What is most important to the letter writer: her religion, her job, her housing
or her sexual orientation? She's going to have to decide what to hold on
to and what to let go of. Children demand everything. Adults grow into the
understanding that they must grow out of childhood fantasies where they are the
center of the universe, where natural law will be suspended when they throw
themselves into the abyss, where they can tell their creator which eternal
truths govern their activities and what consequences should apply to their
I'm likewise curious as to how the writer can be LDS and also a (I'm
assuming) practicing lesbian.That being said, on the matters of
housing and employment, I support non-discrimination ordinances being extended
to all of Utah. So long as people do their job, pay the rent, treat their
neighbors and coworkers respectfully, etc., it isn't anyone's business
what they do in their own time and with whom.But as J Thompson said,
she's going to have to choose either her "identity" (as a proud,
practicing lesbian) or her religion. I have a hard time seeing her maintain
harmony between both.
"She's going to have to decide what to hold on to and what to let go
of."J Thompson and Danny Chapman - what are you willing to hold
on to and which of your freedoms are you willing to let go of? The letter
writer has stated her religious beliefs and her sexual orientation. Unless you
are her bishop, and especially unless you know her personally, you have
absolutely no right to judge what she will be able to hold on to. Would you be
willing to accept living in a community where your rights were threatened
because of your beliefs? Would be OK for you to lose your job or deny you
access to housing because of things you hold dear? I am always
amazed at the judgmental attitudes of many members of my religion, the LDS
faith, who forget the persecution suffered by their ancestors simply because of
what they chose to believe. When will we all start looking at others as
children of God, just like we are, and stop looking down our noses and judging
other's behavior? That will be OK when we are all perfect, but not until
Don't judge! Let God do that since none of us are qualified!
How foolish people are when they think that a man-made law supersedes eternal
law; when they think that freedom equals agency. God gave us agency to choose
for ourselves. Freedom comes from the proper use of that agency. We are free
as long as we use our agency wisely and only choose to do those things where the
natural consequences of those actions do not remove freedom. Agency
allows us to jump off a cliff. Foolish people might even believe others who
tell them of the euphoria that they would feel while falling through the air.
Those who are ignorant of natural law might even think that there would be no
natural and absolute consequence from jumping off a cliff. Those who respect
the author of all human knowledge would listen to their conscience which would
warn them not to jump, and not to loss their "freedom" or their life by
misusing agency.The letter writer has agency to choose. Her choices
will determine the freedom that she will have to continue to make choices.
Man-made laws will not negate the consequences of those choices. Choose wisely.
The subtext of the Thompson/Chipman comments is that the writer should abandon a
substantial portion of her identity based on tangible, concrete experience in
favor of one based on intangible, unprovable abstractions. Ironically, it is
the latter that is given universal legal protection in this country while the
former must win incremental protection community by community.I own
a rental property in SLC. Before the nondiscrimination ordinance passed, I
sometimes toyed with the idea of advertising it as "available to gays
only" just to stir up the pot and provoke a discussion. It would be sound
business practice, as gays as a demographic tend to have disposable income and
good financials and (if you believe he stereotype) keep the propery nice. Never
did do it, though.@Chipman: My understanding is that the LDS church
requires gay members to be chaste. I don't know exactly what that means in
the context of the church, but I know that it is possible for lesbians to
express meaningful physical intimacy in ways that would have been legal even
before the Lawrence Supreme Court decision. Or does "chaste" mean no
hand holding as far as LDS standards go?
The usual suspects, the usual bigoted, homo-phobic, compassionate lacking
responses.FYI - The LDS church supports anti-discrimination laws,
and allows Gays and Lesbians full fellowship.I stand with this letter
writer - AND the brethern.
@mike that all fine and dandy mike but she is talking about man made laws,
you know the ones that do not allow you to discriminate against her based on
your religious views.
@Phranc,Thats all fine and dandy, but by saying she's LDS
she's also talking about her religious beliefs. Hers. And her religion
says that the only acceptable sexual relationships are between a man and a
woman. Again, her religion. So people who call her out on that have a valid
There's absolutely no reason other than blatant bigotry to deny this person
the same rights the rest of us have.
@trevvor I seem to remember "her religion" actually repeatedly
counseled about "calling people out" (questioning other faith and
worthiness) and seeing as mike would not want o be hypocritical I m sure that is
not what he is saying, right?
TrevvorSandy, UT@Phranc,Thats all fine and dandy, but by
saying she's LDS she's also talking about her religious beliefs. Hers.
And her religion says that the only acceptable sexual relationships are between
a man and a woman. Again, her religion. So people who call her out on that have
a valid point.12:16 p.m. Feb. 25, 2013========= Are you her Bishop, Trevvor?I know plenty of card carrying
Gay/Lesbian Mormons.So people who call her out on that need to pipe
down mind their own business.
Open minded Mormon,Why don't you clarify, you know plenty of
card carry people who have homosexual feelings. You know zero card carrying
people in homosexual relationships. Unless they are lying to their bishops of
course. And by the way this woman words things she seems to suggest she is open
to homosexual relationships, which by definition, would prohibit her from being
I wonder if people think about how their comments reflect on the LDS church, are
the comments on this thread really the face you want to show the world?
kudo's to mountanman well said.
Lifelong Ute: "you know plenty... feelings. You know zero...
relationships..."The question is what constitutes acceptable
behavior vis-a-vis LDS church membership? As I alluded in my original post,
there is a continuum of expressions of feelings that can occur in a relationship
(gay or straight). I have not seen the dividing line between acceptable and
unnacceptable defined other than the ambiguous word "chaste." If legal
definitions for chastity set the standard, then it is possible to be in
emotionally satisfying committed gay relationships without being unchaste. I
get the impression that some commenters here have a much more restrictive
standard and would consider the same behaviors that they find completely
acceptable and chaste by unmarried straight couples (e.g. flirting, hand
holding, kissing, hugging, shopping for china) to be unacceptable, unchaste, and
disqualifying for membership when done by gay couples. Can anyone elaborate?
Whare is the line between chaste and unchaste (or in Lifelong Ute's terms,
between feelings and relationships)? If the line is not the same for gays and
straights, please explain why. Keep in mind that this is a moderated family
@Open Minded Mormon"The usual suspects, the usual bigoted,
homo-phobic, compassionate lacking responses."I am surprised you
claim yourself to be Mormon but use words like bigoted and homo-phobic when you
do not agree with other people who may not hold the same views as you. Those are
contentious words and being a latter-day saint you know who the father of
contention is don’t you?
@zoarSo j Thomas called those that have a different point of view
childish and mike Richards called them foist yet you only call out open minded,
why would that be?
That was suppose to be fools not foist. Sorry.
Zoar63,for you information, on this board, "open-minded"
means anyone who agrees with the liberal philosohpy. anyone who does not is
automatically labeled a close-minded hateful bigot who does nothing but listen
to hate radio all day.
@lost -- Well, do you or do you not listen to Fox News and/or am radio every
day? It's pretty easy to tell who does. You all have the same "talking
points". I can always tell when Rush said something because all of a
sudden, lots of Tea Party folks start saying the exact same thing with the exact
same phrasing. That's why you call yourselves "dittoheads."
Why is it every time Mike Richards posts he writes like he's trying to add
another section to the D&C? Whenever people start talking/writing in
pseudo-scripture style you know some good ol' self-righteous condemnation
is going to follow.
Did anyone catch that this letter was about discrimination against GLBT people,
and not neccesarily what defines a mormon vs a non mormon. God is already God,
and last time I checked his position wasn't up for grabs.