The commentary on the public affairs interview on same-gender attraction is fascinating for me to read. Most of it has been respectful, although there have been several comments that have been over-emotional and downright rude. I have even had to delete a few comments for being extremely unpolite and irrelevant.
One of the key issues that comes up often is how people with same-gender attraction are treated in the Church.
You often hear complaints that gay and lesbian people are discriminated against or not wanted at Church. And it is probably worth stating that in most wards public displays of affection by same-sex “partners” would be frowned upon. I’m not sure how a bishop would handle this (I am thankful once again that I am not a bishop and don’t have to make these types of decisions). But it is worth pointing out that in my seven years as a member I have never seen two people of the same sex who are “partners” coming to Church.
But in general I think many of the claims of discrimination are exaggerated. Take a look, for example, at the claims in a “Nightline” story referenced by Church Public Affairs:
Comment by Daniel Holsinger: “There is a very strong notion that I am a sinner — fundamentally who I am is hated and reviled by God. I am alone; there is no one else like me.â€
Comment by Morgan Smith: “We’re not recovering from God, but we are recovering from the put-downs, the discrimination, the people that come along and say that if you’re gay, you’re not good.â€
I simply couldn’t disagree more with such comments, based on my experience. The Church teaches the very opposite than that people are “hated and reviled by God” for their actions. In fact, if you carefully read the interview linked to above, the General Authorities (in comments approved by the Brethren) clearly say the opposite, that we are all children of God and that he loves us all.
In the vast majority of cases, people struggling with same-gender attraction self-segregate. They stop coming to Church because of actions that they have taken that make them feel uncomfortable at Church. There is an old saying that I like, which is “if you think God has moved away from you, you might want to check out who did the moving.” And the same thing applies to God’s Church. People who stop coming to Church because they feel unwelcome there need to take another look at why they are not coming. If the Church is true (and I know it is), it doesn’t matter what somebody says to you or how you perceive yourself to be treated, you need to continue to come to Church. I guarantee that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that another member could say to me or manner in which I could be treated emotionally that would stop me from going to Church.
It is worth pointing out that individual members have, in my experience, been unkind to people with same-gender attraction. Some of that is evidenced on this thread. I believe that people calling others to repentance is rude, unnecessary and ineffective. One of the great things I have learned from the Bloggernacle is that my stewardship does not include others in the Bloggernacle, so I try to avoid issuing calls for repentance to them regarding their individual moral behavior. I will proclaim the Gospel and defend the Church, and I will occasionally make the strong political comment, but I really do try these days to avoid personal moral statements. It simply doesn’t work.
As always, the prophet has the best words to say on this subject. Let’s hear from him a bit:
“Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married” (“Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,†Ensign, Nov. 1999, 54).
I wish we all could be filled with such Christ-like love. And I wish — and hope — that those brothers and sisters who are struggling with same-gender attraction will make the decision to come back to God’s Church and that they will be welcomed with open arms by their brothers and sisters in Christ.
Mayan Elephant,
Is your shift key broken?
Nick,
I think GeorgeD is off his rocker, Nick, but “extreme personal animus” is reaching.
I’m not so sure, jimbob. Wait ’til you’re on the receiving end of some rhetoric like georgeD’s and then get back with me on whether or not it seems like extreme personal animus.
BTW, I don’t feel like the M* comments policy is being very well enforced in this thread. If a comment like “you think you’re the smartest thing in the room….” isn’t disrespectful, I’m not sure what is. The comments policy says: “we expect those comments to uplift, rather than tear down” and “comments should follow generally accepted standards for good taste and decorum, exhibit respect for others.”
On the other hand, I kind of appreciate a voice like georgeD’s appearing here. It’s a good reminder of what gay and lesbian LDS are dealing with out there. So maybe he should be allowed to continue for that purpose.
Howller, really sorry about your friend’s situation. Is he doing OK now? Getting help somehow?
Clark, your #183 and #191 are great examples of what makes you my blogging hero (blero?): not only are you brilliant and adept at articulating your point of view, but you go about your business with kindness and dignity. People like you help make me be proud to be a Mormon. You go, brother!
[p.s. Sorry to do this to you. I just thought you should know that you are appreciated.]
#196 – I agree with a lot gD’s comments, but foresure he crossed the line with this one…Never good to say ‘Told you so’ about these things. You never know, gD, you may just die one day or have some suffering to go through, just because you are a good little straight Mormon!! Gotta take care with the personal attacks of non-compassion!!
#189 – Hmmm, you make a very good argument, but again not so bullet proof. Binding or not, the DOTF, would most likely be readily accepted as doctrine currently by those that are faithfully living within the bounds the Lord has set making it a moot point that we need to have it canonized to have it accepted as doctrine (If they asked for a sustaining in the middle of the night tonight while I am asleep, my arm would be raised to the square in my sleep). 2nd to this is that they gave the DOTF during a GC, did they not and probably during the same or the next conference we, or at least a good majority of us raised our arms to the square and sustained them as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, again a good enough sticking point for the DOTF to be doctrine in many people’s minds – D&C 1:37-38. The rigor of cannonization that you refer to perhaps is semantically and syntactically required to make things doctrinal specific to the church, but when the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators speak, it’s pretty good doctrine to me and I’ll go by faith once again that they are closer to the actual truth than bottom of the barrel rate morality claims of ‘mortal fallibility’ or that they ‘could be way off base’! True, they are fallible, and probably many times been proven to be wrong, but does that make you or I closer to God on these matters than they are? Ummm, No…DOTF, good enough for me to be counted as doctrine!!
I absolutely agree with you, Peter, that most modern LDS will read the Procolamation on the Family as doctrine. If you notice, my remarks anticipated the fact that the proclamation’s authorship, and subsequent emphasis, certainly elevate it’s status—though still somewhere short of actual canonization. Personally, I would not be surprised to see it canonized shortly after President Hinckley passes on, but who knows?
I love lamp.
Re: GeorgeD
In some peoples mind, this is a case similiar to Nephi lecturing his brothers.
GeorgeD is on pretty solid ground as far as the doctrines of the Church. Surely everyone here has to admit that.
Even if they are right, those that oppose or even speak out againt the servants of the Lord are on very shaky ground. Perhaps this parable is in order .
In my mind, a lot more violations of the following have taken place: “Posters who wish to debate or argue those foundational teachings should seek one of the other forums available for such discussions. Comments that denigrate the Church or insult its leaders are not welcome.”
Y’all need some cheese to go with your whine. Homosexual behavior (like adultery, child abuse) etc. is a sin. If that statement hurts then let it hurt.
(Mommy, george is being hurtful, mommy george is being disrespectful, mommy, george said I was playing nasty, mommy mommy mommy…..)
at this point, I don’t think your comments are helpful (actuall, almost none of the last 50 or so comments are helpful).
I agree with you, but commet #208 was too strong and rather mean. At the very least, try to give respect even if you aren’t getting it. At this point very few of the commentators are adding anything helpful. Mike and Nick seem very unaware of how condescending and holier than thou they are being.
But given all that, the comments in this thread overall are degenerating fast. I’m not an administrator, but as one of the permabloggers, I might strongly suggest to the admins to shut this thread down.
re: 209 Think of what I could say if I was trying to be disrespectful. I think that I am a model of restraint. I do agree with your “holier than thou” comment. It is a key feature of the new religion of self-absorption.
GeorgeD –
that’s like when I go shopping and buy lots of unnecessary crap and then tell my wife “well, look at the other stuff I could have bought! I was a model of self-restriant” when the real truth is I shouldn’t have bought any of that unnecessary stuff.
You may be exercising self-restraint, but you need to exercise more – you’re coming across not very well, even to those of us who pretty much completely agree with your basic sentiments.
Acting as administrator (who has been rather too occupied to read everything the past few days) .
Let’s keep the tone friendly here. Or we will start deleting posts.
personally, i am impressed that georged and addrax are able to post here. i find they accurately represent a cross-section of the lds community and highlight the challenges a mormon homosexual, and the mormon family members of a mormon homosexual face constantly.
i believe them when they say they think lesbians deserve fewer rights.
i believe them when they say think homosexuality is genetic, and its “something went wrong”. and i believe he is sincere in considering it as genetic as other diseases, and yet, those same people should be denied all rights and consideration. i believe that if oaks said tomorrow that blood transfusions were a sin, he would be content to see hemophiliacs die and leave their fate in the hands of jesus. i have no reason whatsoever to think his beliefs are anything less than that in their force.
i believe them when they say they think heteosexuals are living according to a holy order, where lesbians are following the devil.
i believe them when they say think it is justifiable to subject a lesbian to higher stress and misery and loneliness, and that the person deserves no empathy, after all, it is merely the consequence of their sin.
i believe that they lack empathy for the married homosexual father cited above, and that they think suicide would be better than succombing to his “temptation.” i dont doubt for one second that they think death is better than being homosexual. after all, mcconkie expressed the same opinion about chastity, why should it be consequential if any given member of the church agreed?
my point in all this: some folks would rather live, free and happy, and continue to breathe and consume oxygen, as opposed to dying. it may be as much a matter of common sense as it is faith to not accept death as a greater alternative to being a celibate or sexualy active homosexual.
i would take my contention one step further, i dont think parents should be in position to consider the value and merits of their own lives and destiny when they are the parents of a homosexual, especially, when such characteristics may be genetic, as addrax has suggested.
hey clark,
you have a free pass to delete anything i put up here. i am a known satan worshiper as jordan pointed out 🙂
seriously, this is your playground, and as i emailed you earlier, i come here knowing that my views are not always welcome or compliant with your guidelines. so have at it.
just dont delete that georged, addrax and jordan guys stuff. they seem to make my point better than my own words.
hope things went well for you this weekend, clark.
Mayan Elephant (#213), I’ve not seen anyone in this thread talking about denying anyone rights. (Well except those making the claim that others claim this) If we make such extreme claims it would be helpful for all people (including the moderators) if such claims were backed up at a minimum with a comment number. As I’ve read this thread I’ve noticed that what people claim others are saying and what they appear to be saying are quite different. I certainly recognize that charity of interpretation often fails as we project our own beliefs and fears upon others. Still, we ought aim for it.
GeorgeD (#208), Your comments are out of line. (Putting on moderator hat) Continue and you will be deleted. When you talk theology it is fine, even if your beliefs are offensive to some others. When you intentionally use inflammatory rhetoric like the last paragraph then you’re going over the line.
Addrax (#207), I think any attacks on the brethren have been deleted. There were a few that were perhaps close but I don’t think constituted an attack. At least I’ve not so judged them and neither have any other administrator. Certainly there is a fundamental divide in that some feel a doctrine wrong while others don’t. And that divide is impassible as I see it. But I think we’ve been fairly good about talking around that.
Nick (#199) To clarify, I did not argue that because doctrine changes, any particular doctrine will change. I was responding to georgeD, who insisted that LDS doctrine has never changed (and used that to support an argument that church doctrine regarding homosexuality will never change. I simply think, given history, that it is short-sighted to predict what will change or never will change.
Contextually it seemed to be implying more than that. However it is perhaps somewhat unfair to take the comments as more than what they are on their own terms. So I apologize if I misrepresented you. Take my comments there as a general point then rather than a particular critique of your position.
Seth (#198) I unfortunately agree and think that there is an impasse that can’t be overcome. At a fundamental level it is a doctrine of the church that homosexual relations are wrong. While some may disagree it seems fundamental that Mormons accept this and act accordingly. However it is also important that when we attempt to be obedient to what God has commanded that we be loving as the Savior is. And I think our critics are right that some are not. They are more concerned about appearing right than in bringing sinners to Christ. I suspect we all can do better in that. However I strongly feel that Elder Oaks is trying to be loving and act in a Christlike way. The divide is over that earlier point about homosexual relations. That is how ought one act towards people who intentionally engage in egregious sin? The fundamental critiques of Elder Oaks all come from the basis (IMO) that the doctrine of the Church is wrong. But that’s simply not going to convince most believing Mormons.
Clark,
Allow me to be the first with a citation. first i want to cite you with an honorable mention for hairsplitting. yikes, you split an eyelash with that one and got to make two wishes for yourself. well done.
now, as for denial of rights, the entire pr piece was a justification for denying rights to homosexuals. what is difficult to prove or justify is whether or not it is morally appropriate to deny those very rights. here is my example:
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html
i merely suggest that oaks and wickman, by their own admission, are neither divinely inspired or institutionally qualified to speak on this topic and perhaps, their opinions should be discounted. (or at least debated to the nth degree)
i did not think that there was at any point in this string of threads a question about whether certain individuals should be denied rights. that is a key point of the pr piece, is it not?
i happen to agree with some of the loonier posters on here that believe homosexuality is natural, genetic or whatever. i dont think it is something went wrong. i happen to believe that it is something that just went, and i make no judgment about the wrongness or rightness of those born in that circumstance.
i will take this one step further than you have already suggested. anyone that reads those comments by oaks and wickman and agrees with them, refuses to discount them or defends the comments, is clearly taking a position that they too prefer that the rights or married people be unavailable to homosexuals.
what is not clear about that? and why is it so bad to make the inference that those that are defending oaks’ and wickman’s comments, agree with the comments?
Well, OK, although you’ve changed things from commentors to the original interview. I’d just suggest that there may be some equivocation going on over the meaning of “rights.” It seems to me further that the issues is more about granting new rights (i.e. marriage rights) versus denying general civil rights. But perhaps you are right that I’m splitting hairs a little. I think, however, that whenever we get into a discussion of rights such hairsplitting is important so as to clarify what we’re talking about.
Put an other way, this same view can be described as, “granting new rights,” or “ceasing to deny rights,” or even “making something a right that isn’t.” It all depends upon what we mean by “rights.”
Since this all ends up tied into discussions of natural rights and so forth things get even trickier since the discussion often entails philosophical commitments to just what we mean by rights. For instance to some the right to go 85 MPH in Montana isn’t really a granting of a right in the sense of say the right to privacy or the right to speech.
So let me add in an additional hairsplitting request to my earlier comment. Please be clear about what one means by right. If it is merely the ability to do X then it is different from what we might call the fundamental obligations over what has to be permitted.
wow clark.
is that microscope safe for the naked eye? sheeeesh.
i say that these definitions of rights (new or old, granted, denied, whatever) is less critical to the discussion, though, it may be more critical to pegging the specific position of a specific poster.
here is what i think is important: wickman says that married people have a “bundle of rights.” he then goes on to say, effectively, we wont say which rights lesbians should not have, but there are definitely some within that bundle that they should NOT have.
seriously, who cares what rights they are talking about? not even wickman cares which rights they are. do you really think that being a lesbian is reason enough to not have the same rights as another? wickman thinks so.
by the way, i was sorta nice to jordan when he said a lesbian could have everything,..yada…yada…. yawn….., in a heterosexual relationship. i hope we have gone beyond that by now. even oaks aint trying to “repair” people. so we can just move beyond that straw woman and not go on to suggest that the rights can be theirs, if they are straight, but otherwise they cant.
the real argument is whether those rights should be denied because “something went wrong genetically? (that is awful for me to even type that, forgive me)
to seth #181
you claim that homosexuality is a fad. i suppose there are certainly instances of peer pressure, group behavior or whatever. prison populations have a reputation for a higher homosexuality rate, though i really dont know where to get those facts to cite.
but, when we consider this in terms of right (per wickman and the pr piece) why is that reason enough to not allow someone those rights? should people who wear bell-bottoms not be allowed marriage rights? since when is a fad reason enough to deny equal rights and protection?
the same can be said for bisexuals, or switch hitters as you so maturely referenced them (im sure the moderators were just to busy to correct the slight, understandable) they can be what they want, and should have the same rights and protection. unless they are violating the rights of another, they should be free to choose whatever they want. isnt it ironic who is working to deny the mariage rights of others today, its those that promote “choosing” the right. i guess the right choice would have been to choose to be straight, then you can be happy.
Mayan Elephant: (#218) seriously, who cares what rights they are talking about? not even wickman cares which rights they are. do you really think that being a lesbian is reason enough to not have the same rights as another? wickman thinks so.
But certainly some people do care. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a controversy.
Further this “microscope” is essential. For instance consider the following statements and then whether homosexuals and heterosexuals share the same rights.
1. “The right to marry.” Both share this right since homosexuals can marry even if they probably would not want to be in a heterosexual relationship.
2. “The right to marry people you are in love with.” Both have this right denied. After all not only can homosexuals not marry a fellow person of the same sex at the moment, but neither can heterosexuals. Further polygamy is illegal so heterosexuals can’t marry someone they love if they or their lover is already married (without divorcing)
3. “The right to marry someone of the same sex.” Both have this right denied. Now the significance of this denial is clearly different. But the denial is the same.
4. “The right to have the opportunity to marry a member of the class you are attracted to.” Even here, while we’re getting closer to the denial we still have some overlap for the reasons mentioned before.
5. “The right to marry a member of the class you are attracted to that doesn’t involve bigamy, underage or similar exceptions.” This one is uneven, but very particular.
Now whether this is a significant right (in the broad sense) to deny is the matter in contention. Clearly though it isn’t straightforward.
The issue of genetics is a red herring since no one is tying ethical commitments to genetics.
[Edit] To add, when we talk about rights unless one is clear that they mean it in the broad sense (i.e. simply the ability to do X) then I think one is being unclear. That’s because most people when they use the word “rights” mean generally agreed upon fundamental civil rights. But clearly there is anything but agreement that gay marriage is or ought be a civil right.
Mayan Elephant (#220) unless they are violating the rights of another, they should be free to choose whatever they want.
Why should anyone assume this as the basis for ethics? Many of the major philosophical ethical systems don’t even assume this. While this might be persuasive to a hard core libertarian I don’t see how it will be persuasive to anyone else.
If your argument depends upon everyone embracing Libertarianism haven’t you already lost?
yeah, thats true clark. i have lost that one. ouch brother. ok, my basis is a little loose. oh well.
clark, i find this very very very very interesting that you are asking us as posters to be so specific and yet, you dont seem to mind one spec that wickman just throws “rights” around in bundles. and more, he is willing to deny part of the bundle from another human, and that is not an issue for most mormons.
hey, can i get to your specific list later? cant do it now, i have a personal progress interview with the devil.
[Mod Edit: pesky numbering bug. This was referring to my posts down around 221.]
Mayan Elephant (#219) With regards to Whitman’s use of “rights” I think it clear in context he’s talking about gay marriage. So I think it’s clear what he means. (To me anyway) What gets confusing is when one is appealing to this (the denial of any right) as wrong. Since clearly we deny rights in the broad sense all the time and only occasionally in a fashion that would placate a Libertarian.
As to why I ask we be more specific. That’s because we’re addressing precise arguments and understanding. i.e. we hopefully aren’t just talking broadly and in more vague terms. Rather we are trying to move from the vaguer talk of the interviews into more narrow and precise understanding.
For the record I don’t have any problem with people talking in “folk ways.” It just means though that when we react we have to recognize that they aren’t using the kind of talk that political scientists, ethicists, and philosophers use. i.e. we have to understand the realm of discourse we are dealing with.
So the idea that it is objectionable that people deny rights seems a bit silly once we recognize this happens all the time.
The point of my list is simply to point out that as we move from the most general case to the most particular case (say “The right to marry Nicole Goble”) we run into problems. We want a situation where the statements about rights are sufficiently narrow to capture what we’re focused on yet sufficiently broad so as to apply to at least some broad section of people. The reason I raise this is to simply point out that “rights talk” is a bit more complex and subtle than it first appears. (One reason why I ultimately don’t find it useful – it ends up being primarily a way to emotionally rile up those who already agree with one)
re: 211 You agree with my basic sentiments but you won’t stick up for them in any public setting. Meanwhile sin walks in the door and takes over. I thought that M* was a blog for believing Mormons. I think it is becoming much like T&S, a blog for Mormons who are kind of ashamed of their faith but think they can overcome it by trying to demonstrate that they can be pc and Mormon.
Sin is always at the door. If we don’t identify, name it and warn others about it it soon is a regular part of our lives. I have responded to some snark with snark but that is about it. If a moderator takes the time to trace my responses they will easily understand that I have been more reactive than provocative.
I refuse to be intimidated by whiny accusations of “hurtful”, “disrespectful”, “hateful” or other poor substitutes for debate. Is sexual behavior outside the bounds of a marriage between a man and a woman acceptable or not? The answer is an emphatic NO it is unacceptable. If that hurts then change.
GeorgeD, (#224), the issue isn’t sticking up for what one believes. I agree we must do this. Although I strongly dispute your charge that believers here aren’t doing that. What is at issue is the rhetoric you choose to do it with. i.e. you aren’t really concerned in my view with sticking up for basic LDS sentiments but want to make others feel hurt. The scripture I mentioned before is “be bold but not overbearing.” I think you are definitely in the “overbearing” category even if you think you are merely being bold.
Certainly you weren’t the only one. There were excesses on both sides. My comment is just to tell everyone to stop. And I think we all should let bygones be bygones.
well said clark. very well said.
georgeD, you said:
the answer for YOU is emphatically, NO. though you seem to believe that post-mortal life will offer infinite exceptions. what is important is whether someone who doesnt subscribe to your point of view should be denied priveleges. should they be denied the routine relationships with their parents, including the acknowledgement of their partner/spouse? should they be able to adapt children? should they have equal medical, retirement and confidentiality rights?
wickman agrees with you and you agree with him, congratulations georged. you tow the party line. but you dont seem to respond well to the tougher questions.
i also agree with clark. your rhetoric is a bit harsh, and that says a lot coming from me, as i notoriously enjoy harsh dialogue.
your tone suggests that anyone with same sex attractions should change their nature and change their expectations for civility and rights. that wont happen pal. i think that a more accepting, loving, accomodating and civil tone will continualy creep into our society, until opinions like yours are marganalized and mocked.
For the record I think a statement like that by George is acceptable and is definitely in the “bold” and not “overbearing” level. While we have to watch what we say we also can remove hurt from everyone who sees our position. I’ll be the first to admit that it’s a difficult balancing act – and one I’ve gotten wrong by going to far to both sides in the past.
Also for the record while I strongly believe homosexuals and their partners should have equal medical and confidentiality rights I disagree (obviously) about marriage and certain classes of adoption. Retirement rights are trickier and one would have to get narrow about that. Personally I think I should be able to designate anyone I want to receive my benefits. However if retirement is more based upon a corporate agreement I think that should be between the corporation and their employees. i.e. I don’t think the state should get involved.
georgeD, you said:
You may consider this a debate, but for many of us (especially in religion centered forums), blogging is about gaining greater insight and understanding. I was trying to offer the insight that the manner in which we as church members and as a community speak about and treat gay people can make the difference between life and death for some individuals. It really is this serious. These are real human beings, our sons and daughters, parents, neighbors, children of our Eternal Father. Forgive me for waxing dramatic, but my friend (comment 194 above) is neither self-absorbed, nor obsessed with hedonistic pleasure. Neither is he sexually active. Yet if he were to be honest and open about his sexual preference, many in his neighborhood and family, including LDS members would shame him with these hurtful and hateful stereotypes, much as you have done to the gay posters on this blog.
You may think I am whining, but in fact, I am pleading! To the GeorgeD’s out there, please dig deep in your hearts and souls and consider how Jesus would have you treat gay individuals, who can be some of the most decent, caring, and spiritual people you may ever meet.
Ivan Wolfe, I don’t want to sound holier-than-thou or condescending. Can you point me back to a specific comment I made here that reads that way to you? Thanks.
It appears Geoff B took the long weekend off. Cursed ubiquitous wi-fi! I could not resist temptation and kept reading this thread.
re: 228. What is your friends problem? Does he disagree with my statement that sexual relationships outside a marriage of a man and woman are immoral? Does he think he can have a temple marriage and some homosexual action on the side? Or does he think he can abandon his family for a life of homosexual sex? I can’t change my belief in the rightness of God’s teachings through the apostles and the wrongness of violating sacred covenants. If that hurts him he will just have to to deal with it. That is his problems. I know that he can take that problem to God who can help him deal with it correctly in light of the teachings of the Church.
re: 226 where did I say that there are infinite exceptions in the post mortal world? I stand by my statement. Homosexual sex is a perversion and is contrary to God’s will (for time and all eternity). All defenses of homosexual sexual behavior are futile whining. Let the hurt fall where it will.
cmon george.
tone the hate speak down just a bit. i realize you have no empathy for homosexuals and their frustration. but still, you can choose a lighter tone and still make your point that you are on gods side and everyone else is, well, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.
and, as for my comment in 226. i was referring to your “man and a woman” remark. we all know that mormons believe that the the kingdom of mansions and servants will give georged infinite wives to populate his worlds without end.
and as for your 230. whatever dude. perhaps defenses of homosexual sexual behavior is futile whining in the celestial kingdom and in the conference center. the harsh distinction here is that some people would defend a homosexual, where you clearly would not. some people would offer charity and hope and love and service and much more to a homosexual. you clearly would not.
you are a very good example of why i will not bring my children back to your church. i see no merit in participating further in an organization that would encourage comments such as yours by offering support to your position through publications like the oaks/wickman thing. oaks/wickman could have done more to encourage people to welcome homosexuals, but instead, they want a harder line in the sand. i find that a bit too brutal.
georgeD. i just spent a week solo parenting while my wife went to a big bad conference. she spoke while ryan whites mother was sitting in the vip table. she met with ryan’s mom and others that continue to work with her sons foundation. that room was full of people that have sacrificed much and dedicated careers to serving others and making the world a better place for you and me. yes georged, they even make it better for you, aint that a damn shame. i bet you didnt want to hear that. i guarantee you georged, my kids will be better off knowing the people in that conference and learning from them, than they could ever be sharing a hatemongoring sunday shool class with you. its a shame. the potential is grand in the church organization. too bad oaks and georged cant see that.
ADMIN: AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE OFFICIALLY BEATEN THIS TOPIC TO DEATH. LET’S HOPE WE DON’T HAVE ANOTHER OCCASION TO DISCUSS SAME-GENDER ATTRACTION FOR MANY MORE MONTHS!!!!
COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED ON THIS THREAD.
georged,
another thing about 230, oaks and wickman have said it themselves, the comments they gave are NOT inspired or institutionally qualified. so please stop crediting god on this topic.