Today’s Deseret News has an interesting story about Soulforce, a gay rights activist group that had plans to visit, and likely protest on Temple Square in Salt Lake City, UT.
The Church, has apparently asked that the Soulforce members stay away from Temple Square and other Church property in Salt Lake City:
Soulforce Equality Riders planned to visit Temple Square and volunteer at the LDS Church’s Welfare Square Cannery in Salt Lake City today before taking their message about gay and lesbian issues to Utah Valley State College on Wednesday and Brigham Young University on Thursday.
But officials with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have asked Soulforce not to enter Temple Square or the cannery or any other church-owned properties, a request Soulforce members equate to a ban.
Reaction by the Soulforce organization was as predictable as it was disingenuous:
“We are being told, beyond being barred from our schools, that we are barred from the very churches of our birth,” Equality Rider and former BYU student Matt Kulisch said in a statement issued by Soulforce.
He told the Deseret Morning News on Monday that he had been “extremely excited” about taking the other Equality Riders to Temple Square and volunteering at the cannery. He told the newspaper he was “very disappointed” by the church’s decision.
Why would the Church bar these indviduals from Temple Square, the cannery, and the “very churches of [their] birth?” Well, this isn’t the first encounter the Church has had with Soulforce. And, Soulforce isn’t really interested in taking the Temple Square Tour and volunteering to can cherries at the cannery.
Just over a year ago, this same Soulforce group, including some of the same individuals unlawfully disrupted and protested on the BYU Campus in Provo Utah, which eventually ended in the arrest of some of the Soulforce group. I previously blogged about these protests here and here.
As the Deseret News article pointed out, the Church expects Soulforce to stage political protests advocating for their “gay rights” political ideology:
LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the Equality Riders would be welcomed at Temple Square if they don’t demonstrate.
“Basically, everyone is welcome on Temple Square,” Trotter said. “We have millions who come here every year. The last thing we want to do is turn someone away.”
In this case, church officials chose to do so because they believe the members of the group will demonstrate. That belief is based, in large part, on the group’s actions last year at BYU, when the administration allowed the group on campus on the condition that they only engage in one-on-one conversations.
Five people were arrested when they began to speak to large groups. Another 24 were arrested the next day when they were told to stay off BYU property but instead staged a die-in on a campus corner.
“We don’t allow anybody to (demonstrate on Temple Square),” Trotter said. “If that’s the reason they’re coming, they’re not allowed to come. Given the group’s track record, we have reason to believe it was about advocacy and disruption.”
The church informed Soulforce via a letter signed by Brent Roberts, director of church headquarters facilities. The letter said “groups or persons with a history of demonstrating or protesting are asked not to enter Church properties.”
The letter pointed out that Equality Riders have been arrested at other schools this year. “In light of this, the Church asks that Soulforce members and others involved in its advocacy respect the Church’s rights and not enter Church property for any purpose. We hope that this request will be honored voluntarily without the need for enforcement.”
Given Soulforce’s well documented track record, I think the Church was entirely justified in asking them to stay away from Temple Square. A quick review of the Soulforce website confirms that the primary means of achieving their political objectives is to engage in civil disobedience that characterized their BYU trip last year.
Those who come to visit Temple Square, whether members of the Church or not, have every right not to have to confront gay activists on the Temple Grounds. Temple Square is not a public forum. It is private property, and the Church has every right to proscribe certain conduct by those invited to be on the grounds.
Of course, Soulforce has the opportunity to spread their message in other lawful and appropriate ways, as the News points out:
Kulisch said the Equality Riders, who arrived in Utah on Monday, will comply. The group plans to hike in Provo Canyon today and then give presentations tonight at a Salt Lake City church.
On Wednesday, Soulforce will give hour-long presentations from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at UVSC, with a break for lunch. Then three or four BYU or former BYU students will conduct a panel discussion at the Provo City Library at 7 p.m.
Thursday, the Equality Riders will march around the perimeter of the BYU campus from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in what they’re calling a “Walls of Jericho” activity, then hold a rally at Kiwanis Park, 820 N. 1100 East.
I think it completely appropriate that Soulforce give their presentations where they have been invited, or in traditional public forums such as Kiwanis Park, or at public libraries. It is equally appropriate that the Church ban them from Temple Square given their focus and history on disruption and illegal protest on private property. It will be interesting to see how these events will play out over the next few days in Salt Lake City and in Provo. My hope is that Soulforce will obey the rules, follow the law, and protest lawfully where they have been invited to do so. I further hope that they will be treated with respect, and that in turn they will respect the beliefs of others with opposing views.
A few of photos of last year’s protest at BYU where some in the Soulforce group were arrested for their unlawful protest at BYU (right click on some photos to view full size):
Update 3/21/07
WP stats show that those of you who stopped by helped propel this post into one of WordPress’ top posts of the day. Thanks for stopping by (Note double click to view full sized:
March 20, 2007 at 10:15 am
Such doublespeak by those in Soulforce shows the hypocrisy in their hidden agenda of political persuasion. They’re not out to enjoy the Church’s offerings, whether on temple square or the cannery—they’re out to make a political statement for “equality” and get a point across. I support the Church’s action and think that they did the right thing, both politically and socially.
March 20, 2007 at 10:37 am
I agree that the church is in the right. They are not infringing on soulforce’s 1st ammendment rights – these members are free to express themselves in public places. What they can and can’t do on Church property should rightfully be up to the church. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens this year, with their walk around campus.
They are probably trying to pattern their civil disobedience strategy off of Ghandi, MLK, or some other well respected civil rights leader, but I don’t get the sense of that at all, and not just because I disagree with them. Their protests feel more like an invasion of BYU from the outside, not a revolt from the inside. The vast majority of BYU students groan and roll their eyes when they hear about soulforce coming. With Ghandi and MLK, it was about the minority groups protesting in their own communities, not about invading another community to unlawfully impose their opinions. It’s the same way over and over again with the gay rights movement – they would like to see themselves as successors to the civil rights movement, but there are too many fundamental contradictions.
I hope that 100 years from now, the gay rights movement will be seen as a dead movement that burned very brightly for a short amount of time but had little to no lasting impact on society historically. I am frightened to think about how our society will be transformed if we accept [their] moral code. It is not a blueprint for peace or prosperity.
March 20, 2007 at 11:07 am
So the Mormon Church is having it’s own problems with the homosexual lobby. I didn’t know that.
March 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I hope that 100 years from now, the gay rights movement will be seen as a dead movement that burned very brightly for a short amount of time but had little to no lasting impact on society historically.
Whether or not it’ll be 100 years, this eventuality is certain. We learn this from a statement by the Prophet:
And we all know what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah…
March 20, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Connor,
The interesting thing about their wanting to go to Temple Square was their claim they wanted to learn more about the Mormons, like a Mormon 101 class type of thing. Certainly there is so much information out there via the Internet or other resources they would not need to make a trip to Temple Square just for that purpose. And, their ring leader is a former BYU student, returned missionary–so they have a pretty knowledgeable source right in their midst.
March 20, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Onelowerlight, you are in an enviable position, being a student at BYU now. I’d take that digital camera of yours and document their next “die in” as it were an post the photos to your blog. I’ll link to you as well if you get any.
Their website makes clear they try to position their cause similar to the cause of Ghandi and MLK of old; however, the causes are not remotely the same. And, as you point out they are coming to communities, uninvited to foment discord and dissension. I hope they have no success at all during their next visit. Let me know if you get any good photos!
March 20, 2007 at 6:51 pm
totalT: Yes, the LDS Church has been targeted by the so called Gay/Lesbian community for years. It will likely continue for the indefinite future, as I see no way the Church is about to change a fundamental moral doctrine to placate the politically correctness of the most popular causes of the day.
March 21, 2007 at 8:23 am
“I hope that 100 years from now, the gay rights movement will be seen as a dead movement that burned very brightly for a short amount of time but had little to no lasting impact on society historically. I am frightened to think about how our society will be transformed if we accept [their] moral code. It is not a blueprint for peace or prosperity.”
Dear onelowerlight,
It is not [their] moral code you need to worry about. Us gays only make up 5% to 10% of the population. It is the straight moral code that allows divorces of convenience, the sexualization of adolescents (mostly girls), sex outside of marriage, adultery, swinging, illegitmate children, irresponsible parenting, and the such that will eventually destroy our peace and prosperity. Stop making gays the scapegoats. You are hacking at one little branch instead of chopping at the root.
While I do agree that the church has every right to keep Soulforce off their property and while I do agree that the group is just in it for the publicity, Guy has a way of always directing his posts at the gays and lesbians instead of tackling the more substantial issues concerning the straight moral code. Maybe this hesitation comes because so many of our straight church members make allowances for their own failings by changing the subject to the horrible gays and lesbians. Wake up and smell the postum people! Societies are destroyed by immoral straight people – the gays are just and interesting little footnote. We make sure you dress well and have finely decorated homes as you sink into the abyss.
March 21, 2007 at 8:37 am
I certainly don’t approve of Soulforce, or the Eagle Forum, or any other group entering onto private property when directed otherwise. It’s called trespassing. The LDS church clearly has a right to control access to its privately-held properties.
That said, I’m dismayed by some of the comments here, which go well beyond the issue of potential trespassing by Soulforce demonstrators.
One person wrote:
“I hope that 100 years from now, the gay rights movement will be seen as a dead movement that burned very brightly for a short amount of time but had little to no lasting impact on society historically.”
The same writer suggests there are “contradictions” between earlier civil rights movements and current efforts to obtain equal rights for gays and lesbians. I’m not sure what those “contradictions” are supposed to be, other than that the writer concludes it’s “sinful” to be gay, therefore, gays and lesbians “deserve” to be denied equal rights before the law. Such an attitude would be odd, coming from one who claims to believe the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired.
Personally, I hope that in 100 years, children can hardly imagine what it must have been like to live in a world where someone would be treated badly because of their race, their religion, their age, their body shape, or who they loved.
March 21, 2007 at 8:50 am
Dear onelowerlight,
One more thing, while you are taking those pictures on campus that Guy recommends, make sure to balance it with pictures of all the NCMOs, Levi lovin’ and much too friendly back rubs you observe. And don’t forget to get a picture of those tennis rackets in the dorm room windows.
Sorry for the sarcasm, I just couldn’t resist.
March 21, 2007 at 8:54 am
“Yes, the LDS Church has been targeted by the so called Gay/Lesbian community for years. It will likely continue for the indefinite future, as I see no way the Church is about to change a fundamental moral doctrine to placate the politically correctness of the most popular causes of the day.”
My dearest Guy,
The Church already changed a fundamental moral doctrine to placate political correctness when it gave in on allowing divorce for reasons other than adultery. It also allows re-marriage when there has been adultery involved. The Saviour is very clear and specific in Matthew 19 about divorce being forbidden. It cannot be read in any other way.
March 21, 2007 at 8:55 am
Michael and Nick,
The substantive issue of this post was the potential and likely trespass of Soulforce onto Temple Square. I would have made a similar post for any other uninvited group which threatened to intrude on Church private property, particularly Temple Square.
I do not agree with the modern politically correct gay/lesbian rights movement. I don’t agree it is the same as the historic Civil Rights movement of the 50′s and 60′s.
That said, if you will look in my last paragraph I specifically stated that Soulforce should be treated with respect. Your comments highlighted a comment by onelowerlight on this thread, which quite frankly I did not pick up on earlier. I thank you for pointing it out. I have edited that comment slightly so that it would not appear so offensive. I do agree it was offensive as worded. Accordingly I did slightly edit your own comment in response, to reflect my edit of the prior comment.
I don’t mind a disagreement of opinion; but, I prefer to have the comments be respectful. I agree that onelowerlight’s original comment was not completely respectful.
Thank you for pointing it out to me.
Society is destroyed by immoral people period–not subdivided by gay or straight.
March 21, 2007 at 9:04 am
I know I am being much to sarcastic and disrespectful this morning. Maybe it is because it is Wednesday. I apologize. It just bothers me so much when people lump all gays and lesbians together into the same immoral conduct “soup” when many of us are trying to live moral lives based upon the gospel. No matter what we do, we are always classified as less than human while even the immoral straights are viewed more favorably or more justified than us.
I need to stop being so sensitive.
March 21, 2007 at 9:04 am
Michael,
The Church has not changed any fundamental moral doctrine. The Church does not divorce and then re-marry. People do that. Choices have consequences. If people make improper choices that result in divorce, there will at some future time and place still be a consequence.
March 21, 2007 at 9:11 am
Michael,
It is unfortunate you or anyone else feels you are classified as less than human. This should never be the case, for anyone: gay, straight, or any category in between. I think the Church teaches we need to be respectful and love all people regardless of our weaknesses. I don’t think any one particular group has a monopoly on righteous conduct in this life. To the contrary, we are all human, and all fall short of the Grace of Christ in our lives, which is why we need His Atonement.
Speaking for myself, I readily admit I am one of the weakest of those who are or who can be called saints.
March 21, 2007 at 9:53 am
Sometimes, our frame of reference affects our dialogue in unintended ways. Guy, I think your comment in #15 is one of these times.
Modern LDS teachings suggest that being gay is a “weakness,” or even a “defect.” The LDS church is, of course, free to hold and teach that opinion. Acceptance of this opinion, however, can readily color how a person interacts with gays and lesbians.
In #15 above, the word choice implies that being gay is a “weakness.” As an openly gay man, I don’t find my affinity for other men to be a “weakness,” anymore than a straight man’s attraction to women is a “weakness.” To the contrary, I have felt much stronger, even empowered (to use an overused word), by openly acknowledging my sexual orientation. It’s not some secret shame, or something I “just can’t resist.” It’s a part of me that I embrace, and from which I experience joy.
Please understand that I don’t think for a moment that Guy was trying to be insensitive. I think he was trying to do just the opposite, in fact. In order to be even more successful in this, I suggest that next time, he place a period after “love all people,” so the sentence accurately reads, “I think the Church teaches we need to be respectful and love all people.” After all, isn’t that the real message?
March 21, 2007 at 10:38 am
Amen Nick.
March 21, 2007 at 10:44 am
Nick,
Modern LDS teachings suggest that our daily inability to keep the commandments is a weakness, even a defect. My comment in #15 above implies nothing other than failure to keep the commandments is a weakness. And, in particular I made specifically in response to Michael’s reference to “straight” immorality. To pretend that human conduct, any human conduct, is somehow devoid of weakness is folly.
March 21, 2007 at 11:05 am
Guy,
Your response would make perfect sense if the nature of “the commandments” was universally agreed upon. There was a lengthy period of time in my life, when I would have agreed with you that diety “commanded” that I live as a “straight” person. I suffered no “inability” to act in accordance with that belief, as evidenced by eighteen years of marital fidelity.
However, “finding there was greater happiness, and peace and rest for me,” I made an affirmative decision to change my life. I had reached a point, through personal experience, where I no longer believed that the same deity who created me as a gay man (a biological issue that even the LDS church no longer rules out), had not, in fact, “commanded” me to lie about who I was, hide my innermost feelings, and deceive others into believing I was “straight.” I chose to live in accordance with my creation, rather than in conformity with “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.”
My weaknesses are many and varied, Guy, but the fact that I am a gay man is not one of them. If the LDS church is correct, and I am living in violation of the commandments of deity, then I am not demonstrating “weakness,” but rather something more like “defiance.” There is a substantial difference between the two, and one that I am quite willing to accept, based on my own experience.
I would not wish to use a condescending tone with you, Guy, by describing your unwillingness to accept homosexuality as a natural part of deity’s creation as a “weakness.” If I did so, I would immediately make you defensive, and that would cut off meaningful, respectful dialogue. I hope you can feel the same way.
March 21, 2007 at 11:23 am
Nick,
You were able to marry a woman???!! I could not bring myself to do that. I don’t know that I would be able to be with her.
March 21, 2007 at 11:31 am
It seems we’re getting a bit far afield now from the content of my original post, which was about Soulforce’s plans to visit Temple Square, uninvited. I appreciate that there are many and varied opinions on the gay lifestyle. And, if I do a future post on the merits or lack of merit to such a lifestyle, perhaps we can have more of the type of debate this thread has now taken. But, I’d really rather stay away from that debate here, at least on this thread.
Thanks!
March 21, 2007 at 11:47 am
Michael,
I made a decision at the “mature” age of 21, based on incomplete and largely inaccurate information. I sincerely wished at the time to do what I then believed deity required of me. People can do remarkable things under such a delusion. As I matured, and came to know myself better (which according to Joseph Smith is the only way to know God), I found I could not carry on the charade.
March 21, 2007 at 11:53 am
Guy,
I don’t think we disagree that private property rights should be respected, even when one acts in the name of civil disobedience. At the same time, I encourage Soulforce to carry out their planned perimeter march, presumably on public sidewalks or streets surrounding the campus.
When I was active LDS and living in Nauvoo, I was asked (as the only lawyer in town) if there wasn’t some way to put a stop to anti-LDS protesters on the sidewalk. The inquirer felt strongly that these people were doing something wrong and offensive. I smiled, and told her I thought the protest was a beautiful thing, because it proved our Constitution still worked.
Somehow, I don’t think she understood my point.
March 21, 2007 at 11:55 am
I can’t believe that Soulforce was really going to try the cannery routine. Like people were really going to fall for that one.
And I think the guy might be a bit melodramatic with that “church of our birth” stuff.
March 21, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Nick,
As long as Soulforce has pulled the proper permits to do their perimeter march, remains peaceful, and obeys the law, I have no problem with them exercising their First Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Given their track record last year at BYU, and what their website reflects as their “civil disobedience” tactics, I’m not overly optimistic. We’ll see how it plays out.
As for your Nauvoo experience, perhaps you should have reminded the good sister that the last time the Saints tried to stop anti-Mormon sentiment in Nauvoo, it didn’t end up exactly how folks had planned.
March 21, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Do we know what Soulforce is actually trying to accomplish? Do they want permission for breaking the law of chastity or do they just want the Church to tell them its OK to be gay? What are they specifically seeking at all these religious universities?
March 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“As for your Nauvoo experience, perhaps you should have reminded the good sister that the last time the Saints tried to stop anti-Mormon sentiment in Nauvoo, it didn’t end up exactly how folks had planned.”
Ha! Well said!!
Re #26
I think Michael raises a valid question. I think it’s wrong for “outsiders” to try to push a change in LDS doctrine. On the other hand, I think it’s entirely appropriate for an outside group to protest against the LDS church’s anti-gay political activism. These are two very different issues, in my mind.
March 21, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Congrats on making the front page- too bad it wasn’t with a happier topic.
March 21, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I have had several close friends and quite a few not so close friends come out–just in the past year. Most are LDS–have served missions, a few were married in the temple and I have a lot of sympathy towards them. Some have left the church, some have not I can’t even imagine how it is to go through that struggle. Its something I don’t judge–I figure there’s enough people out there doing that. All I can do is offer a hand of friendship.
As far as the gay community goes–when a gay man or woman is beaten thats tragic. I do think gay individuals should be allowed to their partner’s benefits-power of attorney etc. but I’m not sure if I’ll go the distance and say I’m for gay marriage. And yes Guy, I know very much so where the church stands on this.
That being said, I don’t agree it is the same as the historic Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s either.
As far as Soulforce goes–a nonissue in my world. I don’t think there’s that many LDS people who don’t know about their cause. We aren’t that ignorant. If they want to protest lawfully–go for it! I live in DC, you should see what the city does to “help” people protest peacefully. Of course, they are the nation’s capital–but its pretty neat what they do.
March 21, 2007 at 5:34 pm
totalT
Yeah, I agree. I wish the topic would have been my dutch oven post. I much more enjoy them than I do politics. But, I’m not one to remain silent on the political if I think there is something to say.
March 21, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Sherpa,
The world would be better if all of us judged less and offered more hands in friendship.
In CA at least, we have laws that allow “registered” domestic partners to have essentially all the legal rights of married couples, with just a few exceptions–federal tax laws aren’t covered of course.
I was quite certain that you knew the Church’s stand on gay marriage, as well as R rated movies for that matter
Probably most LDS folks who are in Utah know of Soulforce, and those like you who are Internet savvy know of them and their agenda. I don’t know whether the same is true of most other LDS members.
Good to know that DC goes out of their way to assist people exercise their constitutional rights. I would find it fascinating to live and/or work there. I know from your own blog, you run into the famous and powerful all the time!
March 25, 2007 at 7:29 pm
These guys get too much news coverage as it is. If we ignore them, won’t they just go away?
I hate the idea of arresting people who stage tantrums on church property. It just validates their infantile approach to problem solving.
On the other hand, if they’re breaking the law, they certainly don’t deserve special consideration.
I sympathize equally with any who suffer from compulsive disorders that lead them into immoral and anti-social behavior. But I don’t feel any need to reorganize my moral and ethical values to accommodate such deviance. If they wanted to be included with the saints of God, they must enter at the door, subject to the same requirements as all others.
March 25, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Guy:
In 1979, under public pressure from blacks, the church changed its doctrine to permit blacks to hold the priesthood.
Is that not considered a major doctrinal change?
Joe Watts
March 25, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Jim,
Well stated. I agree that we should not give them more publicity. I decided not to do a separate post about their BYU escapades last week for that very reason. I agree 100% with your comment here.
March 25, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Joe Watts,
Of course you must know I am well aware of what occurred on June 8, 1978, and why. The way you frame your question leads me to believe you have pretty well made up your mind what you think it was that happened, and why. Nevertheless, let me respond this way:
The extension of the Priesthood to all worthy males was not considered a major doctrinal change. During his tenure as Prophet and President David O. McKay dealt a great deal with this issue. He also confirmed on more than one occasion that the withholding of the Priesthood was a practice, not a doctrine.
I will admit that some in the Church then, and possibly some now may have believed and believe it was the opposite; but, again, it was a practice not a doctrine. What was change was that practice, not a doctrine. See the recent David O. McKay biography by Wright and Prince
March 26, 2007 at 4:21 am
Guy,
OK, a major practice was changed. We don’t need to squibble over words.
It was the policy, or practice, of the LDS Church to porhibit blacks from the holding the priesthood for nearly a century.
This very major policy of the LDS was changed under pressure from blacks.
There have also been changes from time to time in policies of excommunication.
Is excommunication a policy or a doctrine? Or does it even matter, since the church is run prophecy?
Joe
March 26, 2007 at 4:28 am
Joe,
To be honest with you I haven’t given the matter much thought. And, I’m not really concerned with it. But, thanks for asking.
March 26, 2007 at 8:00 am
In CA at least, we have laws that allow “registered” domestic partners to have essentially all the legal rights of married couples, with just a few exceptions–federal tax laws aren’t covered of course.
Neither would the benefits given to Federal Employees…
Yeah, there’s some states who have those benefits, but there’s still quite a few who don’t have those laws….and in the past couple of years, I know when Utah passed their “gay marriage ban” the verbage was such that the common law marriage laws were struck down.
As far as policy/practice v. doctrine–the doctrine on gay marriage etc is very different than the history of giving blacks the priesthood. Joe, if you understood the history of giving blacks the priesthood you’d see that the two are very different, incomparable, subjects.
March 26, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Congrats Guy, on becoming a gay/lesbian dating service.
June 28, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Well, I suppose this discussion has kind of died down by now–I really wish I had checked up with it regularly! However, even though it’s coming a little late, I would like to make a few comments in my defense:
8–Not to be disrespectful, but isn’t your argument fallacious? If I understand it right, you’re saying “the gay moral code is not bad because most of the bad things in society are committed by straight people.” That’s a red herring. Yes, there is a lot of immorality that’s committed by straight people, but that has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality.
9–There are many things that seem to make the gay rights movement fundamentally different from the civil rights movement. One of the basic ones is the element of choice involved in living a homosexual lifestyle. You can’t choose to be black or whether or not you’ll show people that you’re black, but you can choose who you get involved with in a relationship and how you display your affection publicly. Other differences involve the tactics. The gay rights movement seems to be aimed at redefining our collective sense of morality in order to cast their opponents as immoral, but the civil rights movement was more aimed at obtaining justice and fair treatment for their people. It’s not enough for the gay rights movement that they are treated fairly, they want to restructure society’s fundamental sense of morality. That’s the impression that I get.
10–Not sure I know what you mean by “levi lovin” and “back rubs,” but I think I’d rather discuss things thoughtfully and respectfully, both here and on my personal blogs. If you feel that I haven’t done so, I apologize and I’ll try to do better in the future.
October 13, 2007 at 8:46 am
There has been mismanagement of God by all religion, that includes LDS Church. At the end of the day, we are all His creation but we have perceived Him to think certain way. God made us gay and straight. He made His choice to have all type of people. Just like black, white or yellow. I do see the LDS and other religion will come to one point to accept all people. Time will tell just like a few thousands years ago.
November 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“I hope that 100 years from now, the gay rights movement will be seen as a dead movement that burned very brightly for a short amount of time but had little to no lasting impact on society historically.”
I hope this too . And it will happen when the LDS church realizes that God loves gays just the same because He made them and stops sending millions of dollars to fight bans on *civil* marriages of gay couples. That day, gay marriage, gay church members and all the rest will go unnoticed because nobody will point them out for exclusion. I pray that day arrives.
November 8, 2008 at 12:17 am
This is my opinion for what it’s worth:
God loves all of his children, no matter who they are or what they do. Anybody who knows anything about the LDS church knows this.
The church did not act so aggressively toward gay marriage until they found that gay couples were suing Christian churches for not officiating in marriages for them. The churches were also banned from practicing their religions any longer.
I thought we had freedom of religion? Maybe if the gays (who sued the churches, I know not all gays do this) didn’t use the law to bully religion (by the way, get a hobby), the church wouldn’t have had a good enough reason to stop gay marriages.
Our forefathers came to America so they could worship freely. It is a constitutional right… is this what the prophecy is talking about? Supposedly in the last days, the Constitution will hang by a thread.
November 10, 2008 at 7:37 pm
You people are crazy NUTJOBS. Seriously. I hope the gays burn all your churches down.
December 7, 2008 at 10:07 pm
that is not very nice to say.my cousin is gay and i still love him the same. im mormon and im really nice. i think everyone should find something better to do with their time then argue about this. really find a hobby and grow up. only god can judge you so let it go