Reader comments
LDS officials to meet with gay group
309 comments | Read story
To: More to the Equation | 10:23 a.m. April 7, 2008
You said so much that I wanted to say as well. So many cannot imagine how
difficult it is trying to stay faithful to the gospel in a culture that
doesn't tolerate you. Would you want to stay somewhere where people
constantly called you a sinner, even though you adhere to the teachings of the
church? I think what Affirmation is trying to do is open dialog so that the
general church membership welcomes homosexual members who choose to follow the
gospel. On a side note, shouldn't church be a place for sinners?
Shouldn't all who are trying to live a good life be welcome, regardless of
who they are? We all need to feel like we belong.
Jumping to Conclusions | 10:42 a.m. April 7, 2008
So many of you are jumping to conclusions that are completely implausable. The
church agreed to a meeting to where it can "help". The church is not
going to change its policy (doctrine) on this subject regardless of how many
meetings are held. This is a time and place to better understand points of
view, not change fundamental elements to the church.
As an active member of the church, I applaud the concept of a better understanding between the groups, but beyond that, core doctrine will not change.
As an active member of the church, I applaud the concept of a better understanding between the groups, but beyond that, core doctrine will not change.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 11:04 a.m. April 7, 2008
If a dialogue between the LDS Church and Affirmation occurs, I would hope that
Family Fellowship (a support group for families of Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual
members) will also be included in the conversation. As members of that group, we
have struggled for years hoping for a shred of recognition by church officials
for our sons and daughters, and we sincerely hope that the church will
eventually recognize the reality of homosexuality and other aspects of
biological diversity in our families. Their failure in the past has caused
untold suffering in families of homosexual children. I speak from experience.
Elder Holland's Ensign Article | 11:09 a.m. April 7, 2008
Was a great help for me in understanding the church's stance on LDS
homosexuals. I urge you to read it, I believe it was in the October '07
issue??? He stated that members with same-sex attraction may be active and hold
temple recommends as long as they are not participating in a sexual relationship
outside of marriage. The Same standard that every other member in the church is
held to. The Family Proclamation states that marriage is between 1 man and 1
woman. The LDS Homosexual will face many choices in their life, just as the
straight homosexual will about love, relationships, and intimacy. If
Celestiality is the goal, the child of God will meet the standard that is set no
matter what appetites, habits, etc they will need to overcome.
Not Doctrinal issue | 11:10 a.m. April 7, 2008
I agree with the above statements stating that this is not a doctrinal issue.
However, I think there is much that can be done in the way homosexual tendencies are handled in the church. I come from a family that experienced sex abuse by a trusted member back in the late 70's. The way it was handled was simply atrocious and damaging. It was largely because the way sex abuse cases were handled in the church had not been developed, and nobody seemed to know what to do.
I believe a similar process must occur with dealing with homosexual cases in the church; not to condone or accept the practice, but to provide help, support, and realistic understanding of what the rest of a gay person's life in the church will be like.
However, I think there is much that can be done in the way homosexual tendencies are handled in the church. I come from a family that experienced sex abuse by a trusted member back in the late 70's. The way it was handled was simply atrocious and damaging. It was largely because the way sex abuse cases were handled in the church had not been developed, and nobody seemed to know what to do.
I believe a similar process must occur with dealing with homosexual cases in the church; not to condone or accept the practice, but to provide help, support, and realistic understanding of what the rest of a gay person's life in the church will be like.
Hopefull | 11:42 a.m. April 7, 2008
RE: more to the equation and Blake.
I agree! and I wish people would put this article in context that it is about a DISCUSSION not conversion. Understanding people is needed to love them.
Thank you for voicing your belief that not all LDS are like those described above. Hopefully after this weekend, more people will focus on loving people not converting them.
I agree! and I wish people would put this article in context that it is about a DISCUSSION not conversion. Understanding people is needed to love them.
Thank you for voicing your belief that not all LDS are like those described above. Hopefully after this weekend, more people will focus on loving people not converting them.
comment | 11:46 a.m. April 7, 2008
If Latter Day Saints are to carry the gospel message to all the world,to all
people,to all cultures,to all societies,to all life styles,then we as Latter Day
Saints need to have open dialog with all of the above. Are we going to continue
to say I cant share the gospel with you because you are gay. Share the gospel
with your gay friends,invite the Holy Ghost into your conversations with your
gay friends and allow Hevenly Father to perform the mircle needed.Someone said
in conference 2 people can perform mircles when one of them is God.Our
missionaries go forth without fear. We cannot and will not fear the direction we
need to go with our gay brothers and sisters.If the prophet says to do it, then
do it.
room and respect | 12:00 p.m. April 7, 2008
I think the most basic understanding that is sought by gay members (and gays
generally) is for others to acknowledge that people don't choose their
sexual orientation. If we accept this, then the standards of the Church would
seem to require celibacy from these members. But there is little room for single
and celibate members in the church (of any orientation), and almost no role for
them to play.
A member who is open about being gay�-even if celibate and trying to live the principles of the gospel�-faces enormous ostracism in most LDS wards and even hostility in some cases. This is because the issue remains such a taboo and is almost never discussed in the church other than in terms of behavior�-the sin. The church could teach members that gay people didn�t choose their orientation and encourage members to be respectful and supportive of them, and of other single members. This would be a very welcome outcome of this dialogue.
A member who is open about being gay�-even if celibate and trying to live the principles of the gospel�-faces enormous ostracism in most LDS wards and even hostility in some cases. This is because the issue remains such a taboo and is almost never discussed in the church other than in terms of behavior�-the sin. The church could teach members that gay people didn�t choose their orientation and encourage members to be respectful and supportive of them, and of other single members. This would be a very welcome outcome of this dialogue.
kinlco | 12:12 p.m. April 7, 2008
As a gay LDS man and not a member or believer of Affirmation, I am glad that
they are speaking with some leaders. No one understands how it feels to sit in
Sunday School or Sacrament meeting and have someone make a comment that God
doesn't allow gays in his Church. I did not choose to have these feelings.
I have not chosen the lifestyle, yet, when people learn of my struggle, I am
not accepted. Maybe, just maybe, having the leaders accept those who are
challenged with same-gender attraction will help others accept me also. And
there are support groups for those who want to remain faithful to covenants that
have been made and live according to the values and doctrines of the Church. It
is just that they do not scream and yell about it.
Disapponted by many | 12:20 p.m. April 7, 2008
There is a reason for this meeting. It is evident in the first 10 or so posts on
this thread. I hardly doubt Affirmation is hoping to change the minds of leaders
in the church. I am confident the dialogue between the groups will inspire our
leaders to speak directly to those who fail to Christlike love. My anger at some
of you right now is beyond words. Do you know the anguish of a mother and father
(and sister) dealing with a homosexual brother wanting to end his life? Do you
sit up at night praying he will be alive another day and hope he realizes God
loves him as much as all of those pointing fingers and calling him a sinner?
Shame on many of you for callling yourselves representatives of Christ. He would
never deal with his brothers and sisters with words like yours.
A smart man will humble himself before God does it for him. I suggest you get to praying and ask for understanding in how to exemplify Christlike love. Many of you are unaware.
A smart man will humble himself before God does it for him. I suggest you get to praying and ask for understanding in how to exemplify Christlike love. Many of you are unaware.
greg | 12:22 p.m. April 7, 2008
Hey guys, why not read the article before commenting? No one is asking the
church for gay marriage or the right to have gay sex in the common areas at BYU.
They're asking for equal coverage under the honor code (reasonable!) not
special exceptions. They're also asking for a review of the church's
procedures in treating homosexuality - that is using the most up-to-date and
effect means (also reasonable). Lastly, they want to make sure there are
certain procedures in place so that a child coming out of the closet
doesn't break up a family. (very reasonable). but go ahead and wave
your 'GAY THREAT!' flags.
Good thing...but | 12:53 p.m. April 7, 2008
This meeting is good. I think both sides will gain a perspective, even though
"affirmation" may discover that the church is also opposed to any
sexual realtion outside of the covenants of marriage whether its a homo-sexual
or heterosexual. "Affirmation" will be grossly deliusional if they
think the church will relax its standards for the gay and lesbian community but
continue to condemn the adultery and fornication community.
In addition the church has already taken a strong and clear stance about same sex marriages. The church will reach out to help, but will not be persuaded to excuse behavior condemned by scripture.
In addition the church has already taken a strong and clear stance about same sex marriages. The church will reach out to help, but will not be persuaded to excuse behavior condemned by scripture.
Tolerant | 12:58 p.m. April 7, 2008
I could have sworn I heard Pres. Monson warn about the "halloween mask of
tolerance" and that behind it was only deceit and unhappiness. (Priesthood
session Saturday Night) Condemning immoral behavior while caring about the
sinner is not bigotry. They are simply leading a life that will ultimately lead
them to unhappiness for eternity. Take a look at Isaiah 3:9 and then look at
Isaiah 5:20. Isaiah nailed our day right on the head. We should love the
sinner, pray for them, help them, but we should never tolerate wickedness.
ABOUT TIME!!! | 12:58 p.m. April 7, 2008
Seems to me that "simply talking" is way overdue. My brother hung
himself many, many years ago, and I truly wish anyone in the Church had been
willing to talk or listen.
DAG | 1:04 p.m. April 7, 2008
The church began addressing these issues some time ago. Nearly a year ago the
church issued the pamphlet, "God Loveth his Children" which addresses
the issue of same gender attraction. Also, the letter sent to Affirmation stated
they are interested in ways to "help" not change Church view or
policy. The best way to love an individual is to help them. That does not mean
you have to change your own stance in order to do so. They church has always
been interested in ways to help those in need, wether it be with this issue or
with the numerous others we all suffer from. There are those that take offense,
or state that the Church is trying to "change" them. Well, to be
honest, that is the case with all of us. We all have temptation and shortfalls
that the Church is there to help us change and improve upon. That is the point
of the Gospel and organization of the Church. To provide support and fellowship
for all of us, regardless of who we are.
Society is changing | 1:10 p.m. April 7, 2008
How is this any different than the way the Church used to look at mixed
marriages? Society changed and the Church changed. Society is once again
changing, better get used to the idea that the Church could also change, too.
Of course, not for at least another 20 years, so we should have time to adjust.
"Talking" is simply the first step.
Of course, not for at least another 20 years, so we should have time to adjust.
"Talking" is simply the first step.
texwrd | 1:16 p.m. April 7, 2008
Some interesting comments, some good, some hurtful on both sides. Dialoque with
the Church will be good, doctrine will not change, I don't think
that's the intent of the dialoque. A quote to think about.....Pres. Monson
said in the priesthood session this past weekend (not exact, what I wrote in my
notes), "Sin many times wears the face of tolerance" Something to
think about in this forum. "Disappointed by many", no one should be
casting shame on anyone, that just doesn't help at all. It only causes
contentious feelings.
Love the hypocrisy | 1:19 p.m. April 7, 2008
In general, i find accusing someone of being self righteous is pretty self
righteous.
Condemning the hypocrite for not being tolerant is hypocritical.
Condemning the hypocrite for not being tolerant is hypocritical.
Let the meeting happen | 1:18 p.m. April 7, 2008
then you can all play arm-chair prophets..i am sure wisdom will lead the way on
this one. the struggle goes on in this journey, if your perfect then you had
better get ready to enter the next world. let it be as i have faith that your
leaders are men of wisdom. they at least are listening to others who's
struggle made need the touch of the master's hand!
Talk is cheap..... | 1:25 p.m. April 7, 2008
The Church is sympathetic as a group to the Gay condition....now can we
"ISOLATE" the gay gene and give mother's the choice of a gay
child vrs a hetero? That day will end the gay debate!
Anonymous | 1:42 p.m. April 7, 2008
If heterosexuals can't be sexually active at BYU, why should homosexuals
better?
Ponce | 1:51 p.m. April 7, 2008
I think understanding another group is always a good thing. This is a complex
issue and I think dialogue is helpful for both sides of the equation.
Re Anonymous | 2:13 p.m. April 7, 2008
Neither group is "allowed" to be sexual active at BYU, the difference
is that the heterosexuals can show affection (hand holding, a kiss) the
homosexuals cannot.
What? | 2:14 p.m. April 7, 2008
What would Jesus Do? If Jesus cared one way or the other about BYU, he'd
probably say, "Love one another as I have loved thee." I don't
recall Jesus excluding anybody.
It is good to know I live in a State where everybody knows what God thinks. How does the rest of the world survive?
It is good to know I live in a State where everybody knows what God thinks. How does the rest of the world survive?
Reality | 2:13 p.m. April 7, 2008
OK DN, I am toning my 4th attempt down so I can hopefully get my comment in past
your iron curtain. But you know I love ya -
The reality is that a change in policy is light years away from even being considered. Even if rock solid science showed that homosexual attractions derive soley from genetics, change or acceptance would still be years away. For years, members were encouraged to show love and acceptance toward their black brothers and sisters but change only came when outside influences boiled to a certain tipping point. And that change was way behind most of societie's tipping points on that issue.
This country is way to conservative in it's stance toward homosexuals for the Church to even begin to feel outside pressure regarding it's stance toward gays. I believe there is genuine desire by leaders that gay members be treated better but policy change is way way in the future if at all.
The reality is that a change in policy is light years away from even being considered. Even if rock solid science showed that homosexual attractions derive soley from genetics, change or acceptance would still be years away. For years, members were encouraged to show love and acceptance toward their black brothers and sisters but change only came when outside influences boiled to a certain tipping point. And that change was way behind most of societie's tipping points on that issue.
This country is way to conservative in it's stance toward homosexuals for the Church to even begin to feel outside pressure regarding it's stance toward gays. I believe there is genuine desire by leaders that gay members be treated better but policy change is way way in the future if at all.
RE: Talk is cheap | 2:16 p.m. April 7, 2008
Are you kidding me? If you honestly think that isolating a gene would end
homosexuality, that means that you believe it is naturally occuring which
validates the argument that they are "born that way..." Also, when
and where has the church been sympathetic to homosexuals? I must have blinked
and missed it.
Sparkes22 | 2:18 p.m. April 7, 2008
You wrote, "Sometimes we become so open minded that our brains fall
out."
I have been open minded my whole life and I my brain has never fallen out, nor have I known anyone who have lost their brains as they've pondered and sometimes struggled with life's great questions.
I guess I just don't get your point?
Try this one on instead:
God. . ."is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive."
And who do you suppose said that? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't someone on Talk Radio or Cable News. The answer is in the transcript of the October 2003 General Conference.
Now thats something worth losing your mind over!
I have been open minded my whole life and I my brain has never fallen out, nor have I known anyone who have lost their brains as they've pondered and sometimes struggled with life's great questions.
I guess I just don't get your point?
Try this one on instead:
God. . ."is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive."
And who do you suppose said that? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't someone on Talk Radio or Cable News. The answer is in the transcript of the October 2003 General Conference.
Now thats something worth losing your mind over!
well | 2:19 p.m. April 7, 2008
isn't that special
BoyScouts | 2:30 p.m. April 7, 2008
This is a nice gesture..and a waste of time. These people seem to think that the
church is going to change its doctrine for THEIR benefit. What kind of people
ask a religion to change for THEM? They seem to quite literally want to pervert
the ways of the lord.
slow learners? | 2:32 p.m. April 7, 2008
What "decades of silence"?
Where is a need to "forge understanding between the faith's leaders and its gay members"?
The Church's position is crystal clear and has be stated explicitly and repeatedly.
What part of "no" is hard to understand?
Where is a need to "forge understanding between the faith's leaders and its gay members"?
The Church's position is crystal clear and has be stated explicitly and repeatedly.
What part of "no" is hard to understand?
Darthlaurie | 2:33 p.m. April 7, 2008
Last time I checked, God hasn't popped in on Oprah or made a grand
appearance to let everyone know what s/he/it thinks about homosexuality, suicide
bombers, or what their food of choice is. I figure that there's a lot more
to God than what people on this board or people in general give her/him/it
credit for being. As for the Bible being the word of God...sorry, but I think a
lot has gotten lost in translation through the millennia. The path to divinity
isn't straight or narrow. It's as broad and as winding as it could
possibly be...just like so many other things in life. Open your minds and learn
to live and love with kindness and passion and quit worrying about who your
neighbor loves. Love comes in so many shapes and sizes and love is beautiful.
Darrel | 2:43 p.m. April 7, 2008
To Sparkes22
Elder Jeffrey R Holland, one of my favorite talks ever.
Will people please read the article! They are not asking the church to change their doctrines, nor their standards. The LDS Church has not even given a hint of doing so. Just like the Savior would do, they are reaching out to help those that need it. I am sure if AA or SA were to ask to have a meeting with the church, the church would do the same as well.
Everyone has problems, some are just more socially acceptable (I doubt very many people are put on probation in the church for Overeating). Socially acceptable or not does not mean they need help, or less deserving of it.
Notice that the person Church is sending is someone from Families.
The Family Proclomation is not about to be re-written/revised after this.
Elder Jeffrey R Holland, one of my favorite talks ever.
Will people please read the article! They are not asking the church to change their doctrines, nor their standards. The LDS Church has not even given a hint of doing so. Just like the Savior would do, they are reaching out to help those that need it. I am sure if AA or SA were to ask to have a meeting with the church, the church would do the same as well.
Everyone has problems, some are just more socially acceptable (I doubt very many people are put on probation in the church for Overeating). Socially acceptable or not does not mean they need help, or less deserving of it.
Notice that the person Church is sending is someone from Families.
The Family Proclomation is not about to be re-written/revised after this.
Last try | 2:45 p.m. April 7, 2008
OK great Deseret News comment monitor - I am going to do my best on my fifth try
to write something that won't be too offensive or off-topic to post:
I read this article and loved it. The editing, grammar and overall flow was just sensational. Of all the online newspapers in THE WORLD, Deseret News is the BEST!
Now, please take my name off of your bad-list so I can participate in this discussion - pretty please.
I read this article and loved it. The editing, grammar and overall flow was just sensational. Of all the online newspapers in THE WORLD, Deseret News is the BEST!
Now, please take my name off of your bad-list so I can participate in this discussion - pretty please.
Dave Brerrigton | 2:50 p.m. April 7, 2008
I feel like the Church is in a no win situatuion here. Affirmation claims the
want to start a dialogue, but the first question Melson asks Riley is about the
possibility for change.
If there is change members will question the validity of church doctrin. If the church is not willing to change, there will be cries of intolerance on the part of the gay mormon community.
I hope we will all remember that tolerance is not acceptance. We can tolerate people without accepting their opinions, and we can even disagree and argue against them and still tolerate.
If there is change members will question the validity of church doctrin. If the church is not willing to change, there will be cries of intolerance on the part of the gay mormon community.
I hope we will all remember that tolerance is not acceptance. We can tolerate people without accepting their opinions, and we can even disagree and argue against them and still tolerate.
Ken Baguley | 2:46 p.m. April 7, 2008
We are directed to marry one wife and to cleave unto HER and NONE
ELSE...That's pretty clear as to which direction our love must go.
RE: BoyScouts | 2:46 p.m. April 7, 2008
I guess your not as prepared as you should be. Asking for understanding and
open communication doesn't equate demands for a change in theology or
doctrine. I must have missed the part in the story that said that the LDS
church or any church was being was being asked to change it's doctrine or
beliefs. But isn't the church asking the gays to change THEIR beliefs to
be more acceptible to THEM?? The only ones who seem to want "to pervert
the ways of the Lord" are those who think they are qualified to speak for
Him.
Why the hate? | 2:48 p.m. April 7, 2008
The word hate seems to have replaced "disagree" in many of these
forums. If someone disagrees, they are somehow "hateful" and
"Unchristian". When I picture the word hate...I see the KKK,
terrorists flying planes into buildings and the Holocaust. Hate is an extreme
that is unfortunately thrown out too casually when discussing differences.
As to the article, the church is taking a good step in meeting with Affirmation. Although it is extremely doubtful doctrines will be changed, understanding the needs of members asking for help can only be positive.
As to the article, the church is taking a good step in meeting with Affirmation. Although it is extremely doubtful doctrines will be changed, understanding the needs of members asking for help can only be positive.
To: Slow | 2:55 p.m. April 7, 2008
The church's position on a lot of issues is crystal clear, not just the
one's you happen to agree with. Too bad you can't see that.
I may be wrong... | 2:51 p.m. April 7, 2008
but isn't BYU's stance on homosexuality that you do not act on your
impulses? If so then kissing and holding hands would be acting on impulses.
Heterosexual males don't this with each other. In asking the Church to
allow that then you are asking the Church to basically condone homosexuality.
If you think that holding hands and kissing are not acting on homosexual desires
you are kidding yourself. Also, why don't we hear from pro adultry groups?
Aren't they segregated from the church? That behavior will get you exed
as quick as homosexual behavior. I will admit that I will never understand
homosexuality. You basically have a desire that has been condemnded from the
beginning of time and yet you push and push to have it accepted not only by
society but by the Lords Church.
EasternLDS | 2:56 p.m. April 7, 2008
I think some leaders need to be more aware and sensitive to this problem. I
know of one member who was discouraged when he took his SGA problems to his
Bishop and the response he got. Thankfully, another Bishop in the area took him
under his wing and now he is married with three kids. SGA is a behavioral
condition that can be changed with desire and a reliance on the redeeming love
of the Savior. To try and quote President Kimball, to free oneself from this
type of sin one must try and open the door even when the knuckles are bleeding
from the effort. It can be done!
Who cares? | 3:14 p.m. April 7, 2008
Let them meet all they want.
Mike | 3:23 p.m. April 7, 2008
What makes you fools think that BYU would change to Honor Code to allow
Homosexuals to date? They won't even let men grow a beard.
Cougar Freshman | 3:42 p.m. April 7, 2008
I don't know what changing the Honor Code would do. I personally agree with
the Honor Code and follow it as best I can (and even fit into the BYU culture),
but wouldn't have a problem with it changing. My only concern is for those
people who would engage in such behavior in public at BYU--they would publicly
humiliate themselves and become socially ostracized.
I just hope that if the Honor Code does change, officials will do all in their power to ensure that individuals who do not conform to what is culturally accepted are treated with Christlike love and tolerance.
I just hope that if the Honor Code does change, officials will do all in their power to ensure that individuals who do not conform to what is culturally accepted are treated with Christlike love and tolerance.
Re: Why the Hate? | 3:42 p.m. April 7, 2008
Calling people "hateful", "unchristian", and
"intolerant" are what we do when our arguments are weak.
Thoughts from NC | 3:38 p.m. April 7, 2008
It's interesting how suddenly the issue is framed as the Church vs.
Affirmation, when I know very few gay members or former members who have any
connection to Affirmation. As a gay inactive member, I've never been to an
Affirmation meeting or a conference and can't imagine that they represent
the views of the majority of active or inactive gay members. Certainly,
Affirmation is doing the best it can to speak for an unrepresented group, but I
hope that the Church doesn't think that it's reaching out to all gay
members just by meeting with Affirmation. The reality is that the vast majority
of gay members eventually recognize that there is not a place for them in the
Church and simply walk away unnoticed and unmissed with no expectations
otherwise. If the Church truly wants to reach out with love to those struggling
with this issue, it's efforts are best directed at the gay young men and
young women in their teens and twenties who haven't left yet and are still
trying to reconcile their attractions with their faith.
Open Discussion Needed | 3:52 p.m. April 7, 2008
I'm an active 'straight' member of the Church. I've served
in two different bishoprics, the stake high council, stake ym president, and
several other leadership callings. I've also had the great opportunity to
associate with dozens of active, less active, and non-member homosexuals over
the years. I feel like I have a good understanding of both the Church's
viewpoint and also understand the plight of our gay brothers and sisters within
the Church.
The burden these people bare is immense and different from many of the sins referenced in the above comments (alcoholism / drug use, etc.). Unless you have a close relative who has lived this, I believe it's difficult--if not impossible--for the average Church member to grasp and fully understand.
Part of the despair these people feel is that they have no hope of emotional intimacy in this life. I'm not talking about sexual intimacy---but the emotional connection each of us yearns to have with someone. How can the Church address this need while still requiring sexual purity?
I applaud the Church's move and am encouraged by the frank and open discussion throughout the Church.
The burden these people bare is immense and different from many of the sins referenced in the above comments (alcoholism / drug use, etc.). Unless you have a close relative who has lived this, I believe it's difficult--if not impossible--for the average Church member to grasp and fully understand.
Part of the despair these people feel is that they have no hope of emotional intimacy in this life. I'm not talking about sexual intimacy---but the emotional connection each of us yearns to have with someone. How can the Church address this need while still requiring sexual purity?
I applaud the Church's move and am encouraged by the frank and open discussion throughout the Church.
Understanding | 3:58 p.m. April 7, 2008
OK, let me see if I understand this:
Some men like sex with other men ... Check
Some women like sex with other women ... Check
God says marriage is between man & woman ... Check
Sex outside of marriage is a sin ... Check
I think I understand.
Just because your gay does not make me love/not love you any more/less.
But stop trying to make me accept what you do, to help you feel better.
AIMHO
Some men like sex with other men ... Check
Some women like sex with other women ... Check
God says marriage is between man & woman ... Check
Sex outside of marriage is a sin ... Check
I think I understand.
Just because your gay does not make me love/not love you any more/less.
But stop trying to make me accept what you do, to help you feel better.
AIMHO
Am I the only one? | 4:18 p.m. April 7, 2008
I don't understand why so many seem to think the Church's position can
not possibly change. Plural marriage was changed. Blacks and the Priesthood
changed. Why do people think it is impossible for any new revelation to be
received? Didn't blacks receive the Priesthood because President Kimball
cared enough to ask?
I don't think there are any principles "set in stone" except the principle of continuing revelation.
I don't think there are any principles "set in stone" except the principle of continuing revelation.
Bayou Vol | 4:25 p.m. April 7, 2008
President Monson's best statement of the conference:
"In these days sin manifests itself in the hollowing mask of tolerance. We know what is right and what is wrong."
Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait prevalent in affluent society. It has been this way for thousands of years. It is a detriment to the human race AND the plan of salvation. It prevents the fulfillment of our primary role on the earth, to help in the progression of our spirit brothers and sisters by providing them physical bodies so that they may become more like our Father in Heaven. It is one of Satan's many arrows in his quiver of dispair. Homosexuality is a perversion of one's righteous need and desire for love and companionship.
This meeting is a "thanks for coming, we know your around, but the eternities will prove your disposition irrelevant to the righteous designs of God which must and will come to pass regardless of Satan's attempts to thwart them."
"In these days sin manifests itself in the hollowing mask of tolerance. We know what is right and what is wrong."
Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait prevalent in affluent society. It has been this way for thousands of years. It is a detriment to the human race AND the plan of salvation. It prevents the fulfillment of our primary role on the earth, to help in the progression of our spirit brothers and sisters by providing them physical bodies so that they may become more like our Father in Heaven. It is one of Satan's many arrows in his quiver of dispair. Homosexuality is a perversion of one's righteous need and desire for love and companionship.
This meeting is a "thanks for coming, we know your around, but the eternities will prove your disposition irrelevant to the righteous designs of God which must and will come to pass regardless of Satan's attempts to thwart them."
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.
- Today on TV 12:49 a.m.
- Wanted: Bank robber with bad breath 12:40 a.m.
- Philippine police clash with clan 12:28 a.m.
- Officer responding to call killed 12:28 a.m.
- Editorial: Fine-tune state workweek 12:18 a.m.
- Let's keep energy money in the U.S. 12:18 a.m.
- How to pay for the war 12:17 a.m.
- Feast of Guadalupe nourishes soul 12:17 a.m.
- Obama's strategy is a road map 12:17 a.m.
- Letters: 'Political priestcraft' 12:17 a.m.
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- BYU professor remembered
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Urn of baby rests with sailors
- Jazz upset by Wolves
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
257 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing214
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest113
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl110
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony97
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Sorry earlier I meant to say that tracks seems to travel at 35 miles an hour...
'Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of...
The Non-BCS crowd ought to create their own title game...their own brand, and...
That's the whole of your defense of GOP resistance to badly-needed ethics...
Your criticism should hardly be focused on Bennett alone. What about all the...
'Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a...
The reality of climate change is supported by multiple lines of evidence and...
I had the priviledge of staying in the LeBaron home on severl occasions as I...
So the unemployment rate has dropped to "just" 10%, huh? I wonder what that...
Ahh for the love of money...what money can buy!!!
Advertisements
Not the way to go.
Let God be their judge, I don't want to be.