california boy

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Noah , Nehor and Zoramites led corrupt churches in the BC era. Alma's mission was to correct the affairs of many churches in several places (begins in Alma 6 for several chapters and resumes in 31) in the BC era. The mode of baptism isn't mentioned specifically in these missions, but neither does 3 Nephi 11:28 require it, as the second sentence in 28 refers first to disputations in general, and then to points of doctrine, and overall points to contention:

28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no ^adisputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of ^acontention is not of me, but is of the ^bdevil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

The record from Samuel through the arrival of the resurrected Christ is full of examples of a corrupted society and its churches.

Maybe we should move this quote over the the Church Finance thread.  

Hey if you have some magical idea on how to solve the homeless problem, I am sure we are all ears.  But when you start pitting one state against the other, I hope you also realize that states are not on a level playing field.  One of the HUGE differences between Utah and California is the cost of housing.  You are very naive about what it cost to buy or rent a home in California if you think Utah and California have similar factors.

A 2022 study found that differences in per capita homelessness rates across the country are not due to mental illness, drug addiction, or poverty, but to differences in the cost of housing, with West Coast cities including Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles having homelessness rates five times that of areas with much lower housing costs like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Detroit, even though the latter locations have high burdens of opioid addiction and poverty.^[4][5][6][7]
 

Quote

 

The average rent for apartments in San Francisco, CA, is between $2,760 and $4,668 in 2024. For a studio apartment in San Francisco, CA, the average rent is $2,760. When it comes to 1-bedroom apartments, the average rent in San Francisco, CA, is $3,525. For a 2-bedroom apartment, the average rent is $4,668.

 

Quote

What is the average rent in Salt Lake City, UT? As of April 2024, the average rent in Salt Lake City, UT is $1,398 per month. For comparison, the national average rent price in the US is currently $1,512/month, which means Salt Lake City rent prices are 8% lower than the national average. $1,164/mo.

If housing costs in Salt Lake City jumped to between $2,760 and $4668, how many living in Salt Lake City would find themselves homeless and unable to pay rent?  

So far, I have yet to see some silver bullet from anywhere that solves the housing problem in this country.  If you got one, then by all means speak up.  But if you are just going to pit one state against the other, I think you need to be more thoughtful than just throwing out statistical bombs.  It doesn't help the problem.  The biggest problem California has is that too many people want to live here, which drives up housing costs.  When we hear people might be leaving California, we celebrate.  It might be the only way to get our housing costs down and ultimately reduce the main cause of homelessness.

23 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It's always hard when you notice a crack in the ideological adherence dam.   Of course, neither of us know what makes up this quarter-of-a-million-or-so active saints who figure they're somewhere other than 100% straight.  Neither of us knew they existed in such great amounts before that study.  Now you have to fight on new ground, to defend new territory, to preserve your core assumption that gay gotta gay or there's a problem.

Yep, a portion of that quarter-million-or-so are bi.
Yep, a portion are thinking they're closeted and feeling that's wrong on some level.
Yep, a portion are teens and YA biding their time until they can break away.

But no matter how much you don't want it to be true, no matter how many strawmen you hide behind, however many opposing points you mischaracterize, some of that ~250-270 thousand members of the church are content to just be saints.  Just doing their best to be disciples of Christ.  Finding ways to deal with their troubles.  Enduring to the end.  Finding and giving love and acceptance.  Just like the rest of us saints. 

Probably there are more like my buddy - going through life utterly unconcerned with what the activists and progressives and current cultural wind pushers have to say about who he is, how he should feel, and what he should do about stuff.  The majority of my deep discussions with him on such matters are all about how to do right by God, by ourselves, and by our wives.  

Not a surprise to me either. I was also one of those members who desperately wanted to figure out some way to make being gay and still be a member of the Church.  I struggled with getting that to fit about half of my life.  I know some white knuckle it for as long as they can.  Some manage to make it work for their whole lives.  Obviously if it works for them and that is how they want to live their lives, I have absolutely no problem with that.  

The sad part is, this is a very difficult struggle to navigate through.  83% of LGBT Mormons say the Church is unfriendly towards them.  That is a pretty hight percentage who are pretty unhappy with how the Church treats them.  It is why eventually most leave.   Really a no win situation no matter what the choice because the Church forces them to make a choice.  It becomes an either or situation.  If that is how the Church wants to deal with this issue, then that is their choice as well.  But in doing so, the Church looses a lot of really great people that become casualties of that dilemma.  

It is not just the Mormon Church.  According to Pew,  48% say they have no religious affiliation, compared with 20% in the general public.  This is true among all age groups. 80% say that the Mormon Church, as well as Catholic and Muslin say religion is unfriendly towards them.  Evangelics don't do much better at 73%.  If the goal of church is to bring people closer to God, they definitely are not doing a good job of that among the LGBT community.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That "sexual identity" is something that is not etched in stone?  That is can be set aside or subordinated?

You are hiding behind terms like social construct.  Would you agree that there have always been people who were attracted to their same sex throughout the history of the world long before it was labeled as a social construct?  Being labeled gay may very well be a more modern term.  But the definition of being gay is to be attracted to the same sex in a romantic emotional and intimate way.  While formalizing that romantic and emotional connection may be new, the fact is, it has always existed.  

I think that is why you find yourself in the minority on this issue.  I also think that you are not really open enough to be convinced that you might be wrong. You have held tightly to this belief for quite a while.  I doubt very much that your views will change.  It kinda makes further comment pretty fruitless.  

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It’s an assumption that a parent and their children would be in what is called hell together.  The sealing power binds parent to kids.  So a parent and their children could be in “hell” but not necessarily together.  He’ll may be many places and people could be there and never cross paths.

Yeah, let's squash this idea that those outside the Celestial Kingdom will ever see their loved ones again.  That is doctrine right?  We know that for sure, because that is what they deserve for all eternity. I think God said this didn't He?  Somewhere?  That should scare them enough to stay in a Church they no longer believe in.

19 hours ago, rpn said:

I think the twin issues of culturally adopting a there is a one, who we are in mortal life is more important than who we are eternally are both part of how this thinking gets foster.  See last 10 minutes particularly.

Next, we will hear from Josh Weed as he tells how successful his marriage was, followed by Dave Matheson who will tell us how he was married for 34 yeas to a woman before he went back to being with men.  Following those remarks, Tom Christofferson who went back to dating men after writing a book about his journey back to Mormonism.  Their remarks will be followed up by our own @SeekingUnderstanding, @Daniel2 and me, @California Boy who will talk about their attempts at marriage to "cure" them of homosexuality by marrying someone of the opposite sex.  The closing speaker for today will be David Archuleta who will put to rest this idea that if gay's just married, they too can be in a heterosexual marriage

19 hours ago, rpn said:

 

Next, we will hear from Josh Weed as he tells how successful his marriage was, followed by Dave Matheson who will tell us how he was married for 34 yeas to a woman before he went back to being with men.  Following those remarks, Tom Christofferson who went back to dating men after writing a book about his journey back to Mormonism.  Their remarks will be followed up by our own @SeekingUnderstanding, @Daniel2 and me, @California Boy who will talk about their attempts at marriage to "cure" them of homosexuality by marrying someone of the opposite sex.  The closing speaker for today will be David Archuleta who will put to rest this idea that if gay's just married, they too can be in a heterosexual marriage.

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://youtu.be/7696h0Qeb_s?si=7T7LfiBVHrCAkqWM

So if you leave the Church, you must also leave Christ??

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To be with those we love in eternal family relationships there are conditions that must be met, otherwise we are around those we are the most comfortable with. As the Book of Mormon emphasizes over and over and over again- it is our choice. When personal desires make that difficult is when faith that God knows what He's doing and will make right any sacrifice we must make in this life.

Oh I trust that God knows what he is doing.  I highly doubt Church leaders know what they are doing concerning LGBT issues.  There has been no revelation on gay marriage or what will happen to those who are LGBT in the next life.  

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

I can't imagine the glorious reward those who experience SSA will receive if they adhere to their covenants and sacrifice their personal desires. Heavenly Father knows the pain, loneliness, and struggles of all His children. Do we really believe He will let that all go to waste?

What kind of glorious reward is offered to someone who is LGBT?  I have never heard anything from a revelation from God on this issue.

I just listened to David Archuleta's new song that he just released. The lyrics are all about his journey leaving the Church and how much he valued the love his mother showed over his journey    Here are the lyrics that I think are very interesting.

Quote

 

"Hell Together"

Bow your head Don't be bold You'll survive by Doing what you're told Said love is earned And we can't choose But the more you grow You know the truth

And all I want is to make you proud If I would run would I let you down? You said If I have to live without you I don't wanna live forever In someone else's heaven So let em close the gates

Oh if they don't like the way you're made Then they're not any better If Paradise is pressure Oh We'll go to Hell together You and me That's all we need Blood is thicker Than the pages

That they read I'm afraid Of letting go Of the version of me That I used to know Crying tears in Sunday crowds

Took my hand, and we walked out You said If I have to live without you I don't wanna live forever In someone else's heaven So let em close the gates

Oh if they don't like the way you're made Then they're not any better If Paradise is pressure

Oh We'll go to Hell together Hallelujah What's it doing for ya? When it's in the way? Hallelujah

Wish we knew it sooner Walking out with grace If I have to live without you I don't wanna live forever In someone else's heaven

So let em close the gates If they don't like the way you're made Then they're not any better If Paradise is pressure Oh We'll go to Hell together  

 

The song is much more impactful than the words.  Here is a link to Spotify  https://open.spotify.com/album/6A7coJEq3Bh4g0hNjpjIHD. If you don't have Spotify, you can also find it on Apple Music, Pandora etc just type his name and the song title "Hell Together"

I definitely identify with what he is saying here.  I too was afraid of letting go of the version of me that I used to know while being in the Church.  But I also realized that I would rather be in "Hell Together" with someone I love and can share this life with.  And if the gates of heaven are closed to me, then it sounds like someone else's version of paradise.

I think this is why many leave the Church.  What the Church's teaches about the "Plan of Happiness" doesn't sound so happy for many.  Not just the LGBT community, but for those that love friends/sons/daughters/fathers/ brothers/ that are LGBT.  Not just LGBT people but as I read the thread on single members share many of the same disappointment of what the "Plan of Happiness" offers them both in this life and the next.  "So let em close the gates If they don't like the way you're made Then they're not any better If Paradise is pressure Oh We'll go to Hell together "

No matter what the reasons for leaving the Church are, whether it was the false narrative of Church history that we were taught our whole lives, the falling apart of Book of Mormon claims, or the Book of Abraham "written by the very hand of Abraham" claims or just not fitting into "The plan of Happiness", there are reasons why people have left to find a different path.  We didn't leave because we no longer loved the company of the members and the many good things the Church does.  You don't need to paint us all as hating the Church or attacking your faith, or leaving because we want to sin or are lazy learners, or whatever term is used to belittle our significants.  You just have to decide if our criticism is an attack against the Church or us pointing out the things about the Church that make the tent much smaller than it needs to be and wish it was a bigger tent so that we too could fit.

When @Analytics advocates for more financial transparency and a better effort to use the wealth of the Church on more humanitarian goals rather than a bigger portfolio, he is not attacking the Church.  He is trying to get the Church to do better. Or @Teancum   who corrects some of the false narrative that sometimes pops up.  Or @Seeking Understanding and me, who wishes the Church had a better place for the LGBT community.  They aren't attacks.  They are things to consider to make the Church more honest, more accountable and a bigger tent.

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

I see it in the opposite way. To me, multiple tithe payers all feeling they were defrauded in the same way is smoke that there is a real problem with the Church’s communication with its members.

The Church worrying that there will be a tidal wave of copycat lawsuits is a tacit admission that there is a tidal wave of people who paid tithing and now regret it.

Of course if the Church was actually transparent with its finances, this wouldn’t be an issue.

I gave you an upvote after reading SMAC's response.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think there may be some considerations potentially skewing the data here.   For example, is this counting members of record, or those who self-identify as "Mormon" only?  Likely the second.   Those who identify as "Mormon" are guaranteed more likely to attend church because of the expectation.   Most other faiths don't have the same high expectations of weekly church attendance, so it is more likely for one to still identify as a Catholic (for example) even if they haven't set foot in a church in years.   "Mormons" who never attend are probably less likely to identify as Mormon.  Perhaps because of the expectations.  It is perhaps easier to not identify as a Mormon, then to identify as a Mormon knowing that you are not meeting expectations as a Mormon - if that makes sense.    It is easier to disengage from identifying with a group then to maintain identity in a group and feel inadequate or judged in some way. 

This from Copilot AI:

Quote

 

The LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) does not officially release statistics on church activity. However, studies and surveys provide some insights:

US Mormons: Approximately 60% of LDS members in the United States are considered less active or inactive12. This means they may not regularly attend church services or actively participate in LDS activities.
Worldwide: On a global scale, it’s estimated that about 70% of LDS members worldwide fall into the less active or inactive category12. This includes individuals who may have drifted away from regular church involvement.
Young Single Adults: Specifically among young single Mormons, the activity rate is approximately 30% in North America and 20% internationally, resulting in an overall worldwide activity rate of about 25%3. Some of those considered inactive may be individuals whom local bishops have never heard of and have no way of contacting.
Keep in mind that these figures are based on surveys and estimates, and individual circumstances can vary widely. The LDS Church continues to focus on ministering to all members, regardless of their level of activity. 🙏

 

 

I just did a little math to see how that would look per ward in the Church.  And I am the first to admit I am not the best at math, so if have this wrong, please correct me.  But here is what I came up with.

The Church has 17,000,000 members

70% of that would be 11,900,000

There are 24,277 wards

That would mean each ward would have about 490 members per week attending.  

Does that sound about right?  Are there really about 490 members attending each ward throughout the Church?

If we take the Copilot AI numbers showing only 40% weekly attendance, that would be about 280 members attending weekly.   Seems much closer to me to reality.

40% of 17,000,000 would be 6,800,000 attending

There are 24,277 wards

That would be about 280 members attending weekly in every single ward in the Church.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

What a wonderful thought! So instead of spiritually refined and perfected romantic love existing between exalted husbands and wives in the celestial kingdom, sealed men and women get to look forward to spending eternity together as passionless roommates who no longer have any romantic desire each other? I’d be willing to bet that there never has been and isn’t now a single Apostle or member of the First Presidency who would go along with this idea. Imagining that romantic love between husbands and wives isn’t spiritually perfectible is about as sad an idea as I’ve ever heard. And I’ll say this, if God the Father isn’t deeply romantically in love with my heavenly mother I’ll lose a lot of my respect and admiration for him.

I heard just the opposite.  Straight couples will spend eternity together as passionless roommates who no longer have any romantic desires for each other.  Gays will now be able to spend eternity having passionate love and wild sex with their married spouses for eternity.  Payback is a b***h.

On 3/12/2024 at 9:53 AM, Anonymous Mormon said:

All polls are inherently limited in what they try to accomplish, and mine is no different. I tried to make the poll flexible enough for the kind of sentiment you are expressing. If I understand your sentiment, I think the following would work:

You could mark 'No' to #1 since it my understanding is you to believe that 'God would consider a same-sex marriage as not a sin for them'

Then for #2, you could mark your opinion on whether or not the rest of the law of chastity exists. It sounds like you would be a 'Yes' on that since you are referring to 'God's intention' with the Law of Chastity.

Then for #3, you can mark your own opinion as well.

 

Or if you want to boycott the survey you could choose to not answer, but then your opinion won't be reflected in the results and thus they would be skewed against your viewpoint. I would love to get more opinions and not less, so I would hope you don't choose this option.

Or you can create your own poll with better questions. If you do, I would be happy to take it.

I have tried a couple of times to take your survey.  But I feel like my answers distort exactly how I feel about the questions, so I haven't taken the survey.  I am not blaming you.  I appreciate your effort.  But I think this issue is more complicated than the options given for answers.  Given the format you have to use, I don't really think I could come up with a survey that would yield the results you are looking for either.  So good effort, but doesn't work for me.

40 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Visiting Reddit pages is always an interesting anthropological exercise. I don't think I understood McLuhan's commentary about the medium being the message until I spent time on Reddit - leaving Reddit was the best thing that ever happened to me.

If you would have just clicked on the link, you would have found that it is a link to an actual talk by the grandson of Elder Oaks, not some random commentary.  And the second link is link to a  Tribune article quoting Elder Gong's son.  

But hey, I guess you need some excuse to ignore what you don't want to hear about.  Probably better to just ignore it rather coming up with some lame and disingenuous excuse.

14 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Understood and agreed.  I'm not calling you out or calling foul, I'm presenting some ideas for your consideration.

 

No, this thread is about an anonymous survey about who leaves and stays in the church.  It rapidly became a discussion of "the LGBT community".  Pretty much any discussion, anywhere, about LGBT issues quickly becomes a discussion of "the LGBT community".  

But the survey results point to a full 4% of members self-identifying as LGBT.  The survey polled "the Mormon corridor".  I googled up a statistic of roughly 6.8 million American LDS, most of whom live in the Mormon corridor.  Doing a little rough math, that equates to over a quarter million gay mormons.  How many do you think have never identified as LGBT?  How many do you think reject the community's various agreed upon things? 

I believe your claims about your experiences.  I believe you have met who you say you've met, and they've said what you claim.   The two folks I know paint a quite different picture.  They seek no acknowledgment of their sexuality of any kind.  The one I know best tells me not only does he reject the term gay, he prefers to not be thought about in those terms by anyone in the first place.  

 

I'm all about sensitivity and respect too.  Don't automatically assume you know more about the gay folk who want nothing to do with the LGBT community or it's ideals, than they do.  I don't think that is a lot to ask for either. 

 

Look, I'm naturally sarcastic and combative.  My screen name, avatar, and posting history has all earned me the deserved reputation as someone who likes to get into fights about stuff.  I'm not trying to fight here.  

The thread may have started out about an anonymous survey, but the thread has been about labeling the LGBT community. If the survey provided any data concerning how members wish to be addressed, then you might have a point.  There is no data on that question making it pretty difficult to be able to answer in a general way, which is why I suggest just asking someone if you don't know.  There is however quite a bit of evidence on how the LGBT community wishes to be referred to in general, and it is not someone having same sex attraction.  Can we agree on that?  I to am trying to find common ground.

54 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

These comments all seem to marginalize the heck out of LGBT folks who do not wish to be part of this thing known as "the LGBT community".  Do either of you know any?  I know two active, practicing gay LDS folks personally.  One I don't know very well, the other I know very well.  Neither of them claim membership in this community.  The one I know well, actively rejects any affiliation with it.  Apart from a couple of very close relationships, he does not want to be known or thought of in terms of bedroom preferences by anyone. 

I mean, I was always content to let the community define itself, until this survey pointed out the probable existence of over a quarter-million gay LDS folks in America.   I wonder how many of them are just quietly out trying to be the best disciple of Christ they can be, totally content to be defined as saint, utterly rejecting the notion they should be identified by their sexual identities.   Intentionally staying out of any spotlights or pigeonholes, other than this recent opportunity to respond anonymously to a postcard/Facebook polling opportunity. 

I'm happy to bow to the superior information about "the LGBT community" to actual members of the community.  Y'all seem to understand what y'all are largely united on, and what y'all aren't.  But I'd like to see some understanding and acknowledgement of gay folks who don't wish to be a part of the community.  I'm guessing, mormon or not, they're a respectably sized group whose voice goes largely unheard.  And whose opinions are totally unknown to folks both inside and out of the self-identified community.

Several times in this thread I have recognized that there are those who prefer the term Same Sex Attraction, but those are very much outliners.  I have stated that if that is their preference, then by all means do not use the term gay in addressing them.  If you are unsure how the person prefers to be addressed, I would always say, just ask them.  

What this thread has been about is the generally accepted terms the LGBT community prefers to use.  It is pretty clear what the preferred terminology the LGBT community prefers.  (GLADD is a very good place to look if you are unsure). It has been my experience that the vast majority in the gay community dislike the whole SSA label that they consider it not a neutral term at all, but one that has been used largely by the religious community to marginalize them and is an attempt to deny not just their attraction towards other men, but to discount the real connection and emotional feelings gay men have for each other.  It is an insult to me to call my relationship with my partner of over 15 years as just being same sex attraction.  I doubt any straight man wants his relationship with his partner referred to as Opposite Sex Attraction.  

I have had quite a bit of interaction with members of the Church that identify as gay over the past 25 years.  I was involved in the Evergreen program the Church used to funnel its gay members into before it went defunct.  None of those members wanted to be referred to as having SSA.  I also have quite a few member and former members that are gay.  They also prefer the term gay.  You can not assume a quarter of a million gay members want that label just because they are members of the Church.  

Is all I am saying is be sensitive and respectful and not automatically assume you know more than gay members or the LGBT community what they prefer to be referred as.  I don't think that is a lot to ask for.  

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I addressed the substance of your post.

Except that I didn't just "dodge it."  I explained in some detail why I find the premises problematic.  And you dodged that response with near totality.

Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit?  Just a simple yes or no will do.  And if you do not directly answer the question, can I claim you are "dodging" it?

Okay.

It's a poor analogy, you puppy-torturer.  

The question was nothing like "a simple what if question."  It was, instead, bogged down with logical fallacies.

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn't answer the question.  You made up your own questions and answered them.   If you want to try answering the question I asked, then please do.  If you want to write an entire page of unrelated statements that do not answer the question then please don't bother wasting my time and yours.  

 The question was a what if question meant to help you understand the way the Church treats LGBT members in a way that I hoped you would relate to. Here is the question again.  Try answering it honestly or ignore it.  I really don't care.

Quote

 

While I totally disagree with your position on gay marriage, I would like to ask you a simple question to see just how you are able to maintain the position you hold.  So here is the situation.  If Church leaders came out today and said that any couple whose last name starts with M will no longer be able to marry and all such unions with a last name that starts with M must be dissolved in order to be worthy of membership into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And furthermore, any such marriages will no longer be considered eternal marriages.  There will be no possibility of reuniting with your former spouse in the next life.  Former husbands and wives whose last name starts with M will be given the opportunity to marry for eternity another person.  If you do this, you will still be worthy of being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and eilgible to enter the Celestial Kingdom (obviously without your current wife however).

And here is the question.  Since I believe your last name starts with M, would you be willing to divorce your wife, never kiss her again, never hold her hand again, never go on a date with her, never cuddle with her, never hug her, never be intimate with her EVER again, not in this life or the life to come, would you be willing to just walk away from that relationship, be celibate for the rest of your life and be given to another in the next life?

I get that this does seem kinda random to just focus on people whose last name starts with M.  You know, kinda like randomly being gay and also asked to do the exact same thing.

So what is your conviction now?  No problem?  You would give up your relationship with your wife because Church leaders asked you to?  No claim of revelation here, just a policy of the Church.

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"We are attracted to other men" seems to be aptly distilled to "same-sex attraction."

Thanks,

-Smac

I give up.  Your are just being a jerk now.