california boy

Having grown up in the church and being a member for more than half of my adult life, I know full well that one can be very happy being in the Mormon community and embracing its beliefs whether they are true or not. Most don’t really care if concerning beliefs are true or not. If it works for them , then what difference does it really make if things like the Book of Abraham was actually written by the hand of Abraham or a number of other issues some have a hard time believing. I left the Church for none of those reasons. I left because the Church made it impossible for me to find a partner that I could love and share my life without feeling ashamed for being gay and wanting a loving partner. Yes, I am so significantly happier since I left the Church as most other LGBT members are. But that is a totally different reason for leaving because of doctrinal and historical issues I completely understand why most on this board stay in the Church and I have no desire to try and convince them to leave. What I do hope is that I can bring a different perspective to members who have very ridged views on how the Church deals with LBBT issues. Eventually I think the Church will come up with a solution that works better than current policies. It isn’t about appeasing those who advocate for better LGBT policies. Hopefully it will come decause of a desire to develop policies that keep those LGBT members on a better path towards Christ that they can live with.

Of course you can believe what you want. But that doesn’t really square up with the Book of Mormon narrative of the beliefs of Church prophets who consistently taught that Native American Indians were descendants of Lamanites.

Of course the most obvious thing to do with someone claiming their people came from Jewish roots would be to do a DNA test. Somehow I don’t think anyone who wants to believe this story would agree to do that.

I am not sure that explains why some believe there is an intense dislike for the Church. This might explain why you feel that dislike is justified. But that is a different issue

Since you seem to have God all figured out and know how God will judge me, I would seriously love to know how God will judge me for choosing to live a life of joy and happiness with a partner I love and trust way more than Church leaders

That is actually the same conclusion I came to. Why rely on men who claim to be apostles and prophets when is all they are doing is relying on their own prejudices to tell us what to do and not claiming any kind of revelation. Far better to strengthen your own relationship with God and rely on that relationship to guide you. In the end Christ will fix any errors either make. So I am not allowed to be a member or do temple work while I have my partner. He is much more important to my life then the personal opinion based on their prejudices or being a member of the Church

The Lord may very well correct these policies that have their roots in prejudices, but at what cost to those individuals and their families? How many have left the Church as a result imog these policies lacking any revelation from God? How many broken families have been affected by these policies today that lack revelation? Maybe you are able to brush this off the same way I erroneously brushed off the ban on temple ordinances for blacks because it didn’t affect me. I taught that false doctrine to countless people while serving a mission, even quoting scripture to support that teaching, something I deeply regret to this day. I was a part of withholding those blessings because, once again I followed the apostles and prophets.

Everything said about no revelation on the priesthood ban and fallible leaders who are products of prejudice of their time is also true about not allowing gay temple marriage. They explain away the decisions made about banning blacks from holding the priesthood are the exact same situation of withholding temple ordinances from gay couples. I wonder if in fifty years or however long it takes the brethren to loose their prejudices concerning gay relationships, these same defenders will use these exact same arguments to excuse current policies. I certainly remember not too far in the past when the law of chastity was No sex outside of marriage. Now, because of current prejudice that law has been rewritten to exclude gay marriage and those relationships in order to deny gay couples from both membership and temple marriage blessings. So history repeats itself. Deny blessing based on prejudicial beliefs with no revelation guiding that decision. I too followed church leaders who promised in the name of God that if I just married a woman, I would eventually become straight. Following that promise has affected my entire life and my families as well. That advice given to thousands of men resulted in thousands of broken families. That has been reversed. Then these apostles and prophets decided to withhold baptisms of underaged children of gay couples. President Nelson even called that decision a revelation, until it wasn’t. So all ready they have gotten policies against gay couples wrong twice. Doesn’t sound like God is directing these decisions based on past prejudices this time either does it.

I honestly don't know an absolute fair way to deal with transgenders in women's sports. Perhaps they needs to be a separate category for those that transition but still want to participate in sports. Or maybe there should be a base line of testosterone levels that all must meet. I think that does need to be worked out in some fair way. I would also state that sports is never an equal playing field when it comes to inborn physical size and strength. I am never going to be a linebacker or play basketball. It is for that very reason that I choose wrestling in high school that didn't depend on my gene pool for me to compete. What I do know is that this ONE issue isn't a reason to universally dismiss transgender people, call them diseased and marginalize them. I wish everyone could use your approach of treating everyone with kindness love, understanding and respect the choices people make that may be different than our own.

I am having flashbacks of conversations on this very site during the whole gay marriage scare tactics where things were stated as if they were facts that if the United States allows gay marriage, then people will want to marry their computers or barnyard animals. These scare tactics seem to help justify prejudice against an entire group by picking out the odd eccentric extreme to completely distort what the real issue was really all about. Has anyone's marriage actually been harmed by allowing gay couples the same right to marry? Does it impact any of our lives directly when a person transitions? I guess I take comfort that over time, the hysterics die down when people realize that we don't really have much say on how others live their lives. Nor does it actually impact our own lives one bit. It starts to all sound like how some evangelics believe Mormonism must be destroyed because their beliefs are different than their own, when in fact both groups can live their entire lives without having to destroy another's belief system just because it is different than their own.

Well this is definitely a good step. I would hope the Church would use this extra time to start working with the community maybe using a neutral professional to conduct the meetings before submitting plans. Doing a major reach out program at this stage would likely pay off in a big way to calming feelings against the Church both within the community and the approval committees. I guess we will see what approach they choose.

Do you think these neighbors know for sure what the traffic/parking will be like? Do you know what the height limitations are for apartments? Is the steeple taller than that limit?

If you think I am defending or attacking either side, you are wrong. I am only trying to see things from there eyes My partner worked for a very big engineering and constructing company. They build freeways, power plants, huge dams, subways etc. His job was to bring communities together and help them have some say about their concerns. The company could have bullied their way through the process since most of these jobs were commissioned by governments. The company knew that bringing the community and responding to their concerns such as modifying a design ended up with a much better result Everyone who has responded to my post seems to prefer to just dismiss their concerns and blame it all on them. That’s fine. But the Church has to also live with the problems that approach causes. I am sure they will get their way with the strong possibility that it will be in a hostile neighborhood

I don’t know all the existing buildings around the area on this particular temple proposal. If my suggestion is not helpful then just ignore it. But at some point if the protests fights against the church keep happening maybe the Church should start asking why it keeps happening and see if there are things that can be done to mitigate these issues. Maybe meet with both the planning department and the neighbors before the temple is designed and offer several proposals. Get some input so they feel like the Church is sensitive to the obvious issues. Ask them about the other religious buildings in the area and how the temple is trying to fit into the community that seems like a better approach than a legal war to get it’s own way Or do you think people just hate the Mormon Church. If that is the case then maybe the Church should find out why.

You don’t really see the difference between a neighborhood church and a huge imposing mega church surrounded by a big parking lot? Well that explains why the Church is building these towering imposing temples in neighborhoods. Looks like they don’t see the difference either. I guess if the Church wants to keep having these neighborhood wars then they should keep doing what they are doing. I will withdraw my suggestion

It seems to me that this is an ongoing problem when the Church insists on building its temples in residential neighborhoods outside of Utah. It just stirs up unnecessary animosity among those who will be their neighbors. Having served as president of a home owners association I know full well how hard it is to neutralize those kinds of long lasting problems once they are started There are massive amounts of buildings built that have a commanding presence without being excessively tall. Imposing steeple designs are a choice on how to build an impressive building, not a requirement. Since the Church keeps doing this, it is starting to look like the designs are done that way to purposefully exert its religious exemption and the neighborhood be damned. Definitely not a good look.

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] 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.

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.

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.

I think that is the point. Most people reject the premise you are trying to state that it is possible to set aside the notion of "sexual identity," Thanks for eloquently proving my point. -California Boy

It would be interesting to see if you could actually set aside your "sexual identity" for just 6 months. I am not asking for you to do that for the rest of your life like the Church asks. Just 6 months. Could you put all your photos of your wife and kids in a drawer for 6 months since they are manifestations of your "sexual identity"? Could you not mention to anyone anything that you did on the weekend with your wife and kids since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"? Could you never hold hands, kiss or hug your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"? Could you not go on any dates with your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"? Could you never be see in public with your wife and family for six months since this is also an expression of your "sexual identity"? This is just a start of the list of things that you would have to give up in order to set aside the notion of "sexual identity". And I haven't even gotten to the no sex for 6 months.

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.

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

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.