Web sites back gay unions

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Steve Smith
    Aug. 27, 2008 5:59 p.m.

    The prophet has inspiration, and so do I as a faithful lifelong member. I've personally received an answer to my prayer that we should not discriminate, hate, but rather love one another. The savior of the world would not be asking you for your money to make people feel bad. If the church fought this with their funds they would be taxed like a corporation. The government draws the line between politics and religion for a reason. Now we as LDS californians are supposed to fund a political initiative because our prophet is crossing the line? I will not do this and would encourage those that believe in Jesus teachings to stand up with me and not support this. We have very little foundation as a church to be telling others about their sexual practices when we still believe in section 132 that tells us we can only get to CK by Polygamy.

  • granddad
    Aug. 27, 2008 12:45 p.m.

    When I ask why I should I vote yes on proposition 8 it all boils down to "Follow the Prophet". That's supposed to settle the issue? An appeal to a priesthood office? I don't think so:

    "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood (or priesthood office), only by persuasion (stop trying to scare me or warn me) long suffering, by gentleness and meekness, (enough with the proclamations and marching orders) and by love unfeigned;"

    (Telling our gay and lesbian members that we love them but hate their behavior is a bit like our evangelical friends insisting that "We love Mormons but we hate mormonism". Or: We love women, we just hate it when they behave like women)

    If the bretheren can't do a better job of persuading me, I am under no obligation to vote yes. It is a clear cut violation of the Lord's program as outlined in the 121 section of the Doctrine and Covenants. (D & C 121:41

  • Captain Moroni
    Aug. 27, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    Must We Vote The Way The Brethren Tell Us To Vote?
    Consider -

    Some of my friends begged me to come out and appeal to the people individually, to ask every Latter-day Saint to vote to maintain the Eighteenth Amendment. I believe men that have lived the gospel just as well as I have ever lived it, many of them, were conscientious in voting for repeal.
    (Heber J. Grant, GOSPEL STANDARDS - Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Heber J. Grant, Compiled by G. Homer Durham, Ch.9, Pg. 144)

    As a public official in my young manhood, I was given some wise counsel by a Church leader. He said: The only action we will ever ask you to take is to vote for that which in your heart you feel is right. We would rather many times over that you would make a mistake doing that which you felt was right, than to vote for a policy sake.
    (Harold B. Lee, Ye Are the Light of the World: Selected Sermons and Writings of Harold B. Lee [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974])

    We CAN vote differently than the Brethren wish we would and still be just as righteous.

  • Captain Moroni
    Aug. 25, 2008 4:50 p.m.

    Jesse Harris says - "Apparently "Captain Moroni" is more qualified to tell us what the gospel means than the current prophet is. And how? By clinging more to the words of the dead prophets than the living ones. "

    I'm quoting scripture...D&C 134:4 which we are in open rebellion against. We are also violating the Savior's words about rendering unto Caesar. The legal rights associated with marriage is the domain of Caesar. Why are we trying to usurp Caesar's rights?

    I've been waiting for 10 years for an answer as to why our Prop 22 / Prop 8 efforts are not in violation of D&C 134:4 about us allowing our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. The CA gays have this right and we are using our religious opinions about gays and marriage as an excuse to get involved in denying them their equal rights. Why are we in open violation of the sustained word of God?

  • Edgar 27
    Aug. 25, 2008 4:06 p.m.

    This is a moral issue That people are starting to justify!! it is wrong!!!!!!! im sorry im so blunt about it, but god made man to be in union with women. thats just how it is !!!!! look at the anatomy, need i say more !!!!

  • Lori
    Aug. 25, 2008 2:42 p.m.

    Many object to moral and religious teachings in our schools, but fail to see the problem with same sex relationships being taught as normal, a problem. It is a moral issue. We have been desensitized to the evil doings of Satan. We put many names on it, but it boils down to this......if it is contrary to the teachings of our Heavenly Father, it is not good. LDS people are not the only church goers to reject the idea of same sex marriage. It is not a "mormon doctrine" It is scripture, recognized worldwide by many Christian sects. You can use your agency to choose to follow the Prophet or not. As for me and my house, we will choose the Lord.(Which IS the teaching of our Prophet)

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 25, 2008 2:29 p.m.

    While I was on my mission we had at least four elders of African descent. I did not name any of them in my prievious list.
    There was Elder Duarte whose very presece allowed for progress with a lady whose husband was African-American and who had been told the church hated black people but never brought this issue up with the missionaries.
    Then there was Borhter Jones, the black man who was the high councilor assigned to my ward when I got back from my mission.
    Here in the Bloomfield Hills Michigan Stake possibly close to a third of the members are of African descent in some way. Maybe not quite that high, but it does depend if we count children under the age of eight because several of these are either of mixed parentage or adopted.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 25, 2008 2:26 p.m.

    Katrice Brinson, Celes Obispo, Gregory Eugene-Louis, Monte Louis, Richard Horton, Alonzo Grey, Jesse Thomas, Solomon Bills, Sekou Benson, Tia Battle, Michael Banks, Ricardo Sant'Ana, Lonnie Smith, Michelle Lewis, Shun Williams, Sister Viland, Sister Wozniak and Frank Varner is just a short list of members of African descent I know.
    Darius Grey does bring up the issues of blacks and the priesthood, but since he is an active and faithful member does not use it as a club to attack the church as some people do. Dr. Marcus Martins is a strong and faithful supporter of the leaders of the church although he has written books on this subject.
    I just realized I totally neglected to mention several members of African descent I have known, and as I sit here I realize that the longer I think the more I can think of. Even Jackie Oludipei who told me she was afraid being around all the white people at BYU never expressed distress over the blacks and the priesthood issue.
    I did know one African-American church member who had major hang ups over this issue.

  • Right on Frank!
    Aug. 25, 2008 1:13 p.m.

    Thanks for the "spiritually correct" comment Frank. There has been many comments made be these "politically correct" people that makes it seem like it's OK to be an active, faithful member of the LDS church - while claiming to be a celibate homosexual. What rubbish. If I have sinful, adulterous thoughts of my neighbor's wife, can I claim to be a "active, faithful, LDS, celibate adulterer"? Trials and sins can be tormenting. Why would a person want to take a step towards admitting defeat and label themselves in any way as a homosexual?

  • Jesse Harris
    Aug. 25, 2008 1:05 p.m.

    Apparently "Captain Moroni" is more qualified to tell us what the gospel means than the current prophet is. And how? By clinging more to the words of the dead prophets than the living ones.

  • BT
    Aug. 25, 2008 12:59 p.m.

    I don't get why people insist on making this a civil rights issue. Civil rights are the right to vote, to work, to participate in the political process, to pursue your own education and career, to worship how you please and if you please. Intimacy is a human right, not a civil one, and who or if you choose to share that has little to do with your ability or right to participate in any of those civil rights. Nobody is stopping any gay person from forming a relationship with anyone, or outlawing any such thing. What they are saying is that by its very nature such a thing is not a "marriage", and to please stop trying to redefine the very foundation of our society. A few decades ago the "experts" were telling us that divorce would have no adverse affect on society, but years of research, observation, social work and tax dollars have incontrovertibly proven otherwise. The moon may want to call its half of the clock "Day" because it appears to some much like the sun in form and function - it even reflects the same light. But calling it so won't make it so.

  • DKLind
    Aug. 25, 2008 11:21 a.m.

    The gay community wanted civil unions, they go it. Then they wanted marriage status recognition, and in some states, they got that also. Then what will they want, temple sealings. All it will take is some liberal judge to say to the church, "don't discriminate and perform sealing or else you'll loose your tax exempt status." The church will let the tax exemption go before it will perform a same sex temple sealing. Oh, but then what! The church will be outlawed. Does this sound ludicrous? Only time will tell. The further the envelope is stretched to accommodate Babylon the further Babylon will want to stretch it.

  • Captain Moroni
    Aug. 25, 2008 10:43 a.m.

    KC wrote - "So many people told me they don't care if homosexuals marry or not, it doesn't affect the rest of us. That's where they are wrong. My children spend 7 hours a day in school learning things that may or may not be in opposition to the moral standards I teach them at home."

    CM - The purpose of school is NOT to push YOUR values. That's what seminary is for. What if you were a member of the racist Aryan Nations Church? Should the school stop teaching that all men are equal simply because this parent will object?

    Parents need to take responsibility to teach the kids their own values.

  • Captain Moroni
    Aug. 25, 2008 10:33 a.m.

    Yes, the same one from lds4gaymarriage.org. Just a few questions

    We know that gays currently have a right to marry here in CA. We also know that D&C 134:4 says that those who let their religious beliefs prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others are not in synch with God. Why are we disobeying scripture by trying to impose our religious teachings of marriage on others?

    We bitterly complained when others used their religious opinions to infringe upon a weak and unpopular minority (us) by dictating what constitutes a legal marriage. Now we are doing the same thing to others. Why are we being 2 faced?

    Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God, that which is Gods. The religious aspect of marriage is where the Church comes in. We set standards for temple worthiness and other qualifications. The secular/legal aspect of marriage belongs to Caesar. These include tax laws, inheritance laws, child custody laws, alimony, etc. Why is the Church ignoring Christs words?

    Ive asked bishops and stake presidents and have yet to receive an answer. Can ANYONE provide one? We'd L-O-V-E to hear it.


  • Just another guy...
    Aug. 25, 2008 10:23 a.m.

    I agree with the science thing, but with the church thing I think many of the folks here are off base. So what if the Church leaders are men capable of mistakes? God has been very clear on this principle. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    The science guy statement above says means being heterosexual is a choice as well (big shock) and since it is a choice it must needs be governed by the laws of God. Why would he give a law when we have no choice in the obeying of that law. Thou shalt breathe?

  • Just this guy...
    Aug. 25, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    If you want to look at the scientific view, sexual preference is a choice. There is a huge body of evidence to support this and it's growing. If it were genetic or compulsory there would be no attraction between people that varied from a predictable norm. Old people would not "shack up," young people would be attracted to a more uniform minority and outliers would be unable to reproduce. That is how genetic attraction works in other species. Since our species obviously does not work that way it is clear to see that it is a choice.

    We also do not have enough evidence to predict the effect of same-sex marriages on society. We just don't know if it is sociologically good or bad. It is irresponsible to allow gay marriage when we don't even have our facts straight.

  • KC from CA
    Aug. 25, 2008 9:51 a.m.

    I think so many people are misunderstanding Prop 8. I spent a Saturday morning knocking on doors in my town to raise awareness of and gather opinions on Prop 8. So many people told me they don't care if homosexuals marry or not, it doesn't affect the rest of us. That's where they are wrong. My children spend 7 hours a day in school learning things that may or may not be in opposition to the moral standards I teach them at home. So far I've been notified before 5th grade human development classes and I've seen copies of high school reading lists. I have the opportunity to review the material they will be taught and discuss it with them at home. The legalization of gay marriage will give all types of marriage equal weight in textbooks and other teaching materials beginning in kindergarten. Children will be taught that gay marriage is normal and acceptable from an early age, and all my efforts at home may or may not undo those teachings. Legalization of gay marriage WILL affect all of us in so may ways, some of which will not be obvious until years later.

  • Jesse Harris
    Aug. 25, 2008 8:35 a.m.

    Men whom you believe speak to God tell you what God's will is and you not only ignore it but work against it? I don't get it.

    Sure, LDS are not expected to blindly follow what the prophet says. We are, however, expected to search for a reconciliation between what we are told and any preconceived positions we may have. In the end, the knowledge that the Prophet speaks for God should be a really compelling factor in following willingly. There is also a very fine line between ignoring counsel and actively fighting against it. When you cross that line, you should not be surprised to find yourself on the wrong end of church discipline.

    Over 160 years ago, the LDS were told not to smoke or drink alcohol. It took more than a century for science to validate this health advice as sound. Maybe it's time to show a bit of faith that church leaders know what they are doing.

  • Another Way
    Aug. 25, 2008 5:46 a.m.

    Why do we lock ourselves into a box when it comes to this divisive issue? The best way to work with this issue is to separate Civil Union from marriage. In other words, within the law we should remove the term marriage regardless of sexual orientation so a man and a woman or two men or two woman should, in the law's eyes, only have the choice of a Civil Union. Then individual churches can continue to have their own marriage ceremony that conforms to their definition of marriage.

    Marriage seems to be a religious term whereas Civil Union is a legal term. Until recently (the last 30 or 40 years), no one really questioned that a union was only between man and a woman so marriage was accepted within the law despite the fact that it was religious ceremony. Now that there is clear support that men want to unite themselves with men and women with women, we should create only civil unions within the law.

  • Doug from Sac
    Aug. 25, 2008 2:06 a.m.

    From a Mormon Libertarian who favored Ron Paul over Mitt Romney (moot point now!), who will do his quadrennial windmill-tilt and vote for Bob Barr this Nov, who will garner as many electoral votes as his LP predecessors..zilcho..
    We are being COUNSELED, not arm-twisted. Though I have severe qualms with government involvement in marriage to the extent that it is (having been divorced once, I know of what I speak!), there MUST be a definition of what marriage is..and is NOT. At some point, public policy has to be determined.
    Unlike some LDS that I've heard, I have no qualms with what ever disgusting thing that two consenting adults do with each other (but put a lid on it, K?). But please don't make a mockery of what has been the historical norm for a stable, healthy society, a family that starts with man and woman as husband and wife.
    And having three sons, I can't help but feel profound disgust at the notion that some sick pervert would lust after them in an unnatural way. Likewise I wish to protect my grandsons...and I won't apologize for it.

  • Speaking as a geneticist...
    Aug. 25, 2008 12:30 a.m.

    1. Homosexuality is absolutely not a genetic predisposition! It is a learned behavior that over time becomes reinforced by brain chemistry. Much like alcoholism.

    2. There is a lot of flawed research that has been used to support a genetic component to homosexuality. Just like the cigarette manufactures used to show no correlation between nicotine and addiction.

    3. Pedophiles and rage-aholics can also be shown to have genetic predispositions to their particular weakness but it doesn't make their behavior acceptable! It is a challenge to be overcome just like homosexuality. There are hundreds of thousands or recovering homosexuals who know the healing power of repentence. It is just another challenge of mortality.

  • Re: Lambert
    Aug. 24, 2008 9:58 p.m.

    Lambert states "I do not normally see church members of African descent bringing this issue up, and rarely even see church members who have many African descended friends and associates bringing up the issue with such hate and vitriol."

    Ah, John, what black members would that be?

  • Frank
    Aug. 24, 2008 8:38 p.m.

    Thoughts and feelings are what lead to actions. Having and entertaining homosexual thoughts is lust, and lust is a sin. Jesus said if you look on a woman to lust after her you've committed the sin of adultery already in your heart. Homosexual thoughts and feelings, being lustful therefore, are sinful, and need to be repented of. Homosexual thoughts and feelings should be resisted and overcome. To allow them a place in your heart and mind is where the sin comes in. It may not be grounds for action on your church membership, but they are sinful nonetheless. Claiming celebate homosexuality as sinless is trying to stand on both sides of the line.

  • Captain Moroni
    Aug. 24, 2008 3:17 p.m.

    To those who believe we should follow the prophet no matter what, consider -

    "We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves." (Joseph Smith - Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595)

  • Sean
    Aug. 24, 2008 1:13 p.m.

    I have a brother that after 10 years of marriage and two kids decided that he was gay. This decision has left nothing but heartache in his ex-wife and daughters. In talking to him he does not say he is happier in his life. He has said though that he has never felt more sexually satisfied.

    If you do not believe in the teachings of a church don't go to it. Leave others to their beliefs. Do what most people do, find a church that fits with your beliefs.

    I personally believe that acting out homosexual feelings is a sin. Having homosexual feelings is not a sin. I have always felt that each one of us has been given certain challenges to overcome. This is one of those challenges for some people.

  • Mormon Pro-Gays..hahaha
    Aug. 24, 2008 12:50 a.m.

    I just laugh...a really good belly laugh, when I read all the rationalizations the pro-gays use to justify their sin. Bottom line, God shall not be mocked.

    Read the scriptures. Man+man, woman +woman=no children=no eternal family unit=false eternal plan. Gay unions are a mockery of a priesthood ordinance called marriage, not that gays in their continuing sin won't visciously claw back at this comment. It's still the truth no matter how much they deny it.

    In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we are taught to be tolerant of homosexuals, even tho' their behavior is a sin. Ok, fine! If you feel to oppose doctrine, then deal with the consequences and stop whining. Your salvation is your responsibility.

    God loves all His children, even gays and lesbians. He doesn't love their disobedience or that they mock Him by creating gay pseudo-marriages.

    One shows their depth of faith in God by their obedience and faithfulness to His commandments, not some "psuedo obedience". Gays show less faith in God through their choice to be disobedient.

    Equality aside, gay marriage is a mockery to God. That's the only truth I need to vote Yes on Prop 8.

  • nicole
    Aug. 24, 2008 12:21 a.m.

    this makes me sad. Isn't church the one place everyone can go to feel the love of thier Saviour? shouldn't we welcome everyone to church with open arms? It's not our place to judge and it never has been. there is only one person who can do that.

  • Re: John
    Aug. 23, 2008 11:00 p.m.

    I love that you reference D&C as the official word of God. Oh well I guess if D&C says that same sex relations are bad, than it must be. I realize that you believe that Joe Smith was a prophet, but are led blindly in everything you do. I know that members believe that if they question the church or even leave the church bad things will happen. I must confess after leaving the church my life and my families lives have never been better. If anyone is feeling like there is a heaviness on their backs, once the church is a thing of the past that weight will leave you immediately.

  • W. Patch
    Aug. 23, 2008 9:22 p.m.

    Thank you John Pack Lambert for taking the time to reply to all those ridiculous, warped comments. Homosexuality is unacceptable and will never go hand-in-hand with the gospel of Jesus Christ. No matter how hard people who practice homosexuality push to be accepted by the world - their thoughts and actions will still be wrong. And to all those people that say things like, "my conscience tells me the church is wrong on the gay marriage issue" - Where is that little voice coming from? I think you may have your antennas tuned to the wrong station...

  • Unconditional Love
    Aug. 23, 2008 8:47 p.m.

    It is interesting to me that people believe that if a homosexual couple gets married it somehow effects your marriage or who you are as a person. It is so easy to see that when Mr. Monson or any organization tries to put a stop to something that doesn't effect them (like gay marriage) they are acting out of fear. I have met Mr. Monson and he appeared to me to be a very sweet man. However, I don't believe that he or anyone else speaks for God. Each and every person has their own answers within them, I certainly would not give away my inner knowing because someone else claims they know what is best for me. If the LDS Church believes in baptisims for the dead, than what does it matter if gay couples get married. If they screw up in your eyes here on earth, just baptize them when they are dead and they can be saved. Isn't that how it works in your church?

  • Seeking the best for gays
    Aug. 23, 2008 8:02 p.m.

    Make no mistake -- gay people are spirit offspring of a divine Creator who loves every one of His children, and wants our eternal happiness. In His greater wisdom and perspective, He knows that gay sexual relations will ultimately cause grief and pain. It is for that reason that He has commanded that we eschew such behavior. It is for the same reason that those who truly love and support their gay friends and family members refuse to facilitate that harmful behavior, and instead, oppose gay marriage and civil unions.

    True, it sounds arrogant to suggest that other people know what is in a gay person's best interest to a greater extent than he does himself. However, it is not their own knowledge upon which these believers rely, but their faith in the word of God. True arrogance lies in believing that we know more about what is good for us than does our Creator.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 23, 2008 5:39 p.m.

    To the person who is afraid to use their name at 4:56,
    I think it is quite out of line to give a talk in church opposing the church's position. To say that people reacting negatively to such a talk are racist is quite judgemental.
    Spencer W. Kimball said that the church would condemn homosexuality as long as men had bodies to defile.
    This is an issue that strikes at the core teachings of the church. Homosexuality is irreconcilable with the Plan of Salvation.
    I urge you to go read the article in the October 2007 Ensign on this subject by Jeffrey R. Holland.
    To equate changes in the endownment ceremony so that it more accurately speaks to people in a way that they will today understand to questions of sexual morality is to not understand that there are some issues that are more inportant than others.
    Marriage is the most important thing, and we must defend it.

  • Californian
    Aug. 23, 2008 4:55 p.m.

    I'm currently a college student back on the east coast and am able to vote in California on this proposition. I have had many gay friends (high school and college-including in my dorm)(even a close friend in high school that decided he was gay). This issue has always been hard to understand for me. However, what I can understand-is the Spirit. I had an overwhelming confirmation by the Spirit (when I least expected it) that the Family: A Proclamation to the World is true. We can debate all we want on the internet, but what it really comes down to is taking our conclusions to God. In the end, it all boils down to God and us, so take your decisions on this issue to the Lord for a confirmation. If you come by the spirit to a different conclusion than me, I won't contest it, because after all it is all between you and God and his servant the Holy Ghost; however, I know what conclusion I came to and I know how to vote for myself in November.

  • Re John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 23, 2008 4:56 p.m.

    My, aren't you the busy typist.

    We get it that you're being obedient. Good for you.

    What about those of us who cannot reconcile our desire to be obedient with what our heart-of-hearts tell us?

    I caused a bit of a scandal in my ward when as a young man in 1975 I spoke in church against the policy denying blacks the priesthood. That was a mess.

    In addition to discovering the ugly racism that many of my "friends" of the time embraced but about which I'd been clueless, I heard many people say, "You're wrong, I stand with the prophet on this issue."

    Polygamy, skin color, ceremony changes, the church does change to correct itself.

    My conscience, which has served me very well for decades, tells me that the church's stand regarding gays is wrong. I don't know if the church will ever agree with me, and it's really not important that they do, but I'm nonetheless going to speak my mind on the subject.

    The church is wrong on this issue. It's irrational, indefensible, and hurtful. There's nothing Christ-like about it.

  • RL
    Aug. 23, 2008 4:40 p.m.

    "accomodate this issue"??? That's not what the church is here for. Accommodation is for businesses. A church is, take it or leave it. When they start accommodating special interests, they are no longer a church with doctrine, but just a business wanting to please the masses.

  • kenny
    Aug. 23, 2008 2:43 p.m.

    Latter day saints who speak out against the churches stance on gay marriages will probably become a repeat of what the church saw when polygamy was forbidden and those who still practiced polygamy formed their own churches. Perhaps some day there may well be the so called "Gay Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints" and still refer to themselves as mormons unless it has already taken place.If every Latter day saint had to publically state their stance, I think we would see a large number of excommunications or those disfellowshipped.We have more liberals in the church than ever before who wish to express their thoughts instead of just follow the prophet no matter what.I forsee a time of apostacy at hand over this issue.As for me, I will follow the prophet.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 23, 2008 2:34 p.m.

    To Brian Benington,
    Your view that protest would have solved the issues related to blacks holding the priesthood is unfounded.
    Why the Lord allowed the priesthood ban to remain in place I do not know.
    I do not normally see church members of African descent bringing this issue up, and rarely even see church members who have many African descended friends and associates bringing up the issue with such hate and vitriol.
    To people like you it is a staff to hit the church with. However you misunderstand the issue. The analogy to same gender relations is totally misplaced.
    Those of African descent were not ordained to the priesthood, but they were not deemed by accepted church doctrine to be sinful by nature.
    In the case of same gender marriage the church has always opposed it. The Lord has condemned it throughout history. The united first presidency has urged church members to support traditional marriage.
    What is your analogy with the issue of people of Afrian descent. Maybe the statements by the First Presidency on the issue of civil rights legislation. Oh, except the first presidency came out in favor of that.
    I stand with President Monson.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 23, 2008 2:28 p.m.

    To sealings,
    There have been many denunciations of homosexuality in the scriptures. The Doctrine and Covenants clearly states a man should cleve unto his wife and none else. This totally excludes same gender relationships.
    Your lack of knowledge about even the basics of Latter-day Saint doctrine and assumption that we have to turn to a dead prophet instead of the living Thomas S. Monson to denounce homosexuality as immoral tells me trying to answer your bated question is not worth while.
    same Gender relations will never be sealed.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 23, 2008 2:24 p.m.

    I am tired tired of the attempts by the opponants of traditional marriage to make the church seem to be a repressive organization.
    Their line about "fear of retribution" is just total hogwash. If they disagree with the teachings of the church why are they still in it?
    I am tired of the wimpy, go with the flow, spineless people who on Sundays pretend to be faithful members of the church, but then spend the rest of the week opposing the teachings of the prophet.
    Either we stand with the prophet and suatain him, or we reject him. He delivers God's word to us. God has called upon us to oppose the evil institution of same gender marriage.
    Those who oppose the church on this by trying to twist the Doctrine and Covenants need to spend a little more time reading Alma, a little more time considering whose religious rights will be infringed upon and a little less time trying to fit in with mainstream society and be normal like everyone else.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 23, 2008 2:16 p.m.

    This type of website is more insidious and destructive than an outright anti-Mormon websites. I can not think of anything worse than setting up a website where you claim to be faithful and directly speak against the Prophet of the Lord.
    I worry more about the rebels within the church who think they can change the doctrine of the church by lobbying.
    I will stand with the prophet of the Lord and stand for marriage as between a man and a woman.

  • Brian
    Aug. 23, 2008 1:18 p.m.

    Many churches, other than the LDS Church, have realized that our past interpretations of the very few "homosexual" scriptures in the bible were based in our culturally-learned prejudices, rather than in accurate biblical scholarship. Modern day science has also brought to light the fact that sexual orientation is something that is not chosen, but is often pre-ordained through a person's genetic makeup.

    These things, together with the fact that the LDS Church believes the bible is only God's word "as far as it is correctly translated," evidence that Mormonism needs to rethink it position and create an honorable space in its religious practices for gay & lesbian members who wish to live in loving, committed relationships.

    After all, members of the Church throughout the world are often required to marry Civilly first, prior to their being "sealed" in a Mormon temple. These are "for time only" marriages, in contrast to "eternal" marriages.

    Civil Marriage would provide gays & lesbians and their children the same level of security as their straight counterparts, without Mormons having to change either their present doctrines or practices.

    And, ultimately, God will decide who is together in the next life.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 23, 2008 12:43 p.m.

    Being homosexual does not automatically infer that someone is promiscous, nor that they are incapable of living in loving, committed relationships that last a lifetime.

    There is a way that the LDS Church could accomodate this issue, and it is found in the fact that church members in many countries have to marry civilly first, before they can be "sealed" in a Mormon temple.

    Such marriages are "for time only," in Mormon-mindset, and would thus not affect either Church doctrine nor their ideas about eternal families. After all, many things will NEVER be resolved in this live -- no matter how much we think we know.

  • Brian
    Aug. 23, 2008 12:38 p.m.

    Giving gays & lesbians the same opportunity for marriage as their heterosexual counterparts will provide them and their families with a stabilizing force in their lives -- such marriages, like the civil marriages that members of the church in different parts of the world have to go through by law before their temple "sealings," would be in effect marriages "for time only," and would not affect the Church's present doctrines about the family and marriage.

    There is no reason that the Church can't eventually make accomodations for the loving, committed, "earthly" relationships of same-sex couples and their children, adopted or otherwise. Doing so would apply both the principles of mercy and justice!

    One other thing: with our belief that the bible is the word of God only "insofar as it is correctly translated," there is no reason that we should not reexamine the "homosexual" scriptures in the light of current day scholarship and science. Other churches have done so, and have realized that our past understanding of these scriptures were based in cultural and religious biases -- and a misunderstanding of who and what homosexuals are.

    Many gays & lesbians have been in committed relationships for a lifetime.

  • Derek Price
    Aug. 23, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    I don't think it's appropriate for any church -- including my own -- to try to write its doctrine into civil law.

    I've been an active Mormon all my life, but I resent being told how I'm supposed to vote and which political causes I should support. In my case, this issue forces me to choose between my deeply held libertarian political philosophy and my just-as-deeply-held Mormon upbringing. The two should be perfectly compatible, especially given the church's belief in free agency.

    Remember, Christ said, "Come, follow me." He didn't say, "Come, re-write the laws so everyone HAS to follow me."

  • Brian Benington
    Aug. 23, 2008 12:27 p.m.

    There is such a thing as misplaced faith!

    Where was the common sense of church members who continued to "support" & "sustain" their church leaders in denying black members the priesthood -- despite the changes already brought about in society by the Civil Rights movement, and the lives of black church members which evidenced they were every bit as valiant and acceptable as white members. [And then, of course, there is always the fact that Joseph Smith himself ordained a black man to the priesthood].

    Even the apostle Bruce R. McConkie was eventually constrained to admit, speaking of himself and other church leaders: "We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world....Forget everything that I have said ... or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation."

    Because of the "limited" and conveniently racist understanding of church leaders and members on this issue, thousands of potential converts (black & white) never joined the church, and many active members (again both black & white) left the church.

  • Sealings
    Aug. 23, 2008 12:18 p.m.

    I thought that eventually ALL would be sealed to one another. So what exactly is the problem with gay marriage since it expedites the sealings. Please don't humor me with the gay is immoral issue since clearly eating shellfish is also immoral as well as the punishment for disobedience to parents is death.

  • Church Leaders
    Aug. 23, 2008 12:18 p.m.

    LDS Church Leaders are not infallible, or so I thought. I sustain them, so long as the promptings of the spirit tell me. Had people not sustained B.Y. for his racist teachings despite J.S. actions regarding Elijah Abel and his sons, the church would not have need for embarrassment regarding the "restoration of the priesthood" to our African American brethren which, if J.S. had been abided would have no need for restoration. Do we still teach blood atonement? Oh, that's right, we didn't sustain that as canon. Again, church leaders are fallible. Sheesh.

  • John
    Aug. 23, 2008 11:34 a.m.

    "With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. - Bruce R. McConkie

    If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. - Joseph Fielding Smith

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

  • Not a ditto-head
    Aug. 23, 2008 11:10 a.m.

    So what do you do when your deepest, most sincerely felt sense of right and wrong tells you that your "leaders" are wrong?

    Church leaders have been wrong before on other things, church policies have changed, and the Sun still manages to rise each day.

    I trust my inner moral compass. It tells me, in no uncertain terms, that the Church is wrong on this issue.

  • Insight
    Aug. 23, 2008 10:51 a.m.

    6:02 a.m. is right. Are these people really sustaining the people they agreed to install as leaders? You said you'd follow them, and this is how you support someone you believe is inspired? Oh, unless it comes to a disagreement over your political agenda.

  • JT
    Aug. 23, 2008 10:40 a.m.


  • Foretold
    Aug. 23, 2008 6:02 a.m.

    So much for sustaining your church leaders.