FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition

2014-01-31T00:40:22Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition

2014-01-31T00:39:53Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* */

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition

2014-01-31T00:39:30Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

2014-01-14T00:35:29Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* The priesthood ban was not a worthiness issue */

Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

2014-01-14T00:30:33Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* The priesthood ban was not doctrine */

Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

2014-01-13T20:06:08Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Scriptural precedence */

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk

2012-12-21T23:36:40Z

JoshuaJohanson: Add link to Maxwell institute

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=Boyd K. Packer's conference address—October 2010=
On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference.

Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. It is meant as an examination, not an interpretation. FAIR does not seek to provide official interpretation for the words of our leaders. However, we believe that President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and hope that our analysis will show that.

=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics have claimed:
* President Packer's talk was just about homosexuality;
* Calls to overcome inclinations towards illicit sexual behavior was a call to change sexual orientation;
* President Packer made statements at variance with official Church policy;
* President Packer was "muzzled" by other members of the LDS "hierarchy";
* President Packer's address has been "censored," or otherwise "suppressed" because of public outcry.
* President Packer believes or claims that homosexual feelings/temptations are chosen by those so afflicted.
* President Packer is guilty of "hypocrisy," unchristian conduct, and/or contributing to the suicides of homosexuals.
* President Packer teaches that the "only option" for "sexual minorities" is "to become heterosexual."
* President Packer is not "trying to be like Jesus," since he is wrong to teach that "there is no such thing as a godly homosexual relationship."

{{CriticalSources}}
==Conclusion==

President Packer did not specifically mention same-sex attractions or same-sex relationships during his talk. He ''did'' reference substitutions for marriage, with a very strong reference towards same-sex relationships, but everything he said should and could be applied equally toward illicit heterosexual behavior. There was no reference in his talk which condemned same-sex attractions, and such an interpretation would conflict with numerous previous statements made by President Packer.

Such tactics are nothing new in politics, and are certainly not new when directed at members of the Church. As President Packer once indicated, he is more concerned about communicating his message than worrying about those who will intentionally misrepresent him:

:While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition…As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.{{ref|bkp.2}}

And, while even a few members of the Church will reject the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the sinful nature of homosexual acts, as well as all other sexual acts outside of marriage, President Packer once remarked:

:There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

:They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

:Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so.{{ref|bkp.3}}

The core of President Packer's message has been ignored and obscured—that core is that God will reveal to those who desire above all else to do his will how they should choose and how they should act. Obedience—a sign of faith—must always come before revelation and knowledge. But, only both revelation and faith can resolve this issue outside of politics, polemics, and propaganda tactics.

Our temptations and weaknesses do not define who we are, nor do they dictate our acts and choices. President Packer has been misrepresented and sometimes vilified in part so listeners will not even seriously consider the fundamental question—does God speak to prophets and apostles in our day? And, if so, has he spoken to them about what all would agree is a vital matter?

:But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men—not to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.{{ref|bkp.4}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it.    — President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference}}

President Packer's talk was presented to a world-wide audience. The original audio and visual files continue to be available on [http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1298,00.html the Church's official website]. The originals have also been provided to those who produce material for the blind and print disabled, a clear sign that the Church does not intend to "suppress" or repudiate them.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding began soon after the talk was delivered. (Ironically, though President Packer did not mention same sex attraction specifically—and despite the fact that he both opened and closed his talk with a discussion of pornography—many listeners applied his wording and reasoning solely to issues of homosexual temptation.) The resulting flurry of comment and complaint led a Church spokesman to indicate that President Packer's meaning had been clarified in the published version of the talk:

:The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.{{ref|scott.trotter.1}}

The published version is now [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html available on-line]. The key passage of interest is compared in the table below.
<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:80%"
!Spoken Version!!Edited Print Version
|-
| Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father.|| Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.
|-
|}
</center>

Clearly, the Church cannot be intending to suppress or hide President Packer's original comments, since it continues to make his original address available. Church spokesmen have also pointed out directly to the media that the printed version has been clarified. This would be a strange way to run a cover-up.

It is also clear in context that President Packer's meaning in the original talk is reflected in the edited print version. For example, in both his spoken and printed version, immediately following the above phrases, President Packer said/wrote:

:Paul promised that “God . . . will not suffer you to be '''tempted''' above that ye are able; but will with the '''temptation''' also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” You can, if you will, '''break the habits and conquer an addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must “watch and pray continually.”

:Isaiah warned, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

In context, President Packer was clearly speaking about being able to resist ''temptation''. His use of the word "tendencies" led some to assume that he was arguing that such inborn temptations could be eliminated. But, such a reading is inconsistent with the scriptural citation which he uses to prove his point—Paul does not argue that Christians will be freed from temptation, but rather that they need not yield to temptation. It would indeed make little sense for God to allow us to have temptations we could not resist—such a state contradicts the core LDS doctrine of moral agency (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}).

The same scripture was used in a discussion of same-gender attraction by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 2006:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. '''It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation.''' Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” {{ea}}{{ref|oaks.2006}}

==Subject of the talk==

President Packer never mentioned same-sex relationships or same-sex attractions even once during the entire talk. That has been inserted later by critics of the church. During his talk, he had one concrete example, and that was of a husband looking at pornography. There is no doubt that his words were meant to be applied to same-sex relationships as well, especially given references to legalizing immorality and the recent battle over Proposition 8. However, it would be inaccurate to say he was singling out same-sex relationships or that what he said only applied to same-sex relationships.

By starting off with a the heterosexual example of unnatural affection towards pornography, he made sure that those with opposite-sex attractions were not under the false assumption that they were off the hook. Any inclination towards the impure and unnatural, including pornography, fornication, adultery, prostitution, or rape with either gender by either gender can be overcome, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. There is no reason to assume that his comments only referred to those with same-sex attraction and did not apply equally to those who struggle with the improper expression of opposite-sex attractions. Many people with opposite-sex attractions incorrectly believe they are "preset" to indulge in illicit behavior. His talk was about overcoming any type of temptation, not just those of a homosexual nature.

===Feelings vs. acts===

Another area of confusion is whether by asking people to overcome inclinations towards the impure, Elder Packer was asking them to change their sexual orientation. Answering this requires us to understand that his comments were directed towards both those with same-sex attractions and those with opposite-sex attractions.

The man who had a problem with pornography did not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his tendency towards pornography. A single member with opposite-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his or her tendency towards pre-marital sex. Likewise, a member with same-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the same-sex in order to overcome tendencies towards same-sex acts.

It is easy to think that because Elder Packer had references to Proposition 8, that he was referring only to same-sex attractions. Proposition 8 was about same-sex relationships or acts, not about same-sex attraction. The Church's leaders in general, President Packer in particular, have made a very strong distinction between the two. While President Packer is clearly teaching that you can choose not to be in a same-sex relationship, he is not saying you can choose not to have same-sex attractions. Same-sex relationships would be considered a counterfeit for marriage. Same-sex attraction would not. Interpreting his message to mean that same-sex attraction can be changed in this life contradicts his long- and frequently-expressed stance that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and may not ever be overcome in this life.{{ref|gl.smith.1}}

Speaking of same-sex attractions, he said:

:"That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."#{{ref|packer.2000.a}}

President Packer's talk continued a long tradition of emphasizing the difference between sinful acts (including, but not limited to, homosexual ones), and those individuals tempted to commit such acts because of strong desires or feelings. These include multiple talks given by Pres. Packer over a period of thirty years.

The message of the gospel has never been that if you pray hard enough or had enough faith that God would take away all trials and temptations in this life. The message is that we are free to choose good or evil, not that we can avoid ever being enticed by the evil in the first place. The emphasis of the church has always been on controlling behavior by overcoming temptations, not by eliminating all temptations from our lives.

The emphasis on actions is even clearer when put together with the surrounding paragraphs. As printed in the Ensign, the section reads:

:We teach a standard of moral '''conduct''' that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or '''counterfeits for marriage'''. We must understand that any persuasion to '''enter into any relationship''' that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.”

:Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

:Paul promised that “God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” 14 You can, if you will, break the '''habits''' and conquer an '''addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must “watch and pray continually.”

There are many things that fall under the category of "counterfeits for marriage", such as pornography, prostitution, same-sex relationships, and so forth, but same-sex attraction would not be included in that group. His message seems to be that no one is preset to enter into any type of sexual relationship, and that any tendency or temptation to '''do''' anything impure (such as pornography or be in a same-sex relationship) can be overcome so that the impure act is not performed. Same-sex attractions is not a relationship, nor an act. President Packer has been very clear in distinguishing the two, while critics tend to blur the difference.

== The usage of overcome in other scriptures ==
Many people have had issues with the usage of the word "overcome" in conjunction with desires to enter immoral relationships. Overcoming is an important part of the Church's teachings. Bishop McMullin taught:

:"But as with all mortal conditions, if the inclination of same- or opposite-gender attraction leads a person to violate the laws of God or to mar one’s immortal possibilities, this inclination needs to be controlled and overcome." {{ref|mcmullin.1}}
Learning to overcome is prevalent throughout scripture, and has been generally applied to everyone, without singling out any particular sexual orientation.

{{b||Revelations|3|21}}

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

{{s||D&C|75|16}}

And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

{{s||D&C|76|63}}

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

{{s||D&C|63|47}}

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

{{s||D&C|64|2}}

For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

{{s||D&C|76|58-60}}

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.

{{s||D&C|63|20}}

Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.

Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.

{{s||D&C|52|18}}

And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

{{S||D&C|50|8}}

But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

{{b|2|Peter|2|19}}

For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

==Past talks on the same issue==

It would be unlikely for President Packer espouse a position on issues of same sex attraction or other sexual sins which differed from his long-expressed position. He has long emphasized that although the attractions might not be reversed, the sin can be overcome.

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page, and discussed by their date of delivery below.)

===1978===
In 1978, at President Spencer W. Kimball's request, then-Elder Packer addressed BYU on the subject of homosexual temptation.{{ref|swk.1}} It is clear from this early talk that Elder Packer regarded such temptations as deep, and relatively fixed. He even went so far as to indicate that those thus afflicted might have to spend ''the rest of their lives'' resisting such temptations. This view is in keeping with both his original address of October 2010, and the clarification issued in print.

Significantly, in neither case does it match with the claim which critics wish to put in President Packer's mouth—that temptations to homosexual acts can, in all cases, be eliminated from one's life. President Packer taught precisely the opposite more than thirty years earlier. He made it very clear that in at least some cases, the member might well struggle for their entire life to resist these temptations or tendencies. After having compared such struggles to the need to undergo serious surgery, he said:

:[194] And yet our hospitals are full to overflowing with patients. They count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and '''sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live'''. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable?...

:[195] Now, I hope I will not disappoint you too much if I say at once that '''I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all'''. Setting aside miracles for the moment, in which I firmly believe, generally I do not know of some spiritual shock treatment that will sear the soul of an individual and '''instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter'''. No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for '''a long period of time, and thereafter continually''', some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health....Establish a resolute conviction that you will '''resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action'''. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them. Suppression is not a very popular word with many psychologists. Look what happened to society when it became unpopular!...

:[196] Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But '''if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them'''. You are in charge of you. I repeat, it is very, very difficult to eliminate a bad habit just by trying to discard it. Replace it. Read in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=matthew+12%3A43-45&do=Search&anonymous_element_1_changed=search Matthew, chapter 12, verses 43 to 45], the parable of the empty house. There is a message in it for you....

:[197] With physical ailments we always want a quick cure. If a prescription hasn't worked by sundown, we want to get another one. For this ailment there is no other prescription that I know about. You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating—notice that word—''undeviating'' determination. The longer you have been afflicted, or the more deeply you have been involved, the more difficult and the longer the cure. Any relapse is a setback. But if this should happen, refuse to be discouraged. Take your medicine, however bitter it tastes.

:[198]...you yourself can call upon a power that can renew your body. You yourself can draw upon a power that will '''reinforce your will. If you have this temptation-fight it!'''...

:[198]...Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you.{{ref|to.the.one.1}}

===1990===
In 1990 General Conference, then-Elder Packer said:

:My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a '''life-style''' which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.

:Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous '''life-styles legal''' and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction…For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not….

:Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome, and '''should not be resisted'''; and therefore, such '''conduct''' has a morality of its own. They quote scriptures to justify '''perverted acts''' between consenting adults….

:All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….

:We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

:Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the “why,” '''nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency'''.

:We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many “whys” for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory.

:What we do know is where these temptations will lead. We have watched these '''life-styles''' play themselves out in many lives. We have seen the end of the road you are tempted to follow. It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, '''nor can he erase the temptation'''. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power….

:A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and '''should not be resisted'''. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?

:The Lord warned, “Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42.)

:Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. '''Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be.'''...

:You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and '''erase these temptations'''. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

:'''You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.'''

:The suffering you endure from resisting or from leaving a '''life-style''' of addiction or perversion is not a hundredth part of that suffered by your parents, your spouse or your children, if you give up. Theirs is an innocent suffering because they love you. To keep resisting or to withdraw from such a '''life-style''' is an act of genuine unselfishness, a sacrifice you place on the altar of obedience. It will bring enormous spiritual rewards.{{ref|packer.1990}}

Clearly, the same themes of a distinction between temptations and acts and the potential need for life-long resistance to unworthy temptations are present.

===1995===

In 1995 General Conference, Elder Packer said:

:Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness…. You may tell yourself that your transgressions are not spiritually illegal. That will not work; neither will rebellion, nor anger, nor joking about them. You cannot do that. And you don’t have to do it….

:I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

:How all can be repaired, we do not know. '''It may not all be accomplished in this life'''. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil….

:Some members wonder why their priesthood leaders will not accept them just as they are and simply comfort them in what they call pure Christian love.

:Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all '''conduct'''. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy '''conduct'''.

:We cannot, as a church, approve '''unworthy conduct''' or accept into full fellowship individuals who '''live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires''' of Latter-day Saints.{{ref|packer.1995}}

:If we, out of sympathy, should approve unworthy conduct, it might give present comfort to someone but would not ultimately contribute to that person’s happiness.

===2000===

In 2000, President Packer taught:

:If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that '''immoral, unnatural behavior''' is a fixed part of your nature.

Here we see the same idea expressed in Pres. Packer's 2010 talk—immoral ''behavior'' is not a fixed, unalterable part of one's nature. One can choose behavior, despite strong inclinations and temptations, as he goes on to explain:

:With some few, there is the '''temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman.'''...

:The gates of freedom, and the good or bad beyond, swing open or closed to the password ''choice''. You are free to choose a path that may lead to despair, to disease, even to death (see 2 Ne. 2:26–27).

:Do not experiment; do not let anyone of either gender touch your body to awaken passions that can flame beyond control. It begins as an innocent curiosity, Satan influences your thoughts, and it becomes a pattern, a habit, which may imprison you in an addiction, to the sorrow and disappointment of those who love you (see John 8:34; 2 Pet. 2:12–14, 18–19).

:Pressure is put upon legislatures to legalize unnatural '''conduct'''. They can never make right that which is forbidden in the laws of God (see Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9–10).

:Sometimes we are asked why we do not recognize this '''conduct''' as a diverse and acceptable '''lifestyle'''. This we cannot do. We did not make the laws; they were made in heaven “before the foundation of the world” (D&C 132:5; D&C 124:41; see also Alma 22:13). We are servants only….

:We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We ''do not'' reject you, only immoral behavior. We ''cannot'' reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We ''will not'' reject you, because we love you (see Heb. 12:6–9; Rom. 3:19; Hel. 15:3; D&C 95:1).

:You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend ''tough'' love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

:We did not make the rules; they were revealed as commandments. We do not cause nor can we prevent the consequences if you disobey the moral laws (see D&C 101:78). In spite of criticism or opposition, we must teach and we must warn.

:When any '''unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them''' (see James 4:6–8; 2 Ne. 9:39; Mosiah 3:19). The Apostle Paul taught, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13; see also D&C 62:1)....:Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1:13–15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7:10–13; Alma 15:8).

Here again, President Packer uses the same scripture from Paul to illustrate that temptations do not inevitably translate into acts. He goes on to teach that some temptations and inclinations will not be overcome in this life:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.{{ref|packer.2000}}

We note again that those who do not act on such temptations are not guilty of any sin—just as Pres. Packer taught in his 2010 talk, and as the clarifications (not alterations) to the meaning of that talk argued.

===2003===

In 2003, President Packer again taught these same ideas, including the principle that only acts make one a sinner or subject to Church discipline:

:There are words we would rather not say. They describe things that we would rather not think about. But you are inescapably exposed to temptations in connection with fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, perversion, lust, abuse, the unnatural, and all that grows from them....

:Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning. The deceiver '''preys upon some passion or tendency or weakness'''. He convinces them that the condition cannot be changed and recruits them for '''activities''' for which they never would volunteer....

:'''In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations'''. One is held accountable for transgression. ({{s||DC|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.{{ref|packer.2003}}

===2006===

In 2006, President Packer again taught against the idea that we must inevitably sin because of temptations or tendencies:

:It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence.

:Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then into experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down....

:The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and '''are compelled to live in sin'''. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ.{{ref|packer.2006}}

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page.)

==Editing an apostle?==

Some few have expressed surprise or disappointment that an apostle's remarks would be edited for publication. Others have assumed that such editing represented a "reigning in" of President Packer by other members of the "Mormon hierarchy." Such an uncharitable reading is inconsistent with the evidence that President Packer's views on this issue have not changed.

Furthermore, it is relatively common practice—in and out of the Church—to edit talks after their presentation prior to publication. President Packer himself expressed his appreciation for those of his fellow leaders or Church employees who, in the past, have suggested changes in his wording to avoid confusion:

:I was asked to write an article for the ''Improvement Era''. It was returned with the request that I change some words. I smarted! The replacement words didn't convey exactly what I was trying to say. I balked a bit, and was told that Richard L. Evans, then of the Seventy and magazine editor, had asked that the changes be made....Now, though that article is piled under thirty-five years of paper, I'm glad, very glad, that if someone digs it out, I was "invited" to change it.

:After one of my first general conference talks, I received a call from Joseph Anderson [secretary to the First Presidency]. In a very polite way he said that President McKay and his counselors suggested that I add one word to the text of my talk. Would I mind doing that? Actually the word was in my text, I just failed to read it at the pulpit. A most embarrassing lesson -- the First Presidency! It was easier when Elder Evans corrected my work; even easier when one of my associates was kind enough to do it.

:Only last Friday while putting together some things for a presentation, I read part of it to some brethren from BYU. I noticed they looked at one another at one place in my reading, and I stopped and asked if there was a problem. Finally one of them suggested that I not use a certain scripture that I had included even though it said exactly what I wanted to convey. How dare they suppose that a member of the Twelve didn't know his scriptures! I simply said, "What do you suggest?" He said, "Better find another scripture," and he pointed out that if I put that verse back in context, it was really talking about another subject. Others had used it as I proposed to use it, but it was not really correct. I was very glad to make a change.

:Now you may not need a correlating hand in what you do, but I certainly do. This brother lingered after the meeting to thank me for being patient with him. Thank me! I was thankful to him. If I ever make that presentation, it will only be after some of our Correlation staff have checked it over for me.{{ref|bkp.1}}

President Packer's message was clear to many who heard it.{{ref|clarity.1}} Some honestly misunderstood him, and some seem to have actively sought a hostile reading. In this context, a clarification was appropriate so there can be no excuse for mistaking his meaning.

==Propaganda and tactics==

Many people could have innocently misunderstood President Packer's comments. The idea that just because you have certain feelings does not mean you have to act upon them is becoming more and more foreign to people outside the church. If someone does not understand this distinction, they could easily interpret a call to avoid illicit sexual relationships, including a strong reference to same-sex relationships, as a call to change your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation seems to have spread, making it harder to understand Elder Packer's real intent.

It is important that those with same-sex attractions do not feel guilt for same-sex attractions, and this type of misrepresentation of the Church's teachings only compounds the problem. While many might not understand the distinction the Church makes, many people ''do'' understand the distinction but insist on perpetuating the misunderstanding. Making it sound like President Packer is trying to tell people they have to change their sexual orientation garners more sympathy towards their cause than making it sound like President Packer was telling people they can choose not to have gay sex.

This tactic is harmful, and so it is no surprise that those opposed to the Church's teachings resort to it. President Packer is an apostle of God and many members with same-sex attraction sustain him as such. If they come under the false impression that an apostle of God is telling them they can change their sexual orientation, then they will feel more pressure to do so, which can result in guilt and depression—or (as the Church's critics likely hope will happen) members with same-sex attraction will conclude that President Packer is not to be heeded because his "advice" to change their orientation doesn't succeed. He is not, they will then conclude, inspired or directed by God in his counsel. This misunderstanding, fostered by some enemies of the Church's teachings and doctrines, would then drive people away from keeping their covenants, continued faith in the atonement of Christ, and sustaining the prophets and apostles.

The actual message delivered by the Church and President Packer that "if you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt" can easily become lost among the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Blurring the distinction between gay sex and same-sex attractions is not a new tactic. They match techniques which some have long advocated.

{{main|/Critics' tactics|l1=Detailed examination of critics' tactics}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|bkp.2}} An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at BYU on 1 February 1998; reproduced in {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Peaceable Followers of Christ|date=April 1998|pages=62}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b7f8605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|bkp.3}} {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Revelation in a Changing World|date=November 1989|pages=16}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=63e82150a447b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|bkp.4}} {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Tribute to the Rank and File of the Church|date=May 1980|pages=65}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=1a17615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|scott.trotter.1}} Scott Taylor, "Mormon youths support President Packer through Facebook," ''Deseret News'' (11 October 2010) {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072794/Mormon-youths-support-President-Packer-through-Facebook.html}}
#{{note|oaks.2006}} {{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}
#{{note|gl.smith.1}} {{MSR-23-1-6}}
#{{note|packer.2000.a}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}
#{{note|mcmullin.1}} Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "[http://newsroom.lds.org/article/remarks-by-bishop-keith-b.-mcmullin-to-evergreen-international Remarks]," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010.
#{{note|swk.1}} "I was asked on one occasion by President Kimball if I would care to talk to the students at Brigham Young University on the subject of perversion. I begged him to excuse me from doing it, for I thought myself incapable of talking on that subject to a mixed audience. Later I repented of having declined the invitation and worked with great care to do as he had asked me to do. While "To the One" was given before a large audience at a Brigham Young University fireside, I singled out the afflicted individual for help, and also tried to inform and guide anyone who might have responsibility to help "the one" find his way." - Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 154.
#{{note|to.the.one.1}} "To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 186–200, emphasis added; italics in original. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com.gospelink.com/library/document/18527}}
#{{note|packer.1990}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=Oct 1990|article=Covenants|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|packer.1995}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=October 1995|article=The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|packer.2000}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}} {{ea}} {{io}}
#{{note|packer.2003}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|packer.2006}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=I Will Remember Your Sins No More|date=April 2006|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/-i-will-remember-your-sins-no-more-?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|bkp.1}} Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," (18 May 1993).
#{{note|clarity.1}} See, for example, (Gay) Mormon Guy, "President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective," blog post (14 October 2010) {{link|url=http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2010/10/president-packers-talk-from-gay-mormon.html}}

{{FurtherReading}}
*[http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1&id=820 Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer] Maxwell Institute, Gregory Smith
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people?

2012-07-20T05:38:42Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Template:HomosexualPortal

2012-07-20T05:37:53Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{| style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;" align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%" | FAIRwiki portal
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 5px 0 5px" | [[Template:HomosexualPortal|Homosexual Behavior]]
|-
| style="text-align: center; padding: 7px 0 7px 0;" |
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | FAIRwiki articles
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Feelings versus acts|Distinction from attractions]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Terminology|Terminology]]
----
How to treat
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Bullying and unkindness|Treating with respect]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Association|Associating with them]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Family members|Accepting family members]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|Non discrimination ordinances]]
----
History
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on|What did Christ teach?]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Law of Moses|Law of Moses]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Early LDS attitude toward|Early LDS attitude toward]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Priesthood ban|Analogy with priesthood ban]]
* [[Specific works/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example|Same-Sex Dynamics Among]]
:[[Specific works/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example|19th-Century Americans]]
----
Same-sex Marriage
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Imposing morality|Imposing morality]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Religious freedom|Religious freedom]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/LGBT Rights|LGBT Rights]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Agency|Agency]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Effects on family|Effects on family]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Plural marriage|Analogy with plural marriage]]
----
[[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8|Proposition 8]]
* [[Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths|Questions and myths]]
* [[Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events|Post-Election Events]]
* [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|8: The Mormon Proposition]]
----
Specific works
* [[Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Boyd_K._Packer_October_1978_conference_talk|Packer Oct 1978 conference]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk|Packer Oct 2010 conference]]
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Other FAIR resources
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [http://www.fairblog.org/category/homosexuality/ FAIR podcast series]
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Other portals
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [[Template:SSAPortal|Same-Sex Attraction]]
|}
<includeonly>[[Category:Same sex attraction]]</includeonly><noinclude>

</noinclude>

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-07-16T03:36:45Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Critics claim that LDS church encourages families to reject their children who are attracted to the same sex, identify as gay or participate in homosexual behavior, leading to a higher rate of homeless youth among Mormon families.

{{CriticalSources}}
=={{Conclusion label}}==

Believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. Some Mormon families will choose to ignore this teaching and turn their children out on the streets. While this may happen, the Church is clear that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and that such parents are not worthy to hold a temple recommend. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: In Mormonism, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?

2012-06-26T22:28:31Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Effects of adopting a gay identity */

Question: What have Mormon leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?

2012-06-26T22:17:58Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* What does science have to say about this? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{statements}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=={{Question label}}==

What have past and present Church leaders taught about the distinction (if any) between sexual temptations, desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual ''acts''?


=={{Conclusion label}}==

Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles on this matter. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

== ==
{{Response label}}

We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control. This applies equally to sexual actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the arousing of sexual feelings that is taught against, not the mere presence of sexual feelings. In all cases, counsel focuses on controllable actions, such as arousing sexual feelings, rather than uncontrollable things like the presence of sexual feelings. This standard applies equally regardless of the genders involved.

=== D&C ===
In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

:"Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled." (D&C 66:10)

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

:"Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name." (D&C 10:1)

===1980===

* President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

:The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such '''desires and tendencies''', he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily '''any unrepentant addict'''.

We note that homosexuality is compared to ''acts'' such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who persist in the practice.

:Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means '''total abandonment''' and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such '''behavior''' from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the '''practice'''. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which Can be defiled.

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

::James said: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … “Blessed is the man that '''endureth temptation''': for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
::“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
::“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
::“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
::“Do not err, my beloved brethren.” ({{b||James|1|8,12–16}}.)....

Again, one is tempted but it requires temptation and a response to it out of our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

:“God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be “that way”? Man is '''responsible for his own sins'''. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. '''The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted'''. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility.

:And now, my dear brothers and sisters, I have spoken frankly and boldly against the sins of the day. Even though I dislike such a subject, I believe it necessary to warn the youth against the onslaught of the arch tempter who, with his army of emissaries and all the tools at his command, would destroy all the youth of Zion, largely through deception, misrepresentation, and lies.

:“Be wise in the days of your probation,” said Mormon, “strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God” ({{s||Moron|9|28}}).{{ref|kimball.1980}}

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation, but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings would remain and should be constantly kept in check. He said:

:"In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance."

===1987===

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

:Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins..... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong....Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.{{ref|hinckley.1987}}

===1988===

* In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

:“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

:“God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Ne. 2:2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

::“ ‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

::“ ‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:9–10).

:“Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction.

:“… Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

:“Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

:“Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

:“There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.”{{ref|oaks.1988}}

===1991===

* The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

:There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”{{ref|1st.pres.letter.1991}}

===1994===
* Elder Richard G. Scott:

:'''Some bad thoughts come by themselves'''. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to…. The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out {{ea}}.{{ref|scott.1994}}

===1995===

* In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:
<blockquote>
Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin)....

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior....

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added: “Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior. {{ref|oaks95}}
</blockquote>

* Gordon B. Hinckley:

:. Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others….{{ref|hinckley.1995}}

===2000===

* In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.{{ref|packer.2000}}

===2003===

* In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

:In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See {{s||DC|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}.) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.{{ref|packer.2003}}

===2006===

* In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”{{ref|oaks.2006}}

===2007===

* In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the ''Ensign'', which read in part:

:A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

:“I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church,” he said. “I don’t think I’m worthy.”

:“Why wouldn’t you be worthy?” I asked.

:“I’m gay.”

:I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. “And … ?” I inquired.

:A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. “I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …”

:He sighed. “Why am I this way? The feelings are very real.”

:I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”

:He shook his head. “No, I don’t.”

:This time I was relieved. “Thank you for wanting to deal with this,” I said. “It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

:“As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement.”

:He sat up a little straighter. I continued, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

:“What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ ”

:We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.{{ref|holland.2007}}

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy....If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."

* In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

:Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed “only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). ''The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven''. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone....

:An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to ''resist all improper conduct'', keeping your life free from sin {{ia}}.{{ref|god.loveth.1}}

===2009===

* D. Todd Christopherson:

:All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He “gave no heed unto them” ({{s||DC|20|22}}). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never “slept with anybody.” “Don’t you want to?” the friend asked. The young woman thought: “The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct.”

:In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations” ({{b|2|Peter|2|9}}).{{ref|chistopherson.2009}}

* Bruce C. Hafen:

:You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly “that way,” so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies....

:It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there....

:...if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.{{ref|hafen.2009}}

===2010===

* On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

:None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

:The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.

:There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.{{ref|otterson.2010}}

* The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

:Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

:If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

:While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

:If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.{{ref|chi.2.21.4.6}}

=== What does science have to say about this? ===
According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

Having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.{{ref|laumann}} This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Not only is there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and behavior, but it changes over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."{{ref|apa1}} The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."

===The Religions Dimension===

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."{{ref|holland.2007.b}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|kimball.1980}} {{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}
#{{note|hinckley.1987}} {{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}
#{{note|oaks.1988}} “Free Agency and Freedom,” Brigham Young University 1987–88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), pp. 46–47; an edited version is available in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}
#{{note|1st.pres.letter.1991}} First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.
#{{note|scott.1994}} {{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Making the Right Choices|date=October 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/making-the-right-choices?lang=eng}}
#{{note|oaks95}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Same-Gender Attraction|pages=9}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=true&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#29}}
#{{note|hinckley.1995}} {{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World|date=Women's Meeting, Sept 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}
#{{note|packer.2000}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}
#{{note|packer.2003}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}}
#{{note|oaks.2006}} {{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}
#{{note|holland.2007}} {{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|god.loveth.1}} {{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}
#{{note|chistopherson.2009}} {{General Conference|author=G. Todd Christopherson|article=Moral Discipline|date=October 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/moral-discipline?lang=eng}}
#{{note|hafen.2009}} {{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}
#{{note|otterson.2010}} {{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}
#{{note|chi.2.21.4.6}} {{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|section=21|sub1=4|sub2=6}}
#{{note|apa1}} American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "[http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210 Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues]". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.
#{{note|laumann}}{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}}
#{{note|holland.2007.b}} "Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: What have Mormon leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?

2012-06-26T22:14:39Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{statements}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=={{Question label}}==

What have past and present Church leaders taught about the distinction (if any) between sexual temptations, desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual ''acts''?


=={{Conclusion label}}==

Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles on this matter. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

== ==
{{Response label}}

We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control. This applies equally to sexual actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the arousing of sexual feelings that is taught against, not the mere presence of sexual feelings. In all cases, counsel focuses on controllable actions, such as arousing sexual feelings, rather than uncontrollable things like the presence of sexual feelings. This standard applies equally regardless of the genders involved.

=== D&C ===
In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

:"Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled." (D&C 66:10)

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

:"Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name." (D&C 10:1)

===1980===

* President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

:The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such '''desires and tendencies''', he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily '''any unrepentant addict'''.

We note that homosexuality is compared to ''acts'' such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who persist in the practice.

:Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means '''total abandonment''' and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such '''behavior''' from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the '''practice'''. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which Can be defiled.

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

::James said: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … “Blessed is the man that '''endureth temptation''': for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
::“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
::“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
::“Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
::“Do not err, my beloved brethren.” ({{b||James|1|8,12–16}}.)....

Again, one is tempted but it requires temptation and a response to it out of our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

:“God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be “that way”? Man is '''responsible for his own sins'''. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. '''The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted'''. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility.

:And now, my dear brothers and sisters, I have spoken frankly and boldly against the sins of the day. Even though I dislike such a subject, I believe it necessary to warn the youth against the onslaught of the arch tempter who, with his army of emissaries and all the tools at his command, would destroy all the youth of Zion, largely through deception, misrepresentation, and lies.

:“Be wise in the days of your probation,” said Mormon, “strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God” ({{s||Moron|9|28}}).{{ref|kimball.1980}}

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation, but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings would remain and should be constantly kept in check. He said:

:"In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance."

===1987===

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

:Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins..... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong....Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.{{ref|hinckley.1987}}

===1988===

* In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

:“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

:“God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Ne. 2:2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

::“ ‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

::“ ‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:9–10).

:“Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction.

:“… Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

:“Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

:“Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

:“There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.”{{ref|oaks.1988}}

===1991===

* The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

:There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”{{ref|1st.pres.letter.1991}}

===1994===
* Elder Richard G. Scott:

:'''Some bad thoughts come by themselves'''. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to…. The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out {{ea}}.{{ref|scott.1994}}

===1995===

* In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:
<blockquote>
Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin)....

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior....

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added: “Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior. {{ref|oaks95}}
</blockquote>

* Gordon B. Hinckley:

:. Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others….{{ref|hinckley.1995}}

===2000===

* In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.{{ref|packer.2000}}

===2003===

* In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

:In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See {{s||DC|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}.) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.{{ref|packer.2003}}

===2006===

* In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”{{ref|oaks.2006}}

===2007===

* In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the ''Ensign'', which read in part:

:A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

:“I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church,” he said. “I don’t think I’m worthy.”

:“Why wouldn’t you be worthy?” I asked.

:“I’m gay.”

:I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. “And … ?” I inquired.

:A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. “I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …”

:He sighed. “Why am I this way? The feelings are very real.”

:I paused, then said, “I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?”

:He shook his head. “No, I don’t.”

:This time I was relieved. “Thank you for wanting to deal with this,” I said. “It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

:“As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement.”

:He sat up a little straighter. I continued, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

:“What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ ”

:We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.{{ref|holland.2007}}

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy....If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."

* In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

:Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed “only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). ''The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven''. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone....

:An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to ''resist all improper conduct'', keeping your life free from sin {{ia}}.{{ref|god.loveth.1}}

===2009===

* D. Todd Christopherson:

:All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He “gave no heed unto them” ({{s||DC|20|22}}). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never “slept with anybody.” “Don’t you want to?” the friend asked. The young woman thought: “The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct.”

:In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations” ({{b|2|Peter|2|9}}).{{ref|chistopherson.2009}}

* Bruce C. Hafen:

:You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly “that way,” so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies....

:It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there....

:...if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.{{ref|hafen.2009}}

===2010===

* On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

:None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

:The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.

:There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.{{ref|otterson.2010}}

* The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

:Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

:If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

:While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

:If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.{{ref|chi.2.21.4.6}}

=== What does science have to say about this? ===
According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."{{ref|apa1}}

Having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.{{ref|laumann}} This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Not only is there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and behavior, but it changes over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychological Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime." The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."

===The Religions Dimension===

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."{{ref|holland.2007.b}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|kimball.1980}} {{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}
#{{note|hinckley.1987}} {{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}
#{{note|oaks.1988}} “Free Agency and Freedom,” Brigham Young University 1987–88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), pp. 46–47; an edited version is available in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}
#{{note|1st.pres.letter.1991}} First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.
#{{note|scott.1994}} {{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Making the Right Choices|date=October 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/making-the-right-choices?lang=eng}}
#{{note|oaks95}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Same-Gender Attraction|pages=9}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=true&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#29}}
#{{note|hinckley.1995}} {{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World|date=Women's Meeting, Sept 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}
#{{note|packer.2000}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}
#{{note|packer.2003}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}}
#{{note|oaks.2006}} {{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}
#{{note|holland.2007}} {{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|god.loveth.1}} {{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}
#{{note|chistopherson.2009}} {{General Conference|author=G. Todd Christopherson|article=Moral Discipline|date=October 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/moral-discipline?lang=eng}}
#{{note|hafen.2009}} {{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}
#{{note|otterson.2010}} {{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}
#{{note|chi.2.21.4.6}} {{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|section=21|sub1=4|sub2=6}}
#{{note|apa1}} American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "[http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210 Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues]". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.
#{{note|laumann}}{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}}
#{{note|holland.2007.b}} "Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

2012-06-11T18:43:08Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Prevalence of marriages */

Question: Why do Mormons typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction"?

2012-06-11T18:41:33Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{SSAPortal}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why does FAIR (and other LDS sources) typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" and heterosexual/straight issues with such terms as "opposite-sex attraction"?


=={{Conclusion label}}==

LDS doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful. FAIR wishes to support members and non-members in choosing to live lives in harmony with God's commandments.

Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels. When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by FAIR, this terminology should be understood to:
* reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; ''or''
* serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|working politically]] on behalf of those who self-identify as gay or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

== ==
{{Response label}}

The language used to describe people or phenomena can influence how we perceive or think about such matters.

LDS doctrine teaches that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."{{ref|proc.1}} Marriage between a husband and wife, and sealing into eternal family units is the foundation of heaven in LDS theology, and Church leaders have repeatedly taught that no child of God will bear the burden of erotic desire for the opposite sex after death.

{{main|../Does not persist beyond death|l1=Does attraction to the same sex persist beyond death?}}

Attraction to members of the same sex, like heterosexual temptation, [[../Feelings_versus_acts|is not a sin]]. Sin only occurs when we encourage or seek out such attraction outside of marriage, or act upon it.

:According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."{{ref|apa1}}

:Having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.{{ref|laumann}} This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

===Our true identity===

Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

:I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

:We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

:The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path.{{ref|oaks.1}}

Some use a self-identity as "homosexual" to imply or argue that ''acting'' on homosexual desires is an inevitable or proper outcome, since it is simply "who I am." The Church teaches, rather, that our temptations, unhealthy desires, or sins do not define who we are as children of God.

==Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?==

In 1998, President Hinckley said:

:"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are."

In 1999, President Hinckley taught:

:"As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church."

While President Hinckley avoided directly labeling anyone as gay or lesbian, he was directing his welcome to those who did make use of the label. In no case did he say that only people who shun the label can go forward as all other members, but specifically said that those who considered themselves to be gay could go on as all other members. There was no request for them to hide their identity or to change their vocabulary.

In general, Church leaders recommend against labeling anyone, including yourself. Labels detract from our divine nature as children of God.

In 2010, Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught:

:When I was a youngster, my mother discouraged me from using common language when speaking of sacred or special things. For example, instead of referring to an expectant mother as being pregnant, she encouraged me to say “she is expecting a baby.” In Mother’s view, the latter description was more respectful and reverential, the former more clinical and common. Her teachings have had a salient effect upon me. The older I become, the more meaningful is her wisdom. The more we see and speak of intimate things as mere biology, the less likely we are to view and understand them in the context of exalting theology.

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God. In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

:We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.{{ref|oaks.1995a}}

==Teachings of Church leaders==

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature.

In 1978, Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

:And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. I will use it one time only. Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one.{{ref|packer.1987}}

In 1995, Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted:

:We should note that the words ''homosexual'', ''lesbian'', and ''gay'' are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual ''behavior''.

:Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.{{ref|oaks.2}}

In 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland taught:

:CITE

==SSA vs homoesexual==

* Is SSA synonmous with homosexual?

SSA only refers to having same-sex attraction. Homosexual may be referring to attractions, identity or behavior. Also, same-sex attraction does not preclude the presence of opposite-sex attractions. A person who is attracted to both genders may identify as bisexual, but they still have same-sex attractions.

==How does the terminology used by the Church compare with the terminology used by the secular world?==

===Definition of sexual orientation===
The American Psychological Association gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

:"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."{{ref|apa.orientation}}

The term sexual orientation in and of itself is ambiguous. There are many members of the Church who are primarily attracted to the same sex, but their sense of identity and community is more closely connected to a heterosexual lifestyle. Depending on which definition of sexual orientation that being used, the same person may have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation.

===Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay===
In regards to the terms homosexual, lesbian and gay, Elder Oaks stated:

:We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

In regards to the term homosexuality, Elder Oaks stated:
:"Thus, the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality."

How does this compare with the dictionary? The American Heritage Dictionary defines homosexual as someone exhibiting homosexuality. It defines homosexuality as:

# Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
# Sexual activity with another of the same sex.{{ref|dictionary}}

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks show ambiguity between using homosexual to refer to thoughts or behaviors. Interpreting condemnations of homosexuality as condemnation of homosexual behavior rather than condemning a person is also inline with modern definitions. The usage of terminology within the church is standard English.

===Avoiding using gay as a noun===
With regards to using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks said:

:We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style gives a similar warning against using gay as a noun:
:Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead.[http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=%22Gay+is+often+considered+objectionable+when+used+as+a+noun+to+refer+to+particular+individuals,+as+in+%22There+were+two+gays+on+the+panel%22;+here+phrasing+such+as+%22Two+members+of+the+panel+were+gay%22+should+be+used+instead.%22&source=bl&ots=225hcickre&sig=RibPu7wKH1p58B8edHK1dB9e5bg&hl=en&ei=iWPxTIelBcSblgevg52kDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Gay%20is%20often%20considered%20objectionable%20when%20used%20as%20a%20noun%20to%20refer%20to%20particular%20individuals%2C%20as%20in%20%22There%20were%20two%20gays%20on%20the%20panel%22%3B%20here%20phrasing%20such%20as%20%22Two%20members%20of%20the%20panel%20were%20gay%22%20should%20be%20used%20instead.%22&f=false]

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide, many newspapers have also advised their newspaper writers to avoid using gay as a noun.{{ref|glaad}} They cite the following examples:

New York Times:
:Do not use gay as a singular noun. Gays, a plural noun, may be used only as a last resort, ordinarily in a hard-to-fit headline.

Washington Post:
:When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay...

:Often, simply reporting the facts obviates the need for labels. Describing a slaying, for instance, should suffice without referring to it as a homosexual slaying. Ask yourself if you would use the term heterosexual slaying. In a recent story, a man "charged" that his former wife "was a lesbian" as if it were a slur, when simply alleging an affair between the ex-wife and the other woman would suffice.

:Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|proc.1}} {{Periodical:Church:Family Proclamation}}
#{{note|apa1}} {{nc}}
#{{note|StyleGuide}}[http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=%22Gay+is+often+considered+objectionable+when+used+as+a+noun+to+refer+to+particular+individuals,+as+in+%22There+were+two+gays+on+the+panel%22;+here+phrasing+such+as+%22Two+members+of+the+panel+were+gay%22+should+be+used+instead.%22&source=bl&ots=225hcickre&sig=RibPu7wKH1p58B8edHK1dB9e5bg&hl=en&ei=iWPxTIelBcSblgevg52kDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Gay%20is%20often%20considered%20objectionable%20when%20used%20as%20a%20noun%20to%20refer%20to%20particular%20individuals%2C%20as%20in%20%22There%20were%20two%20gays%20on%20the%20panel%22%3B%20here%20phrasing%20such%20as%20%22Two%20members%20of%20the%20panel%20were%20gay%22%20should%20be%20used%20instead.%22&f=false American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style] (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.
#{{note|laumann}}{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}
#{{note|oaks.1995a}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=true&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#29 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=9}}
#{{note|packer.1978}} {{Book:Packer:To The One}}
#{{note|oaks.2}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=true&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#29 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=9}}
#{{note|apa.orientation}} "[http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Orientation]," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).
#{{note|dictionary}}[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality Definition of Homosexuality], ''dictionary.reference.com'', s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).
#{{note|glaad}}[http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=380 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide] (last accessed 27 November 2010).

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Do Mormons deny the reality of a persistent orientation, which minimizes the effect the law of chastity has on people with a minority orientation?

2012-06-08T05:39:26Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Quotes from leaders */

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

2012-05-16T00:27:19Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Prevalence of marriages */

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

2012-05-16T00:25:11Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Great attraction */

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

2012-05-15T05:30:59Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Great attraction */

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

2012-05-14T22:34:24Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts?

2012-05-14T21:17:24Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-05-14T21:16:53Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Critics claim that LDS church encourages families to reject their children who are attracted to the same sex, identify as gay or participate in homosexual behavior, leading to a higher rate of homeless youth among Mormon families.

{{CriticalSources}}
=={{Conclusion label}}==

Believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. Some Mormon families will choose to ignore this teaching and turn their children out on the streets. While this may happen, the Church is clear that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and that such parents are not worthy to hold a temple recommend. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Do Mormon leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?

2012-05-14T21:16:38Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Question label}}==
Is it OK to be friends with people who have homosexual feelings?
Is it true that the Church teaches people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other?

=={{Conclusion label}}==
It would be more difficult for anyone to live the law of chastity if they choose to focus their time with people who flaunt their tendencies to break the law of chastity. Friends should be carefully selected, and there are many people with same-sex attraction who lead constructive, righteous lives to choose from.

== ==
{{Response label}}

No. This is not true.

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen. While the Church is not officially affiliated with Evergreen, it sends a general authority to its annual conference, and many bishops refer their members to Evergreen and attend themselves.

While we are not positive where this accusation comes from, it may be from this portion of the God Loveth His Children pamphlet.

:In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.

There are plenty of people with same-sex attraction to associate with who lead constructive, righteous lives and are not inappropriate in their sexual display. This isn't advice not to associate with anyone who has same-sex attraction. In fact it says associating with people who are righteous is important. In a similar fashion, it would not be wise to spend time with someone who is obsessed with or flaunts their tendency towards pornography or promiscuity, especially if you are struggling with those tendencies yourself. There is a difference between associating with people who have a common tendency and who are working on overcoming that tendency, and associating with people who indulge in that tendency. It is like the difference between a person trying to overcome their tendency towards drinking alcohol by going to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting versus a bar. In both places the person will associate with other people who have the tendency to drink alcohol, but in the first group, they are trying to overcome that tendency.

Another thing to keep in mind is that saying it is better to choose friends with similar standards does not mean you cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than you do. We often hear that we are in the world, but not of the world. Even if you have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that you cannot ever associate with that person. There is a way to maintain your own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards.

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Do Mormon teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction?

2012-05-14T21:16:15Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Critics claim that LDS teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts. Such behavior is sinful, and requires repentance.

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount. When brought a woman taken in adultery, Jesus refused to stone her:

:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ({{b||John|8|7-11}})

It is important to recognize, however, that it is no cruelty to teach that homosexual acts are sins—just as the adulterous woman would not have been well served if Jesus had winked at her sin. The Church and its members will continue to teach that homosexual acts are not worthy of those who are children of God. As the Church observed, "Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression."{{ref|church.2008}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd_K._Packer_October_1978_conference_talk|l1=Boyd K Packer talk on defending oneself against sexual harassment or aggression}}

The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. This includes those with same-sex attraction, or those who commit homosexual sins.

===1980s===

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the AIDS/HIV epidemic:

:There is a plague of fearsome dimensions moving across the world. Public health officials are greatly concerned, and everyone else should be.
The Surgeon General of the United States has forecast an AIDS death toll of 170,000 Americans in just four years. The situation is even more serious in some other areas of the world.

:AIDS is a commonly fatal malady caused primarily from sexually transmitted disease and secondarily from drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in any epidemic, innocent people also become victims.

:We, with others, hope that discoveries will make possible both prevention and healing from this dread affliction. But regardless of such discoveries, the observance of one clearly understandable and divinely given rule would do more than all else to check this epidemic. That is chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage....

:Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.{{ref|hinckley.1987}}

===1990s===
In discussing this issue, Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted the First Presidency:

:“We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us.”{{ref|oaks.1stP.1}}

He then said:

:Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.{{ref|oaks.2}}

Elder Oaks also taught:

:Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior....

:Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters....

:A recent letter is illustrative:

::''“Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid suicides and schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles.”''

:These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see {{s|3|Nephi|18|22–23,30,32}}). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.{{ref|oaks.1995}}

President Hinckley taught: "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group." {{ref|hinckley.1999}}

Each holder of the priesthood also watches to "see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking." ({{s||DC|20|54}}).

===2000s===

In October 2000 conference, while speaking about people in same-sex relationships, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

:We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see Heb. 12:6–9; Rom. 3:19; Hel. 15:3; D&C 95:1).

:You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

Elder Jeffry R. Holland reiterated the need for a warm and supportive atmosphere at Church toward those with SSA:

:Someone said that if we plant a garden with good seed, there will not be so much need of the hoe. Likewise, if we fill our lives with spiritual nourishment, we can more easily gain control over inclinations. This means creating a positive environment in our homes in which the Spirit is abundantly evident. A positive environment includes consistent private and public worship, prayer, fasting, scripture reading, service, and exposure to uplifting conversation, music, literature, and other media.

:This same environment extends to experiences at church. Some with same-gender attractions have unresolved fears and are offended at church when no offense is intended. On the other hand, some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. The Church is made stronger as we include every member and strengthen one another in service and love (see {{s||DC|84|110}}).{{ref|holland.2007}}

A booklet prepared by the Church in 2007 noted the need for improved kindness from Church members:
:Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.{{ref|god.loveth.1}}

In 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke on this subject, and his address was placed on the Church's official website:

:Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: “Our hearts reach out to [you]. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters.” And President Packer has echoed, “We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you.” With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.{{ref|hafen.2009}}

The Church also endorses and supports the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. The Church has endorsed, for example, non-discrimination ordinances in housing and employment.

{{main|../Non discrimination ordinances|l1=Church support of non-discrimination ordinances}}

===2010s===
In 2010, the Church issued an official statement:

:...we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

:This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

:As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

:Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has [[../Non discrimination ordinances|openly supported]] other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.{{ref|otterson.2010}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|church.2008}} {{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}
#{{note|hinckley.1987}} {{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}
#{{note|oaks.1stP.1}} “An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency,” ''Church News'' (15 April 1995), 1.
#{{note|oaks.2}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}
#{{note|oaks.1995}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}
#{{note|hinckley.1999}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=Nov 1999|pages=52}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|holland.2007}} {{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}
#{{note|god.loveth.1}} {{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}
#{{note|hafen.2009}} {{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}
#{{note|otterson.2010}} {{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Do Mormons deny the reality of a persistent orientation, which minimizes the effect the law of chastity has on people with a minority orientation?

2012-05-14T21:15:54Z

JoshuaJohanson: Created page with "{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Head..."

Template:SSAPortal

2012-05-14T18:48:00Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{| style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;" align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%" | FAIRwiki portal
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 5px 0 5px" | [[Template:SSAPortal|Same-Sex Attraction]]
|-
| style="text-align: center; padding: 7px 0 7px 0;" |
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | FAIRwiki articles
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction|Main page]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Feelings versus acts|Distinction from behaviors]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Terminology|Terminology]]
----
How to treat
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Bullying and unkindness|Treating with respect]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Association|Associating with them]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Family members|Accepting family members]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|Nondiscrimination ordinance]]
----
Psychological Aspect
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Origin|Origin]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Persistence|Persistence]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Does not persist beyond death|Not eternal in nature]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Difficulties|Difficulties]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Suicide]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Aversion therapy performed at BYU|Aversion therapy]]
----
Identity
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/LGBT identity|Being openly gay]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Honesty|Being closeted]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Denial|Denying a gay identity]]
----
Marriage
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|As therapy]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage|As a possibility]]
* [[Marriage_not_needed_for_exaltation#What_of_members_who_are_not_married.3F|Requirement for exaltation]]
----
Specific works
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk|Packer Oct 2010 conference]]
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Other FAIR resources
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [http://www.fairblog.org/category/homosexuality/ FAIR podcast series]
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Other portals
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [[Template:HomosexualPortal|Homosexual Behavior]]
|}
<includeonly>[[Category:Same sex attraction]]</includeonly><noinclude>

</noinclude>

Question: How do Mormons believe that legislation regarding the definition of marriage may affect families?

2012-05-11T04:22:29Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Effects on marriages where one spouse has same-sex attraction */

Question: How do Mormons believe that legislation regarding the definition of marriage may affect families?

2012-05-11T04:20:32Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Effects on marriages where one spouse has same-sex attraction */

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction?

2012-05-10T01:48:38Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* */

Question: Do Mormons oppose the right for same-sex couples to form families?

2012-05-04T18:24:54Z

JoshuaJohanson: /* Definitions are different from rights */

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition

2012-05-04T15:02:36Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events

2012-05-04T15:02:08Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Heading1|California Proposition 8: Post Election Events}}
{{HomosexualPortal}}

:''The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 20-08) [[Image:Ukiah.vandalism.2B.png|right]]
{{parabreak}}
:''Get over it. It's easier to wash a paint stain off a church than to take off the stain they left on the California Constitution.''
:—Robin Tyler, activist for lesbian rights, justifying vandalism by stating that Prop 8 supporters have "no right to complain about any physical and verbal attacks they've encountered since election day" during a [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/22/BAAR14ACGC.DTL rally at the steps of the California Capitol].
{{parabreak}}
:''The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.''
:—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple
{{parabreak}}
:''Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormon’s need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?''
:—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.

=Aftermath=
Upon passage of Proposition 8 by the California electorate, and despite the fact that LDS members constitute a small minority of those who voted in California, the Church came under attack for its role in encouraging its members to support the "Yes on 8" campaign. This produced a number of negative and positive effects.

{{Heading2|Threats from "No on 8" supporters}}
*"Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers"
*"While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
*"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
*""I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done" {{ref|wnd1}}

There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:

:''...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|Church response}}
The Church issued the following statement:

:''It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.''

:''Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.''

:''While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.''

:''Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

==Negative reactions==
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]

:''The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.''
:—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple
{{parabreak}}
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to ''not'' target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

===Accusations===
{{Heading2|Accusations of hatred and bigotry}}
The tactics of those who oppose the decision are to label LDS "haters" and "bigots." The accusation is that LDS are attempting to ''remove'' the rights associated with marriage. However, passing Prop. 8 didn't remove any of the rights that were already granted to same-sex couples under domestic partnership laws in California. They have all of the same rights, privileges and protections that they had before. What is disputed is the use of the word "marriage" to describe these unions.

The words "hatred" and "bigot" are emotionally charged and intended to produce a specific effect. Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" is being applied to supporters of Prop 8:

:''The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd....When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.'' {{ref|ball1}}

The protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".

On the other hand, the Church has repeatedly called for its members to "act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility," and has repeated that its position "neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians."

===Protests===
{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
====Temples====
A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:
*'''Los Angeles Temple''' (Westwood, California). Protests held daily beginning November 6 through November 9, 2008.
*'''Mesa Temple''' (Mesa, Arizona). Protest held on November 28, 2008.{{ref|azrep1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protest on November 9, 2008.{{ref|sosd2}}
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

====Meeting houses====
Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}
*'''Mount Hope Church''' (Lansing, Michigan) A "gay anarchist group" disrupted services at the Mt. Hope Church. According to the Rev. John Elieff, they "disrupted the service by bursting into the sanctuary, throwing fliers, hanging a banner from the balcony and pulling fire alarms." {{ref|mthopechurch1}}

===Vandalism===
{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where—forget marriage!—imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the opinion noted above after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses. The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:

*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Farmington, Utah.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'Nobody's born a bigot' on a meetinghouse.{{ref|abc41}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}
*'''Ukiah, California''' A LDS chapel was spray painted with the words ""separate church and state Prop. 8 cult." {{ref|ukiah1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism at other Christian places of worship}}
*'''San Francisco, California.''' The Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church was spray painted with black swastikas and the words "Ratzinger" and "Niederauer." {{ref|CNA.1.6.09}}

===Threats===
{{Heading2|Death threats}}
*'''Fresno, CA''' The Pastor of the Cornerstone Church and Fresno Mayor were sent death threats. {{ref|cbn1}}

{{Heading2|Harassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles, CA''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}
*'''San Francisco, CA''' A Prop 8 supporter writes a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. According to the editorial page editor, "Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer's small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the "Comments" section of SFGate.com - urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and its identified clients." {{ref|sfgate.11-23}}

{{Heading2|Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?}}
*San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty at protest: "The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs....This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons."{{ref|sowell2}}

Apparently, this supervisor believes that freedom to express one's religious beliefs is something which only exists if he and others choose to grant it. One wonders what "lessons" the Mormons have forgotten—the lessons of state persecution, disenfranchisement, or mob rule? It is unfortunate that elected officials in San Francisco can make such statements without repercussions. If a supervisor said something similar about homosexuals, would his job be safe?

{{Heading2|Terrorist tactics}}
On Thursday, November 13, 2008, envelopes containing white powder were received by the Church at two locations and by a facility of the Knights of Columbus. Both organizations were prominent supporters of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

*'''Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples.''' An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples, forcing their closure while Hazardous Material teams were called in to investigate. The powder turned out to be harmless. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.

{{Heading2|Hacking of Church related web site}}
*The web site which hosts ''Meridian Magazine'' was hacked. Content was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbian films," according to the site owner. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status}}
====The California Fair Political Practices Commission investigation====
The organization "Californians Against Hate" made a rather fascinating plea to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the Church's alleged "undeclared" donations to the Prop 8 campaign, {{ref|calhate1}} which the FPPC agreed to examine. {{ref|sltrib.11-24}} First, they claimed that "[t]he Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign." Then, they proceeded to accuse the Church of not sufficiently hiding its involvement from the general public:

:"Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers."

:"...Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all."

:"All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public."

Critics can't have it both ways—either the Church was "highly secretive," or it was offering presentations that were "clearly designed to communicate with the public." The absurdity of this approach speaks for itself.

{{Heading2|Blacklists and boycotts}}
:''The resulting protest movement has devolved into anti-Mormon bigotry which has been met with silence by liberal civil rights groups. The anti-Mormon fervor has become so nasty, and is growing at such a pace, that it is time to speak out against the "Mormon boycott."''
:—William A. Jacobson, [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/its_time_to_speak_out_against.html It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'], ''American Thinker'' (Dec. 4, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ AntiGayBlacklist.com]
*"Californians Against Hate" also created what they call a "Dishonor Roll," which lists donors, the amount they donated, place of business, addresses and phone numbers. It is notable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not appear on this list, with the largest single donor listed being the Knights of Columbus ($1,425,000).
* Alison Stateman, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

====Blacklist targets====
*A woman working in Silicon Valley whose name was on the blacklist said the someone contacted her employer and tried to have her fired from her job. {{ref|fired1}}
*The owner of a Subway franchise who apparently donated $2500 under his company name was indentified on the Prop 8 donor list. The gay blogger who identified the donor "threatened to rally a major boycott of Subway sub-shops if his demands weren’t addressed: repudiating the gift, adding ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ to the company’s nondiscrimination policy and giving an equal gift to the other side." According to the [http://www.blogactive.com/df.pdf letter sent to the owner by Subway], "You have represented to us that your bookkeeper inadvertently used one of your business accounts that included the trademark to make the actual contribution." Subway requested that the donation be rescinded, and added the nondiscrimination clause as requested. The third demand of "giving an equal gift to the other side" was dropped. {{ref|wallstjournal1}}
*The franchise owner of a chicken restaurant who donated $6000 of his own personal funds has his restaurant picketed. {{ref|lbr1}}
*The owner of a health food and vitamin store became the target of boycotts after it was discovered that he made a $27,500 donation to support Prop 8 through his business. {{ref|lassen1}}
*Boycott of LA radio station (K-Earth 101) called for when it was found out one of the on-air personalities donated to "Yes on 8."{{ref|kabc1}}
*Boycott of an ice cream store in Sacramento (Catholic owned). {{ref|leatherbys1}}
*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}
*Protest in front of a LDS bookstore in Dallas, TX.{{ref|liberaction}}

====Missing the target====
Sometimes in their zeal to punish, the boycotters miss the target.
*"The Sacramento Theater Company is being confused with the California Musical Theater. That separate company was blacklisted this week by same-sex marriage supporters. They found out one of the directors gave money supporting prop 8. But, the Sacramento Theater Company is now swamped with calls and e-mails from people promising to pull their ticket subscriptions." {{ref|saccbs13}}

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}
====Public confrontation and humiliation====
*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}} The manager eventually resigned.{{ref|front1}}

====Intimidation to resign====
*Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”], Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)

*Richard Raddon, LA Film Festival director, resigns after "anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere" and "No on 8" supporters "berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails."{{ref|latimes4}}

*Calls for resignation of Mark Paredes, national director of Latino outreach for the American Jewish Congress (Paredes is LDS). It was "demanded that Paredes retract his financial contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign, donate money to the anti-Proposition 8 campaign or resign his position at the Jewish communal organization." {{ref|jewish1}}

{{Heading2|Intimidation of gays and lesbians}}

The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:

====Intimidation to resign====
*A lesbian mother was forced to resign her position as President of the PTA at a Catholic school in Fresno, California after she publicly voiced her opposition to Prop. 8. {{ref|mercnews.pta}}

{{Heading2|Absence of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

By November 19th, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said that she "appalled" at the "hostility that has been directed at African-Americans since the passage of Proposition 8." Ironically, Ms. Bass made no mention at all of the Latter-day Saints being the main target of the protests. {{ref|bass1}}

==Positive effects==
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from other Christians}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8}}
*The Anti-Defamation League made the following statement:

:''Although we strongly opposed Proposition 8, its passage does not justify the defacement and destruction of property. We urge Californians to channel their frustration and disappointment in productive and responsible ways to work towards full equality for all Americans. To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and [http://newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/religious-freedom freedom of religion] for all of us.'' {{ref|antidefamation1}}

{{Heading2|Petitions to thank Latter-day Saints for their support on Prop 8}}
:''Dear President Monson:''

:''We write firstly to express our deep gratitude to you and the entire LDS community for the large and impressive contributions of your church and its members in protecting marriage in California and Arizona.''

:''Anyone who participated in this process has come to admire the competence, diligence and moral courage that so many members of your faith community displayed as part of this coalition effort—as Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and people of other faith communities all came together to fight this great battle for marriage.''

:''But we write for an even more important purpose: to express our outrage at the vile and indecent attacks directed specifically and uniquely at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members because of your courage in standing up for marriage...''
:—Above the Hate, [http://abovethehate.com/ ''Letter Against Hate to President Monson''] (Nov. 15, 2008)
{{parabreak}}

===Above the Hate===
An organization called "Above the Hate" has posted a [http://abovethehate.com/ Letter Against Hate to President Monson], and invited the public to add their signatures. Signatures include those of the leaders of a number of Christian organizations.

===American Family Association===
The American Family Association issued an "AFA Action Alert" asking people to [http://us.mc1114.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage;_ylt=AhLj9rDPTWCnag4NEQUhFoljk70X?mid=1_1368356_AIQPw0MAAA8fSS6cBQFguigscbA&fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&.rand=381010206&da=0 "Thank the LDS church for its support of Proposition 8."] The [http://www.afa.net/prop8thanks/ petition] states:

:''We express our appreciation to the Mormons for their support of Prop 8 in California. We find it detestable that homosexual activists will not accept the passage of Prop 8 in a democratic vote. We also find it detestable that gays would organize a hate campaign toward people of faith who vote their convictions. For a group which is always promoting “tolerance,” we find this attack a gross offense.'' {{ref|afapetition}}

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|azrep1}}Katherine Greene, "[http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/11/29/20081129B2Story1129.html Same-sex ban under protest during Mormon festivities]," ''Arizona Republic'' (Nov. 29, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," OC Register (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," Times Herald (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]
#{{note|mthopechurch1}}Nathan Harris , [http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/article-2302-gay-anarchist-action-hits-church.html Gay anarchist 'action' hits church], ''Citypulse'' (Nov. 11, 2008)

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|abc41}}"[http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story.aspx?content_id=301e1115-ba01-4eb9-b211-77f392cc1e9b Farmington LDS chapel vandalized]," ABC 4 TV (Nov. 20, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)
#{{note|ukiah1}}[http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_11039387 Vandals strike high school, LDS church], ''Ukiah Daily Journal'' (Nov. 21, 2008)
#{{note|CNA.1.6.09}}[http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14686 Suspected anti-Prop.8 vandals strike San Francisco church], ''Catholic News Agency'' (Jan. 6, 2009)

#{{note|cbn1}}Heather Sells, [http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/503597.aspx Gay Marriage Battle Still Rages in Calif.], CBN News (Dec. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.11-23}}John Diaz, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/23/INOQ147155.DTL The ugly backlash over Proposition 8], ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 23, 2008)
#{{note|sowell2}}"Anti-Prop 8 Protest Near Oakland Mormon Temple," ''beliefnet.org'' (10 November 2008) {{link|url=http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/11/antiprop-8-protest-near-oaklan.php#more}}; see also Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sltrib.11-24}}Jessica Ravitz, "Probe into LDS Church's Prop 8 donations going forward," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 24, 2008)

#{{note|fired1}}Mike Swift, [http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11045557?source=most_viewed 'Hate' accusations keep flying in same-sex marriage debate; protest planned today at Capitol], ''Mercury News'' (Nov. 21, 2008)
#{{note|wallstjournal1}}Raymund Flandez, [http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2008/11/19/subway-franchisee-forced-to-recall-prop-8-donation/ Subway Franchisee Forced to Recall Prop. 8 Donation], ''Wall Street Journal'' (Nov. 19, 2008)
#{{note|lbr1}}[http://www.lbreport.com/news/nov08/prop8lst.htm Prop 8 Opponents Target Business Of Area Resident Who Made Contribution Supporting Prop 8], ''LBReport.com'' (Nov. 23, 2008)
#{{note|lassen1}}Michael Sullivan, [http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/?id=6476 Business and politics don't mix: Lassen's Health Food Store], ''VCReporter Online'' (Nov. 26, 2008)
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|liberaction}}[http://lgbtliberaction.blogspot.com/2008/11/pride.html Pride] (Nov. 29, 2008)
#{{note|saccbs13}}[http://cbs13.com/local/proposition.8.theater.2.865242.html Proposition 8 Opponents Target Wrong Business], ''Sacramento CBS 13'' (Nov. 14, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|front1}}Christopher Lisotta, "[http://www.frontierspublishing.com/2716/yourworld/breaking_news_12_08_2008.html Restaurant manager to leave El Coyote over Prop. 8 controversy]," ''Frontiers Magazine'' (Dec. 8, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}"[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|latimes4}}Rachel Abramowitz, "[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-raddonresigns26-2008nov26,0,5947908.story L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon resigns]," ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 25, 2008).
#{{note|jewish1}}Rebecca Spence, "[http://www.forward.com/articles/14603/ Mormon AJC Official Draws Ire on Prop 8]," ''The Jewish Daily Forward'' (Nov. 20, 2008).

#{{note|mercnews.pta}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|bass1}}Aurelio Rojas, [http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1411519.html Proposition 8 hostility 'got out of hand,' Assembly speaker says], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 19, 2008)

#{{note|antidefamation1}}[http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=5115 LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview], ''MormonTimes'' (Nov. 21, 2008)

#{{note|afapetition}}American Family Association, [http://www.afa.net/prop8thanks/ A petition of appreciation for the Mormons support of Prop 8] (Nov. 27, 2008)
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events]]

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths

2012-05-04T15:01:48Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Is it hypocritical for Mormons to oppose same-sex marriage, when the Church itself practiced plural marriage?

2012-05-04T15:01:20Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: How do Mormons believe that legislation regarding the definition of marriage may affect families?

2012-05-04T15:01:03Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Do Mormons oppose the right for same-sex couples to form families?

2012-05-04T14:59:21Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: How do Mormons believe that same-sex marriage affects religious freedoms?

2012-05-04T14:58:55Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{HomosexualPortal}}

=={{Question label}}==

What are some of the dangers to religious freedoms if marriage is redefined?



=={{Conclusion label}}==
The above are only a few examples of possible or actual conflicts between religious liberty and the newly-declared "right" to same sex marriage. Given the creativity of those who use the courts as a means for social activism, as well as the complexities of relations in the public and private spheres, many others are sure to arise. Laws in one area interact with those of another in unexpected and often unforeseen ways--and this is especially true when state or federal courts are interpreting those laws.

Even if one supports gay marriage as public policy, if one is truly interested in liberty ''for all'', it should be clear that the above issues ought to be addressed as part of implementing that policy. The alternative is to subject everyone to the uncertainty, costs, and social conflict which litigating each area will inevitably produce—likely for decades. This type of culture war will not hasten the tolerance which homosexuals claim is their only goal, and in fact may retard it as religious believers come to feel more and more besieged and circumscribed by opponents who seem to want tolerance and liberty for themselves, but not for those who disagree with them. On the other hand, homosexuals will likely grow increasingly militant and angry that their legally declared rights to marriage are being contested by believers at every turn. This will not serve anyone well.

In fact, many observers have noted that “gay rights” groups have as a goal the marginalization and silencing of those who teach that same sex acts are wrong. (If this is so, then a strategy of sweeping judge-imposed, rather than legislated, law suits their purposes well.) The homosexual advocates are not content to be tolerated and protected from violence and discrimination—they want to silence those who would continue to claim that their actions are sinful. Eugene Volokh, an advocate of same sex marriage, noted:

:The gay rights movement has long involved three related goals. One has to do with liberty from government repression-freedom from sodomy prosecutions, from police harassment, and the like. A second has to do with equal treatment by the government: The movement to recognize same-sex marriages is the most prominent recent example. A third has to do with ''delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior'' that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals'' {{ea}}.{{ref|volokh.104}}

Others have been even more blunt, noting that many homosexual activists want to "'discredit[] and force[] to the margin' religious practices that honor traditional marriage”{{ref|kmiec.8}}.

Those who believe in less government interference, rather than more, should likewise see that it is better for all concerned—and personal liberty—if these issues are acknowledged and addressed head-on, rather than with blithe promises that gay marriage will change nothing for others and it is only about “gay rights”. This is false, since the form in which those rights are implemented—or imposed—will have a substantial impact on the rights of religious believers.

== ==
{{Response label}}

==Introduction==

When supporters of same sex marriage discuss this issue, they often attempt to reassure those with religious concerns by promising that religious ministers will not be forced to perform same sex marriages within their own denominations. In an LDS context, this has been raised by both advocates and opponents of same sex marriage by discussing whether Mormons would be forced to perform gay marriages in temples.

Given the strong free exercise of religion protection in the Bill of Rights, many who have not examined the issue closely have concluded this ought not to be an issue of much concern.

However, it is generally not appreciated that the issue of gay marriage has a great deal of potential impact on issues of religious freedom more generally. These concerns have been virtually ignored by proponents of gay marriage, and opponents of gay marriage have not been very successful in articulating them, partly because they do not lend themselves well to quick, sound-bite explanations.

These concerns loom large, however, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' opposition to legalized same sex marriage in the United States. This is illustrated by the Church's indication that it is not opposed to the type of legal protection which civil unions could provide same sex couples (or others), "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family '''or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference'''."{{ref|unions.1}}

The Church also emphasizes this concern in its document, "The Divine Institution of Marriage":

: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. 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.” 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.

: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.

:''Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”'''

:The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

:Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.

:Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished {{ea}}.{{ref|divine.institution}}

Latter-day Saints would be inclined to accept these cautions simply because they come from those they sustain as prophets. But, this perspective is shared by many who have studied and reflected upon the question from a purely legal perspective. The remainder of this article focuses on a secular analysis which supports the contention that same-sex marriage will inevitably intersect with religious liberty in unexpected and troubling ways.

==How would same sex marriage impact religious freedom?==
This question was addressed in great deal by a number of legal scholars from across the political and ideological spectrum. In December 2005, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, "a non-profit, public interest legal and educational institute dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions" invited a group of scholars to "take as a given that the legal definition of marriage [would be] expanded to include same-sex couples, and then to explore the religious freedom implications of that legal change."{{ref|picarello.xi}}

In his extensive review of the areas of potential conflict, Marc Stern{{ref|stern.1}} (an attorney with American Jewish Congress since 1977, and a leading expert on Church-state law) notes that instituting gay marriage "will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in ways that are unpredictable today" (1). Stern notes that "no one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them," but he warns that "I am not optimistic that, under current law, much can be done to ameliorate the impact [of same sex marriage] on religious dissenters. If there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package" (1,57).

This demonstrates why the California example which required [[Church_involvement_in_politics/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8|Proposition 8]] was perhaps most likely to draw the Church's attention: the [[Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8#Church_involvement_in_the_.22Yes_on_8.22_effort|democratically-assessed]] vote of the California public was overturned. Judge-made law is a blunt instrument. Judges, when making rulings and writing opinions, are only allowed to consider the specific issues which have been raised in that case, and cannot branch out in order to provide additional protections. For instance, consider the example of the court case overturning Proposition 8. There were only two legal questions before the court: whether Proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, and whether California officials, by enforcing Proposition 8, violate another federal law (the second issue is a derivative of the first). The parties were able to present many arguments for and against each possible outcome, and some of the arguments invoked religious liberty concerns, but at the end of the trial the judge was only able to answer "yes" or "no" to the two questions and state his reasoning. He had no ability to say "yes, but because I'm concerned for religious liberty, I also rule that the following religious protections shall also be law..." Religious liberty issues can be separately litigated, but must be considered one by one, at considerable cost to those bringing the cases and long delay before a resolution is reached. In such cases, the judge is also less likely to rule in favor of religious liberty when a previous ruling, like the one overturning Proposition 8, contains that judge's rejection of the argument that threats to religious liberty are a sufficient justification to not establish same-sex marriage via court case.

In short, law made by a judge's ruling on a case does not have the opportunity to protect the rights of religious believers who have moral objections to same sex marriage. Stern points out that being forced to perform marriages (which is not a real risk) is the least of religious believers' worries unless same-sex marriage is implemented ''along with the appropriate protections for religious groups''. It is far more likely that such protections can be put in place if they are ''legislated'' rather than ''litigated'' in the courts after the fact.

Risks to religious groups include the following (the relevant page numbers to Stern's paper are included, and should be consulted for further information); other sources are cited in the endnotes:

===Past experience with the courts and conflicts between civil liberties and religious freedom===
* Civil liberties legislation and religious exceptions have not fared well. Stern describes the "winner take all" mentality which results in an unwillingness to allow any religious exceptions, "no matter how limited and how justified":

::That clashes between religious liberty and the civil rights of participants in same-sex marriage are inevitable is shown not only by the cases discussed below, but by recent clashes over proposed legislation to protect religious liberty. Both clashes were won in a rout by those supporting unbending civil rights protection, chiefly gay rights....[A]fter revised federal legislation had been introduced to protect religious liberty to the extent Congress still had power to do so, the question arose of whether and how civil rights laws would be affected. Professor Douglas Laycock and I made the rounds of congressional offices to explain the legislation and respond to legislative concerns about civil rights. One of our appointments was with a liberal African-American member from the South, a man whose commitment to civil liberties I admire. The meeting was private-no press and only a few staff, all well versed in law. The congressman could not be persuaded that religious exemptions from the civil rights laws, no matter how limited and how justified, would not quickly deteriorate into a general assault on the civil rights citadel. He was not playing to a crowd; there was none....

::We argued to no avail that it was not likely that including religious liberty exemptions would lead to any substantial erosion of the ban on racial discrimination. We walked out of the office knowing that we had failed to persuade. The point is not that we were inarticulate (I might have been; Professor Laycock certainly was not) or that we had no case to make. The point is that people who have been the victims of discrimination believe (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) that forces of bigotry remain strong and are barely contained by law. Consequently, they see any exemption or weakening of resolve as likely to erode hard-earned gains. That fear goes beyond substantive secular disagreements over whether equality claims ought to generally trump liberty claims where the two conflict. It also goes beyond claims that protecting the dignity of man trumps the legalistic and moralistic-and, for many, outdated and immoral-prohibitions of Leviticus. Instead, the claim is that the search for exemptions is a back door effort to undermine equality rights generally. This claim is particularly acute in regard to gay rights. Much, if not almost all, of the opposition to the so-called "gay-rights agenda" comes from religious sources. Some of that opposition is hard to describe as anything other than raw bigotry (i.e., unfounded accusations of child abuse and the like). When each side thinks that the effort is not about the resolution between a localized conflict but a skirmish in a take-no-prisoners war, it is hard to expect either side to allow the other any victories (27-28).
* The lack of a legislative solution to these issues means that those who litigate them will have a variety of statues under which to lodge protest. "The plaintiffs can invoke any of these statutes as applicable, or, as in the case of California, they can invoke a global civil rights statute such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The most obvious advantage of this choice of weapons is that plaintiffs get the advantage of the statute with the narrowest or even non-existent statutory religious exemption and the broadest remedies (that is, attorney's fees)" (29).

===Freedom of expression===
* Religious believers' right to preach against same-sex behavior can be threatened (1-9). Such cases have already occurred abroad, and a review of the international data shows "gives some sense of how far the scales are tilted against expressions critical of homosexuality" (6). Despite the fact that one might think that "Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be easy," (1) Stern goes on to argue that "There is nevertheless reason to worry now in the United States. Principles governing sexual harassment in the workplace could easily encompass expressions by religious institutions and persons that oppose same-sex marriage" (7).
* It is an unsettled matter in current US law as to "what sorts of religiously affiliated institutions fall within the scope of religious exemptions. The National Labor Relations Board and reviewing courts are 'all over the map' in deciding what is a religious institution" (9). Given that unelected courts will be the ones to decide such issues, religious believers are right to be worried if their rights are not explicitly protected before hand.
* Religious students' right to express their views about whether same-sex acts are sinful may be threatened: "Schools in a democratic society must educate, not brainwash. Indeed, school officials have an obligation to teach students to deal with, tolerate, appropriately respond to, and shrug off disagreements, even offensive disagreements. How else will students learn to function as citizens of a democracy? Despite this duty, these cases suggest that school officials prefer to quash divisive speech rather than teach this essential skill of democratic citizenship" (13). One judgment demonstrates how exclusion that is prejudicial to religious believers might occur:
::Valid grounds [wrote the court] may include a school's concerns that a club's discriminatory policies would disadvantage, subordinate, or stigmatize the excluded students, debase the morals of students who practice the exclusion, or frustrate the teaching of the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system." These values include "tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular," but also "disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others" (35, note 169).
* Religious believers may find their ability to speak out elsewhere in the public square (e.g., billboards or advertisements) threatened (17).

===Freedom of parents to choose what is taught to their children in the public schools about moral issues===
* The right of parents to control what their children are taught about moral issues such as same sex acts is also unclear: "There will also be clashes between schools and parents objecting to their children being taught the acceptability of same-sex relationships. Parents will assert that such instruction conflicts with their right to direct the moral upbringing of their children, interfering with their constitutionally protected right to do so. Such claims have been uniformly rejected.71 However, it is not within the competence of public schools to overtly criticize church groups opposed to same-sex relationships" (14).
* Student-led clubs in schools are also at risk if they oppose same sex acts or marriage: "Schools will undoubtedly argue that the well being of students whose parents are partners in a same-sex marriage is endangered by clubs devoted to opposing same-sex marriage.... Claims that tolerating hateful speech endangers others or denies their constitutional right to attend school have been made by school officials in analogous cases involving private student speech....[The relevant court decision] is a threat to anti-same-sex marriage speech because it authorizes schools to selectively limit student speech. It is an ominous precedent. Those seeking to protect the right to speak out against the very thing [pro-gay clubs] sought to advance, same-sex relationships, should have loudly criticized it. Unfortunately, the silence was deafening" (17). This is an excellent example of a broader problem--advocates of same sex acts and rights are vocal about ''their'' right to speak out and be heard, but are happy to see those who oppose their views silenced.

===Freedom for religious believers to be licensed by government or other regulatory bodies===
* Religious groups opposed to same sex marriage may find it difficult to receive necessary licenses from governments controlled by those who disagree with their stance (). At the least, such matters would result in costly and time-consuming litigation if not settled legislation before the fact (17-22).
* Religious believers who require professional licensure to carry out their profession are at risk of sanctions or delicensure if their views on same sex marriage do not accord with the licensing body's views of what is proper . As Stern notes:
::Conflicts between the helping professions and religious groups can be expected to increase. How will providers propose to deal with same-sex couples who come for marriage counseling? Will they refuse to provide counseling to such couples? Would a refusal violate public accommodation laws? Probably. Would religious professionals attempt to dissuade clients from same-sex activity? Would that be considered a breach of professional standards and therefore grounds for the loss of a professional license? …These conflicts erupted in Massachusetts with regard to the licensing of Catholic Charities to place children for adoption. Catholic Charities refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. The Massachusetts legislature refused to carve out a special rule for religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage. Opponents of such an exception labeled it unconstitutional. The president of the Massachusetts Senate said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination." The bill went nowhere.(24)
: As is well known, this required Catholic Charities to close its adoption services. Such conflicts and others like them can be expected to increase if they are not dealt with proactively by the legislature and must be settled by the blunt instrument of the courts.
* Professionals may be in jeopardy if they refuse to provide services (e.g., artificial insemination) for same-sex couples which they regard as immoral. Physicians have already been sued in California for such a refusal. It involves several extremely worrisome points:

::First, the plaintiff patient prevailed in the trial court ''even though the physicians were prepared to refer the patient to another physician in the same practice and to pay any additional expenses resulting from the referral''. [Thus, a physician cannot decline to provide the procedure but be certain that it is performed by someone who has no moral objection. This is a terrible threat to the conscience of religious professionals. - FAIR] The objecting physicians were willing to treat the patient for all other purposes, including a pregnancy resulting from the procedure, so that the tangible burden on the patient was virtually nil. (These facts are disputed, but the case has been litigated so far as though this factual dispute were irrelevant.)

::Second, this is not a case where physicians refused to treat a class of patients because they did not approve of their lifestyle and believed they were facilitating their patients' sins. The physicians are being asked to perform a procedure that they regarded as directly sinful...(45).

: Professional groups were cowed by public pressure, and backed down from defending a physician's right to refuse to perform a procedure he or she found morally repugnant:

::Third, it is noteworthy that the California Medical Association filed two briefs. The first emphasized physician autonomy, but was withdrawn after creating an uproar. The association then substituted another brief, expressing horror at the thought that a physician might engage in "invidious" discrimination, but otherwise expressing support for the right of a physician to exercise professional judgment about performing particular medical procedures (46).

: One might argue that no one can force a physician to perform an abortion, another practice which is freighted with moral objections. This is true, but this right is protected ''by statute''--that is, it was explicitly written into the law. "Absent such a statute, free exercise claims under Title VII's accommodation provision or the Constitution have not fared well" (46). "But civil rights laws and malpractice suits are not the only risks lurking. Licensing authorities may also exercise their authority to coerce religious conscience to yield to secular morality" {47). "There are sufficient unhappy instances of physicians yielding to prevailing morality in the past century to give pause to those who would insist otherwise-Tuskegee, eugenics, Soviet psychiatry" (47). Despite this, religious physicians (as well as other professionals) have ample reason to be concerned that without strong legislative protection for religious believers, they may well be forced to perform acts that violate their religious beliefs ''or'' suffer financial and professional penalties. "[P]rofessional groups-especially in the social services field-have been skeptical of religious claims for exemption. Marriage counselors, social workers, and psychologists can expect challenges under either public accommodation or licensure laws if they refuse to facilitate same-sex partnerships" (47).

===Issues of taxation and government funds===
* "There will also be substantial conflict over (1) eligibility for government funding for institutions that do not acknowledge same-sex marriage; and (2) conditions attached to government funds" (24).
* Likewise, "there will inevitably be challenges to the federal and state tax-exempt status of institutions discriminating in admissions against same-sex couples" (31). "The IRS rules for tax exemption for all private schools do require proof that a school's curriculum is not tinged with racism, although these rules have not been challenged in court. (One has to ask: would the IRS in the future require suppression of teachings hostile to same-sex marriage as a condition of tax exemption?)" (33).

===Religious education and other institutions===
* Institutions such as universities (e.g., BYU) could be vulnerable to legal charges if they "discriminated" by refusing to admit couples that were same-sex married (31). With the exception of schools training professional clergy, "matters are less clear-even for religious schools that endeavor to create an enveloping religious environment. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or membership in a same-sex couple is not 'religious discrimination,' which is the common formulation of exceptions to civil rights laws. Even Christian high schools in California have been sued for expelling a lesbian couple (31).
* For some religious groups, the issue may even arise of what to do about children raised by same-sex married parents. "Orthodox Jewish schools in New York have been grappling with whether to admit children of single mothers who conceived with assisted reproductive technology. On the one hand, they feel obligated to educate all Jewish children; on the other, they are reluctant to do anything that would signal approval of these untraditional arrangements. (One has to ask what the result would be if a school decides to exclude such children and is sued under an ordinance barring marital status discrimination.) Would it matter if a school generally insists on parental compliance with all of the school's religious norms or whether it singles out sexual orientation? In the former case, the exclusion will appear rooted in "religious" discrimination, in the latter, in "sexual orientation" or marital status. Paradoxically, this could mean that only the most insular groups, the ones most insistent on total student and parental compliance with religious norms, could avoid state coercion" (32).
* Housing at schools owned by religious bodies will also be an issue: "''Levin v. Yeshiva University'' held that a "married only" rule had the effect of discriminating against same-sex couples on the grounds of sexual orientation, since such persons cannot marry.165 A fortiori, a rule allowing only heterosexual couples into married housing will be illegal if same-sex marriage becomes legal" (33).
* "A final issue is whether, under either public accommodation statutes or statutes guaranteeing equal opportunity in education, religious universities need to allow clubs advocating gay rights to meet on their campuses, even if the clubs advocate positions at odds with a school's religious commitments concerning sexual morality....The results in the case law so far are mixed" (35-36).
* "Georgetown University...was successfully sued...and required to permit a gay-student club." This suit took place under public accommodation law, which typically governs such facilities as stores, hotels, theaters, stadiums, and the like (38). Likewise, "The New Jersey Civil Rights Commission is presently considering a public accommodation discrimination claim against a Methodist-owned camp meeting for refusing to rent a gazebo-sometimes used for church services-for holding a same-sex union ceremony" (39). Thus, religious educational institutions may be subject to suits under a wide variety of legal statutes. This illustrates how "Public accommodation law has in fact been used as a weapon to force ideological change on organizations" (39).
* Employment at religious schools will also likely see a great deal of litigation: "Parochial schools firing unmarried pregnant female teachers have found a mixed reception in the lower courts in the face of allegations of sex discrimination because males engaging in extra-marital sex are not discharged, if only because such activity by men is hard to prove. Hard litigation can be expected over youth leaders and the like" (50).

===Religious believers in the work-place===
* Much is properly said about avoiding discrimination and harassment in the work-place targeted at homosexuals. But, what of that which may be experienced by religious believers? What if someone chose a government career long before same-sex marriage was in anyone's plans? Now, with state-sanctioned same sex marriage, this religious believer may be forced to perform such marriages, even though he or she believes they are morally wrong. "There is as yet no law addressing the question of whether public employees will have any right to accommodation if they seek to recuse themselves from performing or recording same-sex marriages. The Vermont Supreme Court has suggested that no such constitutional right exists. Other courts in other contexts have been equally reluctant to allow public officials to invoke Title VII to pick and choose how they will enforce laws, even if others can fill in for them. And, as noted above, Title VII has not provided much help for professional employees seeking to refuse to assist sinners with their services. Given the absence of First Amendment speech rights for public employees, it seems very unlikely such rights of abstention will be recognized" (52). This is yet another case where religious rights must be protected by legislation, or they will likely not be protected at all. And, absent such protection such careers are essentially barred to religious believers who object to same-sex marriage.

===Joint commercial/religious undertakings===

* Sometimes religious groups rely on commercial entities which they do not directly control as part of their religious observance. This has direct relevance to LDS readers:
::At least in the Orthodox Jewish community, many religious goods and supplies are provided not directly by the synagogues and not even by not-for-profit corporations wholly under religious auspices. Instead they are provided either by freestanding not-for-profits not formally owned or controlled by a religious institution201 or by for-profit businesses acting in compliance with religious norms. I understand that the same is true of other churches. Communion wafers in the Catholic Church and temple garments worn by Mormons are not produced by the church itself, but by private companies under religious supervision.

: Stern goes on to describe the vast variety of potential problems which arise: some are theoretical at this point, and some have already been litigated. All pose potential problems for the reduction of religious liberty and association:

::1. A for-profit restaurant or catering hall, operating under the supervision of an Orthodox rabbinical group to insure that the food served is kosher, is asked to cater a lesbian commitment ceremony conducted by a rabbi from a different branch of Judaism. The Orthodox rabbinic organization threatens to remove its supervision for that affair. The couple insists on a kosher affair with Orthodox rabbinic supervision.
:::(a) May the restaurant refuse the affair on the ground that the rabbinic group will not permit its name to be used in this connection, and without its approval the restaurant's business would be destroyed?
:::(b) Does the rabbinic group itself become subject to the public accommodation laws because of its symbiotic relationship with the restaurant, undoubtedly a place of public accommodation?
:::(c) Could the restaurant accept the catering job, but post signs on its premises saying that it (or its supervising agency, or both) found the same-sex ceremony offensive?

::Fortunately for almost all concerned, the restaurant went bankrupt before the question had to be answered.

::2. Could a summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles-and without which conformity parents would not enroll their children-refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? Could it accept them on condition that the parents would not attend as a couple on visiting days? Should it matter if the camp is operated by a for-profit or not-for-profit corporation?
::3. What would be the legal options for a cemetery (or a funeral home) asked to perform a funeral for a member of a same-sex couple when the funeral (or, for example, a grave marker) will indicate that the deceased was the loving partner of a person of the same-sex? The problem will be more acute for the cemetery than the funeral home, since the latter is generally not held responsible for what is said of the deceased (i.e., no one blames a funeral home when the deceased is eulogized as generous and saintly, when he in fact was miserly and sybaritic). Would the result be different if, as in some faiths, funerals are regularly performed in the house of worship?
::4. What of a church-affiliated community center (gym, Little League, etc.) that offers family programs? Must it enroll same-sex couples as families? What of a church picnic for families that is advertised in the local general circulation newspaper?
::5. A religiously affiliated family service provider offers marriage-counseling services. Must it counsel same-sex couples in ways that facilitate or preserve the relationship? Would it matter if the service is advertised or is available only by referral of a minister? Would it violate the law to counsel partners to such marriages that their relations are sinful?
::6. Would a printer be required to print invitations to same-sex marriages? (39-41)

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|volokh.1}} Eugene Volokh, "Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes," ''Hofstra Law Review'' 33 (2005): 1155, 1178; cited in {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Douglas W. Kmiec|article=Same-Sex Marriage and the Coming Antidiscrimination Campaigns Against Religion|pages=104}}
#{{note|kmiec.8}} Larry W. Yackle, ''Parading Ourselves: Freedom of Speech at the Feast of St. Patrick'', ''B.U. L. REV'' 73 (1993): 791, 792; cited in {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty:Short|author=Kmiec|pages=104}}
#{{note|unions.1}} {{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}
#{{note|divine.institution}} ''Ibid.''
#{{note|picarello.xi}} {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.|article=Introduction|pages=xi}}
#{{note|stern.1}} {{Book:Laycock:Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty|author=Marc J. Stern|article=Same-Sex Marriage and the Churches|pages=1-57}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Do Mormons seek to impose their version of morality on others?

2012-05-04T14:58:40Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2012-05-04T14:58:02Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}
{{HomosexualPortal}}

:''We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...''

:''Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendment, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.''

:—''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', Nov. 5, 2008


=Overview=
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. {{ref|pew1}} This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse]). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle] (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

'''Further information'''
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/measured-voices-provide-reason-support-amidst-proposition-8-reaction Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*[http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=5115 LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, [http://www.byub.org/devotionals/?selectedMonth=10&selectedYear=2008 On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government], BYU Devotional (Oct. 2008)—A good explanation of why this matters to the Church. (Currently available as video only)
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-response-to-california-supreme-court-decision-on-proposition-8 Church Response to California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8] (May 26, 2009).

{{CriticalSources}}

=The text of Proposition 8=
The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

:This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
:SECTION 1. Title
:This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
:SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
:''SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

California Attorney General Jerry Brown modified the title of the measure to read "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" before it appeared on the ballot.

=The Family: A Proclamation to the World=
In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"{{ref|proclamation}}.

It reads in part:

:''We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.''

It also declares:

:''All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.''

=Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF In Re Marriage Cases],'' on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.{{ref|sosd1}}

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.{{ref|state1}}

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

*{{Detail|Mormonism and politics/Church involvement}}

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

==Initial letter to members==
Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

:'''Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families'''

:''In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.''

:''The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.''

:''A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.''

:''We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

==Satellite broadcast==
The Church followed up the letter with a satellite broadcast to members on October 8, 2008. During the broadcast, members were told:
<blockquote>
"We invite you tonight to consider the following as your time and circumstances allow. For those with young families, substantial involvement may be out of the question, even though it may matter most to you. For others, however, we hope what we are inviting you to consider tonight will inspire you to respond with your time and your energy."
</blockquote>

Among the suggestions made during the broadcast for member involvement was a request from Elder Russell M. Ballard for young people to make use of the latest communication technology to support Proposition 8:
<blockquote>
“How do we go about that? You are critical in this effort because so many of you are connected. You are engaged in conversations through the use of technologies that were the dreams of science fiction in my day. As most of you know, we encourage members to join in the conversation. Many of you will text message, blog, make phone calls, walk your neighborhoods, and just talk to friends, associates and neighbors. These methods of engaging will be major elements of informing people of the issues and of the coalition’s position. As you do this, please do so in a sensitive manner. Our approach must always be with respect for others and their positions and opinions.”
</blockquote>

==== ====
{{Heading2|Establishment of call centers}}
Among the plans mentioned by Church leaders during the satellite broadcast was the establishment of call centers. These call centers were set up in individual members' homes within the state of California. Members were to come with their mobile phones, work from coordinated lists, and then make calls. The first pass was to simply poll the people and ascertain where they stood on the issue, and if they were not familiar with it, introduce it to them. There were no "pitch" efforts involved, only education and polling.

Once the polling process was done, the day(s) before the actual election California members gathered together and went through the list of those polled and made calls to remind those considered "yes" or "probably yes" to get out and vote.
The day of the election member began calling in the morning and went to the actual polling locations to check the list of voters. Those who were on the previously compiled list of "yes" and "probably yes" who had not voted were called again. In some areas, callers asked voters who planned to vote "yes" if they knew where their polling place was and in some cases even asked them if they needed a ride to the polls.

These phone banks were not set up to "push" the passage of the proposition, but were instead designed only to be sure
that those who ''favored'' the proposition had every chance and reminder to get out and vote on the day of the election. At no time was there a pressure sale to the voters. When explaining the amendment, members were instructed to state that the proposition was for a constitutional amendment that added the following 14 words to the California constitution "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". If someone asked what that meant, the caller explained that it meant marriage as it has been traditionally defined would be the only form of union recognized as marriage in California, meaning that marriage was only between individuals of the opposite sex.

==== ====
{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote and commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter and the satellite broadcast, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded. While prophets may ask people to do some things, the actual “doing” is left to the individual and their agency. It is ''their'' choice to determine whether to do what the prophet asks and how much to actually do. Church leaders are aware that members within the church come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.

*{{Detail|Church leadership/Authoritarianism/Quotes}}
*{{Detail|Church leadership/The thinking has been done}}

==== ====
{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}


In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*Monetary donations
*Going door-to-door to poll voters
*Phoning voters to remind them to vote
*Sign-waving on street corners
*Hanging voting reminders on doors

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. According to David Campbell (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), Latter-day Saints "only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often." {{ref|sltrib.11-21}} Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=The "No on 8" response=
:''"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics...."and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.''"
:—"Same-Sex Setback," ''Rolling Stone'' (Dec. 11, 2008) 
{{parabreak}}
The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) The Church did not oppose such matters, writing:

:The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.{{ref|church.civil.unions.2008}}

Rather than acknowledge this fundamental aspect of the issue, Proposition 8 was portrayed by its opponents as ''removing'' marriage rights. The passage of Proposition 8 did not remove already existing rights for same-sex couples, except for the use of the word "marriage" to describe such unions. The same rights, privileges and protections that were in place before the election remained in place after the election. However, religious organizations perceived a very real threat to their rights if Proposition 8 did not pass. The right to be licensed to perform adoptions was in jeopardy in California, as demonstrated by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. case decided on 1 April 2008 by the California Supreme Court. This decision held that those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. It is easy to see how such a holding will result in LDS Social Services being denied licensing to perform adoptions if it won't perform adoptions for homosexual couples. Thus, religious groups perceived no gain and no loss to same-sex couples from passing Proposition 8, but anticipated a large possible downside to religious organizations and their essential services if it did not pass.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
:''There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
*Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is ''not recorded by the state''. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}} Hansen gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcL9R94MGMk speech at the 2008 Sunstone Symposium] on Proposition 8 prior to the election.

*Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the ''Daily Kos'' linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
:''What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
:''Nope.''
:''This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.''
:''The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.
:—Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg2-2008dec02,0,6411205.column An ugly attack on Mormons], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Dec. 2, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
===The ads===
The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. {{ref|thurston1}} This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. {{ref|ostler1}} Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release])

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

With regard to schools, we see this statement from the "No on 8" side weeks after the election:

:Thankfully there are some great organizations out there to help schools create a safer, more inclusive environment. GLSEN works with school communities to create safe learning environments through policy advocacy and trainings for school administrators, teachers and students. Groundspark, creator of a number of educational films on preventing school bias and celebrating family diversity, will soon premier "Straightlaced," a new film encouraging teens to question their assumptions about gender roles and homophobia. Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and (in the Bay Area) Our Family Coalition help families and youth navigate the school system and advocate for all families.

:So there's one thing both the proponents and opponents of Prop. 8 were right about -- Prop. 8 had nothing to do with the schools. And it had everything to do with the schools.
:—Isobel White, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isobel-white/prop-8-and-our-schools_b_150720.html Prop. 8 and our schools -- time to tell it like it is.], ''Huffington Post'', (Dec. 12, 2008)

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

===Claims by the "No on 8" campaign===
The following claims were made by "No on 8" supporters regarding the "Yes on 8" campaign: {{ref|edge1}}
*"Unless marriage rights were rescinded, schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay marriage in the classroom starting as early as kindergarten."
*Proposition 8 supporters "fraudulently indicated to voters that Barack Obama was in favor of Proposition 8."

===Issues incorporated into the "Yes on 8" ads during the campaign===
The following incidents occurred during the course of the campaign and influenced the "Yes on 8" advertising:

*A group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers. The "No on 8" campaign stated that "an outing of second graders to the wedding of their lesbian teacher made headlines and proved to be a ready-made example for the Yes on 8 campaign’s claims." {{ref|edge2}}

*A teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science, a public school that is part of the Hayward Unified School District, "passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners." The children were asked to sign these cards, which pledged them to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." {{ref|faith1}} After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the [http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/faith-ringgold-school-kindergarten-pledge-card/ Faith Ringgold Kindergarten School Pledge Card].

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.

There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.

Estimates of LDS-related monies also do not include donations the "No on 8" campaign received as a result of LDS Church involvement in the campaign. For instance, Bruce Bastian, a onetime Mormon, has publicly stated that he donated $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign in response to LDS involvement as an effort to "level the financial playing field."{{ref|bast1}}

=The vote=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the 52% to 48% margin (7,001,084 to 6,401,482) by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|Voter demographics}}

*Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
*Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions and myths=
{{Main|Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths}}

A number of questions have arisen, and some new myths have been propagated, since the passage of the proposition. The following links provide further detail:

*[[/Questions and myths#Questions|Questions]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
** [[/Questions and myths#Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#But what about the companies that the Church owns?|But what about the companies that the Church owns?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?]]
*[[/Questions and myths#Myths|Myths]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8|Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian|Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers|The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign|The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign]]

=Post-election events=
{{Main|Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events}}
[[Image:Ukiah.vandalism.1B.png|right]]
:''In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful.''
:—Hendrik Hertzberg, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27887428/ (Proposition) Eight is enough], ''The New Yorker'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.''
:—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple
{{parabreak}}
:''Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormons need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?''
:—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.
{{parabreak}}
There were a large number of post-election events targeted toward Latter-day Saints, and some targeted towards others. Click on any of the following items to see complete details:

*[[/Post-Election Events#Threats from "No on 8" supporters|Threats from "No on 8" supporters]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Church response|Church response]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Negative reactions|Negative reactions]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Accusations of hatred and bigotry|Accusations of hatred and bigotry]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at LDS places of worship|Protests at LDS places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at other Christian places of worship|Protests at other Christian places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Harassment|Harassment]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?|Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Terrorist tactics|Terrorist tactics]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Hacking of Church related web site|Hacking of Church related web site]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Blacklists and boycotts|Blacklists and boycotts]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation of gays and lesbians|Intimidation of gays and lesbians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Absence of support from political leaders|Absence of support from political leaders]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Positive effects|Positive effects]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Expressions of support from other Christians|Expressions of support from other Christians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8|Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8]]

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom
#{{note|sltrib.11-21}}Peggy Fletcher Stack, [http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11044660?source=rss Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church], ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 21, 2008)

#{{note|church.civil.unions.2008}} {{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}
#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|edge1}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)
#{{note|edge2}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|faith1}}Michelle Maskaly , [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners], ''Fox News'' (Nov. 1, 2008)
#{{note|bast1}}John Wildermuth, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BAJG144PTB.DTL&type=politics Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort]," ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 16, 2008).

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB0lZ8XbmJM advanced Conversation - No On Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opx-v_OhFnQ Parents]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LdC1RxvZg Senator Feinstein: No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools], Jack O. Connell, California Superintendant of Schools
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSCop9BtgdU&feature=related California Clergy Urge You to Vote No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

[[de:Proposition_8]]
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example

2012-05-04T14:57:32Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example
|author=D. Michael Quinn
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power|''The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power'']]
|next=
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
*Works by this author:
{{QuinnWorks}}
}}
{{HomosexualPortal}}

=={{Subarticles label}}==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example/Index
|subject=Index of claims
|summary=Responses to specific critical or unsupported claims made in ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example'' indexed by page number.
}}

==Reviews of this work==
* {{FR-10-1-5}} 
* {{FR-10-1-6}} 

=={{Further reading label}}==
==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Specific works/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example]]

Question: Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?

2012-05-04T14:56:55Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Were Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Mormons not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy?

2012-05-04T14:56:09Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded?

2012-05-04T14:55:56Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{HomosexualPortal}}
=={{Question label}}==
*Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships recinded when the rest of the law of Moses was recinded?
*Is it hypocritical for the Church to follow part of the law of Moses and not the rest?


=={{Conclusion label}}==
As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation. We do not need to limit our understanding on what has been able to make it through the centuries. However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships should have been recinded with the rest of the law of Moses.

While the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, Christ specifically taught against fornication and adultery, which would include same-sex relationships. After Peter received a vision that the law of Moses had been fulfilled, the prohibition against fornication remained intact.

== ==
{{Response label}}

=== Same-sex relationships under the law of Moses ===

Adultery, which includes all sexual relationships outside that of a husband and a wife, was forbidden under the 10 commandments. Exodus 20:14 reads:

:Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Leviticus expands on what types of relationships qualify as adultery. As with much of the Old Testament, it was written for a male audience. Sexual relationships between females was not specifically condemned in Leviticus, but is covered in the 10 commandments. Leviticus 18:22 reads:

:Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Again in Leviticus 20:13, it reads:

:If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

These laws were well known among the Jews, and other Old Testament versus must be read with these laws in mind. This is not the law we follow today, as we do not recommend death to those who break. We instead follow what Christ taught.

=== Fornication during Christ's Ministry ===
{{Main|Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on}}

Christ reiterated the Old Testament's command against fornication, and additionally taught against lust and divorce. While emphasizing these commands, he also taught against condemmning those who committed these actions. To the woman taken in adultery, he told her:

:Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:11)

This departs from the Old Testament command that "they shall surely be put to death" without retracting the stance that adultery is indeed a sin. While we do not know whether she committed adultery with a man or a woman, the teaching apply to both genders. It is a sin, but condemn others.

=== Fornication after Christ ===

Christ fulfulled the law of Moses, but the early Christians were not sure what this meant. At the beginning, the Christians continued to follow the law of Moses, including prohibitions against same-sex relationships. Then Peter had a vision where he saw a sheet containing fourfooted beasts, which were against the law of Moses to eat. He was commanded to eat, but he resisted, because it was against the law of Moses. The Lord responded:

:What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

Later Peter was invited to eat with a Gentile names Cornelious, which was also against the law of Moses. Peter understood the revelation meant that it was no longer necessary to follow the law of Moses. (See Acts 10 for the whole story) However, the question remained what needed to be followed and what didn't. Of particular concern, people wanted to know if circumcision was necessary, which would be quite difficult for older male converts to follow. The guidelines given in the conference were as follows:

: For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28-29)

Through revelation through the Holy Ghost, it was revealed that the law of Moses was fulfilled, but that it should still be required of the converts that they abstain from fornication, among other things. The command against fornication was repeated throughout the New Testament.

While the law of Moses was fulfilled through Christ, the prohibition against same-sex relationships continued through the command against fornication.

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?

2012-05-04T14:54:20Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Template:HomosexualPortal

2012-05-04T14:53:36Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{| style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa;" align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%" | FAIRwiki portal
|-
| style="text-align: center; font-size: 130%; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 5px 0 5px" | [[Template:HomosexualPortal|Homosexual Behavior]]
|-
| style="text-align: center; padding: 7px 0 7px 0;" |
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | FAIRwiki articles
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Feelings versus acts|Distinction from attractions]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Terminology|Terminology]]
----
How to treat
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Bullying and unkindness|Treating with respect]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Association|Associating with them]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Family members|Accepting family members]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|Non discrimination ordinances]]
----
History
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on|What did Christ teach?]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Law of Moses|Law of Moses]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Early LDS attitude toward|Early LDS attitude toward]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Priesthood ban|Analogy with priesthood ban]]
* [[Specific works/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example|Same-Sex Dynamics Among]]
:[[Specific works/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example|19th-Century Americans]]
----
Same-sex Marriage
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Imposing morality|Imposing morality]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Religious freedom|Religious freedom]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/LGBT Rights|LGBT Rights]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Agency|Agency]]
* [[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Effects on family|Effects on family]]
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Plural marriage|Analogy with plural marriage]]
----
[[Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8|Proposition 8]]
* [[Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths|Questions and myths]]
* [[Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events|Post-Election Events]]
* [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|8: The Mormon Proposition]]
----
Specific works
* [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk|Packer Oct 2010 conference]]
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Other FAIR resources
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [http://www.fairblog.org/category/homosexuality/ FAIR podcast series]
|-
! style="background:#ccccff; font-size: 95%; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom: 1px solid #aaaaaa; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | Other portals
|-
| nowrap style="font-size: 85%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px; background: #edf3fe; text-align:left;" |
* [[Template:SSAPortal|Same-Sex Attraction]]
|}
<includeonly>[[Category:Same sex attraction]]</includeonly><noinclude>

</noinclude>

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk

2012-05-04T14:45:45Z

JoshuaJohanson:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=Boyd K. Packer's conference address—October 2010=
On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference.

Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. It is meant as an examination, not an interpretation. FAIR does not seek to provide official interpretation for the words of our leaders. However, we believe that President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and hope that our analysis will show that.

=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics have claimed:
* President Packer's talk was just about homosexuality;
* Calls to overcome inclinations towards illicit sexual behavior was a call to change sexual orientation;
* President Packer made statements at variance with official Church policy;
* President Packer was "muzzled" by other members of the LDS "hierarchy";
* President Packer's address has been "censored," or otherwise "suppressed" because of public outcry.
* President Packer believes or claims that homosexual feelings/temptations are chosen by those so afflicted.
* President Packer is guilty of "hypocrisy," unchristian conduct, and/or contributing to the suicides of homosexuals.
* President Packer teaches that the "only option" for "sexual minorities" is "to become heterosexual."
* President Packer is not "trying to be like Jesus," since he is wrong to teach that "there is no such thing as a godly homosexual relationship."

{{CriticalSources}}
==Conclusion==

President Packer did not specifically mention same-sex attractions or same-sex relationships during his talk. He ''did'' reference substitutions for marriage, with a very strong reference towards same-sex relationships, but everything he said should and could be applied equally toward illicit heterosexual behavior. There was no reference in his talk which condemned same-sex attractions, and such an interpretation would conflict with numerous previous statements made by President Packer.

Such tactics are nothing new in politics, and are certainly not new when directed at members of the Church. As President Packer once indicated, he is more concerned about communicating his message than worrying about those who will intentionally misrepresent him:

:While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition…As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.{{ref|bkp.2}}

And, while even a few members of the Church will reject the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the sinful nature of homosexual acts, as well as all other sexual acts outside of marriage, President Packer once remarked:

:There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

:They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

:Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so.{{ref|bkp.3}}

The core of President Packer's message has been ignored and obscured—that core is that God will reveal to those who desire above all else to do his will how they should choose and how they should act. Obedience—a sign of faith—must always come before revelation and knowledge. But, only both revelation and faith can resolve this issue outside of politics, polemics, and propaganda tactics.

Our temptations and weaknesses do not define who we are, nor do they dictate our acts and choices. President Packer has been misrepresented and sometimes vilified in part so listeners will not even seriously consider the fundamental question—does God speak to prophets and apostles in our day? And, if so, has he spoken to them about what all would agree is a vital matter?

:But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men—not to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.{{ref|bkp.4}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it.    — President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference}}

President Packer's talk was presented to a world-wide audience. The original audio and visual files continue to be available on [http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1298,00.html the Church's official website]. The originals have also been provided to those who produce material for the blind and print disabled, a clear sign that the Church does not intend to "suppress" or repudiate them.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding began soon after the talk was delivered. (Ironically, though President Packer did not mention same sex attraction specifically—and despite the fact that he both opened and closed his talk with a discussion of pornography—many listeners applied his wording and reasoning solely to issues of homosexual temptation.) The resulting flurry of comment and complaint led a Church spokesman to indicate that President Packer's meaning had been clarified in the published version of the talk:

:The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.{{ref|scott.trotter.1}}

The published version is now [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html available on-line]. The key passage of interest is compared in the table below.
<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:80%"
!Spoken Version!!Edited Print Version
|-
| Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father.|| Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.
|-
|}
</center>

Clearly, the Church cannot be intending to suppress or hide President Packer's original comments, since it continues to make his original address available. Church spokesmen have also pointed out directly to the media that the printed version has been clarified. This would be a strange way to run a cover-up.

It is also clear in context that President Packer's meaning in the original talk is reflected in the edited print version. For example, in both his spoken and printed version, immediately following the above phrases, President Packer said/wrote:

:Paul promised that “God . . . will not suffer you to be '''tempted''' above that ye are able; but will with the '''temptation''' also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” You can, if you will, '''break the habits and conquer an addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must “watch and pray continually.”

:Isaiah warned, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

In context, President Packer was clearly speaking about being able to resist ''temptation''. His use of the word "tendencies" led some to assume that he was arguing that such inborn temptations could be eliminated. But, such a reading is inconsistent with the scriptural citation which he uses to prove his point—Paul does not argue that Christians will be freed from temptation, but rather that they need not yield to temptation. It would indeed make little sense for God to allow us to have temptations we could not resist—such a state contradicts the core LDS doctrine of moral agency (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}).

The same scripture was used in a discussion of same-gender attraction by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 2006:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. '''It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation.''' Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” {{ea}}{{ref|oaks.2006}}

==Subject of the talk==

President Packer never mentioned same-sex relationships or same-sex attractions even once during the entire talk. That has been inserted later by critics of the church. During his talk, he had one concrete example, and that was of a husband looking at pornography. There is no doubt that his words were meant to be applied to same-sex relationships as well, especially given references to legalizing immorality and the recent battle over Proposition 8. However, it would be inaccurate to say he was singling out same-sex relationships or that what he said only applied to same-sex relationships.

By starting off with a the heterosexual example of unnatural affection towards pornography, he made sure that those with opposite-sex attractions were not under the false assumption that they were off the hook. Any inclination towards the impure and unnatural, including pornography, fornication, adultery, prostitution, or rape with either gender by either gender can be overcome, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. There is no reason to assume that his comments only referred to those with same-sex attraction and did not apply equally to those who struggle with the improper expression of opposite-sex attractions. Many people with opposite-sex attractions incorrectly believe they are "preset" to indulge in illicit behavior. His talk was about overcoming any type of temptation, not just those of a homosexual nature.

===Feelings vs. acts===

Another area of confusion is whether by asking people to overcome inclinations towards the impure, Elder Packer was asking them to change their sexual orientation. Answering this requires us to understand that his comments were directed towards both those with same-sex attractions and those with opposite-sex attractions.

The man who had a problem with pornography did not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his tendency towards pornography. A single member with opposite-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his or her tendency towards pre-marital sex. Likewise, a member with same-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the same-sex in order to overcome tendencies towards same-sex acts.

It is easy to think that because Elder Packer had references to Proposition 8, that he was referring only to same-sex attractions. Proposition 8 was about same-sex relationships or acts, not about same-sex attraction. The Church's leaders in general, President Packer in particular, have made a very strong distinction between the two. While President Packer is clearly teaching that you can choose not to be in a same-sex relationship, he is not saying you can choose not to have same-sex attractions. Same-sex relationships would be considered a counterfeit for marriage. Same-sex attraction would not. Interpreting his message to mean that same-sex attraction can be changed in this life contradicts his long- and frequently-expressed stance that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and may not ever be overcome in this life.{{ref|gl.smith.1}}

Speaking of same-sex attractions, he said:

:"That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."#{{ref|packer.2000.a}}

President Packer's talk continued a long tradition of emphasizing the difference between sinful acts (including, but not limited to, homosexual ones), and those individuals tempted to commit such acts because of strong desires or feelings. These include multiple talks given by Pres. Packer over a period of thirty years.

The message of the gospel has never been that if you pray hard enough or had enough faith that God would take away all trials and temptations in this life. The message is that we are free to choose good or evil, not that we can avoid ever being enticed by the evil in the first place. The emphasis of the church has always been on controlling behavior by overcoming temptations, not by eliminating all temptations from our lives.

The emphasis on actions is even clearer when put together with the surrounding paragraphs. As printed in the Ensign, the section reads:

:We teach a standard of moral '''conduct''' that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or '''counterfeits for marriage'''. We must understand that any persuasion to '''enter into any relationship''' that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.”

:Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

:Paul promised that “God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” 14 You can, if you will, break the '''habits''' and conquer an '''addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must “watch and pray continually.”

There are many things that fall under the category of "counterfeits for marriage", such as pornography, prostitution, same-sex relationships, and so forth, but same-sex attraction would not be included in that group. His message seems to be that no one is preset to enter into any type of sexual relationship, and that any tendency or temptation to '''do''' anything impure (such as pornography or be in a same-sex relationship) can be overcome so that the impure act is not performed. Same-sex attractions is not a relationship, nor an act. President Packer has been very clear in distinguishing the two, while critics tend to blur the difference.

== The usage of overcome in other scriptures ==
Many people have had issues with the usage of the word "overcome" in conjunction with desires to enter immoral relationships. Overcoming is an important part of the Church's teachings. Bishop McMullin taught:

:"But as with all mortal conditions, if the inclination of same- or opposite-gender attraction leads a person to violate the laws of God or to mar one’s immortal possibilities, this inclination needs to be controlled and overcome." {{ref|mcmullin.1}}
Learning to overcome is prevalent throughout scripture, and has been generally applied to everyone, without singling out any particular sexual orientation.

{{b||Revelations|3|21}}

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

{{s||D&C|75|16}}

And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

{{s||D&C|76|63}}

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

{{s||D&C|63|47}}

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

{{s||D&C|64|2}}

For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

{{s||D&C|76|58-60}}

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.

{{s||D&C|63|20}}

Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.

Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.

{{s||D&C|52|18}}

And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

{{S||D&C|50|8}}

But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

{{b|2|Peter|2|19}}

For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

==Past talks on the same issue==

It would be unlikely for President Packer espouse a position on issues of same sex attraction or other sexual sins which differed from his long-expressed position. He has long emphasized that although the attractions might not be reversed, the sin can be overcome.

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page, and discussed by their date of delivery below.)

===1978===
In 1978, at President Spencer W. Kimball's request, then-Elder Packer addressed BYU on the subject of homosexual temptation.{{ref|swk.1}} It is clear from this early talk that Elder Packer regarded such temptations as deep, and relatively fixed. He even went so far as to indicate that those thus afflicted might have to spend ''the rest of their lives'' resisting such temptations. This view is in keeping with both his original address of October 2010, and the clarification issued in print.

Significantly, in neither case does it match with the claim which critics wish to put in President Packer's mouth—that temptations to homosexual acts can, in all cases, be eliminated from one's life. President Packer taught precisely the opposite more than thirty years earlier. He made it very clear that in at least some cases, the member might well struggle for their entire life to resist these temptations or tendencies. After having compared such struggles to the need to undergo serious surgery, he said:

:[194] And yet our hospitals are full to overflowing with patients. They count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and '''sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live'''. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable?...

:[195] Now, I hope I will not disappoint you too much if I say at once that '''I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all'''. Setting aside miracles for the moment, in which I firmly believe, generally I do not know of some spiritual shock treatment that will sear the soul of an individual and '''instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter'''. No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for '''a long period of time, and thereafter continually''', some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health....Establish a resolute conviction that you will '''resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action'''. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them. Suppression is not a very popular word with many psychologists. Look what happened to society when it became unpopular!...

:[196] Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But '''if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them'''. You are in charge of you. I repeat, it is very, very difficult to eliminate a bad habit just by trying to discard it. Replace it. Read in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=matthew+12%3A43-45&do=Search&anonymous_element_1_changed=search Matthew, chapter 12, verses 43 to 45], the parable of the empty house. There is a message in it for you....

:[197] With physical ailments we always want a quick cure. If a prescription hasn't worked by sundown, we want to get another one. For this ailment there is no other prescription that I know about. You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating—notice that word—''undeviating'' determination. The longer you have been afflicted, or the more deeply you have been involved, the more difficult and the longer the cure. Any relapse is a setback. But if this should happen, refuse to be discouraged. Take your medicine, however bitter it tastes.

:[198]...you yourself can call upon a power that can renew your body. You yourself can draw upon a power that will '''reinforce your will. If you have this temptation-fight it!'''...

:[198]...Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you.{{ref|to.the.one.1}}

===1990===
In 1990 General Conference, then-Elder Packer said:

:My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a '''life-style''' which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.

:Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous '''life-styles legal''' and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction…For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not….

:Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome, and '''should not be resisted'''; and therefore, such '''conduct''' has a morality of its own. They quote scriptures to justify '''perverted acts''' between consenting adults….

:All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….

:We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

:Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the “why,” '''nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency'''.

:We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many “whys” for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory.

:What we do know is where these temptations will lead. We have watched these '''life-styles''' play themselves out in many lives. We have seen the end of the road you are tempted to follow. It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, '''nor can he erase the temptation'''. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power….

:A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and '''should not be resisted'''. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?

:The Lord warned, “Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42.)

:Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. '''Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be.'''...

:You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and '''erase these temptations'''. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

:'''You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.'''

:The suffering you endure from resisting or from leaving a '''life-style''' of addiction or perversion is not a hundredth part of that suffered by your parents, your spouse or your children, if you give up. Theirs is an innocent suffering because they love you. To keep resisting or to withdraw from such a '''life-style''' is an act of genuine unselfishness, a sacrifice you place on the altar of obedience. It will bring enormous spiritual rewards.{{ref|packer.1990}}

Clearly, the same themes of a distinction between temptations and acts and the potential need for life-long resistance to unworthy temptations are present.

===1995===

In 1995 General Conference, Elder Packer said:

:Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness…. You may tell yourself that your transgressions are not spiritually illegal. That will not work; neither will rebellion, nor anger, nor joking about them. You cannot do that. And you don’t have to do it….

:I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

:How all can be repaired, we do not know. '''It may not all be accomplished in this life'''. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil….

:Some members wonder why their priesthood leaders will not accept them just as they are and simply comfort them in what they call pure Christian love.

:Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all '''conduct'''. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy '''conduct'''.

:We cannot, as a church, approve '''unworthy conduct''' or accept into full fellowship individuals who '''live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires''' of Latter-day Saints.{{ref|packer.1995}}

:If we, out of sympathy, should approve unworthy conduct, it might give present comfort to someone but would not ultimately contribute to that person’s happiness.

===2000===

In 2000, President Packer taught:

:If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that '''immoral, unnatural behavior''' is a fixed part of your nature.

Here we see the same idea expressed in Pres. Packer's 2010 talk—immoral ''behavior'' is not a fixed, unalterable part of one's nature. One can choose behavior, despite strong inclinations and temptations, as he goes on to explain:

:With some few, there is the '''temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman.'''...

:The gates of freedom, and the good or bad beyond, swing open or closed to the password ''choice''. You are free to choose a path that may lead to despair, to disease, even to death (see 2 Ne. 2:26–27).

:Do not experiment; do not let anyone of either gender touch your body to awaken passions that can flame beyond control. It begins as an innocent curiosity, Satan influences your thoughts, and it becomes a pattern, a habit, which may imprison you in an addiction, to the sorrow and disappointment of those who love you (see John 8:34; 2 Pet. 2:12–14, 18–19).

:Pressure is put upon legislatures to legalize unnatural '''conduct'''. They can never make right that which is forbidden in the laws of God (see Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9–10).

:Sometimes we are asked why we do not recognize this '''conduct''' as a diverse and acceptable '''lifestyle'''. This we cannot do. We did not make the laws; they were made in heaven “before the foundation of the world” (D&C 132:5; D&C 124:41; see also Alma 22:13). We are servants only….

:We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We ''do not'' reject you, only immoral behavior. We ''cannot'' reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We ''will not'' reject you, because we love you (see Heb. 12:6–9; Rom. 3:19; Hel. 15:3; D&C 95:1).

:You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend ''tough'' love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

:We did not make the rules; they were revealed as commandments. We do not cause nor can we prevent the consequences if you disobey the moral laws (see D&C 101:78). In spite of criticism or opposition, we must teach and we must warn.

:When any '''unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them''' (see James 4:6–8; 2 Ne. 9:39; Mosiah 3:19). The Apostle Paul taught, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13; see also D&C 62:1)....:Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1:13–15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7:10–13; Alma 15:8).

Here again, President Packer uses the same scripture from Paul to illustrate that temptations do not inevitably translate into acts. He goes on to teach that some temptations and inclinations will not be overcome in this life:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.{{ref|packer.2000}}

We note again that those who do not act on such temptations are not guilty of any sin—just as Pres. Packer taught in his 2010 talk, and as the clarifications (not alterations) to the meaning of that talk argued.

===2003===

In 2003, President Packer again taught these same ideas, including the principle that only acts make one a sinner or subject to Church discipline:

:There are words we would rather not say. They describe things that we would rather not think about. But you are inescapably exposed to temptations in connection with fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, perversion, lust, abuse, the unnatural, and all that grows from them....

:Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning. The deceiver '''preys upon some passion or tendency or weakness'''. He convinces them that the condition cannot be changed and recruits them for '''activities''' for which they never would volunteer....

:'''In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations'''. One is held accountable for transgression. ({{s||DC|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.{{ref|packer.2003}}

===2006===

In 2006, President Packer again taught against the idea that we must inevitably sin because of temptations or tendencies:

:It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence.

:Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then into experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down....

:The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and '''are compelled to live in sin'''. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ.{{ref|packer.2006}}

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page.)

==Editing an apostle?==

Some few have expressed surprise or disappointment that an apostle's remarks would be edited for publication. Others have assumed that such editing represented a "reigning in" of President Packer by other members of the "Mormon hierarchy." Such an uncharitable reading is inconsistent with the evidence that President Packer's views on this issue have not changed.

Furthermore, it is relatively common practice—in and out of the Church—to edit talks after their presentation prior to publication. President Packer himself expressed his appreciation for those of his fellow leaders or Church employees who, in the past, have suggested changes in his wording to avoid confusion:

:I was asked to write an article for the ''Improvement Era''. It was returned with the request that I change some words. I smarted! The replacement words didn't convey exactly what I was trying to say. I balked a bit, and was told that Richard L. Evans, then of the Seventy and magazine editor, had asked that the changes be made....Now, though that article is piled under thirty-five years of paper, I'm glad, very glad, that if someone digs it out, I was "invited" to change it.

:After one of my first general conference talks, I received a call from Joseph Anderson [secretary to the First Presidency]. In a very polite way he said that President McKay and his counselors suggested that I add one word to the text of my talk. Would I mind doing that? Actually the word was in my text, I just failed to read it at the pulpit. A most embarrassing lesson -- the First Presidency! It was easier when Elder Evans corrected my work; even easier when one of my associates was kind enough to do it.

:Only last Friday while putting together some things for a presentation, I read part of it to some brethren from BYU. I noticed they looked at one another at one place in my reading, and I stopped and asked if there was a problem. Finally one of them suggested that I not use a certain scripture that I had included even though it said exactly what I wanted to convey. How dare they suppose that a member of the Twelve didn't know his scriptures! I simply said, "What do you suggest?" He said, "Better find another scripture," and he pointed out that if I put that verse back in context, it was really talking about another subject. Others had used it as I proposed to use it, but it was not really correct. I was very glad to make a change.

:Now you may not need a correlating hand in what you do, but I certainly do. This brother lingered after the meeting to thank me for being patient with him. Thank me! I was thankful to him. If I ever make that presentation, it will only be after some of our Correlation staff have checked it over for me.{{ref|bkp.1}}

President Packer's message was clear to many who heard it.{{ref|clarity.1}} Some honestly misunderstood him, and some seem to have actively sought a hostile reading. In this context, a clarification was appropriate so there can be no excuse for mistaking his meaning.

==Propaganda and tactics==

Many people could have innocently misunderstood President Packer's comments. The idea that just because you have certain feelings does not mean you have to act upon them is becoming more and more foreign to people outside the church. If someone does not understand this distinction, they could easily interpret a call to avoid illicit sexual relationships, including a strong reference to same-sex relationships, as a call to change your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation seems to have spread, making it harder to understand Elder Packer's real intent.

It is important that those with same-sex attractions do not feel guilt for same-sex attractions, and this type of misrepresentation of the Church's teachings only compounds the problem. While many might not understand the distinction the Church makes, many people ''do'' understand the distinction but insist on perpetuating the misunderstanding. Making it sound like President Packer is trying to tell people they have to change their sexual orientation garners more sympathy towards their cause than making it sound like President Packer was telling people they can choose not to have gay sex.

This tactic is harmful, and so it is no surprise that those opposed to the Church's teachings resort to it. President Packer is an apostle of God and many members with same-sex attraction sustain him as such. If they come under the false impression that an apostle of God is telling them they can change their sexual orientation, then they will feel more pressure to do so, which can result in guilt and depression—or (as the Church's critics likely hope will happen) members with same-sex attraction will conclude that President Packer is not to be heeded because his "advice" to change their orientation doesn't succeed. He is not, they will then conclude, inspired or directed by God in his counsel. This misunderstanding, fostered by some enemies of the Church's teachings and doctrines, would then drive people away from keeping their covenants, continued faith in the atonement of Christ, and sustaining the prophets and apostles.

The actual message delivered by the Church and President Packer that "if you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt" can easily become lost among the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Blurring the distinction between gay sex and same-sex attractions is not a new tactic. They match techniques which some have long advocated.

{{main|/Critics' tactics|l1=Detailed examination of critics' tactics}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|bkp.2}} An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at BYU on 1 February 1998; reproduced in {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Peaceable Followers of Christ|date=April 1998|pages=62}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b7f8605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|bkp.3}} {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Revelation in a Changing World|date=November 1989|pages=16}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=63e82150a447b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|bkp.4}} {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Tribute to the Rank and File of the Church|date=May 1980|pages=65}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=1a17615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|scott.trotter.1}} Scott Taylor, "Mormon youths support President Packer through Facebook," ''Deseret News'' (11 October 2010) {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072794/Mormon-youths-support-President-Packer-through-Facebook.html}}
#{{note|oaks.2006}} {{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}
#{{note|gl.smith.1}} {{MSR-23-1-6}}
#{{note|packer.2000.a}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}
#{{note|mcmullin.1}} Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "[http://newsroom.lds.org/article/remarks-by-bishop-keith-b.-mcmullin-to-evergreen-international Remarks]," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010.
#{{note|swk.1}} "I was asked on one occasion by President Kimball if I would care to talk to the students at Brigham Young University on the subject of perversion. I begged him to excuse me from doing it, for I thought myself incapable of talking on that subject to a mixed audience. Later I repented of having declined the invitation and worked with great care to do as he had asked me to do. While "To the One" was given before a large audience at a Brigham Young University fireside, I singled out the afflicted individual for help, and also tried to inform and guide anyone who might have responsibility to help "the one" find his way." - Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 154.
#{{note|to.the.one.1}} "To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 186–200, emphasis added; italics in original. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com.gospelink.com/library/document/18527}}
#{{note|packer.1990}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=Oct 1990|article=Covenants|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|packer.1995}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=October 1995|article=The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|packer.2000}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}} {{ea}} {{io}}
#{{note|packer.2003}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|packer.2006}} {{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=I Will Remember Your Sins No More|date=April 2006|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/-i-will-remember-your-sins-no-more-?lang=eng}} {{ea}}
#{{note|bkp.1}} Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," (18 May 1993).
#{{note|clarity.1}} See, for example, (Gay) Mormon Guy, "President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective," blog post (14 October 2010) {{link|url=http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2010/10/president-packers-talk-from-gay-mormon.html}}

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?

2012-05-04T14:44:07Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: In Mormonism, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?

2012-05-04T14:43:29Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: In Mormonism, what are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?

2012-05-04T14:42:02Z

JoshuaJohanson:

Question: Do Mormon leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction?

2012-05-04T14:41:15Z

JoshuaJohanson: