Deseret News | Reader comments: Gay Mormons to meet with reporters

Reader comments
Gay Mormons to meet with reporters

Remembering Stuart Matis | 4:14 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

lost in DC | 5:17 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

Where's the other view? | 8:00 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

Comments continue below

Doug B. | 8:29 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

to lost in DC,

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

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

Incorrect terms | 8:48 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

To lost in DC | 9:06 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

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

First | 9:45 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Now they've ruined the word "pride"

Fred Vader | 10:09 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

ExMoWeHoMo | 10:26 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

lost in DC | 12:34 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

tired of homolds | 12:48 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

Oh, my heart! | 12:53 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

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

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

On Sin | 1:15 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

To lost in DC,

"sin has not ceased to be sin."

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

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

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

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

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

Jason | 1:20 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Letï¿½s make a couple assumptions here... First assumption: The LDS church has the fullness of the gospel restored in these latter days. If it didn't, why not just go to another church if your beliefs don't align with the church. Second assumption: the Lord can change the rules whenever he likes, he's Godï¿½ that comes with the title.

Who are we to decide when the rules should change? For as long as anyone alive has been alive, homosexuality has been deemed a transgression. Thatï¿½s just the way it is, whether we like it or not. The fact that society has become more accepting is not the standard by which we will be judged. Can there be good, honest people who feel homosexual tendencies, I believe there are. Does that mean God will over look it if they choose to act on those tendencies? I don't know. All I know is that the standards currently in place prohibit those practicing homosexuality from being members of the church. I have faith that if the day comes that God decides to change the rules; he knows how to get in touch with the right people in the LDS church to make it happen.

On Sin | 1:31 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

MARK 14:51-52 tells of a certain young man, a follower of Jesus, who fled naked (neanï¿½skoj and sindï¿½n), leaving a linen cloth in the hands of those who would arrest him. There was apparently also a young man in the tomb "neanï¿½skoj" (and sindï¿½n) at Jesus' resurrection.

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

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

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

To Jason | 1:49 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

Is there some scripture to explain that?

Jason | 2:50 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

Anonymous | 3:01 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

RE: On Sin | 3:13 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

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

On Sin | 3:49 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

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

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

Who are we to believe?

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

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

I think I got it. Thanks for the clarification.

To Jason | 4:21 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Can you say with every bit of flesh on your body that you believe everything ever written in the old testiment, new testiment, and the BOM?

Can you also tell me that with every brain cell in your head, that God has his ways, and if millions of kids get to live horrible hungry lives, that is in Gods big plan? And making sure to select a group of people in America for bigotry and hate is the real Word of God? In this day and age, God wants you to follow his commandments no matter what?
Do you really like to do harm to Gods children?

Please let me know. Thanks

To everyone | 4:25 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Homosexuality has never been accepted by any major christian religion. If one is gay they are just going to have to accept that their feelings and lives are not consistent with the teachings of those churches? The same goes for a heterosexual individual. They can't have sex with a whole bunch of women or men and then expect to be in good standing in their church.
In the end, God, will know your heart and He is just in how He judges all mankind. If you are gay and belive in the LDS faith, you just do the best you can and God will know that. He's not just waiting to send everybody to hell. I have a family member in this quandry. He is a good guy that belives in the LDS church, but has these feelings. He just has to accept that he can not do everything he would like to do in the church because of this, and in the end God will take care of him.

To Re:On Sin | 4:32 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

When you use tired old warn out phrase's like the age old "Adam and Steve" hog wash you deminish yourself and you argument.

Don't you think that when the Constitution of the US states equal rights for all, that is what it means?

Please keep your stories and fiction in church and leave the laws alone. You have no right to foist superstition by any religion into law.

The people who burned so-called witch's by religious orders were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

Richard G. | 4:34 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

What goes around comes around. The reprehensible bigotry toward gay people by the LDS church and many Mormons will be repaid in spades in the form of bigotry toward Mormons. Your reap what you sow, folks.

The hypocrisy is particularly stunning from a church steeped in a history of old men marrying multiple wives, many of them under age.

I will continue to despise the LDS church until its stops its persecution of gays.

Anonymous | 6:32 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

So many of the world's problems stem directly from religion. People who will believe in an invisible creature who is the source of morality and good must believe that because someone told them. We don't come out of the womb believing in such things.

Without religion, people would not be irrational enough to strap bombs to themselves and explode in a crowd of innocent people they have never met.

Without religion, people would never line up 120 men, women, and children under a flag of truce and march them to their deaths.

Without religion, rational women would never consent to being married to an old man three times their age who has other wives.

Without religion, there would have been no slavery of blacks in the United States.

Without religion, there would never have been discrimination against women.

Without religion, there is not discrimination and bigotry against gays.

When are we going to wake up to the harm these fables and lies cause in the human race?

RE: On Sin | 1:05 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Once heard a U of U philosophy professor argue himself out of existence. His logic followed the moors of philosophical guidelines. Built his argument upon the currently followed prescriptions of substantiation and precedent. He doubly concerted his efforts so that any of his hypothesis of "Non-existence" could not be challenged by a crafty naysayer... He logically proved himself to be non existent.

Point of the story folks: Just because you say it, and bring all these twisted and worn out phrases (is that the common expression?) that prove your weak and trembling point of view, doesn't mean it's true or has any basis in a society that is built upon the moral ground as is ours on the U.S. Constitution.

Your diatribe is better suited for the likes in Amsterdam, Bangkok, and the Russian Gulags than it is on the streets of the US.

Go push your agenda on those that believe that Global Warming is real, that polar bears are endangered and a sexual deviance is inbred instead of nurtured by such vitriol and vomit.

RE: Anonymous | 1:45 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Ahhh Anonymous the "NO RELIGION" thing was tried remember? Look where that argument got the Billions who have lived under the Communist Iron Fist since the Bolshevik Revolution?

Dare you to say that to those Russians, Ukrainians, and all who where behind the Iron Curtain for decades with no religion.

Without religion there were no social mores to guide the society... where children turned in their parents to be sent to their deaths, where being different, jew, gay, green-eyed, gypsy, or mentally challenged was a quick road to Siberia or the grave.

Where the Party Affiliation became the religion and the word of the Premiere became gospel. How naive such an assertion! Don't you know when you take something away such as religion or moral standards a vacuum is created and something else will always fill it's place? Anarchy, Apathy, and degradation of the essence of humankind are usually what takes its place.

Obviously you're content with the world you have surrounded yourself in and have not versed yourself in the real world as you should have. Pity

And Richard G. we can all bear to live with you despising the LDS Church... question is can you?

Jason | 9:59 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

I find it interesting that some would take my comments to debate the doctrine of the LDS church. As far as I am concerned people are entiled to believe in whatever religion they choose. Where I take issue is this... If you believe the teachings of the LDS church, that is is the only church with the fullness of the gospel, that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus, that the book of Mormon is scripture, and that it is led by a prophet of God, then you must conclude that its standards are in place as they should be until changed be divine revelation through the proper authority. If you don't believe all of those thing, why want to be a member of the church? It would seem to me that those refered to as 'gay mormons' say they believe everything else, but that one little piece must be wrong. I just don't think you get to have it both ways.

I have never seen an LDS church teaching that says we should despise and persecute homosexual people, only that the practice is against the laws of God and the church, thus they can not be in good standing.

On Sin | 11:30 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Jason,

So help us out here. Give us a clear definition. You say homosexuality is a sin. Taking into account what Elder Holland said, ("same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is"), what exactly are the "actions" that make the attraction a sin?

Apparently, it is not a sin for a person with same-gender attraction to sit and watch other men showering in the locker room because that is not "acting" on it. Likewise, it is not a sin to kiss another man as a greeting or sign of affection (in Europe and elsewhere, they do it all the time). So where is the "sin-line" drawn by the all-knowing Church leaders? You can try to make ad hominem attacks all you want, but that does not address the issue and only proves you don't follow Jesus' teachings as you claim to do. So focus on the issue and give me an authoritative answer. If you can't, then perhaps silence is your best option.

To Re: 1:45 a.m. | 11:49 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

No, the "NO RELIGION" thing was NEVER tried. Religion is about unquestioned authority rather than individual liberty. The "Communist Iron Fist" was a secular religion, but a religion still.

I was ONE OF THE Ukrainians who where behind the "Iron Curtain" for three decades (Kaniv)! I can tell you don't know what you are talking about.

Religion is not the only source of social mores to guide the society. The unquestioned authority of the State secular religion is what caused children to turn in parents, persecution of jews (like myself) and others.

The same thing is happen with prohibiting gay marriage if something was not done.

YOUR assertions are naï¿½ve, like they come from a textbook in American university. But I lived it!

Religion, whether secular or theistic, is the source of unqualified, unquestioned authority of a few over many. This is the cause of apathy and degradation of essence of humankind.

Human individuals left to use their own reason are humane and have natural mores to live together in peace. That is all gays want, to live together in peace. It is none of religionï¿½s business.

Quinn | 11:52 a.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Jason,

By denying equal rights to gays you are despising and persecute homosexual people by your actions and your advocacy of amendments that discriminate against them.

Jason | 12:06 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

On Sin...

I am not the athority you need to ask. I am not in a position where passing judgement is required of me. As far as how church leaders might approach the situation, my guess is they take it on a case by case basis to determine whether the standard has been crossed, and if so what should be done about it. But to use your example of a homosexual man watching others in a locker room... I see guys in the locker room on a regular basis, but there is no lust in my heart. Have I sinned? Would it be different were I sitting in the female locker room watching them? Maybe? Would my thoughts be different? Maybe? Does lust make a difference?

But I would say you have missed the point of my comments. I am not here to pass judgement whether its right or wrong, because its not my job to decide. My argument goes to the fact that if you accept the premise of the LDS church... that it is led and directed under the authority of God, then you can't pick and choose which tenants are true and which aren't.

Jason | 12:18 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Quinn,

Where is it written that a group of people who believe certain things should be required to change their beliefs in order to accomodate others beliefs? Where is it written that they can not express those beliefs? Members if the LDS church are entitled to their beliefs just like an other religion. There are no rights denied any person by not being allowed to be listed on the offical role of a church because they practice something openly that goes against a core tenant of the religion.

The LDS church has never said that homosexual couples should not be afforded tax advantages or other civil benefits (that I am aware of), only that they beleive marriage is of God, with significant emphasis on procreation, and thus meant to be between men and women. How much of a tax deduction two people get, or what property rights they have is not a function of marriage or religion, it is a function of society. The IRS can change their standards any time they like with no distiction for married vs single. Perhaps your argument should be with them...

Svoboda | 3:31 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Jason,
I appreciate how well you write and express things. I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

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.