Gary Glenn Responds to Regrettable Mormon Church Decision to Back ‘Gay Rights’ Laws

Below is an informative piece by my friend Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan about the awful decision by the LDS Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to support legislation granting legal protections based on homosexuality. Gary of AFA-Michigan writes:

The LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Church now officially endorses so-called “gay rights” laws, specifically a Salt Lake City law prohibiting “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity” (cross-dressing).

From the official LDS Church website: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances

DESERET NEWS: “Mormon church supports Salt Lake City’s protections for gay rights”

Astoundingly, both the Massachusetts and California supreme courts expressly and specifically cited their states’ identical “sexual orientation” laws regarding employment and housing as a legal justification for their rulings legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage.” That indisputable fact alone renders the Church spokesman’s claim that its endorsement of the “sexual orientation” ordinance poses no threat to marriage to be utter nonsense, especially since the Church’s new position will certainly boost homosexual activists’ ongoing efforts in the Utah Legislature to enact an identical state law.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health: “Several amici suggest that prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects community consensus that homosexual conduct is immoral. Yet Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See G.L. c. 151B (employment, housing, credit, services); G.L. c. 265, § 39 (hate crimes); G.L. c. 272, § 98 (public accommodation).” Page14 at: Goodridge

California Supreme Court, In Re: Marriage Cases: “See, for example, Civil Code section 51 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of services by any business establishment); Government Code sections 12920 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in employment), 12955 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in housing)… In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty — including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family — that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals.” pp 68-69 at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov

U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, reaffirmed the threat such “sexual orientation” laws pose to marriage in commenting on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), legislation which would add “sexual orientation” to federal civil rights laws regarding employment. If enacted, Boehner said, ENDA would “put activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” RepublicanLeader.house.gov

Such laws have also been used to discriminate against and punish individuals and businesses who refuse to approve of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

It is difficult to believe that LDS officials could be so grossly ignorant of the demonstrably proven threat such laws pose to marriage and to the religious freedoms of the individual, special exemptions for “religious organizations” and the government notwithstanding. It’s further astounding that church officials would endorse a law banning “discrimination” based on “gender identity,” rendering it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a man because he (1) dresses as and claims to believe he’s a woman; and (2) demands on that basis to use the women’s restroom at work.

It’s notable in contrast that the Catholic Church refuses to endorse forcing such “sexual orientation” laws on the rest of society just because homosexual activists are politically calculating enough to (at least temporarily) exempt churches. [Editor's Note: in certain areas such as Maine, Catholic bishops or leaders have endorsed homosexual activist laws against the teachings of their Church; such backing in heavily Catholic states usually makes the difference in passage of pro-homosexual legislation.]

From a Vatican directive instructing Catholic bishops to oppose so-called “sexual orientation” laws: “Where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.htm

We deeply sympathize with the shock that will no doubt be felt by many members of the LDS Church who do understand the implications of so-called “sexual orientation” laws and have expended great effort to oppose them and to educate others.

Meridian Magazine / The Place Where Latter-day Saints Gather: “Of course, the problem here is that the term ’sexual orientation’ has no innate meaning (in contrast with ‘race’, which does) and no historic or community value (such as ‘religion’) and would require the Utah State Legislature to fabricate its definition. In other words, adding the term ’sexual orientation’ to Utah law, as demanded (by homosexual activists), would give lawyers standing to attack employers and property owners.” www.ldsmag.com

United Famlies International: “We adamantly oppose the UNHRC sexual orientation provisions for three reasons: 1. Attempts to legalize same sex marriage around the world would be substantially strengthened if homosexual behavior becomes an internationally recognized ‘human right.’” http://unitedfamilies.org

UFI brochure on “Sexual Orientation,” perhaps the best and most comprehensive single source on the subject we’ve ever seen… SexualOrientation

Elsie didn't even post the Lds accusations...

Oh you Anti's!

Can't you see that GOD has accused them; not us?

--MormonDupe(I just LOVE our Scriptures!)

THE FIRST BOOK OF NEPHI
HIS REIGN AND MINISTRY

CHAPTER 14

An angel tells Nephi of the blessings and cursings to fall upon the Gentiles—There are only two churches: the Church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil—The saints of God in all nations are persecuted by the great and abominable church—The apostle John shall write concerning the end of the world. Between 600 and 592 B.C.

1 And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks—
2 And harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father; yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land forever; they shall be no more brought down into captivity; and the house of Israel shall no more be confounded.
3 And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end.
4 For behold, this is according to the captivity of the devil, and also according to the justice of God, upon all those who will work wickedness and abomination before him.
5 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, Nephi, saying: Thou hast beheld that if the Gentiles repent it shall be well with them; and thou also knowest concerning the covenants of the Lord unto the house of Israel; and thou also hast heard that whoso repented not must perish.
6 Therefore, woe be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.
7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.
8 And it came to pass that when the angel had spoken these words, he said unto me: Rememberest thou the covenants of the Father unto the house of Israel? I said unto him, Yea.
9 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.
11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over ball the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.
12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.
14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.
15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.
16 And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—
17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.
18 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
19 And I looked and beheld a man, and he was dressed in a white robe.
20 And the angel said unto me: Behold one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
21 Behold, he shall see and write the remainder of these things; yea, and also many things which have been.
22 And he shall also write concerning the end of the world.
23 Wherefore, the things which he shall write are just and true; and behold they are written in the book which thou beheld proceeding out of the mouth of the Jew; and at the time they proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, or, at the time the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew, the things which were written were plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men.
24 And behold, the things which this apostle of the Lamb shall write are many things which thou hast seen; and behold, the remainder shalt thou see.
25 But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them.
26 And also others who have been, to them hath he shown all things, and they have written them; and they are sealed up to come forth in their purity, according to the truth which is in the Lamb, in the own due time of the Lord, unto the house of Israel.
27 And I, Nephi, heard and bear record, that the name of the apostle of the Lamb was john, according to the word of the angel.
28 And behold, I, Nephi, am forbidden that I should write the remainder of the things which I saw and heard; wherefore the things which I have written sufficeth me; and I have written but a small part of the things which I saw.
29 And I bear record that I saw the things which my father saw, and the angel of the Lord did make them known unto me.
30 And now I make an end of speaking concerning the things which I saw while I was carried away in the spirit; and if all the things which I saw are not written, the things which I have written are true. And thus it is. Amen.

Resty: “There is no error in the Church position!”

Sure there is, and it’s indisputable.

Their stated position: “The Church supports these (’sexual orientation’) ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

Yet if you read the original post above, you can follow the links to the decisions of both the California and Massachusetts supreme courts, which in both cases specifically and expressly cite those states’ “sexual orientation” laws as the basis of their decisions to declare so-called homosexual “marriage” legal. The state prohibits “discrimination” based on “sexual orientation,” the courts said, thus we can no longer allow the state’s marriage laws to “discriminate” against two men who want to marry.

Thus, Church officials just endorsed the very legal construct cited by left-wing activist judges as justification for their imposing so-called homosexual “marriage” in the first place, which the Church and Church members (to their substantial credit) then spent millions of dollars to overturn.

Such “sexual orientation” laws have also been used in jurisdictions that have adopted them to discriminate against and penalize individuals, businesses, and community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities. Click the following link for multiple examples:

http://www.responsiblevoters.org/SpecialRights/Key3Victims.aspx

On top of that, the Salt Lake ordinance the LDS Church officially endorsed included so-called “gender identity,” a concept so radical that even openly homoexual Democrat Barney Frank initially refused to put it into his federal “gay rights” bill (legislation which Mitt Romney endorsed, by the way).

Prohibiting so-called “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” literally means you can be forced to hire a man who wears a wig, makeup, and high heels to work and demands to use the women’s restroom and shower, and it would constitute “discrimination” not to let him.

Did LDS officials knowingly endorse that concept, or were they ignorant? (I’m hoping they were merely ignorant, though grossly so, and may yet see fit to “adjust” their position.)

That said, on the other issue of Resty bearing false witness, apparently he does not have the integrity to (1) admit that he cannot document or prove his false accusation that I have “trashed LDS before” on FR, and (2) apologize for the false witness.

(As previously stated, my multiple posts criticizing Mitt Romney for his public policy record of supporting abortion on demand and homosexual activists’ political agenda before running for president don’t count, since I was slamming him for positions that themselves were at odds with the values of his own church.)

What openly homoexual Congressman Barney Frank said in explaining why he initially refused to add the term “gender identity” to his federal legislation prohibiting “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation”:

“There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress,” Frank said. “I’ve talked with transgender activists, and what they want, and what we will be forced to defend, is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women. There are no votes for that. And if that is the price
for this bill, it is wrong.”

Quoted by various sources including THE LABOR LAWYER, Winter/Spring 2006, page 25, paragraph 102 at the following link:

http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/laborlawyer/21.3.pdf

Thus, LDS Church officials just endorsed a legal concept so radical that even Barney Frank wasn’t comfortable with it. He eventually relented, however, and added the “gender identity” term after being condemned by the same “transgender activists” he cited in his comments.

Do I believe LDS officials understood the language they endorsed and intentionally expressed support for the radical concept of cross-dressing “rights” as explained by Barney Frank?

No, I think they acted out of ignorance, and a desire to prove they’re not “bigots” because they oppose so-called homosexual “marriage.” I hope, once better educated on the legal effects of the language they endorsed, they’ll see fit to adjust their stand as they have on other issues in the past.

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship.

Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15]

The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

13] Matt. 19:19.

[14] John 8:11.

[15] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.

Transcript
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6647

Audio
http://media.byub.org/mp3/devo/1999/2/devo199929-361.mp3

The quality we must cultivate is humility.

MORMON

ATTITUDES OF SUPERIORITY

  1. I’m Superior; I have a special gift of the holy Ghost -- you don’t!
  2. I’m Superior; I have God’s true priesthood power -- you don’t!
  3. I’m Superior; I can go in God’s secret Temple -- you can’t!
  4. I’m Superior; I’ve been Endowed with special Gifts and Knowledge -- you’re just normal!
  5. I’m Superior; I’ll have my family with me in heaven -- you’ll be with strangers!
  6. I’m Superior; I’m becoming a God -- you aren’t!
  7. I’m Superior; My women know their place as servants of man and yours don’t.
  8. I’m Superior; YOUR creeds are wrong because they come from man - mine comes from God (you can find each one printed in our Scriptures).
  9. I’m Superior; I don’t HAVE a creed - I’ve got 13 Articles of Faith.
10. I'm Superior; I have 4 "Bibles"-- the standard works (5 if you count the JST) -- you've only got one: in as far as it is translated correctly.
11. I’m Superior; I can lie with impunity about such things as church membership, church growth, church doctrine, church history, church influence, etc. —                           -- You can’t.
12. I’m Superior; I am right (everybody knows) when I say 'evangelical' Christians are lunatics --                            -- You’re a hideous narrow-minded bigot, who is persecuting me by practicing discrimination by saying I'm not a Christian.
13. I'm Superior; I have a testimony about a prophet -- you don't.
14. I'm Superior; I have a Scripture-producing Amos 3:7 prophet -- you don't
15. I’m Superior; I have a Living Prophet who talks to god every day -- you have a dim-witted hireling of Satan who only talks to himself.
16. I'm Superior; I have my calling & election made sure -- you don't.
17. I’m Superior; I have magic underwear to protect me from the bogey man -- you don’t.
18. I’m Superior; I have secret clasps and grips to give the angel so I get admitted to the celestial kingdom -- you don’t ;so you can’t.
19. I'm Superior; I know secret handshake codes for afterlife entrances-- you don't.
20. I’m Superior; I will see Joseph Smith setting on the right hand of GOD, when I get to Mormon heaven, and he will recognize me and judge me favorably                              -- You’re on your own; when you get to wherever you’re going!
21. I’m Superior; I’m going to hie to Kolob -- you’re going to who knows where.
22. I’m Superior; I get to have a harem and act like a celestial stud for time and all eternity -- you don’t.
23. I’m Superior; I have sun stones, moon stones, sky stones, cloud stones, Saturn stones, and the evil eye of Osirus guarding my temple                           -- all you have is a stupid cross.
24. I’m Superior; My church has billions in assets stashed away -- yours has taken a stupid vow of poverty.
25. I'm Superior; Last - we have the power to keep a whole race out of our priesthood if we wanted to reinsert our 148-year legacy (we ARE still keeping an entire GENDER at bay!)

Revision 46.1

Semi-Official creed of the EXclusive club of Freeper Flying Inmans.

All rights liable to be abused.

Why can't the RESTORED gospel be found in the Book of MORMON; like Salt Lake City SAYS that it can?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.