(Salt Lake City) In a dramatic turnaround to it usual policies, the Salt Lake City based Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) announced today that it will now embrace gay and lesbian marriages and will preach acceptance, love and understanding among all human beings without discrimination based on sexual preference.
LDS Presiding Bishop H. David Burton claims after carefully reviewing the Scriptures determined that the church was mistaken in its former views. He stated that neither the Bible nor LDS founder Joseph Smith ever said anything negative about homosexuality.
"There were some references in the Bible that Noah was gay", Burton claimed. "But nobody ever said there was anything wrong with that".
Burton also stated that many of Jesus' disciples may have been a little 'light in the loafers'.
"Or, given the time, a bit light in the sandals", Burton said with a hearty laugh.
Burton pointed out that among Jesus 12 disciples, none of them were married, an unusual thing for grown men in the time period. Nor did any of them have girlfriends.
"If the disciples of Christ can be gay then, by golly, we can ALL be gay!" the Bishop exclaimed.
The Bishop also stated that it is now OK for LDS members to remove themselves 'from the closet' and were free to wed any member of either gender.
Not all LDS members greeted the change to church policy so favorably. 88 year old church elder Jeffrey Hollandaise stated, "we don't need no limp wristed queers or hairy assed dikes soiling the name of the church!"
Though no dates have been set for the first gay Mormon marriages, Burton assured all those in attendance that the first nuptials would be "fabulous" and ordered "stunning new matching drapes" for several of the LDS churches and halls.
Comments are always appreciated! Especially from the "thumbs downers".
_______________________________
walid wrote:
To Mr. Nickfun
This story is a total fabrication. The LDS shows no such tolerance to this disgusting gay life style. Now if we could just stop white and blacks from getting married.
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
You are right Walid. I do find it curious how many people (undoubtedly LDS members) have voted this story down without offering an explanation!
_______________________________
Marc Luxe wrote:
And continuing their tortuous route to the righteous path, the new LDS policy allows only same-sex same-race marriages or different-sex different race marriages. "It all seems nicely spiritually symmetrical" the spokesman for the Council of 69 stated, adding "we have fully integrated our forced-repudiation of polygamy into our new doctrine. However, nobody expects gay men to give up polyandry anytime soon." When questioned about female homosexuals the spokesman said, "we've never had a problem with that, after all, what do you think sister-wives do with all their husbandless nights." For the record, the planet promised in the afterlife to male Mormon couples is, of course, Uranus.
_______________________________
Stizzo wrote:
Here's an explanation for all the thumbs down to your article Nickfun:
Laws are and have always been the written dictation of moral beliefs. Why else would it be illegal to lie, cheat, steal, pimp, etc? Fact is, immorality - in all of its forms - has always been wrong and (until now) has always been legislatively prohibited. That's why we call this a democracy; the people choose what moral values are written into the law. Let the people decide what is right and what is wrong without calling them bigots, haters, etc. To do otherwise is to attempt to guilt/bully the majority into submission to the minority.
_______________________________
Gale Tenney wrote:
This is a total fabrication and you know it.
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
Hey there Stizo! I suppose you find one person loving another to be "immoral" simply because their gender preference conflicts with yours (assuming you are not "in the closet" yourself). I am a Buddhist. I find it amusing that you equate being gay with lying, cheating, stealing and pimping. That's not bigoted or hateful now, is it?
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
Hey Gale! You betcha it's a fabrication! We all know the LDS church could never be that open minded. Keep in mind, the stuff about Noah and the disciples are true!
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
And I guess we'll find out who the "majority" really are come election day in California. Vote No on 8! Anyone else care to comment?
_______________________________
Utah53 wrote:
Nickfun wants an explanation as to why the LDS church has never explained that Noah was NOT gay? LOL
Why should it or any other bible preaching outfit...
All I can say is if Noah was gay it sure seems an oxymoron that God would use Noah to take two of each kind of the animals for the purpose of populating the earth AFTER the flood. Seems asinine to take to male pigs and two male apes and...
If Noah had taken two male pigs on board the ark to be politicaly correct (so he couldn't be abused as a biggot by gays) where the hell would we be getting our yummy bacon from these days? Explain that then
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
Hey there Utah! From what I've read, Noah spilled seed or something into a mans hand. Doesn't make him 'gay' but does indicate there was some hanky panky going on. And the story of Jesus and his 12 unwed men sounds a little gay to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
Any other thumbs downers care to comment?
_______________________________
Elle wrote:
I can't believe that a church that is supposed to be SO accepting of everyone is such bigots and can have so much hatred for people just because they're different. Decades ago being black was a sin...but evidently now god changed his mind, and its ok and now african americans can even have the priesthood. But gays are still bad. How long until "god" changes his mind again?
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
Agreed Elle. Keep in mind, until the 1920's women were not even allowed to vote. They were not allowed to inherit property unless there were no male heirs. A woman's place was n the home etc.
_______________________________
Kaye wrote:
Oh, this is just typical bait-and-switch stuff that Mormons do. It was gospel to practice polygamy for a while there, now it isn't, according to "prophecy." Then, they weren't going to allow blacks to hold the priesthood. 1978, God "changes his mind." Now after they've done their damage by supporting Prop. 8, they're going to switch gears again. How does anyone take these people seriously? Either their God is the same for all eternity or he's as fickle as the winds of change, whatever the church wants him to say.
_______________________________
Prop Pork - coming to a ward near you wrote:
Utah53 wrote: "If Noah had taken two male pigs on board the ark to be politicaly correct (so he couldn't be abused as a biggot by gays) where the hell would we be getting our yummy bacon from these days? Explain that then"
The Book of Leviticus prohibits pig meat as being "unclean" and off limits to humans. There is no "yummy" bacon for you, Utah53. God says. We need to support Utah's "Prop Pork" which will prohibit all residents of Utah from buying bacon. In addition, we have true Christian love for all pig farmers. So, we're just going to turn pig farmers into outlaws and outcasts and send them all to the poor farm. God says so. So, sorry Utah53, no bacon for you. We must defend the definition of "God's Traditional Menu." It's for your own good -- whether you like it or not. Forcing your beliefs in pig meat down the throats of others is just so disgusting. Eating pig meat is just one step away from eating crayfish, bullheads, frogs, and snails. Yuck. Therefore, join us in defending the definition of "God's Traditional Menu." You owe it to God; You owe it to yourself, Utah53. Vote "yes" on Prop Pork.
_______________________________
www.stompouthate.org wrote:
The LDS is not a Church and or religion in the traditional sense, it is more akin to a cult, a very fragmented cult. Just short of waiting for Christ to return via Space ship.
In the end love will win over all.
_______________________________
David Em wrote:
This story is not funny or believable. The person responsible should get out more often. If you are going to be writing an article about an organization at least try to follow the chain of command of the organization. This is a sad excuse for an unconfirmed source. Better luck next time NickFun. Grow a pair and stop blogging behind a fake name.
_______________________________
nw wrote:
FYI - the church leader cited in the story is the administrator for the church's business affairs, not church doctrine.
_______________________________
Alex wrote:
It's about time someone religious had some common sense. I mean no offense to those who're religious, it just seems as though anyone religiously important alive today is completely irrational in the way they handle things. They're far too concerned with popular appeal than with religious accuracy.
_______________________________
dale wrote:
I voted it down because it is blatantly false. If such a thing were to occur, then it would fill every major and minor news channel. I think that allegating that a person is saying things he did not say is libel. The subject is not the primary concern, the lie is. Does this help any who are either for or against gay rights and marriages in any way? I think not.
You guys can not even get the comment form to display properly. How lame is that?
_______________________________
nickfun wrote:
I've eaten eat pork, crayfish, frogs, and snails. I've never had Bullheads. Are they good?
Hey David Em! Or whatever you name is. My real name in on my profile. I'm n ot hiding. Come over here and bash my brains in!