Comments about ‘Both sides are right’

That's a silly comment. It's like saying:
- you can't speak about drugs unless you have been an addict (ergo: only former addicts should be in the DEA)
- you can't speak about murder unless you have killed someone (ergo: only former murderers should be allowed to judge capital cases)
- you can't speak about mental illness unless you have been insane (ergo: the only qualified mental health professionals are those who have battled insanity themselves)
- Jesus can't speak about sin because he never committed sin

Nonsense!

Gays and straits have exactly the same rights in this country and in this state - to fall in love and marry a person of the opposite sex, and to enjoy all the same blessings and legal entitlements as well. Just because some are not so inclined - whether by choice or design - isn't anything that should be any type of consideration by any government, church or other entity. We each are expected to play the hand we're dealt in life. Just because my cards are better or worse than someone else's, I shouldn't expect anyone to cover my bets or my losses.

I don't understand why the LDS Church is attacked for it's position on same-gender attraction. The Church is doing nothing more than showing its belief in the word of God, the Holy Bible, which is the foundation of homosexual condemnation. We are all equally accountable to God for the sins we commit, spelled out for us in the Bible.

As far as civil policy, in the words of Thomas Sowell, from a non-religious perspective:

"Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled."

And

"Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights."

Amy is STILL at it. She is trying to make the case the marriage is some kind of "right" between any consenting adults, but isn't about to defend the "right" of consenting adult polygamists to live their lives as they see fit.

Amy, answer me one simple question: Do you support the right of three people to be in love and be married as strongly as you support the right of two gay people?

As for how it hurts society to grant official sanction to gay marriage: SIMPLE. It puts an official stamp of approval on conduct that the majority of society believes is immoral. It hurts the same way that repealing laws against public nudity would hurt society. It changes the official, moral standards of society.

You are free to make your case that society should change its moral standards. Clearly you support gay marriage. I doubt you support polygamous unions, or unions between very close blood relatives. You probably are not in favor of legalizing public nudity or public sex acts. And yet, you would be perfectly free to avert your view and "gather your children in a circle every night and teach them how evil such things really are." But you'd rather not have to avert your view or explain to your children why such things are going on in public.

Public morals my dear. They are set by majority vote. And they should vary from place to place. I never ceased to be amazed that among those who are most in favor of "diversity" we have so little tolerance for diversity of community standards and cultures. Those who fall all over themselves to rave about the wonderful culture of some far flung native village are the most vocal with complaints that SLC and Utah don't look like Boston, NYC, LA, or Vegas.

Utahns have passed a VERY clear Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage. We have a long standing constitutional provision prohibiting plural marriage, but I never see Amy defending the rights of polygamists. The debate is pretty much settled here. Those who wish to live in a society where gay marriage is legal and celebrated should really look to Massachusetts, New Jersey, and other bastions of liberalism. Vote with your feet. That is what I did when I moved back to Utah after finishing school out East.

Amy, thank you for confirming my suspicions that your concern over the rights of people to marry who they love does NOT extend to those who may love more than one person at a time or whose religion may require such marriages.

I will agree with you that I don't want the State tossing people in jail for private sexual conduct between consenting adults.

You are, of course, incorrect in asserting that gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamous marriage. The legal arguments used to prohibit polygamy in the 19th century allow prohibiting gay marriage today. Conversely, the legal arguments used to allow gay marriage today, apply equally well to polygamy. In fact, one of the great dangers of turning to the courts rather than public opinion on such issues is that the courts tend to have to follow arguments to their logical conclusion. Hence, court imposed gay marriage likely leads to court imposed polygamy. However, so long as we concede that marriage laws are the prerogative of the majority that majority can determine how far to go, even if they do not allow a full logical conclusion.

I will refer you to Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case for a great read on the topic of courts imposing their will over the majority: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1

It is fine for you to think homosexual conduct hurts no one. I and the majority of americans disagree and do not believe our government should give official sanction to such conduct or relationships.

You may very well be correct about a changing world. The liberal government schools are doing their best to indoctrinate children against traditional morality while fighting all efforts to give parents real choice in where and how their children are educated. But that won't deter me from standing up for what I believe and know to be proper and decent personal and community moral standards and the rights of the majority to set such standards in most areas of public life. Funny that you would label full and proper participation in the public debate to be "ranting and raving" simply because you disagree with me. Is that what passes for support of freedom of speech and diversity of viewpoints in your mind?

And for the record, I am no more embarrassed about the LDS Church's pre-1978 policy regarding race and bestowal of the priesthood than I--or any other Bible believing Christian--is or should be about the fact that in ancient Israel the priesthood was restricted to the tribe of Levi. I won't claim to fully understand the reasons the Lord has chosen to restrict the Priesthood to certain families, tribes, or races in past seasons vs granting it to all worthy men today. I don't even fully understand why He restricts it to men. But lack of understanding does not--for me, at least--translate into any kind of embarrassment, shame, or trial of faith. His ways are not man's ways and I'm just not all that worried about such things.

Similarly, I am not the least bit embarrassed by 19th century LDS polygamy in general, nor my family heritage in particular. I do not believe the government should have imprisoned my ancestors for the peaceful expression of religious belief. I HONOR those ancestors who were true to their faith in the face of such persecution including loss of voting rights, inability to serve on juries, the ripping of families apart, forcing wives and children to testify against husbands and fathers, etc. I am glad that I am not called upon to practice polygamy as I'm not sure I would be up to that challenge. But embarrassed? Not in the least and I have little use for those who are.

Finally, your objections to polygamy are no more sound, rational, or free from simple personal bias than are the religious objections to gay marriage. The reality is MARRIAGE is rife with opportunity to cheat the system whether for immigration or insurance benefits. Gay marriage opens that door up as hetero roommates could, in theory, marry just for insurance or other benefits even while sleeping around with anyone they wanted. Divorce is cheap and easy so long as neither side objects. Nothing has to be given up in such a case.

The fact is, YOU personally find polygamy offensive. Just admit it. So you will find and cling to ANY excuse you can to oppose it, even while supporting gay marriage which you support.

Well, I'll be more honest than you. I find homosexual conduct morally offensive and THAT is my reason for opposing gay marriage. I do not believe society should give official sanction to conduct it finds morally offensive. With such honesty I don't have to go looking for such bizarre excuses as you do as you try to maintain some logical consistency in your divergent views while still being able to attack people for opposing gay marriage on moral grounds. No other grounds are needed.

Amy asks about a moral, celibate gay person holding LDS church callings. The answer is YES, to the extent that any un-married person might be called to such a calling, having same-sex attraction but living a chaste moral life is NO impediment.

When I was in college our EQ president was gay. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I seriously doubt that Sherry Dew would be any less considered for the high calling she held had she been single due to same sex attraction as opposed to simply not finding a suitable mate.

Of course, it is all but unheard of for any unmarried man to serve as Bishop, Stake President, or other presiding position. In most cases men holding these positions are released if their wife passes away.

Sadly, this entire line of questions belies an ignorance of how the LDS church and culture operates. One does not aspire to such positions. Indeed, the old saying goes that any man stupid enough to want to be Bishop probably deserves the calling. One does not define himself, nor his standing before God by the calling he holds. A faithful home teacher is one of the most important and valuable positions in the entire church.

No doubt that culturally, it is difficult being single in a church so focused on the benefits and importance of eternal marriage and family. But this applies equally to all, regardless of the reasons for lack of marriage. In fact, when it comes to men, one may argue that doctrinally, a gay man is far better off than is a straight bachelor. The former has pretty good justification for not marrying while the latter may well be guilty of failing to do his duty.

NOBODY in the LDS church today is suggesting that gay men get married as a cure. Drop that nonsense. You might just as well attack modern mental health for fact that shrinks used to use electroshock treatment to try to cure homosexuality. Neither the church nor their leaders ever claimed to have all the answers and past leaders did the best they could with the best info they had.

But I find it so very interesting that those who don't even accept the doctrines and teaching of the LDS church are so worried about what those doctrines and teachings are. I mean, Amy, if the LDS church did a 180 today and started performing gay marriages in the temples would you rush out to join? Do you believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as His son? Do you believe the Bible to be the word of God? How about Joseph Smith's first vision, the Book of Mormon or living prophets today?

So why in the world do you care what the church teaches its own when it comes to proper moral conduct? Some people have a hard time due to sexual urges. Others have a hard time with additions to nicotine or cultural pressures to drink tea or coffee. Some have a challenge paying tithing or keeping the Sabbath day holy. Some simply have a hard time loving their neighbors. Others struggle with ill health even as they see neighbors miraculously healed. Welcome to mortality.

Those who do not believe the one or more of the doctrines of the LDS church should find or start a church more to their liking. But quite raising silly and feigned concerns about how the church conducts its internal affairs or how those who freely choose to be members of it live their lives.

Amy: You said: "I am a Unitarian Universalist and my church whole heartedly welcomes and accepts gays. So what makes the teachings of your religion trump mine?"

I ask the same question right back to you. What makes the teaching of your religion trump mine?

You said: "The decision should be made solely based upon whether or not you can prove that it would be harmful to society."

Who put you in charge that you get to dictate the terms of public discourse? Why does it have to be Amy's way?

By the way, I think I know who Charles H is and there is no way you "hit a nerve." If it makes you feel good to think so, have at it. But you have no idea the personality you are dealing with. It is true that he is actively and devoutly LDS, but he has been anything but a blind sheep. The school he attended in the east was MIT, his degree was in engineering. He is driven by logic and analytical reasoning. He has faced questions about the church. He has had family members who have struggled with life and made some poor decisions. Like most church members, he paid the price to earn his belief - his testimony - it wasn't just passed down through "25 years of lies" told him by his family. He is very politically active - not just a blogger on the news sites like me. Your assessment of him is way off base. Your arrogance leads you to label anyone who disagrees with you. Ignorant? Religious fanatic? We aren't talking about the same Charles H.

I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true, and I know President Hinckley is a true prophet chosen by God himself. That is how I know homosexuality is wrong and harmful to society. Having said that, I also know God loves all of his children, including those who are homosexual, every bit as much as he loves a heterosexual. So I know the prophet is trying to help them have the happiest life they possibly can. Happiness does not come from breaking the laws of God, and it certainly does not come from being a bishop or any other calling. That is what God wants. He wants all of us to have joy and be happy, and he alone knows the best way to do that. That's why it doesn't matter that gays can't be prophets bishops etc. Who cares? God doesn't care what calling anyone has, all he cares about is that we are happy and genuinely love and care for each other.

Without bringing religion into the equation, there is no justifiable or rational argument to be made preventing gays and lesbians from marrying. Polygamy is not allowed because marriage is a contract between two people. Quantity is not a protected right guaranteed by the government. Gender, however, is protected. Since marriage laws specifically discriminate against gender, it is inherently flawed.

Same-sex marriage does not grant upon gay couples "special rights", as conservatives so believe. Their argument that "gays have equal rights--they can marry someone of the opposite gender" is a poor one, because granting same-sex marriage does not grant special rights. It simply grants additional rights. Just as gays have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex now, so would a straight person be allowed to marry someone of the same gender were it legalized. I doubt many straight people would do so, but currently, marriage as it stands is a special right which violates constitutional protections of gender discrimination.

This is probably just what the D-News was planning on when it opted to include the public-comments module in its Website upgrade: Yet another forum where the gay-haters can harangue everybody else with their ill-founded talking points. They actually have their own brochures and whole books briefing them on this material.

The way these arguments go is like this:

1. Anti-gays trot out the laundry list of moral/religious objections to gays having the right to exist and/or marry.

2. Pro-gays quibble over religious issues; eventually make point that public policy cannot constitutionally be made based solely on religious grounds.

3. Anti-gays claim objection is not merely religious; trot out laundry list of pseudo-scientific reasons gays are worse than everybody else.

4. Pro-gays counter with more studies; show historical precedence for denying various groups equal rights based on fake scientific findings.

5. Anti-gays object to any comparison between gay-rights movement and other civil-rights movements; argue that homosexuality is a "choice" not a genetic characteristic; ignore fact that the legally protected class of "religion" is likewise based on personal choice.

6. Pro-gays trot out laundry list of studies showing ample evidence for genetic component of homosexuality; ignore fact that the legally protected class of "religion" is based on personal choice.

7. Anti-gays counter that alcoholism also has genetic component; make unhinged claims of societal harm resulting from existence of homosexuals.

8. Pro-gays demonstrate wildly illogical basis to such claims; counter with concrete evidence of societal harm resulting from bigotry and discrimination.

9. Anti-gays object to being termed "bigots"; claim justification of homophobic beliefs on religious grounds.

10. ... and so on. Bonus points to anti-gays who conflate homosexuality with child abuse, bestiality, polygamy, etc.

I doubt there is even one person whose opinion has changed as a result of these arguments.

Ranger: You're right. Minds aren't being changed as a result of these discussions. But our laws and social mores are a negotiation and the way to lose is to abdicate your position and allow the other side to run roughshod over you.

Amy: Our society had an equilibrium, a standard of behavior and morality. Those who feel the way you do have come along with an agenda to upset that equilibrium. So I think the burden is on YOU to show why we should throw away hundred of years of behavior on a whim.

I am not opposed to change if there are good reasons for changing. But, so far, nobody has provided a convincing argument that we should throw away everything from the past and adopt this new perspective.

My company would never accept it if I went into the President and said: "We need to pay janitors $100K per year because that's what we pay engineers and janitors are essential to our operations as well." I would have to go forward with reasonable support to justify such a departure from our long-held method of comensating employees. The burden is not on them to prove why they don't want to change. The burden is on me to prove the benefits of changing.

So that is what you and the other anti-gays are up to? "Negotiating" laws and social mores (however mores are supposed to be defined in a splintered and pluralistic society) in hopes that some compromise will be struck?

Gays and lesbians will never agree to anything short of simple equality. If you're advocating something short of this, we will fight you.

Why is it so very important to anti-gays that gays be kept down and "in their place"?

Amy,

No one is "trying to ban gay marriage" in Utah. It has ALWAYS been banned. Until runaway courts decided to start acting like super (or tiny) legislatures making laws and drafting social policy rather than applying the laws passed, there was no thought that constitutional provisions were needed. No rational person had ever suggested that ANY constitutional provisions required the government and society to recognize gay unions on an equal footing with real marriage. Certainly NOT the puritans who drafted the constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I come from an original intent school of belief on Constitutions. It is a very simple, workable premise. A constitution (or other law) means what it was intended to mean when it was written. Period. It does not change over time based on every judicial whim to come along. ONLY if original intent is not known and cannot be reasonably discerned from contemporary sources should there be any room for modern "interpretation."

I know this view creates a real barrier to liberal social change. But it also protects all of us. We all know what we have and if we desire change we can work for it via the legislative and ConAmd process. Otherwise we have no constitution, only the dictates of an oligarchy of judges who wrap their dictates in judicial prose. As the liberals have discovered, this process puts your most cherished gains at risk as a right-wing president has the congressional majority to appoint judges who share his view.

Homosexual conduct, even PRIVATE homosexual conduct, much less public recognition such as granted by a marriage license, has NEVER been considered a "right." This is true for over 200 years of American jurisprudence and 500+ years of English jurisprudence preceding that. One does NOT just toss out 700 years of legal and societal precedence lightly. To quote Jefferson, "experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."

If YOU wish to fundamentally alter 700 years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and over 4000 years of Biblically based cultural and societal morality, the burden is on YOU to convince the rest of us why such radical change in the definition of marriage is warranted.

I realize this is inconvenient and difficult. It took a terrible war and 3 ConAmds plus years of further struggle to really end slavery and legally enforced racial segregation in this nation. The end result was the right thing to have, obviously. But even when the cause is just, one does not do his cause a service by short-cutting the process of public debate and persuasion.

Now, I'd just as soon avoid any shooting wars, but if you want to create new rights based on sexual preferences and proclivities I will expect you to clear a pretty high bar in terms of convincing society as a whole that you are correct.

Of course, nothing in the federal constitution prohibits gay sexual activity or gay marriage. And until judges ran amok back east there was nothing in the Utah State nor most other State constitutions either. You could have made a simple majority based case to the legislature and legalized gay marriage with normal legislation. By your own admission you think times are changing and one day the nation will support such actions.

But the gay agenda would not wait for public persuasion and debate and dialog. They had to have radical change NOW. So they and their allies in the courts short circuited the public debate just as they did on elective abortion years ago (And look how well THAT has settled the debate, NOT!) and now you've got a real problem with at least 18 States now having ConAmds and about 40 States with either ConAmds or at least legislation banning gay marriage.

Now, in at least 18 States (as of 2005) you face the challenge of repealing Constitutional Provisions with super-majority requirements. The so-called gay rights crowd has really created a mess for themselves. I might suggest that obscene and vulgar public "pride" parades with public nudity and simulated sex acts being flaunted on main streets across the nation have likewise galvanized opposition.

You'll also notice that my primary assertion has been that gay marriage and conduct is morally offensive NOT that it is "harmful to society." So please don't set up straw man arguments. I happen to believe that widespread acceptance of immoral conduct IS harmful to society and if the conduct at almost every "gay pride" parade conducted in this nation is ANY kind of window into what kinds of public conduct wold be encouraged by widespread acceptance of gay conduct, I'd say that assertion is right up there with Jefferson's list of "self evident" rights.

Unless of course you want to take on the burden of arguing the benefits of public nudity, obscenity, vulgarity, and simulated (or even actual) sex acts. Good luck with that one.

Bottom line, Amy. I disagree with you and will not be brow beat by pseudo-intellectual sounding concerns about church and state, or pedestrian insults about my personal beliefs.

We live in a Constitutional republic. There are certain areas of our lives that should be beyond public vote. And when you get ready to support repealing of every "gun control" law out there based on the black letter law of the 2nd Article of Amendment to the Federal Constitution as well as Article 1, Section 6 of the Utah State constitution, we can start discussing whether non-enumerated rights discovered by the courts in the penumbra (or not even discovered by most courts yet) are also beyond majority vote. Regardless, a whole host of public policy decisions must be made by majority vote. And for the time being, my side of the gay marriage debate holds the solid majority in Utah and most of the rest of the nation and State and federal laws refuse to recognize gay marriage.

You might also want to consider why a majority of 3 to 5 lawyers are more likely to make good decisions on questions of broad public policy (as opposed to narrow questions of law applied to a single, specific case in front of them) than is a majority or even super majority of 107 legislators, 535 regular members of congress, or even millions of citizens. Why is it that democrats are so often unwilling to trust the democratic process turning instead to the smallest oligarchy they can find, the courts? Telling I think.

My views overrule yours on this matter because my views are held by the majority. The majority gets to set speed limits, tax rates, age of consent, determine the crimes eligible for capital punishment, and yes, as much as you may not like it, most laws and rules concerning marriage.

Bear in mind, I am not preventing any adult from loving, living with, or even engaging in private sexual conduct with any other consenting adult they wish. Nor would I support efforts or laws to prevent consenting adults from making such decisions for themselves. All I am doing is WITHHOLDING my approval and sanction for such conduct as well as the approval and official sanction of my government.

I find myself in the minority on a large number of government questions. But on this one, I am solidly in the majority. I truly believe that should the majority shift on this question and this nation ever grant wholesale recognition, support, approval, and sanction to such grossly immoral conduct we will have withdrawn ourselves wholly from any claims on the protections and blessings of--as the founding fathers said--"Divine Providence."

Ranger: I would be disappointed if homosexuals didn't fight for what they think is right. That is part of the art of living in a pluralistic society.

Listen, I've gone through this before on other blogs but here is my philosophy of our political system. All our lives, we have heard that you can't legislate morality. Right? Well, I happen to believe that all laws are, at their core, moral laws.

- Insider trading laws are designed to keep people from stealing the funds of others.
- Traffic laws are designed to allow us to share the use of the roads without getting people killed.
- OSHA regulations are designed to keep unscrupuouls business owners from endangering their employees.

We can go on and on, but ultimately all laws are designed to help us live together with a sense of a collective ethical standard ... to keep us from killing each other or taking advantage of each other.

If this premise is accurate, then law-making becomes the art of discovering (or negotiating) a collective standard of behavior. Nobody is going to always get their way. In fact, I would not want to always get my way because I understand my own fallibility. Put simply, I am not always right. But I submit that you are not always right either. So we talk, we argue, we negotiate. We strive vigorously for our moral positions.

In this exchange of ideas, I can either continue to advocate for my position or I can submit. You have the same option. I don't get the impression that you are going to submit. Why would you expect me to do so?

Amy, tell me what you believe about natural selection or evolution? What is your understanding of it and do you believe in it?

Yes I'll answer your question. Yes it would be fair to give up my bacon for the sake of their religious convictions. It's the only way there can be peace and order. If I lived in Jerusalem and was part of an extremely small minority (like gays in Utah), and it was against the law to eat pork there, I would obey the law and not eat pork. That is what makes a civilized person a civilized person. Someone who obeys the law. And I would respect the Jews for their belief. And no, I would not demand that the Jews take down any religious symbols that are displayed in public because I do not believe like them. And sue them. That would make me a miserable wretch with no friends. I would actually enjoy learning everything about their religion that I could, and would be a better person for it. And I would have a lot of friends. And I would like the Jews.
Now in response to your answer to my question. My understanding of natural selection is summed up in the following: Survival of the fittest. That means one "animal" which is more "fit" than another passes on it's genes (or traits) to it's offspring. Gay people pass no traits or genes to anything. I'll leave it at that because my purpose is not to be mean. I don't believe it anyways.

Do you believe in the Bible? Old and New testaments?

Also tell me more about Unitarianism. Is the wikipedia a good summary about Unitarianism? Because that's all I know about it.

I am being honest about the pork thing if I lived in Jerusalem. And in answer to the second part, the other way around I would act differently. And I am wittnessing religion (Chritianity especially) under attack in my country. Look at the idiots trying to take down the cross everywhere (and the cross is not a symbol of my religion as you may know). Yes the Christians here are seeing it the other way around, and yet they are definitely in the majority. Crazy. I would fight to keep the cross as a symbol, I see nothing wrong with it. Which is why I know that this attack on religion has nothing to do with some people being offended by others religious symbols, practices etc. It is not a fight between separation of church and state. The fight has to do with trying to conquer the United States. How do you conquer a nation? Read the communist manifesto. That is what you do. You take away guns, freedom of the press and speech, freedom of religion. And you turn us into China, or the former Soviet Union, or Cuba. That is why the homosexual agenda is being pushed. People who don't believe in God are trying to conquer this country. If there is no God, there is no good or evil. And if there is no God, then people are simply a deer population out of control and they are going to ruin the "environment".

So, they fight the homosexual fight and think of ideas to increase the amount of homosexuality in the US. They are good at arguing and thinking of ways to get people to think of it as ok. Then people like you simply repeat them, and win some over. It is controlling the deer population to them. That is why they fight for abortion as well. What is China known for? Abortion. Why? Because the deer population is out of control. It is illegal to believe in God in China. Because the leaders don't believe in God. However, I know there is a God, and the greatest nation on the earth was born from religions. All of them being welcome. When a nation becomes wicked God destroys them. How will that happen here? I don't know. But happen it will. I hope our nation is righteous, but I am afraid it may not be. I hope I am righteous. It wouldn't matter if I could prove to you the things written in Abraham were true, you are not interested in truth. Scientific or otherwise. I know the Book of Abraham is true, I know the Book of Mormon is true, I know the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly. Why do you worry so much about my religion? Why do you hate us so bad? We don't hate you and search to find things wrong about your church and ridicule you? Your mean and nasty. And you are helping this nation to a speedy destruction. And you will be sorry once it is.