Glad Melanie took it upon herself to judge 13 million Mormons based on her own opinion. Church statements are not automatic prophesy, and the God I worship as a LDS loves everyone and accepts them all, regardless of how socially acceptable their sins are.

Melanie, well said! I really don't see people being active LDS if they are on the fence about this.

This is not about bigotry it is about biology! It is about protecting life so our society can thrive! Why don't you study why FRANCE rejected Gay marriage? It was not because the french are bigots.

If we don't encourage life who do you think is going to be around in our society to pay the taxes, buy the houses, do the jobs?

Why doesn't someone write an article in the deseret news on the financial impact a low birth rate would have on our country????? Not to mention the COUNTLESS lawsuits that will abound to sort the whole thing out!

This is not about BIGOTRY and people everywhere will be smart to heed a prophetic warning!

Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses said that their was a pretty severe penalty for marrying out of your own race too.

We now acknowledge that was opinion and not revelation.

There is a difference between a call for and a command.

A church can't make divisive statements and ask their members to act in a divisive way and then complain when the community treats them divisively.

C'mon Mormons, you're Christians now remember, start acting that way.

Thanks Melanie and I thought I had free will. Thanks again for straightening me out. (pun intended)

Melanie did not judge anyone. She merely told you that if you are wise, you would stop fighting agianst the Lord's Prophet on the earth and join a worthy fight... silly LDS (or so they say) who continue to fight against the Prophet and his counsel and thus the LORD... there may be a time when they will be sorry

You're either for us or you're a (terrorist, traitor, etc.). No wonder we vote straight R. And why is the family the fundamental unit of society, anyway? Families are made up of smaller units. Individuals. Each of them needs to be able to function not only in the prescribed patriarchal group but also as individuals. Instead of imposing the strict MLM org chart on society maybe more of us could accept that many will not fit our little idea of perfection or normal.

Interesting people that think they know more than the people the lord called to preside over them. His house is not a house of confusion are you smarter than his servants.

I think it's great the the LDS is making prophetic pronouncements about how its members should vote. But that makes it a PAC, not a church, so let's stop giving the members a tax deduction on their tithing!

When I need someone to admonish me, I'll leave it to the proper authority. You have no standing to say if I'm a "full and active" member. Make your own choices, and worry about your family. Until you're called as prophet, it isn't your role to decide what makes the rest of us true to the faith.

Good Morning, Robert Oh! Standing up for what's right is always ridiculed by those who want to force what they do to be right.

Hey, according to the Vice Presidential Debate, even Barack Obama and Joe Biden are AGAINST same-sex marriage! Remember? Were you as surprized as I? Remember in the 1990's when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act?

Most of Americans are against same-sex 'marriage.'
Civil unions, fine, but please don't try to call it a "marriage."

I would suggest to you that it is time for you to make a choice, but it is clear you already have done so. "The God I worship loves everyone" is a correct statement, but you full well know that while he loves the sinner, he doesn't condone the sin. You've got one foot in and one out, but then, that's your choice. With the choice, however, comes the attendant consequence. I wonder if humans will ever learn that we are free to make the choice but not free to sidestep the consequence. Sow your seeds, GeeBee, but trey not to whimper when you must deal with what they produce.

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I am in absolute agreement with this statement. Everyone needs a family for support in this world. And I am ok with churches who try to do good.

However I feel that churches should be treated the same as any other business operation. They should pay taxes.

Melanie:
Thanks for the courage you show in standing up for sustaining the prophet. Those members that try to walk the fence are in danger of tipping toward apostasy. I've seen it enough to know it happens. They often lose everything of value, including their families, as a result of promoting their own "wisdom" over the counsel of the prophet.

If I were to become a Mormon I would have to surrender the ability to think for myself or have my own opinions on a topic? I thought the basis of the LDS faith was something called "free agency". I understand you surrender that at BYU, but not in my own home.

" A prophet is ONLY a prophet WHEN he is PROPHESYING. The rest of the time he is a man."-Joseph Smith-

No matter what you might want to believe, the prophet is only a man.

We should support ALL families, even if they are headed by gay couples. We should support stablizing laws that will help ALL families to grow and nurture ALL children. Why should we vote for a law that picks one type of family above another? It is actually the families that are NOT nuclear that need our help and support the most. I do not understand why we would want to harm any family.

" Why should we vote for a law that picks one type of family above another?"

Actually, this law descriminates against one type of family and not any others. It is even worse!

The law does discriminate against other families. In Massachusetts,gay marriage and homosexuality are being taught in public schools as a normal,moral and acceptable lifestyle. Parents are not give notification or a choice to opt out if they do not want this taught to their children. Where are the rights for the parents?

Looks like the D-news is up to its old tricks again, censoring perfectly legitimate comments. Let's try this again:

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I too agree with this statement. Legalizing same-sex marriage will maintain and strengthen families . . . gay families!

"The law does discriminate against other families. In Massachusetts,gay marriage and homosexuality are being taught in public schools as a normal,moral and acceptable lifestyle. Parents are not give notification or a choice to opt out if they do not want this taught to their children. Where are the rights for the parents?"

I bet they are being taught evolution, too.

It is your job as a parent to teach your children your values and stress that not everyone in the world has the same values.

If they are being taught that some people have gay marriages, that is true and they are teaching them a fact. If they are stressing that some children might have parents of the same sex, that is also true and they might be teaching them that it is unacceptable to tease or bully these children. I don't think you would disagree with this either.

Do you think that they are going to be pushing for your children to become gay? Again. Your teachings will ring clear if you are a good parent. You need to teach them what you consider normal, moral and acceptable. I hope that includes allowing others to live differently.

I know this is old and cliche, but...When did each of you choose to be heterosexual? How hard did you have to think? How strong was your attraction to the same sex?

An open question for my fellow LDS posters: Suppose you have a strong testimony, and a life-long commitment to the Church, and suppose that you also have a beloved gay son, who has suffered untold agonies over his SSA, including several attempts to end his life. And suppose further that he has at last found peace - and love - with a wonderful partner (whom I have grown to love as another son). Our large LDS family has accepted, and embraced my son and his partner, as they are two loving, caring individuals who add much to our family strength. So my question is this : how can love and respect for both the prophet, and for my son co-exist in your definition of what consitutes being active, faithful LDS ? By your definition, I must choose one or the other, and if I do nothing to help Prop 8, then as (for example)"Sustain" postulates above, I am falling into apostacy. I am curious as to how many LDS posters here actually have gay children ? Please be sensitive to the LDS families who are grappling with the very difficult balance between their testimonies and their love of beloved children.

Many of us believe that if the church is going to speak out and actively support this ballot initiative, it has the obligation to explain just how prohibiting same-sex marriage in California is going to "support and strengthen" the family. I'm sorry, but it has not been explained to me exactly how this is so.

Merely repeating that gay marriage "undermines the family" is quite frankly not enough, and I'm amazed at how many people, like the writer, accept this notion without ever wondering or questioning why or how.

We all have agency to make decisions based upon as much information as we have and looking internally to see if that choice makes sense. To Soooo..., we do not have "free" agency as this implies there are no consequences to our choices. We have agency that means there are consequences. The Deuce lives in California and have heard the arguments on both sides of this issue. The Gay/Lesbian group has stated that this will not be taught in schools. Well folks, that horse has left the barn. Both in Mass and now in California, this topic has now been presented to children as young as 1st grade. Again, part of the information gathering and consequences of our choices. The Deuce is not supporting either side at this point but simply making a point that the facts are being distored on both sides of this argument. For those of the LDS faith, it is your responsibility to ask questions. Based upon the Joseph Smith story, your religion would not be here if he did not ask a few questions. I can't believe that the LDS leaders would not support individuals asking questions.

Well gee whiz, I suppose if President Monson wanted to make Prop 8 a litmus test for determining if you are a "faithful, active" Mormon he could have. BUT HE DID NOT AND NEITHER HAS GOD! But President Eyring did say a week and a half ago: "...The children of God have more in common than they have differences. And even the differences can be seen as an opportunity. God will help us see a difference in someone else not as a source of irritation but as a contribution. The Lord can help you see and value what another person brings which you lack. More than once the Lord has helped me see His kindness in giving me association with someone whose difference from me was just the help I needed. That has been the Lord’s way of adding something I lacked to serve Him better."

In Mormon theology who tried to take free agency away?

To ultra bobby:
go through the numbers and tax churches (especially in Utah) and see what a huge deficit results to the state. If the church stopped the services that it provides free of charge to taxpayers. Additional teachers for junior high and high schools, additional classrooms, (seminary programs) jobs, welfare programs, Deseret Industries etc. etc. etc.

I'd have to say the church leaders, but they used the analogy of "a kite can't fly without a string as" an excuse to justify their actions.

To Lyman - feel free to quote Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses but it the Journal is not a source for official Church doctrine.

Nice try though.

free agency has and will always exist. But we cannot determine the outcome and/or consequences of our actions/choices.

To Cam: All of us need to understand that there are two sides to this issue. You have provided a clear example of the issue that impacts your family on a personal level. I am not of the LDS faith but know parents that struggle with this same issue. My first comment is that love is unconditional. I am happy and supportive of how you have addressed this issue. I would not be quick to judge your son or find a conflict with your prophet. From what I understand, the LDS faith believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. In California, as elsewhere, civil unions are in place for such relationships as your son's and provide legal and civil rights for these couples. I am sure you have provided a great environment for your family. Your son has his agency and you need to allow him to exercise it. I for one do not find a conflict with your testimony and love for your son. You know what you believe. Your challenge is to give the unconditional love that Jesus would offer all while staying true to your beliefs. This is what the Savior did.

Censor much, Deseret News? Let me try this again...

"It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have a creed which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

~Joseph Smith, History of the Church

I think that was beautifully and tactfully said. I struggled with certain sins that my LDS parents didn't agree with. However, they loved and supported me unconditionally even though they didn't believe what I was doing was right. It is no conflict to love someone who is acting contrary to your beliefs.

"...if the church is going to speak out and actively support this ballot initiative, it has the obligation to explain just how prohibiting same-sex marriage in California is going to "support and strengthen" the family. I'm sorry, but it has not been explained to me exactly how this is so."

The LDS Church HAS fulfilled its obligation. Are your arms painted on? Take some initiative and do a little searching on your own. The Church's website explains everything in simple, easy-to-understand terms. Once on their site, just do a search for "same-gender-attraction" and "the-divine-institution-of-marriage." Your questions will be answered.

If you just sit around and wait for everything to come to you, you'll be left behind.

There is a difference between privately disagreeing with the Prophet and then going to a forum, whether a public one or one on the internet, and arguing against their counsel, refusing to follow their advice, and trying to sway others to your opinion. That IS apostasy, and that will get you in to see a church disciplinary counsel. If you quietly, and privately diagree and refuse to follow their counsel, then that is between you and Heavenly Father and nobody else. When you take it public and loudly proclaim that your leaders are wrong and that the church should do things your way, that is considered a sin, and a serious one at that.

If every Mormon is supposed walk in lock-step with the leadership on every issue, would not the membership begin to decline precipitously? Assuming there was a way to actually verify one's position on issues to maintain one's identification as "active" LDS, would this mimic the times when neighbors spied on neighbors to maintain theological purity?

Although the LDS church does not dictate voting preference, it can indicate which way one should vote by identifying specific issues that differentiate the political parties. Having the LDS church advocate a specific "moral" position in the face of strong opposition from outside is not similar to the role of the Black Church during the Civil Rights period.

During the 60s, African-Americans were working toward a goal which would benefit all Americans, opening up opportunities that would reach down to the most down-trodden among us. However, with the LDS church actively campaigning against gay marriage rights, one sees an attempt to stem the expansion of civil liberties to the detriment of gay people. With the former, the expansion of rights is paramount; with the latter, the compression of rights is the issue. It is basically an issue of freedom, whether one has it or not.

To Melanie: You have been in the church long enough, I suspect, to know the difference between opinion and "prophetic pronouncements." If the church wants this to be scripture, we all know what the recipe is for that. If you cannot say, "thus sayeth the Lord", then drop it and recognize that opinion, even if it is a majority, is not scripture. The greater law here is that we have the freedom to choose, and we have no right whatsoever to choose for other people. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't practice it.
But don't assume you know what's best for all people. That is arrrogance, pure and simple.

As someone that s not LDS, I think the LDS church has every right to express their point of view, but I would find it highly offensive to come on these letters and forums and be told that I am not a good member because I do not agree with you, or even a church letter. I think letter like this serve no purpose other then to further isolate people of differing opinions and just causes more hatred and distrust among both sides.

I thought the teachings of the LDS Church were to fast and pray and seek guidance - not to blindly follow anyone.

Dang it all! I guess that is what I get for thinking instead of blindly following...

to 2:25: I've read their statements. This isn't the forum to go point for point on, but with all due respect, I don't agree with some of the reasoning, find other points are not supported by the evidence, and find one particular argument to be downright specious.

It boils down to "marriage is in trouble so allowing gays to marry would only be more trouble." I guess I just fundamentally disagree with the reasoning behind that argument. I think those concerned with strengthening marriage should insist that two people who love each other should do the responsible thing and make that commitment, a point made much more compellingly by conservative columnist David Brooks (and I recommend googling his name and "on Marriage").

Gays are going to go on living their lives and finding partnerships even if not allowed to marry, and in so doing, and as young people increasingly accept them and their partnerships, it sends the message that marriage isn't always relevant. For marriage to be strong, it must again be the expected commitment made by everyone who claims to be in love, and it can't come to be seen as by new generations as a discriminatory institution.

Supporting "the family" and believing that gay people ought to be included in all of society's institutions are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I support "the family". I had the two most wonderful parents in the world. And I adore my brother and his wife and kids. More power to ALL such families in our society!

I am also gay, and in a committed, loving and wonderful relationship and intend to be in this relationship for the rest of my life. More power to such love and commitment as well!

The two do not conflict. The two do not contradict.

There is plenty of room in society both for heterosexuals who marry and for their gay children and siblings to marry. One doesn't stop the other from happening. One does not make the other more or less likely.

I don't get the confusion. ALL of us deserve to live our lives as best we can in ways congruent with who we are and in ways that make sense to us.

We help no one when some of us get excluded from our society's institutions. And we clearly hurt many when we do so.

Thanks, Melanie! That's just what is needed: An I'm-more-righteous-than-you guilt trip to encourage even more conformity and group-think.

Cam, support your family first. I too have a similar story. I am the youngest son of a 5 generation LDS family. Father was a bishop and mother was the Relief Society President. I am gay.

I was fortunate enough to find my life partner when I moved back to Utah in 2002. My family is very supportive and we have had Thanksgiving and Christmas at my house.

My partner and I just returned from California where we got married. (yes it does not apply in Utah) but it was something we needed to do).

A few of my family members flew in with us and helped to celebrate the occasion.

All I can say is just support your family.

Thanks,

"Thanks Melanie and I thought I had free will. Thanks again for straightening me out. (pun intended)"

Don't concern yourself with what she has to say on this subject. She isn't the prophet and he has made it clear that members of the Church can disagree on this so long as that disagreement is political and not a result of personal apostasy. This is why we were asked to support proposition 8 as opposed to directed to do so.

The Church recognizes that members of the Church may disagree on our opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage. I agree with it but I will not let her letter destroy the faith and testimony of those who do not based on her personal political opinion when the prophet has made it clear that we can disagree on legalizing same-sex marriage.

So my advice to you and to others is to ignore her. She is arrogant and has decided to "not follow the prophet" by trying to make her opinion into his and to mold him into her own image. He doesn't need her to put words into his mouth and neither do other church leaders. Doing so is borderline apostasy.

Dang it! I'm late for sacrament meeting ONE time and I totally miss the opportunity to sustain the first female prophet, seer and revelator. You would think they would have made a bigger deal out of it.

Color me bummed!

It all boils down to whether you believe the LDS Church is led by a prophet who directs the Church according to the will of the Lord. If you object to the Church campaigning for Prop. 8 and directing members to support it then you cannot claim to believe that the Church is led by a prophet of God. The Church would not be leading this campaign for Prop. 8 without President Monson's approval and direction. This stand is based upon the Proclamation to the World on Families signed by the First Presidency, including Pres. Monson in 1995. You simply cannot claim to accept Pres. Monson as Prophet and President of the Church and be against Prop. 8 at the same time. You can vote against it if you want to, but you are kidding yourself if you really think that you have a testimony of a living prophet at the head of the Church.

If I had a gay child I would love him just as much as I would a heterosexual child living with someone out of wedlock. Loving them does not mean accepting the sin.

You hit right upon the point when you say that you'd expect marriage from your heterosexual child and wouldn't condone "living in sin". We should expect the same commitment and responsibility from our gay children, too. Seems to me that does a lot more to strengthen marriage than forever barring a class of people from making such responsible commitments.

I just can figure out why people think Mormons are judgmental, I mean just look how nonjudgmental they are with each other, of course they would not be judgmental of people outside their faith. Right?

To jackhp,

Either you have not read The Family: A Proclamation to the World, or are being willfully difficult. A man and a man can not form a family any more than they can marry. "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God".

To ananymous at 12:14,

To began with evolution does not contradict the teachings of the gospel. They teach evolution at Brigham Young University.

Secondly, they do not teach evolution in kindergarten.

Thirdly, there is a big difference between teachings that advocate actions that are in violation of your morals and teachings that advocate ideas that you disageee with. There is nothing immoral about evolution, it does not involve advocating for actions that are in violation of the commandments of God.

I really think you know that there is a difference between teaching evolution to sixth graders and reading the book "Heather has two mommies" to six year olds.

One has implications on proper actions, the other is merely theoretical in nature.