Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,052 Excellent

About JulieM

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,071 profile views
  1. Thanks for posting all of that, Alarson. I hadn’t looked into what this other pamphlet covered and that’s interesting to know. Apparently kiwi can dodge responding to a CFR. I doubt he has anything though or he would have posted it. I want to thank Calm too as she was very helpful. I’m moving on too (and thanks again)!
  2. Wow. Thanks Calm for taking the time and putting in so much effort to answer kiwi’s CFR for him. Interesting to read through all of that! I do disagree that any of what you quoted or written above states things in a “plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally” manner when it comes to instructing leaders to make sure a member who is gay is completely cured before dating the opposite sex or marriage is advised. Those quotes have been discussed here and interpreted differently by different members. They are ambiguous, IMO (and others) and certainly not what kiwi claimed. Kiwi stated both of those (regarding dating and marriage) and refused to respond AFTER my CFR was issued (and rockpond’s too) with any quotes posted or links as was requested. Kiwi stated: Which plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally talks about marriage as a goal to be pursued after a cure has been found." And "Dating is suggested after the person feels that he is free of his temptations and not before." None of what you provide for him states that. The one quote comes close to inferring that a person hopefully is “normal” (but not before “dating is suggested”). The word “cured” is never used to make it plain, unambiguous, and unequivocally clear. But once again, it’s very generous of you to step in and attempt to do that for kiwi. Thanks again. I’m pretty satisfied though that those quotes don’t exist as thorough as I know you are.
  3. Exactly. And, he still has not responded to the CFR. I know I and others would like to see where it’s written as clearly as he claims.
  4. As far as I can tell, that response wasn’t referring to any specific quote. It’s in the same post where he states it’s written “plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally”. Thus the 2 CFR’s asked for from kiwi for where that is written (links and quotes). So far he has refused to honor those.
  5. But kiwi claims: “Dating is suggested after the person feels that he is free of his temptations and not before.”
  6. I think the “can follow” indicates they were NOT cured prior to dating and marriage.
  7. kiwi, just a reminder that you have not responded to my CFR (or rockpond’s): http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209787174 You either need to post the quotes and links to back up your claim or retract it.
  8. It states in those pamphlets “plainly, clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally” that dating and marrying the opposite sex should only take place after someone is cured of being gay? Links and exact quotes (CFR).
  9. Then what do you believe the leaders meant when they wrote: ”Homosexuality CAN be cured.” “they [homosexuals] must be introduced to and learn the heterosexual or straight way of life.” And: “If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong.”
  10. Not true. It does not state to only date and marry when fully cured. So, what was the “cure” kiwi? Do you have the source for where the leaders stated to only date and marry “after a cure has been found”?
  11. I agree (which is what I was trying to say, but you stated it better). There are simply too many factors to narrow it down to just one. For me, I believe it would not have passed without the influence of the advertisements paid for by the church and other religions and organizations. Without the effort of members, I doubt it would have passed. If I had to name a single factor, that would be it.
  12. Of course. But you seem to only look at one of the many, many facts (black vote) about the different factors involved with what accomplished the passing of prop 8. The amount of money and time donated by Mormons is also a fact. Look at all of them. It’s then a person’s opinion which one was the “single most significant” (if it can even be narrowed down to a “single” one.)
  13. There are statistics as to how much of the total money donated came from church members. Or are you disputing that? (I think someone already posted here the amount and that it was either half or over half the total). There’s no way that was not a very significant factor in getting prop 8 to pass. There is simply not just one “single” significant factor but many.
  14. Those specific statistics you’re using do show that the black vote was ONE factor that was significant. But was it the “single most significant” factor? That’s up for debate. Just because some have made statements agreeing with you doesn’t change the fact that there were quite a number of factors that contributed to getting prop 8 passed. There are statistics showing how much of the money was donated by members of the church. These are just as valid statistics as your statistics, but just in another area that influenced voters. It was also a factor in getting it passed. Many believe the money (and time) from Mormons was the single most significant factor in getting 8 to pass. They have statistics too.