Are LDS people that support gay marriage
 

sustaining the first presidency, and the twelve apostles? I am serious. If we vote to sustain them in this capacity, doesn't that include following their counsel on an issue they obviously feel is very important?

Wow....I've never thought of it that way before. Thanks for coming back.

Anyone have any serious responses?

Don't get too excited. I doubt I will be back for long. It was actually quite nice not reading the bullshit here for a while.

Your post has the usual grammatical markers of a legitimate question yet none of the substance.

The Church has not added any questions concerning gay marriage to the temple recommend questions. They could start asking about it immediately if they considered it a core doctrine of the Church. Thus, I must conclude that they do not require a member to support gay marriage bans in order to remain a member of the Church in good standing.

This is a political question. You don't have to support a legal ban on abortion, either, as far as I know. Why don't they add this to the temple recommend questions? Probably because they respect the right of the individual member to disagree with Church leadership on this issue.

Why don't you just answer the question?

Wrong, the brethren have clearly stated this is not a political issue, but a moral issue.

Does anyone honestly think the First Pres, and the Quorum of the Twelve have NOT prayed about this issue, and what they should tell the members? Obviously they have, and their directions are clear. Therefore, how can anyone who claims to sustain these men as prophets, be in favor of gay marriage? It makes no sense.

I don't know what they've done about it. However, I am straight and will forever seek heterosexual companionship.

What goes on in California is of little concern of mine. If gays wish to be miserable like straights, why not let them.

I don't think you know what it means to "be in favor of gay marriage." Many people may oppose gay marriage on a religious level -- they think God does not condone it -- but that in our pluralistic, democratic society, gay marriage should be respected as a civil right.

It is the same with abortion: many believe God does not condone it -- even forbids it -- but that in our democratic, free society, it is not the place of the State to forbid it and strip a woman of her agency in that regard, no matter the choices she made that resulted in her pregnancy.

BTW, I fully intend to have light-hearted moments in my next Sacrament meeting talk. Do I sustain the Brethren there?

That's not inspiring either.

At least I'm on a roll.

And as DDD and Barbara are wont to point out, my humor fails me, but I really appreciate Jewish, sarcastic, dark humor. Mormons, we're often too light-hearted to appreciate it, at least that's what I notice when I make my failed attempts at it.

Nonsense. The direction is clear. Gay marriage is not to be supported at any level, religious or secular.

Its also a moral question.........
 

are you really that naive? Or you consider sodomy a political issue?

BTW.......what do YOU think about the Proclamation on the Family? Inspired or not? Simple question.

Should gay marriages performed in states
 

who have legalized it be valid in states where it is not?

Does this all boil down to sodomy for you? So I'm guessing you also don't think hetero-sexual couples who engage in anal sex should be allowed to marry? What about lesbian couples? No sodomy there. Should we let them marry?

Gays getting married ALWAYS boils down to sodomy, beastiality and pedophilia for a select few people that can't distinguish any kind of difference.

And yes, I have no problem with gay people getting married and I am a member in good standing and I support the prophet and the quorum of the 12. Do you think they are fine though with people like NorCal and exUte talking about them being fudgepackers and also relating it to sodomy, among other things.

If I were you, I would take a long hard look in the mirror about your own standing in the church before you accuse others of 'struggling' with their own standing.

Words to live by...post of the day.

Multiple partners and no financial ties to any one person looks pretty good to me. I'm with Arch on this one and maybe we need to send them a note "Be careful what you wish for".

Those that disagree are obviously smarter
 

than the Prophet. They should demand a meeting with him and his counselors to straighten them out.........perhaps they could even pass along some info to the 'higher' ups.

Just based on your guess / analysis
 

you think God condones gay marriage? Or abortion?

And IF you don't think they do, you not only stand idly by but fight against God's will? Interesting.

You support the prophet?
 

And then explain how you don't? My wife and I had a good laugh over that one.

I have no idea what you are talking about--explain how I don't what? What did you have a good laugh about? Was it Norcal talking about fudgepackers?

When I sustain the brethern I am not giving up my right to make decisions for myself. I am sustaining that they make decisions for the church. If they want a campaing against gay marriage, I fully support or sustain their right to do that.

I am not going to write letters to the editor or protest their right to take that stance. In no way when I sustain the brethern am I saying I will agree with them on every issue.