Steven Snow and LGTQ

[MrShorty]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

That Bishop would refuse to take some type of disciplinary action against the Lesbian couple, and would resign if asked to

If it helps to take this out of the hypothetical into the real, Laurie Lee Hall in her recently released memoir talked about her bishop who refused to convene or participate in disciplinary proceedings against her. She was still excommunicated, but she made a very specific point of noting that her bishop at the time refused to participate.

In the spirit of "do what is right, let the consequence follow," if this bishop's stance is the right thing to do, then I hope the bishop has the courage to stick with his pronouncement, even in the face of significant outside pressure from leaders and neighbors.

In the spirit of humility and repentance, if this bishop's stance is wrong, then I hope he will have the courage to humble himself and repent.

Of course, the hard part of this really is knowing what is right and wrong.

[Notatbm]

Apparently the church approves of Charlie bird’s gay marriage. To my knowledge he and his husband/wife are active members still in Idaho and have callings in their ward. 
 

if they still have the same status then the church obviously approves. 
 

or

 

the first presidency does not have the fortitude or conviction in their beliefs to compel a local leader to EX them just as they have done to many others for much less. 
 

the bishop in this article is apparently correct. Just following the example of the leaders of the church. 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"Pearson also shared the story of a bishop in her area who ministers to a lesbian couple in his congregation. “The bishop has said, ‘If I am ever instructed by somebody in authority above me to do anything to discipline those women, I would before that resign my post as bishop.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/06/28/retired-lds-general-authority/

** So let me see if I have this straight... That Bishop would refuse to take some type of disciplinary action against the Lesbian couple, and would resign if asked to- would he afford the same leeway to a heterosexual couple engaged in behavior contrary to the Law of Chastity?

That is a fair question to ask the "bishop in her area." When a local authority assists a member to repent, he has to make sure he is really assisting them to repent (protecting others, accessing the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance, and protecting the integrity of the Church). One of the first questions to ask are, "Do they want to repent?" and "Have I properly helped them arrive at a good enough reason to want to repent?"

There is a list of sins that require a membership council, and sexual immorality (abstinence from sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman) is not one of them. It is on the list of sins for which a council may be necessary. "The decision about whether to hold a membership council in these situations depends on many circumstances." 

Of course someone could go about cleaning out all the dead wood and call it good, but there may be better and best aspects to the bishopric stewardship.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Duncan said:

My sense is a Bishop would or should be on the receiving end of confessions, not going out and finding out problems, besides it isn't repentance if you got found out anyways, humbling yourself is different from being humbled

I mostly agree with this up to the point where one starts trying to influence other members’ behaviors.  I see it as similar in one sense to warning potential victims of someone’s past criminal behavior in that public behavior, behavior involving others in the community should be a concern of those who have stewardship over the community.  I believe there are many noncriminal social behaviors the bishop should at the very least make an effort to be aware of.  I use the idea of a member’s criminal past behavior as an example solely to make the point that it makes sense for the bishop at times to be proactive to protect the community because I think most people agree that is a good thing. I am not saying where the line should be drawn because I don’t know and suspect it greatly depends on the circumstances and who is involved and each of their strengths and weaknesses.

I don’t see the bishop as having the role of ward police where he goes looking for the ‘lawbreakers’, but I also see a need for a strong interest in people’s lives to be able to truly serve them well.  I am not certain myself when the bishop should wait upon the member coming to them and when he should reach out.  I can even see some private behavior where I would hope the bishop would reach out without waiting for the person to come forward even if no significant harm to others beside the individual would be caused if one didn’t.  I am thinking along the lines of someone who has no family and definitely no dependents or significant responsibilities acting in ways that mostly only harm themselves, such as not seeking out treatment for severe depression or drug dependency; I would hope the individual’s needs matter to a bishop as much as the community’s needs; after all, a community is made up of individuals.  I don’t have a clue on how this should work out practically speaking, except to say the bishop needs to view each member of his ward with great respect and hopefully love, though the latter may be difficult.

Edited June 29, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

but there may be better and best aspects to the bishopric stewardship.

Well stated

[ZealouslyStriving]

58 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you're implying they are doing something wrong, how do we know that? Discipline for what? It isn't the Bishopric's job to sniff around into people's lives, if the couple came to the Bishop and said whatever then that's fine. 

My sense is a Bishop would or should be on the receiving end of confessions, not going out and finding out problems, besides it isn't repentance if you got found out anyways, humbling yourself is different from being humbled

In the Bishop's imaginary scenario he is being asked by file leaders to initiate a disciplinary action, thus implying, in his scenario, that they are living a lifestyle contrary to Church rules of conduct.

The most concerning part for me is his rebellious attitude, not entirely the reason for the imaginary council itself.

[Duncan]

32 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In the Bishop's imaginary scenario he is being asked by file leaders to initiate a disciplinary action, thus implying, in his scenario, that they are living a lifestyle contrary to Church rules of conduct.

The most concerning part for me is his rebellious attitude, not entirely the reason for the imaginary council itself.

but until you know something concrete, it's exactly that, imaginary and besides how do you know what you know? because it could be hearsay 

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but until you know something concrete, it's exactly that, imaginary and besides how do you know what you know? because it could be hearsay 

🤦🏻‍♂️

[Benjamin McGuire]

The LDS Church has yet to seriously deal with the theological problems here.

The Proclamation on the Family clearly separates gender from biological sex. This has caused them to do two things - on the one hand, they have recently asserted that biological sex is an indicator of eternal gender. On the other hand, they have had to confront the problem that occurs when biological sex cannot be such an indicator because the biological sex in indeterminate. In this second case, they have recently changed their policies to reflect the problem. Now, they suggest, parents shouldn't be eager to have their child get a gender assignment surgery - instead they should wait until the individual can help make that decision:

Quote

Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary.  (Handbook, 38.7.7)

And this is different from past policies. It wasn't that long ago that the LDS Church recognized that same-sex attraction was something you could be born with - that it wasn't learned. It wasn't that long ago that the Church announced that those with strong same-sex attraction shouldn't get married to someone of the opposite sex. And back in the day, homosexual behavior was sin only because it was a sexual relationship outside of a legal marriage. Which had to be changed when same-sex marriage became legal. The thing is, virtually none of this is supported by scripture. When talking about same-sex marriage, the LDS Church still goes back to the problematic assertion that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children - and so to point out that same-sex marriage - which can't produce children - cannot be a moral relationship. I think this will change. I think that there will be a time (perhaps not in my lifetime) when the Church will recognize same-sex marriage for time only, and when they will have more acceptance for transgender individuals. I think that our current culture wars that are involved with these issues make such changes less likely in the short term - but, I think there is plenty of time left. Policies are always built around what we consider normative behaviors. Theology and doctrine has to engage the exceptions. And the LDS Church has not yet produced a coherent theology that explains the relationship between gender and biological sex.

[sunstoned]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The LDS Church has yet to seriously deal with the theological problems here.

The Proclamation on the Family clearly separates gender from biological sex. This has caused them to do two things - on the one hand, they have recently asserted that biological sex is an indicator of eternal gender. On the other hand, they have had to confront the problem that occurs when biological sex cannot be such an indicator because the biological sex in indeterminate. In this second case, they have recently changed their policies to reflect the problem. Now, they suggest, parents shouldn't be eager to have their child get a gender assignment surgery - instead they should wait until the individual can help make that decision:

And this is different from past policies. It wasn't that long ago that the LDS Church recognized that same-sex attraction was something you could be born with - that it wasn't learned. It wasn't that long ago that the Church announced that those with strong same-sex attraction shouldn't get married to someone of the opposite sex. And back in the day, homosexual behavior was sin only because it was a sexual relationship outside of a legal marriage. Which had to be changed when same-sex marriage became legal. The thing is, virtually none of this is supported by scripture. When talking about same-sex marriage, the LDS Church still goes back to the problematic assertion that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children - and so to point out that same-sex marriage - which can't produce children - cannot be a moral relationship. I think this will change. I think that there will be a time (perhaps not in my lifetime) when the Church will recognize same-sex marriage for time only, and when they will have more acceptance for transgender individuals. I think that our current culture wars that are involved with these issues make such changes less likely in the short term - but, I think there is plenty of time left. Policies are always built around what we consider normative behaviors. Theology and doctrine has to engage the exceptions. And the LDS Church has not yet produced a coherent theology that explains the relationship between gender and biological sex.

Well thought out and well stated.

[Tacenda]

Good thoughts from Dan McCllelan about the topic. 

 

Edited June 30, 2025 by Tacenda

[JAHS]

14 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"Pearson also shared the story of a bishop in her area who ministers to a lesbian couple in his congregation. “The bishop has said, ‘If I am ever instructed by somebody in authority above me to do anything to discipline those women, I would before that resign my post as bishop.’”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2025/06/28/retired-lds-general-authority/

** So let me see if I have this straight... That Bishop would refuse to take some type of disciplinary action against the Lesbian couple, and would resign if asked to- would he afford the same leeway to a heterosexual couple engaged in behavior contrary to the Law of Chastity?

I think the Bishop would be safe in saying that, because it is highly unlikely that any higher authority would actually instruct him to do that. They normally leave such decisions up to the Bishop since he would know the couple and their specific situation and otherwise loyalty and faithfulness in the church.
The only discipline that might be imposed is some kind of restrictions to holding any position in the ward, except for those that any non-member could do.

[The Nehor]

LGTQ? What is this horrible bisexual erasure?

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, longview said:

But the Salt Lake Tribune is not asking the pertinent questions:

If the gay couple are living together in their home or apartment, are they living the homosexual lifestyle?

What is the homosexual lifestyle? Wearing lots of plaid? Bright colors?

Or is that a euphemisms for sex? In which case I move that in the debate about whether Joseph Smith had physical relationships with his plural wives should be reframed as a discussion as to whether Joseph and his wives were living the heterosexual lifestyle.

16 hours ago, longview said:

Do they understand the importance of the Law of Chastity? If they do, they have the problem of the "appearance of evil" in their living arrangement.

The “appearance of evil” thing is a bad translation of what Paul meant. Worrying about what you are doing appearing to be wrong when it isn’t is just silly. It means you have to live in a way that makes sure even the most paranoid busybody can find no fault in you.

Also Jesus definitely DID NOT do this. He was breaking all the rabbinical rules which made him appear to be quite evil.

16 hours ago, longview said:

People can agree with Pearson to FIRST consider everyone to be children of God. But that bishop needs to prioritize the future potential Celestial relationships over the temporal and carnal worldly circumstances. And to teach and counsel accordingly. The couple can still remain close friends. Hopefully they will strengthen each other in their efforts to draw closer to the Lord.

 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, longview said:

Please avail yourself the opportunity to ponder again the Proclamation on the Family. Which is the Basic Unit consisting of husband and wife and children. Children need the masculinity of fathers and the nurturing/comforting care of mothers. Homosexual relations cannot produce offsprings and they really should NOT adopt. Hetero marriages sanctioned by God lead to the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Homo relations devolve to the telestial murkiness.

So hetero relationships that aren’t sanctioned by God via His power don’t go to exaltation. Therefore non-sealed couples should NOT adopt. Glad we worked that out. I guess sealed couples have a LOT of adopting to do.

I hate this argument specifically because I know how many kids are stuck in the system. Even if you assume queer couples are somehow worse at parenting (no evidence backs this up) they are better than being stuck in the system forever. Herero couples are not adopting all the kids. Therefore as a matter of principle you want those kids to be stuck in the uncertain purgatory of foster care or group homes just so you can discriminate? That is just cruel.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why shouldn't that apply to everyone than?

It probably should. You won’t find in scripture a lot of support for the church disciplinary system as it exists nor does it seem to have existed in antiquity in anything like the form we have. There is some instruction in the D&C about it but it is mostly about leadership and doesn’t specify a lot of the sins that get lumped in for discipline.

[Peacefully]

23 hours ago, longview said:

Please avail yourself the opportunity to ponder again the Proclamation on the Family. Which is the Basic Unit consisting of husband and wife and children. Children need the masculinity of fathers and the nurturing/comforting care of mothers. Homosexual relations cannot produce offsprings and they really should NOT adopt. Hetero marriages sanctioned by God lead to the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Homo relations devolve to the telestial murkiness.

Must be nice to have it all figured out, smh. 

[california boy]

On 6/29/2025 at 8:32 AM, longview said:

Please avail yourself the opportunity to ponder again the Proclamation on the Family. Which is the Basic Unit consisting of husband and wife and children. Children need the masculinity of fathers and the nurturing/comforting care of mothers. Homosexual relations cannot produce offsprings and they really should NOT adopt. Hetero marriages sanctioned by God lead to the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Homo relations devolve to the telestial murkiness.

So exactly how do you expect someone who is gay to fulfill the commandment to enter into eternal marriage and multiply and replenish the earth when gay couples are barred by Church leaders from the temple sealings?  Based on Church doctrine and not just personal opinion, how do you see their exaltation being played out?  Are they magically changed to be heterosexual when they die?  Does God grant other magical transformations upon death?  Just how is temple work done for them after they die?  Who do you marry them to?  If that is not possible, then is exaltation possible without eternal marriage?

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good thoughts from Dan McCllelan about the topic. 

 

I don’t think assuming one knows others’ motivations based on limited info is wise.  Too much error can occur and it stops communication with those one is othering by doing so, imo.  You stop really listening imo once you assume you know why (on a fundamental level) someone is saying something.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It probably should. You won’t find in scripture a lot of support for the church disciplinary system as it exists nor does it seem to have existed in antiquity in anything like the form we have. There is some instruction in the D&C about it but it is mostly about leadership and doesn’t specify a lot of the sins that get lumped in for discipline.

This week's Come Follow Me material observes that "[the revelations on procedure indicate] some connections to what bishops do today—at least in the spirit, if not the specifics, of their duties." Mosiah 26 describes how "it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church." King Mosiah "said unto Alma: Behold, I judge them not; therefore I deliver them into thy hands to be judged." The Lord instructedd Alma, "judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also. Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me." Here we have a connection to the modern Handbook, and given all the records that were kept by the Nephite prophets I suppose they had their version of handbooks and updated procedures also. 

Mosiah 26 speaks of "many sins" and Mosiah's father Benjamin taught, "I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." So deciding which sins required formal discipline would have been Mosiah and Alma's prerogative, and Mosiah turned it over to Alma. But the same pattern follows today and is found in our Handbook.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Are they magically changed to be heterosexual when they die?  Does God grant other magical transformations upon death?  Just how is temple work done for them after they die?  Who do you marry them to?  If that is not possible, then is exaltation possible without eternal marriage?

If someone views homosexuality as part of the natural man, it makes sense to see it as a temporary state, emotion, or drive that is removed along with anything else that is carnal/part of the natural man when we turn ourselves over to God to be purified (I do wish we used a different word than “natural” in “the natural man” as we see children as “natural” in their behaviour and innocence and we certainly don’t believe that innocence is getting expunged in the next life).  I would assume most of that opinion see the same thing happening to those who have homosexual desires as those who have desires to have sexual relationships outside of marriage or even inappropriate sexual behaviour within marriage, like sexual abuse or ignoring the other’s needs in ordered to be sexually satisfied oneself.***  So not magic or even unique to homosexuality, just part of the santification and justification process of accepting Christ’s Atonement that everyone must go through for exaltation.

Temple work would be the same as for any single person or anyone that lacks a marriage record or any record at all for that matter (which is probably a very significant part of humanity), the information to perform temple work will have to be revealed.

***I assume this because this was my position in the past.  At this point I am solidly in the ‘I don’t know’ category when it comes to both homosexuality and heterosexuality, though intellectually I am leaning towards no one is going to have sexual attractions in the same way we do in mortality because the experience of eternal relationships will be so far more all encompassing of our being because we will not only have the time to develop deeper and more intense relationships but also have so much greater ability to do so because of our increased understanding of each other and ourselves.  Just think of what we could do now in our relationships of any kind if we could dump the baggage that leads to fear and holding back, absurd dislikes and reactions, etc.  Therefore, in my view there will be no need for instinctual drives or programming to help us want to act, to make decisions, or to take risks…all things necessary to create any kind of relationships in this life, but especially longterm companionship ones because of upfront and potential costs if they fail.  Plus I believe we will have so much personal self control/agency we will be able to choose our emotions and what functions as our motivators, so again sexual drives we are wired with will be a thing of the past.  We will choose who we are attracted to and why and anything else in our personality not because we are made that way either by physical attributes or social influences, but because those attributes suit what we want to become.  Of course, this becomes an issue of why we want to become what we want to become…ultimate cause and all, which is why my ultimate position is solidly “I don’t know”.

Edited June 30, 2025 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If someone views homosexuality as part of the natural man, it makes sense to see it as a temporary state, emotion, or drive that is removed along with anything else that is carnal/part of the natural man (I do wish we used a different word than “natural” in “the natural man” as we see children as “natural” in their behaviour and innocence and we certainly don’t believe that innocence is getting expunged in the next life) and  when we turn ourselves over to God to be purified.  I would assume most see the same thing happening to those who have homosexual desires as those who have desires to have sexual relationships outside of marriage or even inappropriate sexual behaviour within marriage, like sexual abuse or ignoring the other’s needs in ordered to be sexually satisfied oneself.***  So not magic or even unique to homosexuality, just part of the santification and justification process of accepting Christ’s Atonement that everyone must go through for exaltation.

Temple work would be the same as for any single person or anyone that lacks a marriage record or any record at all for that matter (which is probably a very significant part of humanity), the information to perform temple work will have to be revealed.

***I assume this because this was my position in the past.  At this point I am solidly in the ‘I don’t know’ category when it comes to both homosexuality and heterosexuality, though intellectually I am leaning towards no one is going to have sexual attractions in the same way we do in mortality because the experience of eternal relationships will be so far more all encompassing of our being because we will not only have the time to develop deeper and more intense relationships but also have so much greater ability to do so because of our increased understanding of each other and ourselves.  Just think of what we could do now in our relationships of any kind if we could dump the baggage that leads to fear and holding back, absurd dislikes and reactions, etc.  Therefore, in my view there will be no need for instinctual drives or programming to help us want to act, to make decisions, or to take risks…all things necessary to create any kind of relationships in this life, but especially longterm companionship ones because of upfront and potential costs if they fail.  Plus I believe we will have so much personal self control/agency we will be able to choose our emotions and what functions as our motivators, so again sexual drives we are wired with will be a thing of the past.  We will choose who we are attracted to and why and anything else in our personality not because we are made that way either by physical attributes or social influences, but because those attributes suit what we want to become.  Of course, this becomes an issue of why we want to become what we want to become…ultimate cause and all, which is why my ultimate position is solidly “I don’t know”.

I can definitely see from a gay persons point of view how being told that in the next life we will be cool with things that make us sick in this life would be upsetting. 
 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I can definitely see from a gay persons point of view how being told that in the next life we will be cool with things that make us sick in this life would be upsetting. 
 

 

It is very different than telling someone they will simply want to do less of what they want to do (have heterosexual sex/sexual attraction with fewer people or with the person you are in love with only when you are married and sealed to them).

Even if there are other things we expect we will be doing that we aren’t happy about doing in the here and now (perhaps some people don’t want to be kind to people, serve others, etc), somehow I doubt anyone feels disgust towards those possibilities unless they are a real misanthrope.  If they are, they have a whole host of issues with exaltation I am guessing, and are quite rare, so not exactly useful to wave away the difference between the ‘typical’ homosexual view of our current teaching of exaltation and the ‘typical’ heterosexual view of our current teaching****.   

Can’t think of anything that might be comparable outside of possibly polygamy (not saying it’s for sure to occur or how it will exist even if it happens as in may not be only polygyny if polygamy actually happens, but also polyandry) and even then there is still the likely inclination to have a close physical/sexual relationship with one person (it’s the idea of sharing that is disgusting, not sexual attraction/behavior) unless one is disgusted by sex in general.

I expect a lot of heterosexuals believe homosexuals wouldn’t mind having sex with the opposite sex since they are physically capable of doing so (as evidenced by gay men who have been married with women and had children), they would just prefer to have it with their own sex even when those heterosexuals are disgusted by the idea of any form of homosexual sex themselves.

****I have no clue what the ‘typical’ view of a bisexual of exaltation would be.  In the past I assumed it would be no big deal as opposite sex attraction was part of their current attraction set, but I now suspect it is more complicated than that based on how Nehor and others have described their experiences and so am not drawing any conclusions on whether it is naturally easier for them to accept teachings about exaltation than someone who is homosexual.

Edited June 30, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

You only have to watch Elder Holland's video that was shown for temple open houses where he said that heaven would not be heaven without his wife to see this.  Forgetting the attraction part (which is what the natural man part would be, but really is a huge thing) just the idea of getting to heaven and not finding my dear husband as my spouse because suddenly my resurrected body is attracted to women completely neglects the deep love we have for each other.  Seriously, even if I were now attracted to someone else I can't imagine not being partnered with my husband. 

I think some people mix up the resurrection idea. This isn't like a blond changing to a celestial brunette body.  This is like no longer being with your blond spouse that you were married to for 50 years and dearly loved and being put with a brunette instead because now you are attracted to brunettes.  

[Notatbm]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

So exactly how do you expect someone who is gay to fulfill the commandment to enter into eternal marriage and multiply and replenish the earth when gay couples are barred by Church leaders from the temple sealings?  Based on Church doctrine and not just personal opinion, how do you see their exaltation being played out?  Are they magically changed to be heterosexual when they die?  Does God grant other magical transformations upon death?  Just how is temple work done for them after they die?  Who do you marry them to?  If that is not possible, then is exaltation possible without eternal marriage?

They should be afforded the same rights as say elder oaks and pres Nelson. Both have remarried since their first wives passed away. Neither of these marriages can/will result in children being born. Why do they get to be married and enjoy the “benefits” of marriage when they cannot have children annd definitely wouldn’t be allowed to adopt due to age? Oaks second wife was  53 when they married… she isn’t having kids at 53. Why did they marry? Pres Nelson’s wife was 56… yep no chance of having kids. May as well be gay.