Jump to content

california boy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,919 Excellent

About california boy

  • Rank
    Looks for truth over dogma

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    I like to listen to others that share different beliefs than me. I try to respect those differences, but will also challenge those beliefs to sort out truth from dogma. I feel that people have often let religious dogma overshadow the basic message of Christ. I adhere to simple truths. Love God, love others, let God judge and worry about my own faults.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,653 profile views
  1. This thread isn't about Bibical support for or against gay marriage, so I am not going to address that. But this thread is about how change and revelation occurs. From a historical perspective, it would take a church leader to plead before God for a revelation. Hence, my comments. No worries about offending me. I have always maintained that the church can keep out whoever it wants from their temples. I am not one of those guys campaigning for gay marriage in the church.
  2. Given the church's past record towards the gay community, do you really seriously think there is anyone in current leadership who might possibly be praying for acceptance of gay marriage? What we do know is that church leaders prayed about is making a HUGE effort to fight against the civil rights for gays to have a civil marriage. We know that 3 years ago, church leaders prayed to deny young children of gay couples baptism and call their parents apostates. I highly doubt the recent change would have happened without the impact it has had on members of the church and subsequent fallout over that "revelation." But then I am sure you have way more faith in church leaders than I do. Our life experiences have been quite different.
  3. I pretty much agree with what you wrote. But for me, the key point you made is the pleading of Spencer W. Kimball to God on behalf of those who were barred from the priesthood and temple blessings. As I understand it, this pleading was not a one shot prayer but a continued earnest inquiry to God. I don't see anyone in current church leadership willing to earnestly plead to God for those temple blessings of eternal marriage extended to worthy gay couples. Does anyone see such an effort by current church leaders? So I, like many, doubt those blessings will be extended to gay couples until at the very least, a church leader rises up who is willing to go before the Lord in earnest and plead for those gay couples that are currently excluded. At this point, for me, it is a moot point. I think it will take a leader that rises up in a church environment that is more friendly towards those that are gay. Perhaps the purpose of the policy was to rally church members in becoming aware of this issue.
  4. Do you really think that a long and incessant panorama of war and bloodshed that would plague the earth beginning with the Civil War? It didn't take the civil war to start a cycle of endless wars. There has never been a time in history where there hasn't been a war going on somewhere in the world. We have even had a single war that lasted for 100 years. To put. that in perspective, think what it would have been like if the Civil war didn't end until 1961. I think it would be a very myopic view to hold that incessant panorama of wars started with the Civil War.
  5. I would like to address this whole issuee of procreaton and being gay. It often comes up in these discussions and some seem to use it as proof that being gay goes against the Plan of Salvation because the whole purpose of the Plan of Salvation evidently is to reproduce. When it has been pointed out that many couples can't rreproduce, the retort is that it will change and they will be able to reproduce in the next life. Yet no one can actually explain exactly how spirit children are created. Only assumptions that it happens like on earth. Yet does 9 months pregnancies sound like the way billions of spirits are created? So we logically know that procreation of spirit children is different in the next life. Just what does the church command a gay person to do? Live a celibate life. Now just think about that for a minute. The very nature of the solution the church offers is one that is ALSO sterile. How does living a celibate life allow a person to procreate in this life any more than being married to someone of the same sex? As far as I know, no human has ever been able to create offspring on their own. Now, you might retort that in the next life they will have the opportunity to marry and all will be made whole. Just who will this gay person marry in the next life that will make everything whole if they have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex? The only conclusion you can make up is that somehow they will no longer be gay. Will someone have to repent for being gay while on earth when they are now no loger gay? Just how does that happen? The only real choice is to trust God. Allow Him to be fair in how He judges someone who is gay and allow His plan for those that are gay to unfold in the next life no matter what that plan is. Because it certainly is not clear to anyone including leaders of the church just what that plan is and how spirit children are created in the next life. This is not a hard decision for me. I TRUST GOD. And I trust that He will work all this out in the next life.
  6. Maybe I should have said, there is not even a claim of revelation by church leaders that gay marriage should be prohibited. And given the current, just about any feeling qualifies as a revelation, this seems a bit odd to me. But yeah, I have long since quit relying on others as my source of truth. I trust God, not someone who claims to speak for God no matter who he is or what religion he is affiliated with.
  7. There is absolutely no credible evidence that God has revealed anything concerning how the church should deal with gay people IMO. You can't even point to a revelation that forbids gay couples from marrying coming from God. This is all just guess work on the part of church leaders based on how THEY view scriptures. This goes back all the way when I was fresh off my mission in the 70's when church leaders were claiming that God promised I would become straight if I just married a woman. We all know how that turned out. The 2015 policy declared a revelation now gets reversed. Has anyone even claimed the latest change came about yet another revelation?
  8. Oh I agree with you. I don't think this policy was ever intended to actually affect the children of gay parents. Like I have been saying, it feels more like the issue was used to make a statement against gay couples.
  9. There is no doubt my personal experience with church leaders leads me to be less willing to not feel like I have been used as a pawn in the numerous policies that the church has decided to direct on towards the gay community.
  10. Do you have an example of what you are talking about?
  11. There definitely was a time where even the police force thought beating up on gays was an ok thing to do and no one spoke out against that. There was a time when church leaders such as Spencer W. Kimball could call being gay an abomination and no one spoke out against that. There was a time when the church thought just because you are gay, you don't deserve equal treatment under the laws of this country. Maybe church leaders just got addicted to targeting gays as an easy group to attack and thought no one would care. Like you pointed out, they are a very small part of the population. But times changed. The church just held on to those "good old days" longer than most of the rest of the world. Most people now believe that just because someone is gay, they still have the same civil rights as the rest of America. And their children deserve the same treatment as other children. You are never going to convince me that denying baptism to young children of gay parents is part of the agenda of Christ. I think that is why so many members as well as many outside the church had such issue with this policy. It seemed completely contrary to the message of Christ. Let's hope the church has turned a corner on this issue and eventually realize that not everyone can be straight no matter how much the church wants them to be. That all can be included in the body of Christ.
  12. It does seem that the church uses the LGBT community as their own personal pawns to further their agenda and provide some kind of test for it's members.
  13. The fact that church leaders could not have forseen the backlash their policy would start is what is hard to understand.
  14. You have come to the same conclusion I did when Church leaders told me that if I only marry a woman, then I will become straight. And they assured me that promise came from God. The church leaders throw around the word revelation or Revelation every time they are in total agreement. The expectation that such agreements came from God and not from 15 people agreeing on the policy is the problem. I learned that when Church leaders call something a revelation, God was probably not part of the discussion any more than when a board of directors are in complete agreement on how a corporation should move forward. This has taught us that despite claims of revelation, if church leaders are not willing to canonize a decision, then it is just their unanimous decision and not a revelation from God. For most people, those are two different things. For some in church leadership, they make no such distinction. Like you, I have learned to trust God myself rather than trust those who claim to speak for God.
  15. This makes sense. This has always made sense. You are making the same argument I have made from the beginning, and one you would never acknowledge until now. What never made sense is the church making a blanket policy specifically targeting gay families that took away the opportunity to handle each situation individually and with prayerful consideration. What I have never understood is why the policy was instituted in the first place. If the parents refused those conditions, then of course their children would not be baptized. That is what happens with every other situation when a minor is seeking baptism. Parents have always had to agree to the conditions presented by the church and give their consent. For church leaders to target gay families tells more about leadership attitudes towards gays than some kind of "righteous reason." It really didn't take much foresight to be able to predict what would happen when the church starts to deny baptism to minor children just because their parents are gay. Nothing has changed since this policy was announced. Just 3 1/2 years and a lot of backlash against the church for a teaching that many felt went directly against the teachings of the Savior. As far as polygamist families, that also should be talked about. But then, I have never been a believer in denying blessings to a child because of the sins of the parents.
  • Create New...