Thoughts On Making The Lds Church More Lgbt Friendly Without Changing "Doctrine"

[daz2]

An exchange between me and a nephew who is a very faithful, believing, devout member.

Hi Uncle Daz,

I have noticed that you have posted a couple of articles about same-sex attraction/marriage and mormonism. I was just wondering what your belief is in reconciling mormonism and same-sex attraction. One of the articles talks about the church as "evolving" on the issue. I feel that there is more awareness today and positive discussion, but that God's doctrine does not evolve.

Take care,

Nephew

*******************************************************************************

Dear Nephew

Here is an answer I posted on mormon.org profile

What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attitude regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage?

Like many other Judeo-Christian religions, the Mormon Church accepts the teachings in Leviticus and in some of Paul's letters in the New Testament against homosexuality. Those with "same sex attraction" who abstain from sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage are welcomed and considered full members in good standing. Those who do not abstain from such sexual relations may attend and participate in many ways, but may not be baptized or receive membership privileges unless they stop. I do not know many openly lesbian or gay individuals who participate in the Mormon Church. But there are some who do--either by being celibate and participating as full members of the Church or, if noncelibate, attending and participating to the limited extent that nonmember guests of the Church may do so. Although the Mormon Church teaches as a moral matter that sexual relations with a same sex partner are wrong, as a political matter, the Church does not oppose and in many cases supports legal equality, with one exception--it opposes same sex marriage. For example, the Church has publicly stated its political support of bans of employment or housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. I believe God loves everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and whether celibate or noncelibate. As Mormons, I understand we are to love and serve one another, without regard to another's sexual orientation or satisfaction of norms. Moreover, "we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and . . . that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." I am confident God will yet reveal additional ways in which all of us can be a source of strength and safety for all members and friends of the Church.

I do think that the Church is becoming more LGBT friendly, and hope that it continues to do so. Elder Marlin Jensen recently said,

""For example, I think the principle [of welcoming and loving] has application to gay members of the church or of society. I don’t think that straight people have done a good job yet, of providing an atmosphere of safety and a welcoming place. We need to do the same for those people who are feeling disaffected – for whatever reason… doctrinally, or socially. If we are truly Christian, it has to start there. Being less judgmental. Being more open and welcoming and inclusive. Someone asked Robert Frost once, ‘What’s the ugliest word in the English language?’ And he said, ‘Exclusive.’ I think it is, too, in a way. "

The NYTimes quoted a Church spokesperson this way:

“What you are seeing is increased emphasis by church leaders on the need for our members to show sensitivity in this area so people don’t feel rejected, especially by their families,” Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in an e-mail.

But Mr. Hawkins said there had been “no shift or change in doctrine” on the church’s stance on gay relationships or the role of openly gay Mormons in their congregations. Sunday services are open to gay congregants,

but members who want to hold leadership posts

“must be living their lives consistent with the Church’s teachings,” Mr. Hawkins said.

The San Francisco and Oakland stakes have outreach programs to LGBT members in their boundaries, welcoming them back, including those who have partners. And many have returned. There is no requirement that they break up with their spouses/partners. They cannot hold certain positions, as the Church spokesman said. On the other hand, my understanding is, those stakes have not been excommunicating such LGBT members who are in stable relationships and returning just to be with other members.

You could ask Mitch Main, one of my facebook friends, how that is working in his ward and stake. Mitch is openly gay; he broke up with his partner a while ago, and was recently called as executive secretary in his ward (he is currently living the law of chastity as understood in our church). Mitch has been a big part of the outreach. Don Fletcher is the bishop there, and he has been emphasizing the outreach and welcoming people to come to services.

It is unusual for local leadership to seek out inactive LGBT members to excommunicate them. As a practical matter, local leaders generally do nothing with respect to such less active members who are not living church standards. There isn't time or energy enough to do such a thing. Many LGBT members prefer to "lie low" and not attend Church (even if they would like to) because they are afraid if they attend, they will "pop up" on the local bishop's radar screen, and they might be excommunicated.

If I understand correctly the pastoral stance being taken by those two stakes--i.e., welcoming noncelibate gays without requiring them to break up with partners--I think a similar stance could be taken throughout the Church.

We need more LGBT members sitting with us in the pews and rubbing shoulders, serving together in the Church. And that is true, in my opinion, whether they are living the norms or not. To paraphrase Pres. Uchtdorf, it should make no difference to me that "they are sinning differently" from the way I do.

Thus, I could see the Church changing its disciplinary stance on LGBT members in same sex partnerships, along the lines implicitly suggested by the Church's spokesperson in the NY Times article above--noncelibate LGBT are welcome to attend and participate in many ways, but not to hold certain positions (and presumably not attend the temple). Committed LGBT couples could participate to that limited extent without threat of excommunication. (The same rule could apply to unmarried heterosexuals living together in an exclusive relationship--no recommend, no callings, but no threat of excommunication.)

This would be a change in disciplinary policy. It would not be a change in doctrine, but change in adminstrative practice.

A second question is whether LGBT in exclusive partnerships (with or without sex) could be permitted to attend the temple without doing violence to church doctrine.

With respect to platonic same sex partnerships: The law of chastity does not forbid two men or two women from living together, being close friends, doing everything together, owning property in their joint names. Permitting nonsexual domestic partners to attend the temple or serve in important callings is not a change in doctrine or definition of sin and probably not a change in practice. (BYU has a rule that LGBT may not engage in certain nonsexual activities like holding hands or kissing. That is a BYU rule, not a doctrinal rule.)

At some point, could the Church apply such a policy to noncelibate LGBT partners--permitting them to attend the temple or hold important callings? Could this occur without a change in doctrine or in the definition of "sin"? Does unchanging doctrine require that those committing certain sins must be excluded from the temple or certain callings?

Temple worthiness requirements have changed over the years. It wasn't until the 1920s and 1930s that word of wisdom compliance became a prerequisite to attending the temple. People who didn't keep the word of wisdom before then were sinning, but it wasn't a sin that kept them out of the temple. There was a time when those who divorced were not permitted a temple recommend until at least one year had expired following the divorce and they had received a "divorce clearance." At one time there were no "belief" or "testimony" questions in the temple recommend interview.

The Church could continue to teach that it was a sin to live in a noncelibate same sex partnership, but that that particular sin does not keep one out of the temple.

While I know of no doctrine or scripture specifically excluding people in exclusive same sex partnerships from attending the temple, many or most members perceive homosexual activities as being so wrong that, in their view, God could not possibly be pleased in allowing such partners in the temple in the absence of direct revelation. However, if the Brethren announced such a change in policy by way of revelation (see Official Declaration 2), it would likely be accepted as a change in practice, not in teaching or doctrine. (Church doctrine would continue to consider same sex sexuality as sin. The consequence of that sin would be changed.)

Two other levels are more complicated.

Could the Church stop teaching that noncelibacy in a same sex partnerhip is sin? Could the Church seal same sex partnerships?

I think that, to be accepted by the members, both types of changes would, as a practical matter, likely require a revelation. Even so, I would regard such a change as a clarification of doctrine on the margins, not a fundamental change in the law of chastity.

In such a clarified scenario, promiscuous GLBT sex would be just as wrong as promiscuous straight sex. Indeed, sex before formation of a marriage or a same sex partnership would be considered fornication and sinful. Sex outside marriage or the partnership would be considered adultery.

Gay bars or gay bath houses for anonymous sex would be just a wrong under a clarified law of chastity as bars and swinger clubs would be for straight people.

But could such relationships be sealed given the heteronormativity encouraged and embraced by the Church?

To many people it would represent a substantical change in doctrine--but I would regard it as a clarification, a relatively minor exception applicable to a small percentage of church members whose sexual orientation prevents them from entering into heterosexual marriages. I would see it as a clarification akin to the one made by revelation in 1894 by Pres. Wilford Woodruff, when he changed the sealing policies of the Church, so that people were to be sealed to their own ancestors rather than to Church leaders.

One practical theological problem I see with sealing same sex relationships is that for lesbian couples, there would be no priesthood holder--that blessing would be missing from the household. There would also be difficult problems like how do openly LGBT serve missions in companionships.

Again, if God were to direct a change to permit same sex sealings, I would not view it as a fundamental "doctrine change", but as a clarification (or exception) applying to only the 3-4% of the membership who are LGBT.

I am not God, nor am I in a position to declare or even advocate changes or clarifications in doctrine or practices. I do see the Church becoming more welcoming to LGBT members. I hope that it becomes a safer place for my LGBT brothers and sisters, whom I love, and I think it will.

Any other changes in practice or teaching beyond those already made, of course, are out of my hands. I sustain our leaders. I know they are well aware of the challenges of our LGBT brothers and sisters, And God is too. I believe we as individuals and as a Church will do better and must do better on this as time goes one. I hope it is sooner rather than later.

Daz

****************************************************************************

Dear Uncle Daz

Thanks for your thorough response. I agree that we need to be rubbing shoulders more and be more welcoming with the LGBT members.

I also wonder if the Lord will clarify any doctrine or practices regarding same-sex couples

.

For now, I simply want to know how to best encourage all to come unto Christ, to love, and to do what Christ would do.

Sincerely,

Nephew.

[bluebell]

Your nephew sounds like good people.

[BCSpace]

Again, if God were to direct a change to permit same sex sealings, I would not view it as a fundamental "doctrine change", but as a clarification (or exception) applying to only the 3-4% of the membership who are LGBT.

Can't be done if doctrine is not to be changed. The scriptures are clear that homosexuality is sin so there would have to be a rejection of scripture. This is not going to happen since homosexuality is scripturally addressed during the Gospel era and not just during the Law of Moses.

[Damien the Leper]

The scriptures are clear that homosexuality is sin so there would have to be a rejection of scripture. This is not going to happen since homosexuality is scripturally addressed during the Gospel era and not just during the Law of Moses.

No they are not. We have modern revelation that clears up what scripture fails to.

[CV75]

Dear Uncle Daz

Thanks for your thorough response. I agree that we need to be rubbing shoulders more and be more welcoming with the LGBT members.

I also wonder if the Lord will clarify any doctrine or practices regarding same-sex couples

.

For now, I simply want to know how to best encourage all to come unto Christ, to love, and to do what Christ would do.

Stop segregating people into categories and see them as chidlren of God no matter how you might think they are sinning (or not). Whatever God does to clarify, it will become more and more general as His people (those who will receive it) become more and more refined. After all, we are each a fellow citrzens and joint-heir.

Edited July 19, 2012 by CV75

[Calm]

Well said, CV.

[blackstrap]

If we were to ex sinners in the church,the chapel would be quite empty on Sunday,except for you and me,of course. On the other hand,sitting in church next to people who openly flaunt their sinning is mighty tough. Kind of like sitting next to a high priest who is watching porn on his ipad while singing ( I won't say the hymn ).

[Calm]

Kind of like sitting next to a high priest who is watching porn on his ipad while singing ( I won't say the hymn ).

Please tell me this has never really happened to you, you just thought of a hymn that would make a funny wordplay.

[CASteinman]

I like your nephew.

I don't think that homosexuals who are unchaste should get any breaks that heterosexuals who are unchaste should not get. And to me, your letter seems to have supported that kind of a Church. I would not like to see that at all.

On the other hand, I would like to see us be a Church where people with some of these problems -- regardless of how they may regard their sexuality -- would not be fearful of Bishops and Home Teachers.

We need the Spirit to guide us. I am thankful for it.

*edit to add the word "not"

Edited July 19, 2012 by CASteinman

[Cobalt-70]

If we were to ex sinners in the church,the chapel would be quite empty on Sunday,except for you and me,of course. On the other hand,sitting in church next to people who openly flaunt their sinning is mighty tough. Kind of like sitting next to a high priest who is watching porn on his ipad while singing ( I won't say the hymn ).

"Openly flaunt their sinning"? What, like they are having gay sex on the pew? Being gay isn't sinning. Nor is it a sin, for that matter, for two gay men to embrace each other in a romantic kiss, to look googley-eyed at each other, or to write love letters to each other. It is also not sinning for two gay men to live with each other as roommates. Unless they are going on about their gay sex during church meetings, how could anyone possibly be "flaunting their sinning"? You have no idea what a same-sex couple might do, if anything, behind closed doors, and it is none of your business.

[Cobalt-70]

Could the Church stop teaching that noncelibacy in a same sex partnerhip is sin? Could the Church seal same sex partnerships?

There is precedent in LDS history for same-sex sealings. In the 19th century, men were sealed to men as part of the "law of adoption." Given that men were sealed to men, men were sealed to multiple women, and women were sealed to multiple men, it seems that there is quite a bit more flexibility to the "sealing" concept than we currently recognize.

[Cobalt-70]

There is a fundamental element of Mormonism, which is the idea taught in our temple ceremonies that "it is not good for man to be alone." On the one hand, the church has abandoned the idea that homosexuality is a sin, as long as the gay or lesbian member remains celibate. Yet, on the other hand, there is something fundamentally un-Mormon to consign these people to a life of loneliness and celibacy.

Also, if you think about it, the law or chastity as defined in the temple ceremony is compatible with sexual relations between two legally and lawfully wedded gay men or lesbian women. For example, an endowed man who legally married another man and then had sexual relations with him would not, technically, be breaking his temple covenant to live the "law of chastity."

Edited July 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Glenn101]

There is precedent in LDS history for same-sex sealings. In the 19th century, men were sealed to men as part of the "law of adoption." Given that men were sealed to men, men were sealed to multiple women, and women were sealed to multiple men, it seems that there is quite a bit more flexibility to the "sealing" concept than we currently recognize.

Would you have us believe that those sealings were men to men as husband and husband, or as John D. Lee being sealed to Brigham Young as an adopted son as is widely reported?

Glenn

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think that homosexuals who are unchaste should get any breaks that heterosexuals who are unchaste should get.

Heterosexual couples who get married can engage in sexual relations.

Do you think homosexuals couples who marry should be allowed the same then?

I'm all for not giving homosexuals "breaks" that heterosexuals don't get, but it's apple to oranges unless you give the same "breaks" all around.

[CASteinman]

Do you think homosexuals couples who marry should be allowed the same then?

Marriage is for a man and a woman only.

[CASteinman]

There is a fundamental element of Mormonism, which is the idea taught in our temple ceremonies that "it is not good for man to be alone." On the one hand, the church has abandoned the idea that homosexuality is a sin, as long as the gay or lesbian member remains celibate. Yet, on the other hand, there is something fundamentally un-Mormon to consign these people to a life of loneliness and celibacy.

Also, if you think about it, the law or chastity as defined in the temple ceremony is compatible with sexual relations between two legally and lawfully wedded gay men or lesbian women. For example, an endowed man who legally married another man and then had sexual relations with him would not, technically, be breaking his temple covenant to live the "law of chastity."

But marriage is between a man and a woman. By definition.

[CASteinman]

It's apple to oranges unless you give the same "breaks" all around.

I don't believe in giving the same breaks all around. I believe apples to oranges is OK sometimes.

[CASteinman]

There is precedent in LDS history for same-sex sealings. In the 19th century, men were sealed to men as part of the "law of adoption." Given that men were sealed to men, men were sealed to multiple women, and women were sealed to multiple men, it seems that there is quite a bit more flexibility to the "sealing" concept than we currently recognize.

Men are still sometimes sealed to other men.

But not as married couples. Not 100 years ago. Not 150 years ago. Not now.

[CASteinman]

Nor is it a sin, for that matter, for two gay men to embrace each other in a romantic kiss, to look googley-eyed at each other, or to write love letters to each other.

But if you engage in that behavior, you will not be able to get a Temple Recommend, Go on a Mission, or Serve in a Church Calling. You might, if it persists, find yourself under some degree of discipline.

[SamIam]

There is precedent in LDS history for same-sex sealings. In the 19th century, men were sealed to men as part of the "law of adoption." Given that men were sealed to men, men were sealed to multiple women, and women were sealed to multiple men, it seems that there is quite a bit more flexibility to the "sealing" concept than we currently recognize.

Completely misunderstood...esp the men to men thing. Find a Millennial Star vol 9 or Words of Joseph Smith page 298 and 299. Also just found a link to the image here. It may be one that Volgadon found in an earlier thread. If this isn't his site it is the same info... We have Quinn to thank for completely destroying an absolutely profound concept. Apostates do not speak for God and do not teach truth This is not easy to comprehend material and required a couple of years of review over and over to grasp these concepts and it still expands for me. What you are referencing is within the context of the image and the text. However, for me at least, it was a slow go to put it all together.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SamIam

[Buzzard]

We want to be loving to all of God's children. And as individuals and a church, can do a better job. But make no mistake. Acceptance of homosexual relations would void the central pillar of the entire plan of salvation, and as such it will not happen. Not now, not in ten, a hundred, or a thousand years. It just won't, so stop with apostate speculation.

And before you proclaim accurately that I am not an apostle and should not be making such pronouncements, I am not saying anything that modern prophets and apostles have not said many times.

I hope you are just spinning the situation in San Fran and Oakland. I can understand not disciplining members until they are ready to repent, But to intimate in any fashion that being sexually active outside of heterosexual marriage is acceptable on any level is not only heresy, it is doing a grave disservice to those members who are engaging in such behavior. I know that bishops in YSA wards are telling their members that if they are involved in anything more than kissing, they need to clear up the behavior with them, and plenty of young folks have been disciplined for premarital sex. So just because someone is being intimate with a member of their own gender they get a pass? Not happenin'

My apologies to the mods if I have wandered too close to the "no sex threads" rules.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The question, it seems to me, is "What are the accepted teachings and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?" In other words, what is the Doctrine that the Temple Recommend is attempting to adhere to? What qualifies one for a Temple Recommend? We have quite a few Doctrines which we have Covenanted to keep. We can't possibly list them all during a little interview; in that case, what is the core message of the Gospel which makes one Temple worthy?

The Articles of Faith (a Creed that circumscribes truth and says hitherto shalt thou come, and no further?) say that "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." In which case, what are the ordinances of the Gospel that we need to accept? The answer is: "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Let's emphasize that. The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. All other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. Our Covenant bearing witness to our becoming Witnesses and Messengers of the Anointed One is sealed by the symbolic ordinance of Baptism. At the most basic level, it is the Mission of Christ and the Resurrection we are talking about.

This is borne out in the scriptures; as 2 Nephi 27:32 says, we are not to be like "they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." Instead, we preach that "There is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ [the Anointed One], and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 31:21)

The reason for this is that the Way of Christ (the Anointed One whose name we all take upon ourselves when we are Anointed) is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. He is the Messenger whose Word detailing the Plan of Salvation shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled -- whether by His own voice or by the voice of His servants, in whatever language it must be translated into, that underlying Message of Hope is the same.

It is that underlying purpose that we uphold, as Paul asks us not to be carried about with divers and strange doctrines and instead remember that the Anointed One is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever, because He honors His covenants to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. (Though I would be sure to add that the "sameness" exemplified by the keeping of promises is not the Unchangingly Simple Ontological Uniqueness that the philosophers try to layer onto the scriptures; I think God is eternally progressing.)

Now. As Brigham Young said, "every true philosopher, so far as he understands the principles of truth, has so much of the Gospel, and so far he is a Latter-day Saint, whether he knows it or not." Good-hearted people are part of the Church of the Lamb. It doesn't have to be us against the world, fighting against assimilationism if the world has a truth that we do not yet have. There is no shame in learning from anyone; indeed, we are commanded in the D&C to seek out the best books and words of wisdom, and accept truth from wherever and whoever it may come from, lest we not come out true Mormons.

We should note, then, that it is very, very specific "philosophies of men" which we covenant not to accept and instead reason against (using our own human-made philosophy and counter-arguments, I might add; our Heavenly Parents are exalted Men and Women, so I think They're okay with us using the brains that were grown in Their image to reason amongst ourselves). The "philosophies of men" which we oppose are specifically the ideas that God is an omnipresent being without body, parts, or passions; that there is a physical Hell of literal fire where sinners burn forever; and that money can get us anything. These conclusions are, from our perspective, confused.

But that's it; any other philosophical tenets are up for grabs inasmuch as they contain truth. It's not a monolithic philosophy that's the problem; it's the simple fact that we fallible humans have made mistakes in our reasoning and sometimes become stuck in conceptual ruts. All that's needed is a little corrective from time to time, which can be provided by a better philosophy. No matter who has it.

The false doctrine that would disqualify one from Temple worthiness is that which Sherem preached to the people when he said that there would be no Anointed One, leading them away to believe that the doctrine of the coming of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing. As 2 Nephi 28:12 says, "because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up."

So what can be done? 1 Nephi 15:13 says "and now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of our seed -- and at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved."

Or, as Deuteronomy 32:2 puts it, "My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

This is the New Doctrine of the Strange Gods which Paul reasoned about with the Stoics and Epicureans at the Areopagus; the doctrine he preached was that of the existence of Jesus, and the Resurrection. People were astonished at how Christ taught His doctrine of the House Built Upon A Rock to the multitudes by the sea side, for He taught as one having authority and not as the scribes. His doctrine was not His own alone, but rather also that of the Father that sent Him. The Lord says in Matthew 22:32 that "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob [and] God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

2 John 1:4 says "I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

The doctrine is to believe in a Father and a Son and a Holy Spirit of Wisdom as separate beings, and to love each other, and to witness that covenantal love by the ordinance of Baptisms. Pretty minimal; we're given correct principles, and we're left to govern ourselves. Trying to construct a fence around the Law so as to avoid even the possibility of sinning is what leads us to hyperlegalistic excess; we're to follow the Spirit.

Of course, Mark 7:5 says that "then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, 'Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?' He answered and said unto them, 'Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.'"

D&C 10, to the contrary, teaches us not to deny the doctrine of the Other Sheep who can be a part of the branch of the house of Jacob. Verse 66 says "Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. Behold, this is my doctrine -- whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church." D&C 138:19 says "And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall."

Again, the doctrine is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity.

For a few more quotes on "Doctrine" (which, as has been mentioned, is open to change based on further light):

101:77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

D&C 121:45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood (ie, that no power can or ought to be maintained by mere authority, but instead on gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned) shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

D&C 68:25 "And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents."

In Ezekiel 18, God cries "O House of Israel, are not My ways equal? Are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O House of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin."

In other words, to pervert the ways of the Lord means to be inequitable.

To me, it does not seem equitable to deny marriage to homosexuals.

I think it's possible to believe that working towards extending marriage rights towards homosexuals is not contrary or opposed to the accepted mission of the church, which, because every member has taken upon themselves the name of Christ, is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. (Inasmuch as we are not ourselves the Saviors of humanity, we are as salt that has lost its savor.) Affiliating and sympathizing with the groups and individuals who teach these particular precepts and practices, then, would not be grounds for revoking a Recommend, since they are not going against the everlasting Gospel.

The Gospel is "the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance." 3 Nephi 11:32 says "this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The Doctrine of the Gospel is, fundamentally, a testimony that He lived again.

In everything else, inasmuch as we err, we will be corrected from time to time.

When we witness a malfunctioning heterosexual couple, I don't observe many people saying that the heterosexuality itself was the problem; it was the people in the relationship that had the problem, not the type of relationship they happened to be classified within. When a stepparent does something bad to their biologically-unrelated stepchild, that is not a condemnation of stepparents in general, that's a condemnation of a bad stepparent.

Why, then, should we condemn homosexual relationships as uniformly inappropriate as if they are all identical? If there is a homosexual relationship which is caring and provides for the needs of the couple and any children they might have, what is left to condemn? Isaiah says to come reason with God; as far as I can reason, opposing a few statements from the fallible man Paul and the heavily redacted Desert Law in Leviticus does not add up to opposing God's purposes. (And note that if we are going by the extremely strict reading of the Garden story which I have witnessed some people propose in which God's Way is strictly one man to one woman, then we have ruled out polygamy, which was once one of the defining practices of our Church.)

I think the fundamental issue here is consent. If people are harming others, they are presumably doing so against someone's will. This is where things get really tricky. We humans can, of course, consent to doing very bad things; we can form a mob and consent to robbing a bank. On the other hand, we can consent to doing very good things; we can form a team and build a house. But the bank robber is going against the will of the people whose money he is taking; the house builder might be going against the will of the people who liked the view without the house. So it becomes a question of where we draw the lines.

But with D&C 132 as a guide, I think Latter-Day Saints have a framework in which homosexual relationships are workable. The point here is not how many people of what gender are in the relationship -- the point of 132 is to keep your promises. If you are in a polygamous relationship, keep your promises to all your spouses. If you are in a monogamous relationship, keep your promise to your spouse. Why can't this be extended to homosexual couples? The sin is not found in the particular social arrangement. Mormons, of all people, should be very wary about rejecting people because of their non-traditional sexual practices.

I don't want to minimize concerns. While I am deeply impatient with those people whose rationale for opposing homosexual relationships boils down to "they're icky", I know that there are people who are genuinely concerned with what they see as the negative impact that such relationships may have on the stability of the intergenerational culture we are trying to perpetuate. There are, in fact, legitimate concerns about the effect that same-gender role-modeling (or lack thereof) has on young children. There are legitimate concerns that the United Nations bring up that every child should have the right to parents. There is a very primal need for blood-ties, for people to know their biological kin. Etc. These are not light things, and this is not a light discussion to be rushed.

But I think these concerns can be addressed not by our current practices, but instead teaching people responsibility within good relationships, in much the same way that we try to teach heterosexuals to be good partners to each other.

(And as far as lesbian couples missing the Priesthood in their homes ... the easy answer, of course, is to extend the Priesthood which is "without father or mother" to women. But that's a separate thread. *grin*)

Edited July 19, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Good golly. That looked significantly shorter in the Reply box.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't believe in giving the same breaks all around. I believe apples to oranges is OK sometimes.

And I totally get that. But some people try to have it both ways, which is just poor form.

it is sometimes said (and I'm not saying you said this)... "Heterosexual couples can't have premarital sex, so why should we allow homosexual couples to?"

It's an odd argument that calls for equal treatment, but the reality is it's only calling for equal treatment under one circumstance (unmarried), and what goes unsaid is the unequal treatment that that they wish to apply under another circumstance (married).

It's apple to oranges. And I find it offputting when people try to equate pre-marital heterosexual abstinence with homosexual abstinence.

Under the Law of Chastity:

Heterosexual relations are good, but only under prescribed circumstances (lawful marriage)

Homosexual relations are bad, and at all times bad.

Apple to oranges.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CASteinman]

it is sometimes said (and I'm not saying you said this)... "Heterosexual couples can't have premarital sex, so why should we allow homosexual couples to?"

You don't have to speculate. I would say this. And the Church does indeed say this.

what goes unsaid is the unequal treatment that that they wish to apply under another circumstance (married).

Marriage is between a man and a woman. However, if someone who is homosexual wants to get married, the Church is not going to stop them. We have recently read several articles of homosexual men who were married -- happily so too.

And I find it offputting when people try to equate pre-marital heterosexual abstinence with homosexual abstinence.

Well, I will have to get over your annoyance with me, because not only do I try to equate the two... I actually do it. Chastity is Chastity.

Heterosexual relations are good, but only under prescribed circumstances (lawful marriage)

Homosexual relations are bad, and at all times bad.

I don't think "bad" but I can't think of a reason to object to that word. However, I use the term "not allowed" or "unlawful".. meaning the law of God.