BYU mascot Cosmo comes out as gay.

[Finrock]

Did you notice the first sentence in his opinion piece? "I kept the best part of my life a secret..."

So now, having same-sex attraction is the BEST part of an LDS man's life.

Seriously?

Being a heterosexual and enjoying the sacred acts with my wife are one of the best parts of my life for sure.....so I guess for him being gay and having the same sexual release in the end is just as gratifying....

Sure, but I thought this guy was just coming out as being attracted to men, not that he was having sex with men. So, the context is that not homosexual sex, but, homosexual attraction. You, generally speaking, can't say that homosexual sex and the resulting release is the best part of your life unless you were having homosexual sex. Otherwise, the best part of his life is his sexual attraction.

[Fiannan]

Did you notice the first sentence in his opinion piece? "I kept the best part of my life a secret..."

So now, having same-sex attraction is the BEST part of an LDS man's life.

Seriously?

Oh well, it is the "Deseret News" doing the article.

[[email protected]]

At what point does the virtue of tolerance become the wickedness of permissiveness?

We were never supposed to tolerate wickedness in the first place and Church leadership has erred in doing so. "Tolerance" in the modern cultural-marxist sense of the word, is a sham, it's meant to disarm the leftwing's political opposition and it's a "do as I say not as I do" leftist doctrine. If you are a conservative white Christian you are not tolerated by those who preach tolerance. Look at how Mike Pence is treated by the left.

[thestock]

Did you notice the first sentence in his opinion piece? "I kept the best part of my life a secret..."

So now, having same-sex attraction is the BEST part of an LDS man's life.

Seriously?

Being a heterosexual and enjoying the sacred acts with my wife are one of the best parts of my life for sure.....so I guess for him being gay and having the same sexual release in the end is just as gratifying....

Except wickedness never was happiness. I don't ever recall breaking the commandments and rejoicing that it felt gratifying.
And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

I'm not disagreeing with that. For wicked people....doing wicked things is a big part of their life and who they are. That being said I don't think being gay makes one wicked. What a terrible trial. Lets say the gospel suddenly banned opposite-sex attraction, marriage, and sex. I'd be up a creek. I love me some hot women....and one woman is enough for me. So suddenly marriage and sex are out of the question for me? Not good.

I am not an advocate of homosexual marriage...I am just saying some of you are too judgmental. Be grateful you yourselves don't have the trial of same-sex attraction.

[thestock]

Did you notice the first sentence in his opinion piece? "I kept the best part of my life a secret..."

So now, having same-sex attraction is the BEST part of an LDS man's life.

Seriously?

Being a heterosexual and enjoying the sacred acts with my wife are one of the best parts of my life for sure.....so I guess for him being gay and having the same sexual release in the end is just as gratifying....

Sure, but I thought this guy was just coming out as being attracted to men, not that he was having sex with men. So, the context is that not homosexual sex, but, homosexual attraction. You, generally speaking, can't say that homosexual sex and the resulting release is the best part of your life unless you were having homosexual sex. Otherwise, the best part of his life is his sexual attraction.

I could be wrong....but I am pretty sure someone who has been conflicted and now feels comfortable coming out as gay has been having homosexual sex.........

[Zathura]

And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

Like Polygamy?

[BruceRGilbert]

And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

Like Polygamy?

Whack-A-Mole Opportunity? Let's hope not.

My daughter and I had the opportunity to converse about "exceptions" made to the rules. Her position was full of merit in my estimation and I view this as an opportunity to share that:

If a "Rule Maker" makes an "exception" for one person, then, consistency and equality dictate that the "exception" should be available to all.

It is my view that polygamy was an "exception" to the rule of monogamy in order to attain God ordained, desired result. We learn about this principle in the instance of Abraham and his promise, along with other subsequent Patriarchs. So, in recorded scripture, and "sanctioned" by God, there are "exceptional" people who were allowed this practice.

In making an exception, the possibility then becomes available to all, if God is equitable and consistent. However, that does not make it a requirement, but an option depending upon personalities and circumstances.

So, in order for something to be an abomination, it has to be "self-assumed" and not "ordained or sanctioned" by God. It becomes a "time dependent" variable in mortality and an "option" in exaltation - demanding no requirement to participate therein.

. . . . and I sure hope this doesn't result in derailing.

To address the thread. Because we are living in a day when vernacular has been flipped around: good is being called bad and bad is being called good, "coming out" really has more to do with "coming in." It should be viewed not as an attempt to be truthful, but an attempt to be popular with the "in" crowd. In God's vernacular, confession has to do with forsaking and not embracing.

[Serragon]

Did you notice the first sentence in his opinion piece? "I kept the best part of my life a secret..."

So now, having same-sex attraction is the BEST part of an LDS man's life.

Seriously?

Being a heterosexual and enjoying the sacred acts with my wife are one of the best parts of my life for sure.....so I guess for him being gay and having the same sexual release in the end is just as gratifying....

Except wickedness never was happiness. I don't ever recall breaking the commandments and rejoicing that it felt gratifying.
And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

I'm not disagreeing with that. For wicked people....doing wicked things is a big part of their life and who they are. That being said I don't think being gay makes one wicked. What a terrible trial. Lets say the gospel suddenly banned opposite-sex attraction, marriage, and sex. I'd be up a creek. I love me some hot women....and one woman is enough for me. So suddenly marriage and sex are out of the question for me? Not good.

I am not an advocate of homosexual marriage...I am just saying some of you are too judgmental. Be grateful you yourselves don't have the trial of same-sex attraction.

It is an easy thing for our minds to equate homosexuality as the equivalent as heterosexuality. If we, as heterosexual men, have strong desires for women and a revulsion to men, then it follows that homosexual men have a strong desire for men and a revulsion to women. This idea has been actively pushed by the modern alphabet movements as a way of normalizing homosexuality. If you relate to it you won't be repulsed by it.

I would be cautious in accepting it as valid. My experiences w/ the homosexual community in the mid 90s and a look at homosexuality throughout history makes it clear to me that homosexuality is a fetish and a lifestyle choice, not an equivalent replacement for heterosexual feelings.

It is difficult to elevate a fetish and choice to a status of protected class, but it easy to elevate an innate characteristic that you can relate to. There is a reason the rhetoric around homosexuality changed a few decades ago, and it wasn't because new scientific information was discovered. It was simply to normalize the behavior and get you to think about homosexual sex in equivalent terms as your own.

[Fiannan]

Would have been funny if a mascot dressed as an animal came out as a furry.

[thestock]

Being a heterosexual and enjoying the sacred acts with my wife are one of the best parts of my life for sure.....so I guess for him being gay and having the same sexual release in the end is just as gratifying....

Except wickedness never was happiness. I don't ever recall breaking the commandments and rejoicing that it felt gratifying.
And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

I'm not disagreeing with that. For wicked people....doing wicked things is a big part of their life and who they are. That being said I don't think being gay makes one wicked. What a terrible trial. Lets say the gospel suddenly banned opposite-sex attraction, marriage, and sex. I'd be up a creek. I love me some hot women....and one woman is enough for me. So suddenly marriage and sex are out of the question for me? Not good.

I am not an advocate of homosexual marriage...I am just saying some of you are too judgmental. Be grateful you yourselves don't have the trial of same-sex attraction.

It is an easy thing for our minds to equate homosexuality as the equivalent as heterosexuality. If we, as heterosexual men, have strong desires for women and a revulsion to men, then it follows that homosexual men have a strong desire for men and a revulsion to women. This idea has been actively pushed by the modern alphabet movements as a way of normalizing homosexuality. If you relate to it you won't be repulsed by it.

I would be cautious in accepting it as valid. My experiences w/ the homosexual community in the mid 90s and a look at homosexuality throughout history makes it clear to me that homosexuality is a fetish and a lifestyle choice, not an equivalent replacement for heterosexual feelings.

It is difficult to elevate a fetish and choice to a status of protected class, but it easy to elevate an innate characteristic that you can relate to. There is a reason the rhetoric around homosexuality changed a few decades ago, and it wasn't because new scientific information was discovered. It was simply to normalize the behavior and get you to think about homosexual sex in equivalent terms as your own.

I mostly agree with you but I think some people are simply born gay. I have known plenty of people as kids that turned out to be gay, and we knew they were gay when they were kids. I'm talking as young as 8, 9, 10 years old we knew. One girl in my class was the classic tomboy....she loved to play with the boys and do manly things and lo and behold all these years later she is a lesbian....big shocker. I knew grew up with a guy at church that was so effeminate, we always sort of teased him behind his back for being a girl. He went on a mission, got married, had kids....then after all that came out as gay. Big shocker? No....the shocker was that he married a female in the first place.

Since puberty I have been attracted to women. If not for the mandate to remain celibate before marriage and have sexual relations with only your spouse....I'd have aspirations to break Wilt Chamberlain's record. It made it a lot easier to know that I could enjoy the relationship and the sex that comes with it if I were married in the temple for time and eternity. I can't even imagine what it would be like if, for some reason, I were viewed to be a deviant by society and then ridiculed and cast off from societies like church because of my attraction to women. I am glad that is not the case, and I am glad same-sex attraction is not my trial to bare. We should treat those people with kindness and understanding.....while at the same time standing firm that the BEHAVIOR itself is sinful if acted upon because the Lord has said it is, and we lack the understanding as to why some are born that way.

[Zathura]

And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

Like Polygamy?

Whack-A-Mole Opportunity? Let's hope not.

My daughter and I had the opportunity to converse about "exceptions" made to the rules. Her position was full of merit in my estimation and I view this as an opportunity to share that:

If a "Rule Maker" makes an "exception" for one person, then, consistency and equality dictate that the "exception" should be available to all.

It is my view that polygamy was an "exception" to the rule of monogamy in order to attain God ordained, desired result. We learn about this principle in the instance of Abraham and his promise, along with other subsequent Patriarchs. So, in recorded scripture, and "sanctioned" by God, there are "exceptional" people who were allowed this practice.

In making an exception, the possibility then becomes available to all, if God is equitable and consistent. However, that does not make it a requirement, but an option depending upon personalities and circumstances.

So, in order for something to be an abomination, it has to be "self-assumed" and not "ordained or sanctioned" by God. It becomes a "time dependent" variable in mortality and an "option" in exaltation - demanding no requirement to participate therein.

. . . . and I sure hope this doesn't result in derailing.

To address the thread. Because we are living in a day when vernacular has been flipped around: good is being called bad and bad is being called good, "coming out" really has more to do with "coming in." It should be viewed not as an attempt to be truthful, but an attempt to be popular with the "in" crowd. In God's vernacular, confession has to do with forsaking and not embracing.

Truthfully I just wanted to poke the bear a bit

I get what you’re saying. I dont want to derail the thread

[Serragon]

Except wickedness never was happiness. I don't ever recall breaking the commandments and rejoicing that it felt gratifying.
And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

I'm not disagreeing with that. For wicked people....doing wicked things is a big part of their life and who they are. That being said I don't think being gay makes one wicked. What a terrible trial. Lets say the gospel suddenly banned opposite-sex attraction, marriage, and sex. I'd be up a creek. I love me some hot women....and one woman is enough for me. So suddenly marriage and sex are out of the question for me? Not good.

I am not an advocate of homosexual marriage...I am just saying some of you are too judgmental. Be grateful you yourselves don't have the trial of same-sex attraction.

It is an easy thing for our minds to equate homosexuality as the equivalent as heterosexuality. If we, as heterosexual men, have strong desires for women and a revulsion to men, then it follows that homosexual men have a strong desire for men and a revulsion to women. This idea has been actively pushed by the modern alphabet movements as a way of normalizing homosexuality. If you relate to it you won't be repulsed by it.

I would be cautious in accepting it as valid. My experiences w/ the homosexual community in the mid 90s and a look at homosexuality throughout history makes it clear to me that homosexuality is a fetish and a lifestyle choice, not an equivalent replacement for heterosexual feelings.

It is difficult to elevate a fetish and choice to a status of protected class, but it easy to elevate an innate characteristic that you can relate to. There is a reason the rhetoric around homosexuality changed a few decades ago, and it wasn't because new scientific information was discovered. It was simply to normalize the behavior and get you to think about homosexual sex in equivalent terms as your own.

I mostly agree with you but I think some people are simply born gay. I have known plenty of people as kids that turned out to be gay, and we knew they were gay when they were kids. I'm talking as young as 8, 9, 10 years old we knew. One girl in my class was the classic tomboy....she loved to play with the boys and do manly things and lo and behold all these years later she is a lesbian....big shocker. I knew grew up with a guy at church that was so effeminate, we always sort of teased him behind his back for being a girl. He went on a mission, got married, had kids....then after all that came out as gay. Big shocker? No....the shocker was that he married a female in the first place.

Since puberty I have been attracted to women. If not for the mandate to remain celibate before marriage and have sexual relations with only your spouse....I'd have aspirations to break Wilt Chamberlain's record. It made it a lot easier to know that I could enjoy the relationship and the sex that comes with it if I were married in the temple for time and eternity. I can't even imagine what it would be like if, for some reason, I were viewed to be a deviant by society and then ridiculed and cast off from societies like church because of my attraction to women. I am glad that is not the case, and I am glad same-sex attraction is not my trial to bare. We should treat those people with kindness and understanding.....while at the same time standing firm that the BEHAVIOR itself is sinful if acted upon because the Lord has said it is, and we lack the understanding as to why some are born that way.

Do the anecdotal stories of effeminate men who do not identify is homosexual or the anecdotal stories of tomboy girls who do not identify as lesbian hold the same weight with you as the anecdotal stories you shared? Because they are much more common than your examples. It seems to show it is more likely a choice than otherwise since there are no reliable indicators one can use.

Did you ever think that perhaps you and your friends teasing was more formative for this young man coming out as homosexual than genetics? Perhaps you put the initial thoughts in his head and reinforced them. He then internalized that he was different and began nurturing his difference and developing his fetish. I have yet to meet a homosexual that didn't have some experience that sent them down the path of investigating homosexuality (or any other fetish for that matter).

As I said earlier, you are equating your own natural desire/attraction for the opposite sex to homosexuality and I believe this to be a mistake. You are assuming that a homosexual must feel just like you when in reality your desire is biological while theirs is that of a carefully nurtured fetish.

[thestock]

I'm not disagreeing with that. For wicked people....doing wicked things is a big part of their life and who they are. That being said I don't think being gay makes one wicked. What a terrible trial. Lets say the gospel suddenly banned opposite-sex attraction, marriage, and sex. I'd be up a creek. I love me some hot women....and one woman is enough for me. So suddenly marriage and sex are out of the question for me? Not good.

I am not an advocate of homosexual marriage...I am just saying some of you are too judgmental. Be grateful you yourselves don't have the trial of same-sex attraction.

It is an easy thing for our minds to equate homosexuality as the equivalent as heterosexuality. If we, as heterosexual men, have strong desires for women and a revulsion to men, then it follows that homosexual men have a strong desire for men and a revulsion to women. This idea has been actively pushed by the modern alphabet movements as a way of normalizing homosexuality. If you relate to it you won't be repulsed by it.

I would be cautious in accepting it as valid. My experiences w/ the homosexual community in the mid 90s and a look at homosexuality throughout history makes it clear to me that homosexuality is a fetish and a lifestyle choice, not an equivalent replacement for heterosexual feelings.

It is difficult to elevate a fetish and choice to a status of protected class, but it easy to elevate an innate characteristic that you can relate to. There is a reason the rhetoric around homosexuality changed a few decades ago, and it wasn't because new scientific information was discovered. It was simply to normalize the behavior and get you to think about homosexual sex in equivalent terms as your own.

I mostly agree with you but I think some people are simply born gay. I have known plenty of people as kids that turned out to be gay, and we knew they were gay when they were kids. I'm talking as young as 8, 9, 10 years old we knew. One girl in my class was the classic tomboy....she loved to play with the boys and do manly things and lo and behold all these years later she is a lesbian....big shocker. I knew grew up with a guy at church that was so effeminate, we always sort of teased him behind his back for being a girl. He went on a mission, got married, had kids....then after all that came out as gay. Big shocker? No....the shocker was that he married a female in the first place.

Since puberty I have been attracted to women. If not for the mandate to remain celibate before marriage and have sexual relations with only your spouse....I'd have aspirations to break Wilt Chamberlain's record. It made it a lot easier to know that I could enjoy the relationship and the sex that comes with it if I were married in the temple for time and eternity. I can't even imagine what it would be like if, for some reason, I were viewed to be a deviant by society and then ridiculed and cast off from societies like church because of my attraction to women. I am glad that is not the case, and I am glad same-sex attraction is not my trial to bare. We should treat those people with kindness and understanding.....while at the same time standing firm that the BEHAVIOR itself is sinful if acted upon because the Lord has said it is, and we lack the understanding as to why some are born that way.

Do the anecdotal stories of effeminate men who do not identify is homosexual or the anecdotal stories of tomboy girls who do not identify as lesbian hold the same weight with you as the anecdotal stories you shared? Because they are much more common than your examples. It seems to show it is more likely a choice than otherwise since there are no reliable indicators one can use.

Did you ever think that perhaps you and your friends teasing was more formative for this young man coming out as homosexual than genetics? Perhaps you put the initial thoughts in his head and reinforced them. He then internalized that he was different and began nurturing his difference and developing his fetish. I have yet to meet a homosexual that didn't have some experience that sent them down the path of investigating homosexuality (or any other fetish for that matter).

As I said earlier, you are equating your own natural desire/attraction for the opposite sex to homosexuality and I believe this to be a mistake. You are assuming that a homosexual must feel just like you when in reality your desire is biological while theirs is that of a carefully nurtured fetish.

There may be some truth to what you say....but the thing about fetishes is you need to be predisposed to them for them to develop. For example, perhaps you could have had an experience where someone took a dump in your mouth.....but it would likely have repulsed you and you wouldnt have continued it. Or maybe kids in your school teased you about being a s**t eater....but did that make you become one? Whereas there are people out there that legitmally like and choose to eat s**t.

There are people who have a homosexual experience but it doesnt resonate and they continue with their lives and arent gay. Others have those experience and enjoy them and continue to have them, and they are gay. The truest and most obviously gay people I know showed the signs as a young age......sure, there are several others who claim to be bisexual or just sexually deviant or whatever, and its not their natural inclination to choose a same-sex attraction.......

I guess what I am saying is both what you say and what I say are true. The sinful behavior results from both those who have a biological tendency to the fetish from a young age, and from those who have random experiences and they continue to choose to have them. Either way the sinful behavior is, well, sinful....and we are taught by the Master to love the sinner.

[EmmaLee]

I was born with the tendency to want to kill annoying people. The urge is something I have to stifle quite often. It wouldn't take much for those fleeting thoughts to take hold and grow and become full-on scenarios played out in my mind - and then, just one more step from that to action. I wish the Church had a website for people like me (mormonandmurderous.org or something similar - you know, like they have mormonandgay.org for that group of people) - and I wish the apostles would give talks and firesides and make videos and promote concerts and allow articles in Church-owned LDS Living magazine and Deseret News that validate my desire to kill other people.

Now, before anyone calls the popo's on me, this is (mostly) meant to be illustrative and not to be taken literally (although, there are times... ). It is meant to show that we ALL have tendencies, urges, desires, etc. yet the same-sex ones are the only ones clamoring for attention and acceptance and validation. It's gone FAR beyond "love me", to "loving me MEANS love my gayness". EVERYTHING said about same-sex attraction can - and should - be said about ALL other tendencies, urges, desires, etc. The people who have same-sex attraction are no more special or chosen than anyone else, so why are they singled out by the world - and the CHURCH - as a group that demands (and gets, sadly) validation? All that does is feed into their notion that same-sex behavior isn't a sin - and we see the result of that being that 50% (higher where I live) of LDS youth/young adults have no problem with same-sex 'marriage'. These young people will be the leaders of the Church in 20-30 years.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Church needs to PUBLICLY 'accept' and 'tolerate' and 'love' people with any/all tendencies, urges, desires, etc. like they do those with same-sex desires. God is no respecter of persons, and the Church and its members shouldn't be either.

[thestock]

I was born with the tendency to want to kill annoying people. The urge is something I have to stifle quite often. It wouldn't take much for those fleeting thoughts to take hold and grow and become full-on scenarios played out in my mind - and then, just one more step from that to action. I wish the Church had a website for people like me (mormonandmurderous.org or something similar - you know, like they have mormonandgay.org for that group of people) - and I wish the apostles would give talks and firesides and make videos and promote concerts and allow articles in Church-owned LDS Living magazine and Deseret News that validate my desire to kill other people.

Now, before anyone calls the popo's on me, this is (mostly) meant to be illustrative and not to be taken literally (although, there are times... ). It is meant to show that we ALL have tendencies, urges, desires, etc. yet the same-sex ones are the only ones clamoring for attention and acceptance and validation. It's gone FAR beyond "love me", to "loving me MEANS love my gayness". EVERYTHING said about same-sex attraction can - and should - be said about ALL other tendencies, urges, desires, etc. The people who have same-sex attraction are no more special or chosen than anyone else, so why are they singled out by the world - and the CHURCH - as a group that demands (and gets, sadly) validation? All that does is feed into their notion that same-sex behavior isn't a sin - and we see the result of that being that 50% (higher where I live) of LDS youth/young adults have no problem with same-sex 'marriage'. These young people will be the leaders of the Church in 20-30 years.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Church needs to PUBLICLY 'accept' and 'tolerate' and 'love' people with any/all tendencies, urges, desires, etc. like they do those with same-sex desires. God is no respecter of persons, and the Church and its members shouldn't be either.

its not just gay people. Any "group" that veers from the mainstream has suddenly got a throat-hold of the media and armed with the weaponized political correctness in this country they gather a ton of support to their cause. Are you a woman that chooses to think she is a man? Are you a man that wants to use the women's bathroom at Target? Are you a drag queen that wants to read books to kids? Are you a homosexual at BYU who likes to cheer big, strong, attractive men to victory under a mascot's uniform? Are you black? Are you a woman? Are you a black woman? Etc etc etc. The real issue here is that this country has made it easy and successful for people to whine and moan to get their way....and homosexuals are some of the best at it. It doesnt mean all of them are evil or bad, though....some are good people who got dealt a really crappy trial. I'd rather be born with spina bifida then be attracted to men.....

[Lizzy60]

Every day there are more LDS "allies" joining the ranks of those supporting gay marriage. Mormons Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, Affirmation, Richard Ostler and his rallies and podcasts, the Augensteins and their Let's Love Better Facebook page, Bryce Cook's ALL for Arizona LGBTQ and allies, the Latter Gay Stories podcasts, just to name a few. Every single one of these groups does NOT consider homosexual activity (like sodomy) a sin. They use words like "divinely created" "perfect" "noble and great ones" "beautiful" and more, to describe the homosexual/transsexual/queerness of their gay heroes. They post photos of their gay weddings. They comment that these weddings are the most beautiful and spirit-filled weddings they've ever attended. They denounce any comment along the lines of love the sinner, hate the sin, or "struggling with being gay" or anything negative. They are praying that the LDS church leaders will soon accept gay marriage as the normal, God-given attribute they believe it is, and will accept gay couples into full fellowship. Yes, they want gay sealings. Yes, they called Oaks a bigoted homophobic hater, and the cause of several suicides after his October Conference talk.

The Gay Agenda wrapped up in the hearts and flowers of the Mormon faith is truly a sign of the Last Days.
Can anyone tell me why you can openly call an Apostle what they call Oaks, and still go to the temple? Can you tell me why they can actively promote marriage (and therefore sex) between two gays, and still go to the temple?

Because they do, and they do.

[thestock]

Every day there are more LDS "allies" joining the ranks of those supporting gay marriage. Mormons Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, Affirmation, Richard Ostler and his rallies and podcasts, the Augensteins and their Let's Love Better Facebook page, Bryce Cook's ALL for Arizona LGBTQ and allies, the Latter Gay Stories podcasts, just to name a few. Every single one of these groups does NOT consider homosexual activity (like sodomy) a sin. They use words like "divinely created" "perfect" "noble and great ones" "beautiful" and more, to describe the homosexual/transsexual/queerness of their gay heroes. They post photos of their gay weddings. They comment that these weddings are the most beautiful and spirit-filled weddings they've ever attended. They denounce any comment along the lines of love the sinner, hate the sin, or "struggling with being gay" or anything negative. They are praying that the LDS church leaders will soon accept gay marriage as the normal, God-given attribute they believe it is, and will accept gay couples into full fellowship. Yes, they want gay sealings. Yes, they called Oaks a bigoted homophobic hater, and the cause of several suicides after his October Conference talk.

The Gay Agenda wrapped up in the hearts and flowers of the Mormon faith is truly a sign of the Last Days.
Can anyone tell me why you can openly call an Apostle what they call Oaks, and still go to the temple? Can you tell me why they can actively promote marriage (and therefore sex) between two gays, and still go to the temple?

Because they do, and they do.

I agree that these people are strictly at odds with the Lord's revealed word and are using their homosexuality not as a trial or life journey but as a weapon against others. This is a big problem. Like I said in my prior post, homosexuals are some of the best at exploiting the PC environment of our current society.

[EmmaLee]

I was born with the tendency to want to kill annoying people. The urge is something I have to stifle quite often. It wouldn't take much for those fleeting thoughts to take hold and grow and become full-on scenarios played out in my mind - and then, just one more step from that to action. I wish the Church had a website for people like me (mormonandmurderous.org or something similar - you know, like they have mormonandgay.org for that group of people) - and I wish the apostles would give talks and firesides and make videos and promote concerts and allow articles in Church-owned LDS Living magazine and Deseret News that validate my desire to kill other people.

Now, before anyone calls the popo's on me, this is (mostly) meant to be illustrative and not to be taken literally (although, there are times... ). It is meant to show that we ALL have tendencies, urges, desires, etc. yet the same-sex ones are the only ones clamoring for attention and acceptance and validation. It's gone FAR beyond "love me", to "loving me MEANS love my gayness". EVERYTHING said about same-sex attraction can - and should - be said about ALL other tendencies, urges, desires, etc. The people who have same-sex attraction are no more special or chosen than anyone else, so why are they singled out by the world - and the CHURCH - as a group that demands (and gets, sadly) validation? All that does is feed into their notion that same-sex behavior isn't a sin - and we see the result of that being that 50% (higher where I live) of LDS youth/young adults have no problem with same-sex 'marriage'. These young people will be the leaders of the Church in 20-30 years.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Church needs to PUBLICLY 'accept' and 'tolerate' and 'love' people with any/all tendencies, urges, desires, etc. like they do those with same-sex desires. God is no respecter of persons, and the Church and its members shouldn't be either.

its not just gay people. Any "group" that veers from the mainstream has suddenly got a throat-hold of the media and armed with the weaponized political correctness in this country they gather a ton of support to their cause. Are you a woman that chooses to think she is a man? Are you a man that wants to use the women's bathroom at Target? Are you a drag queen that wants to read books to kids? Are you a homosexual at BYU who likes to cheer big, strong, attractive men to victory under a mascot's uniform? Are you black? Are you a woman? Are you a black woman? Etc etc etc. The real issue here is that this country has made it easy and successful for people to whine and moan to get their way....and homosexuals are some of the best at it. It doesnt mean all of them are evil or bad, though....some are good people who got dealt a really crappy trial. I'd rather be born with spina bifida then be attracted to men.....

While I agree with much of what you say here, I'm mainly referring to how the Church coddles those with same-sex attraction. How they go out of their way to make that particular brand of 'sin' feel welcome and loved, but they ignore so many other people with different tendencies. I'd rather be born with same-sex attraction than be sexually attracted to, oh, say, children or animals or dead people or fill-in-the-blank (and just to add here, there is zero proof anyone is born gay, or even with those tendencies - I'm just giving in to that notion for expediency in this conversation). LOTS of things worse than same-sex attraction, yet it's the ONLY one the LDS Church chooses to pluck out of the annals of sin and make it just find and dandy (no pun intended) to be an "openly gay" recommend holder, for example. (And yes, I know the Church is 30+ years behind the times when it comes to definitions - as the rest of the world knows someone who proclaims they are "openly gay" means they are having same-sex sex.)

[thestock]

I was born with the tendency to want to kill annoying people. The urge is something I have to stifle quite often. It wouldn't take much for those fleeting thoughts to take hold and grow and become full-on scenarios played out in my mind - and then, just one more step from that to action. I wish the Church had a website for people like me (mormonandmurderous.org or something similar - you know, like they have mormonandgay.org for that group of people) - and I wish the apostles would give talks and firesides and make videos and promote concerts and allow articles in Church-owned LDS Living magazine and Deseret News that validate my desire to kill other people.

Now, before anyone calls the popo's on me, this is (mostly) meant to be illustrative and not to be taken literally (although, there are times... ). It is meant to show that we ALL have tendencies, urges, desires, etc. yet the same-sex ones are the only ones clamoring for attention and acceptance and validation. It's gone FAR beyond "love me", to "loving me MEANS love my gayness". EVERYTHING said about same-sex attraction can - and should - be said about ALL other tendencies, urges, desires, etc. The people who have same-sex attraction are no more special or chosen than anyone else, so why are they singled out by the world - and the CHURCH - as a group that demands (and gets, sadly) validation? All that does is feed into their notion that same-sex behavior isn't a sin - and we see the result of that being that 50% (higher where I live) of LDS youth/young adults have no problem with same-sex 'marriage'. These young people will be the leaders of the Church in 20-30 years.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Church needs to PUBLICLY 'accept' and 'tolerate' and 'love' people with any/all tendencies, urges, desires, etc. like they do those with same-sex desires. God is no respecter of persons, and the Church and its members shouldn't be either.

its not just gay people. Any "group" that veers from the mainstream has suddenly got a throat-hold of the media and armed with the weaponized political correctness in this country they gather a ton of support to their cause. Are you a woman that chooses to think she is a man? Are you a man that wants to use the women's bathroom at Target? Are you a drag queen that wants to read books to kids? Are you a homosexual at BYU who likes to cheer big, strong, attractive men to victory under a mascot's uniform? Are you black? Are you a woman? Are you a black woman? Etc etc etc. The real issue here is that this country has made it easy and successful for people to whine and moan to get their way....and homosexuals are some of the best at it. It doesnt mean all of them are evil or bad, though....some are good people who got dealt a really crappy trial. I'd rather be born with spina bifida then be attracted to men.....

While I agree with much of what you say here, I'm mainly referring to how the Church coddles those with same-sex attraction. How they go out of their way to make that particular brand of 'sin' feel welcome and loved, but they ignore so many other people with different tendencies. I'd rather be born with same-sex attraction than be sexually attracted to, oh, say, children or animals or dead people or fill-in-the-blank (and just to add here, there is zero proof anyone is born gay, or even with those tendencies - I'm just giving in to that notion for expediency in this conversation). LOTS of things worse than same-sex attraction, yet it's the ONLY one the LDS Church chooses to pluck out of the annals of sin and make it just find and dandy (no pun intended) to be an "openly gay" recommend holder, for example. (And yes, I know the Church is 30+ years behind the times when it comes to definitions - as the rest of the world knows someone who proclaims they are "openly gay" means they are having same-sex sex.)

Im pretty sure an openly gay person who is having sex cannot have a temple recommend. And neither can a heterosexual that is having sex. Now...if someone is gay, and they fight the temptation and are not having sex....and are a good and abiding Saint...then they deserve the blessings of the temple same as you and I. The Church has not "looked the other way" to allow active homosexuals entrance in the temple. Homosexuals who marry are excommunicated. If someone lies their way into the temple, the sin is on the head of that person.

I feel for the leaders of the church. It must be extremely difficult to navigate the PC world today. The world loves sin. The Church is supposed to love the sinner. I think they are striking a good balance of accepting gay people while condemning the behavior itself. But to your point, yes....it would be refreshing if they had the same arms wide open to drug addicts, sex addicts, and the rest of the sick and downtrodden that they do for the gays. Unfortunately its not politically popular to advocate drug use.

[EmmaLee]

I was born with the tendency to want to kill annoying people. The urge is something I have to stifle quite often. It wouldn't take much for those fleeting thoughts to take hold and grow and become full-on scenarios played out in my mind - and then, just one more step from that to action. I wish the Church had a website for people like me (mormonandmurderous.org or something similar - you know, like they have mormonandgay.org for that group of people) - and I wish the apostles would give talks and firesides and make videos and promote concerts and allow articles in Church-owned LDS Living magazine and Deseret News that validate my desire to kill other people.

Now, before anyone calls the popo's on me, this is (mostly) meant to be illustrative and not to be taken literally (although, there are times... ). It is meant to show that we ALL have tendencies, urges, desires, etc. yet the same-sex ones are the only ones clamoring for attention and acceptance and validation. It's gone FAR beyond "love me", to "loving me MEANS love my gayness". EVERYTHING said about same-sex attraction can - and should - be said about ALL other tendencies, urges, desires, etc. The people who have same-sex attraction are no more special or chosen than anyone else, so why are they singled out by the world - and the CHURCH - as a group that demands (and gets, sadly) validation? All that does is feed into their notion that same-sex behavior isn't a sin - and we see the result of that being that 50% (higher where I live) of LDS youth/young adults have no problem with same-sex 'marriage'. These young people will be the leaders of the Church in 20-30 years.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The Church needs to PUBLICLY 'accept' and 'tolerate' and 'love' people with any/all tendencies, urges, desires, etc. like they do those with same-sex desires. God is no respecter of persons, and the Church and its members shouldn't be either.

its not just gay people. Any "group" that veers from the mainstream has suddenly got a throat-hold of the media and armed with the weaponized political correctness in this country they gather a ton of support to their cause. Are you a woman that chooses to think she is a man? Are you a man that wants to use the women's bathroom at Target? Are you a drag queen that wants to read books to kids? Are you a homosexual at BYU who likes to cheer big, strong, attractive men to victory under a mascot's uniform? Are you black? Are you a woman? Are you a black woman? Etc etc etc. The real issue here is that this country has made it easy and successful for people to whine and moan to get their way....and homosexuals are some of the best at it. It doesnt mean all of them are evil or bad, though....some are good people who got dealt a really crappy trial. I'd rather be born with spina bifida then be attracted to men.....

While I agree with much of what you say here, I'm mainly referring to how the Church coddles those with same-sex attraction. How they go out of their way to make that particular brand of 'sin' feel welcome and loved, but they ignore so many other people with different tendencies. I'd rather be born with same-sex attraction than be sexually attracted to, oh, say, children or animals or dead people or fill-in-the-blank (and just to add here, there is zero proof anyone is born gay, or even with those tendencies - I'm just giving in to that notion for expediency in this conversation). LOTS of things worse than same-sex attraction, yet it's the ONLY one the LDS Church chooses to pluck out of the annals of sin and make it just find and dandy (no pun intended) to be an "openly gay" recommend holder, for example. (And yes, I know the Church is 30+ years behind the times when it comes to definitions - as the rest of the world knows someone who proclaims they are "openly gay" means they are having same-sex sex.)

Im pretty sure an openly gay person who is having sex cannot have a temple recommend. And neither can a heterosexual that is having sex. Now...if someone is gay, and they fight the temptation and are not having sex....and are a good and abiding Saint...then they deserve the blessings of the temple same as you and I. The Church has not "looked the other way" to allow active homosexuals entrance in the temple. Homosexuals who marry are excommunicated. If someone lies their way into the temple, the sin is on the head of that person.

I feel for the leaders of the church. It must be extremely difficult to navigate the PC world today. The world loves sin. The Church is supposed to love the sinner. I think they are striking a good balance of accepting gay people while condemning the behavior itself. But to your point, yes....it would be refreshing if they had the same arms wide open to drug addicts, sex addicts, and the rest of the sick and downtrodden that they do for the gays. Unfortunately its not politically popular to advocate drug use.

Again, I agree with much of what you say here; thank you for the dialogue. I will point out though, that there are several bloggers (whose identities have been confirmed - they are real people, with real and current church callings) who right now today refer to themselves as "openly gay", and men who also state that "if the right man came along, I would be in a relationship with him", etc. and these men have callings such as stake clerk, executive secretary, etc. Are they currently having same-sex sex? I don't know, but they publicly admit they would if the right guy came along! But that's not enough to get them released AND they have temple recommends. (Lizzy60 probably has links on the examples I'm referring to here)

Yes, we're all sinners. Yes, if we're not actively committing sexual sins (regardless of what turns us on), we should be given the benefit of the doubt, have recommends, etc. Yes, the Church coddles the gay crowd at the expense of everyone else who struggles, IMO, and only because it's politically expedient and politically correct - which is pretty sad, to be honest.

[thestock]

its not just gay people. Any "group" that veers from the mainstream has suddenly got a throat-hold of the media and armed with the weaponized political correctness in this country they gather a ton of support to their cause. Are you a woman that chooses to think she is a man? Are you a man that wants to use the women's bathroom at Target? Are you a drag queen that wants to read books to kids? Are you a homosexual at BYU who likes to cheer big, strong, attractive men to victory under a mascot's uniform? Are you black? Are you a woman? Are you a black woman? Etc etc etc. The real issue here is that this country has made it easy and successful for people to whine and moan to get their way....and homosexuals are some of the best at it. It doesnt mean all of them are evil or bad, though....some are good people who got dealt a really crappy trial. I'd rather be born with spina bifida then be attracted to men.....

While I agree with much of what you say here, I'm mainly referring to how the Church coddles those with same-sex attraction. How they go out of their way to make that particular brand of 'sin' feel welcome and loved, but they ignore so many other people with different tendencies. I'd rather be born with same-sex attraction than be sexually attracted to, oh, say, children or animals or dead people or fill-in-the-blank (and just to add here, there is zero proof anyone is born gay, or even with those tendencies - I'm just giving in to that notion for expediency in this conversation). LOTS of things worse than same-sex attraction, yet it's the ONLY one the LDS Church chooses to pluck out of the annals of sin and make it just find and dandy (no pun intended) to be an "openly gay" recommend holder, for example. (And yes, I know the Church is 30+ years behind the times when it comes to definitions - as the rest of the world knows someone who proclaims they are "openly gay" means they are having same-sex sex.)

Im pretty sure an openly gay person who is having sex cannot have a temple recommend. And neither can a heterosexual that is having sex. Now...if someone is gay, and they fight the temptation and are not having sex....and are a good and abiding Saint...then they deserve the blessings of the temple same as you and I. The Church has not "looked the other way" to allow active homosexuals entrance in the temple. Homosexuals who marry are excommunicated. If someone lies their way into the temple, the sin is on the head of that person.

I feel for the leaders of the church. It must be extremely difficult to navigate the PC world today. The world loves sin. The Church is supposed to love the sinner. I think they are striking a good balance of accepting gay people while condemning the behavior itself. But to your point, yes....it would be refreshing if they had the same arms wide open to drug addicts, sex addicts, and the rest of the sick and downtrodden that they do for the gays. Unfortunately its not politically popular to advocate drug use.

Again, I agree with much of what you say here; thank you for the dialogue. I will point out though, that there are several bloggers (whose identities have been confirmed - they are real people, with real and current church callings) who right now today refer to themselves as "openly gay", and men who also state that "if the right man came along, I would be in a relationship with him", etc. and these men have callings such as stake clerk, executive secretary, etc. Are they currently having same-sex sex? I don't know, but they publicly admit they would if the right guy came along! But that's not enough to get them released AND they have temple recommends. (Lizzy60 probably has links on the examples I'm referring to here)

Yes, we're all sinners. Yes, if we're not actively committing sexual sins (regardless of what turns us on), we should be given the benefit of the doubt, have recommends, etc. Yes, the Church coddles the gay crowd at the expense of everyone else who struggles, IMO, and only because it's politically expedient and politically correct - which is pretty sad, to be honest.

Honestly I dont listen to many podcasts...I know of Mormon Stories and that's about it. If what you say about some of those people is true, then that is sad and disturbing. Eventually justice and mercy will be appropriately portioned out to them and to us all.

[shadow]

And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

Like Polygamy?

Yes, like practicing polygamy when we're not support to.

[Finrock]

While I agree with much of what you say here, I'm mainly referring to how the Church coddles those with same-sex attraction. How they go out of their way to make that particular brand of 'sin' feel welcome and loved, but they ignore so many other people with different tendencies.

That's because these individuals, in the past, have been treated so poorly. They have not been loved, welcomed, etc. Instead, they have been actively ostracized, ridiculed, and made to feel less than human, in many, many, many cases. The Church's responses and policies in the past which attempted to address homosexual issues has caused much harm and has not resulted, in most cases, of people being healed, being drawn to Christ, etc.

You (in general) have no excuse not to show kindness, goodness, and love towards people who are attracted to the same sex. People will change and they will response to the pure love of Christ. If anything is going to help, it will be the pure love of Christ that you emanate and which comes from your souls.

Being attracted to the same sex is not the same as wanting to murder people, harm people, rape children, etc. No matter how many times these associations are made, they will forever remain false associations.

Feeling enmity towards people who have same-sex attractions will prevent any person, no matter who they are, from living in the Celestial Kingdom.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

And to be sure, acting on sexual desires outside the bounds God set is wickedness- gay or straight. God never has approved of homosexual relationships. In fact, He says they're an abomination.

Like Polygamy?

Yes, like practicing polygamy when we're not support to.

So, that leaves the door open for God to say that homosexuality is OK. Then it no longer becomes an abomination.

It so stupid to think that depending on what leader is in power, something becomes good or not good. Because that's really what it boils down to. The rest is just a matter of who or what you personally decide you are going to believe. Because there is no empirical data that we can look to and see where God actually approved jack or didn't approve.

-Finrock

[John Tavner]

While I agree with much of what you say here, I'm mainly referring to how the Church coddles those with same-sex attraction. How they go out of their way to make that particular brand of 'sin' feel welcome and loved, but they ignore so many other people with different tendencies.

That's because these individuals, in the past, have been treated so poorly. They have not been loved, welcomed, etc. Instead, they have been actively ostracized, ridiculed, and made to feel less than human, in many, many, many cases. The Church's responses and policies in the past which attempted to address homosexual issues has caused much harm and has not resulted, in most cases, of people being healed, being drawn to Christ, etc.

You (in general) have no excuse not to show kindness, goodness, and love towards people who are attracted to the same sex. People will change and they will response to the pure love of Christ. If anything is going to help, it will be the pure love of Christ that you emanate and which comes from your souls.

Being attracted to the same sex is not the same as wanting to murder people, harm people, rape children, etc. No matter how many times these associations are made, they will forever remain false associations.

Feeling enmity towards people who have same-sex attractions will prevent any person, no matter who they are, from living in the Celestial Kingdom.

-Finrock

Sin is sin. There isn't a "false association." Is not all sin "harm[ing] people?" Especially when they try to convince others to be like them? Of course we all should love them, but I don't see much of a difference in how members treated those who have same-sex attraction and those that smoke or drink or commit fornication or adultery or lusteth in their heart. Now, we can talk about what should be and this is where EmmaLee is pointing. We should express the Father's love in teaching all they can repent and change their ways for He denies none that come unto Him. Repentance is turning ones heart towards God and changing their heart - the refrain go and sin no more comes to mind. All are welcome, but if we do not encourage change then we are not actually loving them at all. We will be damning them to a lower kingdom regardless AND we will carry those sins upon us for not having shared the true doctrine of CHrist- which is Faith in the Father and the SOn, Repentance, Baptism (water and fire) - and enduring to the end - which is complete submission to the Father and His will, not our own desires. However, we too often confuse tolerance with kindness. When someone constantly brings up how they fornicate and labels themself as such, it doens't help them overcome - they are submitting to that label, the same as someone who labels themself as "gay." The gospel is about changing and becoming not about "doing." The entire sermon on the mount is about becoming rather than just doing. I don't care for the attitude of a fornicator who brags about their sex life the same way I don't care for the attitude of a person with same-sex attraction will brag about their life. There is a fine line. We should love all man, but first we must love God, if we get those confused then we won't love man like God loves man and we will (as we are now) be led down a path of destruction. We are becoming lovers of our own selves as Timothy stated - and that is wrong.