Reader comments
Readers' forum: Homosexuality ruins lives
328 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 6:21 p.m. July 17, 2008
To John Lambert,
Would you please, PLEASE shut up and quit dominating the comments? We all know your fanatic religious bigotry inside and out. We don't need to hear it over and over again. You have demonstrated your arrogant ignorance so many times we cannot count them. Please STOP! You are wasting people's time and embarrassing the LDS Church! STOP already!
Would you please, PLEASE shut up and quit dominating the comments? We all know your fanatic religious bigotry inside and out. We don't need to hear it over and over again. You have demonstrated your arrogant ignorance so many times we cannot count them. Please STOP! You are wasting people's time and embarrassing the LDS Church! STOP already!
Let's Be Clear | 6:46 p.m. July 17, 2008
Gay people can already enter into a legally recognized partnership (civil union)
in almost every state in the Union. These defined relationships give them
rights, privileges, and benefits equal to those had by heterosexual couples
under the partnership called "marriage."
Most people do not oppose this. Most people, including many very active LDS people, are in favor of enabling gay partners to care for one another legally and have all the equal benefits that married (heterosexual) couples have. Even the California legislation that was passed in 2000 went to great lengths to ensure this legal equality, but insisted that it not be called "marriage."
This is all a fight over a word and how it should be legally defined. Even the most ardent and active LDS people with whom I associate agree. They don't mind allowing a different word to be used to identify an equivalent legal relationship between same sex couples.
Enter the California Supreme Court. All they said was separate is inherently UNequal. There is precedent for this. In the desegregation years, we tried separate but equal facilities, laws, etc. for blacks. It failed horribly. The US Supreme Court ruled it was UNequal and UNConstitutional. It still is.
Most people do not oppose this. Most people, including many very active LDS people, are in favor of enabling gay partners to care for one another legally and have all the equal benefits that married (heterosexual) couples have. Even the California legislation that was passed in 2000 went to great lengths to ensure this legal equality, but insisted that it not be called "marriage."
This is all a fight over a word and how it should be legally defined. Even the most ardent and active LDS people with whom I associate agree. They don't mind allowing a different word to be used to identify an equivalent legal relationship between same sex couples.
Enter the California Supreme Court. All they said was separate is inherently UNequal. There is precedent for this. In the desegregation years, we tried separate but equal facilities, laws, etc. for blacks. It failed horribly. The US Supreme Court ruled it was UNequal and UNConstitutional. It still is.
Comments continue below
Let's Be Clear | 6:58 p.m. July 17, 2008
The California SupremeCourt did their job interpreting the constitutionality of
the California law. Their decision is well-reasoned:
[having a different name] �� may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise�now emphatically rejected by this Court�that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects �second-class citizens� who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.�
Regardless of your beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality, no freedom-loving American can possibly want other Americans to be treated by the law "differently from and less favorably than" others!
It goes directly against D&C 134: �We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, UNLESS THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS PROMPT THEM TO INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF OTHERS; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but NEVER CONTROL CONSCIENCE; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. (D&C134:4)
[having a different name] �� may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise�now emphatically rejected by this Court�that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects �second-class citizens� who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.�
Regardless of your beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality, no freedom-loving American can possibly want other Americans to be treated by the law "differently from and less favorably than" others!
It goes directly against D&C 134: �We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, UNLESS THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS PROMPT THEM TO INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF OTHERS; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but NEVER CONTROL CONSCIENCE; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. (D&C134:4)
Joshua ben Josef | 7:11 p.m. July 17, 2008
Jesus said, "whosoever looketh on a woman (or man?) to lust after her (or
him?) hath committed adultery with her (or him?) already in his heart."
(Matthew5:27-28)
So sinful is just LUSTING (having the attraction) that Jesus said, "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee" and "if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee."
So you cannot possibly claim that you ONLY condemn the ACT of homosexuality.
But before you get all overzealous and want to follow the strict teachings of Jesus, consider what he said about DIVORCE: whosoever shall aput away his bwife, saving for the cause of cfornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
So I ask you zealot LDS who are so opposed to same-sex marriage: Are you really ready to live by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of Jesus Himself?! If so, then not only must you support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman; to be consistent, you must ALSO support making DIVORCE ILLEGAL! Are you ready to do that?!
I didn't think so. Hypocrites.
So sinful is just LUSTING (having the attraction) that Jesus said, "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee" and "if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee."
So you cannot possibly claim that you ONLY condemn the ACT of homosexuality.
But before you get all overzealous and want to follow the strict teachings of Jesus, consider what he said about DIVORCE: whosoever shall aput away his bwife, saving for the cause of cfornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
So I ask you zealot LDS who are so opposed to same-sex marriage: Are you really ready to live by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of Jesus Himself?! If so, then not only must you support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman; to be consistent, you must ALSO support making DIVORCE ILLEGAL! Are you ready to do that?!
I didn't think so. Hypocrites.
Let's Be Clear | 7:25 p.m. July 17, 2008
Based on my experience as a counselor who deals professionally with many
homosexuals, I would submit with full confidence that their sexual orientation
is experienced by them as "natural" and "from God". They
sincerely believe they were CREATED this way! As such, their sexual orientation
is as much a part of how they WORSHIP -- and experience the most profoundly
religious and spiritual aspects of human experience: their love for their
partner -- as anything any heterosexual couple can claim. Therefore, supporting
a Constitutional Amendment forcing them into a different and less favorable
position in society based on their homosexuality is ABSOLUTELY contrary to the
Revelation on Government given to Joseph Smith and recorded in D&C134!
How can there be any question in ANY Latter-day Saint's mind about this? It is obvious and clear that such a Constitutional Amendment (or a law) is using OUR religion to "infringe upon the rights and liberties of others," and is designed to "dictate a form of public or private devotion" that empowers the civil magistrate to CONTROL CONSCIENCE!
I strongly recommend that you all study the scriptures very carefully before mindlessly running out to support such an Amendment. Follow the Spirit, not bureaucrats.
How can there be any question in ANY Latter-day Saint's mind about this? It is obvious and clear that such a Constitutional Amendment (or a law) is using OUR religion to "infringe upon the rights and liberties of others," and is designed to "dictate a form of public or private devotion" that empowers the civil magistrate to CONTROL CONSCIENCE!
I strongly recommend that you all study the scriptures very carefully before mindlessly running out to support such an Amendment. Follow the Spirit, not bureaucrats.
John Lambert | 8:21 p.m. July 17, 2008
California LDS,
I will not be intimidated by you.
The fact of the matter is that the First Presidency has asked us to support the admendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
To openly advocate the exact opposite of what the First Presidency asks is apostasy.
I will not be intimidated by you.
The fact of the matter is that the First Presidency has asked us to support the admendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
To openly advocate the exact opposite of what the First Presidency asks is apostasy.
John Lambert | 8:29 p.m. July 17, 2008
To Let's be clear,
You are guilty of apostasy. You are urging us to do the exact opposite of what we have been counseled to do by the prophet of God.
You have come out in open rebellion against the counsels of the prophet.
Just one comment. A study showed that 50% of identical twins where one identifed as being homosexual the other so identifed. If homosexuality was purely a result of genetics the figure should have been 100%. Also the study found about 22% with fraternal twins both being homosexual and 11% with sibblings. If homosexuality was genetically based than the figures should have been virtually the same for these two groups.
I am also tired of people claiming that the Doctrine and Covenants supports their opposition to the admendment in California.
Why do you not come out and say it in as many words, that you think Thomas S. Monson is a fallen prophet?
I know he is a true prophet. Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf are all prophets. I urge people to heed their counsel and know that by so doing we will recieve great blessings.
You are guilty of apostasy. You are urging us to do the exact opposite of what we have been counseled to do by the prophet of God.
You have come out in open rebellion against the counsels of the prophet.
Just one comment. A study showed that 50% of identical twins where one identifed as being homosexual the other so identifed. If homosexuality was purely a result of genetics the figure should have been 100%. Also the study found about 22% with fraternal twins both being homosexual and 11% with sibblings. If homosexuality was genetically based than the figures should have been virtually the same for these two groups.
I am also tired of people claiming that the Doctrine and Covenants supports their opposition to the admendment in California.
Why do you not come out and say it in as many words, that you think Thomas S. Monson is a fallen prophet?
I know he is a true prophet. Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf are all prophets. I urge people to heed their counsel and know that by so doing we will recieve great blessings.
intolerable arrogance | 8:53 p.m. July 17, 2008
Who the heck is John Lambert to call people apostate? Where does he get his
nerve?
John Lambert is not the Prophet, nor is he an Apostle or a General Authority.
John Lambert's presumption and arrogance seems like devilish apostasy to me. Unlike John Lambert, I will not presume to judge a brother.
John Lambert is not the Prophet, nor is he an Apostle or a General Authority.
John Lambert's presumption and arrogance seems like devilish apostasy to me. Unlike John Lambert, I will not presume to judge a brother.
Dark Knight | 9:00 p.m. July 17, 2008
John,
Which John Lambert are you? The one in Park City, Springville, or American Fork? I would really like to discuss your views in person. Can we arrange a meeting?
Which John Lambert are you? The one in Park City, Springville, or American Fork? I would really like to discuss your views in person. Can we arrange a meeting?
Of Beams and Splinters | 9:04 p.m. July 17, 2008
John,
When you answer the Temple Recommend questions, how do you answer this one:
"Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?"
If you answer "Yes," then you cannot possibly answer "Yes" to this one:
"Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?"
You need to do some serious soul-searching, my friend. The Beam is so large in your own eye we cannot possibly trust that you see clearly to remove the splinter from the eyes of homosexuals, can we?
When you answer the Temple Recommend questions, how do you answer this one:
"Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?"
If you answer "Yes," then you cannot possibly answer "Yes" to this one:
"Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?"
You need to do some serious soul-searching, my friend. The Beam is so large in your own eye we cannot possibly trust that you see clearly to remove the splinter from the eyes of homosexuals, can we?
Chill, Dude. | 9:08 p.m. July 17, 2008
John Lambert,
You sure post a lot of comments. Seems like you are more trying to convince yourself than anyone else.
Are you having a moral dilemma with this gay marriage thing? Why so overzealous? Why so carried away?
You sure post a lot of comments. Seems like you are more trying to convince yourself than anyone else.
Are you having a moral dilemma with this gay marriage thing? Why so overzealous? Why so carried away?
A constant struggle | 9:15 p.m. July 17, 2008
As a person who has battled the "deamons" his entire life, I will tell
you....this is no choice. I want to be like everyone else....but it is an
exhausting battle day after day. Please don't make it any harder for me
than it already is...with guilt, scripture, hell, everything....believe me Hell
would sometimes be a relief.
anon | 9:29 p.m. July 17, 2008
people choose right and wrong what ere it may be no matter how many times facts
are or are not voiced. Time moves on
Let's Be Clear | 10:06 p.m. July 17, 2008
Some overzealous people may try to force the issue, using false dichotomies, and
insist that if you do not support the California Amendment that you are in
apostasy and should be excommunicated (or at least feel so guilty).
This is not true. We all raise our arm to the square and "sustain" these MEN (yes, mortal, fallible human beings) as "prophets, seers and revelators". To "sustain" is not the same thing as to "obey," and even further from "blindly obey."
Elder Packer gave a good illustration. When Moses was holding up the staff so that Israel prevailed in the battle, his arms grew tired -- because he was a weak MAN, even if he was the Prophet! Those who "sustained" him held his arms up on each side. Thus, they helped a fragile, weak human being overcome his weaknesses so that he could perform God's will.
As an active LDS and Temple-worthy member, I "sustain" the leaders of the Church in the same way. I will gladly help them overcome their own, personal weaknesses in order to fulfill God's will. On this issue, I believe very strongly (with every fiber of my being) they are wrong. I will "sustain" them.
This is not true. We all raise our arm to the square and "sustain" these MEN (yes, mortal, fallible human beings) as "prophets, seers and revelators". To "sustain" is not the same thing as to "obey," and even further from "blindly obey."
Elder Packer gave a good illustration. When Moses was holding up the staff so that Israel prevailed in the battle, his arms grew tired -- because he was a weak MAN, even if he was the Prophet! Those who "sustained" him held his arms up on each side. Thus, they helped a fragile, weak human being overcome his weaknesses so that he could perform God's will.
As an active LDS and Temple-worthy member, I "sustain" the leaders of the Church in the same way. I will gladly help them overcome their own, personal weaknesses in order to fulfill God's will. On this issue, I believe very strongly (with every fiber of my being) they are wrong. I will "sustain" them.
Let's Be Clear | 10:14 p.m. July 17, 2008
Furthermore, some overzealous people make the mistake of believing that these
good men (but who are fallible, prone to error, and mistakes) are infallible!
Prophets make mistakes. We only have to look at Moses for an example. Numbers 20 records how Moses, even though being the "prophet, seer and revelator" of God, made such a bad mistake he was forbidden from entering the promised land!
The Old Testament is filled with examples of "prophets, seers, and revelators" making mistakes, rebelling against God's commands (Jonah), lying (Abraham), and many other fallible, human things.
Joseph Smith recognized this and taught openly (at least early on) that he was just a man, and put his pants on one leg at a time just like other men.
Therefore, thinking for ourselves, even if it means acting and voting and supporting contrary to what the Prophets have said, DOES NOT make a person an apostate or a sinner! Quite the contrary. Blindly obeying without using your own God-given moral reasoning and conscience and the Spirit IS sinful and wrong!
Prophets make mistakes. We only have to look at Moses for an example. Numbers 20 records how Moses, even though being the "prophet, seer and revelator" of God, made such a bad mistake he was forbidden from entering the promised land!
The Old Testament is filled with examples of "prophets, seers, and revelators" making mistakes, rebelling against God's commands (Jonah), lying (Abraham), and many other fallible, human things.
Joseph Smith recognized this and taught openly (at least early on) that he was just a man, and put his pants on one leg at a time just like other men.
Therefore, thinking for ourselves, even if it means acting and voting and supporting contrary to what the Prophets have said, DOES NOT make a person an apostate or a sinner! Quite the contrary. Blindly obeying without using your own God-given moral reasoning and conscience and the Spirit IS sinful and wrong!
in love: stop struggling | 10:29 p.m. July 17, 2008
Dear Constant Struggle 9:15,
Heavenly Father made you who you are. There is no need for you to suffer. Accept and love yourself, because life is too precious to waste.
Come out, and get out if you need to. It's a big country....
Many LDS have come out and live happy healthy lives. You can even remain active (if discreet) at the Cambridge, Mass. or New York City stakes.
Heavenly Father made you who you are. There is no need for you to suffer. Accept and love yourself, because life is too precious to waste.
Come out, and get out if you need to. It's a big country....
Many LDS have come out and live happy healthy lives. You can even remain active (if discreet) at the Cambridge, Mass. or New York City stakes.
disgusting hate | 10:41 p.m. July 17, 2008
Not a Mormon, but my girlfriend used to be. she sent me to this site so I could
see for myself.
Is is 2008 in Utah too?
Allan in Chicago
Is is 2008 in Utah too?
Allan in Chicago
Anonymous | 12:17 a.m. July 18, 2008
To Allan:
No, more like 1958, but "all is well"
No, more like 1958, but "all is well"
To Lets Be Clear | 12:37 a.m. July 18, 2008
Your examples are out of context. Joseph also said when he was speaking for the
Lord, he was perfect in what he was saying. When speaking for himself, he was a
man like any other.
Funny you should use the word "Obey." Was it not Uzzah who went against the council of the Prophet and tried to steady the ark, and was killed for doing so? Even though his cause was just and innocent?
Was it not samuel who thought it better to save the spoils of the Amalekites instead of totally consuming them as was told him by the prophet of the Lord and hence we get the scritpture: It is better to obey than to sacrifice?
Your comparison to Moses is poor. They were not helping him in his calling as a prophet. They were helping him in his physical weakness. They surely knew it was Moses with whom the Lord spoke and it was Moses' arms that were to be raised, not theres.
Thomas S Monson has served for years and years in the chuch and never swayed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize who the Lord reveal his will to. Plus, he's called.
Funny you should use the word "Obey." Was it not Uzzah who went against the council of the Prophet and tried to steady the ark, and was killed for doing so? Even though his cause was just and innocent?
Was it not samuel who thought it better to save the spoils of the Amalekites instead of totally consuming them as was told him by the prophet of the Lord and hence we get the scritpture: It is better to obey than to sacrifice?
Your comparison to Moses is poor. They were not helping him in his calling as a prophet. They were helping him in his physical weakness. They surely knew it was Moses with whom the Lord spoke and it was Moses' arms that were to be raised, not theres.
Thomas S Monson has served for years and years in the chuch and never swayed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize who the Lord reveal his will to. Plus, he's called.
To California LDS | 4:21 a.m. July 18, 2008
You're forgetting the very most important commandment: Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and strength. Following the counsel
of His prophets shows that we love Him. Putting His will above our own shows
that we love Him. Standing up for the teachings of His gospel, and rejecting
that which does not come from Him, shows that we love Him.
If you go around making comments about how the First Presidency is wrong in the counsel they are giving, and actively trying to persuade others to agree with you, the way that you are doing, it IS grounds for apostacy. You CANNOT work against the leaders of the church, and then raise your right arm to sustain them during General Conference. When you sustain a leader, that means that you agree to follow their counsel, and that you believe they were called of God to lead us, and that you believe they are privy to information we are not in the way they guide the members of the church. It does not mean that you will fight them every time you don't like what they have to say. That is not sustainment.
If you go around making comments about how the First Presidency is wrong in the counsel they are giving, and actively trying to persuade others to agree with you, the way that you are doing, it IS grounds for apostacy. You CANNOT work against the leaders of the church, and then raise your right arm to sustain them during General Conference. When you sustain a leader, that means that you agree to follow their counsel, and that you believe they were called of God to lead us, and that you believe they are privy to information we are not in the way they guide the members of the church. It does not mean that you will fight them every time you don't like what they have to say. That is not sustainment.
When Prophets make mistakes... | 4:25 a.m. July 18, 2008
When I think of a "mortal men who have been called as prophets and
apostles" making a mistake, I think of them eating too much icecream or not
making the bed in the morning or not putting the toilet seat down.
However, in regards to gay marriage, there is no doubt that the direction they have received is from God. Those who have spoken against the prophet and apostles in this regard have tried to justify their erroneous viewpoints by stating that they "made a mistake because they are just men". There should be no doubt in any faithful LDS member that the direction from them on this matter is definite and will not change.
That direction is that marriage is sacred and is sanctified by God. The act of homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God and will never be condoned or accepted by the Lord in any fashion. If the leadership of the church allowed this practice to occur as official church policy they would go against God's law which was established before the world was made. They would be held accountable for that at the judgement bar. God will not be mocked.
However, in regards to gay marriage, there is no doubt that the direction they have received is from God. Those who have spoken against the prophet and apostles in this regard have tried to justify their erroneous viewpoints by stating that they "made a mistake because they are just men". There should be no doubt in any faithful LDS member that the direction from them on this matter is definite and will not change.
That direction is that marriage is sacred and is sanctified by God. The act of homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God and will never be condoned or accepted by the Lord in any fashion. If the leadership of the church allowed this practice to occur as official church policy they would go against God's law which was established before the world was made. They would be held accountable for that at the judgement bar. God will not be mocked.
One thing for sure | 4:41 a.m. July 18, 2008
I am a 36 year old female who was excommunicated from the LDS church when I was
19, for having sex with 2 boyfriends, at of course different times. I went back
to the church about a year ago to "check it out" and re-visit my
childhood and family religion. I attend the Gospel Principles class (class for
beginners, new converts, etc.). All I learn in that class is LOVE.
Christ's PURE LOVE for us and to be more like him towards others, love. I
have thoroughly enjoyed this class, at least up until the last 2 weeks. The
Bishopric read a letter stating that we are to be fully against any gay marriage
initiative in my state of CA. And that the next couple of weeks the High
Councel was going to give talks about the subject. What happened to
Christ's love, pure love of others? I can honestly say that I am not sure
I will go back. I need to find a church that practices what it preaches. Jesus
would never shun homosexuals or not give equal rights to all.
James H | 7:25 a.m. July 18, 2008
Here's what confuses me about the thread here.
Yesterday I posted a non-confrontational post about learning to accept my brother's lifestyle too late (after he passed away in 2005).
Most of the belittling, name calling posts are still here from yesterday. Why was mine deleted?
Is the purpose of these comment boards only for fighters?
Yesterday I posted a non-confrontational post about learning to accept my brother's lifestyle too late (after he passed away in 2005).
Most of the belittling, name calling posts are still here from yesterday. Why was mine deleted?
Is the purpose of these comment boards only for fighters?
John Lambert | 9:05 a.m. July 18, 2008
What is wrong with me saying that someone who has openly and publicly opposed
a directive from the First Presidency has committed apostasy?
What is wrong with me saying that Someone who has tried to use the scriptures to say that they are right and the Frist Presidency is wrong is guilty of apostasy?
Lastly, I do not live in Utah. I live in the great city of Stelign Heights, Michigan.
What is wrong with me saying that Someone who has tried to use the scriptures to say that they are right and the Frist Presidency is wrong is guilty of apostasy?
Lastly, I do not live in Utah. I live in the great city of Stelign Heights, Michigan.
James H | 9:32 a.m. July 18, 2008
To John Lambert:
That is a very good definition of apostacy.
That is a very good definition of apostacy.
Jared | 9:41 a.m. July 18, 2008
Well John, we knew we wouldn't be popular with "the world" right?
Mormons never have been, and if we were accepted in the world for our beliefs
then I would be worried about our beliefs.
I love the "tolerance" shown by mister Dark Knight "Lets get together to discuss this" threat.
You really see here mormons who have accepted the world when they defend Soddom and pretend it's all good.
When they say "Hey Utah, get with the times" Like God has changed somehow. Why do you think God has changed his mind on this? Did he let loose the Angel of Destruction because the people weren't "tolerant enough of sinners"?
I'm sure when they were heckeling Noah or shooting arrows at Samuel the Lamanite, there were people saying "well prophets are just fallable people, they aren't right ALL the time. . ."
I love the "tolerance" shown by mister Dark Knight "Lets get together to discuss this" threat.
You really see here mormons who have accepted the world when they defend Soddom and pretend it's all good.
When they say "Hey Utah, get with the times" Like God has changed somehow. Why do you think God has changed his mind on this? Did he let loose the Angel of Destruction because the people weren't "tolerant enough of sinners"?
I'm sure when they were heckeling Noah or shooting arrows at Samuel the Lamanite, there were people saying "well prophets are just fallable people, they aren't right ALL the time. . ."
RC | 10:15 a.m. July 18, 2008
I think 99% of the posters are missing the main point here. The Church
authorities are not asking us to hate homosexual individuals, on the contrary
they have stated many times, and we inherently know, that we need to love or
learn to love everyone at all times. This legislation, and several other issues
like it, if passed, are the first step in the destruction of churches in the US.
At some point if these laws are passed, churches will begin to be sued or
forced by more laws (based upon these prior laws) to perform Gay marriages or
loose their status as a church. Those who wish to portray the LDS church as
intolerant unfortunately haven't run into a true believer... you would
certainly find Christ like, nonjudgmental love no matter your struggles,
orientation or life style. This is a forward looking legal fight trying to
protect all Christian churches against a relentless atheistic led battle to
remove any influence of Christianity in the US. (thereby only having atheistic
influence...ironic)
It is unfortunate that these boards can not stay on topic and usually spiral into name calling and anti-mormon rants.
It is unfortunate that these boards can not stay on topic and usually spiral into name calling and anti-mormon rants.
What Kind of Love is That? | 11:11 a.m. July 18, 2008
Do you honestly expect homosexuals to believer your "spin" and lies
about loving them?
You claim that you don't condemn homosexuals for having same-sex attraction, so long as they don't ACT on it, but then you believe that even if a person "lusts" after another they have already committed "adultery" (or homosexuality) in their heart and are therefore sinning by just BEING ATTRACTED TO same sex people!
Then you CLAIM you hate the sin but love the sinner, and in the name of your so-called "love" you support legislation and amendments that deprive these people you claim to love of the benefits of marriage. How is that love?!
You are such hypocrites. The LDS church has declared war on the fundamental principles of liberty and equality in this nation, and we will unite to fight against such a fascist religious movement, even if we are members of the LDS Church! This is wrong and will be defeated! And nothing you can say about "loving" others can possibly hide your true hatred and bigotry!
You claim that you don't condemn homosexuals for having same-sex attraction, so long as they don't ACT on it, but then you believe that even if a person "lusts" after another they have already committed "adultery" (or homosexuality) in their heart and are therefore sinning by just BEING ATTRACTED TO same sex people!
Then you CLAIM you hate the sin but love the sinner, and in the name of your so-called "love" you support legislation and amendments that deprive these people you claim to love of the benefits of marriage. How is that love?!
You are such hypocrites. The LDS church has declared war on the fundamental principles of liberty and equality in this nation, and we will unite to fight against such a fascist religious movement, even if we are members of the LDS Church! This is wrong and will be defeated! And nothing you can say about "loving" others can possibly hide your true hatred and bigotry!
re- what kind of love is that? | 11:41 a.m. July 18, 2008
You call others hypocrites when you claim to be a member of the church that you
are going to "defeat"?! Man you make a lot of sense.
Good luck to ya.
Good luck to ya.
James H | 11:44 a.m. July 18, 2008
I can't imagine how difficult it would be to go through life, trying to be
true to your religion while also being attracted to the same sex, knowing you
can't "partake".
Since I have not walked in that particular pair of shoes, who am I to say what someone else walking in them should do?
Since I have not walked in that particular pair of shoes, who am I to say what someone else walking in them should do?
Mormon View | 1:29 p.m. July 18, 2008
All people deserve equal opportunity. However not all deserve equal rights.
Equal rights come via obedience to law. If I break the law, I may deservingly
lose rights. Laws should be fair and safeguard the greater good and
civilization.
Do people deserve the right to same-sex marriage? Only if the law allows for it, but I am opposed to it. I would not be opposed to a law granting same-sex unions.
However, I believe that same-sex marriage is incorrect, because it destroys the concept of marriage itself. By definition, marriage is a union between a man and a woman and is God�s way of authorizing the correct use of procreative powers and furthering the human family. So, I will work to keep marriage legal only between a man and a woman. I believe that unauthorized sexual behavior according to God whether heterosexual or homosexual is one of the most destructive societal influences.
Do I abhor people with same gender attraction? No.
Do I abhor homosexual behavior? Yes.
Do I abhor pornography? Fornication? Adultery? Yes.
Do I love modesty? fidelity? Marriage? Sexual intimacy with my spouse? Absolutely!
Do people deserve the right to same-sex marriage? Only if the law allows for it, but I am opposed to it. I would not be opposed to a law granting same-sex unions.
However, I believe that same-sex marriage is incorrect, because it destroys the concept of marriage itself. By definition, marriage is a union between a man and a woman and is God�s way of authorizing the correct use of procreative powers and furthering the human family. So, I will work to keep marriage legal only between a man and a woman. I believe that unauthorized sexual behavior according to God whether heterosexual or homosexual is one of the most destructive societal influences.
Do I abhor people with same gender attraction? No.
Do I abhor homosexual behavior? Yes.
Do I abhor pornography? Fornication? Adultery? Yes.
Do I love modesty? fidelity? Marriage? Sexual intimacy with my spouse? Absolutely!
William | 2:07 p.m. July 18, 2008
The real hypocrites are people (Mormon View) who claim to be supportive of
"same-sex unions" but are opposed to "same-sex marriage."
Such people try to appear tolerant on the one hand, but they take it all back with the other hand by naively believing you can treat others differently but still equally under the law. That is exactly what the California Supreme Court correctly ruled:
�[having a different name]� may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise�now emphatically rejected by this Court�that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects �second-class citizens� who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.�
Such hypocrites are judicially reckless. You want to make a Constitutional Amendment over a silly word-game? Tom-A-to / Tom-AW-to? Let's call the whole thing off! That is "much ado about nothing!"
Such people try to appear tolerant on the one hand, but they take it all back with the other hand by naively believing you can treat others differently but still equally under the law. That is exactly what the California Supreme Court correctly ruled:
�[having a different name]� may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise�now emphatically rejected by this Court�that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects �second-class citizens� who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.�
Such hypocrites are judicially reckless. You want to make a Constitutional Amendment over a silly word-game? Tom-A-to / Tom-AW-to? Let's call the whole thing off! That is "much ado about nothing!"
Cynthia G. | 3:01 p.m. July 18, 2008
Let's Be Clear,
You make some good points that give me pause. I have always believed that D&C Section 134 was an inspired document on par with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I have felt the confirmation of the Spirit when I have studied them (BYU Political Science '94). I interpret it in the same way you do.
But then I wonder why the First Presidency has had that letter read in Church? It seems to go against all that I have believed my whole life.
You make some good points that give me pause. I have always believed that D&C Section 134 was an inspired document on par with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I have felt the confirmation of the Spirit when I have studied them (BYU Political Science '94). I interpret it in the same way you do.
But then I wonder why the First Presidency has had that letter read in Church? It seems to go against all that I have believed my whole life.
RJW | 3:27 p.m. July 18, 2008
IF homosexuality ruins lives, as the author of this opinion claims, what of
that? If doesn't ruin YOUR life. It is the life of the homosexual person
and if they want to "ruin" it, they should have every right to do so.
Only by preserving their right to "ruin" their lives can you have the
right to "exalt" your life by following all the requirements for
Godhood! Isn't this a wonderful nation!? You are free to try to become a
God, and homosexuals are free to try to "ruin" their lives!
As a personal testimony, I will tell you that my life is anything BUT "ruined"! I am as happy and fulfilled and successful as a VP of a Bank as I can possibly be! My partner and I share a wonderful, committed relationship, and we remember with fondness our missions for the Church, but are glad we have escaped the BYU (Bureaucracy You're Under).
God bless you with open eyes and an open heart.
As a personal testimony, I will tell you that my life is anything BUT "ruined"! I am as happy and fulfilled and successful as a VP of a Bank as I can possibly be! My partner and I share a wonderful, committed relationship, and we remember with fondness our missions for the Church, but are glad we have escaped the BYU (Bureaucracy You're Under).
God bless you with open eyes and an open heart.
David | 3:40 p.m. July 18, 2008
Who gets Aids/HIV at the highest rate and despite years of expected epidemic in
the straight population that failed to occur? Prostitutes, drug abusers, and
Gay men because of their ACTIONS. While homosexuality is not the problem,
homosexuals do act differently for the most part causing problems for their own
community.
Dear Cynthia G. | 3:42 p.m. July 18, 2008
Based on my experience with
�counselors� of a psychological
nature, they are overly interested in blame and negating personal responsibility
to make their clients �feel better�
and therefore come back and pay them another 100 bucks an hour.
Don�t let someone like �Let�s be Clear� make you second guess your faith. Psychologists are great at taking from people what they desperatly need to repent. Personal responsibility.
If you felt the Spirit, you felt the Spirit. Don�t let some smooth talker take that away from you.
Don�t let someone like �Let�s be Clear� make you second guess your faith. Psychologists are great at taking from people what they desperatly need to repent. Personal responsibility.
If you felt the Spirit, you felt the Spirit. Don�t let some smooth talker take that away from you.
re one thing for sure | 3:46 p.m. July 18, 2008
Of course Jesus would teach love, but don't forget that he also said:
"go away and sin no more."
Nope, not LDS and don't even believe in the Bible. But, I find it interesting that people remember one verse but forget the context.
Nope, not LDS and don't even believe in the Bible. But, I find it interesting that people remember one verse but forget the context.
RangerGordon | 4:24 p.m. July 18, 2008
David: Who gets HIV at the highest rate? That would be African heterosexuals.
Does God hate Africans?
Cynthia G. | 4:59 p.m. July 18, 2008
To Dear,
How very patronizing of you. I can take care of myself, thanks. You misunderstood my comment, and I don't have such a jaded view as you do.
How very patronizing of you. I can take care of myself, thanks. You misunderstood my comment, and I don't have such a jaded view as you do.
I don't "raise my hands" | 6:11 p.m. July 18, 2008
To sustain anymore because I would be a hypocrite. I don't belong to any
religion and I only believe in Love.
To "Dear" @3:42 | 9:55 p.m. July 18, 2008
That's a gross oversimplification. Like any profession, there are some
good, and some not so good psychologists. A good psychologist is not there to
offer absolution, but to guide the client to consider his/her options and to
carefully reflect on his/her life, experiences, and choices to move forward in
the best and healthiest way possible for that person. There are some things far
more damaging in life than seeing a psychologist - e.g. living with constant
guilt because you're not worthy and you're supposed to be striving for
perfection and you don't fit the mold you were raised to fit, no matter how
hard you try. And I'm not even homosexual.
shawn | 11:08 p.m. July 18, 2008
The church will fail in it's efforts to deprive gay american
taxpayers/citizens equal rights in california and elsewhere. It is a civil
matter plain and simple. Have whatever religious ceremony you want, and then
after your spouse dies - marry a second wife in the temple if you want to, even
though it condraticts the ostensibly mainstream christian pitch (1 man - 1 woman
is marriage) the church sells to the world. Im sure God himself smiles at your
fervor and zeal as you amend the constitution of utah to make discrimination the
law in utah. i am gay and extremely satisfied with my decision to embrace the
person I have been since well before the age of "accountability". 50
yrs from now this will be another footnote to be glossed over in the recruiting
literature of the church much like polygamy and discrimination of people of
african heritage.
Just Me | 11:56 p.m. July 18, 2008
re:What Kind of Love is That? | 11:11 a.m. July 18, 2008
"Then you CLAIM you hate the sin but love the sinner, and in the name of your so-called "love" you support legislation and amendments that deprive these people you claim to love of the benefits of marriage. How is that love?!"
Can I hate robbery and love the robber? I think so. Do I change the law to allow robbery to prove I love them? I think not.
What benefits do you want that a civil union doesn't give? You are so full of hate that you lose your argument. You are not LDS.
"Then you CLAIM you hate the sin but love the sinner, and in the name of your so-called "love" you support legislation and amendments that deprive these people you claim to love of the benefits of marriage. How is that love?!"
Can I hate robbery and love the robber? I think so. Do I change the law to allow robbery to prove I love them? I think not.
What benefits do you want that a civil union doesn't give? You are so full of hate that you lose your argument. You are not LDS.
Adams | 1:49 a.m. July 19, 2008
The great thing about our country is that every adult has a say in government
and its laws and has a right to support those laws (statute and constitution)
and legislators that best fit the person's world view. I may support
certain laws or constitutional provisions because of my religious background,
and someone else may support different laws or constitutional provisions based
on their secular background. Sometimes they coincide.
Each citizen has a right to support those laws and legislators that best represent his or her world view. It is no more legitimate to tell a religious person not to participate in the public dialog and the shaping of public policy, because he or she has a religious viewpoint, than it would be to tell a secularist not to participate in the public dialog and shaping of public policy because he or she is irreligious.
As a person with a religious viewpoint, I will continue to support traditional marriage against attack, because I believe that traditional marriage is right and good, that redefining marriage will effectively destroy it, and that the destruction of traditional marriage and family will cause untold suffering and the curtailment of our religious liberty.
Each citizen has a right to support those laws and legislators that best represent his or her world view. It is no more legitimate to tell a religious person not to participate in the public dialog and the shaping of public policy, because he or she has a religious viewpoint, than it would be to tell a secularist not to participate in the public dialog and shaping of public policy because he or she is irreligious.
As a person with a religious viewpoint, I will continue to support traditional marriage against attack, because I believe that traditional marriage is right and good, that redefining marriage will effectively destroy it, and that the destruction of traditional marriage and family will cause untold suffering and the curtailment of our religious liberty.
Patriot | 9:54 a.m. July 19, 2008
Adams,
Your attempt to sound reasonable does a good job of obscuring your biased interpretation of principles of American Government.
The greatest threat to this country are people like you who think the point of government is simply to allow the majority of people to make America what THEY want it to be.
But you are only half right. Our system of government is founded on counterbalancing principles: majority governs through democratically elected representatives; majority power is limited to ensure individual rights (Bill of Rights).
Important individual rights include: First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Right to equal protection under the law-equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. Right to due process-fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. Right to privacy-freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
In a nutshell, NO, you do NOT have the right to make laws any way you want them. Some laws and amendments are fundamentally oppressive of others' rights and inhumane.
Your attempt to sound reasonable does a good job of obscuring your biased interpretation of principles of American Government.
The greatest threat to this country are people like you who think the point of government is simply to allow the majority of people to make America what THEY want it to be.
But you are only half right. Our system of government is founded on counterbalancing principles: majority governs through democratically elected representatives; majority power is limited to ensure individual rights (Bill of Rights).
Important individual rights include: First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Right to equal protection under the law-equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin. Right to due process-fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake. Right to privacy-freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.
In a nutshell, NO, you do NOT have the right to make laws any way you want them. Some laws and amendments are fundamentally oppressive of others' rights and inhumane.
Adams | 11:04 a.m. July 19, 2008
"Patriot",
Your response in only partly true. Yes, individual liberties are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and by various state constitutional provisions. Yes, those rights are guaranteed to individuals and placed beyond majority rule. No, "sexual orientation" is not now, and has never been, a protected classification or a protected right. Insisting that it is doesn't make it so.
Of course government exists to allow the majority to "make America what they want it to be," subject to the rights enumerated in the founding documents. That is what a democratic republic is all about. If the majority later decides to add rights or protect additional classifications, the federal and state constitutions provide a mechanism for amending them.
Your post incorrectly talks about the majority "making America what they want it to be" and "the right to make laws". In reality, on the issue of marriage, the majority are working to preserve what marriage has always been and to oppose efforts to redefine it. Those with your viewpoint are the ones who are trying to "make America what they want it to be," contrary to the will of the vast majority and without the legitimacy of constitutional amendment.
Your response in only partly true. Yes, individual liberties are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and by various state constitutional provisions. Yes, those rights are guaranteed to individuals and placed beyond majority rule. No, "sexual orientation" is not now, and has never been, a protected classification or a protected right. Insisting that it is doesn't make it so.
Of course government exists to allow the majority to "make America what they want it to be," subject to the rights enumerated in the founding documents. That is what a democratic republic is all about. If the majority later decides to add rights or protect additional classifications, the federal and state constitutions provide a mechanism for amending them.
Your post incorrectly talks about the majority "making America what they want it to be" and "the right to make laws". In reality, on the issue of marriage, the majority are working to preserve what marriage has always been and to oppose efforts to redefine it. Those with your viewpoint are the ones who are trying to "make America what they want it to be," contrary to the will of the vast majority and without the legitimacy of constitutional amendment.
Patriot | 11:55 a.m. July 19, 2008
Adams,
Once again, you use partially truths to sneak in the mistruths.
Whether in original State Constitutions or legislative documents, when the word "marriage" was used it did not specify that it only applied ONLY to opposite sex relationships. It was ASSUMED and taken for granted by most people that it meant opposite sex, but that does not constitute a legal position. Legal AMBIGUITY does NOT constitute a legal commitment to any particular definition. It simply means it is ambiguous. Therefore, you mischaracterize efforts to clearly define marriage as efforts on the part of homosexuals to "REDEFINE" marriage. That is not truthful or fair.
More importantly, sexual orientation HAS been established as a criterion upon which discrimination and legal inequality are NOT allowed (Once again, you use typical neocon rhetoric to offend by calling it "a protected classification"). For instance, the California Supreme Court explicitly stated (as have MANY rulings over decades) that sexual orientation MUST NOT be used as a basis for discrimination or differential treatment. I will remind you that sexual orientation is also the basis for defining specific forms of "hate crimes".
The law is NOT on the side of your argument, and neither is REASON.
Once again, you use partially truths to sneak in the mistruths.
Whether in original State Constitutions or legislative documents, when the word "marriage" was used it did not specify that it only applied ONLY to opposite sex relationships. It was ASSUMED and taken for granted by most people that it meant opposite sex, but that does not constitute a legal position. Legal AMBIGUITY does NOT constitute a legal commitment to any particular definition. It simply means it is ambiguous. Therefore, you mischaracterize efforts to clearly define marriage as efforts on the part of homosexuals to "REDEFINE" marriage. That is not truthful or fair.
More importantly, sexual orientation HAS been established as a criterion upon which discrimination and legal inequality are NOT allowed (Once again, you use typical neocon rhetoric to offend by calling it "a protected classification"). For instance, the California Supreme Court explicitly stated (as have MANY rulings over decades) that sexual orientation MUST NOT be used as a basis for discrimination or differential treatment. I will remind you that sexual orientation is also the basis for defining specific forms of "hate crimes".
The law is NOT on the side of your argument, and neither is REASON.
sigh | 12:18 p.m. July 19, 2008
If the church held that the earth is flat, many of you folks would defend that
view, even if you lived on the International Space Station.
Eddie T | 12:18 p.m. July 19, 2008
I have a friend who grew up mormon and isn't happy. She isn't gay, but
she had the idea that sex, straight sex, is dirty drilled into her head so much
that even now she's married she can't enjoy it. Because she feels
somehow dirty.
THAT's the real reason gays, especially gay mormons, are unhappy. Their whole lives they're told that a cruicial part of their character is wrong, dirty, and sinful, and they live with a lingering guilt their whole lives. I've seen it with my roommate.
Whether it's right or not, and I'll let you all discuss that, it's the fact that people drill into their heads that their urges are evil and dirty that causes whatever "unhappiness" exists in gays.
THAT's the real reason gays, especially gay mormons, are unhappy. Their whole lives they're told that a cruicial part of their character is wrong, dirty, and sinful, and they live with a lingering guilt their whole lives. I've seen it with my roommate.
Whether it's right or not, and I'll let you all discuss that, it's the fact that people drill into their heads that their urges are evil and dirty that causes whatever "unhappiness" exists in gays.
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.
- Photos: Hogle Zoo lights up 9:09 p.m.
- CBS producer dies 9:08 p.m.
- A reason why they play the game 9:07 p.m.
- Writing contest entries due 9:07 p.m.
- Public option is a low priority 9:06 p.m.
- Child prostitutes don't get help 9:06 p.m.
- Students on the job front 9:05 p.m.
- Alta lodge owner is constant 9:05 p.m.
- Eagle Mountain keeps Jackson 9:05 p.m.
- Around the NFL 8:55 p.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- Cougars turn back Wildcats'
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Running game key to BYU offense
- Woods, wife unavailable for interview
- Idaho woman dies after fall
- Cougars beat Utes, 26-23
237 - Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin134
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Cave to be sealed with body inside114
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Letters: Trump card for believers99
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Hall's legacy measured today75
- Hate crimes against gays rose 11%74
Latest comments
BYU National championships 1 Utah 0 But hey, those exhibition games will...
while this is a difficult loss to take, especially Utah came back to tie,...
Not as far in the past as 1984
Kyle is by far the smartest coach in the MWC. Did you see how he called a...
There are there to convert not teach. It is called teaching under false...
Hey Utah State, NICE job on getting 4 wins this year. Looks to me like...
Good for the Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are remarkable young men!!! Way to be...
Sad thing. This is the only game of the year that BYU plays with any heart....
I'm excited about the progress of our football team. I think our guys have...
why it wasn't a facemask or some other kind of penalty when that helmet got...
Advertisements
I have to denounce your statement. Read Elder Ballards talk where he urges church members to never say such things about people moving away who we disagree with, even in jest.
We do not have to threaten the opposition. We can explain our position without being cruel and unkind.
People have a right to seek to change the laws. I disagree with their goals, but we live in a free society where everybody is welcome to engage in politics.
I wish the threatening of people who hold opposite views would cease and desist.