Calm

Nope, you are incomplete… Christ was God before he was a man, so if he did everything he saw his Father do, then the Father was intelligence and god (meaning he possessed the nature of God), and spirit and God (when he assume the office of God before mortality like Christ did as Jehovah) and then mortal man and God (as Christ did as Jesus) and then exalted man and God (as Jesus Christ is now).

Deserves, yes, but often the membership don’t deserve them, imo

I get that the LDS became the face of the campaign. It just seems odd to me to solely focus on the face. Are not the other parts responsible for their actions as well? I assume that the dislike, anger, resentment, and even hatred at times was deeply felt back in the moment. I remember some of the reactions. With such deep feelings, I don’t understand why there isn’t a corresponding deep attachment to all involved that continues. You seem to suggest it is continuing towards the LDS, but not towards others much, if at all (but maybe I am misunderstanding you). The more important something is to me, the more I want to know about it and care about all the connections. It is why I spend a lot of time on even trivial circumstances surrounding the Church. So I don’t get the lack of attention to others even if I get the attention still given to the LDS Church.

Lovely…. I think it’s closer to putting someone’s name on the temple roll though, though more than just that, of course. The mass is not baptism into the Catholic faith.

That’s not what I said, though I get why you interpreted it that way as it’s ambiguous. (I said I remember how much we were liked, which was in my experience quite a bit of negative, mostly neutral, and some positive). There was in the people surrounding me more of a ‘sure, they are nice enough, but they are also strange and racist and their church is just wrong’ attitude. Some kids and at least one teacher I remember saw us as snobs because some of us wouldn’t go to events that had alcohol, etc. To me it seemed there were a lot of LDS at my high school as my school in Illinois had only me and my sister, but our ward partially covered three high schools and I only remember two classes that had the same ward member in all my years though one of my best friends was from the other ward that shared our building. We both like horses and had science classes and gymnastics together. Racism was brought up a lot in my high school due to busing. There was a riot the year before I got there, I had two siblings attending. I have no clue if it was that big, but it still got talked about and teachers were trying to help smooth the integration issues. This was reflected at church some. Can’t remember if I heard about the excommunications of certain activists first at church or at BYU. I at home for the summer when the ban was lifted. Was working with a Black young lady a little older than me at a job that summer. I for some reason don’t remember the time I heard the announcement….probably because I was at home, but I remember it being talked about at work along with discussion of why the heck I was still a virgin, lol. I never heard any discussion about LGBT issues at church in California, did at BYU as Carolyn Lynn Pearson was very popular and it made a lot of noise when her husband came out and they got divorced. I suspect discussion started getting going in California at our ward by the time I was married (1980), but it never came up in the conversations I had with my parents, so can’t be sure. AIDS was drawing attention though, so it seems likely. My mother was so happy when she found the Alan Cherry book (published 1970) because it gave her hope there could be reconciliation in time. I never heard my parents say a racist thing, but my grandparents, who lived by Oakland, certainly were in a cringeworthy paternalistic mode, giving compliments to the hardworking girls and boys (grown adults) they knew as if they were surprised and not being happy about the new neighbors moving in (Hispanics mostly, but a few Black families as well) and the whole children of Cain thing didn’t make sense to me once I knew about evolution, which was pretty early because my parents put encyclopedias and science books and National Geographic on our shelves as soon as we could read and I spent almost all my free time reading, so those were consumed pretty early. As to why there are much fewer LDS there now, my guess is economics plays the biggest role both for young families and the elderly with health care and retirement living costs and then ideology. There are still many parts of California that are conservative, after all, especially once you get off the coast. My parents and other families I knew at the mid to late 80s moved out of California due to high costs of living and travel time getting too ridiculous with high traffic. Our house went from 50,000 to 3 million iirc in 15 years. Later on families who were moving out often spoke as well of ideology, looking for what they saw as more family friendly environments as well as less expensive living with children (the most vocal on ideology was probably one family member who was required to perform abortions for any reason at his clinic, he couldn’t refer them anymore to another fully qualified doctor in the clinic, he sold his part of the clinic and moved to Idaho). I have no clue how many moved out of the state and how many moved out of the Church to cause such a drop in church numbers in the Bay Area. Wish I had paid attention to other parts of California to see if the drop is consistent across the state or varies a lot and if so, on what.

I am reading a major portion of the money submitted by Catholic organizations came from them.

I like and dislike that idea. I like the immediacy of it and the direct consequence. I even think it might work eventually, though likely to really piss people off to begin with. Those officials might need disguises when off the field. Might even create backlash when fans not doing it feel it’s unjust to punish those who are behaving along with those who aren’t and therefore think damned if we do, damned if we don’t. I also would feel horrible for the team members…assuming here they are not encouraging the behaviour. I wonder if having several of the team at the beginning and throughout the game during breaks asking for acceptable behaviour be more influential than coaches speaking.

And you keep missing my point. I have never ever said it wasn’t the principle force. I have always been interested in how that influence played out…as in how much influence it had on what, not in comparison to other organizations or individuals, but in changing minds from pro or neutral gay marriage to anti gay marriage as well as how much influence it had on getting the vote out. I have never even said anyone was wrong in resenting the Church. You seem to think because I accept that others were also committed to trying to influence the vote that I am trying to downplay or shift responsibility from the LDS Church. I am not. I am trying to create a fuller picture of the Church’s involvement…what worked and why. Also interested in why some people heavily focus on the Church and ignore other players because it doesn’t make sense to me. If I got beaten up by a gang, I might resent the leader of the gang…the one who pushed the gang to attack me the most, but I wouldn’t be forgetting the guy who kicked me in the ribs or the one who gave me the black eye. I don’t see what the Church did as anything close to it, but I understand why some people feel that way….but for some they just call the Church the bully in my experience. I do think the Church made a difference and most likely a winning difference given the narrow margin, but it wasn’t acting on tabula rasa individuals or hypnotizing anyone. And it wasn’t just the money amount that mattered because the Church and its allies were out spent by pro gay marriage opponents. Maybe it was wiser spending, maybe it was the grassroots connecting, maybe it was because there was already a fertile ground as the majority of voters were already against gay marriage and we nudged them into voting when many wouldn’t have. Maybe something else. But given the dislike for the Church overall as well as the greater amount of money spent by the pro faction as well as the low numbers of all the LDS voters, I am interested in what actual weight was the influence (in 2008 there were approximately 755,000 LDS in CA, am wondering if this is records or census numbers; the difference between pro and anti was almost 600,000…only assuming that no LDS would have voted yes without the Church coming out and telling them to can one say that LDS voters made the difference on their own….so it’s influence that matters). I grew up and had extended family in the Bay Area, I know how popular LDS were generally speaking from the 60s up to the 90s, less familiar though still have family in Southern California these days. The Priesthood Ban was not making us friends. We weren’t taken seriously by most kids and adults I knew because of no sex, no smoking, no alcohol , not even coffee, iow no fun. We were odd, at the very least, more often seen as racist. So I get curious when I hear the Church was a powerhouse of influence in this campaign and I wonder why (not debating it, wondering about the mechanics, how we did it). Mitt Romney did get to be a candidate nationally, but there is a chance being LDS hurt his candidacy. Orrin Hatch had a lot of influence as did Harry Reid, so not saying LDS couldn’t have lots of influence, likely more than usual for our size, in part because we are centralized and very good at organization. Also now because of wealth, which generally speaking gets paid attention to way too much by politicians in some quarters even if the Church isn’t among those who bribe, etc. Added: as for why I bring up other organizations, I will never understand why LDS had the level of influence they did as well as the staying power of that understandable resentment if I don’t also examine why other organizations involved aren’t seen that way even in proportion to level of involvement by some.

I didn’t say they matched. I said it was significant and the article indicates that funding came from Catholic leaders, so what I identify as “the organization” or at least the decision makers. People’s behaviour matters, not just dollar amounts. They were spending that money even though other long time important to the faith projects were lacking in funding. That shows what level of importance standing against gay marriage was for the leaders. That $3 million plus the invitation plus the 70% of high attendance Catholics voting against gay marriage would be enough for me to take strong notice. If you are talking numbers, lots more Catholic voters in California than LDS back then (37% vs 2%). If money and not personal beliefs were the key factor, why didn’t the pro gay marriage side win? I tried to find polling on attitudes prior to the Prop 8 campaign to see the possible influence, to see if minds were really changed, but besides the detail the majority of Californians were against gay marriage at that time my brain is locking up and not processing stuff. My memory is that analysis of deciding factors for votes were age and church attendance, something not dependent on the campaign (this does not mean the campaign had no effect, it does mean imo we need to be cautious assuming how much difference it actually made, it could have made a big difference if those then against gay marriage didn’t care to vote until the campaign; this is why I would like to see studies on what influenced the result before assuming it was what LDS spent and therefore it makes sense to assume LDS were primarily responsible and not the higher number of Catholic and Evangelical in the states who might have voted it down even if the LDS Church had done nothing). I recognize that just because that’s what is more important to me, that might not be what is most pertinent to others, but that recognition doesn’t stop me from questioning ‘why wouldn’t it matter most who voted for Prop 8?’ Me being me which means paying attention to connections and not forgetting them, the Catholics being the ones who got LDS first involved would be seen as significantly responsible for the over $20 million even if I thought LDS would have gotten involved anyway eventually. Not saying everyone else should see it that way, but it does surprise me when someone solely focuses on LDS and ignores the Catholic effort to stop gay marriage. That plus who voted and why matters more to me than who spent the most money, though certainly amount feeds into the determination of how important a position is to someone or some organization (I would factor in what funds were available as well, percentage of wealth devoted to a particular cause).

It would likely not be about not being able to be a couple with that particular woman (though there are people who still desire a former relationship or even someone who was never in a relationship with them even when in what appears to be a strong relationship), but the rejection—what is seen as an attack on who he is—that continues to fester and grow hate.

CFR that Lewis does not mean divine in the same way. Not challenging, curious about how he describes humanity’s potential.

See Zealous’ answer… But if one assumes the Father was born to heavenly parents (meaning spiritually if parallel to our lives), his potential would be most likely to be like his heavenly parents, who would be Gods.

His qualities, abilities, personality…

This is important to show mindset, imo. Having that type of display for the cameras throughout the game would make more sense than just yelling a vulgarity without any mention of LGBT rights.

But not only did Catholics invite the LDS Church into a collaboration to fight gay marriage (not the first time) for Prop 8, Catholic organizations contributed significantly financially in California and later nationally. I would have thought there would be a similar response from LGBT groups, if not as strong. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/catholic-church-and-nom-responsible-for-60-of-anti-equality-funding-in-four#:~:text=The hefty financial investments from,And in Minneapolis-St. Having said that, the difference in treatment of LGBT students at Notre Dame is massive and I can see that making enough of a difference when focusing on the university and not the faith in general. It also helps that a significant portion of the lay membership, perhaps even a majority are proLGBT rights, which wasn’t true in the past with LDS members. I don’t know how much that has changed in recent years for LDS though many, many more are pro rights now and the number is likely growing as we post. If you are asking me personally, assuming the only thing changing would be my LGBT status based on political activity in the past and present, some would depend on if I was still a member or family was. Assuming I wasn’t as is probably the scenario you are thinking about, I would likely be angered, I would sign any petitions to get the administration to change their mind, I might join peaceful protests (never had the opportunity to do this, protests happened at my high school the year before and the year after I left and BYU had nothing like that though the ERA was receiving a lot of attention; I doubt I would have joined anything that risked me getting kicked out given my terminal shyness and desire to please my parents at that time; I had decided I would participate in this way in a cause that I supported, but no issue that was being discussed close enough to me to participate if a protest had popped up would have risked my standing with the Church…anti war, anti busing, rights for migrant workers, black civil rights). No way if I continued to be who I fundamentally am would I ever harass anyone including student athletes who I see as relatively powerless to influence church positions. Perhaps some athletes might transfer to other schools or made a public stand by refusing to play and getting kicked out, more likely they would just never come to BYU in the first place and some are even making it clear to BYU, if not publicizing their reasons (I don’t remember seeing this in the news at all, has anyone when interviewed said if they got an offer to go to BYU, they would refuse unless LGBT were allowed to date, etc), but I see that as unlikely to change what is seen as a religious, moral standard by church leaders.

Sorry for the repetition, but for some reason I want to be really clear on this not that important of an issue, lol. Are you saying no matter what, all fans will be feeling the pain because to pay the fine, the school will resort to raising ticket price or something else…maybe charge alcoholic vendors more who then raise their prices. If it is true the fans doing this are often drunk, seems like charging alcohol vendors more for the chance to sell at games would be better targeting than just raising prices…though no doubt there are many fans who drink at games without going this far.

So in looking for the back story before you posted (I will admit I would have probably not looked to doublecheck like a good little poster if you had posted earlier as I find you a trustworthy analyst and I am just not interested in sports culture 😛 ), I came across this opinion. Do you disagree that they would have jumped at the chance of Notre Dame wanting to join and if not, what about with their comparison of Notre Dame and BYU as both conservative, both religious, and both lacking in research? And if not, what in addition to those things contributed to BYU not being a good fit? https://bleacherreport.com/articles/398103-byu-is-not-wanted-in-the-pac-10-due-to-discrimination This article led me to chalk it up mainly to the same thing that results in things like the Pew survey where we are the most disliked for whatever reason (in the past it was until someone gets to actually know a Saint that is, wondering why that has changed now…could make some guesses, but that would be pure speculation at this point). Hmmm…might start a thread on the change.

How would they do that without also penalizing fans who did not cause issues? If caught, allow them to stay if they pay a fine? Perhaps just once or keep doubling the fine each time because some people have too much money on their hands, though unlikely to be spending it by attending games and indulging in vulgarity.

My understanding is if security hears or someone reports it, they would pull the person out. This is what has happened or said should have happened in a couple of incidents I remember hearing about. They aren’t giving specifics besides banning forever from games iirc. I assume that means their picture goes up in the office or maybe at entry points or just on their phone to be checked if thought necessary by the gate and security people on top of them gettimg familiar with the face as well as a red flag going off if someone uses his name/card to buy tickets. But we are talking about a lot of fans if I understand correctly. They would have to stop the game I am thinking. And pay for a lot more security because the fans aren’t going to be happy and numbers tend to mean more willingness to resist typically.

That is the only thing that ever occurred to me.

This was the only thing ChaGPT could come up with something recent about burning the Book of Mormon (I specifically asked if Horn said something similar)…

Understanding I am clueless when talking about sports, could you be explicit then why you think there is the animosity against BYU from multiple schools in the Big 12? And this is one area of possible apologetics I have ignored except for what has been written on the board and I don’t remembering this being covered though animosity in sports has been mentioned.

It’s awful…. Try this if you are certain it’s a general conference talk… https://www.lds-general-conference.org

They use stories for multiple talks. Maybe this one…nope…

I heard that as a joke like bluebell did and probably didn’t pick up on it then if I read it (June 76 I was rushing off to BYU, missed my high school graduation even, thinking I wouldn’t be reading the Ensign if it came before I was out the door and wouldn’t go to the Lee Library to read it once I got to Provo), but might these days have also gone to how the writer of the letter might have heard it and squirmed without your pointing it out first. So yes, it could come across as gentle teasing, but given the circumstances there is a risk of the man feeling his efforts were being trivialized, feel humiliated in front of millions, etc. It would be very different coming from a friend. And maybe Pres Hinckley thought of everyone as a friend, but we should be aware that others can be sensitive in ways we wouldn’t think,of as important and pay attention to them anyway out of love imo. The “pathetic letter” hit me in the same way I think as you when I was hearing him say it (chances are I never heard it before as my parents never listened to conference, but read it so we kids never did either except on rare occasions—and then only the one session as that was all that was available—and I have generally read conference talks rather than listened due to my inability to sit for very long without my hands being occupied and feeling that wasn’t great for conference because I wouldn’t give it full attention). Reading it doesn’t hit me the same way as my mind plays with words while reading, more likely to think of different meanings like zealous brings up (settling on “the letter was full of pathos”) and I think that softened it for me because when I then listened to it, I had an unexpected strong reaction to “pathetic”. When I was around 9 or 10, I once told my mom about a former friend being a bully to me and I said proudly I didn’t hate them (thinking of love your enemies and all, I pitied them and boy, did she lay into me in her quiet, loving way for diminishing a fellow human being. What matter to me most was I could tell I had shocked her. It truly bothered her I would view someone else in that manner. So I tend to react strongly to condescension, etc. For some reason it was the condescending label that dominated when I listened, but not when I read it. Maybe the rhythm of the delivery vs the rhythm of my reading?