Proper perspective? I certainly doubt the average “Mormon” is in the same group of people that kidnapped Ms. Smart. I don’t get your connection to fundamentalist Mormons and how that is projected onto her mainstream Church.

You realize Sister Elizabeth Smart is now on her way to France to be a Missionary for her “horrible cult”.

And, I’m not aware of rampant incest and pedophilia among the LDS Church leaders. Please cite examples.

How is this any different behavior? How does this absolve this horrible cult organization from its decades of racial and sex and gender discrimination? How does it absolve its fundamentalist ranch leaders from the incest and pedophilia so rampant among the church’s leaders?

Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped and raped by a fundamentalist Mormon. Let’s try to keep this act in proper perspective.

Did he get directives from his local LDS Bishop?

Or did that bright light in the sky that occurred the other night was a revelation? (It was a meteor.)

No matter. It’s going to be interesting this coming January when the Legislature is in session.

And might I add a cross-thread comment: This change of heart is not just because of the publicity of “The Kiss on Main Street”. There were many other factors. The anti-discrimination ordinance at the Salt Lake City Council Meeting would have been signed by the Mayor with or without the LDS endorsement.

But, like Andrew Sullivan has opined:

Leadership comes in the unlikeliest places. And when it does, we should thank God and be glad.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-mormon-move.html

How is it fair to have a vote when gays are a tiny minority of the populace? Back when blacks were enslaved and white people were the vast majority of the populace would it have been fair to have a vote on whether slaves should be freed?

Fair to whom?

My quite legal civil marriage in no way impacts LDS, Catholics, children, heteros, or anyone but my friends and families.

The mormon church engaged in and supported a series of outright lies: gays-are-gonna-get-your-children, gays are a threat to religion, freedom of religion, speech, family children and on and on and on. That’s fair?

If they were being fair, they would have said: “The mormon Church believes that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman. Those are our religious beliefs, and we believe that civil law should reflect our religious beliefs.”

That’s true, honest, and fair, however misguided. but that is NOT what they did.

I suspect that if the continued existence of the mormon church would put to a fair vote, any place you have a preponderance of christian fundamentalists would soon vote them out of existence.

That’s fair, isn’t it?

Please don’t assume that we don’t appreciate your contribution. I am glad you shared your experience.

But in the process you sought to explain or justify your church’s actions. And readers quite naturally seek to refute your justifications and share with you why there is such animosity felt towards the Mormon Church that was not in existence just two years ago.

For example, you seem to equate two opinions in the following paragraph. But, as I discuss below, there was not equal behaviors.

The LDS church leaders based their support on doctrinal beliefs not just about religion but society at large. Others believe marriage between two members of the same sex is no different than marriage between two members of the opposite sex. There is no way to “prove” either of us is right, as there are opposing views of what is right here.

Well then each should leave the other alone. For example, gay people should not try to change laws to disadvantage Mormons, and vice versa.

Gays held up our side, Mormons did not.

If there is no way to prove who is right, then how can you justify your church directing its membership to give tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to impose their opinion on my life? Surely, if you agree that they may not be right, then the only conclusion is that their decision to coerce me to follow their rules is deeply and truly immoral.

This is the basis for the animosity. Had your church left gay people alone, they would not be finding themselves the subject of fear, contempt, and revulsion. Mormons are not being viewed as narrow-minded authoritarian oppressors because of their beliefs; rather, they are seen as narrow-minded authoritarian oppressors because they seek to impose by force of law those beliefs on others who disagree.

I still see a bigger problem, which will no doubt continue after same-sex marriage is recognized throughout the country. That is that gays and lesbians will continue to be discriminated against, on a personal level in the general public. And, more specifically, there is no way to expect gays and lesbians not to see the Mormon church’s stance on homosexuality as discriminatory. Perhaps my question is, does that mean we keep animosity between us before same sex marriage is legalized and afterward?

John, I am not a member of some “Mormon “internet monitoring group”. I found this site by doing a google search for the recent LDS announcement supporting some gay rights and noticed the title asking if the LDS Church’s incremental steps will lead to bigger changes. I thought I’d answer it according to one person’s LDS perspective. Now I apologize as I realize that is not what was wanted.

The Mormon Church sees this life as a proving ground where sacrifice is required, as in the case of those attracted to the same sex being asked to sacrifice those relationships to follow the LDS gospel. Most people see that as ridiculous, discriminatory and/or bigotted. I did not. I chose to give up gay relationships for the Mormon Church because I, personally, felt that was the right thing for me to do.

I honor your decision to live in accordance with your faith. While this is not a decision that I made, I respect that you have chosen a life which gives meaning and provides comfort.

But where we part ways is that you think that the Church is asking you, a member, to sacrifice. I see instead that the Church is forcing me, a non-member in California, to sacrifice.

Your church has every right to appeal to your conscience. It has no right, however, to coerce my acquiescence.

I am not critical of the Mormon Church because it has a belief system different than my own. I am critical of the Church, rather, because it directed its members to contribute tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to take away a basic civil right from me.

And that, amazed, is an evil act.

If you want your religion to be respected, then maybe it has to start acting respectably.

Mr. Amazed,

Yes…no canonized doctrine was changed by the 1978 “manifesto”. So, why do Mormons still do the Mountain-Meadow-Massacre denial thing and relentlessly think no apologies are in order for how they treated Blacks prior to 1978?

Sacrifice? You think you need to sacrifice a chance at having a loving, a caring relationship with someone? Just so you can do Temple ordinance work?

You’re thinking you have an affliction. What a pity.

I think I chose to be a homo when I was up in the pre-existence. Heteros have it too easy. I think I needed to have more of a challenge in this life than to do the ordinary thing.

I’m grateful for the homosexual I am and I will continue to grateful for the passion and gifts it affords me. Whether at the Pearly Gates or at the feet of Jesus I’ll never feel I have done anything wrong by being the person I am…even by actions that some may feel are abominable.

If my eternal station rests somewhere on a lower tier in Mormon Heaven than those who are heterosexual and sealed for all time and eternity…I’ll probably will be grateful I’m not floating on the same cloud as them.