Document praised, criticized by group of gay members
This Melson guy is in complete DENIAL. The church will never condone same sex
marriage or homosexuality in any form!!!
Hey maybe someday the church will think that adultery, stealing and fornication
are okay too.... Wow I can't wait for that day...I mean why would they stop at
same sex marriage.
I just can't believe that there are actually people out there that keep hounding
the LDS church to change their doctorine. And I think it is even
funnier that they think the LDS church will change their doctorine. But hey if they (the church) does change the doctorine do you think they could
allow adultery as well? Then I wouldn't have to feel bad about my sin
Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a
woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that
definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical
reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other
requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation
of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine
California's marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to
impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any
change in California's marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality
that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.When
same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that the state
reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According
non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions
of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be
telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil
rights laws into a battering ram against them.
Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two
sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not
alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral
and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social
anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations,
any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive
energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better
for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality
outside of man-woman marriage has survived. Analyzing studies of cultures
spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist
Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought
about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage
and family were devalued by the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are
the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual
couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be
the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the
one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping
point for continuing the assault on marriage.If feelings are the key
requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or
consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to
stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a
living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names,
heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the
sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.
Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of
California.That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow
themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and
"Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.However, the Placer County marriage license was denied."I
received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder
stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration
laws,'" the couple said.
The doctrine that Gays and Lesbians preach is always in the name of "Diversity."
Why then are they so eager to practice a lifestyle that is HOMO-sexual. Their
message is totally contradictory.Children need a mother and a father
who can add their unique perspectives and experiences as male and female. The
Jazz would not have been more successful if John Stockten had been passing the
ball off to another John Stockten! They needed Carl Malone!
Thank you again for deleting my comments.They were neither abusive,
offensive, a misrepresentation or any of the above. Truth hurts sometimes. The
Church is way too thin skinned on this subject.Freedom of speech is not
alive and well in the Church. Is it!
I have known many people who have become so much more "themselves" when in
groups or gatherings of same-sex individuals. Some men in groups of others who
are all men and some women in groups where all are women have behaved in such
different ways than when they were in groups of mixed gender. I believe this is
behavior located somewhere along the gradient of same-sex attraction. Numerous
individuals only flourish or blossom when in same sex environments. Is it right
or wrong? No, it is human behavior.Now, why don't we judge all
humans by their behavior? If a person's behavior is social, productive, moral
and uplifting, let's support and sustain that behavior. If it is otherwise,
let's not promote it but attempt to re-direct it. Nowhere in the gospel of
Jesus Christ do we preach, practice or attempt to do otherwise. There have been
some instances in history where God has invited His children "back home" because
they have abandoned all opportunities to succeed but Fathers get to do that.
Evidence throughout the history of the restored Church shows that in
righteousness we have always condemned behavior but always accepted the person.
Nothing has changed in this, either.
I don't understand how so many people think that the church doesn't hava a right
to free speech. The all caring and ultra tolerant left wing crowd, sure wants to
shut down the church's right to express it't beliefs. I know that we all know
that these people are only tolerant until you disagree with them. They often
claim to have a better understanding of Christianity then the rest of us. They
preach about how the Savior said this and the Savior said that, and then they
judge whether others are really following his example. The way I see it they
just want to tell God how it is going to be. They can express thier Ideas just
like everyone else, then go on with thier lives and make their own choices,
according to the law.
Why did this article reference Affirmation over and over and over. We are not
reading the article to hear what they have to criticize or like. We want to
know what the churches statement is and what it means. We don't care about how
some fringe group with a few members reacts to it. You are giving this fringe
group way too much coverage and press time. I don't really care about how they
react to the speech. We don't want to read about their reactions to everything.
Enough of the overblown press coverage of Affirmation.
America is a free country!
Marriage in this country is a civil legal contract between two people, nothing
more. To deny it to one group is un-American. The church can set any rules
they like but they have NO business forcing their warped ideas on the rest of
the country. I believe they were told that about 150 years ago. Why don't I
see any protests about the government making the Mormon's change their rules
So why doesn't this Melson guy and his group go start their own Church that they
can believe whatever they want? Why do they think they can change a
worldwide organization just because they it's teachings are contrary to what
THEY believe to be right? Oh brother.
I was born and raised in the LDS Church and, to be frank, I am very disheartened
to see the Church spend so much time, money, and energy on this issue. There are
so many issues out there that are more pressing than how the State of California
decides to divvy out rights. Imagine what we could accomplish if we steered
this same energy into efforts to alleviate poverty in this country. No matter
what California chooses to do, the reality is that the Church can still teach
and practice its principles. I'm sad that the Church has decided to impose its
principles through political will. I was baptized a member of a church, not a
Caren: That's what several generations said about blacks recieving the
priesthood.I know with every fiber of my being that this isn't true.
"so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the
constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice
their religion free from government interference,"Churches certainly can
and should be able to express their views, and their aderents can, within the
law, behave accordingly. However, it's not a blank cheque. Polygamy sneaks in on
this one. And, as many of us in Utah know, it would be nice if government could
practise free of religious interference.
So you have the power to change the legal definition of marriage just like
I would like to know when did marriage become a legal issue. I may be wrong but
I thought marriage was originally governed by religions. I have not given it
much thought but what is the legal justification for the government controlling
Its amazing to me that gays and lesbians in the Church feel they are the ONLY
ONES with hard sexual/emotional issues. There are SO MANY single members of the
Church, who will never marry, who will live a whole lifetime without having
their deepest desires fulfilled. Not only emotional desires but sexual desires.
So to all you who are GAY members of the Church: Some things, however
hard, are going to be your lot for your life on this earth--But you are not the
only ones who can say that. Try following your fellow church members who also
have a very difficult future to face--and face it the way they try to: 1.With out calling attention to it all the time. 2.Without dwelling on
it all the time. 3.Without defining yourself by it all the time. 4.By filling your days and lives with good things. 5.By keeping the
coventants you've made, and 6.By trusting God, and looking to a future
day, remembering the promise made by the Prophet Joseph Smith: "All your
losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue
faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it."Live for
The day that the LDS Church condones gay marriage, will also be the day it
condones pedophile relationships, adultery and child abuse. Dont hold your
breath, Mr. Bass.
The Mormon Church has been behind the curve on virtually every major issue of
civil rights in this country's history, including slavery, civil rights, women's
rights, and now gay rights. God, it appears, is less enlightened on issues of
human rights than secular society. It will take more than a few statements by
the Brethren urging tolerance toward gays to eradicate an entrenched homo-phobic
LDS culture. As a practical matter, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' doesn't
work very well in a culture characterized by ingrained intolerance.Gay rights will one day be viewed in a similar light as civil rights, and once
again Mormon leaders will be exposed as being far less enlightened than their
secular colleagues. Yet one more piece of evidence, among many, that the Mormon
Church is led by men (and men of limited vision and engrained prejudices), not
by an enlightened Deity.
I think church members have some misunderstandings as regards this issue:1. No group is saying the LDS church can not have an opinion on these
types of issues. Once you have an opinion and express it, expect criticism from
those who disagree.2. The church is moving in the right direction as
regards "understanding" "gayness". Being gay has been stigmatized for thousands
of years, with terrible mis-treatment of those so AFFLICTED. These most recents
statements (not just this one...) seem to say that they realize that it is not a
choice, but a developmental anamoly, like a club foot (which I have). 3.
The church seems OK with offering benefits to "partners" through the traditional
means that employers offer benefits (health care, etc.). That is the RIGHT
thing to do, especially in a country with such a screwed up health care
system.I do have a question...The church's definition of marriage
(between and man and woman), seems to leave wiggle room for marriages between a
man and womEN. Given our tawdry history of polygamy and polyandry (one women
having sexual relations with several men), does this mean the church may "go
back" to this crude practice?
I think it is WONDERFUL that the church is standing up for what is true and
correct. This is God's church not mankind. The prophet is led by Him. If
everyone is gay then their would be no children--WRONG!!! So, I for one am glad
that the Church is standing up for goodness. The bible says that homosexuality
is wrong. Why does this surprise so many of you that the church would support
this?Have any of you read the Proclamation on the Family? This should not
surprise or make anyone sad.
I'm sad that you have not taken the time to study what's going with regards to
religious freedom. There are already lawsuits with potential penalties for
parents, teachers, and religions who teach that homosexuality is a sin. Did you
read the references to 'hate speech'? Already our kids are being taught in
school that homosexuality is not a sin, but rather a perfectly acceptable choice
of behavior. Kids cannot express their own feelings in opposition, yet one side
can be expressed. If religions, at a future time, are not allowed to consider
homosexual behavior as a sin, then the LDS Church and others will be forced to
allow gay marriages in churches and temples. Isn't that an infringement on the
right to practice one's religion without government infringement? I believe it
is a sin, I have the right to teach my children that it is a sin, and they have
a right to believe as I do or they can choose not to believe it. Only one side
is attempting to force society to believe only one way.
Anyone interested in exploring homosexuality as a disorder should read, "Coming
Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality," written by an ex-gay
therapist, Richard A. Cohen. It is most illuminating.
To all those who think this is the church forcing its views on the public at
large, you are missing the point. This is about the church PROTECTING its
rights to practice and preach its own beliefs. For example, if marriage is in
fact defined as a marriage between any two consenting parties, how many lawsuits
will the church face when they refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples?
They already label the church speaking out on this issue as "hate speech". So
first they will press for legal status for gay marriage, and then they will
press for "hate speech" laws so that the church can't speak out against gay
marriage. If Obama is elected president and shifts the Supreme Court to a
liberal position in favor of gay rights, who knows what the legal implications
for the church would be. As the church said, this is not about denying same-sex
couples access to health care or other benefits...this is about them obtaining
LEGAL status as a union. And this is not about imposing their views on the
public NOW, this is about the church protecting the sanctity of marriage for the
Promoting Proposition 8 Is Contrary To Scripture1. LDS scripture
(D&C 134:4) says we cant use our religious opinions to justify infringing upon
the rights and liberties of others. (see also 1 Cor. 10:29).2. Gays in CA
currently have the right and/or liberty to marry.3. Were attempting to
infringe upon this right/liberty because our religious opinions regarding
marriage and homosexuality prompted us to oppose this.4. However, the
prophets have all stated that their own words are subservient to the scriptures
and that we are to ignore anyone's teachings, including their own, if those
teachings contradict scripture.5. Only by sustaining prophetic statements
by following the procedure (Common Consent of the 12 and of the entire Church)
weve always used for sustaining a revelation, can the scriptures be superseded.
6. Since D&C 134:4 is superior to contradicting statements made by ANYONE,
even the prophets, according to the prophets, and since no Common Consent
sustaining vote overruling 134:4 has taken place, 134:4 is still valid.7.
Since it stands, our efforts to infringe upon the rights and/or liberties of
gays are wrong.My House is a house of order. All things are to be
done in order.
Please do some more research before posting. You get in wrong, of course it
always suits your arguement, more than anyone I have ever seen. The truth is
for generations it was prophesied that the blacks would eventually receive the
priesthood. As a matter of fact Brigham Young, who was quoted heavily about the
blacks not getting the priesthood, said that every man that needed to receive
the priesthood before the blacks did had already been born. There has never
been a prophecy that said practicing homosexuality would eventually not be a
sin. Nice try though. I am sure some "opened minded" people love your posts.
The difference: Every worthy male being able to recieve the Priesthood is not
and was not sin. They, going without the priesthood did not constitute sin. The
church did not change to allow sin. Was it not Jesus who said " I am not sent,
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Isreal" in reference to the Gentiles
having the Gospel. Not until Peter recieved vision of pork etc was the Gospel
then commanded to go to the Gentiles. In similar fashion was the Priesthood held
from the Blacks. However, Homosexual activity is sin and thus
will never be condoned.
The statement is less important than it's impact.We are, each of us,
who we are and at this time no one fully understands just how the more than
three billion pairs of nucleotides that comprise our DNA determine so much of
who we are and what makes us exactly as we are. We are extraordinarily complex
creatures with in-born characteristics that also make us, each and every one of
us, unique and one-of -a-kind individuals. For a church, any church, to
marginalize any law-abiding, loving, caring, productive human being born, or
converted by choice, into its culture, for any reason is far more a commentary
on that church than on the individual. The first suicide (and there have been
many) of a good and decent person who had been so marginalized by a church or a
loved one should have sent a terrifying message to all to who were responsibleWe
failed. It takes a hard heart to simply say, We have our rules. We, each of
us, are here to serve our brothers and sisters, not to judge them simply because
they are a somewhat different product of natures process than we are.
Why does the Deseret News continue carrying the water of tiny, insignificant
groups like Affirmation? Why?As to those who claim a church or an
individual is guilty when someone else commits suicide - please stow it. A
suicide is a result of a personal choice. Further, the implied threat - "accept
me, or I'll hurt myself!" is a typical tactic of abusive, angry, spoiled people
- people just like "Affirmation".I'll be canceling my subscription
later today. I won't abide subscribing to a newspaper that continues to carry
water for anti-Mormon groups, particularly when that paper is funded by the
nottyou: read some objective church history, about all those items you
mentioned. You may be surprised.
The Mormon gospel is replete with standards and commandments designed to bring
us closer to God and help us be more like him. Anything that detracts or detours
us from this goal is the antithesis of the Mormon gospel.Mormon
doctrine states that God himself is married and that eternal marriage is, in
fact, the key to exaltation, which most Mormons understand to mean becoming
eternally procreative parents like God. To Mormons, marriage is
holy, meaning that it has divine qualities and we venerate it as sacred.
According to Mormon theology, then, same-sex marriages would, by our definition
of marriage, have to be defined as holyin other words, as divine and even
godlike.In order for same-sex marriage to be accepted by Mormons, we
would need to become convinced that God himself could conceivably engage in such
a union, including its sexual implications. To put it more bluntly, unless God
himself could be gay and still be God, then theres no room for homosexuality or
gay marriage in Mormon theology.
Affirmation is delusional and a total contridiction.How can they
claim to be Mormon and oppose the words of the Prophet of God?If the
Prophet was at liberty to change LDS doctrine on this issue he would not be a
Prophet, the church would not have any claim to having the truth. It would be
just another man made, human run organization.If the LDS church is
Gods church then Affirmation should simply accept the doctrines and repent.If the LDS church is not of God then Affirmation shouold just ignor the
church.They are in open rebelion against God.
Others:Read any of the NUMEROUS quotes by BY, BRM, and others with regards
to blacks holding the priesthood. Several 'inspired' leaders said it would NEVER
happen or that if it did, it wouldn't be until the millenium.We heard
falst doctrine as to the reasons why they wouldn't hold the priesthood.Needless to say, significant changes have occurred, this 'doctrine' changed
180 degrees (one of many by the way).I would challenge any of you to read
Lester Bush's article about the priesthood ban on the blacks.The LDS
Church may not treat gays as humans in our lifetimes, but several years down the
road it is bound to happen.
We either believe in the Prophet, and his source of information, or we
don't...we all have our free agency. Some laws are easier than others, but the
idea is to do our best.Nobody is saying to kill them like they do in Iran, but
at the same time, understand the limits granted.Man has made every excuse to be
the exception imagineable, and will continue to do so, but when it comes down to
it, we all know who hands down the law.I may be just another "Jarhead", but I
know what side the bread is buttered on!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The second a church changes it's
doctrine to accommodate a group, it becomes a business and is no longer a
church. So basically, those who want them to change aren't really truly
converted and apparently don't really have a testimony of it's truthfulness. So
why hound the church over it? It's all about getting in the news and politics
and power. It blows me away that the same people who insist on a "seperation of
church and state," are the very people who keep dragging them in together
I believe God honors all loving relationships, even the homosexual ones. I hope
Prop 8 burns....
The LDS church has been "behind the curve on virtually every major issue of
civil rights"? What are you talking about? They led the way on women's suffrage,
which was one of the reasons Utah not let in the union earlier (along with
polygamy). No, priesthood is not a "right," it is a privilege that isn't even
guaranteed to every man. The saints were persecuted in the midwest partially due
to their abolitionist tendencies! (The border "slave states" did not want large
groups of abolitionists nearby.) Saints in the south who joined the LDS faith
were known to release their slaves (my wife's family included). Regarding civil
rights, was Utah a segregated state? Somewhat, yes, but not nearly to the extent
seen in the southeast. Again, holding the priesthood is not a "right" like the
pursuit of happiness. Neither is marriage. (hetero or homo)
I have worked with same-sex couples who have been together 20+ years and were
very happy, productive, decent people. I have also worked with miserable
heterosexuals who married multiple times and gave marriage a bad name. I am
puzzled at how we are so quick to judge others yet so slow to learn from others.
God knows. We don't.
you said:"The Mormon Church has been behind the curve on virtually every
major issue of civil rights in this country's history, including slavery, civil
rights, women's rights, and now gay rights."You are sadly
misinformed on these issues. The Church and Utah has been ahead of the curve on
all those issues. Do some research before you post stupid statements.
FOLLOW THE PROPHET! Heavenly Father directs him to guide us.and if
you refuse to do that then look into the past. Nearly every society
throughout human history failed after a certain percentage of the population
became homosexual. The Trojans, the Spartans, the Romans and more recently the
French.Homosexuality is a PLAGUE of evil and it will destroy if we
do not put our food down and stop this tide of evil...
I've read these same comments over zand over every time this issue comes up.If the LDS church can make comments on my life and it's called free
speach, but when anyone criticizes "the church", they are horrible sinners.
Fair is fair. And I still say that if the LDS want to be involved
in politics, they are no longer eligible for tax exemption.
around here.....when you start with an inaccurate premis, you go to an
inaccurate conclusion. In other words, YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON YOUR THUMB!To presume that marriage is only a civil contract is incorrect. To
presume that sin will be accepted with political pressure is incorrect. To
presume that the Church does things to molify its critics is incorrect. To try
to use scriptures out of context to justify an incorrect principle is
mis-application of the principle, and thus incorrect. Like I said,
lots of sore thumbs.......
Like those posted by "Captain Moroni".And shame on Deseret News for
allowing them to be posted.
Never mind that the people of California voted one way and the judges decided to
ignore the will of the people and infringe their will on THE PEOPLE.This
seems so complicated when all sides try to spin the issue in a different
direction. The reality of marriage is that it was instituted by God (or by
religion, if you will) and not by government or state.
Perhaps the LDS statement should read "Marriage - reserved between one manand one (or more) women." I know of three men in my ward that have beensealed to multiple women. In Mormon theology, plural marriage continues,as least vicariously in the hereafter. You sure don't hear about when thechurch is speaking out concerning the fundamentalists though.The LDS
church needs to get out of politics.
GW: The LDS church has been behind the curve on every major issue? Let's
see...Slavery: ahead of the curve (read Joseph Smith's unique proposal for
ending slavery during his run for the presidency); Civil rights: if you define
withholding the priesthood from blacks as anti-civil rights, I'll give that to
you: behind the curve; Women's rights: WAY ahead of the curve (Utah was the
first state to grant women the right to vote); Gay rights: an honest toss-up,
since an argument can be made that the term "gay rights" is without meaning (see
below). So out of the four examples you gave, you're 1-2-1.There are
lots of groups out there that could be defined by their behavior: gays,
sado-masochists, bird watchers, cliff divers, scrapbookers, overeaters,
garage-sale enthusiasts. Gays happen to be better organized than the others, and
more politically active. But honestly, does that mean they should be conferred
special rights? When the cliff divers finally rise up and demand their
activities be recognized as mainstream by an uncaring public, will the ACLU be
there to back them up? Probably, yes.
I think it is interesting that the church has moved a little bit with this
statement. At first they were against ANY rights given to any couple that was
not married. Now they are not against that, but do not want it to be called
marriage. So now they are not denying anyone their "rights" but they are still
I disagree with the Affirmation spokesman who claimed the church's stance
marginalizes widows, single parents, and grandparents.I was widowed
several years ago and I recognize that this situation is not ideal for my
children, and I certainly would not recommend single parenthood as the model to
pattern our society upon. Though I try to be as effective as two parents that is
not really possible. Sometimes the absence of that different and male influence
in the home is glaringly obvious.I don't take offense that my home
is not the ideal home. That is just the way it is and we deal with it.
"We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil
government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another prosecuted in
it's spiritual privilages and the individual rights of it's members, as
citizens, denied."D&C 134:9More LDS hypocricy.
I believe the LDS church should be able to beleive what they want to believe.
No big deal. My personal problem is when they throw their "political/financial"
might into the issue to polarize society to shift to their beliefs. Look...we
don't pass a referendum of non-LDS religions to collect the plate and move the
"Mormon's" out of our towns and states because we don't agree with their
beliefs...Yet...that is exactly what the LDS church does, when it
looks for financial aid to throw into the political cause. Hence...that's why church and state don't work very well.I think
the Federal Government should get involved and review the LDS church's financial
records. If they want to be a political party...let's remove that tax free
re: Richard Nibbler | 6:57 a.m. Sept. 10, 2008 Exactly. So much for
Life, Liberty, & the pursuit of happiness no matter how misguided it may be.
You both are gravely mistaken. This issue is hugely important to our future!
The church is involved with many important issues, but right now this IS the
most important issue, protecting marriage. You obviously don't understand what
will happen when gays push for more and more rights. It will eventually destroy
the family, the back bone of society. This is not about "infringing upon the
rights of gays" it's about PROTECTING MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
I for one will not stand by while the degradation of the family and
society are at risk. I will stand as Captain Moroni and defend my family and my
Would those of you who attack the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
for not granting free speech please show me where in that right is granted in
the Church's doctrine? I think you mistakenly believe that because there is a US
Constitutional right to free speech, that that right must be granted by private
organizations like the LDS Church. You are wrong. The free speech
rights granted by the Constitution mean only that the US government cannot
curtail your rights to engage in certain types of speech. Private or civil
societies can and may do as they please. It's an old and
often-recited adage, but if you don't like the Church's policies and can't live
without the leadership changing them, then perhaps my friends, this is not the
church for you.
The contradictions are in the minds of the people at Affirmation, and not in
the church's statements. The church has never taken a position against
visitation rights, and so forth. Their past position was against granting
rights on the basis of sexual relationships. Beyond this Affirmation is
ignoring the fact that these statements were prepared in light of Proposition 8
and with a clear knowledge that the statements had to reflect the actual effects
of proposition 8. Thirdly, the way the article is written makes it seem
that the affirmation spokesman responded to the statement about attacking people
who have same-gender attraction. The Church has never condoned such behavior
and President Kimball stated that Satan does not care whether he gets people to
participate in homosexual behavior or gay-bashing as long as he gets them to do
evil. So if the Affirmation person was stating that this is a ground breaking
statement they are being disingenous or are woefully uniformed about the
historic position of the church.
Faith is simply a manipulative device used for perpetuating a fraud.In the
case of gays and yes even singles in the Church it is perpetuating a lifetime of
needless suffering and emotional torment.
I have to admit that I have a great dislike for the methods of Affirmation.
They seem intent on turning members against the leadership of the church
and presenting the leaders as untruthful. Their characterization of the
battle in California totally ignores the fact that the religious freedom of
church members is severally threatened. The bringing up of polygamy is
totally inapropriate, and has no bearing on whether same-sex marriages are ok.
Their attack on the Church's preaching of a two parent family as the strong
ideal ignores the huge amount of sociological evidence. Beyond this, the
bringing up of widows reminds me of many remarks by Dallin H. Oaks where he
emphasized that although his father was dead his presence was still felt growing
up. Affirmation needs to accept that they and the church disagree on the
question of whether homosexual behavior is acceptable. The church
still teaches that "being gay" is a sin, contrary to what Affirmation says. The
problem comes in that to the church "being gay" is not really a good term, but
should be reserved if used at all to refer to those people who practice
A word about homosexuality: There has been heated discussion about whether it is
a choice or not. Logic tells us one thing: that for a specific individual, it is
EITHER a lifestyle choice or a hardwired DNA thing.If it is a
lifestyle choice, the individual should be willing to accept that it comes with
consequences; risks as well as rewards. One of the consequences of homosexuality
is the risk of social stigma. Homosexuals-by-choice can chafe under such
treatment and seek to change it, but they cannot logically be surprised by
it.If homosexuality is not a choice, if it is something people are
born with, then it must be defined as a birth defect. This characterization
causes gay rights activists to fume, but simple biology dictates that all
organisms exist to reproduce, and so an alteration at the sub-cellular level
that interferes with that purpose must, by definition, be a birth defect.As a society, we have made great strides in how we treat people with
birth defects. We no longer treat them with fear, loathing, or pity, but instead
with compassion and understanding. Perhaps this is all the unintentionally gay
are asking for.
I think the Mormons and all other good people in California need to get out of
Dodge. California is ripening for destruction and might sink into the ocean
"The Mormon Church has been behind the curve on virtually every major issue of
civil rights in this country's history, including slavery, civil rights, women's
rights, and now gay rights."To GW:You really don't know your history
here. Actually, the Church was against slavery long before the Civil War, which
is one reason why Missourians feared the influx of Mormons to their slave state.
Women were voting in Utah before women in the rest of the nation. The Church
has always taught respect for women and involved them in Church councils from
the ward level on up. The Church has always taught us to treat gays and any who
sin with love and compassion without condoning the sin. While some other
churches excluded blacks from attending LDS church always welcomed them and
looked forward to the day when the priesthood would be given to them. While I'm
sure that there have been some LDS members who are racist or hateful toward
gays, that has never been condoned by the Church. The Church has actually been
in front of the curve in every issue you raised and that's because God does lead
this Church through His prophets.
A little bit of an overreaction don't you think? Maybe the DN editorial should
get approval from you before they print in any articles.
Affirmation's accusation that the church is changing its position is meant to
undermine the solidarity of members in following the prophet. Do not buy
their lies. The church has consistently taught that same-gender attraction
should be resisted, but that only homosexual actions are sinful. The positions
on this issue of Thomas S. Monson and his associates are the same as those of
Spencer W. Kimball and his associates. Church leaders positions on the
proper psychogical responses to and treatments of same-gender attraction have
changed to some extent, and I doubt they have ever been unified. However it
must be remembered that while church members seek to let the gospel influence
their psychological approaches, we appraoch psychology as a science with
scientific methods and only hope to use the best current methods, not ruling out
future progress. On the issue of the church accepting being gay as not
sinful. The problem is that Affirmation is lieing in saying the church accepts
being gay. I meant to explain that here, but will do another post.
I have lived my whole life dealing with this issue. I don't know why I am this
way, but I know one thing, the church will never allow for same sex marriage and
I'm glad it won't. I wish there was more compassion and love toward people who
are attracted to men and maybe even live the gay lifestyle. But anyone asking
the church to change its standards to fit their little niche shows incredible
intolerance and arrogance on THEIR part, not the part of church. Thanks to the
church for sticking to its guns.
To Taylormaid: "Thou shalt not bear afalse witness against thy neighbour". Now
how about a source to back yourself up. Can't find one? That's what I thought.
This isn't a question of gay rights. As the Church pointed out in its
statement, it does not oppose specific rights for gay partners, such as hospital
visitation rights and so forth. This is a question of religious freedom.
We fear that gay marriage will lead to a society that attempts to dictate what
we may believe about families, marriage, and sex. We see nothing besides the
institution of marriage to stop it from getting to the point where churches
refusing to recognize "gay rights" to marriage are disenfranchised and their
tax-exempt status revoked. Some GBLT activists have already been trying that for
years. To groups like Affirmation that dismiss such fears as unfounded,
I ask: What guarantee can you give me that it won't happen?
I am sorry that I am making lost of posts. However the fact that Affirmation
continues to attack the church, its practices, its doctrines and the actions of
the prophets while trying to always be described as "Mormons" bothers me. How
many members of Affirmation have been excomunicated, I wonder? The basic
problem is the church views same-gender attraction and hmosexual acts as
distinct while Affirmation argues that one leads to the other. Even
though Affirmation tries to avoid saying it, if we pressed them they would tell
us that they think if the church allowed some way for people to be active
homosexuals and acceptable in the church suicide rates would decrease. The
problem is that Affirmation ignores the fact that if the church did so, it would
become an apostate church, loose priesthood power and the approval of God. Beyond this, even if the church did condone homosexuality, it would still be
condemned by God and by man's own conscience. Affirmations assumption that the
forces that lead to suicide are external social pressures and not internal
pressures caused by the unease of one's onscience is not a supported theory.
Mr.Irony is enjoying all the hateful comments here, especially as the Prophet
has explicitly asked people to show love and respect for all people.
Your so full of it! What logic?? All you use is more of the same sky is
falling fear tactics pushed by the LDS church and Rush Limbaugh.The
problem with your argument is this: ALL of those people or groups you mentioned
have the right to marry. What rights are being denied scrapbookers? Can they
marry?? Um....yes. So where are they being denied ANYTHING???Since
when is the right to marry considered conferring "special" rights? Is the gay
community asking for anything out of the ordinary? No. I don't believe in the
concept of temple marriages, but I leave that to the individual. Why should I
as a gay man be denied my rights because you disagree?? WHo are YOU or any of
the rest of you on this site to judge ME??So do I get to change your
lives because I disagree with them? Maybe I need to start legislation to stop
recognizing temple sealings since I don't believe in them and a they are a
"choice" your making??Typical double talk.
Sorry, I don't have time to read all the comments to see if this topic has been
properly discussed. I am shocked to read David Melson, media
spokesman for Affirmation, say the pamphlet "God Loveth His Children"
"acknowledged that being gay is not ... a sin." For the record, I
have not read the pamphlet, and have not read Mr. Melson's complete remarks.
However, knowing what I know about the Church's view of homosexuality, I think
it is correct to say that homosexual tendencies or temptations are not a sin,
but to say homosexuality is not a sin is wrong. Maybe another
example can clarify the debate of right vs. wrong. If I am in a store and see a
book that I really like and the thought enters my mind to steal the book, I have
not committed a sin. If I carry out that action and steal the book, then I have
sinned. Part of this mortal experience is to suffer temptations of
all kinds, just like Christ, so we cannot be condemned for any temptation, even
if only a small minority suffer that temptation, but yielding to any temptation,
homosexuality included, will always be a sin.
Good for the LDS Church. I am with them 100% on this issue.
What About:"whereby one religious society is fostered and another
prosecuted in it's spiritual privilages..."I'm not sure what you are
trying to say. The LDS Church is not trying to promote itself as the State
The frightening thing is that the apparent end game of the gay agenda is the
lack of tolerance for and marginalization of religious individuals. CA State
Supreme Court already ruled (in the matter of a Chrisitan doctor who declined to
perform in vitro fertilization for a lesian couple) that religious freedom did
not trump civil rights of gays.
"I for one will not stand by while the degradation of the family and society are
at risk. I will stand as Captain Moroni and defend my family and my liberty!"Tell me what you have done to promote heterosexual marriage...unwed
mothers are the GREATEST risk to our society. That is where the family will
break- not with the few marriages that occur between same sex couples.
(Homosexuals are only about 5% of the population. In Mass., only 10% of
homosexual couples have married. It is something that they have the opportunity
to do, but it is not something they do on a whim, ala Ms Spears).MOST (over 50%) couples are not marrying before having children. They live
together, have children and split when things get rough. This is the BIGGEST
problem our society faces. What is the church doing to stem this tide?
To What about: It's not hypocrisy. They are standing up for that scripture
because it's true. You have very little reading comprehension skills. Read it
again, and think about it this time.
I now understand why Affirmation's suicide theories are flawed. They
assume that people commit suicide because they lack a balance between their
actions and the externally created goals they have. This view is an
agnostic view. As a believer in God, I know that man is born with a conscience.
Certain actions are morally repugnant to the core. There is internal disconect
between peoples actions and what they know they really should do. This
dimension of the issue is totally ignored by Affirmation. They believe
political pressure can cause the Church to change. If you do not believe the
Church is lead by God than this makes sense. However if God has set down the
moral standards and condemned homosexuality than this does not make sense.
The fact of the matter is that the central rites of the church are built on a
system of men and women marrying. Same-gender marriage is incombatible with
these. Affirmation ignores "The Family:A Proclamtion to the World" and wants us
to reject God given definitions of gender for the philosophies of men.
Yep. best get out of California and go where?? Boston? When Massachusette
sinks in to the ocean, I'll agree that gay marriage is wrong. Oh yeah, and
Canada will have to sink too. As well as Belgium, Norway, The Netherlands and
Spain and South Africa. ALL of which recognize gay marriage.Another
sky is falling comment.
I can't help but believe the more Moderate tone in this latest statement is more
for the benefit of Californians, since Prop 8 is in trouble in much more
progressive California. Believe me, when Amendment 3 was being pushed here in
Utah, there was no such Moderate language towards our gay brothers and sisters
here in this state.
Melson is clearly suffering from a severe case of pride. The Church is not
changing its position. He used selective reading. The Church still
clearly states this is a moral issue, and that homosexual relationships are
morally wrong. The Church is not going to stop condemning
homosexuality. Anyone who thinks it is does not understand God or his word.
This is obviously the case of Affirmation, since they somehow think that the
Doctrine and Covenants mentioning that a man should "Cleve unto his wife and
none else" is not a condemnation of homosexuality among many other things. It just boggles my mind how Affirmation can see a document that clearly
states marriage is only between a man and a woman is in anyway an advance for
But don't forget people, the LDS church is all about free agency.
Sexual behavior has not and never will be a "civil right". No-one is preventing
people from practicing homosexuality. The extreme factions of the gay community
have been trying for decades to legitimize homosexuality, their major thrust
being the effort to equate gayness to a civil right. Somehow they think that
the world's "acceptance" of homosexuality will make their guilt go away--I hate
to tell you this but the guilt will never go away because practicing
homosexuality is a perversion and it is wrong. All the debate in the world will
not change that fact. There are many people who carry the burden of same-sex
attraction (which burden I would not wish on my worst enemy), who control it
successfully and live normal lives. Trying to mainstream the behavior will never
make it legitimate--just like society would never legitimize (I hope) murder,
spouse abuse, pedophilia, etc. I am truly sorry for those who suffer with
same-sex attraction, but Affirmation is wasting precious time kicking against
the pricks. The Church will not change it's policy because it's not theirs, it's
God's. Affirmation--you're wasting time "kicking against the pricks".
"The church does not object to rights (already established in California)
regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights,
or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the
family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to
administer and practice their religion free from government interference," the
introduction says. THOSE RIGHTS CAME FROM SAME SEX UNIONS. THE CHURCH USED TO
BE AGAINST SAME SEX UNIONS (READ BELOW)In October 2004, the
First Presidency's office issued a statement saying the church "favors measures
that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that DO NOT CONFER
LEGAL STATUS ON ANY OTHER SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP." (emphasis added)That is what I was talking about.
I applaud the church for making this statement, and I support church leaders in
their efforts to stand up for the doctrine we profess. No one who belongs to
the Mormon Church should be ashamed of our doctrine and for the church's attempt
to influence the world for good, especially when so many attempt to influence
the world for evil. Those who criticize and condemn the church for taking this
stand clearly don't sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as
prophets, seers and revelators, and that is their privilege. I imagine that my
support of church leadership will earn me the name of "sheep" by those who mock
and heap scorn upon the church's culture of obedience. If Christ is the Good
Shepherd, than I am honored to be called a sheep as long as I'm one of His...
If someone can find one place where the church has indicated any form of
support for same-sex couples adoting, than I will reconsider. However, it
seems obvious to me that the right of children to be born in the bonds of
matrimony between a husband and wife implies that husbands and wives should be
able to adopt children and if infertile recieve articificial insemination.
How advisable the latter is in some cases is a different question. However
these central roles of parenting should not be granted to others. At the
same time, limiting adoptions to married couples has not been felt to be the
best course in some cases. Specifics of adoption law are that, specifics, and
so the church has generally ignored it as long as LDS Family Services can run.
It has through LDS Family Services advocated for the preservation of adoption
law rules instead of the ill-advised and trust destroying method of revising the
rules after the fact, but that is done through a seperate organizations and not
directly by the church. Another thing that Affirmation ignores is that
the opponants of the admendment in Utah tried oppose it because it would end
Spencer W Kimball? Have you read "The Miracle of Forgiveness"? The book
written by him that in the chapter on Homosexuality states "it would be better
that such a Man were never born"?
same marriage people are off course good people and decent, but
still, it's principaly wrong period
Marriage has to be defined as between a man & a woman, otherwise what is it?
There is no other reasoned limit. If you say it is not based on the fact that it
takes a man and a woman to reproduce, then what's the rationale for it? If you
don't say that, then there is no defining principle and "marriage" could mean
one human and multiple humans, a group of humans, a human and an animal, or
perhaps a human and a piece of land. "Bear in mind, though, that the definition
of "marriage" and a government or employer's decision with respect to what
benefits to confer on what relationships are two different subjects.
Comments like these are prophecies of the signs of the times. Thanks people,
for fulfilling prophecy!Moroni saw people just like you who are
trying to call evil good. So did many other prophets. Besides, if
everyone became gay, no humans would be on the earth in 50 years. Yep, that way
of life is right alright.
To curious at 7:19, Your question is very well placed. My first answer
is that Antonio Feliz, the founder of Affirmation, latter went and started his
own church. My second answer, is that people in Affirmation are lazy,
they seek to build on the church's others have built instead of building new
organizations. However, I think the real answer is that they are
agnostics at best. They really do not believe in church's, but see them as
social organizations. They feel that the best way to change things is to change
social organizations and thus work in the system. Lastly, if they
started their own church they would be totally ignored. If you follow
developments the goals of the Religious Liberals (not to be confused with
political liberals, although RLs tend to be PLs but the reverse is not always
true) want to take over churchs and drive the advocates of traditional
Christianity into forming seperate churches. This is partly a result of
the way RLs think. To RLs churches are just cultural constructs, and doctrinal
unity has no meaning and is not desired. RCs want doctrinal unity.
There is no definitive proof that homosexuality is inborn. Twins studies have
shown that the genetic component is non-conclusive at best. The assertion that
"I was born this way" is not supported through genetics research.One
way to look at it is that genetic traits must be passed down to futue
generations to continue. If gays do not reproduce, how could the "gay" gene be
passed to another generation. This would imply that there is a recessive gene
somewhere that continues to be passed down again and again, even though most
recessive genes that do not come through both parents eventually are eliminated
from the human genome. So how could we have higher and higher numbers of gay
individuals in society if it is genetic and the genetic code does not get passed
on?Simple, it is more a matter of societal influence, upbringing and
a long string of choices that lead to homosexuality.It is NOT a
single choice...no one wakes up one day and says "I think I will become gay".
Jut as a Jeffrey Dahmer does not wake up and say "I think I will eat someone
today". It is the result of many smaller choices.
God has warned us repeatedly through his prophets that Satan would wage a
tremendous battle against the forces of good in these latter days. I think that
these homosexual militants are part of Satan's army.
"We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do
anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if
they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it
is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself,
should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly.
A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their
almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no
matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it
without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these
extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally
because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves." (Joseph Smith -
Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595)
I think we would better discuss this and other issues if we understood the
four groups Religious Conservatives, Religious Liberals, Political Conservatives
and Political Liberals. First off, none of these labels describes a
unified group. Each group has unique features within its religion or region.
Thus Liberal Mormons and not Liberal Protestants and not Mormon Liberals.
A Mormon Liberal would be Hugh Nibley. He is unquestionably a Religious
Conservative, accepting the Book of Mormon as the word of God and a historical
document, but if you know anything about his political phylosophy you know he
was a liberal. Although Affirmation would take issue with my description
of them as Liberal Mormons, those who do not believe in revelation that is
concrete and understandable, their actions clearly indicate otherwise.
They operate on the assumption that Spencer W. Kimball did not really recieve a
revelation from God extending the priesthood to all worthy males, but that he
responded to political pressure. Their corelary assumption is that if they put
enough political pressure on the leaders of the church, than the prophet will
recieve a "revelation" allowing same-gender marriage and redefining same-gender
relations in marriage as within the acceptable limits of chastity.
I like to look back to our first parents and it is a very simple thing. Don't
complicate this issue. God created Adam and Eve, a man and a woman. He did not
however create Adam and Steve. Two men.
"For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the
people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good,
therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become
corrupted." (Hel 5:2)I am however, working hard and holding fast
with the hope that the voices of the people here in Californina are found in
favor of Prop 8 on November 4. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the
situation described above.
I would like Affirmation to come out and speak about its major victory in the
RLDS church. Admitably the RLDS organization may be not directly affiliated,
but it was also founded by Antonio Feliz and operates on the same assumptions
and principals. For a time the RLDS Church would ordain openly homosexual
people to the priesthood. They have since stopped doing so, but have allowed
open homosexuals to retain standing in the priesthood. What Affirmation
ignores is that since they organized the church has released "The Family: A
Proclamation to the World" which more explicitly states the eternal nature of
gender than anything previously. "The Divine Institution of Marriage" is the
best explanation I have read of why opposing same gender marriage is a moral
stance. Thomas S. Monson will continue to lead the church in opposing
same-gender marriage. This is not about to change. Affirmation can either get
with the church or fight the church, but the church's postion will not change.
Is the church not dictating what I believe makes a families, marriage and sex?
How is that okay?And if anyone were to force any church to change
their doctrine, I would be the first in line to stand with them.I
don't ask, expect or even want the church to change their position on
homosexuality. I just want them to keep their beliefs and theology out of my
life. If I wanted to be LDS I still would be. The church is tryiong to force
their beliefs into my life and lifestyle, the same argument that keeps being
amde about he gay community. The biggest difference is that the gay community
isn't trying to pass laws barring mormons from living their own life the way
they see fit.
Let's all get along.California is going to sink into the ocean
Why are people so upset when the LDS Church tries to protect its rights?Why do homosexuals have to have same-sex marriage legalized? Dont civil
unions do the same thing? The LDS Church has not tried to ban
homosexuals from living together. They have not tried to make homosexuality
illegal. They have not said that gay people are all bad. They simply have said
that marriage is ordained of God and marriage should be between a man and a
woman. They have stated that their belief is that the ACT of homosexuality is a
sin. They have not tried to force everyone to be heterosexual.
The church still doesn't confer legal status on any other type of sexual
relationship than a marriage between members of the opposite sex. They recognize
that the laws of the land may find those other relationships to be legitimate,
but the church does not agree. The comment in 2004 came about
because there was a comment in Amendment 3 about not letting a domestic
partnership - of any kind save legal marriage between a man and woman - have the
possibility of being called a marriage. That is one of the things we were voting
on in 2004, and that is why the church didn't agree with the domestic union bill
in Utah, because there was the chance they could eventually become 'marriages'
in the eyes of the law. The civil union laws already in place in California had
removed that possibility as well. They were "domestic partnerships", not
marriages, so there is no need to fight against the idea of rights conferred to
those involved. It was never about the legal rights, it was about
them calling those unions marriages. The church's stance is still the same.
I think you need to re-read the scripture. The first line says it all; "We do
not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil rights."Please explain to me, if you can, how the LDS church doing what they are
doing with the issue of gay marriage isn't doing the exact opposite of what
their scriptures state??And to ere John Packer Lambert: According
to President Kimball's own son, in his book he stated that his father regreted
the tone he took in his book Miracle of Forgivness in the area of homosexuality
and wished he had taken a gentler tone.Makes me wonder how many
young people read that statment about not being born and have used it to justify
taking their own lives.
Goerge Wines: learn correct doctrine! Also, in rebuttle to other comments, the
church is PUSHED into politics and the media only because of our UNCHANGING
beliefs. The LDS doctrine will not change unless it is changed by God.
I'm really sick of this topic. I also have the utmost admiration for Ernest T.
Same old bigoted rhetoric from the Church."Marriage is fundamentally an
unselfish act."This is an argument in favor of encouraging adoption by
same-sex couples!"a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual
offspring." That is not UNselfish. Gay marriage, with children biologically
unrelated to the couple, is even MORE unselfish than heterosexual marriage that
tries to perform genetic xeroxing!"The legalization of same-sex
marriage LIKELY will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral
character of children.""Likely?" You mean these prophets, seers and
revelators don't know for sure?Erodes "social identity" -- meaning
heterosexual identity ONLY; "erode gender development" -- meaning ONLY
traditional masculine/feminine stereotypes that support the patriarchal
prejudice in the LDS Church; erode "moral character" -- meaning ONLY the "moral"
people who believe homosexuality is a sin.Government moved a step
closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life.I would
rather have the government than the Church intervene in domestic life. Church
bigotry, condemnation, and self-righteous arrogance in the LDS Church intervenes
in domestic life, ruining family cohesion, happiness, and tranquility while
reigning with theocratic tyranny over the domestic lives of its members.
The Church has every right to require it's unmarried members to refrain from
sexual relations before marriage as well as remain chaste when married - or
suffer disciplinary consequences. The only restriction that places on members is
to wait until marriage and then stay true to their spouse during.The
Church no longer characterizes homosexuality alone as a sin. But, just like
heterosexual members, gay members are required to refrain from any sexual
activity outside of marriage.The obvious problem however is this
requires the homosexual member who desires to remain in good standing to not
just wait until marriage like straight members (even the Church recognizes the
high failure rate of a gay person trying to make a marriage work with the
opposite sex) but rather wait for life. I suppose it is easy for heterosexuals
to just shrug their shoulders and say oh well, we all have our trials. But
lifelong celibacy is a pretty severe trial in my opinion.
I don't recognize the Bible, a Mormon Prophet, the Book of Mormon or any other
supernatural claims of authority. Once these "claims of truth" are removed from
any argument and the remaining evidence is examined by critical thinking,
intelligence and knowledge, the conclusions tend to be very straight forward.
Therefore, I firmly stand on the side of truth, the side of equality and equal
protection under the law.Our secular government gives religious
protection to you to practice your faith as you wish, as well as protecting me
from your religious dogma and resulting beliefs. As strongly as you believe your
faith, please recognize your religious bias for what it is. No one
is asking your religion to change its doctrine, but please recognize what
homosexuals are asking for:1. Legal protection from discrimination and
prejudice.2. Civil recognition and the resulting legal protections and
benefits given to other couples and families.3. Safety from violence and
life free from fear.No one without a strong prejudice would deny anyone
these basic rights. So why are you?
I think that the reason Affirmation members don't break off and form their own
church is because many of them do have legitimate testimonies of the Gospel.
They know the church is true, and they want to remain a part of it. Unfortunately, they also seem to want a free pass to behave however they want
to, with no spiritual consequences. But Heavenly Father doesn't do things that
way. He tells us the way He would like us to live, and then He lets us make our
own decisions. We choose our behaviors, but we also choose the consequences of
our actions, good and bad. Acting on homosexual urges has always,
and will always, be something the Lord does not condone. The members of
Affirmation can either accept that and choose to ignore it, or accept it and
choose to try their best to live by those dictates. But eventually, someday,
they will be forced to take action either way. They can't continue to sit on the
fence and expect to have things both ways. And neither can any of the rest of
us, no matter what our favorite "pet sins" happen to be.
"There is no definitive proof that homosexuality is inborn. Twins studies have
shown that the genetic component is non-conclusive at best. The assertion that
"I was born this way" is not supported through genetics research."ON THE CONTRARY:"One group of researchers studied identical
twins and found that, of 56 sets of identical twins in which one member was gay,
the other twin was also gay in 52 percent of the cases. That means that nearly
half the identical twins of gay men were not gay, so it suggests a strong but
not determinative genetic component (Adler, 1992) In Thomas Bouchard's study of
identical twins separated at birth, there were three pairs of male identical
twins in which at least one was homosexual. In two out of three cases, the other
twin was homosexual also, despite being raised in a different household and
never seeing his twin brother during childhood."Psychology: An
Introductionby Russell A. Dewey, PhDAs more
research comes in, it points more and more towards a genetic source for
So does that mean that there is no proof that heterosexuality iis a born trait
as well?? What smaller choices did you make that made you choose to be
straight?And as far as genetic variences, by your logic, if genetic
defects become diluted through time, why hasn't Down Syndrome been bred out?
What about asthma? Alcoholism? Sorry, but your argument doesn't work.Maybe the numbers of gays seem to be increasing, because more people are
becoming comfortable with their sexual identity and are chosing to not live
their lives in a closet. Look at how many gay men are married trying to
"become" straight, which doesn't work either. They are hidden from societie's
view, but they are STILL GAY.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has completely got it right. If
you think their position has changed, or you think their stance incorrect you
have either misinterpreted something or you don't understand truth. You would be
better to rethink your position. Is there a more loving and
understanding way than God's way? It is astounding to me that anyone, other than
those who have authority to act or speak in God's name, would think to tell
God's church what is of truth or isn't (You don't even claim to have that
authority from God, so you are hardly in a position to buck someone who does
have that authority, or even to discount someone who only claims to have that
authority. What gives you that right (affirmation, or others)?). Forgive me if I come off to bold, but I cannot boast too much in my God. And I
don't apologize for what I know to be true. Only God's way will bring a fullness
of joy, a straight path to his presence, unwavering, and full of righteousness.
He invites us to be upright, clean, and holy else we can't be in His presence of
holiness and purity.
"Goerge Wines: learn correct doctrine! Also, in rebuttle to other comments, the
church is PUSHED into politics and the media only because of our UNCHANGING
beliefs. The LDS doctrine will not change unless it is changed by God."No one is trying to get you to change your beliefs (execpt Affirmation,
and they are just asking.) YOU are taking AWAY the gay persons right to marry
in CA if you vote for Prop 8 and will be FORCING all of California to live your
No, Civil Unions don't offer the same rights as marriage. If they did, I as
well as a lot of other gay people I know wouldn't care. It's not about the
label, it's about the rights granted in a marriage that aren't recognized by
civil unions.@Tired: How and when has the church been pushed into
politics? ANd what unchanged beliefs? The church changes it's doctrine and
even temple ceremonies all the time.ANd again, I'm not asking the
church to change their doctrine, just asking them to keep it out of my life and
away from my CIVIL not religious mind you, my CIVIL rights.
The heterosexual dictatorship is out in force I see. Here we have a bunch of
heterosexuals discussing how much better they are than gay people. They cover
it up by saying marriage is "holy" and gay people are "sinners" etc. It's code
for "I'm better than you and you deserve less." One of the key concepts
heterosexuals developed was a system of who was "better" than who. Guess what
that lead to? Slavery, misogny, anti-gay prejudice, racism... Whenever
heterosexuals were confronted by all those oppressed groups their answer was
"you're not worthy." That's what they are saying now to gay people because like
usual they believe they are the judge of everything and everything they say is
right. Wrong. Once again we have a group of meddlesome heterosexuals wanting
to control the lives of others. It won't work. BTW, marriage has always been
a civil arrangement in this country and the Western world. It wasn't until the
middle ages did religion put it's claws on marriage and claimed it as their own.
I like to think that the LDS church not only offers direction but represents the
interest of the people it serves. And who's to say the interests of these
people are not valid. You wouldnt point your finger at me and say I have no
right to vote or voice my opinion, then why do it to a collective of many
people. Whats the worry anyhow? Most negative comments I see
regard the Church as a minority compared with larger religions, groups and even
a minority of the populace. Am I missing something? Are mormon votes triple
FINALLY!! SOMEONE ACTUALLY GETS IT!! Thank you!
Anyone reading your diatribe can clearly see the harm! Your rant shows
ignorance, selfishness, and close-mindedness - all things that the Church
disaproves of in it's "bigoted rhetoric", that you so detest.
Should the Church be involved in politics? Whether gay issues or other issues,
the Church is involved. Every person involved in politics does so using the
beliefs of his/her church which are their personal beliefs. Everytime I vote I
do so using my personal beliefs which are moderated as taught by my church. The
Church is in politics because people are from their church or non-church (eg
atheist). We only need to look at the history of the churches to see that all
churches have been involved. Gays go to many churches and yet in the argument
over their so-called rights, they never quoted the pertinent parts of the Bible
but only the parts they liked (such as love one another but never a man shall
not lie down with another man). If you don't like my doctrine don't join my
church. Marriage is a union of man and woman - the Bible says for this reason
does a woman leave her family not does a man leave his family. Whether or not I
like it does not matter. This is a doctrine of God and therefore the only
doctrine. If I choose not to listen I pay the consequences.
Ya why don't they just start their own church and do whatever they want- after
all that's what Joseph Smith did- and I'm sure if they could get everyone to
give them 10 percent of their money they would have enough money to fight these
kind of things from being opressed... The problem is that the mormon church has
a kind of cookie cutter cult like mentality while others in favor of freedom
have a much more liberal unique one of a kind mentality and would never fall to
such controlled mentality and behavior. The church likes to act like they are
still Nice, Kind, and Loving to all people- if so why are they spending so much
time to FIGHT what others belive in- it's not like people need the churches
approval- they wanted to have their own ways when Joseph Smith "Saw God" and
they just wanted to be accepted- but now The Church doesn't want others to be
accepted and are fighting against the same kind of freedom their church was
founded upon- pretty hypocritical if you ask me- But that's one of the churches
Gays have already won in Canada. If you don't believe me look it up. Any thing
that is said that a gay person doesn't like is called automatically called "hate
speech" and is a crime punishable by up to 2 years in jail and a fine if you are
found guilty. In California 2 lesbians sued and won against a
doctor who refused to get one of them pregnant. (No one's life was threatened or
endanger)He told them where they could go but his personal religious views
didn't allow for him to perform the procedure. The doctor may even lose his
license over this one thing.And judges over turned a law the PEOPLE
voted in. That is why there is prop 8. The voices of THE PEOPLE are being
snuffed out because of a handful of judges. So far it seems gays
want more laws to protect them and who cares about anyone else. They'll want
churches who don't' 100% agree with them disbanded and it's people thrown in
jail,concentration or "reeducation" camps next.
Accusing church leaders of publishing "half-truths" is a step toward apostacy
and possible excommunication.
many of you don't seem to have any knowledge of tax exemption law. Churches are
more than welcome to discuss political issues, even to direct their members to
vote on certain measures in certain ways. That is not against the laws. It is
only against the law when that church urges its members to vote for a particular
candidate or party, which the LDS church does not do. They are perfectly within
their rights to ask their members to vote for Prop 8 in California. Many, MANY
churches across this country do the same thing. That does not harm their
exemption status in any way.
Reason #1,304,485 that I resigned my wife, daughter and I resigned our
memberships from LDS, Inc.
Doctrines and ideas change in the Church over time. I think there are a few who
may think every change was a result of direct revelation but most reasonable
members recognize that change such as plural marriage, blacks and the
Priesthood, and temple ceremony changes were due largely to either pressure or a
more reasonable outlook by leaders over time. It will be interesting to see if
any accomodations will be made if absolute genetic proof eventually comes out to
show homosexuality is inborn. Only the absolute LDS fringe still believe blacks
come to this earth black due to premortal choices rather than simple genetics.
Maybe discoveries about homosexual genetics will similarly move member and
leader thinking in the future? Unfortunatley it will probably take a change
first in the thinking of the broader society and Christian community. The LDS
Church would likely never dare make that step on their own without broader
pressure or acceptance.
This is the Lord's work...nothing is new about this subject. Read the scriptures
and you will find that the Lord only blesses and help those who are faithful and
keeping His commandments. He condamned those who do not keep His commandments
and failed to repent. The Lord's work will always the same and will
not change. He is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. We need to change to
meet His requirement not Him changing to meet our requirements.
Was this an article about the LDS Church or the irrelevant group: Affirmation?
Much as they like to imagine having had an influence on Church policy and
attitudes, I have new for them. They're a non-issue... just like the Deseret
News will become if they keep up this kind of silly reporting in which you
acknowledge the opinion of every mosquito in the forest.
As regards the twin studies on gayness, I would postulate, based on an article
in NATURE, that gayness is a result of very slight hormonal imbalances resulting
from the mother's imbalance in testosterone and estrogen. If one twin is gay
and the other not, perhaps it is due to the very slight shift in blood supply in
the twins. Gay mice have been created by imbalancing the mother's hormones. I
tend to believe this is the cause. If more studies of (identical) twins
continued to show what was alleged (no source cited) then I may be convinced
otherwise. BTW, I am an identical twin (hetrosexual) and share many, many
traits with my brother, up to and including the attraction to the same type of
women. It is very clear to me that we are creatures of genetics or development
Guess what, buddy? This country didn't exist as such in the middle ages.
Marriage has always been both a civil and a religious institution in this
country. It was NEVER one way and not the other. But in the very beginning of
recorded human existence, marriage was a religious ceremony, not a civil one.
I didnt have much of an opinion for or against gay marriage until now. The
farther and farther I see the gay movement going the worse it seems to get. One day I was just your average heterosexual male, due to me married,
with two gay friends one of which has an awsome baby girl. The issue wasnt
really effecting me at all. Now according to the heralds of the gay
movement on this forum I have become selfish xeroxer, a bigot, a patriarical
tyrant, who unjustly votes and voices my desires, preserving my identity at the
expense of all others, blind, intolerant, and behind the curve. And if I give in
to your demands I'll still be a bigot compared to a new set of demands.
Apparently the only cure is to become gay, in which case I would be considered a
great person. Doesnt sound like a movement I want to be a part of.
I'm not betraying who I am like that, and I wouldnt want to live with that kind
Uh, David, marriage is a moral issue that the government is butting in to. It
isn't politics. When you see any church out campaigning for a specific
candidate, party, or political issue...ie crosswalks in front of the chapel,
etc...then you can complain. Until then just voice your opinion on this moral
issue and quit trying to confuse the mixing of church and state in true
I've heard all kinds of figures -- 5%, 3%, 10%, and never heard or read any
verification of any of those.
Homosexual relationships are sick and wrong. Yes, there are those who struggle
with same sex attraction, but like any other carnal desire can be overcome.
There are pretty much 2 choice for homosexuals in the church. Be celebate and
repent. Or be cast out.
Human body's were not made to have sex with the same sex. So what else do you
want to know?
"1. Legal protection from discrimination and prejudice.2. Civil
recognition and the resulting legal protections and benefits given to other
couples and families.3. Safety from violence and life free from fear."All of those, except civil recognition, are available under current laws
and corporate sponsorship.Visitation, medical oversight for a loved
one, inheritance are available through living wills, wills, etc.Violence against one due to their race or sexual preference are prohibited by
law, hiring is protected.
Where was the Church and their money when Canada passed their gay marriage laws?
Did the church try to get you to go door to door and tell others what would
happen to your society if this law passed? Just a question, since the church is
a worldwide organization.
"The church can set any rules they like but they have NO business forcing their
... ideas on the rest of the country" (7:17).Absolutely. That's why
we vote. The "church" (one assumes he means the LDS church, and then one
wonders if he really thinks the LDS church can determine policy nationwide) has
absolutely no formal power, as intended in the Constitution. But everyone can
speak their mind.....even Thomas Monson, et.al.
Why does "Affirmation" use the association of gays Mormon or gays who are
latter day saints? Are they "wanna be" church members, or are they former
church members, or are they members of the LDS faith who do not act out their
same-gender desires? My understanding is that if they choose to act out their
desires, they cannot be an LDS member of the church in good standing. Why do they connect themselves with the LDS church? Why can't they just be an
activist for the "gay cause"? Why must some people with an ax to grind try and
hook themselves to the LDS church?I wish Deseret News would
distinguish as to whether these are actual LDS members, or just "wanna be" LDS
members. Otherwise we fall into the same confusion and lack of understanding
that we've had problems with, in understanding the Fundamentalist who try and
associate themselves with the LDS church.
that being gay is not a "sin" in itself. I also see some realizing that "gay
people are not increasing...just the fact that they are not staying in the
closet."The most wonderful thing is that we should not have disrespect for
gay people. Thanks for that.And now you need to realize something. Gay
people are here to stay. Believe what you will about the "afterlife". Some (in
fact much of the world) do not agree with you. Live in peace and allow others
the same right. Stop trying to sugar coat the fact that some religious
organizations are fighting a losing battle.. We will and are slowly getting
equal rights. We will not stop until they are achieved in the U.S. as they are
being achieved elsewhere.
At 8:15 a.m, I posted a logical step by step explanation that our support for
Prop. 8 is contrary to the scriptures. I've gotten 3 replies. Here's #1*****Beware of false doctrines... | 9:06 a.m. Sept. 10, 2008 Like those posted by "Captain Moroni".[Note how this person
does not even ATTEMPT to address my post. Don't TELL me that I'm wrong, SHOW me
WHY I'm wrong]And shame on Deseret News for allowing them to be
posted[The paper is to be commended for allowing the free
exchange of views. If it took sides, it'd be no different than the New York
Times that conservatives claim is so biased.]
To call marriage a "right" is the fundamental error too many people make.
Marriage is a privilege that I may seek if I meet certain conditions (minimum
age, and so forth).Years ago, I asked a girl to marry me, and she
said no. Does this mean she violated my civil rights? I don't think anyone
would believe the absurd idea that she did. Yet, did not her saying no deprived
me of the "right" to get married at that time? Perhaps you may argue that I
could go and find someone else. But, if marriage is a "right," that would still
not change the fact that she interfered with my "right."Marriage,
like any arrangement that involves more than one person, cannot be considered a
right. Otherwise, we could also argue that I have the "right" to enter into
business relationships, and so if you do not buy my products you are violating
my "rights."The issue of marriage, then, is not a matter of civil
The 2nd response - Never mind that the people of California voted
one way and the judges decided to ignore the will of the people and infringe
their will on THE PEOPLE.[I thought that we were subject to
MAGISTRATES (judges). Their job is to determine whether an issue agrees or
disagrees with the CA State Constitution. They felt that "equal" really meant
"equal". BTW, the will of the people in the South was to keep segregation. The
will of the people doesn't mean anything if their will is to infringe upon the
rights of others]This seems so complicated when all sides try to
spin the issue in a different direction. The reality of marriage is that it was
instituted by God (or by religion, if you will) and not by government or state.
[OK, Let's take the state out of it. Being out of it, they
don't recognize ANY marriage certificate. If a husband dies, all of his
property go to the nearest blood relative since in the eyes of the law, he and
his wife were just roommates. To keep marriage perks, the couple wouold have to
register as domestic partners..just like gays. That's equal!!]
I am a liberal democrat and I wonder, when are people going to realize that
homosexuality is just wrong no matter what party, denomination, ethnic back
ground a person comes from? Its just wrong.
Interesting that so many who criticize the church think that standing for your
beliefs constitutes a political stance. The Church teaches what is right. It
is then our turn to govern ourselves and promote laws for the betterment of
society. Church members standing for what they believe is right in terms of
supporting good legislation is by no means a political act by the church. It was a nice attempt at making the church look bad though.
I agree. Why must Deseret News give so much printed space to a fringe group.
The newspaper was writing their article about the LDS's document they wrote.
They chose to ask only one fringe group what they thought. What about all the
other people in and out of the LDS church--I did not notice that interviewed one
person that agreed with the LDS Church? Talk about slanted coverage! I wish
Deseret News would lose their fascination with the fringe groups and leave them
alone (i.e. Affirmation, FLDS, etc.) why must we be dragged through this every
time there is an article printed about the LDS church's doctrine or statements?
Give us all a break.
Affirmation is a group comprised of homosexual members of the church. Some of
them are currently practicing those behaviors, some are not. Some are members in
good standing, some are undergoing disciplinary action. It seems their goal is
to eventually have homosexual behavior accepted and condoned by the LDS church.
To 7:59, There are groups saying that the LDS Church should not make
statements on this issue and people who have at least embraced the rhetoric of
threatening the Church's tax exempt status over this issue. Where are
they attacking the Unitarian Universalists for their activism and advocacy for
same-gender marriage. People have responded to the church's statements
by attacks built on hate and misinformation. Several of the responses only make
sense if you think that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had
about 450 children who were members of the church taken into custody by Texas.
While I will grant that a few of those statements were probably made by people
who have been mislead by the media I would also say that several of the people
involved in making those statements deliberately lied to spread malicious
feelings against the church. In fact with the level of anti-Mormonism in
this country I would say that some opponants of Proposition 8 have tried to
publicize the LDS opposition to it as much as possible in a hope to turn
anti-Mormon feeling into anti-Prop 8 feeling.
The statement, homosexuality is a sin. is a dogmatic statement (meaning a
religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.) It is entirely
religious in nature and has no place within our secular schools, just like the
dogma of creationism and Intelligent Design. When the religious bias
is removed from the debate, the only logical conclusion that is left is as you
said, [homosexuality is] a perfectly acceptable choice of behavior.
Religions can teach what they want in their Sunday Schools, but in an education
system that provided freedom of religion as well as from religion a statement
like, homosexuality is a sin, does not belong.TO: SAD, said, If
religions, at a future time, are not allowed to consider homosexual behavior as
a sin, then the LDS Church and others will be forced to allow gay marriages
Isn't that an infringement on the right to practice one's religion without
government infringement?IF this hypothetical situation did occur in
the FUTURE, then it would be an infringement of government. But surely you must
see that BY TEACHING HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN IN A SECULAR SCHOOL, THAT IS AN
INFRINGEMENT OF RELIGION TODAY!
#3 ....You obviously don't understand what will happen when gays push for more
and more rights. It will eventually destroy the family, the back bone of
society. [ In other words, you want to violate scripture (see my
8:15 a.m post) in order to possibly prevent something bad from happening. This
is called "steadying the ark". Uzzah in the OT violated scripture by touching
the ark. he thought he was doing good since the ark may have been damaged.
That didn't matter to God. He was zapped. We need to do what is right
(following the scriptures) and let the consequence follow]This
is not about "infringing upon the rights of gays" it's about PROTECTING MARRIAGE
BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. [My marriage will not be harmed in the
slightest by gays marrying. Is Mitt Romney's marriage sullied because gays in
MA can marry? The REAL issue for LDS is whether or not we will abide by the
scriptures letting the consequences (if any) follow...or are we going to steady
the ark because D&C 134:4 doesn't really apply to us when we are fighting gays
wanting equal rights. Marriage promotes family and monogamy for both gays and
Say what you want this is hate mongering from the LDS church. I see it that way
and so do many. It wasn't so long ago that the church was persecuted by others.
I see they have successfully turned the tables.
Hate Mongering? you ether no nothing about the LDS church or you know nothing
about Hate Mongering.
People are bound to ask how I can say the Church does not accept "being gay"
in the face of statements about same gender attraction. First one should
read Elder Oaks 1995 Ensign article on the subject. Then read Elder Hollands
October 2007 Ensign Article. The clear consensus is that we do not fully
understand the nature of sexual attraction, but it is not immutable. God's plan
calls for man to marry woman and vice versa. However, not everyone will have
the ability to do so in this life. Elder Holland makes it clear that
some will be able to overcome same-gender attraction, that everyone can
eventually overcome it, but that not all will be able to overcome it in this
life. To most people "being gay" is synomonous with homosexual
actions. This is even more true considering the number of sexual partners many
gay men have, and the sexual enconters of total strangers. Thus the
statement by Affirmation is misleading. While the church continues to denounce
homosexual actions while spelling out clearly that it is not saying that those
who deal with homosexual attraction are inherently evil, Affirmation makes
statements that are totally misrepresenting this view.
What kind of satisfaction do you people get from dictating peoples "Freedom of
Choice," if someones decisions do not effect anyone but them? Just curious.
Affirmation's position ignores Elder Holland's attack on over indentifying
oneself by one's sexual urges. My point previously was not to say that
people who feel same-gender attraction are more likely to be involved in sexual
relations, but to say that it is hard to use the term "gay" for people who do
not participate in sex at all when the culture of so many gays is so inundated
in sex. My problem is that Affirmation puts words into the mouths of
church leaders that they never used. When people spent huge amounts of
energy making very precise lines, to then "quote" them while totally ignoring
these nuances is worse than to just plain lie about what they said.
RE: RE: Chris PlummerI know plenty about the church being an
ex-member. I also am not so dumb as to recognize passive aggressive tactics
when I see them from the church. I've read plenty of church doctrine by Spencer
W Kimball and other that confirm that the LDS church hates homosexual
behavior... which often times gets switched around to hating gays.
Throughout my life I have heard some people criticize the Old Testament and even
parts of the New Testament because of the harsh consequences for sin. Once when
I was concerned that the Lord was angry with me because I was struggling with my
imperfections, I almost turned away from God. Then I learned that the reason He
doesn't hate the sinner, but the sin that could keep His child from returning to
His loving arms. If I saw one of my children blindly heading toward
some kind of danger, I would warn them...out of love and concern, never out of
hate. I have relatives and friends who are Gay and they know it has no effect on
my love and respect for them as a person. They understand that my personal
belief is that homosexuality is something that could keep them from returning to
God and thank goodness, they don't hate me or accuse me of hatred for my
The stance of the LDS church and its members on this issue has absolutely
nothing to do with being bigoted or homophobic, with wanting to curb somebody's
civil rights, or with wanting to "dictate [a person's] freedom of
choice." It's about wanting to live the Lord's commandments, and wanting to live
in a country where those truths and values are respected. There are many
Americans who do not want homosexual marriage to be legal, for a variety of
reasons. The vast majority of us have voted repeatedly against the measure. For
us, the decision to vote against homosexual marriage is born of a desire to obey
the Lord in whatever He asks of us. Our goal is not to please the anonymous
names on this message board, but to please our Father in Heaven. It's not your
condemnation that we fear. It's not our job here on Earth to be popular or to
cater to the ever-changing whims of the world. We're here to fight against sin
and corruption when it threatens us, and to do what we must do to return to live
with Him. We'll continue to do so, even if we're the only ones left doing it.
Are Elder Holland and Elder Oaks speaking as prophets "in the name of the Lord"
or is this just their opinion? So many other prior "doctrines" have
been later dismissed as mere opinion, and I would like to know how this measures
up.And can you please explain what makes these "inspired" Elders
think they have any right to pontificate on the laws of California? I don't
remember the State of California getting involved in Mormon church doctrine
issues.I'm sure you will no doubt expound on this in your usual
Being "Gay" to a gay person is having same sex attraction. It is not "acting"
on that attraction. Just thought you'd like to know. That is why Affirmation
claims that "being gay" is not a sin any longer. Get It?
To 8:55, You have some good points, although I have to say that the
Saints did not have "abolitionist tendencies". They were non-slaveholders
though as a general rule and distrusted for that. It is also true that men of
African descent were ordained to the priesthood during the time of Joseph Smith,
so the issue is more complexed than people want to admit. More
importantly it was LDS views on Native Americans that caused hate of them in
Missouri. Does GDUb or whatever his name is feel the church is behind
the curve with its position on treatment of undocumented immigrants? I
think that the claim that the church is "behind the curve" on all social issues
is just plain wrong. Beyond this, the issue of blacks and the priesthood is not
the same as civil rights, and the church made official statements in support of
the Civil Rights Act BEFORE it was passed. True, the church could have done
more and been more vocal in supporting the act, but the church clearly did not
oppose the act.
1. Until 1978 African Americans could not be married in Mormon Temples. They
could not hold the Mormon Priesthood. Civil Rights legislation never attempted
to make the Church do it anyway. The Church was never sued by the government for
hate speech for these teachings either. Will the Church be forced to let Gays be
married in the Temple etc. No?2. The Church for years did face
criticism in the public forum for discrimination against African Americans.
Some schools refused to participate in college sports with BYU because of it.
Will that happen with Gay rights? Yes.3. Will allowing Gays to
marry and care for children have a bad affect on society? No. Having children
grow up with no parents is what hurts society.4. Does this
statement reflect progress? Yes it does! If you compare this statement to
statements over the years, the Church is becoming more sensitive to the fact
that gays did not choose their sexuality, have legitimate rights, and have be
subjected to violence.I suspect in ten years you'll see even more
I was happy to see this statement released by the church. Of course, this
subject has been a touchy issue for a good number of years now, and a lot of
people on both sides of the argument get fanatical, making it more difficult.
I am a member of the church, but I don't fall into the "mormon pop
culture" most of the time. Meaning I don't typically vote republican, I don't
limit my associations to other members of the church, and I don't fear/despise
gay people, among other things. While I believe the church should stand its
ground on the issue, I'm glad they made the comments concerning intolerance.
The entire doctrine of the LDS faith is based on the single foundation of
free agency. All people are free to make their own choices. I honor homosexuals
rights to chose their own lifestyle.
I think Brigham Young has rolled over in his grave when he sees the liberal
standards of morality that is expressed by many good faithful members of the
church.As Latter Day Saints become accepting of the liberal views concerning
marriage and other moral issues then it will become easier for members of the
church to live that life style and think nothing of it.Church doctrine is only
as good as the people who live by it.The church needs to continue to speak out
on issues to its members as well as the entire world.
If proposition 8 is defeated not only will same sex couples be able to get
married, they'll be able to file a lawsuit against any church that refuses to
marry them and they'll probably win.
Thank you logicmeister, on almost all of it, ditto.The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has always preached equality among human
beings, that one person is not better than another. Regardless of the pre-1978
revelation/position on the Priesthood, that, by definition, had nothing to do
with Civil Rights. Utah has always maintained a strict non-segrigist culture and
law...and I can name 41 states that canNOT say the same thing. Regarding
homosexuality, the Church, referenced above, has never discriminated against, or
prevented the rights of an individual in their sexual preference...unless you
want to, wrongly, start labeling activities that are illegal or against doctrine
as a 'violation of rights', the Church never has. In fact, the Church has first
and foremost the position that everyone has the 'right' to choose. But, you do not have the right to choose the consequence of exercising your
rights. So you, GW, are actually 0-4 in your false claim. I am not tolerant of deviant behavior or crime or inequality or unfairness.
Aristotle said, "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dieing society." I am not
tolerant of homosexuals thinking that their sexual preference gives them special
rights. It doesn't.
To: Excuse Me Mr. Lambert, but,"And can you please explain what
makes these "inspired" Elders think they have any right to pontificate on the
laws of California?"They are American citizens and members of the
Church are affected by California laws so they like leaders of any other
organization have a right to comment. If they don't then neither does
Affirmation, the ACLU or any other organization of individuals. It's a concept
you might not understand: FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT."I don't remember the State of California getting
involved in Mormon church doctrine issues."So I take it you advocate
that Mormons in California don't have to obey any of the laws of California if
the law doesn't agree with their views? Mormons including Elder Oaks
and Holland are under the authority of the U.S. when in the U.S. therefore they
have a right to promote laws beneficial to them and oppose any that are harmful
to them or members of the Church they lead.It seems to me your
argument is: Mormons must obey California law but must shut up as individuals
like myself make laws they don't agree with.
To Taylormaid, I have explained why the church's psoition has not
changed. What I will attempt to do now is explain why the church's position is
not about empty rhetoric. Marriage is the proactive public policy
endorsement of a relationship. Granting hospital visitation rights is a limited
action that only applies to hospitals, and does not grant positive public policy
endorsement. If same-gender marriage is legally recognized, than school
curriculum will alter to reflect this, that is not a result of granting hospital
visitation rights. The same applies to adoption rights, adoption
guidelines for independent groups, the ability to not perform marriages that are
same-gender in your church, the ability to teach that homosexuality is morally
wrong and a whole host of other things. What Taylormaid and Affirmation
are ignoring is the church has not endorsed a formal civil union of any kind.
They have endorsed giving benefits and visitation to people connected without
any formal union. To understand all this one must first accept that
the language of laws matters and that we need to be precise in what we say.
This idea has been undermined by the courts' periodic reading unplain English
What's new? This is not even news worthy stuff. Did anyone expect
the Mormon church to take any kind of a different stand?Did anyone
believe that the Mormon church would gentle its stance?Did anyone
think they'd say it different enough to mean something else?Of
course not!So, again, what's new? Nothing of course!
RE: A Legal Issue AND TravisA Legal Issue | 8:07 a.m. Sept. 10, 2008
.. This is about the church PROTECTING its rights :IF marriage is defined
as between any two consenting parties, how many lawsuits will the church
face?Travis | 9:44 a.m. Sept. 10, 2008 This isn't a question
of gay rights This is a question of religious freedom. We fear that gay marriage
will lead to a society that attempts to dictate what we may believe about
families, marriage, and sex. I ask: What guarantee can you give me that it won't
happen? So what both of you are saying is: The church SHOULD impose
its religious beliefs on a secular people BECAUSE religion and you fears that IF
they dont THEN the secular people will impose their secular beliefs in your
religion?To answer your quetion Travis, I for one will not stand for
it! I oppose you and your faith's oppression of gays and IF the gays ever
attempt to actually take away your rights, I will oppose them too. Both me and
the ACLUand hopefully you too.
I recall the Massachusetts court case from February 2007 in which several
families sued the public school system for teaching their children about gay
marriage. The families asserted that the reading and distribution of gay-themed
books without first notifying parents was a violation of their religious rights.
The complaint said that the school had "begun a process of intentionally
indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is
right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith."The book that sparked the case was "KING & KING" which tells the story
of a crown prince who rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each
suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union
with a kiss, and live happily ever after.The judge ruled that public
schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals
of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our
democracy."Of course, any teaching about the KING OF KINGS in the
public schools is strictly forbidden.
Excuse me, but when do I get to vote on whether to approve your marriage?
"If proposition 8 is defeated not only will same sex couples be able to
get married, they'll be able to file a lawsuit against any church that refuses
to marry them and they'll probably win."Same sex couples are
marrying right NOW in California. If Prop 8 passes, you will have taken that
right away from them. Did you have to marry blacks in your temple
before they were allowed the priesthood? NoDo you have to marry
non-LDS in your temples? NoDo you have to marry LDS who are not
worthy in your temples? NODo Catholics have to marry anyone who is
not Catholic in their cathedrals? No.Read OUR Constitution.
Freedom of religion. The lawsuits that the LDS church keep referring to to
scare voters are in different countries that have passed laws forbidding speech
against homosexuals. It will NOT happen in this country.
We were never meant to have to decide whether we should marry someone of the
same s_ex or the opposite s_ex. Marriage was for multiplying and it only works
with a man and woman... so the evidence shows.Ungodly choices make
confusion for our children regarding their future and steals the abundant life
of family relations and blessing passed down through the blood line.God's word give guidance to show the way to the abundant life. When there
were not abortion rights, we had the children and found that they were a
blessing, though we feared the outcome. When people live by every
word of God as Jesus said, Christianity will follow the whole Bible as Jesus
said, the Sabbath and Holy Days will be the same as the Jews and we will see
God's anger at lusting after s_ex or same s_ex activity. We will stop the
divorce and other things that Christianity has accepted as natural. There is
only one God and one law that will get us into God's kingdom here and in
eternity and that is following Jesus and being obedient unto death.
To Todd Heatham, Do you also feel that religious groups that put money
and activism for same-gender marriage should loose tax exempt status?
Just look up the actions of the Souther California and Nevada Conference of the
United Church of Christ. Then either A. Go arguing for the removal of the UCC's
tax exempt status or B. Explain why only one position on an issue is an
acceptable stance for a church to take and keep its tax exempt status.
What you folks do is ungodly! There is nothing that can justify having very
strange sex with the same sex. You were not created to do so, so please, tell me
if I am wrong? Do you not see a problem going on here?
It's all about protecting the family unit and the children which are raised
within that unit. No other success in life can compensate for failure in the
home and if we fail our children by allowing the innocent to be raised in the
poisonous environment of homosexuality then we as parents have the greater sin.
There is a reason why suicide is so prevalent in the gay community - the same
reason why suicide is also so prevalent among drug abusers. The human physical
and mental being breaks down when the unnatural poison of drugs and homosexual
behavior are introduced.
I am a member of Satans Army and have been since birth. I was placed her on
earth 25 years ago. Satan told me to wage a tremendous battle against the forces
of good in these latter days. So thats what I am doing. I have become a gay man
spreading my gayness to everyone that I touch. I really dont like to call it a
plague but thats kinda what it is. Satans mastermind plan is to turn everyone
gay. By doing this there will be no new life forms. In the past 10 years I have
been very successful at my duty but lately a have been getting some lip from the
Mormons. They refuse to let men marry men. Come on people. What if the world was
full of heterosexuals? It would be a madhouse! Full of crying children,
overcrowded roads, pollution, ect... The world would be a mess without me. If
you would like to become a member give me a call. We can always use new members.
NO TRUTHFULLY, DO YOU PEOPLE REALLY THINK GAYS ARE GOING TO TAKE THE WORLD DOWN
IF THEY MARRY? EVERYONE SHOULD AND WILL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. NOTHING BUT HATRED.
Many Church leaders of the 20th century, including Bruce R. McConkie, declared
that African-Americans would never receive the Priesthood, and they stood by
that....Right up until they DID receive the Priesthood.Committing sexual transgression is a sin regardless of your sexual
orientation. Being gay is not a sin in and of itself, any more than being
straight is.Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Winklekat,Give me a story about "King & King" ANYDAY over a story
about your so-called "King of Kings"!
To the nameless person at 10:19, My statements on what President
Kimball said are true. The fact that he recognized that homosexuality
was a grevious sin does not mean that he favored attacking its practitioners.
Spencer W. Kimball was not a gay basher but a speaker of truth. He
understood that sexual sins are great offenses in the eyes of God. The
church has not in any way changed its position on this, and those who claim
otherwise are wrong. Also those who claim that hospital visitation
rights have to be built on civil unions are wrong. There are easy ways to
establish who can and who can not visit you in a hsopital that do not require
any government recognized unions.
. "Marriage was for multiplying and it only works with a man and woman..."Can you separate "religious marriage" from "civil marriage?"
There is nothing in the civil marriage laws that state that marriage is to have
children. Why, the US even allows couples to marry if they are planning on NOT
bearing any children. There is absolutely NOTHING that states that civil
marriage is for procreation. Why can't same sex couples have a
LDS people are the most hateful people I have ever had the misfortune of living
among. But when the lie and say the "love" gay people, that is sickening. The
truth is you condemn gay people for being unworthy sinners and beneath
yourselves, and so you try to deprive them of equal treatment under the law.
Stop lying and at least admit you hate gay people. Your "hate the sin, love the
sinner" is a bunch of crapola.
To 10:55, If homosexuality was only genetically caused than 100% of
identical twin pairs would both be homosexual. So the study you sight
proves that genetics are not the only cause. Another thing is genetics
alone say that fraternal twins and sibblings should have the same rates, but
fraternal twins where one is homosexual are more likely to be homosexual about
twice the time than the happening with sibblings. Lastly, no one has
investigated to my knowledge the likelyhood of people in these three groups
being homosexual. Has anyone done a study to see how the rate of homosexuality
among identical twins compares to those who were single births?
Booya for the church! Hazzah! Everyone is free to marshal whatever support they
can to affect society in whichever way they see fit. Gays are perfectly within
their rights to organize and fight for their rights. The Church is perfectly
fine in trying to do what IT thinks is best. It will be interesting to see how
this plays out in the next fifty years or so.
I just read a very illuminating interview of Elder Oaks, describing the position
of the LDS Church in depth. As a former Supreme Court justice, he has the
ability to be very clear and direct on legal points; as an Apostle, he can be
clear and direct on religious points.I doubt too many will take me
up on this, but if you really want clarity on the position of the LDS Church, go
to their website, find the 'Newsroom' Link, and find the interview. It's somewhat lengthy, but that's the beauty: it gets past all the straw men,
the vagueness, and the talking points that dominate this and many threads.
This debate is about what actions will recieve the positive endorsement of
public policy. We are not violating scripture. The most basic reason is
because we believe in an open cannon and the joint declaration of the entire
First Presidency trumps any previous scripture. However there is not a
disagreement here. This is about the things that will recieve positive
government endorsement. We are not trying to outlaw homosexuals living together
in any way, shape, means or form.
"If homosexuality was only genetically caused than 100% of identical twin pairs
would both be homosexual."Consider two identical newborn twin
boys who were separated at birth and raised in different homes without any
contact with each other. If homosexuality were caused by something in the
environment, then, if twin #1 turned out to be gay, the chances of the other
twin becoming a gay adults would only be about 5%. That is because the second
twin would have been exposed to a totally different environment during his
upbringing. So his chances of being gay would be the same as for any other male
-- about 5%. But, studies have reliably shown that if one twin is gay, there is
about a 55% chance that the other twin will be gay.Type One
Diabetes: (definately gene related) only 30% of identical twins are both
affected with this disease. Why not 100%?It has to do with the
"penetrance" of the gene and what triggers this gene to express itself. Read up
on it. Then you will know everything!
To 12:33, Elders Oaks and Holland are speaking as prophets, but we do
not believe in infalibility, they are attempting to communicate God's word to
us. However, I site them specifically because they explicate the issue
the most. The actually position on California was expressed in a letter
from Presidents Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf the presiding presideny of the
church. However Prophets have always carried God's message to all
people. That is their duty and responsibility, to declare the word of God to
all people. Lastly, we live in America and not France, we have freedom
of religion not seperation of Church and state. This means any religious group
can make statements about any political issue they want to. The LDS
Church is much more restrained in doing so than many other religious groups, but
because you are silent on some things does not mean you must be silent on all
As a proud gay man who served honorably in the US Army, I don't care one bit
what the LDS thinks about gays and lesbians and they have NO right trying to
mandate what I can do with my life. I don't care what you Mormons do in your
bedrooms so why do you care what I do in mine. I thought America was for liberty
and justice for all but apparently this is not so. There is supposed to be
separation of church and state but the LDS do not understand this. If I marry a
man, how does this affect your heterosexual marriage? If it does affect it then
there must be something seriously wrong with your marriage.
If that is your goal, then you need to ban 100% of all divorces in the world.
Also, if marriage is so sacred, why isn't it treated that way by you
heteros???Is a marriage still "sacred" if it's performed by an Elvis
Impersonator? How about if it's performed at a drive through window?Is the 5th or 6th marriage as sacred as the first? Is a marriage of a gay man
to a woman whom he is cheating on by cruising the parks because he's miserable
trying to fit in society's standard of "normal"?seems to me that if
marriage was so sacred, a lot of you have more to worry about than I do. Your
sure treating a sacred ordinance like garbage with your over 50% divorce
rates.Face it. Marriage is a civil/leagal agreement between two
people. The Ceremony is the only part of the union that has any type of sacred
or religious conotation.
protecting the family unit | 1:16 p.m."It's all about protecting the
family unit and the children which are raised within that unit. No other success
in life can compensate for failure in the home and if we fail our children by
allowing the innocent to be raised in the poisonous environment of homosexuality
then we as parents have the greater sin."What gives you the
right to tell my how to raise MY children? Do I have the right to disolve your
marriage if I do not like something you are teaching YOUR kids? Of course not.
If you really cared about children, you would WANT homosexuals with
children to marry and give those children more stable homes! Homsexuals ARE
raising children and will continue to raise children. Just because it might not
fit into your ideal, does not give you the right to deal these families into a
"second class" catagory that actually hurts the children you "care" about so
much. Being gay and "ACTING" gay is not illegal in America. They
can and do have children. What is your solution to this? Take them away? Be an American and allow others the same rights you have.
I think everyone should watch the wonderful documentary called "For the Bible
tells me so" . It provides many interesting viewpoints on homosexuality and
religion. I cried when I watched it, it was very powerful and it had a great
---most reasonable members recognize that change such as plural marriage, blacks
and the Priesthood, and temple ceremony changes were due largely to either
pressure or a more reasonable outlook by leaders over time---Actually most members know that these are from revelation and have nothing to
do with pressure from the world. Maybe you should read President Kimball's
comments on the blacks and the priesthood revelation.To the supposed
"Captain Moroni, It is hard to debate you because you misunderstand the
scriptures you are quoting so badly that it inhibits debate.
To the 1:59 poster, Did I say that genetics do not affect same-gender
attraction? No, I just said that that can not be the only factor. There are
other factors involved. I did not say that genetics do not have any role, so
stop trying to force me into that position. If something is caused only
by genes identical twins will repreat it 100% of the time. For the rate to be
only a little above 50% there must be other factors. It is that simple.
LDS Church leaders are inept on civil and constitutional law. Their position is
logically fallacious, incoherent, and unjustified with any basic ethical
principles found within the Western legal tradition.Shame on them
for this attempt at a horrible miscarriage of justice.
The Church for its Members and for he Youth, refer to Homosexuality either Male
or Female as Same Sex Attraction.The Church has clearly stated "That
marriage Is Between a Man and a Women" it cannot get clearer then that.The pro gay faction of the Church had asked their people for what its worth to
walk out of the Chapel when this Document was read. We even heard about this in
Hawaii, although the Document was not read.Liberals feel that if you
are against any Social Issue that is Liberal or goes against Church Standards in
any way as "Hate Speech" just ignore them. As a matter of Choice just ignore
Liberals Completely, do what you need to do and your day will go better.
I can'nt believe the confusion that there is on this issue. The Bible teaches
the word of God, and it teaches that a man laying down with a man is a sin. End
Rights arising from such sources as the constitution should, in my view, accrue
to the individual first, and in some cases exclusively. Insofar as possible,
institutions including but not limited to churches and government should ask
first whether or not this is a choice people make for themselves first, and how
can we leave them alone to do it.
sorry jeff get your facts straight Bruce did say that the blacks would never
recieve the priesthood but, but he was then told to retract that by the first
presidency. Also to Ernest T. the church often leads in social progress. The
territory of deseret alowed women to vote long before the U.S. did. They only
recinded that so they could become a state. It was in the conditions for doing
"What have you done to help heterosexual marriage?" Well, let's see, I've been
with only one man and have been married for 18 years. I still love that one man
and teach my children about a loving relationship that is ordained of God,
between one man and one woman.Why don't you back up all your statistics?
References please.To Captain Moroni: Okay, let's all let the consequences
follow. You mean, sit by and do nothing while gays sue doctors who won't get
them pregnant? Or how about gays suing churches who won't let them get married
in their places of worship? They won't stop there, they will want homosexuality
taught in schools and will sue those who oppose because it is hate speech. Not
in my school. The worse thing that can happen and obviously in your case, is
that good men do nothing.
Confused | 2:20 p.m. Sept. 10, 2008 "I can'nt believe the confusion that
there is on this issue. The Bible teaches the word of God, and it teaches that a
man laying down with a man is a sin. End of discussion."You
can believe that it is a sin. No one is going to stop you. It is when you
legislate your beliefs onto others that you are going to get rebuttals. Not
everyone believes as you do and it is against YOUR church principals (11th
Article of Faith) to MAKE others live your beliefs. That is the
crux of this whole matter. Why can't the LDS people allow others to believe and
live how, where or what they may?
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of
our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how,
where, or what they may."Can someone please explain to me why this
article of faith doesn't extend to allowing gay people to live according to the
dictates of their own consciences, including the right to marry (CIVILLY) who
The scriptures tell us that God is an unchangeable God and that He is the same
yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He never varies His commandments. We, as His
children, have our freedom of choice -- but what we don't have is the freedom to
choose the consequences of our actions. Smashing those commandments by
self-justification or rationalization doesn't fly! Some day we will all stand
before God to be judged of our works, whether good or evil.
Sorry, but voting for a proposition to amend the constitution through a
democratic process is not "infringing" on anyone's rights--it's the voice of the
people using the constitutional system to protect something they hold dear. So,
why not just listen to the leaders and stop kicking against the pricks? Also, unless you're really a Captain in the Armed Forces and you're
first name happens to be Moroni, maybe you should stop besmirching the name of a
Book of Mormon hero.
The Church should mandate its own beliefs however they choose. By actively
supporting a proposition however, why is it that the Church is not crossing over
the Church and State line?When the Church's policies mandate outside
of their religion and faith, they are now treading in deep water. Nobody cares
how the LDS faith maintains themselves within their walls, but they have no
right to push those into legislation wherein THEIR doctrine becomes law that ALL
must follow in ANY state or country. No religion should have that power or
influence that their teachings are forced on people outside of the religion for
whatever reason regardless of how good the cause is. If it is THAT good of a
cause, a politician can sponsor the bill himself.
If prop 8 passes, the Church will have forced NON MEMBERS to do what is right,
in essence, non members will have lost their free agency to a church they do not
even believe in.If I am not mistaken, Christ granted us free agency
KNOWING FULL WELL that not all of us would return...Satan wanted to FORCE US ALL
to be obedient..if we force people outside of the LDS faith to do
what is right, how have we NOT taken away their free agency? Wherein then lies
"The scriptures tell us that God is an unchangeable God and that He is the same
yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He never varies His commandments. We, as His
children, have our freedom of choice -- but what we don't have is the freedom to
choose the consequences of our actions. Smashing those commandments by
self-justification or rationalization doesn't fly! Some day we will all stand
before God to be judged of our works, whether good or evil." You can believe that! I don't have to. And for you to legislate that belief
is UnAmerican and against you own beliefs. Let God judge them. You don't have
to. You do NOT need to make them and their families less than yours. Let God judge.
To Anonymous: LDS Church leaders are inept on civil and constitutional law.
Their position is logically fallacious, incoherent, and unjustified with any
basic ethical principles found within the Western legal tradition.Shame on them for this attempt at a horrible miscarriage of justice.I thought you might like to know that there are many lawyers among the Church
leaders -- one of which is Elder Dallin H. Oaks. He taught law at the
University of Chicago for many years and was also the senior Supreme Court
Justice for the State of Utah at the time he was called as an Apostle. He and
the other leaders of the Church are well-recommend that you do your research
before you condemn the leaders. Thanks.
If marriage is a solemn ceremony of God, why can atheists participate in it?Listen to all of these hateful comments. Gay people are NOTHING like
what mormons are trying to portray them. Shame on all of you "Christians" who
have so much hatred against gays.
My response to Anonymous about constitutional law has some missing words, and
should have read: "...Church are well-qualified in constituional (and other)
I dont think the gays on this thread understand how Prop 8 works. my
understanding is that it does infringe on the rights of those who belong to a
religiouse sect. It will take away thier tax exemption. and i think they would
not like that. so i cant blame the mormons for not wanting us to medal with
their rights ether.
The 500 pound Elephant in the room that no one here dares mention is the fact,
that in the eyes of faithful LDS members, only a Temple Marriage is truly valid.
A Civil Marriage is strictly a "til death do us part" second-best substitute.
I grew up in Utah as a multi-generational member and was always told this.
They are HUGE spoiled cry babies, and they all whine about everything and
everyone. Just a bunch of gaga-goo-goo's who need their diapers changed.
I think the 800 pound elephant in the room is that Mormons have always allowed
that you are not committing a sexual sin if you have a civil marriage. As long
as it is "lawful," you are ok. If homosexuals are allowed to marry legally,
they are no longer having sex before marriage and it opens a new bag of worms
that they must sort out to still make it a sin.
to gay man (3:07)Not true! Prop. 8 amends the California
Constitution by merely adding the phrase "Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California." It does nothing else--you can
google it. It would thus reverse the supreme court ruling permitting same-sex
marriage.It says NOTHING about churches or their tax exempt status.
But--importantly--neither did the supreme court ruling other than to CLARIFY
that the ruling extended to civil marriage only and does not require churches to
perform same sex marriages.
gw, you need a reality check. Just because the church does not agree with the
world does not mean it is behind the curve.We are different from the world
as we should be.We are striving to become like Christ, as we ALL should
be.The church is led by God, if that means that we are "behind the curve"
than so be it.Yes, the church leaders are men, so what?Why is that
such a big deal to people?Someone has to lead. some one has to follow.I am a woman and I have no problem with that.
It doesn't really matter what any of you religious zealots have to say.
According to the polls. Prop 8 is going to die a well deserved death. Score
another victory for personal freedom in this country.
No way does Prop 8 take away any Religion's tax exemption, or tell them who can
or cannot marry in their Church. It deals strictly with Civil Marriage,
performed by the State of California.
RE: JimAnd the Church is passing Prop 8 how? Is it buying votes, does it
own the voting system in the county, does it represent the majority of voting
eligible Californians, is the President of the Church voting against the
presidents of other organizations?? Do mormons get 10 votes each??If thats not the case then the Church will influence the vote on Prop 8 about
as much as the FLDS will effect the outcome of the Presidental Election.
The LDS Church issued a statement condemning gay marriage because it has no
understanding of human sexuality. The LDS policy on homosexuality has drifted
over the past 30 years, following behind mainstream American thought. Right now
they only ape the policies and dogma of Protestant Fundamentalism.Meanwhile, thousands of gay youth are raised LDS, go on missions and graduate
from BYU, only to leave the church when they find out that the church has no
idea on how to deal with them. As they leave, they often take family members
with them out the door. The LDS Church is losing its brightest, most creative
members because of its anti-gay bigotry. It's current political activities are
frighteningly reminiscent of its opposition to the ERA and the ugly days of its
I don't care what the bible says. I didn't vote for it.The
Bible, the Mormon Prophet nor your God have any jurisdiction over me without my
consent.And I don't give my consent. END OF DEBATE
Grandma,I said what I said knowing full well Oaks' background. I
stick by what I said. He has allowed religious fanaticism to corrupt his legal
ethics.Shame on their inept jurisprudence and ethics.
When are one of you LDS going to answer why this does not go against your 11th
Article of Faith?
To the 2:31 commentator, I think you need to consider that Bruce R.
McConkie said that what he had written on the matter of Blacks and the piesthood
should be ignored and that our previous ignorance on the matter had been
overwhelmed by the new light of revelation. Now I suspect that some
people on here would throw every insult in the book against Elder McConkie, but
it is clear that some people feel Official Declaration 2 is the result of
revelation, even if you will not grant that they are rational. That
feeling would also apply to David B. Haight and Gordon B. Hinckley as well as
many others. So maybe if you define the leaders of the church as being
non-rational in thought such argument applies. Back to direct responses
to 2:31. Congress denied women the right to vote in Utah via the Edmunds-Tucker
act but the right was restored on the gaining of statehood. Please, get your
facts straight before you start talking about history, and do not malign
congress with false accusations.
Indeed you are right, That is the biggest problem facing the Religions that are
pushing for Prop 8.
A church needs to stand for something and not let the world decide what they
should believe or tolerate. If you sit by and watch all the little dogs yapping
at your tires and come to a stop so they can sink in their teeth. What is the
point of having doctrine that does not change to fit what the world feels is
politically correct? If you don't like what the church is saying, leave. It is
as easy as that.
It is absurd to say that homosexuality is okay because Jesus never mentioned it.
He never explicitly mentioned terrorism or drug addiction either. So I suppose
we should say those things are okay too? Many people just want to justify their
own behaviors so they say the most asinine things. Fortunately, we know the
truth: PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIORS. Christ spoke for change. Do not
believe misguided people who would tell you that change is not possible. That
is simply not true.
Man - there are way too many comments here to read - hey so let me add another
one!From reading these posts it sounds that most people are already
very heavily biased one way or another about the issue. I really doubt any good
will come from this kind of a discussion forum.
Proposition 8 does not bar any religious activity. If the Quakers, Unitarian
Universalists and whoever else want to hold ceremonies of smae-sex couples and
call them "marriages" they can do that all day long. However the debate
is whether the positve, pro-active endorsement of the government will be put
behind this move. My biggest issue with Prince and Prince (or King and
King) or whatever it is called is that it is unrealistic. If they wanted to
give us a realistic portrayal of the historic relationships of the royalty than
the prince would marry a princess to advance the infuence of his kingdom while
keeping a gay lover on the side. You say this is just too synical and
degrading a tale for kindergartners. Well, for those of us who recognize that
homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God than the book is an
outrage. One last thing, I was first introduced to Prince and Prince by
reading it in the column of a proponant of same-gender marriage. This is not
some right-wing scare tactic, it is the true path of the homosexual lobby and it
just makes me sick to think of kindergartners being exposed.
Yes, People can change their behaviors, they unfortunately cannot change their
orientation. Yes, they can get married to a person of the opposite sex, they
can lie, or they can live a lonesome life, but their orientation stays with them
the rest of their life.
So, it okay for Utah to support a bill of another state against gay marriage!
But utah does nothing against thousands who are breaking the Federal Law of
RE: Abraham LincolnWhy should I change, there's nothing wrong with
me the way I am now. Who cares what Jesus said or didn't say. Who cares if I was
born gay or if my overbearing mother or demanding father made me gay. It really
doesn't matter either way.Yet, being gay doesn't give me some
mythical power to destroy the world, or to make my neighbors get a divorce. I'm
amazed at what you theists believe. It's all very very strange. But,
I do have the ability to be raise good, well-adjusted son and to be an
outstanding leader in my community, all of which I'm doing now inspite of Jesus
and your religious beliefs.
John Pack Lambert:When I send my kindergartener to your school, how
will the teacher explain that she has two dads? Should she stop the other kids
from picking on her, or should she just let it go, since she is from a second
RE: 11 Article of Faith | 3:48 p.mI'm willing to answer that.
Because the 11th article deals with freedom of worship. You'd have to explain
how state recognition of gay marriage is part of someones method of worship.
Maybe your thinking of another article because freedom of worship doesnt really
Will someone please tell LDS Inc. to stay OUT of California's Constitution!!!!
The irony of this topic is that we cant change the law as it has been laid down
from the very beginning of the world even the lord JC have to follow the plan
that was set from God,we are govern by those laws and when these laws are
disprut through sinsthen there will be consequences hence the prophet is trying
to let the world know that it is for our good that we do not disrupt these laws
as suffering will surely follow! There is no Ifs and Buts..on this topic..Gay or
not! you are on your own on this one or on any other unrighteous practices.
To Sam (4:12)I guess I have to admit that I agree with you that
little if any good will come from these discussions. Still, I post in the
perhaps naive hope that some understanding will result.I'm a member
of the Church who grew up, went on a mission, went to BYU, and realizing I was
gay, saw that the Church had no place for me (Just as AxelDC describes above).
I have accepted my sexual orientation and am at peace with it, as is my Mormon
family. I choose to not live a lonely life (and frankly one as an outsider
within the Church) but to live openly as a gay man and to seek to make a life
for myself and my partner. I only want now to live my life without
interference. I do seek greater understanding on this forum, I guess, but
mostly, I just want to live my life and be left alone.Why can't my
partner and I have this right to marry?
Lets take a look at the text that you are so badly misconstruing. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates
of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship
how, where, or what they may. "Thats fine. Let people worship goats
if they want. Thats their decision. BUT... if someone decides that
they want to be LDS and a practicing homosexual, then they may not do it in the
LDS church. Your free to reject or accept the tenets of the gospel. A person
however is NOT free to dictate the churches policies on anything. You either
accept it lock stock and barrel, or not.
"I don't care what the bible says.I didn't vote for it.The
Bible, the Mormon Prophet nor your God have any jurisdiction over me without my
consent.And I don't give my consent.END OF DEBATE"Thats correct. They have no jurisdiction over you without your consent. The
constitution on the other hand does.The process that is being used
to put Prop 8 on the ballot is constitutional and legally binding. Yes even
binding to YOU. Thats the thing about living in a demoracy, the
tyranny of the majority. Thankfully we dont live in a pure democracy.
In response to: re John Pack Lambert | 10:19 a.m. Sept. 10, 2008 who said:Spencer W Kimball? Have you read "The Miracle of Forgiveness"? The book
written by him that in the chapter on Homosexuality states "it would be better
that such a Man were never born"?Spencer W Kimball never made
that remark about homosexuals. I have the book and I went back and read that
chapter. There is no such statement. By your remarks you have suggested that
President Kimball is equating homosexuality with the sons of perdition which is
not true.They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say
that it had been better for them never to have been born; D&C 76:32 Here is something he did say:Many have been
misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the
tendency, and that God made them that way. This is as untrue as any other of the
diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image
of God. Does the pervert think God to be that way? (The Miracle of
You write "If you don't like what the church is saying, leave. It is as easy as
that."I DID leave the Church. Moved to California. Got married
recently. I just want the Church to leave ME and my new wife and our marriage
alone.It's as easy as that. I won't try to change church doctrine
if the church doesn't try to cancel my marriage.
The problem with a church entering the political arena is that it gives the
membership an excuse to make enemies of the "other side". It would be nice to
worship a God that loves all his children and has a plan for each of them.
To ArthurYes, but surely freedom to worship, as understood by this
article of faith, includes the freedom NOT to worship. I choose not
to worship, or believe the same as you do. Why does the church insist on
forcing its religious beliefs on the California Constitution?
I am so sick of you whiny Mormons trying to shove your antiquated parochial
views of "morality" on the rest of us. You should be concerned with
over-population, pollution and global warming caused in part by your reckless
breeding and superstitious belief that Jesus is going to come down and make
everything all right. That is immoral and naive. You should be glad that
homosexuals are not contributing to overpopulation and should THANK THEM.
I was disappointed to not see a reference to support the church's claims with
the below statement copied directly from The Divine Institution of Marriage,"
under the section How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society? The
experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex
marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage
will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family
generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of
marriage, with harmful consequences for society. Oh yeah? Wheres
your sources. My professor would have given me an F for that argument. and yet another example of religious extremism hype.
Captain Moroni. You said:I thought that we were subject to
MAGISTRATES (judges). Their job is to determine whether an issue agrees or
disagrees with the CA State Constitution.Seeing that you have taken
as a username, the name of a Nephite Prophet you may have overlooked another
prophets view of a degenerate justice system. And now behold, I say
unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to
be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.And notice the reply he got from the judges supporters:And now it
came to pass that when Amulek had spoken these words the people cried out
against him, saying: Now we know that this man is a child of the devil, for he
hath lied unto us; for he hath spoken against our law. And now he says that he
has not spoken against it.And again, he has reviled against our lawyers,
and our judges.Sound familiar?
THat's an interesting explanation, Arthur. However, I wonder how state
recognition of gay marriage affects your method of worship. Assuming it doesn't,
since it doesn't force any church to recognise or ordain or perform such
marriages, isn't the formal, organised objection by the church a political
exercise? This isn't just a comment on government. It's an effort to influence
Although I don't condone gay relationships I don't believe to outlaw marriage to
them is right. When you put religion into civil law, you are forcing religious
beliefs unto those who are supposed to have them freedom to deny/not-accept
RE: @TO ConfusedI couldnt agree with you more. I cant
even express how grateful I am that I live in a country that protects me from a
religion like yours. Imagine if Mormonism controlled the moral zeitgeist that
has been permeating and growing in civilization over the past few hundred years.
Of course, Mormonism its self couldnt have survived under what was then
considered progressiveConstitutional Monarchs. Later followed by the Magna
Carta, Step by step the moral zeitgeist strengthens. Were shrugged off the
oppressive bonds of Catholicism, were invented a printing press, and have an
educated middle class. Where would Mormonism put an end to this progress? Would
adulterers be hanged in the town square? Would witches still be burned at the
stake? Would heretics be flogged and publically burned?After dealing
with 15 years of Utah politics, after seeing a gay mans cold-blooded murderer
get a sentence similar to that of abusing his pet, I cannot even begin to
express how strongly and how powerfully grateful I am for the protections my
country gives even me from a religion like yours.
I have a friend that wants to marry his dog. He doesn't want this proposition
to pass for that reason.
To those who say Gays will not force their will on religion and churches.Please explain why catholic adoption agencies in Massachusettes had to
close their doors.
Who is it that is trying to shove their beliefs down anyone's throat? You have
it backwards! It's you who wants to CHANGE the rest of us and how we want to
live. It's you that wants to change "marriage" not us! If you want to be gay, go
be gay! Some of us just don't enjoy having homosexuality and deversity shoved
down our throats! You are the one who wants the rest of the world to accomodate
you and your choices! Why can't you leave us alone?
I find it ironic that a religion that used to practice polygamy and will do so
in the next life is so concerned about preserving traditional marriage. Your church has full control over who gets married in your temples. Why
do you need to interfere with civil marriages involving Gentiles?
Please say NO to small-mindedness and bigotry perpetuated by the extreme
religious fringes such as the Mormon church. Say NO to Prop 8!
with your words, because you hurt us with your attitudes and because you don't
believe we are "children of God" the same as you! (At least with the same rights
and priviledges).You believe in scriptures that have been changed to
accomadate modern society (we don't believe in slaves, women as 2nd class
citizens anymore), but you don't want to show our people the same respect.
Honestly, I think it is a disgrace to any christian to look for ways to deny and
exclude those who seek love and companionship within the eyes of our heavenly
father. I have a wonderful husband and unfortunately have struggled to have
children. Honestly I dont see a diffence between our relationship and a gay
relationship. We are both unable to have children. Jesus would never exclude
those who seek love. One does not choose to be gay but biggots will continuously
fear and try to exclude those who dont fit the norm. Remember no MAN is perfect
and therefore ?can any religion run by man be perfect?----I think not.
Why do some Christian churches think their God instituted marriage when ancient
Egyptians were marrying and creating laws governing marriage before Adam and Eve
were even thought of? In Egypt, where marriage was first formalized, it was
considered a personal matter, NOT a religious matter.Why have some of
today's Christian churches abandoned Jesus' ministry to sinners? It seems they
create "sinners" so that they can feel morally superior to them, have "enemies"
to solidify their adherents against such "enemy", and enjoy their policies of
discrimination and bigotry.And when did it happen that civil instruments,
such as constitutions and laws became the moral leader rather than the
churches?Shame on all of them; their lips draw near unto God, but their
hearts (and time and energy and gobs and gobs of tithing money) are far from
him. They preach kindness, respect, and love for all people, but then get neck
deep in the fray to deny equal civil rights to a select minority.Gay and
lesbian partners and their children are nuclear families which are valuable in
providing stability for society. And the kids grow up to be citizens as fine as
kids of hetero couples.
to "the truth" (6:31): Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts
participate in that state's general public adoption services. As such they are
a public actor and have to abide by the law. They chose to close down because
they don't wish to acknowledge gay marriage. If they were merely acting in the
private sphere they would be allowed to do as they please. But they cannot
provide a public service under the rules of the state and ignore those
particular rules they don't like. This will not happen with religions with
regard to marriage because they don't participate in a similar public system.To "Re: incensed" (6:34): You write "It's you (gays) who wants to
CHANGE the rest of us and how we want to live." If you could just demonstrate
how our marriages will affect you, your life, your welfare, then this notion of
"shoving beliefs down your throats" would be believable. But your life will go
on unchanged. Nothing is being forced down your throats. This needn't affect
you AT ALL.
Liberals paint anyone who opposes them as a bigot or a hater. But being opposed
to homosexuality on moral grounds does not qualify one as a bigot.
Homosexuality is a threat to our society because it threatens the normal marital
and family structures. It is wrong to teach young people that homosexuality is
just another lifestyle. Yes, the Bible does say in several places that
homosexuality is wrong, but one does not need the Bible to intuitively know that
such behavior is not normal. Some people continue to spread the lie that
being gay is acceptable and they point to so-called scientific studies as if
such studies were more reliable than common logic and morality. Homosexual
conduct runs counter to logic and to the symmetry of the sexes. Sodomy is not a
natural act for either hetero or homosexuals.
Homosexuality reduces us to the level of animals Just because
something is found in nature does not make it right. Cannibalism, incest, and
multiple sexual partners are also found in nature among animals. Should we also
condone those things too because they are "natural"? What if it's between
consenting adults? Does that make it okay? Liberals continue to
lie to young people by telling them that homosexuality is an acceptable
"lifestyle." Homosexuality is not right. Maybe we should just
legalize everything! Let's do whatever animals do. As if morality can be
changed to suit whatever circumstance we want it to. We are not
animals. We can and should change our faults; all of us. Morality cannot be
changed simply to suit our trendy lifestyles.
You wrote, "Bruce R. McConkie said that what he had written on the matter of
Blacks and the piesthood should be ignored..."Well, gee, how
convenient for Elder McConkie! I guess that fits perfectly into the dogma of
many members of the Church: the leaders of the Church are always speaking true
doctrine, except when they aren't, in which case please ignore that small
It's interesting that you call people with whom you disagree "small minded and
bigoted". Does that make YOU small minded and bigoted? Isn't there room in this
discussion for other opinions who honestly disagree with you? I guess everyone
who does not think like you is just stupid, right? How unfortunate some of us
are that we are not as enlighted as yourself! How very unfortunate we small
minded and bigoted are, indeed!
Choosing to act is always a choice.Please do not complain that you "were
born that way." All people are born with equally difficult challenges, but no
one is forced to do anything. We all have choices to make. We all have
temptations that we should resist. Some people simply do not want to do what is
right. So they rationalize to cover up the truth. Children do it all the time.
So do practicing homosexuals. You want to engage in homosexual behaviors or
other sins? Go ahead. But please don't complain that you can't help it. You
are lying to yourself.
what a hot coal any article about gay rights becomes when posted in a Utah
newspaper ;)Although I agree nearly 100% with the Mormon church's views on
this issue, I still find it amusing the pride of many of the adherents to the
LDS faith who claim they know God's will. It's not "I believe", but "I know".
For a religion with missionary work as a main focus, this framework won't work
to that end. Don't understand why gays and lesbians insist on being the
same as everyone else by having to call their legal union, "marriage". Why not
just call it a "legal union"? Isn't the issue more about rights? Don't
heterosexuals have the right to legally define their unions as "marriage"? I love Ralph Waldo Emerson's essays. Every time I read his writings, I feel I
understand the natural world a little better and that it should be our guide.
Biggest problem I have with "gay marriage" is nature does not allow for two men
or two women to bear children, and worry we depart EVEN FURTHER from the natural
order when it becomes lawful for same sex couples to adopt children. That's my
Vote yes to Proposition 8. Maybe some good things will happen in the state
besides fires, floods, and earthquakes.Honestly, I can't believe
this is an issue. I have the feeling the 70-80%+ of everyone here knows (at
least in their heart) that giving in to homosexual desires is sinful. Yes, Jesus loves all. But, he does not look upon sin with the least degree of
allowance. He said "[g]o and sin no more."Let us all be
better people and not try to excuse our behavior but, better, work to improve
To the 4:19 commentator, Studies show that through gender affirmation
therapy people can change their sexual orientation. I also believe that through
intervention of the Holy Spirit people can hange sexual orientation. I am
not arguing that all people will be able to change, but to say that no one can
change is false.
To 4:29, If people are breaking a federal law than it is the federal
government's responsibility to prosecute, not Utah's. I wish the legislature
understood this, and would not try to inject it two cents into enforcing federal
immigration laws. However your point is flawed on two other grounds. The
fact of the matter is Tom Green and many others in Utah have been prosecuted on
polygamy cases. Secondly, prosecuting polygamists and not giving
recognition to same gender marriage are two entirely different debates. Why is
the pro-polygamy lobby not as open and vocal as the pro-same-gender marriage
lobby? In large part because polygamy is a crime, whereas same gender marriage
is not. The Quakers and Unitarian Universalists have been performing same
gender marriages for nearly 20 years. No one is trying to send them to jail. The analogy between who Utah prosecutes and who they do not is totally
irrelevant. The assumption that Utah=The LDS Church is false and offensive.
Those of us members of the LDS Church who live in the United States outside of
Utah outnumber church members who live in Utah.
Someone | 2:44 p.m. Sept. 10, 2008 said - "Sorry, but voting for a
proposition to amend the constitution through a democratic process is not
"infringing" on anyone's rights--it's the voice of the people using the
constitutional system to protect something they hold dear. So, why not just
listen to the leaders and stop kicking against the pricks? "CM - I
think you should read what the prophets said about others taking away our right
to marry as we saw fit. I'm sure that they'd bow to your reasoning. You are
correct that voters do have a right to pass this amendment, but we LDS are
forbidden to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others because our
religious opinions want us to. Gays have the right to be married in CA. We are
trying to infringe upon that right by passing a law against that. We are in
open rebellion against the scriptures.
Because they were receiving taxpayer funds, that's why. The LDS Church doesn't
get a single penny of tax money, so all of the threats of the Church being
forced to marry gays are nothing but fear-mongering.
A correlary to HCW's statement, I was trying to think of how the idea
of being subject to magistrates in the Proposition 8 issue would make sense. I
could not fathom it. The fact of the matter is that the people in many
states in the United States have the right to pass consitutional admendments by
direct vote. That is what is being done in California. We are
not having a very open debate. To consider whether homosexuality should be
legalized, we need to consider what its fruits are. However every time someone
mentions what these fruits are they are called a homophobe and a bigot.
The fact is we should wonder why we want to give legal recognition to a sexual
practice that is associated with higher rates of promiscuity, suicide and drug
To 6:17pm, Whose murder are you talking about? What murder of a person
with same gender attraction got a sentance "similar to that of abusing a pet".
Name what you are refering to please, because I have never heard of this
unpunished murder ever.
The Mormon Church has changed central doctrines several times.1. When the
Utah Territory was trying to be admitted into the Union as a State, the Federal
Government would not consider admitting it unless the practice of polygamy
ended. Polygamy was considered the "new and everlasting covenant" and was a very
important Doctrine. In 1890 Mormon Pres. Wilford Woodruff signed the Manifesto
outlawing polygamy, so Utah could become a state.2. In 1978 Pres. Spencer
W. Kimball changed the doctrine that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood. The
Civil Rights Movement had occurred over a decade previously with Blacks being
given equal rights under the US Constitution. I was taught in Mormon Seminary
that Blacks were being punished by God for not being valiant followers of Jesus
Christ in the pre-mortal life, and would not be able to hold the Priesthood
until every man in the history of the world who could hold it, did hold it.3. Current leaders of the Mormon Church have indeed changed their stance on
homosexuality. They used to consider homosexuality (same sex attraction) a sin.
Now it is only a sin if it is ACTED on. A celibate homosexual is not a sinner.
If I am tempted to do some bad behavior I guess I have to give in, I have no
choice, can't help it! I must have been born that way and therefore my behavior
isn't bad, you are bad if you don't accept my behavior! So the rest of the world
has to accept and embrace my choices or else I will call you names! I think I am
begining to understand now!
The gays and lesbians who actually want to get married are not the ones who
Mormons traditionally think of as a threat. We are not the leather clad queens
who hang out in gay bars and have a new conquest every night. We look and act
much like you and want the same things in life that you do. We are not like
what the media portrays and we often blend into your communities unnoticed. To
deprive me of this civil right would be equivalent to me wanting a ban on
heterosexual marriage because of Brittany Spears & Kevin Federline. There are
grotesque people in every segment of society. We should not limit civil rights
because of this.Mormonism is a culture as well as a religion. I am
still one of you even though I have not attended church in 10 years. I am still
your brother. I did not chose to be gay. I am just trying my best to live my
life even though I no longer fit in your religion. I don't hate you. I just
want the same rights that any other straight person has. I have no interest in
marrying in your temple.
The Lord is the Creator. You demean Him by deciding that your point of view of
Godliness is acceptance of that which He has said is "not of Me". To
rationalize the gay lifestyle with human selfishness and mortal wants does not
move the Lord to change. You use illogical reasoning to account for your
position by assuming the Lord thinks like you. If one reads the Scriptures
(Bible) accepted world wide by Jews ( old Testament) and Christians alike, then
you would know that the Lord is "immovable' by the whims of man. It is Him we
must follow. The Savior said," If ye love me, keep MY commandments."Paul
was very specific in Romans about the practice of homosexual activity practiced
by the Roman soldiers. He clearly outlines, by the descriptions he cited, the
incorrectness and ungodly behavior of those acts. If you are ashamed of
religion- are you ashamed of Jesus Christ and His teaching as taught by Him and
I agree choosing is always a choice. I am choosing to be with a man rather than
ruin some poor unsuspecting woman's life and marry her in the temple. Even if I
were to follow the prophet's words, I would still not make it into the top level
of the Celestial Kingdom without temple marriage. Homosexuality is not a
handicap & I am not retarded. I am choosing to be true to myself & not ruin
someone else's life so I can fit in with my church brethren. I
refuse to live my life alone. That is unfair of you to ask me to do that. How
would you feel if you were in that situation? I am with a grown man of
consenting age that wants to be with me. I am not a pedophile. I am not
marrying an animal. Go take a walk through BYU's campus. It
doesn't take long to figure out there are A LOT of young gay Mormon men there.
This issue is affecting your church tremendously and is not going to go away.
Too many people in your church have suffered because of statements like these.
Don't contribute to another gay suicide.
Hey- Marilyn- Where in the world of archeology, did you discover the timeline
for Adam and Eve? I want the research site for this "data". Please use logic
and real research before you argue for Gay Marriage. It makes your argument
sound desperate-which it is.
The problem in California is that judges are legislating from the bench. The
law was already in place, put there by the citizens of California. In fact, at
least two Californian counties recognize this and are defying the court's
decision, which is what they are also free to do - rebel. Tyranny
is a poor way to do business, legislate, make law, etc. When tyranny becomes
the order of the day, people have a RIGHT to speak up, VOTE their consciences,
etc. IF that doesn't work, people can/will refuse to support governments that
ignores the will of the people.
Guess what else is also found in nature? Animals who eat their own feces. But
we, as human beings, know better than to do everything we see animals doing.
No one can tell me that my marriage to my partner last May was not sanctioned by
God. No, it was not in California and it was not "legalized", we got married in
Hawaii in a spiritual ceremony. All the guests felt it as they all had tears in
their eyes. The children that were playing on the beach all sat down and
watched respectfully and at the end of our ceremony shouted, "Congratulations!"
I served the LDS church very well when I was an active member. I could care
less what they issue as a statement, it means nothing to me. I know what I feel
in my heart. It's the feeling that I was told I was supposed to feel when I
read and prayed about the Book of Mormon. Well, I feel that feeling about being
true to myself and in loving the being that God created, just the way I am.
Thank you leaders of the "Mormon" church, but until there are no conditions to
your statements . . . NO THANKS!!!!! Jesus taught UNCONDITIONAL love.
Doctrines never change but policy does. An example is that after Christ died,
the senior Apostle (Peter) received a revelation that changed the early church's
policy about proselyting non-jews (Act). The church has always taught that there
would come a time when all worthy males would be able to hold the priesthood.
The policy was changed by revelation. If polygamy bothers you, please read what
the Lord said about it in Jacob 2. Polygamy is not doctrine but has been His
policy from time to time. Doctrines never change but policy does by revelation.
The beautiful thing about your outlandish statements are, you have no power.
"The fact is we should wonder why we want to give legal recognition to a sexual
practice that is associated with higher rates of promiscuity, suicide and drug
abuse." Your church and you have no say in what goes on in California. You can
both show your fear, but it is going to happen whether you like it or not.
California will allow gay marriage and then other states will begin to follow.
This is why the LDS church is so scared of what is going on, because they know
that when California does something the rest of the country follows suit. It is
a wonderful thing to see people treated as equals.
I am a Mormon man who has struggled with same sex attraction much of my adult
life. I know I wasn't born that way, I did it because it was exciting. It has
been litearl hell for me. I fell many times to temptations. The thing is I
received no happiness from doing those things. I always felt heartsick and
miserable afterwards. I went to my Bishop who loved me and was caring and he
taught me so much about myself and my temptations. I learned not to give in to
my temptations and over time,and much struggle, I finally lost those temptations
(mostly). I am much, much happier now and am grateful for the principle of
repentance. I don't condemn anyone who struggles with this and I honestly don't
claim to be better than anyone. I just want to tell my story for anyone out
there who thinks they are alone or that they can't stop! You can if you want to
stop--don't let anyone tell you otherwise! If I can do it, anyone can because I
am truly the weakest of any who could be called a Latter Day Saint.
"The fact is we should wonder why we want to give legal recognition to a sexual
practice that is associated with higher rates of promiscuity, suicide and drug
abuse."Why do you think gay people want to commit suicide and use
drugs? Try being rejected from your family & friends and you will probably
understand this better. Try being a second class citizen and you will understand
this better.What most of you don't realize is that you are
contributing to the same negative traits that you don't like about gay people.
Marriage promotes monogamy and stability. Maybe gays would not be promiscuous,
drug users as you have described if they had access to marriage?
One of the main tenants of our religion is that we believe in the idea of
continuing revelation. We recognize that each prophet was speaking to his
generation, in their circumstances, with their civil laws in place. While we
recognize the validity of these scriptures, we also recognize that the words of
the living prophet hold more of that validity to our day, our circumstances, and
our civil laws. What comes from the current prophet and leader of the church is
more important to us than one quoted scripture, chopped in half and taken
entirely out of context. And the current prophet has said that homosexual
marriage is against the Lord's will, and that we should not support it. That is
a commandment for our day. Either you believe the prophet and follow his
counsel, or you do not. That is your personal business. But when you speak out
in direct opposition to that counsel, and try to sway others to your opinion,
you are committing apostasy.
Christ did teach unconditional love, but not unconditional acceptance of acts
the Lord deemed a sin. His message was one of love and tolerance, but He also
told people to "go and sin no more." He was very clear about that, and His
message was pure. Tolerance does not mean wholesale support. Tolerance means
showing love and forgiveness even while hating the actions. You are
free to act and feel as you wish, and I wish you sincere congratulations on
finding something that makes you happy. But just because something
makes us happy doesn't mean it's condoned by God. He will still love us no
matter what we do. But there are consequences for our actions, and when we
directly oppose His commandments, whatever the sin may be, those consequences
will be serious.
I see a lot of interesting comments on here, but I want to respond to the
comments about gay church members being expected to follow the same laws of
chastity as the straight single members. Yes, that is true, but there still
isn't equal footing. While many single members of the church (both straight and
gay) do their best to not engage in sexual activities before marriage, some do
fail. What happens when a straight couple engages in sexual activity
before marriage? Some get married to each , and they continue in the sexual
relationship. They are okay now because they are married.Now, what
option does the homosexual couple have? Marriage is not an option to legitimize
their sexual relationship. Giving up sexual activity after trying it is much
more difficult than having never done it at all. My thoughts are a
little scattered right now. What I am trying to say is we still do have two
standards. We honor one group for trying to do the "right thing" after making a
mistake and then vilify the other who does not have the option of doing the
To Gay Mormon,I am a single (never been married), straight
35-year-old woman, who faithfully believes the teachings of the church, and as
much as I wish I didn't have to live life alone (just as you don't), I do it. I
am chaste, and I'll keep living that way until I find a worthy man to marry.
Maybe it won't happen in this life. Is it fair that I am asked to do what you
are "asked" to do? Don't get me wrong. I don't condemn you. What
right would I have to do that? There can be difficult trials in life. Just as
this is the biggest one in my life to endure. But I live solo because I don't
want to break the commandments. It's not people who ask me to do it. Rather I
believe God wants me to live this way. I'll do it because I love Him.
You weren't born that way?...you did it because it was exciting...????? That
kind of sickens me.. I was raised a mormon, went on a mission and
specifically recall being sexually attracted to guys as early as second
grade..the attraction was no result of me "just being excited" lol..I happen to
know very well that it was definitelly biological and most likely genetic. I
have both an aunt and uncle "my mom's bro and sis) who are both gay, were raised
mormon and left the church, there is obviously a family trait here that gets
passed down. As for you feeling miserable and heartsick...what else would you
expect to feel after being psychologically conditioned to look down at what you
were feeling and doing as a sin? Its called cognitive dissonance..an
uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas
simultaneously..hmmm..how would it be if you were raised in a world that
accepted homosexuality? You most likely would not have felt these feelings of
guilt. It has nothing to do with the spirit leaving you..but more with your
thinking it has left you because you have "sinned"..trust me I've been down this
You were miserable because you made bad choices in your behavior, not because
you were gay.And please, don't confuse sexual addiction with sexual
If that is what has worked for you then good for you! But there are a wide
variety of people in this world and there are gay people who have been born that
way. Just like there is are "scales" of measurement there are different
"scales" in people in their attractions in life. One gay person may have always
been this way while another may feel that they can be either way or "change".
However, the latter has not been shown to be as common and the "therapy" for
this has not had good results. There have been a number of broken marriages
because someone in it wanted to try it to try and be "cured". There are also
poor results in "therapy" for gay people. This is because they are usually
trying to change something that they are (not a bad habit or a sin.)
To LB. Our situations are different. If a man walked into your life tomorrow,
you would have the option of getting married. You are not condemned to a life
of solitude. No one in your church would ever question your decision or condemn
you for a wicked lifestyle.I did find a good man. I don't have to
be alone for the rest of my life. The Mormon church would say that I should
give up this good man, repent, & live a life of solitude instead. Do you see the difference?
Another interesting battle between two oppossing views that absolutely have no
common ground to work from. First, Prop 8 in California does not take away any
rights that gays/lesbians have at this time regarding civil unions. This is
simply a battle between two groups where one is fighting for acceptance and the
other is drawing a line in the sand regarding changing the definition of
traditional marriage. There is also the issue of civil rights vs morality that
is evident in this issue. Prop 8 has nothing to do with civil rights as this
does not take away anything that is already in effect. We are then left with the
a moral aurgument. Does society have a better chance with the traditional
nuclear family or does a so-called "progressive" society work better. Based upon
the facts as outlined by some of the historians on this blog we may not be
moving in a progressive direction but rather going down a slipery slope that has
already been shown to be devastating to prior societies and cultures. Those
appear to be the facts. Remove yourself from the emotional and focus on what is
best for society as a whole.
If someone decides to call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does the dog
now have?4 still, of course, no matter what you call the tail.... it's
still a tail. So goes the concept of marriage.
The Catholics Apdoption Services are not a public actor.The are
private entprise who recieved public money.Recieving public money
you do not give up you 1st admendments rights or any contituionally guaranteed
right.Again another decision taking rights and powers away from
private peoples.That is judicial activism, and a judicial fiat. (Now
can see the importacne judges and therefore the right president).This is the very definition of a monority forcing their will and view on
people.And it doesn't stop there, they benn have forcing
tolerance and acceptqance on people in schools from kindergarten and up, forcing
government employees to march in their parades, and using hollywood in a big way
to get programming movies full of gay characters.And it goes on and
While God doesn't condone homosexual activity, he does encourage love and
understanding for all people with their individual struggles. If we can
understand that God still loves these people we will go a long way toward
bringing them closer to that love. The activists who wish the LDS church would
get with the times and just accept homosexuality are under the impression that
God is a puppet that man controls. Since they are under this belief they also
believe the church has the ability to change their stance on their own on a
subject. This may be true of religions which are controlled by man but it isn't
true of this one.
I bow to your scintillating wisdom! No pun intended. To anyone who can
help me understand. What rights do homosexuals not have? To be married? Is that
all this is about? If it is, I have a solution: go get married!
One inescapable fact I learn by reading these comments: A lot of people hate
Mormons. For those who are angry at the church for its stand on this issue,
check out the ProtectMarriage website and review the 100+ churches and other
organizations that also support Prop 8. There's plenty of hate to go around.
Should a rich, tax-exempt organization from Utah use its tax-free money to
eliminate equal protection under the law for tax paying same-sex married couples
in California? Californian voters may to agree with the
Beehive state bullies. Thanks to progressive voters, the proposed amendment,
which was designed only to accomplish only one thing, elimination of the right
of same sex couples to marry, will fail. Current polls of likely California
voters show the amendment will be defeated 54% to 40%.
What will the Catholic (or any other church including LDS) church do when a
priest or minister is sued for refusing to perform a gay "marriage"? In
California and in Boston,Catholic Charities ended all adoption services rather
than be forced to allow gay couples to adopt childern. Some will say that is
discrimination against people's religious rights! There will me more of these
kinds of abuses to people's religious freedom. If you are a believer, your
rights will be forfeited,its already happening! This is what we who are
believers stand to lose! The more militant gays will try to force their will on
you on grounds of discrimination. Who is it that is being discriminated against?
This is good and right.
God allows mistakes to happen in his church because he loves us and wants us to
learn. Yes, even the highest of leaders. If this was not the case, church
history would be unscathed.
When will you followers of Jesus consider the misery that gay people go thru
because theyre told by knowledgeable folk like you that theyre sinners,
depraved, perverted sex fiends, worthy of damnation? The same-sex
marriage debate is about finally coming to realize that all humans are Gods
creations who ALL want and need companionship, love, and yes, sex. God said it
best: "It is not good for man to be alone." When YOU can stop enjoying
companionship, love, and sex with YOUR spouse, then everyone else should be able
to also, no? Until "God fearing" heterosexuals are forced to surrender
companionship, love, and sex, youll NEVER understand what the same-sex marriage
debate is REALLY about. Meanwhile, go stick your nose in your scriptures, play
last April's General Conference recording again, and listen to the GAs telling
you what to think, instead of thinking for yourselves. Why is it
that mainly religious fundamentalists are those who protest same-sex marriage?
Those NOT influenced by dogma, and other religious people who CAN understand it,
favor same-sex marriage. None are threatened by it. None are experiencing their
marriages dissolving because of it. None are leaving their spouse for someone of
their same sex.
It seems to me that the church has come a long way. I honestly didn't think the
church would ever recognize any rights of gay couples, but the leadership
surprised me, and pleasantly so. This has given me hope that in a generation or
two the church will stop objecting to federal or state recognition of gay
marriage. From a doctrinal standpoint, only those marriages performed within
temples are ordained of God, so secular marriage (gay or straight) is fairly
irrelevant in the grand scheme.I don't believe the church will ever
recognize gay marriage in its temples -- nor should it be forced to do so. It
seems that's the church's main concern here. I just wish the church would have
taken a less doomsday stance on the issue. The leaders could have simply stated
that they disagree with California's definition of marriage, but that they
believe in the agency and rights of others, so as long as the government does
not interfere with Mormon temple marriages, the church will not get involved
politically.God bless this great nation and the great state of CA.
To Anonymous @ 1:03 amHeck yeah, a religous organization should have
the right to stand up for it's moral beliefs. It is refreshing to see someone
Standing for Something.
Will someone please explain how allowing homosexual marriage is harmful, to
either society at large or to my or anyone elses hetrosexual marriage?I just don't get it. Several years ago when I began hearing for the first
time about homosexuals adopting kids, no one said a thing about it. This I can
see the harm. But no one spoke up.
There are many ways that Gay marriage will be harmful to our society.1. Every child deserves a mom and a dad. If even a thought of one.. Death
happens, divorce happens but every child deserves a mom and a dad. Which parent
would you have done without?? And even if you didn't have a great mom or dad.
You got to grow up in a society that was stable and great and safe because our
society believed so much in the family and because mom's and dad's have been the
stable force.It is just irresponsible and frankly
ignorant to say that allowing gay marriage hurts no one. It hurts everyone.2.It will cost everyone money. Implementing gay marriage will increase
law suits and that will cost everyone money!3. The world needs
children! Corporations that are pushing same sex marriage don't realize they
are cutting their customer base. Changing society so a few can
indulge in their unatural sexual desires is dangerous!
The world will go on its own way. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall
for anything. The church will continue to remain separate from how the "world"
proceeds to its own demise. You are delusional to think the church will parallel
the world on these kinds of issues. Look at the catholic church that changed its
mode of baptism, to allowing women in the priesthood, etc. People seek to
counsel GOD when it should be the other way around. I applaud the church for
taking a stance on a difficult issue, rather than giving in to mob mentality.
Other churches have which I guess affirms they are the churches of "men" and not
PEOPLE GET REAL!! - The issue is this:Prop 8 is the result of 4
Activist Supreme Court Judges who, because of left wing radical support, have
decided to OVERTURN the California Voters who by a vote of 61% to 39%
overwhelmingly passed the 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, which has ALREADY
defined the definition of marriage in California.4 Individuals
(Anarchists) have taken it upon themselves to stick it to millions who, 8 years
ago, cast their vote in a general election. THIS IS THE ISSUE!!If
the Ernest T. Basses of the world(I'm sure he gets up in the middle of the night
to shake hands with himself) - and all of his ILK who have weighed in here with
their never-ending ERUDITE cheap-shot observations - want to promote THEIR
ideology, then THEY should in an orderly fashion arrange their own initiative to
be put before the voters. Let the voters decide - NOT 4 Judges.GET
IT??This has NOTHING to do with the LDS Church and their Church's
"polictics". The LDS Church along with NUMEROUS other faith based groups and
individuals without affiliation have been dragged into the politics of the
Lets see:Adoption, as you said. Becoming part of the school
curriculum to teach kids how daddy and daddy can get married. Part of them
becoming married means organizations who now "discriminate" against them will
soon lose their tax exempt status, possibly even the church in the future... its
a slippery slope that you don't want to start.
There are multiple posts re: the church being so far ahead in women's rights.
Given women the vote in the mid 1800s was completely self-serving. They wanted
members to have more votes. The easiest way to do that was to give women the
right to vote.The anti-ERA activism by the church showed how
pro-equality the church is.
Does anyone have any concrete facts to post here regarding civilizations that
have been destroyed. Seems to be everyone just simply believes Spencer W
Kimball's lame assertion of that fact.
"I am sorry that I am making lost of posts. However the fact that Affirmation
continues to attack the church, its practices, its doctrines and the actions of
the prophets while trying to always be described as "Mormons" bothers me." (John
Lambert)Apparently, Mr. Lambert, who has made hundreds of posts for
months on the gay issue, finally explains why he does so. He mocks "Mormons"
who have non-orthodox ideas. I welcome all baptized members of the church as
members. We are all sinners (yes, Mr. Lambert, probably even you.)The interesting thing to me is that the gays of Affirmation want to remain
members of the church and identify themselves as members, even though theirs is
a "sin of the ages" and people (members included) continue to ridicule them and
want to stay hidden beneath the rocks in the hills. We're all in
trouble is sinners are no longer welcome at church. We wouldn't even have
bishops to run our wards.
Lambert writes:"My second answer, is that people in Affirmation are lazy,
they seek to build on the church's others have built instead of building new
organizations."With such sweeping generalizations, it doesn't seem
like there is much of an interest in communicating and understanding others,
does it?Sinful, lazy. What else are they, John? Don't stop there.
Here is the fundamental question. Does God condone or embrace this behavior or
not? The argument stops or continues based on the answer to that question. If
a gay person believes that it is right, no amount of arguing will convince them
of anything else. In the meantime, the fundamental foundations of a republic
require that its citizens be taught in virtue, or it will not stand. This also
requires that its lawmakers, like a good parent, teach its citizens how to act
and live. We cannot really change their thinking, but we do have a
responsibility to train them in proper actions. Not allowing gay people to marry
is just that; We will not allow you to make this choice because we understand
the long term consequences of your decision, a decision that affects us all-in a
very negative manner. This is living up to what it means to be an American.
Yeah I dont know about lawsuits and underpopulation being an issue. We have to
remember that gay americans are a very small minority, they are as likely to
negatively effect our population and customer base as the population of solitary
cat owners. And I dont think any changes are going to effect an
already established marriage like "Get Priorities Straight | 6:25 a.m". But me
however, I'm going to get married soon and I dont want to be recognized by the
state as person 1 or person 2, I'm the groom. But since I have a heterosexual
marriage thats a problem now. That means I'm a selfish breeder and since my
bride is Utahn she is therefore a bigot. Doesnt matter what our views are just
matters that we are a heterosexual couple caught up in the latest mess.
Lambert writes:"Spencer W. Kimball was not a gay basher but a
speaker of truth. He understood that sexual sins are great offenses in the eyes
of God."That job was left to Elder Packer in his infamous speech "To
the One".Although is you think name-calling is gay bashing, then
Miracle of Forgiveness clearly qualifies. I don't think "perverts" is a clinical
term for homosexuals.
Some writers here have objected to the LDS Church "forcing" its view on others.
It does nothing of the kind. As an institutional citizen of California and of
the USA, it has every right to express persuasive views (as do those on the
other side) and try to get people to vote a certain way. And that is, very
legitimately, where its power ends.On the other hand, the Church of
Jesus Christ and otehr conservative religious bodies, such as the Catholic
Chuch, have a real and well-founded fear that their views about the practice of
homosexuual relations will eventually be not only marginalized, but suppressed
as "hate speech".The Churches must speak up now, while they still
dear friend, i love you, i really do. i just can't allow you to marry the
person that you love. you can be happy if you see things my way! love,your bestest friend everps. dont forget satans plan
You are depraved - read the book of Genesis.
HARRY REID.....PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING AND EITHER REPENT OR LEAVE THE
CHURCH......The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to
the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: We call upon
responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those
measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit
of society. Your hypocritical politics are not in line with the
teachings of the gospel you and your ilk espouse.............WAKE UP!
Latter day saints dont really worry too much about doctrine. What is important
is that we follow the councel of our priesthood leaders on all levels.The LDS
church is all about unity of thought and obiedience.Hopefully that comes by
inspiration to those who are authorized to recieve it;those holding the key to
the kingdom here on earth.If you want to be a faithful latter day saint then it
is a must that you follow the brethern on issues such as same sex marriage.
dear bestest friend ever,Despite your efforts I found a way to do what I
wanted anyway when I was alive. I married the one I loved and we lived just
fine. Now that we remember who we really are and were its kind of over. But
turns out everyone has a temptation and a mission and that was mine. Funny how
a lifetime that seemed to last only a few minutes could put me in a situation
Ill have to deal with for a million lifetimes. Love,your dear
"We do have a responsibility to train them in proper actions. Not allowing gay
people to marry is just that; We will not allow you to make this choice because
we understand the long term consequences of your decision, a decision that
affects us all-in a very negative manner. This is living up to what it means to
be an American."NO! We are not trying to teach them what is right
and wrong. That is not AMERICAN at all! America allows NAZIS to march, people
to burn the flag, skinheads to exist (as long as they do not harm anyone else.)!
This is America. We allow those with DIFFERENT ideas and points of view and
religions and non religions and homosexuals and any thing else that is different
to exist and THRIVE here as long as they are not taking away anyone elses
rights! Homosexual Marriage does NOT take away your rights but
trying to TEACH them what is right and wrong by passing Prop 8 DOES!Do you get it?
The "Proclamation To The World", concerning families, is considered modern day
revelation. Scripture if you will.
"Funny how a lifetime that seemed to last only a few minutes could put me in a
situation Ill have to deal with for a million lifetimes."Don't
teach false doctrines. He/she will be in a degree of glory for eternities and
be happy where they are. They may not be married or become Gods like those who
live their lives as perfect as possible, but they will be happy. JS said that
we would kill ourselves to go to the telestial kingdom, that is how glorious it
is.These people will be happy for eternity. Just not the same
happiness that LDS will enjoy.
I agree with To Bob Anderson. It seems like we think the USA is a giant LDS
ward that, if someone is sinning, we can disfellowship them or excommunicate
them from their citizenship. WE CAN"T! As long as they are not
actively taking away your rights, (not some future "what-ifs"), we should not be
taking away their rights. We should allow them the same constitutional right
that we enjoy.
I get it.I get that I have no right in california to be recognized
as a bride or a groom. I can only be regonized as the party of the first part
or the second part.
With respect to tolerance: This word and concept has come to be gravely abused
according to "Toward Tradition" a conservative coalition of Jews and Christians.
I agree. The word,tolerance, historically, meant getting along with people
you may not respect, but now it refers to a culture rule against saying that
anything is right or wrong. It seems to now be interaction of violent
intolerant oppressors and innocent tolerant victims. Dorothy Sayers said: "The
sixth deadly sin is named by the Church . . sloth. In the world it calls itself
Tolerance; but in hell it is called despair . . .It is the sin which believes in
nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing,
enjoys nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and only remains
alive because there is nothing it would die for."
Actually, Joseph Smith never said that regarding the telestial kingdom. The
actual quote was this:"...if the people knew what was behind the
veil, they would try by every means to commit suicide that they might get there;
but the Lord in his wisdom had implanted the fear of death in every person that
they might cling to life and thus accomplish the designs of their creator."And the official understanding of this quote, by several members of the
Twelve who have expounded on it, is that he was referencing the Celestial
Kingdom, not the Telestial.
In my CA ward I have heard more than once, the Chicken Little comments about
"The boys and girls will have to share the same bathrooms at schools if prop 8
passes."People apparently will use any hysterical argument to
forward their position. The sad thing is I think these people actually believe
I didnt mention anything about being unhappy.
If the Prophet is asking the people in California to support something, you have
to remember it wasnt his decision to make; it was God's. He is a Prophet and
God speaks to Prophets, he always has. The same forever right? Yep.
nope! :) Not everything uttered from the mouth of a prophet comes directly
from God.. The Lord has a very strict policy of non interfering with the world
except to restore lost truth.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. McConkieThe 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. -
Refer to D&C 134: 1...Governments are judged and upheld (or pulled down) by God.
That was the basic tenant of the USA's founding fathers and we know that this
country was founded and is upheld by God from scripture and revelation. So to
allow a government to accept or simply condone a God-given sinful activity will
eventually hold that government accountable (e.g., Sodom & Gomorrah, and ancient
Jerusalem, Egypt, Jericho and other cities/governments). It is our duty to stand
up for what's right not in the eyes of men, but in God's eyes because He is THE
true President of the United State of America...in fact it's the most American
thing to do. "In God We Trust."
"It is our duty to stand up for what's right not in the eyes of men, but in
God's eyes because He is THE true President of the United State of
America..."That is probably the scariest thing I have ever
read on these pages! We are heading towards a theocracy if all you LDS people
believe that! That is DEFINATELY NOT what the founding fathers envisioned!
Thanks for the post re: suicide & celestial/telestial realms. I've looked for
that for years. Could you post the source?
Please wake up and smell the logic! I'm sorry that you're so scared to question
your faith and feel threatened if you attempt to, but seriously, garner the
strength and go see a psychologist to see if you can conquer this psychosis that
makes you believe in and talk to imaginary magical superheroes. Maybe then
you'd be able to think about this issue logically and unhindered by
I only hope the proposition passes. The Mosiah "destruction" scriptures have
been quoted to our stake ad nauseum. I will gladly post on these pages years
from now when this imagined "destruction" has not happened. Of course, what
will happen mainstreamers will simply re-define "destruction".
Absolutely. You can find that related in the Diary of Charles Lowell Walker
(which is published), or Studies in Scripture, Vol. 1: The Doctrine & Covenants.
Several books on the teachings of Wilford Woodruff may recount it as well. There
is expounding on it in The Radiant Life by Truman G. Madsen (and some references
to other Apostles having expounded on the idea as well), and you can find more
of the quotes from these sources on various blogs around the internet, Mormon
Coffee and others if you google it. I haven't tried it, but you could also try
going to lds.org and searching their archives. Good luck!
then why do you have to go to a court of law to get a divorce?
To Anonymous at 1:03, I have many relatives in California who are LDS.
My uncle has lived there his interie life. My grandmother moved there in 1963.
So stop acting like we are some outside, interlopers who are intervining. If you want to complain about outside intervention, first complain about the
foriegn based Catholic Church and we will see how long your line of hate holds
up under that idiotic sentiment. Most of the church's efforts in
Califonia involve members in California donating time and money to the
camopaign. This is not some outside invasion but actions by your neighbors
though evidently not your firends.
To the 9:01 commentator, There are reasons why the church
excommunicates people. If you are fighting against the leaders of the church
than there is no reason why you should be in the church. That said, most
of the comments I see where people mock new converts come from people who think
that the church is not enlightened enough, and if we had more "enlightened"
policies we would get a higher level of converts. There is a big
difference between committing sin and making public statements in which you mock
the leaders of the church, call their public statements "full of half-truths"
and accuse them of not being honest about the church's history. It is
also just totally wrong to presume to stand in the place of God and dictate what
the leaders of the church should speak on in general conference.
There's an unbelievable amount of ignorance in these debates concerning our
governmental processes. Prop. 22 was a proposition, which still makes it
susceptible to constitutional law, whether the constituents of California voted
for it or not. The Supreme Court was brought several cases which sought to
overturn the proposition as unconstitutional. Simply because the majority of
voters create a law doesn't give it a constitutional pass. It is the same as
when the legislative branch passes a law which can then be challenged in
court.Take a simple government class, it's one of the first things
you learn. Now, if this new constitutional amendment passes, THEN
the Supreme Court will be unable to state that same-sex marriage is a
constitutional right. Until that occurs, the state's constitution dictates
equality under the law. Only an amendment will tie the hands of the "activist"
judges. For what it's worth, I hope the amendment fails. Slippery
slopes work both ways.
Maybe lazy was not a good term. Dishonest might have better described it. I
can not understand how you can remain in a church that teaches as one of its
central doctrines, and I can not emphasize the centrality of this doctrine
enough, that only sexual relations between a man and a woman within the bounds
of matrimony are acceptable. Any other sexual relations, be they
masturbation, homosexuality, fornication or adultery are condemned of the Lord.
I know these words sound harsh. However there is just some lack of
putting forth the effort to reconcile the two sides of thought by people in
Affirmation, and if they really believed that their position was right, why do
they continue to follow a prophet who declares God's word as not that, and if
they reject the word's of Thomas S. Monson why do they stay in the church?
People who suffer from these behaviors but try to change, even if they fall
back have a place in the church. I have no problem with a man who has on
occasion committed homosexual acts whose bishops knows of this and is working
with him being in the church.
If gays are allowed to marry, men and women will not be allowed to. Is that the
argument here?If gays are allowed to marry, will that enable them to
make babies? And men and women will no longer be able to reproduce? Is that
the logic?Are married men and women the only ones who currently have
My problem is with those people who reject the plain words of the Doctrine and
Covenants that say a man must cleve unto his wife and to NONE else, and try to
pretend that the Doctrine and Covenants never addresses the issue of
homosexuality. I have a problem with those people who instead of trying
to encorage people to overcome same gender atrraction go around gripping that we
need to give equal oppotunity to people with this state of being. I let
my frustration flare too much but the fact of the matter is that the Lord has
commanded us to be one. Forming pressure groups with the goal of getting a
change in the commandments of the Lord is not in any way of this manner.
Trying to tell the Prophet of the Lord what he can and can not speak out on is
unacceptable and wrong. It is presumptive. If you think you can command the
prophet than you do not think he really recieves the word of the Lord. If you
do not think the prophet recieves the word of the Lord, than why are you in the
church at all?
A basic premise in the study of the law is this: "Almost every train of
reasoning can be challenged with reasonable arguments" (Richard K. Neumann,
Jr.). This discussion board is a case in point. There are
obviously (at least) two ways to see the issue. Can Mormons not see that gays
have a very different take on their arguments? Can gays not see that Mormons
have a very different take on THEIR arguments? And yet, how many of
the 340 comments on this board reflect a nuanced approach or anything close to a
concession (something along the lines of "I see where you're coming from...").
In short, we're talking past each other, and that means that our perspectives
are highly unlikely to have the slightest impact on one another. Nor are we
likely to persuade an undecided reader--at least, not one who appreciates that
controversial issues are, by their very nature, impossible to reduce to a
my-way-is-right-and-everyone-else-is-an-idiot approach.Wouldn't we
be more persuasive if we acknowledged both sides of the issue, even when
(especially when!) we disagree?
To the 10:24 commentator, We are not limitting people's choices. If
they want to live with a homosexual partner they can all they want. This is not
a debate about the bedroom. This is a debate about what will recieve
proactive public policy endorsement. When a relationship recieves the proactive
endorsement of the state, than those who do not accept such relationships become
opposed to public policy and suffer accordingly. However the worst part
about the California case is the methods that were used to implement same-gender
marriage. If it had been merely passed by the legislature or the people it
would have a limited impact. However since it was done by the courts through
the finding of special rights in the state constitution it opens up a lot of
RE: PLease Explain..What are you talking about?
To gay bashing, Elder Packer never encoraged gay bashing. What he did
say was ok was to resist the advances of a gay person by force. He was not in
anyway saying that it is ok to just attack random gay people. Would telling a
group of young women that it is ok to attack a man who they feel is threatening
their virtue be heterosexual bashing? Your attack on President Kimball
is based on a failure to understand that there are religiously acceptable terms.
Perversion refers to those sexual behaviors that are not allowed before the
Lord and perverts are those who engage in them. These include sodomy and many
The problem is that marriage, as it currently is handled, is a legal issue, not
a religious one. While marriage is often performed in a church, it is not
legally recognized until the marital contract is completed. Since it is a civil
contract beholden to the laws of the land (not to the laws of God or whatever
else), a ban on same-sex marriage is gender discrimination (in other words,
requiring a gender test before the contract may be implemented). As such, the
Supreme Court has declared same-sex marriages as constitutionally protected,
unless the constitution is amended to state otherwise.The LDS church
would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages, since it is not a
governmental organization. Since the LDS church views marriage in eternal terms
(whereas civil marriage is merely legal in its benefits), it seems odd that the
LDS church would be so active pursuing the constitutional amendment. Is their
eternal view of marriage supplanted by a worldly civil union? Seems a religious
ideology should be able to stand a bit firmer than this has been.
Good point MOJ! Trying to see the other's perspective will certainly help us
understand one another. I for one am LDS and gay. As well I have an adopted
sister and adopted nephews. So I have a smattering of many perspectives. I'd recommend thinking of five reasons why same-sex marriage would be a
good thing. I think if any LDS person sat down and put forth their best effort,
it wouldn't be long before they could think of five.On the other
hand, if we gay people let our friends and family know why we want gay marriage
--what it means to us-- I think they would understand us better. There are many
reasons why people want to get married. I think gay and straight alike would
find common ground there.
To MOJ, If the opposition did not insist on mocking those things I hold
sacred than it would be a lot easier to deal with. However once they
start mocking the LORD and his prophets, the chance of any meaningful dialogue
has been greatly reduced. If they would be willing to accept the basic
fact that President Kimball denounced violent attacks on homosexuals instead of
trying to argue that he spoke too harshly against sin, than this dialogue could
happen. If they were willing to accept that it is the duty of a prophet
to declare the consequences of sin than there would be hope. Also if they
would remove the words bigot and cult from their vocabulary than there would be
dialogue. Earlier this year I contemplated voting for democrats. However
reading how some of them mocked President Hinckley for his statements on the
need to give loving treatment to homosexuals to help them overcome the problem
just made me realize that the Democrats lack basic respect for anything.
Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you have to mock and
demean them. Until that happens communicating with them will be
Why is it that religion breeds such an obsession with sex, both heterosexual and
homosexual? Sometimes it seems like those who are ultra-religious think about
sex more than anyone. Just an observation...
"If it had been merely passed by the legislature or the people it would have a
limited impact. However since it was done by the courts through the finding of
special rights in the state constitution it opens up a lot of other issues."It WAS passed by the legislature TWICE but the Gov. vetoed it. He
said this should be decided by the COURTS!
"However reading how some of them mocked President Hinckley for his
statements"What DEMOCRAT did this? Obama? Matheson? Do not lump all homosexuals and pro-same sex marriage into the
I am not Mormon, and have no desire to ever become Mormon. There is no factual
basis for the religion which is based upon a work of fiction published 150+
years ago.I am fine if others want to follow this LDS superstition.
Just don't limit my rights or force me to conform to the LDS' version of what my
life as an nonbeliever should be.
You can't stop what going to happen. The moral zeitgeist will continue to march
forward in spite of your yapping at its heals. With every passing day humans
become more and more free from ignorance and superstition. Our science and
literacy has created a bold new world that is far less dependent upon the myths
of religion and far less willing to be bound by its enslaving ignorance.You cant stop this progress, but you can embarrass your grandchildren
with your ignorance.In my life time Ive seen the zeitgeist march in
the: Civil Rights Movement Sexual Revolution Womens Rights
Movement Disabled Peoples Rights And now Gay Rights (which, quite
frankly the battle has already been won, were just waiting for the laws to catch
up, and they will.)Whats next?My guess is the FREEDOM
FROM RELIGION movement. There are already so many signs that the storm clouds
are churning. The non-theists in America already out number the Jews, Mormons
and Muslims in this counry, and the word is only just beginning to get out. My
son's friends are already setting up a non-theist club in their Utah High
"I am fine if others want to follow this LDS superstition. Just don't limit my
rights or force me to conform to the LDS' version of what my life as an
nonbeliever should be."But Aaron, our God is the real
President of the United States! We need to teach the USA what is right and good
and how our society should be and act. We do not want our government to give
any legality to those "families" of sinners. This would be condoning sin. We
can't do that.
I am NOT Mormon. I am NOT heterosexual. I AM a PROUD GAY US ARMY veteran. I AM
an American. The Constitution states that I have the right to liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Therefore the LDS "Church" is going against the
Constitution because it is trying to deny me of these. Funny that NONE of you
anti-gay people have even once stated that we as gays and lesbians should be
prohibited from paying taxes. Aren't you in your homophobic frenzy afraid that
our gay tainted tax dollars may pay for your childrens' schooling? HORRORS!!!
Stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours!!!
GOD WELCOMES CHANGE, GAY ACTIVISTS FEAR ITTHE MESSAGE OF THE WORLD:
You were born that way and so change is not possible. People can't change.THE MESSAGE OF JESUS CHRIST: All people can change their behaviors for
the better. No one has to stay a sinner. We all can and should change our poor
behaviors. We can all become better people.People can change no
matter what situation life has put them in. Liberals continue to spread the lie
that people can't change. We all have challenges to overcome, but change is
always possible. In fact, many so-called gays have already changed and now lead
normal happy lives. This is a fact that liberals hate. Nevertheless, it is the
truth. It is a truth that liberals simply do not know what to do with. So they
deny it. LIVE WITH THE TRUTH.
Don't you know that there are consequences for your actions? Not only eternal
ones, but ones here on this earth. One consequence that we Mormons want to make
sure you suffer is that you are not going to be allowed the benefits of marriage
because you might have or adopt children!Doesn't that make sense?
"In fact, many so-called gays have already changed and now lead normal happy
lives"Do you know what percentage have changed of those who really
wanted to? .5%! Less than 1%. And psychologists have questioned whether or
not those .5% were bi-sexual to begin with! Not very good odds.AND
what does this have to do with LIBERALS? Just because this is an election year
does NOT mean that it is liberals stating things you do not agree with. I can
tell you my dear 82 year old REPUBLICAN mother is for same sex marriage. You are generalizing.
I'm still astounded at how many pro-gay marriage posters here are afraid of the
democratic process. The masses will vote, if its the will of the masses then
things will pass. The church IS NOT oppressing the voice of the
masses. Its to small to accomplish that kind of feat. If you want to attack a
threat try one of the major christian religions. The only
motivation I can see behind many posts here is a haphazard release of venom and
Answer: Jesus was very clear during his mortal ministry. Render unto Ceasar
what is Ceasar's , render unto God what is God's. The Lord always shows us, even
through our mortal puny rules, His great power and wisdom. Clever questions
only pitifully mock at one who is Infinite and Eternal.
Fine Line: You are trying to argue a secular issue with religious
rhetoric. That's pointless and useless and adds nothing to the debate. Behavior
can change, but orientation can not. Even the LDS Church accepts gay and lesbian
individuals, so long as they are not engaging in sexual affairs.That
"Coming Out Straight" book previously mentioned in the comments? "The Daily Show
with Jon Stewart" interviewed the author, and it was a truly hilarious portrayal
of the absurdity of his arguments. It was one of the funniest sketches I've ever
seen. No reason to bring that up, really, but I remembered someone
mentioned the book, and I thought it was good for a laugh.
You will never truly understand this issue unless you are gay or you have a
child that is gay. I have a child that is gay. It is nice that the Church has
changed their position to acknowledge that some members are born gay. That is a
step in the right direction. Now if all you haters out there can take one step.
We will help you along step by step.
The hateful bigotry that spews from the LDS church and it's members posting here
is simply astounding. What ever happened to live and let live? Oh, I see...that
only applies to mormons when they are being "persecuted".The line
from - To Anonymous | 2:41 p.m- really makes me ill."One consequence that
we Mormons want to make sure you suffer is that you are not going to be allowed
the benefits of marriage because you might have or adopt children!" You are a purely, disgusting human being. It's not very "Christ Like" to want
to make sure people suffer.
I thought it was a good question and not mocking. Isn't what you are fighting
the battle for in Cal a civil law? No one is trying to make temples in CA marry
same sex couples. They are trying to allow them to CONTINUE to wed each other
civilly. Marriage is a CIVIL contract in the US. Yes, churches use
that civil contract to marry people in religious rites, BUT they first must
obtain permission from the government. Governments, then, are in charge of
marriage (or at least the kind that we are talking about in CA.) Are
homosexuals citizens? Do they pay taxes? Do they help support your children's
schools? Are they then not justified in seeking the same rights that you enjoy
- to have your marriage legalized with benefits?The only reason that
I have heard for not giving them their rights is that at some time in the
future, they MAY want to marry in your church. What a bunch of crap! You
justify taking rights away from people on a chance that you MAY (but not likely
because of the first admendment) have to marry someone.
I can cite the Church's position on and treatment of homosexuals as one of the
primary reasons I am no longer a member.In my singles ward in Denver
I observed an almost witch hunt atmosphere, with whispered smear campaigns and
subtle slights against anyone suspected of being gay. The men I knew were kind,
loving and intelligent. To watch them being persecuted was unacceptable. For
the Church to continue to try to impose their will on non-members is
unacceptable, too.I am against Proposition 8 and it's
hate-mongering. I will be putting my money and time into it's defeat.
Tom in CA:Activist judges? Those 7 of 8 judges were appointed by a
republican.Those judges interpreted the law. That is their job. Their
interpretation stated that the law created by the voters was not
constitutional.In other words, you will need to change the constitution
before you try to change the law.Those "activist judges" did nothing more
than check and see if the law was constitutional. It was not, so they followed
the constitution and said the law had to change.As I stated before, one
day the church will catch up to society (the way they did 30 after society
changed with regards to the civil rights movement). One day, a gay person won't
feel so shunned at church.Considering that nobody chooses to have autism,
depression, bi-polar disorder, type I diabetes, and many other conditions which
have no known cause, one day the church will come out of the dark ages and
realize nobody chooses to be gay. I'm hetero, but I never had to chose it.
I was born that way.Did you chose your attraction, or were you born that
Another Lambertism:"If they would be willing to accept the basic
fact that President Kimball denounced violent attacks on homosexuals instead of
trying to argue that he spoke too harshly against sin, than this dialogue could
happen."Great, I accept Pres Kimball denounced violent attacks on
homosexuals. (I don't do the same for Pres Packard).Even President
Kimball (to his biographer son Edward) admitted that he "may have been too
harsh", referring to his MOF treatment of gays.Unfortunately, this
was a private remark that never officially saw the light of day. Unfortunate
for those harmed by the personal, painful rhetoric of a prophet.
"You will never truly understand this issue unless you are gay or you have a
child that is gay."I sometimes wish that reincarnation were real.
All those who dismiss this with the quick thought that "we all have our
temptations" and "change is possible" need to come back to this earth as a gay
Mormon. They really have some compassion to learn.
If you were in my town, I'd treat you to lunch today.
I choose who I am every day. I was born many things, a murderer, a drunk,
sexually deviated, a thief and criminal. But I dont want to suffer under those
labels and I restrain myself each day. I have many desires and drives. But I
am who I choose to be. I can speak for no one else.
For many on this page there is a serious preoccupation with what the LDS Church
says. Since I am not LDS it would appear that you have a personality issue that
wishes you could be involved with the LDS faith. Second, let's examine where our
laws came from. Laws were established based upon the religious and moral
attitudes of society. We have a process in place to change laws through the
vote. We accept these laws as benefical and helpful to society. In all of the
religious books I have read both love and support to all is encouraged. There
are also "commandments" that are written regarding how one should act. We are
all influenced by these teachings whether you want to recognize this or not.
Third, Prop 8 in CA does not take away any current rights that gay/lesbian
couples now have. The issue is the definition of what marriage is. Again, I ask
my question to all of you, is society better off recognizing traditional
marriage between only a man and a woman. Remove yourself emotionaly from the
issue and look at the broad picture and answer my question. I do not take a side
I think it is fine that the LDS church not sanction same sex marriages, but my
religious group does and our clergy conduct these marriages and same sex couples
are welcome in our community. The problem arises because clergy are allowed to
conduct marriages on behalf of the STATE, which gives rights and privileges and
benefits only to those who are married. Marriage may be religious (although not
always) but it is also civil and changes a person's ciivil status. . Gay should
have the rights to the civil marriages plus the right to religious marriages in
those communities where it is compatible with the religious doctrine. I don't
know why the LDS church is so threatened by other churches doing something they
don't do or by civil marriage either.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not in politics. The Church
leaders only ask us to stand up for what we have been asked to believe in
whether it be in private or in public. When the church is told to get out of
politics I laugh. I have lived in Utah, Idaho, Montana and now Texas. The
"Mormons" are the only ones that have been told to get out of politics. The
Baptist church are more political than the "Mormons" and yet nothing is ever
said about them opening their sanctuaries to candidates on Sundays or lobbying
state governments. I have never heard the Catholic church being asked to leave
politics. Only in Utah is an large group asked not to be involved in a
representative democracy and to change its beliefs and standards for a minority.
For those complaining that the majority of the people in CA voted down same sex
marriage with Prop 22 - The fact is that less than 1/3 of the state voted on
that proposition so the majority of the people didn't vote, let alone vote down
same sex marriage. A small portion of the people voted and of that small
portion, the majority of them passed the initiate - not law, or amendment, but
initiative.To John Pack Lambert and those who talk about change and
reparative therapy, to those who say I, and those like me, make a choice to
*act* on our attractions. You also make a choice to act on your OSA attractions
yet you don't see us condemning you or trying to send you to reparative therapy
to change your orientation. We want what you want, someone to love and someone
who loves us in return. Someone we can connect with on all levels. What is so
dangerous, or hard to understand, about that?
Yes I think Mormons can change. They were not born that way but is all about the
great Mormon conspiracy and Mormon agenda.
To Jax, The problem is that homosexual actions are evil. They always
have been and always will be.
"I choose who I am every day. I was born many things, a murderer, a drunk,
sexually deviated, a thief and criminal. But I dont want to suffer under those
labels and I restrain myself each day. I have many desires and drives. But I am
who I choose to be. I can speak for no one else."Man, you need
help! Seek a professional!
"The problem is that homosexual actions are evil. They always have been and
always will be."I will die for your right to believe this. Please
afford me the right to not believe this crap. Evil. that is such a strong
word. All of us are evil in some ways. You are just better than
those evil homosexuals so you should get more benefits from the government?
This debate is not about benefits. It is about what relationships will
recieve the proactive endorsement of public policy.
So you have no problem going on and on about how gay people are evil and a
threat to society and then you whine about the "opposition" mocking things that
you hold sacred?Hyprocrisy, thy name is John (And don't try to
regurgitate the love-the-sin-hate-the-sinner line. When I'm intimate with my
wife, I'm not performing "heterosexual actions." I'm just being myself.)And please tell us where and when anyone speaking as a member of the
Democratic Party has ever attacked President Hinkley. Barack Obama canceled a
campaign appearance in SLC on the day of his funeral and Michelle Obama met with
the First Presidency shortly afterwards. Seems pretty respectful to me.I can't help but notice that whenever an article concerning
homosexuality appears in the DN, you're here to bombard the Reader Comments
pages. What's the fascination, John?
I haven't read all of the comments here, but I was looking to see if anyone
mentioned the fact that as a heterosexual male, I don't have any more rights
than a homosexual male. It's true that I can marry a woman, but I can't marry a
man any more than they can. So please stop talking about equal rights, cause
you already have them. If the rights granted to all Americans don't fit your
lifestyle, that's your choice, so call it what it is.
The "church" and other "churches" have been down this road many times. "Gays
don't want to interfer with your faith", they say. Not True. They have
repeatedly endeavored to force the local, state, and federal government to
demand ,by law, that ALL chruches recognize gay marriage or the church will not
be allowed the churches to be recognized as a religion. They demand full
acceptance in all churches, thus denying the rights of any citizen to worship as
they please or churches to hold dear their beliefs. They scream gay bashing or
religious intolerance. If you don't believe in the gay lifestyle, they insist
that YOU are evil and your church be changed or destroyed. I buy nothing the
gay community peddles anymore- period. They have done so much to show their
true colors. They are nothing more that religious Marxists that will destroy all
religious liberties of others so they can reign their irresponsible behavior and
its effects on all societies to the cultures' complete destruction.
I note that the monitors of this board allow you good Mormons to call
homosexuals "evil." apparently they do not find that abusive or offensive.
Will they allow me to call Mormons sanctimonious, ignorant and superstitious?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander...
I am still waiting for an explanation of what the cold blooded murder where
the murderers got a very low sentance is.
John Pack - if it isn't about beliefs then why do you keep bringing yours into
it? To you, homosexual acts may be evil. To me they are not, they feel right,
natural and peaceful.
When blogs that are run by people who are the backbone of the Democratic party
mock president Hinckley I take objection to it. I am not willing to vote
for anyone who is part of that group. Maybe my willingness to connect the dots
is overblown, but I hate the overall tone of invective that we get from Liberal
Democrats. Have I mocked anything that anyone else holds sacred? No. In
fact I have yet to be convinced that some liberals hold anything sacred.
Missing one Major Point - Don't even go there. That argument really has
outlived its usefulness. Talk about disrespecting the institution of marriage,
this comment is about as disrespectful as you can get. It's almost like you are
saying anyone will do as long as they are of the opposite sex. If Prop 8 goes
down in defeat you will then also have the option to go to CA and marry a man -
will you be rushing to do it? No? Then why suggest that I do the same thing
just because it is now legal!
I think some (maybe most) religious people are afraid of the militant gay
movement. But not for reasons most gay people think. Let me try to explain the
lies that militant gay movements perpetrate. We are told you will not affect our
religious rights. But you already are in a very negative way. Right now in
California a doctor is being sued by a lesbian couple because he refused (for
personal religious reasons) to perform an artificial insemination proceedure for
a lesbian. The doctor will likely loose. Catholic charities adoption services
has closed it's door rather than be forced to adopt children to gay couples in
San Fran.On and on these cases are cropping up! Liberal judges will not rule in
favor of religions when the question of alledged discrimination is involved. The
bottom line is homophobia is generated because you don't want to be just gay,
you want to use "discrimination" to destroy religious freedom in American! Some
of us think it will destroy much more than religion! It will destroy
civilizatons. Before you dismiss this,at least think about it.
Sorry JPL - I misread your 5:34 post seeing beliefs not benefits. How will
giving the same benefits you enjoy to gay couples affect you, or public policy?
When did I say it was not about beliefs? You may have misread my
statement where I said it is not about benefits. What we believe at
heart determins the law. We have laws against some actions because we believe
they are harmful. I have to state flat out that I reject the libertarian
worldview. The government has a role in proactively supporting the good of
society. This is about what will recieve the proactive support of public
I find it interesting that so many call the LDS Faith a "superstition" , "Mormon
Conspiracy", or "Mormon Agenda". And that others say that we are all ingrained
with intolerance and no freedom of speech. I highly disagree! We have just as
many rights as any one else and are free to choose. I myself am LDS, and
embrace everyone! We do hold marriage between a man and woman as
sacred. Marriage between a man and a woman makes it possible to create
children. That's what the act of sexual relations is basically all about.Why don't we try an experiment to see if defining marriage between a
man/man, and woman/woman, would ultimately keep civilization going?I
can guarantee that if you put gay men on their own island, and lesbian women on
their own island, their society would cease to exist! It would not be possible
in any way, shape, or form to have children, and continue civilization as it
is!So, I think it totally makes sense that marriage between gay's
and lesbian's will never work, and shouldn't be defined as one!
Teaching doctrines and spiritual practices is not hate-speech. However, once a
community begins speaking against a sub-culture with derivise, vulgar and
inaccurate terminology, it begins demonizing and desensitizing itself to those
human beings.This is a globally practiced tactic of the military when attempting
to get good and decent people prepared to take the lives of other good and
decent children of God.We are indeed at war- and the Adversary is
winning when he has us pitted and distracted us against each other. That is the
only victory here.When any community becomes afraid of a segment of
itself and decides to censor them, run in the opposite direction with great
fear! No matter how good "they" appear. Whether we agree with each
other or not, this country was founded on the principle that we would die
fighting for our right to speak those differences. Especially, on this Sept.,11-
which I well remember I as was there and watched the Towers fall, let us
celebrate more what is good in humans, than different and separate. Otherwise,
the earth is doomed to repeat the cyle of terror, which is not the intention of
the Saviour, even though we forget to love
I wish the so-called gay affirmation people would just move on with their lives
and leave us real Mormons alone.
"Maybe my willingness to connect the dots is overblown..." That's the first
reasonable thing you've posted here, John.If you're willing to
define the entire Democratic Party on what a few people post on a blog, then
you're just lazy (And I'd still like to know when someone speaking as a
representative of the Democratic Party has ever said anything derogatory of
President Hinkley or the Church.) I certainly don't judge all Republicans on
what a few idiots here say.And I still want to know what your
obsession with homosexuality is...
Homophobia - I have heard about the lesbian couple suing the Dr and am unsure
yet as to my stance on it. Right now I am leaning towards the Dr finding
another line of work if he can't treat those coming to him for help. Where
would we be if all those in public service chose only to help those whose
lifestyle we agreed with?I believe Catholic Charities can go on
choosing who, and who not, to adopt to if they also choose to not work off of
public funds. After all, it is all about choice - right?
Geneveive you write "I can guarantee that if you put gay men on their own
island, and lesbian women on their own island, their society would cease to
exist! It would not be possible in any way, shape, or form to have children, and
continue civilization as it is!So, I think it totally makes sense
that marriage between gay's and lesbian's will never work, and shouldn't be
defined as one! "Lets populate an island with heterosexual married
couples that are incapable of producing offspring and see how long that society
would exist. Therefore can we conclude that marriage between anyone incapable
of producing offspring will never work and shouldn't be defined as one?
It is apparent you don't understand the role of "Church." First off, the church
has one of the largest wellfare programs in the world. They don't just focus on
America, but all other nations they are invited to assist in.Secondly, the role of faith and church is pertaining to things spiritually.
The mission of the church, and Jesus himself, was to lead men and women back to
him. Neglecting that fact would be neglecting the reason Christ came in the
first place. An organization as large as the LDS Church can and is
able to multitask by spending time and money standing for it's moral and
spiritual beliefs, while battling poverty, child and women abuse, drugs and
alcohol abuse, and other significant social matters.It's nice the
LDS church stands as an example for what human kind should be doing... standing
for personal and moral beliefs, while taking care of their spiritual brother and
sisters.Additionally, if the country had moral values as a whole and
personally, those other "issues" would be less and smaller issues to deal with.
History shows disregard for morals leads to the distruction of societies, which
are usually based on personal satisfaction.
I think you may misunderstand, or misinturprit what the church said. The church
never has changed its stance on homosexuality as being a behavior choice, they
simply stated it is "not" a "disease". A disease and a choice or not one in the
same. Thought they acknowledge that homosexuality is not a "disease or sin,"
does not mean that they agree one is born with the attraction.Same
sex attraction is not a sin, unless you act upon it. A disease is something
that is passed around, and you won't become gay just becuase you are around or
touch a gay individual. However, you may be doing the same thing
"Affirmation" attempts to do, and try to define the words of the LDS Church.
People, you do not have to believe any LDS teachings about homosexuality. Just
go to the New Testament and read what the Apostle Paul taught about it in the
first chapter of Romans. It is straightforward and leaves no doubt what the Lord
thinks. One thing is sure; men and women were not created to be like that. wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them
to the very center if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the
truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye
would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things
against us. 1Ne:16 2-3
With all due respect, I think you missed the point. The reason the Dr. chose not
to perform the service is because he believed would violate his religious
liberties to do so! Gays say they don't want to impinge on religious liberties,
but they already are!
A common idea or phrase used by many campaigning for issues such as same-sex
marriage, gay rights, abortion, etc. is "Freedom of Right!" If that term, or
use of "Freedom" was granted to individuals, then one must also say that a
Doctor has a "Freedom of Right" to choose whom the doctor wishes to administer
to, and whom not to administer too. This idea, if we use it in your context,
should not and can not be changed merely to fight your desire and belief.However, commonly in issues such as this evolving around the "Freedom of
Right" as defined by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and
Constitution... it does in deed say we have that freedom. However, commonly
misunderstood or used to suit ones arguement, that right was defined to give
individuals to live their lives free from intervention from the government.
Though you may say this fits your arguement, one must look/read further what was
said, as it was stated that the "Right" was given to the individuals by the
"Voice of the people" (as we call ourselves a representative assembly).
Majority of Americans, have voiced their opinion, only for Gov't to take it
What about pharmacists who will not fill legally prescribed prescriptions?
The Supreme Court overturned the vote of millions by a vote of 4 to 3.
Therefore, at least 3 of the Judges concluded that the vote of the CA people was
indeed "constitutional". A 4/3 vote would indicate that the issue is
not so "clear cut" - make sense?Do you think there could be even a
REMOTE possibility that the 4 Activists do not know how to interpret the
constitution?? After all, a reasonable minded person would agree
that even the interpretation of a Supreme Court Judge is subjective at best.
Especially, if in this case, the Judge was Gay? What a bizaare thought. Could
never be!I would go with 61% of the (liberal) millions of California
voters before I would give the benefit of the "doubt" to those 4 smart Judges.
If the gay community, or any other community, wants to establish the
definition of marriage, let them legally put a voting measure on the ballot, and
allow the PEOPLE to decide. Seems more fair doesn't it Mr. Bass?
When prop 8 is defeated by a "majority", the LDS will need to drop that line of
thought. Then they will be back to "evil".
You prove the point that the arguement of "Freedom of Rights" is a very week
arguement with no legs. Again to point, if you make the case of "Freedom of
Right" for one arguement, you must make the case for all others, and not
cherry-pick when one feels it works or doesn't.Additionally, Freedom
doesn't come without responsability. In being granted freedom, one must take on
the responsability it comes with. When people read or quote the idea of
"Freedom or Right" they miss the mark in what the founding fathers ment. They
said we as free individuals in an Independent Nation, have the Freedom and Right
to live our lives "FREE" of the government and her intervention. Their point
was not it what Right the government had, however, the right of the "People".
Again that point is misunderstood, as they founding fathers understood it took a
"representative assembly" or concerted voice to live under true freedom, which
grants rights and responsabilities.In lamens terms, this means the
people in majority must choose what rights we as individuals have, not what the
government (which includes court systems) think we should have. We are free to
choose as a society!
The thing that cracks me up is that the judges are labeled by anti-gays as "San
Francisco based activist judges". Gee why do you think the SF is thrown in
there?The state bases the judges in SF. They spend equal time in LA
and lesser amount in Sacramento. The San Francisco based label somehow further
taints their independence in the minds of the anti-gays.
These judges were appointed by a liberal President with a liberal congress'
blessing. The statements of the vocal mayor of SF perfectly mirrors their
anti-constitutional mentality. They are self-made Gods wielding power that "WE
THE PEOPLE" never gave them under the constitution which they were to protect
not legislate away.Constantly pushing a minority agenda does not make it right
because they are able to get away with it at this time. This kind of abuse of
power is what historical has causedrevolutions against the elitists.
Pushing gay rights is no where in the constitution no matter how you doctor up
Your argument to put gays on one island and straights on another to see who
would procreate is the stupidest one I have read yet. We don't live on islands.
We live in one great big society. Gays who marry would not procreate on their
own and straights (married or not) will continue to breed and overpopulate the
earth. Therefore, there is NO DANGER of mankind becoming extinct. PLEASE study
harder in school and get a better education!
You've got a real handle on CA government......"appointed by a liberal President
with a liberal congress' blessing"
I think we are talking about California here and the judges were nominated by
the various governors (mostly Republicans).Six justices were
appointed by Republican Governors (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and
Corrigan) and one by Democrat (Moreno), although most of the Republicans tend to
Those who are heterosexual couples and incapable of having children still have
the right parts to do so, but because of uncontrollable circumstances they are
not able to produce children. Gay men do not have parts that go together at all
to even attempt to have children, as is the same with Lesbian women. So, no, it
would not be fair to say that a heterosexual couple who could not have children
should be put in the same category as gay's and lesbian's. They just have
uncontrollable circumstances, and all the right parts!
To Genevieve - I thought this was about the ability populate an island and
sustain a society. What good are the right parts if they don't work right? Are
you admitting there are other reasons for marriage other than procreation?
Child producing heterosexual unions are at the top of the pyramid, then come
heterosexual couples who can't produce children and one step further down are
gay couples? Where do couples fit who are able to have children but elect not
What differenece does it make who appointed the Judges?A liberal
Republican can make just as bad appoinments as liberal democrats.That's all you've proven.It says nothing about whther the decision
was right or wrong.It's just an extrremely lame attempt to cloud the
By hating on gay people, we're sinning ourselves... it's like when we judge
someone else for any other sin, nobody's perfect, so we should try to look at
ourselves and fix whatever's wrong.Now, on the other hand, trying to
modify the doctrine you supposedly believe in to fit your own behavior, that's
simply stupid in my opinion. Each one of us is responsible for our own actions
and the decisions we make... the doctrine has practically always been there, we
can't change it to make our actions look "right". In this aspect, there's no
"grey": you either believe in it, and accept its truths or you don't.
It appears that I have asked a question that no one on this site can answer or
will not answer. Rather than talking about functional and/or non-functional body
parts take a broader view of this topic and the issues leading up to this vote
in CA. Again, I ask my question to all of you, is society better off recognizing
traditional marriage between only a man and a woman. Remove yourself emotionaly
from the issue and look at the broad picture and answer my question. I do not
have an agenda or an issue. I would like to have a logical discussion with
others that share this same concept of rational review and discussion.
Being hererosexual and incapable of having offspring is a physical anomaly. Does
that mean being gay is also an anomaly?
Disagreement does not equal hatred! Only a liberal thinks disagreement equals
Democracy is more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are having for
dinner. Protecting the Constitutional rights of minorities is an
important function of the court.
People are making a huge misconception, here. The LDS Church is NOT forcing
anybody to follow its beliefs. It's not doing anything against the law. It's not
demanding that everybody agree with them. It's one of more than 100 different
churches and organizations that are fighting to keep things as they are, and not
let ANOTHER group force their beliefs on us. It doesn't WANT to be made to agree
to something that does against its teachings.The reason the Church
does not - and will not in the future - change its stance is because God has
told its leaders not to. It doesn't matter to us what other churches are doing.
They can marry all the gay couples they'd like - in places where it's legal -
but even if they're the last organization left on the planet that does not,
"The line from - To Anonymous | 2:41 p.m- really makes me ill."One
consequence that we Mormons want to make sure you suffer is that you are not
going to be allowed the benefits of marriage because you might have or adopt
children!" You are a purely, disgusting human being. It's not very
"Christ Like" to want to make sure people suffer. "Um. That person
was being facetious. They were pretending to be Mormon to mock the LDS stance on
RE: My thoughtsThe nice thing about being a liberal is that I'm free
to question anything. I'm a patriotic American that votes, participates in the
public debate and even publicly demonstrates and protest. I live in a country
where descent it the backbone of our democracy."What is needed for a
really good tyranny is an unquestionable idea or authority.Political
disagreement is political disagreement, but political disagreement with a
theocracy is heresy." -Margaret Atwood (From Bill Moyer's interview on
Religion and Ethics.)After 15 years of Utah politics, I cant even
tell you how many times Ive been called anti-Mormon simply because I questioned
the Mormon authority. Im not a heretic, Im a free American!
I have to agree with you Re: Johnny Utah #9From personal experience
the people that we Mormons want to make sure suffer doesnt end up being the gay
community, but the children in need that could use our help. As a
gay man in Utah, when I invited a poor, under privileged youth to live in my
home, it cost thousands of dollars to get the legal protection we needed. I must
have appeared in front of a liberal Utah judge since I was granted guardianship,
even with neither parents consent, since they couldnt be found. Our
local school district was very helpful too, before guardianship was granted, the
school district offices helped me to get him enrolled and even gave me a lot of
very good advice on how to help this child and how to avoid problems with the
religious zealots of Utah. (Anonymous 2:41 PM would say, the Utah school board
was liberal. I would say they clearly see the needs of their students and are
gratefully for anyone that steps up to help.) But, now that hes over
18, we both openly and freely tell our story.
Actually, you DON'T agree with me. I'm Mormon, and I very firmly support my
church leaders' stance on this issue. I was just pointing out to Johnny Utah #9
that he misunderstood that commentor's post.While nobody wants to
see anybody suffer, many of the liberals on this board automatically jump to
that conclusion and mock us or call us names just because we don't support gay
marriage, or whatever they think is right on any topic under discussion. It's
funny, liberals all across the country claim to be open-minded, but only if you
agree with them. If you don't, no matter how respectful you are or what your
reasons for disagreeing happen to be, they rip you to pieces for daring to have
another opinion.That was what the 2:41 poster was doing, inferring
that we're horrible people who just want to oppress everybody we don't like, and
that is also the vibe I get from your post, referring to "the religious zealots
of Utah," though to a much lesser extent than in the 2:41 post. I'm sorry, sir,
but we are definitely not in agreement.
These arguements are so depressing, the bottom line is this is about people and
families. People need to have that in mind when being so abrasive. I believe
Jesus said to love one another as well.
"is society better off recognizing traditional marriage between only a man and a
woman" Be careful using the term "traditional marriage." If
you check into the history of marriage, it does not mean what I think you are
talk about. I am assuming that you mean man and woman marrying for love and to
raise children.This is the ideal.The problem lies in
that the ideal is not the norm. Too many divorces, abandonment, abuse, neglect
and unwed mothers. If we just give those with "ideal marriages" legal rights,
we are saying that they are better than others and deserve rights that others
should not receive. This is not reality and it does, many times,
affect the CHILDREN of those who are not in the ideal situation. To me, it is
all about the children and accepting ALL families as equal is GOOD.This will give those children an equal footing legally with those who are not
raised in the ideal family.Gay have children, they raise families
and I am for legally supporting ANYONE to help stablize homes and give children
this equal footing.Right now, we do not treat children of gays
Clouding the real issues? That made me laugh out loud.The past 8 years
each and every real issue has been clouded by the right wing. No doubt about
that.The problems are war, deficit and healthcare and all repugs want to
talk about are god, guns and gays.The fact is, the law banning gay
marriage in CA was unconstitutional. That is why the judges, DID THEIR JOB and
ruled against it. Make a constitutional law and the judges will never be able to
rule against it. Calling them "activist" is really quite laughable and a slap in
the face of reality, practicality and common sense.I will say it again.
Numerous studies have shown same gender attraction is not a choice, it occurs
naturally in a small percentage of human beings. Much like autism, depression
and numerous other conditions, there is no known cause.Much like the way
the church took 30 years to catch up with society in regards to blacks & the
priesthood it will take time to adjust to the concept the homosexuals aren't to
blame for their attraction. Maybe, just maybe we can treat them as human beings
and not horrible people.
You are right. These arguments are depressing. If you could somehow change the
words but keep the intent in these messages, no one would ever believe religion
is anywhere involved in the discussion.
I just wanted to comment that the article in some points try to make the church
look hypocritical or contradictory with this new statement and previous ones.
Well those who think that are only reading what they want to with a forethought
that they hate the church. If you have an logic at all, you would know that the
church has never, and will never, contradict itself. All statements,
revelations, etc. cover all tracks carefully and there are answers to
"That was what the 2:41 poster was doing, inferring that we're horrible people
who just want to oppress everybody we don't like,"Are Mormons trying
to keep homosexuals from having children or adopting them? I have heard over
and over again that gays can have rights, but not marriage because they would
then be able to adopt. I think that the commentor was exaggerating
to prove a point. I don't think he was mocking. It may have rubbed some of you
wrong, but not it was not mocking.
As a gay man here in Zion, I have been called: "Evil", "sinner", "pedophile",
"pervert", "sick", and have been condemned to burn for eternity and dehumanized
because doing so makes it easier to hate. All by a bunch of faceless people who
don't know me, but feel justified because they have found a way to justify
putting themselves on a pedistal labeled "Christlike".You don't like
me or my lifestyle. Fine, I can live with that, and trust me I feel the same
way about you. But all the comments on here are a waste of time. California's
decicion EITHER WAY is meaningless. Massacheusets is already offering same sex
marriage to out of state couples. This means that all the lawsuits will be
coming from marriages performed there.
Who would Jesus hate? I love it when the church acts like they are so loving.
And it's even better when the members suck it all up. "Do as you are told. Think
as you are told to think, and do not look at the man behind the curtain."Logicmeister on page 1. You need to do a little research on why Utah let women
vote first. It wasn't because they are Pro Women's rights. It is because they
wanted more voting power. It's a man's Church. You should re-think your name as
"BadLogicspinster" would be a bit better.
Many people have said on this forum Im not a bigot because I dont support gay
marriage.If your actions were congruent then I would agree with you,
but they are not. You have said that Homosexuality is evil and a
sin. Yet, you DO NOT oppose the marriage of adulterers, criminals, or convicted
sex offenders.You have said that children do better in a home with a
mom and a dad. Also, children do better in a home with economic abundance and
certainly you agree that poverty can have a devastating effect on families,
certainly poverty has far more negative impact on a family then two dads. Yet
you do not oppose the rights of poor parents to have children.I see
straight couples every day who have failed miserably as parents, whose children
live in dysfunctional and destructive homes. Are you suggesting that ALL gays
make worse parents than them? Yet, your political agenda does not say, Impose
stringent restrictions on adoption to the qualified, in spite of sexual
orientation.You are singling out Gays. You have pre-judged me and
all gay people. This is what makes you a bigot.
Article quote: "Affirmation took issue with a statement in the church's document
that says "strong families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of
civilized society." The group's press release said that statement "marginalizes
families headed by widows, single parents, adoptive parents, grandparents or
foster parents and ignores the church's own history honoring polygamous
marriage."Oh, brother....How long will pro-homosexual
groups keep grasping at straws?Puh-lease, stop trying to put words
into our (Latter-day Saints) mouths.The First Presidency's statement
did absolutely nothing to "marginalize" the efforts of widows, single parents,
etc. The ideal of a mother and a father in the home IS the ideal whether one
has the ideal setting or not. Good grief, Affirmation even said that the Church
was slamming "adoptive parents" and yet a 2 second grasp on reality reveals that
a HUGE majority of adoptive adults DO have a mother and father in the adopted
child's home.If any reader belongs to Affirmation, please tell your
leaders to stop trying to stir up trouble.The Church is true, God is
unchangeable, and while He loves us all, regardless of what we do in this life,
He will not accept sinful behavior.
I think you are right. I am a bigot.
I am a 50-something recommend holder in SoCal, on the battlefront, so to speak,
and my perspective is from the eye of the storm. I don't have time to read all
the comments, but I feel the need to put in my thoughts: I'm a convert, I'm
divorced and remarried, I have raised children alone, and I can tell you that
the optimum way to raise children is with a a committed father and mother who
bring their natural and gender-propelled teaching gifts to the union and the
children. God knew what he was doing. When I was a single parent, those ideas
hurt because I felt less-than in a marriage oriented church. That was me,not the
church. Having been remarried and raising a second family under the covenant,and
being an observer of life for the last 53 years, I can tell you that there is no
The LDS church is ridiculous at times and on this issue. They are in fact the
number one producer of gays in the country....sending their "young men" on
"missions" living with each other day after day. I'm gay and have dated more gay
returned missionaries in the LDS church then any other kind of guy. They're
gonna loose a lot of their members....at least all the males who like other
(David) "Melson told the Deseret News since the body of the church's document
had to do with Proposition 8, and "the introduction directly addressed gay
issues in a manner much more straightforward and positive than the church has
done before, it's hard not to think our actions didn't have some influence on
that. The church has recognized this is an issue they need to deal with. I think
they are starting to prepare the way for that day."Dude, FIRST, it
might be hard to think that your group's actions didn't influence the Lord's
apostles, but you'd be wise to start thinking it. The Lord's 15 living apostles
don't bother paying homage to those trapped in sin in choosing what they say,
when they say it or how they say it.SECOND, if you think that this
statement by the First Presidency is the beginning of the LDS church's movement
to accept homosexual behavior as moral, you're waiting for something that isn't
going to happen. Ever.I thank God, literally, that He is a being of
strength who does what is right regardless of its popularity. And, I thank God
His apostles are men of such integrity too.
to SP--Mormons Hurting Children | 7:44 a.m.You are the new Good
Samaritan. Hated by the religious for your behaviors, but still taking in the
sick, afflicted, and those without. Remember that Jesus was talking
about those who would receive eternal life. You are one such!God
bless you and yours.
What an exciting time to be alive in these last days!I heard Pres.
Hinckley say that many, many times in his last years and I always thought, "That
man is either a glutton for punishment or he knows something that I don't."I gave a talk in church about 3 weeks ago on testimony and part of my
talk dealt with how difficult things will be be in the last days before Christ
returns; persecution and apostasy of many Church members being a large part of
it.And yet, strangely enough, I found myself getting excited and
enthusiastic about the future. No, not for the persecution and problems
themselves, but for the challenges; the opportunity to stand tall in the face of
difficulties like our mighty Savior did.Turbulent times? Sure, but
exciting ones too.May God bless all true Latter-day Saints
everywhere throughout the world, those in the Church, and those outside of the
Church, only because they "know not where to find it".
Thanks for posting something positive and uplifting in this forum "The Caravan
Having members that are less than one half of one percent of the world's
population, the caravan sure is moving slowly.
GW | 7:58 a.m. Sept. 10, 2008 "The Mormon Church has been behind the curve
on virtually every major issue of civil rights in this country's history,
including slavery, civil rights, women's rights . . ."GW, you need to
study some more about the church's history before you make comments like that.
The church's leaders were among the first to stand up for the abolishment of
slavery and the rights of black people, Utah was one of the first states to
allow women to vote, the church was very much behind the suffrage movement, and
the church has always been a strong believer in civil rights.
4 Supreme Court Judges have mis-used their power and overturned the vote of the
majority.They want have used their power to legislate from the
bench.Anyone know the names of these 4??The people are
not stupid. Their agenda is not to uphold our constitution, but
rather to force place a minority lifestyle ("enjoyed" by 2% at best) preference
on to the remaining 98% of the population.This is anarchy which
leads to chaos. Prop 8 will succeed with a Yes majority vote, and
the People's voice will again be heard.
Well I am shocked by the news that the church has "just now" released a
statement about being tolerant of gays. I have been taught to have love,
kindness and, yes, "tolerance" for all people, all my life as a member of the
church. I guess I am really just shocked that people think this is the first
time the church as stated such a thing, and that it is just now getting so-o
much attention. I have NEVER been taught to condone behavior that is contrary
to the Lords gospel, (I didn't read anything about condoning any such behavior
in the recent press release) but tolerance and love yes. The church, when
usually more quiet about "political issues", must feel a need to step up
awareness to it's members. If it asks it's members to be more politically
aware and involved it might be because we traditionally do NOT tend to get
involved in political matters, as a majority. If we believe that gay marriage
is in direct opposition to our beliefs, and laws are being formed that threaten
the protection of the family, then maybe it's time to "take a stand". Captain
Moroni comes to mind.
As one raised in the LDS faith, I really wish the church would stay out of
secular affairs. What ever happened to teaching correct principals and letting
people govern themselves. Any time there is talk about taking away choices, it
scares me. Just because a same sex couple wants to be legally married, it has
NOTHING to do with your life. Let the gays have their gay. Worry about your own
The Church is not "taking away choices" it is defending what is morally
right....we have a responsibility to stand up for what we believe, even if it is
contrary to popular opinion. God directs this church, not man....
"Re: why? | 1:02 p.m. Sept. 12, 2008 The Church is not "taking away
choices" it is defending what is morally right....we have a responsibility to
stand up for what we believe, even if it is contrary to popular opinion. God
directs this church, not man...."That would be fine if you were only
affecting the members of the church. If Prop 8 passes, all those same sex
marriages that have taken place in the last few months will be null and void.
You are affecting a lot more people than just church members.
This is a tough one. I believe President Monson is a prophet, therefore I
support the Church's position. And yet, I'm not really opposed to same-sex
marriage because I don't feel like I can do anything about it, just like I can't
stop unmarried people from living together. I feel like I can only try to live
the gospel the best way possible, encourage others to do the same, and accept
those who chose alternative lifestyles. I think the Church is right to issue a
statement against it, however.
Joseph mith said that "A prophet is ONLY a prophet when he is prophesying. The
rest of the time he is just a man." So does that mean that Hinckley and Monson
are prophesying whenever they open their mouths and make a comment?? No. Are
they trying to force their beliefs on others? Yes. There IS a difference.
Prophets are simply men who are capable of making mistakes just like the rest of
us. It's their followers who believe them infallible.I have to
wonder how many on this site are followers of Christ and not their prophet. It
seems many of you on here put the church leaders above Christ and his teachings.
Christ would be helping those who needed him, not condeming them via online
postings tehn going to church on sunday and bragging about their
righteousness.I'm gay, and if that is a sin, then it is for God to
judge me, not you. But He will judge you as you have judged me, and for many of
you, I feel sorry. It's going to be a VERY harsh judgment.
To me the real issue is if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true or not. Why are
we, as people, telling God what He has to be (so we don't have to feel guilty
and we don't have to struggle to overcome) instead of us trying more to be what
He tells us to be as is told in the scriptures? Cities were destroy because of
this issue in the Bible. I think we're giving in to the whims of man and writing
God's commandments out, and if that is the case, then why does it matter what
church you belong to? There are many churches where you pay your money and
you're forgiven and you don't have to feel guilty, but they don't require you to
get rid of many personality flaws and become better.
I am often perplexed when I peruse commentary from so-called members of the LDS
church who profess to be "enlightened." The "brethren" have never, nor will they
ever attempt to unilaterally alter or CHANGE the Word of the Lord. The Lord
issued His decision on Polygamy, Priesthood and other areas of worldly
discontent through His chosen "mouthpiece" at the appropriate time according to
His wisdom. The Lord never has been confused about His Word, and I assure you He
will never be so in the future. While the leadership of the Church may decide to
accept some form of sinful practice, The Lord Jesus Christ will NOT. While
merely being a Homosexual is not sinful, acting upon the enticement to engage in
sinful sexual transgression is, and always will be. Consequently, it is not
possible that the LDS Church will ever be proclaiming eternal marriage as being
open to all stripes of sexual deviation in the future. If this were possible,
the LDS Church would not be the Lord's Church. Thankfully, I know that it is the
true church and most of what I addressed is based upon personal experience.
I'm so sad to see such hostility in the name of the Lord. Wow!! However, I
just keep recalling the words of the simple little Primary song "Follow the
It's sad to see anti-Mormon bigotry thinly disguised as pro-gay advocacy.
Mormons are the only true pro-gay advocates because Mormons are the only ones
who will tell gays the truth: They can change and they are welcome to ask for
help from our church. Don't despair. We can help.
As a faithful latter day saint who happens to be gay, I am saddened by the
amount of intolerance I read in these comments. Last year the LDS church
released a pamphlet titled "God Loveth His Children" which says "Some people
with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did
not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant."So, before you start condemning homosexuals for not following the
prophet, perhaps you should start practicing what you preach and follow the
prophet by showing forth love and kindness. And, you might also want to go
re-read the 11th article of faith.
Suz in So Cal says:"GW, you need to study some more about the church's
history before you make comments like that. The church's leaders were among the
first to stand up for the abolishment of slavery and the rights of black people,
Utah was one of the first states to allow women to vote, the church was very
much behind the suffrage movement, and the church has always been a strong
believer in civil rights."The women's vote was a self-serving
attempt to get a larger Mormon vote. The anti-ERA stance the church took clearly
showed women where they "belonged" at that point in time.If you
believe the church has been a strong supporter in civil rights for blacks,
nothing I can say will matter. I am reminded of a black family in Cincinnati, Oh
in the 1950s or 1960s whose branch did not want them to attend their services.
So, they held their own services in their home.The church does a lot
of wonderful things. Lead the world in civil rights is not one of them.
We are continually reminded by the Lord to obey the Law of the Land. i am
disappointed that so many of us have forgotten His role in all of this. if men
in the government make a law we are asked by the Lord to follow that law so it
is only logical that He would ask us to oppose any law that is not in harmony
with His teachings. tolerance means love. feeling for them as another human
being. however no one said tolerance means inviting them to the family barbecue.
and remember there may not be very many that are crowing but he who crows the
loudest wins. I am just glad that our leaders have said something instead of
Gays want the rest of us to think they are special. They are not. They are no
different than the rest of us who are trying to overcome passions, desires, and
impulses. Perhaps we should grant extra civil rights to other groups of people
who want to justify what their carnal desires as well. Gays do not deserve
extra civil rights based on their carnal desires and I have no interest in
granting them such unearned rights. They are not special.
When ever any issue comes along, I try to learn what I can, but in the end my
thinking is always, "if it's good enough for the Lord it's good enough for me",
and the Prophet is the Lord's mouth piece on Earth. We are promised that the
Prophet will never steer us wrong, so for anyone who is fighting the church in
even the slightest degree, do you really think your fighting against mere men?
"Mormons are the only ones who tells gays the truth: they can change and they
are welcome to ask for help from our church."So what about the
Mormons who are gay that have asked for help to no avail? I have read the story
of a gay Mormon man married to an LDS woman. They desperately loved each and
wanted to stay together. His homosexuality because a huge problem, obviously.
They, together, budgeted $100,000 for therapy, counseling. At the end of that,
if nothing had changed, they would divorce. After spending the money, praying
for years for things to change nothing did. Or maybe the help to
which you refer is the shock therapy at church-owned BYU? You probably weren't
aware of that dead-end "help".Literally thousands of LDS gays have
done everything possible to change. It has not happened. With some it can
help. I don't deny that. I wish it helped with all. It doesn't. For anyone to
blithely say "we" have the answers is pathetic. People have real life issues
you know nothing about but gladly dispense Sunday School answers.
Sometimes I wonder how the people following Moses could be so headstrong as to
mislead/convince themselves and postpone the end of their trip for years. It
never seemed like a realistic story. But its not to hard if ya think about it.
This board has proven that to me.
To shake down cruise: The Prophet and Apostles of the LDS church no longer put
forward the belief that gay/lesbian brothers and sisters can change their
orientation.Refer to the pamphlet produced by the Twelve, titled,
"God Loveth His Children".Please do not leave our gay and lesbian
brothers and sisters with the impression that their orientation is something
that can be overcome. That is the cause of a great deal of heartache.
"They can change and they are welcome to ask for help from our church."If you read more from our church leaders, you will see that they have admitted
that there are some homosexuals that cannot change from their orientation. They
must not act upon these urges, but it does not mean that they can change. It has pretty much been proven over the last 40 years that reparative
therapy does nothing to bring about these changes.Talk to a good LDS
person who has a same sex orientation. You will find out that they have fasted,
prayed, read scripture, and in short done everything that they possibly can to
change this orientation with no avail. They are still wired this way.That is why church leaders are no longer telling gay men to marry women and
have families. It is not fair to the righteous woman to not be loved and wanted
as a woman should be. Too many broken homes from this practice. Please do no preach that the church can change a gay person. It cannot. They
still must remain celebate to be in good standing with the church, though.
It's sad to see many trendy churches just rolling over and caving in to
immorality -- as if morality can simply be changed at the whim of anyone who
finds obeying the commandments inconvenient or "too hard." I applaud the LDS
church for sticking with morality and I am glad they have taken a stand against
the absurd nonsense of gay marriage. Bravo.
That was great. You just described exactly what happened in Sodom and
Gommorrah. What was once considered wrong, became not only acceptable, but
RIGHT.All those defending gay marriage, are you prepared to support
polygamy? Explain the difference if we need a more "enlightened" and liberal
definition of marriage. You can't have it both ways. When do you start
protesting in support of the groups in Texas and Southern Utah .... chirp, chirp
... silence. That's what I thought.I love how if it is different
from what you believe it is "warped" or "unenlightened."
As a proud gay man, I resent and find it totally insensitive that you Mormons
feel you should have the right to dictate laws concerning my life. Look back
into your own history when people tried to legislate laws against you and how
indignant you are about that. I thought that in America there was freedom for
ALL! Boy was I wrong
Mormon morality? Is there such a thing? Read the book "When Salt Lake City
Calls". If that is what you call morality....we are in big trouble
I never said gays could change their orientation, only their behaviors. Please
read more carefully in the future. Gays can change their behaviors and so can
everyone else. Gays are not special or any different from anyone else -- and
therefore, they do not deserve special rights or privileges.
I haven't read anywhere that "we" blithely say that we have all the answers.
Some things only the Lord knows and we are here to be tested to see if we will
be obedient.I have my own issues that I've struggled with for years even
though I've been praying and working the whole time. I don't think my having
paid $100,000 for counseling gives me any extra claim on blessings or getting
"my" way.If my wife loves to go running and I'm stuck in a wheelchair,
unable to accompany her does that give me reason to plan for divorce if I can't
find a way to go with her? The challenges of the gay man you sited simply
become excuses for not receiving the blessings of obedience. It may not be
easy, in fact it may be very difficult but the law of obedience really is that
simple.While struggling over the years to understand and carefully counsel
gay members, there have certainly been well intentioned words of guidance and
advice spoken. These words have been painful and discouraging for many as both
leaders and gays struggle for understanding. Obedience is the best policy for
me for you.
To shake down cruise (again): To tell the truth, you didn't specify between
changing orientation or behavior in the post that I was originally replying to
(at 2:53 p.m.).I apologize for jumping to that conclusion. I should
have investigated your thought on that further.
The Church has concerns for members of families whether they be LDS or not.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a commitment to family and the hope of
children. This institution (marriage between a man and a woman)is the best way
for all children that come into the world to progress emotionally, ohysically,
and spiritually. Families with less than a mother and a father live in more
poverty, there is more abuse, more drug and alcohol usage, less education, more
social outcasts, more sexually transmitted disease and on and on. Gay unions as
well as unmarried are are statistically less stable (they are in and out of
realtionships ie. more partners) and there for convey those ills listed above on
to the "family" they would be attempting to raise.The Church is promoting
the best for all (marriage between a man and a woman). Sanctioning a failed
lifestyle won't work. It is not hate speech, it is just some people shouldn't
try to raise a family (children) and doom that family for their selfishness and
attempts at "feeling" normal. And thes are just the logical cold hard facts.
The Church also has religious reasons.
To No Special rights for gays: You're right. Gays and Lesbians aren't special.
They are not different from rest of the people in this world. They desire to
have the freedom to spend their lives with the person that they love.They also wish to see the time come that their love, which is not special or
different from anyone else's love, is given the same status and recognition that
is available to all couples across this great nation.
I've read that gays and lesbians already have equal rights -- they can marry
someone of the opposite sex, just like any heterosexual can. Makes sense.Then again, if gay marriage were legal, the heterosexual could marry
someone of the same sex. Still equal, isn't it?
"some people shouldn't try to raise a family (children) and doom that family for
their selfishness and attempts at "feeling" normal"Thanks for
calling my family doomed. I have raised two fine children who are now raising
children of their own. I am not selfish, but if you must judge all ssa people
who have children as selfish, you are showing you ignorance. Gay couples who
decide to have children have thought about this extensively. There will be no
"accidents" and the children brought into these homes are wanted and loved.
Many times the children are adopted and they are the left overs that all the
heterosexuals did not want - those with special problems or physical handicaps.
So, continue your judging and we will continue our loving. Too bad
we can't come together on this concept, at least for the children.
My disappointment lies in the fact that this statement was issued nearly a month
ago and there was no publicity on it. Shame on DesNews.
Contention is not of me.
Any statistics on gay relationships are worthless until society accepts gay
people. How different would hetero relationships be if heteros received the
same treatment (spoken and unspoken) that gays do?
The problem with gay marriage or people attempting to redefine marriage is it
will also lead to the legalization of polygamy. It will be inevitable. If the
definition of marriage no longer restricted it to a man and a woman then to say
that a man could not marry several wives would be denying the rights of
polygamists to also enjoy and benefit from legal marriage privileges that would
include all their wives. My question to the pro-gay marriage crowd
is, if gay marriage does become the law of the land, will you also advocate the
right of polygamists to legally marry and defend their rights and do so with as
much vigor as you do gay marriage. Once you have redefined marriage, you open up
the gates for anyone with a particular lifestyle to be included, Is that what
you really want?
RE: "I am often perplexed when I peruse commentary from so-called members of the
LDS church who profess to be "enlightened." The "brethren" have never, nor will
they ever attempt to unilaterally alter or CHANGE the Word of the Lord."Have you read the Doctrine and Covenants about the Word of Wisdom?
Please do. You will then realize that the brethren have in fact contradicted
and changed "the Word of the Lord."
I am an active LDS member who believes that if it is true that God created all
of us in His image, and that He also created those who are disabled or deformed,
why would He not also have created those with same-sex attraction? I believe
that society has deemed homosexuality as being "wrong", but that Heavenly Father
loves each and every one of His children. I believe that what happens in the
bedroom should stay there, and I DO support same-sex marriage. I
look forward to the day when the church will receive revelation to support this
as they did in 1978, when our African-American brothers were (finally) allowed
the priesthood.I walked out of a recent Sacrament meeting when the
bishop asked the congregation to donate money (to total $50K) to hire lawyers to
fight Prop.8. I avidly believe that church and state should remain
separate, and any such "discussion" should be limited to meetings outside of
church time and without the ears of young children. I personally do
not wish to have my children asking questions of the issue when it is one that
is limited to those of voting age.
Now let's see if the church will comment on immigration and Jason Chaffetz
racist policy position.
People are under the misplaced assumption that men/man is at the head of this
church and like other denominations throughout the world will change the
doctrine if given enough convincing ala "...Teachers, having itching ears..."God the Father and Jesus Christ are at the head of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is They who make the decisions of what should
happen. Whether or not homosexual men and women ever are "recognized" the way
they want to be, as far as the church goes, isn't up to President Monson, or any
other member of the church on the earth. It is up to God the Father. So it seems we can argue the point of this article until we push up daisies.
I hope to goodness, and I want to have faith, that nothing will change until our
Heavenly Father sees fit. As with all other things in this life I don't
understand, I will have faith in a loving Father and in His servants here.
To me the bottom line is should the Church be involved in matters of State???
Its either yes or no so please make your mind up one way or another.
I find myself continually shaking my head at those who keep beating the polygamy
dead horse. It is past HISTORY, it is over, and has had nothing to do with the
Church for a long time. The Church is a growing entity, learning more and more
about God and His children through revelation. To keep bringing it up is
similar to reviling a person who made a poor choice in their past, overcame it
and became an entirely different person, but others keep using the past as a
reason to degrade them. I also don't understand why the word "gay"
was ever allowed to ruin a perfectly happy little word that means something
else. Homosexuality needs to be acknowledged for what it is, homosexuality, not
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has every right to defend its'
beliefs, doctrine, faith. The family is a very integral, important part of the
church and society. Society has forgotten that. Members of the Church also have
every right as citizens of our country, which by the way was founded upon
Judeo-Christian beliefs, to defend themselves when their rights may be infringed
upon. If Prop 8 does not pass here in CA, our children will be taught about
alternative lifestyles and our teachers do not have time to do that. Our
classrooms need to be focused on math, science, reading, etc. Our high school
drop out rates in the U.S. are atrocious! Regardless of your religious
affiliation, why would you want to seek to destroy the sanctity of marriage
between a man and a woman? Gays and lesbians are not losing any of their rights
by the passing of Prop 8. Besides, the people of CA already spoke loud and
clear in 2000 by a whopping 61% of votes only to be overturned last year by a CA
Supreme Court ruling out of San Francisco!
"One consequence that we Mormons want to make sure you suffer is that you are
not going to be allowed the benefits of marriage because you might have or adopt
children!" You said: "Um. That person was being facetious. They were
pretending to be Mormon to mock the LDS stance on this issue..."I
don't know if I can 100% believe that. In these anonymous forums people are
often more honest about their true feelings. And I believe that many members of
the lds church feel that way. I say this because I've spoken to many of them
about this issue. The quote above IS a legitimate fear for mormons and I believe
that person was being truthful when they said it. I agree with Johnny Utah
In my former country, Iraq, homosexuals were killed! Islamic law! What's my
point? Be greatful you live in a free country, especially if you are gay! I
think you have a saying in this country..don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I have only gotten to page two out of ten pages of comments thus far and one
thing that really stands out to me is how everyone is crying fowl on just the
LDS church on our stance on gay marraige - well guess what people-- we are not
the only church that is saying NO to gay marraige! I wonder if there newspapers
and columns are getting as much anti's on them as we are ??? They say that they
are upset that we are pushing our religion down their throat - but it seams to
me that it is the other way around. And let's get something right here - FREE
agency is a term made of man. The scriptures say that we have agency - but that
with that agency are always the consequences weather for the good or for the bad
- but they are ALWAY there. Well, it's late so I will try to get a few more
pages tomorrow - wonder how many pages it will end of being at the end. Man does
not rule this church-God does - if you don't like the way things are - take it
up with him.
I lived for a while in Utah, what a relief to return to South Africa where gays
are treated like human beings rather than being treated like second class
citizens. Here in South Africa, which was one of the first countries to allow
gay marriage, the marriage institution is neither weaker or stronger by allowing
gays to marry. Why is the Church and its homophobic members afraid
to accept that not everyone believes the same as it does? What happened to
allowing all people the right to worship who, where and how they please? Amen
to the comment above about the Church getting out of politics...
Um, Dawn, this country was NOT founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs. Neither God
nor Jesus are mentioned ANYWHERE in the US constitution.And why do
you think allowing gays to marry will destroy traditional marriages? This claim
is repeated over and over again, without one shred of supporting evidence or
History has always proven that freedom is always require bloodshed of some form
or another. Never has freedom comes without a price, and it's opposition is
abundantly clear at every turn in history, in every corners of the earth, and in
every race and religion.The price paid for some are with their
lives. But heavy is the price maybe, ultimately, freedom for every man, woman
and child, will be the dominant force in modern society, because man cannot and
will not be bound indefinitely. Shortly, we will have a President
that only recently considered as the low of society, which proves once more
that, freedom cannot be suppressed, and will and do conquer. It's
not a surprise, therefore, that this newly fought battle over freedom will
naturally be heavily opposed, and it's going to be a bloodshed of a different
nature that's going to be win the day. I am not at all surprised
that the LDS and many other churches has become the ones that gays will have to
fight against for their freedom. I believe wholeheartedly that God
will make sure that freedom reigns amongst the people.
Those who say they are practicing homosexuals who also say that "by the book"
Latter-day Saints will have an extremely uncomfortable meeting with the Savior
at Judgement while they (gays) will be scott-free off the hook because THEY were
so "loving and kind" need to get a grip. This is particularly true for those
who act in homosexual practices but simultaneously claim to cling to the
teachings of the LDS church.Why do I say that?Because
the Book of Mormon CLEARLY teaches that breaking the Law of Chastity (which the
last time I checked, homosexual actions fall into that category in spades) is a
sin that is exceptionally grievious to the Lord, only surpassed in seriousness
by the sin of murder or blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.So, I'll
take the occasional blunder of getting impatient and a little angry dealing with
people who refuse to see an ounce of the tons of truth beating upon their
conscience, and you keep practicing illicit sexual relations with a member of
your own sex and let's just see who stands condemned the most by our God at the
last day....Till we meet.
If you mean that you are actively participating in homosexual actions then, no,
you are most certainly not a "faithful Mormon".Not now, not ever,
and it offends and saddens me that my own brothers and sisters can be so
blind.The Lord accepts YOU as a human being no matter what you do
with your life but He will not ever stoop so low as to accept your homosexual
choices as being enlightening, wholesome or uplifting.I'm not a
perfect person yet; I get angry sometimes, I lack faith and patience fare to
often and I need to learn to love others, even homosexuals, better than I do.
But, I am so very, very proud to know someone who has standards, the RIGHT
standards, who will ALWAYS stick to his guns; the Savior, Jesus Christ.
You said: "Having members that are less than one half of one percent of
the world's population, the caravan sure is moving slowly." Go
ahead, mock me and the other faithful members of the LDS church all you want.It does not bother me or scare me in the least.My testimony
of God's prophecy through His prophet Daniel is sure and immovable; the Lord's
church WILL grow and eventually consume the whole earth like the stone cut out
of a mountain without hands. In 1986, a whopping 156 years after the LDS church
was organized, we finally topped 6 million members worldwide. And now, in 2008,
just 22 years removed from 1986, we added ANOTHER 6 million members and a
million more to boot!The LDS church will grow. Even if we lose
hundreds of thousands of stubborn and proud members over this issue of gay
marriage, the Church will rebound faster than ever and quickly make up that
defecit and add even more to our ranks. We are promised to grow, and when we
grow it is akin to compount interest: lot of growth in a little time. The caravan IS moving on!
I think alot these types of issues clear up if all remember the act ot
Pro-creation isnot a right whose primary purpose is pleasure but a a
scared responsibility whose primary purpose is enabling out brothers and
sisters to come to earth. President Benson reminded us what the primary purpose
(not sole) of Pro-creation was--saying that If the primary purpose was
pleasurethan all sorts of behaviors not pleasing to the Lord are condoned
in the name of pleasure. Remembering ProCreation is a sacred responsibilitygiven to married men and women helps keep sex within its God-ordained
WestieWestAriz says "I find myself continually shaking my head at those who keep
beating the polygamy dead horse. It is past HISTORY, it is over, and has had
nothing to do with the Church for a long time. The Church is a growing entity,
learning more and more about God and His children through revelation. To keep
bringing it up is similar to reviling a person who made a poor choice in their
past, overcame it and became an entirely different person, but others keep using
the past as a reason to degrade them."Where can I get a job where
nothing I do in the past has any relevance? The comparison to a person who made
a poor choice in the past is quite weak consider the "inspired" circumstances in
which polygamy happened. The moment LDS leaders don't put their choices in my
face as "inspired", that is the moment I will consider what they have said in
the past in a different light. Mark E Peterson's thoughts on race are a prime
Please no more first-hand commentaries regarding same-sex marriages that do not
destroy countries. We try to read only about the undocumented, fanciful
"historical" rhetoric about all the countries in the history of mankind that
have been single-handedly been dealt destruction by gays.
The church has never changed their position on this topic. I am not quite sure
where Affirmation gets that... they talk about half truths... there is one for
you. The church has surely emphasized different things as of late like
tolerance, and tendencies but never changed their position. Homosexuality is
wrong and will never be right. Why is it addressed so strongly in the bible as
being wrong (in both the New and Old Testament)? Because it is. That however,
does not mean we should treat those who practice it with meanness, and hateness.
I think many times we say things because we are uncomfortable with it but I
think for the majority of us we abhor the practice but still love the people. I
have a few gay family members and it makes me love them no less. But I do not
support their actions or their lifestyle. I believe true happiness is founded
in the living of the gospel. And I am not sure how "gay LDS members" who openly
practice can change this doctrine for themselves. Families are essential to the
Plan of Salvation. But to re-iterate... we don't hate the sinner or
transgressor but the sin.
I still don't understand how one couple wanting to marry will impact the
foundation and strength of another's marriage. I've known gay and lesbian
couples whose relationships have lasted years and years and years longer than a
lot of my heterosexual friends' relationships. How does what my neighbor's
relationship (unmarried with 4 kids) affect my life?I think
everybody forgets that each of us will be judged according to our own actions.
Yes, it's important to follow Heavenly Father's teachings. Yes, it's important
to pray about issues. But whatever path you choose to follow does not give you
the right to judge another's journey. We don't all continue to "hold to the
rod", and even if we're on the same path, we're never in the same place at the
same time.I was raised by a single Mom ... how sad to think that
others believe we don't deserve the same love and compassion families with
fathers supposedly do.Jesus taught us to "love one another". He
didn't say to espouse political issues from the pulpit. He didn't say condemn
others and turn your back on them because of their choices.
re Ann OnymousI also am an active LDS - and I wonder at what you have
stated. Yes, we are created in the IMAGE of God the Father. Does that mean that
a murder can claim that murdering is alright because God must have created him
that way???If you are truly an active LDS as you profess - then you would
be following the councel of the Living PROPHET of God who gets his direction
from God! Not having the priesthood has never been a sin.Homosexuality has
always been a sin in God's eyes - don't believe me - Read the scriptures -
especially the Old Testement.
I'm a Mormon living in libertarian Orange County. I fully support the concept of
individual choice and individual rights. I know and admire a lesbian couple who
have three children together. They are great parents and wonderful people.On the other hand, I'm a trained biologist (Ph.D. in ecology).
Male-female marriage is a biological necessity. In primitive hunter-gatherer
societies, the males have to defend the tribe and hunt game. Men tend to be
larger and aggressive for that reason. Females in those societies are often
pregnant or lactating. Their role is to protect the children, preserve the
"home". This role also requires much bonding with other mothers, and they do
most of the gathering (shopping?). Human sexuality is a pair-bonding mechanism
to maintain the protective synergy of the bond. This overall distinction in
roles and psychology carries on to this day. It is the biological and social
basis for traditional marriage. Technically, it precedes religion as we know it.
It has been going on for many thousands of years.There is a
biological imperative supporting traditional marriage. Homosexual relationships
will always be outside the norm.(to be continued)
(Continued from previous post)There is a biological imperative
supporting traditional marriage.The sexual default is female. To
become a functioning male, the fetus must not only have the correct genes, but
also the correct chemical (hormonal) triggers at the right times. It is easy to
see how one could be physically male but not quite all the way. Hence
homosexuality in males.I believe the evidence that homosexual is
largely biological. Therefore, it can be considered a "birth defect". If true,
then biological (not cultural) homosexuals are trapped by nature. This deserves
our sympathy and respect. I believe that the LDS church leaders understand this.
We also believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Thus homosexual activity
is a sin, just as is extra-marital sex. Unmarried Mormons are expected to
abstain from sex regardless of orientation. Simple as that.If gay
marriage were sanctioned by the government, would the LDS and other churches be
required to sanction homosexual activities if within the bounds of marriage?This is a real dilemma, indeed.Would the law require that
Mormons legitimize sex within a gay marriage?I'll vote FOR Prop 8.
Too many unintended consequences.
The Deuce | 11:36 p.m. Sept. 10, 2008 said -Another interesting battle
between two oppossing views that absolutely have no common ground to work from.
First, Prop 8 in California does not take away any rights that gays/lesbians
have at this time regarding civil unions.CM - They may not lose any
legal rights, but they are still regulated to 2nd class status. Blacks in the
South had separate drinking fountains right next to the White one. The water
going to each was just as clear, cold, pure, etc...even coming from the same
pipe. If Blacks are getting the same benefits from the government (clean cold
water), what are they complaining about? They are complaining about being 2nd
class, complaining about society treating them differently and society teaching
the kids that such treatment is just. Are you all REALLY wanting to side with
those wanting seperate drinking fouintains?
Suz in Cal:You should read some history. The first group of pioneers in
the family had slaves with it.BY made numerous comments that black are not
and would not be as civilized as whites.You are wrong on this, read some
John Pack Lambert | 1:34 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008 wrote -However since it
was done by the courts through the finding of special rights in the state
constitution it opens up a lot of other issues. Cm - Special rights?
Did the Church ask for "special rights" to build buildings and send missionaries
into countries that have state churches? maybe a government official there
might say,"If you want to go to church, go to the state church...why are you
asking for "special rights" when we have a state church you can attend?"Being treated equally is not a "special right".
Tom in CA | 8:42 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008 wrote - Prop 8 is the result of
4 Activist Supreme Court Judges who, because of left wing radical support, have
decided to OVERTURN the California Voters who by a vote of 61% to 39%
overwhelmingly passed the 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, which has ALREADY
defined the definition of marriage in California. Weren't there 5
"activist judges" (The US Supreme Court) that overturned the DC gun ban? The
will of the people was expressed through their elected officials and then these
unelected "activist judges" overturn the clear will of the people of Washington
DC.The definition of an activist judge is a judge who rules in a way
you don't like.4 Individuals (Anarchists) have taken it upon
themselves to stick it to millions who, 8 years ago, cast their vote in a
general election. THIS IS THE ISSUE!!
Alan of Orem | 9:22 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008 wrote - "On the other hand,
the Church of Jesus Christ and otehr conservative religious bodies, such as the
Catholic Chuch, have a real and well-founded fear that their views about the
practice of homosexuual relations will eventually be not only marginalized, but
suppressed as "hate speech". "There is NO WAY that the courts will
ever allow churches to be sued for preaching. Even is by some miracle that that
would happen, the people of the US will past a constitutional amendment to
protect churches. No elected official would oppose it for fear of not being
reelected. The sky is NOT going to fall.
Lonnie | 10:30 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008 wrote - " The "Proclamation To
The World", concerning families, is considered modern day revelation. Scripture
if you will. "Sorry, but unless it is sustained via common consent,
it isn't scripture. The prophets have specifically said this. Why do you think
that sections 137 and 138 of the D&C were sustained via common consent before
they were added to the scriptures? If these prophetic statements WERE ALREADY
scripture, why all of the fuss?Also, on Jan. 5, 1982, the First
Presidency issued a statement which was read to the adult members of my ward
that Sunday evening at a special fireside. The First Presidency's statement
said that oral sex was a violation of temple covenants. Within a year or so, no
one ever heard any more on it. Young couples about to be sealed were never told
this by their bishops. Neither were adult converts.If First
Presidency issued statements WERE as good as scripture, why are 99.9% of church
members that are under the age of 40 unaware of this? I have a copy of it if
anyone would like to see for themselves.
"There is NO WAY that the courts will ever allow churches to be sued for
preaching. Even is by some miracle that that would happen, the people of the US
will past a [law] to protect churches. No elected official would oppose
it for fear of not being reelected. The sky is NOT going to fall."Funny, that's exactly what they said in Canada. And France. And Britain. And
John Pack Lambert | 1:34 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008 wrote -JL .. the
courts through the finding of special rights in the state constitution ..CM - In Saudi Arabia, Christians can't build churches. I imagine that
when Christians ask permission to build a church, Saudi officials suggest that
Christians don't deserve "special rights" just for them and if they want the
benefits of public worship, that they attend a mosque like everyone else. The
Christians will say that since they are not Muslim, that that doesn't make
sense. The official may tell the Christian that they CHOOSE to be Christians and
that Saudi Arabia won't provide Christians with "special rights" based on their
lifestyle choices. What Christians do in the privacy of their own homes is one
thing, but why should Saudi society, which was based on Islam, have to change to
accommodate Christians' chosen lifestyle? The Christians may also say that they
pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give
government benefits and protections to Muslims while they are denied those same
benefits and protections. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be
Christians rather than being Muslims.
To 6:00 on September 11th, We are calling homosexuality evil, not
homosexuals. That is very different.
To the 8:10 commentator and others, I think you need to refine the
defence of the doctor in California. This is not an issue of anything
short of whether a doctor has a right to object to perform a procedure on
religious grounds. There is a very good and upstanding man in my stake
who is a fertility specialist. He has helped many couples have children who
would not be able to otherwise. I do not know how he would have reacted
in the case that lead to the suit, however the fact that the doctor said he
would refer the lady to a college and would care for her during the pregnancy
shows a willingness to work with people to the full extent of what he felt his
religion would allow. Unfortunantly, some people like Jax feel we should
drive cooperative people who try to built compromises that allow everyone to
achieve their goals out of the profession. What you have to bear in
mind is the case that lead to the suit obviously involves people who are trying
to force their will as public policy, who have no respect for those who object
to homosexual behaviors.
why is everyone so angry? both sides of the issue have been saying some pretty
hateful things againsthomosexuality and against mormons. and if i remember my
united states history correctly, the phrase "separation of church and state" was
originally refering to the government alowing citizens to worship freely.
however it did not mean that religious views were not to be expressed anywhere
but in your home or your place of worship. those same men who wrote that phrase
wrote the rest of the Constitution as well.
To 10:13, It is true that Governor Wilson was a Republican, but he was
no conservative. So the judges he appoints may very well be liberals.
Also, if you allow me to show examples from the SCOTUS we can examine Judge
Stevens, one of the most liberal members of that body, who was apointed to the
court by the Republican Gerald Ford. So, two things we must remember.
Apointed by a Reppublican can equal liberal, and liberal is not the same thing
as activist. The early new deal legislation was all stuck down by a
court that is the perfect model of an activist court, but was possibly the most
conservative court to have existed during the 20th century. The
California court is an activist court because they mandate not only results but
specific methods. They do not accept California granting all the various rights
that members of the homosexual "rights" lobby claim are the things from marriage
they want, and insist that California grant all the public policy benefits
connected to marriage.
Some people have asked why I care so much about this issue. First off,
this is a debate that has been ongoing, it is eventually going to force the
federal courts to make some things clear. Secondly, and maybe most
importantly, President Hinckley spoke forcefully and unequivocally on how we
need to stand on this issue. President Monson and his counselors have left no
room for wondering. The Church leaders only speak out on a few issues and so I
figure those they do speak out on are important. Thirdly, I am
affiliated with the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom. Religious Freedom will
be severly restricted if Proposition 8 fails. This is especially true because
certain people have the attiude that "if you religiously object to some duties
that are rarely requested of members of a certain profession, you should leave
that profession." Fourthly, I believe that Affirmation does not
understand or internalize the truths that follow from the Church being lead by
revelation from God. So I feel compelled to try to insert the truths about the
fact that Prophets speak on the issues God tells them to speak and can not be
The 2:41 commentator was mocking. He accuses us of wanting people to
"suffer". The whole reason to oppose adoption by homosexual couples is that it
will cause suffering on the part of the children. So we are acting in the best
interest of the children. Secondly, taking custody of a youth who would
otherwise be on the streets and adopting a newborn baby are different issues.
One is a case of special circumstances, the other is a case where the whole
point of putting the child up for adoption is to get him or her in a better
situation. To accuse people who are doing things with the desire to help
and bless children of intending to do things to cause others to suffer, is
To SP, What you ignore for the 30th time is we do not oppose the
marriage of people who are practicing homosexuals as a legal issue, we oppose
the change of the basic definition. As a religious ideal I do not think a
practicing homosexual man should marry, but if he can find a woman to marry him
than it is perfectly all right. I also do not as a general principal
think practicing armed robbes should marry, they should be behind bars.
However, legally if they are not caught and can find someone to marry them, more
power to them. The "convicted sex offenders" line is just gratuitious.
Has anyone here said "People with same gender attraction should be legally
barred from ever marrying". No. THe only legal definition we seek is that a
marriage must as a matter of defintion involve a man and a woman. There are
additional regulations on marriages, but currently neither side is attempting to
change those so they are not at issue. What we need is for people to
consider why marriage has been defined how it is defined.
I am an active LDS in my 50+ years. Some people in the church have a problem
with the church saying NO to this. They say they see nothing wrong with this
etc.. I remember a time when I was young that most people thought that there was
nothing wrong with smoking - and finally they realized they were wrong. We
accept and bellieve in a Living Prophet and that he gets direction from God.
Maybe.. just maybe.. God knows something that we don't !! And therefore through
the prophet has given us this instruction. Maybe our part in this is our faith
and if we have the willingness to follow the leaders instruction on this matter.
And leave it to God to figure out .
Supporting 11:40, The most I think about it, the most obvious Melson is
kidding himself. This is Affirmation that initially asked the church not
to join in the fight for Proposition 8. They also have consistently
ignored Elder Holland's October 2007 Ensign article. They have never once
acknoledged that this article exists or that it is more straightforward than
anything in the recent document "The Divine Institution of Marriage".
Thirdly, Affirmation's unwillingness to deal with the signoficance of the title
of the most recent document just shows they have no connection with what the
church is saying and are just trying to sow doubt. Do not doubt. Stand
fast for Proposition 8.
To the one who tried to shame the news, The news had a full article on
this statement when it was relased. Just because you did not see it, does not
mean the news did not announce it.
Why do those seeking a change of opinion always say the "church" will address
the concern someday when what they're implying is that the church will change
it's doctrinal stance. They have been addressing the concern for at least a
decade. They will not change their stance.
Women's vote... I am an LDS women - No I was not around in the 1800's when women
were given the right to vote (and neither were you for that matter), so I don't
know all the ends and outs of that time anymore I dare say then you do. I do
know that the church at time also sent women back east to schools to become
doctors and nurses in a time that only men did that type of thing. I also know
that the Relief Society was also brought about (and has been around sense then).
The ERA is a different matter... I was a young adult at that time and I remember
it well. They wanted to say not so much that men and women were equal but were
the same!!. The church has never taught that women were not equal to men only
that they had a different mission in life to perform. Men were to be the head of
the family and the bread winners (when possible) and the Priesthood Holder. I
think the big problem was with the Priesthood. As a Mormon women I do now have a
problem with God's way of thinking.
thank you Ken Reed for your comments. finally someone who is for prop 8, a
member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and a professional
PHD in biology who has the knowledge for why same sex relationships are not
natural, and who has close friends in a same sex relationship. thank you
I too was very much into the 70's issues here in Salt Lake City. The problem
isn't with the things that are said about the importance of women. The problem
lies in the fact that many men feel that they are superior. Of course men and
women are different in some ways,but we are also both alike in many ways. The
ways that we are alike in the 21st century outweigh the ways we are different.
I'm tired of men using the excuse of Priesthood and religion to make themselves
over women in ways of leadership and power. It will not be true much longer.
The world is changing and if religion doesn't change with it it will be left
behind.I have already left it behind and I've never been happier.
Evergreen International...there is hope and real help!
Nothing. I just wanted to be #533.
As you enumerate the 13 MILLION members out of 6 BILLION people on earth, don't
forget the approx 6.5 million who no longer are no longer come to church.
The reason I believe the Church will change its stance on gay rights is because
society is already changing, and the Church wants to be seen as normal,not
weird. We used to embrace the "peculiar people" mantra but nowadays not so
much.Also with so many members supporting Sarah Palin for VP, the
issue of equal rights for women has been put to bed. No longer can the Church
claim that it is essential for women to stay in the home.Conservative women LOVE Palin and her example speaks much louder than any
other admonition--especially since the Church leaders remain totally silent
about Palin's role in politics. (You don't hear any of them condemning her
actions, even though she has a small baby and other children at home.)Now all we need is a conservative gay guy to run for a prominent office and
the Church will change their position about gays as well. Just wait and see.
The LDS Church is right in its feelings, thoughts and words. We strive to love
and respect all people. However, we cannot condone what is wrong. Marriage is
ordained of God and is to be between a man and a woman.
Gay marriage is a ploy to bring the force of government against religious speech
via hate speech laws.
I had mormons as neighbors and I have had gays as neighbors. I'll tell you what
I'll take the gays anyday. Mormons just keep your nose out of it, this of no
concern to you or your precious little state of utah.
Evergreen International is a fraud. I've been there done that. It didn't work.
Nevertheless they cite me as one of their success stories. Stay away and learn
to just accept yourself as you are!
What will you do when your prophet finally has a revelation and accepts gays as
equal children of God, like he did for blacks? It will come eventually, as will
priesthood for women. The LDS church will be the last to do so, but they will
I would predict that the LDS church will give women the priesthood bit will
never accept gay marriage.
I'm 73 years old and remember when they used to teach that Negros would never
hold the priesthood either, that it would be a sure sign of the apostacy if they
did. That was the doctrine then. I've been a bishop and am married
to a woman and have two children, nine grandhildren and threee great
grandchildren. But I am also homosexual. Although I love my family, I would
have been much happier had I not married a woman.
Fact: Homosexuality is an abomination condemned by the Bible. So is fornication
and adultery.Fact: Homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion of the
sexual union God intended when he created Adam and Eve and married them in
Eden.Fact: The above facts will never change, no matter how many
people practice homosexuality, no matter what the media says, no matter how much
proponents of homosexuality cry, and whine, and cry foul, etc.
God doesn't exist. The Mormon church (and all religions) are man made-shams.
No matter how much you pray and bear your testimony, none of it is true.
While I disagree with your position on prop 8, I want to thank you for your
post. No rancor, no name-calling, even some sympathy for gays.Thanks.
Women in the church who marry in the temple already hold the Priesthood jointly
with their husband. That is as far as it goes, and that will not change, no
matter how many people claim it will. That is not the woman's role in the
church. We have other sacred duties that are equal to, or even higher than, a
man's duties - and most men in the church realize that. Sins are
always sins, no matter how many people participate in or accept and support
them. Certain practices may change depending on circumstance, but the definition
of sin does not.The scriptures have always been clear that
eventually someday, blacks would receive the Priesthood. It was never a
permanent thing, no matter how many local leaders didn't understand that at the
time. Nobody who walks out of meetings because of a directive put
forth by the First Presidency, who publicly speaks out against the leaders of
the church and tries to sway others to their opinion, who seeks to change
doctrine based on their personal views, and who ignores and rejects the words of
the Prophet, can rightly call themselves "active LDS".
I respect your education, but you miss a major point. Biologically speaking,
marriage is not necessary for reproduction. There's plenty of evidence for that.
Even with same-sex marriage, there will be plenty of heterosexuals around to
continue to reproduce, and plenty of homosexuals who choose to adopt the
unwanted children of heterosexuals.With the past advances in these
Civil Rights, studies are starting to show that legal recognition of same-sex
relationships is providing more stable relationships. And our country prides
itself on a separate is not equal philosophy. This was clearly spelled out in
the decision of the Supreme Court Justices. Marriage is a good thing for
straight and gay families and that's good for society.As for your
concerns, no church would be required to perform marriages anymore than a church
is required to perform marriages for non members.And, no, being gay
is not a birth defect. It's just a different feature such as color of skin or
hair.BTW.. I'm also in "libertarian" OC.As for the
Church's position, they should really read some of the comments on this board to
see that despite their gentle words, the words of some of the membership say
Whew! A lot of confusion going on here! I'd like to offer an invitation
to each of you to listen to the LDS General conference coming up in October.
You can hear first hand what we really believe and not have to sift through the
chaff to get it. A lot less stressful that's for sure!
The entire debate about the gay lifestyle and same-sex "marriage" is a
never-ending story. As long as there is time, there will be those who propose a
secular solution and they will always condem God for being "behind the times".
Perhaps the Bible says it the best ..."For what man knoweth the
things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of
God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.""But the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto
him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1
Corinthians 2: 11, 14We can write our opinions until we are blue in
the face, but it will not alter things as they really are. The only solutions
are those aligned with ultimate truth. I would suggest we all seek to know that
truth. Everything else is just "babbling on".
I just want to say one thing, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a
women thats why its ADAM and EVE not ADAM and STEVE, and it has been that way
for centuries. I just think that same-sex marriage is way wrong , but you know
what if you want to do that kind of thing then thats your priority and please
people will you stop attacking the church for not changing their standards? The
church isn't trying to force you to change, they might want you to but they cant
make you so how about all of you who are attacking the church stop because who
are you to be forcing you opinion on others, and yet your the ones complaining
that the church is forcing their standards on you.(If life was ment for there to
be gay marriages there would be a different way of having children but there
isn't so sorry it's wrong to have same-sex marriages )
marraige is between a man and a woman thats why its ADAM and EVE not ADAM and
The "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" thing is worn out. Come up with
something fresher if you want to make an argument. Otherwise, save your breath,
because everyone has heard that one AD NAUSEAM!
Frank | 3:07 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008 said -I'm still astounded at how many
pro-gay marriage posters here are afraid of the democratic process. The masses
will vote, if its the will of the masses then things will pass. CM -
WE LDS sure complained when the democratic process (the will of the masses) took
away our unique marriage practices because they too thought such a practice was
evil and denigrated the institution of marriage. Ben Franklin said that
democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. We used to
be the lamb and now we are the wolves. We should be so proud.
Homophobia | 6:35 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008 wrote - We are told you will not
affect our religious rights. But you already are in a very negative way. Right
now in California a doctor is being sued by a lesbian couple because he refused
(for personal religious reasons) to perform an artificial insemination
proceedure for a lesbian. The doctor will likely loose. Catholic charities
adoption services has closed it's door rather than be forced to adopt children
to gay couples in San Fran.CM - The problem of the doctor and the
Boston franchise of Catholic charities is that, as has been pointed out, want
the approval of the state. Both need licenses to do as they do. If you want to
play in Caesar's realm, then you have to play by Caesar's rules. If those
states have laws that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
then those 2 need to play by the rules or get out of the game. I'm sure you'd
be fine if a Baptist doctor refused to artificially inseminate a Mormon couple
because we're cultists. The same for a Baptist adoption agency. Liken the
situation unto ourselves.
Anonymous | 6:57 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008 wrote - I wish the so-called gay
affirmation people would just move on with their lives and leave us real Mormons
alone. CM - I think you have it wrong...the gay affirmation people
wish that the Church would leave THEM alone rather than using the political
process to persecute them.
sarah says:"The scriptures have always been clear that eventually
someday, blacks would receive the Priesthood. It was never a permanent thing, no
matter how many local leaders didn't understand that at the time."The last place to look for facts is an internet thread. The scriptures never
said anything about blacks not receiving the priesthood, much less that they
would eventually receive it. That is why Bruce R McConkie said they would never
receive it. Even he had no clue what the doctrine (policy) actually was.
Can someone out there please explain to me why ANYONE should care if 2 men or 2
women marry each other? I want someone to put in clear and concise terms how it
affects their heterosexual marriage if their gay neighbors are "married" as
well. Does it hinder YOUR ability to get into "heaven"? Does it personally
offend or frighten you? Are you worried your kids will "catch gay"? Do you
think gay people are not human and therefore should be denied the same civil
rights as heterosexuals? Do you think by banning gay marriage you'll somehow be
able to save their "souls"? Until someone can explain this clearly
to me, I will go on assuming that everyone who opposes gay marriage is simply
homophobic, or even gay themselves.
Re: Jax | 12:11 a.m. Sept. 12, 2008 said - Being hererosexual and
incapable of having offspring is a physical anomaly. Does that mean being gay is
also an anomaly? CM - Here's an idea. If straight couples can't or
won't produce children within 5 years of their wedding, then their marriage is
dissolved by the state. Should marriage be allowed for people who have genetic
diseases and which will produce children that will only be a drain on
society?I agree 100% that the IDEAL is to have a mother and a
father. If it's OK to have marriage without children, the fact that gays (like
many straights) CAN'T have children, then the issue of gays not having marriage
because they can't reproduce is hypocritical. I'm sure a gay couple who go
throught the expense and hassle of adopting will be dedicated parents. Having
gay aprents is FAR FAR better than being tossed from one foster home to another.
In reading just a couple pages of comments it is crystal clear that the weeding
out of those who are not strong in their testimony is happening.Some
of the things that those who profess to be members of the LDS church are
astounding. People need to do a deeper study of the gospel and understand the
purpose of the plan of happiness. If one truly understands that plan, there is
no misunderstanding of eternal truths.To those of you who are
outside the church and continually say, "the church will change their minds on
this one just like they did on the priesthood and blacks and will give women the
priesthood too" have no understanding of the gospel of Christ and would do well
to not open your mouths and remove all doubt.There are so many here
who have been dumbed down because of the ways of the world philosophies that
they don't even realize when those philosophies are the precepts of men, not
God.For those who are members and profess acceptance of
homosexuality and marriage for them as well, what kingdom of glory will they be
assigned and how will they procreate in the hereafter-as-husband-and-wife?
To Fact this morning at 7am...just because you don't like the statement being
used doesn't mean it isn't true.Why did God create Adam and Even and
NOT Adam and Steve? Can you answer that simple yet profound question?
Ignorance and denial of the facts is a very poor base for sound Church policy
and for sound public policy. There are Gay and Lesbian members of The LDS
church who know that they are simply born with different personal make up when
it comes to their sexuality. It is erroneous for us to continue to believe that
Gays and Lesbians have made a choice to be the way they are, just as much as it
is to believe that people from the white, yellow or black races chose to be the
way they are. And yet the Church continues to deny this biological fact. To deny
these equally human beings the right to marry, based on erroneous assumptions,
is a blight on the Church. There is zero data, noine whatsoever, that Gay
Marraige has any negative impact on Society or on the institution of traditional
heterosexual marraige. Therefore, I cannot and will not support the Churc's
stance on this matter. Let good sense be our judge in this matter. Peace be with
Charles says:"There are so many here who have been dumbed down
because of the ways of the world philosophies that they don't even realize when
those philosophies are the precepts of men, not God."Feel the love.
I've been called a lot of things in my life, Charles, but dumb is not one of
No special rights for gays | 3:01 p.m. Sept. 12, 2008 wrote - Gays do not
deserve extra civil rights based on their carnal desires and I have no interest
in granting them such unearned rights. They are not special. CM -
Did we LDS ask for "special rights" when our marriage practices differed from
the mainstream? Does the Church ask for "special rights" to build meeting
houses and send missionaries into countries where they have a state church. I
bet priests of those state churches will claim that we want special rights and
if we want to attend church services, we can attend with them. We'd say thanks
but no thanks since theirs isn't our brand of religion. We want a special right
to have ourown despite the state having an official one already.
Sunny Doller | 3:04 p.m. Sept. 12, 2008 - ...the Prophet is the Lord's
mouth piece on Earth. We are promised that the Prophet will never steer us
wrong, CM - Hmmm, that's why Joseph Fielding Smith said that the
Lord wouldn't permit man to land on the moon. When proven wrong, he stated that
he was obviously wrong and that if he says anything contrary to the scriptures,
the scriptures prevail. his successor Harold B lee said the same thing. The
scriptures are the last binding word on the Church, unless and until we sustain
another revelation to the contrary. That is the order of the Church. The
scriptures teach that others can't use their moral beliefs to justify infringing
upon the rights of others (1 Cor. 10:29, D&C 134:4, etc...). Others used their
beliefs to harm us and now we want to do the same? Gimme a break!
D&C 134:2, 4, 7, 9 2 We believe that no government can exist in peace,
except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual
the free exercise of conscience4 We believe that religion is
instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the
exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the
rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right
to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, 7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are
bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of
their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice
to deprive citizens of this privilege, .9 We do not believe it just
to mingle religious influence with civil government,
Amonhi | 10:56 a.m. Sept. 14, 2008 quoted D&C 134:2, 4, 7, 9CM -
Thanks for reminding people that we need to obey our own scriptures. Disobeying
scripture because you think something bad may happen if it isn't ignored is
called "steadying the ark". Why are so many of us LDS wanting to steady the
The living prophets' voices and new revelation concerning any matter always
takes precedent over what has been said and written before. Jos.
Smith said any imbalance of any degree is defined as a sin and the Adversary
cannot create anything. So I define the act of homosexuality as an imbalance and
a non creative positioning.
Al @ 12:37 says"The living prophets' voices and new revelation concerning
any matter always takes precedent over what has been said and written before."
That makes the prior prophet wrong and leaves the distinct
probability that the current prophet will be wrong in certain instances as well.
So what's the point?
Even left leaning Wisconsin voted against gay marriage (while electing more
Democrats to congress mind you) in the elections of 2 years ago. And in case
you think heavy LDS influence had anything to do with it - let me open your eyes
to the fact that we could not fill half of Miller Park (where the Brewers play
ball) with LDS members from the state. It seems this is much more than an LDS
issue and a majority of people even in 'purple states' are just not willing to
mess with what is and what is not marriage based on the political breezes of the
Dear Elder Henry,Equating homosexual behavior to the color of one's
skin is a childish argument and has no foundation. Go with your fallacy of
belief, then everyone and anyone who commits a sin just has to say, "I was born
that way" or as the homosexual crowd says they will confront Jesus at the
judgment bar "Why did YOU make ME the way YOU made ME?"You have no
facts to back up your claim. There is no proof that homosexual behavior is
normal just as their is no proof that those who are murderers are born that way.
Behavior is behavior.Your reasoning is superficial and straight from
the homosexual playbook. Don't be deceived.to 10:41 am (whoever you
are) I guess there is a first time for everything.
al | 12:37 p.m. Sept. 14, 2008 wrote -The living prophets' voices and new
revelation concerning any matter always takes precedent over what has been said
and written before. CM - Please consider what an apostle said on the
matter - "With respect to the people feeling that whatever the
brethren say is gospel, this tends to undermine the proposition of freedom of
speech and thought. As members of the Church we are bound to sustain and support
the brethren in the positions they occupy so long as their conduct entitles them
to that. But we also have only to defend those doctrines of the Church contained
in the four standard works: the Bible, The BoM, the D&C, and the PoGP. Anything
beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinions and not scripture." (Hugh
B. Brown, The Abundant Life [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965])
To Charles @ 10:22 a.m."Why did God create Adam and Even and NOT
Adam and Steve? Can you answer that simple yet profound question?"Are you saying that God did't create Adam and Steve? Of course He did. He
created ALL creatures, great and small. That includes Adam and Eve, as well as
Adam and Steve. And Betty and Veronica too.Indeed, it is a simple
and profound question. But apparently YOU have not grasped the fundamental
meaning of it yet.
the great Obama supporter of 3:17pm.... so in the beginning God created Adam and
Steve and told them (the only 2 people on the planet) to multiply and replenish
the earth?I know you homosexuals like to stray from the point so you
can claim your victimhood which really is not becoming.But again,
please tell all of us why God placed Adam and Eve on the earth as the first 2
people, married them and gave them the commandment to multiply and replenish the
earth and how Steve would have been able to accomplish that commandment.Ready set go....
I believe that if the state of Utah or the country of the United States (or any
country for that matter) wants to allow gays and s to marry in PUBLIC
way, then that should be allowed. But if the government is trying to force
churches of all kinds to perform and recognize these marriages, then it
shouldn't be allowed. However, the government isn't trying to force
the recognition of these marriages by any church, so gay marriage should be
allowed. It's called separation of church and state. For heck's
sake, other churches believe in gay marriage. They believe that we are imposing
on their rights and we believe they are imposing on theirs. This is ridiculous
and shouldn't be happening in a country where there is clear separation of
church and state. Again, gay marriage should be allowed AS LONG AS
churches can choose whether or not they want to perform or recognize the
marriages. The churches should have that choice.
There seems to be a lack of clear communication among us which is causing
confusion for many.FACT: HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN. In other words,
simply identifying one's self as gay or is NOT A SIN. This is church
doctrine that has been made very clear. For example, the church changed wording
in the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet from, "Homosexuality is a serious
sin, " to "Homosexual activity is a serious sin." LDS and Non-LDS
people who simply identify as gay or but have not acted on those
feelings are still temple-worthy. Period. We need to not be too quick to judge
people just because they identify themselves as gay... for all you know, they
may never have acted on it.
It's not a question you can answer, either. Adam and Eve is not truth to
everyone - to some people it's a myth, and to others, a story that they have
never heard. Not everyone believes in the same version of God. What is truth
to you is not accepted as universal truth. It can be difficult to recognize
that when you believe you are in possession of a universal truth, but it's
important to remember that it's YOUR truth, shared with those who believe as you
do. It's useful to recognize that it's your ideology and not expect others to
speak or understand from the same place.Gay people are real,
regardless of what anyone believes. And given your belief in God, you might
consider that he is not only your creator, but theirs as well.
to 4:36...It is a question that I can answer and it is a question that has been
answered by Christ Himself. It matters not if you don't believe the
eternal truths that have been communicated, it doesn't make them less truthful -
you or others just choose not to believe them. Again, one of the purposes of
this life.It's not MY truth, it's God's truth. He has said so.As for my earlier posts, I spoke directly to those of the LDS church and
to those who aren't members. And to those who aren't members, I told them that
they needn't make themselves look foolish on predicting what doctrine will
change in a church that they don't belong to.Murderers are real
people. So are thieves, liars, adulterers and everyone else who lives on this
planet. We are all real. Homosexuality is a behavior, it's not a gender or race
or anything of the like as you insinuate. Eternal truths are found
in the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the LDS Church. If you
don't like that answer, take it up with Him when the day comes.
For someone who claims to believe in Christ, you are certainly offering some
very un-Christlike responses.Perhaps someday, with enough research,
we will truly understand what character traits are genetic and which are
learned. As it is, most research I've read suggests genetic and hormonal
reasons for homosexuality. Until we are absolutely certain of all
the facts, I prefer to err on the side of tolerance and kindness. You can start
by asking yourself, "What would Jesus do?" But judging from what you've already
written, I guess your Jesus is very different from mine.
Keep posting. While your answers contain the correct church position. Your
venom sneaks through your words. I don't think you are really the spokesperson
the church wants.
to 5:07...what's un-Christlike in telling the truth just because you don't like
it?You can do all your research and study on homosexual behavior
until the cows come home but the answer has already been given regarding
homosexual behavior. There's no disputing the fact that the behavior is
condemned as sin.Self-justification has been around since the
beginning of time; Am I my brother's keeper?to 5:50...I will keep
posting since it seems most LDS members on this post can't seem to get their
gospel doctrine correct. Yes, today is the great day for testimonies and
obedience to be tested and it is readily apparent that many have failed in "not
being ashamed of Christ"....my has Lucifer found his way into those who profess
to be LDS members.....Lehi's dream is prophetic isn't it?btw, venom
is in the eye of the beholder. I call it speaking truth regardless of those who
take the truth to be hard....but you're not LDS so what does it matter....
Dear Charles,You would do well to listen better and not be quite so
certain about your positions or your theology. You sound like a very young, well
meaning person, but naive to certain factual information.However, it
appears that you do not let facts get in your way. Have you ever known a
homosexual person? Is it possible that a friend or family member may be gay?
What would you do if that turns out to be the case, or if a child of yours
someday was, gay? Have you ever asked a homosexual person how they "Became gay?"
Your challenge is to understand the complications of life much better and in a
more mature sense; be less judgemental of others who you don't agree with or you
don't understand; and be far less strident than you come off in your writing.
Peace be with you.Elder Henry
The church has spoken on this issue and all the whining a crying will not alter
that position. Those who think the church should change to become hip and
trendy and idiots. The church is not trying to win a popularity contest or
curry favor with anyone. Gay marriage is absurd. Sodomy is still perverse. If
you are a sodomite, repent and stop trying to justify something that is wrong.
Doesn't matter if you were born that way or not. Everyone is born wanting to
sin. Everyone has to repent. Homosexuals are not special in that regard. They
are not a special group who has earned a pass on repentance. We ALL have to
overcome our carnal desires. Stop wasting time whining and get busy moving
forward. You have a lot to offer so wasting your time justifying yourself and
get busy with the job at hand: Improving for the better.
"God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve."I don't care how old or
worn out the statement is, if you know the Bible to be the word of God, then you
know the statement is also true.Homosexuality shouldn't be compared
to racism. Homosexuality is a lifestyle that doesn't perpetuate life, has been
identified as a sin in the Bible, and is known to spread more disease per person
than heterosexuality. The data speaks for itself. Leave the definition of
So your religion condones incest then? That is the story your God tells in your
Bible. I have less trouble with Adam and Steve than I do with incest (or
polygamy for that matter) (also approved IN WRITING by YOUR God).
Evergreen International! If you struggle with same sex attraction, they can
help. For the rest of you who don't want help, this is NOT for you! Google it
and contact them! And no, I don't work for them! No one is born Gay! I am
sorry, there is no "gay gene". It is uncertain why some have same sex
attraction. There are probably as many reasons as there are gay people. Gays are
not all the same, just like heterosexuals are not all the same. God Bless!
My support of Proposition 8 comes down to just one issue: gay marriage is a ploy
to bring the force of government against religious speech via hate crimes laws
("they offended me!").
So the church says that they oppose same sex marriage, but that church members
should not participate in hate speech or any form of derision towards people who
choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. That somehow we can all be friends while
hating the choices these people are making.Anyone else think this is
all just philosophy? Based on the comments above, it appears the church is
asking its members to practice something near impossible. Could they provide
better guidelines on how exactly to hate the sin and love the sinner? Because
it appears to me that many of the Mormon posters on this board focus way too
much on the former and not enough on the latter.
that the tax system will be changed to a flat rate for employed individuals, the
government will no longer have any use for the recognition of marriage, and all
of this nonsense will freaking disappear. Homosexuals can go jolly themselves
however they see fit in the privacy of their own homes and those who wish to
maintain the traditional pattern of marriage can do the same. It's
insane to see everyone so bent out of shape over this. Enough already!
Tolerance is not blind acceptance and support. Tolerance is showing love and
friendship to people while still not agreeing with, or giving support to, their
actions. Christ was tolerant of others, but He most certainly did NOT support
and accept their behaviors as they deviated from God's laws. He chastized them -
with kindness - and told them to sin no more. Also, He never gave
forgiveness for sin to every single person under the sun. He granted forgiveness
for sin to those who show remorse and repent of their actions, and who changed
their lives to reflect their committment to following God's commandments. There are still consequences for our actions, no matter if you believe
in those consequences or not. He has been very clear on that. We don't have
"free" agency, we simply have agency. It was never free, it was bought by a very
heavy price, and we're bound by the terms of that purchase. Those terms are that
we repent and change our behaviors, or we suffer the consequences.
Of all the gifts the homosexuals of the world have given, AIDs is probably the
worst! Sorry, but this is a fact.
I say, we just allow... no, no ,no promote homosexual relationships. It really
worked out for Sodom and Gomorrah. Meet you in the groves! Society
must stand for only those practices that will not destroy the family unit. It
is impossible for a man marrying a man to live and enjoy the fruits of the plan
of salvation. On the other hand, church members need look in the mirror and ask
if any other practices are hurting their relationships. Adultery, pornography,
abuse, laziness, etc. can all deny those engaging in these activities the
ability to partake of the plan of salvation. What a sad day when so
many have been deceived into thinking that it is a greater sin to speak out
against sin, than it is to commit sin. It is an even sadder day to think that
we need to compare our sins. We all have trials and challenges, if we all stick
together and support each other the Lord will save us all "from our sins" not
"in our sins".
i love it when "faithful mormons" run down another person's faiths or beliefs,
but cry like babies when they same is done to them and cry persecution. So glad
I'm not a member any longer.
Aids did not originate from the "gay community", go back and do your research.
It originated on the African continent. But, science, reason and fact doesn't
seem to matter to many here. Bigoty does.
"Homosexuality ...is known to spread more disease per person than
heterosexuality."Except for lesbians...they spread disease
even LESS than heterosexuals. So, by your reasoning, maybe only lesbians should
you cannot and will not support "The Church" on this matter. however, you do
believe that God and Jesus Christ appeared to a highly uneducated fourteen year
old boy in the forest? or is that something you choose not to support as well.
or are you a "member" of some other "Church". and to all of the other "Members"
writing their messages. We are all (me included) giving a lot of readers a very
poor opinion of all 13 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has issued a report in late August 2008
that the instances of STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) is now occurring in
over 75% of homosexual men. Yes, AIDS did have it's origin in Africa, but it
sadly has been perpetuated in the world wide homosexual community. This is not
my personal belief, it's a fact. As far as the LDS Church position and
that of many other Judeo-Christian organizations, homosexuality activity is a
sin. (Sin being defined as defying the word of God.) The LDS Church
doesn't ask more of hemosexual or bi-sexual people than they do of heterosexual
people. Chastity and morality as defined by our Heavenly Father apply to all.
I've been an LDS Church member for 38 years and attended church all over
the country and lived in 8 states. The bigotry that you imagine simply doesn't
exist. I apologize for any Church member's comments or behavior that may have
led anyone to believe so. I think our love of mankind can be seen by our
fruits in Humanitarian Services. Perhaps volunteering in that or in a similar
capacity would help the world a little more, huh?
Oops-someone is bound to pick up on this----I misspelled homosexual as
hemosexual in my September 15th post. May I say that this was merely a typo and
not Freudian or hidden agenda based in any manner :)
Sodom | 7:21 a.m. Sept. 15, 2008 wrote - ...church members need look in
the mirror and ask if any other practices are hurting their relationships.CM In 2004, a study, conducted by Ellison Research (which has done
several Clergy Studies) among a representative sample of 695 Protestant
ministers nationwide of various denominations, to identify the three strongest
threats to families.The three most commonly named threats were
divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43% of all ministers), negative
influences from the media (38%), and materialism (36%). These were followed by
absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a stay-at-home parent (22%). The
rest of the list included:Co-habitation before marriage (18%) Pornography (17%) Morality not being taught in schools (14%) Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy (13%) Parental alcohol
use/abuse (12%) Parental drug use/abuse (11%) Drug use/abuse among
teens or children (8%) Teen sexual involvement/activity (8%) Alcohol
use/abuse among teens or children (6%) Adultery (5%) Poor schools or
quality of education (4%) Teen pregnancy (2%) Sexual predators or
sexual abuse (1%) The expense of child care (1%) Other issues
(12%)Gay marriage, didn't even make it into the top 20 threats to
families per the clergy.
thankyou Nature @9;15 p.m. Sept 10th i got a good laugh
You state: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has issued a report in late
August 2008 that the instances of STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) is now
occurring in over 75% of homosexual men.So why in the world
shouldn't society do everything it can to get these men into stable monogamous
relationships like marriage? Just wondering.
Your list certainly points out the apparent hypocrisy of Churches that fight
against gay marriage when there are apparently so many other higher priority
issues to spend our time and money on.
I have some homosexual friends. I have homosexual employees. I have had them to
my home for dinner with my family. I do not support their behavior and I do not
support gay marriage. This doesn't make me homophobic. I'm not afraid of them.
It also doesn't make me a bigot. I don't hate them. I simply have a belief and
they have theirs. I don't have to accept their behavior any more than they must
accept mine if they don't agree with it. What I do know is that God gave
commandments and he asks everyone of his children to obey them. We all have to
resist whatever it is that tempts us. Immorality is wrong whether I'm
heterosexual or homosexual. Politically correct or not. I think I'll try to
follow the prophets counsel.
Can I please post comment number 602?Does anyone remember the
JCPenny catalog "man on page 602" years ago?How appropriate!Vote NO on Proposition 8.
"I have some homosexual friends. I have homosexual employees. I have had them to
my home for dinner with my family. I do not support their behavior"Doesn't supporting them by giving them jobs "support their behavior?"
Isn't bringing them home to meet your family "supporting their behavior?" How do you NOT support their behavior?
I have followed these comment threads for a couple of months now. I have
finally reached my saturation point of negativity. As the California LDS father
of a gay son (who was born that way), I mostly read and partipate to understand
where my fellow saints are coming from. On Sunday, there aren't very many
anti-gay statements. I wander to Deseret News in the anomymous blogs where
people say what they really think because there are no repercussions. From
these discussion, I understand that few LDS want to understand gays. They feel
like they don't need to. Homosexuality is evil, an abomination, sinful. Go back
underneath the rocks.I get it.The other day I read where Vince
Young is having a hard time with racism. Most of us WASPs don't understand
that. Racism? He's making millions doing what most of us would kill for and
people love him. Then it hit me. He does get validation from those in his
life but he gets the anomymous hate mail from anti-blacks. Just like Bill
Russell during the 1960s.These threads have taught me all I want to
know about my Mormon friends. I'm going to spend my spare time elsewhere.
I agree with the Church fully.The idea of same sex marriage is a
legal attack on christianity and I whole heartedly thank the Church for
outlining their position more clearly. The fact is not to condone but to have
tolerance - very concise.As for myself, I will not condone
Affirmations' statements of this as a hate crime. Until Affirmation outrightly
condemns the actions of groups such as Gays Taking Over and other gangs who's
previous actions and declarations are to convert many people to homosexuality
through forced rape and violence, I am not willing to give them heed as they are
passively supporting those who do commit real hate crimes.I am
willing to accept homosexuals as neighbors and do not impede them in polite
society or legally. But I will not subscribe to nor accept their ideology and
lifestyle as it is not in favor with my family or person, and in other respects
stands as a threat to our personal security.
I remember that ad. Very well, I might say. But wasn't it in the Sears
to To Steel Magnolia 12:47 pm....can you tell me right now what is stopping
homosexuals from being in stable monogamous relationships right now? Didn't
think so....Your comment just states the obvious...homosexuals are very
promiscuous and AIDS is on the rise in their community again because going
"bareback" feels better....To California dad... what is it that
people are supposed to "understand" about homosexuals? What is it that you want
us to condone? What are you doing to understand liars, adulterers, murderers,
thieves etc? If you aren't out "understanding" them, then you have no room to
bark.Your son wasn't "born" that way even though that's your belief
to "understand" your son. Vince Young isn't having issues with
racism, he's having issues because he isn't performing up to what is expected of
him and he is injured. If you've ever been injured you know what he is going
through. I have empathy for him and his situation. You want your LDS
friends to condone your son's behavior when no one else is out there asking you
to condone their child's misbehavior. Isn't that a little hypocritical of
you?Yes we get it too....
The LDS Church indeed changed its former doctrine concerning marriage precisely
because the government took its riches; even Wilford Woodruff admitted such in
his diary, and that the Lord showed him two routes; one with property, the
other, without. they choose the riches. As long as they play nice with the
other nutty fundamentalists, their investments are safe.IF gay
marriage came with financial implications, the church would bend, and a new
'proclamation' would issue.
Correction: the church did not change its doctrine, it changed it's policy as
directed by the Lord through revelation. The Lord's doctrine as it relates to
polygamy is fixed and is explained in His own words in Jacob 2:24-30. Changing
policy is something He has done many times in the history of the world. For
example,after Christ's death, Peter, then senior Apostle received a revelation
changing the church's policy of proselyting non-jews.As for Wilford
Woodruff he was shown a vision of what would happen if he didn't obey the
revelation. Plus one of our doctrines is to obey the law of the land, which for
the first time, prohibitied polygamy.Question for you! If the government
forces the church to perform gay "marriages" isn't that impinging on religious
freedom? If a doctor, who for religious reasons, refuses to perform artificial
insemination on lesbians, si sued out of practice, is that impinging on his
religious liberties? If a Catholic adoption agency is forced to arrange
adoptions for gay couples, is that an infringement on religious liberties? What
if you were forced to live by the rules or any religion! This is what is at
I am strogly againist prop 9 and a supporter of gay marriage. Who are we to
judge who has the right to get married? If your argument is that the Bible says
marriage is between a man and a woman your argument is weak! That is
discrimination! What if a person does not read or believe in the Bible, what is
your argument there? By banning same sex marriage, it is taking away freedoms
that make America what it is today. The religiious fanatics out there need to
give it a rest, is the gay community hurting you? Are you physically affected by
homosexual marriage? This is just another religious crusade and it makes me
sick. Just because I don't agree with the Bible doesn't mean I am out there
protesting the right for you to practice religion. Let the homosexuals have
their marrige, I have seen homosexual couple more commited to eachother than
many heterosexual couples. The anthropological definition of marrige is for
anyone who is a union between any number of people that legitimizes children. It
is that simple, let the gay community have their marriage if the world burns it
is my bad!
You ask "can you tell me right now what is stopping homosexuals from being in
stable monogamous relationships right now? Didn't think so..."There
ARE homosexuals in stable relationships right now. Yahoo just covered the
wedding of a former Star Trek star who had been with his partner for the past 21
years.Also, with even MORE acceptance and even MORE societal
pressure for marriage, perhaps men may feel even MORE encouraged to stay
monogamous--just like marriage seems to currently help encourage heterosexual
... As a former gay Mormon of 14, who served a mission & graduated from BYU in
Broadcast Journalism, it's pathetic to see how hierarchal. patriarchal &
anti-gay the LDS Church still it to this day! Talk-about-control. Personal
revelation went out-the-door when the so-called "Priesthood Coorelation" program
was instituted in the '80s!- & forget "Affirmation" too. They're
useless when it comes to standing up to the church. Too many brain-washed
"lifers" in that group. I thank God I was a convert & could get-out in one
piece!... My condolences to all you "Behind the Zion Curtain!" GET
Two possiblilites for your comments: If I were a betting woman, I would wager
you are a fake! You didn't serve a mission and you never went to BYU. If
what you say is truthful (very doubtful) you violated your sacred gospel
convenants and your honor. What would the words honor and sacred mean to you? I
suggest you are not free at all, just a different kind of slave! A slave to a
lifestyle and lust! A slave to hatred of a relgion and probably yourself because
above all others, you know what you really are, don't you?
... My condolences to all you "Behind the Zion Curtain!" GET HELP!!!"I rely heavily on my Heavenly Father, more heavily all the time. That's all
the help I need. I see no reason to leave the church and become so bitter and
hateful that I'm spewing garbage on message boards to people I've never met and
know nothing about. I don't insult you, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy in
Is there an easy solution to this impasse? No - but nothing of good can
come from this discussion if we deliberately muddy the waters with wild
accusations and inaccuracies.Clearly there are people of high integrity
and total sincerity on both sides.At the end of the day we might just have
to agree to differ, but before we do that, lets at least listen with our hearts.
To the anonymous person who wondered why our society doesn't get homosexuals
into monogamous relationships. Oh my, I don't think we can "get"
anyone to do anything really. We all have our free agency to choose how we will
live, but it all comes down to which path we choose---the one the world teaches
or the one our Heavenly Father has shown us. I'm also so sorry that
some of you posting comments feel that LDS Church members are brainwashed---I am
the mother of 8 adult children who are all bright, happy, compassionate people.
Their professions include the VP of a major world wide company, a computer
engineer, a radio journalist, a teacher, a nurse, and 3 successful business and
graphic design majors. Each of them has a strong testimony of the restored
gospel and don't waste their days with bitterness. Our family has dealt with
cancer and many other serious illnesses, divorce, and financial failure and I
can tell you this...faith in Jesus Christ has seen us through. Let's all
stand for something eternal!
I will follow the Prophet, you know, those were my late husband's dying words,
he said, "follow the Prophet, you will never go wrong". Those words are still
true, from a 37 year old young father, who was bed ridden at the end, 15 years
later. Sometimes it takes courage to follow the Prophet, but he is the
mouthpiece of God and I want nothing more than to return to my Father in Heaven.
I noticed a few posts comparing homosexuality to crimes, including theft, and to
dishonest behaviors, such as cheating on a spouse. That's the problem with
religion. It allows people to believe that their concerns are moral, when they
are anything but moral. Morality has to do with what is best for human beings,
to increase happiness and reduce misery. And while gay people don't do anything
at all to harm you religious believers, you spend a lot of your energy trying to
harm them, by making sure they are not treated as full members of their society.
You are so convinced you know the mind of god, you think everybody else in the
world should live accordingly, whether or not they believe as you do.
Bert | 10:03 p.m. Sept. 15, 2008 wrote - Is there an easy solution to this
impasse? No...CM - Sure, there's an easy solution...The Church needs
to obey our own scriptures (1 Cor. 10:39, D&C 134:4) and refrain from "steadying
the ark" (ignoring the scriptures because "we know better") and doing what is
right and letting the consequence follow. We need to render unto Caesar that
which is Caesar's (the secular/legal aspects of marriage).A number
of people here have stated that if Prop. 8 doesn't pass, gays will end up suing
the church to have a temple wedding, etc...Anyone thinking this through will
readily see that this is based in hysteria rather than rational thought. The
bottom line is that these Pro 8 people are willing to OBJECTIVELY and DEFINATELY
infringe upon the rights and liberties of others just in case that those being
violated MAY in turn infrige upon the rights and liberties of the current
persecuters."Let's kill the Christians before those violant infidels
i find it very interesting that those of you being critical of mormons and their
following of their prophet who you critisize for being just a man in favor of
proposition 8 should maybe remember who they are putting all of their faith in
against proposition 8. Men right? or is the untited states government run by
all your bantering is driving me crazy. you keep quoting scripture and then all
of your opinions. and in reference to your 7:21 on set 16th, anyone can sue
anyone or any organization for anything they darn well want no matter what they
say they are willing to abide by. everyone is willing to abide by the laws of
the United States right? then why do we keep changing them?please just
stop being so critical of everyone and everything they are saying. maybe
listening would do you a little good.
I did not know that being a "full member of society" had to do with my sexual
orientation. thanks for the info
Wow. I thought the article and the LDS Church's statement were pretty clear...So
why 622 comments?
Public benefits, OK.Marriage has been called by God...Man and
Women...period, dont try to change God's will. It wasnt the Church, It is God's
law.God loves the sinner NOT the sin.
Dear Lenny,There are many natural laws that exist in the world, ie.,
Law of Gravity that people may know about or don't. If someone doesn't know a
certain truth doesn't mean that the truth isn't real; it just means someone is
ignorant of it.So just because some people don't know or believe the
eternal truths of God doesn't mean that they aren't true; it just means some
people are ignorant of them.To Capt. Moroni, if you were only as
strong and vigilant in the defense of the word of God as the person you took on
as your moniker. I'm not so sure that the real Capt. Moroni is too happy with
your display of gospel knowledge.If everyone would follow the lead
of the real Capt. Moroni, we know what would happen. So please, stop defaming a
man who actually stood for truth and righteousness at all costs and didn't
waffle in his faith of God and defending truth.No one thought that
saying homosexual behavior is bad would be censored by any nation. Well, there
are many who are doing just that right now and making it criminal. See Canada.
Wake up pal!
Homosexuality is just plain sick and wrong.
It bothers me that Affirmation says that the LDS Church's statement about strong
families headed by a mother and a father marginalizes adoptive parents. Are not
adoptive parents still fathers and mothers?
so apparently The Daily Herald has just posted an article entitiled "LDS donate
millions to fight gay marriage " followed with a classic but oh so true opening
line.."There are a few things that will get LDS Church members to open up their
pocketbooks: a Mormon presidential candidate, tithing and gay marriage." To me
this is so sad but very truthful. The church and in general its members seem to
always be more concerned with such pathetic issues (that don't even apply to
them) like gay marriage,or what percentage of alcohol should be allowed in
fermented beverages in Utah then the more important and pressing issues of
divorce & suicide which directly affect them. Its Hypocrisy at its finest, "We
will dictate to others what they should do, but ignore any faults or problems
that we have." yuck!
MAN+WOMEN= NATURALWOMEN=WOMEN= MMMM...NOPEMAN+MAN=
MMMMMM...NOOOPEIS THE NATURAL LAW...SORRY!
"The church and in general its members seem to always be more concerned with
pathetic issues... then the more important and pressing issues of divorce &
suicide which directly affect them. Its Hypocrisy at its finest"The
divorce rate for LDS temple marriages is 8%, far, far below the national
average. Active members of the LDS church are seven times less likely to commit
suicide than those who are not. The LDS church spends quite a lot of time and
money offering counseling services and seminars of all kinds, and LDS Family
Services is not just for adoption. These services are also not just available to
members of the church, but to everybody. The church and its members all over the
world give millions of dollars to charity. We take care of each other, and we
take care of our communities. You may not like the message we send out, but it's
not our message to begin with. It's Heavenly Father's message. Take it up with
Him, He loves to hear from us.
The church stance on this is a complete contradiction. They (lds church) state:
"The fact is not to condone but to have tolerance"The statement of
having tolerance is where I have a problem with their position. If
you are fighting to stop something from happening, you are NOT showing
tolerance. It's obvious that the church is very opposed to same sex marriage,
and that's fine. But stand up for what you believe in whole heartedly. They're
trying to be politically correct when they don't have to be. They're trying to
play the nice guy at the same time as trying to deny a basic human right. They
are "tolerant" of "condoning" hateful bigotry by supporting prop 8. What ever happened to "live and let live" ? Oh, that's right...that only
applies when mormons are the ones being persecuted.Marriage is about
loving and caring for another person, that's it. Nobody is asking you to change
your doctrine or beliefs on marriage. Nobody is even asking you to support same
sex marriage. Bottom line is, it's a civil union and the church should have
nothing to do with it.
As of August 28, 2008:Proposition 8, which would amend the state
constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage, is favored by 40 percent and
opposed by 54 percent of the states likely voters. Democratic (66%) and
independent likely voters (59%) are against it, and Republican likely voters are
in favor (60%).
No one is making this up, honest! The scriptures really do strongly
declare that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. Interestingly enough,
God's laws are there for our own protection and that of our brothers and sisters
who live in this old world with us. He didn't do it to be mean. Quick
story: Years ago one of my little boys was going on a fishing trip. He wanted
to take his wallet with him so that he could use his money to buy some extra
fishing gear. I told him that was fine, but it might be a good idea to leave
some of his money at home. He was only 7 and he had a hard time remembering to
look out for extra things like a wallet. He didn't question, he just put some
of his money away. When he came home from the trip he said, "I'm glad I left
some of my money at home because my wallet dropped in the river and it floated
away before I could catch it." Simple story. Simple truth. Simple faith. God
knows why. (And Mom) :)
to captain moroni | 8:12 a.m. Sept. 16, 2008 wrote -all your bantering is
driving me crazy. you keep quoting scripture and then all of your opinions. CM - I quote scripture because scripture should resolve this issue.T - and in reference to your 7:21 on set 16th, anyone can sue anyone or
any organization for anything they darn well want no matter what they say they
are willing to abide by. CM - Agreed, but if gays sue churches and
win, the people of the state/country will pass a constitutional amendment so
fast, it'd make your head spin. It'd be a slamdunk. T - please
just stop being so critical of everyone and everything they are saying. maybe
listening would do you a little good. CM - I do listen. That's how
I am able to address their remarks. The bottom line issue is whether we should
follow the scriptures or the prophet. I've shown where the prophets have said
we are to obey scripture when there is a conflict. I have yet to see any quotes
that say we should obey the prophets when there is a conflict between them.
OxyMoroni | 10:53 a.m. Sept. 16, 2008 wrote - OM - What ever
happened to "live and let live" ? Oh, that's right...that only applies when
mormons are the ones being persecuted.CM - That is SO true. The
persecuted have now become the persecutors. You'd think that one persecuted
unpopular minority would be more sympathetic for another one when their equal
rights are endangered. The Church faces opposition in many places. It is
blamed on anti-Mormon prejudice (mormonaphobia). We however can't see the beam
in our own eye.
Chris Bigelow - thx for your comments, the best i read here. My view: the
prophet has spoken. period. it is my choice whether or not to accept his words.
frankly, i am glad the church is taking a strong stand. i would have to leave
any church who changed their doctrine according to the will of the people. It is
God's doctrine, not ours to mold as we wish. we can choose to accept or reject
it. we still have our agency, the church does not take that away.Mormons are not the only ones who believe that the family unit is fundamental
to the success of society. Here is a quote from a UNICEF webpage: "The
conference emphasized the pressing need to strengthen the family in performing
its vital social role and reminded the world that the family is the fundamental
group unit of society and is entitled to protection and support." See also the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 and the
European Parliament's Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
I have absolutely no problem with your beliefs or even you believing that it is
an eternal truth. I do have a problem with you wanting them to be the law of
our land. It goes against everything American to deny others the rights that
you enjoy because YOU do not BELIEVE that they are worthy of them. Keep your beliefs but do not foist them on to the rest of society. Live them
but do not force everyone else to live them. Denying others rights
because sometime, somewhere, somehow you MAY have to interact with homosexuals
is not the American way. Can't you people see that?
I used to believe that homosexuality was a sin, because that's what I'd been
taught in Church. But then I started actually reading the Bible, and I learned
that there are so many absolutely ridiculous things that it calls "sins" that I
just couldn't believe it anymore.I mean really, do you honestly
think things like being disobedient to your parents, breaking the Sabbath, or
being a witch deserve the death penalty? How can you believe in a book (and its
sins) that is so obviously outdated?
I Would like to change a law to!New doctrine can we get more days off of
school. At least this law will affect more people then the Gay one. I always
thought Gods laws were the same and yet we change are laws yearly. Its ok to
upgrade, but i think the gay law will help us down grade just think what would
joseph smith think about this topic.
Can i change some laws to I don't like the color Green can we put this critical
dislike color green idea in the news paper as well as sometimes i throw up. I am
shore there is nothing better to put in the new paper any ways, also put in the
news paper that the sun should be cameing up tomorrow. Dont try to change
Gods laws they were made to stay.
Mormons Please read (D&C section 132) to answer your question about bigamy and
I dont argue with UNICEF or any Christian faith about how essential the family
is to the fabric of society. I whole heartedly agree. However, I take issue
about the narrow and limiting way that Christians define a family. They
hysterically proclaim that a marriage can ONLY include a husband and a wife, and
that no family deserved anything less.Im amazed at Christians
delusion of being the self-proclaimed protector of family while vehemently
preventing others from creating them. My family does not fit into their
limiting definition yet with or without greater legal protection I will continue
to take care of my family as I have always done. Many people comment on the
quality and strength of our family and many of my sons friends have said how
much they wish their traditional family was more like ours.It IS NOT
Christians that are building a strong social fabric with the family, it is me,
my family and the people that share our values of caring and love. The people in
my family and the people in my tribe are the source of OUR strength and in turn
what makes OUR social fabric strong.
Why can't any of you Mormons realize that we are not trying to change your GOD'S
laws? We just don't want your God's law to become the law of the land! Is that
too much to ask? Can you separate the two?
As a member of the Church, it continues to sadden me and break my heart at the
demise of civility in the spoken word as put forth by self-identified members of
the Church in so many comments posted here in the Deseret News.So
many of you find all kinds of scriptural references upon which to take your
justifications. You cherry pick your statements and rebuttals. However, many of
you are delorable in your speech and attitudes towards our brothers and sisters
in Christ. Lest you forget, all humankind are our brothers and sisters in
Christ, not just the baptized ones.John Pack Lambert, is one man who
should go spend some time in AIDS clinics serving the sick in body and spirit.
It is amazing, how powerful the Spirit of God and presence of Christ is, in
those clinics and other places.By the way, whomever it was that said
that homosexuals are responsible for the "gift" of aids, is in sheer ignorance
about germ warfare and our own government. But then, I am generally amazed at
the ignorance of so many on this list. Much is "wrong" in the church's past, but
much is also very good. Wake-up
For centuries Christians have discriminated against women on the basis of
Original Sin as taught in the bible. This is why they believed that women are
weaker, menstruate monthly and why the man was chosen by God to be the head of
the family. Every struggle of civil rights for women has had to fight against
the teaching of Christian churches and their biblical belief in the inferiority
of women. The Christian nations that enslaved blacks justified their
actions by citing the bible which says that they bare the mark of Cain. Every
struggle to remove slavery and to gain civil rights protections for Blacks has
also included a struggle against the bible and the churches that proclaimed the
mark of Cain to be the word of God.Homosexuals today are fighting
the same battle as others fought in the past. They too have stood up to
egregious social injustice and prejudice. Just like previous generations, todays
Christians cite the bible, proclaim it to be the word of God and thrust their
dogma upon others. Yet, once the religious dogma is removed from this debate,
just like those before, the prejudice and ignorance is easy to identify.
SP - The Essential Family-Thank you for sharing your views on my
post. It is always good to try to see things from different perspectives, as we
(people in general) tend to get stuck in our own views and forget to try to
understand others.Please understand that when I reference family I
am not referring to strictly Christians. Our world society includes athiests,
Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and more. As technology grows, our world gets smaller.
We cannot always just think in terms of America or Christians, but of all people
in our world society.Also, while I appreciate your view that it is
your family and your tribe that is the source of strength for the social fabric,
in the world today I just cannot see how we can isolate ourselves like that. No
matter what tribe, religion, culture, etc. of we are all interdependent. We all
need to work together to make the whole fabric strong or it will have holes.
Now that this somewhat sticky issue is slipping its way slowly into the Archives
of D News, and People who save their post Hard Drives. Now that 644
people - some repeats. Have expressed mostly their anger and disgust wither
about Gay Marriage or Why the Church is so backward that they do not support gay
marriage. What Changes? Answer not much except the Voters go to the
Polls and pass a law in California against Gay Marriage, the Gays sue and back
we are in Court again. The tax payers money being spent in defense
of the Law Suits. The quiet and respectful main stream Gays continue on quiet
and main stream mostly continuing their lives and enjoying each others company,
and leading productive lives.Now and then one of the females will
get the mother urge and have a baby either the natural way, or by insemination
some Gays are really bisexual and there Gayness is related to who they are in a
relationship with. I am not going to say the kids suffer, because
you see Heterosexual Abuse of kids on a daily basis.We have to try
to understand one another, while keeping our Values.
"I just cannot see how we can isolate ourselves like that. No matter what tribe,
religion, culture, etc. of we are all interdependent. We all need to work
together to make the whole fabric strong or it will have holes."That is why giving gay marriage would HELP this society. Those families that
are headed by ssa's need the legality and stability that legal marriage affords
others. It actually helps build a stronger community.
"That is why giving gay marriage would HELP this society. Those families that
are headed by ssa's need the legality and stability that legal marriage affords
others. It actually helps build a stronger community."I understand
and appreciate what you are saying, but I do have an opposing viewpoint on this
topic. I will end my posts here, because I respect your views and no matter how
much we discuss it, neither one of us will ever change our opinion. The great
thing is...that is okay.
LDS MemberOh, I must have misunderstood your first post. From your
second post it sounds like we are in complete agreement. You have made my point
very well, that every culture and civilization may define "family" very
differently, but in the end, all these families are interwoven into a strong
societal fabric that benefits us all. I stand in utter dismay at any religion
that would disparage and attack my family and my tribe, and any other family
that does not meet their restrictive definition while proclaiming to stand in
defense of family. Ive worked extensively with individuals that have
been forcibly extricated from their traditional Mormon family. My family and my
tribe have come to their aid time and time again when their traditional family
failed them. Along with my family, other families interweave their lives with
ours, some of whom are faithful Mormons, and we all together have become a part
of the same tribe, the same strong fabric of society. Sadly, there are too many
families which have torn holes in their family by failing to love and care for
their homosexual sons and daughters, and the families they create.
This is such a tired argument.Adam & Steve couldn't have children,
but it was appearantly okay for Adam & Eve's children to reproduce with each
other. So, that means that according to the bible homosexuality is wrong, but
incest is okay because you can breed. The same thing happened after the great
flood, those with Noah bred which would result in incest and inbreeding.
Nobody is asking the church to support gay marriage, or change it's doctrine in
any way shape or form. As of now there are 651 comments about a subject that
most of you have nothing to do with so, you should stay out of it.If
you believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, nobody is trying to take
that right away from you. And you will still have the right to marry any member
of the opposite sex you'd like to. I really don't get why people are so afraid
of same-sex marriage. Nobody is going to sue the LDS church for not allowing gay
marriages to take place in it's temples. 99% of the earth's population isn't
allowed to get married in the temple as it stands right now and nobody has sued
yet. Fear is your only god, and it's ruling your lives.
Re: Adam & Steve | 3:38 p.mGreat post and I agree 100%.I'm glad to know that I've evolved from apes rather than being inbred!
SP--Our Global FamilyI have to respond to you, even though I
indicated I was done :)First, while I will not speak on behalf of my
church(that is not for me to do), I would like to say that I hope we never
disparage or attack anyone because of our differences. We are all God's children
& should treat each other as such. To me, I believe we can take a stand on our
beliefs & still be respectful to those around us. I think there is a difference
between being true to our beliefs & condemning others. I feel that anyone not
living the principles of 'loving thy neighbor' is not living in harmony with the
gospel teachings. That is a shame.I am sorry for what you & yours
have experienced. I can honestly tell you that we are always encouraged to
perform service to others. I have often heard the saying in our church that you
can love the person, but not the act. My take on that is that I can disapprove
of someone's moral choices, but it is still my duty to love and serve them. I do
not condone their actions.
I do not find guiding revelation in the statement issued by the first
presidency. Their response is merely the fumbling misunderstanding of man
mingled with eternal truth. They should have waited for more guidance before
trying to take a partially designed approach to the issue. It's obvious the
Lord has not chosen to give a definite answer to this at this time...but it is
clear that homosexuality is unacceptable...why are we responding further to a
relatively small number of members with issues rather than dealing with them on
a smaller scale? The first presidency's approach confuses me and questions the
teachings I have been imbued with over the last 30 years.
I fear that in our quest to come "out of obscurity" we are forsaking the truths
with which we have been trusted
Bayou Vol, I just posted in another spot, but what I stated is that all my life
growing up I would hear about in the last days, "even the elect would be
deceived". I use to think this was our high church leaders, but I believe that
those who have chosen to act upon their desires are the ones deceived. All of
us have desires that could result in sin, but many choose to obey and not be
selfish and do whatever pleases themselves, but not God.
Bayou Vol - the Lord has given us a definitive answer regarding homosexuality -
as clearly stated in the Proclomation Of the Family - marriage is between a man
and a woman, not "Party A" and "Party B" as the CA licenses read nowdays. Allowing gays and lesbians to get married is mocking God
re: Adam & Steve:Let's not forget about Lot. God killed Lot's wife because
she simply turned around and looked behind her. Then he (God) permitted Lot's
daughters to get Lot drunk and have sex with him so he (Lot) could have a
son.Also, let's not forget the wager that God had with Satan with Job &
Job's family being the butt of their little joke.Yep, sure sounds
consistant to me!
SLC gal | 7:50 a.m. Sept. 17, 2008 wrote - Bayou Vol - the Lord has given
us a definitive answer regarding homosexuality - as clearly stated in the
Proclomation Of the Family - marriage is between a man and a woman, not "Party
A" and "Party B" as the CA licenses read nowdays. CM - Sorry, but
the Proc is in NO WAY scripture. It was written by a committee and it went
trough a number of revisions until it was accepted by the First Presidency. On
statement by any one person or group is considered scripture unless and until
it's accepted by the Church. On 01/05/82, the First Presidency issued a
statement saying that oral sex was an "unholy and impure practice". That
statement was quickly rescinded and 99.99% of members under 40 or who joined the
Church in the last 20 years have even heard of it. I have a Xerox copy if anyone
disbelieves. Was that scripture? Obviously not. It's always easier to
believe the comfortable lie (anything said by the prophet comes directly from
God and they'll never say anything contrary to God's will, etc..) than believe
the paradigm shattering truth.
"it is still my duty to love and serve them".Love is a duty? How
touching & sincere.
Unknown said:"it is still my duty to love and serve them".Love
is a duty? How touching & sincere. Answer:Yes, it is.
Per the scriptures 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' See Matt. 22:39;
Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27...and James 2:8, which says "If ye fulfill
the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself, ye do well"Now, is it a chore? Absolutely not.
Why God approves of many wives and "concubines," but disapproves of gay
marriage?D&C 1321 Verily, THUS SAITH THE LORD unto you
my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and
understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the PRINCIPLE AND
DOCTRINE of their having many wives AND CONCUBINES 2 Behold, and
lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and OBEY THE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH
I AM ABOUT TO GIVE UNTO YOU; FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THIS LAW REVEALED UNTO
THEM MUST OBEY THE SAME. 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new
and an everlasting covenant; AND IF YE ABIDE NOT THAT COVENANT, THEN ARE YE
DAMNED; FOR NO ONE CAN REJECT THIS COVENAND AND BE PERMITTED TO ENTER INTO MY
The layers of earth that built up over millions of year tell the story of the
chronology of life from simple life forms to the more complex. Ice cores tell
the story of the chronology of earths atmosphere over thousands of years. Every
layer is in order and every layer influences the layer above it. History is not unlike the examples above. The chronology of history shows the
rise of paganism, the spread of polytheism, and the development of monotheism.
History shows the exchange of ideas and technology and the changes they
introduce. Just like the chronologies above, everything is in its order, and
every layer influences the layer above it. History clearly
chronicles every one of the Mormons beliefs, including their beliefs about
homosexuality. History shows how religions and cultures have grown and
developed: what they grew out of, how ideas were exchanged with others and how
they have changed over the years. The beliefs of Mormons, their dogma and their
traditions have far more to do with their place in history than it does with
divine revelation. Just like all those before them, Mormonism has no
supernatural knowledge or powers, its just plain old history.
Logicmeister: Maybe when the cliff divers are denied the right to marry, are
generally ostracized by society, and asked to sit in the back seat, they too
will rise up and demand that they also deserve to be treated equally.
Love of men for women and of women for men seems to be so deeply ingrained in
us. It would be a wonder if what someone else loved would have any effect on
this relationship. Even men and women who totally disagree that the
state should have anything to do with marriage stay together and have children.
Libertarians say that the state should get out of the marriage game
altogether. Why should the state get involved in such an intimate relationship?
Let who-ever marry whom-ever. Whenever. Why-ever. Protection of
children can be legislated by other means. The legal relationship of two people
should be covered by a legal contract.
It would be so much healthier if religious people would get their noses out of
scriptures and begin to see the world for what it is. Religions of all kind
have seperated people from each other, but what we really should be doing is
coming together whether we understand how other people are living or not. The
one thing that we all share is spirit. Nothing else really matters.
Ingrained in you perhaps. It is most certainly not ingrained in me.
Because homosexual sexual relations are wrong and heterosexual relations are
not.Questions?In the book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon
the Lord revealed to the prophet Jacob what God commands concerning marriage.
That too is very simple: if God says have only one wife, that's all you're
allowed. If God says it's OK to have more than one wife, then that's allowed.
(And, yes, that would also mean that IF God commanded a husband to allow his
wife to have more than one husband, then that commandment should be obeyed as
well). God hasn't commanded polygamy for well over 100 years and in
my opinion He probably won't ever again in man's mortal existance upon the
earth.Will God allow the practice of polygamy after we die? As of
now, no one knows for sure.BUT, what we can be sure of is that IF,
repeat, IF God, the Supreme Creator and ruler over everything in the universe
commands us to do something, you can rest assured it is not wrong or detrimental
when all the consequences of the law or commandment are weighed. Man is far, far too fallible but God is not.
"Oxy Moroni | 3:58 p.m. Sept. 16, 2008 Nobody is asking the church to
support gay marriage, or change it's doctrine in any way shape or form. As of
now there are 651 comments about a subject that most of you have nothing to do
with so, you should stay out of it."Ha! Ha! Nice try, Oxy Moroni!
You're trying to say that all the hub-bub is caused by Latter-day Saints
sticking their noses into homosexuals' lives when everyone on BOTH sides of the
argument knows that it was homosexuals who first foolishly insisted on putting
YOUR filth into the lives of heterosexuals.You want me to stay out
of your life? Great!!! You call off your homosexual attack dogs
who are relentlessly pushing a homosexual lifestyle to America first.
Interesting to read all these "we should be more accepting of everyone" comments
from the pro- homosexual crowd but my guess is that they're also the first ones
to condemn the LDS church because of our past practice of polygamy. That was
"different" but we find only criticism there.And yet, I bet they're
not rasing a finger of protest to other cultures who routinely practice polygamy
even today.That, boys and girls, is NOT "accepting", that's
hypocrisy at it's finest.
You said: "I do not find guiding revelation in the statement issued by the first
presidency. Their response is merely the fumbling misunderstanding of man
mingled with eternal truth."You may choose to ignore what is right
in front of your nose, but I will not. Heck, I'll even help you by stating it
in easy to understand words:- The practice of homosexuality is a
sin; it is evil and wrong.- LDS members throughout the world, and
people in general, have a God-given responsibility to love EVERYONE and to be
kind to them, even though the recipient of their kindness may be actively
committing sin.- Accepting people does NOT mean that we have to, or
should, accept the sin. In other words, love the sinner, hate the sin.Yep, that's about it.Simple, wasn't it?But lets get
real. It wasn't that you didn't understand what the First Presidency said, it's
that for some reason you don't want to believe that what they said is the Lord's
will....The caravan moves on! Are you coming?
How is taking a firm stand against homosexuality "forsaking" the truths that God
gave to Joseph Smith?
"Captain Moroni", you are no Captain Moroni. If you were, you'd be sustaining
the Lord's prophets instead of mocking them and encouraging others to rid their
faith in them.Repent, while you still can.And like
Moroni stated, someday you and I will meet, for eternity is a very, verrry long
time, and I will tell you, "Brother, I tried to tell you...."
How does it feel to live in fear? Do you walk on egg shelves hoping you are
being good enough to get to the Celestial Kingdom? If you do, then lose the
guilt and try to love a person instead of judging them.
I hope everyone sees where all this dialogue is headed. Homosexual activists
are seeking to destroy religious rights. Several mentions have been given to not
allowing the LDS church tax deferred status if they get involved in any
political agendas. This is the goal of these organizations. They are angry at
churches for not accepting or condoning their "lifestyle choices" and this is
their way to get back at them. Why change themselves when they can force
everyone else to their perspective? Does that mean that any church
demoninational viewpoint that conflicts with a certain political agenda should
be squelched simply because it is a church? Because a church gets tax deferred
status, then are they not allowed free speech especially on moral issues? Why
attack the definition of marriage when rights have already been granted
homosexual couples? Because, they are angry that others don't agree with them!!
We may all have to agree to disagree on this one. But forcing the homosexual
agenda on the religious is certainly not the way to show tolerance and love to
others. No one is forcing the homosexuals to have our religous beliefs.
It makes no sense for the Church to ever approve homosexual marriage. What is
our world coming to?
Jemmers | 12:02 a.m. Sept. 18, 2008 wrote - I hope everyone sees where all
this dialogue is headed. Homosexual activists are seeking to destroy religious
rights. Several mentions have been given to not allowing the LDS church tax
deferred status if they get involved in any political agendas. CM -
This is simply laughable. Even if true, what religious right is being destroyed
by having a tax exemption revoked? Taxes are the realm of Caesar. When asked
about paying taxes, Jesus told the apostles to render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's. Also, Homosexuals make up about 2% of the population.
Church goers make up a HUGE percent. If some judge decided to take away our tax
exemption, the people of this country/state would immediately draft and pass a
Constitutional amendment overturning any such ruling. Don't worry Chicken
Little, the sky isn't going to fall.