New HBO News Segment focuses on LGBT issues, touches on Monson, Priesthood

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I am not trying rewrite history.  Remember, I opposed Proposition 8.  

You're a social scientist.  What's not to understand about statistics?

1.  There is no statistic showing the extent of Mormon contributions to Prop 8, as religious affiliation is not a reporting requirement and it would be unconstitutional to require it.  The estimations were made by sources hostile to the Coalition.  But there is no denying that church members contributed, as I can see the contribution list for myself and recognize many names.

2.  There is no statistic measuring the influence the Coalition's ads had on the election results.  I have my opinion, you have yours.  

3.   The Pew poll is what it is.  In terms of statistical significance, being a black voter was the most significant factor to predict a yes vote, and with that statistic, one can estimate over 700,000 black yes votes. That's over 70% of black voters.

4.  The church says there are 771,464 total members of the church in California.  Given that half that number is expected to be children, it is highly unlikely that the Mormon yes vote was more than 100,000.  Things to remember here -- most Mormons are Republicans and thus are discouraged from voting in California, as their votes don't count.  I proudly vote Democratic.

5.  No statistical analysis will support a "what if" scenario.  

My point in all this at least in the thread is to refute the politically correct argument that blacks overwhelmingly support gay rights.  They don't, and there has never been any proof of it unless you accept Daniel's and Gray's and your gut-feel approach to social science.  I think a Mormon is more likely to support gay rights than a black voter.  My gut feel for this is that, based upon my survey of reports, Mormons -- and not blacks -- got the lion's share of the blame for Prop 8.  It is politically easy to dump all over a despised religion, as you and Gray and others here do, rather than the black community.  That then leads to the next question, which I address in my Rutgers' article:  Why do you criticize the church for getting involved with Prop 8?  Why exactly? 

I am the wrong guy for you to be criticizing, as I support gay rights and marriage.  But I laugh out loud and mockingly at how political correctness rules the roost in your neighborhood.  

Well if that was your point, then I would agree with you.  While support for gay marriage in the black community has increased and continues to increase, I don't think it is a majority yet.  What you can't say is that some black leaders don't equate the fight for equal treatment under the law for gays is similar to equal treatment under the law for blacks. From the quotes Daniel have provided, it is clear that Correta King sees a similarity.

And my point is that the money and time Mormons devoted to Prop 8 did influence the election.

This never was about you and your stance on gay marriage.  It was also. never about me and my stance on gay marriage.

What do you think.  Can we agree on this?

Edited January 13, 2018 by california boy

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

Black people make up 6% of the population in California.

If the vote was pretty well even outside of the 6%, that 6% could be the deciding factor.

 

[Calm]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

My opinion, if anyone cares (and no one should) is that the single most important factor in the passing of Prop 8 was the money that was spent on the campaign.

Then why didn't Prop 8 fail?

Quote

The final tallies show that opponents of Proposition 8 raised $43.3 million in 2008 and had a little more than $730,000 left on hand at year's end. The measure's sponsors raised $39.9 million and had $983,000 left over.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985504/ns/us_news-life/t/more-million-spent-prop/#.WlmJO2W4_eQ

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why didn't Prop 8 fail?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985504/ns/us_news-life/t/more-million-spent-prop/#.WlmJO2W4_eQ

Now, Calm, we can't let something as inconsequential as facts get in the way of our narrative. 

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Then why didn't Prop 8 fail?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985504/ns/us_news-life/t/more-million-spent-prop/#.WlmJO2W4_eQ

 

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

Now, Calm, we can't let something as inconsequential as facts get in the way of our narrative. 

Because the passing of Prop 8 cannot be reduced to one single factor. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

If the vote was pretty well even outside of the 6%, that 6% could be the deciding factor.

 

I suppose so, but there were much bigger demographics in California who contributed way more than 6% of the vote.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Well if that was your point, then I would agree with you.  While support for gay marriage in the black community has increased and continues to increase, I don't think it is a majority yet.  What you can't say is that some black leaders don't equate the fight for equal treatment under the law for gays is similar to equal treatment under the law for blacks. From the quotes Daniel have provided, it is clear that Correta King sees a similarity.

And my point is that the money and time Mormons devoted to Prop 8 did influence the election.

This never was about you and your stance on gay marriage.  It was also. never about me and my stance on gay marriage.

What do you think.  Can we agree on this?

51% of African Americans support gay marriage now

[california boy]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Then why didn't Prop 8 fail?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985504/ns/us_news-life/t/more-million-spent-prop/#.WlmJO2W4_eQ

Quite honestly, the ads for No on Prop 8 were horrible.   If they would have communicated their message better, then I think it probably wouldn't have passed.  The proof of that belief is that when the merits of gay marriage was actually discussed in length, people changed their minds.  Yes on Prop 8 ran a fear based campaign.  Fear can be a very powerful device to get people to vote for your cause.

 

5 hours ago, Gray said:

51% of African Americans support gay marriage now

Well there you go.  Thanks for the correction.  The longer gay marriage is around, the more people will not fall for the fear, world coming to an end, rampant immorality spreading across the land like a plague kind reasons for not encouraging gay couples to marry and contribute to more solid family units.  More and more it is those religions like Mormons who believe it is against the laws of God that are opposing it.  Which is fine.  We all have our own beliefs of what we thing God expects from us.

[kiwi57]

On 1/13/2018 at 5:04 AM, ALarson said:

You're being ridiculous here, kiwi. 

Can you deny that at one time, church leaders instructed local leaders that being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70036-new-hbo-news-segment-focuses-on-lgbt-issues-touches-on-monson-priesthood/?do=findComment&comment=1209785745

 

Excuse me, but what california boy said was not "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex." It was, "His data was instrumental in the church changing it's policy that if gays married, then they would eventually become straight."

You can read his claim, in context, here.

Interestingly, every time I challenged him on the second claim, he would provide support for the first, instead.

But they are materially and significantly different, so much that claiming one, then pretending to support it by supporting the other, is a shell game.

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Excuse me, but what california boy said was not "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex." It was, "His data was instrumental in the church changing it's policy that if gays married, then they would eventually become straight."

I think you're just hung up on the word "policy".  Substitute the word "position", "teaching", "instructions", "approach" or "theory", if it's that one word you object to.  It's true that what california boy described took place regarding the written instructions that were given to local leaders on how they should advise gay members.  (That being gay can be cured and that they should date and marry the opposite sex).  And he's correct that this position has changed.

California boy used the word "policy" and that could fit too.  Of course it wasn't an official policy such as the one put in place recently (that is in the handbook).  But it was still in writing and sent out to local leaders with the names of Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen named as being over that issue for the church.

And the word "policy" is most definitely also accurate to use here :

Quote

pol·i·cy

ˈnoun

- a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

synonyms:plans, strategy, stratagem, approach, code, system, guidelines, theory,  position, stance,

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think you're just hung up on the word "policy".  Substitute the word "position", "teaching", "instructions", "approach" or "theory", if it's that one word you object to.  It's true that what california boy described took place regarding the written instructions that were given to local leaders on how they should advise gay members.  (That being gay can be cured and that they should date and marry the opposite sex).  And he's correct that this position has changed.

And now a shell game of your own.

Clever little red herring there, ALarson. Pity it won't work.

As is abundantly and unambiguously clear from what I wrote, I am not even remotely "hung up on the word 'policy'." I'm "hung up" on the fact that your good buddy is consciously and deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of what was being said.

Just to make it even more abundantly and unambiguously clear, with the hope that even you won't be brazen enough to try to pretend I've said something else: I accept that at one time the prevailing view was that "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex."

Do you get that, ALarson? I accept it. I don't dispute it. I'm not arguing about it.

What I'm arguing about is what california boy always says - until he gets challenged on it - namely: "if gays married, then they would eventually become straight."

That is not what the Church was teaching or advising. It is materially and significantly different from "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex."

And it is abundantly clear that california boy knows that.

The advice given in the 1981 pamphlet that CB tried - in vain - to pretend supported his claim, was that homosexuals should work to overcome their sexual malaise with normal courtship and marriage as a long-term goal.

Note that this is precisely the opposite of CB's claim, which was that courtship and [needless to say, opposite-sex] marriage was recommended as a therapeutic strategy.

Which it was not.

Now, are we clear on that, at long last?

 

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

What I'm arguing about is what california boy always says - until he gets challenged on it - namely: "if gays married, then they would eventually become straight."

That is not what the Church was teaching or advising. It is materially and significantly different from "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex."

And it is abundantly clear that california boy knows that.

The advice given in the 1981 pamphlet that CB tried - in vain - to pretend supported his claim, was that homosexuals should work to overcome their sexual malaise with normal courtship and marriage as a long-term goal.

Note that this is precisely the opposite of CB's claim, which was that courtship and [needless to say, opposite-sex] marriage was recommended as a therapeutic strategy.

Which it was not.

Now, are we clear on that, at long last?

 

I'm not going to continue playing this game with you, kiwi.

Maybe you should tell me what you believe the church leaders meant when they stated:

Quote

"Homosexuality CAN be cured."

If not that they would cease to be gay and "become straight", what do you believe they meant?

And... do you think the leaders would tell local leaders that being gay could be cured without recommendations for "treatments" to accomplish a cure?

What do you think was meant when this was stated?

 

Quote

"In the event that you have members who have homosexual tendencies or activities, it will be your privilege and responsibility to assist them to effect a cure and bring their lives back into total normalcy."

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

And then this:

Quote

"The entrenched homosexual has generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex and herein is another step. When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his life toward the normal.  If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong.

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

 

 - Pamphlet published in 1970 by the LDS church for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

 

Once again, what do you believe the leaders meant when they informed local leaders that "homosexuality CAN be cured", if not that their gay members could become straight and start being attracted to the opposite sex where "their romantic interests" "belong"?

Edited January 15, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

There's more about a "cure" in other printed instructions from church leaders here:

Quote

 

There is no easy or even commonly accepted cure for homosexuality.  Professionally trained people differ in their opinions regarding both the cause and the cures, but the gospel makes the issue clear.  Homosexuality is a sin, is learned behavior (not inborn), and can be stopped.

....

Through discussions ,activities, and imitation, he needs to learn what a heterosexual life is and what a manly priesthood leader and father does.  He needs to learn that sex, while important between husband and wife, is not the consuming issue it often is between homosexual partners.  He needs to learn of the fulfillment men feel through fatherhood, vocation, and avocation.  In essence, he must be introduced to and learn the heterosexual or straight way of life.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329384642/Homosexuality-Welfare-Services-Packet-1-LDS-Victor-Brown

 

 

[Exiled]

Kiwi57:

They made a mistake for heaven sake.  Just chock it up to men looking to the discredited science of the day and move on.  Men are fallible as we all agree.  Maybe you could say that the leaders were beguiled by those atheistic practitioners of the dreaded scientism and resolve it that way instead of trying to make meaningless distinctions.

[california boy]

Thank you ALarson.  You have more patience in dealing with Kiwi than I do.  I also want to add the fact that I doubt very much Kiwi has ever  spoken to church leaders during that time period about how to deal with his homosexuality.  So how the heck does he presume to know what church leaders told men like me who were gay. I have explained exactly what I was told and what supposed promise from God was given to me so many times that if someone refuses to accept the reality of my experience then the best thing at this point is to shrug my shoulders and move on.  He can reread the countless posts I have made on this issue if he wants to gain any kind of understanding of the travesty church leaders were doing to gay men.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thank you ALarson.  You have more patience in dealing with Kiwi than I do.  I also want to add the fact that I doubt very much Kiwi has ever  spoken to church leaders during that time period about how to deal with his homosexuality.  So how the heck does he presume to know what church leaders told men like me who were gay. I have explained exactly what I was told and what supposed promise from God was given to me so many times that if someone refuses to accept the reality of my experience then the best thing at this point is to shrug my shoulders and move on.  He can reread the countless posts I have made on this issue if he wants to gain any kind of understanding of the travesty church leaders were doing to gay men.

Maybe your problem is that you don't know what you know.  Clearly you should listen to Kiwi when he tells you what you know:  "And it is abundantly clear that california boy knows that." --Kiwi57

And, yes, props to ALarson for his patience in dealing with Kiwi.

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Maybe your problem is that you don't know what you know.  Clearly you should listen to Kiwi when he tells you what you know:  "And it is abundantly clear that california boy knows that." --Kiwi57

And, yes, props to ALarson for his patience in dealing with Kiwi.

At this point, I really couldn't care less what Kiwi thinks.  I do wish however that the church would have the integrity to apologize for what they put all those gay men, those that they married, and their families through.  For the church, it is just some kind of ooops, guess we were wrong.  For those that were trying their very best to be obedient to church leaders it was devastating.  Of course we all know that apology is never going to happen.  Evidently men of God don't apologize.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thank you ALarson.  You have more patience in dealing with Kiwi than I do.  I also want to add the fact that I doubt very much Kiwi has ever  spoken to church leaders during that time period about how to deal with his homosexuality.  So how the heck does he presume to know what church leaders told men like me who were gay. I have explained exactly what I was told and what supposed promise from God was given to me so many times that if someone refuses to accept the reality of my experience then the best thing at this point is to shrug my shoulders and move on.  He can reread the countless posts I have made on this issue if he wants to gain any kind of understanding of the travesty church leaders were doing to gay men.

I honestly don't understand why someone would adamantly deny what is right there in black and white to read.  Why not just admit the leaders were in error on this, but they have corrected that and no longer advise gay members to date and marry the opposite sex as a cure for them being gay?

I personally know of two men who received exactly the same instructions as you did from their local leaders (who had received them from their leaders).  They both married and had faith that what they'd been promised was true (that they would become attracted to the opposite sex and be cured)....they had the faith that you did in that.

One of them is still married, but it's not been an easy marriage and there has been suffering by all involved (including the children).  He has a love for his wife and she for him, but she yearns to be with a man who is attracted to her.  She will not divorce though for the kids sake and they have actually got a pretty good marriage and relationship now.  However, he is still gay.

The other man ended up going through a very painful divorce (for all involved....but most especially for his wife and children).  They are amicable now, but his relationships with them are damaged and still very difficult at times.  And....he is also still gay.

I know that the church leaders have heard these stories over and over again.  They also have to know that what they taught local leaders to do was wrong...promises were made that could not be kept and faithful members believed these promises.  To the credit of our current leaders, they have changed their beliefs and teachings on this.  

[rockpond]

Tomorrow morning will be interesting... I know many who believe that Whitney Clayton is likely to be called as an apostle.  If that happens it will be tough for some of us.  And, will also be another sign that no apology is coming.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not going to continue playing this game with you, kiwi.

Good.

Then I take it you're going to admit that CB's claim that "if gays married, then they would eventually become straight" is vastly different to "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex," are you?

Quote

Maybe you should tell me what you believe the church leaders meant when they stated:

If not that they would cease to be gay and "become straight", what do you believe they meant?

And... do you think the leaders would tell local leaders that being gay could be cured without recommendations for "treatments" to accomplish a cure?

What do you think was meant when this was stated?

And then this:

Once again, what do you believe the leaders meant when they informed local leaders that "homosexuality CAN be cured", if not that their gay members could become straight and start being attracted to the opposite sex where "their romantic interests" "belong"?

Oh well. I guess I got my hopes up for no reason.

Edited January 15, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I honestly don't understand why someone would adamantly deny what is right there in black and white to read.  Why not just admit the leaders were in error on this, but they have corrected that and no longer advise gay members to date and marry the opposite sex as a cure for them being gay?

Not only that, but they never did.

Because, as you and I both know, "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex," doesn't mean "date and marry the opposite sex as a cure for them being gay."

And when you stop playing this intentionally dishonest and manipulative little shell game you've got going on, then maybe we can have a good faith discussion about how it was.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Tomorrow morning will be interesting... I know many who believe that Whitney Clayton is likely to be called as an apostle.  If that happens it will be tough for some of us.  And, will also be another sign that no apology is coming.

No apology is needed.

I don't know much about Elder Clayton. But if your clique don't like him, he must have a lot going for him.

[Calm]

If I understand kiwi's point correctly, the issue is the timeline (what step comes first) of the suggestion/instruction.

He is challenging the claim of the policy/teaching being "get married, get cured" (Iow marriage itself will cure you) and instead believes it is being presented by leaders as "get cured, then get married" (Iow, develop the ability to have romantic feelings for the opposite sex first and then use them in dating and marriage).

I hope he will correct me if I am misreading him.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Maybe your problem is that you don't know what you know.  Clearly you should listen to Kiwi when he tells you what you know:  "And it is abundantly clear that california boy knows that." --Kiwi57

Apparently, I don't know what kiwi thinks I know too 

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Because, as you and I both know, "being gay could be cured and that they should advise their gay members to date and marry the opposite sex," doesn't mean "date and marry the opposite sex as a cure for them being gay."

I disagree.  From statements made by them,  that's exactly what the leaders believed and were advising at one time.    That advice was given by many local leaders to their gay members.  I know this from personal experience and from what other's have reported as well (plus the instructions and beliefs are in writing).  

kiwi, if you can't see that, I'm amazed.....but no need to continue the back and forth on this.

We can disagree on this and move on.

Edited January 15, 2018 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

At this point, I really couldn't care less what Kiwi thinks.  I do wish however that the church would have the integrity to apologize for what they put all those gay men, those that they married, and their families through.  For the church, it is just some kind of ooops, guess we were wrong.  For those that were trying their very best to be obedient to church leaders it was devastating.  Of course we all know that apology is never going to happen.  Evidently men of God don't apologize.

I don't think the word apology is in the church's vocabulary...