Reader comments
Readers' forum: Homosexual acts are sinful
164 comments | Read story
The Law | 8:11 a.m. July 16, 2008
Your consistently referring to the Bible (of which you don't believe)and
quoting the Law of Moses for your justification of homosexual behavior is weak.
Obviously you don't understand the scriptures, The "Law of Moses"
was fulfilled in Christ. In the days of Moses, the Lord provided a task master
to lead them to Christ, ie: shellfish, sticks, death pertaining to sin etc. They
were commanded in every needful thing. They were a stubborn and stiffnecked
people.
Christ has said the Law, in me, has been fulfilled, instead of animal sacrifice-a broken heart and contrite spirit, instead of thou shalt not kill-thou shalt not be angry with thy brother etc, ie: the beatitudes.
The bible is not contradictory, only to those who can't understand.
If gays would just live the lesser law provided to Moses, there would be no homosexualality. We are commanded to live the greater law of Christ.
And no its not change, its the lesser law being swallowed up in the greater law of Christ. But I would imagine, being past feeling, you wouldn't understand the concept.
Christ has said the Law, in me, has been fulfilled, instead of animal sacrifice-a broken heart and contrite spirit, instead of thou shalt not kill-thou shalt not be angry with thy brother etc, ie: the beatitudes.
The bible is not contradictory, only to those who can't understand.
If gays would just live the lesser law provided to Moses, there would be no homosexualality. We are commanded to live the greater law of Christ.
And no its not change, its the lesser law being swallowed up in the greater law of Christ. But I would imagine, being past feeling, you wouldn't understand the concept.
I partially agree with "The Law" | 12:02 p.m. July 16, 2008
However, knowledge is always changing and so do we. Homosexuality was not
understood in the Old or New Testament, but we understand it better now. Also,
Jesus said to "Love One Another". A new Christianity is forming in
which we can look beyond labels, skin color, gender, sexual preferences, etc. I
choose not to judge others. I will leave that to a "higher power". I
do not believe any church or leaders have authority to make those judgements
because they do so based on old laws.
Comments continue below
John Lambert | 12:34 p.m. July 16, 2008
To Proad to be Primitive,
When did the Church leadership oppose integration? When the First Presidency made a statement in favor of the civil rights act in 1964? When John Henry Smith befriended a black boy in his neighborhood who became best friends with Nichols G. Smith who served in many leading church positions such as President of the Tabernacle Choir?
Just because members of the church may have opposed integration does not mean the leaders of the church opposed integration. You are confused.
The issue of ordaining blacks to the priesthood is not about integration. There were black men serving as Sunday School presidents before the revelation. Maybe only two in the whole church, but that is still two.
Your assumption that somehow condemning homosexuality is like condemning left handedness or blacks is flawed. You fail to appreciate the centrality of marriage to God's plan and that homosexual acts are and always will be sinful.
I will go a step further, sodomy in any form between any two people is ALWAYS sinful.
When did the Church leadership oppose integration? When the First Presidency made a statement in favor of the civil rights act in 1964? When John Henry Smith befriended a black boy in his neighborhood who became best friends with Nichols G. Smith who served in many leading church positions such as President of the Tabernacle Choir?
Just because members of the church may have opposed integration does not mean the leaders of the church opposed integration. You are confused.
The issue of ordaining blacks to the priesthood is not about integration. There were black men serving as Sunday School presidents before the revelation. Maybe only two in the whole church, but that is still two.
Your assumption that somehow condemning homosexuality is like condemning left handedness or blacks is flawed. You fail to appreciate the centrality of marriage to God's plan and that homosexual acts are and always will be sinful.
I will go a step further, sodomy in any form between any two people is ALWAYS sinful.
Eddie T. | 12:39 p.m. July 16, 2008
Really why are we discussing this? Is gay sex a sin? Sin is an abstract concept
and God, if there is a God, doesn't talk to anyone on this forum directly,
so this will never be solved.
The real question is whether we as a nation should adopt a policy that does or does not recognize gay unions. According to most of you drinking alcohol is a sin, gonna bring back prohibition? Drinking coffee is a sin. Want to close Starbucks? What sins are so important that we resort to legislating morals to people that don't believe them to be sins.
The real question is whether we as a nation should adopt a policy that does or does not recognize gay unions. According to most of you drinking alcohol is a sin, gonna bring back prohibition? Drinking coffee is a sin. Want to close Starbucks? What sins are so important that we resort to legislating morals to people that don't believe them to be sins.
John Lambert | 12:41 p.m. July 16, 2008
To the 12:02 July 16th poster,
You are wrong. There is nothing we know about homosexuality that would force us to accept that it is a beneficial practice.
TO think that we are so much more enlightened than the people described in 4th Nephi who lived for a hundred years without sin or crime or killing or war is pretty bold.
However, your whole theory disregards modern revelation.
Is Thomas S. Monson the prophet, and is what he and Presidents Eyring and Uchtdorf have stated the word of the Lord.
If you answer no, than why are you still in the LDS Church? If you are going to oppose the work of the church, then why remain in it?
You are wrong. There is nothing we know about homosexuality that would force us to accept that it is a beneficial practice.
TO think that we are so much more enlightened than the people described in 4th Nephi who lived for a hundred years without sin or crime or killing or war is pretty bold.
However, your whole theory disregards modern revelation.
Is Thomas S. Monson the prophet, and is what he and Presidents Eyring and Uchtdorf have stated the word of the Lord.
If you answer no, than why are you still in the LDS Church? If you are going to oppose the work of the church, then why remain in it?
I'm not the person you were | 1:32 p.m. July 16, 2008
speaking to about "why are you in the church?", but I am a person that
left religion because of it's hurtful views and exclusion of people. I do
love all religions for their teachings about Love. The rest I can leave since
we will never all agree and since I believe that a Higher Power would never like
all this commotion we have in our lives.
To John Lambert re Integration | 1:51 p.m. July 16, 2008
Ezra Taft Benson described the Civil Rights movement as the work of
"communists." The Church not only opposed integration, but actually
enforced racial segregation until 1978.
These facts will not change just because they are now uncomfortable. The anti-gay attitudes will come to be viewed in the same way. It is a tragedy that the LDS is repeating the same mistakes.
These facts will not change just because they are now uncomfortable. The anti-gay attitudes will come to be viewed in the same way. It is a tragedy that the LDS is repeating the same mistakes.
Pick a Side | 3:33 p.m. July 16, 2008
In short, you cannot call yourself a faithful member of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints if you do not support and uphold your leaders,
ESPECIALLY the prophet.
You cannot have one foot in the world, and one in the gospel.
You cannot have one foot in the world, and one in the gospel.
blind obedience is not LDS! | 4:14 p.m. July 16, 2008
to Pick a Side:
One of the major differences between LDS and the freaks in the FLDS is that we are not expected to blindly follow our leaders every single whim.
I personally believe that the anti-gay marriage thing is generational. I'm 27 and my opinions of homosexuality are VERY different from my parents.
Gay Mormons: hang in there, remember 1978!
One of the major differences between LDS and the freaks in the FLDS is that we are not expected to blindly follow our leaders every single whim.
I personally believe that the anti-gay marriage thing is generational. I'm 27 and my opinions of homosexuality are VERY different from my parents.
Gay Mormons: hang in there, remember 1978!
Anonymous | 4:24 p.m. July 16, 2008
Anti gay marriage is not generational. Homosexuality and other acts related to
sex such as adultery and fornication has been considered sins from the beginning
of the earth. While I respect those who had chosen that way of life, as a member
of the LDS Church I don't approve it neither encourage it. I personally
agreed that all of these are serious threats to the family as how it was
constitued by the Lord. After living some good years on this earth, experience
marriage, raise kids and have some gray hair on my head, I know that the
declaration of the family is a true statement done for the best of the people.
It's not blind obedience but a mix of faith and personal experience. I am
afraid the day that this nation turn their hearts away from God, we will loose
everything we had built until now.
Unchanging? | 4:30 p.m. July 16, 2008
If God is unchanging, then is it considered adultery when a person marries
someone who has been divorced for reasons other than adultery? In the Book of
Mormon, Jesus says; �whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whoso
shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery. (3 Ne 12:32.) Is this still
believed today by believing Latter-day Saints?
Joe to 1:51 | 4:31 p.m. July 16, 2008
It's interesting for you to say that the Church enforced racial segregation
until 1978. I remember well when Allen Cherry, a fine member of the Church, sat
in my parents living room in the late 1960's speaking to members about his
conversion to the gospel and about the experiences he had. I guess the enforced
segregation you speak of wasn't enforced nearly as effectively as you
suggest.
Gay people, living a gay lifestyle, don't fit into the LDS mold because of our doctrinal beliefs that marriage is intended as a union between husband and wife; man and woman. I happen to agree with most of Valeeda's comments on page one (although I probably don't understand everything she is trying to say). The simple, biological fact is that only a union of a man and a woman produce children (giving pills so one can grow a beard doesn't count).
Raising children in an environment without clearly defined gender specific roles leads to kids being confused and is not in society's best interest (just as single parent families, divorce, abuse, etc. are not in society's best interest). I'm sorry if you don't like just what is.
Gay people, living a gay lifestyle, don't fit into the LDS mold because of our doctrinal beliefs that marriage is intended as a union between husband and wife; man and woman. I happen to agree with most of Valeeda's comments on page one (although I probably don't understand everything she is trying to say). The simple, biological fact is that only a union of a man and a woman produce children (giving pills so one can grow a beard doesn't count).
Raising children in an environment without clearly defined gender specific roles leads to kids being confused and is not in society's best interest (just as single parent families, divorce, abuse, etc. are not in society's best interest). I'm sorry if you don't like just what is.
I respect your seniority, but... | 4:59 p.m. July 16, 2008
to Anonymous 4:24
I respect your seniority and your few "gray hairs." However, your post sort of confirms my point: young people are not as opposed to homosexuality as old people. I know you will not agree, but for most LDS born after 1978, opposing gay rights is like opposing equal rights for the left-handed or the color-blind: people who are different but not inferior in Heavenly Father's loving embrace.
I respect your seniority and your few "gray hairs." However, your post sort of confirms my point: young people are not as opposed to homosexuality as old people. I know you will not agree, but for most LDS born after 1978, opposing gay rights is like opposing equal rights for the left-handed or the color-blind: people who are different but not inferior in Heavenly Father's loving embrace.
Anonymous | 5:31 p.m. July 16, 2008
Because you are able to teach a generation to be more tolerant of sin,
does not make the sin less sinful.
does not make the sin less sinful.
this isn't about sin | 5:43 p.m. July 16, 2008
Nobody is asking the Church to change its definitions of sin. This is purely a
civil rights/civil society issue. The same Constitution that guarantees the LDS
will always be autonomous to make its own choices also guarantees "equal
protection of the law" to everybody, including gays.
Gay marriage is not about sin, it is about pedestrian issues like health insurance, taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, and the many other legal benefits of government-recognized unions.
Gay marriage is not about sin, it is about pedestrian issues like health insurance, taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, and the many other legal benefits of government-recognized unions.
Baptist perspective | 7:56 p.m. July 16, 2008
Let us not forget that, while homosexual acts are clearly sin, quite a lot of
other acts are also sin; many that are much more common and accepted in our
culture. It has been my observation that a great many folks pick out the sins
that repel them the most and shine the light on them brightly, while keeping
their own struggles close by and quiet. We're all sinners; some of us by
the grace of Almighty God and the blood of Jesus Christ are forgiven, yet we
still struggle against sin each day. The difference for many of these folks is
their embracing of sin as a lifestyle. Without repentance, there can be no
forgiveness. Let's pray for our brothers and sisters that they will come to
the Lord and see it for what it is; but let us never hate them nor think
ourselves superior to them. Our most righteous works are as filthy rags before
the Lord.
Jon | 8:48 a.m. July 17, 2008
I think there are a couple points that are missed by most posters who support
gay marraige (and I'm sure they won't agree with me, but that
doesn't change what's true: 1. Homosexual sex/gay marriage isn't
a political issue originally, but a moral issue that has been politicized. That
makes any religion perfectly within their rights to express opinion on the
matter and encourage its members to fight it. 2. Most people on here actually
believe that their opinion on the matter actually counts in the grand scheme of
things. Your opinions don't count. There are universal truths that are
true whether people believe they're true or not, including the fact that
acts of homosexuality are sinful. Another universal truth: there can be no
acceptance/tolerance of sin without consequences of a divine nature in the next
world.
I'm sure someone will read this and suggest that another universal truth is that I'm an idiot, or some other clever retort, but no amount of opinion, articulate legalese, or witty comeback can change the fact that acts of homosexuality are sinful and that followers of Christ are obligated to fight legislation to legitimize those acts by making gay marriage legal.
I'm sure someone will read this and suggest that another universal truth is that I'm an idiot, or some other clever retort, but no amount of opinion, articulate legalese, or witty comeback can change the fact that acts of homosexuality are sinful and that followers of Christ are obligated to fight legislation to legitimize those acts by making gay marriage legal.
John Lambert | 3:44 p.m. July 17, 2008
To the one who claims that the church had segragation,
Ezra Taft Benson was not the church. You ignore a letter from the First Presidency who are a higher body in the church than Ezra Taft Benson.
Secondly, you ignore the fact that Ezra Taft Benson was not speaking against the specific immediate goals of the Civil Rights movement but saying it was a front for a larger Commuinists agenda. There is a big difference.
Thirdly, you misuse the term segragation. If the church had had segragation beofre 1978 than blacks would have been in seperate wards. This was not the case.
Fourthly, Ezra Taft Benson called the first General AUthority of African descent when he was president of the church.
Fifthly, was anyone ever excommunicated from the church for being black?
Ezra Taft Benson was not the church. You ignore a letter from the First Presidency who are a higher body in the church than Ezra Taft Benson.
Secondly, you ignore the fact that Ezra Taft Benson was not speaking against the specific immediate goals of the Civil Rights movement but saying it was a front for a larger Commuinists agenda. There is a big difference.
Thirdly, you misuse the term segragation. If the church had had segragation beofre 1978 than blacks would have been in seperate wards. This was not the case.
Fourthly, Ezra Taft Benson called the first General AUthority of African descent when he was president of the church.
Fifthly, was anyone ever excommunicated from the church for being black?
John Lambert | 3:46 p.m. July 17, 2008
To blind obidience,
If you fight against the admendment in California you are openly in apostasy.
If you fight against the admendment in California you are openly in apostasy.
John Lambert | 3:51 p.m. July 17, 2008
To the poster at 4:59,
I was born in 1980. I think your theory that church members born after 1978 support same gender marriage is flawed.
My older brother has even used opposition to same gender marriage to support his decision to have a beard.
The problem I see is that some older members still in their heart feel "homosexuals are almost as bad as black people". Since your hate for homosexuals is seen in light of your hate for black people, you fail to realize how to oppose a certain action as a sin.
Just because I look to Marcus Martins and Frank Varner as the coolest men ever does not mean I have any tolerance of same gender sexual relations.
I was born in 1980. I think your theory that church members born after 1978 support same gender marriage is flawed.
My older brother has even used opposition to same gender marriage to support his decision to have a beard.
The problem I see is that some older members still in their heart feel "homosexuals are almost as bad as black people". Since your hate for homosexuals is seen in light of your hate for black people, you fail to realize how to oppose a certain action as a sin.
Just because I look to Marcus Martins and Frank Varner as the coolest men ever does not mean I have any tolerance of same gender sexual relations.
In CA | 3:53 p.m. July 17, 2008
I agree with Jon. Marriage was normally performed by churches. Then government
decided they need to control it. Those who had no church affiliation and lived
together were generally considered to have a common law marriage. Then
recognition of homosexual relationships became politically correct (but not by
all). They were granted civil unions by some states, but that was not enough.
They wanted to politically legitimize their relationships so they want a state
recognized marriage, and some churches followed (The Church of What's
Happening Now). Whether you believe in a God or evolution, the fact remains
that a man and a woman came to be, through procreation. That is a marriage. If
they want to change the system, fine, just don't call it a marriage.
Humans come from the family of Hominidae and is the only species to display this
characteristic. Why?
slander of "apostasy" | 4:21 p.m. July 17, 2008
If you were born in 1980, then you are evidently not a General Authority.
Please refrain from labeling people as apostates because you have absolutely
zero authority to do so.
I respectfully disagree with the SLC position on gay marriage, and I would vote accordingly, but that does not make me an apostate.
I respectfully disagree with the SLC position on gay marriage, and I would vote accordingly, but that does not make me an apostate.
to In CA 3:53 | 4:44 p.m. July 17, 2008
I respectfully recommend that you take a course in Organismic Biology before
spouting any more misinformation.
Procreation occurs in every species, the manner of procreation varies, but is almost never monogamous (with the notable exception of geese.)
Marriage is a human phenomenon, no other species goes to chapel wearing white and becomes sealed to another specimen. Same-sex attraction exists in many fauna.
There must be legitimate arguments against gay marriage, although I personally don't see the problem. But distorting biological science only weakens you argument.
Procreation occurs in every species, the manner of procreation varies, but is almost never monogamous (with the notable exception of geese.)
Marriage is a human phenomenon, no other species goes to chapel wearing white and becomes sealed to another specimen. Same-sex attraction exists in many fauna.
There must be legitimate arguments against gay marriage, although I personally don't see the problem. But distorting biological science only weakens you argument.
Righteous Opposition | 8:03 p.m. July 17, 2008
When Joseph Smith announced polygamy, I would have opposed him (just as many
Apostles and good people did).
When Brigham Young forbad the priesthood to blacks, I would have opposed him.
When The Brethren began a program to take American Indians from their homes and adopt them out into LDS homes, I would have (did) opposed them.
When Ezra T. Benson and others opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and preached that women should stay home and be homemakers, I would have (did) opposed them.
When President Monson effectively "commands" the membership of the Church to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman," I WILL oppose them.
Prophets and Apostles are NOT infallible. History demonstrates that they CAN and HAVE BEEN wrong on many issues. They are WRONG on this one!
And I will continue to be a Temple-recommend-holding Latter-day Saint, because my political activities are MY business. I will vote according to my conscience and the revelation God grants me, and it will be IN FAVOR of same-sex-marriage.
Joseph Smith taught that
When Brigham Young forbad the priesthood to blacks, I would have opposed him.
When The Brethren began a program to take American Indians from their homes and adopt them out into LDS homes, I would have (did) opposed them.
When Ezra T. Benson and others opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and preached that women should stay home and be homemakers, I would have (did) opposed them.
When President Monson effectively "commands" the membership of the Church to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman," I WILL oppose them.
Prophets and Apostles are NOT infallible. History demonstrates that they CAN and HAVE BEEN wrong on many issues. They are WRONG on this one!
And I will continue to be a Temple-recommend-holding Latter-day Saint, because my political activities are MY business. I will vote according to my conscience and the revelation God grants me, and it will be IN FAVOR of same-sex-marriage.
Joseph Smith taught that
Wrong Again | 8:22 p.m. July 17, 2008
To In CA,
You need to review a good history book.
Marriage has always been a civil phenomenon, not strictly or originally a Church one. In fact, Churches as such must be chartered and given legitimacy by a civil authority. That is the way it has always been. Only among jungle savages do "shamans" (like religious priests) have independence from civil authority or even supremacy over civil authority. The D&C section 134 even establishes the LDS Church's subordination to civil authority. In 1830 when Joseph Smith and the others established the Church, they signed official civil "incorporation" documents because they understood that they were subject to the civil authority. The 12th Article of Faith agrees: "We believe in being SUBJECT TO kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
You need to review a good history book.
Marriage has always been a civil phenomenon, not strictly or originally a Church one. In fact, Churches as such must be chartered and given legitimacy by a civil authority. That is the way it has always been. Only among jungle savages do "shamans" (like religious priests) have independence from civil authority or even supremacy over civil authority. The D&C section 134 even establishes the LDS Church's subordination to civil authority. In 1830 when Joseph Smith and the others established the Church, they signed official civil "incorporation" documents because they understood that they were subject to the civil authority. The 12th Article of Faith agrees: "We believe in being SUBJECT TO kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Gary: A Concerned LDS | 8:27 p.m. July 17, 2008
In the Church we are fond of emphasizing that personal revelation is only
appropriate for a person's stewardship. Thus, a father can receive
revelation for his stewardship over his family, but not for people outside his
stewardship, such as the entire Stake. A Stake President may receive revelation
pertaining to his stewardship over the ecclesiastical activities of the Stake he
presides over.
We all agree that only the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to revelation pertaining to his stewardship over the entire Church.
But the California Constitution is NOT WITHIN HIS STEWARDSHIP! The ballot box is NOT WITHIN HIS STEWARDSHIP!
If he feels he has received revelation that homosexual marriages will NOT be recognized within the LDS Church, that IS within his stewardship.
But nobody is trying to get the Church to recognize same-sex marriages within the Church. It is a CIVIL matter that is within the stewardship of CIVIL authorities such as judges and legislators, NOT THE PROPHET OR APOSTLES! This issue is NOT WITHIN THEIR STEWARDSHIP!
We all agree that only the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to revelation pertaining to his stewardship over the entire Church.
But the California Constitution is NOT WITHIN HIS STEWARDSHIP! The ballot box is NOT WITHIN HIS STEWARDSHIP!
If he feels he has received revelation that homosexual marriages will NOT be recognized within the LDS Church, that IS within his stewardship.
But nobody is trying to get the Church to recognize same-sex marriages within the Church. It is a CIVIL matter that is within the stewardship of CIVIL authorities such as judges and legislators, NOT THE PROPHET OR APOSTLES! This issue is NOT WITHIN THEIR STEWARDSHIP!
also in righteous opposition | 8:28 p.m. July 17, 2008
I second the idea of righteous opposition. Another poster on here reminded us
all that the Saints are free people.
I support same-sex unions, and I am proud to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!
I support same-sex unions, and I am proud to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!
John Lambert | 8:30 p.m. July 17, 2008
To the 4:21 commentor,
I will label the opposition to a letter from the First Presidency as apostasy.
I will also say that anyone who teaches that people should enter into polygamy is in apostasy.
Apostasy is the act of rebellion against the leaders of the church. If pro-actively opposing something that the First Presidency has asked us to support is not apostasy, than what is?
I will label the opposition to a letter from the First Presidency as apostasy.
I will also say that anyone who teaches that people should enter into polygamy is in apostasy.
Apostasy is the act of rebellion against the leaders of the church. If pro-actively opposing something that the First Presidency has asked us to support is not apostasy, than what is?
One Pawn to Another | 8:37 p.m. July 17, 2008
Let me give you some insight into what is really going on here. The same-sex
marriage issue is being exploited by LDS Church leaders for no other purpose
than to "try the faith" of their members. This is being used to
galvanize members' devotion to the Church and its leaders, and for nothing
else. It is just like the "commandment" to "read the entire Book
of Mormon before the end of the year." It served no edifying purpose, but
was done simply to give the members something to rally around. People "feel
the Spirit" when they have a cause that unites them, especially when it
involves such a controversial "moral" issue (for some) like
homosexuality. But the bottom line is LDS Church members are being exploited by
being stirred up over this same-sex marriage issue. It will pass, and the Church
will continue "building the kingdom," and the leaders will watch
carefully for their next opportunity to give some meaning and purpose to Church
member's lives.
But as for me and my house, we won't be manipulated like that. Right is right, and rights are rights, and nobody should be denied equal marriage rights because of their sexual orientation.
But as for me and my house, we won't be manipulated like that. Right is right, and rights are rights, and nobody should be denied equal marriage rights because of their sexual orientation.
John Lambert | 8:41 p.m. July 17, 2008
To Righteous opposition,
Apostasy is the open and vocal opposition to the directives of the leaders of the church.
You are a liar. If you oppose the direct request of the prophet of God, how can you say that you sustain him as the prophet of God?
You are the one who assumes you no more than the prophet, not me.
The Church still opposes the Equal Rights Admendment. It has never backed down from its position on this issue.
The church still encourages women to not work outside the home if possible.
The issue of the Indian Placement program is not what you say it is. It was not a method of adoption, it was a method of being temporarily away from home to advance their education. It did not keep them away from home during the summer. It may not have been the best program, but it was better than having Native American children working on farms in rural Utah and living in chicken coups which is what was going on before.
Apostasy is the open and vocal opposition to the directives of the leaders of the church.
You are a liar. If you oppose the direct request of the prophet of God, how can you say that you sustain him as the prophet of God?
You are the one who assumes you no more than the prophet, not me.
The Church still opposes the Equal Rights Admendment. It has never backed down from its position on this issue.
The church still encourages women to not work outside the home if possible.
The issue of the Indian Placement program is not what you say it is. It was not a method of adoption, it was a method of being temporarily away from home to advance their education. It did not keep them away from home during the summer. It may not have been the best program, but it was better than having Native American children working on farms in rural Utah and living in chicken coups which is what was going on before.
Anonymous | 8:46 p.m. July 17, 2008
It is kind of like the trick parents play on their children. When the children
are bored or getting into mischief, clever parents keep them busy and occupied
with seemingly important things do distract them from their mundane boredom or
mischief.
These Church leaders are not stupid. They know they are in an identity crisis, and they know the daily grind of Church meetings and callings are beyond monotonous, so they look for opportunities to give the members something significant to "stand for"!
It is just like Joseph Smith did to Brigham Young to test his devotion. But that is all it is, a test of devotion to THE CHURCH.
But we can only hope and pray that Church members remember whose name is in the title and who this is all about: Jesus Christ! We can only hope that Church members will listen to the Spirit instead of being commanded in all things. We can only hope that they recognize that their devotion and obedience should be to God, not to earthly authorities in an earthy Church organization.
These Church leaders are not stupid. They know they are in an identity crisis, and they know the daily grind of Church meetings and callings are beyond monotonous, so they look for opportunities to give the members something significant to "stand for"!
It is just like Joseph Smith did to Brigham Young to test his devotion. But that is all it is, a test of devotion to THE CHURCH.
But we can only hope and pray that Church members remember whose name is in the title and who this is all about: Jesus Christ! We can only hope that Church members will listen to the Spirit instead of being commanded in all things. We can only hope that they recognize that their devotion and obedience should be to God, not to earthly authorities in an earthy Church organization.
John Lambert | 9:34 p.m. July 17, 2008
To Gary,
There are no limits to Thomas S. Monson's stewardship. His stewardship is the whole world.
He holds all the keys.
It is one of the things to be remembered about a prophet that he can command in temporal as well as spiritual things.
There are no limits to Thomas S. Monson's stewardship. His stewardship is the whole world.
He holds all the keys.
It is one of the things to be remembered about a prophet that he can command in temporal as well as spiritual things.
Just Me | 10:01 p.m. July 17, 2008
Some misguided posters seem to think the LDS church is leading this program.
You ought to read protectmarriage dot com. How do you apply
"stewartship" to them. The problem is same sex families always deny
children either their mother or father.
Re: One Pawn To Another | 10:15 p.m. July 17, 2008
You don't think reading the entire Book of Mormon serves an edifying
purpose? That is quite possibly the most disturbing comment by anybody claiming
to be LDS that I've ever read on these or any other boards. I've
noticed repeatedly that in my own life, when I'm reading the scriptures
regularly (and in particular the Book of Mormon), that my life goes so better
than it does when I'm not. I still have the same struggles and trials, but
my ability to work through them, and my attitude in doing so, are much better.
You don't think that by encouraging the members of the church to do that,
their lives weren't edified?
And then you go on to say that you don't think listening to the First Presidency when they send you a letter is important? By claiming that you won't be "manipulated" by the Prophet of the Lord, you are, as President Kimball once said, "spiritually stoning" the Prophet. Frankly, the idea that you know more than a man who has been prepared for 50 years to lead this church, is almost laughable. Please think about the implications of what you're saying. That is one slippery slope.
And then you go on to say that you don't think listening to the First Presidency when they send you a letter is important? By claiming that you won't be "manipulated" by the Prophet of the Lord, you are, as President Kimball once said, "spiritually stoning" the Prophet. Frankly, the idea that you know more than a man who has been prepared for 50 years to lead this church, is almost laughable. Please think about the implications of what you're saying. That is one slippery slope.
To Gary, Concerned LDS | 10:20 p.m. July 17, 2008
The members in California are under the Prophet's stewardship. When a
matter with far-reaching moral implications for them, and for the rest of the
country in which they reside, comes before them, it is not only the right of the
Church leaders, but their obligation, to give them counsel. That is most
definitly within the bounds of their stewardship; in fact, that is the sole
purpose of their stewardship.
WOW | 10:19 p.m. July 17, 2008
John,
You seriously belong in Nazi Germany, not 21st century America.
You are absolutely unbelievable!
Good luck to you. If you are the poster child for righteous Mormonism, then the Church deserves to dwindle away into nothing.
You seriously belong in Nazi Germany, not 21st century America.
You are absolutely unbelievable!
Good luck to you. If you are the poster child for righteous Mormonism, then the Church deserves to dwindle away into nothing.
Guess What? | 10:25 p.m. July 17, 2008
Same sex families always deny children either their mother or father.
the Word is clear | 11:32 p.m. July 17, 2008
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Sustained | 11:50 p.m. July 17, 2008
John L is correct, the Prophet has stewardship over the whole world, even CA. To
Christ, there is no difference between spiritual and secular. All things are
spiritual to Christ.
To righteous opposition: One only has to open his eyes with respect to raising of children. Pres Benson was dead on when he reiterated the importence of the mother in the home. Looking at society and the difficulty children are going through, it appears Pres Benson knew what he was saying and was correct, unfortunately, you miss the ball on that one.
Interesting, polygamy is still taught as a true principle in the church. Not to mention it is fully substantiated in the BofM.
I will let BY speak for himself, but you forget, How long did the gentiles live before they were allowed the blessings of the gospel. It wasn't until after Christ time, that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles. Was it racist then?
If you believe the church, then you believe God will remove a Prophet before they can lead you astray. If they are not removed, then I would say you better look in the mirror and get on board.
To righteous opposition: One only has to open his eyes with respect to raising of children. Pres Benson was dead on when he reiterated the importence of the mother in the home. Looking at society and the difficulty children are going through, it appears Pres Benson knew what he was saying and was correct, unfortunately, you miss the ball on that one.
Interesting, polygamy is still taught as a true principle in the church. Not to mention it is fully substantiated in the BofM.
I will let BY speak for himself, but you forget, How long did the gentiles live before they were allowed the blessings of the gospel. It wasn't until after Christ time, that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles. Was it racist then?
If you believe the church, then you believe God will remove a Prophet before they can lead you astray. If they are not removed, then I would say you better look in the mirror and get on board.
monkey see, monkey do? | 4:28 a.m. July 18, 2008
"...Same-sex attraction exists in many fauna..."
Having grown up on a farm, I've seen what you're talking about; dumb animals attempting to 'mount' another of their own species and sex. I've also seen dogs and cats eat their newborn at birth. I've seen hogs literally eating other wounded hogs alive.
So what was your point exactly? That because dumb animals do nasty things it's only natural that humans should as well? Does the behavior of animals validate that of human beings? Should we emulate animals?
God forbid. Humans were made in Almighty God's image; we are above and apart from animals.
Having grown up on a farm, I've seen what you're talking about; dumb animals attempting to 'mount' another of their own species and sex. I've also seen dogs and cats eat their newborn at birth. I've seen hogs literally eating other wounded hogs alive.
So what was your point exactly? That because dumb animals do nasty things it's only natural that humans should as well? Does the behavior of animals validate that of human beings? Should we emulate animals?
God forbid. Humans were made in Almighty God's image; we are above and apart from animals.
Read before you leap | 9:16 a.m. July 18, 2008
In respose to "to In CA 3:53 | 4:44 p.m. July 17, 2008"
I think you need to look up the word Hominidae.
The poster was refering to humans, you want to refer to geese.
I think I understand the problem now. Thanks.
I think you need to look up the word Hominidae.
The poster was refering to humans, you want to refer to geese.
I think I understand the problem now. Thanks.
Gary: A Concerned LDS | 10:09 a.m. July 18, 2008
The LDS Church's principle of "common consent" requires that a
person cannot have stewardship over a group without their consent. Therefore,
President Monson's stewardship is NOT over "the whole world"
because the whole world does not meet in Conference, raise their hands in a
sustaining vote, and "consent"! You are doctrinally and scripturally
wrong. President Monson's stewardship is ONLY over the members of the
Church. That is all. Period. He can command and control in the hierarchy of the
Church, but he has no authority over civil matters, and this gay marriage issue
is a civil matter.
To Gary | 11:41 a.m. July 18, 2008
You're wrong Gary. Sorry.
To Gary | 11:54 a.m. July 18, 2008
The members in California, assumedly, DO raise their hands in sustaining and
vote "consent". Therefore, the Prophet DOES have stewardship over
them. When an issue with moral implications comes before the members, the leader
of the LDS church has the obligation to offer them counsel. That is what the
First Presidency has done in this case. The California members of the church now
have two choices. They can follow that directive or not. If they do not wish to
follow their leaders' counsel, then that is a decision that is either made
privately, or publically. When it becomes public, it also becomes a matter for
their Bishop to discuss with them, because he has that stewardship, and they are
not keeping their promise to support and obey their church leaders.
Gary: A Concerned LDS | 12:16 p.m. July 18, 2008
We make no promise to "support and obey" Church leaders. We raise our
arms in a "sustaining vote," which does NOT include OBEYING as if we
have given away our rights as well as our minds and consciences. We still have
an individual accountability to God to do what is right in the world regardless
of what our Church leaders (or political leaders for that matter)
"counsel" us.
No, my friend, YOU are wrong.
No, my friend, YOU are wrong.
John Lambert | 1:11 p.m. July 18, 2008
My statement that those who urge others to oppose what the brethren have asked
us to do are guilty of apostasy is not a slander. It is a statement of fact.
Do you think if you went around telling people "when Gordon B. Hinckley said that racial hatred was a sin, he was just speaking for himself, and it is OK to express racial hatred towards others, and you do not have to reprent of it", that it would be OK.
If you went around saying "racism is not a sin, and those who say that racists are sinners are just a bunch of judgemental bigots" it would be OK.
I think to go around claiming that you can be in line with the Lord and still hate people of other races is clearly going against the teachings of the leaders of the church, and preaching false doctrine.
So is going around saying that homosexuality is not sinful or that we should oppose something the brethren have asked us to support.
One more thing, Gary, what do you have against Boyd K. Packer? He is a good man who loves the Lord.
Do you think if you went around telling people "when Gordon B. Hinckley said that racial hatred was a sin, he was just speaking for himself, and it is OK to express racial hatred towards others, and you do not have to reprent of it", that it would be OK.
If you went around saying "racism is not a sin, and those who say that racists are sinners are just a bunch of judgemental bigots" it would be OK.
I think to go around claiming that you can be in line with the Lord and still hate people of other races is clearly going against the teachings of the leaders of the church, and preaching false doctrine.
So is going around saying that homosexuality is not sinful or that we should oppose something the brethren have asked us to support.
One more thing, Gary, what do you have against Boyd K. Packer? He is a good man who loves the Lord.
Gary | 1:37 p.m. July 18, 2008
This amendment is the same thing. Regardless of how I stand morally on the
question of homosexuality, based on my knowledge of God and Jesus'
atonement, I cannot in good conscience support actions that deprive fellow human
beings of equal rights under the law and the benefits that derive therefrom. My
faith in God and Jesus commands me to obey, and that command cannot be
overshadowed by the "counsel" of MEN, no matter how good and righteous
everyone may think they are.
Sorry Gary | 1:49 p.m. July 18, 2008
It doesn't matter if Pres. Monson is sustained by the whole world. His
stewardship is still the whole world. Like yourself, there are many who do not
sustain him as a prophet, but that does not take away his calling as a prophet
or stewardship.
Hence, "A Proclamation to the World" was just that, to the whole world.
Hence, the many examples of the church sending charitable aid to all over the world. Surely the members of the church were not the only to recieve such aid.
Ask any bishop who constitutes his stewardship and he will tell you every person in the bounds of his ward, not just members.
Hence, "A Proclamation to the World" was just that, to the whole world.
Hence, the many examples of the church sending charitable aid to all over the world. Surely the members of the church were not the only to recieve such aid.
Ask any bishop who constitutes his stewardship and he will tell you every person in the bounds of his ward, not just members.
To Sorry Gary | 3:10 p.m. July 18, 2008
Giving charitable aid means they can command non-members to obey them? And
non-members who accept that help are obligated to be under their authority and
stewardship?
What have you been smoking?
Does that mean you are under the authority of the Catholic Church if you receive any help from them? Dude, you are wierd.
Face facts. Only a fraction of .01% of the world is LDS, and even among LDS I would bet that no more than half believe homosexuality is really a sin. Most believe gay people were born that way and understand that it would be a strange God who would create people that way and then call it a sin.
So the people who think homosexuality is a sin are such a small minority, they are hardly worth acknowledging. And of those who believe it is a sin, many of them (maybe half) also believe it is wrong to force others to live by their beliefs. That means the number of people who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is a "sin" are trivially small!
What have you been smoking?
Does that mean you are under the authority of the Catholic Church if you receive any help from them? Dude, you are wierd.
Face facts. Only a fraction of .01% of the world is LDS, and even among LDS I would bet that no more than half believe homosexuality is really a sin. Most believe gay people were born that way and understand that it would be a strange God who would create people that way and then call it a sin.
So the people who think homosexuality is a sin are such a small minority, they are hardly worth acknowledging. And of those who believe it is a sin, many of them (maybe half) also believe it is wrong to force others to live by their beliefs. That means the number of people who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is a "sin" are trivially small!
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.
- 'New Moon' keeps top box office spot 11:05 a.m.
- 4 police officers shot dead in Wash. 11:00 a.m.
- Filipino clan claims innocence 10:51 a.m.
- 'Saddam Channel' hits Iraq TV 10:36 a.m.
- Russia sends pact draft to leaders 10:30 a.m.
- Nat'l parks seek share of profits 10:24 a.m.
- UNLV refutes comeback 10:23 a.m.
- UVU romps to big win 10:22 a.m.
- BYU, Utah game highlights 10:20 a.m.
- Zimbabwe PM welcomes intervention 10:12 a.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Man dies in dirt bike crash
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
422 - Hall mouths off about hate of Utah295
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Cave to be sealed with body inside115
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane89
- Hall's legacy measured today76
- Y. focused on 10-win season73
- Letters: C02 causes warming72
Latest comments
Umm, yes they would. Ever heard the phrase, "Right to remain silent"?
An example of what is wrong about this rivalry. It is about hate, about...
Did your kid not make the team? Have you been a T-Bird fan the past 20...
You can hate the fans and the players but I felt that hating the program went...
"Revenge" on whom? How is this an "illegitmate power grab"? How the heck does...
Hello Max, please offer your apology to the Utah fans. Not all are...
experimentation is no longer necessary. With micro-camera, chemistry...
Dick, are you saying that the BYU defense is as fast as other teams? I agree...
Good for you Max. I couldn't have said it better myself... but let me try......
I'm a 25-year BYU fan. Great game to watch - it was close to the very last...
Advertisements
The LDS church does not recognize gay marriage.
Therefore Homosexual Acts = Sin.
Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Murder = Sin.
Adultery = Sin.
Stealing = Sin.
Ute Football = Not Sin
Gay Sex = sin.
That being said, I am for legalizing Civil Unions, and even Gay Marriage, because I don't care and believe it is between you and the lord... However, what I think won't help anyone come judgement day.
Sin = Sin and I'll leave it up to the Lord to handle...
mmmm KKKK???