Church Issues Statement On Gay And Lesbian Issues

[Daniel2]

From the church's website:

Church leaders recognize the nuanced complexity of gender identity, strongly advocating for inclusion and KINDNESS TOWARD PEOPLE of all gender-orientations, and contending that there is room for compassion and common ground among people who disagree.

The unaltered Church doctrine on marriage being between a man and a woman has generated considerable headlines in recent years as the definition for marriage unfolds state by state. Gay men and women want the financial, legal, and cultural protections of formal marriage. The Church, in turn, wants to retain religious freedom and not be compelled by new federal laws to perform same-sex marriages or to otherwise defy sacred doctrine relating to the nature of marriage and the law of chastity. For all Church members, the law of chastity requires abstinence from sex before and outside of marriage.

Church leaders recognize the existence and difficulty of same gender attraction and acknowledge the difference between having same-sex attraction and acting on it. They censure only the latter, and leaders strongly advocate for understanding, inclusion, and kindness toward people of all gender orientations. The Church websitemormonsandgays.org details sincere outreach by the Church within the gay community, including support in Salt Lake City in 2009 for nondiscrimination protections of employment and housing.

There is room for compassion, common ground, and shared humanity among people who disagree, and Church leaders eagerly pursue these ideals, both inside and outside the Church.

Bravo!

[Avatar4321]

So more of the same.

[BCSpace]

Nothing different.  Just more PR deflection of a 'problem' that being inflated by the Church's enemies and which probably doesn't even exist in any meaningful way in reality.

[Buckeye]

Daniel2, do you have a link? I tried online searching for parts of the quote and the only hit was to this thread. I don't doubt the accuracy of the quote, but would like to read the original too.

[hearserve]

This is actually just a random reposting on a new beta site for mormon.org of the statement they made a few years back endorsing protection and equal treatment, either for SLC or Utah, can't remember which.  Absolutely nothing new.  

[rockpond]

Nothing different.  Just more PR deflection of a 'problem' that being inflated by the Church's enemies and which probably doesn't even exist in any meaningful way in reality.

 

It's not much different than where the Church was a few years ago but it is definitely different from where we were 10-20 years ago when the Church was actively fighting such protections for gay and lesbian people.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not much different than where the Church was a few years ago but it is definitely different from where we were 10-20 years ago when the Church was actively fighting such protections for gay and lesbian people.

I have no memory of the Church doing that.

[rockpond]

I have no memory of the Church doing that.

Amendment 2 (1992) in my home state of Colorado which then became Romer v Evans.

The Church has definitely changed positions for the better on this matter.

[Daniel2]

I have no memory of the Church doing that.

Wow.

It is amazing and rather mortifying to see history so blatently being re-written/whitewashed/denied in so short a span of time.

I wonder if shortly you'll be telling us that Mormon leaders were leading the charge for LGBT inclusion in civil rights matters.

[Stargazer]

Wow.

It is amazing and rather mortifying to see history so blatently being re-written/whitewashed/denied in so short a span of time.

I wonder if shortly you'll be telling us that Mormon leaders were leading the charge for LGBT inclusion in civil rights matters.

 

Sorry, but I have no memory of this, either.  Perhaps those sensitized to the issue by personal concerns, such as yourself, would remember it more.  Doesn't make us who don't remember any such thing history-whitewashers or deniers.

[Calm]

I was up in Canada at the time and have no clue what you are referring to with the claim the Church was involved with the Amendment 2 in Colorado.  If you could explain, please.  It isn't obvious in any google hit I skimmed through...

[rockpond]

I was up in Canada at the time and have no clue what you are referring to with the claim the Church was involved with the Amendment 2 in Colorado. If you could explain, please. It isn't obvious in any google hit I skimmed through...

Probably the clearest evidence would be their submission of an amicus brief when Amendment 2 went to SCOTUS as Romer v Evans.

[Calm]

Do you have a link please...

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow.

It is amazing and rather mortifying to see history so blatently being re-written/whitewashed/denied in so short a span of time.

I wonder if shortly you'll be telling us that Mormon leaders were leading the charge for LGBT inclusion in civil rights matters.

See Stargazer's response to this.

 

Rockpond made the unsupported assertion that in the past "the Church was actively fighting [civil rights] protections for gay and lesbian people."

 

I responded with the absolutely true statement that I have no memory of the Church doing such a thing (I'm the world's foremost authority on what I personally do and do not remember).

 

So suddenly I'm accused of "blatantly" rewriting/whitewashing/denying history.

 

This has to be one of the clearest instances of over-the-top histrionics I have seen on this board.

 

Sorry to have to tell you this, Daniel2, but the Church having actively fought against civil rights for any group, assuming such a thing did happen, is not self-evident and obvious to everyone.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you have a link please...

I had to go to Wikipedia to learn about Romer v. Evans, but it seems controversial enough that it would be a tremendous stretch to accuse an entity of "actively fighting against civil rights protections" merely because it filed an amicus brief in the matter.

 

From the link:

 

That amendment was approved by a vote of 53% to 47%.^[9] According to public opinion surveys, Coloradans strongly opposed discrimination based upon sexual orientation, but at the same time they opposed affirmative action based upon sexual orientation, and the latter concern is what led to the adoption of Amendment 2.^[10][11] The governor of Colorado, Roy Romer, opposed the measure, but also opposed retaliatory boycotts against his state.^[9]

 

So even though Coloradans "strongly opposed discrimination based upon sexual orientation," they are accused by implication of fighting against protections for gay people merely because they don't like affirmative action? Give me a break!

 

And, assuming the Church did file an amicus brief as you say, can you be so certain it has, in your words, "definitely changed positions"? Opposing discrimination is one thing; favoring affirmative action (quotas in hiring) is another, especially when such a thing might theoretically pose a threat to religious freedom in hiring practices. And the Church is definitely on record as wanting to retain religious freedom, as reflected in the statement quoted in the OP.

[Daniel2]

See Stargazer's response to this.

Rockpond made the unsupported assertion that in the past "the Church was actively fighting [civil rights] protections for gay and lesbian people."

I responded with the absolutely true statement that I have no memory of the Church doing such a thing (I'm the world's foremost authority on what I personally do and do not remember).

So suddenly I'm accused of "blatantly" rewriting/whitewashing/denying history.

This has to be one of the clearest instances of over-the-top histrionics I have seen on this board.

Sorry to have to tell you this, Daniel2, but the Church having actively fought against civil rights for any group, assuming such a thing did happen, is not self-evident and obvious to everyone.

Fighting the first cases of gay marriage in Hawaii in the late 1980's

California's Prop 22

California's Prop 8

http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-crapo-chronology-of-mormon-lds-involvement-in-same-sex-marriage-politics/

http://www.withoutend.org/elder-packer-danger-homosexuality-20-years/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

From the church's website:

Bravo!

Daniel, one thing important to note, is that no true follower of Jesus Christ should ever need to be told you be kind or have compassion. If they do...chances are the are "followers" in name only. So I hope no one was waiting for the Church to tell them how to act. I have a gay child...so if someone says something unkind about her, they don't want me to tell them how to act! BTW, this "kindness and compassion" should extend to any child of God, for none is more deserving than another. As followers of Christ, our thoughts should be his thoughts, our ways, his ways, our love, his love and so on. This way as promised in the Bible and Book of Mormon; "when he comes we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is".

[BCSpace]

It's not much different than where the Church was a few years ago but it is definitely different from where we were 10-20 years ago when the Church was actively fighting such protections for gay and lesbian people.

 

There is no difference whatsoever in policy, doctrine, and stance. Any perceived changes continue to be a result of PR deflection. 10-20 years ago, even many more, we still hated the sin and loved the sinner just as we do today. For example, young men who were identified or self-dentified as gay still discretely participated in the Young Men's program and Scouting under careful supervision back then, same as now. A practicing homosexual cannot get a TR or hold the priesthood and that typcially holds true as well for those who publically agitate in favor of legitmizing the homosexual lifestyle choice.

 

The Church is still pollitically opposed to SSM. We merely pick our battles in the best interests of the Church and if we have to change our tactics to promote the same doctrine, we do. Just because we recognize that the more part of the people are beginning to chose wickedness is a not a signal that we are changing anything.

 

There is no change here. There is only tactical maneuver and counter maneuver and severe disappointment for those expecting a change on an eternal principle.

[rockpond]

There is no difference whatsoever in policy, doctrine, and stance. Any perceived changes continue to be a result of PR deflection. 10-20 years ago, even many more, we still hated the sin and loved the sinner just as we do today. For example, young men who were identified or self-dentified as gay still discretely participated in the Young Men's program and Scouting under careful supervision back then, same as now. A practicing homosexual cannot get a TR or hold the priesthood and that typcially holds true as well for those who publically agitate in favor of legitmizing the homosexual lifestyle choice.

 

The Church is still pollitically opposed to SSM. We merely pick our battles in the best interests of the Church and if we have to change our tactics to promote the same doctrine, we do. Just because we recognize that the more part of the people are beginning to chose wickedness is a not a signal that we are changing anything.

 

There is no change here. There is only tactical maneuver and counter maneuver and severe disappointment for those expecting a change on an eternal principle.

 

I think the Church changing its position on equal rights laws for the LGBT community reflects a change in stance if not policy.

 

Other changes in stance to consider...

 

Backing away from reparative therapy.

Ceasing to advise gay people to enter heterosexual marriages.

Using homosexual/gay as nouns.

 

Clearly the Church remains opposed to marriage equality for LGBT persons.  And a practicing homosexual cannot hold a temple recommend as a matter of policy and doctrine.  Agreed.  Our history indicates that it will be another 2-3 decades before we see any change on those fronts.

 

But ask yourself this... in the 1970's could a young man who openly declared himself as gay (though not "practicing") serve a mission?  Today they can and do.