Comments about ‘Steve Young says he wants to build bridges with LGBT community’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Sept. 14 2013 11:50 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DocHolliday
reno, NV

Truthseeker -

Nice try. so in 1949 when the first presidency said it was a direct revelation from god and a doctrine not a policy they were wrong? Or is it that the first presidency now is wrong in saying they don't know where it came from? It can't be both. Either the previous first presidency was wrong or the current one is wrong. Which one is it? This is how the church has wiggled out of uncomfortable doctrines. No matter if it was said to be revelation or a vision or anything, the current first presidency can just say it was his opinion and it wasn't doctrine.

oldschooler
USA, TX

ay Ophelia, just read the Bible on Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and also 1 Timothy 1:9-11. We have to stand for what is right and normal, do not try to change the order of nature God Established, tolerance Yes, acceptance NO. NEVER.

MJ Annie
LAYTON, UT

Why do LDS church leaders and members spend so much time debating and judging same-sex attraction/gays/gay lifestyle/gay identity, etc? It seems so crude, immature, and just plain wrong to focus on a person's genitals instead of their soul. I think it's beautiful when two people discover a deep emotional connection and want to commit to helping each other through this life. Love makes the world a better place. Given all the horrible things going on in the world (starvation, war, violence, and human trafficking to name a few), I wonder why people choose to focus on this. I suspect it's because they don't derive any pleasure in pondering REAL problems with REAL victims and all the REAL suffering going on. Those things aren't titillating and enjoyable. It's much more fun for them to focus on sex organs and what they think people should and shouldn't be doing with them. It's so juvenile.

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

Please explain to me how a homosexual person could believe a church that is against is true and then turn around and decry the fact that the church does not allow them to marry or practice homosexuality? Please explain it to me. And don't come back by saying my God or church is made up because that is not an answer to my question.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

In essence, Steve Young is trying to "love the sinner and hate the sin".

THAT is Christ-like.

The problem is that the homosexual crowd is interpreting Steve Young's kindness as "homosexual actions are not sin".

When it becomes clear to them that is NOT what Steve Young is saying, they'll turn on him in about 2.4 seconds...

Bob K
porland, OR

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO
Please explain to me how a homosexual person could believe a church that is against is true and then turn around and decry the fact that the church does not allow them to marry or practice homosexuality? Please explain it to me. And don't come back by saying my God or church is made up because that is not an answer to my question.

Answer: Let's remember that Gay people who want to marry in a church want to marry in their own church, in which they were raised. There are churches that are happy to marry their Gay members, although most same sex weddings are performed elsewhere.
Let's keep it to one church: can you tell me why persons raised in lds families, with lds traditions, who are Gay, would not want to be married in the temple?
Would you not want all your children to be equal?

There is NO documented case of any Gay couple trying to force a church to marry them, although there was a case of a church that had a public wedding hall available to anyone off the street except the Gay couple who applied.

Bob K
porland, OR

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA
To "JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt" there is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. That was invented later and has been perpetuated as fact when in reality it is a myth.
The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Establishing a religon means that the government cannot set up a state religion, like the Church of England.

It is very hard to see why someone could claim that "no established relgion allowed" is not separation of church and state.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

es·tab·lish

[ i stábblish ]

1.start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent
2.place something permanently: to place something securely and permanently in a position, situation, or condition
3.confirm truth of something: to investigate something and prove or confirm its truth or validity

========

RedShirtMIT

Cambridge, MA

To "JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt" there is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. That was invented later and has been perpetuated as fact when in reality it is a myth.

The Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Establishing a religion means that the government cannot set up a state religion, like the Church of England.
8:17 a.m. Sept. 17, 2013

=======

OK RedShirt --

What religion is the Government trying to establish,
and which ones is it trying to keep Free?

Then,
Ask yourself those very same questions,
and see who's REALLY trampling the Constitution and the religious freedom of all Americans.
[Hint: it ain't the Government.]

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Bob K" establishing a state religion is quite different from allowing churches and government to co-mingle when appropriate. For example, a display of the 10 commandments on public property is not an endorsement of a specific religion. There are many religions that believe in the bible. However, it is not a separation of church and state. The state and a church have joined together on a project that hopefully beautifies and edifies. The same can be said for crosses or statues of religious icons on public property. As long as there is not favortism of a single religion over all others, what harm is it to allow religion and government to co-mingle?

To "LDS Liberal" currently the government is trying to establish Secular Humanism (athiesism) as the state religion. The IRS has recognized it as a religion, and it does meet the definition of religion that states that it is a set of beliefs. You are correct that it isn't the government destroying freedoms, it is Progressivism/Liberalism.

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

@BobK
I understand that they would want to get married in the church they were raised in. But if in the case of some churches allowing such would mean that the church's doctrine is untrue, and by extention, the church is not true. This is particularly the case with the LDS Church that believes its leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators. If homo marriage is allowed in the temple then everything taught in the temple is not true and therefore the church is not true. You see the problem? If homosexuals want to be treated with love and respect by church members I'm right in line, but if they want temple marriage it can't work. It is not feasible.

Cookie999
Albuquerque, NM

I know a counselor, raised LDS, who helps people with same-sex attraction. She says a fraction have a hormone pattern erroneously configured before they were born. She uses non-invasive therapy to help them change. The rest choose homosexuality/lesbianism due to other pressures. Last I heard she was moving out of the country. It's uncertain what the percentage is with a hormone imbalance; it probably varies individually. But if there is order in the universe, and if God created male and female, it stands to reason there is someone for everyone of the opposite gender. Maybe it's impossible to meet this person in this life, but it's harder to meet this person if one purposely chooses a lifestyle which interferes with meeting someone of the opposite sex. In my opinion a same-sex attraction often means: 1)There is someone of the opposite sex with those same qualities to meet later on, and 2) It is time for one of those two people to move away from the other one (to another state/country or job) because you can't have too many people with extremely similar physical characteristics and personality qualities in the same place.

Spikey
Layton, UT

As a straight LDS myself, I can say I LOVE MY LGBT brothers and sisters! I was at this event! I felt love that I had never felt before. I felt forgiveness, I felt people reaching out, I felt hurt and pain that I knew I would never feel because I am not ostracized by the very community that is supposed to love me the MOST.

Nosea asked how can one be a member of the LGBT community and still be in good faith with the church. REALLY? How can one judge our gay brothers and sisters and consider THEMSELVES in good standing? These folks WANT to be part of our church but they are given a choice---celibacy for the rest of their lives, or live in hiding with a partner.

Their families often say, "You are dead to me! Pack your things and leave!" They give up prospects of marriage and the benefits of it, as well as the warmth and love of companionship when they come out and still want to go to church. The sacrifice is great, and it is a total SHAME.

Spikey
Layton, UT

RobRaven I just wanted to tell you that you rock! One day, I pray, one day you will be able to live more comfortably. I am so thankful you are out in the open and love who you are. GOD loves you as you are.

We LDS sometimes forget that we too had "sexual sins" that were just ungodly wrong to the rest of the world: POLYGAMY. Shame on us for judging and not loving!

suzyk#1
Mount Pleasant, UT

Judy Finch's comment is all wrong. God did not make Gay children...we were perfect and it's our choices that change that. As for Steve Young's choice to be involved I believe it is a way to receive more attention and notoriety. The Proclamation says it the way it is...you veer away from the Truth and there will be heartache and pain. The Lord loves all of his children but does not and will not tolerate those who harm His children and choose to go the other way. There will always be consequences for our choices.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

Bob K

"Let's keep it to one church: can you tell me why persons raised in lds families, with lds traditions, who are Gay, would not want to be married in the temple?
Would you not want all your children to be equal?"

Referring to marriages performed in the Temples:

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise… they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. D&C 132:19

This essentially is saying that sealed couples of the opposite sex will have the privilege of having children in the eternal worlds. God sees marriage as between male and female. The scriptures support this.

Bob K
porland, OR

May I suggest that God does not have a pen, so that Scriptures have passed through the hands of men, and may need new interpretations?

What happens if your mormon son is Gay and is seen out with his boyfriend? Is it not a sin to tell a lie when asked who he was with? Would you raise only your Gay kid to be a liar and to be ashamed of who he is? Suppose your son is quite effeminate or your daughter quite butch, so that lying is especially stupid.

Where in Scripture does Jesus say "Lie or be silent in situations where others speak up, so no one has to deal with your being different"?

No one young in a medium or big city thinks Gay people should lie. Everyone knows it leads to problems and more lying.

I recall so well, years ago, "Why don't those Black people just act like us, and why don't they stay on their side of town?"

Churches need to spend more time asking God how to deal with their Gay sons and daughters, and less time devising rules about how to treat them as 2nd or 3rd class citizens.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Bob K" if a gay mormon teen had a boyfriend, he is already comitting sin. He knows that it is wrong to be acting out on his feelings is wrong before he lies to cover his tracks.

Would you raise your child to think that his urges are more important than God's commands? Or that your child "knows more" than the Prophets who speak for God?

PTM
,

If God is all knowing and all powerful and created all things then God created homosexuals, just as he/she created heterosexuals. Maybe your problem is with God, not homosexuals.

Heterosexuals have certain feelings; and can act on them. But homosexuals have those same; certain feelings; and shouldn't act on them? So says a book written by man purported to be the word of God. Why test homosexuals, but not heterosexuals in the same fashion. Perhaps the test isn't for homosexuals. But is a test for the rest of us to see if we truly understand the lessons we all should have learned about what it means to be human; to treat others with respect and kindness and charity.

If you don't want to fully include homosexuals in your church, you have that right. And you can build all the bridges you want, but no one will cross them if they are treated in a second class way once they get to the other side. They may take a nostalgic stroll over, but aren't likely to stay.
********************

RockOn
Spanish Fork, UT

Building bridges to the "gay community" is strictly a one-way bridge to them, nothing in return. Compromise to them means do it their way as they wish or they'll hold their breath. No compromise or no attempt to show empathy to those who believe differently than them. Their way or the pink highway.

gdog3finally
West Jordan, Utah

Steve Young has my full respect and has for a long time. I bleed red but that matters not when it comes to recognizing the character of Steve Young.

to comment

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