Mike wrote: 1- "Everyone in the Church believes that Pres. Monson speaks for God" - not so. Almost all Mormons believe that he endeavors to seek inspiration and is, with regard to matters of Church policy, the one who ultimately decides matters of Church policy. He is wise and decent, but not infallible, nor does he profess to be.

Response: I freely admit that you are a wonderful exception to 'everyone in the Church.' Thank God for that! There are others like you, but in reality you are few in number. If you asked every active, recommend-carrying Mormon you came up to if the Prophet speaks for God they will say he does. That's one of the reasons they were able to get a recommend. He is the 'Lord's mouthpiece' on the earth today according to them. Those who want to give him an 'out' will hold forth that he is just human and can make errors. Truly, that is what is happening. He and the Church are crossways with God and although he has done wonderful things as a former bishop and as an influential member of the Church, he also led the Church on the campaign to deny us our civil rights. Not a good man in that.

Mike wrote: 2- "13 million members... fall in line with the church leaders or they leave". Another gross over-statement. Some do, but many don't agree with all the teachings. Each member is at liberty to accept or reject counsel from the leadership.

Response: Indeed the Church is in more trouble than it admits to publicly. It is losing a whole generation of young people to inactivity of very high proportions, plus a huge percentage of the 13 million does not attend church regularly. But those who hold recommends do what the Prophet says.

Mike wrote: 3- "The Sunday before the Tuesday election all of them were asked to go to their Stake Centers to hear the President of the Quorum of the Twelve tell them to vote yes on Prop. 102". Another over-statement. What did happen is that in some Wards there was an announcement of a meeting members were invited to that evening where some Church leaders, along with ministers from other religions, spoke in favor of Prop. 102. I didn't even hear about the meeting until after it was over.

Response: Wrong! There was what I thought was a statewide satellite conference viewed by the majority of the 400,000 members in Arizona beamed from Salt Lake City that Sunday morning. My whole stake and I went and heard President Packer's talk.

Mike wrote: 4- "Mormons drive their young men to commit suicide." A extreme over-statement. I think that some commit suicide because of their distress at being gay in a culture that doesn't accept their lifestyle, and that a part of that culture is their Mormon affiliation. But to suggest that all Mormons, or even many Mormons, bully or press young gay men into suicide is a gross over-statement.

Response: Mormons do drive their young to commit suicide as is borne out by the statistics on suicide that come out of Utah. One of my young gay Mormon former Youth Guide admitted to having to put together an anti-suicide pact with his friends to help keep them all alive through the persecution. Admittedly, our young years are fraught with anxiety and challenges, but adding the fact that a youth is gay into that mix in such a homophobic closed society as is found within the active members of the Church is deadly to far too many.

Miek wrote: 5- ". . . if the Priesthood asks [for money], they will give." Also an over-statement. Some will do that, some won't. I know of members who would not give money, even when asked, and many who were not even asked to give money, like myself.

Response: It is the exception you speak of. In the group of people that I ran around with as an active member of the Church, if we were asked for money, we would give until it hurt.

Mike wrote: 6- "They didn't accept civil rights of Blacks until ten years after the movement attained legal equality. (The real problem I learned was not so much that they didn't want Blacks in the temples, they didn't want Blacks marrying Whites in the temples!)" I have no idea where Bobby got this bit of speculation. It is true that as a matter of Church policy Black men were not given the Priesthood until 1976 when the policy was changed, but the Church did recognize the civil rights laws as the law evolved. And there is nowhere that any evidence exists, either in Church documents or even hearsay from witnesses, that the issue of inter-racial marriage was behind the Priesthood issue. It is true that there are unofficial statements by some ultra-conservative church leaders in the first half of the 20th Century discouraging inter-racial marriage, as there were such views throughout the country. But that is a far cry from a suggestion that this was official Church policy and it certainly was not the prevailing view after the 1950's.

Response: The policy was changed only after President Kimball was able to get a majority to go with him. He was wise in waiting until the makeup of the other 14 men running the Church was such that they would finally agree as a body with him that it was time. Time and tide wait for no man, and that is true of The Brethren. It is an interesting side note that I read a long dissertation on the inner thinking and actions of leadership of the Church over its history concerning whites and blacks marrying. That was anathema to the leadership until 1976, when Kimball got all of their eggs together in one basket on this. Even then the reaction around the Church was not good...many left the Church because of it. But the reality was that if the Church wanted to take its message into the far reaches of the earth, the policy on Blacks had to be changed...think Brazil which now has more than a million members, Africa, India...I joined the Church shortly after President Kimball shared his vision of a worldwide missionary church. From the get go my command was 'lenghthen my stride.'

Mike wrote: While it is important to advocate for change in Church policy toward a more tolerant view of LGBT issues, including same-sex marriage as a civil right, it is equally important that their position be based on fact and not hyperbole or over-statement. Otherwise, those many good and faithful Mormons who are supportive of same-sex marriage, while also supporting the church and patiently advocating for change in its policy, will lose credibility and thereby lose a voice in advocating for change.

Response: People don't listen to facts. They all know the facts that God created us all equal. Demonizing homosexuality is an overstatement as well. It is long past waiting patiently. What has waiting patiently ever really gotten us except a few bones here and there.

Mike wrote: I appreciate why there is anger among the LGBT community for the church's role in influencing elections, but we should take as an example how the organizations advocating for equal rights for African-Americans approached the church and were able to influence the change in policy in the 60s and 70s. It is important to not allow hearsay and supposition to enter into the debate, lest we will be marginalized and less effective in bringing about change.

Response: The Church ONLY changes policy when confronted on all sides by public opinion that has changed. Reasoning with the unreasonable does not work, when doctrine is concerned.

In the end, we couldn't be less effective than we are at bringing change to the Church. Whatever we have done in the past is not working. The only way to make the Church change is to embarrass it in the public eye...because, after all, we're talking about 15 old men here, who hate to be wrong, who fight change on every side...unless it benefits the bottom line.

I appreciate the friendship of my moderate and liberal Church friends. It gives me the only ray of hope in a very dark scenario. If overstatement turns out to be too much, understatement is even worse. I'm not an intellectual and am just trying to live the rest of my life in a way that will help me to be happier. The Church is an impediment to that, and if it were not for my family I would leave it in an instant.