Should beliefs about Homosexuality be included in the (adult) baptismal interview?

[cinepro]

The Washington Post has an interesting article about changing attitudes towards sexuality in America, where they note the following:

Quote

Between 1973 and 1990, the percentage of adults who believed "sexual relations between two adults of the same sex [was] not wrong at all" only rose from 11 percent to 13 percent. But by 2014, 49 percent of all adults and 63 percent of millennials expressed tolerance of these relationships.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/01/study-same-sex-experiences-are-on-the-rise-and-americans-are-increasingly-chill-about-it/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_draw

 

Obviously, we've all seen the trend for people being more accepting of homosexual behavior.  But the Church still holds that homosexual behavior is sinful.  As missionaries teach and prepare adults for baptism, is this issue something that should be clarified beforehand, even to the degree of making it a clear question for baptism?  Should someone who feels that homosexual behavior is not a sin in any way (but doesn't participate in such behavior because they're not so inclined) be accepted for baptism, or is this an optional belief?

Edited June 2, 2016 by cinepro

[Mystery Meat]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Washington Post has an interesting article about changing attitudes towards sexuality in America, where they note the following:

 

Obviously, we've all seen the trend for people being more accepting of homosexual behavior.  But the Church still holds that homosexual behavior is sinful.  As missionaries teach and prepare adults for baptism, is this issue something that should be clarified beforehand, even to the degree of making it a clear question for baptism?  Should someone who feels that homosexual behavior is not a sin in any way (but doesn't participate in such behavior because they're not so inclined) be accepted for baptism, or is this an optional belief?

Yes. I would also include it in temple recommend questions. But men smarter than I are running the show, so I will leave it to their competent and inspired hands.

[JLHPROF]

I kind of split the difference here.
I don't think it should be a baptism question.  Entering into the first principles and the first covenant requires only repentance and acceptance of Christ.
 
But I do think a correct understanding of eternal families should be required of those receiving temple recommends.  Those who do not understand the teachings eternal nature of families probably shouldn't be in the position to be creating them.  Like giving a drivers license to someone who doesn't know how to operate a vehicle or the rules of the road.

But your average 8 year old doesn't need to know anything about homosexuality and they can be baptized.  A convert can be held to the same standards for baptism.
Now, if that convert applying for baptism is openly and actively stating opposition to Church policies and doctrines...that's a much bigger issue.

[Daniel2]

Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates

Peggy Fletcher Stack

First Published Mar 17 2015 03:21AM    •    Last Updated Mar 17 2015 08:05 am

---

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake, left, greets top Mormon leaders, including apostle D. Todd Christofferson, center, and L. Tom Perry, second in line for the LDS Church's presidency, as they appear at a news conference at the Capitol to publicly endorse nondiscrimination bill SB296.

---

An LDS apostle reaffirmed recently that Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships — even though the Utah-based faith opposes the practice.

In an interview Friday with KUTV in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be in trouble only for "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's."

Backing marriage equality on social media sites, including on Facebook or Twitter, "is not an organized effort to attack our effort," Christofferson said in the interview, "or our functioning as a church."

The KUTV interviewer asked further if a Latter-day Saint could "hold those beliefs even though they are different from what you teach at the pulpit?"

Yes, the apostle answered.

"Our approach in all of this, as [Mormon founder] Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can't use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate. You can't compel, you can't coerce. It has to be persuasion, gentleness and love unfeigned, as the words in the scripture."

Christofferson echoed this sentiment in two January interviews with The Salt Lake Tribune.

"There hasn't been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn't support that if you want to support it, if that's your belief and you think it's right," Christofferson said after a Jan. 27 news conference.

At that time, he and fellow apostles Jeffrey R. Holland and Dallin H. Oaks spoke to reporters about the LDS Church's intention to support nondiscrimination legislation for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community as long as the measure provides some religious exemptions. The Utah Legislature passed such landmark legislation last week — with the blessing of the state's predominant faith.

Any Mormon can have a belief "on either side of this issue," he said. "That's not uncommon."

Christofferson made the point again in a Trib Talk interview Jan. 29.

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

In the KUTV interview, Christofferson further acknowledged that LDS leaders have evolved in their thinking about homosexuality, while maintaining that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"This is not a doctrinal evolution or change, as far as the church is concerned," the apostle said. "It's how things are approached."

All elements of society, "including ourselves, have gained greater understanding, especially in recent years," Christofferson said, "as we've seen more intercommunication, more sharing back and forth, more openness on all sides... [on the] social and physical science issues and all the other pieces to the puzzle."

The issue is now "coming into focus, but there are still a lot of questions we are seeking added understanding," he said. "We are still learning."

 

 

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Washington Post has an interesting article about changing attitudes towards sexuality in America, where they note the following:

 

Obviously, we've all seen the trend for people being more accepting of homosexual behavior.  But the Church still holds that homosexual behavior is sinful.  As missionaries teach and prepare adults for baptism, is this issue something that should be clarified beforehand, even to the degree of making it a clear question for baptism?  Should someone who feels that homosexual behavior is not a sin in any way (but doesn't participate in such behavior because they're not so inclined) be accepted for baptism, or is this an optional belief?

I'm all for scaling back on the rules and restriction, myself.  So I hope we're allowed to disagree with the Church as it pertains to gay marriage.   

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Washington Post has an interesting article about changing attitudes towards sexuality in America, where they note the following:

Obviously, we've all seen the trend for people being more accepting of homosexual behavior.  But the Church still holds that homosexual behavior is sinful.  As missionaries teach and prepare adults for baptism, is this issue something that should be clarified beforehand, even to the degree of making it a clear question for baptism?  Should someone who feels that homosexual behavior is not a sin in any way (but doesn't participate in such behavior because they're not so inclined) be accepted for baptism, or is this an optional belief?

The key phrase you quoted was "by 2014, 49 percent of all adults and 63 percent of millennials expressed tolerance of these relationships."  This is  an obvious sea change in attitudes toward what a neighbor does -- which we may feel is really none of our business.  Thus criminal laws prohibiting such behavior have fallen by the wayside, and there is no reason why some new question needs to be inserted into the baptismal interview.  Jesus set the example by hanging out with outwardly disreputable people and being very gracious to them.  He advised people not to sin, but was kind to them anyhow.  So should we all.  Just because our neighbor sins is no reason not to be kind to him.

For perspective, cinepro, we ought to consider how LDS Church members and leaders used to regard and treat ordinary heterosexual fornication, and how much the handling of such sin has changed.  From being viewed as the same as murder, it has become a sin to be repented of and overcome.  Likewise, bishops are no longer permitted by the Brethren to question what might seem to some to be offbeat sexual practices.  What happens in the bedroom now stays there.

I can see a problem for those LDS members who think that law of chastity does not include refraining from any sort of fornication (homosexual or heterosexual).  One must accept that before baptism, but am not sure how the question should be formulated.  Do you have a suggested formula?

[Duncan]

It cuts both ways. I have heard awful things said about homosexuals from so called High Priests and others and I don't get why that would be acceptable behaviour and possibly now you can't get baptized if you believe the opposite? what should happen to these guys who say stupid things, denied a Temple recommend? shouldn't we all be on the same page here? 

On a related note I know a guy here who is known for his racism and we were at the Temple and a black brother from Africa sat next to him the session, I wonder what that guy was thinking

[Mystery Meat]

35 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

 

Big difference between supporting legalization and advocating for acceptance within the Church itself. In other words, a person can think it should be legal, but still consider homosexual sex a sin.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Big difference between supporting legalization and advocating for acceptance within the Church itself. In other words, a person can think it should be legal, but still consider homosexual sex a sin.

That's an important distinction, but not one made clear by Elder Christofferson. It would be interesting if that were addressed. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Yes. I would also include it in temple recommend questions. But men smarter than I are running the show, so I will leave it to their competent and inspired hands.

 

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's an important distinction, but not one made clear by Elder Christofferson. It would be interesting if that were addressed. 

This was discussed here recently with Elder Renlund allegedly in favor of allowing temple recommends for people publicly supporting their son's marriage:

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rpn]

We don't ask people's views of the countless other things that can lead to sin.   Why would we single out sexual orientation?   Especially when lds doctrine is that being attracted to one's own sex is NOT in any way a sin.   Such questions would make it a bigger issue than it is.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

The Washington Post has an interesting article about changing attitudes towards sexuality in America, where they note the following:

 

Obviously, we've all seen the trend for people being more accepting of homosexual behavior.  But the Church still holds that homosexual behavior is sinful.  As missionaries teach and prepare adults for baptism, is this issue something that should be clarified beforehand, even to the degree of making it a clear question for baptism?  Should someone who feels that homosexual behavior is not a sin in any way (but doesn't participate in such behavior because they're not so inclined) be accepted for baptism, or is this an optional belief?

I think it is more understanding of homosexuality struggles, not behavior. Homosexuality feelings are not a sin and if morally clean baptism is allowed. Just like someone (a friend), like a friend of mine who is heterosexual but who has never married and has not committed a sexual sn was baptism. He is very awkward and shy, and has never married...yet he has remained sexually pure. There are many (and two are my friends) who have chosen celibacy, to remain pure. In fact there are millions who belong to other Churches who have chosen to be celibate to comply with their faith's beliefs, even though they still have sexual desire, with the world telling them how ridiculous do so is, and the mocking follows them everywhere. 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

This was discussed here recently with Elder Renlund allegedly in favor of allowing temple recommends for people publicly supporting their son's marriage:

 

Very interesting, thank you!

[Storm Rider]

Our baptismal interviews are about verifying a testimony in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, his Church returning to the earth with the sealing authority and fundamental gospel teachings, which had been lost, and determining if the individual understands what it means to become a member and taking upon themselves the Holy Ghost.  There is a concern about the repentant nature of the individual and is they are prepared to live a possibly new standard of living.

We are not concerned about how they views sin the in the lives of others - it is their sins and their repentance and forgiveness that are the focus.  

Over time the individual will gain a deeper understanding of scripture and the teachings of the Church regarding how a disciple of Jesus Christ should live their lives.  With this teaching they will gain a more complete understanding of the "Thou shalts and thou shalt nots".  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Big difference between supporting legalization and advocating for acceptance within the Church itself. In other words, a person can think it should be legal, but still consider homosexual sex a sin.

I believe one who advocates for acceptance of it within the Church ought not be approved for baptism.

It is comparable to Word of Wisdom observance. The Church doesn't excommunicate people for failure to obey the Word of Wisdom, but neither does it approve people for baptism who are not committed to living it.

To me, advocating for acceptance of homosexual behavior within the Church is at least as grave a matter as violating the Word of Wisdom.

In support of my view, I would offer the following passage from the link provided in Daniel's post above, the interview with Elder Christofferson:

Quote

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

I would say that advocating for acceptance by the Church of homosexual behavior amounts to "trying to pull people ... away from [the Church's] teachings and doctrines."

Edited June 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

This was discussed here recently with Elder Renlund allegedly in favor of allowing temple recommends for people publicly supporting their son's marriage:

 

Even if the alleged counsel given by Elder Renlund, was given as recalled (there was some question), it still doesn't conflict with what I said.

[Ahab]

 

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

As missionaries teach and prepare adults for baptism, is this issue something that should be clarified beforehand, even to the degree of making it a clear question for baptism?  Should someone who feels that homosexual behavior is not a sin in any way (but doesn't participate in such behavior because they're not so inclined) be accepted for baptism, or is this an optional belief?

I was 28 when I joined the Church, about 27 years ago, and this iasue was made clear to me.  It was covered by the missionary lesson about chastity and again during the questions they asked me after all of their 6 lessons prior to baptism.

In my case, since I had had same-sex sexual relations prior to baptism, I was interviewed by the stake president after I had said yes to one of the questions the missionaries had asked me.  They didn't know which question I was saying yes to specifically but since I had said yes to 1 of their questions they set me up for an interview with the stake president and I discussed the issue with him.  I acknowledged then that I then understood that it was wrong and would not do it again, vowing to live by the law of chastity as I then understood it, and he not only approved my baptism but also said my conversion experience and testimony was the sweetest that he had ever heard.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

 

I was 28 when I joined the Church, about 27 years ago, and this iasue was made clear to me.  It was covered by the missionary lesson about chastity and again during the questions they asked me after all of their 6 lessons prior to baptism.

In my case, since I had had same-sex sexual relations prior to baptism, I was interviewed by the stake president after I had said yes to one of the questions the missionaries had asked me.  They didn't know which question I was saying yes to specifically but since I had said yes to 1 of their questions they set me up for an interview with the stake president and I discussed the issue with him.  I acknowledged then that I then understood that it was wrong and would not do it again, vowing to live by the law of chastity as I then understood it, and he not only approved my baptism but also said my conversion experience and testimony was the sweetest that he had ever heard.

If you don't mind my asking, have you married since then and do you have children?

[rongo]

I don't feel that any update to the TR questions is necessary. When converts are taught about the law of chastity, this law should be fully covered. Including homosexuality, pornography, masturbation ---- anything "like unto it." 

That's one drawback of "Preach My Gospel." Not the manual itself, but how it is usually taught in practice. I find that investigators are overall much more poorly taught than when there was the minimum standard quality control of the discussions. This falls more on the mission presidents and missionary training, but it's a pervasive problem. And not just with the law of chastity, either. Core doctrines and fundamental elements of the restoration are poorly-taught, in practice. 

[carbon dioxide]

I personally believe that prostitution and all drugs should be made legal.  If I believe in the concept of agency, I believe people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it does not physically harm innocent people.  I also believe such people have a right to suffer whatever consequences that come from their decisions.  So no, a belief about homosexuality is not needed for baptism.  If the person is not gay, what does it matter?  If the person is gay, as long as they live the law of Chastity and it is explained in the general presentation that the only time that sexual relations are valid is when a man and woman are married then nothing further needs to be said.  

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. No, I don't think questions about "beliefs about Homosexuality {should} be included in the (adult) baptismal interview{s}" (over and above the questions already present in the list of interview questions).

2. The Church is trying to allow the members to have some latitude in addressing homosexuality.  It's a broad topic with many facets, about some of which reasonable minds in the Church can disagree.

3. I see no reason to single out "homosexuality" as some sort of litmus test.  There's nothing particularly special about it.

4. Lesson 4 in "Preach My Gospel" is rather clear about the Church's explanation of The Law of Chastity, including its prohibition against "homosexual or lesbian relations."  Similarly, chapter 39 in the "Gospel Principles" manual also specifically describes "homosexual behavior" as "a serious sin."  Further, the questions in the baptismal interview as published in "Preach My Gospel" include the following:

Quote

4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?

5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?

a. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between a man and a woman.

So it's not like the Church is hiding the ball or anything.  Investigators and new members know the Church's position going in.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 3, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

On 6/2/2016 at 8:57 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I personally believe that prostitution and all drugs should be made legal.  If I believe in the concept of agency, I believe people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it does not physically harm innocent people.  

Both prostitution and drug use have a substantial risk of "physically harm{ing} innocent people."

Quote

I also believe such people have a right to suffer whatever consequences that come from their decisions.  

Which is a separate question from legalization.  If drugs and prostitution are legalized, then people "have a right to suffer whatever consequences that come from their decisions."  If illicit drug use and prostitution remain illegal, then people still "have a right to suffer whatever consequences that come from their decisions."  Consequences will come either way.

Quote

So no, a belief about homosexuality is not needed for baptism.  If the person is not gay, what does it matter?  If the person is gay, as long as they live the law of Chastity and it is explained in the general presentation that the only time that sexual relations are valid is when a man and woman are married then nothing further needs to be said.  

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

I think they should add questions to the TR and maybe even the baptismal. I pay tithing but am I a jerk to poor people? how often do I forgive people, am I holding any grudges? are you nice to people? as I say I know a racist, homophobic member who attends the Temple why can he get in but someone who struggles with self abuse can't? (using the example of one of earlier posters used)

Mind you if we expect perfection in any interview then who can get baptized or attend the Temple? to quote Granny on The Beverly Hillbillies  "I ask you!"

[Kevin Christensen]

And there is this side of the thing, which tends to be overlooked by design.

http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 3, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[california boy]

To be consistent, anyone who supports gay marriage should be labeled apostates and their children should not be allowed to be baptized until they turn 18 and denounce their parents beliefs. We don't want children being put in a place where their beliefs are different than their parents

those who support gay marriage are in open rebellion against the Lords anointed  Next thing you know they are going to wear a rainbow ribbon to church

As a man thinketh, so is he