Standard of Liberty

Fundamental Truths

2012-01-17T08:43:00.000-08:00

The following is a comment we received (we'll leave off the name) and our response. Make of it what you will. We quote:

I would just like to point out a couple of things, not to argue but to give contrast as I generally agree with you and you past e-mails.

Most every human being has the ability to within a second to determine the gender of an individual on the street, so likewise can one with a few seconds determine if a man is effeminate.

The following Apostles and Prophet are Effeminent:

[We will spare you this list of names, six of whom our reader claims are effeminate and seven masculine!]

There is a spectrum of sexuality, everyone falls on a different place. Only seventeen percent of men are %100 heterosexual, the rest can be turned to bi-sexuality. Ask Jan Shipps Mormons seem to trust her, she was a sexologist for decades... lol

In my stake we had a stake president who ruthlessley persued bi-sexual and homosexuals members for decades, it recently came out that he is bi-sexual which makes sense because he could not reconcile his own sexuality so he hunted and persecuted others in an twisted psychological attempt to reconcile his own issues, what he knew was not right in himself he took out on others.

My point is that this is a complex issue, trying to keep it black and white is fundamentalist and anti-intellectual.

SoL response:

Thanks for your comments.

Sane people can control their thoughts and desires. The scriptures are clear. There are absolute truths and there is right and wrong on important things. Sex and sexuality are important; if they are abused people get hurt. Calling people who stand for basic, unchangeable truths trendy epithets like "fundamentalist" does not change the fact that there are fundamental truths. People's outward mannerisms which you perceive as masculine or feminine are greatly subjective according to cultural trends (as in, what some perceive as effeminate now was considered gentlemanly fifty years ago) and do not necessarily have anything at all to do with their sexuality. Men whom you say are effeminate actually have everything it takes to be manly in all the important ways. One problem with our world today is people making such outrageous superficial presumptions, sexualizing and oversexualizing people, including children, such as the obsessed pervert/pedophile Alfred Kinsey did with his "spectrum" you appear to mention. Sexuality is taught, and the world today is teaching all manner of false, vain, extreme, harmful,and foolish notions. (Learn more about Kinsey in Kinsey:Crimes and Consequences by Judith Reisman.)

We recommend you read our book Chased by an Elephant, The Gospel Truth About Today's Stampeding Sexuality, and Me Tarzan, You Jane, the text of which is available free by clicking on our web site's front page. Lord bless.

If You See Your Brother Falling By the Way

2012-01-06T08:15:00.001-08:00

There's an old Glen Campbell song called, "Try a Little Kindness." In the song we're encouraged to tell people they are on the wrong path. After all, it isn't kind to to turn away as a brother stumbles willy-nilly toward his own destruction. The kindest thing is to put aside our own feelings, such as fear of displeasing or upsetting the person, and let him know he's heading toward a cliff.

Unfortunately, political correctness and a corrupting of Christianity has edged many of us church-goers toward a dangerous cliff ourselves. We're on a path of pseudo-kindness and false compassion, a path paved with man-made philosophies embodied in such cliches as: just spread the 'love,' build your self-esteem, err on the side of 'kindness,' believe in yourself. These catch-phrases are not gospel-based, they are more indicative of the preachings of the anti-Christs in scripture who insisted there was no such thing as sin and no need for repentance, that God saves us all without repentance, that our eternal future is dependent on our own merits rather than the merits of Christ, that there is no Savior. Of course true followers of Christ know that the way to salvation is through Christ the Redeemer alone, through turning back to God continually, through seeking the Holy Ghost for truth and guidance and learning, all of which is possible only because of Christ's Atonement.

The anti-Christs preached delusions about the self, about ease, about temporal feelings, about our own merits, about getting self-esteem from ourselves, each other and our deeds, whereas Christ is all about reality, God's perfect love apart from our deeds, our fallen state, letting go of our selfishness and pride, giving all credit to God for any good we do, killing off the natural man and replacing him with humble spiritual reliance on Christ. To those who resist this doctrine, here is the litmus test. Which way would fit us for God's holy presence: the self-serving, self-congratulatory, self-centered way or the humble, grateful, submissive Christ-centered way? The truth is, the Christ-centered way is the only way to learn all those magnificent godly traits God wants to bestow on us---humility, long-suffering, unselfish love, the riches of eternity---while the self-centered way stops one's progress toward those traits like a brick wall.

Here at SoL we receive a certain amount of hate mail. It's interesting that most of those who hurl the most angry attacks also call us unChristlike in the same breath, as if to use Christianity as a weapon against us. But if these people were truly followers of Christ who sincerely believed we were wrong, the truth is they would react in a completely different way. They would show a firm and constant kindness rather than wish us dead. They would intelligently try to persuade us back onto the right path rather than cast dispersions, call us terrible names, or condemn us to hell.

Please note that we at SoL do not engage in personal attacks. We see our detractors as on a wrong path. To them we stop and kindly say, here's the right one. While standing for God's unchanging and objective standard of reality, truth, and righteousness, we wish the best for our enemies, now and forever. That's Christianity, and kindness, in its solid true form.

A Christmas Message to our Detractors

2011-12-21T10:43:00.000-08:00

Dear Anonymous Commentors,

Merry Christmas! We love you! Nothing you write to us can keep us from valuing you as God's precious children. We wish and hope the very best for you in the truest sense of the word charity. "Charity. . . is the pure love of Christ, a love so centered in righteousness that the possessor has no aim or desire except for the eternal welfare of his own soul and for the souls of those around him" (Bruce R. McConkie).

We are grateful you read our blog and visit our web site. We show another side of this issue you are missing because you have been influenced by the licentious, secular world around you and are being shamelessly exploited. Indeed, there are a dozen views about anything important until you know the answer. Then there is only one correct view -- the truth.

The truth is often uncomfortable, even extremely painful. It may sound stodgy, preachy, or harsh. But people who really care about truth and about the worth of souls will stand for reality and righteousness no matter how unpopular it is.

About church leaders, we will say once again, obviously there is a lack of unity on this issue. You are ignoring the Holy Scriptures, the Spirit, and a mountain of prophetic warnings if you really think the orthodox LDS Church has accepted homosexuality even in theory as normal and healthy. If some superficial concessions have been made here and there for those who find themselves experiencing same-sex sexual attractions, you might want to consider that the enormous pressure that has been leveled against every church, and Biblical religion in general, could be the cause rather than any official embrace of the false and foolish idea that sane, accountable people cannot heal from abuses, reject falsehoods, and learn to school their sexual feelings, thoughts, and desires. Indeed, this principle is required of all of us.

We believe in the immeasurable worth of souls and their great potential. We believe you deserve the truth.We know there is a way back for those precious individuals who have been taken in by the insidious modern abstraction of a very old vice.

Keep reading and Lord bless.

Support for last post

2011-12-09T11:48:00.000-08:00

In the middle of reviewing a book by Arthur Goldberg, Light in the Closet, Torah, Homosexuality and the Power to Change, 2008, we had to post this great quote that supports our last post.

[T]he challenges of living in sexual propriety apply to every Jew, not just homosexuals, and to every person, not just Jews. For a man or woman burdened with an "irresistible" attraction for the opposite sex -- or with any other variety of sexual brokenness -- it is no easier to avoid self indulgence than for a gay man or woman to shun same-sex contacts and fantasies. Certainly no Jew, no person, has the right or the authority to amend the Torah to allow for his or her own (or other persons') special sexual "needs." To believe the contrary might be soothing, but it is plainly delusional.

How about UPOGA: Understanding Premarital Opposite-Gender Attraction?

2011-12-02T08:26:00.001-08:00

We have an idea for a new student group to meet at BYU every Thursday night. It's called Understanding Premarital Opposite-Gender Attraction, UPOGA. There is a real need because a lot of students have all sorts of problems with this, and if they could just meet together with others who are struggling, it would make them feel so much better.

There are several kinds of students who need this support group. Kids with POGA come from all sorts of backgrounds. But all have these sexual thoughts and feelings that give them their primary identity and the Church won't let them indulge in them. This causes all kinds of trauma and some are forced to escape into pornography, masturbation, and are even suicidal. Those who slip up and do act out sexually on their premarital opposite-gender attractions are left feeling horribly guilty and ashamed, but they can't seem to stop. After all, it's natural and normal to have sexual feelings and scientists say resisting them is unhealthy. The Church causes even more trauma because of the conflict these poor people must endure between their religion's rules and who they are as sexual beings.

Those with POGA who biologically can't control their sexual thoughts, feelings, and/or the spectrum of consequent sexual behaviors causing them all kinds of unhealthy trauma and conflict here and now, just want to have fun, aren't ready to get married yet, or haven't met the person they want to marry. But there are others. These are POGA students who have lost all hope of marriage. They don't get asked on dates, have never even had a boyfriend or girlfriend and are certain they never will. Others have intentionally decided against ever getting married. They have lost faith in the institution because of the high divorce rate or traumatic personal experiences with their parents' divorces. Others just can't see themselves committing to all that responsibility that marriage and family entails. Some have made up their minds they will not bring children into this sad, suffering world; there are those who have even had themselves sterilized. Some young women are on the pill as a matter of principle, in hopeful preparation for when rules against premarital sex are abolished.

All these POGA students have one thing in common. They feel it is silly and unfair that sex must be linked to marriage/mating. As things now stand they must resign themselves to secrecy, guilt, conflict, and shame, or being celibate, some for the rest of their lives. They need a sexual support group. Although we may not agree with some of their beliefs and ideas, we are called upon to tolerate and respect them. It would really help if they could meet with like-minded, sexually-frustrated students.

The Honor Code states that people at BYU "may not influence or seek to influence others to engage in behavior inconsistent with the Honor Code," but this group wouldn't do that. Or would it? What would they discuss at these meetings? What influences would the group be exposed to?

Well, they would surely talk about how they can't help who they are and what they feel. They'd discuss the healthfulness and acceptability of premarital sex. They'd keep abreast of the great new methods of pregnancy and disease prevention that have paved the way for safe sex. They'd bring up books to read and movies to see that promote premarital sex, so as to make their members feel accepted and comfortable with their feelings.

And the social aspect alone! The loneliness and lovelessness these unfulfilled young people feel can be overwhelming. It would be so great if they could hook up with people who feel the same way: that prohibiting premarital sex is cruel and intolerant and heterophobic.

They'll share stories about the difficulties they've had with religious extremists and fundamentalists in their own church who insist on foisting old-fashioned ideas about chastity on them, and the unConstitutional sexual orientation discrimination they feel. They'll plan ways to get the Honor Code changed to gradually allow premarital sex, step by step. They'll talk about putting pressure on the whole Church and enlightening the culture to come out of the dark ages and catch up with the world.

They'd have panels of older and more experienced sufferers of POGA who would give them sex-centered words to live by, strategies for alleviating at least some of their sexual frustrations while technically keeping the Honor Code, and hope in a brighter future society when sex would be allowed and equally available for all people regardless of marital status.

They'd prepare arguments like, if they could just release their sexual tensions by practicing premarital sex with the support of the Church, the school, their families, friends, and society as a whole, they would do better in school, avoid hopeless suicidality, and be freed from the cultural pressure toward the lifelong commitment of marriage and family. They could even dream up future programs that would provide needed sexual love experiences on demand, anonymously if desired, and free of commitment, responsibility, or guilt feelings. Their goal would be to promote understanding why premarital sex is normal and natural and must be allowed equally for everyone.

Their cry would be: SEXUAL OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE!

Okay, you get the message. We don't mean to make light of the seriousness of sex or truly compare male-female fornication with maladaptive homosexual behavior. Nor do we wish to belittle the very real problem of unwanted homosexual tendencies. We just mean to point out how BYU's USGA (Understanding Same-Gender Attraction) group does break the Honor Code by influencing or seeking to influence students toward unchaste (and inordinately risky) behaviors. We have attended one of these meetings. Our impression is that they are based on the affirming of homosexuality, serve as a place to meet, make friends, and/or act out with like-minded and similarly tempted people, provide a forum in which to address sexuality-based grievances, present homosexual behaviors in a positive light (we witnessed this firsthand), and mean to usurp existing standards of morality. And worst of all, the group doesn't offer any hope or help at all in overcoming same-gender attraction.

Looking Back on Lot's Wife

2011-12-01T17:37:00.000-08:00

Why did Lot's wife look back on Sodom and Gomorrah? Why was that so bad that she was turned into a pillar of salt? We'd like to suggest the reason.

To review, when Abraham couldn't find even ten righteous people in the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, his nephew Lot was told to gather his family and leave because the Lord was going to have the whole place destroyed. He was told not to look back. Lot obeyed and took his wife and daughters. On the way out of town, Lot's wife did something that can give us some important insight into our own hearts. But first let's use our imaginations a little and set the stage, assuming she was not among the very wicked.

Sodom was where Lot's wife lived. It was her home, where she was raising her family. She probably went to some sort of church, belonged to ladies' groups, had friends she loved and regular activities she participated in. Sure, there was a lot of wickedness going on, but her friends didn't seem to think it was wicked at all and she had learned to look the other way. It was just the way things were. You got used to it.

Then the Lord said they had to leave. We assume Lot's wife knew why. It was pretty bad. People were totally ignoring God and His laws according to Abraham and all the ancient teachings and prophets, and spreading bad ideas and acting up in all sorts of lawless ways. Of course she had to go with her husband and family, especially since the place was going to be destroyed.

On the way out of town, Lot's wife turned back for one last look at everything she had called home going up in smoke. And in that moment of hesitation, we are told she was turned into a pillar of salt. Why did she look back and why did she seem to self-destruct, to lose her soul?

Maybe at the last moment something pulled on Lot's wife's heartstrings. Perhaps it suddenly hit her what she was leaving behind and how her friends were dying. Sure, there was some wickedness, but this was her home, her church, these were her good friends, this was her life. Was it really so bad as that? It was a moment of weakness, but apparently a character-defining one, one that revealed what kind of person she really was. Perhaps she was a bit too comfortable living in Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe she cherished it as her real home. Maybe she was sorry to leave it, deep down. Maybe she realized she would rather have stayed there than have to start all over again in a new place with new friends. Maybe she didn't mind the wicked environment, so long as she had her life and her comforts, so long as her own family was righteous. Maybe she was sorry for all the wrong reasons.

Now, what if you and I lived in Sodom and Gomorrah? Oh, wait, we do. We've been told the world is even more wicked now than it was then. Would we be sorry if the Lord told us we had to leave? Would our thoughts betray us? As in . . .

Sure, there's some goofy stuff going on, but there's a lot of good stuff mixed in. Why should we miss out? Besides, we do pretty well looking the other way. Maybe the destruction thing is only a bluff. Surely the Lord wouldn't destroy all our friends. Emphasize the positive, overlook the negative, we always say!

Do we tend to tidy up the reality of the wickedness occurring so we can go on with our daily routines, enjoy our entertainments and activities, keep all our friends and associations, advance in our standing and positions?

Well, we prefer to call that being non-judgmental. We take a lot of pride in being non-judgmental. Isn't that what Jesus was all about, just loving everybody and being tolerant and respectful of all beliefs and ideas? Just live and let live? Maybe the bad ideas and behaviors will go away if we ignore them.

Would we be reluctant to leave it all behind if the Lord commanded us to, even though we knew it was wicked beyond repair?

Well, why not? It isn't so bad once you've gotten used to it!

If we did decide to obey, would we look back in a moment of weakness and regret?

How could we resist? It would be so unfeeling seeing as how it was the home we loved and was about to be destroyed!

It seems we mustn't get too comfortable with the ways of the world. In fact, we'd best forsake Sodom and Gomorrah now, deep down in our hearts. Our hearts need changing, if they haven't been, and then they need continual turning back to God. Imperfect and in need of a Savior as we all are, we can still be certain where our real treasure lies and where our true loyalties are. On important unchanging issues we can know what is right and what is wrong. Come what may, we can be firm in our beliefs. We can practice loving God more than any earthly thing, feel His love, and never look back.

The Danger of Modern Elitism

2011-11-29T08:28:00.000-08:00

We have gotten a great swell of responses to our latest email, "What's Happening at BYU?" We figure that for every three comments are two emotional, derisive, rude, sanctimonious, kill-the messenger, or in-denial comments to one intelligent, thoughtful, excellent, and supportive comment. This isn't surprising because our opposition has always been very vocal and defensive, while our supporters are usually pretty quiet and confident, maybe too quiet and confident.

According to these responses, all is not well in Zion. For one thing, we have been dismayed to see an ugly thread of modern elitism running through the fabric of our church culture. What is elitism? A sense of superiority. In religious terms, we could call it the evil of pride. What we've seen in many of these emails is a strange version of just that. It's incredible. To those people living today who think themselves superior in intellect and morals to all that has gone before, ask yourself the following questions we've borrowed from the French medieval satirist Rabelais (1483-1553); apparently there have been elitists in every age:

Why is it commonly said nowadays that the world is no longer foolish and ignorant? Would you infer from this that the world which was once foolish has now turned wise and enlightened? What conditions, and how many, did it require to make it foolish? And what conditions, and how many, were necessary to make it wise? Why was it foolish? Why should it become wise? By what signs did you recognize its former folly? By what signs do you affirm its present wisdom? Who made it foolish? Who has made it wise? Which were more numerous, those who loved it when it was foolish or those who love it now that it is wise? For how long was it foolish? For how long will it stay wise? What did its former folly spring from? What are the roots of its present wisdom? Why did its ancient folly come to an end at this time and no later? Why did its present wisdom begin now and not before? What harm came of its former folly? What good can we expect of its present wisdom? How can its ancient folly have been abolished? How can its present wisdom have been restored?

Of course the answer is that man is a fallen creature, always has been and always will be, tending to be foolish and prone to wander from the strait and narrow. The only reliable source of wisdom and goodness is God, the Light of Christ, the Holy Spirit of Truth, which has always existed and continues to exist in order to be sought, rediscovered, and cherished with each new generation in each individual mind and heart.

But for the elitist these are good hard questions -- for a modern homosexualist, for example, who thinks he, here and now, in his fallen, mortal state, less than a pinprick in God's vast, expanding, inexplicable universe, has somehow earned an unprecedented position of enlightenment. Yes, he thinks his present invented worldview trumps the accumulated wisdom of the ages, including Holy Scripture. One reader, who now accepts homosexuality not as sinful anymore but as a harmless, normal, and immutable condition, called this new worldview "a broadened understanding." That right there is modern elitism. It's a false superiority, unthinking and soul-less, a law unto itself. Does anyone notice how it melds so conveniently with our modern politically correct and licentious world? Does anyone notice that it sacrifices precious lost souls on its secular altar? Does anyone notice that it pits a currently fashionable worldview against God and His ageless, unchanging truths? Do people really want to put themselves in that position? Where is the foundation?

Children learn that only a foolish man builds his house on the sand. If we abandon (in spoken or unspoken ways) God's time-tested objective standards for truth and goodness, what do we have left but to be swept away from anything solid, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, drowned in a nonbenevolent sea of groundless human whims, tastes, and trends that happen to be popular in our short time on earth.

Law, Sin, Repentance, Divine Redemption. These are real. "Gay is good" is a harmful and dangerous fad fabricated and defended by the narcissistic elitists of our particular time.

Food for Thought from Flannery O'Connor

2011-10-03T08:50:00.000-07:00

The following quotes and notes are taken from Spiritual Writings by famous author and devout Catholic Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964) to make of what you will.

The cultural climate should make no difference in what the Church teaches.

The Church stands for and preserves always what is larger than human understanding.

All around you today you will find people accepting 'religion' that has been rid of its religious elements.

Redemption is meaningless unless there is cause for it in the actual life we live, and for the last few centuries there has been operating in our culture the secular belief that there is no such cause.

Some effects of modern liberalism: turning religion into poetry and therapy, making truth vaguer and more relative, banishing intellectual distinctions, depending on feelings instead of thought.

Christianity is a continual turning to God and away from egocentricity.

Only by recovering a strong sense of the devil and personal sin can Christians be true to Christ.

Our obliviousness to evil gives enemies of God free reign to do their work.

I identify the devil as the devil and not some psychological tendency.

She could not stomach the sugary slice of inspirational pie, which she felt confused the inner and outer worlds, falsified the stumbling blocks in the path of faith, and trivialized the pain of drawing close to God.

The Christian [should] accept sin as sin, not sickness or accident of environment [or biology], but as a responsible choice of offense against God which involves his eternal future.

Either one is serious about salvation or is not.

The vaporization of religion happens when the Church is stripped of its certainties and becomes another Elks Club.

The operation of the Church is set up for the sinner; which creates much misunderstanding among the smug.

The liberal approach is that man has never fallen, never incurred guilt, and is ultimately perfectable by his own efforts. Therefore evil in this light is a problem of better housing, sanitation, health, etc., and all evil will eventually be obliterated.

In the absence of faith we govern by tenderness, which ends up as terror.

Christianity doesn't rest finally in any stable kind of solution. It ought to throw you back on the living God.

Her stories were not a matter of Do Unto Others. She felt that could be found in any ethical culture series. They were about the fact of the Word made flesh.

Compassion or Naivety?

2011-09-24T08:06:00.000-07:00

The following is a comment we received after posting "The Pursuit of Happiness and the Fatal Principle." From what appears to be another Anonymous to whom we cannot reply directly, it looks like more of a general reaction to our efforts at SoL than a comment on the post, but we felt it was a sincere and somewhat respectful comment and wanted to respond.

These "immoral" people may be acting selfishly, but most of them are doing so out of a deficit of self usually stemming from woundedness from childhood. The deficit has kept them from coalescing a whole personality and kept them fixated at an early stage of emotional development focused on their genitals and gratification thereof. How do you ensure that children grow up unwounded and whole? You cannot legislate it. You describe it as it is...a tragedy, an incompleteness, a wound. You describe it and describe and keep describing it. Then maybe they will stop seeing it as a hateful attack on their selfhood which gets you nowhere. You can work hard or you can work smart and actually accomplish something besides getting validation from the people who already see what you see.

Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. Here is our response.

Homosexuality is immoral and harmful, no matter what the causes. While we can't and shouldn't judge people as immortal souls, we can and should judge between good and evil. Homosexuality is a symptom of what may be a myriad of numerous larger problems and sins, from the tragic early sexual abuse you mention to a prideful rebellion against goodness/God.

Especially if homosexuality is a symptom of emotional/mental illness, or if it is specifically unwanted, it follows that we should at least offer help so it is available. Despite great success in this area, cutting-edge reparative or re-orientation therapy is now highly politically incorrect, discouraged, dismissed, and denigrated. The APA compromised its professionalism by removing homosexuality from its manual of disorders back in 1973 due to pressure from gay activists, and now there is actually a movement to prevent professional therapists from treating people who specifically wish to get to the roots of and overcome homosexual tendencies. Increasingly and in all facets of our mainstream society and institutions, no opposition to homosexuality is allowed.

You should know that, according to widespread gay activism standards, your comment about gays being "wounded," possessing "a deficit of self'," being "incomplete," "fixated," or a "tragedy," would be considered highly homophobic, intolerant, bigoted, and hateful, truly an "attack on their selfhood," the very thing you have accused us of. Having achieved mainstream acceptance, this movement now demands celebration and nurturance of homosexuality (and all related identities and corresponding behaviors) as normal, natural, and good. And many young, vulnerable, rebellious, damaged, or confused individuals are being recruited and exploited to further this cause.

Here at SoL we have come to recognize the "compassion" you show as counterproductive. One of the travesties of our modern age is that the devil is being mistaken for this or that psychological tendency. People deeply involved in sinfulness (for whatever reason) who are flattered and coddled, who are not taught about human nature and the nature of God, will make no lasting or significant progress, at least not that kind that followers of Christ should be concerned with. Merely describing a malady ad infinitum as woundedness is like wallowing in the mud. It gives no guidance or help or ideal. How can people transcend their troubles without hope for something better? In addition, we see your suggestion to refer to homosexualism as damage or deficiency while hoping for a different response from the gay community, as the definition of insanity. Not only is this viewpoint considered homophobic, it is extremely naive to hope these people will understand another point of view or change just because you keep saying how sorry you are for them. They are taught to hate pity, but are patient, knowing that it is just a step toward embrace.

As with alcoholism, pornography and drug addiction, people focused on homosexual lust have to want to change. Many don't want to see things another way and obviously don't want it known that change is possible, or all their justifications for homosex would fall apart. However one gets into it, sin is pleasurable both in thought and deed, at least for a time. To borrow from C. S. Lewis, real love seeks to offer eternal truth and divine repentance, rather than shallow, self-serving, and misguided human comfort and sympathy. To borrow from Flannery O'Connor , real charity is hard and endures.

Our goal at SoL is to educate on what is happening in our society in order to counteract these trends in one's own sphere of influence and responsibility, and to point out the best resources for families and individuals confronted with unwanted sexual problems, all with a timeless Christ-centered approach. We do the work as best we can for the best reasons we know, and leave it up to God whether we "accomplish something"or not.

What's Your Corner of the Battlefield?

2011-09-19T11:26:00.000-07:00

"I'm worried about you; you're so hung up on the gay thing."

"Why this particular issue? There are more important problems."

"For your own sake, you shouldn't be so involved in this."

"Everything you say is colored by your stance on homosexuality."

When people make disparaging comments like these about our involvement in fighting the gay movement, we think they are saying more about themselves than about us. The truth is, our efforts make them uncomfortable. Perhaps they feel a twinge of guilt because they aren't doing something. They would rather nobody spoke out against this particular evil, or perhaps against any evil at all. These types of issues are too divisive, too controversial, too difficult. Can't we just ignore it?

The answer is no, we can't ignore it. You're either on one side or the other of this war between good and evil, and right now the evil side is winning. Guess which side the sleepy, unwitting people who say the above things are on, whether they realize it or not? Yes, the evil side. Case in point: read those opening comments again. The same people who say these dismissive things to us would never say them to a determined openly gay person (that is, anyone claiming to be gay, sympathizing with or advocating gayness). Could be they are afflicted with that spineless fickleness that causes people to side with the winner just because they're winning.

Of course SoL is not just about the gay thing at all. There's a much bigger picture we try to keep foremost in our minds. We're about human nature versus the nature of God, the Lord versus the Devil, truth versus error, great spiritual goodness versus great spiritual wickedness. The cultural embrace of sexual immorality of all kinds is just one of the symptoms of a debauched and anti-Christ society that no longer believes in such things as sin and the need for divine redemption. Exposing the insidious gay agenda, so stealthy, so ubiquitous, and so harmful, especially to the souls of youth, to health, to posterity, to marriage, to the family, and to religious freedom, just happens to be the corner of the battlefield in which we find ourselves.

Christianity isn't for the faint of heart. First you have to be on the right side and stay there, which is a continuous personal struggle. And then you have to fight evil, come what may. In what corner of the battle are you?

Sinned Against? Or Sinning?

2011-09-07T10:43:00.001-07:00

People today don't like the word sin. It denotes that there are absolutes, as in right and wrong. This is strange because these same people do not hesitate in using this concept of sin, of right and wrong, to describe others. Oh, they might use different words like un-Christlike or unkind or bigoted or hateful or intolerant. But they mean the same thing: You are doing something wrong; you are sinning against others.

The question we must all ask ourselves when we feel we have been sinned against is: Is there anything I have done wrong myself? But this charitable self-examination is especially absent among, for example, the gay community. Self-identified gays are always the sinned against. Why? Because it's a big part of the gay movement to make everyone believe they are victims of an evil, unaccepting society, that it's all about love and wholesomeness, and that anyone against gayness is evil, the real sinner. (This tactic is undeniably documented in dozens of gay organizations' written materials. A great resource is A Queer Thing Happened to America, by Michael L. Brown, 2011.)

It's interesting that you never hear gays decrying pornography of any kind, even though most people still think pornography is at least sleazy. That's because it is a staple of gay sexual orientation and the gay lifestyle; you have to feed the dragon for it to stay alive. And you never hear anybody asking gays about using pornography, either, or about what they think about and where they go and who they hang out with and what they do. That's because nobody dares ask them anything. They get a wink and a pass for all kinds of really bad ideas and really bad behavior and the advocating of it to others, even youth.

Christianity is about working to overcome our own wrongs through the grace of Christ rather than dwelling on the wrongs done us. On this basis alone, when so-called mohos (Mormon homosexuals) come out in testimony meetings, claim victim mentality, write books and blogs, proclaim that God has called them to lead the rest of us to enlightenment, and are in all ways loud and proud about their sexuality ("celibate" or not, at the moment), they are not being Christian at all, but rather thumbing their noses at God and Goodness.

But let's take this thought even farther. We submit that though we are all sinned against in a myriad of ways, we are all sinners, too. Giving a free pass to those who claim immunity from the sin of sexual impurity because they are "same-sex attracted" and allowing them to pass the blame to others is just another of our sins. It's the sin of enabling, even encouraging, souls to sin. When we do this we show we don't care a pin for their immortal souls. They are indeed sinners, and in a different way so are we. Who is to say which type of sin is worse?

What Ever Happened to Do What is Right, Let the Consequence Follow?

2011-08-02T08:31:00.000-07:00

Do what is right, be faithful and fearless . . .
Do what is right, let the consequence follow . . .
Truth goeth onward then do what is right . . .

Along with the congregation, we sang these words of this old hymn in church this past Sunday. As far as we could see everybody's mouths were moving. But outside such meetings, when it comes to standing against our popular culture of embracing same-sex sexual immorality, many good LDS people, along with people of all denominations, aren't choosing the right. We aren't choosing the right because we are afraid of the consequences. We would rather offend God than offend some of the human beings we know.

Yes, in this culture war choosing the right is often more difficult than remaining silent or giving in. It takes courage. It takes faith. It takes willingness to suffer the consequences, such as being misunderstood, mistreated, and marginalized, yes, even by one's own brothers and sisters in the previously safe and unified confines of one's own church congregation where we all used to believe the same things.

Recent real life events serve as cases in point:

A former president of a local LDS ward's women's Relief Society organization was asked to give a presentation at a small monthly luncheon for older women. But when she revealed what her topic would be (teaching the rising generation the truth about male and female, natural gender roles, and marriage in accordance with official Church doctrine) she was summarily UNinvited. On top of that, she was given a letter in which her perceived faults and failings were illuminated.

(But it's worse than that. It's not just the silencing of the truth in church we need to be worried about. It's purposeful and insidious false teachings. Read on.)

Visiting teachers assigned to a member in this same LDS ward embellished a lesson on families to include how lesbians make wonderful parents and then lectured the woman in her own home on "love" and "reality" when she brought up how the scriptures condemn such behavior and how it is harmful to children.

In a Sunday Relief Society lesson on families, the instructor taught that families come in all types that are all equally effective and to be encouraged and valued, that it takes a village to raise a child, and admonished the women several times to keep an open mind. To quote, “Heavenly Father loves all types of families. We have a huge diversity and we have to be aware of what’s coming up.” Some of the comments bolstered this approach. One was. “A family is any group of people centered on the same goal.”

(But it gets even worse.)

When given the opportunity, those in positions of authority chose not to confront or correct these incidents. For example, a leader in this ward who had been notified of the above trends gave a good secular-type lesson on the rising statistics of premarital sex among opposite sexes and offered the usual secular-type preventatives. (Get rid of the blankets in your media room!) But he never spoke a word about the dangers of same-sex porn, or same-sex temptations, or same-sex experimentation, even though it comes of the same impulse and these kids' world is saturated with the normalization and celebration of homosexuality!

Not only does this marked omission throw a lot of especially vulnerable kids under the bus (which might include every kid these days), it also sets a fatal principle to work. When we give something like homosexuality a pass, we open the doors for licentiousness in general, and as a result all important basic gospel principles get tossed aside. Given the shocking stats this leader so unabashedly threw out, that's what's happening in a dramatic way. (Otherwise, for instance, kids would recognize the Spirit teaching and warning them against sexual activity.)

What? You think kids don't make the connection between gay-is-good and premarital-sex-in-general-is-good? Think again. They know that gayness, which increasingly targets youth, is all about sex and sexuality. So if gayness is okay, why not every other kind of sex? In fact, we hear that bisexual acting out among young girls, age 12-13, is the newest rage.

Unless we do what is right, regardless of the temporal and social consequences to ourselves, the anything-goes sexual revolution, without hindrance, and with encouragement, will come to a house of worship near you, and maybe to your own house, too. Those houses will fall in one way or another. Are we ready?

Causes and Effects

2011-05-10T11:42:00.000-07:00

Nothing is just itself, wrote a favorite author of ours. Regarding issues of any importance, we certainly agree. Everything of concern happening in our world today has causes and effects.

Here is a case in point. Today on the radio we heard about a study regarding hormonal birth control that found that women using these prescriptions were being affected in unimagined ways, and men were being affected too. Apparently, along with a basic knowledge of the birds and the bees that parents pass on to their children in spoken and unspoken ways, there are natural chemicals that encourage males and females to mate. But what if these chemicals are messed with, even obliterated? What would the effects be?

We know that hormonal birth control is a huge business and commonly used. Birth control pills or patches prevent ovulation, and consequently prevent pregnancy. Some women are now taking birth control pills just to prevent having to deal with their monthly periods. Is it worth the convenience?

This study is showing that when women no longer ovulate, they apparently don't release that mating chemical. Not only do these women have decreased sexual attraction for men, men also have less sexual attraction for women. It makes sense and could sure explain a lot of trends that have occurred since the 1970s when messing with hormones for birth control became widespread. Apparently, birth control pills are not just birth control pills. They are having a profound effect on more than just controlling pregnancy.

Take away the hormones that naturally encourage males and females to mate, and the desire to mate will decrease. For example, if the sexes are now less attractive to each other because we have obliterated the mating hormone, but people still think they need sex (as they are taught by our oversexed culture), they are going to be fine with finding it elsewhere other than marriage.

Think about what the birth control pill may be doing to marriage, the divorce rate, natural gender roles, the size of families, the main purpose of sex, and the sexual development of young people. Then combine this with radical feminism, homosexualism, and cultural negativity toward natural gender roles, marriage, morality, fidelity, and posterity. What are the results?

Some might very well be: people are getting married later in life or not at all, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, marriage is mocked and degraded, natural gender roles are ignored and denied, couples put off having children and/or have smaller families, sex has been reduced to a casual meaningless pleasure disconnected from mating, marriage, and family, people indulge in sex indiscriminately with whomever, whenever, however, and divorce, abortions, sexual abuse, and sex crimes increase. And there are probably many more.

Without our foundation firmly placed on truth and reality, we've lost our moorings. Such are the effects of pretending we can change reality and ignore responsibility.

Does Publishing Truth and Goodness Pay?

2011-05-05T09:10:00.000-07:00

We here at SoL have been accused by our detractors (some of whom you would never suspect would be our detractors) over the years of trying to make a name for ourselves, in it for the money, marketing our wares, etc. Well, here are the facts.

Aside from an occasional kind and encouraging word from a few valiant souls near and far, we are regularly silenced, ignored, rejected, vilified, and hated by strangers and "friends" alike, near and far. Even most good people do not want to help or give us opportunities to help. They are just too afraid to support us in any way including morally or financially. In other words, most people nowadays are quiet because of intimidation, fear, and misinformation. To put it bluntly, they care more about not offending other people than about offending God, although they proclaim the opposite, little realizing they are practicing the worst kind of hypocrisy. (Sorry if this sounds harsh. It is true. Truth is often hard, but in the end it sets us free.)

We could write a book on the misadventures we've had among the "faithful." Among other excuses, some have said this is because we are on the wrong side of the fence. But there is overwhelming proof to the contrary which we dare not deny. Again, when Satan is stirring people up against good, we must be stirred up against evil.

As for money, aside from a few sporadic unsolicited donations, the great majority of our funds have been derived from our personal resources. We do not sell advertising. We do not get paid and don't expect to be the way things are. The website and blog are kept up by unpaid volunteers. This work is done in our free time, apart from our unrelated occupations that provide our living. We always knew SoL would cost us in many ways, and it has. We volunteer our time and talents, putting out particularly big chunks of time, effort, and money to get books produced and printed, and the best we hope for is to break even financially. If not, so be it.

Come what may, in today's secularized, politically correct world, in a godless, oversexed culture which increasingly doubts both fact and value, in a lawless system that mocks reality, sexualizes children younger and younger, and threatens religious freedom, we have carved out a tiny corner in which to publish much-neglected goodness and truth. Sad to say in the greater sense, it doesn't pay.

Rather than suspecting us of selfish motives, why not mourn with us that publishing truth and goodness (even with charity, intelligence, and creativity) is now one of the most unpopular and unprofitable things one can do?

Gay, Bay, Tray, Fay, Pay, Day, Ray, Say, May!

2011-04-25T07:54:00.000-07:00

If same-sex sexual attractions alone are not sinful and do not make one unworthy before the Church and before God (as goes the argument), how about these other types of sexual attractions? We’ve come up with some glib new gay-like names for them. Let’s define them, starting with gay, and include some of their "former" descriptions.

Gay: people being sexually attracted to people of their same sex (also called SSA, formerly called unnatural lust, wickedness, mental disorder, homosexuality)

Bay: people being sexually attracted to other people regardless of anybody's biological sex (formerly called unnatural lust, wickedness, mental disorder, bisexuality, homosexuality)

Tray: people insisting they are really supposed to be the opposite of their biological sex and then being sexually attracted to those of their same biological sex (formerly called mental illness, transvestite, transsexual, transgendered, homosexuality)

Fay: adults being sexually attracted to children/minors of either sex (formerly called unnatural lust, wickedness, dirty old men, pedophilia and/or homosexuality)

Pay: people being sexually attracted to sleazy, oversexed, extreme and perverse sexual material (formerly called sin, dirty mindedness, lust, more recently called pornography addiction)

Day: adults being sexually attracted to adults other than their spouse (formerly called sin of the heart, emotional affair, adulterous, betrayal, infidelity)

Ray: people being sexually attracted to children or adults who are their relatives (formerly called wickedness, sinfulness, dirty old men, incestuous, pedophilia)

Say: people attracted to violent, masochistic forms of sexuality (formerly called iniquity, mental illness, sadism, sado-masochism)

May: people being sexually attracted to animals (formerly called iniquity, bestiality)

And apparently there are even more "ays. " In addition, they often interconnect, such as pay linking to gay, day, fay, ray, or gay linking to fay, bay, say, etc. Like King Benjamin said, we cannot name them all.

We guess that most devout LDS who claim the gay/SSA identity and their sympathizers still believe most of the above "ays" are wrong in both thought and deed. And yet they invent sweeping allowances for homosexual attractions insisting that those afflicted have no control over them and can indulge in them emotionally, mentally, intellectually, and spiritually without harm to others or their own "worthiness."

We submit that if gay/SSA is okay as an identity that doesn't need, or can't, be fixed, why aren't all these other "ays" okay as permanent identities? Why aren't all these temptations equally harmless? Why don't all these other sexual attractions similarly cause no damage to afflicted people's character and worthiness? Unrepentant people who identify themselves as Gays, Bays, Trays, Fays, Pays, Days Rays, Says, Mays---all are welcome to be teachers and leaders of the rest of us, including children and youth, why not? These attractions aren't harmful, that is, as long as they aren't "acted out." No big deal, right?

Of course not. It's safe to say that nobody in their right mind would knowingly allow unrepentant, self-proclaimed fays, pays, rays, says, etc. to teach or lead others, even if they haven't acted out with their bodies. Their perverse sexual self-identification represents false ideas and wrong attitudes that spread as surely as a bodily disease spreads, especially among youth.

You see, giving in to this gay identity to any degree is not the answer. It's a dead end. There is excellent help available for those who truly desire to get straightened out---from the inside out.

As the miserable Pheadra who was lusting after her stepson said in Euripides's play Hyppolytus, "My hands are clean. It is my soul that's fouled."

And from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales: "Oh foul sin of lust, observe your end! Not only would you weaken man's mind, but you wish completely to enslave his body. The end of your deeds or blind desires is lamentation. How many we see around us who, not for sometimes doing this sin but merely for the intention of doing it, are killed or ruined!" ("The Man of Law's Tale: Three," translation by R. M. Lumiansky, Simon and Schuster, 1948, 106.)

Here at SoL it's the rescue not just of bodies but of souls we care about.

Now is the Time to Be Valiant

2011-04-22T10:35:00.003-07:00

The Lord needs valiant servants to do his work in the latter days . . . That's a line from a song in our church's children's songbook. Are we valiant servants?

When Satan is stirred up against that which is good, which he obviously is in our culture today, good people must be stirred up against that which is evil, as in being valiant. And yet what we see now is a lot of convenient silence.

We don't much stand or talk or preach against abortion anymore, even though unborn babies continue to be destroyed for no good reason. (There are seven abortion clinics in our state of Utah doing this evil work every day.) We don't dare mention traditional, natural gender roles, even though they are stated in our doctrine (The Family: A Proclamation to the World.) And we keep our mouths shut when it comes to homosexuality, even though it's wrong and harmful. All this because we've become conditioned, or we're afraid of offending somebody, or we think ourselves "enlightened."

The consequence of such behavior is obvious. When good men do nothing, evil triumphs. Of course we know that evil will triumph for a time. But in the eternal scheme of things, this doesn't matter. What will matter is if we were valiant servants of the Lord or not while we had the chance.

Chances to be valiant come often, in all kinds of ways. Parents, grandparents, teachers, leaders, citizens, public servants, all have opportunities to take an enthusiastic stand against these evils. Leaders especially seem to be in the hot seat because of their responsibility to make sure important and true (as opposed to false, vain, and foolish) principles are presented and followed. We are told that even those who are humble followers of Christ can go astray because their leaders teach them the precepts of men (2 Nephi 28).

It might be a good idea to think about what kind of person is the opposite of valiant. How about complacent, cowardly, afraid, shallow, hypocritical, selfish, blind, prideful, silly, ignorant, lazy?

Actually, the Lord doesn't need us at all. We're the ones who need him, his forgiveness, his redemption, and his Spirit to inspire and guide us, to make us valiant servants in our own stumbling way for the sake of our own eternal souls. Since none of us are perfect, it's safe to say we all have room for improvement.

Does anyone doubt that we will be judged according to how valiant we were in these crazy times?

2011-04-22T10:35:00.001-07:00

Gay Love?

2011-03-01T08:33:00.000-08:00

“How can anyone wish to deny a gay person love?” is a common question with a false premise. The fact is, no one is trying to deny anyone love. All are free to love whomever they want to. What God and traditional morality discourage is harmful out-of-bounds sexual lust and behavior.

The truth is, love is all around. And all kinds of love should be nonsexual, except one. In the one case when love does include sexuality, it should always be associated with mating, and therefore marriage. Two people of the same sex cannot mate, and therefore cannot marry in the true sense of the word.

This does not mean two people of the same sex cannot love. On the contrary, people of the same sex can share the greatest love and devotion. History and literature are filled with such love. (See the 196o film Spartacus for a great example in the scene when Spartacus proves his love for Antoninus.) As Jesus said, there is no greater love than a man laying down his life for a friend, which he himself exemplified in the highest degree. C. S. Lewis in The Four Loves pointed out that friendship is the purest, most selfless form of love in part because there is nothing like sexuality involved. (This is why spouses who are also best friends have the best of both worlds.)

Granted, a homosexual relationship between two people could begin with sincere and deep friendship. There is nothing so wonderful as two kindred spirits discovering each other, that they share interests and beliefs along with enjoying each other's company to the exclusion of everybody else. But the moment same-sex love becomes sexualized, it is corrupted and compromised. Whether our culture will admit it or not, homosexuality (which includes sodomy) is wrong and harmful. Anyone participating in it knows this in his heart of hearts. And true friends would never willingly bring any sort of harm upon each other.

When the above question is asked by gays or their supporters, the pure love of friendship is not even considered. Where today's gays are concerned, love must include sex, which is a dangerous idea; it would follow that all loving human relationships are essentially sexual. Of course a few wicked people already thought of this and there are some who believe this nonsense today.

But we believe that the average unthinking homosexualist (this includes both those who embrace it personally and those who accept it in others) is only a pawn. Such people have been fooled into equating sex and love. As such, the word love is used as a distraction from the real objective. Whether they realize it or not, what the above question really means is, “How can anyone wish to deny a person gay sex?” Simplest answer: Because it's harmful.

Gay Gays: A New Generation

2011-02-28T12:51:00.000-08:00

We recently heard a pleasant young man say, “But I like being gay. It's fun! Even if it were possible to change, I wouldn’t want to."

What we are seeing is a generation growing up believing the gay hoax— that homosexuality is as normal and safe as heterosexuality. And as distasteful as it may sound to some of us, homosexuality in thought and deed is highly acceptable to many and actually desirable to a growing number.

Is finding out that gayness is enjoyable really a surprise in a sexually permissive culture that now treats homosexuality as a perfectly fine alternative? We see it in government, in entertainment, in news, in schoolbooks, classrooms, clubs, groups, and programs, in churches, and in everyday conversations and associations. Gay youth groups, gay parades, and especially gay pornography, chat rooms, and other internet forums encourage gayness. Young people who show the slightest interest are welcomed into these groups with open arms and quite easily recruited.

Yes, gay is in. It’s well into being one of the major fashions of the day. And fashions spread. In fact, we have it on the best authority that there are now young people who are admitting that they would not have feelings of same-sex sexual attraction if not for the suggestive, happy-go-lucky, gay-affirming culture they have grown up in. The hapless "why would anybody choose to be gay?" cry may no longer apply to the majority of gays in an environment that affirms gayness as hip and cool.

No, there is no gay gene, nor is any predisposition to gayness proven. But what about other environmental factors besides those mentioned above? What about sexual abuse? Overbearing mother? Emotionally absent or abusive father? Peer abuse? Unlucky with the opposite sex? These sad circumstances and many more can cause a young person to self-determine as gay. But times have changed.

All of us, including parents, ecclesiastical leaders, community and government leaders, teachers, scientists, and therapists, need to wake up to the state of our culture today, that homosexuality in the rising generation is now coming about solely through our benighted, bored, addictive, misguided, oversexed, licentious, extremely technological environment alone. In other words, our mainstream society is training our young people in the carefree joys of homosexualism. After all, sins of all kinds have their pleasures. For a time.

Impure? Unholy?

2011-02-28T11:40:00.000-08:00

We’ve heard from some that same-sex sexual attraction is only sinful when acted upon. Let’s think this through in a slightly different way.

Every active Mormon adult knows that light-mindedness is an impure and unholy practice and that we are to avoid all other such practices. From this we know that thoughts alone are practices.

Now, if certain ways of thinking, as in being light-minded, can be unacceptable practices, where would that put homosexual lust, that is, thinking sexually about a person of one’s own sex? Given that Mormons still believe homosexual behavior is sinful, isn’t thinking about homosexual behavior unacceptable, or impure and unholy, too? And here let's not be naive. We can safely assume that a person who confesses to what we now call same-sex attractedness or who adopts the gay label thinks about gay sex. Aren’t we to avoid such an impure and unholy practice?

If something is sinful when acted upon with our physical bodies, it is also sinful in the form of thoughts. In this light, same-sex sexual attraction, just like adulterous attraction, falls into the category of impure and unholy.

What we should be caring about most as Christian latter-day saints is the state of our souls and spiritual progress. If a person insists on the SSA or gay identity without resistance, we must assume the worst problem is within the soul, that it has embraced that which is impure and unholy.

The soul is where all sin proceeds from. It's also where the Lord comes in, where repentance can work, and where the mighty change of heart, the greatest miracle of all, can happen.

Pretending the above is not so only hinders truth , hurts people, and inhibits everyone's spiritual growth. Don't be fooled by the alternative sexual identity hoax.

School Thy Feelings, O My Brother

2011-02-22T07:13:00.000-08:00

Somewhere along the societal road to enduring, pitying, and then embracing homosexuality, the idea that gay people have no control over their sexual feelings has emerged as universal and incontestable. There are basic problems with this sweeping generalization. At the outset it presumes gay people are not responsible human beings, but more like babies or robots or slaves. Then the question arises, wherever these feelings originated, isn’t there a point when every individual does begin to call up, nurture, and increase, that is, choose them? And this truth is overlooked: Pretending people do not choose what they think, feel, and do fuels a victim mentality, shifts responsibility, and hinders change, health, and personal progress.

Viktor Frankl in his famous book, Man's Search for Meaning, shared in a dramatic way the discovery that he had the freedom to choose and direct his thoughts and feelings even while seized, separated from his family, imprisoned, and grossly abused in a Nazi concentration camp. All of us have this power, even those who have been traumatized and abused. In the face of abuse we must not argue for weakness or illness. Weak and ill people can and should become strong and well. Conscious choices, such as the decision to face the problem and get help if necessary can set a person free.

But we mostly think of healthy people when we think of gayness these days. If this is so, gays are just like everybody else in that they can reason and choose what to do with their feelings, minds, and bodies. Sexual feelings are no exception. These feelings, like all others, can be indulged in a number of ways. Or they can be ignored, distracted, or redirected. If this principle were not true, we would live in a state of anarchy, as if we all remained toddlers in the terrible twos.

People in all stages of maturing make judgments and put breaks on their feelings continually. We decide what to entertain in our minds and what to reject. Thinkers through the ages from Plato to Thoreau have expounded on the importance of choosing to fill our minds with good and right thoughts which connect to corresponding feelings and conduct. They warn that children must be taught proper attitudes and feelings.

As Frankl pointed out, each of us is endowed with free will, beginning with our innermost thoughts and feelings. We believe this personal agency is a gift from God essential to our progress. It includes the freedom to choose our sexual thoughts and feelings. Our church has a hymn called "School Thy Feelings," interestingly designated as for a Men's Choir. This implies that feelings of all kinds can be taught, learned, chosen, guided, controlled, and changed for the better.

Yes, contrary to popular opinion, gays have control over their feelings. They have control over their thoughts. They have control over their conduct. And they are accountable for all of it, just like everybody else.

School thy feelings, O my brother;
Train thy warm, impulsive soul.
Do not its emotions smother,
But let wisdom's voice control.

#336 LDS Hymnbook

Why Gay Couples Can Never Be Good, Better, or Best Parents

2011-01-24T06:49:00.000-08:00

We've heard it from the media. We've heard from our neighbors. Now we've heard it from our kids' friends. "I know some lesbians who are such good parents." "At least it's better than abusive heterosexual parents." "Some of the best parents I know are gay."

First of all, how do they know? Are they the child of gay parents? Are they being raised by them? Do they live with them? Are they an innocent captive child audience to homosexual behaviors? Sure, the child may be fed, dressed, and housed, taught to wash hands and brush teeth and say the alphabet, get plenty of hugs and kisses and toys. But what else are they getting? They are getting a firsthand education in selfishness and delusion, not to mention a perverse sex education.

Here is a reality check:

1. Children do best in every way when raised by both a mother and a father because male and female complement each other, that is, they each add something new. Gay couples are the same sex and therefore do not complement each other in important ways. Their union does not contribute anything of lasting value to a child.

2. Gay couples cannot mate. They do not do and never can do the thing that can make babies. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to mock mate-rimony. Societies sanction marriage (that is, two people of opposite sex forming a union with the understanding that they will do the thing that can make babies, whether they get babies or not) with the security of human posterity in mind. Since gays can never make offspring together, their relationships do not deserve to be legitimized as marriage or anything like it.

3. The "I deserve to be a parent no matter what" thing was cemented with Murphy Brown, the TV show that in a 1992 episode should have shocked America when the main character, a single working woman got pregnant and decided to celebrate being a single mother. Once we accepted elective single unwed parenting, elective gay parenting was next; if kids could do just as well without a dad or a mom, wouldn't two dads or two moms be even better? (No. See #1.)

4. Gay couples who finagle a way to have the biological child of one of them are thinking only of themselves, as if a human infant is a pet, a trophy, or a sign of personal fulfillment. The fact that they must finagle a way--no exceptions--should be a hint that it is unnatural. They do not care that they, personally, are purposefully and willfully finagling to bring a child into the world deprived of both a mother and a father, that is, one of its biological parents. Such a situation used to be considered a tragedy and is now being done on purpose and praised.

5. Gay couples are 2-6X more likely to include instability, drug abuse, domestic violence, promiscuity, and the like, than heterosexual married couple parents. Doesn't sound good, better, or best, compared to anything, does it?

6. Gay parents are modeling and teaching in unspoken and probably spoken ways a perverted and often extreme and promiscuous view of human sexuality. Before accepting the idea that gays make good parents, everyone should read Out From Under, by Dawn Stefanowicz, a heart-wrenching personal narrative on being raised by a gay father. Dawn is active in helping many others who have had similar experiences work through the damage done.

7. The scope of legal ramifications of gay parenthood are a nightmare. As always, it is the children who suffer most when parents go wrong, and gay relationships open up a whole new set of unimaginable problems when children are involved.

We suggest people think about the best and long-term interests of innocent children and review what it is gay people actually do with each other before sympathizing and praising the modern travesty we call gay parenting.

An Interview? No, Thanks.

2010-11-15T08:27:00.000-08:00

I got a call today from a TV station in Colorado for an interview about Chased by an Elephant, our new book for families to help teach children the truth about male and female and the right attitudes about sexuality. The man on the other end of the line said they were interested because it was controversial, and after a few more questions revealed that yes, along with me there would be people representing the gay community reacting to my book. I said no, thanks. Here's why:

First of all, we need to seriously reflect on the fact that most of the American media take it for granted that parents teaching their children "the birds and the bees" is a controversial idea. This has happened because gayness has infiltrated the politically correct media. Journalism, publishing, TV, film, and radio entities have sold their souls to this form of individual sexual freedom. Alternative sexual identities (which represent a myriad of perverse and risky behaviors) are perfectly acceptable among one's colleagues, employees, and co-workers in the sold-out mainstream media world. That is a fact.

Consider that the pro-gay viewpoint gets practically unlimited access while the traditional morality viewpoint is pretty much forced underground. The only reason the media occasionally highlights the Christian-traditional morality worldview is to exploit "homophobia," simultaneously calling in the gay troops to bash us. Here in Utah we are treated to an array of sympathetic documentaries about gay married Mormons, serious news stories promoting societal acceptance for men who think they've changed themselves into women, obviously slanted debates, and radio spots with ex-communicated apostates criticizing the LDS Church. Programs, articles, and books for review that have anything to do with the promotion of traditional morality and normal sexuality are ignored and rejected. We get plenty of gay affirmation alone, less of the two sides pitted against each other, and practically none of the traditional sexual morality worldview by itself.

Here at SoL we get calls from the media now and then for statements or interviews, and usually their only reason is to make news by provoking controversy, providing fuel for the "victimized gay community." In this way, the pro-gay media is actually manufacturing controversy and reshaping our society.

That's why I said thanks, but no thanks. If the guy wanted to interview me without bringing in the gay parade, I would have accepted. "But it's only fair," he said, politely, conveniently setting aside the overwhelming media bias toward unlimited sexual freedom and against religion and traditional morality. I said we had a policy about avoiding being used to give a voice to dangerous and bad ideas we oppose. It was no surprise that he wasn't interested in interviewing me on my own.

It may be "fair" to show both sides, but since when should society treat good and evil as equal in value? Never. But of course it's worse than that. In today's secular, PC, media-biased culture, not only is evil given a dignified forum, it's winning. In reality there is no equality, no fairness regarding these two worldviews today ---not in the media, not in our education systems, and increasingly not in our government. That's why, at the very least, Health, Truth, and Goodness should never knowingly consent to share a podium on an equal footing with disorder, falsehood, and evil.

Who's on the Lord's Side?

2010-11-08T09:22:00.000-08:00

As I write I see outside my window the 4-board crossbuck fence our neighbor of over 20 years built. The dark row of Ponderosa pines Maurice planted that were six feet tall when we moved in next door now tower thirty feet over the low fence. We played family games in the yard as we raised our seven children using the fence as the starting point for red light, green light and mother, may I? But the decades of sun, wind, rain, and snow proved hard on the simple wood fence. Every few years when the white paint had begun to flake off, Maurice handed us a can of paint over the fence, we donned our grubby clothes, and slapped on another layer on our side. When here and there a slat hung loose we got out a hammer and nails and repaired it. Our neighbor lost his wife a decade ago, and now he's gone too. We have nice new neighbors. I suppose we'll continue doing our part with the upkeep of the old fence. It's a pretty fence, a good one. We can see through and over it to wave at or visit with our neighbors, and at the same time it keeps the property lines clear and orderly.

All sorts of fences, borders, and boundaries are important in our lives for a myriad of reasons. Today we have the opportunity to choose sides in many a moral battle. Fence-sitting, or neglecting/refusing to make up one's mind about which side one is on, is not popular with God. In fact, if we refuse to be hot or cold where He is concerned, it makes Him want to, well, spew us out of his mouth (Revelation 3:16).

More and more, because of a culture that has demonized clear thinking in favor of political correctness, good people are being intimidated and conditioned into sitting on that fence that separates good and evil. Apparently, we're even afraid to bring up moral issues among our fellow church members, much less have intelligent discussions within the walls of a church building.

This is a shame. We have many reliable resources at our disposal to help us study out important issues of the day together with our brothers and sisters in the gospel: prophets, scriptures, history, the accumulated wisdom of the ages, ancestors, grandparents, parents, and to confirm truth in every situation, the Holy Ghost. These resources combined will put us on the right side of the fence every time. But people don't seem to be interested in truth and knowledge. What we are seeing is a rejection of these most reliable of resources. Besides those sitting on the fence who have set aside God, truth, knowledge, experience, and the whisperings of the Spirit in favor of keeping a pretense of unity (what we are unified in is not addressed), we have many in our ranks who for some reason (pride, arrogance, an attempt to cover their sins) think they know it all and have decided to take up residence on one of several very wrong sides.

Wrong sides? Yes. As C. S. Lewis put it in his 1946 novel That Hideous Strength, "There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there is never more than one." There is only one right answer, one right side, to important questions. One of the two main reasons we're here on earth is to make a choice as to which side we are on, the right one, or any number of wrong ones.

President Boyd K. Packer warned us of finding ourselves on the wrong side of the fence in 1996. “We may safely study and learn about the theories and philosophies of man, but if they contradict the plan of redemption . . . do not buy into them as truth. If you do, you may. . . have your testimony repossessed. Your respect for moral agency may go with it and you will end up with nothing.”

Who's on the Lord's side? Now is a time when people are presented with this choice in quite painful and dramatic ways. Here at the Standard of Liberty we hope and pray that the Lord's army will increase. It's not the easy side, but it's the one right one.

It's a wet, blustery fall day. The last yellow leaves on the aspen just outside my window are turning brown. Seven or eight plump little birds regularly visit the just-filled birdfeeder swinging on a nearly bare branch. Beyond it the simple old wood fence still stands, straight and white against the sweeping Ponderosas, reminding me that important boundaries must be kept in good repair.

Friends and Bullies: the Sexualization of Schoolchildren

2010-10-25T09:17:00.000-07:00

Modern sex activists must work hard to maintain a hard-won victim/minority status for the sexually liberated. Just now, apparently there isn't enough, if any,"homophobia" or "discrimination" happening, there aren't enough, if any, "hate crimes" occurring against "gays" going on, and there aren't even enough, if any, "gay suicides" in the news which they can exploit to further their cause. (We use quotation marks because there is not enough proof, if any, that these people and events are what they are claimed to be.) Hence, activists have shifted to an even younger demographic and have grabbed for an even less believable complaint. They have regressed to the schoolyard. The complaint is bullying. Don't buy it. Here's why:

There is no such thing as a gay child. All human beings are innately heterosexual; it's simple biology. When we discuss the bullying of gay children, we have bought into the false idea that there is such a thing as gay children.

People assume that all this bullying is being perpetrated on children who have discovered their gayness and made it known, or on children everybody thinks they know are gay because of their mannerisms or interests. Neither of these sources -- the children themselves or others -- are in any way reliable. Children, if left to their natural modesty and innocence, know nothing about sex and sexuality. They should be taught the proper attitudes and facts at the appropriate ages. A young child who self-labels as gay has been taught it and probably doesn't have a clue about sex or the sexual behaviors gayness is about. If others decide a child is gay, they are mistaken. Why should laypeople be able to make this determination? Even doctors and scientists have no evidence.

What about the innocent child who is taunted with gay labels? Who is standing up for him? Not many. Evidently the public has bought into the clever idea that if a child is bullied for being gay, he is gay. But again, why should anybody believe schoolyard bullies? If a vulnerable kid gets called "gay" often enough he could start to believe it. It happens more often than people know.

So why are gay activists sending up the alarm about bullying if it actually recruits youngsters into their ranks? Don't they need the bullying to go on? Sure, but this tactic doubles their advantage. Not only do they cement their victim status, they get recruits. If bullying of "gay children" subsides or just doesn't pan out, they will think of some new complaint.

Children today who are called "gay" by their classmates may be different in any number of ways. The word gay is used for anything. Or they may also fit into kids' ideas of trumped-up "gay" stereotypes (such as less athletic, more verbal boys who like music and art, etc.) or may be going through a developmental phase they will grow out of (such as a girl being a tomboy). More serious is when children suffer from gender identity disorder or have been sexually abused. But incredibly, none of these factors are part of the conversation.

Sex activists and a conditioned public are actually creating a sexualized environment around children by legitimizing the bullying of "gay children." We would do well to ask, why are adults projecting adult sexuality onto innocent children?

We need to remember that kids are naturally attracted to their own gender. This is called friendship. From these associations, a child becomes confident in his or her masculinity or femininity. This is a part of normal sexual development and important for relating properly to the opposite sex. Now children are hearing that if you are attracted to those of your same sex it is sexual and you must be gay. This is ridiculous. All normal children have best friends of their same gender, friends that at times they would rather be with than anyone else. The sexualization of same-sex friendship is a travesty.

Don't buy into the newest tactic. Yes, being against bullying sounds good, and everybody is against it. But there's no getting rid of it. Instead of all this talk about children taunting and teasing each other (which has always been and will always be), including now in sexual ways, why don't we teach children their innate spiritual self worth apart from what others say about them? Why not teach courage instead of victimhood? strength instead of weakness? right from wrong? good from evil? normal from unnatural? health from sickness? wisdom from recklessness? What kind of generation are we raising?

Children's admiration of one another is naturally nonsexual. Gay stereotyping is harmful and unfair. While unfortunate bullying, taunting, and teasing are not new, the dangerous sexualized labels kids are sticking on themselves and others is. We call upon everyone everywhere to refuse to label children any of these "alternative sexual orientations."

It's not children teasing each other we should be most worried about. It's the sexualization of children that should get our attention, which is promoted by the gay movement and its many unwitting supporters.

Unlimited sexuality used to be confined to San Francisco. Now it's crept into the classrooms, halls, and playgrounds across America.

If I were LDS and Ex-SSSA

2010-10-14T10:07:00.000-07:00

If I were LDS and also once, long ago, troubled with same-sex sexual attraction which I decided I didn’t want and chose to get over even though it was a difficult thing to do, I’d be confused about the Church right now. First, President Packer seemed to be saying my past sexual proclivities were sinful in thought and deed, that my feelings were not an identity, that I was just a sinner like anybody else who can repent and change in order to progress. This is what I would believe, and what worked for me. Then about ten days later the spokesman from the Church’s public affairs department came out with a statement. He seemed to say that same-sex attraction is an identity, that it’s not people’s fault, that those attractions or feelings aren’t sinful, that people with SSSA can progress in the church and enjoy the blessings of the temple. These two views are opposite. Maybe for a minute I wouldn’t know what to think about what is going on at the Church. I’d pray to get the Spirit to guide me.

I’d wonder why I had felt I should repent from my past attractions, thoughts, feelings, as well as any sort of conduct related to homosexuality, while repentance isn't even in others’ vocabulary. I'd wonder why others pretend that SSSA is pure and wholesome when I know from personal experience it isn't. I'd feel sorry for such people because they are fooling themselves. I'd wonder why others aren't encouraged to get the right kind of professional help, when the help I got so many years ago was so reasonable and enlightening. I’d wonder why others who have covenanted to keep their minds and hearts within the Lord's boundaries for sexuality don't feel they have to keep this covenant. I would have taken and continued to take this covenant very seriously.

I’d wonder why the world seems to give those involved in homosexuality so much special attention and acceptance and people like me who have left it behind absolutely none. I’d wonder why my experiences of getting into and getting out of homosexuality are discounted and ignored. I’d wonder why when I share my experiences and beliefs some people get really angry and call me all sorts of awful things, even wishing me dead. It’s a good thing I wouldn’t take these attacks personally. I would see that these people aren't ready to hear my testimony that they can turn back to God and change. I would know that is their choice. I would pray for them even though they feel and act as if they are my enemies.

If I were LDS and also ex-SSSA, it wouldn't be hard to decide to go with President Packer’s talk, the one he gave at General Conference on Oct. 3 at the pulpit. He’s the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I would remember how the Spirit confirmed to me that his words and warnings were true and right. I wouldn’t pay any attention to those who try to confuse or water down the gospel and the truth. I’d continue to make sure those three things — the prophets, the scriptures, and the Spirit — match up.

If I were LDS and ex-SSSA, I’d continue my regular habit of turning to the Lord all day every day. I'd do it because I love Heavenly Father and want to do His will, as Jesus showed. (People talk a lot about God loving them, but not much about them loving God and striving to do His will out of that love. While He gave us everything, He also makes great demands on us, such as keeping His law of chastity in our hearts and minds as well as physically.) I’d keep putting my full reliance on my Savior Jesus Christ and feeling the joy of his divine Atonement. I’d keep seeking truth and comfort from the Holy Ghost. I’d keep feeling God’s love. I’d keep striving to be that new creature in Christ I had become. I’d keep making good choices. I’d pray to be shown what other weaknesses and sins I have and work to leave them behind too, all through my life.

This is actually happening to people. Now that is love.

If I Were LDS with SSSA

2010-10-13T16:26:00.000-07:00

If I were troubled with same-sex sexual attraction and also LDS, I’d be really confused and angry at the Church right now. First, President Packer said my sexual proclivities are sinful and immoral in thought and deed, that my sexual feelings are not an identity, that I’m just a sinner like anybody else who can repent and change.

Then ten days later the spokesman from the Church’s public relations department came out with a statement because the Human Rights Campaign complained. He said that same sex attraction is an identity, that it’s not my fault, that my feelings aren’t sinful, that I can progress in the church, that I can enjoy the blessings of the temple, that other members of the church should be kind to me (as if they haven’t been), but that I cannot act on my attractions. I can’t have a same sex partner. I can’t do what I want with my supposedly fine sexual feelings.

These two viewpoints are opposite. I'd wonder why the church, although it remains consistent on supporting traditional marriage and condemning homosexual behavior, seems so conflicted on certain other elements of this issue. I wouldn’t know what to think. I would realize that neither of these views could satisfy a person in my position. Pres. Packer said I had to repent. And Brother Otterson said I didn't have to repent but that I could never act on my feelings. In my confusion and misery, I’d try to get the Spirit to guide me.

If I were an active LDS adult I would know that my attractions (romantic or sexual appetites, passions, desires, thoughts, and feelings) are supposed to be kept within the Lord's boundaries. As we learn from the scriptures, we're supposed to purify our hearts and minds as well as our hands. And I would know in my heart of hearts that homosexuality is outside those boundaries and unclean. Jesus said, "Whoseover looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It follows that homosexual attractions, like adulterous attractions, are lustful and sinful. I would know that I must be accountable for these attractions, and not pretend they are out of my control.

If I were LDS troubled with SSSA, I'd go with President Packer’s talk, the one he gave at General Conference on Oct. 3 at the pulpit. He’s the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I wouldn’t pay any attention to anything or anyone else on this earth. I’d study the scriptures. I’d seek the Spirit to confirm that what Pres. Packer said was true. I’d make sure those three things — Pres. Packer, the scriptures, and the Spirit — match up.

If I were LDS with SSSA I’d get help. I’d repent. And I’d do it because I love Heavenly Father and want to do His will. I’d do it with full reliance on my Savior Jesus Christ. I’d seek truth and comfort from the Holy Ghost. I’d feel God’s love. I’d become a new creature in Christ and leave this sin behind no matter how hard it was or how long it took. Then I'd do the same thing with every other weakness and sinful tendency or temptation I experienced, all through my life.

This is actually happening to people. Now that is love.

HRC Attacks LDS: Is Threatening Religious Freedom a Good Strategy?

2010-10-13T11:28:00.000-07:00

As we see anti-religion laws passed and individuals fined and imprisoned for expressing their Biblical views in Canada and the UK, we Americans shouldn’t be too surprised that our first freedom is being threatened here at home. President Boyd K. Packer, who after a long silence calmly repeated the Church’s orthodox view regarding sexual morality, is being used as a feather in the cap of the Human Rights Campaign. The LDS Church is being harassed, intimidated, and lectured to by this politically powerful sexual liberation group that has captured the vain heart of our culture and media.

We do not know what gives anybody the right to demand anything from a church, but the one big complaint from HRC against the LDS Church is that its doctrines are hurting their people’s feelings. The truth is HRC is exploiting suicides they do not know the underlying causes of, and they are angry that this church is freely expressing its view that so-called alternative sexual identities are excuses for bad sexual manners.

One of our subscribers pointed out that other groups based on sexual immorality that could have had their feelings hurt by President Packer’s words, such as prostitutes, pornographers, and the pedophilia-promoters from NAMBLA, have not attacked the Church. Is it that the people at HRC are so thin-skinned that they can’t tolerate it when a church they don’t even belong to or believe in expresses its doctrines in a privately-owned building in fly-over Utah? No, they are not thin-skinned, although they count on their rank and file to be; they are calculating. They have made headway these other groups have not and now dare to use anything and everything to make the rebellious, the gender-disordered, the sexually-confused, the promiscuous, and the self-inflicted sick and dying look like upstanding victims of bigotry and discrimination.

With the dangers we face in America from radical Islam which promotes death to infidels, including unequivocal violence against those engaging in homosexual behavior, it occurs to us that the HRC should actually be spending a great deal of its resources championing our constitutional freedoms and traditional institutions. Organized religion is a key factor that keeps despotism at bay. Dictating to churches what they can or cannot say, as HRC has done to the LDS Church, is a form of tyranny, and such tyranny could turn around to harm the HRC and its followers in a big way.

In the meantime, it is not too much to ask that while sex activists exercise their freedoms they allow us ours. The fact that noisy homosexualists can’t seem to leave marriage, our churches, and our children alone should be a revelation to all right-thinking, freedom-loving, God-fearing Americans.

Which do you think is more valuable to the well-being of our country? Freedom of religion or unlimited sexual freedom? If proponents of each continue to stand for their beliefs, and the sex activists continue to manipulate government and the Constitution to further their cause, the two cannot peacefully co-exist. One will eventually be forfeited. As things are going we can guess which it will be, and a very bad move for everyone it will be in the long run.

Is anyone out there still not clear on why we call ourselves the Standard of Liberty?

Reply to Recent Comments

2010-10-11T08:39:00.000-07:00

Dear Michael, Chelsea, various "Anonymous" souls, and all other individuals who oppose us,

Thank you for reading our blog and sharing your feelings. We appreciate the great amount of emotion behind your comments. But you might want to read our new book Chased by an Elephant, the Gospel Truth about Today's Stampeding Sexuality, before making up your minds. It's about things beyond ourselves: truth, reality, nature, God's law of chastity, and Christ as our Savior, all of which every one of us is free to embrace or reject. It's for Christian parents who wish to pass on their values to their children who are learning all manner of opposite information from the world around them, such as in their schools and in the media.

Surely you agree that we live in a diverse world and that other views (besides sexual liberation and the demonizing of traditional morality and Christianity) should be allowed. In America, freedom to act and speak according to the dictates of one's conscience is still guaranteed to us as well as to you. If you believe, which we don't, that practicing and sharing our intellectual, moral, and religious convictions could cause anyone to end their life, it follows that whatever you do and say could do the same. Have you ever thought that the promotion of your ideas could be hurtful to somebody? For instance, there are many sensitive, feeling people who have left their dark experiences with pornography addiction and unwanted homosexuality behind, and when they share their views or tell their personal stories they are verbally abused (bullied) very, very badly indeed by those on your side.

It is best to study these things out from both sides before attacking the accumulated wisdom of the ages and others' experiences. After you have read our books or other materials we would be happy to hear from you again and post any results of critical thinking you have exercised on the timeless realities, scientific facts, and important principles we claim. Remember, we don't engage in or post personal attacks such as those we have received from you.

You may be interested in knowing that we have a riveting new book that will appeal to young adults coming soon called Captain of My Soul, the true story of a young man breaking free from unnatural and unwanted sexual tendencies.

Also in the works is a rated G picture book called Me Tarzan, You Jane for children about the reality of male and female and natural gender roles and the primary principle behind human mating and marriage (that it's only mating, worthy of marriage, if it's the thing that makes babies whether a baby comes of it or not). It highlights an essential view stunningly absent in today's anything-but-the-truth mainstream. This book will counter It's Perfectly Normal by Robie H. Harris, a picture book of sexual activist propaganda which contains graphic content promoting masturbation and homosexuality, among other such books that can be found in elementary school libraries which introduce and promote unlimited sex and sexuality to little children.

Beware the Gay Suicide Card

2010-10-08T16:46:00.000-07:00

One of the arguments made by critics of the LDS Church on the topic of homosexuality is that its stand causes young people to take their own lives. Detractors are actively using the gay youth suicide card on the LDS Church in the wake of President Packer's talk at the Church’s General Conference, Oct. 3. On Oct. 7, a “silent protest” was held where a group of mostly young people lay down, death-like, outside the gates of the Salt Lake Temple. While we should all mourn suicides, is the Church responsible? Will the words Pres. Packer spoke at a church meeting really cause people to take their own lives as activists are saying?

It has been admitted by activists that lies are acceptable in order to further their cause. One example is, talking about being “born that way,” activists said, “If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?”

It follows that we must take every pronouncement of a “gay suicide" with a very large grain of salt. In fact, some families of these suicide victims being cited by activists are speaking out.
Affirmation, a group self-described as LDS and pro-gay, in an article about suicides, is warned by family members of young gays David Standley and Todd Ranson who recently died not to jump so quickly to the causes of their deaths.

“David had a very severe mental illness his entire life where he experienced depression that he was unable to overcome. His biological father also committed suicide, which increased his chances to 90 percent that he would also do the same. David had the same mental illness as his biological father and his biological father’s father,” wrote Standley’s mother.

“Some people have said that Todd ended his life because he was gay or felt persecuted by the LDS Church and his family, but this is not true,” a family member wrote on a tribute web site dedicated to him . . . “Todd attempted suicide previously and we know from that experience that his manic depression was a constant thorn in his side and that there were other factors that influenced his suicide.”

As a matter of fact, mentally and emotionally healthy people of all ages do not kill themselves because others disapprove of them. Correction, criticism, and even rejection are part of life. We get disappointed, dropped, dumped, dismissed, disowned, and deceived by others. History is full of individuals and groups, good and bad, being rejected. People are even imprisoned because society cannot accept their behavior. And yet the vast majority do not commit suicide. Therefore, criticism or rejection, including bullying, cannot be blindly accepted as the cause for gay suicides.

A study called “Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth” (G. Remafedi, 1999), reports that for every year a young person puts off labeling himself gay, the risk of suicide decreases by 20% (See narth.com). Of course activists do not want this known. We once asked a youth counselor at Utah Pride if she ever tried to dissuade a young teenager from labeling himself gay quite yet and there was total silence on the other end of the phone.

Rather than disapproval or perceived rejection from one’s family or church, could it be that there are hidden factors at work that contribute to gay youth suicides? How about encouragement to adopt a popularized but unnatural sexual label? How about addiction to soul-killing same-sex pornography? How about being introduced by adults to behaviors too heinous to mention in polite society? How about being told they are forever homosexual and thinking they will never have a normal family life? How about hearing over and over that gays commit suicide if they aren’t accepted by their family or church? How about confusion, self-loathing, depression, and guilt coming from a young person’s own dark thoughts and behaviors with no hope or resources for deliverance in sight?

As we’ve been hearing, some believe no “serious crisis [should] go to waste.” Please note that schools play down student suicides so as not to encourage copy-cat behavior. We never see gay activists playing down suicides. On the contrary, any suicide they can possibly connect to gayness is shamelessly exploited to further their cause.

Given the above considerations, we should be highly skeptical of sexual activists’ exploitation of any person’s violence against himself.

-Janice Graham

Also see “Is ‘gay’ agenda to blame for teen suicides?” by Linda Harvey at www.missionamerica.com

Mating and Marriage

2010-09-13T10:02:00.000-07:00

There's a great article from The National Review called “The Case for Marriage.” Of course! Government has historically taken an interest in the institution of marriage because of children; it's about what to do with the children that regularly come from mating. Traditional marriage with its natural gender roles is never perfect (because human beings are never perfect) but it is in the best interests of children. Our government and legal system must continue to support marriage with its traditional definition—as importantly linked to procreation—
or we’ll find ourselves on the road to the government taking upon itself the role of parent, with dangerous and disastrous consequences.

As for so-called gay marriage, try as they might, men cannot mate with other men and women cannot mate with other women. So why should government take any interest in their relationship? Of itself it doesn’t produce anything. As for the argument that government should support adult emotional relationships, government has never gotten involved in people's emotional unions alone. Can you imagine the colossal intrusion and power that would lead to? Government could dictate what should happen in every human relationship imaginable! That’s why government should only have something to say about the one union that regularly creates children, that is, marriage as it has always been defined.

As for another argument about how many heterosexual couples do not procreate for various reasons (infertility, choice, age), the principle still stands. These couples still mate, that is, they do the very thing people do that makes babies. Gay couples do not mate, that is, they do not do the very thing that makes babies. In fact, it's impossible to get a baby from anything they do together. Whatever else people acting homosexually do, they can’t mate and never do. Therefore, they can never be married as the word marriage is defined. If we decide to call what they do marriage, we will have ruined the word as it has always stood with its foundational purpose and definition: marriage exists and is encouraged in the hope that every child may be born into the most stable environment possible, to the basic family unit consisting of a legally united and recognized opposite-sex couple, which is usually his own biological mother and father from whom much is expected by society for the sake of its own survival.

There's yet another newish argument that government, with its interest in children, should legitimize gay marriage because gay couples are now getting children through outside means such as adoption, sperm donation, or surrogacy. All we can say is, government shouldn't support such things because they are not in the best interests of children. It's incredible that people are bringing children into a home without both a mother and a father where the adults are modeling maladaptive and dangerous behavior on purpose. Gay couples who go to these lengths are acting in their own various interests, and not in the best interests of the children they contrive to adopt or create. For example, we've heard that gay men will each simultaneously donate their sperm to the surrogate mother so no one will know which man's child is the result. Besides these adults treating procreation like a game and human beings like entitlements, do they not wonder if the child will ever want to know which of these two men is really his biological father? People need to know these things for medical records at least.

Purposely destroying language, as in hijacking the word marriage, in order to further a self-serving agenda is a cowardly and tyrannical thing to do. Our government representatives and officials should see through it.

revised 10/12/10

Of Churches and Christians, Garages and Cars

2010-06-12T06:23:00.000-07:00

It's understandable how certain false doctrines are embraced; they relieve us of the painful process of searching our souls.

For example, we often hear people testify that if we work hard and do our very, very best, Christ will "make up the difference." How many times have we heard, "You did your best and Christ will make up the rest?" Well, what if our best is just not very good at all, as King Benjamin tells us? Hugh Nibley said none of us are very brave or wise or pure. So, who are we to judge our own works in any degree as good or great? Where is any Christ-like humility in that? What we're supposed to be doing is striving to serve God and giving Him all the glory. Did I say all? Yes, all.

Whereas the scriptures say that we mustn't lean on our own understanding, that the Lord is our shepherd, that we must trust in him, that HE is THE light, THE life, and THE ONLY way, we often hear the idea that we should trust mostly in the arm of the flesh (ourselves and other humans) for our salvation, that the Savior can be treated as a sort of safety net, just in case we missed something. The truth is, Christ is the bridge itself, and the only bridge, not a mere safety net should we happen to lose our footing. And the reality is we all lose our footing; whether this happens in little ways or big ways, often or infrequently, doesn't matter. A question worth contemplating is, how would this safety-net/just-in-case view lead one to Christ, to humble oneself before God, to become truly religious/like Christ? The answer is, there is not much chance it will. We're nowhere near the bridge so why would we even need a net? We're walking on an earthbound path of our own making, which path leads to increasing vanity and pride.

It is as if we are saying,"I am doing so well that I don't need a Savior. Well, maybe I need him some, especially when I need comfort." Perhaps we think more often of Christ as a compassionate friend who is there to empathize with us when life is difficult rather than as a Redeemer who is there offering to intercede with the Father to save us from our sins, small and large, if we'll only seek to know what our shortcomings are and humble ourselves before him.

As C. S. Lewis said, the question is not, What are we to make of Christ? but, What is Christ to make of us? He wants to make us different and new, noble spiritual beings. We cannot make new soul-deep creatures of ourselves; only Christ can do that. Only he can make us fit for God's presence. It is his example of utter selflessness, of giving the Father all the glory, of purity of heart, that we must follow, and his redeeming grace that we must humbly and joyfully and gratefully receive if we are to become new creatures.

There's another strange false doctrine going around that perhaps grew from the one above. Some believe that with every good deed we do we undo a portion of the suffering of Christ. In other words, we have the power to make ourselves exempt or immune from the fall, from Christ's suffering, and from his saving grace. Of course this cannot be so. Man is fallen. The Atonement has been accomplished. What's done is done, and Christ is the only way. If we choose to believe such heresies we are living in a dreamworld, presuming to be our own savior and judge, even our own god. Such a person comes to church and serves in callings, but is actually rejecting the Lord. What would we honestly call such a church? The Church of Oneself? It certainly isn't the Church of Jesus Christ.

We like what somebody said in church last week, "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car."

The Pursuit of Happiness and the Fatal Principle

2010-05-21T10:07:00.000-07:00

Our Declaration of Independence says that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But should people have a right to pursue their personal idea of happiness by any and every means? Of course not. Our society has all kinds of restrictions and outlaws a number of behaviors such as rape, murder, stealing, etc. The writers of the Declaration on which our country is founded meant that all people have the right to pursue happiness by lawful and moral means. It was written in a time when people were permanently divided and oppressed according to unchangeable class or social status, ruler-mandated religious denominations, and the like. Perhaps it's hard for us complacent, multi-generational Americans to imagine such a time when people did not enjoy such things as social mobility, property ownership, and religious freedom. Evidently, it was a very big deal to conceive of a such a nation as this was meant to be. The Founders wanted a different sort of society where everyone was equally free to pursue virtuous goals and worship God according to the dictates of a moral conscience.

Jan Lewis in The Pursuit of Happiness, explains that in using this phrase America's Founders actually had in mind not the fulfillment of the individual as we hear about today, but the fulfillment of family life as the ultimate wished-for personal happiness. This included the freedom to pass on one's moral/religious convictions to one's children and the opportunity for property ownership (acres for a house, garden, animals, pond, etc.) in order to independently provide for the spiritual and physical needs of a growing family. In those days owning a house was not considered for its own sake as a financial investment as it often is today, but for the sake of long-term conjugal family security. At its core the Declaration was meant to proclaim the human right to pursue the best safeguard against tyranny and the best chance for human happiness possible here on earth: family life.

Increasingly, since the 1920s, the original meaning of the pursuit of happiness has been redefined, even high-jacked, to include unlimited sexuality, the opposite of virtuous family life. We've seen how co-habitation, out-of wedlock pregnancy, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and the like, have become de-stigmatized, then championed, all in the name of individual sexual freedom, fulfillment, or happiness.

Of course licentiousness does not bring happiness, only misery, but we live in a blind and prideful society which values only itself and has abandoned its responsibilities to both past and future generations. Sexuality is now the one impulse that need not be bridled---except perhaps where it is associated with marriage, ecclesiastical discipline, and sex crimes, and even these restrictions are fast fading away. We have rampant infidelity, open marriages, state-recognized "gay marriage," churches softening and abandoning their doctrines, a growing gay clergy, and new laws and policies, local, state, and federal, reflecting ever-widening boundaries for all manner of sex and sexuality for all ages.

In the 1940s C. S. Lewis, in his essay "We Have No 'Right' to Happiness,'" (God in the Dock) discusses this societal trend, adding, "Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behaviour which, if it had any other end in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust." He is right. If our society did not embrace irresponsible sexual freedom as happiness, but rather the pursuit of classic family life as happiness, a "gay" man's abandonment of his wife and children, an adulterous woman's convenience abortion, a public school teaching children that homosexuality is normal and having a father who objects arrested, a little boy being encouraged by the adults around him to dress and act as a girl in preparation for hormones and surgeries that will confuse and mutilate his healthy young body, and many other behaviors, would not be condoned as they now are, but summarily condemned as merciless, treacherous, and unjust.

Now that we have made the sexual impulse a "right," this fatal principle, as Lewis calls it, "must sooner or later seep through our whole lives. We thus advance toward a society in which not only each man but every [unschooled and selfish] impulse in each man claims carte blanche. And then . . . our civilization will have died at heart and will . . . be swept away."

So much has happened which Lewis could hardly have imagined, but he clearly saw the direction the world was headed. It's incredible to us at SoL that even those with resources, influence, and obligation avoid this topic like the plague. Many of our seemingly most moral and conservative leaders no longer take a stand on issues of sexual morality. They, quite irresponsibly, turn a blind eye to the tragic consequences for a society bent on sex, sex, and more sex. As a result, Lewis's prediction is coming true. To its detriment, as our society has settled on pushing and celebrating unlimited sexuality it has had no trouble pushing and celebrating every other preposterous entitlement men arbitrarily claim from society as a right: a "right" to marriage, a "right" to be a parent, a "right" to destroy the unborn, a "right" to own a house, a "right" to have a job, a "right" to free health care, a "right" for foreigners to break America’s laws, and the list goes on. So much for the sense of personal responsibility needed to pursue real happiness.

The fatal principle is at work.

Love Speech

2010-04-12T14:05:00.000-07:00

We challenge any clear-thinking person to find anything hateful in this blog.

Like we've said so many times before, we love people. We value their health and well-being, and their immortal souls. This means we are obligated to disapprove of bad ideas and behaviors. Truly loving people means you care about them. It means you do what you can to teach them the truth and warn them about dangers. Of course they are free to take it or leave it.

Is that so difficult to understand?

In light of the amount of hate mail we receive at SoL, we think the Laman and Lemuel syndrome applies today. They got angry at the truth, angry enough to wish harm on the messenger.

Utah Pride Center Recruits Kids

2010-04-12T13:55:00.000-07:00

We at the Standard of Liberty were dismayed to hear of an annual “Queer Prom” held at the Salt Lake City Library Saturday April 10 for ages 14 through 20. This is eighth or ninth grade well into college age. Gay or straight, this is inappropriate. The gathering is legal only because there is no alcohol. We point out that many things that are legal are not healthy or wholesome (smoking, alcohol abuse, adultery, pornography), and this is one of those.

Traditional high school proms are based on nature, order, and traditional gender roles. This particular dance is held solely based on anomalistic ideas about gender, sexuality, and sex. Throwing minors together with adults on the basis of unlimited sexuality is bizarre and irresponsible. But we found out there’s more to it than that.

We made a few phone calls. The library passed the buck to the city. The city hasn’t responded. So we called the Utah Pride Center which sponsors the event and many other events throughout the year for this same age group. Lily Rodriguez, the "HIV Prevention Counselor" whose job it is to counsel youth on sex and sexuality, defended these events. She said the prom was not about sex and sexuality but about making friends.

We went to see for ourselves. There were certainly very young kids attending this event. We saw them holding hands and skipping to the entrance. As they arrived they were accosted by adults with badges and clip boards and asked to fill out a lengthy survey. Many of them sat down and poured over the survey for up to an hour before going into the dance. It seemed to us that the youngest kids were dressed most normally, and that the older the attendees looked, the more outrageously they presented themselves. We saw one male attendee, surely even older than 20, milling around and introducing himself where the kids were filling out their surveys. He hobbled around on women’s 6-inch platform strappy heels, wore a spaghetti-strap short black flowy dress and black hose, continually adjusted his falsies and flourished a big Japanese fan. In this same area, a child-like girl, who looked even younger than 14, was dressed like Minnie Mouse, complete with mouse ears.

Ms. Rodrigez had failed to mention this 15-page questionnaire. We obtained a copy. It asked the kids what school they attended and if it had a gay club. It asked them to label themselves one of seven “sexual orientations” and one or more of seven “genders” (with spaces for “other”). It asked questions about “hate-based” harassment at their school. It invited them to meet with a person named Jenny Arm (of unknown credentials) present at the dance and gave her phone number. The survey also asked explicit questions about the young attendees’ sexual behaviors, such as, “In the past six months, have you had anal sex without a condom?” The last page congratulates the kids (“YOU ARE FABULOUS!”), informing them that the information they have provided will be distributed “to important organizations, including schools.” (See this survey at standardofliberty.org.)

Ms. Rodriguez misrepresented this event. Not only is it inappropriate and potentially dangerous, it is obviously used to sexually exploit and influence kids and recruit them into gay activism to further the Center’s political agenda.

Ms. Rodriquez informed us that the Center welcomes not only gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth, but “questioning” youth. We say that it’s about time somebody questioned Utah Pride Center. We asked her if she ever tells these kids that they might not be sexually different at all (but rather bored, rebellious, addicted to pornography, rejected, heartbroken, confused, abused, etc.), and she changed the subject.

We agree with Tammy Bruce (a self-identified lesbian herself) who wrote, “I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.” (The Death of Right and Wrong, 2003). SoL calls upon the City of Salt Lake to refuse to approve the Center’s requests for the use of city property for youth activities. We call upon the Division of Child and Family Services to investigate Utah Pride Center regarding the welfare of minors. We call upon “important organizations, including schools” to reject Utah Pride Center’s self-serving propaganda. We call upon parents to protect their children from this misguided group and others like it.

Utah Pride Center has no business targeting, sexually labeling, and exploiting minors. Troubled youth should be directed to parents, family members, foster homes, churches, professionals, and social and community organizations which do not inappropriately sexualize children and which have only their best interests at heart.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2010-02-25T17:05:00.000-08:00

Dear Anonymous:
After this, if you wish to comment further on our blog, you’ll have to provide an email address. Sorry, we will no longer open anonymous emails. Questions and comments may or may not be addressed or posted.

Because of your references to what occurs in the temple, we choose not to post your last comment. But here is our reply:

We still don’t see any problem with the husband/wife wording. A husband is male, a wife is female, as in Adam and Eve. According to God, marriage only takes place between the two opposite sexes.

God gives us an unchanging standard of human conduct on important topics. Sex is important. And when people misuse the human sexual appetite someone gets hurt. This is taken for granted. It is only the modern licentious movement that is seeking to replace common knowledge with a new arbitrary self-serving standard. As Dostoeyvski said, Where there is no God, all is permitted. Those caught up in this movement are seeking to remake the law of chastity unto themselves to include some of the most base and degenerate desires and behaviors human beings are capable of.

It might be enlightening to talk to a doctor who cares for those who engage in sodomy. Not a pretty sight. These poor people are afflicted with unspeakable chronic maladies in their private parts and life-threatening diseases. Lives are shortened. The human body is not made to participate in such behavior. It cannot be called chaste by any stretch of the imagination. Decent people do not do it. You are not only denying God, you are denying nature and reality you can see with your own eyes.

Be careful what you wish for. In the 40s George Orwell wrote, “ . . . [A]ll societies, as the price of survival, have to insist on a fairly high standard of sexual morality.” No civilized society would endanger its existence in order to indulge a small percentage of the population which claims it has a right to arbitrarily change the standard for sexual morality for everyone. No truly religious church would compromise doctrine and order to accommodate the flagrantly licentious. The presumption and arrogance of the self-serving few who pressure churches to overturn their basic rules for sexual morality to suit them is off the charts. If they get their way, these few will not just be accommodated, they will destroy. We repeat, be careful what you wish for. You can’t have the Church in the form you want it. It will cease to exist. If we have a church left at all we’ll have, as Flannery O'Connor put it, the “Church of Christ Without Christ.”

Look for the new book Chased by An Elephant, the gospel truth about today’s stampeding sexuality. It's for parents raising children but it sounds like some of the basic truths it contains are unknown to you. Coming soon!

Chastity 101

2010-02-25T09:25:00.000-08:00

We don't know quite what to do with anonymous emailed comments. Since we can’t reply to them privately, we have to reply on our public blog. The following was a comment on our post entitled “Gays in the Church – Let’s Think it Through.”

Anonymous:
So, lots of questions/concerns, but interestingly enough, you might actually be wrong about the temple.

In the 1990 changes the law of chastity went from gendered to non-gendered. Since now everybody just follows chastity by restricting sexual relations to their legal spouse, theoretically, a legal gay marriage does not violate that covenant.

You don't have to teach two laws. You just have to apply the one law equally.

SoL response:
First, we don’t know what you mean by any change “from gendered to non-gendered.” We’re pretty sure the words “husband or wife” are meant to refer to opposite sexes.

Second, your theory does not hold water. The law of the land may sanction "gay marriage," but this does not change God's law of chastity which says that homosexual sex is out of bounds, monogamous or not. You seem to have ignored the fact that the very nature of homosexuality is unchaste. And of course monogamy does not necessarily equal chastity in any case. There are many ways heterosexual married people can be unchaste, too. Even our feelings and thoughts can be unchaste, such as lusting after other people's spouses. Our outward behavior, as well as all our desires, passions, and appetites, are to be kept within God's law.

Pure Love 101

2010-02-23T07:36:00.000-08:00

We received this short comment from "Anonymous" concerning our previous post about gay sensitivity training in church.

"There are many ways to hate people. Ask yourselves this - would Jesus hate them too? No (need it be even said...) Love them; it’s harder but better for all in the long run."

This is our response:
Thanks for commenting. May we suggest that if you're going to invoke the name of Christ, you better know what he is really about.

There may be many ways to hate people, but there is only one way to truly love them. The one most pure and correct way, the way Jesus loves us, is perfectly patient, but does not enable our stagnation, errors, sins, or self-destruction. We are called upon to put off the natural man inside us who is so prone to wander away from God and His goodness. He invites each of us to become a new, selfless person intent on doing God's will, which will at some time or other mean putting aside our own will, as Jesus exemplified by His life and Atonement. And of course it’s entirely up to each of us. If and when we accept Christ as our Savior we are obligated to share the good news.

Most people neglect to separate people's infinite worth from the things they say and do. By making this mistake, they make more mistakes, among them, tending to embrace people’s wrong ideas and behaviors while forgetting to truly value the people. Would you encourage your friend to chain smoke or abuse drugs? No. And yet this is what gay-sympathizers are doing. They are encouraging an unnatural and extremely addictive and risky lifestyle. It doesn’t have to be this way. With a little courage you can value and love people and disapprove of the things they do come what may. Society does it all the time. Parents do it every day and correct their children. God gives us an unchanging standard to go by.

Your "long run" is different than Christ's. Yours is based on comfortable human relations and the now, his is based on a relationship first with God the Father and with eternal growth and progress for His children. It is easier to go along with wayward people than to take a stand and truly love them. What you call love accepts people's unnatural self-determined sexual orientation (without even wondering what travesties may have caused it) because you would rather be liked than do the difficult, right thing. What you call love does not take into account the person's temporal or spiritual safety, health, well-being, progress, and posterity. Rather than any kind of pretense of love, that sounds more like one of those many ways to hate.

It doesn't take a theologian to understand these basics.

Gay Sensitivity Training -- In Church?

2010-02-05T08:00:00.000-08:00

Yes, it's happening. Only, we didn't imagine bishops and stake presidents would be the instigators. It all comes as a sort of backlash on the wake of the Prop 8 victory. It seems as if some Mormons couldn't take the heat and have now organized gay sensitivity training sessions.

In California, during church services, assigned speakers claimed a gay identity and told their sob stories to a captive audience, eliciting weeping and hugging. Handouts with gay-affirming quotes and personal experiences replaced the scriptures. (No, you won't find quotes from The Miracle of Forgiveness here.) Read this emotionalized propaganda from the Salt Lake Tribune, "Gays rights: Oakland LDS Stake tries to heal post-Prop 8 rifts." (We wonder how orthodox members would feel in such a meeting. Or how about a person who was involved in homosexuality and who then wanted out, turned away from it, and repented by the grace of Christ?)

Perhaps these Oakland people never understood the demands of religion in the first place. They seem to have set aside God in favor of personal comfort. For "gays," it's their unnatural sexual inclinations they put before God. For the others, it's public opinion they put before God. Gays want to be seen as victims, their supporters want to be seen as compassionate, all so they'll be loved by other humans. (And it's especially incredible to us that no one seems at all concerned about what horrors might have caused this travesty in the first place, or the welfare of anybody's body or soul.)

Perhaps every one of us "latter-day saints" is in danger of forgetting, or never knew, the essence of Christianity. Some seem to have adopted a make-shift, Jesus-Lite, pretend religion that is based on human relations and is much easier to take than actual religion.

Evidently in some LDS wards God is out. Homosexuality is in. So what will we see happening in our church meetings next? See a previous post, "Gays in the Church? Let's Think It Through." We are very naive if we think Mormon gays' "rights" will end with group sensitivity training sessions. As they themselves say, "It's a step."

Please note that we are not opposed to those with sexual problems participating in church along with the rest of us sinners. We say: love them, welcome them, encourage them to repent, get help, and overcome this stagnating sin so they can move forward. What's horribly wrong here is the public acceptance and normalization of homosexuality itself. We are doing an unspeakably terrible disservice to these deceived and confused people by not offering truth, repentance, and help.

The truly religious strive to change themselves to fit God. What we see here is a bunch of pseudo-religious people striving to change God to fit themselves. Sad.

Freedoms at Risk

2010-01-12T08:47:00.000-08:00

Incredibly, some people continue to voice the ironic sentiment that we at the Standard of Liberty should not be allowed to speak, blog, send emails, or anything of the sort. This is nothing new. We have been dealing with this oppression and persecution for ten years and it is precisely the reason we chose the name we did for our organization. Yes, we are free, whether certain people like it or not, to practice our religion and speak our minds. As such, there is nothing some people would like better than to shut us up. We wonder if they realize that by hoping to curtail our constitutional liberties (which we utilize within the law and without hurting anyone), they may end up also curtailing their own.

George Orwell, in the 1940s, put it this way. Not only is "the very concept of objective truth fading out of the world,"but "almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships -- an age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction." The first things to go in such a nightmare are sexual morality, religion, and free speech, and we are well into making that nightmare a reality. Read: political correctness, hate crimes bills, anti-discrimination laws based on perverse sexual identification and behavior, pressure and punishments given to churches, fines and imprisonment of orthodox Christians, all of which increasingly favor a person's or group's unlimited sexual freedom over all other considerations, including public decency, safety of children, and our still constitutionally enumerated and guaranteed first amendment freedoms.

Who knew through what avenue totalitarianism would actually creep into America, that it could be through something so ordinary and hackneyed as sexual immorality, among other things? Not Orwell, although he did warn that ". . . all societies, as the price of survival, have to insist on a fairly high standard of sexual morality. . . Society has always to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice. It has to demand faultless discipline and self-sacrifice, it must expect its subjects to work hard, pay their taxes, and be faithful to their wives, it must assume that men think it glorious to die on the battlefield and women want to wear themselves out with child-bearing."

(Incidentally, isn't it amazing that these very situations Orwell so casually lists in an obscure essay are the very issues being denigrated today? Taken point for point, our culture has been infiltrated with a welfare entitlement mentality, those who think they are above paying their taxes, adultery, homosexuality, and family abandonment, the idea that there is nothing worth dying for, and the belittling of motherhood except perhaps as the least-priority portion of a woman's personal self-fulfillment, as if the obligation to propagate the human race were completely optional, if not evil.)

President Joseph F. Smith knew. He said, "There are at least three dangers that threaten the Church within, and the authorities need to awaken to the fact that the people should be warned unceasingly against them. As I see these, they are flattery of prominent men in the world, false educational ideas, and sexual immorality. But the third subject mentioned -- personal purity, is perhaps of greater importance than either of the other two. We believe in one standard of morality for men and women. If purity of life is neglected, all other dangers set in upon us like rivers of waters when the flood gates are opened." (Improvement Era, Vol. 17, No. 5. p.476. March 1914.)

It is not only the integrity of churches that are threatened by sexual immorality. It is society as a whole and every person's individual freedom.

Still Standing

2010-01-09T09:53:00.000-08:00

We have been very busy in recent months (a wedding of one child and triplets born to another!) and have not given attention to this blog. Checking our emails, we found that the publisher and author of No Going Back, the terrible book we recently reviewed, and some other people, are very upset with us. We have received email after lengthy email defending this book to us or because of us.

It turns out these are people with multiple problems. Even though they profess to be latter-day saints, they are passionate about arguing for the sin and weakness and confusion of homosexual lust. Hope for repenting of and overcoming homosexual thoughts and feelings is something they simply are not interested in. In addition, they cannot take criticism, so they demand that we apologize for our views.

This reaction is sophomoric and highly unprofessional. When people organize, write, or publish, they open themselves up to critical thinking and responses. Our response is sincere, well thought out, logical, and orthodox. It concerns ideas and principles. We have not "misrepresented" anyone or anything. But all that aside, it appears that these people have decided that we at the Standard of Liberty are not entitled to our opinion. And some wonder why we call ourselves the Standard of Liberty!

With all the positive feedback being reported by Zarahemla Books about this book, it seems strange that they are spending so much time and effort and words fretting about us. When people are overly defensive like this, their position tends to weaken. All we can surmise is that we have hit a nerve. They are not as confident as they let on. They seem to need everyone's approval. Sounds not only unprofessional but a bit pathological, OCD, or at least high school.

We have nothing more to say about this very bad book. Those who are unhappy about our assessment and our views and demand that we change them are out of luck. We will continue to stand for the truth come what may.

2009-10-13T07:21:00.001-07:00

It’s a No Go

Book Review for No Going Back by Jonathan Langford, published by Zarahemla Books, 2009

Touted as an appeal for compassion for conflicted LDS self-determined “gay” teens, the novel, No Going Back, is yet another push for accepting gayness, alternative sexual orientation, homosexuality, SSA—call it whatever you like — as an identity within an orthodox church, in this case in minors, ages 12-16. Yes, this is an exploitation of children in an over-the-top attempt to have one's cake and eat it. Sorry, one can't be both a true follower of Christ and proclaim a gay identity.

The book is an overlong, self-conscious one, including vulgar sex jokes among kids, that cannot decide its audience and goes nowhere. The adult characters come across as clueless and self-absorbed as those in the funny movie, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. And the protagonist is a sneaky know-it-all teenager who rationalizes ways to break the rules while fooling Mormons around him (including readers?) into thinking he is an exemplary young man. The difference is, Ferris blows off criticism while the gay teen throws up a lot, has to take antidepressants, and moves away because he allows himself to be victimized by just about everybody and everything. Evidently it is not his fault that he masturbates, oversexualizes his classmates, looks at porn, and acts out homosexually. According to this book, lusting is a wholesome activity for LDS youth both gay and straight. This is a work of fiction in many more ways than one.

Like most attempts at literature today, this piece of writing is one long whine about everything the author wanted to whine about. He has his characters give lip service to religion and the worth of souls, without an iota of real understanding or application, which unthinking exercise is represented as righteousness. The premises and doctrines it is based on are stunningly false. Scientific facts and common knowledge are stunningly absent. The publisher of this book, Chris Bigelow, has said that his fellow Church members must soften their “rigid and extreme” (does he mean "steadfast and immoveable?") orthodoxy concerning homosexuality or the Church risks loss of membership, negative popular opinion, and “further expulsion from society.” Make of that what you will.

As far as ideas for helping sexually wayward kids, this book leaves adults hopeless and empty-handed. Young readers who are socially underdeveloped, whose sexuality is moving in unhealthy directions, and who may be emotionally troubled (all of which apply to the book’s protagonist) are left without direction or assistance in getting to the roots of and overcoming a sexuality dilemma that could destroy an otherwise bright future. In the meantime they are cast afloat, at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ and grossly preoccupied with sex. Young people not troubled with sexual issues may be persuaded by this book to jump on the band wagon in the gay parade just because it appeals to the shallowest of human emotions and is oh so cool. Kids are like that. And adults who produce material like this about and for kids would seem to be, well, you make the call.

Our assessment? KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.

-Janice Graham

*If a young person you know announces he’s gay, do not accept this deception to any degree. Love him, teach him the truth about human sexuality, nature, and God, and, if necessary offer him some cutting-edge professional help. Send questions to our resident expert at Ask Dr. Dan (dr.dan@standardofliberty.org). Or call expert Dr. Jeffrey Robinson at 801-318-9528. Watch for the new book, Chased by an Elephant, the gospel truth about today’s stampeding sexuality, for LDS families. Also Captain of My Soul, a young man’s true story of conquering pornography addiction and homosexuality, a great book for teens and young adults. SoL will keep you informed as to when and where these books will be available.

Gays in the Church? Let's Think It Through.

2009-10-08T08:29:00.000-07:00

So often in today's nonjudgmental, PC culture, we simply do not think things through. Here's an example.

There are perilous ideas circulating in our Mormon culture, such as that it's perfectly okay to come out as gay as long as you don't fully act out, that gays can't help their particular sexual feelings, that these people need Church support for their homosexuality, and that homosexuality can be chaste. (And by the way, go ahead and substitute the terms SSA, same-sex attracted, or same-gender attracted for the word gay, if you like. These are the trendy terms some LDS are publicly promoting and adopting perhaps to give the appearance of setting themselves apart from the world and the controversial politics of homosexuality. Don't be fooled. This is an attempt to soften sin and is a self-serving deception. The homosexual orientation is wrong and harmful whether you are a member of the Church or not and whatever you call it.)

We know these ideas have been stated in so many words by a few leaders, but the total opposite is also stated in our scriptures and by prophets and has never been retracted. Take The Family: A Proclamation to the World which states that all of us are either male or female and our assigned gender roles have both temporal and eternal significance. Take President Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness which states homosexuality as a sin in thought and deed that must be overcome in no uncertain terms. Take numerous speeches and talks by apostles. Take the word of God. For every word affirming gayness that can be quoted from a leader, we can give you many, many, many more from the completely opposite viewpoint. It becomes obvious that we must each be taught by the Spirit of the Lord to know the truth on this issue. Of course this is what we should be doing anyway about everything.

Let's think further about homosexuality and the like being accepted in the Church, about gays being chaste, and about gays, however celibate, interacting and serving in the Church. Many mind-boggling questions arise, so many we can't write them all here. But here are a few off the top of our heads:

-When individuals are emboldened enough to publicly proclaim the self-determined gay or SSA label as a personal identity, whether they realize it or not, aren't they joining a highly politicized and radical sexual movement which offers limitless support for unlimited inclinations? Won't they tend to spread their espoused ideologies with others in the Church? (Faithful and otherwise healthy people who are troubled with sexuality problems do not identify or pronounce themselves as gay or SSA. They keep their problems relatively private, get help in overcoming them, and don't give up. They do not wish to be coddled or treated differently than others, nor do they associate with those who have their same problem. This goes for their families too.)

-Endowed latter-day saints covenant to keep their appetites, desires, and passions within God's boundaries. Is a homosexual appetite, desire, or passion within God's boundary for sexuality? Is it chaste to desire to commit sodomy? How do we teach inner chastity to those who claim they are gay/same-sex attracted? How do endowed self-determined gays keep this temple covenant when their identity is based on sexualizing those of their own gender? How do we teach about marriage in the Church when we do not allow gays to get married to each other? Mustn't we teach strict, life-long celibacy to gay Mormons and at the same time encourage marriage, sexuality, and family to straight Mormons? Will gay Mormons think this is tolerant and accepting?

-Some gay Mormons are getting married to the opposite sex so they can receive temple blessings and have families. Still, they claim their sexual desires are oriented toward those of their same sex. How does this work with the marriage relationship? As in adultery, isn't lusting after someone other than your spouse unfaithful? Are gays exempt from adultery in thought or deed while everyone else is not?

-When individuals insist that they are gay wouldn't it seem logical that they have explored and nurtured homosexual ideas and practices, and continue to do so through self-labeling, lusting, associations, support groups, same-sex porn, chat rooms, blogging, writing books, etc. ? And don't they have to keep this up in order to justify their choice to come out? Doesn't anything we hold in our minds expand? Is this chaste?

-Should openly gay males be called to serve as Scout and Young Men leaders and publicly proclaimed lesbians as Young Women leaders? How about Primary teachers? What about self-determined gay kids and gay adults on overnight activities, at youth conferences, scout campouts, girls' camp, and in rest rooms and dressing rooms? Do parents of straight kids want gay kids bunking with their kids? Should two male gays or two lesbians be in the same tent/dorm room? Is this appropriate or safe? How many leaders will turn a blind eye to these risky and unseemly situations?

-How about college dorms and housing at church schools? Do same-attracted people room with those of their same sex? Isn't that just like opposite-sex people rooming together? Should we put gay males and lesbians together then? Is that appropriate? How about married housing? Won't gay "married" couples insist on being allowed to live there?

-What about when self-proclaimed gays or SSAs (who supposedly claim they are chaste) serve full-time missions? Do you assign these males male companions when they say they can't help sexualizing their own gender? Is that fair or safe for anyone? Would parents go along? Again, this is presumably like putting males with females. How about lesbians? If we are going on each person's self-determined sexual preference, wouldn't it seem more appropriate to assign a gay male and a lesbian as companions rather than a gay person and a straight person? But is that really appropriate? What will such companionships model to investigators? What will openly gay missionaries exemplify? Will gay missionaries demand to be open about their sexual identity and teach false doctrine?

-How young should we go when accepting or acknowledging self-identified gayness in our ward members? Young adults? Teenagers? Primary children? What if parents proclaim that their child is gay or transgender when he's just a toddler? Must we respect their assessment? (This actually happens. We're not making it up.)

-Will lesson manuals, groups, and organizations all have to be changed so as to accommodate those with alternative sexual orientations? Won't there be an outcry of discrimination if they aren't?

-How about self-proclaimed gays in leadership and teaching positions on all levels? Will these individuals keep their unorthodox and radical views toward sexuality to themselves or incorporate them in their associations, meetings, teachings, and administrations?

-If we accept gayness, don't we have to let gays get married? In our chapels? Or in our temples? Won't all or some of them demand totally equal treatment? Will the Church get in trouble for discriminating against gays if they don't give them all the same opportunities for blessings and ordinances?

-What about bisexuals? Where do they fit in?

-And transexuals? How do we accommodate them? For instance, do we let an obvious male dressed in women's clothes speak from the pulpit and hold leadership positions? Does he attend Relief Society or Priesthood meeting?

-What about transgendered people, those who claim they were born with the wrong gender and have surgeries and hormone treatments to "change" their biological sex? Will a man who claims he has changed his male gender to female still hold the priesthood? Will "women" then be priesthood holders? If not, how is it revoked? Will these "women" attend Relief Society? How about women who claim they are really male? Won't they have to be taken seriously and be given the priesthood?

-What about how we distinguish between the two sexes in so many ways in our auxiliary programs, dress standards, and in the temple? In order to fairly include gays, will we have to make sweeping changes so as to pretend there are no differences between the two sexes and no specific gender roles such as fatherhood and motherhood?

-What should parents teach their children about the self-proclaimed gays in their ward who are outspoken or who are their teachers? Should they teach them that homosexuality is perfectly natural and normal?

-Does anybody really believe that gays don't act out this self-determined sexual identity? How do we define acting out? Isn't coming out acting out? How about masturbating, lusting, same-sex porn, chat rooms, phone calls, meeting, hanging out, "dating," associating with gay-affirming groups and individuals, or reading, testifying of, speaking or writing about, or teaching anything pro-gay? Don't all these behaviors encourage and nurture same-sex sexual attractions including the desire to commit sodomy? Are people doing these things to be considered faithful, orthodox, and sexually pure?

Clearly, embracing the gay identity and ideology, whether ostensibly standing against the physical behaviors behind it or not, would prove problematic in carrying out the outward everyday functions of the Church organization. (The welfare of our individual immortal souls may well be affected also but is a different and much more important topic.) In fact, our whole way of life would change. God-given gender roles, gender distinctions, and sexual morality would be things of the past. If there is to be no more careful distinguishing between the two sexes, all situations that used to retain such order would become inappropriate, unseemly, embarrassing, immodest, and even dangerous. We could not rely on any safe, orderly place and chaos would ensue.

And yet we don't think this essential issue through because that might get us into trouble with other humans. We want to be thought of as open-minded, tolerant, big-hearted. Is being politically correct and popular worth abandoning doctrine, truth, safety, order, normalcy, and God? This is what Flannery O'Connor had to say about it 50 years ago. "In the absence of faith now we govern by tenderness. It is a tenderness which long since cut off from the person of Christ is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness its logical outcome is terror."

Think about it.

No Going Back?

2009-10-04T10:11:00.000-07:00

Here is an email we received from an LDS publishing company, Zarahemla Books, and our response.

> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:25:24 -0700
> Subject: 11-Year-Olds Coming Out?
> From: chrisbigelow@gmail.com
> To: zarahemla-books-updates@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Primary-age kids coming out to their friends? Deacons and Beehives
> attending gay dances? This article from the New York Times about
> students coming out in middle school shows that this isn't as far-
> fetched as many people may wish.
>
> Coming Out in Middle School
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27out-t.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
>
> "Reading this article underscores just how ill-prepared we are as a
> Mormon culture to try to help kids deal with this," states Jonathan
> Langford, author of No Going Back, a new coming-of-age novel about
> a gay Mormon teen.
>
> "We're still playing catch-up from when most LDS kids who experienced
> same-sex attraction were in denial until after their missions. The
> greater openness of today's society means we can't afford the luxury
> of waiting until our kids have a firm spiritual foundation before we
> try to address this."
>
> No Going Back is only $11.53 at Zarahemla and Amazon (regularly
> $16.95):
>

Dear Jonathan Langford and Zarahemla Books,

Please correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to think, as the world does according to the article you have cited, that there is only one way of looking at this issue, as if teenagers, even 11-year-olds, know all about human sexuality and do not need to be taught the proper way to think and feel concerning the power of procreation or even corrected when they get on any one of many wrong paths (which is pretty easy to do in our oversexed culture). It is strange that you talk as if this is not a controversial issue, especially when there is no biological test for homosexuality. The only way we know a person is "gay" is if he "comes out," and here it appears you are trusting that 11-year-olds (physically, mentally, and emotionally immature and inexperienced human beings) can make this momentous judgment that will greatly affect their future if you believe, as I think you do, that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

In fact, most young people who experience same-sex sexual attraction outgrow it naturally. If you ask young people if they would be involved with same-sex sexuality if we didn't live in an oversexed, gay-affirming culture, you (and they) would be very surprised that their honest answer would more often than not be no. This is an acquired, not an inborn, identity, just as proper gender roles and hetersexuality must be modeled and taught. The question for us is, which will we teach and support? Ultimately, these two worldviews cannot peacefully co-exist within an individual, a church, and a society.

Can you possibly have missed the public celebration of homosexuality in our nation's culture and schools, even elementary schools? Incredibly, you say we are failing to support individuals (you mention there may even be Primary kids, Beehives, and Deacons) with same-sex sexual attraction in the Church. I agree that we are at a loss, but my view is the complete opposite of yours. Churches are fast going the way of the world by turning a blind eye to the actual behavior that is practiced, by watering down God's law of chastity, and by accepting and embracing homosexuality as an identity, rather than teaching the everlasting gospel principles of sin, true repentance, and divine love and redemption toward making us new creatures in Christ.

What about the effect of same-sex porn, which is a huge industry? (Surely you know that adolescents can be turned on by anything, including males or females acting out sexually among themselves.) Are parents asking the kids who come out what they have been looking at, who they have been talking to, what they spend their time thinking about and doing? An 11-year-old who comes out could very well be unusually and unhealthily preoccupied with sex and sexuality. This can have many causes. Children are easy prey to secret sexual predators and are easily exposed to pornography and propaganda which can wreak havoc with their developing sexuality. They may be caught up in the politically correctness of "gayness." They may just want some attention. They may be using this as a way to rebel or test their parents' convictions. What a travesty it is when well-meaning (or predatory) adults jump on this adolescent bandwagon and celebrate a phase that will soon pass or that can be healed and corrected. Every parent knows that their 11-year-old is not capable of adult decisions. Sex is a serious thing. It hurts people unless it is channeled in the one healthy direction.

We have a son who as a young teen was lured into homosexual porn on the internet and acted out homosexually to a degree with older men in his late teens. At 19, he came to us for help in overcoming these unwanted behaviors, thought patterns, and feelings. He turned back to the Lord, got excellent professional help, went on a mission at 25, and now at 28 is married to a lovely girl. He has written a book about his experience into and out of homosexuality coming soon entitled Captain of My Soul. This is a true coming-of-age story of a young man's social, physical, mental, and spiritual progress. If your book matches your sympathies, your book is fiction in more ways than one.

Janice Graham

Standard of Liberty Foundation

Which Comes First: The Gay or the Homosexual Behavior?

2009-08-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

It is our belief that the idea that a person chooses to come out as "gay" before he chooses to engage in homosexual behavior is highly illogical. (We are thinking of the rampant naivete of parents and leaders and the change made in the BYU Honor Code in 2006, apparently through pressures from gay activists and input from gay students, which allows students and faculty to openly identify as gay as long as they don't act on it or advocate it. Incidentally, we think self-identifying is a form of acting and advocating.) It seems more realistic that a person, especially a young LDS person, would not risk announcing he is gay unless he has experimented with it extensively and decided to embrace it, come what may.

Experimentation with homosexuality can take many forms and degrees. We think the most common form is same sex pornography, a huge and fairly recently established internet industry. As one young man related, he looks at porn just to confirm that he is gay, in other words, if same sex porn turns him on he decides he must be gay. Too bad he doesn't know that human sexuality is highly subject to suggestion and stimulation and can take all kinds of bad directions.

Homosexual experimentation can also include fantasizing, participating in on line chat rooms, immersing oneself in gay-affirming literature and entertainment, frequenting gay society and clubs, and more. It seems highly improbable that any young LDS person would claim gayness without first acting out in any of these ways or others short of committing sodomy. Granted, an individual who has been abused as a child or young person (through sexual abuse, pornography, labeling, peer abuse, bad teaching and example, our gay-affirming culture, etc.) may begin to believe they are gay before experimenting. But the actual public embrace of the political and social gay identity is self-determined and quite advanced. Therefore, we submit that homosexual behavior generally must come before private or public declaration of gayness.

To put it simply, given that most people have been conditioned to believe the falsehood that homosexuality is innate and permanent, a young LDS person is not going to say, "I'm gay," or even "I'm same-sex attracted," without trying it out in some way. There's too much at stake. Acting out comes first. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

Anatomy of a Fall

2009-08-04T06:38:00.000-07:00

SoL, always concerned with the corruption of youth taking place in our sex-saturated culture, was notified about the following face book post and found it tragic and revealing. (For the purposes of this blog we have omitted names, but the author, a 20-year-old, has obviously made his life choices very public.)

The following post stunningly chronicles the step-by-step degradation of a previously fine LDS young man of our acquaintance within the course of a year. Please note that an abandonment of sexual morality in the form of homosexual behavior seems to have come first, then (not neccessarily in this order) homosexual promiscuity, spending money indiscriminately, use of bad language, impulsive feelings and choices, bad health, underage drinking and smoking, an embrace of liberal politics, domestic violence, financial instability and debt, coming out as gay, becoming a gay activist, disassociating from church, the possibility of STDs, obsession with body (piercings, tattoos). The sentiments he expresses may include some degree of youthful bravado, but the reckless and willful abandonment of the traditional values he was taught seems to be authentic. We believe this narrative is representative of a trend that is increasingly becoming typical and widespread. What else can we expect from a permissive, Godless, foundationless culture? Read this and weep.

In the last year
I joined the Army.
I left my boyfriend ---------.
I spent 6 months training in Hell.
I loved every minute of training (even the moments I hated)
I spent incredible amounts of money on stupid shit.
I got Mono (and still have it)
I made friends that I will never forget.
I turned 20 (on the way to basic training).
I started drinking

In the last 6 months
I graduated from Special Operations Training
I flew back to Utah.
I started as a manager at Calvin Klein.
I bought a new car.
I returned my new car.
I got a different new car.
I got a boyfriend (-------).
I moved in to a townhouse with said boyfriend.
I came out to my parents.
I started smoking.
I realized that I am liberal. And I like it.

In the last month
I had a bitter breakup with my ex.
My ex smashed my rice cooker and blender.
My ex "accidentally" knocked over my motorcycle.
I told my parents that I drink (very pleasant experience).
I got a new boy. :D
I started school.
I left my position as manager.
I started the ROTC.
I was kicked out of my house (the ex's)
I moved into a new house.
--Which has no heat
--And no hot water
--And no furniture
--And no fridge
--And no clothes washer
My laptop wireless card went out.
I got a lot of money, and spent it all on past due bills and this laptop.
I decided to really support gay rights and activism
Came out on facebook, despite my Army friends

In the next month, I plan to...
Lobby, march, parade
Throw a party at my new place with copious amounts of alcohol
Have my name removed from church records
Get tested for STDs (FINALLY!)
Get something pierced, or the tat I've been wanting
Sell something substantial (my old laptop, a kidney, something)
Try to start working out again
Not fail school!
Go on a roadtrip with my boy and some friends.

On Discrimination, Minorities, and Freedom

2009-05-11T19:06:00.000-07:00

Here is a comment we received about the previous blog and our response:

Comment:
Just out of curiosity, do are you intending to say that it it is a legally protected right to actively discriminate against homosexuals? Do you not realize what a slippery slope argument you are making here? If we set up a government that has the power, from the majority position, to take away the rights of minorities, what happens if there is a culture shift and religious folks suddenly find themselves in the minority? Would it still be okay for the majority to discriminate against and deny basic rights to the minority? The basis of the freedoms that you are trying to deny a minority group in this instance is the basis of what enables us to practice our religious beliefs safely. Singling out groups with different ideals and oppressing them hardly seems to me to be the way to ensure religious freedoms. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. It seems hypocitical to me for us to demand freedom of religion, yet at the same time not extend the same levels of freedom to different groups because of differences in social ideology.

SoL response:
To answer your first question, freedom to practice religion is enumerated in and protected by the Constitution while unlimited sexual behavior is not, so yes, Americans have the right to discriminate against certain practices that are contrary to their religious beliefs. For instance, churches can refuse membership or excommunicate those who don't follow the church's doctrines. And business owners have the right to refuse service or employment to those who openly defy the owners' moral religious beliefs. And states can choose to preserve the traditional God-based definition of marriage. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be.

As for your concern for minorities, the fact is there is no end of “minorities” people can fabricate. Not only do sexual proclivities and conduct not constitute a true minority (how can they when people change their sexual orientation? – e.g.actress Kelly McGillis just announced she is becoming a lesbian because she’s fed up with men), but special protection for any and every group that comes up with a complaint is not workable. Therefore, we must stick with the basic rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights according to original intent, ensuring them for bona fide minorities such as those based on race which is unchangeable.

There is a conflict, but not the one you are thinking of. The issue at stake here is not all freedom or none, but which particular freedoms will be allowed. Government support of unrestrained sexual freedom and government support for religious freedom cannot co-exist. Which will our nation choose? Will the majority, which is conservative, rule? Or will unchecked rogue judges continue to invent new rights and policies out of whole cloth?

If we rely on the original intent of the Constitution there is no slippery slope here. But if we don't, the way things are going there is indeed a slippery slope toward discrimination of traditional morality and religion. If governmental action continues, as it has recently done, to prefer unrestrained sexual freedom over traditional religious freedom, ignoring the Constitution and its intent, then religious people will certainly be increasingly oppressed and America will no longer be a good, free, strong nation.

Again, the right to freely practice religion is not the same as the right to engage in any kind of sex. The first is guaranteed by the Constitution. The second is not a basic right but one invented by godless sexual revolutionaries.

As for the differing social ideologies you mentioned, America was built and stands on certain ideals. We at SoL believe in conserving the particular worldview embraced by our founders, and by doing so must therefore discriminate against other worldviews harmful to society.

Christianity has always discriminated against the practice of homosexuality while inviting those caught up in it to come to Christ and change their ways. Followers of Christ separate the infinite worth of people from the things they do.

Thanks again for sharing your concerns.

The “They” of Whom We Speak

2009-04-23T07:42:00.000-07:00

We at SoL have been studying the sexual revolution/homosexual agenda for so long that we sometimes forget that some people may not know the “they” of whom we speak. "They" are the radical sexual revolutionists and their helpers. Evidently, it is not common knowledge that immense resources and power are pushing this movement. For starters, following is a cursory list of local and national organizations/groups that actively promote or allow public acceptance and legitimization of unlimited sexuality and sexual behaviors. You can find info on them through our website or google them to find out their specific positions, objectives, budgets, and programs. Also see "The New Homosexuality."

Equality Utah, The Human Rights Campaign, Lamda Legal, GLAAD, GLSEN, SEICUS, PFLAGG, Planned Parenthood, Hollywood, NEA, PTA, The Utah AIDS Foundation (in partnership with The United Way), National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, ACT UP,
NAMBLA.

Please note that the transformation of our culture toward tolerating any and all sexual orientations and conduct, and separating sex and sexuality from man/woman marriage and procreation, did not just happen. Countless organizations, businesses, entities, and individuals participate in, encourage, and contribute to the lawless sexual revolution which made great strides in the1960s and was further fueled by radical feminism. It was fabricated, funded, organized, planned, carried through, and continues to make progress step by step. Many people have been caught up in this cause through conditioning and deception. Young people, especially, are being exploited. In media, entertainment, schools, universities, professional health organizations, and politics, societal blights such as abortion, prostitution, pornography, and homosexuality are no longer controversial issues. In America today sexual revolutionists teach, write, perform, produce, broadcast, publish, sell, lobby, represent, lead, legislate, and receive federal tax dollars.

The sexual revolution is a direct threat to the safety and well-being of the rising generation and our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and religion. For instance, speaking or discriminating against homosexuality has been silenced through misinformation, fear, and intimidation, is increasingly punished, and is now legally threatened by hate crimes legislation. If it continues unchecked both culturally and governmentally, individual sexual freedom will continue to trample truth, conservative values, parental rights, free speech, and religious freedom. “They” will never stop until society has been completely remade in the image of licentious godlessness. The success of the sexual revolution is not due to enlightenment but to the worst in human nature. And as any student of history knows, that road leads to weakness, enslavement, and extinction.

True Colors

2009-04-20T12:25:00.000-07:00

We think these tea party rallies are great -- we attended one in Provo, Utah. It occurs to us that in the sixties it was only the angry, bored, anti-establishment, hippie student-types who protested in the streets. Now, finally, the hard-working silent majority is speaking out, and in a big way. Hundreds of thousands of regular patriotic Americans are fed up with the glutted Fed. We want less government intrusion in our lives! Government taxation has become oppressive, and spending is out of conrol! Uphold the original intent of the Constitution! Represent the will of the people! Down with socialism! These are the cries of honest to goodness America. (If you haven't read it yet, get a hold of Mark Levin's new bestselling book, Liberty and Tyranny, for a review, or an education, of what America is all about. We underlined practically the whole book.)

But you didn't hear much at all about these unprecedented protests on the network news. People gathered themselves together and showed up in huge enthusiastic groups all over the country and reporters essentially ignored it. The incredible fact that the mainstream media did not give this event the coverage it deserved shows its true colors. The incredible fact that the media is calling average, hard-working Americans "racists" and "extremists" for exercising their First Amendment rights and demanding that government taxation and spending be limited shows who these news media people really are. They have been deceived into thinking America is evil at its very foundations and the rest of the world enlightened. They cast aside history, the accumulated wisdom and experience of mankind. They close their eyes to the realities of human nature. They get caught up in shallow social schemes and don't think things through. They thumb their noses at America's unique foundational principles. They forget God.

It makes you wonder how long the anti-America Americans can with impunity turn a blind eye to this grass-roots, red, white, and blue movement. More tea parties are planned for -- you guessed it -- the Fourth of July. Let's see them ignore that.

At SoL we regret that America has not significantly shown its own true colors in protesting against the sexual liberationist movement. It has allowed people to be silenced, fired, punished, and called "Nazi," "homophobe," "ignorant," "bigot," etc. for living and speaking up for their traditional, Biblical, conservative family values. Remember what happened in the wake of the passing of California's Prop. 8. If only we had been brave enough to stand against sexual irresponsibility and licentiousness as it boldly paraded itself in our city streets, before it crept into our public policies, laws, schools, entertainment, and businesses.

Could it be that our pocketbooks are more important to us than our children or our faith? Or is it that an oppressive government is just the last straw on a pile of grievances? Whatever the reason, the exciting tea party movement is a sign that it isn't too late for the people to rise up against any destructive direction our beloved country is headed.

Welcome

2009-04-20T11:55:00.000-07:00

Welcome to our Standard of Liberty blog in connection with our website. Here, we’ll share our conservative worldview more often and in a more informal way and share your comments as well. Please note that because of the nature of some of the emails SoL has received, we will be screening all comments. Only intelligent, respectful comments and questions will be posted.

We hope you’ll also continue to visit SoL’s website, established in 2005 where you can learn about us, get informed through our news links, and discover additional resources.