Thanks to Ian over at War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength, I came across this article from five years ago when President Hinckley was interviewed regarding politics.
This statement stood out:
We are not anti-gay. We are pro-family. I want to emphasize that.
I know many members who do not see a difference between the two. Is there a difference? Can someone by pro-family without being anti-gay?
People marry because of those “natural man” desires, you know…
Is that selfish, too? Or only when gays partner or marry?
The Church is anti-fornication and encourages people involved in premarital sex to get married. The Church doesn’t care if they get married by a JP or by a liscened internet priest.
What is the Church’s answer to two gay s who love each other and are either already married or partnered or involved? Break up and be celibate for life, change your orientation and look forward to an eternity with an opposite-sex partner if you ever want to have a family in this life (sanctioned by the Church) and forever in the next.
Double standard; something most straights couldn’t do if asked. Yes, that’s oppressive to gays.
no, people marry because they want to build a life and eternity with someone. at least most or many people do. “natural man” is part of it, yes, as far as being able to fulfill urges, but what about marriages where one spouse is unable, for some reason to participate in intimate activities. they are still able to have happy fulfilling marriages.
sure some people get married strictly for sex. but that’s wrong to and no real marriage can be built on that.
Gays are people too. Many of them want to partner and build a life with someone, and some want to adopt children.
Most people who marry want to marry people with desires for them. Otherwise they wouldn’t marry. Why not be roommates if you just want to be caretakers the rest of your life?
It’s disingenous to suggest that sexuality isn’t a large–or the main–component of marriage. Sexless marriages are not taught or accepted by the Church unless something is wrong with one or both parties. Many people (yes, even Mormons) divorce over sex. Even President Kimball said that sexual problems were the main issues involved in divorce.
Various anonynmous posters who refuse to give themselves any distinct indentity:
The “double standard” you talk about is that homosexual conduct is sinful under all circumstances and heterosexual activity is sinful only outside of marriage. Obviously nothing in the world would satisfy you except for the Church to stop preaching that homosexual activity is sinful.
You want the Church to abandon its teaching in order to accommodate youir views of what is properly “pro-gay.” You don’t seem to care that doing so would be turning against revelation and divine authority. If the revelation and authority are of no importance, to you, then why bother with this Church? You can certainly find plenty of churches that already agree with you. Why try to make this Church abandon its divine authority when you can just find another man-made Church that’s pro-gay enough for you?
Anonymous at 8:41 said, “What is the Church’s answer to two gay s who love each other and are either already married or partnered or involved?”
Let’s see: What is the Church’s answer to any two people who are already committing a sin? The Church’s answer is that they should stop sinning and repent.
You think defining homosexual behavior as sin is hateful, or oppressive, or both. So you think the Prophet is a hateful oppressor.
Since you obviously don’t respect the Prophet’s words or authority, why not just find a preacher who will tell you what you want to hear? In fact, since the God of the Bible clearly condemns homosexual behavior as sinful, why are you bother to associate with him? You could make your own God who will say what you want it to say–perhaps a nice calf in a shiny metallic finish. It would just keep silent on the whole issue and leave you to your own opinions.
I don’t deny that gay people want to build a life together. As I have said I know many homosexuals who I have a great respect for as people and I respect the right they have to choose their lifestyle. But Heavenly Father said homosexuality is wrong.
Nor do I deny that sexual relations aren’t a large part of a marriage. However it isn’t the MOST important part as some seem to be suggesting.
When the Prophet said, “We are not anti-gay. We are pro-family” he was accurately describing the belief of most Latter-day Saints.
As a liberal Mormon and registered and active Democrat who opposes same-sex marriage I can say that I definately am not anti-Gay but instead am pro-family.
Logic alone dictates that someone can be pro-family, and not be anti-gay. In fact, pro-gay people can be pro-family, and anti-gay people can be pro-family so why can’t a pro-familly individual automatically gets labeled as anti-gay? Well, it has to do with the efforts of individuals who seek to abolish the current institution of marriage and replace it with a new institution of genderless marriage.
The moment a person attempts to stand up to them they shout anti-gay, homophobe, discrimination and all sorts of things but if the truth be told they hate the institution of marriage as it now stands, and want to force everyone to accept a new institution of marriage, that of genderless marriage.
The question of whether being “profamily” or “progay” is settled by the homosexual activists themselves. When they complain that alleged “profamily” individuals and groups are actually “antigay,” and “haters,” why shouldn’t we believe them?
After all, President Bush says that if we are not with him, we are against him. The homosexual activists have said the same thing–that it doesn’t matter what we choose to call ourselves, if we do not support their agenda without question, we are “antigay,” and purveyors of “hate speech.”
If you will check the GALA website (the official gay and lesbian site for the RLDS Church) you will find that a minister who had been scheduled to present the “profamily” biblical viewpoint of homosexuality at Graceland College (the liberal arts college supported by the RLDS Church) was excluded from the dialogue and forced to speak off campus because his message was proclaimed to be hate speech by the campus PC crowd.
The message of the activist crowd is that if you do not parrot their teachings, you are against them, and if you are against them, you deserve to be SILENCED. No freedom of speech for you.
Has anyone hear read the book “Goodbye, I Love You” by Carol Lynn Pearson, and active Latter-day Saint?
Things have changed/improved since the ’70s towards gays in the Church, but only slightly. Or read her former son-in-law’s play about being gay in the Church.
Yes, perhaps the church can be labeled as “anti-gay” in the sense that it defines homosexual activity as a sin. OK, but I think it’s totally inappropriate and unfair to throw out accusations of bigotry and hatefulness. That is nonsense. I’m sure most LDS people realize that it is just as possible for a gay person to be otherwise moral, good, honest, kind etc. and equally capable of providing a loving home for a child. I’m sure Pres. Hinkley realizes this too. Also, the church views those with homosexual feelings as still being of equal human value as any of the rest of us imperfect mortals and having equal eternal potential as anyone else. The fact is the church does not fit the true definition of bigotry at all. As for hate, if any mormon has feelings of hate toward anyone, gay or otherwisw, they are also guilty of sin. I think the idea that Pres. Hinkley hates gays is ridiculous. He is only trying to preserve traditional family values. It would make more sense if anonymous tried to argue that the church is simply unenlightened or misguided. Fine…..but the flippant use of words like “bigotry” and “hateful” only undermine’s your credibility.
Who hear has said Pres. Hinckley hates gays? Huh?
No, no. You don’t say, “Huh?” You say “Eh?”
This is a Canadian blog.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
If you read back a little further somebody (an anonymous) said “I think that’s hateful” at some point.
it was 8/11/05 at 7:40
Not all Canadians say “eh” I sure don’t, lol.
Gays have families too. So people can, indeed, be pro-family and pro-gay family, even within the Church.
Mary: “Not all Canadians say “eh” I sure don’t, lol.”
I’m sure you’re telling the truth. No dote abote it.
:)
“Gays have families too. So people can, indeed, be pro-family and pro-gay family, even within the Church.”
This is blatantly false. You cannot be pro-family and pro-gay, you can only be pro-gay, because homosexuals hate the idea of families.They are in a war to destroy the family, and to replace it with genderless marriage. They are hateful bigots, the whole lot of them.
Thomas, can you be pro-family without being anti-gay?
Thomas
Whoa that’s harsh. Having known many homosexuals in my life, I can say that I have yet to meet one who is a hateful bigot.
Thomas I don’t agree that ALL homosexuals are out to destroy the family. For example, some are faithful Latter-day Saints.
Here’s the deal with “having many homosexual friends.”
Married people can look down on these “friends” and cluck their tongues at these “sinners” if they are in loving relationships (with or without sex). These married people go home to their warm beds with their spouses and children, deploring the “evil” relationships gays have.
These married people are nice to the homosexuals’ faces and tell them how much they love them, but all the while they “feel sorry” for their “sins” and hope they’ll see the light and cry lonely tears into their lone pillows as they lead celibate lives for eternity. Yet said marrieds would never divorce their spouses and live alone forever if the tables were turned.
oh ok. yeah.
actually NO this is not what I think. The homosexuals I have known (some well, some just as aquaintances, much like I know many others) I just treat as I would treat anyone else. To their faces and behind their backs. Just as regular people. I don’t patronise or pity them. I don’t have to agree with the choices they have made, but I don’t waste much time thinking about it mainly because I have my own life to work on. I don’t have time to worry about what wrongs they are or are not doing.
Anonymous at 17:50: You said, “Yet said marrieds would never divorce their spouses and live alone forever if the tables were turned.”
Yet again, this boils down to the distinction that homosexual acts are sinful under all circumstances and heterosexual acts are sinful only outside of marriage. That’s why the tables won’t be turned.
If you believe that is a hateful and oppressive teaching, then you have the freedom to reject the Prophet as a hateful oppressor and follow your own belief.
I hope you won’t. I hope you will instead seek to gain a testimony that the teaching is true.
I’m new to this discussion, but I think it’s been very interesting. I hadn’t thought about some of these complex issues before.
For instance, having a testimony that this Church is the only way by which one can gain salvation and exaltation should mean that I should introduce and teach the gospel to all I come in contact with. I try to do this in word and deed.
However, when it comes to my gay friends, I have been less forthcoming with sharing the gospel because I know they would not be looked on favorably by the Church because of their desires to have families together, build lives with their partners, etc. I can’t understand those who say they have gay friends but don’t ever think about their lives. Friends are involved in each other’s lives and welfare.
This thread has helped me to look critically at the Church and I don’t like what I see. I think the Church says that as long as someone is gay, they’re expected to be alone their whole lives (as a punishment? For what? Why is it their fault they cannot have adult companionship?). I think they are wrong and I pray for a change just as much as I prayed for a pre-1978 change which came.
charmayne,
It was known (prior to 1978) that at some point in time the priesthood would be made available to those of african descent. There has never been that kind of understanding regarding practiced homosexuality being accepted as a viable life style.
Jack
That depends who you talk to, Jack.
For example, Bruce R. McConkie taught “negroes in this life are denied the priesthood”.
Brigham Young taught “that curse will remain upon them, and they can never hold the priesthood”.
Kim,
Generally speaking though, amidst the brawling mass of opinions there was a substancial contingent who believed that the blacks would receive the priesthood at some point in the future–whether in this life or the next. In fact, it’s my understanding that even BRM adopted that idea at some point along the way–though I’m not exactly sure where/when he voiced that opinion.
Jack
Charmayne: You’re praying for the prohibition against homosexual acts to be lifted. Do you believe the Lord is going to tell us that homosexual acts are no longer sinful? I know he’s given certain commandments that are only for a certain time, such as the kosher rules or the Word of WIsdom or the restriction on the Priesthood. But I have a hard time thinking that the prohibition against homosexual activity is one of those. I think of it as belonging in the category of sins that have been forbidden in all dispensations throughout time.
“I think of it as belonging in the category of sins that have been forbidden in all dispensations throughout time.”
How so? I wasn’t aware that the bible, for example, contains a declaration forbidding homosexuality, let alone one in each dispensation. Do you know of a biblical passage that condemns homosexuality? The Law of Moses doesn’t count.
Hey Kim, I just noticed the quote you provided from Brigham Young about blacks never being able to get the priesthood. What was the context surrounding that quote? Was he really saying never ever in eternity or that it just wouldn’t happen in this world?
Here’s the entire quote:
“You are some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessing of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to the line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants;’ and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion” (Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 290–91).
Kim: I just look at “homosexuality” in my Topical Guide and find several references in the New Testament that are just as condemning as the Old Testament.
Wasn’t the Topical Guide written/edited by the same person who wrote Mormon Doctrine? So many modern LDS discount the latter but not the former. It’s all in the interpretation, folks. There are no scriptures directly condemning homosexuality.
lbutgraf: I agree. Those New Testament scriptures are just as condemning as the Old Testament scripture, especially considering none of those Old Testament scriptures actually condemn homosexuality.
Thanks for the quote Kim. It sounds familiar, I think I have heard it before. Indeed it’s quite appalling in many ways! But I do remember correctly that it was always maintained that at some point every worthy human man, regardless of race, would someday hold the priesthood, either in this life or the next and be as eligible for exaltation as any other race.
Clearly God allowed Brigham’s speculation to go only so far. I think God’s priority is to keep any interference with freeagency to a minimum while still ensuring that the important basic message of salvation and exaltation get’s accross to anybody who is humble enough to listen to the spirit, despite the obstacles that could justifiably make a person feel indignant. I think this accounts for the many blacks who did join the church pre 1978 (or post 1978 for that matter) despite Brigham’s unfortunate discourse on this subject.
Kim: When I read President Young saying, “They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion,” I think he’s saying that they WILL eventually receive the Priesthood, not that they will never receive it.
Many years ago I was in Sunday School Gospel Doctrine class and the teacher had gotten exasperated with me and all my “why” questions to the point that he said you do not need to know the whys of every little thing.. be it sufficient for you to just know you have been commanded to do these things and the Prophets say so (or in similar words).
I replied well when I get to the Celestial Kingdom I am taking with me this long list of questions that I want answers for that no one will give me here.. and the teacher said oh no you will be so happy to be there all other thoughts of questions will leave your mind. My husband looks at him and flatly says you obviously don’t know Sally very well if you think she is going to stop wanting to know the why’s of everything just cause she is there.
After finally finishing reading this thread I have to chuckle to myself as I think of Kim pushing me out of the way to ask God about all the things he questions :)
I think Gordon B. Hinckley is a prime example of someone who is pro-family without being anti-gay.
Pro-family: His mission as President of the Church is to bring about the organization and preservation of families, for eternity. He advocates family home evening, parental responsibility, etc. etc.
Not anti-gay: He has explicitly stated that those identified as gays and lesbians are welcome in the Church, and that they are expected to live by the same commandments as everyone else.
I’ve heard plently of lip-service in regard to not being anti-gay by members but I have yet to see anyone who looks at a non-practising gay man and a single woman in her 40s in the same light.
Doctrinally they both are somewhat ‘off the path’ but there’s significant stigma attached to the gay man and not nearly the same level of disapproval, marginalization and scorn for the single woman.
This is just the tip of the iceberg on this topic though…
I personally think you can be pro-family without being anti-gay — but I don’t know how you define either one of those terms. I’m sure my definition is different than yours…or maybe not.
Ok, maybe I am missing something here, but I don’t see where President Hinckley is in control of hospitals?
I think someone can be pro-family without being anti gay. And the Church is not anti-gay. I knew people who were (probably still are) gay, who attended church and were able to participate as long as they didn’t participate in homosexual behaviour. Which would be the same for heterosexual individuals. And is. You can disagree with someone’s choices and still love them.
I don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I respect an individual’s right to choose whatever lifestyle whether gay or not, since we all have freedom to choose. I am just thankful I don’t have to stand in judgement of anyone at the last day.
I think he was referring to the context of the article where President Hinckley said, “we were actively involved [in proposition 22]”.
Proposition 22 was the ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in California which would consequently keep it lawful for hospitals to refuse same-sex partners the right to see each other because they are not family.
My feeling is that supporting proposition 22 is/was “anti-gay”. Repositioning oneself as “pro-family” seems merely a feat of word wrangling for the sake of political correctness.
I believe the church has a hard job of trying to balance both the traditional values which it treasures meanwhile still trying to be welcoming to people whom have a sexual preference that is at odds with “The Plan of Salvation”.
The spectrum between fully loving (embracing/accepting) same sex relationships to committing hate crimes on them has plenty of grey area.
My feeling is that the church floats somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.
But I have to ask, at what point in the grey does an organisation find itself actually in the black? It might not have to go very far to be considered “anti-gay”.
I realize this thread ended last year(!), but I would still like to add my thoughts:
If you allow for the possibility of fallibility in such strong pronouncements against gays, what is the difference in the mormon doctrine of eternal life between till-death marriage of a heterosexual couple where one person is non-mormon and will not accept the gospel, vs. a marriage between homosexuals. What if this “gay marriage is a sin” doctrine were not a revelation from God? Then shouldn’t gay marriages for time be treated the same as inter-religious marriages?
I think so. There certainly is no biblical basis for not recognising them.
What I am going to say here is very personal but I hope it will help someone. If you have read my other posts you know that I was a abuse victim. I was molested when I was 8 and again when I was 9. I was physically abused for many years. I would got to school black and blue from beatings. I spent most of my life trying to repent, but not fully being able to get the thoughts and temptations out of my mind. I started masterbating when I was 9. I have been fighting temptations about sex ever since then.( I am over 45 now) I have been through a yoyo of repentance and sin. Each time was sincere. Each time I really wanted to stop. It wasn’t until I put Christ at the head of my life and really put my life in his hands that I was able to really lose the past. Being tempted to sin is not a sin. Christ was tempted, yet he gave no heed unto it. We can, if we endure and are faithfull, feel peace in our hearts no matter what sin we are guilty of.
Christ Suffered in gethsemane for all of our sins. Anyone who continues to commit the same sin might have underlying issues to deal with. I am noo one to judge them or anyone else. My reasons here are simple; We can all feel peace in our hearts and happiness in our lives.
It’s important to put our questions in the right order, I would suggest. First things first. Do we have a genuine prophet at the head of the Church who speaks the mind of God? If yes – then when he speaks in that capacity he speaks the truth (regardless of how we or the rest of society thinks about it). If no – then I suppose a person shouldn’t be too concerned with any particular thing he says.
This doesn’t dodge the question – it places it in the proper context. If you really believe President Hinckley is a real prophet – then there is no argument. If an argument persists, then it seems to me that a person hasn’t fully accepted that he is a bona-fide prophet.
What about Brigham Young and the blacks? Brigham Young spoke his own mind (not in the capacity of prophet) on many occasions. Likewise President Hinckley. But the question of the gay-life style is clearly not one of those occasions.
The question then becomes not one of whether the Church should be accepting of the gay-life style, but whether President Hinckley is indeed a prophet of God. That’s how I must settle the question – without that, I don’t know how to settle this one.