Jump to content

california boy

Contributor
  • Posts

    9,439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. The biggest difference is that the Church has changed its message to be way more inclusive than it was when Elder Oaks was doing the messaging 16 years ago. Unfortunately it is a little late for me and many like myself. But at least it has changed and my family has changed as well. When I came out to my bishop and stake president, I asked them specifically if I could just live with another man. They both said no. Gave the old avoid the very appearance of evil thing. If I would have been allowed to just be platonically with a guy, I might have at least tried it. Maybe it is a good thing they didn't give me that option. I certainly am glad that I eventually found a very loving companion to share my life with.
  2. I am not sure how long ago that interview was. What I am sure of is that was the message my family was getting on how to treat a gay family member. They only reacted the way they did because they though that was the way they were suppose to react to be good members of the church. My family wasn't an isolated case. After I came out, I only ever heard from about 3 members of the ward again. It was like I never existed or had been a part of their lives. I also had a member of the high counsel that was part of my excommunication contact me and asked if he could have lunch with me. I was happy to meet with him. He told me that his brother came out gay about 23 years earlier and that his family did basically the same thing. They had just started having contact with him again. He did say he regretted the way he and his family had treated him. Yeah, a lot has changed in the past 16 years. I don't think that the Church currently is telling members to abandon their gay children, but yeah, it was the direction that was once being given. I think the change in Church attitudes is a big reason why my family. decided to start including me in their lives again. For them, now, it is like nothing ever happened and I am once again their brother/son. But for me, there is still scar tissue. I try to get past it, but honestly, it is very difficult for me to trust their love. I don't think your statement that the interview was not an official position is not reality to members who were dealing with that issue at the time. People acted on that direction. There are real consequences for what was said.
  3. I don't see how you think what Elder Oaks thinks doesn't have an impact on members and their families. When I came out to my family, they had no contact with me for 13 years. Never invited to any family reunions, never invited to any missionary farewells, baptisms, birthday parties, holiday dinners. Nothing. You don't think that had an impact on my life??
  4. It is not just that sinner is a loaded term. I am perfectly fine with someone thinking something is a sin. What I have a problem with is someone calling someone else a sinner. That becomes a judgement YOU put on another person based on your own beliefs as if it comes from God. I don't think a person has a right or responsibility to judge in place of God. Hence, the only sins a person should be concerned with are their own.
  5. Yeah I agreee with this. I just don't think calling them a sinner is helpful
  6. I just read this post. I think we are on the same page and is the difference I am trying to convey.
  7. I think you are pushing too far in what I am trying to explain. I am not pushing for a free for all on behavior. There are laws and there are social expectations that should be taught and lived by example. Telling someone they are a sinner because they are a bigot I don't think does anything to correct the behavior. Explaining to them why their comments are hurtful is probably a better way to help the person change behavior. It is the judgement thing that I don't believe is our responsibility to be concerned about.
  8. Well almost. What I am saying is that I don't believe we should be concerned at all about what other peoples sins are. The only sins we should be concerned with is our own. There is a difference. I am not responsible for another person's sins. It is their issue between them and God. But like I said, that doesn't mean that there are not legal consequences for criminal activity. And like I said, it doesn't mean I am forced to have toxic people in my life. Condoning or not their sins just isn't a concern we should be engaging in. The only sins I should be concerned about is our own.
  9. I am not saying that criminal activity should not go unpunished. Or that I would allow someone toxic into my life. I am saying that I don't really worry about what sins a person has. Or that there are not personal consequences for someone's actions. That is not a condition of whether I can love them or not. Now if I was perfect, and had no sins of my own, then maybe I would feel I had the right to go around judging everyone on their sins. Not there yet, so I don't worry about other peoples sins. I let justice and consequences deal with those actions.
  10. When someone says they love the sinner, the feeling is, I am so righteous, I can love you despite you being a sinner. Now if you simply said I try to show love to everyone, well, that is a different position. Hate the sin. The only sin you should hate is your OWN. No one should be judgmental about other peoples sins, only their own. Exaltation is an individual thing between God and each and every one of us. You are not responsible for other peoples sins. So whether you love or hate their sins is irrelevant. When you imply that you hate the other person's sins, then you are sticking yourself between God and that individual. It is not up to you to judge another person's sins or their exaltation. The only exaltation you can work on is your own. It is amazing to me how much more loving and kind I have become as I really starting carrying less what the other person's sins are. That doesn't mean that one is forced to have toxic people in their lives.
  11. Well now I am a bit confused. Are you now saying that there is actually no physical torture going on in the Telestial Kingdom? Just people feeling bad because they have sinned? What is really confusing to me is that I am the happiest I have ever been in my life since I have found my partner. It makes me question whether being with him is really wicked, since wickedness never was happiness. And if I was being totally honest, being with him in the Telestial Kingdom seems like a much better option than to be without him in some other kingdom. So how does all of this work? Am I all the sudden going to hate being with him when I die? Does love automatically stop at death? Will I become a totally different person at death?
  12. I guess that answers my question. Torture into submission until broken.
  13. As I understand it, the Sun is the worst enemy of skin and will cause it to age faster than almost any other source. So perhaps it is all of those endless meetings indoors that is helping Mormons retain their good skin.
  14. Just curious. Do you believe that administering such harsh punishment for sin your children may commit into submission like you are suggesting Christ will do will work to get them to follow the Savior here on earth? Has that approach EVER in the history of man made people want to follow leaders that have used such an approach? Maybe it is you that is reading D&C 76 incorrectly.
  15. Are you saying that humans are incapable of having a good thought on their own??? This seems so fundamentalist kind of thinking that it is the kind of thing that really puts me off organized religion. There is absolutely no way I can believe that God so micromanages everyone on this earth that he is constantly giving every single good thought into peoples heads since the beginning of time. Or is this just one of those "we owe everything we can possibly think of to God" kind of statements.
  16. If you don't know it was a revelation, then it is just your opinion and the opinion of subsequent apostles and prophets that the blacks would eventually receive the priesthood. I also might add that while you don't know if it was a revelation, subsequent apostles and prophets believed it was a revelation and taught it for years. They were all wrong.
  17. The relationship between the two is a total lack of revelation from GOD about the two. I remember the scriptural "proof" and doctrinal logic supporting the ban before it was denounced. All the sudden, that scriptural proof and doctrinal logic was no longer important. So what is similar between the two is that scriptural proof or even doctrinal proof immediately disappears if a revelation from God comes to allow SSM sealings. The relationship is also that God will decide what he wants to do despite your opinion or the opinion of anyone else including the 15 if you believe that God actually does give revelation. So whether it makes sense to you is really irrelevant. I am not saying that SSM sealings eventually will happen. I am saying that those who say it will never happen have no more support for that position than people who thought the Blacks would not receive the priesthood until every single descendant of Able got the chance. It is just their belief, just like those that think it will happen have an opposite belief.
  18. I think you missed my main point. Did ANY of the witnesses claim to see two different size sets of plates? If I was looking at something so historically important, that seemed like it would be important to comment on in describing what I saw.
  19. I guess what I am really asking is, do you believe there was a promise from God that the Blacks would some day be able to hold the priesthood? If so, what do you use to support that belief?
  20. But it appears that you still consider it a prophecy when you want to support your statement that unlike SSM sealings, blacks were promised they would get the priesthood eventually. I am not passing judgement on Brigham Young. I am questioning you using his statement to support your argument against SSM sealings when you don't believe he was speaking for God about the priesthood ban.
  21. A good friend of my daughter growing up had a tattoo of the CTR logo on her ankle to remind her to always choose the right. She did this prior to the whole tattoo shaming thing happened. That caused a bit of a rock and hard place, when Choosing the Right becomes the wrong thing to do. Very confusing to her.
  22. I don't understand what you are saying here. Wasn't that statement by Brigham Young regarded as prophecy for 150 years until the ban was lifted? And aren't people like JHAS still using it as prophecy to say that it was foretold that one day blacks would receive the priesthood? I guess I don't understand how you view that statement. Prophecy? BY's own opinion?
  23. I have a pretty basic question. Where did the small plates go? Were they bound with the large plates? Were there two different sets of plates? Has anyone ever testified to seeing the small plates and the large plates? Did the witnesses testify that they saw both the small plates and the large plates? I have never heard anything about the small plates after the 116 pages was lost. Has anyone else? Something that also doesn't make sense to me, unless I am missing something. Why would Mormon start the narrative with small plates and then switch to different size plates?
  24. So you do believe in the prophesy of Brigham Young came from God??
  25. It is puzzling to me that people claim the ending of forbidding blacks from receiving the priesthood was fulfillment of a prophesy that has since been disavowed. And granting blacks the priesthood in 1978 goes completely against that prophesy which clearly states when that will happen. They want it both ways. Someday the blacks will hold the priesthood, but we disavow the revelation that makes that promise and we disavow when that promise was prophesied to happen.
×
×
  • Create New...