Reader comments
LDS officials to meet with gay group

309 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next >

Lee | 3:07 a.m. April 7, 2008

Will an alternate lifestyle other than what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in hope to be a part of the celestial kingdom? I feel for these members, but we all are required to live a certain standard that the bible teaches in order to hope for eternal life. The church will not conform to the gay lifestyle and accept their way of life, or recognize it as being normal. Think of your own parents. Had it not been for a Mother and Father you would not be here.

I think this is great | 6:00 a.m. April 7, 2008

but I just can't understand the desire to change the honor code at BYU. It seems so clear to me that if you don't approve of it, you shouldn't apply there! It really is that easy. Gay, straight, whatever - the honor code is what it is and individuals who seek a personal exception to the rules are arrogant in my opinion.

Other than that, I hope this will be the beginning of productive dialogue.

Aware | 6:26 a.m. April 7, 2008

From the article:

"Part of the reason Affirmation does their work is to build bridges," Larabee said. "This is definitely the building of a bridge .."

Might this turn out to be a bridge to the "great and Spacious building"?

Comments continue below

WBC-Texas | 6:31 a.m. April 7, 2008

I hope that Affirmation is not expecting the church to change its position on same sex unions. The Lord has not changed his view on the matter and neither can His church. The fact that church authorities have reached out to Affirmation is a sign that each of God's children is loved but to return to full fellowship will require adherence to the same moral standards already in place. Those standards were set in eternity and will not change!
I encourage any who are involved in same-sex relationships to end those relationships and set his/her life in order. I wish you well in your efforts to do so.

liberal larry | 6:46 a.m. April 7, 2008

I'm always amazed at the high number of gays in Salt Lake City. Many of them seem to be from small towns in the rural west. I think they come to SLC to get a way from the small town attitudes toward gays.

Just A Guy | 6:55 a.m. April 7, 2008

Any thoughts that this might change the LORDS stand on homosexuality are completely wrong. He stated his position on it several thousand years ago through his prophets in the bible and continues to do so today.

This will be an invitation to get help...and nothing more.

Lee | 7:07 a.m. April 7, 2008

Enter commentI hope that the LDS does not go down the same path as some Protestant churches. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever! Our Lord calls this SIN.Please do not recognize homosexuals as "another lifestyle".Reach out to gay people on an individual basis.I was once a member of a church organization that recognized this garbage! I left it! I am not LDS, but I have always counted on my LDS brothers & sisters to do the right thing on matters of morality.

Oren | 7:17 a.m. April 7, 2008

And what exactly is there to discuss?

Make your choice, take the consequences that come with the choice.

dizzle | 7:47 a.m. April 7, 2008

Changing the Honor Code? I wouldn't hold my breath. I think it's helpful to reach out, but I think Affirmation is over-reaching here. I'm just glad I'm not the one having to make these decisions.

Big Al | 7:48 a.m. April 7, 2008

The Church's central doctrinal teachings regarding homosexuality seem clear. Marriage is the legal union of one man to one woman. The Church will never recognize or condone gay or lesbian marriage, regardless of eventual rulings by courts or legislatures. In terms of gay sexual activity, the Church will never change its doctrine on sexual activity outside of marriage--whether gay or straight. So where does this leave gay or lesbian people in terms of their relationship to the Church? If I, as a straight male, commit fornication with a woman, and the Church takes disciplinary action, does that mean I am being persecuted? I have no idea what the LDS gay community, or Affirmation, is trying to achieve . . .

CB | 7:59 a.m. April 7, 2008

I am not sure this group understands the position the church must endorse in relation to doctrine--to excuse inappropriate conduct is not the answer--though kindness, unconditional support is a must for everyone; principles cannot be changed when political views temper when moral issues are present, you cannot have a religious belief developed by political vote.

Bee | 8:02 a.m. April 7, 2008

Does anyone know what "change" to the BYU Honor Code they want to make?
This article should clarify that sex between unmarried people (regardless of sexual orientation) is a sin in the Church. Since it's not legal for gays to be married, they must remain celibate.

Instereo | 8:16 a.m. April 7, 2008

It's about time this happened. The church should put into practice what it preaches in its general conference, to reach out, to give respect, and to welcome diversity. The two groups may never come to an agreement about fellowship or activity in the church and its temple ceremonies but at least they can establish a relationship that could benefit both groups.

It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or people are born that way, the fact is they are here, they are human, they have positive things to contribute to our society and sweeping them under the rug has been done long enough. It's time to change things and I'm glad to see it happening.

BTW, I'm a straight white male Mormon member and I think it's great to be opening dialog instead of closing it.

Considering who Christ associated with when he was here at the meridian of time, who's to say he won't meet with Affirmation first when he comes again. He is the God of all people and He seems to advocate for the oppressed and against the well established.

just me | 8:15 a.m. April 7, 2008

Talking and listening is good for both groups. I would be shocked if it lead to any approval of gay sexual relationships or activities by the Church. Hopefully it will lead to more kindness and respectful understanding between those that are have different ideas. One thing I am sure of is that calling an evil action 'good' does not change the true nature of the act no matter how many say it or how loud or earnest the voice.

Pioneer | 8:31 a.m. April 7, 2008

I am a little surprised by all this murmuring. This is definitely big news and a testament to President Monson's gift of revelation and foresight. If the prophet feels that now is the time to meet with this group, then members need not question it. Bigotry disguised as 'righteousness' is the very thing that our Savior challenged. Love One Another.

Judge Not | 8:29 a.m. April 7, 2008

I don't believe there will be any changes in policy as a result of this meeting. I do hope WE as a people and culture learn how to better LOVE everyone regardless of personal choices. The fact is that we all sin and need the redeeming power of the Lord.

It is sad when a child is disowned by their family because of choosing a homosexual lifestyle. Yes, I said choice. Many of us seem to be predispositioned to ideas and behavior that are against the will of the Lord. Some struggle with drugs or alcohol, others with selfishness and pride (from the top or bottom), others desire to committ adultery (in thought or deed) and others are lazy. My point is that we all have our own challenges.

It is our job to invite ALL and love ALL and it's the Lord's job to judge. It is not our job to tell someone they need to change - that only puts a wedge in a relationship. However, if someone has the desire to change we can offer support. There is a phrase for what we should be striving for - it's called unconditional love.

Utah Resident | 8:45 a.m. April 7, 2008

I think what Affirmation is referring to re: The BYU Honor Code, is when a few years ago, the Church said it treated Gay members no differently than their heterosexual counterparts, that they are to remain celibate until marriage (of course, never mind the Church went to great lengths to make sure gays never had that option). What happened was that some gay students were kicked out merely for showing affection towards one other (walking hand-in-hand, a kiss)--something that would never happen to the heterosexual students there.

CTR | 8:45 a.m. April 7, 2008

Welcoming diversity is not and never should be accepting or condoning sin.

Frank | 8:39 a.m. April 7, 2008

I'm glad to hear that there will be some dialogue between the two groups. It may not resolve a whole lot but respectful disscusion never hurt anyone.

However I'm surprised to hear theyre going to start it off with asking for allowing open unmarried sexual relations into BYU! I think everyone knows the answer to that already.

thompson | 8:45 a.m. April 7, 2008

It doesn't sound like murmuring to me. In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised at how intelligent these comments have been. Consensus seems to be that the Church will not and cannot change its policy, it would cease to be the Church by altering its doctrine on eternal families, but that we all can be more understanding and sympathetic.

Anonymous | 8:46 a.m. April 7, 2008

well said, CTR.

How Presumptious . . . | 8:53 a.m. April 7, 2008

. . . it is for so many people to speak out for Church leaders and pretend to know what those leaders should or shouldn't do with respect to the request to sit down and discuss a matter that impacts the lives of so many of our brothers and sisters.

I'm pretty sure church leaders will figure this one out without the help of all those who want to step forward and "steady the arc."

Good men chosen | 8:55 a.m. April 7, 2008

I know Fred Riley and Harold Brown personally. These are great men to discuss the topics at hand. They have a lot of experience and wisdom and bring a lot of common sense to the table. Well done, whoever made this choice.

The Savior Rejoiced | 8:54 a.m. April 7, 2008

In his message, this Sunday, President Monson reached out to members who have left the church. I am so happy that he has followed through to include the faithful gay and lesbian community. Demonstrating this by accepting Gay LDS invitations to meet with LDS leaders. I am a member of the LDS church myself and am so glad to see this! I am over joyed because I have so many friends whom are gay and lesbian and I love them! We are often enraged when we are found as seperate when our hearts are so together!

I have always loved and trusted the judgement of President Monson, even prior to his new role. As long as I can remember his gentle and understanding manner was amazing and comforting to me. It would be to his nature to by pass the barriers and teach us love and acceptance of all people.

Unification is healing and our strongest defense against the evil of this world. I am hopeful for changes in our traditions. Because these modern times demand a change of views and can be the answer to the worlds ever growing war amongst ourselves.

TruLDS | 8:50 a.m. April 7, 2008

Love the sinner, but hate the sin! And, regardless of what the world thinks, homosexuality IS a sin, which strikes at the very foundation of the family.
But, all are sinners, and any dialogue between the Church and these groups is good. It fosters better understanding, between the two parties.
I know, however, that the Church will continue to stand for traditional families, values, and lifestyles, with a married, male father, female mother, and their children.

Open minded | 9:03 a.m. April 7, 2008

Sometimes we become so open minded that our brains fall out.

Lisa | 8:57 a.m. April 7, 2008

After the comments said from conference yesterday, I feel that if the church changes it's mind and accepts this, then what else will it accept in the future? That just living togetther and having children will be ok also? What has happened to our morals? I understand our world is changing but do we have to change every thing we believe in to accomodate others? God did not put two men together or two women together, he put a man and a woman together and thats how it is supposed to be, now and forever.

Wow | 9:01 a.m. April 7, 2008

Whatever happened to loving your neighbor? I thoght that your prophet preached tolerance and love, but all I see here is prejudice and hate. You all ought to be ashamed.

Interesting. | 9:10 a.m. April 7, 2008

I find it interesting and quite telling, that on the same day where a story on conference from the new prophet telling members that they need to be more tolerant of other people's beliefs that this story show so many people willing to do just the opposite. I don't see where they plan on asking the church to change their doctrine in any way, instead they are just asking for a chance of open and honest discussion. Why are you so scared of this? Why are you people so afraid of us gays? Trust me, we have more to fear from you. If you believe that the church really is true, then why are so many of you so upset by this? Where is your faith in your church leaders to do the right thing? Guess not too many of you actually LISTENED to what was said at conference.

Love?? | 9:05 a.m. April 7, 2008

I find it interesting that many posters choose to lead with the "sin" aspect of this dialog rather than leading with love. Thank goodness these posters are not the Prophet, or God.

I also find it interesting that people will immediately choose to judge a situation/person but then quickly remove all guilt off themselves by saying "I'm glad I'm not the one to judge" or "But I have my own issues too."

However, I applaud those posters that focused on the love and hope aspect of this exchange between the Church and Affirmation. I'm sure there will be good that comes out of it.

Personal Thoughts | 9:05 a.m. April 7, 2008

It seems over the years as I encounte people with problems, all of us have them, one things is constant. It depends on whether or not you act on these inclinations. Whether it be physical abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism, child sex abuse, anger issues, work-a-holics, homosexual feelings, etc. our challenge in life is to overcome these tendencies and to become stronger and better people. I have worked with and known people in each of these categories. Some "put off the natural man" and have become better people, others have determined to give into these feelings and have not become better people, yet. Regardless these feelings, tendencies, "addictions", are still wrong and inappropriate. They are all still sins to be overcome.

Well said... | 9:09 a.m. April 7, 2008

TruLDS | 8:50 a.m. Apr. 7, 2008

"Love the sinner, but hate the sin! And, regardless of what the world thinks, homosexuality IS a sin, which strikes at the very foundation of the family.
But, all are sinners, and any dialogue between the Church and these groups is good. It fosters better understanding, between the two parties.
I know, however, that the Church will continue to stand for traditional families, values, and lifestyles, with a married, male father, female mother, and their children."

Proclamation on the Family | 9:13 a.m. April 7, 2008

I imagine the discussion from the Church's point of view will focus on this revelation. I agree that discussion can be valuable, but the stated view of the Lord is fairly clear (yes I did say the Lord, not the Church, because if you believe the Church is true, you literally believe it is being led by the Lord and revelations such as the Proclamation on the Family are the Lord's teachings, and if you don't believe the Church is true than you really don't have much to say regarding its doctrine or policies since you deny the Lord leads it anyway).

Remember | 9:21 a.m. April 7, 2008

President Monson said that we are in a war against sin. That the commander of the right is the Lord. Given that, I am certain that whatever the Church is attempting to do (in this case in particular) will be in that context.

I trust President Monson because he trusts in and has faith in the Lord.

bridges | 9:22 a.m. April 7, 2008

I imagine the building of a skybridge to bring together productively two areas of thought with places of beauty along the way to ponder and enjoy the journey.

To Interesting... | 9:31 a.m. April 7, 2008

I'm not afraid of you as a person and I'm very tolerant of you people and I will be amongst the first people to say that bashing others because of their lifestyle etc is absolutely wrong. Just remember though that the Church is not going to change its doctrinal beliefs and teachings to stray away from traditional family values. Sorry to be blunt but that's just how it is...

Me | 9:25 a.m. April 7, 2008

"Sometimes we become so open minded that our brains fall out."

Sometimes our minds are so locked up they don't work. And sometimes our hearts are so righteous that they're not much good for caring for our fellow Man.

Ken Baguley | 9:25 a.m. April 7, 2008

The report I read indicated that the expectation was that the church should change with no attitude of change in "The Group" Let's be open-minded and subject to change where change is possible...On both sides...

Best Wishes | 9:27 a.m. April 7, 2008

I wish this meeting all the best. I hope and pray that those who need a meeting like this will seek first to hear counsel from the Lord, and not to counsel the Lord. God loves His children. He seeks to help all who are willing to obey Him. If we are humble enough to know God's will--sometimes given directly to us through His servants--He will always work out a better plan in our lives than we would otherwise grant ourselves. I hope the individuals calling for this meeting are sincere in their desire to receive help at the hand of God's servants. I hope they are ready to not only hear but also receive the word of the Lord.

RE:To Interesting | 9:34 a.m. April 7, 2008

Can you show me where it says that this meeting is about asking the church to change it's doctrine? It clearly states the opposite, they are NOT asking for the church to change it's doctrine, but wants to discuss other topics. And I can handle blunt, just not hypocricy.

More to the Equation | 9:40 a.m. April 7, 2008

There is more the "gay individual" then sex, just as there is more to my relationship with my wife then sex. It seems that many of the comments above feel that homosexuality is ONLY sexual and therefore a sin. Perhaps being "open minded" and engagning in "dialogue" is good in terms of learning more about the individaul and how to understand their life experience so as to be able to show appropriate support and help. This doesn't mean the church has to condone sexual activity between same-gender individuals.

Many of those members of the church that struggle with SSA are faced with the difficult question of "how do I find meaning and satisfaction (non-sexual!!!) in the church?" When others discover their struggle, they are abandoned, shunned and treated as figurative lepers. Being rejected by the church and left alone, they may turn the other direction.

While I recognize this is not the case for all, many (I am a counselor and have worked with several) would gladly follow the teachings of the church, IF the members wouldn't treat them so poorly. In view of President Monson's plea yesterday, we should be more accepting and supportive.

Darin | 9:35 a.m. April 7, 2008

What I find sad is that members of Affirmation don't just leave the church altogether. I know it's not easy - believe me, I know. But who needs the self-torture? Spirituality also exists outside the organized religions that continue to condemn homosexuality. Religions of all sorts do this without a thought to how desctructive it is, or how far away from the actual teachings of Christ. No religion has a monopoly on the Law of Love. In the majority of comments posted here there is some claim to speak for "the Lord". Could anything be more arrogant? Who needs this kind of company when the entire thinking, scientific, rational, and truly Christian world accepts you?

RE: KEN | 9:37 a.m. April 7, 2008

I agree with you 100%. BOTH sides need to be willing to have an open discussion and be willing to listen or it will be a total waste of time.

To: More to the Equation / | 9:50 a.m. April 7, 2008

Thank you...people like you give me hope that the church isn't filled with hateful, self-righteous people.

YOU GET IT...AND I THINK THAT IS RARE SOMETIMES.

Thanks!

Blake

To Interesting | 9:50 a.m. April 7, 2008

I think it's funny how gays pull out the intolerance card and attempt to shame Church members by quoting our leaders on issues of tolerance. I especially love the line "guess not too many of you actually LISTENED to what was said at conference". That's rich. If YOU actually listened to what was said at conference, you wouldn't want to act out on your same gender attraction, you wouldn't seek for the church to conform to your twisted standards, you would seek to be obedient. Now, really, who isn't listening?

Mormon Mommy | 9:48 a.m. April 7, 2008

When my 15-year-old son came out to me three years ago, my whole world came crashing down and the church I have loved all my life suddenly became useless in seeing me and my son through this crisis. My hope is that a dialogue between Affirmation and the church will lead to the church offering more support to families in our situation. It's long overdue!

Hypocrisy... | 10:02 a.m. April 7, 2008

RE:To Interesting | 9:34 a.m. Apr. 7, 2008

"Can you show me where it says that this meeting is about asking the church to change it's doctrine? It clearly states the opposite, they are NOT asking for the church to change it's doctrine, but wants to discuss other topics. And I can handle blunt, just not hypocricy."

Let see, what's in the minds of the people sitting across the table from the LDS Church Representatives: "you need to accept us for who we are and should be freely allowed to express ourselves."

Would the Church accept that? I don't think so. I can see To Interesting's point here Interesting. I don't think it was hypocrisy in my book.

Come on... | 9:59 a.m. April 7, 2008

The church would be more likely to allow members to drink and smoke before allowing gay, lesbian and transgender men and women into the temple. BYU would be more likely to give up their spot as "stone cold sobber" than to change for the gay agenda. It's true we should never look down upon them and always welcome them as people but this is a religion, not politics. You can talk all you want but as has been said above, a sin is a sin. We never keep anyone from coming to church. It's funny because this issue is one of the only issues the church has taken an official political decision on and activly campaigned against. Don't think that will change.

The Lord loves but he will not pander to the gay agenda. "If the Lord be God than follow him!"

Dialogue is Good | 10:02 a.m. April 7, 2008

It's wonderful that the Church is meeting with this group. There's nothing to be gained by ignoring them. There's everything to be gained by listening and trying to be more understanding of the challenges gay people face.

No, the Church does NOT need to change its standards in any way, including the BYU Honor Code. Nor will they EVER do so as a result of this meeting. Not gonna happen, folks--nor should it. But individual members of the Church CAN greatly benefit, whether or not they choose to recognize it, by learning more understanding of and sympathy for the challenges homosexuals face. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO LISTEN.

I'm an active, straight Mormon with a gay cousin, good bisexual friend, and several other past and present gay colleagues. No, their lifestyle is NOT correct. However, I definitely wish more people understood what they *really* think and feel. They may not have chosen wisely, whatever was in their power to choose--but they never stopped being children of God. Our unrighteous judgment, NOT endorsed by the Savior, hurts rather than helps them.

There are many among us . . . | 10:20 a.m. April 7, 2008

who have suffered long in their efforts to remain sin-less while struggling with same-sex attraction. Of course, none of us is sinless and so we should all be very sensitive to any discussion about sin. And, there are many single church members who have remained celibate rather than marry, for example, because they choose that path towards righteousness. Have we included them enough? Or maginalized them? Have we recognized they are doing the best they can, or made them feel inadequate because of their "singleness?" Have we put our arms around them, and remembered who will ultimately judge each one of us for our actions and the intents of our hearts? Do you remember what Pres. Eyring said at Pres. Hinckley's funeral? [paraphrased -- with a finger on his chest -- "Hal, what are you doing for those who are atruggling?]

Is there something to talk about here?

Seems like it.

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.