california boy

This is pretty much my experience as well as really every gay out former member that I have ever met. I don't know anyone who is gay and active in the Church. They have all left the Church and have no desire to return under current Church attitudes and policies towards LGBT. Most would probably never return even if policies changed. Can the Church work for someone who is gay? Possibly. And if it does, then great. I don't see how it works for most LGBT people however.

I believe that there are a lot of parents out there who still believe that if their child doesn’t hear about LGBT issues, especially sex issues, their child will not become gay. And yes makings being gay appear to be more isolating and not normal is part of that belief Honestly whether book banning happens is not going to make much difference on moral decisions a child will make. They get those morals from their parents The truth is being gay, the last thing I would have done is check out a book from the school library. Way too scared someone would think I might be gay. And besides what kid thinks the first place to find information on any subject is books Banning books are more for the parents.

I like your idea, but the truth is even in your extreme example, pornography IS easily available to an elementary student And the books that are being banned (including the Bible) are FAR from actual pornography I think THIS is by far a better way of dealing with these issues and is the responsibility of the parents. Unfortunately it is much easier to push it off on the nanny state. If anything this approach is more deceiving because it gives the false impression that the issue of what kids are viewing has been taken care of. Of course I believe in regulating age appropriate material, alcohol,smoking, seat belts etc is appropriate. I guess I am very skeptical that the books being banned isn’t more a cultural war issue. it would be helpful if there was some data to support this very sensitive issue of book banning instead of it all being emotional based. Maybe some exists? Are there more or less pregnancies in Florida than California for example? And is the difference great enough to resort to book banning.

Whether 50 shades of grey is available in a school library is totally irrelevant. If your child wants to read that book or any other, it is available to them in so many places than just the school library. Forcing it off the shelf at school will not stop a kid from reading it that really wants to. In fact, bringing it to their attention as forbidden fruit might just be the best tactic to use to get them to read such material. It is pretty easy to find the book on the internet or at the local book store. So honestly, what difference does it actually make whether any book is not available in the school library? You can't nanny your children to shield them from any choice they personally make. Personally, I think it is up to the parents to teach their children to make their own correct decisions on what they should read and what they should leave on the shelf. This whole book banning is just for show and a political stunt. It pushes how to raise your children onto a third party. More effort should be spent on teaching your own children correct principles and less on relying on pushing this responsibility onto the schools or any other organization. Serious question. Does anyone think that banning any book at school will prevent your child from reading something that you don't want them to read? Is a kid going to actually think, well since it is not in the school library, I guess there is no way I can read that book or any other?

Did you just make up this statistic?

I think you have to always keep in mind that within any group, there is a spectrum of respect and tolerance. One could honestly answer yes as well as no to the questions you asked within both groups.

I think for many it is their way of dealing with the pain that religion has done to them. When you grow up with a religion and believe in that religion and enjoy that community, being ostracized by that community and your family, Church and my family, I can certainly understand how deeply that hurts. It is like everyone who you thought loved you and cared for you, becomes the ones with the pitchforks pushing you away from everything that you thought was important and trusted. While it might be wrong, but it gives them back the power to hurt those that have hurt them so deeply. Honestly, I understand that. I think that Christ can also understand that and is probably willing to take on that burden for them. If the Catholic Church and other religions find that kind of behavior disrespectful, perhaps they should ponder more on what caused that disrespect.

I think the wounds are so deep in those that are part of this group, they don't really care whether others accept them or not. Not everyone in the LGBT community have a common voice in what they want. It is probably more about how they are dealing with that pain.

This is not a thread I am going to spend a lot of time commenting on. I already know how most of you feel about anything the LGBT community does. We certainly have had a LOT of LGBT threads trying to gin up hatred and outrage towards the LGBT community. I am sure SMAC will get exactly what he wanted out of this yet another LGBT thread. Personally I am bored with his antics. I don't agree with everything the Daughters of Perpetual Indulgence does. And I am not going to defend everything that they do. But I do UNDERSTAND why they do it. I have talked to a few members of that community. They have found a "tribe" that they identify with. When I asked them why they joined this group, every single one that I have talked to tell of horror stories about how the Catholic Church treated them as well as other religious organizations including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a story repeated over and over and over again. So I am not totally surprised that they invented their own incarnation of the Catholic Church, one that provides services to those that are the most vulnerable but do it with their own spin on religion. They are pretty clear they are not concerned at all what the opinion of the Catholic Church has of them and those other religions. That bridge has been burned a long time ago. Are they outrageous? Yes and a bit over the top. But given their own personal stories on how religion has treated them, one has to seriously ask why they would care one bit what those religious organizations think of them.

Yeah well Church leaders accused Christ of blasphemy and hated Him as well because He didn't do things the way they wanted him to do it either. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are loved by those they serve and take care of way more than the Catholic leaders wearing their dresses. Many would say that Church does not foster love either in the LGBT community.

Any outrage on how the Catholic Church has mocked the LGBT community? Any outrage on how the right wing has vilified drag queens? The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence has been ministering to the LGBT community for the past 43 years and started out to help those suffering with AIDS when there was noting but condemnation coming from the Catholic Church or any other church for that matter. They have raised over a million dollars to help those who needed help when no one else was willing to step in. They found how to serve God in their own way and really don't care whether you or others condemn them for the work they do. From their response to the Dodger management. From their response to Dodger management This small group of less than 1,000 people have raised over a million dollars to minister to those suffering and in need of care. If the Church provided that kind of care to the poor, it wouldn't have a 100 billion dollar stock portfolio. It would be following the example of the Savior. So start yet one more thread to stir up outrage against the LGBT community and lets see how much you can gin up anger against them. As far as I am concerned, the Church could learn a few things from this group of misfits. Maybe Dodger managements were willing to look a little deeper than the loud roar of the religious right to see that there is more to them then just being outrageous drag queens.

I think it was while I was on my mission when I began to realize that the Church did not have some magical moral compass that would lead me to doing the right thing if I just set aside my own beliefs and deferred to Church leaders. I grew up in California and the idea that blacks were somehow curses and not entitled to the same blessings as the rest of humanity was a real problem for me. I remember trying to convince investigators that this was the will of God. But in my heart, it just felt wrong. I regret teaching that principle to them. When I came back from my mission, I talked to Church leaders about being gay. Church leaders once again told me that what God wanted me to do is just marry a woman and being gay would just disappear. I remember that first year of marriage, wondering why nothing was changing. While I had married a good friend, I struggled to move beyond just being friends. Nothing ever changed. I was still as gay as I had always been. I tried once again to force what the Church was telling me was the true compass back to God with the reality of what I was feeling and the world around me. Both events shaped my life profoundly. That loss of trust and faith in Church leaders was devastating to me. I kept thinking that somehow it was my fault and if I just did everything God wanted me to do, somehow it would work out. What I never expected to have happen is that after leaving the Church, my relationship with God actually strengthened and I felt more guided by Him than all those years struggling in the Church to follow what I believed to be men who spoke for God. That sureness that leaving the Church was the right thing for me only increased with time. When I read so many of the discussions on this board, I see members trying so hard to make things fit, just like I did. Willing to excuse the Church over and over again for questionable moral decisions it is still making. I see more clearly the pretzel twisting faithful members have to go through to try to not falter and stay on the path Church leaders have laid out for them. Sometimes I want to scream that they should trust God more, He will lead them. "Look unto me in every thought. Doubt not, fear not."(Doctrine and Covenants 6:36) Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6) Is there goodness in the Church? Yes. Is everything taught by Church leaders the will of God? Nope. Is it possible to rely on God to guide your path? Absolutely. Doubt not, fear not.

Did you get the link to work?? I just tried it as well and it worked.

The Church also tried to hide the full extent it donated to Prop 8, but later was caught and had to pay fines for not disclosing all of it's financial contribution to Prop 8.

So what actually did Ann Taves say about the 3 witnesses? Does she believe they actually saw the physical gold plates and Angel Moroni???

I don't think this has any relevance to my issue with the gold plates just being a prop. Maybe you can explain the relevance of your comment. Wait, did Shakespeare claim his plays came from God? Just because something is written to teach a principle doesn't mean the principle is true or that it comes from God. Sometimes it is just a work of fiction expressing the ideas of the person who wrote it.

Just curious what reputable people outside the Church that you refer to cite the testimonies of the three witnesses to support truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

What I am saying is that I have no objective way to know whether the gold plates were real or not. My lack of belief of the claims of Mormonism is based on my own experience within the Church. Probably like your belief in the Church is based on your experience and not whether the plates existed. Do you believe more in the power of a magic rock or in the claims of gold plates? Would you be inclined to sing songs about a magic rock and a hat?

I have a feeling the lack of a specific source doesn't make much difference to those who want to paint Joseph Smith as a fraud. It also makes it so those who do believe Joseph is what he claims as a way of discounting that story. It is still there, in history, one way or the other. As I said in my post, the bigger problem for me is that the gold plates seem to just be a prop. It makes no sense to me why the plates were even necessary. Proving their actual existence is an impossible task for either side.

For those who think that the witnesses confirm that there were actual plates, the truth is, they believe that because they want to believe that. Certainly there are other witnesses that saw something different. For example, this account. Those who want to believe in actual ancient records engraved in gold will easily dismiss this account because it doesn't fit what they want to believe. Those that think Joseph Smith was a fraud, will point to this as proof. There is NO actual evidence of any gold plates. Witnesses are unreliable because they have an agenda. You just have to believe what agenda you want to believe in. For me personally, what throws the biggest monkey wrench into this whole thing is that IF there were actually an ancient people who carefully transcribed their relationship with God, passed it down from generation to generation until it was revealed to Joseph Smith, why did it just become a prop to try and convince people of it's existence? Seems like a lot of work just to sit in the corner while Joseph Smith peeps into a hat and dictates the BoM from a magic stone. When the cloth is removed, and it turns out to be just a brick, that makes the whole thing seem even more like a prop, as if Joseph Smith just needed something physical to make his story more believable than telling people he found a magic stone.

I looked at your links. I am open to digging further and learning more about fire. I have to say, the founder gave me the impression that they definitely had an agenda on what kinds of free speech they were speaking up for. Maybe they are more than that. I wonder what they think about BYU confiscating pamphlets at BYU because of their queer content. LGBTQ groups say BYU trashed their resource pamphlets after agreeing to give them to freshmen

I listened to a podcast of an interview of the head of Fire. Honestly, I was not impressed with him, nor did think he was even handed in how he views free speech. It was clear to me that he had a very pronounced far right agenda. He talked a good game about championing all free speech at the beginning of the podcast. But as the interview went on, it was clearly coming from one side. It was more like his claims of protecting all free speech was just to give some credibility to defend far right positions. While I liked the idea, I wasn't at all impressed with his slant on what free speech means. He completely distorted that definition to suit his own agenda. Just my only real experience with Fire. Not surprised one bit by the distortion of facts about BYU law.

I am not sure you have much of a leg to stand on in this instance. Isn't 80% of the student body members of the Church?? If there is an echo chamber going on, wouldn't it be a continuation of that echo chamber having Church leaders speak as the commencement speaker??? I am thinking just the opposite of you. I think there is such a lack of diversity that many don't ever hear a difference of opinion. I think it is probably why whoever initially asked Elder Holland to speak probably never even thought about how some might not want to hear from a Mormon church leader.

The California State Supreme Court had already ruled that gay marriage was a civil right and gay marriage was already legal in the state of California. Prop 8 took that civil right away from gay couples until it was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court as a civil right for all Americans.

I think you missed the whole point of why the Church is viewed as the most unfriendly Christian church against the LGBT community in the country. It is not about Prop 8 passing. It is about the role the Church actively played in getting that proposition to pass. When a Church goes to that extent to work towards taking away the civil rights of gay couples, it is very hard to view that Church as being an organization that likes gay couples. Prop 8 is also not the ONLY thing the Church has done against the LGBT community. Pretending that the Church is being picked on and hasn't done anything to earn that reputation is delusional. You can argue that money doesn't win elections if you want. But the fact of the matter is, money and fund raising is fundamental to every political race. While money does not always determine an outcome, it is still a very vital part of a winning campaign.