-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/hollywood-gossip-mogul-perez-hilton-not.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I just haven't decided which finger...
guess he's all talk.
Besides, aren't Sundance goers ready for another venue? It's been a long time now ...
*clutches his glitter*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_M...
I think the Cincinnati-based Kroger grocery chain might rethink their own anti-gay political contributions if gay people threatened to stop shopping in their stores...Of course, all the closeted produce section boys, who grow pale and clammy when spotting my demanding self, would breathe a sigh of relief.
2. boycott all LDS related business....it took a while with Coors but some success happened. Not just Marriott but all LDS owned business and executives.
3. challenge LDS politicians...democrats and republicans...Start with Reid...Hatch is always good for a off the wall comment for nuttieness
4. Paint those that are painting gay people as not of the mainstream to be the real culprits. The LDS bunch...the catholic pedophiles..all impossible to defend.
5. Boycott UTAH and anything to do with UTAH. Mormons will scream like a stuck pig if you go for the wallet.
Good post, John and good on you for taking a stance on BigThink, too.
Of course, that means risking criminal charges or at least a civil suit to pay for a wedding dress and cake... IF the participants got caught, anyway.
Give me something to work with.
Some have also taught that Jesus was likely the groom at the wedding where he turned water into wine and that he was married to Mary Magdalene, Martha or both of them.
(See "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie)
God the FATHER had sex with Mary, not Jesus.
Jesus did marry, (mary magdalene for one, according to mormon teachings) but not his mother.
So, it's not just the Angel Moroni who has gonads? Cool. Can I get a picture of God's wife?
I don't recall this site getting into the belief system's jot and tittle...maybe a South Park link from a commenter or two...Anyway, "Kolob"???? Who wouldn't, at the very least, smirk at that? If only Moroni had mentioned string theory...
Cheeeeez.
I also encourage everyone on this board to read Jon Krakauer's book, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN, a great read in general and a fascinating look into the *insanity* that is the Mormon religion.
Everyone needs to speak up, speak out and get involved.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-metro-prop...
Plus they have some cool maps.
As a former Mormon missionary, I can tell you there are MUCH CRAZIER things to make people aware of. Past racist theologies would be a great start.
Where I work, everyone knows I'm gay, but I don't think that is enough to trigger them to think about gay issues. But if I refuse to come to work for a day, and refuse to take any support calls from my users, because I am protesting unequal treatment as a citizen that can have an impact on those who have been indifferent all along.
How the hell does baptizing after you are dead steal your soul? After you die the soul is already gone, you can't get it back. They are throwing water on some funky shaped dust.
Yes it's offensive and weird, but it doesn't steal souls.
Some folks, especially Jews, get VERY bent out of shape over this.
It is, if nothing else, colossally arrogant. You are very much telling people YOUR religion is the ONE TRUE RELIGION™, and as such, you will convert people whether they like it or not, and you will wait until the are dead, so they can't do anything about it.
I assume you are referring to a mormon god, but momrons believe that there are more than one gods. The main two gods of mormonism are Elohim (aka heavely father, aka god the father) and Jehovah (aka Jesus Christ, god the son, etc.)
Oh wait, never mind, the answer is the same anyway: Yes they are polygamists.
I would much prefer to see boycotts by people like Spielberg and Reford.
At the big city hall gathering last Saturday (here in Berkeley) I introduced myself to a neighbor and she started talking about looking up people who had contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. Turns out we had both tried to figure out where this Berkeley "piano teacher" taught who gave money to take away our marriages. I pictured myself picketing her piano class. But we couldn't find out anything about her. My neighbor said the other local contributors "were lawyers". I wonder if any of them have had ethics complaints lodged against them, or if any aren't paying their taxes ... I'm trying to think like a private investigator.
Meanwhile he's all to happy to get in bed with the stars' pr agents and push phony relationships with their beards. How does that help the gay community? And how does outing actors who are lower down on the food chain (i.e., he's not going to piss off the powers that be) help?
Perez doesn't see movies. He doesn't report on the films, the filmmakers or indie film news.
Hell, he doesn't even report on The Queer Lounge.
Here is what Perez does at Sundance: goes around to celebrity gifting suites to get free products and attends celebrity VIP parties at night. And if he doesn't get what he wants, he throws a fit.
Good riddance! Is this guy's fifteen minutes up already?
It's the Redstone Cinemas in Kimball Junction (owned by Metropolitan/Rocky Mountain Cinemas) and features 7 theaters (the Cinemark has only 3 screens) and boasts that it has the largest screens in Park City.
I've never understood why Sundance hasn't rented out these movie screens. They run shuttles to the Kimball Junction area anyway, and they could double the shuttles to make it very easy for anyone to go and come back from the Downtown area.
What you're suggesting people do with Sundance is burn bridges it's taken three decades to build. This seems very shortsighted to me. Filmakers and studios alike are going to think long and hard before destroying relationships- especially relationships that have been very lucrative as of late.
If you only knew how much Robert Redford hates the Mormon church, you might give him a little more credit. I'm sure this whole thing is only making him hate it more. Maybe everyone should come to the Festival and stay at Sundance Resort- that way you're sure to support a Mormon hater.
BUT I agree with you that his boycotting of Sundance is a big deal in pretty concrete terms not because of the traffic his website gets ( a large part of his demographic has got to be fluffy headed starstruck fans) but because he is afforded access to the MSM and though Prop 8 appears in one way to be a local issue it is of course a national issue and a human rights issue.
Perez deserves major props for rejecting something that is part of his "breads and butter" ( all things Hollywood and glamorous) in favor of principle, and doing so in the MSM arena. He is taking some professional risk in so doing, to do what is right.
In comparison AmericaBlog has been doing the right thing for years and though it may not see the traffic that Hilton does it has a track record of influence that you are generously downplaying at the moment.
This site's promotion of progressive candidates has contributed significantly to election successes that will produce results of universal benefit.. And may I add that although I was taught by early experience that homosexuality was nothing to get excited about and I've been was genuinely dismayed at anti-homosexual bigotry over the past few decades, it has been AmericaBlog that has most clearly revealed to me the institutionalized discrimination of gays that has been allowed to continue in general and that has been actually encouraged in certain quarters, despite the general progress that has been made thus far.
From having read AmericaBlog regularly for some years now I don't just intellectually sympathize, I get outraged. I no longer see assaults on gays as random acts of violence by random bigots on a small minority but instead I now appreciate them as part of an ongoing campaign of discrimination against a large group of ordinary people being attacked and suppressed in hundreds of ways, every day, every year, every decade.
If the noose is the symbol of black oppression, then chains on the back bumper of a pick-up truck is the symbol of homosexual oppression. .
As the African-American experience has shown it took the support of a newly educated white majority to break down mindless institutionalized discrimination. By the same token it will take the newly educated heterosexual majority to break down mindless discrimination against homosexuals.
As I said before homosexuality never bothered me personally and thus 'anti-homosexuality' I assumed was largely the province of a bigoted minority not worth my concern.
For the longest time I never understood the "fuss" over 'gay marriage'--why for instance would a gay couple so desire a wedding with all the religious trappings and symbolism when every major religion publicly abhors and condemns homosexuality ? Why wasn't a civil union enough?
Well thanks to reading AmericaBlog I am now properly informed that marriage actually affords legal and human rights that a civil union does not. As a straight non-Hollywood gossip type regular visitor I'd argue that my increased education from reading AmericaBlog is as important as anything that Perez Hilton does. because although AmericaBlog may get less hits it arguably reaches a more diverse audience.
And BTW the "non-gay issue" posts are varied, often unique, informative and broadly relevant, as are the comments, which is why I always check in here.
So, well done Perez, but IMHO its AmericaBlog that is more deserving of kudos overall and long may it prosper and educate. .
BTW, best sign at the Bozeman rally - "my two mommies can beat up your 14 wives"
you meant "they're:
:)
This is as big as John says it is.
BTW; I can guarantee you, I've lived in New York longer than you and your script is NOT well received by tolerant people here. It's seen for what it is-another form of bigotry and low-conscious self-contempt. Not appropriate for legitimate public discourse in my New York neighborhood.
And you really should watch that condescension you have for people who live in "Hicksville." Hicksville in your case seems to be a state of mind.
If Mormons are not crazy about bringing attention to themselves, then I propose that we make this book our staple holiday present and give copies out to everybody we know.
BTW, I've read this and it reads like a true crime page turner - AWESOME book, not one of those dry non-fiction tomes that are dense and hard to get into... It's a book you read and you want to talk about with other people...
This book has a lot more to do with the Fundamentalist LDS church than the Mormon church. It's all about apostate behavior and people becoming fanatical... something the Mormon church honestly doesn't tolerate.
Ignorance of the basics would bring a person to conclude that the Fundamentalist LDS church is the same as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That's about like saying all gays are pedofile perverts who are promiscuous orgy lovers. Ridiculous.
God had sex with mary, not Jesus. In mormon theology, God the Father and Jesus are not the same person. They are two separae personages.
Anyone who would like to understand what Mormons actually believe is welcome to email me at ordinarymormon@gmail.com. I welcome any respectful dialog, but please refrain from hate speech.
There are plenty of beliefs in Mormonism that are very embarrassing for the church. Milk before meat is what the LDS church taught me. You won't be able to understand the higher concepts unless you know the basics first. There are some concepts that they won't teach until you are well into the religion and proved your worthiness.
The endowment ceremony is one of those things which is outright creepy. There's plenty in the Church's history: long deceased prophets telling members that men live on the moon, black people turning white after baptism, etc. that the Church would rather not people find out about.
There's a good reason why the Church has forbidden archeological digging on the Hill of Cumorah site in upstate New York. This site, where supposedly the biggest battle in the Book of Mormon took place when thousands of Nephites and Lamanites (now known as American Indians) fought with chariots and swords, has been off-limits to any digging because they wouldn't find any evidence of any battle.
The Book of Abraham, part of the LDS Scriptures called the Pearl of Great Price, since the late 1960s, has been shown to be a fraud. Joseph Smith came across some Egyptian papyri that was part of a traveling exhibit. He claimed it was a long lost book written by the Old Testament Prophet Abraham. He translated it in a similar way he translated the Book of Mormon. The papyri disappeared soon after Smith's death. It was found at the NY Museum of Art archives in the sixties. Modern egyptologists studied it, and it was discovered just a piece of the book of the dead. It had nothing to do with Abraham and Joseph Smith's translation couldn't have been more wrong.
I think letting people know stuff like this would really start to destroy their active recruitment efforts.
You wanna make a bet?
You want the facts set straight then you spew forth a bunch of Mormon mythology? The Hill Cumorah? As far as I'm aware, it's widely accepted among Mormon scholars, and has been for a very long time, that the Hill Cumorah talked about in the BofM is somewhere in Mesoamerica.
I've never heard the men on the moon thing. Black men turning white? Is that referring to the Lamanite conversion?
Why would the temple endowment be creepy? Because you promise to be righteous and follow Christ ? I would guess you were unable to separate the ritual from the actual ordinance. The ritual is meaningless- simply a teaching tool.
The Pearl of Great Price is a tough one. There may never be a definitive answer for Mormons on that one. There are certainly many rebuttals given by the scholars, but all require faith, for sure.
This stuff is all out there already, nothing new. It's not like the gay community will be shedding light on some new concepts here.
I'm going to say this and mean it, I really believe the only way for this all to work out is for everybody to somehow get along. The Mormons, as in the Mormon leadership, will ALWAYS be calm and respectful in regard to the current subject. Why not look for a way to close the gap rather than increase the divide? The Mormons have the money, but they're really not the religion you should be worried about. A better route may be to establish a true friendship and alliance with the Mormon leadership- then, when this vote or something like it comes up again, it's doubtful they'd encourage their members to give money to the cause. I don't think they would ever be pro-gay or pro same-sex marriage, but they might not fight... food for thought.
Funny, the Church's website at http://www.hillcumorah.org has it located in Palmyra New York
"I've never heard the men on the moon thing"
Brigham Young (and to some point Joseph Smith) propogated this.
"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)
"Why would the temple endowment be creepy? "
Sure, let's discuss the temple ceremony which is lifted from the Scottish Rite of the Masons. There are 4 secret handshakes to get into the heaven and you are given a secret name which is usually the name of some Book of Mormon or Biblical character. Plenty of other weird stuff in the temple ceremony too.
"The Mormons, as in the Mormon leadership, will ALWAYS be calm and respectful in regard to the current subject."
Except for those Tongan Mormons who beat the crap out of some lesbians sending 7 to the hospital at the tail end of the LA Temple Protest. Calm? I don't think so.
"A better route may be to establish a true friendship and alliance with the Mormon leadership- then, when this vote or something like it comes up again, it's doubtful they'd encourage their members to give money to the cause."
Funny!
The Church tried to squelch its publication by threatening law-suits--and did indeed manage to get a couple of photos and a few footnotes deleted--simply because the University didn't want to finance a court battle, but it's still an eye-opening read--for Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
Regards the current focus on the Mormon church, I pose this question to you:
Did the Utah Mormon First Presidency, in a letter sent to all wards and read during church services, directly urge their followers to donate money and in other ways work to influence legislation in California?
And one more:
Mormons have indignantly commented here that we are wrong to think Mormons are homophobic. They write that Mormons love Gays and many have Gay friends and relatives. Tell us, does this Mormon love allow Gays to express their sexuality, or does the Mormon faith accept Gays only if they abstain from sexual relations?
Second question...we believe homosexual relations to be sinful just as we consider fornication between unmarried heterosexuals to be sinful. We condemn the sin but not the sinner. So gays "expressing their sexuality" is considered sinful just as unmarried heterosexuals "expressing their sexuality" is sinful. Its pretty simple and since we believe in the bible and we follow its precepts, that is what it says. Homosexuals can be active members of the church just as unmarried heterosexuals, just follow the rules God has put on place for governing sexuality....pretty simple. It doesn't mean you don't love someone because they choose to cross lines you believe are sacred and reserved for family creation.
Perhaps I should mail you a copy of my Patriarchal Blessing, which is unusually long and detailed.
Convenient that you deny Gays legal marriage and then condemn their unmarried fornication.
Otherwise, therealdeal, the expressions of your faith are everything that truly loving and Christlike people reject.
The "Mormon love" allows one to love an individual, despite differences of sexual preference. Can a gay or lesbian love a straight person despite their preference for the opposite sex? I think so.
Things that John said that are incorrect regarding Mormon beliefs:
Jesus having had 3 wives including his mother (not sure where he got this)
Native Americans being red and Africans being black because they're bad people (hmmmm... this seems to imply that we think Native Americans and Blacks are bad because of the color of their skin. This is pure idiocy born of the Bible belt)
They are forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims into Mormonism against the will of the victims' families. (Nobody's forcibly baptizing anyone- it's kind of like saying the Ritz Carlton forcibly made up your bed even though you're staying home tonight)
We know that the Mormons do this to every living soul on the planet (Do you know this? No you don't. What John may have gathered in his 7 minutes of scouring anti-Mormon sites is that Mormons hope to eventually provide every soul who has lived upon the planet an opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Well, actually, the anti site would have said pretty much what John said.)
This is all about sensationalizing and ridiculing. The problem is that by focusing on the sensational, one is left with a very distorted view of the belief system and the adherents. It's akin to defining Christianity or Judaism as the belief that donkeys can talk (Numbers 22) or that murdering women and children is pleasing to God (1 Samuel 15). It's easy to do with any belief system if your aim is to ridicule rather than understand.
Regarding your first question, it is well known that the First Presidency of the LDS Church sent a letter to congregations in California asking them to support prop 8. You don't need me to tell you that. It is also well known that many Mormons, including myself, did not support it.
Your second question attempts to impose a false dilemma. A belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman does not equate to homophobia. As you well know, Mormonism teaches that sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage is sinful, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It's not a very fashionable belief these days, but there you have it.
From the Mormon perspective, the issue is complicated. There is a sincere belief that marriage and the family are central to God's plan for his children and that God has made known the order of such things. Understanding how gay relationships fit into the grand scheme leaves many Mormons conflicted, especially those of us who have loved ones who are gay. Bashing Mormons at every opportunity does not help to resolve those conflicts or build bridges of understanding.
If you believe that each Prophet of the church receives divine revelations and speaks on earth for God, how then can you pick and choose which of their teachings are true?
And this may shock you, but I and many of the commenters here are not at all interested in "resolving conflicts" and/or "building bridges" between ourselves and the Mormon church.
Believe whatever nonsense you choose. What we want is for you to get out of our secular lives and keep your religious hocus-pocus out of our government.
Get it?
If the response is bullying and intimidation, you are sending the message that there is a hostile agenda.
The hostile agenda was (and is) created by your insertion of religion into our government. Confine your beliefs to your personal lives and *poof* the problem disappears. Until then, recognize that the Mormon church has asked for a war and they are gonna get it. Our patriotic adherence to the founding principle of a separation between church and state and our adherence to the constitutionally-guaranteed equal rights for all citizens demands this of us.
End o' story.
RealDeal, lighten up a bit. You're perpetuating the anger and hate that's so prevalent here already.
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez is pregnant. Ordinarily, this would not make headlines, except to the Sanchez family and maybe in a newsletter to the 39th Congressional District in southeast L.A. County, which just elected her to her fourth term. It's no big deal nowadays when members of Congress give birth. The first was Mrs. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, 35 years ago. What makes Sanchez's pregnancy news is that she is not married to the baby's father -- not yet, anyway. You're practically the first to know. Even her sister and fellow congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez, didn't know until a few days ago.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/...
GAYS! when it comes to Obama, please take off the rose colored glasses.
Wednesday on CNN an Obama surrogate said if Congress passed legislation to repeal DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell that Obama will sign it. Otherwise he will not waste political good will to repeal it himself. If you think all those newly elected democrats from conservative states are pro-gay, think again. That's slap in the face number one for the gays from Obama.
Slap number two was best stated by syndicated journalist Lisa Keen -- "...with ... Rahm Emanuel ... the (gay) community has been put on notice that the door to the Oval Office will not likely be opened wide enough to accommodate gay civil rights ..." Emanuel is well know for throwing up roadblocks to LGBT political progress.
A huge number of gays helped elect Obama and I don't think that waiting for him to address gay civil rights until the end of his second term when he has nothing to lose is unacceptable.
So yes -- send postcards -- march -- and remind all elected officials (including Obama) that the next round of elections are only a few years away and that they should get busy representing the LGBT community!
Kevin Nix
Gary Rosen
Chief External Affairs Officer
John Templeton Foundation