california boy

I am more understanding than you think about an immediate reaction and how emotions can overtake better judgement. What I am not at ALL understanding about is an apostle giving the ok for such violence in GENERAL CONFERENCE!

I don't think that any one should have their sexual space invaded, but extreme physical violence? I have had women many times in my life invade my sexual space. You are ok with me literally hitting them so hard it knocks them to the ground because they invaded my sexual space? These missionaries had a mission president. Whatever the problem was, to tell a missionary that someone had to take care of it by physical violence is NOT a response an apostle representing Christ should be giving out, especially in a General Conference talk. Honestly, I am shocked that people believe this is Christ-like behavior.

NOTHING short of attempted rape. If it was rape, Elder Packer should have included that in his talk. Because the way he told the story, it left it pretty open for justifying hitting someone who is gay for just about anything that a person feels uncomfortable with. That is the problem. It doesn't make gay members feel safe does it. So If you are going to encourage that kind of policy, you shouldn't be saying in the next breath that there is a place in the Church for gay people.

You think the missionary companion was trying to rape the guy that was so strong he literally hit his companion so hard he fell to the ground? If a missionary tried to rape anyone, that missionary would be sent home so fast his head would spin and he would have been excommunicated. The issue would have long been resolved before this missionary needed to confess to an apostle that he decked his companion. If rape was involved, don't you think an apostle would ask the young man if he was ok and ask him how the mission president handled the situation? That would have been a totally different conference talk. I don't think anyone would object to using physical force to get away from a rape, but rape doesn't sound like what actually happened. And if it was rape, don't you think that Elder Packer would have directed his remarks towards protecting yourself from rape? Your assumption seems to be the absurd one to me.

Wow, I can't believe you are doubling down on an apostle telling a missionary that someone had to deck his companion for doing something inappropriate. So let me see if I got this right. Say your daughter is out with a man and she attempts to give him a kiss. You are perfectly ok with having the guy hit her so hard it literally knocks her flat on the ground if the kiss was not wanted? Or are you one of those guys that thinks it is only acceptable to hit someone who is gay that does something inappropriate? This missionary must have been a pretty strong guy to be able to deck his companion, literally hitting him so hard it knocked him to the ground. You see no better way to handle a situation like this? And you are ok with an apostle of Jesus Christ being ok with decking someone? Statements like this confirm to me that I made the right decision to leave the Church. There is no way I would want to serve a mission with the possible threat that my companion could deck me any time he wanted to if he perceived that I did something inappropriate. Doesn't sound like a safe place for anyone who is gay does it. No clarification from the apostle to the seriousness of what the companion did, just glad you decked him.

How is this ever an ok advice from someone claiming to be an apostle of Christ After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion." "Oh, is that all," I said in great relief. "But I floored him," he said. After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way" "But I floored him," he said. After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and itwouldn't be well for aGeneral Authority tosolve the problem that way" This is exactly my point. In one breath an apostle is saying someone had to deck a gay companion who did something unnamed while in the next breath saying we should show love. passive aggressive behavior does not inspire a gay person to trust someone’s love. I can’t understand how you cannot see that

And a lot of that distrust comes not from the Savior, but rather endless misery has been inflicted upon some by those claiming to be his followers. I think it is important to always consider one's actions and how it represents the Savior. It is not always an easy thing to do, but the result of improper actions can lead people away from Christ for a lifetime. I know a lot of people who want nothing to do with religion, largely based on how religion has treated them.

I realize this talk is somehow suppose to make someone feel ok with being gay, but for me, the statements of love feel completely hollow. Quoting Elder Packer, the apostle who encouraged missionaries to punch out a gay person if they percieved that the gay companion was coming on to them. And telling us not to identify by our sexuality, while, as you can see by their very thread that the Church itself can't see past our sexuality when even dancing, or holding hands with someone of the same sex is perceived as homosexual behavior, and something that should be cleansed from our lives. I want to believe the Church leaders love me, but honestly, I can't feel their love in how we are treated and how much they add to the burden of being gay. Telling us we are apostates if we choose to marry someone we love of the same sex, refusing to baptize our minor children. The reversal of that "revelation" seemed more like a PR move than a sincere reaching out to fix something. No apology. No we were wrong. Just a quiet change in policy because so many were upset that the Church leaders were using children to further their agenda against same sex marriage. I admit that I look at these issues through a very sensitive lens, but that trust has long been broken so many times before. To feel someone's love, you first have to trust that love is authentic.

Christ also said that if you divorce your wife and marry another, then you are committing adultery.

I enjoy sharing ideas and interacting with almost everyone on this discussion board. I like hearing other peoples points of view. And hopefully, at times, I offer a different perspective worth considering. But unfortunately, interacting with you is not one of the reasons why I stay involved. I will leave that task to others.

You are talking to the wrong guy. I really don't care if the Church or you want to call holding hands a violation of the LoC. Heck, let's make winking at someone a violation, or saying hi in the hallway or waving at someone of the same sex . You know they all lead to dancing. And well, we can't have that. The more unbearable the Church makes it for the gay members, the sooner they will realize that perhaps there is no path for them in the Church and they will do better their own path back to God.

Welcome to the Board. And you definitely get it. I find the less likely a person who is making the rules is going to commit that sin, the more likely they are to come down hard on others where it is actually a problem. The exact rules that some are advocating for gay youth to follow would cause a outbreak of outrage and unreasonable demands on those same straight kids. Let's not fool ourselves. There is no kid at that dance that believes that by dancing with someone is going to lead to marriage in the near future. Yet it is only the gay kids that people are concerned about this issue. Such a double standard. The youth can clearly see this and they support their LGBT friends.

But don't you see how telling any gay youth that they can't even hold hands would seriously consider whether there is any kind of path forward to stay in the church? Not to even be able to go out to dinner or a movie with someone you like and want to spend time with? Sometimes the iron fist has the opposite affect than what is intended. I think this is one of those times. And I think it is a big part of so many youth leaving the Church. I have talked to some of these youth. The just don't see how they can possibly fit into the very narrow mold the Church expects them to fit in to. The smaller the mold gets, the less they are willing to even try.

If the bright white line was simply no sexual relations outside of marriage, then I think there are a lot more LGBT members that would be able to navigate that. I specifically talked to my church leaders about this. I asked them if I could have a room mate that was of the same sex. They said no. "avoid the very appearance of evil" reasoning. So I asked if I could have a room mate that was a woman. I got the same answer. They saw the only path for me was to live alone for the rest of my life. I am not a loner. I like having people around me. It wasn't about the sex. It was about the companionship and having people that I could count on when I really needed help. Someone closer than just an acquaintance or even a friend. Drawing lthe line at holding hands, feeling free to dance with someone you like, go out to dinner with them, have a closer relationship then just saying hi when you see them at a grocery store is really important to me. I couldn't do it. So I left the Church. So many think that sex is the most important part of a relationship. I personally don't think it is. When the LoC became more than no sex outside of marriage, life within the Church became unworkable for me. I would find my own path. And I have.

It is interesting to me that most of this thread has been about whether, gay couples dancing a slow dance is comparable to adultery, yet as far as I can tell, there has been no discussion about what is actually best for the youth of the Church. Do you think the youth will buy into the idea that a slow dance with the same sex is the same as adultery?? I am not going to argue what is a sin and what isn't in this situation, I will leave that up to those who care more than I do about how that argument goes. But I would like to talk about the BIGGER issue IMO. It is no secret that the Church has a big problem with the number of youth leaving the Church. And it is no secret that how the Church treats LGBT issues is one of the main reasons for those youth leaving. So, how about this for a question? If the Church leaders forbid gay members from even dancing with someone of the same sex at a church dance, how does everyone think the youth will react to that. Obviously, they probably won't all react the same way. But if a youth already has a problem with how the Church treats LGBT issues, will this bring them closer to the decision to stay in the Church or be the last straw. The youth don't view their gay friends as being evil. Nor do they believe that being in love with someone of the same sex is evil. Having a Church policy that treats dancing with the same sex as evil, probably isn't going to help And what about the gay youth? They are at a point in their lives where they are really weighing whether they can navigate the path that the Church requires of them. I know for me, if I couldn't even slow dance at a Church dance, it would help me realize sooner that me staying in the Church probably isn't something healthy for my life. I would have to find a path outside the Church. And the parents of those gay youth? Would they feel the Church was doing everything it could to keep their son or daughter in the Church? Hopefully I am pausing to give some here a different perspective that hasn't been considered. Isn't how this policy would affect the youth at a church youth dance be the most important consideration, or at the very least, a small consideration. How do you think that a policy prohibiting slow dancing with the same sex will affect the youth?

I grew up where the only relationships ever portrayed in books, movies, the media, and church were heterosexual relationships. A gay relationship was disgusting, never talked about in polite company and the idea of living a happy and fulfilling life with someone you loved, if you were gay was not even remotely possible. The book most commonly quoted was by Spencer W. Kimball, who called all homosexuals abominations and portrayed every single one of us as being vile and evil whether they acted upon it or not. I grew up at a time where police would raid bars that the suspected gay men gathered, beat them with billy clubs and drag them off to jail on a regular basis even in San Francisco. It was totally acceptable to bully a kid that was even suspected of being gay. You could beat them up and never get in trouble for it. It was a time where the worst insult you could give someone was to call them gay. I grew up at a time where civil rights for gays didn't exist. ah, the good old days.

So someone who is gay isn't welcomed in the Church after all? And if someone who is gay wants to participate in a Church dance, they should not be allowed to actually dance? Exactly what should a Church leader do if they find out one of the youth is dating someone of the same sex? Not allow them to attend church? This whole issue seems to be a rabbit hole that has no suitable answers if the goal is to bring everyone towards Christ. Unless, of course, one believes that dancing with the same sex means you can not progress towards Christ, but somehow preventing them to participate in a Church dance does??? I don't think that would work on me. It would just push me further away from the Church. Which is where I am now.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone shouldn't be able to choose why they downvote. I was just curious why Raingirl choose to downvote Analytics post simply because he wrote about a different experience about this issue. Basically I was asking why she didn't want to hear a different perspective. She still hasn't answered, which is fine.

I guess I look at down votes differently. If I gave a down vote for every post I disagreed with you would be seeing a lot of red coming from me. If I disagree with someone I will actually respond to their post and state why I disagree with what they posted. This is after all a discussion forum. I expect to see different points of view. I have only given down votes when I felt the post was totally inappropriate. So maybe I have it wrong I value your opinion Do you think I should be giving down votes to every post I disagree with?

Just curious @raingirl, why you felt so strongly about this post that you gave it a negative down vote?? Are you threatened to hear the other side of this coin?

I don't know if you have or you haven't. I am only pointing out that if you haven't then your opinion is only based on the media you listen to.

But if you haven't even bothered to read the bill, aren't your conclusory assertions drawn totally upon other peoples opinions based on the type of media you listen to?

I doubt very much that the medical profession could have successfully performed transgender surgery before 1930. So to suggest that this issue is "somewhat recent" ignores the possibility that it has always existed, it is just that the medical aspect was not possible before. I too try to support what I think is right. One of the major principles of Christ's teachings is to not spend our time judging others, but to look within ourselves at our own sins. It is why I don't really worry about other peoples choices. I only worry about their right to have free agency and to make those choices themselves. Well, there you have it. Your biblical quotes suggests that it has been going on since the beginning of time. Even more conclusive evidence that this has always been a part of human behavior.

You do realize that there are more people who are born Intersected than there are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is easily double the number of members in the population. Ignoring this real biological occurrence would be equivalent to saying members of the church are not worth considering and statistically insignificant. Both statements may be true. But if you are intersexed, then it becomes just as impactful in your life as being a member of the Church. People have been medically transitioning every since it was medically possible. It is not just a recent thing. Lili Elbe was the first well-known recipient of male-to-female sex reassignment surgery, in Germany in 1930

The way the bill is written, this is how it can be implemented.