Jesus reveals ban on LGBTs to LDS elder apostle Russell M. Nelson

[JoStories]

The Church has done nothing wrong.

The only way that the Church’s image could be “damaged” in any way is when ignorant people (like you) make false accusations against the Church because they didn’t take the time to read and understand what the Church is actually doing and saying.

Reasonable people will see nothing wrong with what the Church has done. They will not do as you have done and, in all honesty, their opinions are the only ones that really matter.

You believe that your Church has done nothing wrong but no one can directly speak for God. And please sir, I have been polite to you from the start. Calling me ignorant is against the Terms of Service. I ask you politely to refrain if you would be so kind. I make no false accusations against your Church. IMO, what these men ,and they are men and not God, have done is damaging in and of itself. Reasonable people, who include me, will see this as a group of people damning another group of people for no other reason than they were born gay. Are these men free of what you call sin? I would doubt so. I fail to see any difference in the two attitudes. I am trying to give your Elders latitude for what I feel is a seriously erroneous position and view this from an unbiased POV but I have a hard time doing so.

 

[JoStories]

Those are good too.

I feel like you are trying to make a point but you just aren’t getting there.

Are you trying to say that the leaders of the Church have somehow passed judgment on someone?

Are you saying that you can personally ignore the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, about not judging others, by judging the Church while suffering from a massive “splinter” in your eye?

If you are trying to prove that you are a hypocrite, then you have succeeded.

Sigh...I judge no one. What I am asking is this: Christ taught that followers of His faith are to love all others, and to try to see the fault within themselves before seeing same in others. Yet, here, you have a group of men damning another group, which is very much different than what they stated years ago, per the OP, based merely on their sexual orientation, which is how they were born. Are you really willing to say that what God created is wrong? The point I am making is that if one does follow Christ, they should follow Him completely and embrace all peoples, from the lowliest to the Elders you speak of. Yet, if I am not mistaken, are people who are not members of the Mormon Church refused entrance into the Churches which you have? I know this to be true, just as I know that about 100 years ago, Black Americans were not allowed into your church and were seen as lesser human beings. Now, the LDS Church's focus has moved onto another group of peoples whom they see as unfit to enter your temples. How is that not hypocrisy sir?

 

[JoStories]

I’d start off by saying that we are all sinners. Everyone.

Then I’d ask you what you think the LDS Church calls “gay persons” (when they are less willing to use terms like “gay” and “homosexual”) that is “worse” than "sinner"?

Can you give me an example? Can you give me an example of anything you have claimed?

Why do you keep making stuff up?

So, first I’d tell them that everyone sins. Next I would explain how the Lord Jesus Christ offers us a way to overcome our sins and be forgiven of them.

That would be the “core” message I would share.

I understand what your message is. The problem for me is that I do not believe in sin. What is sin? IMO, and I mean no disrespect to your views, sin is a contrived term that is meant to keep people toeing the line. Can you really define the term when over the centuries, the term itself has shifted meanings? You see being gay as a sinful thing. IMO, being born gay is in no way a sin. How can be born a certain way in any way be considered sin? If that were the case, all infants born with any deformities or any other imperfection are also sinful. What of elders who develop dementia and become violent? Is not violence sinful? Furthermore, some sins are considered more heinous than others. Murder, for one. Are you willing to say that people like John Wayne Gacy or Bundy or Mansen, or any of the more prolific murders I can name are able to confess and then go to heaven? If that is the case, what is the point of hell? You are free to believe anything you wish of sin, just as I am free to believe that there is no such thing as sin.

 

[JoStories]

We all struggle with sin.

Popular opinion cannot change that.

No, not all of 'we' struggle with a manmade concept such as sin. Until one can prove there is such a thing, I will continue to follow my Buddhist path and see those mistakes I have made in this life as lessons. I learn from them and then, if I am truly following my path, I refrain from making that mistake again. No faith or a follower of a faith, no matter what faith that might be, and even the absence of a faith, is anything more than personal. What you see as a faith from God is nothing like mine. That does not make either of us right or wrong. It simply means that we view God and how to approach God in very different manners.

 

[JoStories]

When a church member commits what is considered a serious sin, such as a sexual sin, they are expected to confess to their bishop. Yes, there are people who don't go in. The bishop will usually not know. There is not monitoring. If a person has faith in what our church teaches and if they believe the doctrine, they will feel the need of their own accord to go in and chat with their bishop.

A good friends ex-wife was in an adulterous relationship for two years before she came clean with my friend or her bishop. She continued to take the sacrament and to attend the temple, both of which would have been prohibited, for a period of time, if she had confessed. She wasn't ready to come clean or didn't feel the remorse or was embarrassed or all of the above. This is not the norm, but nor is it "unusual". I keep saying this, and I'll say it again. Gay sex is treated the same as fornication or adultery. People make mistakes. People stumble. Adulterers repent and stay married, sometimes. There is repentance and forgiveness. The bishop aids in that process for certain sins. This is how the game is played. (Although it's not a game). People who believe in my church, understand this, including gays who believe in my church. If a person keeps secrets from the bishop, that doesn't hurt the bishop, me, or the church. It only hurts the individual who could otherwise get the repentance help they need. But then again, if they don't think what they did was a sin, then they simply don't believe my church. But some people require time before they are in a place where they are ready to confess. Some never get to that place.

I'm not sure where your head is on revelation from God anciently. If you feel that Moses or Noah or Peter or Paul were audacious to speak for God, then you will feel the same way about my leaders. But my leaders claim to no more than what those men claimed. Why I believe my leaders are prophets of God could be it's own thread of course.

Seriously, nobody is kicked to the streets. A female friend's ex-husband committed adultery several times over many years. He did confess, but only after he was caught by his wife. He was first put on probation, then later reinstated. The next time around he was disfellowshiped which is more severe. He was reinstated against, The third time around he was excommunicated which is the most severe of all. Now, a year later, he's about ready to be re-baptized into the church. I don't know why he did what he did. He knew it was wrong. It went against his beliefs and against what he taught his children. But he has held on to his beliefs, he understands the repentance process and now he's coming back. He continued to attend church through all of this. He was never "kicked to the curb". That is a 100% wrong interpretation of the process. He felt the love and compassion of his leaders who are helping him to straighten out his life. In his case, it seems to have required excommunication to get his attention and to motivate him to stop the adultery once and for all.

I don't pass judgement on these people. They had their reasons and temptations to do what they did. Good for them for repenting and getting on track with the church. I have plenty of my own sins to work on.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? Maybe not much. I'm just trying to paint an accurate picture of how things work in my church. There is no difference with gays. They are not singled out as objects of hate to be cast out. The truth is far, far from that.

I understand that people who are gay, or who see things differently from my church, are very emotional about this. It's a big deal. The natural reaction is to assume that these men are jerks, liars, hypocrites, insane, and haters. I get it. But a closer examination and understanding will show that this is simply not the case. They are very compassionate towards all human beings and are patient too. Yes, you will disagree with their position. But you will learn that your assumptions are otherwise incorrect. I believe that is hard to accept for those who are on the other side of the issue. But, it's true.

Several points here. You state that your position is hard for others to accept then go on to say that it is true. How so? How is it true for me? In a word, its not. You believe what you believe and that is fine but I do not. Does that automatically make me wrong? No, it does not. It simply leaves us at an impass as neither of us can prove without any doubt that either position is 100% true where it relates to God.

You shared two anecdotal stories so I shall share mine. I had my partner somewhat late in my life. We met and fell in love. She was my soulmate. In the entirety of our marriage, which was a marriage in our eyes only as this was before SSM was allowed, we were celibate due to the state of her health. We did sleep together, kiss, etc but sex was not an option, nor was it all that important to us. Love is not about sex. And SSM is not either. Yet religious people seem to think tht all gay people do is run around having sex with everyone they can find. I shared a love that I have never had before or since. Is this what you call sin? Is this what you think God would condemn? If that is how you would view God, I would want no part of God. Of course, I don't see God in that light at all. Unfortunately, my partner died and I am left with memories that both sadden me and make me feel wonder and beauty. This is what your Church would condemn. I find that to be the exact opposite of what Christ taught.

You speak of the members of your Church repeatedly committing the same 'sin' over and over and yet, they still can reenter your Church. Would your Church welcome me given that I am Bisexual and will always be Bisexual? I remain celibate in honor of my late partner but that does not change that I am a member of the GLTB community. Would I be excommunicated? Of course. But, IMO, that is in direct opposition to what Jesus taught.

 

[JoStories]

The thing is, God doesn't change His mind, but human beings do. Personally, I find it reassuring to know that they do.

But is that not exactly what your Elders are saying that God has done? In the OP, it was stated that these Elders saw what was doctrine then and now have 'changed their minds' and are stating that it is God who has changed God's mind. How can anyone have the temerity to speak for God? I mean you no disrespect Katzpur, and I think you know that, but I find this issue of these men stating a totally opposite view to be at best, self serving. And yes, the LDS Church did feel that Black Americans were lesser humanbeings roughly a century ago. How does your Church explain this? I am asking how the Church explains it and not you.

 

[Prestor John]

You know I am just joking with you right? (well mostly joking )

Yeah bro. We are good.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

All you did was express your opinion.

Any "point" you had, ironic or no, proved nothing other than that you have an opinion.

Some people have the opinion that the Earth is flat. Not all are created equal.

 

[Scott C.]

I believe you are, from my studies in this area and other faiths. The Pope is seen as the fisherman of Christ. IOW, he is a direct connection to God through his elevation to the Popehood. the college of Cardinals are locked away in The Sistene Chapel and then are believed to be inspired by God to elect the one pope who is whom God wants. That is in essence, the same as what you are seeing with your Elders, more or less. Now, I am not Catholic, merely a doctorate level trained theologian but I do believe that the similarities are quite clear here.

You have a PhD in theology? I'm impressed, seriously.

LDS revelation and the Catholic view of inspiration are similar, but there are differences too. If you consider what Joseph Smith recorded as well as all of the succeeding Apostles and Presidents until today, the claims of revelation are amazing, huge, and specific, beyond what I believe Catholics or other Christian churches would claim. We have hundreds of recorded claims of angels in person delivering messages, we have many visitations of Christ in the flesh as a resurrected being in broad daylight. I'm talking appearances that qualify the modern Apostles equally with the New Testament Apostles to bear eye witness testimony of the resurrected Christ. That is no small claim. We have more than one witness to the same experience at the same time. IMO this either happened or there is a serious conspiracy passed down from generation to generation by the church leadership

It would be hard for intelligent and sane men to misinterpret or imagine such experiences of this magnitude and repetition and with multiple witnesses. Furthermore, previously sincere and honest believers would have to inexplicably join the ranks of the liars as soon as they were asked to join the highest quorums in the church. I have many reasons to be convinced from a spiritual, intellectual, and experiential point of view that it's true. Trust me, if I didn't feel this way, I would not give my life to it. I can easily see why someone on the outside's initial conclusion would be that there is intentional deception. But if you knew these modern leaders and really understood their lives and service, you would see that deception or insanity are not reasonable explanations. This doesn't prove the validity of their revelations, but it should be food for thought for those who really want to understand what's going on in Mormonism. But people on the outside don't usually take the time to know or understand these leaders. They make assumptions based on policy pronouncements with which they strongly disagree.

 

[Scott C.]

Several points here. You state that your position is hard for others to accept then go on to say that it is true. How so? How is it true for me? In a word, its not. You believe what you believe and that is fine but I do not. Does that automatically make me wrong? No, it does not. It simply leaves us at an impass as neither of us can prove without any doubt that either position is 100% true where it relates to God.

You shared two anecdotal stories so I shall share mine. I had my partner somewhat late in my life. We met and fell in love. She was my soulmate. In the entirety of our marriage, which was a marriage in our eyes only as this was before SSM was allowed, we were celibate due to the state of her health. We did sleep together, kiss, etc but sex was not an option, nor was it all that important to us. Love is not about sex. And SSM is not either. Yet religious people seem to think tht all gay people do is run around having sex with everyone they can find. I shared a love that I have never had before or since. Is this what you call sin? Is this what you think God would condemn? If that is how you would view God, I would want no part of God. Of course, I don't see God in that light at all. Unfortunately, my partner died and I am left with memories that both sadden me and make me feel wonder and beauty. This is what your Church would condemn. I find that to be the exact opposite of what Christ taught.

You speak of the members of your Church repeatedly committing the same 'sin' over and over and yet, they still can reenter your Church. Would your Church welcome me given that I am Bisexual and will always be Bisexual? I remain celibate in honor of my late partner but that does not change that I am a member of the GLTB community. Would I be excommunicated? Of course. But, IMO, that is in direct opposition to what Jesus taught.

When I said it's hard for people to believe, but I'm that I'm certain, I was referring to my certainly in the sincerity, integrity, and intelligence of my leaders in the highest quorums. I don't believe that anyone who knows them would reasonably conclude otherwise. I believe the same would hold true for you. You'd conclude, "Wow these guys are for real. I don't believe as they do, but they are certainly sincere and competent".

There's nothing wrong with strong love for someone of the same sex. Friendship can be strong and loving and one can sorely miss such a departed individual. But, my church teaches and I believe that it's not appropriate for that relationship to be romantic/sexual. Yes, a person who is gay may repeat sex acts and still be able to repent and keep being restored in my church. If you wanted to be baptized as a Mormon, you would be asked a few questions regarding your beliefs in our faith and your commitment to do your best to live according to what we believe. If a person says they accept most of what we believe but have no intention of abstaining from sex, except in a heterosexual marriage, they would not be baptized. If such a person feels they were rejected and were unwelcome, I'm not sure how to respond. Our scriptures teach that in order for someone to be baptized they must demonstrate sincere repentance and a desire to keep the commandments. This doesn't mean they have to be perfect or that they will never make mistakes. Rather, it's simply a matter of having a converted heart and desire to follow the commandments. If a person says this is not what they want, then they will not be baptized. But this is not a spiteful rejection. They can come to church and enjoy the friendships and worship. But they will not receive the blessings of baptism until they make certain commitments. This is entirely driven by scripture.

Baptism is a covenant with God to keep his commandments. It would be sacrilegious for someone to cross their fingers behind their back while pretending to believe in this covenant and these commandments. Church leaders who hold the keys or authority to authorize baptism would be guilty, if they ignored the scriptures and sanctioned the baptism of people who by their own admission didn't believe in the covenants that they were about to make.

 

[Prestor John]

Some people have the opinion that the Earth is flat. Not all are created equal.

Agreed.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Agreed.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Likewise.

 

[Prestor John]

And please sir, I have been polite to you from the start. Calling me ignorant is against the Terms of Service. I ask you politely to refrain if you would be so kind.

I want to focus on your comment about my stating that you were ignorant about this topic.

I will still comment on the other things you have said. I just don't want this to get overridden or ignored.

First, a question. If I had said that you did not know or understand enough about LDS beliefs to accurately comment on this topic, would you consider that a violation of the Terms of Service?

I ask this because the definition of ignorance means that someone does not know or understand a topic. My claiming that someone is ignorant of a particular topic is not me calling that person stupid, bad, dishonest nor is it even saying that that person's opinion is essentially "wrong". All it means is that I am claiming that the person does not know or understand enough about this particular topic to comment on it accurately.

Now, I brought up the definition of the word "ignorant" to make an accusation against you.

In your various comments on this thread you have stated that the leaders of the LDS Church do not know or understand the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Your argument was that if they had actually known or understood the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ then they would not have implemented the practices they have outlined.

You essentially claimed that the leaders of the LDS Church are ignorant of the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not only this but you also claimed that I was unaware of the "agenda" had by my own Church leaders and that I did not know or understand the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ enough to realize that the leaders of my Church were "condemning" and "damning" homosexuals and their children by denying them the right to worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

You essentially claimed that I am ignorant of the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the intention of my own Church leaders.

This leads me to ask you another question, "Where do you get the nerve to reference the Terms of Service in an attempt to reprimand me when you are guilty of the same behavior?"

That is very hypocritical of you.

Now I would like to mention that the claims you have made about LDS Church leaders "condemning" and "damning" homosexuals and their children by denying them the right to worship the Lord Jesus Christ are baseless.

The ideas of "condemning" or "damning" anyone is found nowhere in the sermon that this OP references and no one is denied attendance to LDS Sabbath Day services unless they are disruptive..

Your claims are false. You did not share a single reference to support your claims.

In light of these facts, would I not be justified in referencing this site's rules of "Trolling and Bullying" which claims that a member's attempts of "defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs" are unacceptable behavior?

Also, since it is apparent that you did not even read the sermon that was referenced by the OP and which I supplied a link to, how would I be incorrect in stating that you are ignorant on this subject?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

This is a blind post from a homosexual. I read only the 1st 2 or 3 posts then moved on about my business.

First, it is your right to hold religious condemnation of homosexuality. I believe in a free society; and one of the prices that must be paid for a free society is freedom of thought and freedom of religion. I don't want to practice your religion anyway; nor can I grasp why any other gay would want to practice your religion or be offended that you won't let them do so.

Second, I don't believe in "revelation" so therefore the "god stuff" rather makes me sick. I don't expect anything any different from those of your faith; I just wish it would die a natural death.

But here is where I stand:

If you define homosexuality by behavior (i.e. I'm only "gay" if I engage in "gay sex" but I'm not "gay" in your book if I refrain from gay sex), then so be it. However, if you define "gay" by "attraction" (i.e. I am "gay" because I experience stirrings in my loins that is stimulated by members of my same gender), then I hold you and your religion to be completely in the wrong. We do not; and can not; change our sexual arousals. If your "ban" includes non-practicing homosexual, then I would state that you hold yourself opposed to the teachings of Christ; who, according to the teachings, dined with thieves, said to a harlot "your faith has saved you, go and sin no more"; and spent most of his time with "sinners", showing them compassion and rebuking the religious leaders of his day. So, if I say to you, "I am gay but I refrain from that temptation" and yet you reject me; then you stand opposed to the very teachings and example of the one whom you claim to follow. In this latter case, any who would proscribe to the underlined statement above, is an hypocrite.

Second, my other concern is how this attitude of banning "gays" affects the democratic process. If you hold me to your religious standards, then that will influence how you feel I should be treated in everyday life; how secular law should view me, my behavior and my union with a life partner (should I have one). Therein lies my concern: Does your "ban" end at the doors of your church; or does it continue to the workplace, the courts, the voting booths, etc? Does one hold the "right", in your opinion, to dismiss me from employment because I am gay (without displaying inappropriate behaviors there; simply being gay)? Should I have the right for my union to be recognized by the laws that govern the land (not your church)? Should my consensual sexual behavior, conducted in private, with a consensual adult, be criminalized; and should I be "punished" or "cured" or "both" for doing so?

These are the real questions for me. The debates regarding scriptural texts, churches and revelations mean nothing to me; but I hold that your "ban" on gays should stop at the doors of your church.

 

[blue taylor]

This is a blind post from a homosexual. I read only the 1st 2 or 3 posts then moved on about my business.

First, it is your right to hold religious condemnation of homosexuality. I believe in a free society; and one of the prices that must be paid for a free society is freedom of thought and freedom of religion. I don't want to practice your religion anyway; nor can I grasp why any other gay would want to practice your religion or be offended that you won't let them do so.

Second, I don't believe in "revelation" so therefore the "god stuff" rather makes me sick. I don't expect anything any different from those of your faith; I just wish it would die a natural death.

But here is where I stand:

If you define homosexuality by behavior (i.e. I'm only "gay" if I engage in "gay sex" but I'm not "gay" in your book if I refrain from gay sex), then so be it. However, if you define "gay" by "attraction" (i.e. I am "gay" because I experience stirrings in my loins that is stimulated by members of my same gender), then I hold you and your religion to be completely in the wrong. We do not; and can not; change our sexual arousals. If your "ban" includes non-practicing homosexual, then I would state that you hold yourself opposed to the teachings of Christ; who, according to the teachings, dined with thieves, said to a harlot "your faith has saved you, go and sin no more"; and spent most of his time with "sinners", showing them compassion and rebuking the religious leaders of his day. So, if I say to you, "I am gay but I refrain from that temptation" and yet you reject me; then you stand opposed to the very teachings and example of the one whom you claim to follow. In this latter case, any who would proscribe to the underlined statement above, is an hypocrite.

Second, my other concern is how this attitude of banning "gays" affects the democratic process. If you hold me to your religious standards, then that will influence how you feel I should be treated in everyday life; how secular law should view me, my behavior and my union with a life partner (should I have one). Therein lies my concern: Does your "ban" end at the doors of your church; or does it continue to the workplace, the courts, the voting booths, etc? Does one hold the "right", in your opinion, to dismiss me from employment because I am gay (without displaying inappropriate behaviors there; simply being gay)? Should I have the right for my union to be recognized by the laws that govern the land (not your church)? Should my consensual sexual behavior, conducted in private, with a consensual adult, be criminalized; and should I be "punished" or "cured" or "both" for doing so?

These are the real questions for me. The debates regarding scriptural texts, churches and revelations mean nothing to me; but I hold that your "ban" on gays should stop at the doors of your church.

Answer. Anyone?

 

[Prestor John]

Hello. Welcome to the discussion.

I’m not going to address all of your comments, but I will answer your questions and hopefully clear up a few misconceptions you have about the beliefs and practices of the LDS Church.

Second, I don't believe in "revelation" so therefore the "god stuff" rather makes me sick. I don't expect anything any different from those of your faith; I just wish it would die a natural death.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the Restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ and that it is built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets who receive direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am only pointing this out to warn you that none of our beliefs and practices are independent from the concept of God and the idea of living revelation.

If you define homosexuality by behavior (i.e. I'm only "gay" if I engage in "gay sex" but I'm not "gay" in your book if I refrain from gay sex), then so be it.

That is exactly how we view this issue.

However, if you define "gay" by "attraction" (i.e. I am "gay" because I experience stirrings in my loins that is stimulated by members of my same gender), then I hold you and your religion to be completely in the wrong.

We do not believe that someone who suffers from same-sex attraction is a “homosexual” until they act on that attraction and perform sexual acts with someone of the same sex.

We don’t even like labelling people as “gay”, “lesbian” or “homosexual”.

We don’t believe that anyone should be defined by their sexual orientation. We are all the sum of our parts.

We do not; and can not; change our sexual arousals.

Even though everyone handles this situation differently, we do believe that through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ all people can eventually change their nature.

Some faithful members have overcome their same-sex attraction and have entered into the covenant of marriage with their spouse of the opposite sex.

Not every story is a success story, but we do believe it is possible. It all depends on the person.

If your "ban" includes non-practicing homosexual, then I would state that you hold yourself opposed to the teachings of Christ; who, according to the teachings, dined with thieves, said to a harlot "your faith has saved you, go and sin no more"; and spent most of his time with "sinners", showing them compassion and rebuking the religious leaders of his day. So, if I say to you, "I am gay but I refrain from that temptation" and yet you reject me; then you stand opposed to the very teachings and example of the one whom you claim to follow. In this latter case, any who would proscribe to the underlined statement above, is an hypocrite.

We generally agree with what you have shared here, however I still feel the need to clarify a couple things.

First, we do not consider the new practice of not baptizing the children of same-sex couples, until they are eighteen years old, as a “ban”.

Everyone is invited to come and worship with us on the Sabbath Day and to attend our activities throughout the week.

Second, we would not consider someone who abstains from indulging in their same-sex attraction as “gay” or “homosexual”. We generally discourage the use of such labels.

Lastly, even if you claimed to be a fully practicing “gay” individual, you would still be invited to attend our Sabbath Day services and weekly activities.

No one is “banned” from worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ with us.

Second, my other concern is how this attitude of banning "gays" affects the democratic process. If you hold me to your religious standards, then that will influence how you feel I should be treated in everyday life; how secular law should view me, my behavior and my union with a life partner (should I have one). Therein lies my concern: Does your "ban" end at the doors of your church; or does it continue to the workplace, the courts, the voting booths, etc?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been very clear on the principle that men are free to choose for themselves what to do in this life. The LDS Church has fought for equal employment, housing and other opportunities for those who label themselves homosexual.

Leaders of the LDS Church have counseled members to follow the example of the Savior and to treat everyone with love, compassion and respect.

That being said, we still retain the right to live and act according to the dictates of our own conscience. If someone feels that they cannot offer a service to a same-sex couple for religious reasons, we respect their decision and believe that forcing someone to operate against their heart-felt religious belief is contrary to the freedom of religion outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

I may personally disagree with that person’s belief, but I don’t feel that I or anyone else has the right to force their hand.

Does one hold the "right", in your opinion, to dismiss me from employment because I am gay (without displaying inappropriate behaviors there; simply being gay)?

No. That would violate the law.

Should I have the right for my union to be recognized by the laws that govern the land (not your church)?

Yes, you have that right.

Even though the leaders of the LDS Church disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in regards to “same-sex marriage”, they have officially acknowledged that the decision has been made.

Should my consensual sexual behavior, conducted in private, with a consensual adult, be criminalized; and should I be "punished" or "cured" or "both" for doing so?

If no one’s personal liberties have been violated then there has been no criminal behavior.

You should not be punished for deciding to engage in consensual homosexual behavior.

However, if anyone who has engaged in homosexual behavior feels the need to repent and change their ways, they can be comforted and healed by the Lord Jesus Christ.

We believe that it is possible to overcome same-sex attraction.

 

[Prestor John]

Answer. Anyone?

Patience is a virtue.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

@prestor: I'm happy to know that we can coexist peacefully. I hold that much of the friction between gays and the religious who oppose homosexuality is a communications breakdown over these words; which is why I was careful to define "gay" in my post.

 

[blue taylor]

Hello. Welcome to the discussion.

I’m not going to address all of your comments, but I will answer your questions and hopefully clear up a few misconceptions you have about the beliefs and practices of the LDS Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to be the Restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ and that it is built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets who receive direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am only pointing this out to warn you that none of our beliefs and practices are independent from the concept of God and the idea of living revelation.

That is exactly how we view this issue.

We do not believe that someone who suffers from same-sex attraction is a “homosexual” until they act on that attraction and perform sexual acts with someone of the same sex.

We don’t even like labelling people as “gay”, “lesbian” or “homosexual”.

We don’t believe that anyone should be defined by their sexual orientation. We are all the sum of our parts.

Even though everyone handles this situation differently, we do believe that through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ all people can eventually change their nature.

Some faithful members have overcome their same-sex attraction and have entered into the covenant of marriage with their spouse of the opposite sex.

Not every story is a success story, but we do believe it is possible. It all depends on the person.

We generally agree with what you have shared here, however I still feel the need to clarify a couple things.

First, we do not consider the new practice of not baptizing the children of same-sex couples, until they are eighteen years old, as a “ban”.

Everyone is invited to come and worship with us on the Sabbath Day and to attend our activities throughout the week.

Second, we would not consider someone who abstains from indulging in their same-sex attraction as “gay” or “homosexual”. We generally discourage the use of such labels.

Lastly, even if you claimed to be a fully practicing “gay” individual, you would still be invited to attend our Sabbath Day services and weekly activities.

No one is “banned” from worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ with us.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been very clear on the principle that men are free to choose for themselves what to do in this life. The LDS Church has fought for equal employment, housing and other opportunities for those who label themselves homosexual.

Leaders of the LDS Church have counseled members to follow the example of the Savior and to treat everyone with love, compassion and respect.

That being said, we still retain the right to live and act according to the dictates of our own conscience. If someone feels that they cannot offer a service to a same-sex couple for religious reasons, we respect their decision and believe that forcing someone to operate against their heart-felt religious belief is contrary to the freedom of religion outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

I may personally disagree with that person’s belief, but I don’t feel that I or anyone else has the right to force their hand.

No. That would violate the law.

Yes, you have that right.

Even though the leaders of the LDS Church disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in regards to “same-sex marriage”, they have officially acknowledged that the decision has been made.

If no one’s personal liberties have been violated then there has been no criminal behavior.

You should not be punished for deciding to engage in consensual homosexual behavior.

However, if anyone who has engaged in homosexual behavior feels the need to repent and change their ways, they can be comforted and healed by the Lord Jesus Christ.

We believe that it is possible to overcome same-sex attraction.

That's pretty good, except the last line.

 

[Prestor John]

@prestor: I'm happy to know that we can coexist peacefully. I hold that much of the friction between gays and the religious who oppose homosexuality is a communications breakdown over these words; which is why I was careful to define "gay" in my post.

You hit the nail on the head. That distinction is critical.

Now, I know that you do not like the idea of God speaking to Man, but it is my personal belief that so much "friction" has built up between homosexuals and organized religion over the centuries because these religions no longer believe in receiving revelation and rely only on past revelation, which may not be the best source on how to handle modern-day issues.

I personally believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints receives revelation today through Apostles and Prophets and it is because of this constant link to God that we can know His will concerning how to handle these modern-day situations.