Quantcast
Utah

LDS Church issues statement on same-sex marriage

Document praised, criticized by group of gay members

Comments

Return To Article
  • Caren
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:03 a.m.

    This Melson guy is in complete DENIAL. The church will never condone same sex marriage or homosexuality in any form!!!

  • Debra
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Kent
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:20 a.m.

    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 either...

  • R Biddulph
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:50 a.m.

    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 The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.

  • Matilda
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Gertrude
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:57 a.m.

    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.

  • California Anti-Family Decisions
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Oxymoron
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:56 a.m.

    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!

  • Richard Nibbler
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:57 a.m.

    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!

  • James
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Look Who's Right
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:11 a.m.

    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.

  • No more affirmation
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:13 a.m.

    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.

  • GoodGuyGary
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:14 a.m.

    America is a free country!

  • Mike
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:17 a.m.

    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 then?

  • Curious
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Sad
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:21 a.m.

    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 political PAC.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:37 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mike Who?????
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:40 a.m.

    So you have the power to change the legal definition of marriage just like that????

  • rsb
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:41 a.m.

    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 marriage?

  • go forth with faith
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:44 a.m.

    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 that.

  • nottyou
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:51 a.m.

    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.

  • GW
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Some misunderstandings
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:59 a.m.

    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?

  • krista
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:00 a.m.

    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.

  • To: Sad
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • HS
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:05 a.m.

    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.

  • A Legal Issue
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:07 a.m.

    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 FUTURE.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:15 a.m.

    Promoting Proposition 8 Is Contrary To Scripture

    1. 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.

  • Mr. Bass
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:16 a.m.

    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.

  • To: ETB
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:19 a.m.

    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.

  • halwrite
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:22 a.m.


    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?
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:34 a.m.

    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 Church itself.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:36 a.m.

    nottyou: read some objective church history, about all those items you mentioned. You may be surprised.

  • Chris Bigelow
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    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.

  • The Rock
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:46 a.m.

    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!

  • RL
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:50 a.m.

    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 themselves.

  • love
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:54 a.m.

    I believe God honors all loving relationships, even the homosexual ones. I hope Prop 8 burns....

  • Re: GDub
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:55 a.m.

    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)

  • GR00M
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • re:GW
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:59 a.m.

    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.

  • Thought on FIre
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:02 a.m.

    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...

  • Typical
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Lots of sore thumbs
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:04 a.m.

    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.......

  • Beware of false doctrines...
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:06 a.m.

    Like those posted by "Captain Moroni".

    And shame on Deseret News for allowing them to be posted.

  • RE: Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:06 a.m.

    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.

  • George Wines
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:07 a.m.

    Perhaps the LDS statement should read "Marriage - reserved between one man
    and one (or more) women." I know of three men in my ward that have been
    sealed to multiple women. In Mormon theology, plural marriage continues,
    as least vicariously in the hereafter. You sure don't hear about when the
    church is speaking out concerning the fundamentalists though.
    The LDS church needs to get out of politics.

  • Logicmeister
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Taylormaid
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:12 a.m.

    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 protecting marriage.

  • Carol
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:13 a.m.

    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.

  • What about...
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:14 a.m.

    "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 134:9

    More LDS hypocricy.

  • Town Heathan
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:14 a.m.

    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 exemption.

  • declare this
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:17 a.m.

    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.

  • To: Sad, Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    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 liberty!

  • Free Speech?
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:23 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:24 a.m.

    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.

  • Re: go forth with faith
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:32 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:33 a.m.

    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 homosexuality.

  • Logicmeister
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Pahoran
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    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 soon.

  • Mc
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    "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.

  • to Why?
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:38 a.m.

    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.

  • No change
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Mahershalalhashbaz
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Travis
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    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?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    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
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:45 a.m.

    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.

  • @ Logicmeister
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Scott
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:47 a.m.

    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.

  • MVH
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:50 a.m.

    Good for the LDS Church. I am with them 100% on this issue.

  • Ummm
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:47 a.m.

    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 religion.

  • A Californian
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:49 a.m.

    "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?

  • Mahershalalhashbaz
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:50 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:53 a.m.

    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.

  • @ Pahoran
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Utah Resident
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:59 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:00 a.m.

    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 their position.

  • ExMoWeHoMo
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:00 a.m.

    But don't forget people, the LDS church is all about free agency.

  • Lori B.
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:08 a.m.

    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".

  • Taylormaid
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:09 a.m.

    "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.

  • Scott in Texas
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:16 a.m.

    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...

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:16 a.m.

    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 fradulent psuedo-marriages.

  • re John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    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"?

  • vaase
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:22 a.m.


    same marriage people are off course good people
    and decent, but still, it's principaly wrong period

  • Man + woman
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:23 a.m.

    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.

  • ZZ
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:23 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Chad
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Nig Nog
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:25 a.m.

    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.

  • to scott and other sheep
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:27 a.m.


    "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)

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Pete
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Californian
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:36 a.m.

    "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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:37 a.m.

    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.

  • @ Travis
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:37 a.m.

    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.

  • Weatherman
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:38 a.m.

    Let's all get along.

    California is going to sink into the ocean anyway!

  • Ghost
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Uh, Taylormaid?
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    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.

  • to @ mahershalalhashbaz
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:43 a.m.

    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.

  • tired
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:48 a.m.

    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.

  • observer
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:53 a.m.

    I'm really sick of this topic. I also have the utmost admiration for Ernest T. Bass.

  • Show me the harm!
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:56 a.m.

    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 Problem
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Dogma vs Equal Rights
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    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?

  • Sarah
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Sorry Chad
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    "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 Introduction
    by Russell A. Dewey, PhD



    As more research comes in, it points more and more towards a genetic source for homosexuality. Really!

  • @ Chad
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:59 a.m.

    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.

  • God's way of love and truth
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:02 a.m.

    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.

  • to tired
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:02 a.m.

    "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 beliefs!

  • A Ghost and others
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Truth
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Frank
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:07 a.m.

    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 counted?

  • @ Dogma
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:06 a.m.

    FINALLY!! SOMEONE ACTUALLY GETS IT!! Thank you!

  • Re: Show me the harm! | 10:56 am
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:12 a.m.

    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.

  • David Mohr (Canadian)
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Jakelani
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:17 a.m.

    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 CLASSIC TRAITS

  • Zar
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:19 a.m.

    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.

  • BigPoet
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:20 a.m.

    Accusing church leaders of publishing "half-truths" is a step toward apostacy and possible excommunication.

  • Yet again...
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:21 a.m.

    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.

  • EGC
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:24 a.m.

    Reason #1,304,485 that I resigned my wife, daughter and I resigned our memberships from LDS, Inc.

  • I Wonder
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Jack
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:25 a.m.

    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.

  • arationalguy
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Gay mice
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:23 a.m.

    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 (fetal development).

  • Hey, Truth?
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Hetero Groom
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:25 a.m.

    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 of venom.

  • RE: David Mohr
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:31 a.m.

    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 political issues.

  • Homosexuals are only about 5%
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:34 a.m.

    I've heard all kinds of figures -- 5%, 3%, 10%, and never heard or read any verification of any of those.

  • Sam Becks
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Retoric
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:36 a.m.

    Human body's were not made to have sex with the same sex. So what else do you want to know?

  • re: Dogma vs Equal Rights
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:38 a.m.

    "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.

  • TO David Mohr (Canadian)
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Joe Moe
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:40 a.m.

    "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.

  • Help me understand
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:40 a.m.

    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.

  • It's a start to at least say
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:47 a.m.

    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.]

  • RAH
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:50 a.m.

    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 rights.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:53 a.m.

    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!!]

  • its wrong
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Norfolk, VA
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Re: No more affirmation
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Re: Help me understand
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:58 a.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:01 p.m.

    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.

  • RE: To: Sad 8:02 a.m. Sept. 10
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:59 a.m.

    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!

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:01 p.m.

    #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 straights.

  • CHris Plummer
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:07 p.m.

    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.

  • RE: CHris Plummer
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:11 p.m.

    Hate Mongering? you ether no nothing about the LDS church or you know nothing about Hate Mongering.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:12 p.m.

    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.

  • A Utahn
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:15 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Chris Plummer
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:21 p.m.

    RE: RE: Chris Plummer

    I 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.

  • To Chris Plummer
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:26 p.m.

    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 beliefs.

  • Sarah
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Excuse Me Mr. Lambert, but,
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:33 p.m.

    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 manner.

  • to John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:36 p.m.

    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?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Henry Drummond
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:37 p.m.

    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 progress.




  • Kudos
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    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.

  • kenny
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    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.

  • PS LDS
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Said it all, almost
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:55 p.m.

    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.

  • What right do you have to pontif
    Sept. 10, 2008 12:56 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:00 p.m.

    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 into laws.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:00 p.m.

    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!

  • Religions Rights vs Fear
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:03 p.m.

    RE: A Legal Issue AND Travis

    A 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.

  • Winklekat
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:00 p.m.

    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.

  • from California
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:05 p.m.

    Excuse me, but when do I get to vote on whether to approve your marriage?

  • to PS LDS
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:06 p.m.


    "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? No

    Do you have to marry non-LDS in your temples? No

    Do you have to marry LDS who are not worthy in your temples? NO

    Do 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.

  • Marie Devine
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:09 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Bob
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:16 p.m.

    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?

  • protecting the family unit
    Sept. 10, 2008 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. 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.

  • Satan's Army
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Jeffrey
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:25 p.m.

    Winklekat,

    Give me a story about "King & King" ANYDAY over a story about your so-called "King of Kings"!

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:29 p.m.

    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.

  • To Marie Devine
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:32 p.m.

    . "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 "civil marriage?"

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:38 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:40 p.m.

    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?

  • Saint Petersburg
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:41 p.m.

    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.

  • If you really want clarity:
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:43 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Wrong again, John
    Sept. 10, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    "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!

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:06 p.m.

    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 things.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Protect traditional family
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:07 p.m.

    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.

  • hey
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:12 p.m.

    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 message.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:12 p.m.

    ---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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:16 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:18 p.m.

    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.

  • awesomeron
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Confused
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • to jeffery
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:31 p.m.

    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 so.

  • To: Anonymous @9:49 & Captain M
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:33 p.m.

    "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.

  • You ARE Confused!
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:33 p.m.

    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?

  • BYDC
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:36 p.m.

    "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 they may?

  • Grandma
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:41 p.m.

    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.

  • To "Captain Moroni"
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:44 p.m.

    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.

  • jim
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:47 p.m.

    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.

  • jim (cont'd)
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:48 p.m.

    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 glory?

  • Yes, Grandma
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:50 p.m.

    "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.

  • Grandma
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Holier than thou
    Sept. 10, 2008 2:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Grandma
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    My response to Anonymous about constitutional law has some missing words, and should have read: "...Church are well-qualified in constituional (and other) law(s)."

  • gay man
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Real Issue at Hand
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:09 p.m.

    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.

  • re: holier than thou...
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:14 p.m.

    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.

  • TO Real Issue at Hand |
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:24 p.m.

    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.

  • from California
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:25 p.m.

    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.

  • mk
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Bishop Rick
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:40 p.m.

    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.

  • re gay man
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Frank
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:43 p.m.

    RE: Jim
    And 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.

  • AxelDC
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:44 p.m.

    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 anti-black bigotry.

  • TO Confused
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:46 p.m.

    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

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:48 p.m.

    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.

  • 11 Article of Faith
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:48 p.m.

    When are one of you LDS going to answer why this does not go against your 11th Article of Faith?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:53 p.m.

    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.

  • to 3:24 pm
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:53 p.m.

    Indeed you are right, That is the biggest problem facing the Religions that are pushing for Prop 8.

  • Nicholasx
    Sept. 10, 2008 3:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Abraham Lincoln
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Sam
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:12 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:16 p.m.

    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.

  • re Abraham Lincoln
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:19 p.m.

    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.

  • anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:29 p.m.

    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 Polygamy?

  • WHY CHANGE?
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:36 p.m.

    RE: Abraham Lincoln

    Why 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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:40 p.m.

    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 class family?

  • Arthur
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:40 p.m.

    RE: 11 Article of Faith | 3:48 p.m

    I'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 fit here.

  • Sandie
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:56 p.m.

    Will someone please tell LDS Inc. to stay OUT of California's Constitution!!!!

  • Foundation
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:54 p.m.

    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.

  • BYDC
    Sept. 10, 2008 4:59 p.m.

    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?

  • @11th Article of Faith.
    Sept. 10, 2008 5:05 p.m.

    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.

  • @TO Confused
    Sept. 10, 2008 5:09 p.m.

    "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.

  • zoar
    Sept. 10, 2008 5:26 p.m.

    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 Forgiveness)

  • to Nicholasx
    Sept. 10, 2008 5:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Sneaky Jimmy
    Sept. 10, 2008 5:30 p.m.

    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.

  • California
    Sept. 10, 2008 5:48 p.m.

    To Arthur

    Yes, 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?

  • Incensed
    Sept. 10, 2008 5:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Wheres The Footnote?
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:02 p.m.

    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.

  • HCW
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:09 p.m.

    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?

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:19 p.m.

    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 it.

  • Member
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:17 p.m.

    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 them.

  • ...A Religion Like Yours
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:17 p.m.

    RE: @TO Confused

    I 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.

  • KSMITH
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:25 p.m.

    I have a friend that wants to marry his dog. He doesn't want this proposition to pass for that reason.

  • the truth
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: incensed
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:34 p.m.

    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?

  • Chris
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:43 p.m.

    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?

  • NO to Prop. 8
    Sept. 10, 2008 6:49 p.m.

    Please say NO to small-mindedness and bigotry perpetuated by the extreme religious fringes such as the Mormon church. Say NO to Prop 8!

  • Because you hurt us
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:05 p.m.

    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. That's why.

  • ashamed of religion
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Marilyn
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:24 p.m.

    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.

  • California
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:32 p.m.

    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.

  • Abe Lincoln
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Enlightened One
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:34 p.m.

    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.

  • To John Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:36 p.m.

    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 detail.

    Thanks.

  • Re: no to Prop. 8
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:36 p.m.

    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!

  • Freedom Road
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:37 p.m.

    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.

  • wow
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:43 p.m.

    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 personal view.

  • Californians
    Sept. 10, 2008 7:44 p.m.

    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 it.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:04 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: The Truth 6:31 P.M.
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:18 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:23 p.m.

    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 abuse.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:23 p.m.

    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.

  • marilyn
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Wanting to understand
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:34 p.m.

    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!

  • Chris
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:37 p.m.

    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.


  • To: ashamed of religion
    Sept. 10, 2008 8:52 p.m.

    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 his Apostles?

  • Gay Mormon
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:03 p.m.

    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.

  • To Marilyn's history
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:03 p.m.

    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.

  • VCHH
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:04 p.m.

    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.



  • Nature?
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: Marilyn
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:38 p.m.

    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.

  • RE: John Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:44 p.m.

    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.

  • Me too--used to struggle
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:48 p.m.

    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.

  • To John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:48 p.m.

    "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?

  • Re: Captain Moroni
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:48 p.m.

    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.

  • To: Anonymous @ 9:26
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Let's get along
    Sept. 10, 2008 9:59 p.m.

    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 "right thing."

  • LB
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:26 p.m.

    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.

  • re-me too--used to struggle
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:39 p.m.

    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 road

  • To Me too
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:40 p.m.

    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 orientation.

  • To "Me too"
    Sept. 10, 2008 10:49 p.m.

    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
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:15 p.m.

    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?

  • The Deuce
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Analogy
    Sept. 10, 2008 11:57 p.m.

    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.

  • RE: Califonia
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:05 a.m.

    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 on.





  • Conejo
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Re: Logicmiester
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:42 a.m.

    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!

  • FSimmons
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:03 a.m.

    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%.

  • Here is the problem!
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:07 a.m.

    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?

  • David S. Fanene
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:30 a.m.

    This is good and right.

  • C
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:14 a.m.

    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.

  • 2 of 6
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Stilson
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 5:37 a.m.

    To Anonymous @ 1:03 am

    Heck 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.

  • Get Priorities Straight
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:25 a.m.

    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.

  • To:Get Priorities Straight
    Sept. 11, 2008 7:54 a.m.

    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!

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:12 a.m.

    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 of GOD.

  • Tom in CA
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:42 a.m.

    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 day.

    GET REAL!!!

  • Larry Walker
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:47 a.m.

    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.

  • women's vote
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Civilizatons doomed
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Glad we have unorthodox members
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:01 a.m.

    "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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:09 a.m.

    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. Judge on.

  • Bob Andersen
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Frank
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Gay bashing
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Alan of Orem
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:22 a.m.

    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 can.

  • miketea
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:50 a.m.

    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 ever

    ps. dont forget satans plan

  • re:2 of 6
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:54 a.m.

    You are depraved - read the book of Genesis.

  • Non LDS
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:16 a.m.

    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!

  • kenny
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:18 a.m.

    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.

  • dead and gone
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    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 friend(from earth)

  • To Bob Anderson
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:24 a.m.

    "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?

  • Lonnie
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:30 a.m.

    The "Proclamation To The World", concerning families, is considered modern day revelation. Scripture if you will.

  • To dead and gone.
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:32 a.m.

    "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!
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Sparks
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Grant
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:45 a.m.

    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."

  • Re: To dead and gone
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Bathrooms
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:46 a.m.

    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 that.

  • Dead and gone
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:51 a.m.

    I didnt mention anything about being unhappy.

  • Beans
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:09 a.m.

    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.

  • re beans
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:27 a.m.

    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. McConkie

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

  • RE: Captain Moroni
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:28 a.m.

    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."

  • HELP ME!
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:45 a.m.

    "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!

  • RE: RE: TO DEAD AND GONE 10:45AM
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:24 p.m.

    Thanks for the post re: suicide & celestial/telestial realms. I've looked for that for years. Could you post the source?

  • JP
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    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 superstition.

  • Prop 8
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:32 p.m.

    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".

  • Re: 12:24PM question
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:53 p.m.

    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!

  • If Marriage is Ordained by God
    Sept. 11, 2008 12:54 p.m.

    then why do you have to go to a court of law to get a divorce?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:03 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Boyd
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:17 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Please Explain
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:21 p.m.

    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 babies?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:25 p.m.

    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?

  • MOJ
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:27 p.m.

    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?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:34 p.m.

    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 other issues.

  • Brian
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:35 p.m.

    RE: PLease Explain..

    What are you talking about?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:36 p.m.

    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 more.

  • Boyd
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:39 p.m.

    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.

  • LtGort
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:44 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:45 p.m.

    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 difficult.

  • Obsessed
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:54 p.m.

    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...

  • to JPL
    Sept. 11, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    "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!

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:08 p.m.

    "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 democratic party.

  • Aaron
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:17 p.m.

    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 It
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:25 p.m.

    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 School.

  • To Aaron
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:30 p.m.

    "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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:41 p.m.

    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!!!

  • Fine Line
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:55 p.m.

    GOD WELCOMES CHANGE, GAY ACTIVISTS FEAR IT

    THE 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.

  • To Anonymous | 2:41 p.m
    Sept. 11, 2008 2:57 p.m.

    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?

  • To Fine Line
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:09 p.m.

    "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.

  • Frank
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:07 p.m.

    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 regret.

  • To: if ordain by God then why?
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Boyd
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:13 p.m.

    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.

  • To the many opinions
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Johnny Utah #9
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Sorry!
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Matomand
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:36 p.m.

    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 way?

  • Harshness
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:39 p.m.

    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.

  • and...
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:47 p.m.

    "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.

  • RE: Ernest T Bass
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:54 p.m.

    If you were in my town, I'd treat you to lunch today.

  • re: Ernest T. Bass | 3:36 p.m.
    Sept. 11, 2008 3:54 p.m.

    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.

  • The Deuce
    Sept. 11, 2008 4:04 p.m.

    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 here.

  • Judy
    Sept. 11, 2008 4:09 p.m.

    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.

  • poeticnurse
    Sept. 11, 2008 4:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 4:17 p.m.

    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?

  • Mark
    Sept. 11, 2008 4:28 p.m.

    Yes I think Mormons can change. They were not born that way but is all about the great Mormon conspiracy and Mormon agenda.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 4:44 p.m.

    To Jax,
    The problem is that homosexual actions are evil. They always have been and always will be.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 4:46 p.m.

    "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!

  • To JPL
    Sept. 11, 2008 5:08 p.m.

    "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?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 5:34 p.m.

    This debate is not about benefits. It is about what relationships will recieve the proactive endorsement of public policy.

  • Re: JPL 1:45 P.M.
    Sept. 11, 2008 5:36 p.m.

    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?

  • Missing one major point
    Sept. 11, 2008 5:38 p.m.

    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.

  • To Sorry:
    Sept. 11, 2008 5:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Abusive? Offensive?
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:00 p.m.

    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...

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 5:59 p.m.

    I am still waiting for an explanation of what the cold blooded murder where the murderers got a very low sentance is.

  • Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:22 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:34 p.m.

    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!

  • Homophobia
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:37 p.m.

    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?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:45 p.m.

    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 policy.

  • Genevieve
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:53 p.m.

    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!

  • JZ
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:55 p.m.

    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

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 11, 2008 6:57 p.m.

    I wish the so-called gay affirmation people would just move on with their lives and leave us real Mormons alone.

  • Re: JPL 6:31 P.M.
    Sept. 11, 2008 7:00 p.m.

    "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...

  • Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 7:34 p.m.

    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?

  • Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 7:41 p.m.

    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?

  • Re: Sad
    Sept. 11, 2008 7:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: Some Misunderstandings 7:59
    Sept. 11, 2008 7:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Romans
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:00 p.m.

    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

  • Re: Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:02 p.m.

    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!

  • Re: JAX
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:10 p.m.

    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 away!

  • Freedom of right?
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:19 p.m.

    What about pharmacists who will not fill legally prescribed prescriptions?

  • Tom in CA - re: Ernest T.
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:28 p.m.

    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?

  • Majority rules?
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:45 p.m.

    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".

  • Re: Freedom of Right?
    Sept. 11, 2008 8:55 p.m.

    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!

  • 4 activist judges
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:14 p.m.

    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.

  • to 4 activist judges
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:34 p.m.

    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 caused
    revolutions against the elitists. Pushing gay rights is no where in the constitution no matter how you doctor up that document.

  • To: Genevieve
    Sept. 11, 2008 9:44 p.m.

    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!

  • re: to 4 activist judges
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:11 p.m.

    You've got a real handle on CA government......"appointed by a liberal President with a liberal congress' blessing"

  • Um, 4 activist judges:
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:13 p.m.

    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 be moderate

  • Genevieve, Re: Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 10:17 p.m.

    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!

  • Jax
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:03 p.m.

    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 to?

  • RE: Ernest
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:13 p.m.

    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 real issues.

  • Nonsense
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:20 p.m.

    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.

  • The Deuce
    Sept. 11, 2008 11:29 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: Jax
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:11 a.m.

    Being hererosexual and incapable of having offspring is a physical anomaly. Does that mean being gay is also an anomaly?

  • My thoughts
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:21 a.m.

    Disagreement does not equal hatred! Only a liberal thinks disagreement equals hatred.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Sarah
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:25 a.m.

    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, they'll continue.

  • Re: Johnny Utah #9
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:27 a.m.

    "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 this issue...

  • SP--A Free American
    Sept. 12, 2008 7:24 a.m.

    RE: My thoughts

    The 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!

  • SP--Mormons Hurting Children
    Sept. 12, 2008 7:44 a.m.

    I have to agree with you Re: Johnny Utah #9

    From 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.

  • Re: SP--Mormons Hurting Children
    Sept. 12, 2008 8:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Jonas
    Sept. 12, 2008 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 9:20 a.m.

    "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 equally.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 12, 2008 9:20 a.m.

    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.

  • re:jonas
    Sept. 12, 2008 9:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 9:30 a.m.

    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 everything.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    "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.

  • Interesting but...
    Sept. 12, 2008 9:50 a.m.

    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.





  • FaithNoMo
    Sept. 12, 2008 10:29 a.m.

    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.

  • SP--Mormon Bigots
    Sept. 12, 2008 10:39 a.m.

    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.

  • SP--Mormon Bigots
    Sept. 12, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 10:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Bigot
    Sept. 12, 2008 10:56 a.m.

    I think you are right. I am a bigot.

  • Sue From CA
    Sept. 12, 2008 11:08 a.m.

    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 better way.

  • LDSnomo
    Sept. 12, 2008 11:20 a.m.

    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 males

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 11:40 a.m.

    (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.

  • Good Samaritan
    Sept. 12, 2008 11:44 a.m.

    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.

  • The Caravan Moves On!
    Sept. 12, 2008 11:49 a.m.

    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".

  • Frank
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:05 p.m.

    Thanks for posting something positive and uplifting in this forum "The Caravan Moves On!"

  • re: the caravan moves on
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:14 p.m.

    Having members that are less than one half of one percent of the world's population, the caravan sure is moving slowly.

  • Suz in Cal
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:16 p.m.

    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.

  • Tom in CA
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:32 p.m.

    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.


  • Capri
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Why?
    Sept. 12, 2008 12:38 p.m.

    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 marriage.

  • Re: why?
    Sept. 12, 2008 1:02 p.m.

    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....

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 1:07 p.m.

    "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.

  • In Carolina
    Sept. 12, 2008 1:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Prophets right??
    Sept. 12, 2008 1:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Jan
    Sept. 12, 2008 2:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Michaelogic 101
    Sept. 12, 2008 2:16 p.m.

    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.

  • kathnavy1954
    Sept. 12, 2008 2:26 p.m.

    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 Prophet".

  • shake down cruise
    Sept. 12, 2008 2:53 p.m.

    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.

  • A faithful gay Mormon
    Sept. 12, 2008 2:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Civil Rights
    Sept. 12, 2008 2:58 p.m.

    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.

  • mary
    Sept. 12, 2008 2:57 p.m.

    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 nothing.

  • No special rights for gays
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Sunny Doller
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:04 p.m.

    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?

  • re: shake down cruise
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:08 p.m.

    "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.

  • Lost in the desert
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:16 p.m.

    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.

  • nathandt
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Read More...
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:28 p.m.

    "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.

  • Trendy Churches are Evil
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:33 p.m.

    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.

  • To GW
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:33 p.m.

    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."

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:41 p.m.

    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

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:43 p.m.

    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

  • To nathandt
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Cougarboi
    Sept. 12, 2008 3:59 p.m.

    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.

  • nathandt
    Sept. 12, 2008 4:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Peter
    Sept. 12, 2008 4:08 p.m.

    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.

  • nathandt
    Sept. 12, 2008 4:29 p.m.

    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.

  • Boyd
    Sept. 12, 2008 4:44 p.m.

    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?

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 4:44 p.m.

    "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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:08 p.m.

    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.

  • ?
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:17 p.m.

    Contention is not of me.

  • re: Peter
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:20 p.m.

    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?

  • Where does it end?
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:49 p.m.

    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?

  • To :Michaelogic 101 | 2:16 p.m.
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:55 p.m.

    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."

  • Ann Onymous
    Sept. 12, 2008 5:58 p.m.

    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.

  • AND RACIST CANDIDATES?
    Sept. 12, 2008 7:37 p.m.

    Now let's see if the church will comment on immigration and Jason Chaffetz racist policy position.

  • LuckiestAuntEver
    Sept. 12, 2008 8:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Matters for the State!
    Sept. 12, 2008 8:36 p.m.

    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.

  • westiewestAZ
    Sept. 12, 2008 8:34 p.m.

    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 "gay".

  • Dawn
    Sept. 12, 2008 9:25 p.m.

    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!

  • To: Re: Johnny Utah #9 | 5:27 a.
    Sept. 12, 2008 10:17 p.m.

    "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 #9.

  • Omar P.
    Sept. 12, 2008 11:44 p.m.

    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.

  • JanSan
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:14 a.m.

    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.

  • South Africa hoMO
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:24 a.m.

    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...

  • USA
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:36 a.m.

    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 justification.

  • Freedom Is NEVER Easy
    Sept. 13, 2008 4:18 a.m.

    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.

  • Get A Grip On Reality
    Sept. 13, 2008 7:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Re: A Faithful Gay Mormon?
    Sept. 13, 2008 7:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Re: The Caravan Moves On, 12 Sep
    Sept. 13, 2008 7:49 a.m.

    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!

  • deb B,
    Sept. 13, 2008 8:49 a.m.

    I think alot these types of issues clear up if all
    remember the act ot Pro-creation is
    not 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 pleasure
    than all sorts of behaviors not pleasing to the Lord are condoned in the name of pleasure. Remembering ProCreation is a sacred responsibility
    given to married men and women helps keep sex within its God-ordained boundaries.

  • Let bygones be bygones
    Sept. 13, 2008 9:45 a.m.

    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 example.

  • Re: South Africa hoMO
    Sept. 13, 2008 9:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike
    Sept. 13, 2008 10:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Momfrog
    Sept. 13, 2008 10:36 a.m.

    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.

  • JanSan
    Sept. 13, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    re Ann Onymous
    I 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.

  • Ken Reed
    Sept. 13, 2008 11:00 a.m.

    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)

  • ken Reed
    Sept. 13, 2008 11:05 a.m.

    (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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 13, 2008 11:54 a.m.

    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?

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 13, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    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 history.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 13, 2008 12:24 p.m.

    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".

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 13, 2008 12:28 p.m.

    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!!

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 13, 2008 12:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 13, 2008 12:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: Captain Moroni
    Sept. 13, 2008 12:53 p.m.

    "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 Norway.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:07 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:28 p.m.

    To 6:00 on September 11th,
    We are calling homosexuality evil, not homosexuals. That is very different.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:37 p.m.

    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.

  • lynn
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:42 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:44 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 1:51 p.m.

    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 silenced.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:01 p.m.

    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 mocking.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:14 p.m.

    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.

  • JanSan
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:15 p.m.

    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 .

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:21 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:35 p.m.

    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?
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:38 p.m.

    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.

  • JanSan
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:40 p.m.

    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.

  • member in south carolina
    Sept. 13, 2008 2:59 p.m.

    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 again

  • To JanSan
    Sept. 13, 2008 4:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Hope for Gays
    Sept. 13, 2008 4:17 p.m.

    Evergreen International...there is hope and real help!

  • A lot of comments!
    Sept. 13, 2008 5:34 p.m.

    Nothing. I just wanted to be #533.

  • RE: movement of the caravan
    Sept. 13, 2008 5:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Gays time is coming...
    Sept. 13, 2008 6:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Jan in Wyoming
    Sept. 13, 2008 6:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Anon
    Sept. 13, 2008 7:03 p.m.

    Gay marriage is a ploy to bring the force of government against religious speech via hate speech laws.

  • Janet
    Sept. 13, 2008 7:11 p.m.

    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.

  • To Hope For Gays @4:17
    Sept. 13, 2008 7:19 p.m.

    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!

  • To All You Devout Mormons
    Sept. 13, 2008 7:38 p.m.

    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 do so.

  • BobP
    Sept. 13, 2008 8:31 p.m.

    I would predict that the LDS church will give women the priesthood bit will never accept gay marriage.

  • Times Change
    Sept. 13, 2008 9:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Three Facts of the Matter
    Sept. 13, 2008 9:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Speaking of "Facts"
    Sept. 13, 2008 9:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: Ken Reed
    Sept. 13, 2008 10:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Sarah
    Sept. 13, 2008 10:28 p.m.

    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".

  • Dear Mr. Reed
    Sept. 13, 2008 10:53 p.m.

    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 otherwise.

  • Steel Magnolia
    Sept. 13, 2008 10:56 p.m.

    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!

  • RPJ
    Sept. 14, 2008 12:25 a.m.

    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, 14

    We 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".

  • T
    Sept. 14, 2008 1:06 a.m.

    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 )

  • facts!!!!!!!!!!!
    Sept. 14, 2008 1:32 a.m.

    marraige is between a man and a woman thats why its ADAM and EVE not ADAM and STEVE.

  • FACT
    Sept. 14, 2008 7:02 a.m.

    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!

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:18 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Why is this an issue???
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 10:22 a.m.

    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?

  • Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 10:22 a.m.

    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?

  • Elder Henry
    Sept. 14, 2008 10:29 a.m.

    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 you.

  • We're not smart enough
    Sept. 14, 2008 10:41 a.m.

    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 them.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 10:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 10:53 a.m.

    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!

  • Amonhi
    Sept. 14, 2008 10:56 a.m.

    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 conscience

    4 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,

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 11:57 a.m.

    Amonhi | 10:56 a.m. Sept. 14, 2008 quoted D&C 134:2, 4, 7, 9

    CM - 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 ark?

  • al
    Sept. 14, 2008 12:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Talk about "dumbing down"
    Sept. 14, 2008 1:36 p.m.

    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?

  • Deseret roots in Wisconsin
    Sept. 14, 2008 1:49 p.m.

    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 moment.

  • Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 14, 2008 3:11 p.m.

    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])




  • Yes I Can!
    Sept. 14, 2008 3:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 3:39 p.m.

    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....

  • MoHo (Mormon Homosexual)
    Sept. 14, 2008 4:06 p.m.

    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.

  • MoHo (Mormon Homosexual)
    Sept. 14, 2008 4:18 p.m.

    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.

  • To Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 4:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 4:52 p.m.

    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.

  • To Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 5:07 p.m.

    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.

  • To Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 5:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Charles
    Sept. 14, 2008 6:06 p.m.

    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....

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 14, 2008 6:54 p.m.

    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

  • Cruise control
    Sept. 14, 2008 6:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Adam & Eve
    Sept. 14, 2008 7:04 p.m.

    "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 marriage alone.

  • To Charles:
    Sept. 14, 2008 7:20 p.m.

    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).

  • Two words
    Sept. 14, 2008 7:46 p.m.

    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!

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 14, 2008 8:33 p.m.

    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!").

  • The Big Question
    Sept. 14, 2008 8:56 p.m.

    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.

  • I hope and pray
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:19 p.m.

    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!

  • Re: To Charles @ 5:07
    Sept. 14, 2008 9:25 p.m.

    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.

  • One of many "gifts"
    Sept. 15, 2008 2:00 a.m.

    Of all the gifts the homosexuals of the world have given, AIDs is probably the worst! Sorry, but this is a fact.

  • Sodom
    Sept. 15, 2008 7:21 a.m.

    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".

  • Love it...
    Sept. 15, 2008 9:07 a.m.

    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.

  • re One of many "gifts"
    Sept. 15, 2008 9:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Silly
    Sept. 15, 2008 10:07 a.m.

    "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 marry!

  • to Elder Henry
    Sept. 15, 2008 11:09 a.m.

    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 Day Saints.

  • Steel Magnolia
    Sept. 15, 2008 11:47 a.m.

    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?

  • Steel Magnolia
    Sept. 15, 2008 11:56 a.m.

    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 :)

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 15, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 15, 2008 12:24 p.m.

    thankyou Nature @9;15 p.m. Sept 10th i got a good laugh

  • To Steel Magnolia
    Sept. 15, 2008 12:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Thanks Captain Moroni
    Sept. 15, 2008 12:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Go Ducks!!!
    Sept. 15, 2008 12:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Comment 602
    Sept. 15, 2008 1:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Support?
    Sept. 15, 2008 1:56 p.m.

    "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?

  • Re: Go Ducks
    Sept. 15, 2008 2:12 p.m.

    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.

  • bhparkman
    Sept. 15, 2008 4:48 p.m.

    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.

  • To Comment 602
    Sept. 15, 2008 4:46 p.m.

    I remember that ad. Very well, I might say. But wasn't it in the Sears catalog?

  • Charles
    Sept. 15, 2008 5:14 p.m.

    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....

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 15, 2008 6:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: Anonymous
    Sept. 15, 2008 7:20 p.m.

    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 stake here.

  • AnthroGirl14
    Sept. 15, 2008 7:37 p.m.

    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!

  • To Charles @5:14
    Sept. 15, 2008 7:46 p.m.

    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 men.

  • Hanford Jr.
    Sept. 15, 2008 8:29 p.m.

    ... 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 HELP!!!

  • Re; Hanford
    Sept. 15, 2008 8:55 p.m.

    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?

  • Re: Hanford Jr.
    Sept. 15, 2008 9:43 p.m.

    ... 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 return.

  • Bert
    Sept. 15, 2008 10:03 p.m.


    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.

  • Steel Magnolia
    Sept. 15, 2008 10:26 p.m.

    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!

  • My Vote
    Sept. 15, 2008 10:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Lenny
    Sept. 16, 2008 6:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 16, 2008 7:21 a.m.

    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 kill us."

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 16, 2008 8:00 a.m.

    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 someone else?

  • to captain moroni
    Sept. 16, 2008 8:12 a.m.

    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.

  • to lenny
    Sept. 16, 2008 8:18 a.m.

    I did not know that being a "full member of society" had to do with my sexual orientation. thanks for the info

  • 622 comments
    Sept. 16, 2008 8:34 a.m.

    Wow. I thought the article and the LDS Church's statement were pretty clear...So why 622 comments?

  • MMM...
    Sept. 16, 2008 8:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Charles
    Sept. 16, 2008 9:03 a.m.

    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!

  • Sam Becks
    Sept. 16, 2008 9:05 a.m.

    Homosexuality is just plain sick and wrong.

  • What?
    Sept. 16, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    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?

  • reader
    Sept. 16, 2008 9:50 a.m.

    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!

  • MMMM
    Sept. 16, 2008 10:33 a.m.

    MAN+WOMEN= NATURAL

    WOMEN=WOMEN= MMMM...NOPE
    MAN+MAN= MMMMMM...NOOOPE

    IS THE NATURAL LAW...SORRY!

  • Re: reader
    Sept. 16, 2008 10:41 a.m.

    "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.

  • OxyMoroni
    Sept. 16, 2008 10:53 a.m.

    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.

  • PPIC
    Sept. 16, 2008 11:08 a.m.

    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%).

  • Steel Magnolia
    Sept. 16, 2008 11:20 a.m.

    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) :)

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 16, 2008 11:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 16, 2008 11:48 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Member
    Sept. 16, 2008 11:54 a.m.

    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, Article 9.

  • To Steel Magnolia
    Sept. 16, 2008 12:06 p.m.

    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?

  • Concerning sins...
    Sept. 16, 2008 12:33 p.m.

    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?

  • Funny
    Sept. 16, 2008 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • hahahahahahaha!
    Sept. 16, 2008 1:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Please read
    Sept. 16, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    Mormons Please read (D&C section 132) to answer your question about bigamy and gays.

  • SP--The Essential Family
    Sept. 16, 2008 1:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 16, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    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?

  • JZ
    Sept. 16, 2008 2:04 p.m.

    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

  • SP--Bible Truths
    Sept. 16, 2008 2:10 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Member
    Sept. 16, 2008 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • awesomeron
    Sept. 16, 2008 2:41 p.m.

    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.

  • To LDS Member
    Sept. 16, 2008 2:50 p.m.

    "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.

  • LDS Member
    Sept. 16, 2008 3:15 p.m.

    "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.

  • SP--Our Global Family
    Sept. 16, 2008 3:30 p.m.

    LDS Member

    Oh, 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.

  • Adam & Steve
    Sept. 16, 2008 3:38 p.m.

    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. Intersting.

  • Oxy Moroni
    Sept. 16, 2008 3:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Johnny Utah #9
    Sept. 16, 2008 3:58 p.m.

    Re: Adam & Steve | 3:38 p.m

    Great post and I agree 100%.

    I'm glad to know that I've evolved from apes rather than being inbred!

  • LDS Member
    Sept. 16, 2008 4:07 p.m.

    SP--Our Global Family

    I 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.

  • Bayou Vol
    Sept. 16, 2008 4:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Bayou Vol
    Sept. 16, 2008 4:56 p.m.

    I fear that in our quest to come "out of obscurity" we are forsaking the truths with which we have been trusted

  • MoJules
    Sept. 16, 2008 9:58 p.m.

    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.

  • SLC gal
    Sept. 17, 2008 7:50 a.m.

    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

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Sept. 17, 2008 8:12 a.m.

    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!

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 17, 2008 8:46 a.m.

    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.

  • re:LDS member
    Sept. 17, 2008 8:53 a.m.

    "it is still my duty to love and serve them".

    Love is a duty? How touching & sincere.

  • LDS Member
    Sept. 17, 2008 10:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Please Explain TO Me...
    Sept. 17, 2008 11:02 a.m.

    Why God approves of many wives and "concubines," but disapproves of gay marriage?

    D&C 132

    1 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 GLORY.

  • SP--Religion vs History
    Sept. 17, 2008 1:30 p.m.

    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.

  • nathandt
    Sept. 17, 2008 3:43 p.m.

    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.

  • wondering
    Sept. 17, 2008 4:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Get your noses out of your books
    Sept. 17, 2008 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • To wondering
    Sept. 17, 2008 5:23 p.m.

    Ingrained in you perhaps. It is most certainly not ingrained in me.

  • Re: Please Explain TO Me
    Sept. 17, 2008 9:16 p.m.

    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.

  • For "Oxy Moroni"
    Sept. 17, 2008 9:24 p.m.

    "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.


  • Anonymous
    Sept. 17, 2008 9:29 p.m.

    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.

  • To - Bayou Vol
    Sept. 17, 2008 10:17 p.m.

    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?

  • Hey, Bayou Vol!
    Sept. 17, 2008 10:22 p.m.

    How is taking a firm stand against homosexuality "forsaking" the truths that God gave to Joseph Smith?

  • How Sad
    Sept. 17, 2008 10:24 p.m.

    "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...."

  • Re; how Sad
    Sept. 17, 2008 11:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Jemmers
    Sept. 18, 2008 12:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Beau
    Sept. 18, 2008 5:10 a.m.

    It makes no sense for the Church to ever approve homosexual marriage. What is our world coming to?

  • Captain Moroni
    Sept. 18, 2008 8:05 a.m.

    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.