Comments about ‘Web sites back gay unions’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Aug. 23 2008 12:34 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Foretold

So much for sustaining your church leaders.

JT

ditto

Insight

6:02 a.m. is right. Are these people really sustaining the people they agreed to install as leaders? You said you'd follow them, and this is how you support someone you believe is inspired? Oh, unless it comes to a disagreement over your political agenda.

Not a ditto-head

So what do you do when your deepest, most sincerely felt sense of right and wrong tells you that your "leaders" are wrong?

Church leaders have been wrong before on other things, church policies have changed, and the Sun still manages to rise each day.

I trust my inner moral compass. It tells me, in no uncertain terms, that the Church is wrong on this issue.

John

"With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. - Bruce R. McConkie

If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. - Joseph Fielding Smith

The greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord. - Brigham Young

Church Leaders

LDS Church Leaders are not infallible, or so I thought. I sustain them, so long as the promptings of the spirit tell me. Had people not sustained B.Y. for his racist teachings despite J.S. actions regarding Elijah Abel and his sons, the church would not have need for embarrassment regarding the "restoration of the priesthood" to our African American brethren which, if J.S. had been abided would have no need for restoration. Do we still teach blood atonement? Oh, that's right, we didn't sustain that as canon. Again, church leaders are fallible. Sheesh.

Sealings

I thought that eventually ALL would be sealed to one another. So what exactly is the problem with gay marriage since it expedites the sealings. Please don't humor me with the gay is immoral issue since clearly eating shellfish is also immoral as well as the punishment for disobedience to parents is death.

Brian Benington

There is such a thing as misplaced faith!

Where was the common sense of church members who continued to "support" & "sustain" their church leaders in denying black members the priesthood -- despite the changes already brought about in society by the Civil Rights movement, and the lives of black church members which evidenced they were every bit as valiant and acceptable as white members. [And then, of course, there is always the fact that Joseph Smith himself ordained a black man to the priesthood].

Even the apostle Bruce R. McConkie was eventually constrained to admit, speaking of himself and other church leaders: "We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world....Forget everything that I have said ... or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation."

Because of the "limited" and conveniently racist understanding of church leaders and members on this issue, thousands of potential converts (black & white) never joined the church, and many active members (again both black & white) left the church.

Derek Price

I don't think it's appropriate for any church -- including my own -- to try to write its doctrine into civil law.

I've been an active Mormon all my life, but I resent being told how I'm supposed to vote and which political causes I should support. In my case, this issue forces me to choose between my deeply held libertarian political philosophy and my just-as-deeply-held Mormon upbringing. The two should be perfectly compatible, especially given the church's belief in free agency.

Remember, Christ said, "Come, follow me." He didn't say, "Come, re-write the laws so everyone HAS to follow me."

Brian

Giving gays & lesbians the same opportunity for marriage as their heterosexual counterparts will provide them and their families with a stabilizing force in their lives -- such marriages, like the civil marriages that members of the church in different parts of the world have to go through by law before their temple "sealings," would be in effect marriages "for time only," and would not affect the Church's present doctrines about the family and marriage.

There is no reason that the Church can't eventually make accomodations for the loving, committed, "earthly" relationships of same-sex couples and their children, adopted or otherwise. Doing so would apply both the principles of mercy and justice!

One other thing: with our belief that the bible is the word of God only "insofar as it is correctly translated," there is no reason that we should not reexamine the "homosexual" scriptures in the light of current day scholarship and science. Other churches have done so, and have realized that our past understanding of these scriptures were based in cultural and religious biases -- and a misunderstanding of who and what homosexuals are.

Many gays & lesbians have been in committed relationships for a lifetime.

Anonymous

Being homosexual does not automatically infer that someone is promiscous, nor that they are incapable of living in loving, committed relationships that last a lifetime.

There is a way that the LDS Church could accomodate this issue, and it is found in the fact that church members in many countries have to marry civilly first, before they can be "sealed" in a Mormon temple.

Such marriages are "for time only," in Mormon-mindset, and would thus not affect either Church doctrine nor their ideas about eternal families. After all, many things will NEVER be resolved in this live -- no matter how much we think we know.

Brian

Many churches, other than the LDS Church, have realized that our past interpretations of the very few "homosexual" scriptures in the bible were based in our culturally-learned prejudices, rather than in accurate biblical scholarship. Modern day science has also brought to light the fact that sexual orientation is something that is not chosen, but is often pre-ordained through a person's genetic makeup.

These things, together with the fact that the LDS Church believes the bible is only God's word "as far as it is correctly translated," evidence that Mormonism needs to rethink it position and create an honorable space in its religious practices for gay & lesbian members who wish to live in loving, committed relationships.

After all, members of the Church throughout the world are often required to marry Civilly first, prior to their being "sealed" in a Mormon temple. These are "for time only" marriages, in contrast to "eternal" marriages.

Civil Marriage would provide gays & lesbians and their children the same level of security as their straight counterparts, without Mormons having to change either their present doctrines or practices.

And, ultimately, God will decide who is together in the next life.

John Pack Lambert

This type of website is more insidious and destructive than an outright anti-Mormon websites. I can not think of anything worse than setting up a website where you claim to be faithful and directly speak against the Prophet of the Lord.
I worry more about the rebels within the church who think they can change the doctrine of the church by lobbying.
I will stand with the prophet of the Lord and stand for marriage as between a man and a woman.

John Pack Lambert

I am tired tired of the attempts by the opponants of traditional marriage to make the church seem to be a repressive organization.
Their line about "fear of retribution" is just total hogwash. If they disagree with the teachings of the church why are they still in it?
I am tired of the wimpy, go with the flow, spineless people who on Sundays pretend to be faithful members of the church, but then spend the rest of the week opposing the teachings of the prophet.
Either we stand with the prophet and suatain him, or we reject him. He delivers God's word to us. God has called upon us to oppose the evil institution of same gender marriage.
Those who oppose the church on this by trying to twist the Doctrine and Covenants need to spend a little more time reading Alma, a little more time considering whose religious rights will be infringed upon and a little less time trying to fit in with mainstream society and be normal like everyone else.

John Pack Lambert

To sealings,
There have been many denunciations of homosexuality in the scriptures. The Doctrine and Covenants clearly states a man should cleve unto his wife and none else. This totally excludes same gender relationships.
Your lack of knowledge about even the basics of Latter-day Saint doctrine and assumption that we have to turn to a dead prophet instead of the living Thomas S. Monson to denounce homosexuality as immoral tells me trying to answer your bated question is not worth while.
same Gender relations will never be sealed.

John Pack Lambert

To Brian Benington,
Your view that protest would have solved the issues related to blacks holding the priesthood is unfounded.
Why the Lord allowed the priesthood ban to remain in place I do not know.
I do not normally see church members of African descent bringing this issue up, and rarely even see church members who have many African descended friends and associates bringing up the issue with such hate and vitriol.
To people like you it is a staff to hit the church with. However you misunderstand the issue. The analogy to same gender relations is totally misplaced.
Those of African descent were not ordained to the priesthood, but they were not deemed by accepted church doctrine to be sinful by nature.
In the case of same gender marriage the church has always opposed it. The Lord has condemned it throughout history. The united first presidency has urged church members to support traditional marriage.
What is your analogy with the issue of people of Afrian descent. Maybe the statements by the First Presidency on the issue of civil rights legislation. Oh, except the first presidency came out in favor of that.
I stand with President Monson.

kenny

Latter day saints who speak out against the churches stance on gay marriages will probably become a repeat of what the church saw when polygamy was forbidden and those who still practiced polygamy formed their own churches. Perhaps some day there may well be the so called "Gay Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints" and still refer to themselves as mormons unless it has already taken place.If every Latter day saint had to publically state their stance, I think we would see a large number of excommunications or those disfellowshipped.We have more liberals in the church than ever before who wish to express their thoughts instead of just follow the prophet no matter what.I forsee a time of apostacy at hand over this issue.As for me, I will follow the prophet.

RL

"accomodate this issue"??? That's not what the church is here for. Accommodation is for businesses. A church is, take it or leave it. When they start accommodating special interests, they are no longer a church with doctrine, but just a business wanting to please the masses.

Re John Pack Lambert

My, aren't you the busy typist.

We get it that you're being obedient. Good for you.

What about those of us who cannot reconcile our desire to be obedient with what our heart-of-hearts tell us?

I caused a bit of a scandal in my ward when as a young man in 1975 I spoke in church against the policy denying blacks the priesthood. That was a mess.

In addition to discovering the ugly racism that many of my "friends" of the time embraced but about which I'd been clueless, I heard many people say, "You're wrong, I stand with the prophet on this issue."

Polygamy, skin color, ceremony changes, the church does change to correct itself.

My conscience, which has served me very well for decades, tells me that the church's stand regarding gays is wrong. I don't know if the church will ever agree with me, and it's really not important that they do, but I'm nonetheless going to speak my mind on the subject.

The church is wrong on this issue. It's irrational, indefensible, and hurtful. There's nothing Christ-like about it.

Californian

I'm currently a college student back on the east coast and am able to vote in California on this proposition. I have had many gay friends (high school and college-including in my dorm)(even a close friend in high school that decided he was gay). This issue has always been hard to understand for me. However, what I can understand-is the Spirit. I had an overwhelming confirmation by the Spirit (when I least expected it) that the Family: A Proclamation to the World is true. We can debate all we want on the internet, but what it really comes down to is taking our conclusions to God. In the end, it all boils down to God and us, so take your decisions on this issue to the Lord for a confirmation. If you come by the spirit to a different conclusion than me, I won't contest it, because after all it is all between you and God and his servant the Holy Ghost; however, I know what conclusion I came to and I know how to vote for myself in November.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments