I am very grateful that Mr. Schear, and all those who firmly stand by his view in this article are not gay, and do not have to live that reality. It is very easy to ask difficult things of others, when you do not have to sacrifice yourself. Before settling on a stance of "tough love", I invite everyone so sure of the Church's position to engage their imagination, and empathize with those who are asked to make Herculean personal sacrifices to live the life path you can so casually expound upon. Imagine yourselves alone for the remainder of your lives, denied of family and children--whether it is twenty, thirty, or fifty more years. Then ask yourselves "What have I done to love LGBT people today?"
SariahMarch 22, 2016
As I've mentioned before, I only completed 2 semesters at LDS Business College before children came a knocking, so I don't always understand terms used by the more intelligent. I am embarrassed to even ask, but what are procreative structures? Is this the latest PC term for procreative organs, Procreative acts (*blush*), or devices to promote or enhance the Procreative powers (*double blush*)? I guess I wouldn't expect ldsmag to use PC terms, so I must be out of the loop. Sorry for the silly questions...Rise and Shout!!!
ElizaMarch 21, 2016
While I agree to a point with Kevin, that we need to allow others the agency to live as they choose, the subject is not that simple when it involves the right to adopt children. We have a responsibility to provide the best possible family situation for adoptive children and society has a responsibility to make a righteous judgement for those children. Studies are constantly being done by social scientists that show children do better when they have both a mother and a father and although this is not a popular idea in this day and age, it is one what needs our attention.
This and other legal questions that are erupting make this a very difficult issue as we remain loving and accepting of behavior, yet must draw a line when that behavior affect the agency of others. Indeed we must turn to the Savior to lead us in these dangerous paths on slippery slopes.
OliverMarch 17, 2016
Kevin, I disagree with you about Proposition 8. Just because some people want to legalize something doesn't mean we as a church or members should stand aside and let them do it. That is nonsense just as much as it is to legalize heroin. There are serious societal issues related to heroin and there are serious side issues related to LGBT and how it affects families (including adoptions of children, etc) whether or not one can see it or admit it. The church AND its members have a right to speak up and out and against evils... perceived or real (as defined by God).
BluewaterMarch 17, 2016
Thank you for this article.
It is refreshing to hear from a member who supports the position of the Senior Leaders of the Church(and by extension Heavenly Father and the Savior) instead of questioning them, ridiculing them, challenging them--or deciding to make this the issue of the official positions on LGBT/SSA/SSM etc the issue to end their activity/or membership in the Church over.
Beth TeeplesMarch 17, 2016
My faith in this Church has been strengthened by your words today!!! Thank you for studying and sharing these inspired messages.
C. LeeMarch 17, 2016
My daughter is gay and will be getting married next Fall. I have found peace in doing what I am supposed to do: that is, love my daughter, and her partner as daughters of God, show and express that love and accept their choice. I can maintain my understanding that this is not God's plan and is a sin, and still show and express love to my daughter. We are a tight knit family and I am grateful to say we didn't skip a beat in showing love to our daughter through all of the heartbreaking choices she has made. I think this issue may be one of the great opportunities we have as a covenant people who have made a choice to be like Jesus Christ, to love as He would.
Jeff T.March 17, 2016
Herm, are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue? Yes, Latter-day Saints DO believe that "gay behavior is a matter of choice." I believe that is *always* true. But our faith, policies, and doctrines do not hold that same-sex *attraction* is a matter of choice. That's a crucial distinction that we make over, and over, and over, and yet people like you still seem to try and obfuscate the issue.
Yes, you will *always* hear that gay behavior is a matter of choice, because that *is* a core doctrine that we cannot deny. And it's not mean to believe or say that.
Herm OlsenMarch 17, 2016
Actually, I think both the author AND Dr. Prince are right. There is a deeply imbedded sense for the vast majority of the membership of the Church who have believed (and STILL believe) that all gay behavior is a matter of choice. I have heard that up and down the wards and Stakes of Zion my whole life. I STILL hear it. And except for a small percentage of gay people, I think it's a wrong (and mean) notion.
Kevin JKMarch 17, 2016
Even though I believe that the Church was doctrinally wrong in supporting Prop. 8 in California, this article is spot on. I've used the alcohol example the Elder Oaks used, before I heard him say it. The problem, I believe, comes from how we as a church govern ourselves vs. how we "allow our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134:4).
We see the spiritual harm that comes from same-sex activity and therefore we've opposed SSM. Society/law doesn't take that harm into consideration and therefore sees nothing wrong. In a secular society, we have to accept that and NOT "allow our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134:4). We must tell people "thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee, but remember that God forbids it".
We need to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to not give in to their sinful desires. We must keep God's standards while allowing others their freedom to ignore them.
Ernie ShannonMarch 17, 2016
Thank you for the clarity of your article regarding the Church's stand on same-gender attraction. I, for one, am grateful to the senior leaders of the Church for standing firm on all issues related to moral behavior including this one. The Church's approach is one of firmness in terms of keeping the commandments combined with love and understanding towards everyone who struggles with these things which is exactly how I envision Christ responding to our weaknesses.
Sasha Bill KwapinskiMarch 16, 2016
The LDS Church's teachings concerning homosexuality and the definition of marriage do not make it "difficult" for me to be a Mormon. Marriage, ultimately, is either a moral construct with a moral definition or, for all practical purposes, it becomes a non-construct with no definition -- just a matter of whatever anybody wants it to be.
A religious denomination which is unable to come up with a moral definition for marriage is displaying its own moral bankruptcy, not anybody else's "homophobia."
Comments | Return to Story
Jeremiah StoneNovember 5, 2016
I am very grateful that Mr. Schear, and all those who firmly stand by his view in this article are not gay, and do not have to live that reality. It is very easy to ask difficult things of others, when you do not have to sacrifice yourself. Before settling on a stance of "tough love", I invite everyone so sure of the Church's position to engage their imagination, and empathize with those who are asked to make Herculean personal sacrifices to live the life path you can so casually expound upon. Imagine yourselves alone for the remainder of your lives, denied of family and children--whether it is twenty, thirty, or fifty more years. Then ask yourselves "What have I done to love LGBT people today?"
SariahMarch 22, 2016
As I've mentioned before, I only completed 2 semesters at LDS Business College before children came a knocking, so I don't always understand terms used by the more intelligent. I am embarrassed to even ask, but what are procreative structures? Is this the latest PC term for procreative organs, Procreative acts (*blush*), or devices to promote or enhance the Procreative powers (*double blush*)? I guess I wouldn't expect ldsmag to use PC terms, so I must be out of the loop. Sorry for the silly questions...Rise and Shout!!!
ElizaMarch 21, 2016
While I agree to a point with Kevin, that we need to allow others the agency to live as they choose, the subject is not that simple when it involves the right to adopt children. We have a responsibility to provide the best possible family situation for adoptive children and society has a responsibility to make a righteous judgement for those children. Studies are constantly being done by social scientists that show children do better when they have both a mother and a father and although this is not a popular idea in this day and age, it is one what needs our attention. This and other legal questions that are erupting make this a very difficult issue as we remain loving and accepting of behavior, yet must draw a line when that behavior affect the agency of others. Indeed we must turn to the Savior to lead us in these dangerous paths on slippery slopes.
OliverMarch 17, 2016
Kevin, I disagree with you about Proposition 8. Just because some people want to legalize something doesn't mean we as a church or members should stand aside and let them do it. That is nonsense just as much as it is to legalize heroin. There are serious societal issues related to heroin and there are serious side issues related to LGBT and how it affects families (including adoptions of children, etc) whether or not one can see it or admit it. The church AND its members have a right to speak up and out and against evils... perceived or real (as defined by God).
BluewaterMarch 17, 2016
Thank you for this article. It is refreshing to hear from a member who supports the position of the Senior Leaders of the Church(and by extension Heavenly Father and the Savior) instead of questioning them, ridiculing them, challenging them--or deciding to make this the issue of the official positions on LGBT/SSA/SSM etc the issue to end their activity/or membership in the Church over.
Beth TeeplesMarch 17, 2016
My faith in this Church has been strengthened by your words today!!! Thank you for studying and sharing these inspired messages.
C. LeeMarch 17, 2016
My daughter is gay and will be getting married next Fall. I have found peace in doing what I am supposed to do: that is, love my daughter, and her partner as daughters of God, show and express that love and accept their choice. I can maintain my understanding that this is not God's plan and is a sin, and still show and express love to my daughter. We are a tight knit family and I am grateful to say we didn't skip a beat in showing love to our daughter through all of the heartbreaking choices she has made. I think this issue may be one of the great opportunities we have as a covenant people who have made a choice to be like Jesus Christ, to love as He would.
Jeff T.March 17, 2016
Herm, are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue? Yes, Latter-day Saints DO believe that "gay behavior is a matter of choice." I believe that is *always* true. But our faith, policies, and doctrines do not hold that same-sex *attraction* is a matter of choice. That's a crucial distinction that we make over, and over, and over, and yet people like you still seem to try and obfuscate the issue. Yes, you will *always* hear that gay behavior is a matter of choice, because that *is* a core doctrine that we cannot deny. And it's not mean to believe or say that.
Herm OlsenMarch 17, 2016
Actually, I think both the author AND Dr. Prince are right. There is a deeply imbedded sense for the vast majority of the membership of the Church who have believed (and STILL believe) that all gay behavior is a matter of choice. I have heard that up and down the wards and Stakes of Zion my whole life. I STILL hear it. And except for a small percentage of gay people, I think it's a wrong (and mean) notion.
Kevin JKMarch 17, 2016
Even though I believe that the Church was doctrinally wrong in supporting Prop. 8 in California, this article is spot on. I've used the alcohol example the Elder Oaks used, before I heard him say it. The problem, I believe, comes from how we as a church govern ourselves vs. how we "allow our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134:4). We see the spiritual harm that comes from same-sex activity and therefore we've opposed SSM. Society/law doesn't take that harm into consideration and therefore sees nothing wrong. In a secular society, we have to accept that and NOT "allow our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134:4). We must tell people "thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee, but remember that God forbids it". We need to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to not give in to their sinful desires. We must keep God's standards while allowing others their freedom to ignore them.
Ernie ShannonMarch 17, 2016
Thank you for the clarity of your article regarding the Church's stand on same-gender attraction. I, for one, am grateful to the senior leaders of the Church for standing firm on all issues related to moral behavior including this one. The Church's approach is one of firmness in terms of keeping the commandments combined with love and understanding towards everyone who struggles with these things which is exactly how I envision Christ responding to our weaknesses.
Sasha Bill KwapinskiMarch 16, 2016
The LDS Church's teachings concerning homosexuality and the definition of marriage do not make it "difficult" for me to be a Mormon. Marriage, ultimately, is either a moral construct with a moral definition or, for all practical purposes, it becomes a non-construct with no definition -- just a matter of whatever anybody wants it to be. A religious denomination which is unable to come up with a moral definition for marriage is displaying its own moral bankruptcy, not anybody else's "homophobia."
ADD A COMMENT