God has ordained that mankind are to marry womenkind. Further, God has ordained that there will be great joy and friendship and wholesome love between brethren.
“No man can love another man as much as I love Joseph.” – Brigham Young
Thus we see that the highest form of love is not erotic/sexual/romantic, but the love of brotherhood (or sisterhood). Those men who claim to love another man and thus marry that other man, are most sadly mistaken in how one expresses the highest forms of love. Thus we see that God did indeed ordain for man to have great love for one another. Thus we see that homosexuality is Satan’s counterfeit of a holy thing. God has commanded that men are not to be erotic/sexual/romantic together, but this does not mean that man is to be isolated from one another. Great joy is ordained to exist between brethren in associations with one another. Playing sports together, laughing together, working together, speaking together of the welfare of themselves and their families, and even suffering together, which suffering serves to unite souls more closely than perhaps anything else possibly could.
In the last days, the hearts of men would wax cold the scripture says. We can discern that many men are sad for the loss of brotherly kindness which they should have found in their fellow men, and when the Devil’s counterfeit comes along (homosexuality), some, even many, fall. As one wise man afflicted with same sex attraction said, “I’m not going to let my sexuality get in the way of my spirituality.” May those so afflicted have that courage, and wait upon the Lord for the day when brotherly kindness will again abound among the human race, when men shall obey the command of the Lord, to “even as I have loved you, love one another.”
Responding to the notion that being Queer means you love all people, and that God loves you, and that is enough, including a justification of setting aside the church of God.
…I’m sure you’re dealing with people walking away from your friendship over this [declaration of being Queer]. I enjoy your company and wish life wasn’t so busy. It is not hard to see why many are drawn to you…
… I would love to help you get a blog going where you can detail for us your philosophies and debate them with your friends respectfully. For example, you could write an essay on the meaning and implications of the shirt you’re wearing in this picture.
I’ll give you some of my thoughts on same sex attraction, take it or leave it. My gender identity is that I am sexually attracted to all good-looking women. That conflicts with God’s laws found in the scriptures, which say I must pick and stay with 1.
Trying to base my life choices on what the scriptures say is often hard for me, but I trust that, as Joseph Smith promised, if we remain faithful, God will make up all our losses to us in the resurrection. I don’t know about you, but I’ve experienced a lot of losses, and wake up every morning looking forward to the day that that promise will be fulfilled. Life is so very hard for you, for me, for everyone. Some of us are private about our emotions, but we all have them, and we’re all broken in one way or another.
As for loving all people, we can focus our romance rather than share it with all interested people. Jesus said, ‘cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn again and rend you’. That means we have to be careful about who our closest circles are. That doesn’t mean we can’t ‘love’ everyone, we just have to learn to use different kinds of love for different kinds of people. I can’t wait for the soon coming day when Jesus Christ will again live on this earth, and show us firsthand how to truly love all people. Being near him will be like standing near a campfire after wandering through the cold woods all night. If there’s one thing I believe above anything else, it’s that Jesus Christ is real, and will come to live on earth soon, and feed us what we’re so hungry for, love. I foresee you and I weeping for joy together when He returns.
I don’t have same sex attraction, so I don’t know how hard that is to not act on, but I can say I’ve seen people who, even in that scenario, chose to curve their natural man and loose themselves in temple and other types of service to help them endure to the end. Some crosses are heavy. I know enduring doesn’t sound fun, but life’s not about fun, it’s about eternal investment (though there’s surprisingly lots of fun when we do that). The world says, “be yourself”, Jesus says “be like me”. Yes, I agree with you, that’s asking a lot, and it’s often painful and embarrassing. We all have a long journey ahead of us as far as that goes.
As far as Heavenly Father’s love goes, yes, he loves you and everyone. The fullness of his blessings are available to you and everyone if you and I will curve our natural man into a divine man. Our bodies are weak today, and sometimes it is hard to understand why God decided to give us weak bodies, but in the resurrection our bodies will be strong. Our feelings will be clear. Our vision about long term consequences will be clear. This life is tricky because so much of that is unclear, and we can hardly remember what happened 24 hours ago. Whatever you chose, remember doors are open for alternatives if you ever wish to go through them. Thank God for keeping those doors open, no matter what.
Your desire to love everyone is evidence that the stirrings of God are in you. Your destiny is to become a God someday [name], make no mistake about it. It won’t be easy, and we can learn together how to truly love all people. What joy we will have as we save thousands, and with them rejoice! Make no small plans Devin. I invite you to make your closest circle of friends those people who wish to support you in that quest.
I know this can’t mean much coming from [someone] you didn’t have a lot of time with growing up, I’m sorry for that. Like I said, whatever you chose to do, I’ll be looking forward to spending time with you whenever possible, friend.
This may or may not be a welcome note, but I saw your post the other day suggesting some sincere struggles and despair. I don’t have a fix all suggestion, but I would suggest the primary answers – pray, read your scriptures, and go to church. Obviously your trials are difficult and not understood by most including probably myself. I do believe however that God is real and he cares about you, so doing whatever you can to be close to him will be a positive thing for you. Perhaps you will soon find a comfortable life, perhaps your discomfort will be prolonged more than either of us would like to consider. In either case, I believe God can help alleviate your day to day pains. I don’t have good advice for you but he does, and that comes from prayer, scriptures, and where possible church attendance. I would also suggest you study your patriarchal blessing. I know the church etc. isn’t your number one belief, but I suggest doing a little more in that area would be a positive thing for you. I can imagine you’ve had negative experiences with the church and church members which could make it increasingly difficult to consider approximating yourself to God/church. I think it’s fair to say many church members are rude, lacking doctrinal understanding, and hard to get along with. And yes I would say I’m guilty of all 3 of those ‘sins’, and I appreciate you putting up with me all these years :). You are of a kind disposition and kind people often get pushed around unnecessarily, a sad fact of life. I have been pleased to see you gaining more confidence as the years go by. At any rate [friend], know that I think highly of you and look forward to continued friendship and that I wish you happiness.
These are excerpts from my comments in a debate, primarily over laws espousing homosexuality and enforcing persons to accommodate homosexual lifestyles in places of business. Treated is the notion that the homosexual rights movement is erasing gender from society, and that I, having a religious view of the importance of gender, should be allowed to practice my religion in a state where the citizens vote against ungendered bathrooms, etc.
Written approx. 2017
…Then let’s at least make this a state issue not a federal issue in other words if people with homosexuality want to go to a store that Embraces homosexuality let them do that in whatever state for example California but if I want to have a place where my children are protected when they go into the store let me do that. in other words, if you really want a homosexual bathroom, fine, have your own homosexual bathroom but don’t force me and my store to have a homosexual bathroom as well. The natural consequence of this is that if everyone if everyone hates my store because I’m a bigot then my business will fail and so the market will determine the success of the business and all will be well.
Yes people can dress up and invade illegally (into bathrooms) but we should be able to at least try and stop them (rather than inviting them to do so).
…so, you think trans should have full access but not homo? Your differentiation of them in this may makes that implication, that one should get in and the other not. Please explain how my supposed ignorance of trans vs homo effects this conversation. Are you lobbying for one to enter or both? I’m lobbying against both entering. And yes, I think both want to enter. If only one wants to enter then I lobby against that one.
All I ask is that people of the opposite sex aren’t in the same bathrooms which have no cameras to protect from rape. I think we can agree that rape occurs more between people of the opposite sex (most people are attracted to the opposite sex).
As for point number two, isn’t it already legal for a gay bathroom in your own private business? I think the issue right now is whether all bathrooms should by law need to admit persons of both sexes in them. Now here you could argue that a trans man equals a woman, is that your point? Even if this is your point, I think we should not force the non-trans people to do something they are uncomfortable with. many people they don’t want to be in the bathroom with a transgender person for various reasons. And transgender people want to be in a bathroom with people of the gender they have now become.
If you make the USA homogenous (same everywhere), a lot of people will be angry. A special thing about the USA used to be that if you didn’t like the policy in one state, you can leave to another. For example, if a flock of people whose gender identification was “I don’t want trans people in my bathroom with my kids” then we should not be bigots and force them to act against the way that they identify themselves. So, let this flock run to some state where they can have safe space. You see, safe space to me may mean something different then safe space to you. So, the only way to satisfy the conscience and identity of both groups is to have them live in separate colonies, separate states. (Another example could be gun rights. Texas could make guns legal and Texans could say “Thank God I’m a Texan!” and people in, per se, Main, could ban guns, and say, “Thank God I live in Main!” Let each chose. Most matters of government, according to our constitution, are to stay at the state, not federal, level.)
As for the pervert thing, I don’t say they are all perverts, I’m just saying that I should be respected and be allowed to have a state which doesn’t violate my conscience. You may think my conscience is silly or irrational, or even call me a bigot, but equality demands that you respect my view none the less. Let me live in a colony of likeminded people – I won’t impose on your camp, and I would wish you not impose on my camp.
The US Constitution says that the federal governments powers are specific and enumerated. Other issues like this one are state issues. If the USA wants a federal bathroom trans and homo allowed everywhere law, it needs to go through the intentionally difficult process of becoming an amendment to the Constitution. Someday it may become such, at which time if my conscience doesn’t like that, I’m free to try and change it or to move to another colony, this time at the international level. The fast track for this law is to get it in a state. But to get it in the federal, that takes multiple 2/3 majority in the several branches of government. Federal laws are so powerful that they must be extremely hard to pass. Once a law becomes federal, there is no more place for the minority to escape it. States were formed to be safe places for minorities (who flock together to the state of their choosing).
Federal laws are few because they often neglect a minority, and in this case, we are getting into religious liberty, which (potentially violates the) 1st amendment. The people who are religious are often misunderstood and called bigots. They need a safe state to run to, so federal laws are very hard to get, specifically to protect that safe space. One thing I hate about Trump is his signing things by executive order ignoring the other 2 branches of government. There are ways to fight against this but somehow it still goes on (and of course Obama has this kind of an itchy trigger finger too. (and though some of this is allowed, I believe they take it farther than the constitution permits)) I love the Constitution and think many of our national problems are from going away from the Constitution which was built to defend minorities. It has a built-in republic style government and democratic style government mixed, and only in that way can mob rule be avoided. You see, trans and homo are not the only minority. In having this view of not wanting to use bathrooms with them, I’m becoming a minority, and should be protected too. You may not understand why I don’t like this trans homo all bathroom policy but that is beside the point. I don’t understand why a person would want to worship a yellow dog, but that’s up to them and their religion, and let them worship as they will. By the way, I have given reasons for my views they are logical, but I’m pointing out that in defending a person’s religious conscience a person need not explain themselves to deserve a safe space. Let me have a state which doesn’t require me to violate my conscience. You can have 49 states that do things the other way, but I need safe space too! If we make it federal, I have no safe space. Are not 49 states enough for you, isn’t that enough space for the homo and trans?
Can’t they respect the fact that I view the world differently and want a place of my own where my children don’t grow up wanting a sex change because they see a trans whom is kind to them and think it’s the way they should live? My children are too small to take on these issues. Thus, I claim the right to shelter them to an extent! I recognize that some people are born gay, and some people become trans etc. But my kids don’t understand this, and they would get peer pressure to embrace the lifestyle of a homosexual, they will be taught in sex education in public school that the way to be tolerant is to at least experiment with homosexual sex before you determine that you are a heterosexual, they will do like they do to my nephew (who lives in California) and call him, that tiny human, they call him a purple penguin until he declares a gender. The root of this is the idea that humans are fundamentally very sexually different and that it is bad to teach a child that they are a certain gender. But that sounds like a cult (you know the definition of cult, it’s a legit term, not a passive aggressive cut at you. cult is a legit word it’s a way of saying a religion.)
Also, I wasn’t trying to be aggressive by saying safe space please don’t read into my message unwritten things. I won’t bother trying to point out possible passive aggression in your message. I’m going to assume your benevolence and take your words at face value. I made the rape assumption based on the statistic that a large majority are heterosexual, for the which I do have statistics. If I can come up with statistics on the heterosexual rape thing would you like me to share them with you? Perhaps I will be proven wrong during my investigation, but I doubt it so strongly (based on my family science research I’ve done thus far at my university etc.) that I’m happy to look it up for you. Some things are too obvious to need to state statistics on, but to appease your point that there is a chance I’m wrong I would love to get back with you later on this point.
The following sentence is also sincere and not passive aggressiveness even though it may be strange to you: I claim that it’s bigoted for someone to call me a bigot for violating my conscience. The word bigot is so convenient, it can be mysterious enough to shame someone, but both sides have a right to their opinion without the name-calling of bigot. For you to not see me as a bigot, you must stretch your mind and consider that I might have good intentions. There might be more to the story than you think. I don’t think I called all trans people perverts, if so I’m sorry. My meaning is that opening these doors makes it easier for perverts to do what formerly was difficult and socially shamed. Based on rape statistics and trans statistics, I think there are more rapists out there than there are trans people. Thus, I think a co-sex bathroom will be exploited more than a single sex bathroom. It makes it harder to detect the rapists if both sex looking people can go into either of the bathrooms. Not all trans people look like the gender they have become, nor should we force them to. In other words, if we have these laws of co sex bathrooms, all must be allowed to enter, no discrimination of appearances. I claim this (anyone can come in) will lead to not only more rape, but more adolescent sex and teen out of wedlock pregnancies, and those things do directly correlate to more poverty and emotional deregulation and dissatisfaction overall (I do have stats on that).
Another way to summarize this is that it’s a way movement to take control of our children from family to state. Not only does state seek to prevent abuse which it should prevent, but in these things of not allowing religious safe space by turning highly debated moral issues into federal law rather than state law, the government is becoming a religion if its own, and thus amendment 1 is violated which says the government is not allowed to show preference to one religion over another.
Also I want to clarify when I say that I’m afraid of the effect of a homosexual or transgender would increasingly have on my child’s views on how to be happy I’m not trying to say that I want to live in a place where there’s no homosexuals are transgenders but what I’m saying is that I will give them a job I will let them rent an apartment from me etc. that’s my personal View and so forth but I think that making the bathrooms a thing which has long been a place of privacy for people who look like a girl or people who look like a boy etcetera is taking a step, a very large step, in the direction of disestablishing gender and making a genderless society; that is what worries me, that idea that we would normalize it so much to where gender would cease to exist; surely someone’s feelings will be hurt until we dismiss gender entirely. Raising my kids and that kind of society is intimidating. I’m just asking for a place where we don’t have to go accommodating the gambit of requests that come to us on these topics of erasing gender.
When a bathroom has no gender that’s really what it’s doing is erasing gender. I think gender is important I’ll be honest I think it is erasing gender little by little and you could even say that’s part of my religious view that gender is important, and I say in return please respect my first amendment rights to have a religious view which may not make sense to you. As you see, the religious freedom is tied into this movement because by default removing gender stipulations from bathrooms, or shall I say it more correctly, removing sex stipulations from bathrooms, will break down the idea that gender exists or in other words that sex (not intercourse) exists and that it has some meaning to it. That is the root: I am trying to uphold my religious view that sex has meaning and should not be erased. My conscience and other evidence suggest to me that this is where this is going. I claim that the open-door policy of bathrooms will greatly contribute to the erasing of gender and sex identity. A way to make both parties happy is by letting them do as they wish in their own state. I think that there are enough people like me to create a little state. In case I wasn’t clear about this earlier I will say it like this: federal law is and should be extremely difficult to make on this and other issues because a federal law has greater power than state law to eliminate safe space for minorities like myself.
I won’t trail on with this I think we’ve had enough of a rough go on the subject, but I will say that I never called for throwing homos and trans out of their home, I only called for (at least) 1 state being allowed to have gender specific bathrooms. That doesn’t mean homos and trans can’t live in that state. I likewise could say more on this (defending my opinion) but I don’t think it’s the right time and place. By the way, one of my best friends is homosexual, I meet with him regularly to study music and theatre, he is a brilliant and charming man. I appreciate your call to protect everyone, though like I said, I don’t feel like getting into this any further. God bless you friend.
Note: this person is ignoring many facts and is ignorant of the social agendas which underlie this supposed fight for equality. This is written everywhere in The Book of Mormon and the bible, people having a cuddly way of defending their spineless positions on morality.
Here is an analogy to help you understand how the Godhead is 3 separate people rather than the trinity idea of them all being the same person.
Your mother is not your father is not your spouse. All of these combined are your family. They MUST be separate beings in order to be able to fulfill their essential roles in your behalf.
God the Father (upholds justice for all) is not God the Son (makes mercy available for the penitent) is not God the Holy Ghost (guides the seekers of truth & righteousness). All of these combined are the team that makes salvation possible for you. They MUST be separate beings in order to be able to fulfill their essential roles in your behalf.
An absolutely brilliant lecture on the need for God the Father and God the Son to be two separate people was presented by Elder Christofferson at the BYU Christmas devotional in 2017, here is a link to the excerpt of that discourse which pertains to this conversation: I call it “Gods Plan VS Lucifer’s Tyranny”: http://richardsonstudies.com/2018/01/08/the-need-for-a-savior-by-elder-d-todd-christofferson/
One person asked: What of the Godhead being 3 persons? Why not just call a trinity God by different names of Father Son Holy Ghost?
Answer: You love each member of the Godhead like you love your father and mother and brother. But you don’t call mom dad, and you don’t call dad mom, and you don’t call brother mom, etc. Each has a separate identity, but helps you greatly, and you love and adore and are indebted to each of them for the separate roles they have played in your salvation.
At its core, the doctrine of gender fluidity etc. is Satan attempting to undermine our ability to understand the Godhead. Gender studies today say everything is one, it doesn’t matter which gender you are, there really are no genders. No differences between people. This is the type of confusion we see in the creeds which say God is intangible, without body parts or passions!
The clear sensible gospel doctrine is that God is a man with wife and children! gender fluidity agendas at their core are attacking our understanding of not only who we are, but who god is. And of course, who God is has EVERYTHING to do with who we are as his children.
I think it’s fascinating. The confusion about Godhead being 1 parallels the confusion about gender being 1. In reality, there are multiple people in the Godhead, and multiple genders. Look on a deeper level and you’ll see this has a lot to do with what we’re talking about (trinity vs. the Godhead being 3 separate persons).
We can see how Satan is using his tools to confuse eternal true doctrine.
Children have what is called gender permanence. If their mother cuts the hair short etc., they still see her as a girl. Surely this is one is the things Jesus was referring to when he told us that we must become a children to enter the kingdom of God. This is an eternal trait.
Some have same sex attractions or opposite gender feeling but this does not change the male or female which they are and always have been. This aspect of identity was there before birth and will be after birth. Most people have some form of feelings contrary to gods law and eternal truth, but those will cease in the resurrection. For example, a male attracted to other males will wake in the resurrection without those feelings. He will still love his brothers, for love is of God, but he will not experience any romantic longing toward them.
You see, this life is less of a reality than eternal life. This life is short in comparison to that one to come (and yes we will have our physical bodies there). We go through many strange things in this life, and the test is to see if we will have faith in God, if we have love for him and his truly altruistic laws.
Some people’s disabilities are physical, others emotional, others social, others mental, others sexual, etc., and God heals them all in the resurrection. This is why we praise Jesus Christ, he is the one who made the resurrection possible, wherein not only will our bodies rise in their perfection, but so will our minds, etc. etc. in every way, disability is healed, and wholeness is restored. Mankind had no disabilities before the fall of Adam, and Christ overcomes the fall. As the scripture says, “as in Adam all die, so I’m Christ are all made alive.” Yes, Christ overcame death itself, and all the other negative experiences of this life. He gives resurrection to everyone as a free gift, and if we follow his commandments, we can qualify for greater happiness than is possible for a mortal to comprehend.
Episode of Drive in Theater not showing Beauty and the Beast
One inactive latter-day saint was saying that it’s silly that some people don’t want to show a film with a homosexual partnership in it, a child’s movie with such… She has lost the spirit from inactivity in the church of Jesus Christ… They have deceived her now that she has put off the armor of God. I said this to her: “But you can see where they are coming from, it’s their own theater and they can play what they want. They might not want to introduce such a foreign thing like homosexuality to their children at this time. Some people may not want it in their entertainment conveyed as if it were just another relationship. Perhaps adult audiences wouldn’t be affected a lot by it but lots of kids go to these drive ins (and the movie is inherently a children’s movie, “Beauty and the Beast”). Frankly I probably wouldn’t want to play it at my drive-in theater if I had one. I haven’t seen the show so perhaps I’m speaking too soon but in general I’m not a fan of normalizing homosexuality.”
-The following is an excerpt from “The Divine Institution of Marriage” (see appendix for full text) from the church newsroom highlighting some current events in the homosexual movement: advocates and government officials in certain states have challenged the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in several states was forced to give up its adoption services rather than be forced to place children with same-sex couples. (See usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Catholic-Adoption-Services.pdf)
In the United States, the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion is coming under pressure from proponents of same-sex marriage. Some of these proponents advocate that tax exemptions and benefits should be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not accept such marriages. (See Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Laycock, Picarello, and Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, 59–76.) The First Amendment may protect clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but other people of faith have faced and likely will continue to face legal pressures and sanctions. The same will happen with religiously affiliated institutions and educational systems. For example, a Georgia counselor contracted by the Centers for Disease Control was fired after an investigation into her decision to refer someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor. In New Jersey, a ministry lost its tax-exempt status for denying a lesbian couple the use of its pavilion for their wedding. New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission prosecuted a commercial photographer for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. When public schools in Massachusetts began teaching students about same-sex civil marriage, a Court of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their students. (Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York and London: Encounter Books, 2012), 62–64.)
Similar limitations on religious freedom have already become the social and legal reality in several European nations, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws protecting the status of same-sex couples be made uniform across the European Union. (See Roger Trigg, Equality, Freedom, and Religion (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, Report 2012 (Vienna, Austria, 2013); “European Parliament Resolution on Homophobia in Europe,” adopted Jan. 18, 2006.)
[End of excerpts from “The Divine Institution of Marriage”]
-I understand if some people DON’T want gender private facilities, let them have them; but for those who DO want gender private facilities because of religious values or otherwise, let them have those also please. Faulting on this issue could lead to issues like the following we’ve recently seen.
-a California Dr. being sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian based on his religious convictions (let her go to another Dr. of her choice who would be fine with performing such).
-a New York couple who uses their home as a wedding chapel and reception center which was fined 13,000$ for refusing to allow a gay couple wedding ceremony
-Atlanta Fire Chief Kevin Cochran who was fired because he wrote a religious book for his bible study group that said homosexuality was wrong
-A 6-year-old Colorado boy permitted to use the girl’s bathroom at his elementary school after his parents sued the school asserting that he suffers from gender identity disorder
-Being forced to rent my basement to a homosexual couple
-Girl who complained about harassment because they had to share the girl’s bathrooms and showers with a transgender boy was threatened with removal from the sports teams with hate crimes charges; she was told if she didn’t want to share facilities with a boy she could merely refrain from using the facilities
-Several Houston pastors received subpoenas demanding that they turn over the text of all of their sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or the city’s lesbian mayor.
-I hope to express love for the gay community and everyone else throughout this discussion as we try to find the balance for equal rights for everyone- allowing the gays opportunity to do what they want while allowing people to live their religion.
-The voice from the Church is saying that the religious’ rights to teach etc. as they choose need to be respected just as much as the rights to the gay community to things in areas of housing employment and transportation.
-in the LDS message I posted about the conference recently held about this, Elder Oaks said that “those who seek the protection of religious conscience and expression and for the free exercise of their religion look with alarm at the steady erosion of treasured freedoms that are guaranteed in the United States Constitution.”
-Elder Oaks also said in that conference “Since 1791 the guarantees of religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment have assured all citizens that they may hold whatever religious views they want, and that they are free to express and act on those beliefs so long as such actions do not endanger public health or safety. This is one of America’s most cherished and defining freedoms. Yet today we see new examples of attacks on religious freedom with increasing frequency.”
Elder Oaks shared several of those examples. The university system in California, he said, is forcing some groups to compromise their religious conscience if they want recognition for their clubs. And in one of America’s largest cities, lawyers acting for the city government subpoenaed the sermons and notes of pastors who opposed parts of a new antidiscrimination law on religious grounds. Recently, he noted, the head of a large American corporation was forced to resign from his position in a well-publicized backlash to his personal beliefs.
“When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser,” Elder Oaks said. “Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender.”
-to read more of the LDS Conference on this see http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-news-conference-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination
-the anti-discrimination laws are what happen to help the culture of the region to support or accept their views
-in England, the gays insisted that they be married in a church despite the churches being exempt from the that law which said other organizations had to marry gays. So we see that making some marry gays is a preliminary step which leads to churches being forced to marry gays
-gay rights promoters are making religious rights impossible; the one should not be able to rob the other.
-Utah gay couples who marry are 23%. We see the people of Utah aren’t demanding these anti-discrimination laws, but they are political agenda unwanted by the people.
-the people of Utah don’t like this idea of getting rid of religious rights for the gay rights, and legislation should represent the people.
-homosexual marriages don’t last as long as heterosexual marriages
-American Fork High School has a gay club, it has posters up supporting homosexuality. A homosexual couple was voted cutest couple in the year book. A man won the homecoming queen. The gays promote food for the homeless, especially the gay homeless. They have gay history month every October.
-in California, the high school girls are told that if they don’t want to use the bi-gender showers or bathrooms, to either stop using those, or to get charged with a hate crime for complaining about such.
-in SLC a young boy is allowed into the women’s bathroom insisting that he is a girl by way of gender preference.
-in California elementary public schools, the students (my nephew was one of them) are called “purple penguins” until they decide which gender they are.
-an evil Netflix cartoon series called Big Mouth features a demon goat as the lead mascot character, who goes around promoting immodesty, immorality, nudity, sodomy, pedophilia, gender fluidity, homosexuality, abortion, obesity, and it features children running around with this demon singing and dancing with him in the nude. All of this is laughed off as sex education and maturation studies. The program seeks to abolish all standards regarding the body, beauty, and the proper use of the body. My essay “objective beauty” was written as a partial response to this program, showing that there are objective standards for the health of humanity to follow and pattern their lives after. The existence of such a program on such a widely used platform is telling of where we stand (or fail to stand) as a society.
-in the 2019 BYU commencement (I was there), the key note speaker openly declared that he is gay, and the crowd cheered for him, and his petitions to remove stigmas on that private religious campus against gays. This man was voice for a larger group seeking to change BYU policy in these regards.
Video Link: Mormon Channel: Jessyca’s Story—Coming Out, the Most Healing Thing I Have Ever Done (The story of a gay woman who believes that obeying Gods laws makes her more happy than satisfying her biological desires, and therefore remains faithful to God in not dating or marrying another woman.)
Gender Appendix A: Discrimination and the New ‘Inclusive’ America: Bake Me A Cake or Go To Jail! By John Stossel
From Reason Magazine at https://reason.com/2015/04/08/bake-me-a-cake-or-go-to-jail-the-new-inc/
Bake me a cake, or go to jail!
Sadly, that is the new message from “inclusive” America. If you don’t want to cater, photograph, preside over, sell pizza at, sell flowers to or otherwise participate in a gay wedding, you will be punished. If you don’t want your business to pay for a kind of birth control that you consider murder, you will pay fines until your business is bankrupt.
Personally, I think both birth control and homosexuality are just fine, and gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. But forcing everyone to act as if they think that way is just wrong. We have moved from “inclusion” to totalitarianism.
The list of people you must treat carefully keeps getting longer. Protected classes now include sex, race, age, disability, nationality, citizenship status, pregnancy, family status and more. I’m in two of those groups. You better treat me well!
Why force someone who disapproves of your actions to bake you a cake? Lots of other bakers would love the business. This debate has moved from inclusion to demanding that everyone adopt your values.
In a free country, bigots should have the right to be bigots. Americans should also have freedom of association.
American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.
Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.
But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It’s my business!
My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.
It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.
Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.
However, given America’s history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act’s intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.
But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.
Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you.
Elizabeth Taylor married nine times. Had she married again, should the EEOC have ordered her to marry someone from an ethnic minority?
A homophobic baker shouldn’t stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Likewise, a gay couple shouldn’t force a baker to make them a wedding cake. No one should ever force anyone to bake them a cake.
© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
NEWS RELEASE 30 JUNE 2015 – SALT LAKE CITY
The following letter from the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is being read in Church meetings across the United States and Canada beginning Sunday, July 5. (The Church issued this brief public statement immediately after the court’s decision on June 26, 2015.)
Full introductory letter, statement and background material below:
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200
June 29, 2015
TO: General Authorities; General Auxiliary Presidencies; and the following leaders in the United States and Canada: Area Seventies; Temple, Stake Mission and District Presidencies; Bishops and Branch Presidents
Dear Brethren and Sisters:
Enclosed is a statement by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in response to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. The statement also pertains to the situation in Canada. Local leaders are asked to meet with all adults, young men, and young women on either July 5 or July 12 in a setting other than sacrament meeting and read to them the entire statement.
Also included is background material which may be helpful in answering questions that arise.
Stake presidents are asked to see that bishops receive copies of this letter and the enclosures.
Thomas S. Monson
Henry B. Eyring
Dieter F. Uchtdorf
RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION LEGALIZING SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES
June 29, 2015
Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. As we do, we encourage all to consider these teachings in the context of the Plan of Salvation and our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children.
Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27‐28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and vital to eternal salvation.
A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.
Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.
The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.
The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.
As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite all to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths God established in the beginning, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.
THE COUNCIL OF
THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER‐DAY SAINTS
Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents
On the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage
The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.
For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1, 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record. So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐ Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014).
What is the Church’s Policy on Homosexual Relations?
“Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. “If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.
“While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2, 21.4.6).
Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom?
Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April 1994 general conference). How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this matter unchristian? Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).
What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?
“Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities.
“If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. “. . . Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).