Jump to content
Daniel2

New HBO News Segment focuses on LGBT issues, touches on Monson, Priesthood

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If I understand kiwi's point correctly, the issue is the timeline (what step comes first) of the suggestion/instruction.

He is challenging the claim of the policy/teaching being "get married, get cured" (Iow marriage itself will cure you) and instead believes it is being presented by leaders as "get cured, then get married" (Iow, develop the ability to have romantic feelings for the opposite sex first and then use them in dating and marriage).

I hope he will correct me if I am misreading him.

Calm gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Calm gets it.

Ok. 

And....you're still wrong. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Apparently, I don't know what kiwi thinks I know too :lol:

I disagree.  From statements made by them,  that's exactly what the leaders believed and were advising at one time.    That advice was given by many local leaders to their gay members.  I know this from personal experience and from what other's have reported as well

I'd like to thank you, ALarson, for finally! acknowledging that we are talking about two different things.

Now I don't doubt for a minute that some leaders at the local level got carried away thinking that marriage would solve everything. It's human nature to look for quick fixes.

But that is not what the written documentation supports.

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

(plus the instructions and beliefs are in writing).

Yes, they are.

And the instructions in writing show very plainly and unambiguously that marriage is to be sought as an ultimate goal, not as the means to curing homosexual attraction.

Which is entirely sufficient to explain why every time that anyone challenges CB (and you) when you assert that the Church taught something like "date and marry the opposite sex as a cure for them being gay," you can only lamely fall back on showing that "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex."

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

kiwi, if you can't see that, I'm amazed.....but no need to continue the back and forth on this.

We can disagree on this and move on.

Okay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'd like to thank you, ALarson, for finally! acknowledging that we are talking about two different things.

You might be, but I've been posting consistently about what was written by the leaders.

 

35 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Now I don't doubt for a minute that some leaders at the local level got carried away thinking that marriage would solve everything. It's human nature to look for quick fixes.

But that is not what the written documentation supports.

I disagree.

If what you're claiming took place, then many local leaders were wrongly advising their gay members, while relying on instructions they'd received in writing from their leaders.  And, that this was allowed to continue for several years.  I don't believe for one minute that word would not have gotten back to Salt Lake and that they would have immediately corrected the local leaders (if they were not following the guidance, teachings and beliefs that had been sent out to them).   There are simply too many reporting that they received the same advise and guidance (that california boy received) to believe these were all leaders who misunderstood.  Why would that be allowed to continue for so long if it was in error?

I think it's much more likely that the local leaders perfectly understood the instructions and followed them when advising gay members of their local congregations to date the opposite sex and get married.  I see that it's you who have misunderstood the leader's teachings.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

You might be, but I've been posting consistently about what was written by the leaders.

 

I disagree.

And yet you can't document any source for your disagreement.

I wonder why?

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

If what you're claiming took place, then many local leaders were wrongly advising their gay members, while relying on instructions they'd received in writing from their leaders.

And we have seen what those written instructions say.

And - as you and CB have repeatedly demonstrated - no matter how hard you try, you cannot make them say  "date and marry the opposite sex as a cure for them being gay." Because they very plainly say "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex."

And nothing more.

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

And, that this was allowed to continue for several years.  I don't believe for one minute that word would not have gotten back to Salt Lake and that they would have immediately corrected the local leaders (if they were not following the guidance, teachings and beliefs that had been sent out to them).   There are simply too many reporting that they received the same advise and guidance (that california boy received) to believe these were all leaders who misunderstood.  Why would that be allowed to continue for so long if it was in error?

And yet the established fact is that word did get back, and it was corrected.

We don't need to resort to hypotheticals, AL. The record shows what actually happened. Likewise, there is no room for an argument from silence, because what was said and written is a matter of record.

The leaders of the Church don't have a network of informants. They know what happens at the local level because local leaders report to them. And they don't report on confidential discussions with penitents. They never have.

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think it's much more likely that the local leaders perfectly understood the instructions and followed them when advising gay members of their local congregations to date the opposite sex and get married.  I see that it's you who have misunderstood the leader's teachings.

Sure, that must be it.

I just have two little questions:

  1. Why is it that what I "misunderstood" exactly matches what the written sources say, while what you "perfectly understood" doesn't? And
  2. Why is it that whenever you and CB are pressed to support your "perfectly understood" version of the instructions, you are only able to fall back on the "misunderstood" interpretation that I have relied upon?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And yet you can't document any source for your disagreement.

I've provided documentation in writing that was sent out by church leaders to local leaders (along with links and the names of the leaders attached to these writings).  I agree that this is no longer what the leaders believe and teach and instruct....but it definitely was at one time.  I'm grateful these teachings have changed.

We will just have to leave it that we disagree here.

Have a great evening!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've provided documentation in writing that was sent out by church leaders to local leaders (along with links and the names of the leaders attached to these writings).  I agree that this is no longer what the leaders believe and teach and instruct....but it definitely was at one time.  I'm grateful these teachings have changed.

We will just have to leave it that we disagree here.

Have a great evening!

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.  

Edited by california boy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.    

That's a great question.  I've also asked kiwi what he thought the leaders meant by stating that "homosexuality can be cured" if not referring to becoming heterosexual or straight.

So far, he dodges answering any of these types of questions (from what I've seen).  

I'm sorry for what you've been through, california boy.  I'm glad the leaders no longer teach what they once did and no longer recommend that dating and marriage is a cure (or even part of the cure).  I think that was changed around 2008 (just going from memory here and some statements made by Dallin Oaks on that).  However, it is tragic that so many were hurt before this change, IMO.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

Alas, that is not what the documentation says.

You know that as well as I do.

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Alas, that is not what the documentation says.

You know that as well as I do.

Sorry.

What was the cure that the leaders spoke of then?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's a great question.  I've also asked kiwi what he thought the leaders meant by stating that "homosexuality can be cured" if not referring to becoming heterosexual or straight.

So far, he dodges answering any of these types of questions (from what I've seen).  

The hypocrisy of that accusation is startling. I'm not the one brazenly misrepresenting what the documentation says and hiding behind my hurt feelings when my obvious and deliberate misinterpretation is questioned.

As far as I can tell, that question is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the documentation that has been provided.

Which plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally talks about marriage as a goal to be pursued after a cure has been found. Anyone who points to that documentation and claims that it says that marriage was offered as the means by which the cure was to be effected is making demonstrably false claims.

But you don't have to go any further than right back to the very pamphlet that you and CB have been so gleefully misrepresenting to see the therapeutic regime put forth. Prayer, scripture study, counselling and wholesome activities, as well as abstaining from homosexual practices to any degree. Dating is suggested after the person feels that he is free of his temptations and not before.

 

Share this post


Link to post

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”?

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

 

Which plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally talks about marriage as a goal to be pursued after a cure has been found.

 

CFR for the quote that plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally states that marriage is only to be pursued after a cure has been found. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've also asked kiwi what he thought the leaders meant by stating that "homosexuality can be cured" if not referring to becoming heterosexual or straight.

Why would the 'cure' for one artificial social construct be another equally artificial social construct?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Why would the 'cure' for one artificial social construct be another equally artificial social construct?

Oh my... the insanity on this page!

Yes, the term homosexuality is a social construct.  It’s a word we made up.  But when we read it we can translate it to mean someone who is attracted to members of the same sex.  

Does anyone here truly doubt that when past church leaders wrote that homosexuality could be cured they meant that those individuals would become heterosexual?  Seriously, aside from just being argumentative, does anyone here question that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Does anyone here truly doubt that when past church leaders wrote that homosexuality could be cured they meant that those individuals would become heterosexual?  Seriously, aside from just being argumentative, does anyone here question that?

Yes. I do. And in good faith.

Quote

Oh my... the insanity on this page!

Is that what you call it when people don't share your assumptions?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes. I do. And in good faith.

Is that what you call it when people don't share your assumptions?

No.  It’s what I call it when people refuse to read the words on a page and accept the meaning of those words.  See Julie’s question immediately above. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, JulieM said:

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”?

Yes.

1970 pamphlet "Hope for Transgressors."

1981 pamphlet "Homosexuality."

Additionally, I point to the reluctant witness of the critics here.

Rockpond: "Can it be proven that Church leaders promised gay men that they would be straight if they married a woman?  Of course not."  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69970-homosexuality-1981-handbook-for-priesthood-leaders/?page=12&tab=comments#comment-1209780785

And, of course, the clever shell game played by both california boy and ALarson in this very thread, something that would not be necessary, were it not for the fact that the documents on which they rely do not support their claims.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, rockpond said:

CFR for the quote that plainly, clearly, unambiguously and unequivocally states that marriage is only to be pursued after a cure has been found. 

Bump for kiwi.  

(Quotes please that state what you claim.)

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes.

1970 pamphlet "Hope for Transgressors."

1981 pamphlet "Homosexuality."

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).

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/12/2018 at 3:35 PM, Bob Crockett said:

My point in all this at least in the thread is to refute the politically correct argument that blacks overwhelmingly support gay rights.  They don't, and there has never been any proof of it unless you accept Daniel's and Gray's and your gut-feel approach to social science....

I am the wrong guy for you to be criticizing, as I support gay rights and marriage.  But I laugh out loud and mockingly at how political correctness rules the roost in your neighborhood.  

Bob, I NEVER made the point that blacks overwhelmingly support gay rights.  Not once, ever.  You’re jousting at a windmill in trying to refute an argument that was never made.

Additionally, I haven't made any appeals to social science regarding Dr. King's dream and my adoption of his verbiage, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Daniel's...gut-feel approach to social science." CFR on that if you believe otherwise, please.

You started throwing out all your stuff about black voters' support of Prop 8 in some sort of incoherent response objecting to my signature line invoking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's dream.  The whole Prop 8 thing is a giant red herring to the topic of this thread.  Yes, back in 2008, a majority of black voters supported Prop 8–a point I’ve never denied. At this point, Prop 8 is water under the bridge and I'm personally not particularly interested in discussing it anymore (though I'm happy to respect others' desire to continue to do so, which is why I haven't asked for you all to stop, despite it being off-topic).

My point ever since has been to try to clarify that it doesn't matter to me one bit that a majority of blacks voted against Prop 8--that has nothing to do with my invocation of Dr. King's verbiage.

Blacks don't "own" Dr. King's vision or dream, nor can they control who invokes similar language.  No one does.  We're all free to form and voice our opinions objecting to or agreeing with someone's use or application of it, but none of us are free to forbid someone else from doing so.

And my point in my justification in using it was that if Dr. King's widow felt justified in invoking her husband's dream to the gay and lesbian community and our struggle for equal civil rights, then I feel equally justified in doing so, whether or not you agree, whether or not that young black woman you met agrees, whether or not the majority of black voters in Prop 8 agreed, etc. 

 

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Oh my... the insanity on this page!

Yes, the term homosexuality is a social construct.  It’s a word we made up.  But when we read it we can translate it to mean someone who is attracted to members of the same sex.  

Does anyone here truly doubt that when past church leaders wrote that homosexuality could be cured they meant that those individuals would become heterosexual?  Seriously, aside from just being argumentative, does anyone here question that?

I also question that past leaders believed that the cure for homosexuality was to become heterosexual.  I've tried in the past to explain how vastly different I see the idea of homosexuality as the 20th Century social construct is is and homosexuality as the social and psychological phenomena t is hand has been for millennia.  I have a hard time maintaining an assumption of good faith when I continually see that distinction blurred or denied.  

 

In addition, I strongly disagree with the assertion that General Leaders ever suggested marriage as a means to a cure.  We've had this discussion before and I continue to maintain that the source document do not advocate that getting married would make a person straight.  The most "damning" quote is probably: "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."   That doesn't say get married and then gradually they will become straight.  It says with patience and determination they can develop heterosexual romantic interests.  

Again, that in 1983, when it became known that some local priesthood leaders were misapplying this counsel, the Leadership specifically and clearly opposed it.  In that announcement, they did not say, "we've taught this, but now it's changing."  They said "To clarify what we've taught, marriage should never be recommended as a cure."  

You may not be open to even considering that this claim can be made in good faith.  I can accept that.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

For all Kiwi's blustering about whether or not it was "policy," I personally experienced two different bishops in two different stakes in the early 1990's (as well as a straight, LDS graduate student at BYU who ran the local Evergreen group and had an on-campus office where he met with and specialized in helping male BYU students 'overcome their SSA') who advised me to marry a woman--knowing full well I still experienced 'same-sex attraction'--and promised, "in the name of the Lord," that He would then bless me with 'natural' heterosexual affection for my wife once (as in after) I started "having relations" (their words) with her.  Further, I was told by both bishops not to tell my wife of my attractions, because a) I had already confessed and repented of it through the proper Priesthood channels and the Lord remembered it no more, and b) that it would only cause my future fiancé "to question her own femininity and worth as a woman," and that it would "only damage our relationship."  These were not isolated incidents in which I may have 'misunderstood' what the bishops and therapist were saying... they occurred over years' worth of meetings with both bishops and the therapist.

Several years ago, when I helped found The Utah Gay Father's Association in Pleasant Grove, Utah, our first meeting consisted of 19 formerly LDS men, all RMs, 3/4 BYU grads, all formerly married in the temple, and all of whom were told the exact same thing I was.

Call it policy, practice, ill-founded advice, or whatever you want... but LDS bishops from the 70's to the 90's were advising gay men to get married with the promise ("in the name of the Lord," no less) that we would be cured. 

Trying to argue over semantics of whether it was advice/policy/practice/counsel minimizes the very real damage that many of us personally endured from following well-intentioned, but tragically ill-advised, counsel.  The pain of everyone involved--straight spouses, gay spouses, children, etc.--in many of these ill-advised mixed orientation marriages (the vast majority of which ended in suffering, pain, and divorce for most of us involved, gay or straight, adult or child) is reason enough to condemn recommending the practice of marriage as a step in becoming straight, and especially when concealing it from one's straight fiancé.

Thankfully, in recent years, Church leaders have said that heterosexual marriage should NOT be considered as a step to overcome 'SSA,' even though it's (unfortunately, IMO) still strongly considered to be a goal to aim towards for most devout gay LDS men.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 1:25 AM, kiwi57 said:

I'm "hung up" on the fact that your good buddy is consciously and deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of what was being said...

What I'm arguing about is what california boy always says - until he gets challenged on it - namely: "if gays married, then they would eventually become straight."

That is not what the Church was teaching or advising. It is materially and significantly different from "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex."...

Note that this is precisely the opposite of CB's claim, which was that courtship and [needless to say, opposite-sex] marriage was recommended as a therapeutic strategy.

Which it was not.

With all due respect, Kiwi, there is no way you can claim to know "what was being said" vs. what was not being said, or what local Church leaders were saying or what they weren't saying.  You weren't there.

You're appealing to your interpretation of the words of a 36-year-old packet and asserting that you know what local leadership were saying about that packet, while rejecting the testimony of hundreds of men--including CaliforniaBoy AND myself--who are telling you exactly what we were told: to get married and once we started having relations, our same-sex attractions would 'go away.'  It was VERY much described as THE step we needed to take to 'overcome' our problem.

WE, and the hundreds of other men and women like us--were there.   WE lived it.  WE can testify what was said. 

YOU cannot.  YOU were not there.  YOU did not live it.  You may have been told something different by your own church leaders, and that's fine--you can testify of YOUR truth.  But you cannot presume to speak of or even know what WE experienced or did not experience.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By blueglass
      Looked through the differences between the 2005 and 2018 Preach my Gospel manual which all the missionaries use.    https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service?lang=eng
      On June22, the 1st discussion was changed and now missionaries introduce the existence of 4 different accounts of the first vision to people. “We have four different accounts of what followed, recorded by him or scribes under his direction (see Gospel Topics essay, “First Vision Accounts”). In one account, he described his experience: “I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head . . . . ”
      It’s also good to see the misleading artwork for the book of mormon translation removed.   
      The Gospel Blesses Individuals and Families 
      Also added is the possibility to ascend higher “in the world to come” by accepting the fulness of the gospel rather than staying in the terrestrial or the telestial kingdoms. 
      An openness to identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual is not a sin.
      Atonement coupled to Jesus Christ in every mention, and more emphasis on exaltation rather than “eternal life”. 
      Removed all mention of the word "investigator(s)".
      Commitments replaced with Invitations.
      For the 5th discussion added to the section for Priesthood and Auxiliaries is the question, "How does this apply to women?"
      "President Dallin H. Oaks taught that women who are set apart as missionaries, officers, or teachers in the Church are “given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function” (“The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2014, 51). 
      Then it appears to cancel this out with the quote by Joseph Fielding Smith in 1959, "While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them , that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority".  This is where I thought Oaks overturned Joseph Fielding Smith by equating this authority with priesthood authority.  "We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. " We could do more to embrace the female potential of Doctrine and covenants 113:7-8, "7 Questions by Elias Higbee: What is meant by the command in Isaiah, 52d chapter, 1st verse, which saith: Put on thy strength, O Zion—and what people had Isaiah reference to?  8 He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost."  
    • By Maidservant
      My Mozilla Firefox suggests articles for me, and this one popped up today.  I should also say that I absolutely love Longreads--I prefer the long article pulse on news and society rather than main stream news 3 minute segments.
      I'm sharing it here in the name of noting how the "Mormonism" conversation is taking place in a larger context.
      MEET THE NEW MORMONS
      I'm ambivalent about the article itself.  I found it unsatisfying, but I'm still trying to put my finger on why.  I think in part that there are unsupported statements, that assume much from a supposed already-agreeing audience.  For example, she mentions twice about being people being called in to "discipline" for Facebook posts, but doesn't even give one example, much less showing an ongoing pattern.  Again--maybe readers should already know and be up on that, but I'm not, and I really don't think all readers will be, especially if the audience is mainly non-Mormon, as would be the case for Longreads.  Similarly there are statements like this: "But they [the Church] definitely don’t like everything that happens online. That’s why they excommunicated Kelly in 2014."  Again--wow--a lot that could benefit from unpacking there even if the conclusion remains the same.  She does not go through the Kelly case at all--just says only that.  So, again--an expectation that the reader already is following the entire matter and has background.
      What I liked best about the article was her personal story and struggles (and her Mom's).  I also can hardly disagree with the hope that there can be a greater atmosphere of talking about tough things without fear.
    • By kiwi57
      All communication depends upon a level of shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions. If the communication is verbal, then much of the shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions has to do with the meanings of words, their semantic ranges and how context influences those meanings. For example, when in the context of a Temple Recommend interview, the interviewer uses such words as "Testimony," "Saviour," "Word of Wisdom," "Law of Chastity" and suchlike, it is mutually understood that these terms take on specifically Mormon meanings, and that short "yes" or "no" answers convey the same information to the hearer as they do to the speaker.
      If a person is not familiar with Mormon terminology, those meanings will not be obvious. But if an interviewee is indeed familiar with them, but chooses instead to interpret those terms in alternative ways without informing the interviewer, - as advocated by Mister John Dehlin, Ph.D. - then s/he has deliberately set out to deceive the interviewer, and is engaging in what I call "lexical duplicity."
      None if this would be particularly controversial, were it not for the fact that there are in this forum one or two ideological friends of Mister Dr Dehlin who see nothing wrong with such behaviour, and flatly deny that any duplicity is involved.
      This raises a serious question, however. If those posters cannot see any problem with such behaviour in a Temple Recommend interview, in which the overriding principle is one of uberrimae fedei, then how can they balk at such things in this forum, where caveat lector so clearly applies? How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?
      To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.
    • By Daniel2
      In the video above, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince.  He's introduced here:


    • By Maidservant
      Elder Quentin L. Cook opens Black Church Leadership Summit
      Mormon Newsroom YouTube bit
      Transcript of Elder Cook's remarks
      Highlights for me:  Mentions meeting Bernice King while (both) attending the Pope (sweet); affirming LGBT rights in the society (nice); that (unlike many churches of the day) blacks (the few) and whites worshiped together in the same early Mormon Church (let's not forget that; beautiful); 'battle' and 'attack' imagery (I really challenge that, not how I see the world, but I find it fascinating that our religious, in fact human, struggle continues to be encapsulized that way); his challenge to the challenge to the colonial narrative (cool, it's time; although let's not overdo it, colonial narrative, not to mention colonialism, is alive and well and still doing damage); continued affirmation of the Church's very specific stance on religious freedom (what it means and what it looks like) (ok); reiterating the Church's persecution foundation (what?! sigh; let's DO forget that).
      And this spectacular quote from the Prophet Joseph.
      ///A few months before he was killed by a mob in 1844, our prophet, Joseph Smith, taught that moral agency was essential for each individual: “God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself; hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man’s religious sentiments, that spirit which has drenched the earth with blood.” ///
      My hero.  (The Prophet, not Elder Cook )
      Lots more in the talk . . .
       
×