Deseret News | LDS officials to meet with gay group

Reader comments
LDS officials to meet with gay group

309 comments | Read story

Ray | 10:17 a.m. April 7, 2008

Diversity=Divide

Not the way to go.

Let God be their judge, I don't want to be.

To: More to the Equation | 10:23 a.m. April 7, 2008

You said so much that I wanted to say as well. So many cannot imagine how difficult it is trying to stay faithful to the gospel in a culture that doesn't tolerate you. Would you want to stay somewhere where people constantly called you a sinner, even though you adhere to the teachings of the church? I think what Affirmation is trying to do is open dialog so that the general church membership welcomes homosexual members who choose to follow the gospel. On a side note, shouldn't church be a place for sinners? Shouldn't all who are trying to live a good life be welcome, regardless of who they are? We all need to feel like we belong.

Jumping to Conclusions | 10:42 a.m. April 7, 2008

So many of you are jumping to conclusions that are completely implausable. The church agreed to a meeting to where it can "help". The church is not going to change its policy (doctrine) on this subject regardless of how many meetings are held. This is a time and place to better understand points of view, not change fundamental elements to the church.

As an active member of the church, I applaud the concept of a better understanding between the groups, but beyond that, core doctrine will not change.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 11:04 a.m. April 7, 2008

If a dialogue between the LDS Church and Affirmation occurs, I would hope that Family Fellowship (a support group for families of Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual members) will also be included in the conversation. As members of that group, we have struggled for years hoping for a shred of recognition by church officials for our sons and daughters, and we sincerely hope that the church will eventually recognize the reality of homosexuality and other aspects of biological diversity in our families. Their failure in the past has caused untold suffering in families of homosexual children. I speak from experience.

Elder Holland's Ensign Article | 11:09 a.m. April 7, 2008

Was a great help for me in understanding the church's stance on LDS homosexuals. I urge you to read it, I believe it was in the October '07 issue??? He stated that members with same-sex attraction may be active and hold temple recommends as long as they are not participating in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. The Same standard that every other member in the church is held to. The Family Proclamation states that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The LDS Homosexual will face many choices in their life, just as the straight homosexual will about love, relationships, and intimacy. If Celestiality is the goal, the child of God will meet the standard that is set no matter what appetites, habits, etc they will need to overcome.

Not Doctrinal issue | 11:10 a.m. April 7, 2008

I agree with the above statements stating that this is not a doctrinal issue.

However, I think there is much that can be done in the way homosexual tendencies are handled in the church. I come from a family that experienced sex abuse by a trusted member back in the late 70's. The way it was handled was simply atrocious and damaging. It was largely because the way sex abuse cases were handled in the church had not been developed, and nobody seemed to know what to do.

I believe a similar process must occur with dealing with homosexual cases in the church; not to condone or accept the practice, but to provide help, support, and realistic understanding of what the rest of a gay person's life in the church will be like.

Hopefull | 11:42 a.m. April 7, 2008

RE: more to the equation and Blake.

I agree! and I wish people would put this article in context that it is about a DISCUSSION not conversion. Understanding people is needed to love them.

Thank you for voicing your belief that not all LDS are like those described above. Hopefully after this weekend, more people will focus on loving people not converting them.

comment | 11:46 a.m. April 7, 2008

If Latter Day Saints are to carry the gospel message to all the world,to all people,to all cultures,to all societies,to all life styles,then we as Latter Day Saints need to have open dialog with all of the above. Are we going to continue to say I cant share the gospel with you because you are gay. Share the gospel with your gay friends,invite the Holy Ghost into your conversations with your gay friends and allow Hevenly Father to perform the mircle needed.Someone said in conference 2 people can perform mircles when one of them is God.Our missionaries go forth without fear. We cannot and will not fear the direction we need to go with our gay brothers and sisters.If the prophet says to do it, then do it.

room and respect | 12:00 p.m. April 7, 2008

I think the most basic understanding that is sought by gay members (and gays generally) is for others to acknowledge that people don't choose their sexual orientation. If we accept this, then the standards of the Church would seem to require celibacy from these members. But there is little room for single and celibate members in the church (of any orientation), and almost no role for them to play.

A member who is open about being gayï¿½-even if celibate and trying to live the principles of the gospelï¿½-faces enormous ostracism in most LDS wards and even hostility in some cases. This is because the issue remains such a taboo and is almost never discussed in the church other than in terms of behaviorï¿½-the sin. The church could teach members that gay people didnï¿½t choose their orientation and encourage members to be respectful and supportive of them, and of other single members. This would be a very welcome outcome of this dialogue.

kinlco | 12:12 p.m. April 7, 2008

As a gay LDS man and not a member or believer of Affirmation, I am glad that they are speaking with some leaders. No one understands how it feels to sit in Sunday School or Sacrament meeting and have someone make a comment that God doesn't allow gays in his Church. I did not choose to have these feelings. I have not chosen the lifestyle, yet, when people learn of my struggle, I am not accepted. Maybe, just maybe, having the leaders accept those who are challenged with same-gender attraction will help others accept me also. And there are support groups for those who want to remain faithful to covenants that have been made and live according to the values and doctrines of the Church. It is just that they do not scream and yell about it.

Disapponted by many | 12:20 p.m. April 7, 2008

There is a reason for this meeting. It is evident in the first 10 or so posts on this thread. I hardly doubt Affirmation is hoping to change the minds of leaders in the church. I am confident the dialogue between the groups will inspire our leaders to speak directly to those who fail to Christlike love. My anger at some of you right now is beyond words. Do you know the anguish of a mother and father (and sister) dealing with a homosexual brother wanting to end his life? Do you sit up at night praying he will be alive another day and hope he realizes God loves him as much as all of those pointing fingers and calling him a sinner? Shame on many of you for callling yourselves representatives of Christ. He would never deal with his brothers and sisters with words like yours.

A smart man will humble himself before God does it for him. I suggest you get to praying and ask for understanding in how to exemplify Christlike love. Many of you are unaware.

greg | 12:22 p.m. April 7, 2008

Hey guys, why not read the article before commenting? No one is asking the church for gay marriage or the right to have gay sex in the common areas at BYU. They're asking for equal coverage under the honor code (reasonable!) not special exceptions. They're also asking for a review of the church's procedures in treating homosexuality - that is using the most up-to-date and effect means (also reasonable). Lastly, they want to make sure there are certain procedures in place so that a child coming out of the closet doesn't break up a family. (very reasonable). but go ahead and wave your 'GAY THREAT!' flags.

Good thing...but | 12:53 p.m. April 7, 2008

This meeting is good. I think both sides will gain a perspective, even though "affirmation" may discover that the church is also opposed to any sexual realtion outside of the covenants of marriage whether its a homo-sexual or heterosexual. "Affirmation" will be grossly deliusional if they think the church will relax its standards for the gay and lesbian community but continue to condemn the adultery and fornication community.

In addition the church has already taken a strong and clear stance about same sex marriages. The church will reach out to help, but will not be persuaded to excuse behavior condemned by scripture.

Tolerant | 12:58 p.m. April 7, 2008

I could have sworn I heard Pres. Monson warn about the "halloween mask of tolerance" and that behind it was only deceit and unhappiness. (Priesthood session Saturday Night) Condemning immoral behavior while caring about the sinner is not bigotry. They are simply leading a life that will ultimately lead them to unhappiness for eternity. Take a look at Isaiah 3:9 and then look at Isaiah 5:20. Isaiah nailed our day right on the head. We should love the sinner, pray for them, help them, but we should never tolerate wickedness.

ABOUT TIME!!! | 12:58 p.m. April 7, 2008

Seems to me that "simply talking" is way overdue. My brother hung himself many, many years ago, and I truly wish anyone in the Church had been willing to talk or listen.

DAG | 1:04 p.m. April 7, 2008

The church began addressing these issues some time ago. Nearly a year ago the church issued the pamphlet, "God Loveth his Children" which addresses the issue of same gender attraction. Also, the letter sent to Affirmation stated they are interested in ways to "help" not change Church view or policy. The best way to love an individual is to help them. That does not mean you have to change your own stance in order to do so. They church has always been interested in ways to help those in need, wether it be with this issue or with the numerous others we all suffer from. There are those that take offense, or state that the Church is trying to "change" them. Well, to be honest, that is the case with all of us. We all have temptation and shortfalls that the Church is there to help us change and improve upon. That is the point of the Gospel and organization of the Church. To provide support and fellowship for all of us, regardless of who we are.

Society is changing | 1:10 p.m. April 7, 2008

How is this any different than the way the Church used to look at mixed marriages? Society changed and the Church changed. Society is once again changing, better get used to the idea that the Church could also change, too.

Of course, not for at least another 20 years, so we should have time to adjust.

"Talking" is simply the first step.

texwrd | 1:16 p.m. April 7, 2008

Some interesting comments, some good, some hurtful on both sides. Dialoque with the Church will be good, doctrine will not change, I don't think that's the intent of the dialoque. A quote to think about.....Pres. Monson said in the priesthood session this past weekend (not exact, what I wrote in my notes), "Sin many times wears the face of tolerance" Something to think about in this forum. "Disappointed by many", no one should be casting shame on anyone, that just doesn't help at all. It only causes contentious feelings.

Love the hypocrisy | 1:19 p.m. April 7, 2008

In general, i find accusing someone of being self righteous is pretty self righteous.

Condemning the hypocrite for not being tolerant is hypocritical.

Let the meeting happen | 1:18 p.m. April 7, 2008

then you can all play arm-chair prophets..i am sure wisdom will lead the way on this one. the struggle goes on in this journey, if your perfect then you had better get ready to enter the next world. let it be as i have faith that your leaders are men of wisdom. they at least are listening to others who's struggle made need the touch of the master's hand!

Talk is cheap..... | 1:25 p.m. April 7, 2008

The Church is sympathetic as a group to the Gay condition....now can we "ISOLATE" the gay gene and give mother's the choice of a gay child vrs a hetero? That day will end the gay debate!

Anonymous | 1:42 p.m. April 7, 2008

If heterosexuals can't be sexually active at BYU, why should homosexuals better?

Ponce | 1:51 p.m. April 7, 2008

I think understanding another group is always a good thing. This is a complex issue and I think dialogue is helpful for both sides of the equation.

Re Anonymous | 2:13 p.m. April 7, 2008

Neither group is "allowed" to be sexual active at BYU, the difference is that the heterosexuals can show affection (hand holding, a kiss) the homosexuals cannot.

What? | 2:14 p.m. April 7, 2008

What would Jesus Do? If Jesus cared one way or the other about BYU, he'd probably say, "Love one another as I have loved thee." I don't recall Jesus excluding anybody.

It is good to know I live in a State where everybody knows what God thinks. How does the rest of the world survive?

Reality | 2:13 p.m. April 7, 2008

OK DN, I am toning my 4th attempt down so I can hopefully get my comment in past your iron curtain. But you know I love ya -

The reality is that a change in policy is light years away from even being considered. Even if rock solid science showed that homosexual attractions derive soley from genetics, change or acceptance would still be years away. For years, members were encouraged to show love and acceptance toward their black brothers and sisters but change only came when outside influences boiled to a certain tipping point. And that change was way behind most of societie's tipping points on that issue.

This country is way to conservative in it's stance toward homosexuals for the Church to even begin to feel outside pressure regarding it's stance toward gays. I believe there is genuine desire by leaders that gay members be treated better but policy change is way way in the future if at all.

RE: Talk is cheap | 2:16 p.m. April 7, 2008

Are you kidding me? If you honestly think that isolating a gene would end homosexuality, that means that you believe it is naturally occuring which validates the argument that they are "born that way..." Also, when and where has the church been sympathetic to homosexuals? I must have blinked and missed it.

Sparkes22 | 2:18 p.m. April 7, 2008

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

I have been open minded my whole life and I my brain has never fallen out, nor have I known anyone who have lost their brains as they've pondered and sometimes struggled with life's great questions.

I guess I just don't get your point?

Try this one on instead:

God. . ."is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive."

And who do you suppose said that? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't someone on Talk Radio or Cable News. The answer is in the transcript of the October 2003 General Conference.

Now thats something worth losing your mind over!

well | 2:19 p.m. April 7, 2008

isn't that special

BoyScouts | 2:30 p.m. April 7, 2008

This is a nice gesture..and a waste of time. These people seem to think that the church is going to change its doctrine for THEIR benefit. What kind of people ask a religion to change for THEM? They seem to quite literally want to pervert the ways of the lord.

slow learners? | 2:32 p.m. April 7, 2008

What "decades of silence"?

Where is a need to "forge understanding between the faith's leaders and its gay members"?

The Church's position is crystal clear and has be stated explicitly and repeatedly.

What part of "no" is hard to understand?

Darthlaurie | 2:33 p.m. April 7, 2008

Last time I checked, God hasn't popped in on Oprah or made a grand appearance to let everyone know what s/he/it thinks about homosexuality, suicide bombers, or what their food of choice is. I figure that there's a lot more to God than what people on this board or people in general give her/him/it credit for being. As for the Bible being the word of God...sorry, but I think a lot has gotten lost in translation through the millennia. The path to divinity isn't straight or narrow. It's as broad and as winding as it could possibly be...just like so many other things in life. Open your minds and learn to live and love with kindness and passion and quit worrying about who your neighbor loves. Love comes in so many shapes and sizes and love is beautiful.

Darrel | 2:43 p.m. April 7, 2008

To Sparkes22
Elder Jeffrey R Holland, one of my favorite talks ever.

Will people please read the article! They are not asking the church to change their doctrines, nor their standards. The LDS Church has not even given a hint of doing so. Just like the Savior would do, they are reaching out to help those that need it. I am sure if AA or SA were to ask to have a meeting with the church, the church would do the same as well.

Everyone has problems, some are just more socially acceptable (I doubt very many people are put on probation in the church for Overeating). Socially acceptable or not does not mean they need help, or less deserving of it.

Notice that the person Church is sending is someone from Families.

The Family Proclomation is not about to be re-written/revised after this.

Last try | 2:45 p.m. April 7, 2008

OK great Deseret News comment monitor - I am going to do my best on my fifth try to write something that won't be too offensive or off-topic to post:

I read this article and loved it. The editing, grammar and overall flow was just sensational. Of all the online newspapers in THE WORLD, Deseret News is the BEST!

Now, please take my name off of your bad-list so I can participate in this discussion - pretty please.

Dave Brerrigton | 2:50 p.m. April 7, 2008

I feel like the Church is in a no win situatuion here. Affirmation claims the want to start a dialogue, but the first question Melson asks Riley is about the possibility for change.

If there is change members will question the validity of church doctrin. If the church is not willing to change, there will be cries of intolerance on the part of the gay mormon community.

I hope we will all remember that tolerance is not acceptance. We can tolerate people without accepting their opinions, and we can even disagree and argue against them and still tolerate.

Ken Baguley | 2:46 p.m. April 7, 2008

We are directed to marry one wife and to cleave unto HER and NONE ELSE...That's pretty clear as to which direction our love must go.

RE: BoyScouts | 2:46 p.m. April 7, 2008

I guess your not as prepared as you should be. Asking for understanding and open communication doesn't equate demands for a change in theology or doctrine. I must have missed the part in the story that said that the LDS church or any church was being was being asked to change it's doctrine or beliefs. But isn't the church asking the gays to change THEIR beliefs to be more acceptible to THEM?? The only ones who seem to want "to pervert the ways of the Lord" are those who think they are qualified to speak for Him.

Why the hate? | 2:48 p.m. April 7, 2008

The word hate seems to have replaced "disagree" in many of these forums. If someone disagrees, they are somehow "hateful" and "Unchristian". When I picture the word hate...I see the KKK, terrorists flying planes into buildings and the Holocaust. Hate is an extreme that is unfortunately thrown out too casually when discussing differences.

As to the article, the church is taking a good step in meeting with Affirmation. Although it is extremely doubtful doctrines will be changed, understanding the needs of members asking for help can only be positive.

To: Slow | 2:55 p.m. April 7, 2008

The church's position on a lot of issues is crystal clear, not just the one's you happen to agree with. Too bad you can't see that.

I may be wrong... | 2:51 p.m. April 7, 2008

but isn't BYU's stance on homosexuality that you do not act on your impulses? If so then kissing and holding hands would be acting on impulses. Heterosexual males don't this with each other. In asking the Church to allow that then you are asking the Church to basically condone homosexuality. If you think that holding hands and kissing are not acting on homosexual desires you are kidding yourself. Also, why don't we hear from pro adultry groups? Aren't they segregated from the church? That behavior will get you exed as quick as homosexual behavior. I will admit that I will never understand homosexuality. You basically have a desire that has been condemnded from the beginning of time and yet you push and push to have it accepted not only by society but by the Lords Church.

EasternLDS | 2:56 p.m. April 7, 2008

I think some leaders need to be more aware and sensitive to this problem. I know of one member who was discouraged when he took his SGA problems to his Bishop and the response he got. Thankfully, another Bishop in the area took him under his wing and now he is married with three kids. SGA is a behavioral condition that can be changed with desire and a reliance on the redeeming love of the Savior. To try and quote President Kimball, to free oneself from this type of sin one must try and open the door even when the knuckles are bleeding from the effort. It can be done!

Who cares? | 3:14 p.m. April 7, 2008

Let them meet all they want.

Mike | 3:23 p.m. April 7, 2008

What makes you fools think that BYU would change to Honor Code to allow Homosexuals to date? They won't even let men grow a beard.

Cougar Freshman | 3:42 p.m. April 7, 2008

I don't know what changing the Honor Code would do. I personally agree with the Honor Code and follow it as best I can (and even fit into the BYU culture), but wouldn't have a problem with it changing. My only concern is for those people who would engage in such behavior in public at BYU--they would publicly humiliate themselves and become socially ostracized.

I just hope that if the Honor Code does change, officials will do all in their power to ensure that individuals who do not conform to what is culturally accepted are treated with Christlike love and tolerance.

Re: Why the Hate? | 3:42 p.m. April 7, 2008

Calling people "hateful", "unchristian", and "intolerant" are what we do when our arguments are weak.

Thoughts from NC | 3:38 p.m. April 7, 2008

It's interesting how suddenly the issue is framed as the Church vs. Affirmation, when I know very few gay members or former members who have any connection to Affirmation. As a gay inactive member, I've never been to an Affirmation meeting or a conference and can't imagine that they represent the views of the majority of active or inactive gay members. Certainly, Affirmation is doing the best it can to speak for an unrepresented group, but I hope that the Church doesn't think that it's reaching out to all gay members just by meeting with Affirmation. The reality is that the vast majority of gay members eventually recognize that there is not a place for them in the Church and simply walk away unnoticed and unmissed with no expectations otherwise. If the Church truly wants to reach out with love to those struggling with this issue, it's efforts are best directed at the gay young men and young women in their teens and twenties who haven't left yet and are still trying to reconcile their attractions with their faith.

Open Discussion Needed | 3:52 p.m. April 7, 2008

I'm an active 'straight' member of the Church. I've served in two different bishoprics, the stake high council, stake ym president, and several other leadership callings. I've also had the great opportunity to associate with dozens of active, less active, and non-member homosexuals over the years. I feel like I have a good understanding of both the Church's viewpoint and also understand the plight of our gay brothers and sisters within the Church.

The burden these people bare is immense and different from many of the sins referenced in the above comments (alcoholism / drug use, etc.). Unless you have a close relative who has lived this, I believe it's difficult--if not impossible--for the average Church member to grasp and fully understand.

Part of the despair these people feel is that they have no hope of emotional intimacy in this life. I'm not talking about sexual intimacy---but the emotional connection each of us yearns to have with someone. How can the Church address this need while still requiring sexual purity?

I applaud the Church's move and am encouraged by the frank and open discussion throughout the Church.

Understanding | 3:58 p.m. April 7, 2008

OK, let me see if I understand this:
Some men like sex with other men ... Check
Some women like sex with other women ... Check
God says marriage is between man & woman ... Check
Sex outside of marriage is a sin ... Check
I think I understand.

Just because your gay does not make me love/not love you any more/less.

But stop trying to make me accept what you do, to help you feel better.

AIMHO

Am I the only one? | 4:18 p.m. April 7, 2008

I don't understand why so many seem to think the Church's position can not possibly change. Plural marriage was changed. Blacks and the Priesthood changed. Why do people think it is impossible for any new revelation to be received? Didn't blacks receive the Priesthood because President Kimball cared enough to ask?

I don't think there are any principles "set in stone" except the principle of continuing revelation.

Bayou Vol | 4:25 p.m. April 7, 2008

President Monson's best statement of the conference:
"In these days sin manifests itself in the hollowing mask of tolerance. We know what is right and what is wrong."

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait prevalent in affluent society. It has been this way for thousands of years. It is a detriment to the human race AND the plan of salvation. It prevents the fulfillment of our primary role on the earth, to help in the progression of our spirit brothers and sisters by providing them physical bodies so that they may become more like our Father in Heaven. It is one of Satan's many arrows in his quiver of dispair. Homosexuality is a perversion of one's righteous need and desire for love and companionship.
This meeting is a "thanks for coming, we know your around, but the eternities will prove your disposition irrelevant to the righteous designs of God which must and will come to pass regardless of Satan's attempts to thwart them."

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.