LDS Church issues statement of support for LGBTQ concert event

[Alaris]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... event.html


The LDS Church has come out with a statement in support of an LGBT concert to be held in Orem:

“We applaud the LoveLoud Festival for LGBTQ Youth’s aim to bring people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God’s children,” says a statement released by the LDS Church. “We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe."

The statement continued: “We share common beliefs, among them the pricelessness of our youth and the value of families. We earnestly hope this festival and other related efforts can build respectful communication, better understanding and civility as we all learn from each other.”

"...the event that will also feature words of support from NFL Hall of Famer and former BYU quarterback Steve Young and “Dancing With The Stars” judge Julianne Hough"... "Tom Christofferson, brother of Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the LDS Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, will also speak at the event. Alex Boye, a singer and former member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, will emcee the event."

What are your thoughts? Should the LDS Church endorse the concert? Should they stay out of it? Are they just trying to get back on the good side of the LGBT community by playing politics? Are they shaking hands with the world? Is this even news worthy?

How close is the Cleansing of America? Closer than any of us in this hemisphere can comprehend...

This is why the time of the gentiles is coming to an end. The gay agenda will never stop until you are forced not only into acceptance of every aspect but forced into participation.

The church's statement could be reflective of a final olive branch or the final olive branches; however, we MUST not only love but teach that wickedness never was nor will ever be happiness.

[larsenb]

Why would a world wide church choose to issue a statement like this? I've sat with youth who have bawled there eyes out because they have been conditioned to think that they are sinners simply because they are attracted to people of the same gender. Parents and leaders explaining to them that it is just a phase and will pass. It was also one of the most spiritual experiences of my life to watch the burden lifted when they realized that it is okay to be attracted to people of the same gender as long as you don't entertain anything that would violate the law of chastity. Having listened to quite a few youth in this scenario my thought is there seems to be a great mis-understanding with LGBTW individuals and the church is attempting to help pave the way for Gay members to remain active, loved, and worthy, and those who are not members to recognize that we would gladly welcome them in our church but will love them regardless of whether they join.

I know a couple women in our ward who say they are bisexual, meaning attracted to men and women. They don't make a big issue of it, and they are wonderful, faithful, and keep their temple covenants. I love them like they're my own daughters.

But how much sympathy would we be giving if this was a pedophile support event? Would the church issue a statement saying we should love and accept them, too? Is it OK to be sexually attracted to children, as long as you don't act on it? Should people be parading that deviancy in public, too? Why single out homosexuality?

And would it be equally accurate to describe a person as an adulterer if they are attracted to a person other than their spouse, even if they don't act on it? Is that also OK? Should they also be openly sharing their temptations?

Honestly, I have a lot of unanswered questions on this subject. But I can't help but feel like all this outpouring of sympathy for one group of people is directly due to the massive, decades-long, all-fronts indoctrination campaign by the leftist gay lobby. And a generous dose of fear of being ostracized from the community if you don't get on board.

I've read studies that indicated a goodly proportion of those who identify as gays were recruited by older men at a time when those being recruited were young adolescents and most vulnerable to sexual suggestions and advances. I.e., they were entrained by older men and perhaps much older but still adolescent young men, AKA chicken hawks . . . . first sexually, then emotionally. It becomes an easy source for such things . . . an addiction.

This is legally called pedophilia. A lot of this is going on among gays.

[passionflower]

The church is simply applauding the attempt of this concert to help keep vulnerable teens from committing suicide. That's all. On the website there is something about strengthening families, and I don't know what was meant by that, but the church was supportive of that, too.

This should not be surprising, of course the church would come out and support this.

But I would also not be surprised if this concert itself ends up supporting gay relationships, sex and marraige. Steve Youngs' wife strongly came out against the churches stand on Prop 8, as they were living in California at the time. I mean she really fought it. And she is one of those behind this concert.

If I was gay myself, and wanted support in living a moral and straight life, I probably wouldn't go to this concert.

[larsenb]

On the other side of the coin, over the years I have known many of such preference. There is a militant arm in some small degree but for the most part in certain respects they are some of the nicest people I have known. I sorrow for the choices they make that will ultimately condemn them but a sinner is a sinner is a sinner and sadly, I be one too.

I didn't witness it. I saw sections of a video recording it.

Not sure where you are going with: "your response and experience is not the one I am observing in a joint Sunday meeting of adult LDS". Clarity check.

Regardless of whether anyone does or does not go looking for such things, are you OK w/what is depicted in this video happening on the streets of Utah cities and guarded and protected by Utah police . . . . as long as you don't see it happening? Is there no categorical imperative regarding such, in operation with you? Hmm . . . . who would have thought.

And your "militant arm in some small degree" is also quite astonishing. Certainly you've been aware of how this 'militant arm' is upending centuries old societal norms, and has accelerated enormously in just the last 20 years.

Knowing 'nice gays' is nice. But it's also true that they probably wanted to be a lot nicer to you than you realized.

The challenge I think for all of us is that we are speaking in stereotypical fashion about what for each of us must become an individual response. Sure your groups are out there and it is ignorant to not recognize them for their intent to do harm. However, the individuals I have known over my lifetime do not warrant the response of a stereotype but I treated them according to their individual natures.

What you speak to has over my lifetime become more apparent that more and more of them are being conditioned with a manipulated message and are increasing in numbers of the militant varieties. However, for me at the current level of intersection in my life with those of this persuasion I must maintain my inclination to evaluate them as individuals and manage all the charity I can muster. Nonetheless, I espouse no degree of rolling over ( a dangerous move to say the least) and capitulating to excessive or unprincipled demands and expectations.

My experience set is undoubtedly quite a bit different than yours, brlenox. I lived in SF for a few years and have been a virtual denizen of same for even more years. Polk Gulch or Noe Valley were not forbidden territory for me. I used to pass through the former on a daily basis and go to favorite restaurants there repeatedly, and had a girl friend in the latter, for instance.

Of course you evaluate individuals you meet as individuals. Doesn't mean you aren't somewhat wary based on real, pervasive and occasionally awful or at least somewhat disturbing experiences you may have had w/this group of people.

[h_p]

I think is important to remember it is a sin to be a pedophile, it is not a sin to have same gender attraction.

But is it a sin to be sexually attracted to children? The church is using the term "gay" to mean same gender attraction, meaning that you can call yourself gay, even though you're not sexually active. Couldn't, and shouldn't, the same logic be applied to pedophiles? I'm no expert on the psychology of sexual deviancy, but I would imagine there are people who by nature prefer little girls over adult women. At what point are they considered a pedophile?

I suppose this is what bothers me so much about how close the church is getting to this line. They may use the term "gay" to include ones who are staying chaste, but as far as the general public is concerned, abstinence isn't even in their vocabulary. So when the church makes such a big deal about what is essentially a fundraiser for GLAAD, I can't help but wonder where they draw the line. I hope this was just a matter of them not being aware of where the money is headed, rather than some liberals in the PR dept. saying "hey, this is a chance to show we're just like everybody else!"

[h_p]

But I would also not be surprised if this concert itself ends up supporting gay relationships, sex and marraige.

If the proceeds are going to GLAAD like they said, then it most certainly is. GLAAD is diametrically opposed to the church on homosexuality.

[gardener4life]

I want to urge caution on this article. I think it's false. The event may be real. And that some members are supporting it are real. But I think this is one of those times where I'd made examples on other posts of NOT clearly lining out the difference between church members saying something, and church leadership saying something. They also may decide that who is popular is real leadership. This is exactly what's happening here.

The choices of the prominent and popular mormons showing up I think is also a clear indication that they are trying to mix signals on who is 'leadership' even. Steve Young kind of is a leader...but I don't think he's one of the 12, last I checked.

The article really is purposely unclear about who the authority was of where the 'sponsorship' is claimed from. It doesn't state any stake, area authority, or where it plugged into the chain; except maybe reserving stadiums with city parks and recreation or whatever I don't think that happened... And if you read it to look for this you can't clearly see it there. It's an aggressive article, that is misleading on purpose. There was money that changed hands to sponsor this event in the paper and to try to embellish a bit. It does over-claim a bit on said church leadership sponsorage. Its more like some LGBTQ group did some arm twisting and currency movement under the table. And if you wait a few days I'm sure this will come out.

Evil is still evil yesterday, and will still have the same definition today. We don't just change our view of right and wrong according to days of the week. It is trying to confuse you and lead you astray.

Also regarding a certain someone's brother, that is not the same thing as sponsorship by that person. I have relatives who are purely celestial and I also have a certain relative that is the closest thing to outer darkness that I've ever met in my life. If I was called to a calling it is very possible he'd try to sell that for his own gain; so we can't assume that this other Christoffersen has anything to do with leadership.

And let me quote for you;

The spirit doesn't go in places of evil and darkness.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 1?lang=eng

(Also when you read this its very similar to what's happening now. Someone claimed something was happening when it wasn't.)

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. …

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)


Now in above the distinction between them giving up something that was of God to satisfy the laws of the land was only to avoid persecution and mobbery to start again. I don't yet know if that's come to it or not but I urge you to pray for the truth to be revealed and wait for more information on this before you reach any conclusions. We don't know enough, and it's clear that we can't have two masters. We haven't really seen a credible source for endorsement of this event as I said. It's very likely the endorsement was actually members who are gay, and not any real leadership.

Now if this had been a real event for poor and helping homeless then it would be an interfaith service project, NOT a concert of Babylon and entertainment. Wait a few days and prayerfully ask the Lord to make this less confusing for you, and so that other young people won't be confused.

Finally but no less important I would point out that the writer Morgan Jones has done a lot of concert promoting in Desert News in the past. This means trying to help sell the idea of the concert being accepted by the public, whether or not that's really the case. And in fact, in July 12, 2017 she did an article claiming that women are entitled to be prophets. She doesn't use my wording on it, but still... So you can't believe hardly anything you read in the news lately it seems.

[Sunain]

I want to urge caution on this article. I think it's false. The event may be real. And that some members are supporting it are real. But I think this is one of those times where I'd made examples on other posts of NOT clearly lining out the difference between church members saying something, and church leadership saying something. They also may decide that who is popular is real leadership. This is exactly what's happening here.

Almost always the Deseret News (Church owned) gets their press release responses from the Church Headquarters PR department. But as you said, the exact source does seem to elude the article. Being on the Deseret News means all the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency have seen this. There would have been a retraction if they didn't agree to the articles posting.

[Elizabeth]

It would be best to more widely and consistently emphasise and acknowledge that the actual reason for sexual attraction is to multiply and replenish the earth, instead of teaching pleasure as the reason. Perhaps then there would not be this idiotic confusion.

[gardener4life]

I want to urge caution on this article. I think it's false. The event may be real. And that some members are supporting it are real. But I think this is one of those times where I'd made examples on other posts of NOT clearly lining out the difference between church members saying something, and church leadership saying something. They also may decide that who is popular is real leadership. This is exactly what's happening here.

Almost always the Deseret News (Church owned) gets their press release responses from the Church Headquarters PR department. But as you said, the exact source does seem to elude the article. Being on the Deseret News means all the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency have seen this. There would have been a retraction if they didn't agree to the articles posting.

The Deseret News has misquoted things and made mistakes in the past. You can't agree that they are universally ALWAYS correct unless someone makes a big scene. But thanks for being lively and commenting.

[passionflower]

It would be best to more widely and consistently emphasise and acknowledge that the actual reason for sexual attraction is to multiply and replenish the earth, instead of teaching pleasure as the reason. Perhaps then there would not be this idiotic confusion.

And the idea that women are for men, and men are for women, and "they got married and lived happily ever after" once again taught as the apex of their lives.

[Yahtzee]

I read the Deseret News article this morning and wouldn't care, except I read that Billboard interview with the Imagine Dragons guy where he said, http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/ ... -interview

One of those ways is that Mormons believe the doctrine is if you are gay and acting upon it, that is sinful. That is a very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to preach and to teach our children. To be gay is beautiful and right and perfect; to tell someone they need to change their inner-most being is setting up someone for an unhealthy life and unhealthy foundation....
...So I got together with progressive activists Steve and Barb Young in the Mormon community to put on Love Loud on Aug. 26 for all orthodox religions that teach children it’s sinful to be LGBTQ and that It’s hurting our youth."

Now, in the DN article he says he regrets saying the bigotry stuff, and that's fine. But they want us to stop teaching our youth that it's not perfectly fine to act out of they're gay???
Well heck, if I'm a horny teen obsessed with thoughts of sex, am I going to be straight and celibate or gay and sexually active? Duh!
So the church statement threw me for a loop with that. you can read it here http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article ... -festival I think DN made it into more than it is.
But I have an lgbt niece who was not raised with any concept of religion. I love her. And I worry for her. She won't kill herself because she thinks she's sinning, she has no concept of God. But the teasing and the loneliness are real threats to her. When I read the church statement, I felt like they were showing love to kids like my niece. I am fine with that.
But now I'm also nervous for the future of the church and need to seek confirmation from the spirit.

[Robin Hood]

I think statements like the one the church has just released are simply designed to indulge the church in procrastination. It will eventually have to come down off of the fence and roundly condemn homosexuality as the deep evil and wickedness it is. It will be forced to call a spade a spade, and consequently lose it's tax exemption and undergo various levels of official and public persecution.
I can't see this happening at present, with the current 15 leading brethren stuffed full of lawyers and various businessmen who have spent a lifetime courting compromise and pointing the other way.
As Hugh Nibley once wrote: "From leaders to managers, the fatal shift".

[Seek the Truth]

I have no problem with what the leaders are doing. In Christianity there is a split between accepting the person out from the behavior. I think they have done fantastic in this regard. It's just every time the issue comes up we get closer to the chopping bloc. Nothing that we are doing is changing that course, and I mean we as in the US population. They are carefully inch by inch getting us closer to the rail cars.

Now first world problems, and many have suffered that fate, I care not for myself but to me it's the principle of the thing. LGBTW is a trojan horse to making religion illegal.

[h_p]

What does the "W" in the LGBTW stand for? Wishing?

[bbsion]

I refuse to use the word "gay". I remember the original meaning before being stolen.

Homosexual, homo, perverted, same sex, are words I use if circumstances require a comment.

My mom's name is Gay. Back in the day it meant happy. I prefer to use the word "homosexual" but sometimes "gay" still slips. That is classic satan, taking things that mean well and then twisting it. Like the rainbow.

[bbsion]

...
“We applaud the LoveLoud Festival for LGBTQ Youth’s aim to bring people together to address teen safety…”

I don't have an issue with this. The mission statement that is at least posted is this: TREVOR PROJECT -The Trevor Project is the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) young people ages 13-24.
I am not judging if they are telling the truth on their intention but if it is true that's a good cause. If I had a gay kid or brother or sister of something in our religion I would assume the high potential for this issue. Then why not just donate to the Trevor Project?

“We share common beliefs, among them the pricelessness of our youth and the value of families. - Once again I know we believe this and if you have known any gay couples raising a kid I would say they feel the same way about their kids. Their idea of right and wrong is different but I think both care for those suffering mentally. Sure most of them care for those suffering mentally. Not arguing that... but if they do have a different idea of right and wrong then that is a huge red flag about their ideas of family I think.

I think this is just finding common ground. Yes we may actually understand the eternal ramifications but that doesn't mean they don't care about people. I never said they didn't.

“We earnestly hope this festival and other related efforts can build respectful communication, better understanding and civility as we all learn from each other.” - Better things, things worse things other things - I don't disagree, but this is what the church is promoting and the reason, going back to the Trevor Project, appears to be a good opportunity to show love and concern for those with same sex attraction - in fact I think it's a great opportunity. I think the wording is very well said and when you put it all together I think it makes sense. It does make political sense doesn't it?

I think this statement shows that we are still trying to save souls before it's too late. As this nation continues to rip apart the family we are running out of time before the calamities that we were warned about in the Family A Proclamation to the World come to fruition. Not judging you personally but the thought comes to mind. Who is worse off the one who is unwilling to help the sinner or the sinner. Now you're assuming...

There might be a misunderstanding here. I am not ostracizing or hating homosexuals because I do not support a homosexual concert. I shared my story because I thought that it showed you can still be friends with and be civil toward people who are homosexual because they are individuals. You do not have to endorse public LGBTQ events to get that point across. I don’t hate gay people. They are not all one person. They are individual people with attractions that are not condoned by God. I do have a problem with the church coming out with an official statement that essentially applauds a homosexual concert. If it’s not a homosexual concert then why don't they just remove “LGBTQ” from the title and stop talking about homosexual teens? Just say “this is a concert where we want all people to feel included and safe.” But they have to slap a label on the concert and send all of the proceeds to some charities I do not agree with. I already voiced my opinion on the Trevor Project.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people automatically have this urge to defend the church no matter what. When their urge should be to defend the truth no matter what. The church is a great vehicle to bring us the true, fullness of the Gospel. But, it’s prone to making mistakes. In my opinion, this is one of them.

[passionflower]

Why would a world wide church choose to issue a statement like this? I've sat with youth who have bawled there eyes out because they have been conditioned to think that they are sinners simply because they are attracted to people of the same gender. Parents and leaders explaining to them that it is just a phase and will pass. It was also one of the most spiritual experiences of my life to watch the burden lifted when they realized that it is okay to be attracted to people of the same gender as long as you don't entertain anything that would violate the law of chastity. Having listened to quite a few youth in this scenario my thought is there seems to be a great mis-understanding with LGBTW individuals and the church is attempting to help pave the way for Gay members to remain active, loved, and worthy, and those who are not members to recognize that we would gladly welcome them in our church but will love them regardless of whether they join.

I know a couple women in our ward who say they are bisexual, meaning attracted to men and women. They don't make a big issue of it, and they are wonderful, faithful, and keep their temple covenants. I love them like they're my own daughters.

But how much sympathy would we be giving if this was a pedophile support event? Would the church issue a statement saying we should love and accept them, too? Is it OK to be sexually attracted to children, as long as you don't act on it? Should people be parading that deviancy in public, too? Why single out homosexuality?

And would it be equally accurate to describe a person as an adulterer if they are attracted to a person other than their spouse, even if they don't act on it? Is that also OK? Should they also be openly sharing their temptations?

Honestly, I have a lot of unanswered questions on this subject. But I can't help but feel like all this outpouring of sympathy for one group of people is directly due to the massive, decades-long, all-fronts indoctrination campaign by the leftist gay lobby. And a generous dose of fear of being ostracized from the community if you don't get on board.

Good questions. Really good questions.

And on any of those other issues, the answers would be "no". Absolutely not. According to the Saviour, just feeling any of these feelings in your heart is reason for condemnation, even if you never act on them. But the fact is, you WILL act on what is in your heart, one day, one way or another. " As a man thinketh, in his heart, so is he."

As I read your post here, all l could think of is what you called "the all-fronts indoctrination campaign by the leftist gay lobby" to place homosexuality on the same level as straight sex. Like as in gay marraige.

They wouldn't be able to make this argument if sex stopped equaling "love" and if the romantic companionship type marraige had never replaced marraiges arranged by parents. And who, no matter what you tell them, believes sex equals love? Women. And who is the most horrified at the thought of an arranged marraige? Women.

The women's rights movement, which has been on the rise for several hundreds of years and only reached its apex in the late 1960's, is plenty responsible for these gay lobbyists gaining as much power in society as they have, along with popularizing all other sorts of immorality, too. After women won the right to vote here in the US, the roaring 20's came about, with it's own trivializing of femininity, masculinity, motherhood, marraige, divorce, and morality. Homosexuality was published broadly and even popular songs were sung about it. How exciting, women said, to be in a world where boys were girls and girls were boys.

Whenever feminism has risen, and it has many times in the history of the world, homosexuality has comes right on its heels, like a dog on a leash dragging only slightly behind its master. In Greece there was a feminist movement that was based around goddess worship cults. No wonder he tells women to be silent in the churches, and goes on to condemn fornication and homosexuality in almost the same breath.

[Sunain]

I think statements like the one the church has just released are simply designed to indulge the church in procrastination. It will eventually have to come down off of the fence and roundly condemn homosexuality as the deep evil and wickedness it is. It will be forced to call a spade a spade, and consequently lose it's tax exemption and undergo various levels of official and public persecution.
I can't see this happening at present, with the current 15 leading brethren stuffed full of lawyers and various businessmen who have spent a lifetime courting compromise and pointing the other way.
As Hugh Nibley once wrote: "From leaders to managers, the fatal shift".

This is exactly what is happening. Between the hate laws being passed in North America and then the tax exemption removal, it all comes down to money and persecution. The church has always been for standing up for what's right regardless of persecution. The church has had persecution since its founding, so I don't know why they are trying to appease the world like this rather than standing up for what we believe. I just don't like them giving support to an event like this in any way. They should have just not even commented on the event.

[Gage]

Making a big deal about nothing, they simply trying to say everyone hug it out and get along and respect opposing views, a little Prop 8 damage control maybe. The Church cannot come out and say homosexuals are going to hell, not with today's society and today's Mormons, they would lose half the membership.

[Fiannan]

My prediction? The secular culture will continue to warm up to all the new lifestyles and so religion will seek to not look out of step and will try its best to accomodate.

Except...

Islam. Islam will stand firm and eventually many more traditional people who feel out of place in the "modern" culture will convert to Islam.

[paid2play]

Making a big deal about nothing, they simply trying to say everyone hug it out and get along and respect opposing views, a little Prop 8 damage control maybe. The Church cannot come out and say homosexuals are going to hell, not with today's society and today's Mormons, they would lose half the membership.

are you then saying it is more important that the church has numbers then telling the people to repent?

[Z2100]

Making a big deal about nothing, they simply trying to say everyone hug it out and get along and respect opposing views, a little Prop 8 damage control maybe. The Church cannot come out and say homosexuals are going to hell, not with today's society and today's Mormons, they would lose half the membership.

You are bascailly right. But the church shouldn't-of said anything at all.

[Fiannan]

Making a big deal about nothing, they simply trying to say everyone hug it out and get along and respect opposing views, a little Prop 8 damage control maybe. The Church cannot come out and say homosexuals are going to hell, not with today's society and today's Mormons, they would lose half the membership.

You are bascailly right. But the church shouldn't-of said anything at all.

Lately teh announcements people are seeing from the PR department are generating a lot of antagonism from the core base of the Church.

[Col. Flagg]

Another unfortunate statement
Disappointing, and yes not even news worthy.

In the Salt Lake/Utah media environment every new release sent out by the church is by definition news worthy.

Due to the fact that these announcements are vetted through the church leadership they can be a big statement. Elizabeth - do you disagree with the church's statement? If your not an active member or member at all I can understand an opposing view but otherwise it is what it is.

I'm an active member of the church and I disagree with the statement.

Careful - you could be disciplined for this if it gets to the wrong ears. :-$