natural man!
    • Erik Kulick Why does it matter? Why does the historical accuracy need to be true? Anything that was purported to have been said by Jesus that was in line with the one principle he chose to espouse above all others would have practical application regardless of the existence of any deity. IF Jesus was divine, then a certain reality was omitted from the records through the passage of time: Jesus would have wanted to have us see him and any other rendition of deity as equal with ourselves and each other. A purportedly perfect person would have to be humble enough to desire all others to see her/him as equal to them. That way we all realize the enormous potential that lies in front of everyone.

      That is the beautiful thing about Buddhism and many other eastern religions. They help people realize how to deal with the obstacles in their way instead of telling people what to do, what not to do, what to believe, and what to distrust, like most of the western religions. That’s not to say that the religions in the west have been devoid of those more helpful instructions, but far too often these gems get pushed to the background as the people strive to maintain the appearance of righteousness; if only people would work harder on loving others than worrying what goes on in someone else’s bedroom.
    • Rex White Jr To paraphrase “Billy Madison,” “nowhere in that complete bunch of rambling was there any resemblance of a correct answer, we are all now dumber from having read that, I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul!”
    • Rex White Jr If your dog is lost you got to go out there and find that freaking dog or cow for all the buddhists out there.
    • Erik Kulick It really is ironic that a religion with such a rich doctrine regarding the importance of agency is so insistent on micro-managing its members.
    • Charlie Luerssen I like the great old quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith: “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” This in the true heart of the faith whether leaders live up to it or people believe it! My own testimony confirms this to my soul, but you must find the truth for yourself beyond the facts of men through study, prayer and tasting the true? knowledge at it source… Happy hunting my fellow “rider on the storm.”
    • Erik Kulick The problem is the correct principles are mixed in with conflicting principles, and so the lens of love must be used to discern which are which.

      If the religions were practicing their core precepts properly, they would be inclusive of people with completely different views, and wouldn’t be so hung up the differing “imperfections” of the people seeking to share in their religious experiences. I am eternally (if I get to exist beyond this life) grateful for the enlightened teachings that have found their way into the texts I was taught during my formative years, but I can no longer be so presumptuous about the factual accuracy of any religious text, nor can I bring myself to care whether or not deity exists. I prefer to try to understand the world around me through investigation and reflection, and act based on an honest assessment of the implications and potential affects a decision would have on all parties involved. I find this to be a much more efficient and effective way of living than allowing a hope or fear regarding the “world to come” to cloud the process of decision making.
    • Charlie Luerssen That sounds a little like the religion secular humanism which worships at the altar of political correctness which in itself is very exclusive to the mocking of those who disagree with them. I prefer the simple religion of Jesus Christ to practice the golden rule and to worship God or whatever according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all men the same privilege let them worship how, where, or what they may. Being an old time democrat I’ve learned to be able to disagree without being disagreeable or to agree to disagree. I find the box that many try to put those of faith into a little off putting and disingenuous. I think a rereading of “Animal Farm” would help many better understand the world around them in a more honest light… lol
    • Rex White Jr I think you are confusing micro-managing with holding people accountable for their use of agency. Come on Erik you are brighter than that. Don’t get mad at the church. Take resposibility for your rationalization and justifications, own it and make the changes necessary before it becomes to late.
    • Charlie Luerssen Erik in addition to reading “Animal Farm” which is a short read with a big bold timeless message… May I suggest you read Alma 32 again with an open mind and heart for it will help you gain that knowledge, experience and light as you investigate and reflect to gain an honest understanding of the world as it truly is IMHO… lol
    • Erik Kulick I love Orwell. I consider him on par with the good fictional and non-fictional writers found through out all the religious texts.

      I think Alma 32 touches on some fundamental truths about the nature of humanity, but I find the only value in its mention of God is the potential it has in helping people contextualize the struggle. Unfortunately most Christians miss the point; they think the “fact” that it is about the word of God is what makes it so important, instead of the fact the the “word” is love. If God and love just so happen to really be one in the same, then great. I have confidence that a God so inline with such a timeless principle would be more understanding than we could ever imagine or deserve.
    • Rex White Jr You used the correct word in a Freudian slip kind of way. God is “just,” that is obviously clear throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon. God loves us unconditionally but that doesn’t mean that he will look the other way and not hold us accountable for our choices.
    • Erik Kulick There is truth mixed into all sorts of things. The trick is to use the right lens to discover those things and to not assume blanket truth of everything that comes with. Question your leaders. If something is true, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

      Charlie, regardless of what it sounds like, it is effectively the same thing as simply following the golden rule, which is really all that Christ specifically required of us. The boxes we end up in are often of our own construction. The best way to get out of those pigeon holes is to prove them wrong.

      Rex, there is zero value in man trying to exercise moral dominion over another individual. If we are ever to be held accountable, it will be by someone or something beyond this mortal coil. It’s one thing to try to help someone by offering them counsel, its another to put on the mantel no man is fit to wear.
    • Rex White Jr The golden rule was the second great commandment. The first was Love the Lord they God with all they heart, might, mind and strength. When you truly love God then you obey his commandments (all of them). Homosexual acts are clearly a breaking of His commandments. Bishops are common judges in Israel and one of their many functions is to help people through the repentance process. Unfortunately some people are so full of pride and think they know a better way to do things. The scriptures are full of examples of such thinking. Never quite works out the way they were hoping did it? Pride is enmity toward God. You are in essence telling Him “you know those commandments, I don’t think those are really necessary, I would rather eat drink and be merry because in the end you will just beat me with a few stripes and I will be saved at last.” Isn’t that sad that this is the type of thinking that is becoming more common place? I sure wouldn’t want to fall on the wrong side of that risky bet. Neither do you.
    • Erik Kulick People take different risks for different reasons. While your rationale for behaving the way you chose may very well be sound or even “inspired”, that doesn’t negate the fact that no matter how valid you reasoning for behaving, or how authoritatively you state your claim, there are only self-serving gains to be had by passing out moral judgement.

      Again, you are making definitive statements about claims that may or may not be true. You still haven’t answered my question: Why does it matter if God exists? The only answer you can give would reflect a primary concern for yourself and those you love. While this isn’t in and of itself harmful, it conflicts with the principle of loving others as thy self.

      Even if there is divine sourcing of the Christian holy books, I would not at all be surprised to find out that the first great commandment was an after thought by a well meaning spiritual leader. The second great commandment is powerful enough to encompass the first.
    • Rex White Jr God’s existence gives perspective for where every human being came from, why they are here and their divine potential. Your choice to settle for less is sad especially because you know better and you are letting that pride word be a stumbling block. As a father of children you already know the responsibility bestowed upon you from God to raise tbhem in righteousness. By kicking against tbe pricks as Paul puts it you are failing in the example you committed to be in the pre-existence. Lastly, failing to know what the first and great commandment is/was and then trying to word your way around it makes me question how much studying of scripture you really have done. My guess is you went straight for the deeper doctrines before you had the foundation clearly set and established. This has proven to be a fault of many who have awesome potential but proudfully proceed against the counsel of loving leaders. It”s not to late Erik. It is amazing how liv ing the gospel solves a lot of family problems that would otherwise tear them apart.
    • Charlie Luerssen Erik I love you like my own children and like my own children you have your own mind and agency which at times troubles me… However, I trust in God and his loving plan to allow all his children to fine their own way at their own rate. For those of us who believe in this plan we need to act more like the Planner…
    • Erik Kulick Mere existence is sufficient to inspire. The most important truth that can be extracted from Alma 32 is that if you can *seek* (it’s about the journey not the finish line) the most love filled path with out being *compelled* to do so, you are more likely to be successful in attaining the “greatest results”. The problem is, when people don’t place the “second” great commandment first, their perception of what the “greatest results” are becomes skewed. People want a God to exist because they are afraid of the idea of ceasing to exist: this blatantly conflicts with the effective practice of the “second” great commandment. Whether or not there is or isn’t a reward or punishment awaiting us at the end of this faze of existence, the reality is that using the expectations created by worrying about the possibilities only serves to compel.

      Why is it that just because you guys find things in a text or leader that you approve of, and then automatically feel compelled to just accept the whole part and parcel as true? Do you not want to expend the effort to figure things out on your own? Are you afraid you will be misled and lose out on your reward? IF it just so happens that I’m right, I’ll let you have mine if it makes you feel any better.

      Rex, the rest of your comment was a judgement you placed upon me. Do you feel better now? You assume that since a significant number of my beliefs or actions differ from your own, my path is somehow inferior to yours. You think that just because I don’t rely on God, that I’m somehow against her. I’m sorry that the “doctrine” that I gleaned from my reading of “scripture” doesn’t match up with yours. I’ve always been curious how the more dogmatic members of churches justify their Pharisaical behavior while purporting to champion the message of Christ. You know, when I was living in UT, a member of the Stake Presidency was astonished that I would chose a path that would deprive my children of a “moral up-bringing”. I’m so glad that God was so loving that he bestowed a religion, whose membership constitutes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the worlds population, with a monopoly over morality.

      The only way to act more like the “planner” is by establishing as even-keeled balance of love between all beings as possible. I have another hypothesis. IF Christ’s mission was divine, he wasn’t perfect in how closely he followed the law, but rather in the way he was able to balance out that love. This evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice for the greater good (as opposed to the vast majority of followers, who support economic rhyme schemes that are driven by selfishness).
    • Rex White Jr Rationalize and justify how you will, but it will never change eternal principles. Don’t wait until it is too late that is all I am saying. There is a danger in that, your children may grow to resent you and you risk their unhappiness because of your selfish behaviors based on pride. I would highly suggest you read Ezra Taft Benson’s talk on that very subject.
    • Erik Kulick Why is God’s justice void of due process? At least a criminal trial would require the proving of a mens rea; you just assume the presence of the element is a given. You are free to assume and oversimplify if it will help you sleep at night. What you don’t know shouldn’t be held against you.

      I didn’t realize the purpose of raising children is to keep them from resenting you. I think what my children have at their disposal is rather remarkable. They have two parents who love them dearly and want to do what is best for them. While their parents disagree on what some of those things are, they strive to work together to provide stability without compromising what lies in their hearts. They get to go to church with their mother and benefit from the myths of their ancestors, while they get to learn about different spiritual points of view from their father. They have the freedom to learn and grow, and to chose the path that best suits them. I suggest you read some holy texts from eastern religions. You will at the very least get better at being the kind of Mormon you strive to be.
    • Rex White Jr With an omniscient being there is no need for due process, you either did or did not, He already knows the intent of your heart. I took two separate classes in my undergraduate degree focusing on Eastern Religions not taught at a Mormon school. I have done my homework. Thanks for assuming otherwise though.
    • Charlie Luerssen I think I chose Alma 32 because it supports your freedom to search out the truth in almost a scientific way… Seek, search and experiment upon the word and if you practice the teachings you might just find what you need is true. However, if you are bold enough to read farther into Alma you will learn how Alma changed his thinking about the moralistic church his father ran. Then how years later Alma tried to explain his conversion and teachings to his own troubled and challenged children. You know like Alma I had a troubled youth, but I kept seeking the meaning of true love, peace and freedom. This led me to Woodstock were I nearly died, but I refected upon childhood belief in Jesus Christ and called upon him to save me. He did and has led me by the power of the Holy Ghost to where I am today. I know what I know not by reading a book or by following a leader, but by the power of God in my life and the holy witness of the Holy Ghost. I respect yours earch and freedom… I’m not your Bishop I am friend and friends don’t judge each other or tell each other what the other knows or don’tknow.
    • Charlie Luerssen You might not know God lives and that is fine, but please don’t tell me what I know. I know God lives, that Jesus Christ is the son of God and my savior, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is true and the word of God to me. This is my testimony which I gained by the power of the Holy Ghost and I share it with like my children in love so you might know there is hope in seeking and praying. God Bless you on your journey your friend Charlie…
    • Erik Kulick Are you that omniscient beings personal agent? If not, stop putting words into her mouth. Maybe you should go back and ponder the eastern texts instead of treating your experience with them like a trip to the zoo.

      I understand why you chose to cite Alma. I was just pointing out the most valuable principle it espouses. If a person is looking for something, they are more likely to find it.

      Why is it so difficult to see that there are more options than the binary? Standing up to the traditions of one’s father doesn’t automatically equate to a decision to carelessly toss all wisdom to the wind. This is the problem with assuming blanket truth with things like this; instead of trying to discern between which principle is a practical truth and which principle is a man made attempt at trying to reconcile the unknown, the assumer tries to use mental gymnastics to bend all the pieces into a suitable place, and ignores the remaining pieces left over.

      Please don’t forget the difference between belief and knowledge.
    • Rex White Jr I made a covenant at baptism, so did you.
    • Rex White Jr Keep digging…
    • Erik Kulick It’s too bad they took out the blood oath before I went in for my endowments.

      You know it is ironic that you are accusing me of being prideful in my statements, when I’m not the one making definitive proclamations and judgements.
    • Rex White Jr So you acknowledge you also made a covenant but have not fulfilled your end? “The wicked taketh the truth to be hard,” I am not calling you wicked but if you are offended by my straight shooting then maybe some inward searching maybe necessary on your part. Everything I have said to you I can back up with scripture. You can attempt to rationalize those scriptures away but those are the same scriptures to testified to a priesthood leader to be true when you were baptized, if you went to the temple which I think your statement was more flippant than true, than you have certified your belief in the same later in your life as well. Pride, again, is thinking you can do it a different way than what God has prescribed and get the same results. I am not telling you to do anything different than what the scriptures prescribe. Next!
    • Erik Kulick Who said I was offended? I strive to love you as equally as I love myself, so the practical application of that principle would be that I shouldn’t take offense. I am no better than you, so why should I act as if I am? This is where you’d be well suited to revisit that eastern philosophy and earnestly ponder it. Everything I say can be backed up by scripture. That doesn’t mean an authoritative seal should be affixed.

      I made promises of assumed importance, without realizing all of the implications. If the Mormon church’s bundled services happen to be what I was supposed to stay subscribed to, then I hope that the Mormon god will take into account my motivations. If not, I guess I’ll go burn in hell or get denied access to your gated communities in the celestial kingdom. Just make sure to wave when you pass me on your way to your throne in heaven.

      So pride is questioning the establishment? Wow, I could have sworn it was being over-confident in your beliefs and abilities, and seeing yourself as being better than someone else because of the righteousness under which you operate.
    • Erik Kulick Besides, I thought that according to the BoM, God is against secret combinations. I don’t understand how re-purposed Masonic rituals as the gatekeepers of righteousness fits within that framework.
    • Shannon Maureen · Friends with Jose Rivera and 14 others

      I admire your courage, Erik.
    • Rex White Jr The first part of your pride definition is exactly what I have told you at least 3 times now. I’ll always wave to you Erik you know this. Have I ever passed you in the halls of school without acknowleging your presence? Why would it be any different when you get your act together and your mansion is across the golden street from mine? Secret codes and combinations are what the natural man does to imitate sacred ordinances. Where do you think the Mason’s got their stuff. Have you ever thought that it was passed down through the generations from the original but because they have lost the spiritual meaning it has changed. You do know that even though they are similar they are very different at the same time right?. Besides that, it is the covenants that you make at the temple which is the focal point. You are a child of God, never forget that.
    • Erik Kulick It would only be courage if there were anything to fear

      Shannon, it has been my good fortune to meet people like you which has helped me to see that no group or individual can monopolize truth or righteousness. I used to be so sure that what I had been taught was infallible, but then thankfully I got to see the beautiful spectrum within which love can be expressed. I met atheists who are some of the most genuine and thoughtful people I’ve ever met. I met homosexuals far more qualified to provide a loving and nurturing home than many of their heterosexual peers. I couldn’t make assumptions about their righteousness or fates any longer; I’d gladly die for those people’s “sins” any day. Would you do the same, Rex?

      I’m sorry Rex, it is my opinion that you have a flawed definition of pride, among other things. I would gladly return the wave and smile, supporting your right to gate yourself off. I don’t have any intentions of acquiring that kind of real estate. I would rather spend eternity caring for the huddled masses gathered outside your community. That’s what I think our hypothetical Christ would do. Never forget that.
    • Rex White Jr Huddles masses outside, hahahahahahahahahahaha….hahahahahahahaha. will it be an occupy the celestial kingdom protest? That does sound like something the adversary would try to pull off at the last minute hahahahahahaha Remember the promise that all will be happy where they end up but that burning deep inside will be the regrets for not using the atonement and qualifying yourself to be washed clean through the blood of Christ? You have more accountability because you have been taught and turned away. The awesome thing is that it isn’t too late to make it right. I don’t have to die for anyones sins. That’s the beauty of the restored gospel. That price has already been paid. It is up to you whether it applies or not for you, through your actions and keeping of the covenants you have made. Would I be willing to lay down my life for others…well I did serve a mission in the middle of the ghetto of baltimore but seriously of course I would. Why do you think I am so frank with you? It isn’t because I lack law books to read. I saw a struggling soul reaching out for attention by attacking the church. You have my full attention and as you can see I don’t back down and I don’t mix words. So I will contine to call out smoke screens and rationalizations. That is what friends do.
    • Erik Kulick So let me get this straight: Atonement = pass the buck

      If Jesus’ death did anything, it showed people what someone who actually lived the only great commandment