Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[Calm]

"In my view, both acted immaturely."

My mother could be that grandmother (I don't know what she would choose) and I think it would be totally appropriate for her to have him leave because 1) she is physically and somewhat emotionally/mentally limited/over sensitive herself these days and just taking care of healthy grandkids who stop by throws her, 2) she lives alone in her home and needs to feel safe there which having someone who is unpredictable and verbally abusive with drugs or alcohol would not allow her to do...I don't even bring my daughter over when she is depressed because it adds to Mom's burden which is almost more than she can handle now and 3) smells make some people sick...I would have a serious problem with someone reeking of tobacco or MJ and likely alcohol (the smell of beer makes me ill) and I know a number of older people who end up with that sensitivity and the effect would not only be on the young man, but what he came in contact with and the grandmother would have to clean up after him, something that might be very difficult to do, if not impossible (my mom can't make her own bed).

While the ideal is that everyone care for those in need, sometimes demanding they do so ends up with them being the ones who are sick or in need.  I would think it appropriate if someone came to the door with a bad cold get refused entrance to my mother's home these days because that could kill her.  Perhaps she would need to call 911 as she shut the door on them so they could get appropriate care.  

If the young man in question was sober enough to get to his grandmother's home even if not sober enough to act completely appropriately, perhaps it was obvious to his grandmother that he was sufficiently able to get home or to a hotel and take care of himself.  It may not have been the first time he acted that way in her presence.  I see no reason to not to give the benefit of the doubt to her and to consider that the cost to herself might have been much more than the young man when sober would want (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as well).

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

"In my view, both acted immaturely."

My mother could be that grandmother (I don't know what she would choose) and I think it would be totally appropriate for her to have him leave because 1) she is physically and somewhat emotionally/mentally limited/over sensitive herself these days and just taking care of healthy grandkids who stop by throws her, 2) she lives alone in her home and needs to feel safe there which having someone who is unpredictable and verbally abusive with drugs or alcohol would not allow her to do...I don't even bring my daughter over when she is depressed because it adds to Mom's burden which is almost more than she can handle now and 3) smells make some people sick...I would have a serious problem with someone reeking of tobacco or MJ and likely alcohol (the smell of beer makes me ill) and I know a number of older people who end up with that sensitivity and the effect would not only be on the young man, but what he came in contact with and the grandmother would have to clean up after him, something that might be very difficult to do, if not impossible (my mom can't make her own bed).

I also thought it odd to fault (not merely fault, but publicly accuse and excoriate) an elderly woman because she was concerned at the prospect of having an inebriated/stoned person in her home, particularly one who expresses anger and yells at her.  

So what was it about her that made it okay for HJW and Daniel to put her in their crosshairs?  Ah yes . . . she was a Mormon.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the young man in question was sober enough to get to his grandmother's home even if not sober enough to act completely appropriately, perhaps it was obvious to his grandmother that he was sufficiently able to get home or to a hotel and take care of himself.  

Funny how neither Daniel nor HJW bothered to make any inquiries about such pertinent considerations before denouncing her.

Ah, well.  It's my fault for bringing her up.  I should've known she'd be treated this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Elder Oaks statement and last year's policy change both attempt to create a distance or separation between loving, committed gay couples and active LDS.

This story linked in my OP encourages more of an embracing, inclusive attitude.  As that begins to happen, it becomes more difficult to abide the doctrine.

I think that the policy and the story are sides of the same coin: fences and neighbors and all that. Here's a test: do we already have difficulty loving others who are different in terms of spiritual convictions affecting their standing? Of course. Are we often terribly caught up in making choices and our children making choices that exhibit outward commitment to our values? I think, as LDS, and like with any other group, many of us are.

We have to learn to hold space for those who will or cannot integrate fully in whatever we might commit ourselves to do. I think God has allowed us to have the opportunity to develop strategies to do this and to let them spread to the world.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Meadowchik

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also thought it odd to fault (not merely fault, but publicly accuse and excoriate) an elderly woman because she was concerned at the prospect of having an inebriated/stoned person in her home, particularly one who expresses anger and yells at her.  

So what was it about her that made it okay for HJW and Daniel to put her in their crosshairs?  Ah yes . . . she was a Mormon.

Funny how neither Daniel nor HJW bothered to make any inquiries about such pertinent considerations before denouncing her.

Ah, well.  It's my fault for bringing her up.  I should've known she'd be treated this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

The problem was that you compared this situation where the grandmother may have been in physical danger from a grandson coming to her home who was stoned and drunk. to a situation where her gay grandson comes to her home.  Being gay is not comparable to being a drunk and a drug addict.  I'm surprised you can't see why many here would object to your analogy.

(And if either Daniel or HappyJackWagon stated they objected to the analogy because the grandmother was Mormon, I missed that.  Can you quote them?)

.

Edited October 31, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is NOTHING respectful about the exclusion policy. It's shameful hypocrisy.

LOL (speak for yourself!) All are invited to become a parent in Zion, and any that do not accept are not under the same injunction to teach their children to be baptized at 8 years of age.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, should have left the wording of the law alone.

Now it requires interpretation by the Church.
The law we covenant to follow says what it says.  It used to be clearer/stricter.  Now it is less so.

No interpretation required! Just an explanation for those who don't understand the Church's definition, teaching and covenant of marriage, for those who really care and require one. The ordinary member as well as bishops, stake and temple presidents can handle that role!

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We have to learn to hold space for those who will or cannot integrate fully in whatever we might commit ourselves to do. I think God has allowed us to have the opportunity to develop strategies to do this and to let them spread to the world.

Charity is not a strategy, but it sure helps us see the long view, and graces our plans and tactics.

[strappinglad]

Last Sunday was combined Priesthood RS and the adults were shown 3 or 4 Church produced videos about SSA. SSM was not mentioned. The gist was that we need to approach the situation with love and Christ like attitudes towards such people who are struggling with SSA. The room seemed uncomfortable. To be fair I live in a quite socially conservative area. I don't recall the subject of SSA ever being presented in Church before in my lifetime. One member stated that most gays leave the church and don't look back. If true I fail to understand why any gay couple would want, nay insist , that a child under their custody be baptized into the Church before the age of majority. On the contrary, they should be thrilled with the policy and happy that the Church would not be " coming after " their children to further indoctrinate them with bad ideas like homosexuality is wicked.

As for SSM , what percentage of gays are participating in such unions? I read around 10% . Of those who do, what percentage see those unions as sexually exclusive? For men I am told it can be as low as 25%, for woman I understand it is much higher. OSM is not that far away. There must be more to the agenda than I can see.

Someone here asked how far Christ would allow the Church to fall into apostasy . All the way to the scene of the crash.

This idea of ' love the sinner but hate the sin '  is a very tough one to carry out. Then again , so is ' love your enemies ' . I fail and I sin. Gotta love me !

[Guest]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Someone shared this article with me.  It's on a Deseret Book owned site: Time Out For Women.  It tells the story of an LDS family welcoming and embracing (after initial reluctance) their daughter's wife.  They recount a bit of the history before telling how they ended up bringing the daughter's wife into their family picture.

Reading that story, on the website of a church-owned business, and contrasting it with what Elder Oaks stated in his 2006 interview (pasted below and still linked from MormonandGay.LDS.org) is one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades.

 

Loving parents like myself and my wife have resolved and changed the way we deal with our Gay child. We did not look to the Church, but to our hearts, the place where God has placed them for unconditional love and safety. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Last Sunday was combined Priesthood RS and the adults were shown 3 or 4 Church produced videos about SSA. SSM was not mentioned. The gist was that we need to approach the situation with love and Christ like attitudes towards such people who are struggling with SSA. The room seemed uncomfortable. To be fair I live in a quite socially conservative area.

My worry at doing something like that for a 5th Sunday would be my gay members. While it might sound good, I don't think it would actually increase empathy and understanding, and it would be very uncomfortable for the gay members in my ward (all of whom, in this ward, are under some form of discipline). I have been in other wards with gay members who are living Church standards and/or are in good standing with the Church, but such a thing would have been uncomfortable for them as well. 

I credit the bishopric for trying to do something. I think the Church-produced materials are better for individuals, as needed, rather than a large group setting.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Someone here asked how far Christ would allow the Church to fall into apostasy . All the way to the scene of the crash.

Interesting idea.

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

If the "doctrine" on homosexuality does change over the decades, I suspect it will happen very gradually, with many members of the Church insisting that "nothing has changed" with each small step.

 

That is how Satan works.  He usually can't get someone to to accept something big all at once but works gradually until he gets bound to his chains.

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Although to be fair, Jesus never performed the miracle of changing the heterosexual to homosexual.

There is no record of Jesus giving legs to someone who did not have legs but I am sure he could do it.

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

And?

As the Law of Chastity is written, any person entering a SSM can live this law. 

Explain how this is possible.  I am sure when the we all stand before the Lord that he is not going to be entertained or amused by people playing games like this.  We all know what they mean by "spouse" when that was written.  In the end, we all know exactly what the Lord means by "spouse" and "marriage".  Even the greatest lawyers in the world will not attempt get cute with the Lord. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[canard78]

10 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

Suppose your daughter were an alcoholic, or a drug addict. Note, I am not implying that being gay is in any way similar to being an addict. Could you still love your child and not want to have them get rip-roaring drunk in front of everyone? Or light up a blunt and toke away? Nobody wants their kids to do wrong in front of the whole world, and if you perceive homosexuality as wrong, why would you be OK with your kids flaunting it in front of others? Doesn't mean you don't love them. I have a son who was pretty much a kleptomaniac in his youth--we loved that kid to pieces, but we kept the valuables locked up and watched him like a hawk in public.

Suppose your daughter were born deaf. Note, I am not implying that being gay is in any way similar to being deaf. Could you still love your child and not want to have them use sign language in front of everyone? Or lip read in a group setting? Nobody wants their kids to do wrong in front of the whole world, and if you perceive deafness as wrong, why would you be OK with your kids flaunting it in front of others? Doesn't mean you don't love them. 

-----

This is what it's like to read comments like yours. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

 

Someone here asked how far Christ would allow the Church to fall into apostasy . All the way to the scene of the crash.

 

The scriptures do say that when God sends judgement upon the earth that it starts with the Church.  Which would imply that there will be many whose hearts are not directed towards God but the world and the pleasing of man.  The Church will not go into complete apostasy but it is possible for it to go 90% in apostasy with only a few remaining righteous people.  If the members adopt the ways of the world they can expect a judgement from God that is fitting for the world.

[strappinglad]

It was interesting to hear comments from a couple of single/never married sisters. They too felt a bit left out of the ' feast ' so to speak as the church is so family oriented and they , as yet , are not able to partake fully. I suppose they too can feel judged at times. To my knowledge there were no gay members in the room, but there were definitely folks there with gay family members, some of whom have left the church.

 One thing I did notice. The videos focused on gay males. The message certainly would apply to both sexes , but it may take another few years before some other taboos are crossed.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Charity is not a strategy, but it sure helps us see the long view, and graces our plans and tactics.

It does that but is also a strategy and the ultimate goal. Isn't that a coincidence?  

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Last Sunday was combined Priesthood RS and the adults were shown 3 or 4 Church produced videos about SSA. SSM was not mentioned. The gist was that we need to approach the situation with love and Christ like attitudes towards such people who are struggling with SSA. The room seemed uncomfortable. To be fair I live in a quite socially conservative area. I don't recall the subject of SSA ever being presented in Church before in my lifetime. One member stated that most gays leave the church and don't look back. If true I fail to understand why any gay couple would want, nay insist , that a child under their custody be baptized into the Church before the age of majority. On the contrary, they should be thrilled with the policy and happy that the Church would not be " coming after " their children to further indoctrinate them with bad ideas like homosexuality is wicked.

As for SSM , what percentage of gays are participating in such unions? I read around 10% . Of those who do, what percentage see those unions as sexually exclusive? For men I am told it can be as low as 25%, for woman I understand it is much higher. OSM is not that far away. There must be more to the agenda than I can see.

Someone here asked how far Christ would allow the Church to fall into apostasy . All the way to the scene of the crash.

This idea of ' love the sinner but hate the sin '  is a very tough one to carry out. Then again , so is ' love your enemies ' . I fail and I sin. Gotta love me !

It may be hard to understand but there are gay people and gay couples who want to stay active in the church.  And there are gay couples who also want their kids to be active in the church. I think that their reasons are both varied and personal. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It may be hard to understand but there are gay people and gay couples who want to stay active in the church.  And there are gay couples who also want their kids to be active in the church. I think that their reasons are both varied and personal. 

Apostates are welcome to stay active in the Church, but not as members until they repent. If “active” means doing absolutely everything a saint does, there would be some limitations based on worthiness, but all are welcome to participate as fully as they are able.

Dependent children living with apostates have claim upon their parents for their maintenance, so their level of activity is dependent on that of the apostate parents. Some forms of parental apostasy require the child to become of age and disavow the parents’ practices, a policy acknowledging the varied nature of apostasy and the very personal impact on a child’s development.

Apostasy over the doctrine of marriage is unique in that it is the highest ordinance one can receive, and “one” is actually multiple souls because this covenant is received in partnership with one of the opposite gender and in behalf of all who are born in that covenant.

Non-member gay couples and their children are likewise welcome to activity in the Church, to the extent non-members can be. They are not apostate in the sense they left the faith, but should they be baptized and continue as members, they would be.

[Buckeye]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

Someone shared this article with me.  It's on a Deseret Book owned site: Time Out For Women.  It tells the story of an LDS family welcoming and embracing (after initial reluctance) their daughter's wife.  They recount a bit of the history before telling how they ended up bringing the daughter's wife into their family picture.

Reading that story, on the website of a church-owned business, and contrasting it with what Elder Oaks stated in his 2006 interview (pasted below and still linked from MormonandGay.LDS.org) is one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades.

 

I haven't read all the posts, but I do agree that this DB article is marked departure from the practices of many LDS in their interactions with LGBT family members, as described (and proscribed) by Elder Oaks in 2006. Granted, there is no change of doctrine yet, but these changes in practice are necessary preludes to such a change. Time will tell if the changes continue.

IMO, here are the two key changes in practices as shown in the DB article excepts bolded below:

1. The author describes her daughter's relationship as a "marriage" and her partner as a "wife." This stands in contrast to the common LDS practice of downgrading such relationships as "so-called marriages" or using scare quotes " 'marriage' ." In his 2006 remarks, Elder Oaks used the phrase "partner" to describe the hypothetical son's relationship (which was probably accurate at the time considering marriage laws). In general, I've seen a lot of reluctance by many LDS to use the terms "marriage" and "wife"/"husband" in speaking of SSMs. This article is shows that such language is gaining acceptability. 
2. The author describes her daughter-in-law Rachelle as part of the "family." IMO, this is the really big development. LDS doctrine holds that SSMs are null and that persons united through such marriages are not sealed and cannot be true "family" in the eternities. I believe that is the concern Elder Oaks is addressing in his 2006 remarks when he teaches that parents should hold on to their children but not give any approval to the children's SS relationships (expressly or implicitly). In the DB article, the author does just that. She describes her daughter's SSM as valid and her daughter-in-law as family. If that attitude expands - and I believe it will, especially as grandchildren are born/adopted - then the LDS culture will mold such that a change in LDS doctrine can follow. That's the way all major doctrinal reversals happen. First the culture changes, then the doctrine catches up.

Quote

...

All of this was very heartbreaking for me and my family. I feel like I cried an ocean of tears and I never prayed so hard. I really had to do some serious soul searching to make sure I really believed what I had always said I did. Sometimes I felt like I had to choose between my daughter and the church I loved. It was especially difficult when eventually Courtney chose to marry her girlfriend, Rachelle.

During this time, I attended the temple searching for answers and for some peace. I was praying to know what to do and I was really hoping the heavens would open and I would be handed some kind of manual like, “What to Do When Your LDS Child Is Homosexual.” But that never happened. I kept getting the same prompting, but it was so simple that I had a hard time accepting it as my answer. Eventually, it came with enough regularity that I couldn’t ignore it. I needed to love my daughter and I needed to love Rachelle (Courtney’s wife). And more specifically, I needed to pray for Rachelle. Despite the clarity of the instruction, I kept questioning if it really was the answer because it seemed too easy. It just didn’t make sense to me.

...

Something else amazing happened in that moment. My husband was also witnessing this interaction between Rachelle and my mom – and his heart opened. After the picture, he pulled Rachelle aside and apologized. He said he was sorry for how he had been acting. He told them that he loved them both and that it was not their fault it took so long for them to meet, but his. They shared in a group hug and a few tears. I watched this moment from a few feet away and though I couldn’t hear what he was saying, I knew I was witnessing a miracle. Here was the father who couldn’t even say Rachelle’s name now hugging her and telling her he loved her. From that moment on we truly were a family. This is what true unconditional love looks like.

...

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Buckeye

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

I haven't read all the posts, but I do agree that this DB article is marked departure from the practices of many LDS in their interactions with LGBT family members, as described (and proscribed) by Elder Oaks in 2006. Granted, there is no change of doctrine yet, but these changes in practice are necessary preludes to such a change. Time will tell if the changes continue.

IMO, here are the two key changes in practices as shown in the DB article excepts bolded below:

1. The author describes her daughter's relationship as a "marriage" and her partner as a "wife." This stands in contrast to the common LDS practice of downgrading such relationships as "so-called marriages" or using scare quotes " 'marriage' ." In his 2006 remarks, Elder Oaks used the phrase "partner" to describe the hypothetical son's relationship (which was probably accurate at the time considering marriage laws). In general, I've seen a lot of reluctance by many LDS to use the terms "marriage" and "wife"/"husband" in speaking of SSMs. This article is shows that such language is gaining acceptability. 
2. The author describes her daughter-in-law Rachelle as part of the "family." IMO, this is the really big development. LDS doctrine holds that SSMs are null and that persons united through such marriages are not sealed and cannot be true "family" in the eternities. I believe that is the concern Elder Oaks is addressing in his 2006 remarks when he teaches that parents should hold on to their children but not give any approval to the children's SS relationships (expressly or implicitly). In the DB article, the author does just that. She describes her daughter's SSM as valid and her daughter-in-law as family. If that attitude expands - and I believe it will, especially as grandchildren are born/adopted - then the LDS culture will mold such that a change in LDS doctrine can follow. That's the way all major doctrinal reversals happen. First the culture changes, then the doctrine catches up.

 

5

Good observations.  I bolded your last couple sentences because I think that the cultural change is important.  As we look at the Church's past racism, first a majority of membership needed to arrive at a point where they would rejoice at welcoming blacks into full fellowship.  Then the temple/priesthood ban was lifted.  After a majority of membership had arrived at the point where they find past racist teachings to be too difficult to abide we got a disavowal of those teachings.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

then the LDS culture will mold such that a change in LDS doctrine can follow. That's the way all major doctrinal reversals happen. First the culture changes, then the doctrine catches up.

Good observations.  I bolded your last couple sentences because I think that the cultural change is important.  As we look at the Church's past racism, first a majority of membership needed to arrive at a point where they would rejoice at welcoming blacks into full fellowship.  Then the temple/priesthood ban was lifted.  After a majority of membership had arrived at the point where they find past racist teachings to be too difficult to abide we got a disavowal of those teachings.

As I've said before, this is true.  Cultural change is the biggest influence in doctrinal changes in the Church historically.
And the primary reason is that the Church operates on common consent.  The principle being that the members have every right to vote down any revelation from God or choose to sustain it.  The problem happens when the members reject a principle that actually was from God or embrace a principle that God had nothing to do with.

Polygamy, the 1920s  garment changes, the 1978 revelation, the 1990 temple changes, the 2005 initiatory changes, and many other things.
ALL came as a result of cultural changes among the membership.  Some for good, some not so good in my opinion.

The better question is whether any change moves closer to God's truth and law or further away from it, and whether we are able to put aside our own feelings to follow God.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I haven't read all the posts, but I do agree that this DB article is marked departure from the practices of many LDS in their interactions with LGBT family members, as described (and proscribed) by Elder Oaks in 2006. Granted, there is no change of doctrine yet, but these changes in practice are necessary preludes to such a change. Time will tell if the changes continue.

I am not persuaded that we are headed toward a change in doctrine.  The Sexual Revolution which began in the 60s has caused a significant shift in attitudes toward sexual behavior.  We are now about fifty years into that shift, which has affected not only society in general, but also the Latter-day Saints.  In the main, I think the effects have been harmful.  Divorce rates have skyrocketed (also largely attributable, I think, to no-fault divorce laws), as have abortions, STDs, and generalized promiscuity.  Aside from the plain sociological aspects of these issues, I believe we will be judged by God for such things.

Nevertheless, there have been some silver linings here and there.  The Latter-day Saints have, by hook or by crook, been compelled to reassess generalized attitudes toward those among us who violate the Law of Chastity.  We have, in fits and spurts, become more compassionate, more accepting and kind.  We don't really have a choice, as there are too many of us bending or breaking the Law of Chastity.

My point is that despite fifty years of a generalized social trend of normalizing/mainstreaming violations of the Law of Chastity, the LDS Church has not altered the substantive interpretation and application of that Law.  Fornication is still a deeply serious sin the LDS Church.  So is adultery.  And using pornography.  And sexual abuse.  These things are not winked at or ignored.  We don't elide around them.  Bishops and stake presidents around the world spend a substantial portion of their ministerial efforts addressing issues pertaining to the Law of Chastity (other biggies being financial problems, the Word of Wisdom, mental / emotional / physical health, marital/family difficulties, maintaining daily Gospel observances like prayer, scripture study, fulfilling callings, etc.).  These men are, I think, generally being counseled to reach out with more compassion and understanding, but I have seen no indication that they are being told that the parameters of the Law of Chastity have changed, that the prohibitions against fornication and adultery and so on are have become outdated, or anything like that.

So it is, I think, with the "doctrine" of the Law of Chastity as it pertains to same-sex behavior.  That is still a violation of the Law of Chastity.  I see no indication that this is changing.  We may be becoming more accepting and loving and compassionate toward those who engage in such conduct, and this is generally a very good thing.  We are all of us sinners in one way or another.  

The challenge, I think, is that some folks want the Church to follow the World and take same-sex behavior out of the "Thou Shalt Not" column.  That is, I think the proposed "change in the doctrine of homosexuality" that is under discussion here.  But is that happening?  Nope.  Will it happen in the future?  I really don't think so.  Will the Saints be maligned and defamed and slurred for maintaining adherence to prophetic counsel regarding the Law of Chastity as it pertains to same-sex behavior?  Yes.  Undoubtedly.  In fact, I think things will get worse for us.  We will even have elements within the Church work and speak against the Brethren on this issue (we've seen as much in this very thread).  That, in my mind, is the peculiar thing.  There is no widespread, orchestrated, public, pressure-tactics-using effort to lobby against and otherwise pressure and shame and coerce the Church into capitulating on its doctrines pertaining to, say, fornication or adultery.  But there is very much such an effort to pressure and shame and coerce the Church into capitulating on its doctrines pertaining to same-sex behavior (we see such things on this board all the time).  Sadly, these efforts will be advanced in part (championed, even) by some who have membership in the Church.  Hence the prescient counsel of President Harold B. Lee (emphasis added):

Quote

We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be, as President Tanner has said, "Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones." (Matt. 23:27) We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church.

Yep.

Quote

IMO, here are the two key changes in practices as shown in the DB article excepts bolded below:

1. The author describes her daughter's relationship as a "marriage" and her partner as a "wife." This stands in contrast to the common LDS practice of downgrading such relationships as "so-called marriages" or using scare quotes " 'marriage' ." In his 2006 remarks, Elder Oaks used the phrase "partner" to describe the hypothetical son's relationship (which was probably accurate at the time considering marriage laws). In general, I've seen a lot of reluctance by many LDS to use the terms "marriage" and "wife"/"husband" in speaking of SSMs. This article is shows that such language is gaining acceptability. 

I think this is more a matter of convenience and, increasingly, decorum and respect.  There simply is not a lexical term other than "wife" or "marriage" to describe same-sex unions which are now legal in much of the world.

But I don't think that represents a doctrinal shift.  People who talk about polygamists will generally make a lexical concession and refer to the female participants as "first wife" and "second wife" and so on.  That concession is more a matter of convenience than anything else.  It does not mean that the speaker is conceding that the polygamous relationships are legally valid.  And in an LDS context, such references certainly do not mean that unsanctioned polygamous unions are acceptable to God or seen as valid by His Church.  To the contrary, anyone who participates in such a union is excommunicated.

So the shift in terminology does not reflect a pending change in doctrine, IMO.

Quote

1. The author describes her daughter-in-law Rachelle as part of the "family." IMO, this is the really big development.

Not really.  I know plenty of families who utilize an expansive and flexible definition of "family."  Hawaiians have long had a word for it: Ohana:

Quote

Part of Hawaiian culture, ʻohana means family (in an extended sense of the term, including blood-related, adoptive or intentional). The concept emphasizes that families are bound together and members must cooperate and remember one another. The term is similar in meaning and usage to the New Zealand Māori term whānau, and its cognate in Māori is kōhanga, meaning "nest".

I love this concept, particularly because I was born in Hawaii and have many ties of love and affection to Polynesia (I have a Hawaiian sister, a Tahitian brother, a Samoan sister-in-law, and many Polynesian friends and acquaintances).  And I have never detected a tendency amongst Polynesian Latter-day Saints to treat Ohana as being synonymous with the sealing ordinance and the doctrines of the Church.

Quote

1. LDS doctrine holds that SSMs are null and that persons united through such marriages are not sealed and cannot be true "family" in the eternities.

Yes (well, "null" in the eternal sense - we recognize the legal validity of SSMs).  I don't see that changing any time soon.  

Quote

1. I believe that is the concern Elder Oaks is addressing in his 2006 remarks when he teaches that parents should hold on to their children but not give any approval to the children's SS relationships (expressly or implicitly). In the DB article, the author does just that.

Actually, I think Elder Oaks allowed for a spectrum of responses.  And given the developments of the last ten years, I suspect that spectrum has broadened a bit (as evidenced by the Church allowing members to publicly advocate for same-sex marriage and remain in good standing).

Quote

1. She describes her daughter's SSM as valid and her daughter-in-law as family.

Well, legally it is valid.  But I don't think she is making any claims that it is valid in the eyes of God, or that her daugher-in-law is sealed to her daughter by virtue of the legalization of same-sex marriage.  To the contrary, the LDS Church has specifically and categorically declared as follows (from a March 2014 letter) (emphases added):

Quote

Legal proceedings and legislative action in a number of countries have given civil recognition to same-sex marriage relationships, and the question of same-sex marriage continues to be widely debated.

...

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

...

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

I can't speak for the author of the article in the OP, but I suspect she can reconcile, and has, her love and acceptance of her daughter's same-sex relationship with the principles and practices set forth above.  This is kinda sorta new, but kinda sorta not.  LDS families have spent the last fifty years adjusting to declining sexual mores which have led to relationships and circumstances which, although in violation of the laws of God, nevertheless merit love and compassion and patience.

Last night I attended a family event for Halloween, during which I found out that a person in my extended family has moved in with his girlfriend.  I have very large extended family, virtually all of whom are LDS.  And yet there was no condemnation of this person.  No shock.  No outrage.  No shunning.  We all recognize that this living arrangement is not in accordance with the commandments, but we still love and accept this person - and his girlfriend.  Both have attended several family gatherings, and this will continue in the future.

So LDS families accommodating same-sex relationships is just a variation on a theme that has been playing out for many years already.

Quote

1. If that attitude expands - and I believe it will, especially as grandchildren are born/adopted - then the LDS culture will mold such that a change in LDS doctrine can follow.

I really doubt it.  Doctrine does not generally mold itself to culture.  And when it does, there are very, very special circumstances in play.  As to the Priesthood Ban, there apparently was no revelatory basis for it, so the doctrinal "change" in 1978 was, in my personal opinion, more of a correction of an error.  As to polygamy in the LDS Church, it commenced by going against the cultural grain (it's not like 19th century protestant converts were clamoring for polygamy), and also ended by going against the cultural grain (witness the turmoil and challenges between the first and second manifestos).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 1, 2016 by smac97

[california boy]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

That is how Satan works.  He usually can't get someone to to accept something big all at once but works gradually until he gets bound to his chains.

Really? Line upon line, precept upon precept is how Satan works?  Milk before meat is how Satan works?  Do you want to reconsider your comment?

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also thought it odd to fault (not merely fault, but publicly accuse and excoriate) an elderly woman because she was concerned at the prospect of having an inebriated/stoned person in her home, particularly one who expresses anger and yells at her.  

You are communicating in bad faith here. "I thought both behaved immaturely" is publicly accusing and excoriating an elderly woman? You seriously need to grow up and try having a discussion in good faith. Right now you are an unreliable, untrustworthy communication partner.

So what was it about her that made it okay for HJW and Daniel to put her in their crosshairs?  Ah yes . . . she was a Mormon.

If you recall, I was asked specifically (I think by you) what my thoughts were about the situation where the grandmother sends her grandson packing. You asked a question. I answered. HOW DARE I... Now you are accusing me of attacking her BECAUSE she is a Mormon. Was the fact that she was a Mormon even mentioned? Was the fact that this was a real situation even mentioned? It sounded to me more like a hypothetical...at least that's how I took it.

Funny how neither Daniel nor HJW bothered to make any inquiries about such pertinent considerations before denouncing her.

What should I inquire about? How did I "denounce" her. Denounce means- publicly declare to be wrong or evil: I didn't say she was wrong, or evil. Your hyperbole in making personal attacks against me are tiresome.

Ah, well.  It's my fault for bringing her up.  I should've known she'd be treated this way.

Yes, it is. If you ask a question about a situation (which I thought was hypothetical) you should be prepared for the answers. If you aren't, don't ask. You are clearly reacting emotionally to what you view as a negative comment about someone you care about. I get that, but throwing a tantrum because you don't like the response is juvenile. Don't ask the question if you can't take the answer.

Thanks,

-Smac