Reader comments
Gay Mormons to meet with reporters

Let's all stop worrying about this and let people make their own decisions.

productive dialogue between this group and anyone would be how the other group could help the members of Affirmation overcome or at least deal with their condition.

While I don't speak for the church, I don't think the scriptures have changed, so I don't see the church performing or recognizing gay marriages anytime. Consider the church's stance on the ballot initiative in California

What about telling why the LDS church postponed the meeting? The article makes it sound like a snub, and maybe it was, but the stated reason the church postponed was because of the pending the appointment of a new director for LDS Family Services. Also, the meeting was put on hold until August at Affirmation's request. Do you think Affirmation was just looking for an excuse to protest?

to lost in DC,

The scriptures have not changed. They have been added to. The KJV of the Bible has not changed in many centuries. But the LDS Restoration added new revelations. Now we don't follow all those 613 commandments in the Old Testament, even though they haven't changed. Even though the "doctrine" supporting racism (Cain and the Lamanites cursed with black skin) still hasn't changed in the Bible and Book of Mormon, the 1978 Revelation eliminated that priesthood discrimination.

There is no reason to believe something like that can't happen again. You may think the scriptures never change, but the reality is otherwise. You may think new revelations never occur, but the reality is otherwise. You may think homosexuality is condemned as sin in the Bible, but that does not mean it is a sin anymore than eating shellfish is a sin despite what the Bible says.

There is no such thing as a Gay Mormon. Homosexual tendencies don't make one gay, practicing homosexuality does. Once one is a practicing homosexual one is not in harmony with the teachings of the LDS Church and is removed from the rolls of the church. Regardless what the person's belief is, removal from church records means that person is no longer Mormon. Please report these things correctly and stop spreading confusion.

Since the scriptures have never changed, can I assume that all scriptures in all religions have never changed?

If the scriptures you read are true, are all scriptures in all religions true?

Some scripture in one religion I can think of says that gay people should be put to death. True or false?

Now they've ruined the word "pride"

Affirmation's official statement is that the church canceled at the last minute, but the story says the church canceled the meeting last month. Doesn't sound last minute to me.

Why is Affirmation trying to put such a negative spin on this? Do they think that is how they are going to create more dialog in the future?

Re: Incorrect Terms.
At this stage of the game, I no longer consider myself a practicing homosexual but rather an accomplished expert! Does this now mean I can start practicing Mormonism?

And for Lost In DC: You are kidding when you say there have been no changes to the scriptures right? That's funny.

yep, you got me, I didn't phrase my comment correctly. However, sin has not ceased to be sin. The temporal penalties spelled out in the new testament differ from those spelled out in the old, and Christ fulfilled many points of the 'law' detailed in the old testament, so it is not longer necessary to adhere to the many points of the law of Moses, but homosexuality was a sin in the old testament, and it was still a sin the new testament.

That being said, I'm sure there are word parsers out there wanting to justify their licentious behavior who will still pick at my words. The result is still the same, I don't expect to see the church performing or even recognizing any gay marriages.

Why don't gays go and start there own church like the FLDS and call it the Gay Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (GLDS) and then they can do whatever they want and still call themselves LDS.

Here we go again! It's becoming rather obvious to me that Affirmation doesn't want "dialogue". They want the LDS Church to give them what they want.

Given the LDS concept of the meaning of life--to learn the lessons that would help us to become Christ-like and to give other spirits the opportunity to come to earth, I don't see how the Church can accept homosexuality as correct.

Which doesn't mean I don't have great anguish for the feelings of sincere Latter-day Saints who deal with same-sex attraction. I will never forget the sorrow in my daughter's voice when, after I had expressed my love for her, she said, "But Mom, you don't agree with my lifestyle." All I could say was, "I CAN'T agree with it, but that has NOTHING to do with loving you."

Affirmation is doing what I have seen other gay groups do--giving the "facts" slanted to bolster their position--and I'm sorry to see that. I had hoped good things would come from this meeting. Waiting for the new Commissioner seems valid to me.
Why not wait? Wouldn't it be worth taking a chance?

To lost in DC,

"sin has not ceased to be sin."

On the contrary. Much that was "sin" in the Old AND New Testament is NOT considered sin today, even by the LDS Church!

And it is not simply a change in "temporal penalties" either. Jesus radically changed everything, not just "the law of Moses."

In fact, when Jesus was asked how to get into heaven, he answered simply: "Love God and love your fellow man." He did not mention "avoid homosexuality because it is a sin." In fact, you cannot find anywhere in scripture where JESUS Himself says that homosexuality is a sin!

Paul says it, but Paul also says women should not speak in Church, and it is a "sin" for women not to keep their heads covered when they pray (they should be shorn bald if they did). Even more powerful is Jesus' explicit teaching that getting a DIVORCE is a sin! But some scholars believe Paul may have been divorced.

Sorry, buddy, your arguments don't work. Not only is there no reason to deny gay marriage on legal grounds, there is only slim grounds for claiming that homosexuality is a sin.

Let�s make a couple assumptions here... First assumption: The LDS church has the fullness of the gospel restored in these latter days. If it didn't, why not just go to another church if your beliefs don't align with the church. Second assumption: the Lord can change the rules whenever he likes, he's God� that comes with the title.

Who are we to decide when the rules should change? For as long as anyone alive has been alive, homosexuality has been deemed a transgression. That�s just the way it is, whether we like it or not. The fact that society has become more accepting is not the standard by which we will be judged. Can there be good, honest people who feel homosexual tendencies, I believe there are. Does that mean God will over look it if they choose to act on those tendencies? I don't know. All I know is that the standards currently in place prohibit those practicing homosexuality from being members of the church. I have faith that if the day comes that God decides to change the rules; he knows how to get in touch with the right people in the LDS church to make it happen.

Consider how many times in scripture men are encouraged to show affection for one another: "Greet one another with an holy kiss." You sure can't say that two men kissing is a sin! Can two men be naked in one another's presence without it being a sin? Apparently so.

MARK 14:51-52 tells of a certain young man, a follower of Jesus, who fled naked (nean�skoj and sind�n), leaving a linen cloth in the hands of those who would arrest him. There was apparently also a young man in the tomb "nean�skoj" (and sind�n) at Jesus' resurrection.

Can two men love one another? Hardly a quesion worth asking if you have read the Bible at all.

So what are we talking about here? According to the scriptures, two men can love one another; they can kiss as a greeting and a sign of affection; they can be naked in one another's presence.

At what point does any of this become "homosexuality" that is a "sin"? And at what point does any of this justify legal and civil opposition to equal marital rights for gays?

I wonder why God overlooks starving children, war, pain and suffering around the world, but he his on the edge of the stool telling the religious right to not give Gay people any rights in America.

Is there some scripture to explain that?

You know I think if we could ask God, we would all have a laundry list of questions and things we would like changed. Why not eliminate hunger, disease, heck why not all suffering. Surely God could do it if he wanted.

I think the point of our time here is choices. I don't pretend to understand all of the why's we might have in this world. My thought is that if adultery was considered a sin, so it homosexualtity. True in the time of Jesus and hasn't been changed. I don't think that means God is on the edge of his stool, out to prevent rights for gays as you suggest. It just says that he hasn't let us know its time to change the rules. I do believe that God's laws are not swayed by public opinion. If he were, why the need to flood the earth in the time of Noah, why not just change the rules?

These people have sure messed up the word gay. a person use to be gay without being perverted.

It becomes sin, when (drum roll please) the thought of lust, comes into the mind of the beholder. (New Testament references on that)First you think it, then you do it...

It becomes more obvious, and the sin becomes that much more grevious when body appendages are being used for sexual pleasure outside the bonds of holy matrimony in the pattern set up by the example of Adam and Eve.

Remember it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve and no matter how you "kick against the pricks" (Another New Testament reference) can you or anyone else change that divine fact. Prophet or a leader of a whining organization for "equal rights".

To RE: On Sin | 3:13 p.m.

Then all your Elder Holland's talk about same-sex attraction being NOT a sin is BS! By definition, same-sex attraction is "lust". You are saying THAT makes same-sex affection "sinful", but Elder Holland says otherwise.

Who are we to believe?

I guess I will go with Elder Holland. He said, "You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is."

So if a man kisses another man, that is no sin. If a man hugs another man, it is no sin. If a man enjoys the company of another man, it is no sin. If a man is in the presence of another naked man, that is no sin. And according to Elder Holland, if two men do all these NON-SINFUL things and are also experiencing "same-gender attraction", that STILL is no sin!

I think I got it. Thanks for the clarification.