Step Towards Same-Gender Temple Marriage?

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Great.  And I guess in answer to Wade's question, I'm just saying essentially, the leaders would have to see reason to go back to the laws of the early Church, but again that seems to have nothing to do with dropping the ill-conceived and hostile policy that was put in place a couple of years ago.

Agreed

The leaders would not have to see a reason to go back to the laws of the early Church because they sustain those very same laws today, including the Lord changing directions for various reasons.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I have strong IMO's about this.  The defining moment for many is when you have to jump left or right you cannot stay where you are.  Joseph only had two choices. Keep living the way he was with Emma and displease the Lord or take what the Lord gave him and displease Emma. 

That is definitely not true.  He did not have to marry Emma’s young house girls who she loved as daughters and he did not have to marry other men’s wives in order to restore the principle of plural marriage.  He could have been patient and done things differently with Emma.  It’s how he practiced it that hurt and betrayed Emma.  All of that did not have to be a part of the restoration and I cannot imagine a God expecting one of his beloved daughters to be deceived and betrayed by their husband  in order to restore a principle that was never a commandment or principle of the gospel to begin with, IMO.

Joseph definitely had other choices than the two you stated.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The leaders would not have to see a reason to go back to the laws of the early Church because they sustain those very same laws today, including the Lord changing directions for various reasons.

I disagree.  I don't think the Church sustains the notion that husbands should go behind their wife's back in a marriage and commit adultery and fornications by illegally marrying other women and young girls.  I think the Church today is very much against that.  

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

This reminded me of something from a recent biography:

Quote

Woodruff wanted to know how Hawley had responded to the catechism, and Hawley replied that he “had nothing to confess.” Woodruff told Hawley: “You are an exception worthy of imitation. I wish we as a Quorum of the Twelve could of did truthfully as you did in this, but to our shame there was but three that had to confess to adultery.” Hawley did not ask who these three were, but he suspected Woodruff of being one of them.

I don't post this as any kind of expose or anything, but rather to illustrate how much marriage has changed in the last century. As I used to tell my students, we in the 21st century are experiencing the first time in human history when husbands are really expected to stay loyal to our wives. But then then the US elected Trump, so I don't make that claim anymore.

[Metis_LDS]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That is definitely not true.  He did not have to marry Emma’s young house girls who she loved as daughters and he did not have to marry other men’s wives in order to restore the principle of plural marriage.  He could have been patient and done things differently with Emma.  It’s how he practiced it that hurt and betrayed Emma.  All of that did not have to be a part of the restoration and I cannot imagine a God expecting one of his beloved daughters to be deceived and betrayed by their husband  in order to restore a principle that was never a commandment or principle of the gospel to begin with, IMO.

Joseph definitely had other choices than the two you stated.

What we do know is if when Joseph went to marry Emma the Lord said marry another. If this was the case than poor Joseph would of caused much suffering on himself and Emma.  I know when I do not do what I should it causes suffering.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

What we do know is if when Joseph went to marry Emma the Lord said marry another. 

Do you have a source for that?  I knew Emma’s father was against the marriage, but not the Lord.  I’d like to read about that!

ETA:

Just saw the word “if”.  So disregard unless you’ve read that somewhere?

Edited April 10, 2019 by JulieM

[Metis_LDS]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Do you have a source for that?  I knew Emma’s father was against the marriage, but not the Lord.  I’d like to read about that!

I have to say SORRY sometimes my fingers are quicker than the brain. It should have read "What we do NOT know is if when Joseph went to marry Emma the Lord said marry another."  No attempt to fool you just poor typing and poor proof reading. Sorry again.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I have to say SORRY sometimes my fingers are quicker than the brain. It should have read "What we do NOT know is if when Joseph went to marry Emma the Lord said marry another."  No attempt to fool you just poor typing and poor proof reading. Sorry again.

Got it!  No worries 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Brilliant! 

However, since as you noted that "form of heterosexual adultery is already accepted by the church". it can't be the form of heterosexual adultery I was asking about.

Do you have any thoughts about the relevant form of adultery  (D&C 132:41-44)? Is it already closer to being legitimized?

BTW, there is one more minor problem with my OP question.  Can you guess what it is?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Your reference refers to unauthorized polygamy as adultery. I don't think it's closer to being legitimized. Only those forms of sexual immorality which are common to normally socialized religious heterosexual members seem to be acceptable to the church.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Gray

[LoudmouthMormon]

10 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

does your friend believe that adultery or fornication will also be legitimized by the Church, particularly given the public acceptance of those things, particularly fornication?

I haven't specifically asked him, but I doubt it.  Christian religion has a long enough track record of trying to regulate sexual activity across the centuries, that I'm sure he doesn't see it changing any time soon.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There is a difference between acceptance and permission: "Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

In some cases, until a person's heart is softened, he is not accountable for the hardness of his heart imposed upon him through the traditions of men. This is a common tehme in the Book of Mormon in relation to the descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

That's certainly one eisegesis to justify our historic lack of interest in following Jesus' commandments on adultery.

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  I don't think the Church sustains the notion that husbands should go behind their wife's back in a marriage and commit adultery and fornications by illegally marrying other women and young girls.  I think the Church today is very much against that.  

I don't think the Church sustains the notion that any priesthood order calls for husbands going behind their wife's back in a marriage and commit adultery and fornications by illegally marrying other women and young girls. She only sustains that plural marriage was legitimate under the priesthood keys, and the practice was curtailed by the same keys. She sustains marriage today in the same way, including what Elder Oaks described as permissible by the Lord. When it comes to policies, she sustains the notion that policies change according to changing needs, circumstances, objectives, etc., but that is a very different level of exercising the keys than is doctrine, covenants, etc.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's certainly one eisegesis to justify our historic lack of interest in following Jesus' commandments on adultery.

The Lord expressed this very sentiment Himself. There is a difference between acceptance and permission: "Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng  He permitted it (that is, He did not enforce the celestial standard and allowed divorce) while teaching the celestial standard during His mortal ministry (Matthew 5) and after (3 Nephi 12; D&C 63).

Your polemics are unbecoming, but especially so when unskilled.

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

It is the contention of some that the change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression (immoral conduct) similar to heterosexual adultery,  is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and ultimately temple marriage.

If so, then logically doesn't it follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy--i.e. acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?

Granted, many who believe in the "step towards" have me on ignore, so there may not be much discussion. But, we'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would agree with the statement that the LDS church's "change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and temple marriage."

Especially since current LDS church leaders, including the very member of the First Presidency who announced the policy reversal (President Dallin Oaks), have taught that in some cases, there are very significant differences between "transgression" and "sin":  

Quote

“[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’. It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited... These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful," (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).

In the context of identifying marriage between two individuals of the same gender as a serious "transgression" instead of a serious "sin," Oaks has left the door wide open for future clarification that same-gender marriage may ultimately be historically viewed as something that wasn't "inherently wrong or immoral" (which would'n't have been the case if he chose to classify it as "sin"), but was classified as a transgression "only because it [was hisorically legally] prohibited" by the LDS church (since it's classified--again, currently--as prohibited by the rules of the LDS Church).

In the above context, the reversal can be seen as a significant step in the direction of someday recognizing the legality of marriage between same-gender couples within the LDS Church.

In answer to your second question of "doesn't it logically follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy/acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?," my answer would be, No, that doesn't logically follow.  Adultery is between unmarried partnerships, so that's different than intimacy between couples who are legally and lawfully  married.

Finally, while I welcome the change of the abolition of the exclusion policy and definitely see it as a positive (albeit seemingly small in the manner and scope it was presented) step in the right direction, the LDS Church still has a long way to go, as summarized by one of the better opinion pieces I've seen on the subject is Craig Mangum, a gay former member of the LDS Faith and BYU Alumnus:

Quote

On April 4, 2019, the Mormon church announced an update to an antigay policy commonly referred to as the “policy of exclusion.” The original policy labeled all married LGBTQ+ Mormons as “apostates” and barred their children from being blessed or baptized in the faith until they turned 18. The update re-labels these same couples as “serious transgressors” (instead of apostates) and allows their children to be blessed and baptized into the faith.

Personally, I find the specifics of the change somewhat inconsequential because frankly, being recast from the role of “apostate” to “serious transgressor” doesn’t exactly feel like an upgrade. The intimacy of a married same-sex couple is still considered sinful whereas the intimacy of a married heterosexual couple is considered sacred. The reversal doesn’t seek to address the concerns, equality, or experience of LGBTQ+ Mormons. Most tellingly, the announcement wasn’t even deemed important enough to be delivered publicly over the pulpit. Instead, it was announced at a closed leadership meeting that a line of text would be altered in a handbook; a line edit that effectively lessened the blow of condemnation through modified terminology.

As texts and phone calls from family and friends began to roll in, each conversation eventually asked the same basic question: was the reversal of the policy enough? It made me pause. What does enough look like in this case? And enough for what?

In order to decide what is enough, it is important to fully acknowledge the collateral damage of the November 2015 policy. Mormons, both LGBTQ+ and straight, were devastated as suicide claimed members of their community grappling with the label of “apostate.” Closeted teenagers imagined futures cut off from their families while parents contemplated eternities without their own children. Children of LGBTQ+ parents were disqualified from the rites of passage their friends experienced. This hill of psychological pain sits atop a mountainous legacy of LGBTQ+ mistreatment that includes abusive conversion therapy and political organizing against LGBTQ+ rights. While the November 2015 policy caused much of this pain, the April 2019 reversal has exposed the extent to which it remains unhealed.

This is because the policy wasn’t changed for the benefit of LGBTQ+ Mormons. While we may be the subject of the reversal, we are not its intended audience. Instead, the change is designed to quiet the beleaguered hearts of Mormons burdened with the emotionally duplicitous task of loving their LGBTQ+ children, siblings, and friends, while simultaneously loving the religion that categorizes these people as inherently unequal. For many Mormons, this has proven unsustainable, which may be one of the reasons why 2018 saw the largest number of membership records ever removed in a single year. The tension between loving someone and loving your faith is an experience most LGBTQ+ Mormon can (and should) be sympathetic to.

The policy change cannot be taken out of the context of this mass disaffection. So, instead of asking LGBTQ+ Mormons if the policy is enough for them, members of the Restored Church should ask if the updated policy is enough for themselves. You are the audience Mormon leadership is attempting to accommodate. With the pain of the last 3.5 years in your mind, I flip the script and ask: is this revision enough for you? Does it align with your vision for the potential of your religious community? Is it enough for you to stay? To pay your tithing? To believe?

The question of what constitutes enough naturally forms in response to the policy’s originators’ refusal to apologize for it. Apologies provide the necessary vulnerability and humility around which forgiveness, catharsis, and healing can grow. But in the absence of an official apology facilitating communal reconciliation, Mormon leadership shirk their opportunity and responsibility to be exemplars of the gospel they preach and effectively export this emotional labor onto the shoulders of their membership. Equipped with Mormon hearts genuinely desperate to be nice and do good, members further export this burden to the LGBTQ+ community by asking us if this revision is enough.

And to put it bluntly, that’s really frustrating. Your absolution is not my responsibility. Do not ask me to lighten the burden of participating in a prejudicial theology by seeking my approval of policies I did not create that fail to acknowledge my basic humanness through equality. Do not hand your burden down to me. Be strong and push it back up to those who put it on your shoulders.

Lest we forget, in regards to the policy, we all lost something, whether it was a person, a relationship, or simply time and mental energy that would have been better spent being kind to one another. In the face of shared loss, apologizing does not create winners.

It seems Mormonism may be grappling with a generation whose testimony of equality is stronger than their testimony of the Restored Church.

That’s why, for many of us, enough is enough.

CRAIG MANGUM is a writer and founder of The OUT Foundation, a philanthropic network for the LGBTQ+ alumni of Brigham Young University. Follow him on Twitter @CraigNMangum

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I really do not think it is such a step. It seems to be a reassessment of the situation and its impact on members of the church. I would not be surprised though to see the church formally canonize the Family Proclamation in order to dispel any ambiguity or any perceptions of ambiguity.

The problem with your last statement, as I see it, is that the Family Proclamation doesn't address, prohibit, or preclude any future leaders' ability to accept and embrace marriage for same-sex couples.  The wording of the Family Proclamation is vague enough that while it clearly says God endorses marriage between a man and a woman, it's wording stops well short of suggesting that God can't likewise endorse other marital formations.  In other words, canonizing the Family Proclamation still wouldn't clarify the issue as to if/when God may yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the exaltation of his same-gender-married gay and lesbian children in the eternities.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Depends on if they go back to what Joseph used to practice with his polygamy.  For some reason I see non-legalized polygamy, particularly if hidden from spouses and all of that, as adultery and fornication.  I, in fact, can't understand that anyone would conclude otherwise.  It seems to me you are only asking if the Church will return to it's former self and seem to want to tie in the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-considered policy change from 3 years ago.  No.  I think the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-conceived policy change from 3 years ago as a necessity for the church.  They wouldn't have done it otherwise.  finally the leaders realized the foolishness of it and dropped it.  I don't know that dropping it resolved anything for those who were negatively effected, but it's a good thing the Church can learn from it's mistakes to some extent.  And no I don't think it necessarily stepped the Church back to the adultery and fornication that the Church used to practice.  More the opposite of that.  

Well said!

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There is a difference between acceptance and permission: "Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

In some cases, until a person's heart is softened, he is not accountable for the hardness of his heart imposed upon him through the traditions of men. This is a common tehme in the Book of Mormon in relation to the descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

If I'm following you correctly, you're suggesting that "because of the hardness of [our] hearts," God doesn't currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard, by which (from what I can tell) you mean to say that because of the hardness of our hearts, God currently allows and recognizes remarriage between couples who were previously divorced and doesn't hold them accountable for the stain of immorality (which their remarriage normally should/would be under, if they were living the specified higher law, which is what you call the celestial standard).  

Do I have that right?

If I have the above right, isn't God overlooking that same so-called celestial standard by permitting such couples (previously divorced and subsequently remarried) to be sealed in the temple and then granted access into the Celestial Kingdom?  Or are they forced, at some point, to actually change their lower-law behavior of adultery by way of divorce and remarriage and then requalify for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom by your so-called higher law? 

If they are automatically granted/grandfathered in to the blessings of your so-called higher law--in this case, entrance into the Celestial Kingdom but based on behaviors they engaged in while under the lower law--what's the point of even having a 'higher law' vs a 'lower law'?  

And if same-sex couples are ultimately accepted as a function of the existing so-called 'lower law,' then they could just as easily be grandfathered into a path of inclusion in the celestial kingdom just the same as their heterosexual counterparts who only lived the lower law when remarrying after divorce....?

[Gray]

59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Lord expressed this very sentiment Himself. There is a difference between acceptance and permission: "Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng  He permitted it (that is, He did not enforce the celestial standard and allowed divorce) while teaching the celestial standard during His mortal ministry (Matthew 5) and after (3 Nephi 12; D&C 63).

Your polemics are unbecoming, but especially so when unskilled.

The Lord didn't express any such thing. The eisegesis you're parroting reuses a phrase from Jesus but uses it to make the opposite point, contradicting Jesus' teaching to his followers.

We are men of action. Sophistry does not become us.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Gray

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I would agree with the statement that the LDS church's "change in characterizing same-gender marriage from apostasy to serious transgression is a step towards legitimizing homosexuality and temple marriage."

Especially since current LDS church leaders, including the very member of the First Presidency who announced the policy reversal (President Dallin Oaks), have taught that in some cases, there are very significant differences between "transgression" and "sin":  

In the context of identifying marriage between two individuals of the same gender as a transgression instead of a sin, Oaks has left the door wide open for future clarification that same-gender marriage may ultimately be historically viewed as something that wasn't "inherently wrong or immoral" (which would'n't have been the case if he chose to classify it as "sin"), but was classified as a transgression "only because it [ was hisorically legally] prohibited" by the LDS church (since it's classified--again, currently--as prohibited by the rules of the LDS Church).

That's a HUGE step in the direction of someday recognizing the legality of marriage between same-gender couples within the LDS Church.

In answer to your second question of "doesn't it logically follow that heterosexual adultery was already a step closer to legitimacy/acceptance in heaven even as it is on earth?," my answer would be, No, that doesn't logically follow.  Adultery is between unmarried partnerships, so that's different than intimacy between couples who are legally and lawfully  married.

Finally, while I welcome the change of the abolition of the exclusion policy and definitely see it as a positive (albeit small) step in the right direction, the LDS Church still has a long way to go, as summarized by one of the better opinion pieces I've seen on the subject is Craig Mangum, a gay former member of the LDS Faith and BYU Alumnus:

Craig speaks for so many...eloquently.  I have lost another friend over this over the weekend.  Pres. Nelson's talk did not help.  Repentance...???  You can come back after we have kicked you out??  Your divorce and loss of children do not matter...oops..we changed out minds...but repent.  All the words that Pres. Nelson said I applied to the 12 and presidency behind him.  Yes, those men who do not apologize nor follow even the first rules of repentance.  Shame on those that think this is okay...ruined lives and dead ones...repent??  I am sorry???  I appologize?  Who would ever come back to a church that does NOT speak for the God I know of.!!

Edited April 10, 2019 by Jeanne

[Wade Englund]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Depends on if they go back to what Joseph used to practice with his polygamy.  For some reason I see non-legalized polygamy, particularly if hidden from spouses and all of that, as adultery and fornication.  I, in fact, can't understand that anyone would conclude otherwise.  It seems to me you are only asking if the Church will return to it's former self and seem to want to tie in the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-considered policy change from 3 years ago.  No.  I think the dropping of the poorly constructed and ill-conceived policy change from 3 years ago as a necessity for the church.  They wouldn't have done it otherwise.  finally the leaders realized the foolishness of it and dropped it.  I don't know that dropping it resolved anything for those who were negatively effected, but it's a good thing the Church can learn from it's mistakes to some extent.  And no I don't think it necessarily stepped the Church back to the adultery and fornication that the Church used to practice.  More the opposite of that.  

I appreciate your attempt at creativity. Viewing marriage as a form of adultery and fornication, is a new if not baffling twist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 10, 2019 by Wade Englund

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Ssm was called apostasy for disciplinary purposes, and I saw a sound doctrinal basis for that. I also see sound reasoning for removing that designation 3+ years on for disciplinary purposes.

Would you mind explaining your thoughts on how "apostasy for disciplinary purposes" was sound?

I don't follow this topic closely and I never quite understood that.

Edited April 10, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Wade Englund]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Your reference refers to unauthorized polygamy as adultery. I don't think it's closer to being legitimized. Only those forms of sexual immorality which are common to normally socialized religious heterosexual members seem to be acceptable to the church.

I hadn't considered that the notion of unacceptable forms of adultery would prove so illusive. But, let me make one more attempt by using a modern dictionary definition: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse."

With that definition in mind,  let me re-ask: 

Do you have any thoughts about this relevant form of adultery?  Is it already closer to being legitimized?

BTW, there is one more minor problem with my OP question.  Can you guess what it is?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I appreciate your attempt at creativity. Viewing marriage as a form of adultery and fornication, is a new if not baffling twist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know if one could be more unfaithful to a spouse then to go behind the spouse's back and try and illegally marry another.  As I said, no I dont' think the Church is trying to take a step back into that direction.

I do think we will see the Church moving closer to the view of acceptance and tolerance when it comes to LGBTQ.  It'll be forced to, more and more.  I think the Church was forced to drop their policy, essentially.  They simply could not keep it.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

I hadn't considered that the notion of unacceptable forms of adultery would prove so illusive. But, let me make one more attempt by using a modern dictionary definition: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse."

With that definition in mind,  let me re-ask: 

Do you have any thoughts about this relevant form of adultery?  Is it already closer to being legitimized?

No, I don't believe that the specific form of adultery you're talking about is closer to being legitimized in the church. Nor would I ever compare monogamous same sex marriage to adultery.

 

Quote

BTW, there is one more minor problem with my OP question.  Can you guess what it is?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no interest in guessing games, thanks.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Gray