Jump to content

california boy

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,861 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

2,612 profile views
  1. No you weren't. But both you and Kiwi seemed to indicate that marriage was only advised after a "cure" took place. There are way too many examples where the gay person was told to marry when no cure had taken place. Nor does it state anywhere that marriage should ONLY take place after the person is "cured" from being gay. What is certain is that the direction at best is very unclear what the Bretheren were counseling gay men to do. Not really surprising that church leaders were. going around telling gay men to marry and they would become straight is it?
  2. There is one big flaw in your reading the direction from church leaders this way. If gay men were being advised that dating would cure them from. being gay, you have to first believe that dating a woman would actually cure you from being gay. Is there any evidence that will actually happen for the vast majority of gay men? If there is actual evidence of that happening, then why wouldn't the church still advise gay men to just start dating women until they are cured and then marry instead of advising most gay men to remain celibate? And secondly, If gay men were suppose to wait until they were "cured" before marrying, why is there hundreds of gay men that married even though they were still gay? I don't see much harm in encouraging gay men to try dating women. Certainly some like Klindery and others that might be more on the bi side dating might very well work. But the trail of broken homes and failed marriages does not support that dating was the only thing gay men were being told to do to be "cured". Look at the evidence instead of speculating what the advice might mean.
  3. President Nelson Press Conference - LGBT Issues

    Cinepro, you really get it. The church will do just fine by excommunicating every gay couple that wants to be involved in the church. Their numbers are not that big. But the majority of people can not for the life of them see what is evil about a gay man finding someone who he loves and wants to spend his life with . The richness and fulness that brings to any human on this earth is not even a question. What kind of person does not want another person to have that joy in their lives. To call a gay person's wants and desires evil, what does that say about their own wants and desires? Is the only difference is that they won the lottery are are not attracted to their same sex? The younger generation have close friends that are out. They don't find one bit if difference between who they are and who their gay friends are, except that they are attracted to their same sex. Only the very orthodox member would not want their friends to enjoy their lives with someone they also love. The church can say NO, NO, NO all that it wants. But the heart and the brain and the Spirit for most of these young people are saying WHY NOT? As president Nelson said, "God loves all his children." Can you see how the message of the church to those that are gay is in conflict with that very belief?
  4. President Nelson Press Conference - LGBT Issues

    You think the big question is "Does God love all his children?"
  5. President Nelson Press Conference - LGBT Issues

    I clearly get what you are saying and certainly agree that these men are not the kind of guys that deal with the press well. That said, there wasn't a single question that could not have been predicted. These men are good at public speaking when they prepare for it. It seems like a little preparation would have gone a long way. If the only people that care about that press conference are members, perhaps they should not have done it. It didn't seem to accomplish a great deal. A conference address or devotional might have been more in their comfort zone and certainly would not have confused the public quite so me. If their objective was to reach out to a bigger audience, I would say it failed pretty spectacularly.
  6. While the Mormon church supported Prop 22, they didn't take the active role in passing it like they did Prop 8. BIG DIFFERENCE. The California Supreme Court also had not yet ruled that gays have the civil right to marry under the constitution of the State. BIG DIFFERENCE. President Hinkley passed away in January of 2008, long before the Prop 8 campaign even started. BIG DIFFERENCE. The social change has been a factor on how these issues are currently viewed. I don't think the social changes are responsible for how the Mormon church has handled these issues.
  7. I don't see anyone blaming the Mormon church or any other church for upholding their values. No one has forced the Mormon church to shift one single centimeter away from its values. Not even Hollywood. Have you seen any of that? As far as I can tell the church's beliefs and practices concerning gays and lesbians are still in place. Prop 8 was not about the church retaining it's values. Prop 8 was about taking away the civil rights of others to live their lives the way they see fit. Prop 8 was about forcing Mormon values on gay and lesbian couples. Do you think Hollywood or the gay community should start ballot initiates to force Mormons to live by their standards? You would be yelling and screaming like a stuck pig if they tried to do something like that.
  8. President Nelson Press Conference - LGBT Issues

    My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this: "Thanks Brady. No changes expected. Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses. We also still oppose same-sex marriage. We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth. We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this." Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous? Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard? I was listening to the press conference when my partner came into the room. He wanted to know what I was watching. I told him it was a press conference with the new president of the Mormon church. He stood there watching it. Honestly he could barely understand any of what they were saying. He asked me if I knew what they were talking about. I told him yes. because I was used to the language. From an outsiders perspective, there is so much jargon and assumed understanding of terms and teachings, he really couldn't follow what was being said. Everything seemed like double talk to him. He asked me if they answered the question. I told him, kind.of. I had to interpret what was meant the best I could. It was not just this question, it was pretty much all of the questions. When asked about all white male leadership, what my partner got out of the answer is that Mormons believe God wants an all white male American leadership and it was not their fault at all. That seemed a bit ridiculous to him. Does God only love white male Americans? The whole "different flavor" comment made him wonder what planet these men are on. Are blacks chocolate? Indians strawberry? He wasn't sure how anyone could possibly refer to different races as "flavors". His comment was that clearly these guys don't deal with much diversity. He wanted to know why they called President Nelson president instead of prophet? He was even more confused when I told him that the entire quorum of twelve are prophets. Then he wanted to know what the quorum of the 12 was. So I had to explain that they were the apostles. So then he was confused whether they were apostles or prophets. I told him they were both. Is revelator a made up word? No, John is referred to as a revelatory. So what is the difference between a prophet and a revelatory. What is a seer? That sounded to hm like something from Greek Mythology. What's a 70? And why can they be different races but not the apostles. What are the Joseph Smith papers? Are they like the book where his Great Great Grandfather is mentioned? (He meant the D&C. He has a few family members that are still Mormon. His family roots goes back to William C. Bennett) Granted not all of these are only "Mormon words" but a lot of them only Mormons commonly use to refer to leaders in the church. He also thought that President Nelson must have picked all the people asking the questions because before answering any question he kept commenting about how well he knew them and/or their families. I told him they were local reporters and he probably has had dealings with them before. He did comment on how bright and alert President Nelson appeared for being 93. That impressed him. And he did feel like President Nelson had a good sense of humor. I had a different take on the news conference, as I am sure most of you did. I don't think for us that are used to the Mormon lingo realize how foreign so many of the terms we use are. What was clear is that the church leaders are very aware of the important issues facing the church. What also seemed clear is that they had no idea what to do to change any of the issues facing the church. It looks like it is going to be a steer the same course. But I really didn't expect anything different. Honestly, I can't figure out how to deal with these issues that face the church today either. I did wonder why the church did not invited more national news media to the event. It seems like it should have been a more national newsworthy event. Were the major networks and newspapers invited, but none of them felt it was of any great importance to hear the new leader of the Mormon Church?
  9. New First Presidency

    Since everyone seems to be putting in their two cents worth, I would like to add mine to the mix. I think that Elder Uchtdorf is probably very appreciative that he got to experience being in a church presidency and serve under President Monson especially at a relative young age. Now someone else gets that opportunity and he can take the experience he learned while serving as a counselor to be that much better as an apostle. All of these men are willing to serve where they are asked to serve. May they all fulfill their callings to the best of their abilities.
  10. These quotes are long after the time I was told to marry. I got married in 1974, long before Elder Oaks was even called to be an apostle. So it is certainly expected that he didn't know what past promises were given by church leaders in 1974. Elder Oaks was called to be an apostle in 1984. It was around this time that the church was abandoning this policy. If anything the quotes from Elder Oaks confirm that he was not sure what advice was given. Notice that he does not say that the church NEVER had such a policy. It was never referred to as part of the repentance process. It was a promise of a cure for being gay. Hope that helps give better understanding to what was going on. I might add that this attitude is much more in keeping with the 1970 pamphlet "Hope for Transgressors." where promises of being cured is quite prevalent in the pamphlet. In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the pamphlet. There is no mention of modern day counsel that being gay is not a sin and celibacy is the preferred route to take. I also might add that it is personally insulting that Kiwi thinks he knows more about what church leaders were promising gay members during the early 70's than all those who have testified to quite a different story when it is highly doubtful he EVER brought up how to deal with homosexuality to ANYONE during this time. Yet he stands as a self proclaimed expert on this subject without any direct quotes to back up that assumed status. Frankly it is disgusting, and I am tired of his insults hurled at me. Those that I should have been able to trust the most failed me. And now I am getting attacked for that failed promise made to me in the name of God, I feel like a rape victim being blamed for being raped. Yeah it is that raw for something that has affected my life for decades.
  11. I don't disagree with your statement you put in bold type. I just reread the actual obituary in the New York Times. While the first half of the obituary addresses the things during his administration that have caused the biggest impact both within the church and how others view the church, the second half addresses his more personal life. From the obituary. What else do you think as a Mormon should have been included?
  12. I am not sure you can draw those strong of lines in the sand. When a church actively tries to deny a minority group the right to marry people take that kind of egressing pretty hard. It is one thing to respect anothers right to believe it's own view on what is right and what is wrong. It is another thing to take the right from a minority to live their lives the way they see fit. It is a two way street that Morons often don't see. I don't see the branding of the church against women holding the priesthood as I do LGBT issues. THAT is viewed as being more an internal decision which the church has every right to uphold. There is no doubt that some disapprove of what they view as discriminating against women. Not discriminating is a very American value that runs quite deep in our culture for the past 50 years. Other groups that are preceeved as discriminating against any particular group get similar kinds of disapproval. Decades ago, the LDS church was a champion of strong families. Their whole PR campaign centered around that very American value. Because the church has decided to attack gay families, it has severely weakened their moral stance in the eye of the public. The church wants to define what a family is for the rest of the world. People outside of the church don't share that belief. What do you think is going to happen? I think disapproval is a pretty natural consequence. This is not meant to be an attack on Mormon beliefs. I am trying to explain how i believe others outside the church view the tactics the church has chosen to take under the administration of President Monson. When the church was growing at it's peek, there was a message coming from President Hinkley that all are welcome to be a part of the church. While the church still echos that theme, many no longer feel that is true. Certainly if Mormons step back a little, they can see the shift that has taken place. It is a pretty significant shift. The church has every right to embrace it's own beliefs. No one is saying that it isn't entitled to those beliefs. But that shift is going to effect how others view the church and ultimately the growth of the church.
  13. I have pretty much stayed out of this whole thread because I think it is pretty emotionally charged subject. But I agree with you. I think Mormons are expecting an obituary to be written from their perspective. That didn't happen. The obituary was written in the way most people outside the church view the actions that took place under President Monson's administration. It used to be that the world viewed Mormonism as that religion that once practiced polygamy and discriminated against blacks. Under President Monson's time as leader of the church, Mormonism has now also become known as that religion that fights against LGBT civil rights. After a very public Prop 8 followed by the October policy, those outside the church have now come to view Mormonism as being anti gay. While the church's stance on the LGBT community may not have changed, it certainly became very public under President Monson's stewardship. Was that issue given too much prominence in the obituary? Probably. Should it have been a part of the obituary? I believe it should have. The impact both within the church and outside the church is significant.
  14. You have it exactly right and the documentation that you took the time to post once again also agrees with what happened. The cure for being gay WAS MARRIAGE. I would like to know what other cures Kiwi thinks the church was offering at the time. In any event, I have talked to Kiwi and others about this so many times that I simply am not going to get drawn into it yet again. There is no point. Just like your acquaintances, the damage has already been done.
  15. At this point, I really couldn't care less what Kiwi thinks. I do wish however that the church would have the integrity to apologize for what they put all those gay men, those that they married, and their families through. For the church, it is just some kind of ooops, guess we were wrong. For those that were trying their very best to be obedient to church leaders it was devastating. Of course we all know that apology is never going to happen. Evidently men of God don't apologize.