LDS Blogger Kathryn Skaggs Fires Back Against Criticism Of Her Assessment Of The Disney Movie "Frozen"

The proverbial "Gay Mafia" is always on the prowl for opportunities to discredit and defame anyone who speak out against the promotion of homosexual behavior. And they found a juicy target in the person of Kathryn Skaggs, a leading Mormon blogger who posted her assessment of the new Disney movie "Frozen". After seeing the movie three times, Sister Skaggs got the impression that it promoted a pro-gay message. The following statement best sums up her assessment of the movie; midway through her post, Sister Skaggs wrote "It actually gave me a good opportunity to confirm my initial reaction, and in so doing, I could blatantly see that the homosexual agenda, to normalize the practice, was not simply an underlying message in the movie Frozen, but is the actual story".

Of course, the critics all piled on to the comments section of her post and vented their spleens. Some criticism came from fellow Mormons, and not all of it was constructive. The "homophobic" epithet was slung about faster than hash at Mel's Diner. While she finally found it necessary to disable further comments, she let most of the comments stand as a testament, in part, to the emotional and irrational hatred displayed by the Gay Mafia and its allies against those who question their agenda. On February 21st, Kathryn Skaggs fired back, seeking to clarify the misunderstanding of her position and the resultant misinformation published in a number of outside media sources such as Pink News and HuffPo. Here's the meat of her rebuttal, along with my comments in italics:

I'd like to make a few clarifications about some of the things that I wrote in the post, which are being misrepresented, misunderstood, or were never said:

-- I did not say that people should boycott Frozen, rather, I liked the film. This is true; at no time did she call for a boycott.

-- I do not think the movie Frozen is evil, although I do see a strong gay theme running throughout the film. This is her honest assessment, although as Sixteen Small Stones points out, the movie actually demonstrates broad applicability to many different human experiences, which explains its popularity.

-- I never said that children who watch Frozen will become gay. This is true; at no time does she say or even imply that watching Frozen will turn anyone gay.

-- I do not believe people who advocate for SSM are evil. This is true; she clearly states she has no problem with those who find the homosexual messaging good, or important for society, from their perspective.

-- I do not hate homosexuals. This is true; one of her five kids is a non-practicing lesbian who's married to a man and who is an active LDS member, and Sister Skaggs says she loves her very much.

-- I never said that Christian parents who didn't see a gay message in Frozen are stupid. This is true; she merely said they could be clueless, which can mean they could have been honestly duped. Satan is notorious for twisting around otherwise worthy messages to mislead us, misdirect us, and subject us to his yoke.

-- I am aware that others see different themes in Frozen, which are positive. She points this out numerous times in her original post.

-- I believe a progressive element is strongly rooted in all forms of media and intentionally influences culture, in order to normalize that which currently is opposed by mainstream society - often so subtle that most don't detect it. This is putting it mildly. Progressives have virtually hijacked the entertainment industry, glorifying anti-heroes, misfits, malcontents, and other losers. And progressives have hijacked all the national media organizations except for the Fox News Channel.

Perhaps another reason why Sister Skaggs sees a gay theme in the movie is because some of the Gay Mafia have so enthusiastically taken ownership of it. Topless Robot wrote, in part, "Frozen's subtext is so gay, it's barely subtext; it's just on-the-nose text". And Bad-Ass Digest wrote, in part, "Is Elsa gay? I think there’s certainly a valid queer reading to be found in the film". So one can understand why some would focus on a gay theme in the movie. But Sixteen Small Stones gets it right when they opine that many people who are marginalized, for many different reasons, can relate to the movie. But Kathryn Skaggs does not deserve to be raked over the coals merely for sounding a voice of caution.

Arizona SB1062, Which May Permit Discrimination Under Cover Of Free Exercise Of Religion, Could Pose A Potential Threat To Mormons If It Becomes Law

This may come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog, since I am a hardline social conservative who opposes gay marriage. But I have misgivings about a piece of legislation passed on February 21st, 2014 by the Arizona State House. The bill, if signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, could be flipped around by anti-religious extremists to target members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious conservatives for discrimination under protective cover of their own beliefs.

Update February 26th: Governor Brewer vetoed the bill. She said the bill was unnecessary legislation that threatened the state’s recovering economy by driving away high-profile events such as next year’s Super Bowl and corporations looking to relocate to Arizona. She also said the proposed law was too broadly worded and could have resulted in unintended and negative consequences. Good move, Guv...it was too broadly worded.

The Arizona State House passed SB1062 (also known as HB2153) by a 33-27 vote on February 21st, just one day after the State Senate passed the same bill by a party-line 17-13 vote (17 Republicans, 13 Democrats. The House vote was almost party line, with only three Republicans voting against the bill. The bill's original sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler), said it was prompted by the infamous New Mexico case in which the state's Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. An unscientific online poll conducted by the Arizona Republic indicates only limited public support; over 81 percent of respondents want Gov. Brewer to veto the bill. Gov. Brewer has five days to sign it into law, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law. Although Gov. Brewer vetoed a similar bill in 2013, the Arizona Republic suggests it may not be a clear predictor of what she’ll do this time, because according to her veto letter, her decision to reject last year’s bill was due more to a political battle over Medicaid expansion than objection to the legislation. CNN claims that Gov. Brewer has expressed her personal belief in the right of business owners to deny service in the past.

According to the Arizona Republic (which provides only a limited number of free views per month), the legislation proposes the following specifics:

-- Expand the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion.

-- Allow someone to assert a legal claim of free exercise of religion regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceedings.

-- Expand those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”

-- Establish wording that says that in order to assert a free-exercise-of-religion defense, the individual, business or church must establish that its action is motivated by a religious belief, that the belief is sincerely held and that the belief is substantially burdened.

Read the specific language of the bill HERE.

Caveat: Although this legislation may appear to protect conservatives on the surface, it may be a double-edged sword. What's to stop a business owner who's a member of a gay-friendly church like the Metropolitan Community Church to refuse service to Mormons because the LDS Church opposes gay marriage? And what's to stop an Evangelical business owner from refusing service to Mormons because of his theological belief that Mormonism is a "cult"? This bill could easily be used as a weapon against us, and while we may be able to successfully defray such action, there's no guarantee that a judge will rule sensibly. After all, no one dreamed that unelected judges would invalidate the constitutional definitions of marriage in Utah and Oklahoma.

Now we better understand why the LDS Church leadership has pursued a two-track strategy in dealing with gay activism. While the Brethren have circled the wagons in defense of traditional marriage and are pulling out all the stops to prevent gay marriage, the Brethren have expressed no opposition to anti-discrimination legislation protecting gays in other areas. The Brethren correctly perceive that gay marriage poses a greater threat to civilization than anti-discrimination ordinances. Once again, the Brethren have shown that they're on top of the situation and want to protect our right as Mormons to advocate publicly without fear of discrimination; this also keeps the window of opportunity to evangelize the world wide open for as long as possible. While Jesus Christ is indeed the real head of the LDS Church, let us not forget that he has delegated His authority to his chosen servants upon this earth. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve constitute that chosen authority, not because they are inerrant or infallible, but because they're good enough for Christ. When we have Primary children sing "follow the prophet", we are asking them to follow the Savior as well.

Gay Porn Site Webmaster Claims LDS Church Targeted MormonBoyz.Com With A Denial-Of-Service Attack. LOL!

The proprietor of a gay porn website is claiming that the LDS Church recently launched a DoS (denial of service) attack on his website. Paul Jackson, the owner of MormonBoyz.com (will not hotlink it) who once attended BYU-Provo, claims the attack took place on Sunday August 4rd, 2013.

However, Jackson offers only uncorroborated circumstantial evidence. He says his investigation revealed that the IP address of the servers implementing the attack could be traced to the ZIP code 84150, or downtown Salt Lake City where the LDS Church Offices Building, Temple Square and the LDS Conference Center are located. Of course, that does not constitute proof; not only are there other servers belonging to other entities in the area, but it's possible the LDS Church uses a dynamic IP scheme, meaning IPs can change regularly. Furthermore, the LDS Church Offices Building is closed on Sunday. It is also possible that a third party may have spoofed the LDS Church's IP. So perhaps Jackson's accusation represents masochistic wishful thinking on his part. The LDS Church has refused to dignify this ludicrous accusation with a response so far. QSaltLake offers more detail and claims that the 84150 ZIP code only contains the blocks of Temple Square, the LDS Church Office Building and the LDS Conference Center, but that still doesn't mean there couldn't be other servers belonging to other entities in the area. Note: Frank Pellett, a Utah resident, confirms that the 84150 zip code does contain only those three blocks (which has no residential space), but also mentions that it's impossible to trace an IP to a specific zip code.

MormonBoyz.com purports to showcase "beautiful young Mormon boys". Parodying an authentically religious site, MormonBoyz is reportedly rife with Biblical imagery and young men wearing traditional Mormon undergarments.

LDS Church Criticizes Supreme Court Rulings On Proposition 8 And DOMA, Remains Committed To Strengthening Traditional Marriage

Those who were concerned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was caving in to political correctness when they supported the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to admit gay Scouts need to disabuse themselves of that notion right now. On June 26th, 2013, in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California Proposition 8, the LDS Church explicitly reaffirmed its commitment to defending traditional marriage as well as democratic expression through the ballot box. Here's the official reaction by the LDS Church:

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

According to Joanna Brooks, local Mormon action independent of Church headquarters is also expected. In one Washington, D.C., area stake, LDS Church leaders sent an email message to members requesting their attendance at a National Day of Prayer on religious freedom convened by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this Thursday (June 27th) in Arlington, Virginia. At least Brooks is intellectually honest enough to admit that only a minority of Mormons have expressed support for the Supreme Court decisions. Other Christians joining the LDS Church in opposition include the Most Reverend John C. Wester, Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land, and American Family Association President Tim Wildmon.

The two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are available online:

-- Hollingsworth v. Perry: This is the 35-page decision over Proposition 8. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. After two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court ruled that they could do so under state law. But the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case. Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Minority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.

-- United States v. Windsor: This is the 77-page decision over DOMA. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. In ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, the Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples. Majority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissenting was Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito.

Additional legal analysis from a multitude of sources is available on this separate page of SCOTUS.

Unofficial LDS Reaction: LDS Freedom Forum has opened up a discussion on how these decisions may ultimately affect temple marriage. The LDS Bloggernacle, which tends to be left-of-center politically, has exploded with reaction (after the jump):

LDS Church Accepts Compromise Decision Announced By Boy Scouts To Allow Gay Scouts While Banning Openly-Gay Leaders

On May 23rd, 2013, the Boy Scouts of America announced its decision on gays in the organization. Of the roughly 1,400 voting members of the BSA's National Council who cast ballots, 61 percent supported the proposal to allow gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders. The decision takes effect on January 1st, 2014. In their statement, the Boy Scouts stressed that they still would not condone sexual conduct by any Scout –- gay or straight, saying "The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive and unresolved societal issue".

Because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day expressed its willingness to live with this compromise back on April 25th, their reaction is of primary interest. And the LDS Church has issued an official statement indicating that they accept the decision, while reiterating the need for all participants in their Scouting units to abide by LDS Church standards, which are spelled out in the For The Strength Of Youth book and which prescribe total sexual abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage. A letter signed by the First Presidency of the Church reaffirming of Church policies and standards will be sent to every LDS congregation in the United States. Here's the most important part of the statement:

The Church's long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: "young men … who agree to abide by Church standards" are "welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate" (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been -— and is not now -— a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.

These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.

The Church appreciates BSA's reaffirmation of its commitment to "duty to God," which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

Some other socially-conservative religious denominations are unhappy with the decision. Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee, said "We are deeply saddened. Homosexual behavior is incompatible with the principles enshrined in the Scout oath and Scout law". Richard Land, a senior Southern Baptist Conference official, can't imagine any Southern Baptist pastor who would continue to allow his church to sponsor a Boy Scout troop under these new rules, and advised Southern Baptist churches to withdraw their support of Scout troops and consider affiliating instead with the Royal Ambassadors, an existing SBC youth program for boys that combines religious ministry with Scouting-style activities. Baptist churches sponsor Scout units serving more than 100,000 of the BSA's 2.6 million youth members.

The Assemblies of God, another conservative denomination which oversees units serving more than 2,000 Scouts, said said it could no longer support such units and predicted the policy change will lead to a mass exodus from the Boy Scout program. They suggested its own Royal Rangers youth group as a positive alternative. Meanwhile, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting responded more cautiously, saying it would assess the possible impact of the change on Catholic-sponsored Scout units. Texas Governor Rick Perry has also expressed disappointment with the decision, saying BSA "has been built upon the values of faith and family for more than 100 years, and today's decision contradicts generations of tradition in the name of political correctness."

Rank-and-file LDS reaction is rather sparing, with discussion appearing on By Common Consent and the LDS Freedom Forum. Kathryn Skaggs expresses approval of the LDS Church's response. However, one person who identified as LDS posted the following on Stormfront:

I share Governor Perry's disappointment. It looks too much like the Scouts caved in to political correctness, which merely encourages more political correctness. If you think the gay rights lobby will stop here, you're sadly mistaken. The struggle will never be over for the American civil rights industry, because it provides too many jobs to too many activists. Like the Soviet Union during its existence, the civil rights industry maintains that what's theirs is theirs, and what's ours is always negotiable.

I'm also disappointed that the LDS leadership is breaking ranks with our Baptist and Assemblies of God brethren and sisters. However, this is where the test of faith comes into play. I intend to exercise faith that the LDS leadership is acting in accordance with the wishes of the Lord, not because they are inerrant, but because they have been ordained and set apart for their positions. Sustaining the brethren means allowing them room to exercise the Lord's will on behalf of the entire church and exercising faith that they are indeed enjoying the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Remember, Abraham had an even more severe test of faith -- he was asked to offer his son Isaac up as a sacrifice. Abraham obeyed, and the decision actually turned out well for him and Isaac. We have enough anklebiters and naysayers in the Bloggernacle -- I don't intend to become another naysayer.

Liberal Idaho Media Outlets Accusing LDS Regional Public Affairs Director Larry Fisher Of Trying To Quash Pocatello's "Add The Words" Gay Nondiscrimination Ordinance

Several liberal Idaho media outlets, most notably the Idaho State Journal and the Boise Weekly, are accusing LDS Regional Public Affairs Director Larry Fisher of working behind the scenes with Pocatello city leaders to quash a proposed gay nondiscrimination ordinance that's a part of a statewide campaign by gay activists known as "Add The Words". Their objective is to add the words "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" to the Idaho Human Rights Act; at least four other Idaho municipalities, Boise, Moscow, Sandpoint, and Ketchum, have adopted such a measure. The controversy revolves around the fact that Fisher put city leaders in touch with a pro-family group, American Religious Freedom Program (AFRP), so they could share their expertise in dealing with the construction of nondiscrimination guidelines.

The story began when Larry Fisher offered to bring an attorney from the AFRP to town to provide their expert opinion on nondiscrimination ordinances. City leaders accepted, and on April 4th, 2013, Jacki Pick arrived to represent the AFRP. Councilmen Jim Johnston and Steve Brown met with Pick from 9 to 10 a.m. on April 4th, Councilman Roger Bray met with her at 10 a.m. Eva Johnson-Nye and Craig Cooper had an 11 a.m. meeting, and meeting from 12:20 to 1:30 p.m. were Pick, Mayor Brian Blad, Brown, Bray, and city attorneys, Kirk Bybee and Dean Tranmer. City records indicate no notes were taken because a quorum of the council was not present at any of the sessions. There was also an afternoon session with Pick which lasted from 1:30 to 2:45 p.m. and included Fisher, Grace Lutheran pastor Jonathan Dinger and minister of the New Blazing Grace Church, Jacqueline Thomas. This input was provided along with input from other leading groups such as the ACLU, Too Great to Hate, and Interfaith Fellowship to ensure a proper balance from having the concerns of all constituencies represented. The Boise Weekly reports that another pro-family group, the Heritage Foundation, was also consulted.

Subsequently, a vote on the anti-discrimination ordinance was delayed until after the April 4th hearing and the hearing on proposed changes to the ordinance continued until April 18th. After the second hearing, a split council voted 3-3 with Mayor Blad casting the deciding No vote, essentially killing the ordinance as written. A new hearing on a revised ordinance, which was discussed on May 9th by the city council at a working session, is set for June 6th. Because Mayor Blad and the three council members who voted against the ordinance are all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, questions arose as to whether it was an organized LDS effort similar to the campaign against California Proposition 8. In response to this concern, Pocatello Council Member Craig Cooper said he voted against the measure not because he's LDS, but because he thought it was too punitive -— the proposed ordinance would have made discrimination a misdemeanor, punishable by fines of up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail. He does not believe strict liability should be imposed; there should be proof of deliberate intent before punishment, since not everyone is going to know the law.

Read the revised eight-page ordinance HERE. The revised ordinance specifies that discriminatory acts must be willfully committed, exempts mom-and-pop landlords and employers, drops the incarceration provision, and allows prosecutors to reduce it from a misdemeanor to an infraction carrying a $100 fine if the violator makes voluntary corrections. In addition, anyone knowingly filing false discrimination charges will be charged with the crime of False Reporting.

But the Boise Weekly is trying to portray all this as an act of Mormon orchestration and collusion, as evidenced by the provocative headline "Journal: Mormon Church Arranged Lobbyist to Push Against LGBT Protections in Pocatello", which implies that Larry Fisher got secret "marching orders" from Salt Lake City. This could be nothing more than a lame attempt by a typical weekly hippie rag to goose circulation. However, the Idaho State Journal was at least fair-minded enough to post responses to specific questions by Fisher back on May 16th. Here are the three most definitive questions:

Question: Because you are the regional Public Affairs Director for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, did you worry this would be seen as a move by “the church” to influence city politics? Is it an attempt by the LDS Church to wield influence or is this anti-discrimination ordinance something you have a personal stake in?

Fisher: We are grateful that Councilman Bray and others sought comment from all interested groups. City officials are elected to represent all citizens in the community, including those who are LDS. The Church has publicly supported nondiscrimination ordinances in Salt Lake but has also been public about the necessity of balance as well.

Question: As an influential member of the Pocatello community, what are your thoughts on protections for the LGBT community?

Fisher: As I’ve said, we’ve supported nondiscrimination ordinances before and understand the need for balance and representation from all views. Our desire has been to help the city create a nondiscrimination ordinance that satisfies those goals.

Question: There is no secret that Mayor Blad and the councilmen who voted against passage of the ordinance on April 18 are all members of the LDS Church. How do you think non-LDS members of the community will view your efforts to bring in an outside “expert?” How should they view it?

Fisher: Our desire is to provide insight and expertise that helps all community leaders develop an ordinance that unites our community. That is possible only when all views have been heard and discussed.

There's no evidence of any collusion with LDS Church headquarters. The LDS Statement on Political Neutrality states that the Church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms, and does not attempt to direct or dictate to any government leaders. The LDS Church does expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters. It also reserves the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church. These are rights accorded to all American citizens regardless of religion. Thus it is unfair to hold the LDS Church to a harsher standard than other organizations.

LDS Church Expresses Satisfaction With New Boy Scouts' Gay Proposal; Mixed Reaction Among Conservative Mormons

Update May 23rd: The Boy Scouts announced that they have voted to allow gay Scouts in the organization while continuing to disallow openly-gay adult leaders. The LDS Church has accepted this decision. Updated post HERE.

On April 20th, 2013, the Boy Scouts of America announced that the National Executive Committee will submit a proposed resolution to its approximately 1,400 voting members on May 20th that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and would maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of BSA. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. The full text of the resolution is available HERE. At the time, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints merely said they would review the language and study the implications of the proposal.

On April 25th, the LDS Church delivered their answer. They expressed satisfaction at what they call a good-faith effort to address a complex, challenging issue, and said that the BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God. This is a clear-cut indication that if the new BSA proposal is adopted as currently written, the LDS Church will not pull their Scouting units out of BSA.

Reaction: There was a mixed response from Mormons who are socially conservative. On LDS Freedom Forum, reaction is decidedly mixed. One person supports the Church's decision, saying that just because a boy may have experimented with homosexuality once or twice doesn't mean he should be typecast as "gay" the rest of his life, and adding that BSA is NOT planning on changing the Scout motto. But another person disagrees with the Church's response, and said he sent the following letter to lds.org:

"I agree completely with loving our fellow man and accepting the sinner while not the sin. As an adult I see the benefit of associating with different people. However, I cannot accept or support the church's position on Boy Scouting. Our youth are being taught values and standards that will have to carry them throughout their lives. This includes values of morality and sexuality. Our children are already being bombarded with the need to accept homosexuality in schools, with the television shows and movies they see, in news stories. Associations involved with the LDS Church should be a respite from these unwholesome influences. It is admirable to teach our children the need to accept all people with love and understanding in spite of their imperfections. It is another to say we support and endorse an organization which teaches these practices should be allowed. We teach our children to eschew evil, and yet send them into an organization that says evil is okay. Isn't the troubled turbulence of youth difficult enough without getting this mixed message?"

Dr. Stephen Jones, the former BYU professor who was gently kicked to the curb by the school for daring to deviate from the Official Authorized Version Of 9/11, is also skeptical about encouraging more perestroika towards gays, writing "A friend of mine deals with North Sanpete High School in Utah, and said that a big trend there now is for students to say that they are 'gay'. There seems to be a lot of support (and attention) given to those students who make this announcement". I knew it! The secondary purpose of placing these Gay-Straight Clubs in our schools is recruitment, and Dr. Jones has just provided the proof, although North Sanpete is not on this 2010 list of Utah high schools with GSA clubs.

However, another conservative LDS blogger, Kathryn Skaggs, is absolutely supportive of the Church's statement, characterizing it as "brilliant". While that may be a bit over the top, Skaggs points out that the statement is totally consistent with not only our current outreach to gay church members, but it also impresses her as the way the Savior Himself would have responded. Kathryn Skaggs' credentials as a faithful culture warrior are unimpeachable.

Those who are concerned about the possibility that the LDS Church may be wavering in their fundamental definition of sexual morality should take comfort from three different addresses delivered at the 183rd Annual General Conference which assure us that the Church remains firmly committed to defending traditional sexual behavior:

President Boyd K. Packer: During his address, he said “Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the tolerance trap so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity.”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks: In his address, he said "Latter-day Saints understand that we should not be of the world or bound to the tradition of men, but like other followers of Christ, we sometimes find it difficult to separate ourselves from the world and its traditions. Some model themselves after worldly ways because, as Jesus said of some whom He taught, 'they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God' (John 12:43). These failures to follow Christ are too numerous and too sensitive to list here. They range all the way from worldly practices like political correctness and extremes in dress and grooming to deviations from basic values like the eternal nature and function of the family".

Elder David A. Bednar: In his address, Elder Bednar firmly reiterated the LDS Church's standard of sexual morality, saying "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship prescribed in God’s plan. Such relations are not merely a curiosity to be explored, an appetite to be satisfied, or a type of recreation or entertainment to be pursued selfishly. They are not a conquest to be achieved or simply an act to be performed. Rather, they are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential and a way of strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. We are agents blessed with moral agency and are defined by our divine heritage as children of God—and not by sexual behaviors, contemporary attitudes, or secular philosophies".

Community Of Christ Concludes 2013 World Conference, Conditionally Approves Gay Marriage At Separate USA National Conference

The Community of Christ concluded its 2013 World Conference which took place from April 13-18, and the most significant legislative development of this conference was the decision to rescind General Conference Resolution (GCR) 297, which made the issue of whether or not a person drinks intoxicating beverages a test of fellowship. If it was enforced, it would mean that a church member who drinks an alcoholic beverage could be excommunicated from the church. By rescinding GCR 297, the Conference decided that excommunicating someone merely because they drink alcohol is not a requirement. Rescinding GCR 297 does NOT repeal the Word of Wisdom. In another decision, there is no change to the Community of Christ's baptism policy, only a call for a study about the issue of infant baptism with a report back to the church by the next World Conference.

Visit the 2013 World Conference page and review the official business minutes for each day for more information on other discussions and decisions.

But the more momentous decision actually occurred at the separate 2013 USA National Conference, which convened from April 19-21. This Conference essentially approved gay marriage to be performed wherever it is legal, and commitment services for gay couples where gay marriage is not legal. The decision, if approved by the senior church leadership, would apply only in the United States. Kendra Friend, a member of the church’s communications and media relations team, believes the First Presidency and Council of The Twelve will follow the recommendations of the National Conference. Apostle Linda Booth provided an explanation to KSHB Channel 41: “We believe this is where God is directing Community of Christ, to be an inclusive body where everyone is welcome...We will be able to provide covenant commitment ceremonies in this state, where it's not legal, for anyone who wants to make a long-term life commitment to one another", said Booth. News video embedded below:



The Blue Springs Examiner has some good media coverage, publishing the following stories:

-- "Veazey counsels followers to shape communities", April 16th 2013: Discusses President Stephen M. Veazey's Words Of Counsel to the church. President Veazey urged church members to continue to shape communities that live Christ’s love and mission, and to shape their actions to end people’s suffering and abolish poverty. Read the full text of President Veazey's address HERE.

-- "Service to host community part of World Conference", April 18th 2013: Discusses Jessica Ralston's tasking to lead one of the community service projects during the 2013 World Conference. Ralston headed up a group of volunteers who put together more than 250 necessity bags for the Independence School District’s Family Services Department. In 2012, the Family Services Department helped about 900 homeless children and their families, so this is significant.

-- "Community of Christ celebrates ordinations", April 18th 2013: Reports on the ordination of three new members of the Council of Twelve Apostles: Arthur E. Smith of Independence, Barbara L. Carter of Newark, Del., and Mareva M. Arnaud Tchong of Tahiti, French Polynesia. Adam R. Wade, a native of Melbourne, Australia, was also set apart as a president of Seventy and member of the Council of Presidents of Seventy.

-- "Woman elected to serve as president of Council of Twelve Apostles", April 20th 2013: Linda Booth, already a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles, was set apart to serve as president of the Council of Twelve Apostles April 17th. She is the first woman to serve as president of the Council.

And here are two stories from the Examiner about the separate USA National Conference that took place from April 19-21 after the conclusion of the World Conference on April 18th:

-- "Community of Christ U.S. delegates address same sex marriage", April 20th 2013: Reports on the efforts of delegates to address two issues – same-sex/gender marriage where legal, and covenant commitment services where marriage is not legal and the ordination of people regardless of sexual orientation. A 67 percent majority would be required to make recommendations to the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles for the final decision.

-- "Community of Christ delegates recommend dropping sexual orientation barriers", April 21st 2013: Delegates decided that the Community of Christ should recognize same-sex marriage where legal in the U.S., offer commitment services for same-sex couples where marriage is not legal, and open the door to priesthood regardless of sexual orientation. The policy changes would apply only to the U.S. churches; current policy will still apply in other nations. Read the full proposal HERE. The First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles would have to approve the proposal before it takes effect.

Update April 27th: A member of the Community of Christ has provided a good personal analysis of the decision-making at the Conference. FireTag says there is some strong anecdotal evidence to support the interpretation that the CofChrist is following other mainline American churches into a future where denominationally-affiliated Americans sort into “red” and “blue” versions of the same religious tradition, but the “blue” denominations will be increasingly checked in areas of personal morality by the ethics of the developing world members. FireTag also opines that the leadership of the CofChrist has now established the precedent, in two successive conferences at minimum, that their view of their pastoral, presiding, and/or prophetic roles will not countenance allowing statements of moral principles by subordinate jurisdictions or the World Conference to endanger church members or leaders in individual jurisdictions of the church. They reserve the right to inject morality into politically charged issues to themselves or to those who they choose to delegate with the task. They did, for example, rule out of order, a resolution asking for restraint on a First Presidency statement on United States (and solely United States) immigration policy. They permitted and the conference passed, with a single word change, a resolution directing the church to advocate the abolition of nuclear weapons, although the church has significant presence in only one nuclear weapons state where advocacy regarding aspects of security policy is tolerated.

In FireTag's opinion, the American membership of the Community of Christ is more progressive, or "blue", than the foreign membership.

Boy Scouts To Submit Proposal Accepting Openly-Gay Scouts But Rejecting Openly-Gay Adult Leaders; LDS Church To "Study" Proposal

When the Boy Scouts of America first announced its intent to re-visit their ban against openly-gay Scouts and adult leaders in January 2013, many suggested each Scout troop be allowed to craft its own policy. While commendable, it would result in a hodgepodge of confusion. One Scout troop which bans gays could be flanked by one that doesn't.

In order to minimize this confusion, the Boy Scouts have now crafted a proposal which will result in a uniform policy across the board but address the concerns of social conservatives who do not want openly-gay adult leaders involved in Scouting. On May 20th, the National Executive Committee will submit a proposed resolution to its approximately 1,400 voting members that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and would maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. Here's the specific language of the resolution, which, if adopted, would take effect on January 1st, 2014:

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

There are about 2.7 million youth members of the Boy Scouts and about 1 million adult leaders. About 70 percent of units are chartered by faith-based organizations. Because 34 percent of Boy Scout troops nationwide are co-sponsored by the LDS Church as of October 2012 according to prominent LDS blogger Joanna Brooks, the reaction of the Church is of interest. More recent figures from BSA indicate that 37,000 troops and 420,000 youth members are sponsored by the LDS Church. In the Boy Scouts' Great Salt Lake Council — one of the largest in the country with 5,500 troops and 73,400 youth — 99 percent of the troops are sponsored by the LDS Church. LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy issued a statement saying, "Church leaders will take the time needed to fully review the language and study the implications of this new proposal. We note that BSA will make a final decision on this matter at their National Annual Meeting next month."

Update April 27th: On April 25th, the LDS Church delivered their answer. They expressed satisfaction at what they call a good-faith effort to address a complex, challenging issue, and said that the BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God.

A Southern Baptist Convention spokesman, Roger Oldham, said the SBC would prefer that the Boy Scouts maintain the ban on both gay youth and adults. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, also reacted unfavorably, saying "The policy is incoherent. The proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 – then, when he comes of age, he's removed from the Scouts." Perkins fears that the proposed change, if adopted, would subject the BSA to crippling lawsuits because it would no longer be able to argue that excluding gays was integral to its basic principles. The Family Research Council has been circulating an online petition urging the BSA to keep the ban. And in Utah, the Boy Scouts' Great Salt Lake Council – one of the largest in the country with 73,400 youth members – said a survey showed that more than 80 percent of its leaders opposed lifting the ban.

Prognosis: There's a good chance the LDS Church could accept the new policy and keep their Scouting units in BSA for the time being. While the LDS Church continues to support its traditional definitions of sexual morality and marriage, and continues to oppose homosexual behavior along with all other forms on sexual behavior outside of marriage, the Church has supported gay nondiscrimination ordinances, particularly in Salt Lake City. Thus they could look upon it as a discrimination issue rather than a morality issue, particularly in concert with continuing the ban against openly-gay adult leaders. Some of the leading gay rights organization have already said that as far as they're concerned, it is only a first step.

LDS Church Expresses Satisfaction At Boy Scout Decision To Defer Gay Question Until May 2013; Other Social Conservatives Marshaling Opposition

Update April 20th: The Boy Scouts of America will introduce a compromise proposal on May 20th that will allow openly-gay Scouts, but continue to ban openly-gay adult leaders. Updated post HERE.

On February 6th, 2013, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced that they intend to defer action on a resolution to allow local Scout units autonomy in admitting gays until May 2013. In their statement, BSA said that due to the complexity of the issue, they needed more time to further engage representatives of Scouting's membership and listen to their perspectives and concerns. The decision is already attracting some criticism from some pro-family groups, though; officials with the Southern Baptist Convention have said their youth group, Royal Ambassadors, was gearing up this week for an influx of new members if the ban was lifted. Others expressed the concern about having a split policy, with the Rev. William Tarbell, a retired Presbyterian minister, saying “What happens in one troop affects Scouting everywhere. You change the policy for a few, you change it for everyone.” Another person is worried that if the ban is lifted, local troops that choose to exclude gays will get sued by "lawyers lying in wait with the gay agenda". In addition, the American Family Association has launched a campaign to get AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson to resign from the BSA board because he's been leading the charge to get BSA to accept openly-gay participants; Stephenson even cut AT&T funding to the BSA, which would seem to be a direct personal conflict of interest for Stephenson. On the other hand, President Barack Obama is the most prominent advocate urging BSA to end the ban on gays.

Also believed to be instrumental in the decision to delay a final resolution was an effort by the Great Salt Lake Council, one of the largest in the country with 5,500 troops and 73,400 youth members, to organize a coalition of 33 Scout councils from all around the country to urge the national executive board to delay the decision, indicating in a statement that time must be allowed for accurate polling data to be collected from stakeholders at all levels and all areas in an unbiased way. Although the Great Salt Lake Council is independent of the LDS Church, its location implies strong LDS influence.

As promised, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has weighed in, issuing the following statement:

The recent announcement that BSA planned to make a policy change in its standards for membership and leadership has triggered intense debate from many segments of society. We believe BSA has acted wisely in delaying a vote on this policy issue until the implications can be more carefully evaluated.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is carefully assessing the consequences of this policy change on the Church’s program to build and strengthen young men, but it has not commented on it and a decision will not be made until we have assessed all of the implications. We caution others not to speculate about our position or to assume that individual Latter-day Saints inside or outside the Scouting movement speak for the Church. Neither has the Church launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change.

This statement should not be interpreted as an indication that the LDS Church is wavering on its fundamental position on homosexuality. Last week, the LDS Church joined with other religious organizations in filing two briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court defending the federal Defense of Marriage law commonly known as DOMA and a California state law, Proposition 8, which restricts the definition of marriage. Thus the LDS Church is simply smart enough to choose the most productive battlefields upon which to campaign for traditional cultural values.

There is some division within LDS ranks on the issue. The Millennial Star published the BSA statement, and comments to Mormon-owned secular media like KSL Channel 5 and the Deseret News indicate support for the LDS position. The issue is also being discussed on the LDS Freedom Forum HERE and HERE. But while the majority of Mormons support maintaining the ban against openly-gay participants in Scouting, a group called Mormons Building Bridges, which orchestrated LDS participation in Salt Lake's Gay Pride parade in 2012, is working to convince BSA to end their ban on gays in scouting (one must be a Facebook member to view their Facebook page).

Because the BSA proposal would allow each local Scout unit to decide on gay participation, I see no reason why the LDS Church, which nationally has more Boy Scouts than any other denomination with 37,000 troops and 420,000 youth members, would abruptly sever ties with BSA if they decide to allow it. The LDS Church permits full membership by celibate gays, so the conflict would be minimal. However, individual LDS members, concerned that this is merely another step in the campaign by gay rights advocates to normalize homosexuality, could decide to pull their boys individually from Scouting.

Boy Scouts Of America Weighs Ending Nationwide Ban Against Openly-Gay Participants; How Will The LDS Church React?

Update May 23rd: The Boy Scouts announced that they have voted to allow gay Scouts in the organization while continuing to disallow openly-gay adult leaders. The LDS Church has accepted this decision. Updated post HERE.

Update April 20th: The Boy Scouts of America will introduce a compromise proposal on May 20th that will allow openly-gay Scouts, but continue to ban openly-gay adult leaders. Updated post HERE.

On January 28th, 2013, numerous sources are reporting that the Boy Scouts of America organization is considering ending the nationwide ban against participation by openly-gay boys and adult leaders, despite the fact that the litany of past sexual abuse of scouts involved male homosexual leaders with male Scouts. Although there is a clinical difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, the line between the two became quite blurred as a result of these scandals.

The best story, including public reaction, was published by The Blaze, although there are 2100 comments appended to NBC's story. However, because it is a controversial issue, BSA is considering merely removing the national ban and allowing local scouting groups to decide for themselves whether they will admit gay youths and leaders rather than imposing mandatory permission of homosexual participation from the top down by the national organization. Deron Smith, a media representative for the Boy Scouts, said “The chartered organizations that oversee and deliver scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with their organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization's mission, principles, or religious beliefs.". This issue could be resolved soon; the discussion is nearing its final stages, and if approved, the change could be announced as early as the first full week in February, after the BSA's national board holds a regularly scheduled meeting. Update February 6th: BSA decides to defer decision until May 2013.

But one of the reasons for the change is economic. Some organizations have waged economic warfare against BSA to pressure them to change. More recently, amid petition campaigns, shipping giant UPS and drug manufacturer Merck announced that they were halting donations from their charitable foundations to the Boy Scouts as long as the no-gays policy was in force.

Naturally, this leads to questions on how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would react, not only because BSA is the official youth program for boys, but, according to prominent LDS blogger Joanna Brooks, 34 percent of Boy Scout troops nationwide are co-sponsored by the LDS Church as of October 2012. The Salt Lake Tribune is currently reporting that the Church has 420,977 youths in 37,882 Scouting units. This means that if the LDS Church objected to the change, and decided to disaffiliate all their troops from BSA, it could inflict a mortal blow upon BSA. KSL Channel 5 reports that BSA conferred with Mormon leaders, as well as Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist sponsors of Boy Scout troops who also prefer to exclude openly-gay participants, before making this new announcement, but none of them have officially reacted, although the Tribune reports that the LDS Church will make no official statement until the decision is announced after next week’s BSA national board meeting.

But considering that BSA says they have already talked to LDS leaders and BSA is still considering going ahead with the change, this implies that the LDS Church can live with the change and won't object. Consequently, I don't foresee the LDS Church disaffiliating all their Boy Scout troops, since they will retain the freedom to exclude openly-gay participants. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that BSA is caving into public pressure and weakening their standards, considering that there is an alternative organization called Scouting For All that caters to openly-gay participants. Even more disturbing is the seeming obsession that gay rights lobbies have with our youth; they seem fixated on getting youth who are unsure about their sexuality to admit they're gay, come out of the closet and publicly proclaim their homosexuality as the only acceptable choice. First, they inundated our high school and middle school campuses with Gay-Straight Clubs, and now they want a foothold in the Boy Scouts. The gay rights lobbies would have more credibility if they would focus on adults and leave the youth to their parents.

Unofficial LDS Reaction: Discussion has already broken out on Mormon Dialogue and LDS Freedom Forum, where reaction is mixed. KSL Channel 5 also records several comments reflecting Mormon reaction (after the jump):

Disfellowshipped Gay Mormon Andrew Markle To Launch Origins Website To Enable Gay Mormons To Hook Up For Sex

A disfellowshipped gay member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is launching a new website that not only will allow gay Mormons to link up with other gays and allies, but also to hook up for sex. On January 8th, 2013, WBEZ 91.5 reports that Andrew Markle will be launching the "Origins" website sometime during the second quarter of the 2013 calendar year.

One of the purposes of the website is fine. One of the missions of Origins will be to connect gay Mormons with allies and help them reconcile their religious beliefs with their orientation. This can be quite useful and therapeutic, because sometimes a gay person needs to cry on the shoulder of another gay person in order to deal with the challenges of homosexuality. But it's the other mission that's disturbing -- to give gay Mormons an online social network to meet others like them for marriage or long-term commitment. That means hooking up for sex -- and that's a big NO-NO!

Further eroding Markle's credibility is the fact that he is currently disfellowshipped for getting involved in a relationship, although he still attends services weekly and his fellow ward members behave supportively towards him in accordance with the "love the sinner but not the sin" routine. Markle recognizes that launching this website, with its intended mission, incurs a risk of excommunication, since advocating homosexual relationships by Mormons may be considered grounds for expulsion from the church, depending upon how his stake president decides to interpret his actions. This could happen notwithstanding his obvious loyalty towards the Church in other matters. And it would be a shame if someone who is basically supportive of the Church would get excommunicated over this.

But how could the LDS Church allow a member who wants to openly hook up gay Mormons for sex to remain a member? We didn't allow David Twede to remain a member when he transformed MormonThink into an openly anti-Mormon website, so to be consistent, we would have to excommunicate Markle. We cannot allow apostates to remain enrolled members of the LDS Church.

Markle has a personal website, a Twitter page, and an Instagram page. On December 12th, 2012, he published a post on Doves and Serprents entitled "The Church and Homosexuality" in which plainly states that he expects the LDS Church to support LGBT members with every ounce of its being and it will stop requiring members to seek counseling for their same-sex attractions. Specifically, he also states "I hope that one day, we will all be able to set ourselves in temple and seal our children and our marriages before God". This, of course, will not happen except by a revelation given to the Church through the priesthood chain of command, which starts at the First Presidency, and not through some ordinary Hoosier from Indiana. We don't need some self-endowed "One Mighty And Strong" calling the leadership to repentance, particularly when it is the leadership that is still in harmony with Gospel principles.

Carol Lynn Pearson Is Wrong: Gay And Lesbian Mormons Are Not "Heroes" Just Because They're Gay

The Salt Lake Tribune is pushing another pro-gay book by Carol Lynn Pearson, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Pearson has just published her fourth — and possibly final — book on the topic, "The Hero’s Journey of the Gay and Lesbian Mormon". The book will not be available in stores, so you'll have to order it through her website. She permits people to read the first three chapters for free.

Pearson's premise is that gay Mormons should view their sexuality as an essential and valued gift rather than as a defect. Her book has already received a number of favorable reviews; one gay Mormon wrote "Wow -- to take the hero's perspective on this subject -- brilliant, and true! I found myself thinking back on my own steps, venturing out, facing my fears, killing some of them. Thanks for giving me this great lens to look through." Another quote attributable to an unnamed LDS leader; "...I like that you acknowledge that there are several paths that gay people in the Church may choose to follow -- and that each is deserving of respect".

Obviously, it's not a bad thing if gay Mormons are given a boost of self-esteem, considering that 95 percent of humanity is straight. But there is only one path that a gay Mormon can follow that will permit the person to retain membership in the Church -- CELIBACY. Church doctrine continues to require celibacy from all those who are not married, and Church doctrine continues to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. God may have created both Adam & Eve and Adam & Steve, but He only authorized Adam & Eve to be fruitful and multiply.

A gay person who is a celibate Mormon deserves credit for being willing to defer satisfaction of one of our most powerful fleshly appetites for the sake of future exaltation in the celestial kingdom. But that alone doesn't make the gay person a hero. Do we consider people with Asperger's Syndrome or manic-depressive syndrome or any other emotional disability to be heroes just because of their disability? Of course not. What makes them heroes is how they triumph over their disabilities -- as well as their other actions in life.

And while homosexuality alone is not evil, it is clearly a disability. I don't need a bunch of peer-reviewed scientific studies to figure this out. Since ninety-five percent of humanity directs their lust towards the opposite sex, this means the five percent who are gay direct their lust towards the same sex. This implies that gays have some emotional wiring crossed upstairs, no different than wiring up a light switch backwards so that it turns the light on when you flick it down rather than flicking it up. Perhaps closely-supervised reparation therapy could unlock the key to resolve the issue; too bad the state of California decided to play God and foreclose this option back in October 2012. LDS resources for gay Mormons are discussed HERE; two leading organizations offering LDS-themed reparative therapy include Evergreen International and North Star.

We do gay people just as much of a disservice by sugar-coating the issue as we do if we bash them for being gay. We owe gay people the truth -- even if that truth is sometimes unpleasant. I strongly suspect that a gay Mormon who can endure to the end during this life will end up ahead of most of us in the next world -- perhaps at the same level as someone who served as a General Authority in this life.

North Star Offers Hope For Gay Latter-day Saints Who Want To Remain Faithful Mormons

Quite by accident, I discovered this resource from a link to the YouTube video of Elder Dallin H. Oaks' General Conference address. North Star is a resource to help members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints who are dealing with same-sex attraction to gain control over it without compromising their membership or standing in the Church.

Their mission statement:

The mission of North Star is to provide a place of community for Latter-day Saints who experience homosexual attraction, as well as their family, friends, and ecclesiastical leaders. North Star serves those who desire the spiritual and social support that strengthens faith, builds character, and empowers men and women to live in joy and harmony within their covenants, values, and beliefs as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As you can see, North Star fully supports the LDS Church's official position on same-sex attraction and holds that the power and grace of Christ enables each individual to renounce behavior and manage thoughts that will prevent him or her from returning into His presence. North Star takes no official position on the origin or mutability of homosexual feelings and attractions, but supports all efforts consistent with the gospel that help individuals live in more full harmony with their covenants and attain greater peace, fulfillment, and sense of individual worth, while affirming that the most essential and eternal growth and progress come through the power of the Savior and adherence to the teachings of His prophets. Thus North Star fulfills the same mission as Evergreen International.

Although North Star has no official connection with the LDS Church, LDS officials have participated in their seminars. On August 25th, 2012, there was a ten-stake training seminar held at the North Ogden Coldwater Stake Building on Same-Gender Attraction (SGA). In attendance were 400 invited Priesthood and auxiliary leaders, including stake presidencies, bishoprics, Relief Society presidencies, and young men and young women’s presidencies. This training evolved out of a proposal presented to the North Ogden Coldwater Stake President by a member of North Star. Conducting the two-hour seminar was Elder Lynn Summerhays, an Area Authority Seventy. Area Authorities are at the first level below General Authorities, but above stake presidents, so this implies some degree of official Church sanction. The purpose of the training was not to discuss how or why SGA develops, but to embrace and communicate the church’s position on relevant issues. Many attendees stated as they departed, that this was the most spiritual meeting they had ever attended.

North Star also offers help in dealing with pornography and sexual addiction recovery, sexual abuse healing, suicide prevention and education, and HIV/AIDS education and prevention. Of possible concern is how the recent law passed in California banning reparative therapy for gays under the age of 18 could affect North Star, but the law does not take effect until January 1st, 2013, and a Christian legal group has since filed a lawsuit challenging the law. Reparative therapy is only one of the strategies employed by North Star.

Former LDS Bishop Kevin Kloosterman Says "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" Made Him More Sympathetic Towards Gay Mormons

Remember LDS Bishop Kevin Kloosterman? He was the one who caused a stir back in November 2011 when he gave a speech during a Mormon Stories conference calling upon members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to behave in a more Christ-like fashion towards gay church members. The transcript of the speech is still available. Kloosterman used the word "atrocity", which set a few people's teeth on edge, but he also said he was speaking strictly for himself, and that he continued to sustain official Church policy towards gays.

Since that time, Kloosterman was released from his calling as bishop in March 2012. However, since the release occurred five months after his speech and five years after being initially called, it was not considered retaliatory. The LDS Church generally limits a bishop's tenure to five years because it is such a demanding job and they want to create a large pool of men who've had the experience.

Now, on July 13th, Kloosterman is back in the news. He has shared with The Advocate the reason why he became interested in the gay issue in the first place. While Kloosterman previously stated that he felt promptings from the Spirit that he needed to learn all he could about these issues, he now says that it was the T.V. show "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" that first sparked his interest. What initially attracted his interest was the intro music for the show, but it soon became much more. Here's the key excerpt:

For me it was much more than watching five gay men help get straight guys’ act together in grooming, home decor, fashion, culture, and cuisine. It began to create a bond for me to these men. They had a certain synergy that kept me wanting to watch more. I liked them as people. I saw them as individuals expressing their God-given talents and trying to make people’s lives and the world a little bit better. As Carson Kressley, the show’s fashion guru, would often say, it’s not a makeover show, it’s a “make better” show.

I would watch the show and imagine what it would be like for them to be in a Mormon bishop’s home, which is probably considered the heart of enemy territory by some in the gay community since Proposition 8. There was something about the spirit of these men that seemed to break barriers of orientation, politics, and even religion. Perhaps like every other fan, I considered them to be more familiar than reality would dictate. Then something that Carson said in his cheeky manner struck me like a thunderbolt. He said, “We are very pro traditional marriage.” Those words echoed in my mind for months and months. It seemed to disrupt and challenge a deeply held belief that the traditional family was under attack by a so called “gay agenda.”

That belief was dismantled at that moment and I realized that these good men had no desire to hurt me, my marriage, or my family. On the contrary, if they were in my home, I could only see them supporting me, my traditional marriage, and my family.

Kloosterman also reveals that in addition to some conservative bloggers who were advocating his excommunication, one blogger was apparently soliciting physical violence against Kloosterman, publishing his personal information and using the term "blood atonement". That blog was soon taken down after others urged Kloosterman to file a police report. Kloosterman no longer sees the LGBT community as a nameless, faceless entity, and invites others to realize that we are all not that different from one another and we truly should treat one another as God intended -- as neighbors and friends.

As Latter-day Saints, we need to remember that we are asking gays who want to remain worthy members of our Church to give up something that most of us straights don't have to give up; the exercise of the power of procreation. And since the Lord, through his prophets, has stated that the only acceptable form of procreation to Him is through monogamous heterosexual marriage, we're asking gays to give up procreating for LIFE to remain worthy members of the Church. That's one heck of a tall order, and it warrants respect for those willing to take that road. It also should warrant some degree of sympathy for those who cannot take that road, although we're under no obligation to dilute or deny our own doctrine just to make other people feel better about themselves.

Perhaps one other way to motivate ourselves to behave more justly towards gay people is to consider the possibility that they may have chosen same-sex attraction as their major life challenge before the foundation of this world, either to advance faster in this life, or to identify more closely with the supreme sacrifice made by Jesus Christ. While this is not officially doctrinal, I discuss Duane Crowther's findings in this previous post.

Up To 350 LDS Members March In Salt Lake Gay Pride Parade; Mormons Plan To March In Other Cities' Gay Parades As Well

Approximately 350 members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints marched in the the annual Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parade which took place on Sunday June 3rd, 2012. Most came in response to a campaign organized by a Facebook group entitled "Mormons Building Bridges". And according to MormonPride, this is merely the start of a nationwide campaign in which Mormons will march in gay parades in Seattle, Washington D.C., New York, Portland, Boise, San Francisco, Memphis, Cleveland, the Twin Cities in Minnesota, and San Diego. Mormons Building Bridges will be augmented by Mormons for Marriage Equality, and Affirmation at the other locations.

Utah media sources for the Salt Lake march include KSL Channel 5, the Deseret News, the Salt Lake Tribune, and KTVX Channel 4.

KSL news video embedded below:



Many of the LDS members, who were identified as being straight, were dressed in typical Sunday church clothing, and some passed up attending the normal Sunday services at their home wards to march in the parade. Organizers, who had only expected about 100 or so Mormons to show up in this group, quickly placed the bulk of them in the front row for maximum visibility, marching directly behind a white banner with the message "Mormons Building Bridges". The men in suits and ties and the little girls in white dresses were a sharp contrast to the pounding music and loincloth-clad dancers behind them. Parade Grand Marshal Dustin Lance Black was pleased, tweeting: "In tears. Over 300 straight, active Mormons showed up to march with me at the Utah Pride parade in support of LGBT people." The LDS Church officially took no interest in the parade.

Here's another video of the event:



Prior to the parade, liberal Mormon blogger Joanna Brooks interviewed Erika Munson, the chief organizer of Mormons Building Bridges. Munson, who has been active in the Church all her life, was influenced in her youth by the leadup to the 1978 revelation that ended the LDS ban on black Priesthood ordination, and she found it a painful experience. When her gay son became eligible for a mission call and struggled with how to deal with it, she decided there was a dichotomy between Christ's commandment to love one another and the treatment of gays by the Church. LDS participation in the California Proposition 8 campaign radicalized her further. So she suddenly decided that the Utah Pride Parade would be an ideal venue for active Mormons who shared her concerns to stand out publicly, but in a "Mormon" way. So she decided to organize a campaign to get Mormons who look and act like typical Mormons to march in the parade.

Nevertheless, not all LDS members approve of the way Mormons Building Bridges expressed their concern. Some considered it little more than a publicity stunt. Others were concerned by the appearance of a group of Mormons marching in a parade that also featured drag queens and loincloth-clad twinks. But Kathryn Skaggs put forth the most principled opposition. On A Well Behaved Mormon Woman, Skaggs writes, in part:

As much as I am all for working toward building bridges, within the Church, to help our gay brothers and sisters feel love among us, I'm not sure I quite get how taking the one day that the Lord has commanded us to worship Him, the Sabbath, to march in a parade, accomplishes, or enhances, that desire.

If this march (and others planned) is to be a show of LDS member support for gays, intended to draw outside attention, then I would question exactly what message this is sending and why? Did any of these LDS members, marching in the parade, have signs inviting gay members to return to Church, saying "Come Worship With Us Again" -- or rather, are these marches simply intended to broadcast a message that Mormons support gay Mormons, no matter how they choose to live their lives, and that we will embrace you within our congregations -- even if you choose to openly and actively live a homosexual lifestyle? If it is the latter, then certainly most "active" members of the Church would not be in support of such public, minority declarations.

Once again I have concerns that small fringe groups, of LDS members, are using any available media source to promote and advocate for change that is oppositional to what current prophets teach. During this time of increased interest in everything Mormon, it is beyond easy to bring media attention to anything remotely controversial about being Mormon. Normalizing same-sex attraction, with its advocates, both inside and outside of the Church, has become a joint effort with, no doubt, hopeful political results.

Skaggs is right; the demo seemed to send the message that we'll accept gays as they are. This is not so, while they may attend our services "as they are", they must commit to celibacy to become formal members. And this will not change without a revelation to the President of the Church, with a corresponding spiritual witness given to the Quorum of the Twelve.

The march of the Mormons has also drawn sharp backlash from outside the LDS community, as expressed on Free Republic. One poster characterized it as "mental illness on parade". Another poster wrote "God damn the LDS for permitting this despicable "outreach" and even likely WELCOMING it". And the backlash could even affect Mitt Romney, whose connections with social conservatives and evangelicals are still tenuous.

The job of those of us who still believe in traditional LDS doctrine is to let the world know that the 350 Mormons who marched in the Salt Lake parade speak only for themselves and are not representative of the greater LDS community. Had the Mormons marched individually rather than as an organized group, it might have been more palatable. But marching as an organized group implies endorsement.