Gay Church Employee loses Temple Recommend and Job

[Jaybear]

If a man has comitted a sexual sin as a heterosexual, he would most likely be asked by his bishop or stake president to not have close relationships with women while going through the repentance process, and would be asked to give up relationships with women with whom it would make it easier to fall in transgression. These women may even be close friends.

This man had a urge that made it hard for him to resist temptation , and his stake pres. asking him to avoid these friends was an attempt to help him avoid sin. By refusing to accept the stake pres. counsel, he was refusing to repent, and on those grounds was refused a temple recommend.

Repent from what?

[sjdawg]

Fair enough.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say the LDS Church is anti-sin? anti-fornication, anti-adultery etc..? Or do you believe the LDS Church is "against" all gay people for their sexual preference?

I think it is fairly accurate to say the LDS Church is anti-gay.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think it is fairly accurate to say the LDS Church is anti-gay.

This is not even remotley accurate. What we are is anti-sin.

We are not against those that suffer from SSA just those that act on it.

[sjdawg]

This is not even remotley accurate. What we are is anti-sin.

We are not against those that suffer from SSA just those that act on it.

just like postmormon.org or other sites often referred to as anti sites aren't anti-mormon

They are not against Mormons they are just opposed to mormon doctrine (or those who act on Mormon Doctrine)

[semlogo]

I also agree that the Stake President overreacted, heck our I had a mission comp with SSA, in our stake we had a High Councilor who has SSA (he's married to a woman though) plus there are people who post on here with SSA who are awesome folks!

I had a gay mission comp too. I hope my temple recommend isn't in jeopardy.

[Jeff K.]

Everyone wants to play martyr.

[bookofmormontruth]

just like postmormon.org or other sites often referred to as anti sites aren't anti-mormon

They are not against Mormons they are just opposed to mormon doctrine (or those who act on Mormon Doctrine)

Honest critics of the Lord's Church are welcomed and respected. Carl Mosser and Paul Owens fit in this category

Those who lie about the Lord's Church either blatantly or ignorantly fall in the category of anti-Mormon. They hate the label (can't blame them) and they always say they are only "opposed to the doctrine" while in the same sentence, calling Joseph Smith a "pedophile", "adulterer" and "smooth liar". Not fooling anyone with their true intentions.

[sjdawg]

Honest critics of the Lord's Church are welcomed and respected. Carl Mosser and Paul Owens fit in this category

Those who lie about the Lord's Church either blatantly or ignorantly fall in the category of anti-Mormon. They hate the label (can't blame them) and they always say they are only "opposed to the doctrine" while in the same sentence, calling Joseph Smith a "pedophile", "adulterer" and "smooth liar". Not fooling anyone with their true intentions.

I'm not condoning anyone's actions. I'm simply comparing the use of the term. It seems to fit as well here when discussing anti-gay sentiment as it does there with an anti-mormon sentiment.

Many people would consider the LDS Church's position on homosexuality to be ignorant (to use your term). The validity of either side's position is up for debate.

[bookofmormontruth]

I'm not condoning anyone's actions. I'm simply comparing the use of the term. It seems to fit as well here when discussing anti-gay sentiment as it does there with an anti-mormon sentiment.

Many people would consider the LDS Church's position on homosexuality to be ignorant (to use your term). The validity of either side's position is up for debate.

True. The world would think we were anti-gay.

But that doesn't compare to anti-Mormons. We don't lie about homosexuals. The scriptures only speak of truth.

[sjdawg]

True. The world would think we were anti-gay.

But that doesn't compare to anti-Mormons. We don't lie about homosexuals. The scriptures only speak of truth.

Truth is one thing. Our respective opinions about topics may end up being something else.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The difference between the fact that the church isn't "anti-heterosexual", but it is "anti-gay" is that there are instances in which the former type of behavior OR relationship is not only condoned, but it's mandated--but there are NEVER instances in which the latter type of behavior OR relationship is even tolerable (so far as the church/God's view is concerned).

"Anti-fornication" doesn't equate to "anti-straight" because a) "fornication" could mean either straight or gay non-marital sexual relations, but more specifically, b) (as already mentioned) there are still cases that straight behavior and relationships are both sanctioned and even required, by the LDS God.

Again, the term "anti-gay" currently applies to Mormonism, however, because there are (as yet) no cases in which gay behavior and/or relationships are sanctioned, expected, or even tolerated, from an LDS perspective.

Darin

Neither is there any cases which heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are sanctioned, expected, or even tolerated, from and LDS perspective. This is an issue of fornication not an issue of homosexuality or Same Sex Attraction, one can openly admit they are attracted to members of the same sex and still have the full blessings of the Church if they obey the moral standards of the Church, especially the Law of Chastity.

The Law of Chasity is not discriminatory it will be used to excommunicate any people having sexual relations outside of a sanctioned marriage, whether those persons say they are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual doesn't matter. What does matter is they have violated the Law of Chasity.

[LDS Guy 1986]

One of the issues is the very vague and subjective nature of the term "associated"

Well let's use the known definition of the word here:

as

[LDSToronto]

True. The world would think we were anti-gay.

But that doesn't compare to anti-Mormons. We don't lie about homosexuals. The scriptures only speak of truth.

Really? Search this messageboard and you will find exaggerated claims of how homosexuality will lead to the destruction of society and the plague of disease.

H.

[cdowis]

I think it is fairly accurate to say the LDS Church is anti-gay.

OK, it is fairly accurate to say that gays are christophobic. They despise Christian morality, and everything that Christians stand for.

Now, would you not agree that you and I are both mistaken? That the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[bookofmormontruth]

Really? Search this messageboard and you will find exaggerated claims of how homosexuality will lead to the destruction of society and the plague of disease.

H.

Was it backed by scripture or the words of a modern day prophet? Or was it an opinion of a member? Big difference. For members can lie, but scriptures or servants speaking directly for the Lord and His Church do not lie.

In my opinion, the scriptures have stated: if we as a nation do not keep the commandments, we will be destroyed. Any sin will lead to that destruction - homosexuality is not immune to fit in the category of sins.

On a medical perspective. The homosexuality community has suffered from the AIDS epidemic greatly no? In addition to other diseases with an obliterated immune system.

[sjdawg]

Well let's use the known definition of the word here:

as

[cdowis]

Well, just based on the article provided, I don't see any indication of unchastity on Call's part in terms of actual gay sex.

You are very naive. This is a newspaper article where clearly only one side is presented. When such individuals are ex'd, they have a open platform to say anything they want. They already know that only their version will be presented to the public, because the church leaders are bound to keep silent on what really happened.

Are you going to allow yourself to be manipulated? Are you going to be one of those ordinary people who allow the press to tell you what to think. Just one of the crowd, the mob mentality.

[LDSToronto]

Was it backed by scripture or the words of a modern day prophet? Or was it an opinion of a member? Big difference. For members can lie, but scriptures or servants speaking directly for the Lord and His Church do not lie.

I'm sure some of it was - I'll concede I won't CFR it, can't be bothered. But, I will see if I can find where a GA has said stuff that can't be backed...

In my opinion, the scriptures have stated: if we as a nation do not keep the commandments, we will be destroyed. Any sin will lead to that destruction - homosexuality is not immune to fit in the category of sins.

This line of reasoning simply places homosexuality into a category, with all other sins, rather than placing it on a pedestal, away from all other sins.

On a medical perspective. The homosexuality community has suffered from the AIDS epidemic greatly no? In addition to other diseases with an obliterated immune system.

Check the CDC website, and you will see that the heterosexual community has also suffered from STI's...

H.

[cdowis]

del

[sjdawg]

Neither is there any cases which heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are sanctioned, expected, or even tolerated, from and LDS perspective. This is an issue of fornication not an issue of homosexuality or Same Sex Attraction, one can openly admit they are attracted to members of the same sex and still have the full blessings of the Church if they obey the moral standards of the Church, especially the Law of Chastity.

The Law of Chasity is not discriminatory it will be used to excommunicate any people having sexual relations outside of a sanctioned marriage, whether those persons say they are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual doesn't matter. What does matter is they have violated the Law of Chasity.

The repentance process for the Law of Chastity can be a little discriminatory between homosexual and heterosexual activity.

for example a prospective missionary who has pre-marital sex may have a harder time qualifying to serve a mission if it was a homosexual relationship as opposed to a heterosexual relationship. The Handbook states the Stake President and Bishop are to confirm the member is free from transgression for a sufficient time to manifest genuine repentance. This period could be as long as three years and should not be less than 1 year from the date of the most recent serious transgression.

Below that it states the rules for prospective missionaries who have engaged in homosexual "sin". A candidate who has participated in homosexual activity during or after the last three teenage years will not normally be considered for missionary service

To my reading...Homosexual sin is labelled differently than heterosexual sin. It is incorrect to say that the LDS church treats both types of activity as the same breach of the Law of Chastity.

A 19 year old boy who had fornicated with a girl at age 18 could potentially qualify to serve a mission.

A 19 year old boy who had fornicated with a boy would have been required to being the repentance process at age 16 in order to serve a mission.

I realize the 1-3 years for sexual sin is a guideline and not a one size fits all rule. My point is simply that they are treated differently in the eyes of church leadership.

[Duncan]

You are very naive. This is a newspaper article where clearly only one side is presented. When such individuals are ex'd, they have a open platform to say anything they want. They already know that only their version will be presented to the public, because the church leaders are bound to keep silent on what really happened.

Are you going to allow yourself to be manipulated? Are you going to be one of those ordinary people who allow the press to tell you what to think. Just one of the crowd, the mob mentality.

Calm down! relax. Until more information is forthcoming then all I can go on is what they have and I try to figure through things. I just don't agree that taking away someone's recommend for not doing anything wrong is the right thing, that is me though and I think the Stake Presidnt overreacted. As I said I don't think Bro. Call's actions are the right way to go if he doesn't want to be involved with others of the gay community, but I thought you only gte your recommend taken away when you get burnt by the fire and not before.

[Jeff K.]

Really? Search this messageboard and you will find exaggerated claims of how homosexuality will lead to the destruction of society and the plague of disease.

H.

Of course AIDS isn't a plague at all.

And sin does lead to the destruction of society, except for those who reject the very idea of sin eh?

Do you think your claims are at all credible?

[semlogo]

Of course AIDS isn't a plague at all.

And sin does lead to the destruction of society, except for those who reject the very idea of sin eh?

Do you think your claims are at all credible?

God hates blood transfusions. The JWs were right!

[LDSToronto]

Of course AIDS isn't a plague at all.

And sin does lead to the destruction of society, except for those who reject the very idea of sin eh?

Do you think your claims are at all credible?

Jeff, show me how homosexuality is destroying today's society. For kicks, you are welcome to use Canada as your test case.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Of course AIDS isn't a plague at all.

I don't know if it is a plague. Perhaps you could look it up and tell me? I believe there are technical terms - pandemic, epidemic, etc.

H.