I believe that we treat our fellow brothers & sisters with love & that
this article shows consistence in that statement while adhering to our beliefs.
Amen! Only God (the Great "I AM")knows what is best for man and women,
whom He created. Just read His instructions in the Holy Bible where He describes
the details of His creation in Genesis 1:27 & Genesis 2:22. Praise God from
whom all blessings flow!
Free agency, people. You can't force people to live by your standards just
because you are the big fish in the world's smallest pond. Also, who are
you to judge perfect strangers?
@bj-hpWhy do you think gay marriage will cause "great
calamities?" Are you saying gays are up there in evil with murderers,
thieves, drug dealers, and terrorists, to name a few groups of very evil people?
And are you really letting off the hook the greedy Wall Streeters, politicians,
big-business polluters, and [gasp] leaders who rule mercifullessly to force
religious convictions into law? They might have something to do with "great
calamities" happening present day. Looking at everything in perspective, is
gay marriage really what your God has said is the line in the sand before said
"great calamities" are wreaked on us? If you are looking to convince
people who are non-mormons, you'll have to go beyond citing mormon
scripture to convince us to do things that hurt our neighbors just to fall in
line with your beliefs. If it really is a threat to humanity, we'll
Redshirt1701 wrote:"The church has kept itself separate from the
To "InLifeHappiness" what are you talking about. Do you realize that
the Church didn't beautify downtown for "Christ's return".
Christ is not going to be returning to SLC, he will be coming somewhere else
according to LDS doctrine. The LDS church has beautified their land, and their
business arm has done what it can to make money while revitalizing downtown.Much of what they have done has gone against the desires of government.
They have had to fight against the Mayor and SLC planners, so I don't think
that they have merged with the goernment, and are doing as Brigham Young
prophesied. The church has kept itself separate from the state.
Utah's religious leaders have scrambled to "protect" their state
from what they fear as an alternative marriage of SSM. Yet, they do not look at
the continual hypocrisy of polygamist marriages that have impacted little female
children and the implementation of the lost boy syndrome. According to UCLA Law
Stats, Utah has the most same-sex parents in a metropolitan city nation-wide and
The Advocate has claimed it the most gay city for numerous years. Religious
leaders have spent mega money over the last 40 years to beautiful downtown SLC
for Christ's return - does He need a beautification and place to speak?
They forgot to listen to Brigham Young who prophesied what UCLA and The Advocate
confirmed. Nor did they adhere to keep state and church separate as Joseph
Smith counseled in Articles of Faith 11, 12. If only - now Utah is the
forefront of more prejudice and disdain.
To "ThinksIThink" the LDS church still advises against interracial
marriage. Not because of any racism, but because of the difficulties in
combining 2 distinct cultures. The church is trying to ensure that the
marriages that people enter into have the greatest possibility to succeed.
Removing cultural differences is a big step towards success in marriage.
The LDS church stood strong against interracial marriage on the grounds it was
God's will. Now it stands against gay marriage.
Here is pretty much the classic example of asking someone to pay for the sins of
another.I thought that Jesus died to cleanse all of us._________________________TheWalkerSaratoga Springs, UTHomosexuality is, always has been, and always will be a moral crime of immense
magnitude.--- Continuing through your post, you ask 2 loving people who
want to marry to pay for all the adulterers, the divorces, the single mother
births, etc. This land has been declared to be a land of freedom as
long as its inhabitants observe the laws of their Creator. --- Really, I
thought the Constitution covers everyone!I predict that the
persecution of those who do not accept society's values will become more
severe.--- Actually, society's values in 2014 say that people who
single out a group as a scapegoat for the ills of the world are meanspirited and
The logical conclusion for those who believe that they were made gay is quite
puzzling. They seem to excuse themselves for not being able to reproduce, but
God, who knows all, holds dearest the power to create life, something
represented by the 50 or 60 billion children that he has placed here on this
earth. I hold it as blasphemy anyone that proposes that God engages in the same
behavior exhibited by the Gay oommunity, who, unlike the women caught in
adultery, are quite pleased with their actions. One must only conclude that
truths can only be understood by the same spirit that caused the repentant
adulterer to change her ways. However, if we aspire to be Gods, or even just
saints, it is incumbent upon us to seek to know the truth, no matter what the
outcome of our search. God has spoken in both ancient and modern scriptures of
the evils of sexual immorality, especially the evils of Homosexuality. You can
debate me all you want and I will readily concede that I am a poor example of
christian living, but you can't tell God the same. His word is final.
Something that many (in and out of the Church) seem to forget is that the Church
has been dealing with people (and members) that don't abide by the Law of
Chastity for its entire existence. Homosexual behavior is not fundamentally
different, it is a violation of that very fundamental law. Just as we
have lived with neighbors, friends, and family members that are adulterers and
fornicators from the beginning, so shall we live with neighbors, friends and
family members that are actively homosexual. We understand the eternal and
temporal consequences of violating the Law of Chastity to be more severe than
for many other sins. Regardless, we all have to live with sinful people,
including ourselves.Along with this, we as a people will continue to
advocate for a broader society that embraces and encourages that which it moral
and good. Civil law is simply an expression of a society's values.
Origami,You've quoted part of a sentence in such a way as to muddle
its meaning. Here is the complete quote: "We do not believe it just to
mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society
is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the
individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."The Church has
always been very careful to follow the belief expressed by that complete
I love so many people in the Church! It is very difficult and probably always
will be, but one day we will all face God and I am going to ask him why? Why is
it that we should be treated differently? Don't you think that if people
choose to have respect for us, they will allow us the same right to live
according to what we believe? Don't just say in words, but show it in
deeds! That is what the problem truly is, the fact that what LDS people believe
about us is not good! Guess what, your going to act on it! You are going to put
us down again and again! nobody will do this to me and tell me it is ok! It may
be one or two people that you deal with! Think about how many people we deal
with each day and each one has his or her point of view! We are suppose to
respect that and I do! It wouldn't be so hard if I didn't care! I wish
that I could just not care, but I know that I always will!
God had everything to do with those of us who are gay! It wasn't something
that we did to ourselves and if people want to insult us by saying that we are
immoral, what can we say? I can stand up for myself because I believe God gave
each and every one of us an ability to look within and know who we are! I look
inside of myself, and I know for whatever reason I am gay, it is part of the
plan! It is an insult to treat us as if we are stupid and it is an insult to
take a few scripture out of the Bible and do what people do with them! If you
don't think it is an insult what is happening to us, then just ask
yourselves why it is that we don't deserve to live our own convictions? Why
do people feel they have a need to degrade us, because that is what is
happening. If it happens to be a part of your beliefs, then that belief is
demeaning to us! To say these things come from God is truly an insult.
To "Owen" yes, scripture is doctrine. Actually, doctrine has not been
cannonized six times. Declarations and revelations have been cannonized.Read D&C 68:4 "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon
by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be
the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the
Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."So, if the Prophets
have spoken while moved upon by the Holy Ghost to declare that marriage is
between a man and a woman, and that we should support laws delcaring such,
according to the LDS scriptures it is the will of the Lord. Should we follow
the will of the Lord or not?Those that look beyond the mark are
those that, like the ancient Jewish people, look for specific steps to be
followed to know that something was done correctly. Since the scriptures
declare that the only thing that is required for something to be considered
scripture is for the church leaders to speak as moved by the HG, how do you
identify when that has occured?
Scripture is doctrine? No. Regardless, I'll wait for our leaders to declare
the proclamation doctrine - after the process they've always followed.
Doctrine has been canonized six times in our faith's history. Three steps
have always been followed: approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of
the Twelve, a sustaining vote of the entire membership. Imagine if a church
lobbyist (the Proclamation grew out of the first SSM political battles) had
drafted a proclamation on race in the heat of the civil rights battles. Imagine
if we had framed it and hung it on our walls 50 years before admitting our
racial policy (then called doctrine) had no basis in doctrine or the scriptures.
Be careful when looking beyond the mark.
Owen again you miss the point. Re-read what the First Presidency and the Quorum
of the Twelve have stated especially with what this statement said towards
same-sex marriage. They are using exclusively The Family: A Proclamation to the
World as a teaching tool pertaining to marriage and the family. You are arguing
something that is clearly DOCTRINE. Everything in the Proclamation has been
stated and restated in the scriptures from the time of Adam down to today.
Nothing in the Proclamation is new nor was it ever new. Therefore, as someone
else has mentioned it is SCRIPTURE and it is best that those who oppose it as
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints adhere to it. The
reason it is scripture is because it is based on scripture. It is based on the
teachings of the LDS Church for as long as I have been alive and it is based on
the teachings of the Prophets since the beginning of time. It doesn't need
to be canonized because it was already scripture. That is why it is an inspired
document because it was already scripture.
To "Baccus0902" you didn't answer ChrisB's question.You claim to be LDS, and the doctrine of the LDS church says that the Prophets
speak for god. If they have spoken for God regarding SSM, then why do you not
support what God has spoken through his prophets?To "The Caravan
Moves On" yes the church encourages its members to think for themselves, but
if I think that it is ok to drink just a little bit of wine every day does that
make it ok? Just because you are to think for your self, that does not mean
that you are to justify sinful behavior using whatever logic you see fit.
Bj-hp: again I point out: A prophet's verbal description of the
Proclamation in conference: "it qualifies according to scriptural definition
as a revelation, a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to
follow.” And then editing his own words, described it thus: "It is a
guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow.”
Like the dietary guidelines in the Word of Wisdom. Your (or the PR
department's) use of "doctrine" does not make it so. My inspired
leaders have always had the good sense not to canonize such proclamations
without common consent. Let's hope inspired minds continue to trump
legal/PR experts and edit it to match the scriptures in which Gods created
humans by using power to organize elements. We have no idea (unless you are
advocating canonizing the journal of discourses) how spirit children are created
and whether gender plays any role.
I honestly doubt those active LDS members who are homosexual would request that
an LDS bishop marry them.They understand the Church's position regarding
homosexual marriage. Only the militant gay crowd would attempt to force the
issue...along with perhaps the White House.
People have a right to choose. Freedom has a price. You are free to choose,
however, there will be a consequence for the choice you make. You can choose to
listen to God or not listen to God. If God says marriage is for a man and women
and not for SSM, then there will be consequence for not listening to God. Truth
cannot change. Truth is eternal. God knows what is right because he is God and
have seen what happens if SSM marriage happens. So, you can choose eternal life
or death (separation from God).
The bottom line is....it's all about respect AND equal treatment under the
LAW. It's no longer 2004 in Utah. Let's hold another vote Mr. Gary
Herbert. Then we'll see what Utah really wants!!!
Nice article Mr. Tad Walsh, short and to the point. I love how the church has
and always have approached this. It is obvious that we can not legislate moral
values, so if it is possible, I would hope that the same sex community would at
least be willing to change the word "Marriage" to something else that
would mean a union between the couples and allow them the government benefits
they desire. Love the sinner not the sin, respect begets respect. God Bless.
the darkest night makes those without a candle lost. I am stunned by the lack
of civility toward God! the narcissistic behavior of those who believe that God
will some day validate poor choices is without historical equal. Abortion
showed the extent to which people will go to extinguish the light of God through
a child and now we must forbear when two people decide to disregard God's
plan, the value of the opposite gender, as well as the societal imperative to
marry, have children, and contribute to a cause higher than themselves! how
sad! Welcome to a brave new world, one that only the brave will be able to
Owen: Again you are taking and making falsehoods about what the Prophets have
stated. First they never stated that the Priesthood ban was wrong. They stated
that when instituted by Brigham Young instituted it that he did state it would
be reinstated at a later date. That did come true in 1978. Polygamy was never
stated as being wrong. The time had come that it was no longer needed. The
Family, A Proclamation to the World is an inspired document that we are to use
to teach our membership what the meaning of marriage and families are about.
This document states emphatically that marriage is defined by our Heavenly
Father from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. The Doctrines in the
proclamation will stand as a testament against those who continue to be deceived
by Satan as his angels about marriage and the family. Failure to heed the
warnings in the proclamation will be a testament against all those who are
openly rebelling against the word of the prophets who are the mouthpiece of
Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father.
Homosexuality is, always has been, and always will be a moral crime of immense
magnitude. As such, every prophet, living and dead, who has ever spoken on the
subject has declared it so. The First Presidency is merely reiterating what has
been repeated time and again for thousands of years.This land has
been declared to be a land of freedom as long as its inhabitants observe the
laws of their Creator. Today, more than half of the children born in America
are born to unmarried women, half of our marriages end in divorce, nearly 1
million unborn children are aborted annually, chastity is often seen as an
outdated value, and homosexuality is touted as an acceptable lifestyle. As our
society's morals continue to degrade, I predict that the persecution of
those who do not accept society's values will become more severe.
@JSBYou made a comment that the world would be better off if everyone
followed the law of chastity. I agree. So, if we had a magic wand and could
make everyone do what we think is best, what would we do about gay people?
According to the law of chastity, there is no chaste way for a gay person to
experience romance and sexuality. The impluse to love (and we are not just
talking about lust) needs to be dialed down to zero: Total celibacy. Would the
world be better off if every gay person stayed alone forever? Read the recent
DesNews series on Living Lonely. It states that "humans are not designed to
be alone." I have a lot of gay friends who are not LDS. They respect me, but
they are not going to join the church. I don't expect them to be celibate
forever. I am happy for them when they find someone to commit to. I think this
is better than promiscuity or cohabitation in exactly the same way it is for
straight people. So SSM seems to support the law of chastity principles of
faithfulness and fidelity for gay people.
@ bandersenOur civil rights are actually being expanded. Nobody is
losing any rights by legalizing SSM. Also, the real motive arrived long ago.
It's all about equal treatment.
Hate the Sin....Love the Sinner, isn't that the way it's supposed to
be? I can get along with anyone who are homosexual, they are human beings,
though misguided or misinformed as they may be, they are still God's
Children, and worthy of respect as such. I cannot and will not, support their
life style, but after all, they do have their free agency and therefore free to
make their own choices decisions. I do not agree with them, but do I hate them
for that?....No, I do not. I follow the direction of our Heavenly Father and
our Prophet, and I agree totally with them, in that the Holy Institution of
Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.
@bandersenYou speak as a person with profound wisdom. Thank you for
sounding the alarm to awaken us from the deep sleep we are in. As we slumber
our civil rights are even now being trodden asunder. Let us speak now with a
voice of civility, but with a resolve to declare that our first freedoms must
never be abandoned.
The church is still entitled to its beliefs, even after gay marriage is allowed.
So in this country where you have the right to freedom of religion(or no
religion) why has the church fought so hard to keep others from practicing their
own beliefs? I'm not trying to be antagonizing.But really this all comes
down to religion. There is separation of church and state.
To JNAYou are dead wrong. Why would LGBT people want power. What
purpose would that serve? They have been living a life of discrimination and
bullying for years. They just want equal treatment and respect of people. The
sooner we can all learn to love and respect our fellow men, the sooner we will
all live in a world of peace and harmony!!!
bj-hp: as far as being "at odds" with Jesus on this issue. I believe
I'll let him be the judge of that. And those who have responsibility to
interview me a few times a year. So far, so good. I understand where most LDS
scriptural literalists are coming from. They, like you, believe that
21st-century-style Mormon marriage was practiced from the beginning of time,
despite the fact that their leaders have taught something else and history shows
even another thing completely. But you misunderstand the history of your own
doctrine on interracial marriage and priesthood eligibility. Even the church now
admits the justifications for those now-changed doctrines were false. And both
certainly we're considered to have originated in the Garden, if not before.
The Proclamation is a political document that can easily be edited to be gender
neutral except for one sentence. In every official creation story in our faith
tradition, God or Gods (all male) create Adam by using their power to command
the elements. Maybe gender roles and relationships beyond our limited existence
are beyond our limited understanding.
"The letter urges congregational leaders to teach members the church's
doctrine in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," issued in
1995."Just look at how the USA has changed on the issue of Gay
people since 1995.The best the mormon leaders can come up with is
"Be civil to them"This ENTIRELY begs the question:____"When will the prophet hear from God that Gay persons born into mormon
families must no longer be shortchanged, nor relegated to a lesser status, nor
be encouraged to lie in orderto be accepted?"No matter how
wonderful the "prophet" is, he is a man who reached adulthood before
1950.I think that God is way ahead of the mormon church: -- He
created many thousands of Gay children in mormon families, and expects the
church to treat them equally.I believe that lds people deserve a
more enlightened answer, rather than continued announcements that avoid dealing
with the issue.
Rushing up to the Capitol steps is not a reason to make a law. I think the
story of narcissus is relevant. Gay marriage is unnatural, demeans Gods love,
and rips apart the civil rights of the people of utah. It demeans the opposite
gender by saying "you are nothing. I am everything. Look at me!" A
generation raised on a steady stream of narcissistic behavior is certain to seek
the mirror to reflect itself. How sad! Make no mistake slumbering citizens. This
isn't about equality. It is about compulsion. Misery loves company! The
real motives are coming. Members of the church have been put on notice. It is a
mystery to me how anyone would want to be considered a follower of Christ, but
want him to change His laws to fit his own narcissistic behavior. The
counterfeit of real marriage is here to stay, but the real issue is whether
sleeping citizens recognize that their liberties and civil rights are being
thrown out the door by activists judges and a vocal minority. Hopefully, those
who understand the Constitution and love it will begin to defend it.
@origami:I respectfully reply to you that there is more to heterosexual
concern with SSM than "God said it's wrong" In my view, it is an
intellectual, biological, anatomical, and moral counterfeit. Additionally, many
credible studies have concluded that SSM is an inferior model for rearing
children. I totally understand your view that sometimes in various cultures
there is and has been some violence, discrimination and ostracism in the name of
religious morality. That said, I am personally familiar with a multitude of
instances where religion has also inspired folks to be kinder, gentler and more
loving to their fellow beings. You and I have greatly differing points of view
about SSM and that is OK. I respect your views and I hope you will respect
mine? I hope we as citizens can find a win-win solution that meets the needs
and rights of both sides of this issue. If we don't, I fear a future
society that may not be kinder and gentler.
Life is meant to follow law and order. In the case of marriage is meant to be
the Lords standards, which is not same sex marriage any more than those who
choose to live out of wed lock. Now said doesn't mean people aren't
suppose to care for each other because you disagree with the desires of another.
@Chris B - "If you Mormons believe your prophet speaks for God what is there
to "regret"? Shouldn't people always support what God says?"Everyone, even members of the Church, has a right to their own opinion
and must decide for themselves what they must do. To demand or expect blind
obedience is not something that one believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ
would desire.Anyone who believes the Gospel forces them to do
anything does not understand it. We are given the Gospel freely and
*asked* to obey its requirements. We take upon ourselves the name of Jesus
Christ by choice. But those who choose to obey the Gospel must also understand
that its principles and doctrine must be obeyed to obtain its blessings. That
principle has been that way since the time of Adam and should always be made
clear before anyone accepts the covenant.
"The same principle of equality ensures each of us are able to live our own
lives as we see fit. I hope Utahns can get better at sharing the public square,
treating other civilly and start being better neighbors."NYCUT...What would you say in light of your words above to the business owners
who have lost their livelihoods because they were forced to either defend their
right to "live their lives as they see fit" and not cater to gay
weddings? A baker, a photographer both have lost ALL they worked for ALL their
lives. Where is the equality in that? Where the civility? Everyone was
assured that wouldn't happen, but guess what...it did. Civility only seems
to work for the other side. There are plenty of Mormon owned business who will
cater...ie Marriott Hotels welcomes and goes after the business on a website
designed ONLY for GLBT weddings and receptions. Why persecute the little guy?
I think the church has some legitimate concerns beyond section 130. One of them
is that by not performing ssm's, it might be seen as acting outside the
law, resulting in the loss of authority to perform marriages which are
recognized by the state. I do not think that threat can come to pass, history
to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor do I believe that section 130 supports the
idea of natural law having the ability to trump God, nor that mankind can do so.
I always thought that the primary law of Christianity was to love God and serve
As an atheist, I believe contrary to almost everything Mormons stand for. Yet I
was married to my LDS wife by a Mormon Bishop, and although we held our wedding
and reception in a much nicer venue than a Mormon building, we could have easily
done the cheap reception in a Mormon cultural hall.But LDS same sex
couples are not allowed to do so?That just seems a bit petty to me.
@speed66The personal rancor reflected in that remark I don't intend
to dignify with comment. But I would like to address your general attitude of
hopeless negativism. First, I haven't read any comment where someone
claims their "invisible friend" told them to do anything, so please stop
with the baseless attacks on religionists.Second, the fact that
religionists do not base their beliefs or arguments for opposing same-sex
marriage on tangible or "reasonable" facts does not preclude them from
voicing those opinions, nor does it mean they're wrong. Just because they
do not explain their moral conviction to your satisfaction does not negate their
opinion or belief. "Reason" is based on interpretation and point of
view, so despite the facts there will always be differences of opinion. The key
takeaway from your comment is that if religionists were as intelligent as you,
they would undoubtedly take your position on the matter. That's pretty
presumptuous. There are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate.
The LDS hierarchy is more concerned public perception than non-members'
morality. The LDS church wants to be seen as a mainstream religion. That image
is clouded by their association of polygamy. They have been fighting that
association ever since they forbid it. If Utah legalizes gay marriage then
members will be asking for plural marriage. The LDS church will either have to
allow it or answer why it is still wrong. They will then be once again linked
to plural marriage and mainstream acceptance will be gone.It's
easier for them to fight gay marriage than fight that battle.
With all due respect to the importance of marriage in society, historians and
anthropologists would disagree with the statement that marriage was instituted
by God through religious faiths. Marriage originated in ancient patriarchal
tribal and community groups long before it was embraced by religions. And it was
not about love or protecting children either. It was actually instituted by the
men in these patriarchal groups to insure that his partner's children were
really his, and to make women their legal property.
@Meckofahess"Religion has always had a hand in the founding
principles of our nation and God willing it will continue do so. Your notion to
exclude the voice of moral convictions of religious citizens from the dialogue
in the public square is without historical merit."Christians are
attempting to restrict the rights of homosexuals to enjoy their basic human and
american civil rights, and you are ok with that. The law banning gay marriage is
a religious law. I assume you would be ok if Muslims started passing laws to
restrict your civil rights on religious grounds?
@MeckofahessI am not suggesting we exclude the voice of religious
people from civil discourse and you know it. Please don't twist my words. I
am saying that if the civil rights of homosexuals are to be infringed, something
more than "God said it's wrong" is required. You'll see.And by the way, moral systems, by leaps and bounds, pre-date organized
religion. From an evolutionary perspective, the foundations of morality are
completely natural. Religions simply seek to bind people into moral communities
and then reinforce the moral principles that serve it's own goals. Quite
frequently, this selective morality promotes an "us vs. them" mentality
and brings out the worst in believers. So much violence, discrimination, and
ostracism in the name of religious morality. You can keep it.
"The church insists on its leaders’ and members’
constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions
on marriage, family and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The
church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good
standing for members."As a gay male, I practically stood up and
applauded when I read this. This is exactly my position too, and that of many
other gays. We're not asking the Mormon Church to change its beliefs about
gays. We welcome them to practice their religion the way they see fit--as long
as it's with civility to all, as stated.But Utah itself
isn't a "Mormon" state--it's part of the USA. Not every Utahn
is a Mormon, but they're all American citizens. And that's the basis
of why we seek marriage equality in Utah. Not to get the Mormon Church to
believe/teach differently. But again, just to have the same rights as every
other American citizen, Mormon and non-Mormon alike.Note especially
the last words in the above quote: ". . . for members."
The Catholic Church, Baptist Church and the Muslim religion is against gay
marriage, besides the The Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is a
lot people who believe God says no to SSM. Arguments are made to be n the right
side history. I'm sure arguments like that were made before Sodom and
Gomorrah or the great flood in Noah's time.
@firstamendment: I hope you realize that makes no sense. Why would Hitler
destroy the Jews for opposing homosexuality, at the same time that he was
rounding up and killing all the homosexuals? With those yellow stars, there
were pink triangles. That book is neglected for a reason.-----------As for the LDS Church's statement, I commend it
for encouraging all Mormons to work towards moral goals in their individual
lives. But I wish LDS commenters here would take to heart the "live and let
live" message it also contains.Our religious freedom exists by
one thin line in one Amendment of our Constitution. Before that line was
written, early America was filled with religious persecution. Minority
religions were exiled from colonies, prohibited from office, routinely punished,
tortured, even hung in public as examples to others, including our early
Quakers. (look up "Boston Martyrs")That most important line
builds a two-sided wall. "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Let's not break it. Government needs to be free FROM religion to be fair
to ALL our citizens. We should practice our religion, not impose it.
The claim about a 1963 leter in reaction to inter-racial marriage smells fake.
In 1956 Spencer W. Kimball boldly declared "inter-racial marriage is no
sin." You will not find any apostle anywhere saying the same about same-sex
marriage.The attempts to compare inter-racial marriage with same-sex
marriage are insults to Mia Love, Alex Boye, and hundreds of other biological
parents who have had children with spouses who are classed as a different race.
Sex is relevant to the form, function and meaning of marriage. Race is not.
I am often confused. Why is it that so many people who do not accept or agree
with LDS doctrine and/or standards spend so much time griping about it?I don't care for the Mafia and don't believe in the way they do
business. And so, I don't affiliate with them, I don't do business
with them, I don't spend a lot of time arguing about them. I also
don't like many business establishments -- and so I don't do business
there, but I don't stand out on the sidewalk in front and picket them.I am LDS by choice. I believe in the doctrine, even as it becomes less
popular. I don't strike out at other people or try to hurt or insult them
just because we differ in thoughts. If you prefer the GLBT life style, go for
it -- there are plenty of religions and organizations who accept and even
endorse this life style. Stop complaining about my life style.
Actually, my assumption would be that missionaries would council people who are
part of a same sex couple who express interest in the Church to get that
relationship legally dissolved. It seems some people are to
absolutists. Even having been in a polygamist relationship does not ban someone
from ever getting baptized. They just have to clearly and fully end all
relations be they physical or legal with all except one wife. I would think that
same-sex relationships would be treated the same way by requiring a total end to
My general take on this is same-sex married couples would be found to be in
violation of the law of chastity, and probably in a state of violating it that
would be construed as flagrant rebellion and showing no desire or willingness to
even attempt to abide by it.Clearly they can attend church. No one
is banned from attending church. What else such flagrant rebellion against a
commandment of God would mean, I am not sure.
All people have the right to help formulate public policy, at least in a
participatory Republic such as the United States. There are clear
public policy reasons to limit marriage to being between a man and a woman. Most
obviously it is only in the case of man/woman sexual relations that the state
has any interest in regulation. It is only because sex has the potential to
create children that the state has any reason to regulate it. The
reason to have marriage is to seek as much as possible that children will be
raised by their biological parents. This means marriage must be in a form that
produces children. That form is of a man and a woman.People are free
to formulate other theories behind marriage. However to act as if this is not
the theory that has defined marriage from time immemorial, and as if it is not
the underlying theory of those who support the continuance of man/woman marriage
is to deny reality in a way that leads to needless hate and anger.
Its called free agency, we all have it, we all will be judged by it! It is not
our place to judge,it is the Almighty's! Sometimes that is very hard to do,
but do it we must! This letter helps us to remember who we are as a people!
While "never" isn't a logical word, I venture to say the law will
never impact the LDS right to perform marriages as they see fit. We've been
distinguishing temple marriage between the "worthy" and the
"unworthy" forever--and there isn't a peep of protest.
In this letter to the Church leaders and the Congregation I read several
statements that were referenced by sources from the Book of
Mormons.However,there were no Biblical or Book of Mormon references cited after
this statement which appeared in this official Church Letter:"Marriage
between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for
His children and for the well-being of society." Why Not ?
I think kindness and respect are important. But there is a difference in
treating someone with respect and actually respecting them. Are we to respect
the beliefs of skin-heads and other racists because they too claim to know
God's plan? Am I supposed to not ridicule the dribble that calls itself
scientology? For that matter, why does any religion get a pass on reason? My
"invisible friend told me to" is simply not a reasonable explanation.I do not think that someone can truly justify their position or insulate
themselves from criticism by using their religion or proclaimed religious
beliefs. Like plural marriages, blacks being denied priesthood and claiming that
all Indians are descendants of Jews, the view on SSM will wither away and die
and be viewed as another nail in the coffin of religion. Hold tight
my LDS brothers and sisters...resisting with all your might will help accelerate
Tolerance, understanding and kindness is FAITH.
"The LDS Church affirmed Friday the constitutionally protected rights of its
leaders and members to express religious convictions and called for civility and
kindness in the debate on same-sex marriage." There is NO Constitutional
guarantee to protect and "express religious convictions". There is a
Constitutional guarantee to protect ALL expressions of convictions by all types
of people. When one group exhorts their singular and self serving
"constitutional guarantees" to the exclusion of others who are in the
minority, then the Constitution flexes it's mighty arms and enfolds the
minority to the exclusion of the majority. Therefore, the LDS Church's
statement above about their right to express religious convictions is not a 100
% license for all to obey , respect, agree or whatever. All men are free to do
is most unfortunate and sad when attempting to read the personalized commentary
from those who believe they are being subjected to the will of God without due
deference being paid to their government sanctioned choices. They do not
understand that the law of man is fickle and subject to change with the
prevailing political winds while the law of God is immutable and irrevocable and
will prevail eternally in spite of their misguided understanding. It
has long been the foolish pride of man, since Satan combined with Cain, which
has left the earth strewn with spiritually impoverished souls who have unwisely
rationalized their behavior as being acceptable simply because others joined
their cause, and government gave their blessing.While my
opinionated, heart-felt words may sting and offend, it is my love for my fellow
travelers which induces me to pray for and have hope for them. It is better to
believe there is a God and find you were right than to disbelieve and find you
were wrong. The potential consequences will be eternal and now is the time to
The LDS Church has the full right under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
to determine for whom it will perform marriage services and the use to which its
meeting houses and religion-based facilities (Temples, etc.) will be made
available. I sustain and support their right to do so.To the extent
their facilities are commercial in nature, the use of those facilities should be
available to all, regardless their sexual orientation.
@ORAGAMI:You stated "I am also grateful that the Doctrine and
Covenants states that "We do not believe it just to mingle religious
influence with civil government." Wow, your manipulation and
misrepresentation of that verse from the D&C is funny. You neglected to
include the whole context that says: "We do not believe it just to mingle
religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is
fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual
rights of its members, as citizens, denied".Here is what GEORGE
WASHINGTON had to say about "religious influence with civil
government":"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that
morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and
experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principle.”Religion has always had a
hand in the founding principles of our nation and God willing it will continue
do so. Your notion to exclude the voice of moral convictions of religious
citizens from the dialogue in the public square is without historical merit.
@TwoForFlinching, I would ask which side is really trying to force their
standards and beliefs here. LDS leaders are calling for civility and
respect on both sides. LDS people have stated their position and it will play
out in the courts. There is a moral and a legal component to this issue and if
the law determines gay marriage is allowed, Mormons will uphold the law because
that is also a tenet of our religion, but from a moral standpoint we are saying
we stand in favor of traditional marriage, not against gay people.It
is a position that says marriage between man and woman is worth protecting as a
unique and essential institution of society for the well being of civilization.
You can of course disagree, but it is a matter of conscience for Mormons.LDS people have never been in favor of forced anything. The thing nobody
is talking about are the unintended consequences changing the definition of
marriage. For example, what would then prevent someone from arguing prohibition
of adult/minor relationships would be discriminatory? The decision to allow gay
marriage opens up a potential Pandora's Box that most people have not yet
It appears to me that there is great concern that adoption of same sex marriage
laws may impinge on the temple marriages via the route that selective marriage
practices show discrimination and that the governmental authority of the church
to conduct marriages will be terminated. As central a threat as that is, I
think it is doomed to failure. The church has dealt with marriage authority
before, and practice of religion is what is protected. I fear the effects of
repressing minorities in places where the church has great power and influence
will generate more powerful resentment against it. An example is the forger who
bombed people in SLC
The moral strictures and goals of the Mormon Church are truly admirable, and I
would encourage all practicing Mormons to work towards those goals...In their own lives. Not collectively, but individually.And, I
would like to remind all practicing Mormons that your ability to practice your
religion at all is protected by only one thin line in one Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. Until that line was written, early America was filled with
religious persecution. Minority religions were exiled from colonies, prohibited
from office, routinely punished, tortured, even hung in public as examples to
others, including our early Quakers. (look up "Boston Martyrs")That Constitutional line, which gives us religious freedom, is a
two-sided wall. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If we cherish our
religious freedom, we must also cherish the freedom of the government FROM
religion, to accept that secular goals, led by science and sociology and equal
treatment for all, must undergird the equitable law of the land.
Owen: You really do miss the point in that inter-racial marriage and the
priesthood were not doctrine in the same sense as marriage. Marriage between
man and woman has been doctrine since the beginning of time. It was doctrine in
the Garden of Eden. It was doctrine in Egypt. It was doctrine in Israel at the
time of Christ. It was doctrine at the death and resurrection of the Lord and it
is doctrine today. It is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The words of
the "Proclamation to the World, The Family" is prophetic as it is
basically taking all of the teachings pertaining to marriage and the doctrine
into one document. Failure to see or understand that puts you at odds with the
Lord Jesus Christ. This isn't the same as the statements on inter-racial
marriage or the priesthood. Those who feel this will change don't
understand the scriptures and don't understand the doctrine it is applied
to. Heavenly Father defined marriage when Adam and Eve were placed in the
Garden of Eden. That has not changed. Heavenly Father defined marriage at that
time as marriage between man and woman.
A bold and welcome statement. Respect for individual ri9ghts and freedom is a
rare commodity today.I hope this example will will begin to restore kindness and
compassion to our jaded society.
@Blue AZ Cougar Since members of the Mormon church who commit adultery are
typically excommunicated or at least disfellowshipped, and since homosexuality
is a sin for some of the same reasons that adultery is, I would go out on a limb
and say that while practicing homosexuals are welcome to attend church meetings,
they likely wouldn't be allowed to be members of the church and therefore
would not be eligible to hold any position within the organization.
Read a bunch of the anti-marriage equality posts . . . I have got to strongly
disagree with the good intentioned statements of Church members who try to
characterize this issue as an attack on their religious freedom. Gay people
have endured second class citizenship in this country for hundreds of years.
Not to mention the stigma, exclusion and attacks by many so-called "kind and
loving" christians. Church leaders have not helped the situation either
(i.e. Boyd K. Packer, Spencer W. Kimball) who persistently labeled gay people as
perverts who, in order to achieve God's eternal blessings, are instructed
to live a mortal celibate life? I would call that hell on earth. No thank you.
The Church will lose this battle on principle and it is way past due. Gay
people and their supporters will not retreat in this battle one inch. The next
step is to fight for the rights of gays in Africa, the Middle East and other
countries where it's open season to brutalize human beings because of their
god given sexual orientation.
I am not surprised by several comments that start out talking about marriage and
end up talking about taxes. We often fear most, that others will do to us what
we have done to them. Opponents of SSM would take away a tax exemption from
Edith Windsor, married in a country that democratically chooses to recognize her
marriage, and resident of a state that has democratically chosen to recognize
her marriage. A majority of voters in places like Utah would take away from her
an exemption for married people worth half a million dollars. Judges who saw
that as unfair, are labeled activists. The small minority of SSM
couples do not want to take away any tax benefits from churches. They just want
to get married, and to pay no more taxes than other married couples. Taxation
without inclusion in civil rights may not be tyranny, but it certainly is an
issue in any civil discourse about civil marriage.
Fools mock, for they shall mourn. So be it…
"no comment" you may be right about some things, sadly, we have learned
little from the past because the media filters the truth, but that is not
without precedence: "Another probable reason for Hitler's anti-Semitism
is traditional Judaism's appreciation of women and its fierce opposition to
homosexuality..." German-Jewish historian Samuel Igra in his neglected 1945
book, Germany's National Vice.
@no commentI think that's one of the blessings for the tithing
funds of the church. Yes, will the Church have to cut funding on some of
it's programs (the discounted tuition for BYU, perhaps) - sure, but because
the Church has frankly a better economic status than the US, it will be fine.
The church should have had more foresight than to fight ssm. I've always
said that they should have instead lead the charge for equality. They could have
done this by using their political influence to remove the institution of
marriage completely from government control. Marriage benefits granted by the
federal/state gov'ts have always been unconstitutional. In the place of
"marriage" the corrected/new term might have been a legal status similar
to power of attorney or partnership, then the word or term "marriage"
would be mute and of no consequence. Most of us have no problem making things
equal for all, it's the "marriage" word that causes conflict.If the church is smart they will use their voice and resources to take
marriage completely out of the gov'ts hands, change it to a legal status,
then love people and keep the term "marriage" to be defined by churches
or other institutions. Love all and give them freedom. A win win.
I am very glad the church goes into the fighting finally and declares peace.It is comfort to all of us, that we do have moral obligations to include
others in our midst, despite their believes. They are welcome in Utah and in the
LDS church.But no persecution please.Maybe we all can join
together in doing good to others, and remind us of the priorities in life, to
bless those who seek truth and peace.Reminds me of Moroni, when he
said : "Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil
may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon
the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good
continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be
saved."I believe the purpose of the church is to raise our
awareness to repent and thereby making the purifying atonement available to us.
Whatever people want to believe...but to be purified in Christ means to come
unto Christ with full purpose of heart.A very personal decision.
This is all well and good, but I still don't understand why people feel
like they can force their standards and beliefs over everybody else. Believe
what you believe and live your life as you see fit, and allow everyone else to
do the same. Live and let live, people.
A verbal description of the Proclamation in conference: "it qualifies
according to scriptural definition as a revelation, a guide that members of the
church would do well to read and to follow.”After editing by a
prophet: "It is a guide that members of the church would do well to read and
to follow.”In this statement written by the legal/PR dept.:
"doctrine."Which is it? The church made similar statements in the
past about interracial marriage and priesthood eligibility. It has always had
the good sense not to canonize such statements. Let's hope inspired minds
continue to trump legal/PR experts. Imagine the damage a canonized Proclamation
on Race would have done 50 years ago.
Christopher Hitchens said it best, “How dismal it is to see present day
Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to
escape.” Gays will be able to wed in all 50 states due to governor
Herbert's desire to take this all the way to the Supreme Court and churches
everywhere will lose the young people they so desperately need to keep. I see
this as a win-win all around.
The Church has also said, You can be a Democrat, pay your
taxes, go out and vote, and obey ALL of the laws of the land [which
includes speeding].When members stop picking and choosing which
Church statements to obey, I will stop making comments of the DN articles.
Jeff in NC: I disagree with what you said. It will not hold the Church of Jesus
Christ back. In fact, it will allow the Church of Jesus Christ to grow even
more abundantly across the United States and the World. We are in the last days
and this really spells out the prophesy that good will be called evil and evil
called good.This has never been about rights. It is completely and
entirely a moral issues. Modern prophets have spoken and the Lord God has
stated through his prophets his will as we get closer to the second coming of
the Lord. President Thomas S Monson is the Lord's mouthpiece today just as
Moses, Isaiah, Jacob, Abraham and others were in their day.This will
bring great calamities upon the United States. It may not happen right away but
it will happen and when it does, people again will disobey the word of the
baccus: Believe me when I say this! The whole Gay marriage thing is has been
blown way out of proportion by the media and by those who are gay and want
everyone else to validate it, regardless of any other point of view from God or
citizen! To say that I don't support gay marriage because of what my
leaders teach about it is so far off the radar to be ludicrous to even mention.
For me, this is simple: It is an unnatural way of living and not only
doesn't need a prophet's word, it doesn't need anyone's
word. It comes under the title of common sense and intuition, which tells you
something about the truth. the truth doesn't need any body's
validation, least of all a prophets. Far from running my life, the
prophet's word usually validate what I already knew to be true! This absolutely is a right of the sovereign state of Utah to make. For those
who don't understand the concept inherent in the 10th amendment, read it!
Those words have meaning, despite those who want to press the delete button on
our rights and freedoms!
A Very respectful letter from the LDS Church Leaders regarding Biblical and
eternal truths which protect 'civilization's heart', namely the
Traditional Family Unit. It may not/will not be popular in some
segments of society, but then again,standing for truth has never been easy, and
it will only get more difficult from here-on, to be sure. May God
Bless our nation leaders to: -Protect and promote the
'Institution of the Family' as God has sanctioned from the beginning
of time;-Maintain and protect Religious Freedom and Matters of Moral
Conscience; -Uphold the Constitution (not re-define it) including States
Sovereignty; and... May He continue to protect this Great State, and
nation to be a refuge of Freedom, Light and Truth for generations yet to come.
@no comment"Who would have believed a couple of decades back that the
US government, in defiance of the US Supreme Court, would overrule a Utah law
?"Uh... the Supreme Court could ultimately rule to overturn the
Utah law. @Chris BPractically half of Catholics in the US
don't agree with the Pope on same-sex marriage, while the other half
don't agree with the Pope on income inequality.
I will stand with the Church ,and what it teaches. I support the leaders of the
Church.will you stand with them,? Or are you standing with man? Choose you this
day who you will serve.
Is there some kind of divergent belief that the 'threat' of losing tax
exempt status is something the 'leaders' even spend an iota of thought
upon? I do believe that the tithing of the faithful members and other invested
incorporated funds are well sufficient to withstand with ease of mind any
forthcoming taxes that 'may' be levied... The doctrines will not
change by the interposition of men. Threaten all you want, but the work will go
forth boldly, nobly and independent come whatever winds of change may bring.
To: No CommentAmen and Amen, if anyone out there thinks this is
about equality it is not. It is about the acquisition of power and to force
religions to marry or face the consequences. Your post was dead on.
@MACK2828great comment. I completely agree.
@ Baccus0902 - Leesburg, VA@ Chris B" @Baccus,:
Interesting you say you regret the decision, but as a Mormon don't you
believe that your prophet speaks for God? So you regret what God has
said?"Chris You seem to know very little about LDS
Doctrine. The church always taught me to think for myself....."Baccus - Yes, church leaders have always taught us to think for
ourselves. However, you're leaving out one little piece of info that
changes everything. They taught us to first think for ourselves (i.e., to
"ponder it in our minds"....Doctrine and Covenants section 9) but to
ultimately yield our will to God.You're not talking about that
I cannot speak for others, but a number of posts seems to say the Church is
doomed because it may lose tax exempt status. I'm not sure what legal
grounds the government could have to do that, but I do not trust the SCOTUS to
follow law, moral majority, will of the people, common sense, or wise
conclusions that are best for society. I trust the prophet far more in that
regard. But I just want to put my stake in the ground that I do not pay tithing
in order for a tax deduction. I trust that the vast majority of Church members
would not cease tithing donations over taxing issues. And I trust that the
Church would adjust expenditures accordingly. Prophets have encouraged us to
get involved in politics, and that is our best hope to influence good politics.
Also, every good work that we do, especially when challenged by governments,
will be blessed by God and will bring good fruit in the long run. In God we
@ Baccus0902 - Leesburg, VA - "The LDS Church has made an official
statement, which is reasonable, respectful, and clearly expresses its opinion
and rules about Same Sex Marriage. As an LDS I regret the decision. However, I
have no recourse other than accept it as the voice of the authorities of the
church."The problem, 'baccus0902', is that you think
this is the voice of the "authorities of the church" and not the
"voice of the Lord."Yes, that makes all the difference in
@Mack2828This statement was written by several attorneys. The names Dallin
H Oaks (Former law professor at U of Chicago and Utah Supreme Court Justice), D
Todd Christofferson (Fromer associate general counsel for NationsBank), and
Quentin L. Cook (Former San Francisco Bay area attorney) come to mind. Several
businessmen in there as well, with some good PR abilities.I do not
think that many people are unclear about the Church's stand on SSM. They
are pretty upfront that they do not find it to be morally right.
Mack2828- I am a little lost as to why you claim the prophet has not spoken
boldly about this situation. It seems to me he stated the church's position
very clearly and boldly. Just because the church has said not to treat gay
people or those who support it with any disrespect, hate or malice does not mean
we are refusing to live up to and stand up for our convictions. I don't
see any clearer or more bold way to tell people where we stand on this issue.
The prophet has stated to its members the leaders are not to perform these
marriages or allow the church buildings to be used for these purposes. I do not
see treating anyone with hate or malice as the right way to handle disagreements
on the nature of marriage.
Latter Day Saints believe in chastity (sexual intimacy is limited married
heterosexual couples) If we actually had a chaste society this is what we could
expect:A. Fewer divorces since there would be no infidelity.1.
Fewer children psychologically damaged by divorce; more socially well-adjusted
children. 2. Less Poverty; fewer children raised in poverty.3. Less
abuse of children4. Fewer children neglected.5. Fewer custody
issues.6. Less crime, drug and alcohol abuse.7. Fewer betrayed
spouses.B. Sexually transmitted diseases completely eliminated.C. Fewer unwanted pregnancies.1. Abortions rare. No need for
abortion unless there is serious risk to the mother’s life or health. No
psychological problems associated with abortion. 2. Children raised in
homes where they are loved and cherished.D. No pornography and the
problems associated with it.1. Fewer sex crimes and fewer victims of sex
crimes.2. Healthier relationships between husband and wife.What is the matter with encouraging chastity? Why are LDS criticized for
encouraging that kind of society? Wouldn't things would be a lot better if
we actually really tried to the law of chastity?
Being Mormon, I also believe in the 12th article of Faith which states, "We
believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates. In
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." All men are created equal and
under the law they should be treated equal. If it is decided that LGBT people
should marry then we should sustain the law and be fine with it. We should not
bully or discriminate in any way. It is our job to love all people, just as the
This is a great statement. No appeasement, it is what it is.
I am a Mormon and proud of it and support the what leaders have to say. God has
never allowed same sex marriage and he never will. I also support
you @Chris B
CandideBut remember, even so influential a person as Thomas
Jefferson himself Did Not get that specific phrase "wall of seperation"
into the Constitution, even though it is said he wanted it included. Instead we
ended up with a "neutrality clause" on religion. No law for or against
shall be allowed. Or to put it another way, Congress is staying out of religion
althgether.One thing though about the quote you gave. When I read
it what I see is TJ making an argument against state sponsored religion such as
England had/has in the Church of England. What Mr. Jefferson I believe was
saying is that he did not want a Church of America. He wasn't really
addressing what the, for lack of a better term, private, religions or churches
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to
His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony,
and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete
fidelity.Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and
care for each other and for their children. Disability, death, or
other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. We warn
that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or
offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand
accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family
will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by
ancient and modern prophets.
In the actual statement by the church it says: "We invite you to pray that
people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel,
and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues
critical to society’s future."So no, we are not trying to push
our beliefs on other people. We simply realize that the way we vote on issues
such as this one affects our society's future, and we believe that the
legalization of same sex marriage will have a negative effect on society.It bothers me when members within the church vote for same sex marriage,
because if they believe that the prophet really does receive revelation for the
church, then they should believe that it is God who is against same sex
marriage. Shouldn't they believe that God is always right? So.... God is
against it, but they are for it? That seems backwards to me,but I guess they
have to right to believe what they want.
If you truly have a testimony of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
then this is "End of Story." If you have a testimony of the Gospel then
you know the Lord, through his mouthpiece has just spoken. Good enough for me.
In troubled times, oh how I appreciate the clarity of the Lord.
RE: no commentIf we have followed the counsel to be debt free,
prepared for the storms of life we will ride out the secular storm. I think
this is the trial of our generation, to stand firm and bear the stripes of
secular humanism that will be laid upon our backs. Our spiritual ancestors
crossed the plains and suffered the rigors of the elements. So we will be tried
and refined as necessary in this furnace of affliction. IMHO the
goal of the secular humanists is control, control of others in as many aspects
of their lives as possible in order to coerce the public into conforming with
their view of life and society. Gay marriage may be but a tool to advance this
goal of control of society.We need to fasted our seat belts and put
the tray in an upright position, it's going to be a bumpy ride from here on
I have been saying this for a long time. The way to keep the churches from being
sued or losing their tax-exempt status is to have the churches get out of the
LEGAL marriage business. Since marriage affords LEGAL and TAX benefits to the
parties, everyone should have to be LEGALLY married by an official of the state
-- be that a justice of the peace, judge, whatever. Then if the couple wants
their marriage blessed -- either in a cathedral, synagogue or temple (LDS or
Jewish or whatever) -- the couple can then go to their priest, bishop, rabbi,
etc. to have their marriage blessed for the records of their own church or
synagogue. Members of the clergy should not be allowed to perform LEGALLY
binding marriages; that should be a function of a state official. If everyone
were to do this, there could be no worry about being sued for refusal by some
members of the clergy to perform a marriage since the church/synagogue ceremony
would strictly be a religious rite.
@ Chris B" @Baccus,: Interesting you say you regret the
decision, but as a Mormon don't you believe that your prophet speaks for
God? So you regret what God has said?"Chris You seem
to know very little about LDS Doctrine. The church always taught me to think for
myself."the glory of God is intelligence" Education, study and
personal revelation are there to guide our lives as children of God and that is
one of the strength of Mormonism.You may find many LDS that do not
question what the authorities say. Well, that is their prerogative, However,
because of their blind faith they are going against the teaching of the leaders
of the church.How can you become a god if you don't dare to
make decisions for your own life?I didn't believe in priesthood
discrimination and I don't believe that God is against SSM. That is
my belief and that is between God and myself.I will continue
studying the scriptures, praying and developing my personal relationship with
God. I cannot in good conscience to consider myself an LDS in good standing.I love the church and will pray for it.
Mack2828:"If they really are prophets, why not just come out and
boldly state the truth??"They have -- on various occasions. One
occasion was issuing "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." How
many times has the church issued a proclamation to the entire world? Not a lot,
my friend.Did you also know in November 1995, President Hinckley and
Elder Neal A. Maxwell presented President Bill Clinton and vice president Al
Gore with a copy of the proclamation on the family as they met in the White
House to discuss ways to strengthen families? You can confirm by
doing a Google search for the terms "president hinckley bill clinton
proclamation family." The first handful of results is sufficient.
@Elms"Ok, so the church just stated what it believes. So what.
Now why are those beliefs being translated into public policy and law?"----------Saying that LDS Church beliefs are "translated into
public policy and law" is a stretch. Yes, people may vote with their
religious conscience, and that is a right. Not to mention that there
ARE non-religious arguments to supporting traditional marriage. See the
publication "What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense" by Sherif
Girgis (a former Rhodes Scholar studying for a law degree at Yale and a Ph.D. in
philosophy at Princeton), Ryan T Anderson (a graduate of Princeton and a
doctoral candidate in political philosophy at Notre Dame and a fellow at the
Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.), and Robert P George (J.D., Harvard;
D. Phil., Oxford is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University
and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School).
Funny that the LDS church issued a very similar letter in 1963 after Utah
allowed mixed-race marriage.
@oragamiThe Curch does not dictate State Policy. With that said as a
member that does not preclude me from getting involved with politics. As you ask
questions it shows you have a belief systme and I have mine. I am entitled to
support a political stand that I believe in, just as your are. Don't even
try the argument that it is about rights. Marriage is not a right. As such it
requires a license. The States have the RIGHT to set laws and rules for their
States. CO is now selling marijuana and that conflicts with the laws of the
Federal Gov. When the Appeals Court rules and the Supreme Court rules (either
side will appeal) then both sides will need to accept the ruling. Just becuase
you have a different BELIEF does not make it so I cannot have mine! You all
scream that our beliefs are affect you but you try and force your beliefs on me
@BYUalumWe do not live in a Theocracy, we live in a Republic where the
majority does not get to vote away the rights of the minority. I for one do not
believe in your god, therefore saying it's god's law means nothing.“Religious institutions that use government power in support of
themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith,
undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established
religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to
corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between
church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free
society.” ― Thomas Jefferson
It seems like the prophets we read about in the scriptures boldly denounced sin
without reservation. This statement sounds like it was carefully crafted and
scrutinized by attorneys and public relations people. If they really are
prophets, why not just come out and boldly state the truth??
I've said it before but it's worth saying again:"How
many legs has a dog, if you call a tail a leg? Five? No. Four. Calling a tail a
leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham LincolnIf the
government classifies an SUV as farm equipment for tax and emissions regulation
purposes, does that make it farm equipment? No. That's absurd. It
doesn't matter what a silly law says, it can't change the facts.If the government classifies a homosexual relationship as a marriage,
does it make it a marriage?If the government declares a man to be a
woman because of his "preferred gender identity" does that make him a
woman?The answers to both of these questions is a clear No. Giving
somebody an ID card with the wrong gender doesn't change his real gender,
it just perpetuates a sham. Giving people of the same gender a marriage license
doesn't make it a marriage, it just perpetuates a sham.Society
will have to face the real facts eventually.
Ok, so the church just stated what it believes. So what. Now why are those
beliefs being translated into public policy and law? This is supposed to be a
secular society. Gay marriage hurts no one. It affects no one except gay people.
The religious convictions of the majority should not be codified and enforced
against any minority. That this is happening and Utah is being run as a Mormon
caliphate is sickening. The argument I keep hearing is "But what about the
children?!". What children? Gay people don't accidentally get pregnant.
The few who will have kids would really, really, really want to be parents.
They'll be great parents and it's better that the kid go to them than
bounce around foster homes. Teach what you want to your members in your church.
Keep those beliefs out of government.
oragami:You quote D&C 134:9, but you didn't complete the
verse that changes the entire context. Here is the whole verse:"9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil
government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in
its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens,
denied."Since when did the gay marriage movement become a
religious society and claim spiritual privileges they are being denied?Even with the large LDS presence in Utah, are the rights of Catholics,
Muslims, Baptists, etc. denied somehow because LDS church leaders have taken
over the local government? Of course not. Please don't wrest
(twist) the scriptures.
It's frustrating. The overwhelming majority of people who support SSM have
absolutely no interest in changing the LDS church's religious beliefs,
however misled we think they are. Yet if you read the LDS' statement, it
makes it sound like that is what is happening and that this is all about the
church protecting their religious tenets. It's the opposite: religious
tenets were used to create discriminatory laws against real people, and it is
not just. I do respect mormons' religious beliefs. Please, continue your
pursuit to eternal glory as you see fit, but persecuting good gay families does
not make your pursuit any grander, in fact I think it may only hold you back.
Baccus: This issue of marriage between a man and a woman is not a political
issue. It is a religious issue. The government needs to get out of the way. This
is God's law. And He will have the final say. I appreciate the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' leadership making a strong statement on
this issue which will be read from the pulpit in our meetings this Sunday. Some
may not agree; it is, nevertheless, from our Prophet.
How does this affect missionary efforts when missionaries come upon same-sex
couples?The church requires potential converts who are living
together to be married, and in some areas of the world this is a frequent
stumbling block, as many couples who are co-habituating are not married.Presumably it will be like when the church previously encountered blacks
who were potential converts, or the church's stance on sending missionaries
to predominantly black nations, such as in Africa.My hunch is that
if a same-sex couple that was married legally expressed interest in the LDS
faith, the missionaries would back off, and decline further teaching or
engagement.Like the other news today that the federal government
will recognize the 1000 or so legal weddings that occurred in Utah over 18 days,
while the state does not recognize them, we're living in a situation of
@ChrisB, better be careful with calling out Baccus. You believe the pope speaks
for God, yet there is an even larger percentage of catholics that support SSM
than LDS. Why are the catholics not following their leader, if he speaks for
God?I agree with you wholeheartedly on supporting traditional
marriage. But it is still up to each individual to make that decision as part
of his/her gift of agency, weather you believe your church leader speaks for God
@BuzzardsThe church is less concerned with its tax-exempt status than you
would think. The church isn't a tax-exempt organization worldwide, so I
don't really see that as a deal-breaker. That really only applies in the
U.S. and a handful of other countries. Besides, the law of tithing was never
meant to be a vehicle to obtaining tax breaks. It's a law that was
revealed in Old Testament times and exists in the church worldwide. Might be
slightly less burdensome for someone in the U.S. to pay tithing (due to the tax
breaks) than someone in Nigeria or Indonesia or Japan, but that doesn't
mean the church would implode if it lost its 501(c)(3) designation. Render
therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the
things that are God’s.
The Church makes it's doctrines and positions very clear on SSM. The
question for me is how can Church Members, who say they are active LDS and
support it's doctrines, then go out and overtly support SSM, as though the
Church's position is totally irrelevant? To do both is incompatible with
living in reality.
@get her done: "Are same sex married couples allowed to attend church or
hold positions?"All are welcome to attend church. :) In order to
have a calling/position in the church, members need to be attending on a regular
basis and living consistent with the principles and beliefs taught by the
church. One of those principles is the law of chastity--that you don't
engage in sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage. Marriage in the church
is defined as between a man and a woman. So for this reason, anyone in a same
sex marriage would be very welcome to attend church, but they would not be given
a calling to serve.
YOU KNOW ITS COMINGWithin 10 years the Church will lose it's
tax exempt status over it's refusal to perform gay marriages. What does that mean? 1. The US Government will tax the church like a
business. 2. We all know how the IRS treats it's political enemies.
Consider the Church enemy-of-the-state #1. 3. No more tax deductible
tithing or offerings.500 years of religious freedom destroyed over a
couple of decades!Sound extremist? Who would have believed a couple
of decades back that the US government, in defiance of the US Supreme Court,
would overrule a Utah law ?
@get her doneYes, same-sex married couples are allowed to attend church.
Anybody is welcome to attend LDS services (as long as they aren't
disruptive and are wearing clothes I suppose). As for holding positions,
I'll go out on a limb and say 'no'. This is just my
though/interpretation, but given the church's position on same-sex
marriage, a same-sex couple would not be living the standards of the church, and
would therefore be precluded from holding positions or callings.
This is a sacred truth that applies to all the earth not just to members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. By not standing as a light on the
hill, and a beacon of truth, we are assisting our brothers and sisters on the
path to hell and allowing them to take us there at the same time. In the super
hero society today in which we live, we often hear “with great power comes
great responsibility.” Power is knowledge, knowledge is truth, and truth
is what we have, so we are the only ones with the true power or knowledge that
have the responsibility to stop it. So we can watch the world burn and burn with
it or act. That is the choice, there is no other, and the time is now.
God's representatives have spoken. So shall it be. They have been kind
enough to make the statement in a manner that will cause no contention. I
am LDS. Give us the respect we deserve to keep our religion as our God will have
us keep it.
Where much is given much is required or in scriptural terms “He who sins
against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation”(D&C
82:3) applies directly to us as members of the Church in this situation. We know
the truth through the Proclamation to the Family and because that precious
knowledge has been given to us our Heavenly Father is counting on us to support
His truth regardless of what others may “know” or say. We know the
Plan. We know why people are married. We know why they have families. We know
why we came here and why many more are coming here and what they have a right
to. That is a Father and a Mother not of the same gender but how Gods laws and
truth have ordained it, to be born into a marriage solely between a man and a
woman and to be raised correctly by them. Earth is not the destination but
rather an intersection of four roads. We cannot go back we can only go forward.
Continued on my next post…
@Baccus0902Thanks for the honest post to this article. I imagine being an
LGBT affiliated member of the church has got to be a very difficult thing at
times.One thing I thought of as I read your post was how oftentimes
we (myself included) place a lot of emphasis on what people think, especially in
religious settings. I believe President Monson is a prophet, and I would
undoubtedly care to know what he thought of me (if he knew me personally). But
beyond that, I care what God thinks of me. I'm reminded of the scriptures
that teach us to not fear man, but to fear God. I'm reminded of what the
prophet Isaiah said: "Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the
Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we
will walk in his paths."I think we would do well to remember
that our maker loves us and has instructed us to follow certain commandments
that will help us lead happy and fulfilling lives. Joshua 24:15. Thanks again
for your honest post.
I know that the General Authorities speak and direct with inspiration, and that
this gentle but clear counsel is given after much prayer and consideration for
all those listening. It reassures me that belonging to this church is the right
decision for me.
In my study I found that truth is truth regardless of what others may say. As
members of the church we do not know all truths, but what we do know is what our
Heavenly Father, being the author of all truth, has revealed to the Prophets and
what they have shared with us. This is especially true when it comes to the
nature of the family and marriage. With the family under attack and the nature
of society teaching us that we should be accepting and tolerant of others views
I feel that many young Latter-day Saints try to be in the middle and say that
others can do what they want or they feel is right, so they don’t agree
with gay marriage but they don’t actively oppose it, which is a mistake.
As members of the Church we know the truth, the whole truth in this matter and
others only have pieces and so their responsibility is different than ourselves.
Continued on my next post...
"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that
God has established."It is refreshing to see LDS church leaders
make a distinction between civil law and LDS moral laws.For the
United States to be true to its principles, equality in the law will prevail,
and I do hope the LDS devout will take comfort in the fact that their beliefs
remain theirs to have and to hold, which indeed, is all they ever were. The same principle of equality ensures each of us are able to live our
own lives as we see fit. I hope Utahns can get better at sharing the public
square, treating other civilly and start being better neighbors.
Baccus0902: The Church has NEVER tried to interfere with ANYONE'S right to
live their life according to the dictates of their own conscience. The Church
has never tried to take away anyone's free agency to live anyway they
choose. You can choose to live any way you want.But, choosing to
live any way you want is not the same and trying to redefine marriage.
That's different. The Church has only tried to protect marriage and the
family which is the standard that has stood for thousands of years and have
proved to be very efficacious for mankind.As a member of the Church
I wish you well.
I suspect this is the first brick in the wall the church is trying to build
between it's standards and the day when the government comes after
it's tax-exempt status. I only hope we can build it strong and thick
enough. Remember: "The power to tax is the power to
destroy"-Daniel Webster.I can promise you those on the other side of
this issue know that.
* cannot make bad into good* wrong cannot become right* evil does
not transform into good* a lie does not become truth* stealing is
not charityNo spin, majority, wishing, judge, or certificate can
change these things.After all that's been said, and done-Gay marriage is what it is.Doesn't mean we go around
hating, or hurting others. We are free to make our own decisions.
Well written statement.Baccus: While I disagree with some of your
comments, I appreciate your civility. I wish people could agree to disagree on
this matter with more kindness to each other. And believe me that goes for both
The letter states "Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change
the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His
commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society"I understand and respect the right of religious people to believe this. At the
same time, I am grateful that civil law (often prompted by humanism and
scientific progress) has repudiated those aspects of God's law/Biblical
morality that are in fact, immoral.I am also grateful that the
Doctrine and Covenants states that "We do not believe it just to mingle
religious influence with civil government." I hope this also qualifies as
doctrinal guidance that Mormons will respect and uphold.
Are same sex married couples allowed to attend church or hold positions?
@Baccus, "I have no recourse other than accept it as the voice
of the authorities of the church."And Mormons believe that these
authorities you mention speak for God correct? Interesting you say
you regret the decision, but as a Mormon don't you believe that your
prophet speaks for God? So you regret what God has said?As a non-Mormon, I don't get it. If you Mormons believe your prophet
speaks for God what is there to "regret"? Shouldn't people always
support what God says?
"Church leaders also requested reciprocal civility for the church's
positions."Them doing what they want with regards to their own
meetinghouses and temples is perfectly fine with me.
I am not Mormon but I stand with Mormon prophet Monson(and Pope Francis) on this
"Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to
His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families,
guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for
nurturing children, instilling faith and transmitting to future generations the
moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to
eternal salvation."There it is. That pretty much sums it up for
all of the LDS members who have been confused on this issue.I
appreciate this statement being issued by the Church and applaud their call for
civility on both sides.
Love the always careful wording of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the
Twelve so no one on either side can misunderstand their position or statements.
Also liked that they reiterated that while we as LDS disagree with
those who support SSM, we will treat them kindly and allow them to believe and
act as they will....Just as we hope supporters of SSM will
reciprocate and allow us the same freedom to believe and act as we will---And that they would offer the same kindness to us.
The LDS Church has made an official statement, which is reasonable, respectful,
and clearly expresses its opinion and rules about Same Sex Marriage.As an LDS I regret the decision. However, I have no recourse other than accept
it as the voice of the authorities of the church.As an LGBT man I
respect the LDS church decision and certainly accept their rejection to SSM.There is no resentment and as always I wish well to all the saints.However, the conflict has never been because supporters of SSM want to
use the LDS buildings or LDS to officiate in our ceremonies. The conflict is
because the LDS church has interfered in politics in an attempt to prevent some
individuals to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience.
Read the entire release from the church website. Well done!