I wish all Church’s would stand up!!!!

Legislation can not over rule the constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religion. That guarantee is one of the supreme laws of the land and will nullify the requirements of any religious practice to conform to a practice. Furthermore, that constitutional guarantee allows the Church an almost unfettered ability to set its own policy. The only restriction that could effect faithful LDS is that a Mormon who works as a Justice of the Peace or in any other similar civil capacity would be required, as a function of their office, to perform their civil duties for all, this will undoubtedly create moral quandary and ethical dilemma for those few who object on religious grounds to performing their duties. It would be wise for the legislature to craft legislation that would protect the employment of those who so object. I believe the church would be prudent to actively protect their members by intervening in the political process for that purpose only.

I really think you are missing the main point of this entire battle although your argument is logical and appears correct.

While you’re right that there is no requirement to “support” marriage equality a church still can’t discriminated against same sex couples in a ceremony which the state needs to recognize as legally binding. Anti-discrimination laws stop them from doing so for legally binding practices such as marriage or adoption or mediation (which Bishops can do in some areas of the world). Priesthood ordination aren’t recognized by the state therefore not a discrimination issue. But marriage, in many ways, can be seen as a service performed by the church on behalf of the government since the government regulates who can and who can’t marry (underage, siblings etc).

The consequences of all of this is that Temple marriages won’t be recognized by the state anymore as already happens in many countries. And the ability to marry would be taken away from Bishops since they’d “discriminate” against same sex couples. Remember that Bishops can marry because the state grants them the legal authority to do so, not from priesthood authority.

But then again people in many countries need to marry before the state in one ceremony and then travel to a Temple for the church marriage so in many ways this is already happening in some countries and isn’t a concern for the church.

And off course all this could be avoided if they grant specific permission to churches to discriminate against same sex couples as they allow them to discriminate when hiring professors in BYU or seminaries, but I doubt they will.

Kennyboon, the decision of the California Supreme Court does not require any church to “support” marriage equality. Churches are free to teach and believe whatever doctrine they wish. Likewise, the court’s decision has nothing at all to do with requiring that the LDS church marry same-sex couples in its temples. Temple marriage is completely different from civil marriage. Anyone who tells you that the court’s decision will make the LDS church have to marry same-sex couples in its temples is lying to you, in order to scare you into giving them money.

Its also about overturning the will of the people, not only the gay marriage issue.

After all the first presidency start that letter by addressing the court’s overturning the the people choice clearly expressed in March 2008. I don’t think that this was the case in the MA. MA voters would probably be overwhelmingly pro gay marriage.

I understand why you would be hesitant to buy into the ‘clean up the church’ idea - it seems to smack of both a conspiracy theory by the church and a victims complex among those that disagree. Notwithstanding this, I can’t help but think of the publicity nightmare for the church when the September Six and the Danzigs (sic) were kicked out. This is a convenient way to have the socially liberal element remove themselves from the Church and to align themselves with mainstream evangelicals.

I might be wrong on this point, but it seems pretty convenient.

You can find it here. http://www.affirmation.org/media/2008_06_24.shtml

I’ll paste it below

Open Letter to California Mormons
“We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy”

by Jeffrey S. Nielsen
24 June 2008

I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members, are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60’s when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70’s when they opposed legal equality for women.

Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they; however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members, especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.

You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the unreasonable and unjust call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.

Somehow I can’t envision the FP and the Q12 sitting in a meeting saying, “How do we get rid of members who think for themselves? Hmmmm, how about we oppose gay marriage? Yeah, that will drive out those who think for themselves.”

That is not the way it works here in Ontario. I am not aware of any prelate performing a marriage against their will. Churches set their policies and their members participate in the manner those members see fit. The laws of the country determine what is acceptable to the public at large AND with respect to the rights of minority groups. Minority Groups include people like Mormons and Homosexuals, because both groups suffer (or have suffered) discrimination, the law seeks to ensure that all people are apart of society. Criminal sanctions are set against activities that are demonstrated to be harmful. Judges are set as adjudicators. Lawyers are employed to argue reason and morality. Politicians are employed as delegates of the majority. The majority sets the rules, if these rules do not apply to harmful activities and have the effect of excluding a minority group from fundamental rights, the courts will either strike down a law or read down a law so that the law is eliminated or interpreted in a way that permits all people to be equal actors in society.

Limits on the ability of the majority / government are entirely necessary for a free society, because when the majority excludes a minority group that does no demonstrative harm, then freedom of the individual is meaningless. This is the key to the entire debate. The ‘wrongfulness’ of a particular practice is not in question, the harm to society has not been proven to any impartial adjudicator, period. I would suggest that much evidence exists to the contrary, and feel the courts have rightly decided. There is no grounds to merit a constitutional amendment that, in light of the present decision result in the amendment being read down as much as possible.

In short the church is encouraging members to waste time and effort to attempt to exclude members of society that are not a threat to society. The only thing to be gained in the exercise is the alienation of those progressives who remain in the church. In fact, I believe this letter is an effort to clean the church of those who would think for themselves, think of the consequences for their fellow man, and who would require proof before walking on the rights of others based on their sexual preferences. It is certainly a sharp edge.

“If the church doesn’t use government funds, it can set whatever policy it wants and the government cannot do a thing about it”

I believe this is wrong and its the key to this entire debate. The point is that it isn’t allowed to set its own policies at all in this area of adoption simply because it rejects same sex marriage. Its not about using public money or not but in not being allowed to legally provide adoption services, or even provide legal marriage services, since it rejects gay-marriage and this is then seen as discriminatory by the courts. Once gay-marriage is legal, a church will have to marry gays or no one at all, and provide adoption services to both gays and straights or no one at all. Maybe #219 articulates this better. The only way around this is to specifically permit discrimination against same-sex couples in the anti-discrimination act, therefore it would permit a church group to discriminate against some couples just as, say, the military discriminates against persons of certain age in choosing officer candidates (for example). But the discriminating against gay couples would have to be listed as specific exemptions to anti-discrimination law.

Nick,

I doubt I will ever convince you of the wrongfulness of gay marriage or of homosexuality for that matter. But then, as I’ve said before, you are free to lobby your case but so is the church and so is Pt Monson. Oh, you’re right about the testimony on Jesus in 2000, I’d forgotten about that, my bad. So now its the revelation on the priesthood in ‘78, then the proclamation in ‘95 and finally the Jesus statement? in ‘00.

I’ll take the comments here so far into account in developing my opening salvo. I will probably begin the post with a definition of what I understand “love” to be, so we can see if we have common ground there as a prelude to debating whether or not love can be “unconditional.”

I imagine we’ll come up with a few different definitions of what love, and especially God’s love, really is.

I would also like to do a separate post on whether or not–or to what degree–Mormonism is like spiritual Darwinism.

First, I don’t equate the possibility of receiving a lesser eternal reward as a result of my own actions as a sign that God loves me any less. Indeed, the fact that God gives us the opportunity to use free agency can be seen as the ultimate expression of love. The fact that I screw it up and, hence, don’t live up to my potential does not mean God loves me any less because of my acts. Think of how we parents relate to our children. I give them instructions and rules, adherence to which may result in a reward — for example, “if you clean up your room, we can go get ice cream tonight” If they do it, great, we’re off to get a scoop. If not, tough luck. But no matter how they choose to respond, my love for them is unchanged. I’m disappointed, but I still love them despite their faults. The fact that God puts conditions on exaltation does not, in my mind, equate to his placing conditions on his love for us.

Second, regardless of how we feel about our relationship to God, I think our mandate to love others unconditionally is pretty clear. Citations in the scriptures and Confernce talks to this point are legion. In your child molester example (always the extremes here on the ‘Net!), you’re right that the sinner may not be entitled to my trust or community (file under: fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice . . .), but he is entitled to my forgiveness and love, despite his sins. Isn’t that what “turning the other cheek” is all about? Pres. Hinckley addressed this very subject just a couple of years back (read the talk here), saying,

“I know this is a delicate and sensitive thing of which I am speaking. There are hardened criminals who may have to be locked up. There are unspeakable crimes, such as deliberate murder and rape, that justify harsh penalties. But there are some who could be saved from long, stultifying years in prison because of an unthoughtful, foolish act. Somehow forgiveness, with love and tolerance, accomplishes miracles that can happen in no other way.”

In other words, we are required to forgive all men, and forgiveness is the ultimate act of love. Sound familiar?

So, I personally hope to never hear again “the B.S. notion” that I am entitled to withhold my love from those I deem to be “sinners.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/11291/1484

Too bad, here it is again: http://mormonalliance.org/newsletter/jul_2003.htm

- Lets just make sure we don’t equate “the Correlation committee told me not to use it” with “its false doctrine.”

Also, I don’t know about you, but Love is the only unfailing, unconditional attribute about God that I can positively support. If the Ensign editorial staff didn’t like using “unconditional love”, that’s really too bad. I bet a lot of people in this Church could do well to remember God’s love more often.

“Unconditional love” is a false doctrine and idea. When I worked at the Ensign magazine, the correlation department told us never to use the term.

God’s love is very much conditional. Think of Lehi’s dream. The fruit of the tree is God’s love. To get there and partake, you have to follow the iron rod. If you don’t, you don’t get to partake of God’s love and you fall into other paths.

Yeah, God loves us all enough to give us the opportunity to choose what’s right, but if we don’t, then he won’t even visit us in our telestial or terrestrial eternal glory, both of which are conditional rewards for partial success in the test of life.

Mormonism is survival of the fittest on an eternal scale. Just as natural selection determines which animals survive so they can reproduce, the Mormon plan of salvation determines which humans can survive spiritually so they can reproduce in the celestial kingdom. Everyone else “dies,” or is spiritually removed from God’s presence and does not get to reproduce in the eternities.

Of course, God wants us all to succeed and in many ways bends over backwards, including allowing his own son to go through the Atonement, but there are still many conditions that must be fulfilled by us.

Likewise, our love in this life toward “sinners” is conditional. If someone is going to steal from us or molest our children or otherwise damage our household or our society in some way, we withdraw our love and fellowship from them as needed, just as God does. To the degree that they are willing to be helped along the path of righteously, we of course bend over backwards to help, but if they are set in their sinful ways, we withdraw our love.

Personally, I would prefer to never hear the B.S. term “unconditional love” again.

But anyway you definitely have a right to lobby for your political ideals, only I hope you consider what happens in MA and in England today where even the catholics can’t offer adoption services anymore because they don’t believe in gay marriage so they are banned by courts.

I’m with Hick on this one. I can’t help but say, “So?” If the church doesn’t use government funds, it can set whatever policy it wants and the government cannot do a thing about it. But as Nick says, the Catholic church wanted to use government funds. If that’s the case, then the Catholic church must abide by the laws and regulations of that said government. This is nothing particularly newsworthy. If a church cannot abide by those rules and regulations, they should stop asking for government money.

Aside from the fact that Monson likely only approved the letter, and didn’t actually write the letter, you’re absolutely right. If you want my model of a “real Mormon,” you can look to Joseph Smith. Monson is no Joseph Smith. In fact, based on many years of studying Joseph Smith’s life, I’m quite confident that he never would have engaged in the sort of stunt currently being directed by Monson.

I hope you consider what happens in MA and in England today where even the catholics can’t offer adoption services anymore because they don’t believe in gay marriage so they are banned by courts.

Nobody banned Catholics from providing adoption services. Rather, the Catholic adoption agencies in question wanted to use government funds in a way which violated the local government’s anti-discrimination laws. The Catholics could simply have discontinued drawing on government funds, which require equal treatment, rather than religiously-motivated differences in treatment. By doing so, they could have happily continued to provide their services as they wished.

Nothing else has all the signatures of ALL living apostles.

FALSE. The members of the quorum of the twelve all signed a testimony of Jesus, commemorating the turning of the millenium.

Don’t all those signitures from those sustained as prophets, seers and revelators mean something major?

Honestly, “all those signatures” mean exactly one thing. They mean that the president of the church (Hinckley at the time) made a decision to issue the Proclamation Against Certain Families, and true to their custom, all of the twelve obeyed, regardless of what personal feelings they may have had on the matter.

Sorry, this is simply wrong. The Church does not police the bedroom activities of married members. You may have beliefs about what constitutes “natural” and “unnatural” sex, but they are purely of your own making.

“The church did change their mind on oral sex, solely because of the outrage of the members”

Another brainless conclusion dear, or love (see I’m now spreading the love to the enemies of the church!)

We stopped asking about it in temple recommends only because most couples didn’t do it and some singles asked why you asking me. But the church didn’t change its view on oral sex, it still teaches that sex should be ‘natural’ and safe, so oral/anal But it is inappropriate to ASK about it in temple recommend interviews. They replaced everything with the keeping the law of chastity question. They also don’t ask missionaries about masturbation in temple recommend interviews but the church still condemns it.

But then no one polices this, so you can continue doing it….it’s your private business. I doubt it will send you to hell or anything like that.

I’m not going to scan and post here from the handbook (its would breach copyright too). If you have a book 1, blue one, which you probably shouldn’t, then you can find it yourself without me breaking more confidentiality.Plus who its addressed to also implies confidentiality. I don’t understand why you can’t see this.

And I did say ‘apparently’, if its CC fine I’ll take your word for it.

You definitely have an argument there with the ‘real mormons’ and I see what you’re on about, but isn’t following the brethren what ‘real mormons’ should do first? After all its the apostles who are promoting ‘legislatively eliminate the rights of homosexuals [in] an abusive act of religious persecution’ as you put it. I think they call it protecting the family and standing up for God’s revealed morality, after all when has God ever changed his views on homosexuality -which we would find out about through the prophet. But Monson doesn’t seem to be going in your direction but, as his letter shows, he’s going in the opposite direction to you. And you’re really calling Monson a ‘not real mormon’ since he authored the letter.

But anyway you definitely have a right to lobby for your political ideals, only I hope you consider what happens in MA and in England today where even the catholics can’t offer adoption services anymore because they don’t believe in gay marriage so they are banned by courts. I hope that as you lobby for your political agenda you respectfully allow church members to lobby for their agenda, the one the prophet is asking them to do.

On the proclamation, c’mon man, you know what I meant there. Sure it isn’t sustained in conference (because there is nothing new in it) but it’s the closest we have to addition to scripture since that revelation on the priesthood. Nothing else has all the signatures of ALL living apostles. I ain’t small fry. And it is completely anti-gay with its reaffirmation of sex within marriage between a man & woman and so on. You can’t dismiss it that easily because it wasn’t sustained as new scripture, surely??? Don’t all those signitures from those sustained as prophets, seers and revelators mean something major? Surely they do.

Nick (351) yes yes yes.

Nick — I don’t always agree with you (heck, I don’t think I agree with you on SSM), but I absolutely 100% agree with this statement. No matter our political bent on a given issue, at the end of the day, Mormonism must equal unconditional love for our fellow men, period. Well said.

WRONG. It was first made available from a link at “By Common Consent.” The fact that you don’t feel an apology is needed after your false accusations says a great deal about your character.

Proof, yea sure, in the church handbook its clear that all correspondence & records are sacred and confidential.

That’s not proof. That’s an unsupported claim as to what you think the LDS General Handbook of Instructions might say. As I said, show us an actual quotation. Show us that it applies to letters such as this one, rather than correspondence about specific individuals, for example.

After reading that document…(snip ranting about the “scriptural” nature of a document which has never been sustained in a general conference as revelatory)…how on earth can any Mormon claim to be pro-gay marriage or ok with homosexuality?

Real Mormons can disapprove of homosexual relations, and even disapprove of marriage equality, while recognizing that attempts to legislatively eliminate the rights of homosexuals is an abusive act of religious persecution. You see, real Mormons know what it’s like to have others engage in political persecution against them, based on religious differences. Real Mormons know there’s nothing godly about such behavior, no matter how much the actors shout about deity. As such, real Mormons have immense respect for the rights of their fellow beings. Real Mormons would never attempt to restrict the legal rights of others, simply because those others do not obey LDS doctrine. Real Mormons have the integrity and common sense to understand that the moment they step forward to limit the rights of others, they endanger their own rights.

1- Fine; if you say it isn’t him I’ll take your word for it. I don’t know either way. But I did ask Ray before and he ignored the question, plus because he was censoring here one could reasonably suspect that it was probably him who wrote this post so I don’t think an apology is due. And it seems that the first leak came from MM (apparently?)

2- “Violence against that person”?? Chill… It ain’t that serious. I get along with gays at work, never any problems, but accepting gays in the workplace doesn’t mean I have to accept gay marriage or say that it isn’t a sin.

3- Proof, yea sure, in the church handbook its clear that all correspondence & records are sacred and confidential. But then I’m breaking confidentiality by mentioning where the proof is, aren’t I? I’m boxed in either way!

4- Why am I commenting? Because MM made that letter public anyway, and it’s a passionate issue that goes on and on.

Look, in summary, how many revelations or doctrinal matters have actually been published since 1950? Apart from the normal day to day stuff in the Ensign or callings and the like, one can really only count the revelation on the priesthood from 1978 (with the sections they moved around to D&C) and then only the Proclamation on the family. Now is there a more anti-gay agenda based document than ‘The family: A Proclamation to the World’??? It does say that gender is the same before during and after mortality and that sex is ONLY BETWEEN a legally MARRIED MAN & WOMAN. Then every living apostle signed it! After reading that document, and I repeat, the only scripture level document (u know what I mean!) published by the church since the revelation on the priesthood, how on earth can any Mormon claim to be pro-gay marriage or ok with homosexuality? Obviously those members haven’t taken in the full implication of that Proclamation on the family signed by, (again) all the apostles. And they did this with plenty of time and obviously with foreknowledge of what was to happen with this gay-marriage conflict.

People walking out of church? Really? Is that due to being pro-SSM or just being SSM neutral and not liking politics at church?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/mormons-enter-calif-marriage-f.php

“Conservative Member,” you are now coming dangerously close to bearing false witness against another person, notwithstanding your pretense of piety. I can absolutely confirm that Ray was not the source of this letter being disseminated. You owe Ray an apology for your lying accusation. I could tell you who it was, but frankly, your demeanor here makes me fear that you’d try to commit violence against that person, or at least vandalism to his or her property.

#347:
Nick, no letter from the first presidency is public unless it’s addressed to the public and released as such!

Prove it. Show us an official statement of policy from the LDS church, establishing that no First Presidency letter can be shared with the public, absent being “addressed to the public and released as such.”

This one was address, clearly, to General authorities and ONLY California Stake presidents and Bishops. Not for me here in Auckland NZ!!

Then why on earth are you even commenting? If the letter isn’t for you, your own reasoning suggests that you should be completely ignoring it, lest you stick your nose where it doesn’t belong! Right now, you’re certainly acting as if the letter was addressed to you!

And if a Bishop decides not to read the letter he actually has the right to do so.

Nonsense. The letter specifically says “To be read in sacrament meeting on June 29, 2008.” That isn’t a request, or an option. It’s a direct order from the First Presidency to LDS bishops in California. Any LDS bishop in California who chose not to read the letter next Sunday in sacrament meeting, would be subject to chastisement from his stake president, at the very least.

“First, there was nothing whatsoever to indicate that the letter was “confidential.” Second, the LDS public relations department only commented after the letter came to the attention of a reporter. The reporter had great difficulty getting them to even admit that the letter was genuine, but they finally confessed to it.”

Nick, no letter from the first presidency is public unless it’s addressed to the public and released as such! This one was address, clearly, to General authorities and ONLY California Stake presidents and Bishops. Not for me here in Auckland NZ!!
And if a Bishop decides not to read the letter he actually has the right to do so. He may replace reading for personal interview and showing, but now that its so public, he’ll be criticized by his own members for not reading it in sacrament.

“the LDS public relations department only commented after the letter came to the attention of a reporter”…..

Exactly, my point here that it wasn’t public, otherwise the reported would have known about it and had no need to ask whether its legit or not!!

But anyway, no offense, but you’re wrong in getting married to a man. In Pt Monson’s word:

’some depart from the road markers which point toward life eternal, only to discover the detour chosen ultimately leads to a dead end………sin all take their costly toll in human lives’ Now that same Monson says that gay marriage is simply wrong, that the church’s position is unequivocal on this moral issue. Why continue to go against the new prophet in this black and white issue…….well, maybe only Ray knows!!!!!

Ray, your bias is amazing. My first comment #32 never mentioned death, others brought that up and I responded to them if you ever care to read back. But of course you only censored the anti-gays here, not your own repetition of ’shit’ or that other persons ‘W.T.F!!’ (And stop calling me some other name, it certainly isn’t my legal name!)

Plus you’re just either naive or ignorant of the fact that we did enforce the death penalty to gays in Mormon Utah 1800’s. But sure, enough of this pro-gay agenda pushing post!!!

(Oh, and you still haven’t owned up leaking this letter and all the controversy it has caused, but then you really are pro-gay, aren’t you?)

First, there was nothing whatsoever to indicate that the letter was “confidential.” Second, the LDS public relations department only commented after the letter came to the attention of a reporter. The reporter had great difficulty getting them to even admit that the letter was genuine, but they finally confessed to it.

The LDS church simply lost their coveted chance to control the message this time. LDS leaders aren’t stupid. They planned to spring this letter specifically on the annual commemoration of “Pride Day,” knowing full well that this would add to its “slap in the face” effect toward the gay community. Their unkind intent backfired on them, and the letter is getting plenty of advance media coverage, nearly all of which is negative (even in conservative newspapers). The LDS leaders are reaping exactly what they sowed.

not agreed unanimously

And THAT, Ray, boggles my little brain!

Also, I have not edited any comment on any other thread. Just this one, and just very narrowly - and just after open and direct warning.

I won’t address this again, so take whatever shot you will - understanding I will edit only as I have thus far.

#324 was speaking rhetorically (about a specific case) **against** capital punishment for homosexuality. It wasn’t advocating killing homosexuals - not even close. (Re-read #322.) If it had, I would have deleted it just as I did yours. Politics has absolutely nothing to do with that. Nothing.

And #324 goes along the lines of death and gays, just as my comment did which you deleted so why not delete #324?
Oh, she’s pro gay-marriage; right?

or is it just about hypocrisy? because you’ve only deleted comments from those anti gay-marriage here.

Non-sinners have no benefits - since they don’t exist. Just sayin’.

Wow, girl, you actually used 3 neurons here! You’re right about Turing, he was brilliant.

One could add Oscar Wild, MichaelAngelo and a ton of other homosexuals to this list, all talented and brilliant who, well, sinned in their personal life. One could also add talented and brilliant people like Pavarotti, Bill Clinton and Einstein who also sinned but with adultery.

What do we do with them? Excommunicate them so they see what the telestial kingdom is like and let them decide what to do with their lives. But then the description given in D&C of the telestial isn’t very frightening so I guess most will be, and are, OK with telestial law.

As to Turing, the social pressure must have been excruciating and that’s probably why he killed himself. But that was the law back then, draconian (as is the death penalty in the US which affects mostly minorities, not the white double murderer Hoffmann!) So I wouldn’t castrate sinners but I also wouldn’t give sinners all the benefits that non-sinners have, like marriage or church callings imho off course

Lets not get carried away here. He should only be released for making public what should have been a confidential memo. I suspect that church offices saw that it was online so they were kind off forced to comment about it.

(but he’s still brainless though!!)

Actually they never claimed that for the ‘excuses’ previously given for being born black only for the change of giving them the priesthood. ie from your quotes:

““There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things….”

“Forget everything that I have said……days past that is contrary to the present revelation”

So they changed ONE thing as I mentioned too, in #314, by revelation in that blacks should receive the priesthood and that was the subject of McConkie’s talk here, but the reasons given in the past of WHY one is born black have not been disowned or rejected since the revelation didn’t address that. That matter has only been put aside. Nor has anyone said that the past reasons given for being born black where wrong, only the belief that they wouldn’t receive the priesthood in mortality has to be forgotten due to the Lord’s revelation.

“This commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you”

Perhaps we should close the comments on this post now.

Whether or not gay marriage is permitted or whether the Church decides to support this current political action does not matter to me in the grand scheme of things. To be honest, I could care less if homosexuals are allowed to marry. I think in the end, the most important thing we can learn to do is love one another. I don’t care if you are are black, white, gay, straight, poor, rich, male or female, let’s just learn to love one another. Let’s not fight over something that we may have differing views about. Please, I implore all of us to just learn that, in the end, people may not remember everything we said, but they will remember that something was said. Let us reach out to others with love and concern, living the way our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would have us live.

May God bless you all.

Meanwhile, the CA Supreme Court Justices were doing what they were sworn to do — uphold the constitution. There was no “judicial activism”. Their legal argument is clear, direct and supported by the equal protection provisions. That may not feel good. It may not support what you believe to be moral. It may run counter to what the GAs are trying to accomplish. But it’s simple and true.

We are in a great paradox. The church will have to have a revelation that aligns doctrine with the US Constitution (the one written by the Founding Fathers that was inspired, not the one tinkered with to fit a preconceived agenda) and science (which i