I didn't know we had to get sexual identification. What office to I do to
Love the sinner, hate the sin.Harry is just an idiot that will do and say
anything to be reelected.
Regardless of how you feel about this particular issue, the LDS Church should
discipline Harry Reid for his never-ending dishonesty and for his never-ending
lying. As my mother would say, Harry Reid would lie if the truth
would better suit his purpose.
I know God Lives, Jesus is the Christ, and Elder Monson is the prophet on the
earth today :)
And since the vast majority of Mormons have no clue of their own history, and
historical "revelations" ... no major change has come into Mormondom
without a change of the hearts of the members, and the pressure from members,
politics, and the courts.Harry Reid stated a fact.Harry's
fact upset a faction of Mormons.LDS, Inc. fires back, needlessly.Times are changing folks. And most of you commenting here are on the wrong
side of history. I remember the very same arguments being made during the Civil
Rights Movement in the 60's and 70's. The very same things were being
said about inter-racial marriage.The sky still has not fallen,
One of the reasons I don't think the church coordinated the recent
disciplinary hearings is because they are concerned about PR. I think they
merely pushed for being stricter with apostates, and the specifics are
more-or-less coincidence.As a PR-minded institution, the church
isn't going to touch politicians with a 10 foot pole.If they were to
appear to be attempting to sway politics (through punishment, or any other
means) their tax-exempt status would be in jeopardy.They church is willing
to do a great many things, but they would never put the opacity of their
finances at risk.
It is all just a matter of time.
Reid and Hatch are not aruguing with the LDS church alone. They are arguing
with theapostle Paul who wrote very clearly what God thinks of gays and
lesbians.I think that if God had given them over to a reprobate mind, he
is not really all thathappy with their behavior. It is behavior and not
just a life style or ethnicity.Behavior that if one is born with it,
should also prevent prosecution of a murdererwho was born that way also.
Who would buy that argument in court?
TMR - how has the church's view changed?
I think we're all missing a key point. Harry said that the church and its
members are changing their views on gay RIGHTS. Key word being rights. It's
true that members are changing how they view gays and the church has always
taught to love everyone regardless of what they do and the only reason it seems
like the church is changing its mind is because this is a topic that wasn't
really discussed before, because it wasn't really an issue. Now it's a
growing issue and it needs to be talked about now, whereas 25 years ago no such
discussion would need to take place. What the church's statement said is
that the church has not changed its views on gay RIGHTS and neither does Harry
Reid have the right to make a statement for the church like that. Maybe the
members have changed their views on gay RIGHTS, but that isn't indicative
of the church as a whole or of what the church's actual stance on gay
Uh yeah....Reid said the Church's and its members views are changing? The
Church is just reiterating that its doctrine (ie...the Church's view) has
not changed on this issue. The way many individual members may "see"
and "feel" about gays certainly has changed. What's the big whoop,
other than Reid misspoke by stating "the Church's views" rather
than just saying "many members of the Church's views?"
The church Doctrine has not changed. However, we as members of the church are
taught to love everyone, and not be judgemental of their actions. I personally
know two young men that have had mission calls, However, one of them was sent
home early, and the other did not act out on his Feelings until after he was
married and had a family My heartaches for both of these mens family, because
i have a Strong testimony that God Created Men and women differently and for a
Why am I not surprised about Reid's commentary about the LDS Church. This
is a man who believes in Conscripted Benevolence or in other words, you are
financially responsible for others people's lack of financial
Disappointed but not surprised that Orin Hatch voted for this bill. He needs to
be shown the door because he isn't representing the majority of his
Those who follow the doctrine of the church and sustain our leaders, thoughts or
views have not changed. It is not ok with us on the gay subject.
I think people on both sides of this issue are being extreme. I have seen too
many suits against Catholic schools for firing teachers for breaking Catholic
doctrines to trust this law to not be used for more such attacks on religious
freedom unless it has a much stronger religious freedom component.I
also don't want to deal with biological women who insist they are men using
men's bathrooms. Considering how many companies already have
non-discrimination policies in place that cover this matter, I am trying to
figure out exactly why we need this law at all.Federal laws need to
be passed to address actual major corners. No one has shown there is a
compelling need for this law. Other things are more than dealing with any
The claims that the Salt Lake City ordinance was "similar" are missing
the point. That ordinance had a very, very clear exemption for religious
organizations, ENDA does not.Reid should stop injecting religion
into his speeches. If Orrin Hatch had attempted to say he understood the mind
and will of the Church we would hear no end to the attacks. Harry Reid is not a
Mormon Senator, he is a Senator who happens to be Mormon. He has no more
authority to speak for the Church than I do, and definitely none to attempt to
imply the Church supports a law it clearly does not.
ENDAs protections of "gender identity" are very disturbing for people
who take seriously the Proclamation on the Families statement that gender has
premortal origin. Gender and biological sex are the same, and those who think
that they are the wrong sex are disordered.
ENDA has far too narrow a religious exemption. If it had an exemption for all
religious employers, and if it made exemptions for certain other religiously
motivated actions, it might be justifiable.However with homosexuals
earning more than comparable non-homosexuals, the case for why we need ENDA at
all is not compelling.
part 2So here he claims that the entire church has shifted, but
based only on his fellow DC attendees. Anyone want to guess the political
makeup of a Washington DC ward? Anyone think that represents and average cross
section of LDS political or social positions. Even remotely close to the
official church position?Notice also the author says (but
doesn't use the quote, if there was one) that Reid has 'given a lot to
the church' ; it's almost as if Harry is saying 'Look, I'm a
mover and a shaker and have given A LOT of tithing money from those real estate
scams, so my opinion ought to have an influence on God's position, you
The entire quote, from the Washington Blade, relevant to this story:Reid, a Mormon, was asked by the Blade how he reconciles his faith, which says
homosexuality violates God’s law, with his support for gay rights. Reid
replied that he’s given a lot to his church and there are Mormons like him
who share his views.“When I attend church here in Washington,
D.C., I bet more people agree with me than disagree with me, and so the church
is changing, and that’s good,” Reid said.part 1
Harry Reid has separated himself from some of the doctrine of the LDS Church as
a member I support the doctrine of free agency. I do not support any member who
tries to speak for any positions that are contradictory to Church Doctrine.
Marriage is between a Man and a Women Harry Reid has chosen another position
that does not support this sacred doctrine. Harry Reid also was instrumental in
the passage of Obama Care. He voted for the bill knowing that it was basically
flawed and some of the bill was based on a deception that Obama even after he
was advised not to promised that if you like your Health care and your doctor
you could keep it. Harry knew it was a deception and some Democrats after a
meeting before the bill became law told Obama to not make that promise because
it was not the truth. Harry Reid needs to refrain from making statements about
LDS Doctrine that he knows are misleading. While the LDS Church excepts
non-active homosexuals they will make every effort to convert the lifestyle
because of its opposition to Gods laws. Trenton Spears
@Roundtrip --"Jesus would have never accepted same sex
marriage,"Are you speaking for Jesus?Oddly enough,
Jesus never said a single word against homosexuality. However, he did say that
people who were "born eunuchs" (the term "eunuchs" included
homosexuals in ancient texts) should not marry women. (Matthew 19:12)
TMR- please don't speak for me. I'm LDS and my views have not
changed. I have always been kind to gays, as Jesus was kind to every child of
God, but Jesus would have never accepted same sex marriage, so that's the
bottom line. No offense intended.
UtahBlueDevilThe gospel clearly changes as well. Doctrine has
changed several times over. You can try to deny it, but most people have at
least come to terms with the fact that doctrine has changed.
@UtahBlueDevilDurham, NCcountry berry..... not sure how old
you are..... but yes.... the church does change with differing times. The gospel
however does not. If you need a list of "changes" the church has
made.... we can start a list.7:23 p.m. Nov. 11, 2013========
recently -- Women saying prayers in General Conference.Women saying prayers in Sacrament Meetings.Blacks holding the
Priesthood, Polygamy [in the beginning - against it, then for it, then
against it again.]BTW -- The rigid, stiff-necked,
"conservative" types usually leave the Church when things change - they
are so set in following the "God NEVER" changes mantra. When a
change does come along, and their reality is shaken, they think Prophet has
It sounds like most are missing the issue here. The Church supports God's
Law, marriage is between a "man and a woman". Period. Therefore the
Church cannot support "gay marriage". Period. Does the Church support a
"gay lifestyle"? No. Does the church reject gay people? No. "Love
thy neighbor as thyself". Period. The question here is: Do you keep the law
of chastity? Period. Think about it.
country berry..... not sure how old you are..... but yes.... the church does
change with differing times. The gospel however does not. If you need a list
of "changes" the church has made.... we can start a list.
@wazzup --"can someone explain to me why we need this law when
it is already illegal to discriminate on those terms. "Actually,
it isn't. That's a common misconception.Currently there is
no Federal law which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Some STATES have such laws, but the country as a whole does not.In
states that do not have anti-gay discrimination laws, a man can literally be
fired for simply saying "I'm going to the movies with my
boyfriend".Here's a few examples of how employment
discrimination affects people across the country:college soccer
coach in Nashville -- fired in 2010 after she told her team that her female
partner was pregnant.legislative editor of the Georgia General
Assembly -- fired in 2005 when she told her boss that she was transsexual and
was going to begin dressing/presenting as a woman.professor in
Wisconsin -- offered a job as a university dean in 2010. When that university
found out she was a lesbian, the offer was rescinded.schoolteacher
in Minnesota -- she was fired in 2013 after acknowledging that she's a
lesbian. This is a real problem that affects real people.
Why do some of you think this bill imposes on BYU´s ability to not hire
gays and lesbians?The church can discriminate against religions by
only hiring those that are mormon. Guess who determines whether you are mormon
or not? That´s right, the church. And the church can excommunicate based on
sexual orientation. Wait for the real fight that´s coming -
when churches start to be sued over excommunications of gays and lesbians.
That´ll be a doosy.
Country.berry"the church does not change"Yeah,
sure. Keep telling yourself that.
I used to be a Reid fan (frankly I used to be a William Clinton fan too, and
Joseph Biden fan and Charles Schumer fan; and yes there are GOP politicians
that are difficult to comprehend as well), the above mentioned have put their
law degree ahead of Bible values. I respect John Kerry and Al Gore for not
going around talking only of one piano key on the piano: these men know there
are 88 keys on piano. Don't forget the poor Mr. Reid, they are more
important than your new interest to be popular. Peter and Paul taught a
message of morality. And if your niece or your children or your cousin convince
you to go after anything other than what Peter and Paul taught, then you are
therefore putting your education and the Constitution above the Bible and the
prophets. If all followed the Bible, we would not need laws. Abraham put God
first, (ahead of his own son), and we should too, and that is what is best for
can someone explain to me why we need this law when it is already illegal to
discriminate on those terms. What specifically does this law do that the other
anti-discrimination law does not. I wish the senate and harry reid
would get back to balancing the budget and fixing entitlements. that affects
It has been my experience that those without convictions usually express
tolerance. Tolerance for anything is the politically correct thing to express so
as to not offend an amoral electorate or to see yourself as you actually are,
someone without conviction. Jesus, on the other hand, preached the Sermon on
the Mount, but called the Pharisees corrupt and whited sepulchurs, hardly the
'tolerant' person Harry Reid seems to see as the leader of his church.
The church does not change.
It isn't the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that needs to
worry about maintaining it's credibility. It's got credibility the
world over. Senator Reid, however, would do well to work on his. For him to
do that, he should stop talking - just stop talking!
It is WRONG to fire someone just because they are gay. Jesus has told us to love
our neighbors. We shouldn't be judging them just because of an issue they
were born with. Blacks are born black and that doesn't make them any less
than whites are. They are as good as we are. The same for gays. They are people
just like us with great talents shared with all of us. Nothing is being said
about marriage, etc, but about the workplace and passing a law to stop the work
places from firing people based on being gay. This has nothing to do with
religion and has to do with protecting a person who is innocent from losing a
job just because of being gay. Without ENDA, any company could fire someone and
use the "gay" reason to terminate even if that person wasn't gay.
We are more advanced people now and carry new views on who people
are and that those who are born the way they are should be loved by us and
treated with respect. That's what Reid was saying that our views have
evolved a great deal in the past century.
I didn't feel he was speaking as far as the church and gay marriage is
concerned. I felt he was speaking because of the increased understanding people
are having and the church's desire to reach out to those in the gay
community. They have developed a web site geared towards encouraging members of
the church to have more compassion towards and understanding of the LGBT
community. As an LDS woman with a gay brother I understand that it is important
that all people have basic civil rights. I do not want my brother or anyone to
suffer by losing employment or housing due to his sexual orientation. We all
need to learn that supporting civil rights for all does not mean we are
supporting behavior we disagree with, it's important for everyone because
if we pick and choose we could be the next group on the outside being
persecuted. And with the church's history of its members being persecuted
and driven from homes and livelihoods, all LDS people should be in the forefront
of making sure nobody suffers the same even if the church's stance on gay
marriage will not change.
Reid is so out of touch. What else is he flexible on? Just because we do not
believe I the Gay lifestyle, does not mean we harass or persecute them . How
about leaving us alone?
For Open Minded MormonYou stated: the LDS Church has indeed changed
it's position of LGBT "rights" over time. It used to be LDS members
were automatically excommunicated for "being" gay. Now, it is only
acting on that comes into question. I'm not saying you are
wrong, but I have a question. I know a man who told his Priesthood leaders he
was gay over 40 years ago (he's in his 60's now). They tried to help
him and get him to "change," but he was not excommunicated until he and
a companion moved in together. So I'm wondering when they change it to
being a behavior issue. I was always taught it is sinful behavior that you need
to repent of, not your feelings, or temptations that you resist, that need to
be repented of or excommunicated for. I am a life long member of almost 60 years
so just wondering if you can tell me when anyone used to be excommunicated for
something they feel rather than something they did?
PlaybytheRules is right. God's views are eternal. He loves ALL of his
children, gay and straight. God's views regarding His black children were
revealed in June 1978. Who are we, as church members, to say that we have all
knowledge about His gay sons and daughters? No, church doctrine has not changed
with respect to homosexuality. But the church cannot speak for all of its
members on the subject. As a proud, gay church-going Mormon in a small Mormon
community, I can vouch for that.In my humble opinion, Mormons and
everyone else can look to the example of the current Pope on same-sex
attraction. "Who am I to judge." Hopefully, LDS leaders can have that
kind of compassion in the future. Right now, the Mormon Church seems to want it
both ways -- we are compassionate, but gays have no place in God's plan.
How can THEY know that for sure in a church that believes in continuing
The church has always been for equal rights when it comes to housing, jobs,
health/hospital, probate etc. The Church has also not changed it's position
that Marriage is to be between a man and a woman. They made that known AGAIN at
the same time they made their position known AGAIN during the California Prop 8
vote, but the media did not report what the Church's position was on equal
rights for same gender couples at that time, they only reported what the
church's position was on same gender marriage. As a member of the
Church my personal position is the same, I do think that couples of the same
gender should have equal rights. I also do not believe that marriage has
anything to do with constitutional rights. Marriage is ordained of God and has
been in place long before the Constitution of the United States.
As long as we claim to be the recipients of modern-day revelation through
prophets, we are never going to be able to say, "this is how it was, is, and
always will be". Yes, the Lord is the same, and truth is the same. But we,
imperfect people that we are, don't have all truth. Witness the new
discoveries and inventions of science and medicine that improve our lives and
health--how many of us are living healthier lives than we might have a hundred
years ago? Perhaps Senator/Brother Reid has not forgotten this unique feature of
our religion and realizes that revelation gives us growth in the Gospel (1978,
for instance) as members grow in maturity, understanding, and love for one
another. I am sure he isn't the only member to feel this, perhaps one of
the ones who is simply known well, and happened to mention it in public. Now,
I'm mentioning it here. Thoughts, anyone?
I have never been ashamed or embarrassed by being a member of the church, but I
am both that harry reid is a member. His actions against this country are
horrific at best.
The Church’s views on many topics do change, as God instructs it leaders.
In fact, they obviously change tremendously on the subject of marriage partners.
I really don’t understand at all those who say they don’t. I think
the quorum’s contemporary disposition on this topic remains to be seen.
To Irony: Harry Reid will stand for anything that makes him popular -
To: TMR of Los Angeles, Harry Reid has no clue evidently what the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in or he wouldn't make such a
foolish statement. The statement that religion is a choice and sexuality is not?
People who are homosexuals choose to accept that way of life...God didn't
make them that way...they have chosen to go along with their feelings of
promiscuity with the same sex and that is their choice only. But they have to
realize the larger majority does not accept that type of behavior therefore they
reap the consequences. The Lord loves His children but does not love many of
their choices. Homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God and their
choices should not be forced on others to accept.
It is quite unfortunate to say that after reading about 20 or so comments in,
the people who commented against Reid sounded really bitter and the people for
Reid sounded really Christlike. As Latter-day Saints, we truly should consider
how THE LORD, JESUS CHRIST himself would address and treat certain topics and
people, NOT how our political party of preference would treat them. So
let's "wake up and so something more" than succumb to our own
innate (natural man) desires. Face up to reality and know that sometimes, the
truth really hurts.
It's about time Harry was disciplined by the Church for his pretending to
speak for it because of his senate position. He's also taken a number of
other anti-constitutional positions that are basically in opposition to the
Yes - I will agree that the Church and many of its members are more accepting -
and this is good!! God loves all people - all people are God's children -
he doesn't love a straight person more than a gay person - God is sadden by
sin - we all have sinned and we all need to repent - we all need to follow the
commandments.I'm grateful that we have Harry Reid and Orin
Hatch in the Church - they are both faithful LDS -
Play by the rules posted:=If the church wants to maintain any
credibility being gained by devout=followers of Christ they are going to
have to part ways with Harry Reid.I beg to differ. The LDS Church
is a better place for having Reid as one of its members, even though I
personally disagree with him.
How can a Church with plural marriage part of its current doctrine keep claiming
that it supports "traditional" marriage? I don;t get it.
@Thinks: God did not change his views on blacks. It was always stated that
"The day will come when all worthy men will recieve the Priestood. And it
Hey SuziQ, I don't mind working with or hiring someone from the
LDS community if he/she keeps his/her religion and feelings to his/herself, but
I have often found that this community wants to convert everyone around them
into accepting, and even embracing their lifestyle. Defining oneself by
one's religion is rather limiting.
Hatch,Heller,Flake and Udall represented themselves and not the LDS church in
voting for ENDA. I'm disappointed in their vote because I think pressure
from the gay and lesbian groups and corporations influenced their vote. Mike Lee
and Mike Crapo were willing to take a courageous stand and vote against ENDA. DC
is so disconnected to the people: lobbyist and influence peddlers seem to
dictate what happens.
Heavenly Father's first commandment to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and
populate the earth. And Nephi said he knew God wouldn't make any
commandment without preparing a way for them to keep that commandment. If God
was okay with same-sex coupling, He would have made a way for them to reproduce.
But He didn't. Of course the argument is brought up - "but what about
old people, or infertile couples, or couples who choose not to have
children?" It doesn't matter. The biology is there, regardless of the
health, or age or desire of the couple. Two men together, or two women, can
never conceive a child together, no matter how healthy they are, or how great
their desire. I can't imagine a time when the church will ever
sanction gay marriage and anyone who thinks that some day temple sealings will
be performed for same-sex couples is crazy, imo.
While I find this subject rather fascinating, I do think an interesting point
has been brought up. While it is interesting to speculate over Harry
Reid's opinion of what "the Church members" are thinking and it is
interesting to hear the official LDS Church response (same as it has always
been), I think that the real issue will be what impact the law has on who can be
hired or not hired and for what reasons. Just as same sex marriages delete
references to mother and father (parent 1 and parent 2 are the preferred
designations)and as Obamacare tried to force a birth control provision on
Faithbased organizations that are opposed on moral grounds from using birth
control, will this new law force similar types of compromises? I don't mind
working with or hiring someone from the LGBT community if he/she keeps his/her
sexual orientation and feelings to his/herself, but I have often found that this
community wants to convert everyone around them into accepting, and even
embracing their lifestyle. Defining oneself by one's sexual or gender
orientation is rather limiting. I hope this law doesn't inadvertently
reinforce that type of thinking.
Gay rights are much broader than just gay marriage. And while I haven't
read Reid's exact words (which, for the convenience of your readers, DN,
you could have quoted him directly ;-) ), the paraphrase in the beginning of the
article says that the broad view of the members has changed, not the doctrines
of the church. There is quite a difference, and we should look more closely to
understand exactly before we pass judgment.
I love how with liberals it is always enlightened thinking if it agrees with
their position. I believe the gornment has no more business twlling you who to
sleep with than it does telling me to hire. If you do not like my views,
actions or religion, you can quit any time. Why don't I gey the same right
not to hire you. The problem with Democrats and some Republicans is they want
to force you to do what they think is right. The constituion was meant to
prevent this, but good luck finding a Democrat who believes in that any more.
Open Minded Mormon: I'm sorry to say but you are being deceived if the LDS
Church has changed any of its views. First off they never excommunicated anyone
for just having same-sex attraction. That is a fact. They have and continue to
excommunicate members who are living the lifestyle, especially if they are an
endowed member who has taken upon them the temple covenants that are completely
and entirely against the gay lifestyle. The new website is not as it states for
those who are comfortable with the homosexual lifestyle but for those who DO NOT
want to live that lifestyle. There are alternatives. The church has always
taught that we must love all of our brothers and sisters regardless of what they
do. They have come out more because of the public attention that has been made
by the church. As for more attention to Prop 8, Elder Oakes stated in a Stake
Conference I attended that the LDS Church was asked by others to join in the
matter in California but it probably would not get as involved in other states
in the same manner. However, they still send letters to members before
So, in theory, I agree that discriminatory employment practices should be done
away with. But there is a problem. Do we trust what Obama, Harry Reid, Orrin
Hatch, and a Congress are saying this bill is about? The current administration
and Congress have been very adept at the bait and switch through legislation.
(Think Obamacare, Immigration Reform, etc.) What is the REAL agenda
behind this legislation? Who or what organization was involved in writing the
bill? How many of us are commenting based upon emotion over the issue, and not
a true knowledge about what the bill contains? Will this erode at our religious
freedoms through crafty language? Why is it that we haven't heard about
this bill before it hit the news cycle? Our representatives are intentionally
keeping the answers to theses questions from us so that we, as a people, have no
time to respond or become intelligently informed. We are being
corralled, and I don't trust it. I certainly don't trust the
politicians in Washington.
Thank you, play by the rules.
Article quote: "On the question of same-sex marriage, the church has been
consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people
should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that
the church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.
"Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the
eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational
doctrine and cannot change.""Does the leadership of LDS
church counsel its members to be kind to homosexuals?Yes, it
does.Does the leadership of the LDS church say that homosexual
activity of any and all kind is sin?Yes, they do.Will
the leadership of the LDS church ever change their position?, that which
they've told by the Lord?No, they will not.Like the
hymn says:"Then say, what is truth?'Tis the last and
the first,For the limits of time it steps o'er.Tho the heavens
depart and the earth's fountains burst,Truth, the sum of
existence, will weather the worst,Eternal, unchanged,
evermore."Amen to that!
Harry Reid, D-Nev., had said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and
its members are changing their views on gay rights.The church
reacted Thursday evening by issuing a statement that indicated its doctrine
about traditional marriage has not changed.Harry Reid is a member of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and speaks for him self not the
RanchMy main concern was not so much about how the LDS Church would
handle marriage. I'm sure that Bishops will never marry same sex couples.
And certainly there will not be sealings in Temples to same sex married people.
My main point was how will the leadership of the Church address the issue of the
public voting for a change in marriage laws, and or having the state legislature
and govenor pass on such changes. The Church after all did take a public stance
on Prop. 8 in California, and now would they just stay quiet, or would they take
a public stance against legal same sex marriage here in Utah also? That will be
a tricky road to travel in the social and political circles of a secular
America. Especially when the amount of negative publicity coming would be
unceasing, and likely focused specifically on the LDS Church.
Clearly there are individuals here that are more interested in
"declaring" rather than "obtain" first.So far I have seen
posts about:Exaggerated claims and twisting of LDS statements.Serial posters and hacks that cling to an alternative lifestyle.And only
a few posts that make sense.
@Worf: And there will be plenty who will just judge others because their beliefs
I believe Senator Hatch has deserted his constituents in Utah on several issues,
morally and otherwise.We hope he stays in Virginia with the other
Democrats. Having been born in Virginia and spending about 45 yrs of my life
there I am very disappointed in the recent voting history ofVirginia that
one was a great state.I wonder if the earthquake Virginia experience a
couple of years ago may have been caused by our Founding Fathers Rolling over in
atl134And if the Supreme Court does not give a blanket ruling and
leaves marriage up to the states which is what any court that really cared about
the constitution should do, then what?
If one looks at the statements the church has made over the years, the approach
to the LGBT community has definitely become more inviting, while maintaining the
doctrine. There are plenty of good LDS democrats. The church made a statements
to clarify its position, which is good. It's not a swing at Harry Reid.
Besides, Orin Hatch also voted for it. It's a good law. Discrimination is
to go along with harry's previous suggestion, someone that is credable told
me harry may be lbgt. I don't know, just heard.
Good, and Bad, always has, and always will be what it is.Some will
stay in the middle of good, and bad, to please those in a large and spacious
building. They do not want to be judged as bigots. They feel shame, and
eventually justify wrong doing.A division of weak, and strength is
taking place, and we make our choices.
@VST: Although I used the quotation from Mormon Doctrine, the same was being
preached from the pulpit at multiple general conferences. The church has stated
that doctrine is what can be confirmed and supported through the standard works.
That is exactly what McConkie did, and numerous others, they confirmed their
teaching of African Americans and the priesthood through the standard works. Even the proclamation of the family hasn't been presented as
official church doctrine, but is characterized as a reaffirmation of standards
by the LDS church. Even the lectures on faith isn't seen as divinely
revealed scripture and was removed from the D&C. All I'm
suggesting is that there is a possibility we could hear from church leadership
that they were wrong as it pertained to same-sex marriage... even if its 50
years down the road. Our LDS church leadership has been wrong in the past, so
I've accepted they can be wrong today. That's why we are counseled to
pray about these things so that we may know for ourselves.
Dustman: Only one problem. The source you quoted is not found anywhere in their
scriptures or never spoken by its prophet or accepted by its membership.
Personal titles to the contrary, this is not "Mormon doctrine." Any person with a lick of common sense would only have to look to Europe
right now. Italians will no longer exist in a half century or so if current
population growth between the sexes don't see the value of children. This
doesn't even account for economic fall out from this 'just look out
for yourself' mentality. Now, throw in something even more bizarre, gay
marriage, and the real threat to civilization comes into focus, at least for
those that have eyes to see and ears to hear and hearts to feel. A no brainer,
but in a brainless world, people are more prone to come up with another form of
marriage to 'break down' the barriers of 'civilized' living!
What's next? Marrying your cat or dog are real possibilities.
Quite personaly as a fellow Mormon, I would love to have a doctrinal discussion
with Harry Reid any time and have him justify any of his actions in the last 13
years with his religions doctrine. I don't usually like to post judgemental
commments on any way but for me I'll tell you exactly who Reid reminds me
of their names were William Law and Thomas B. Marsh. I believe the rest of
mainstream Christianity just calls them Judas's.I know thats harsh but I am
willing to list doctrine and scripture one after the other and challenge Reid
can reconcile any of it with his current political stances. And this is from
some one who genrally doesn't like to add politics to religion but
principles and morals should. As for the stance on Gays. News flash it
hasn't changed people just because ypur gay is not a sin in the church nor
has been it is the act of Sodomy that has been condemned that goes back to
Kimball, Joseph smith, Josephus,St. Paul, Peter,Christ, and even all the way to
moses IF you believe scripture that is(OR evolution for that matter)
If Harry Reed could put as much effort in being a follower of Christ's
teachings and knowing what the church doctrine about same sex marriage is and
always will be, has he does being a left wing Democrat. You just may be able to
join your own church!
@Ranch - the US is not a Theocracy - but the Church IS. God is
completely relevant to this discussion as it is HIS Church being referenced.
@Trainman- the Church's policy 'Today' is one:one. From
1840-1890 it was another policy.Do you think it might be different in
2020-50?@Ranch- Good point. We are not a theocracy. Brigham Young
and Co. found that out rather abruptly when seeking statehood.However, as
you state that "God is irrelevant to this discussion": Where do you
think monogamy came from? The same Source that the sodomy/adultery/fornication
prohibition derived from.@Anti-N/L- Your founder claimed
specifically that God evolves and progresses: "I will refute the idea that
God remains the same", (King Follette Discourse). Unlike the LDS God who
sent a besworded Enforcer to enstate plural marriage (D&C 132), the Biblical
God never gave such instruction.To paraphrase you, I find it
interesting to read LDS comments that are not aware of their history that
reversed marriage and priesthood requirements. I know, I taught it and lived it
for 40 years.
@happy2behere"I do wonder about this likely scenario in the not to
distant future. 15 states have now enacted same sex marriage laws, and it is
likely that more and more will succumb to the secular PC pressure to change.
What happens when Utah is the last state standing"I imagine the
Supreme Court will rule it legal nationwide long before Utah becomes the last
one standing. It's entirely possible that the suit against Utah's
Amendment 3 could end up eventually being the one that makes it legal
I'm wondering if it will change in the future. Remember when the Apostles
said African Americans would never get the priesthood."Negroes
in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold
this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel
message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not
equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are
concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there
from, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's
doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of
Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon
Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528) I wonder if more "light and
understanding" will come about later.
Redshirt1701You claim the church still believes in polygamy as a
doctrine?then why would president Hinckley say that he condemns it
as a practice because it is "not doctrinal." He said this when he was
prophet, seer, revelator, and president of the church. So how does that work if
the highest memeber of the church says it is not doctrinal, but you say the
church still says it is.... doesn't add up
The doctrine has very clearly changed as well.
@ International Bee, what nonsense. Prop 8 all by itself contradicts your
@ RanchHandSexuality is INDEED a Choice always has been...always
1- Culbear is correct: It's all about sex outside of marriage, (one man
and one woman). Whatever your attraction is, is not the Biblical issue per
Biblical doctrine. It is being faithful to your spouse. No fornication,
adultery, bestiality, pedophilia or sodomy. (God's Period.)2-
Someone needs to do their Mormon history Conference talks homework, not to
mention every LDS prophet's statement on the reason God "placed a curse
on Cain and the Lamanites". Black skin was the curse/judgment/decision of
the LDS Elohim.Least some forget, some of us were born before 1978
and we know what was taught at every level of Mormon Doctrine. And Bruce R.
McKonkie's book was quoted more than any other resource.Wonder
what curse the Book of Mormon God would put on homosexual sex, marriage or
To Really???Your quote, "On the question of same-sex marriage,
the church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while
teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding."
is very good and, it applies BOTH ways. The "Left" is VERY fast to
blame the "Right" for a statement that the "Left" do not like
but they have NO tolerance if the "Right" does the same thing. So, when
that happens, both are wrong in their attack. Time we recognize major
philosophical and even religious difference and figure out where our commonality
lies and focus on that.One thing is for sure, we DO need people to
have babies to keep the society we have! :):) Goldminer
vance, Let's see, those roads you drive on? They don't just belong to
you. And the utilities you'll use were there before you got there, and the
payments are not only yours, but some of it is shared. If there's a fire,
or you need any assistance, those cops or ambulances will be partly funded by
the local government. And if you buy the property, you'll finance it and
insure it--more businesses and government, and if not, you'll lease.
You'll also insure the inventory. Shall I keep going? We haven't even
hired anyone yet to begin the paperwork and employees, or even advertised (more
labor) or opened the doors. Now do you understand, this business is financed by
you, but money goes to many places, and you aren't even breaking even yet.
It is not the same and yes, other people have an interest in it, including local
and federal government agencies. So, yes, you do need to obey laws they set.
Harry Reid and Orin Hatch are so completely out of touch with what is going on,
they don't even know the policy of their own church. All one had to do is
listen to the talks at General Conference last month to get the message. The
church's policy is marriage between a man and a woman. That's it.
@tylert73;How many children can an infertile couple bear? How many
children can an elderly couple bear? How many children can a man or woman who
has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy bear?None, yet each of these groups
can marry. Gays are "similary situated".@Anti-Nephi-Lehi;"God is the same yesterday, today and
tomorrow" until he changes his mind. Example: "Thou shalt not kill,
steal or covet, except I command you to kill the Caananites so you can steal
their land which you covet".God is irrelevant to this
discussion. We are NOT a theocracy.
Mr. Smitty- Reid's comment mentioned the church in reference to "gay
rights." That is a blanket statement, nothing specific about this
legislation. What is the gay rights fight? GAY MARRIAGE! So the response was on
target. Attitudes and perceptions definetely have changed among the members of
the church, and even it's leaders. But the goal of gay activists is to have
gay marriage accross the board. So when gay rights is brought up, it is
appropriate cut it off at the pass and make it know that although understanding
and tolerance is higher among church memers, our stance is still the same.Also, the polygamy and gay marriage are totally different. Brigham Young had
many wives, that bore many children. How many children can gay couples bear?
I think Harry is right on; at least I hope so. It is true for me and I hope for
my fellow Latter Day Saints as well. I personally feel I am more
accepting of varying lifestyles than I was in years past. Marrying a democrat
helped, but I would like to think that I have learned to be more accepting as I
have asked for the same from others. All humans deserve kindness and respect,
and can believe or live how they choose. I expect the same consideration.
It's always interesting to me to read people's views/hopes that the
Church of Jesus Christ will somehow swing into "modern thinking"
regarding social issues such as marriage. The church is Christ's and
Christ's alone and therefore will not and can not be made to change stances
on such topics with societal winds of change - or 'growth' as Senator
Reid puts it. Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN is God's plan
and CANNOT be modified simply because its politically correct to do so or
because it would make some people feel better. And hoping that God's plan
will for some reason change in our day and age more to the liking of some of His
children is nonsensical. God is the same yesterday, today and
forever - as is His Plan of Happiness for all of us.
No question the church has reached out to gays more than ever before in the past
5 years. Homosexual sex is still a sin and will forever be a sin so that
hasn't changed but the effort by the church to reach out and make welcome
homosexuals as members is something that elder Holland and Oaks have both spoke
openly about. Homosexual marriage will forever be forbidden in the church simply
because it destroys the family unit and core relationships.
I'm LDS, and, like Senator Reid, I see nothing in our doctrine that
supports discrimination in employment such as ENDA addresses. I further
don't know why anyone would. This bill should be so easy to vote for, I
don't see what the problem is.
Nowhere in Harry Reid's statement does he use the word "doctrine."
He was speaking in the context of anti-discrimination in employment and
housing.He has a mixed record on gay issues. Church leaders in
the past suggested homosexuality was a "choice." Others
suggested/believed homosexuality could be "cured." Has the LDS
position changed on those views? If so, then the LDS Church's position on
homosexuality has evolved, as it should. From the SL Tribune, Feb
2013:"Attorneys for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints are in quiet discussions with leaders of Utah’s gay and lesbian
community, trying to hammer out language for a statewide ban on housing and
employment discrimination that the church could support."Lastly,
the Church (and everybody) ought to drop the " traditional marriage"
moniker. Marriage has taken different forms throughout history--including the
practice of polygamy-- which the majority of industrialized countries view as
outside the norms.
@happy2bhere;Your concerns could easily be addressed by the LDS
church implementing a policy that every couple marries first in a civil ceremony
(justice of the peace for instance, or your bishop) and then they go through the
temple for their sealing (they already do this in many European countries - per
the laws). If they had a like policy here, then the church's ceremony
wouldn't even be part of the discussion.@Redshirt1701;Here's how: 100 years ago it was one man, many women in the LDS church -
that is most definitely NOT one-man/one-woman.It sure appears that a
lot of Mormons on this thread are bearing false witness against Senator Reid.
The LDS Church is dodging Reid's comment by making an unrelated yet true
statement. Sure, the LDS Church hasn't changed it's stance on gay
marriage, but it has changed it's attitude and philosophy regarding sexual
orientation. Why does the LDS Church issue a statement that doesn't
directly address Reid's comment. Reid didn't say anything about the
Church changing it's position on traditional marriage.And by
the way, the LDS Church has changed it's position on traditional marriage
or they decided to embrace traditional marriage. Polygamy is obviously not
about one man married to one woman.
Don't rail on the Nev. senator! Harry Reid is just a product of post-1890
Mormonism. Mormonism is a fluid work-in-progress, with the splinter groups
opting for the smorgasbord menu. Neither FLDS, RLDS or LDS shall ever merge.Today's "in stone" can be tomorrow's "former
teachings". When your foundation can shift with each new leader, it's
just a waiting game for the reversal hopefuls. Reid is just a MINO- a Mormon in
name only. He could easily start his own RLDS group- Reid LDS. He just
hasn't figured out that LDS know he only retains his faux membership for
political gain.Wait, wait for it... A Reidism is forming on the
horizon. But you'll have to pass it before you read it or you'll
never understand it. Harry knows that sufficient public pressure causes strange
reversals for the patient hopefuls.
I wish as a church we weren't so obsessed with worrying about what the
world thinks of us. I'm thinking of all of the PR and news releases and
spokesmen/spokeswomen etc etc. Throughout the scriptures the prophets and
other believers just boldly proclaimed the truth even if it meant harm being
inflicted on them or the church.Maybe it's just me, but it just seems
like now days the church is trying to hard to serve the Lord without offending
the devil.As an example, I seriously doubt that this post will see the
light of day. It will likely be rejected because it might detract from the
public image of the church.
OnlytheCroass,"Protestants follow the Biblical mandates, and
only those Words "never change "."_____________________________My experience with Protestants is
that they are as wide ranging in their views as are any other group. And all it
takes is one glance at these DN discussions to see that Mormons are not all of
one mind either. Let's face it. These worn out old labels just don't
mean as much as they may have at one time.
Mormons are locked into following their leaders, as are Catholics, JWs and other
leader-lead groups. Otherwise, the disaffected sn leave. Whether a local
imam, rabbi, or prophet, followers adhere to their spiritual authorities.Protestants follow the Biblical mandates, and only those Words
"never change ". All the leader-led groups have redefined and/or
reversed Biblical and/or their previous doctrines. For example you have Vatican
II, LDS 1890/1978/1991, and the Watchtower renunciations of all of their 1914-17
prophecies. Strict Bible-Only believers never have to deal with reversal
fall-out. If they disagree with the Bible, they start their own group... (just
as JSmith, CTRussel, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, et al, did.)The point: Hope for change or reversal springs eternal in the heart of the
extra-Biblical followers. Evangicals just go to Sola Scriptura.In
the words of (atheist) Pen Gillette to (liberal Catholic) Piers Morgan, if you
don't agree with your professed leader's position, leave the
organization. Why do you try to change his decisions? Ex cathedra or "God
told me" is pretty definitive.
Atl134: Perhaps the light might be opening a mind or two. There is an ocean of
difference between 'state tyranny' and federal tyranny. Since I begin
with the supposition that government is 'evil at best'(I'm in
good company if you count our Founding Fathers as proof), then federal tyranny
is much worse than state tyranny. At least at the state level I can go meet
with the scoundrels and vote them out of office. I can also have a better
chance to educate the 47 million slaves of the Republican and Democratic party
elite that parlay ignorance as a tool to enslave. Liberty has a way of staying
around even when Democrats and Republicans want it extinguished. No law at the
federal or state level is going to make any difference when virtue and morality
have no root. So, rather than going through these illusory issues of gay
marriage and the like, independent minded people focus on keeping the federal
government out of everything that it has no right interfering with and which in
the end destroy liberty for everyone. People came to America for one reason, to
get away from those who don't understand liberty.
To "TMR" how have the church's views changed? From the very
beginning the LDS church taught its members to treat others kindly and that
marriage is between a man and a woman. That was taught 100 years ago, and is
still taught the same now.To "Wastintime" to answer your
question, you would be married to both. So you know, the church still believes
in the doctrine of plural marriage.To "Open Minded Mormon" I
hate to tell you this but 20 years ago I read in the LDS church's handbook
of instruction that gay members were to be welcomed into church, and were to
abide by the same standards as all other members. There were no restrictions on
going to the temple, except in cases where they decided to dress as the opposite
gender. They are only excommunicated if they act on their urges.
Marriage, as addressed in the Senate, is a creature of the state, not the
church. Only the state can grant the church (or anyone else) the power to
marry, only the state can enforce the laws of marriage, only the state can grant
the power of divorce, which resides in the courts, not the church (or anyone
else). It's a matter of equal rights under the law and does not affect
church doctrine at all.
ZEEP is right. Marriage is a state issue, a power retained by the states
pursuant to the Tenth Amendment -- but Senators Hatch and Reid would know
nothing about that. Senator Lee alone seems to honor his constitutional oath.
I recall many discussions held in Gospel Doctrine class. If that's any
measure, I would say that in taking liberty in interpreting Church belief in his
own way, Harry Reid fits right in with Mormon tradition.
Why does God care if 2 consenting adults want to enter into a loving
relationship? I would think that God would be preoccupied with the thousands of
children that die everyday of malnutrition. For that matter, why do people care
about what consenting adults do? There are enough real problems in the world to
solve without worrying about what Adam and Steve are up to.
Looking beyond Reid on this issue, I do wonder about this likely scenario in the
not to distant future. 15 states have now enacted same sex marriage laws, and
it is likely that more and more will succumb to the secular PC pressure to
change. What happens when Utah is the last state standing, and all the boycotts
(remember South Africa) begin in order to financially punish the last state for
not passing these same sex laws? Think it won't happen? Maybe not, but if
it does, the LDS Church is going to be in a tough place. They can't say
they endorse same sex marriage, but might realize that Utah can't stand to
be put in such a financially vulnerable position. I hope the Church leadership
is thinking about how to handle this, if and when it comes.
My concern related to LGBT rights is that it remain a debate about civil rights,
not religious rights or religious freedom. The LDS Church has always considered
LGBT sexual behavior as immoral.Adultery, hating others, premarital
sex, bearing false witness against another are also against God's laws and
Church standards. These acts are lawful, however.Freedoms and civil
rights have been progressively established throughout America's history.
It wasn't long ago when black citizens were lawfully segregated from the
rest of us. Freedoms are essential and must be established as needed.The LGBT community is being discriminated against in various ways. It is time
to correct this unAmerican conduct. I see no reason to fear LGBT freedoms.
America will be stronger. And God will continue to provide for His children.
Canyontreker "Everybody is now in a protected class except the straight
white male."False. Straight (sexual orientation) white (race)
male (gender) is protected under the same anti-discrimination laws.
Esquire, the church did not miss an opportunity to do the right thing. The
church does not need to judge and publish every piece of legislation. For
heaven's sake… do you really not understand the church at all? This
is a worldwide church… they are concerned about far more than what goes on
in this country. Do you expect the church to comment on all legislation in all
countries? Or.. do you think that the only important country is the USA? We
know that the church teaches, "Teach correct principle and they will govern
Just because the LDS church does not believe in Gay marriage does not mean that
it should support discrimination against the LGBT community. The church believes
that everyone is a child of God, is loved by him and should be loved by us. The bill in question does not support gay marriage, simply supports
non-discrimination.Additionally, "Say No to BO" mentioned that the
church would be compelled to hire openly gay applicants. Just because someone is
gay does not mean that they are not living in accordance with the teachings of
the church. Being gay is not a sin, acting upon those feelings is. People that
simply have LGBT feelings, but do not act on them, can still be members of the
church and enjoy all of the privileges and blessings, including serving missions
and temple worship. So what would be the problem with having them working in
church departments and church universities. I guarantee you that BYU already
employs openly gay individuals.
It seems apparent to me that a point that is being missed in this discussion
about Senator Reids comments that the church has or is changing it's stand
on gay rights is not so much about if he or others feel or think differently now
about Gay Rights but really should be about what God has instructed us is
correct through his living prophet today. We are a church of continuing
revelation but at no time previously , now or will there be in the future that
it will be condoned that suddenly the lifestyle choice of being gay is condoned
by God. As has been said distinguishing between the lifestyle choice and the
person is something that has improved and loving the person but not loving their
choice of lifestyle may be a more common attitude adapted by more LDS members
but cetainly that is not to say that now it also in turn makes their choice to
want to marry one another a correct principle. The prophet and leaders have
repeatedly stated the truth that "marriage is viewed by god as being between
a man and a woman". There cannot be a child created between any other 2
It seems as if Harry want's to be the spokesman for everyone and every
thing. He has specialized in distortion for many years and is at the point where
he now truly believes every lie he tells. Trouble is, not everyone is buying in,
including the LDS Church.
Let's make it clear that Harry Reid does not speak for the church and it
doctrines... And he most certainly does not speak for me...On almost every
Political statement I couldn't disagree with him more...
@TopDaddy;Just an FYI, falling in love with someone, and choosing to
spend your lives together is NOT "giving in to one's base desire".
It is EXACTLY the same thing that you heterosexuals do.
@TMR,Blue"Church" & "members" views(members as
whole)to my experience, have ALWAYS been what Christ taught "Love thy
neighbor as thyself". The Church has been put into a position of having to
officially print and express where they have ALWAYS stood and ALWAYS will as it
is doctrine...it has NEVER changed and NEVER will....@Blue...see
above and ALWAYS has treated everyone as "reular human beings" since we
ALL are children of God. Anyone who does differently is out of line with the
Gospel!@cjbHon, there will never be "official change"
of eternal doctrine...only policy and this is not policy but
doctrine...it's a changing social issue...no such thing with doctrine.
Harry Reid is a member just like anyone else. Reid must be living in a dream
bubble because the active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints are not changing their feelings and beliefs re homosexuality. We are
just more quiet with the subject. Reid can only speak for himself-he has no
right to speak for others. He is a dye-in-the wool liberal and he certainly does
not speak for me.
@Lone EagleI am a heterosexual even though I'm single and not
involved in a sexual relationship since I'm attracted to people of the
opposite sex. A homosexual likewise is still gay even when they are single and
not involved in a sexual relationship because they're attracted to people
of the same sex. @banderson"They don't understand
because they don't like liberty."Liberty? You're for
state sponsored suppression of liberty. That's no better for the people
than it coming from the federal level.
Surely, Harry's pomegranate trees need his FULL-TIME attention.
It appears that Harry Reid makes up LDS Church doctrine, just like Nancy Pelosi
makes up Catholic Church doctrine, to soften resistance from the anti-religion
zealots. And I remember some decades ago a little old LDS lady who was
defriended for protesting the demolition of the historic small church building
in which she'd grown up.The LDS Church I knew then would have
kicked Reid out for such a heretical statement. But it is likely the church will
eventually bow to public pressure as they did when in '78 Prophet Spencer
W. Kimball had revelation allowing Blacks to become priests in the church.
Bro. Reid is exactly correct. The views of the church are changing rapidly.
Members and leadership are altering their views to reflect the doctrinally
illogical position of punishing members for the way they were born. Please
research the LDS website stating the Chruch's position on Mormons and Gays.
Like all of us, I have friends that are living a gay lifestyle. I still love
them, but do not condone their choice of lifestyle. However, I am deeply
disappointed that Senator Lee and others would vote to deny them their civil
rights as fellow citizens. Senator Lee just lost much respect from me.
@ Ranch Hand - "Religion is a choice, sexuality is not". Sexual
orientation is not a choice (at least so far as we know), however sexual
behavior is. Giving in to one's base desires doesn't make the behavior
right, no matter how loudly one might proclaim that it is. With that said, just
because some choose to engage in homosexual behavior does not give any of us the
right to treat them with any less respect or dignity. Having friends and family
(a sister and cousin) who are gay I can tell you first hand that the best thing
you can do is love the person no matter what.
Mark- You are right, the government ALLOWS you to run a business. But I
don't get a license from the federal government. I get one from my LOCAL
city or county government, which has anti-discrimination laws already. No it
isnt a "private action," but it certainly isn't a federal one
either. Some Democrat from Missouri, or even a Republican from Idaho, should not
have a say how the business, my LOCAL GOVERNMENT licenses me for, is run. People
seem to misunderstand the fundamental importance of local government vs. federal
government. "Government" isn't just one big entity.
3rd try....I remember when members where excommunicated simply for
being gay.Now being gay is not the reason, but action is.I
know many gay and lesbian members who are temple worthy and hold church
callings.Senator Reid is correct, The church has changed
it's position over time.
@Culbear;The ONLY people your church has any say over what they do
is the MEMBERS of your church. NOBODY else is obligated to adhere to your
rules. Don't approve? Don't engage. In other words, MYOB.
Everybody is now in a protected class except the straight white male.
thinksIthink- God never said being black was sinful. Therefore, when the time
was right He included black men in the Priesthood. However, homosexual behavior
has always been a sin. HUGE difference and not even comparable.
My thoughts are. Where and when has it become the Federal Government's job
to tell a business owner, apartment owner, or any private ownership who does not
use government funding, how they must, and want, to run their business. The
owner is responsible for all of his own expenses whether there is a profit or a
loss. He suffers the responsibility and consequences for the profits of his
business, NOT the Federal Government. Heaven knows the Federal Government is an
expert at running businesses, right? If the owner pays the tab, he makes all the
decisions within the bounds of our Original Constitution. Remember that old
So being "gay" means you are attracted to someone of the same sex
(presumably applies to men only as there is another term for women who have same
sex attraction)? I always thought it was the homosexual act that made one
"gay." Having the attraction is one thing (and can reasonably be
genetic), acting on it is something else completely and is completely by choice.
It is the act that is disciplined and not the attraction. As for
the scout thing: why is it OK for boys who have same sex attraction to camp in
the same tent, but not OK for a boy and girl who are opposite sex attracted?
@cjb"The senior leadership of the LDS church grew up in another
era."True, God became God before we became His offspring. And, I
do not anticipate God changing His views and doctrine anytime soon...actually
ever.If you plan to see any evolution in doctrine in the near future
or in the rest of your lifetime, let me just put your heart at ease - aint gonna
happen.Also, tolerance as you and others interpret it seems to have
a much broader definition. It does not extend to "approval" - period.
(And, that is not an Obama "period" there)
@Ranch Handand othersFor the record the church does not speak
against a persons sexuality, but a persons sexual behavior. Even though I may
not wholeheartedly agree with your view of unchangeable sexuality (which science
has proven to be untrue (at least in some regard), its what one does with what
one has that is important, not what one starts with etc.
"You have the right to do what you want in your own bedroom. . . "This is true, as long as what you want to do is between consenting
adults. These are private actions. ". . . but I have the right
to employ who I want without it being a crime."This is not true.
It IS a crime in this country to discriminate against people in the workforce
based on gender, ethnicity, and religion. The difference is that owning a
business is NOT a private action. The community, through the government ALLOWS
you to own a business. Don't believe me? You need a license to run a
business. This is the community giving you permission to run a business. Try to
run a business without a license, or without following building or fire codes,
or zoning ordinances. Or hiring practices. Or try to run a business that society
has deemed that you can't, such as a brothel, or opium den. An
orderly society has a basic interest in regulating businesses, and this does NOT
infringe on your freedoms or liberty. Oh, and your comment about the
miniskirt and fishnets is nonsense. You CAN have a dress code in your business.
I have to wonder whether there is a nice toasty place next to the big fire for
the good senators who voted for ENDA. Of course all those who favor the flagrant
violation of God's law will be howling like the very devil over my thinking
All the legislation in the world will not change a foundation doctrine. It
looks like Reid is getting more and more out of touch with his purported
Thank God for Senator Lee! This is a states rights issue, just like every other
issue that the Democrats and Republicans don't understand. They don't
understand because they don't like liberty. Where are the independent
minded people out there that believe in freedom and liberty? The power to
control and dominate and patronize is alive and well in the Democratic and
Republican followers, as well as Harry Reid. Someday the light will turn on in
Harry Reid's life, most likely when he reaches the other side!
Harry Reid has chosen life standards I have tried to reject for myself. It
saddens me that he continuously diminishes the LDS faith in the eyes of the
American public, but it doesn't make me think any less of him. Although I
believe he is compulsively dishonest in his public statements and demeanor, I
accept Senator Reid as a regular human being, as my brother who has chosen a
I'm confused. If my wife dies and I marry another (in the temple) do you
Mormons believe that I am married to one of them or both of them? Wouldn't
the belief that marriage be between A man and A woman require me to divorce the
first before marrying the second?
Well... the LDS church did work with Salt Lake City when it came to their
non-discrimination bill... that was something new. They also didn't get
involved in the Maine, Maryland, and Washington ballot initiative fights like
they did Prop 8.
I recall the last line of a poem: "first we pity, then endure, then
Politico didn't mention marriage. Harry Reid didn't mention marriage.
The Church statement re-stated the position on marriage.Reid was
talking about discrimination versus tolerance in the workplace. This is probably
the only time I agree with Reid's statement.
I remember when someone could be excommunicated just for being gay.Now it
is changed to just committing the act.I know many Gay and Lesbian
Mormons who not only have Temple Recommends, but also have Church
Callings.That didn't used to be the case.So - Senator
Reid is right.FYI - The LDS church supported similar local laws
protecting LGBTs in Utah, but the Utah State Legislature (mostly Mormons)
voted against it.BTW - I was glad the DN at least reported that the
majority 2/3s of the LDS Senators voted FOR the ENDA, while the minority
1/3 voted against it.
Ranchhand,You've made that statement for years on this board
and others. Show me "scientific proof".
@ The Walker:1) I have LDS frineds and acquaintances all over the
country and I've never heard of anyone being threatened with
excommunication or excommunicated for supporting same-sex marriage.2) I
think the many church leaders and members support anti-discrimination laws of
many types. 3) The BSA still does not accept gay leaders. The recent
discussion was about young teens (scouts), and sexual orientation should not
even be a question directed at kids. 4) LDS members need to grow up
become politically active in a variety of ways, and in both parties. There are
a variety of important issues in politics at this time. 5) How does one
"support" same-sex marriages? By acknowledging that they exist in this
country? By refusing to demean or alienate those who do? I think most LDS
members understand that we respectfully disagree with the direction society has
taken, but we will remember that these people are human beings and demand that
they are respected as human beings by their employers and our political system.
6) I don't remember same-sex marriage being a question one had to
answer to gain a temple recommend.
The LDS Church has not made any change in position but in its most recent
statements on the matter I've sensed a definite change in tone that seems
to reflect how the entire country has been changing its attitudes toward issues
of gay rights. I welcome the trend towards more enlightened thinking on
something we once were too reluctant to even talk about.
Senator Reid is correct -- the LDS Church has indeed changed it's position
of LGBT "rights" over time.It used to be LDS members were
automatically excommunicated for "being" gay.Now, it is only
acting on that comes into question.Gay and Lesbians even hold Temple
Recommends and serve in Callings now.The LDS Church backed LGBT
non-discrimination laws in Utah, the Utah Legislature chose to ignore the
Church.The Church supports "traditional marriage", but
has never issued any statements regarding awarding "civil unions" or
"domestic partnerships".As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt
Romney [also LDS] signed Gay Marriage into law.I'm glad the DN
reported that of the 6 U.S. Senators - the majority 2/3s of them signed the ENDA
Law.while the minority 1/3 of the Senators [Lee and Crapo] -- did
not.The naysayers are wrong.Senator Reid is right, once again.
Gee, I didnt know that Harry Reid is now the prophet, must have missed that
to: Play by the RulesAre you sure his views haven't changed??
How do you know.He changed his views on polygamy and the priesthood.
Perspective.........Hope Everyone realizes that at the start of the
article it states that "politico" REPORTED that Sen Reid said this.
Seems to me that the statement the church is releasing refutes the article than
it does Sen Reid.
God makes her own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with any
particular human being or even with a publicly stated church position...
"On the question of same-sex marriage... If it is being suggested that the
church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.'...traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot
change.'"- LDS ChurchI absolutely Agree! Now regarding Reid's statement, he is a Senator and has no authority to
make statements in behalf the LDS church. His position on this subject has
obviously changed, but most faithful members of the church (those who listens to
a Prophet), views have not changed.
I have family members, friends, and coworkers who live a heterosexual lifestyle
and I'm just as accepting of them as regular human beings as any of my
other family members, friends, and coworkers. It saddens me that they've
chosen that lifestyle, but it doesn't make me think any less of them.
Brigham Young taught that anyone refusing to enter into plural marriage would be
damned, and would live through eternity as the servant of those who obeyed that
law. Later, after the priesthood was extended to all men, mixed race couples
were refused the right to marry in the temple. So, yes, the Church's
position on marriage has changed several times. Hard line stances taken by the
church on many "foundational" and "core" doctrines have changed
over time, despite official pronouncements and pulpit-thumping speeches by the
Brethren declaring that they wouldn't. There is no reason to believe that
this time is any different. (I would suggest to folks pointing to the
Proclamation on The Family to prove their point, that it is not scripture - as
Elder Packer found out after his talk in the October 2010 General
Conference.)Furthermore, the opinions of the members HAVE already
changed. And as happened repeatedly in the past, it will simply take some time
for the Brethren to catch up. I would like to remind people that we were
literally nearly the last people on earth to extend equality to Blacks, much to
It took until 1978, for the LDS Church to stop preaching that Blacks were a
cursed race and second class citizens. Given time, the church may also change
its position on gay marriage. BTW, how many gay/lesbian members hold leadership
positions in Utah? How about nationwide?
Harry Reid needs to get his information correct before making a statement for
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. Our church has always been
compassionate to people's needs but stands firm on our beliefs and marriage
between a man and a woman is God's plan.
cjb,LDS church leaders (1st Presidency & Quorum of the Twelve)
make decisions based on revelation from God. The process of seeking, receiving,
recognizing, & following revelation is a life-long process for members of
the LDS church. These senior leaders of the church are well practiced &
experienced in the process.As such, I can't understand your
reasoning that these leaders grew up in another era. Because they are old, with
"outdated" cultural viewpoints (according to your implication) there
won't be any change in the church's position on gays & gay
marriage until a younger, more up-to-date group of members transitions into
church hierarchy (again, according to your implication).Are you also
implying that these younger, future, much hoped-for by the gay community,
anticipated church leaders will change God's mind on the foundational
doctrines & commandments so that revelation will be received to enact the
change you refer to?If this is widely believed, then church members
have a ways to go toward understanding the principles of revelation & the
ways of God.
This is a bad law which will allow bad employees another excuse to sue their
employer for "discrimination" when the reason they were fired isn't
because they are gay, it was because they didn't do their job.People that don't own a business don't realize how the government is
squeezing the life out of companies through all of these crushing regulations.
Unfortunately it all boils down to the loss of freedom. You have the right to
do what you want in your own bedroom, but I have the right to employ who I want
without it being a crime. I may not want my salesman Mike to suddenly show up
at my customer's office in a miniskirt and fishnet stockings as Mandy. Nor
do I want Mandy in the women's restroon where "she" may make the
women in the office uncomfortable.Freedom is a two way street. You
are free to do what you want and I am free not to associate with you. This law
a just another tool not only to force tolerance, but to force acceptance. That
Senator Hatch supoorted this bill shows just how little he believes in liberty.
"God's views have not changed."??? It is good to know that God
leaves comments on the Deseret News site. I think not!
TMR and others, the Church was responding to media inquiries not Mr Reid and his
As of late, the LDS has done nothing to stem the growing tide of immorality
surrounding gay rights, and the members of the church cannot help but wonder
where the Church REALLY stands on gay rights. In the last 2 years the LDS
church has1) dropped the threat of excommunication for supporting
same-sex marriage2) endorsed laws supporting anti-discrimination against
individuals living a homosexual lifestyle3) continued to support the Boy
Scouts of America after allowing opening gay members into their ranks4)
failed to organize members in any of the 5 states where same-sex marriage issues
were on the ballot5) failed to take action when Church leaders and temple
workers are seen supporting same-sex marriages6) failed to take action
when Stake Presidents and their counselors give temple recommends to those
members who are active supporters of same-sex marriage.In light of
these facts, I would have to agree with Harry Reid's statement.
Sen. Lee is the one who has parted ways with the values of charity and equity by
opposing ENDA. I'm glad Sen. Reid stands firm for those values, which are
far more fundamental than anything else (see I Cor. 13).
Mormons want their cake and eat it too.. but they have to make a choice soon,
just like the catholics did, before their members started leaving them too.
being twenty years behind the times doesnt mean you are conservative, it just
means you are not as fast or intelligent as others are.
BroJoseph,Those folks don't have the same national public stage
that Senator Reid does.TMR,Well said.
Well, Harry has a point. The LDS church went out of its way to lend support to
similar LOCAL legislation in Salt Lake City and County.Like other GBLT
issues, the national bill is nipping at religious liberty. Perhaps the church
didn't count on the notion that church departments and universities would
be compelled to hire openly gay applicants.Dancing with a tiger is a
"On the question of same-sex marriage, the church has been consistent in its
support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated
with kindness and understanding."What does that last part of the
official comment from the church say? I hope more people will follow that
counsel, because I see too many mean-spirited comments on these DN articles.
It is stunning to me that any form of discrimination in the workplace should be
tolerated for personal matters in an employee's private life. It is
fundamentally wrong to enable such discrimination, regardless of your personal
and religious views on the matter. The way I read Reid's comments, he is
not saying the doctrine changed, just that views are evolving, and he is
correct. For the Church to react is telling. And there is no reason why the
Church should not endorse ENDA as a matter of human rights, toleration and a
Christian attitude. The Church does not have to endorse these alternate
lifestyles, but it could call for an end to discrimination in the workplace for
all children of God. The Church missed an opportunity to do the right thing in
while I may not agree will all of Senator Reid's views - I 100% support his
views on LGBT protections. In 50 years or less - it will be interesting to see
what the views of the LDS Church are on the "rights" of the LGBT
community. I thing some of the stauncher member will be shocked. This is a
Church of continuing revelation.
Um... with respect to what others are saying, as an LDS member in good standing,
I have not seen any indication the the views of the membership of my faith have
changed. Most likely, some have changed their views, but I would think that they
would be in the minority. If one is truly a disciple of Christ, they would
support all of Christ's teachings and doctrines, including that about
traditional marriage. Love the people, but don't advocate their lifestyle
as that path leads to sorrows in the eternities.
@ Play By The Rules,God changed his views regarding blacks and their
role in the LDS church. He may have changed his views regarding gay people too.
Kouger.....you are in a position to judge others spirituality.... really?
Wow... what a responsibility you have accepted for your self.As
stated before.... members have modified their views. There are plenty who
live life standards we choose not for ourselves. Accepting these
"flawed" people does not mean we agree with their choices, but that we
accept them as people, as brothers and sisters, who have chosen different paths.
It could be drinking, their dating standards, what they feel is
acceptable and moral behavior, if they are tax cheats, how they treat their
spouse or children, over eating, or spending too much time on the golf course,
to being too focused on the obtaining the things of the world. We accept
people, flaws and all....
@Truth Machine"You know it is possible to accept the individual
without condoning the lifestyle."You are correct. I have
family, friends and co-workers who are devout Mormons, and I love them
unconditionally, while rejecting their "lifestyle".(Religion
is a choice, sexuality is not).
I wonder who whispered in Harry's ear this time. (Last time it was that
Mitt didn't pay any taxes.) Harry would have more credibility if he just
spoke for "Harry Reid" and not for everyone else. Hopefully the good
folks in Nevada will give him the opportunity to return to Lighthouse, NV and
write a book about his experiences in government.
The views of LDS regarding both gays and race have changed a great deal from the
bad old days of the 50's and 60's.
Re bro JosephWhy would the LDS church need to comment if people buy
guns and ammunition to defend their families other than to say defense of our
families is something we should be concerned with.
Once again, this is a matter that should have been left to the states to decide.
Get the feds out of out state business.
"Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the
eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational
doctrine and cannot change."Not a lot of ambiguity in THAT
statement.I've got no problem with Reid stating that the
attitudes of LDS Church members is changing in regards to gays. It's true.
And it's a wonderful opportunity for LDS Church members to become more
Christian in their behavior as society at large changes its attitude towards
behavior that heretofore was kept out of the public eye. Yet nowhere
is it suggested that LDS Church members are en masse supporting gay marriage.
Sure, there are some who do and with great fervor hope and believe that the LDS
Church will drop their public opposition to gay marriage, with even a small
fraction of the faction hoping for eventual authorized gay marriage temple
sealings. Mormon Democrats present a challenge to many Utah
Republican Mormons in that they seem "traitorous" to LDS cultural norms.
Another opportunity for folks to go introspective and consider why they believe
what they believe. Maybe they should learn to love the Democrat but
hate the Party?
Blue"Reid is accurately observing that, doctrine or not, church
members are increasingly accepting their LGBT family members, friends, coworkers
and neighbors as regular human beings."You know it is possible
to accept the individual without condoning the lifestyle.I have
family members, friends, and coworkers who live a LGBT lifestyle and I'm
just as accepting of them as regular human beings as any of my other family
members, friends, and coworkers. It saddens me that they've chosen that
lifestyle, but it doesn't make me think any less of them.
I sincerely hope that no one seriously considers "play by the
rules'" assertion that the Church and Harry Reid must part ways. I am
proud that he is a Latter-day Saint; I am proud that the Church understands
politics; I am proud that the Church publicly allows politicians to be who they
Harry Reid did not say Church doctrine has changed, but that "views"
change. Indeed, less condemnation, more understanding. In the international
perspective, the church clearly moves cautiously and adapts its rhetoric in
order not to jeopardize missionary work. Harry Reid has proven to be a great
help in that perspective. In the "Mormon Moment" in 2012 Church PR
frequently referred to him to counterbalance the impression that the church is
Reid is accurately observing that, doctrine or not, church members are
increasingly accepting their LGBT family members, friends, coworkers and
neighbors as regular human beings.
God's views have not changed.
Senator Reid is correct: the church and its members "views" have
changed. No question about it. A response that the "doctrine" has not
changed does not refute Reid's point. There is a difference.
If the church wants to maintain any credibility being gained by devout followers
of Christ they are going to have to part ways with Harry Reid. He makes up his
own doctrine and picks and chooses what the church stands for and then presents
it as doctrine.