Jump to content

Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?


Recommended Posts

Elder Christofferson interview with KUTV, he is asked directly about Members supporting ssm.

 

Good discussion.

 

Here are a time frames of some of the questions (questions here are not exact)

 

1:30 Did the Church get everything it wanted?

3:17 Is the Church worried that future proposals might undermind the current bill

3:44

4:10 Members of the Church have been watching, can members of the Church support gay marriage?

6:02 Temple Rec question, does support of ssm affect a members standing,

6:27 Would support ssm threatened someones membership?

6:46 Members can hold those beliefs

7:13 How would you describe evolution of the Church on non-discrimination towards LGBT

9:48 Have Church Leaders gained a greatere understanding toward the LGBT community?

10:58 Were you personally involved in the negotiations on SB296

11:08 Has your family (gay family member) dynamic affected your approached?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

We can support it as long as it doesnt become an organized effort. Not sure exactly how I feel about this stance- kind of wishy-washy if you ask me.

I felt the same way. Men are men and make mistakes. It feels like pandering.

Link to post

Good summary tonie. Other very recent statements from church leaders and spokesmen can be found in this helpful blogpost at BCC: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/03/16/can-members-support-same-sex-marriage-and-remain-in-good-standing/

 

It's just my speculation, but this appears to be a planned effort to clarify the church's position as to members who support SSM. There's been a lot of confusion on that point. It's good to have some clarity, even if not all situations are addressed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Why would we support it?

Sure we are allowed to.  The Church gives men their agency without fear of discipline as long as we don't fight against the Church.

If we fight the Church on an issue then we get what we deserve.

 

But why would we want to support something our leaders have declared to be sinful (homosexual relations)?

I agree with Mola - total pandering.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

We can support it as long as it doesnt become an organized effort. Not sure exactly how I feel about this stance- kind of wishy-washy if you ask me.

 

I read the statements differently. Members can join organized efforts to legalize civil SSM. They just can't join efforts (personal or organized) which attack the church.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Why would we support it?

Sure we are allowed to.  The Church gives men their agency without fear of discipline as long as we don't fight against the Church.

If we fight the Church on an issue then we get what we deserve.

 

But why would we want to support something our leaders have declared to be sinful (homosexual relations)?

I agree with Mola - total pandering.

 

Elder Christofferson answered that one too; namely, because a member "thinks it is right."

 

 

There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it,” Christofferson said, “if that’s your belief and you think it’s right.” Any Latter-day Saint can have a belief “on either side of this issue,” he said. “That’s not uncommon.” Problems arise only when a member makes “a public, sustained opposition to the church itself or the church leaders and tries to draw others after them,” he said, and that support swells into “advocacy.” — D. Todd Christofferson, Jan. 27, 2015

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

 

 

Remember that we are talking about civil marriage here, not church weddings or sealings. It's no different than taking a different position from the church on ending prohibition, enacting the ERA, allowing for national missile defense systems to be set up in Utah, or repealing the 'Zions curtain' laws regarding alcohol at restaurants. Members are free to openly take different stances from the church on all these public issues. They just can't directly attack or demean the church or its leaders.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post

I felt the same way. Men are men and make mistakes. It feels like pandering.

 

 

...  I agree with Mola - total pandering.

 

 

So God will not let our leaders make a mistake regarding gay marriage, but He will allow them to make a mistake by allowing members to support gay marriage?  Hmmmmm.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Elder Christofferson answered that one too; namely, because a member "thinks it is right."

 

Remember that we are talking about civil marriage here, not church weddings or sealings. It's no different than taking a different position from the church on ending prohibition, enacting the ERA, allowing for national missile defense systems to be set up in Utah, or repealing the 'Zions curtain' laws regarding alcohol at restaurants. Members are free to openly take different stances from the church on all these public issues. They just can't directly attack or demean the church or its leaders.

 

I think that creating this separation of Church and State where marriage is concerned is a dangerous path and will only lead to confusion in the long run, even if we have the separation seemingly clear right now.

 

Marriage was created by God.  We are now trying to create a separation between God's marriage and man's marriage, which although it already existed is now becoming even wider.

Eventually the time will come in my opinion that the gap between God's marriage and man's marriage will have people attempt to narrow it.  People will not accept forever that they can be married by mortal authority but not by religious authority.

 

I am not for fighting political fights.  I kind of view politics as an English pantomime.  But I am not going to call two men married or two women married ever, because they aren't and cannot be.  I will not call something marriage that is not ordained of God, because marriage belongs to him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

So God will not let our leaders make a mistake regarding gay marriage, but He will allow them to make a mistake by allowing members to support gay marriage?  Hmmmmm.

 

No, I think God will absolutely allow our leaders to make a mistake regarding gay marriage.  And this is one of them.

Link to post

The Church has moved into a different direction when it comes to gay people. It used to be very harsh, now it's becoming more tolerant, much to many people's chagrin, it seems. It's reminiscent of interracial marriage and black people, generally, for that matter. Interracial marriage used to be death on the spot, wrong to any normal thinking person, type of stuff. Now it's pretty much acceptable, and to think otherwise is pretty backwards.

It'll be the same in a few years time for SSM.

 

This is true and very sad.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

This is true and very sad.

I'd agree that it's sad that the Church is so heavily influenced by culture and tradition that it can't change fast enough when new light and knowledge is coming from outside of it. I'd much prefer we lead the charge rather than follow after many years of digging in our heels for fear of change.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

new light and knowledge is coming from outside of it.

 

Dingdingding...we've found the problem.  Scripturally, God doesn't work that way.

 

D&C 43

For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

 

Only one source for "further light and knowledge" that can be applied to the whole Church.

It is contrary to the order of heaven for God to provide light for the Church from an outside source.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

No, I think God will absolutely allow our leaders to make a mistake regarding gay marriage.  And this is one of them.

Be careful how you publicly disparage the church and it's leaders.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Dingdingding...we've found the problem.  Scripturally, God doesn't work that way.

 

D&C 43

For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

 

Only one source for "further light and knowledge" that can be applied to the whole Church.

It is contrary to the order of heaven for God to provide light for the Church from an outside source.

 

To hell with Newton, Edison and Gates. 

 

The Prophets would have received all that "light and knowledge"........eventually.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

Dingdingding...we've found the problem.  Scripturally, God doesn't work that way.

 

D&C 43

2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

 

Only one source for "further light and knowledge" that can be applied to the whole Church.

It is contrary to the order of heaven for God to provide light for the Church from an outside source.

 

There's a difference between "light and knowledge" and "commandments and revelations".  While we expect that new commandments and revelations are going to add to our light and knowledge, they aren't the only source.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

JLHPROF,

 

I'm disappointed. I don't understand the fear and disdain for gay people who would like to be legally married and enjoy the same rights as other couples. Government has been involved in marriage for a very long time so pretending like it is just now getting involved to ruin marriage by allowing gays to marry is indefensible. The institution of marriage has been mocked for a long time so even if you view gay marriage as a mockery, it certainly wouldn't be the first. Of course many would point to polygamy as a mockery of marriage.

 

I have yet to see a good reason why a committed couple should not be allowed to marry and enjoy equal rights. This kind of descrimination is a mockery of God's command to love one another.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Dingdingding...we've found the problem.  Scripturally, God doesn't work that way.

 

D&C 43

For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

 

Only one source for "further light and knowledge" that can be applied to the whole Church.

It is contrary to the order of heaven for God to provide light for the Church from an outside source.

 

So, current church leaders can't have been inspired about more tolerence of gays? It's just a political/cultural reaction? Are you saying the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve haven't received further light and knowledge on the subject and those reaching out and publicly speaking on the subject (like Christofferson, Ballard, and Oaks, for excample) are not doing so with approval of their leadership? Is the Mormons and Gays site not the official stance of the church?

Edited by Boanerges
Link to post

JLHPROF,

 

I'm disappointed. I don't understand the fear and disdain for gay people who would like to be legally married and enjoy the same rights as other couples. Government has been involved in marriage for a very long time so pretending like it is just now getting involved to ruin marriage by allowing gays to marry is indefensible. The institution of marriage has been mocked for a long time so even if you view gay marriage as a mockery, it certainly wouldn't be the first. Of course many would point to polygamy as a mockery of marriage.

 

I have yet to see a good reason why a committed couple should not be allowed to marry and enjoy equal rights. This kind of descrimination is a mockery of God's command to love one another.

 

I agree, and whatever happened to the 11th Article of Faith?

Link to post

This is an interesting paradigm. My very conservative parents are quick to declare me as unorthodox, bordering on apostate because I choose to accept the idea that prophets can make mistakes and therefore I am responsible for determining for myself what is right. Yet they do the same thing. I may discount past statements and accept new ones, like Christofferson's, while they accept past statements but reject new ones. We both accept certain statements and reject others yet I am the only one considered unorthodox.

 

For example, they are positive that past teachings on race and the priesthood are correct and the new statements disavowing those teachings is false while I take the opposite approach. Perhaps we should all just realize that we will disagree on certain issues and it doesn't mean one side is better or more righteous than the other.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I agree, and whatever happened to the 11th Article of Faith?

 

I have never bought into the "rights" argument for the simple reason there are a number of different ways "rights" are given to people and individuals.  Marriage is hardly the sole source of any right.  If this entire movement was only about rights they would be demanding the specific rights desired; instead this is about something else entirely.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Be careful how you publicly disparage the church and it's leaders.

 

Hardly disparagement - questioning a political decision by our religious leaders is hardly an insult.  They are still God's prophets and apostles, who have admitted to making mistakes.  I just think this approach could be one of them.  Time will tell.

 

So, current church leaders can't have been inspired about more tolerence of gays? It's just a political/cultural reaction? Are you saying the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve haven't received further light and knowledge on the subject and those reaching out and publicly speaking on the subject (like Christofferson, Ballard, and Oaks, for excample) are not doing so with approval of their leadership? Is the Mormons and Gays site not the official stance of the church?

 

I think the leaders of the Church are trying to be as Christlike in the face of the sinner as they possibly can be, and for that I applaud them.  Loving our fellow man, even though a sinner, is exactly what we should be doing.

But the line between loving the sinner and tolerating the sin is a very very fine one.  Christ never did the latter and neither should we.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I have never bought into the "rights" argument for the simple reason there are a number of different ways "rights" are given to people and individuals.  Marriage is hardly the sole source of any right.  If this entire movement was only about rights they would be demanding the specific rights desired; instead this is about something else entirely.  

Yes, there are other ways to get the same rights but why should the government discriminate against certain couples and grant them legitimacy while refusing others if all deserve the same rights?

Link to post

To hell with Newton, Edison and Gates. 

 

The Prophets would have received all that "light and knowledge"........eventually.

 

Well Joseph taught the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy/mass...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...