Given that Jesus during his ministry reached out to those groups of people that society scorned, including sinners, I have to think that He would be reaching out in some way to the gay community if his ministry were today. I think His "bowels" would be "filled with mercy" toward them. I believe this is worth considering as we reflect upon what each of us, and we collectively as a church body, are doing to reach out to them.

I don't believe that the First Presidency, though it leads us, is the "church" anymore than I think that the President and the Congress are "America." I think that whatever leadership is doing can be an easy target, but the real question that I think we as members ought to focus on is not what position Salt Lake takes, but what position do each of us take, not intellectually, but with our actions. I'm not holding myself out as a shining example either. Just food for thought.

Volunteering at an AIDS hospice was definitely out of my comfort zone. This was when we were just getting to the point where people were starting to make it, and AIDS wasn't a death sentence. But it was for these people in the hospice. Giving a bath to an AIDS-demented dying man was really out of my comfort zone. Death esp. was out of my comfort zone, and I only did a couple of shifts there.

But I learned a few things.

For whatever reason, I have had personal dealings with gays that probably most active LDS have not, specifically on my mission. And I learned not to hate gays. I shed most of my homophobia. I'm grateful for these lessons.

I can't say I have done anything more than any of the rest of you. But no doubt holding the hand of a man, to die that afternoon, as he stared blankly at the ceiling, with raspy irregular breathing leaves an impression. Most of these men died alone, I believe. Families long gone.

I've been here too long as I recognized that immediately upon reading it.

That isn't why I posted what I did. Human nature seems to be that we don't want to accept the consequences for our own actions. By making a list if what it wants, I see Affirmation trying to put itself into the position of "well, we only ask that the church do this, otherwise we just can't be a part of it." I can't think of his name right now, but the gentleman in the church symphony who was in the news because he didn't like the stance of the church comes to mind. He blamed the church rather than admitting that he chose to speak out.

Perhaps I'm much more cynical than others here, but I tend to think that people have ulterior motives for most everything they do.

"The issues surrounding same-gender attraction deserve careful attention, not public posturing."

The irony of this statement is apparently lost on Trotter.

Nice idea on the Reply All. I think I'm going to do it--I'm so tired of these emails.

I agree that the anti's cannot articulate a coherent, logical reason for opposing Prop 8. We saw here yesterday the same old conjecturing....gay marriage may destroy us, it will cause our kids to become gay, etc...all baseless rhetoric that amounts to little more than scaremongering.

However, I do respect the fact that some folks are simply opposed because this is what the Prophet has asked us all to do. There is honor to be found in humble obedience. While I personally feel like sitting this one out, I do not condemn those who obey out of love for the Prophet. It is when they start busting out junk studies of heterosexual marrige in Norway that my spidey senses start tingling.

So ... do you think the Prophet has a coherent, logical reason?

No.

If he does, he hasnt done a great job of explaining it to the Stake Presidents, who have, in turn, not done a great job explaining it to the Bishops.

If you are aware of his reason, please share here. I am all ears.

If it's true that the Church wants to delay the meeting until after the vote, that's particularly unfortunate. Meeting with Affirmation would aid in dispelling the notion that supporting Prop 8 is about hatred for gays. They're missing a pretty good PR opportunity, it seems to me.