Jump to content

california boy

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. Boy you really try and get blood out of a turnip don't you. Can you at least agree that many had a problem with Elder Holland's choice of words in this day and age even if you don't? If you don't think that people care about using these kinds of references in speech against the LGBT community, then hey, you should also be ok with the backlash that comes with this kind of speech. Because unlike you, a LOT of people do have a problem with an apostle going around using muskets metaphors to make his point against the LGBT community. Your post is just ugly. It saddens me to see those claiming to be follows of Christ double down on language and hate that causes real pain and sometimes leads to violence against any group. This thread reveals to me that while I have been encouraged by recent remarks by Church leaders, there are plenty in the pews that are perfectly fine with how some address and act towards the LGBT community. To answer your question, I condemn all speech that can lead to violence and hate to any group. It doesn't matter where it comes from. It is irresponsible wherever it comes from.
  2. YES. Whether that is the case or not, I don't think anyone knows at this point.
  3. Calm, I am trying to understand your position. Are you saying that using violent metaphors is never a problem for some people that might misinterpret what is being asked for? Haven't we seen many instances of that occurring? Does January 6th ring a bell? How many defendants have claimed in court that they were caught up in the moment and thought they were doing what Donald Trump wanted them to do?
  4. NO, you assumed. It is a habit you have of assuming the worst and then taking that kernel and popping a whole bag of popcorn out of your assumption. This is what HJW actually said in the link you quoted. Another assumption you made. Which actually proves the point he was making. Elder Holland did in fact use a violent metaphor and you assumed that he actually called for violence. This is exactly why violent metaphors are so dangerous to use. It was reckless for Elder Holland to use such a metaphor in this day and age where gun violence is so common and such a plague on this country. Even you believed HJW explicitly said Elder Holland called for violence when he actually said no such thing. Where is the answer to the CFR that the gay community was protesting the way Mormons voted so you could claim they were picked on when the black religious community did the same thing? Are you slithering away from that statement?
  5. How does that add a new wrinkle to this tragic story. We have seen some of the most homophobic bigoted politicians rail against the gay community and champion anti gay legislation only to find out they are gay. We have seen religious leaders with huge influence who use anti gay hatred to fuel their ministries turn out to be gay. It has almost become a cliche that the most anti gay bigots are probably gay. We have seen the outraged anti abortionists turn out to have paid for multiple abortions of their own babies. Religion and/or attitudes within our society can lead a person down a path that they end up hating who they are to the point where they commit heinous acts of violence. Is this the case here? I don't think any one knows at this point. But just because someone is gay does not mean they are not homophobic bigots.
  6. Except no one has ever accused the Church of inciting this mass shooting in this thread. Since you are claiming that there have been those accusing the Church of inciting this mass shooting, CFR just who you are referring to. The whole discussion started when BlueBell asked for examples of the church disparaging the LGBT community. Those that responded to her question were raked through the coals and disparaged for providing answers to her request.
  7. Probably the biggest thing that really bothered me about the Church going all in on Prop 8 was that they were actively working to take away the civil rights of gay citizens. The second thing that bothered me a lot is the distortion of information that campaign used to try and scare people into supporting it. Since the aftermath of Prop 8, those civil rights have been affirmed and restored by the Supreme Court. But what still goes on is the complete distortion of facts that members of the Church STILL ENGAGE in. It is like you justify your statements as being ok because you are distorting truth for God or something. This is not the first post we have had on Prop 8, but as you have done in past threads, you try and equate the black (religious) community as somehow equal to what the Church did in passing Prop 8. As if by disparaging that community, yours doesn't look so bad. Let me be perfectly clear. NO ONE has ever resented or even implied that the reaction against the Church and the hard feelings those that support the rights of the LGBT community against the Mormon Church was about the way members VOTED. That has never been the issue. And you have had that explained to you over and over again. It is pretty clear by now that you still want to deceive people into believing that the Church supported Prop 8 just like the black religious community. THAT IS FALSE. CFR anyone has ever said that the LGBT community ever complained about how members of the Church VOTED. You know darn well the the whole objection to what members of the Mormon Church did was about the 20 million dollars (more than half of the entire money for this campaign) raised to support the Prop 8 campaign. It was about providing 70% of the manpower in the campaign. It was about setting up phone banks in Utah, Idaho and other places on a proposition that was in California. It was about using it's chapels to broadcast and coordinate efforts to pass Prop 8. It was about the Church not being truthful about all it donated directly to their efforts to get Prop 8 passed until they were investigated. Stop using the black community to somehow make just voting for the proposition as the issue. How many times are you going to trot out this comparison when you know darn well THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
  8. I think he just did give an example of a church leader sowing fear of the LGBT community corrupting the school his children attend by starting a club. I also think Elder Holland's musket remark was not helpful. People draw conclusions believing they are dog whistles for calls they should literally act upon. I still have no idea why Elder Holland made such remarks given the issue with gun violence we live with in this country. Do I think he literally meant to pick up a rifle and go after the LGBT community? NO. Do I think that it was a message some people may have misinterpeted? That is possible. Church leaders need to be really careful how they address these issues. I think what Elder Holland said was reckless and put very badly.
  9. Thanks for your input. I didn't mean to imply that my decision was going to be based on how the board feels. I was really looking for an idea how members may view something like this and give me a perspective of how others may feel. Hopefully this will give me a better idea what issues my family might be dealing with.
  10. Rights are defined by law and by the Constitution that governs what laws may be instituted by the legislature. What makes them a right are the laws that are instituted by that country. if the law is unclear or if a law seems to violate the constitution then the courts get involved
  11. I am ok with that as long as a person doesn’t expect any government recognition or rights attached to that religious marriage.
  12. If you view marriage as a religious ritual, then that is exactly what it is. If you believe that marriage has legal rights, then it is a government recognized union available to all citizens. Since there is a separation of church and state in this country, you can't have it both ways, only viewing it as a religious right reserved for your religious views on marriage AND want all the legal protections of government. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court recognized that every single American has equal protection under the constitution to be entitled to marry. You or any religious organization has no legal right to impose your religious definition of marriage for all citizens. You can only define marriage within how your religion defines marriage. At some point, you really need to recognize exactly what legal rights you can impose on others. Most have figured that out already.
  13. Maybe for you it was just some definition that needed defending. For hundreds of thousands of gay couples, it meant legal rights. How could you not understand that.
  14. Well thank you, I guess. I always believed that gay couples should. not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage. Their love and their families are just as real and as important as straight couples. So yes, I am happy about not only the Supreme Court ruling, but also a bipartisan support on that ruling. But I also have to say that it has always saddened me that the Church fought so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples in California. I hope that the reason the Church has come out in support of this legislation is to right a wrong. Maybe others don't see it that way, but it does help me have better feelings about the Church in my life. My partner and I are not married. A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying. We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry. We haven't really talked about it for a long time. But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately. I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married. Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church? It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying. You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back. I am a little confused to be honest.
  15. Straight people can be so weird sometimes.
  16. I really can't follow what you are talking about. The scripture I referenced is clearly talking about dogs receiving scraps from the masters table. If you want to compare homosexuality to dogs, it says more about you than it does enlightenment of some scriptural passage.
  17. wow. I honestly didn't see that happening. Congratulations to Church leaders for respecting the right to marry for gay couples.
  18. You want me to interrupt the Bible for you?
  19. Do you know what the exact questions are asked to remain at BYU? I don't. It might shed some light on this question. I would like to know all the facts before I answer your question.
  20. Not sure how this has any relevance to what we are discussing. Maybe instead of just quoting the Bible, you might want to explain why you decided to quote those particular verses.
  21. You missed the point of my post. I was only comparing the Church gaming the tax system with those students that game BYU when they no longer believe.
  22. So since there has been no revelation on gay marriage, you are basing your beliefs on. what? fallible men and their own prejudices. I can understand that. Not the first time members have taken that position. Well actually you would have to admit that there is nothing in the scriptures EITHER way. So you have no scriptural support in any modern scripture for your position either. Yeah I agree. Except you have no modern scripture or revelation stating that homosexual behavior is sinful do you. Once again, you are basing this on fallible men. That is fine. But you can't claim that God has revealed that belief. What we do have in the words of Christ is to look to see if something bears good fruit. Hummm. Well, if the temple and priesthood is important for one's salvation, and if that salvation is important for all of God's children, then I think you have your answer. It is the same question one asks if it is important for Blacks to hold the priesthood and receive temple blessings You are comparing apples to oranges. Adultery has been condemned in all scripture and that condemnation is quite clearly spelled out. Now if a gay couple was having sex outside their marriage, you might have a point. Can you point to a scripture that says clearly that married gay couples are committing a sin? How about a revelation? Understand, that I really don't care whether the Church accepts gay marriage. Is all I am pointing out is that the Church has followed this exact path before. The only difference is there were a heck of a lot more scriptures supporting their position that Blacks could not hold the priesthood and interracial marriage was sinful. There was even a claimed revelation on this doctrine. The Church does what it wants. But on this issue it doesn't even claim that this position of gay married couples being in sin came from any thing they can even point to except the opinion of fallible leaders. I don't really blame you for holding that position. I remember being a missionary defending the false belief that God didn't want blacks to have the priesthood. I had a revelation to support this belief. I even had the words of Christ to support that position that I was taught to quote investigators. (Matthew 15) I was taught to explain to investigators that the woman was from Canaan which means she was probably black. And it just wasn't time for Blacks to receive the gospel. I thought what I was teaching came from God. It was not. I was just relying on the same things you are now currently relying on. Maybe that is enough for you. I totally understand.
  23. But that isn't the point. The Church has drawn a line in the sand to exclude a whole classification of people simply because they are gay couples rather than straight couples without any revelation either. Just assumptions of fallible Church leaders that grew up with prejudices against homosexuality. They have no scriptural or revelatory basis to make such an assumption. Even more than that, I think most people can now see that gay couples can have very successful and loving families. Should not those families be able to participate in the blessings of the temple and priesthood? If you say no, what the heck are you basing that on? This is what sounds familiar.
  24. It doesn't really matter what the intent is of those that wrote the Bible about homosexuality. People believe what they want to believe. The Church has dug it's heels in on this issue despite the fact that Christ never mentioned that homosexuals should be barred from full blessings of God. Nor did the Book of Mormon. Nor did the Pearl of Great Price. Nor did the D & C. There is noting in the scriptures that prohibits gay couples from being allowed the full blessings of the priesthood and temple covenants. In fact, there is absolutely no revelation prohibiting gay couples from those blessings and ordinances. Nothing. Just the opinion of fallible men. Maybe God is preparing the Church and waiting another generation until the Church members can accept that gay families can be valued just as much as their own families. Does any of this have any familiarity to anyone?
  • Create New...