This statement stood out:
We are not anti-gay. We are pro-family. I want to emphasize that.
I know many members who do not see a difference between the two. Is there a difference? Can someone by pro-family without being anti-gay?
November 17, 2005
Anti-Gay
Thanks to Ian over at War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength, I came across this article from five years ago when President Hinckley was interviewed regarding politics.
This statement stood out:
I know many members who do not see a difference between the two. Is there a difference? Can someone by pro-family without being anti-gay?
This statement stood out:
I know many members who do not see a difference between the two. Is there a difference? Can someone by pro-family without being anti-gay?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
87 comments:
I think Gordon B. Hinckley is a prime example of someone who is pro-family without being anti-gay.
Pro-family: His mission as President of the Church is to bring about the organization and preservation of families, for eternity. He advocates family home evening, parental responsibility, etc. etc.
Not anti-gay: He has explicitly stated that those identified as gays and lesbians are welcome in the Church, and that they are expected to live by the same commandments as everyone else.
I've heard plently of lip-service in regard to not being anti-gay by members but I have yet to see anyone who looks at a non-practising gay man and a single woman in her 40's in the same light.
Doctrinally they both are somewhat 'off the path' but there's significant stigma attached to the gay man and not nearly the same level of disapproval, marginalization and scorn for the single woman.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on this topic though...
I personally think you can be pro-family without being anti-gay - but I don't know how you define either one of those terms. I'm sure my definition is different than yours...or maybe not.
I know several gay men and women who have families with their significant others. Two of those families have adopted kids that "traditional" families" didn't want or couldn't care for. Theey are Christlike in every way. I'm pro-family of any stripe.
Frankly Hinckley's comments are a prime example of an anti-gay speaker refusing to take responsibiity for his bigotry. To teach and preach about the joys of marriage and child rearing is pro-family. To use the government to enforce laws that deprive gay and lesbian people of equality under the law is anti-gay. How exactly is it pro-family to allow hospitals to refuse gay people the right to see their loved ones because they are not "family?" Unfortunately, Hinckley and church are anti-gay.
Ok, maybe I am missing something here, but I don't see where President Hinckley is in control of hospitals?
I think someone can be pro-family without being anti gay. And the Church is not anti-gay. I knew people who were (probably still are) gay, who attended church and were able to participate as long as they didn't participate in homosexual behaviour. Which would be the same for heterosexual individuals. And is. You can disagree with someone's choices and still love them.
I don't agree with the homosexual LIFETSTYLE, but I respect an individual's right to choose whatever lifestyle whether gay or not, since we all have freedom to choose. I am just thankful I don't have to stand in judgement of anyone at the last day.
I'm the penultimate anon, but in response to the last comment, I think it would be more accurate to say the Church is welcoming of asexual people than to say the Church accepts gays.
The Church accepts everyone, we are all, gay or heterosexual, children of God. As long as we strive to obey the commandments we can participate fully.
"I don't see where President Hinckley is in control of hospitals"
I think he was referring to the context of the article where President Hinckley said, "we were actively involved [in proposition 22]".
Proposition 22 was the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in California which would consequently keep it lawful for hospitals to refuse same-sex partners the right to see each other because they are not family.
My feeling is that supporting proposition 22 is /was "anti-gay". Repositioning oneself as "pro-family" seems merely a feat of word wrangling for the sake of political correctness.
I believe the church has a hard job of trying to balance both the traditional values which it treasures meanwhile still trying to be welcoming to people whom have a sexual preference that is at odds with "The Plan of Salvation".
The spectrum between fully loving (embracing / accepting) same sex relationships to committing hate crimes on them has plenty of grey area.
My feeling is that the church floats somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
But I have to ask, at what point in the grey does an organisation find itself actually in the black? It might not have to go very far to be considered "anti-gay".
I don't think the church's political involvement in gay marriage law was really about "using the government to enforce laws that deprive gays and lesbians of equality" but rather merely to keep the government from telling US what we must accept as the definition of marriage? After all, what right does the government have to do this in the first place? Why can't polygamists and incestual couples have "equal rights" under the law for that matter?
So I guess it also depends on what our actual human "rights" are. Sure, there needs to be a way for the government to determine "joint property" (for tax purposes, or division of property when it is no longer joint, or "alimony" etc)and "joint custody" but is having the government recognize your marriage as a "marriage" really a "human right"? Or should it really be just another religious priviledge to be determined by each religion as they see fit, (eg. baptism, a temple recommend, holding the preisthood etc.)
I haven't seen the church oppose equal tax benefits for gay couples, NOR has there been any legal opposition to gays having custody rights of children. I bet if the government completely withdrew from defining marrige in any way, we probably wouldn't see any opposition from the church. Something to think about....
I think it's possible to support the proposition without being 100% behind all aspects (ie the hospitals). I believe it's possible to be pro-family without being anti-gay, but I suspect that gays disagree.
I do think it's wrong for an individual or an institution to insist that the only people allowed to even think sexual thoughts or have sexual experiences are straight people. According to the Church, if one is gay, he/she is condemned to a sexless (i.e. asexual) life forever to be in God's good graces. So the Church accepts asexual gay members but is horribly condemning of those who want to live a wholistic adult existence, even if with one partner.
At the same time, I've known many people in the Church who are adulterous, have been married multiple times, abuse children, etc. and are in various stages of repentance. Yet for someone who is gay and wants to have a committed relationship with a significant other, even as a LEGALLY MARRIED couple, there is no "repentance."
I do thaink that's hateful.
Anonymous at 22:47, referring to the government prescribing the definition of marriage, said, "After all, what right does the government have to do this in the first place?"
Governments HAVE TO define marriage. Marriage is a contract recognized by governments. It is NEVER a mere agreement between two people, but always an agreement that two people make with a higher authority. If governments recognize marriage, they must define it. If they don't define it, they can't recognize it. They can't just recognize anything that anyone wants to call a marriage as a marriage; there must be limits to what is a marriage and what is not.
Governments recognize marriage because, in their judgment, marriage creates societal benefits (including, but not limited to, more peaceful and orderly conduct among citizens and a likelier-to-be-stable environment for the care of children). In return for the benefits conferred on society by marriage, and in order to encourge the creation of those benefits, governments offer incentives for marriage. They offer benefits that can be had by married people and not by the unmarried. Among such incentives are legal rights of inheritance and greater ease in establishing citizenship for aliens who are married to citizens.
Outside the province of government, our societies--our private institutions--also offer incentives to the married. These often arise out of tradition. The traditions are based on the same premise as the laws--that the married are deserving of special rights because they confer special benefits on society. An example of such incentives is the limited right to visit hospital patients.
In order for those incentives to be granted, there has to be some limitation to the definition of "marriage." If there is no definition then there is no way to incentivize.
President Hinckley and the Church as an institution have chosen to play a role in advocating for the continuation of our traditional definition of marriage as being limited to unions between members of the opposite sex. President Hinckley apparently believes that the societal benefits of such marriages (as a group) differ from, and are superior to, the societal benefits of same-sex unions (as a group). If you want to call this being anti-gay, I guess you can, but I'm not convinced.
President Hinckley also apparently believes that by retaining our traditional definition of marriage, we will tend to help and support righteous choices by individuals. He apparently believes that including same-sex unions in the definition of marriage will tend to encourage people to engage in homosexual conduct--that is, it will encourage people to sin. Now, you may also believe that calling homosexual conduct "sin" is being "anti-gay." If you do, there's no way to change your mind through logical argument. But again, I'm not convinced.
"I think he was referring to the context of the article where President Hinckley said, "we were actively involved [in proposition 22]"."
Oh ok.
To Anonymous:
"At the same time, I've known many people in the Church who are adulterous, have been married multiple times, abuse children, etc. and are in various stages of repentance. Yet for someone who is gay and wants to have a committed relationship with a significant other, even as a LEGALLY MARRIED couple, there is no "repentance."
I do thaink that's hateful."
Legally married doesn't mean married in the eyes of God. If marriage is going to extend into the eternities, then it needs to have the CHANCE to do so. Just because people still shoudl be loved and have the right to choose doesn't make their actions wrong. Repenting means to NOT do the action again. If someone is adulterous, a molester, what have you it is only if they REPENT that they can participate fully in the Church. Since participating in a homosexual lifestyle is contrary to the Gospel (even if "legally married")then they havent' been through repentance. The actual act of homosexual behaviour, whether in a marriage or not prohibits repentance. Just because it is legal doesn't make it morally right.
Even saying this, I do not personally judge anyone who is gay, having known many homosexual individuals in my life, men and women, I don't at all presume to know their minds or judge their decisions. I personally don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I still accept their right to so choose.
Anonymous at 7:40 said: "According to the Church, if one is gay, he/she is condemned to a sexless (i.e. asexual) life forever to be in God's good graces. So the Church accepts asexual gay members but is horribly condemning of those who want to live a wholistic adult existence, even if with one partner."
Let's try a parallel:
According to the Church, if one desires to commit adultery, he is condemned to a sexually limited life (i.e., monogamous) life in order to be in God's good graces. So the Church accepts would-be adulterers who suppress their desires, but is horribly condemning of those who want to live a full adult existence, even if it means committing adultery with only one extramarital partner.
Yep. Both statements are true.
Anonymous also says: "Yet for someone who is gay and wants to have a committed relationship with a significant other, even as a LEGALLY MARRIED couple, there is no "repentance."
Of course, that's not true. There is repentance. The person who feels a desire to sin (by engaging in homosexual conduct) can refuse to indulge that desire, turn away from such conduct and keep the commandments. He/she can seek and receive the power of Christ's atonement. There is just as much repentance for this as for any other sin.
But of course, by "repentance" what you really mean is "opportunity to commit a desired sin without condemnation." And it's true that the Church doesn't offer that--not for homosexual sin, not for adultery, not for any other desire to commit sin.
In saying all this, I don't wish to trivialize the feelings of those who have homosexual desires. I believe such desires are strong and deeply rooted, and that the struggle against them is extremely difficult. I don't know why they have been given such a burden in life. I don't know why they feel such a strong and persistent temptation. But I do know what the Lord wants all of us to do with our temptations, and what he wants us to do when we give in to them. He wants us to resist, and to repent.
Clarification: I'd like to make sure no one interprets my last post as meaning that the mere feeling of a temptation is a sin. I simply mean that people who are tempted to sin should turn away from the temptation, and that when they do sin, they may repent. Repentance is just as available for the sin of homosexual conduct as for other sins.
So what is the repentance for a legally married homosexual couple? Legally divorce and live apart and celibate for the rest of their lives? Harsh. And yet people in the church sleep around, marry, divorce, get a slap on the wrist (they don't excommunicate for adultery anymore in most cases) and still enjoy the closeness of a relationship or relationships and normal family lives.
And since the law of chastity means "sexual relations with the husband or wife to whom (one is) legally married", legally married gays are keeping the law of chastity.
The only other way they can feasibly keep the law of chastity (which also means no sex thoughts, masturbation, etc.) is to be completely asexual until death.
Y'all try that sometime.
Finally, is it really the belief of the Church that every gay person in the entire world should live a celibate, lonely life? Since this is a punishment most of us straight people would not endure, why do we think it's "loving" or not cruel to inflict that on every single individual who happens to be gay? That's a prejudicial and harsh indictment on a significant percentage of society. Even if there were only 5 gay people in the whole world, it would be prejudicial and mean.
A basic and fundamental concept in Christianity is that with God, all things are possible. The adulterer can overcome their urges, an alchoholic can recover completely, a person with a bad temper can change their nature. Likewise, then, couldn't a person successfully change their sexual orientation?
I certainly don't mean to trivialize how difficult this would be...but I think that while Jesus taught against sin of all types, it was clear he still loved and cared about the sinners. He was not anti-anyone...and nor is the church.
"And yet people in the church sleep around, marry, divorce, get a slap on the wrist (they don't excommunicate for adultery anymore in most cases) and still enjoy the closeness of a relationship or relationships and normal family lives."
What? Do you think those people are happy? I bet if you were to take a pole among those who have been through divorce you'd find that the overwhelming majority would report it (divorce) as the single greatest cause of pain in their lives. You talk as if sex, Sex, SEX! is the key to happiness regardless of how it's used or abused.
Jack
Anonymous: Just thought I'd point out that everyone that I have known that has commited adultry (a close friend, a relative, and other known cases) has defintately been ex-communicated. Sure, going through the motions of repentance may seem like a slap on the wrist, but the process of true repentance in one's heart is no walk in the park, not to mention aknowledging the pain you have caused to others. Also, I'm sure that even if adulterers truly repent, it could still be a lifelong struggle to resist the temptation to do it again and again. Harsh? Condemning?
so if the church wants to make eveyone straight, it's obviously anti-gay. easy.
Nermalcat and Anonymous: Through the power of the Atonement and other forces, some people may be able to lose their desires to sin, whether that sin be adultery, homosexual acts, or something else. But some people may never be rid of their desire to sin. They may have to cope with temptation all their lives. That is suffering, to be sure. But obedience to Christ sometimes requires us to suffer--to take up our own crosses and experience difficulties that are infinitely smaller than the ones Jesus suffered for us.
I don't think it is a doctrine of the Church that every homosexual person can change the way he or she feels sexual attraction. But I do think it's a doctrine of the Church that a homosexual person can forsake the sin and repent of it, irrespective of whether the temptation goes away. So can an adulterer, or any other kind of sinner.
It is true that some forces interfere with agency. I think mental illness is one of those. A person who suffers from mental illness may lack the capacity to act with true freedom--to choose for himself. Does the same apply to some kinds of addiction? Does it apply to some people who feel same-sex attraction? I don't know.
Yes, you know the interesting thing is, the people here who are insisting the Church is anti-gay because of policy seem to think that the desire to have sex always does overwhelm the desire to do anything else, or that no one can have the ability to control their desires.
The Atonement can make it possible to overcome any challenge.
Mary: I agree with you completely that "the Atonement can make it possible to overcome any challenge." But I'm not sure this means that everyone who truly repents will have his temptations removed. I know you're not saying that, but I think some people here are. They seem to believe that true repentance equals no more temptation, and that therefore true repentance from homosexual conduct equals "turning straight." I think the Lord gives that blessing to some but not to all. Why? I don't know that either.
Of course people have the ability to control their desires, but those who want to be gay and who are gay have no place in the Church. They are never allowed to live as wholistic adults--complete with companionship and sexual congress--unless they are straight, not gay. Ergo, the Church is anti-gay. Not rocket science.
Maybe the Church should conduct an experiment: have all the straight membership swear off sex for a year. They should move out of their houses, live alone, no affection between partners, just asexuality and celibacy for an entire year, with no hope of comign together before then.
Gay people in Church doctrine don't have any hope of partnering with anyone they feel attracted to EVER if they want to be involved in the Church or even looked on kindly by the Church.
the day there's a celibate gay apostle or prophet is the day I say (1) it can be done and (2) the Church is not anti-gay.
Anonymous at 12:37: You're still missing the point that being against a sin is different from being against a person. The Church (more accurately, the Lord) asks EVERYONE, regardless of how they feel sexual desire, to refrain from the same list of sexual sins. Refraining from these sins--including homosexual conduct, adultery and all the rest--and repenting when they do sin, brings them within the Atonement of Christ and makes them eligible for the greatest blessings in the Universe. Encouraging people to seek Eternal Life--whether that seeking is especially difficult in one aspect or not--is not being "anti" anyone.
The real gist of what you're saying is that the Church is anti-gay because it preaches that homosexual conduct is a sin. What would you suggest the Church do? Ignore the revelations and forsake the truth? Perhaps that would make the Church less "anti-gay" in your eyes. But it wouldn't help anyone; it would merely reduce the Church to another man-made society lacking in any divine power or authority.
Sorry, I meant to address that last comment to Anonymous at 12:34, not at 12:37.
Sheesh, why don't you just use a name?
The Church preaches salvation FOR STRAIGHT MEN AND WOMEN (particularly for the concept of exaltation) and for hence it's anti-gay. Simple.
I guess it could be argued that the Church accepts celibate heterosexuals, and only accepts celibate homosexuals to the extent that the gays will want to--and will eventually---change their orientation (i.e. not be gay anymore).
So in other words, whatever else the Church says and does and whatever good it achieves and however it helps most people, it is anti-gay. Let's not fool ourselves.
If you don't agree with that, find all the partnered gay people you know and invite them to investigate and join the Church.
Anonymous at 12:55: I suppose if you just keep saying the same thing, and keep saying that it's "simple," then your argument will become more valid. Right?
Let's accept for the sake of argument that by your definition, the Church is "anti-gay." What should the Church do? Are you going to engage that question or just repeat yourself again?
oh, i see. so in order to be "whole" you have to be having sex.
Again, find a partnered same-sex couple (even a couple in their twilight years who probably aren't having sex anymore), teach them about the plan of salveation and get back to me. The church is anti-gay.
Well, according to theology, yes. The man/woman/procreation thing...
Been to the temple lately?
Are the adulterers unhappy because they had sex, or because they cheated on their spouses?
According to the church, a gay person is never, ever allowed to have sexual interaction (including kissing, etc) with anyone for their entire lives.
That's different than sneaking out on one's spouse. No parallel there.
So how does homosexual conduct equal "the whole man/woman/procreation thing"?
Anonymous at 13:15: You said, "find a partnered same-sex couple (even a couple in their twilight years who probably aren't having sex anymore), teach them about the plan of salveation and get back to me."
I think you mean by this that the couple will likely reject the message because THEY consider the message anti-gay. How does their rejection make it anti-gay? And how does teaching the message to everyone, including gays, make the Church anti-gay.
You also said, "The church is anti-gay."
Thanks for not letting me down in the mindless repetition department. Keep saying it! It will make you more convincing! Really!
Is the church pro-gay? In what way? (and no, don't answer "if the gay member fasts and prays really, really hard and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment he can be changed, married and exalted.")
Ever heard of a literary device? Ever read the Book of Mormon (hurry up! You only have 43 days!)?
Repitition has its purpose; sometimes as punctuation.
If someone is asked to divorce his spouse and look forward to being heterosexual even though he is homosexual, I would say the person or organization doing the asking is anti-gay.
Here's what a pro-gay church would (and does) look like, since people can't fathom what that must be:
1. A gay-friendly church would acknowledge that where legal, gay marriages are just as valid as straight marriages.
2. A gay-friendly church would not pour money into anti-gay marriage campaigns.
3. A gay-friendly church would not preach that unless its gay members turned straight and got married to an opposite-sex partner (and did whatever it took) they would not be worthy to live with God forever (i.e. the definition of eternal life/exaltation).
4. A gay-friendly/pro-gay church would not break up gay families who joined the Church and wanted to be in full fellowhip with the Church.
Get it now?
Nermalcat: I'd like to reply to a couple of comments you made earlier.
You said, "I also don't believe it is the government's role to incentivize marriage...For an interesting read on the proper role of government, check out "The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson".
Governments can either recognize marriages or not recognize them. Recognizing them is incentivizing them. Not recognizing them is remaining completely neutral on marriage. A government that doesn't recognize (i.e., incentivize) marriage affords absolutely no benefits to the married as opposed to the unmarried. No common property, no making it easier to immigrate, no faciliation of name changing, no presumptions of paternity. I honestly don't think President Benson advocated such a government.
You also said, "the government recognizes a "common-law" partnership, therefore they aren't really incentivizing legal marriages anyhow."
The common-law marriage is a device that imposes the RESPONSIBILITIES of marriage on those who have "stolen" some of its RIGHTS. But putting that point aside, the common law marriage IS a legal marriage. That's the whole point of its existence. Through it, the government confers marital benefits only on those whose marriage is officially recognized by the state. That means the state is defining marriage and saying when and how it will recognize it.
Yes, anonymous, I do "get it" now. I always did get it. You think the Church needs to be pro-gay, and that in order to do so it has to forsake the revelations and commandments of God. That doesn't help gays or anyone else.
All I'm saying is the Church is obviously not pro-gay, and that it is, in fact, anti-gay. I have ably demonstrated that. I'm not saying the Church has to change. It is what it is.
Anonymous: (whichever one you are...why don't you guys just grow a tiny bit of spine and choose a consistent identity?)
You said, "(and no, don't answer 'if the gay member fasts and prays really, really hard and pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment he can be changed, married and exalted.')"
Nice straw man you built there. Hope you had fun knocking it down rather than engaging in the actual issue.
The Church does NOT say that people must change their sexual feelings to be accepted. It does NOT say that they must "turn straight" in this life in order to have a hope of exaltation. Even if you didn't already know this (which I rather think you did) you could have learned it by just paying attention to the previous posts on this thread.
The Church just says that in order to receive exaltation, everyone who is tempted by sin (yes, including homosexual sin) needs to turn away from it, and that everyone who commits sin (including homosexual sin) needs to forsake it and repent. They don't have to "turn straight." No one knows how many want to do so or can.
"the Church is obviously not pro-gay, and that it is, in fact, anti-gay."
That line of reasoning makes no sense. Social issues are not polarised. It is not required for someone who is not pro-something to automatically be anti-something.
If the Church is anti-gay, it is not simply because they are not pro-gay.
Are gay couples exalted? Are singles exalted?
No.
For exaltation, a straight single person must marry an opposite-sex partner in this life or the next. What is the mandate for the gay individual?
No marriage (to a straight opposite sex person), no exaltation.
I learned that in Primary.
Are the Church's policies and practices antagonistic towards gay people?
Saying that every gay person on the face of the earth must be celibate and eventually be straight is not a welcome/welcoming thought.
It's not militantly anti-gay, no (its plitical forays notwithstanding). But the definition of family, marginalization of gays, untenable solutions (stay single and celibate as long as you live just because you're gay)--that's not pro-gay. And it's not accepting of gays, either.
On a slightly tangential topic, have you seen the insightful satire on the politics of homosexuality on Jeff Lindsay's site?
http://www.jefflindsay.com/smokophobia/index.html
By anti-gay, do you mean "against homosexual persons" or "against homosexual conduct"? It's the conduct we're against--the sin. And in being against the sin--in trying to rescue people from sin--we're being pro-people. Even if the people are gay.
The Church will be happy to tell anyone that if they're committing sin, they should stop it and look forward to a day, whether in this life or not, when the hunger for that sin will no longer trouble them.
That standard doesn't change because the sin happens to be homosexual conduct.
I'm awfully glad the Church is anti-sin. But apparently the anti-sin stance is deeply disturbing to some of the anonymous posters.
The reason the anti-sin concept is so bothersome to some individuals is because we live in a world or rather society that believes in allowing whatever choices a person makes, should be considered to be right. This has created a more permissable society and much more selfishness.
I know someone who left his wife because the most important thing to him was to "be happy". And happiness to him (at the time) was to give up his family, his eternal marriage and to be with someone else (who he didn't know very well at the time). Is he truly happy having given up his blessings (and now needing to strive very hard to retain them, unfortunately he will probably never be able to attain celestial marriage again, at least in this life as his current wife has no interest in the Church and his previous wife has remarried), his priesthood authority and having his children sealed to him? I don't know. Is his life better? I don't really think so, in many ways, from what I have heard. Selfishness rarely brings happiness. When we give in to our "natural man" desires, does that bring true peace and happiness. I doubt it.
As I said in an insightful post that wasn't uploaded for some reason, the sin of adultery or leaving one's spouse is about abandonment and cheating, not being gay. Was it selfish of him to marry in the first place? That was probably the greater selfishness, but Church counsel years ago was "marry and it will go away."
People marry because of those "natural man" desires, you know...
Is that selfish, too? Or only when gays partner or marry?
The Church is anti-fornication and encourages people involved in premarital sex to get married. The Church doesn't care if they get married by a JP or by a liscened internet priest.
What is the Church's answer to two gay s who love each other and are either already married or partnered or involved? Break up and be celibate for life, change your orientation and look forward to an eternity with an opposite-sex partner if you ever want to have a family in this life (sanctioned by the Church) and forever in the next.
Double standard; something most straights couldn't do if asked. Yes, that's oppressive to gays.
no, people marry because they want to build a life and eternity with someone. at least most or many people do. "natural man" is part of it, yes, as far as being able to fulfill urges, but what about marriages where one spouse is unable, for some reason to participate in intimate activities. they are still able to have happy fulfilling marriages.
sure some people get married strictly for sex. but that's wrong to and no real marriage can be built on that.
Gays are people too. Many of them want to partner and build a life with someone, and some want to adopt children.
Most people who marry want to marry people with desires for them. Otherwise they wouldn't marry. Why not be roommates if you just want to be caretakers the rest of your life?
It's disingenous to suggest that sexuality isn't a large--or the main--component of marriage. Sexless marriages are not taught or accepted by the Church unless something is wrong with one or both parties. Many people (yes, even Mormons) divorce over sex. Even President Kimball said that sexual problems were the main issues involved in divorce.
Anonymous at 8:41 said, "What is the Church's answer to two gay s who love each other and are either already married or partnered or involved?"
Let's see: What is the Church's answer to any two people who are already committing a sin? The Church's answer is that they should stop sinning and repent.
You think defining homosexual behavior as sin is hateful, or oppressive, or both. So you think the Prophet is a hateful oppressor.
Since you obviously don't respect the Prophet's words or authority, why not just find a preacher who will tell you what you want to hear? In fact, since the God of the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior as sinful, why are you bother to associate with him? You could make your own God who will say what you want it to say--perhaps a nice calf in a shiny metallic finish. It would just keep silent on the whole issue and leave you to your own opinions.
I don't deny that gay people want to build a life together. As I have said I know many homosexuals who I have a great respect for as people and I respect the right they have to choose their lifestyle. But Heavenly Father said homosexuality is wrong.
Nor do I deny that sexual relations aren't a large part of a marriage. However it isn't the MOST important part as some seem to be suggesting.
When the Prophet said, "We are not anti-gay. We are pro-family" he was accurately describing the belief of most Latter-day Saints.
As a liberal Mormon and registered and active Democrat who opposes same-sex marriage I can say that I definately am not anti-Gay but instead am pro-family.
Logic alone dictates that someone can be pro-family, and not be anti-gay. In fact, pro-gay people can be pro-family, and anti-gay people can be pro-family so why can't a pro-familly individual automatically gets labeled as anti-gay? Well, it has to do with the efforts of individuals who seek to abolish the current institution of marriage and replace it with a new institution of genderless marriage.
The moment a person attempts to stand up to them they shout anti-gay, homophobe, discrimination and all sorts of things but if the truth be told they hate the institution of marriage as it now stands, and want to force everyone to accept a new institution of marriage, that of genderless marriage.
The question of whether being "profamily" or "progay" is settled by the homosexual activists themselves. When they complain that alleged "profamily" individuals and groups are actually "antigay," and "haters," why shouldn't we believe them?
After all, President Bush says that if we are not with him, we are against him. The homosexual activists have said the same thing--that it doesn't matter what we choose to call ourselves, if we do not support their agenda without question, we are "antigay," and purveyors of "hate speech."
If you will check the GALA website (the official gay and lesbian site for the RLDS Church) you will find that a minister who had been scheduled to present the "profamily" biblical viewpoint of homosexuality at Graceland College (the liberal arts college supported by the RLDS Church) was excluded from the dialogue and forced to speak off campus because his message was proclaimed to be hate speech by the campus PC crowd.
The message of the activist crowd is that if you do not parrot their teachings, you are against them, and if you are against them, you deserve to be SILENCED. No freedom of speech for you.
Has anyone hear read the book "Goodbye, I Love You" by Carol Lynn Pearson, and active Latter-day Saint?
Things have changed/improved since the '70s towards gays in the Church, but only slightly. Or read her former son-in-law's play about being gay in the Church.
Yes, perhaps the church can be labeled as "anti-gay" in the sense that it defines homosexual activity as a sin. OK, but I think it's totally inappropriate and unfair to throw out accusations of bigotry and hatefulness. That is nonsense. I'm sure most LDS people realize that it is just as possible for a gay person to be otherwise moral, good, honest, kind etc. and equally capable of providing a loving home for a child. I'm sure Pres. Hinkley realizes this too. Also, the church views those with homosexual feelings as still being of equal human value as any of the rest of us imperfect mortals and having equal eternal potential as anyone else. The fact is the church does not fit the true definition of bigotry at all. As for hate, if any mormon has feelings of hate toward anyone, gay or otherwisw, they are also guilty of sin. I think the idea that Pres. Hinkley hates gays is ridiculous. He is only trying to preserve traditional family values. It would make more sense if anonymous tried to argue that the church is simply unenlightened or misguided. Fine.....but the flippant use of words like "bigotry" and "hateful" only undermine's your credibility.
Who hear has said Pres. Hinckley hates gays? Huh?
No, no. You don't say, "Huh?" You say "Eh?"
This is a Canadian blog.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Not all Canadians say "eh" I sure don't, lol.
Gays have families too. So people can, indeed, be pro-family and pro-gay family, even within the Church.
Mary: "Not all Canadians say "eh" I sure don't, lol."
I'm sure you're telling the truth. No dote abote it.
:)
"Gays have families too. So people can, indeed, be pro-family and pro-gay family, even within the Church."
This is blatantly false. You cannot be pro-family and pro-gay, you can only be pro-gay, because homosexuals hate the idea of families.They are in a war to destroy the family, and to replace it with genderless marriage. They are hateful bigots, the whole lot of them.
Thomas, can you be pro-family without being anti-gay?
Thomas
Whoa that's harsh. Having known many homosexuals in my life, I can say that I have yet to meet one who is a hateful bigot.
Thomas I don't agree that ALL homosexuals are out to destroy the family. For example, some are faithful Latter-day Saints.
Here's the deal with "having many homosexual friends."
Married people can look down on these "friends" and cluck their tongues at these "sinners" if they are in loving relationships (with or without sex). These married people go home to their warm beds with their spouses and children, deploring the "evil" relationships gays have.
These married people are nice to the homosexuals' faces and tell them how much they love them, but all the while they "feel sorry" for their "sins" and hope they'll see the light and cry lonely tears into their lone pillows as they lead celibate lives for eternity. Yet said marrieds would never divorce their spouses and live alone forever if the tables were turned.
oh ok. yeah.
actually NO this is not what I think. The homosexuals I have known (some well, some just as aquaintances, much like I know many others) I just treat as I would treat anyone else. To their faces and behind their backs. Just as regular people. I don't patronise or pity them. I don't have to agree with the choices they have made, but I don't waste much time thinking about it mainly because I have my own life to work on. I don't have time to worry about what wrongs they are or are not doing.
Anonymous at 17:50: You said, "Yet said marrieds would never divorce their spouses and live alone forever if the tables were turned."
Yet again, this boils down to the distinction that homosexual acts are sinful under all circumstances and heterosexual acts are sinful only outside of marriage. That's why the tables won't be turned.
If you believe that is a hateful and oppressive teaching, then you have the freedom to reject the Prophet as a hateful oppressor and follow your own belief.
I hope you won't. I hope you will instead seek to gain a testimony that the teaching is true.
I'm new to this discussion, but I think it's been very interesting. I hadn't thought about some of these complex issues before.
For instance, having a testimony that this Church is the only way by which one can gain salvation and exaltation should mean that I should introduce and teach the gospel to all I come in contact with. I try to do this in word and deed.
However, when it comes to my gay friends, I have been less forthcoming with sharing the gospel because I know they would not be looked on favorably by the Church because of their desires to have families together, build lives with their partners, etc. I can't understand those who say they have gay friends but don't ever think about their lives. Friends are involved in each other's lives and welfare.
This thread has helped me to look critically at the Church and I don't like what I see. I think the Church says that as long as someone is gay, they're expected to be alone their whole lives (as a punishment? For what? Why is it their fault they cannot have adult companionship?). I think they are wrong and I pray for a change just as much as I prayed for a pre-1978 change which came.
charmayne,
It was known (prior to 1978) that at some point in time the priesthood would be made available to those of african descent. There has never been that kind of understanding regarding practiced homosexuality being accepted as a viable life style.
Jack
That depends who you talk to, Jack.
For example, Bruce R. McConkie taught "negroes in this life are denied the priesthood".
Brigham Young taught "that curse will remain upon them, and they can never hold the priesthood".
Kim,
Generally speaking though, amidst the brawling mass of opinions there was a substancial contingent who believed that the blacks would receive the priesthood at some point in the future--whether in this life or the next. In fact, it's my understanding that even BRM adopted that idea at some point along the way--though I'm not exactly sure where/when he voiced that opinion.
Jack
Charmayne: You're praying for the prohibition against homosexual acts to be lifted. Do you believe the Lord is going to tell us that homosexual acts are no longer sinful? I know he's given certain commandments that are only for a certain time, such as the kosher rules or the Word of WIsdom or the restriction on the Priesthood. But I have a hard time thinking that the prohibition against homosexual activity is one of those. I think of it as belonging in the category of sins that have been forbidden in all dispensations throughout time.
"I think of it as belonging in the category of sins that have been forbidden in all dispensations throughout time."
How so? I wasn't aware that the bible, for example, contains a declaration forbidding homosexuality, let alone one in each dispensation. Do you know of a biblical passage that condemns homosexuality? The Law of Moses doesn't count.
Here's the entire quote:
"You are some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessing of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to the line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion" (Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 290–91).
Kim: I just look at "homosexuality" in my Topical Guide and find several references in the New Testament that are just as condemning as the Old Testament.
Wasn't the Topical Guide written/edited by the same person who wrote Mormon Doctrine? So many modern LDS discount the latter but not the former. It's all in the interpretation, folks. There are no scriptures directly condemning homosexuality.
lbutgraf: I agree. Those New Testament scriptures are just as condemning as the Old Testament scripture, especially considering none of those Old Testament scriptures actually condemn homosexuality.
Kim: When I read President Young saying, "They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion," I think he's saying that they WILL eventually receive the Priesthood, not that they will never receive it.
Many years ago I was in Sunday School Gospel Doctrine class and the teacher had gotten exasperated with me and all my "why" questions to the point that he said you do not need to know the whys of every little thing.. be it sufficient for you to just know you have been commanded to do these things and the Prophets say so (or in similar words).
I replied well when I get to the Celestial Kingdom I am taking with me this long list of questions that I want answers for that no one will give me here.. and the teacher said oh no you will be so happy to be there all other thoughts of questions will leave your mind. My husband looks at him and flatly says you obviously don't know Sally very well if you think she is going to stop wanting to know the why's of everything just cause she is there.
After finally finishing reading this thread I have to chuckle to myself as I think of Kim pushing me out of the way to ask God about all the things he questions :)
Post a Comment