Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[HappyJackWagon]

Yes, but the claim made was the traditional marriage has been the same for thousands of years.  

Right. Traditional marriage in the church hasn't even been the same for the last 150 years.

 

So when we consider the various cultures through history there are multiple versions of marriage. There has never been one, universal definition of marriage, neither in the scriptures nor in culture.

Edited November 19, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[KevinG]

My apologies. So if that bishop didn't break a covenant or break the law, or do anything he's been told not to do, why are you being so critical and treating him as if he's done something wrong. Am I misinterpreting your intent? Why mock this anonymous person by saying something like "I'd like to hear from the Bishop who claims the Holy Ghost told him to reveal the contents of the updated handbook to the press."

 

He most certainly did not do anything illegal, and it is very unlikely he received instruction to keep the handbook out of sight of the public other than the general counsel included in the handbook about it being for leadership instruction and not published.

 

However someone scanning and posting the change anonymously and then tipping off John Dehlin who is known for his activism against the church leaders...  I question the ethics of the move.

 

Dehlin's subsequent exaggerations caused more hurt and panic than if the policy was allowed to work with the discretion of the Bishops and First Presidency.  I suspected the clarifications and judgement on the part of the Bishops would have resulted in the clarification without having the negative press, panic on the part of some people, spike in calls to the suicide hotline, etc.  My earlier comments before the clarification reflect that reading of the original policy.

[rockpond]

Regardless of motivation, do you ever stop consider the possibility that it"s the Brethren who may be following the Lord's revealed will and that it's those who are condemning the prophets on this issue who may be the ones who are in the wrong? Or are you 100% spiritually persuaded that you are in the right and it's the Brethren who are the ones in the wrong? Or to frame the question another way, do you ever have moments of deep reflection when you consider the possibility that you might be rebelling against the living prophets of God? I'm sure you must realize that since the days of Adam there have always been members of the Lord's kingdom who rebelled against the true prophets because they thought what the prophets taught seemed too harsh and unfair? And I'm also sure you must realize the war in heaven was fought because those who followed Lucifer rebelled against God himself because they too thought God's plan also seemed too harsh and unfair? But one thing is for sure, if I ever got to the point where I was publicly declaring that the living prophets are in the wrong on some important issue, there would be moments of grave doubt in my mind when a genuine fear would creep over me that I might very well be rebelling against the living prophets of God.

 

I did stop to consider that the Brethren may be following the Lord's revealed will.  I'm not 100% spiritually persuaded of either side.  I have lots of moments of deep reflection.  And, yes, I'm sure there have been past members who have disagreed with the prophets... most notably those who did not agree with polygamy and the race-based ban against ordinances.  I don't know if those who sided with Lucifer did so because God's plan seemed too harsh and unfair.  I don't think we can really understand why they made the choice they did.

 

Have you ever stopped to consider that you could be wrong in supporting this policy?  That perhaps the Lord expects us to reject this?

 

Consider Harold B. Lee:

 

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

 

And Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

Standard judge teachings of all men. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. 

[HappyJackWagon]

He most certainly did not do anything illegal, and it is very unlikely he received instruction to keep the handbook out of sight of the public other than the general counsel included in the handbook about it being for leadership instruction and not published.

 

However someone scanning and posting the change anonymously and then tipping off John Dehlin who is known for his activism against the church leaders...  I question the ethics of the move.

 

 

So you're admitting he didn't to anything wrong yet still think it was unethical. Am I understanding you now?

[rockpond]

I get the feeling that you're being flippant now.  I am coming at this conversation with the understanding that we both believe that there is good and truth in the Church and in the Gospel.  Thus, yes, I would think we could both agree that it wouldn't be good for a child to misinterpret the Spirit in a way that turns him or her away from the goodness and truth of the Church.

 

I can see how these concepts work firsthand. We rent the other lodging attached to our house to members of our ward.  It's been a year and it has been extremely stressful.  Their daughter is in my Sunday School class, and I suspect that the tension between her parents and me affects her perception of Sunday School.  How to remedy this?  I cannot remedy the tension between her parents and us on my own. Action on their part would also be needed.  The comparison is not perfect, but in my experience I can clearly see how tension between parents and Church can cloud a child's perception of Church, due solely to the dissonance between the two.

 

And, obviously, same-sex marriage is a quite unique situation for the Church relative to all others situations where Church and family are not consistent.  Do you not see that?

 

And yet you aren't kicking that family out of your rental unit.

 

I understand your point.  I believe that there should never be a conflict between the love of parents for a child and the truth of the gospel.  So, I think we need to take a step back and reexamine the whole situation.

[KevinG]

I feel the need to draw a Venn diagram between illegal, unethical, and unwise.  

 

He (whoever it was clerk, Bishop, etc.) did something wrong by scanning the passage and posting it on line.  

 

It was probably not illegal or at least not enforceable.  

It was against the policy on how to use the handbook.  

It was unethical from the standpoint of someone called to use the handbook in a certain way, yet abusing that trust.

 

The issue could have been brought up to the brethren without making a public spectacle out of it, and mis-characterizing what it said.  There would have been much less pain, fear, and loathing if it had been handled in counsels rather than the court of public opinion, and inaccurate statements made on top of it.

• "Punishing Children for parents' sins"
• "Children of Same-sex couples unworthy of baptism"
• "LDS bans acceptance of children of same-sex couples"

 

This is why so many of us chafe at the notion that the act of revealing the passage, out of context, and using it as a press opportunity, was not done in good faith.

Edited November 19, 2015 by KevinG

[Mystery Meat]

LOL absolutely love the red ink. Nice touch. You wouldn't happen to be trying to curse me with bad luck, death or endless pain would you?

I wouldn't blame you if you did.

 

Murder is Murder Mystery Meat. Even if it was justified as being an execution.

 

Just because some one is justified in executing some one else under the law, doesn't mean some one hasn't been murdered by some one else in the execution. All it means is the executioner is justified or aloud to do it with the blessing of the Magistrate. He would be held accountable by the law for not carrying out the execution. Just like Ms. Davis and the marriage license debacle.

In the case of Phinehas God didn't hold him accoutable for the murder because he was required by the law to carry it out. But it doesn't mean blood wasn't spilled. Two souls were murdered that day, justified by Law of course.

There are even times when executioners are considered murderers. Auschwitz ring any bells?

 

So let me get this straight... because the man was a "dirty slave driver and was beating a Hebrew" that justified the cold blooded murder, concealment of homicidal death, and fleeing the scene of a crime?

How exactly is that supposed to work when the exact scenario shows up in the Law God gives Moses just a few years later?

Exodus 21: 20-21

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,

21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Both Egyptian law and the Law of God convicted Moses he was a dead man both in heaven and earth.

Here's the earthly mandate for his death for murder.

Ex 2

15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

All Pharoah was trying to do at this point was bring him to Justice. And just so you know, Pharoah's not the bad guy in the story at this momment. Moses just turned to the dark side.

And to answer your CFR...

Moses was wanted dead or alive by both heavenly and earthly Laws. Just imagine how much weight was lifted off his shoulders when Heaven forgave his sins and God asked him to remove his sandals from his feet and let him enter the temple so to speak. God must have forgiven him or he'd of been dead. (Just sayin)

One other thing. If God mandated slavery as a divine institution in heavenly law in Exodus 21 above. What changed his mind and aloud our Modern Prophets to ignore his mandate and drop the curse of Cain doctrine and declare slavery wrong. They basically just slapped God in the face and called him a dirty slave runner. Is that no Blasphemy to tell God he was wrong? If they can ignore a mandate about something as abominable as slavery. Why cant our 15 ignore the Abominability of Homosexual relations? Slavery is a thousand times more reprehensible than SSM.

The Q15 are picking and choosing which laws of God they want to uphold.

 

Ummm... "where there is no law there is no sin". (Romans 5:13) And Murder didn't become a sin until God punished Cain for Abels death. Then Murder became a sin because God made the law that said murder was defined as sin at that point.

 

Exactly. So the levitical law was fulfilled with all its jots and tittles. All things have become new. And as we see with the Abominable shrimp. Shrimp is no longer "Abominable" under the new law. Which would mean all the other "Abominables" in Leviticus are no longer Aboninable any more either. So You can't quote Lev 11 in support of the "Abominableness" of Homosexuality without also bringing in all the other "Abominables" with it. If the Law is fulfilled then Levitcus 11 is out of the picture for support for the sinfulness of Homosexuality during our current dispensation.

God has wiped the slate clean and is starting with a new set of instruction just like he has done time and time again. He started with a New set of Instructions for Israel and got mad at them when they diviated from those instruction in the least little bit.

 

You're adding to the words of the Lord again you keep trying to slip in your favorite Abomination thinking I wont notice. Be careful because God pronounces terrible curses on those who try and do that. (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:19)

Lets let Peter tell us what our New Covenant instructions are.

Acts 15

6 ¶And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

12 ¶Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 ¶And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

What a simple Law!

- Don't participate in idol Worship and all that goes along with it

- Don't fornicate

- Don't eat strangled things

- Don't eat blood

I see none of the Leviticus 11 minutia on sex or marriage in this new law. Not a single word. Do you?

The only thing about sex and marriage is to not fornicate and What's that definition?

 

That's pretty simple.

Fornication pretty much covers all sexual sins outlined in Leviticus in one swoop even Adultery.

However this does cause a huge legal headache for all churches in the USA in regards to same sex marriage, especially because of the doctrines contained in the New testament of obeying the Governments and laws of the lands we live in. Judges and courts could easily use our own doctrine against us to force the issue. Even more so with us because of the Doctrine and Covenants. We have a double divine mandate to obey and follow the civil laws. We've already lost once on the marriage issue, I can see it happening again with precedence.

This also causes issues in defining sex between Married same Sex partners a sin and excommunicating them for it. Our own doctrine makes it easy for any person to force the issue legally by simple appealing to the D&C.

I think the new policy could find itself legally challenged.

 

Our own doctrine invalidates defining sex between Married homosexuals a sin. I think our new policy is legally challenged see above.

As to the rest we both kind of repeated our self.

And to set the record straight, I'm not advocating my favorite sin. I'm a straight married card carrying member too.

And me asking about your sins... sorry for prying... aren't we taught in scripture to confess our sins one to another publicly? Paul wasn't ashamed to do it on quite a few occasions. Calling oneself a murderer publicly is a pretty bold move. And I have plenty of sins myself.

If you feel I put words in your mouth I apologize. Thank you for your patients with putting up with cranky old me

 

Okay, you obviously don't get it. I think I am done.

[Ahab]

What would that revision look like? How would the law read if those who want change could rewrite it?

Depends on what the revisioners would want to convey. Our side would state what I said we do not support and any opposed to that revision/clarification could want whatever they labelled a marriage as being okay.

[Rivers]

The definition of chastity wouldn't need revising. The definition of marriage would need to be changed. The Proclamation on the Family would need revising.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Rivers

[Meadowchik]

And yet you aren't kicking that family out of your rental unit.

 

I understand your point.  I believe that there should never be a conflict between the love of parents for a child and the truth of the gospel.  So, I think we need to take a step back and reexamine the whole situation.

 

It's actually gotten bad enough that we've considered it. They've threatened us and yelled at us more than once. But, that's another story...The resolution, though, for all parties in the case of our neighbors is that we all repent and be more mindful of one another.  If done, no one need break up a home or a family.  Yet it's a different story for same-sex married couples.

 

There actually does not have to be a conflict "between the love of parents for a child and the truth of the gospel." There is no conflict between love and truth.

 

I believe I understand your point of view, that because the same-sex couple loves each other, and wants to participate in the Church, that their marriage should be accepted within the Church. I speculate that, to you, because it seems good to you and to them, that therefore, it must be good and God approves.  Or something like that.

 

That said, I do not necessarily believe that the spouses loving another sincerely qualifies all aspects of the relationship as God-approved.  I know that the prevailing litmus test in current liberal society is that the relationship need only be between two consenting adults, yet that doesn't make it God's requirement.  He sees more than we do.

 

If I had to guess, I would say that despite their years and generation, the First Presidency most likely has examined the facts of actual loving same-sex couples wanting to be welcomed in the Church.

[Steve-o]

I feel the need to draw a Venn diagram between illegal, unethical, and unwise.  

 

He (whoever it was clerk, Bishop, etc.) did something wrong by scanning the passage and posting it on line.  

 

It was probably not illegal or at least not enforceable.  

It was against the policy on how to use the handbook.  

It was unethical from the standpoint of someone called to use the handbook in a certain way, yet abusing that trust.

 

The issue could have been brought up to the brethren without making a public spectacle out of it, and mis-characterizing what it said.  There would have been much less pain, fear, and loathing if it had been handled in counsels rather than the court of public opinion, and inaccurate statements made on top of it.

• "Punishing Children for parents' sins"
• "Children of Same-sex couples unworthy of baptism"
• "LDS bans acceptance of children of same-sex couples"

 

This is why so many of us chafe at the notion that the act of revealing the passage, out of context, and using it as a press opportunity, was not done in good faith.

This is a good point. My only question is about how the issue would be brought to the awareness of the Brethren. Is there an outlet  or method for upward communication from local leaders?

[Deborah]

I don't like the church policy because I don't think it is needed.

 

I agree with this to a point. Since bishops or mission presidents (or missionaries if no issues) have always interviewed young people before baptism I think any problems would have been discovered.

 

However, I'm wondering if the First Presidency sees something down the road where we may need this in writing. Remember too this was implemented apparently because of problems they were seeing throughout the world. We get so involved in our own little circles, forgetting this is a world wide church and it doesn't just affect us.

[KevinG]

This is a good point. My only question is about how the issue would be brought to the awareness of the Brethren. Is there an outlet  or method for upward communication from local leaders?

 

They would know the moment a Bishop saw a need for an exception and called Salt Lake City.  It would likely go through the Stake and Area Presidency first, but enough questions and the brethren would have had to clarify anyway.

 

However if someone felt it was important to contact them directly the address is here:

Office of the First Presidency; 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

47 East South Temple Street,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

 

My cynicism at Dehlin's motivations, and the motivations of others who made this a public spectacle, is not reserved for critics of the LDS church alone.  I usually question the motives of someone who goes to the press first.  Its like the customer who demands to talk to a manager before giving a customer service representative a chance to help them resolve an issue.

Edited November 19, 2015 by KevinG

[bluebell]

The church has long taught that by the time children reach the age of eight they are accountable for "their" actions, and thus they can be baptized. This is a core teaching that is backed by scripture:

 

 

 Now the church has gone directly against this core teaching by withholding this saving ordinance from a targeted group of children.  Not because of what they have done, but because of the supposed "sins" of their parents.  

 

But the church has never taught that a minor's wishes to be baptized are the only thing that matters.  It has never taught that the agency of the minor trumps everything else.  It has often made a child wait to be baptized because of the choices of the parents though.

 

Besides that, the scriptures don't ever talk about children who live in homes not compatible with gospel doctrine. 

 

That's why i find these 'what about the agency of the child??!!' arguments a bit disingenuous.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by bluebell

[rockpond]

They would know the moment a Bishop saw a need for an exception and called Salt Lake City.  It would likely go through the Stake and Area Presidency first, but enough questions and the brethren would have had to clarify anyway.

 

However if someone felt it was important to contact them directly the address is here:

Office of the First Presidency; 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

47 East South Temple Street,

Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

 

My cynicism at Dehlin's motivations, and the motivations of others who made this a public spectacle, is not reserved for critics of the LDS church alone.  I usually question the motives of someone who goes to the press first.  Its like the customer who demands to talk to a manager before giving a customer service representative a chance to help them resolve an issue.

 

Members have been instructed not to write to the FP.

 

Are you saying that Dehlin took this policy change to the press?  Is there any evidence of that?  Or are you considering social media as equivalent to the press?

 

Since Dehlin is not a member, he would have no reason to take this to the Church.

[Maestrophil]

Good question.  First, if I can, let me adjust it a bit.  I would never anticipate that homosexual sex outside of marriage be sanctioned as righteous.  I think we need to stick with the law of chastity that all sexual relations be confined to the bonds of marriage.

 

That said, if I knew that the Church would never accept gay marriage as righteous -- I'd want the Brethren to work to eliminate the impression among members that sexual orientation is a choice.  I'd want the Brethren to encourage wards/branches to find ways to reach out to their gay & lesbian members... probably in many of the same ways we currently work with single adults.  I'd want the Church to not make policies that single out gay people and make them out to be unfit to raise righteous kids.  Even if they can't be recommend holders, I think we ought to allow gay married couples to keep their membership.

 

The problem is that - first you state that " if I knew that the Church would never accept gay marriage as righteous..." then the end of your thought is, "...I think we ought to allow gay married couples to keep their membership."  The boondoggle here is: How do you affirm SSM is not righteous, let allow members purposefully and unrepentantly engaging in that act to remain members in good standing?  

[Maestrophil]

I agree with this to a point. Since bishops or mission presidents (or missionaries if no issues) have always interviewed young people before baptism I think any problems would have been discovered.

 

However, I'm wondering if the First Presidency sees something down the road where we may need this in writing. Remember too this was implemented apparently because of problems they were seeing throughout the world. We get so involved in our own little circles, forgetting this is a world wide church and it doesn't just affect us.

 

I have been wondering similar things.  Might the brethren feel a need to codify that SSM is contrary to the purposes of God in an official capacity?

[Damien the Leper]

Apparently the U.S. Catholic bishops can't be outdone by the LDS church.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/us_bishops_are_rewriting_voter_guide_to_include_same_sex_marriage_as_intrinsic_evil

This is depressing and annoying.

[rockpond]

The problem is that - first you state that " if I knew that the Church would never accept gay marriage as righteous..." then the end of your thought is, "...I think we ought to allow gay married couples to keep their membership."  The boondoggle here is: How do you affirm SSM is not righteous, let allow members purposefully and unrepentantly engaging in that act to remain members in good standing?  

 

None of us are 100% righteous.

 

We believe divorce is wrong but we still let divorced people keep their membership.

 

Call me crazy, but I think there would be a lot less pushback from members on a policy allowing gay married members to retain their membership (though not qualify for temple recommends) than there was for the Nov 5 additions to the handbook.

[bluebell]

I think it's interesting how the author of the article implies that "voting to support your beliefs" is an "attack on those you disagree with."

[CV75]

None of us are 100% righteous.

 

We believe divorce is wrong but we still let divorced people keep their membership.

 

Call me crazy, but I think there would be a lot less pushback from members on a policy allowing gay married members to retain their membership (though not qualify for temple recommends) than there was for the Nov 5 additions to the handbook.

Getting back to my unanswered questions in #88:

 

How did your stake leaders go about asking the First Presidency  about the medical use of marijuana, and how is this on a par with asking the First Presidency about the recently added policy?

 

Or on a par with "allowing gay married members to retain their membership (though not qualify for temple recommends)"?

 

Is there another, perhaps better example [than the medical use of marijuana] that mirrors these kinds of questions and concerns you have over the new policy or suggestions for new policies?

[rockpond]

Getting back to my unanswered questions in #88:

 

How did your stake leaders go about asking the First Presidency  about the medical use of marijuana, and how is this on a par with asking the First Presidency about the recently added policy?

 

Or on a par with "allowing gay married members to retain their membership (though not qualify for temple recommends)"?

 

Is there another, perhaps better example [than the medical use of marijuana] that mirrors these kinds of questions and concerns you have over the new policy or suggestions for new policies?

 

I'm a little confused at the nature of your question.  Our SP asked the FP via a letter.  I think that's how it's always done.  And any exception to the existing policy would, I presume, follow the same pattern.  I didn't say that medical marijuana use was an absolute equivalent to the new gay marriage related policies, I was just pointing out that my SP is willing to go to the FP in response to members concerns.

 

Your quote of my comment about allowing gay married members to retain membership was something I said in an entirely different conversation when MaestroPhil asked what I might suggest to make gay members feel more welcome in our church.

[Deborah]

I will state what I said on another thread: I'm wondering if the First Presidency sees something down the road where we may need this in writing. Remember too this was implemented apparently because of problems they were seeing throughout the world. We get so involved in our own little circles, forgetting this is a world wide church and it doesn't just affect us.

 

Also why do people always resort to sensationalist hypothetical scenarios. This is why we have church leaders to receive inspiration on this. They have been doing this a long time.

[CV75]

I'm a little confused at the nature of your question.  Our SP asked the FP via a letter.  I think that's how it's always done.  And any exception to the existing policy would, I presume, follow the same pattern.  I didn't say that medical marijuana use was an absolute equivalent to the new gay marriage related policies, I was just pointing out that my SP is willing to go to the FP in response to members concerns.

i just saw an opening to try to tie up the loose ends of our conversation.

 

I was trying to understand how a Stake President goes about asking the First Presidency a question. It is interesting to me that he writes a letter directly to the First Presidency, as I thought he or his question might have to go through layers of leadership. A simple letter seems to permit pretty tight access.

 

Has your Stake President acted on your concerns over this new policy or suggestions for gay members in this way? What do you think it would take for him to do that?

[rockpond]

i just saw an opening to try to tie up the loose ends of our conversation.

 

I was trying to understand how a Stake President goes about asking the First Presidency a question. It is interesting to me that he writes a letter directly to the First Presidency, as I thought he or his question might have to go through layers of leadership. A simple letter seems to permit pretty tight access.

 

Has your Stake President acted on your concerns over this new policy or suggestions for gay members in this way? What do you think it would take for him to do that?

 

I think that my SP would only send a letter in response to a specific situation that had been pushed up from the ward level and pushed by the member (which is what happened with the medical marijuana example I cited).  I am not aware of any such situation in my ward so I don't see him sending a letter at this time.