Jump to content

california boy

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. Just what in the 57 page explaination do you think redeems or downplays what happened at BYU? Maybe you could quote the top 5 takeaways that you think counters the documents and personal filmed testimonies and background information that I quoted. Or do you really expect people to wade through a 57 page report to try to find support that you claim is there. There must have been at least 5 things that stood out to you to dismiss those testimonies and the footnoted Wikipedia information.
  2. Honestly, to me the Church loses a LOT of credibility when Dallin Oaks lies about what happened when he was president of BYU in front of an audience to try and downplay what went on. It is shameful and extremely hard to just push off as maybe some kind of mistake. It also reinforced to me the same kind of untruths that were told to me when I was dealing with this issue. So yeah, it is kinda a trigger for me to see the same behavior still happening just 5 months ago by a guy that is suppose to be an apostle.
  3. Seriously? Is this some kind of attempt to pretend that BYU has never treated gay students badly and President Oaks was obliviously to the horrible treatment going on at BYU? This is a bunch of whitewash crap to make someone feel like the Church and BYU has always treated the LGBT members and students well. Did you notice that all the testimonies and accounts of the students that went through this program are not referenced and only revisionary history is given by the people involved in this dracularian behavior? It is not hard to Google this and read first hand accounts on what was going on under President Oaks and Earnest Wilkinson at BYU. Start with this Wikipedia article that actually footnotes and documents what went on. An article from ABC news that include first hand account of men that went through BYU's aversion therapy program. A documentary of interviews by some of those that went through this horrific torture. I might also add that this is the same Dallin Oaks.just 5 months ago who openly lied about aversion therapy going on at BYU while he was president despite the fact that by this time, the torture that was going on was very well known to the general public and probably most everyone on this board. We are expected to believe that this man tells the truth about what was going on during his administration and discount the actual testimonies of the men that went through this program? Fairlatterdaysaints obviously is more interested in whitewashing what went on than establishing the truth. What a disgrace.
  4. Not sure the years that I taught, but I think it was before you were teaching.. I got released from teaching seminary when I was called into the bishopric. I am guessing it was probably 30 years ago. I have been out of the church for 20 years.
  5. Well honestly I wouldn't have done it except they asked me to. I am not an early morning person. And the grind of preparing a lesson every single day is taxing. The money seemed really strange to me, like why bother. But I did love teaching the kids. And I learned a lot by delving into scriptures that much. There is a whole lot in the scriptures that is never talked about in sunday school lessons.
  6. I taught early morning seminary in CA for 6 years. And every seminary teacher got paid $599 for the year. I was told that seminary is under CES, not the ward and they required payment for seminary teachers. CES paid each seminary teacher $599 so that CES did not have to provide W-2 forms. In theory, it was not related to my church callings. I also was the teacher advisor at the same time. I didn't care about the money. I just donated it back to the Church. There is no way I would have prepared a lesson daily and gotten up that early every school day morning for $599 for the year. As far as the milage thing, not sure what form you needed. It is a simple deduction anyone can take for any travel related to any Church calling. You don't need a special form. It is just like deducting for gas if you use your car for your business. Since I only lived about 3 miles from the Church, it was also something I never bothered to worry about.
  7. Do you get why Rosa Parks didn't sit in the back of the bus? Do you get why black students sat at the counter at Woolworths?
  8. What if a straight Mormon couple orders a wedding cake. Could they be discriminated against just because they were Mormon even if there was no way to identify the cake as being a "Mormon" cake?
  9. I totally agree with you and have stated that same position numerous times. My biggest gripe is when people invoke the name of Christ to justify discrimination. I just can’t see Christ sitting at a table of sinners and when someone asks him to pass the bread, him saying no because I would be supporting your sins. The problem comes when a person hides behind his religion by refusing to bake a wedding cake exactly like he does for other customers That becomes a product not a work of art. Now if rainbows and two grooms are asked for, that becomes a created work that could be legally refused
  10. I guess it is my turn to apologize. I took your comments to say that Christ would withhold services to the gay couple just like he would withhold services to someone participating in human trafficking and maffia behavior. Just to clarify, do you think Christ would withhold his services to a gay couple getting married? Do you think Christ would refuse to baker a cake if he found out it was going to be served to guests at a gay wedding?
  11. I truly appreciate the gesture. I also hope that it is true and you quit painting me as some kind of vile evil enemies of the Church. I am not that. And I don't say vile things about the Church. I do disagree with some of the policies the Church institutes, but that doesn't mean those few issue defines my feelings about the Church.
  12. Gotcha ya. Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't thought of it that way.
  13. This is new to me. And it seems like you got three up votes for your statement. But I thought that the highest ranking priesthood holder always presided in the meeting. For example in a sacrament meeting, a bishop might conduct, but if the stake president is there, he would preside. Are you saying that a woman can preside over a priesthood holder? Are you talking about presiding or conducting. I guess what I am asking is, how can or does a woman preside over a priesthood holder?
  14. I am sorry. Did I misunderstand what you were saying? I was trying to show the gravity of the remarks made about the comparison, comparing exactly what was said. Maybe if you could provide the entire quote you are referring to so that I can understand the context of what you find ironic?
  15. I appreciate your point of view. Though I think there are ways to put any point across without resorting to being ugly about it if it is a valid point. For me it is very hard to not discuss the real personal aspects of this and other laws like it because there are real personal consequences in peoples lives. They have to be taken into consideration when evaluating these kinds of laws that have the potential for misuse and unintended consequences. So those voices are a necessary part of the discussion IMO. I have seen the results of some of these laws. Not everything is cut and dried as we would like them to be. As I said earlier, I too am very much in favor of not having forced speech. But that is not the only issue these types of laws affect. Maybe if the discussion would have been framed more like "How do we protect LGBT and other minority rights while still allowing for personal beliefs would have been a more constructive discussion. From the very beginning this thread was put up as an us against them type discussion. Does anyone not expect some pushback on that approach?
  16. This is my experience that I have had with members who are gay. Usually they try desperately to make it work and keep a relationship with the Church. But in the end, I know personally of only one who has stayed involved in the Church.
  17. What if someone told you that your marriage to the person you loved is analogist to the immorality of human trafficking and mafia behavior? Maybe you wouldn't care because you have never heard such a analogy and it is a ridiculous comparison. But what if the Church that you belonged to didn't recognize your marriage as being valid a valid marriage. Would that comment hurt a little more? Would it want you to draw closer to members of that Church or distance yourself from such toxic opinions? Now what if that Church not only didn't recognize your marriage as being valid, but labeled you an apostate for being married to the person you love. Or even worse, refused to baptize your innocent underaged children simply because of who you married? Would that make you want to ever associate with that Church? Would it draw you closer to those kind of toxic people? Would it be so easy to just dismiss that analogy? Or would you realize that you don't really need that kind of toxic friends in your life. Would any of those analogies be helpful in having a dialogue with those kinds of people? And what if that Church did everything it could to try and prevent you from even being able to marry. Even with these things laid out, I doubt you could really understand what that feels like because no one has ever treated your marriage and the person you love that way in your life. Don't misunderstand me. I fully believe and respect that any Church can have any belief it wants. I don't have a problem with the Church not accepting gay marriage and looking upon it was sinful. But it is how it treats that sin that is toxic. So let's say that if you watch porn or if you are not honest in your business dealings or any other sin, and the church called you an apostate and refused to baptize your underaged children because of that. Let's say the Church did everything it could to legally prevent you from ever having a business. Does a person EVER have protections from compelling speech? Yes. And I have said that regularly when this subject has come up. But I also am well aware that there are some, not most, but some who will use compelled speech to push the same kind of toxic behavior against members of the LGBT community as well as the black community as well as the Jewish community and other minority communities that are often marginalized simply because of who they are. I know that the courts have to balance speech that would not give blanket ability for people to just discriminate based on who a person is with that persons right to be treated equally under the laws of this country.
  18. Wow this truly shows your true colors doesn't it. You have accused me over and over and over again about saying horrible things about your Church. Your accusations come up just about every time we interact. For years you have been portraying me as being some vile enemy of the Church denigrate church leaders and beliefs regularly. So finally you have the guts to actually answer one of my CFR's concerning those basis accusations. And here is what you came up with? Drum roll. One of your fellow members accusations of, as he put it, "emotional blackmail". Did you read what his response was when I asked him to give me an example of using "emotional blackmail"? When I asked Hamba to please point out exactly where I was using "emotional blackmail" he refused knowing full well it was an unfounded accusation, kinda like yours. Hamba Tuhan No, thanks. I choose not to comply with these kinds of demands/threats. So when the proof was asked for, Hamba bailed didn't he. It is easy to make accusations. Much harder to actually find them to be accurate. I see you find yourself in the same situation. And besides, even if this was true, how is that some kind of proof of degrading your Church and saying the most vile things against your Church? One of the things you CONSISTENTLY do is take what I say out of context to twist it to be what you want it to say in order to cast me in the worse possible light. This is what you said in your above post. Why didn't you include the entire post? Was your intention to paint a false picture of what I actually said? Cause this is the whole post, not cut and pasted like you want to do. You completely cut out the first part of the post. Why? Isn't that being a bit deceptive? Did you not like the part where I said that "I love the Church and I think that for many, it is a great place to raise a family and support that family with a strong community that embraces good for the most part? " This is why I really don't like interacting with you. I don't like the way you slice and dice every comment, taking things out of context, slanting things in the worse possible light. You think of me as your enemy and try to defeat me with every post I make, I can't change your attitudes towards me. But I can ignore your false accusations. If what you have presented is the worse I have ever said about the Church, then your accusations remain unproven. I do disagree with much of how the Church treats the LGBT community. I don't think the Church has a particularly good track record in treating that community fairly. At times I do believe the Church has not acted in a Christ like way towards those that are gay. I mean what kind of Church forbids baptisms to underaged children just because their parents believe they should be married? But disagreement with some of the policies the Church institutes against its LGBT members and speaking out against them does not constitute vile and demeaning treatment of the Church. Do I think there is a place for someone who is gay in the Church? For the vast majority, the answer is NO. It is no secret that most gay members end up leaving the Church at some point for many of the reasons I listed in that post. It is also no secret that how the Church treats LGBT issues is one of the major reasons people list as reasons for leaving the Church. Are you really disputing that? if that is true, how is that an attack on the Church? How is that some kind of vile thing to say about your Church? I think it is probably best that I return to my policy of not responding to your posts even when they are distorting what I am actually saying.
  19. This seems to be your consistent game plan. Tell me exactly where I have degraded your religion. Consider this a CFR. Show everyone the dirt you have on me that warrants this endless accusation
  20. As long as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think that gay marrriage is a comparison, analogy, simile, or metaphor for human trafficking and mob boss behavior, I don’t think there is much room for dialogue and understanding. You are talking about our marriages to the people we love. Do you think your marriages are a anaology to human trafficking?
  21. Ah. Ok. A gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior. I see where this is going.
  22. You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means. Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things. Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught.
  23. I do not think a baker or anyone else should be compelled to create a specially decorated cake or any other product. But if the baker has a book to choose what cake design the couple wants, then it is a standard item on their menu. They should be required to make that cake for anyone that orders it. If they don't offer a cake with a rainbow or two grooms, then they should not be required to make such a cake. But to feel like they have a right to decide what happens to their standard product once it leaves the bakery is wrong. You don't get to decide how people use their product once it leaves the business. Legally that is my belief. Religiously, I believe one should show kindness to anyone and try to provide the best service and help to everyone. Christ didn't go around asking people what they were going to do with the fish and bread he gave them or whether a person's sins should be taken in consideration before he handed them the fish. That is not part of what Christ was teaching. Discriminating against a particular group is not part of the gospel of Christ. Deciding if someone is worthy of your goods or services is also not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can slice and dice this all you want. But LGBT people are the ONLY people that have the weddings the bakers feel their cakes should not be eaten at because they think those weddings are some kind of sin.
  24. I know what the thread is about. This was my comment about this thread and this case. I basically don't care what the ruling ends up being. I just don't like the use of Christ to justify judgmental behavior and discrimination.
  25. As I read the scriptures, the Pharisees were men who thought they were hoiy by going around judging others in their sins and casting themselves as being above them by not associating with them and judging them as unworthy of their service. Christ was teaching a message that showing love and caring for sinners was more important than judging them. He didn't seem concerned AT ALL about whether people thought he was encouraging the sins of others by eating with them. It is exactly that which the pharisees tried to use against Christ. Maybe you can tell me exactly what sins you think Christ was condemning the Pharisees for. "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ" -Gandhi. Baking a cake is not encouraging people to sin. That is a ridiculous position to take IMO. Christ did not withhold himself in any way no matter what sins the person was committing.
  • Create New...