An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

The part where I truly struggle as a member who wants to be as loving and accepting as possible is with the romance and sex portion of the discussion.

Bro. Weed mentions that he believed that everyone is entitled to romantic love - I bristle at the word "entitled."  Are we really entitled to romance, good sex lives?  I would wager to say there are MANY temple marriages that lack both of those elements and still succeed.  Should those people just call it off so they can get what they "deserve"?  Or is a commitment in the temple something that means sacrificing self - and IF you get romance and good sex with it - all the better for you.  

In order for me to be "accepting" of LGBTia people in the way I feel they and their defenders want me to as an LDS, I would need to reject the importance of the Law of Chastity, and the statement of gender importance in the Proclamation to the Family.  I firmly believe in my soul that the Lord loves all his children, and so should I.  I don't judge anyone for choosing to violate the laws of the church in order to feel happier in a gay lifestyle, just like I don't judge my hetero friends who choose to live outside the bounds set by the church (and I believe by the Lord).  Yet, their choices are outside the bounds that LDS are told the Lord has set.  

 

How do we reconcile this?  If I hold fast to feeling that it is (at least currently)not possible to live in an active same sex relationship and maintain temple worthiness or active membership, can I ever truly be considered accepting by the LGBT community.  That is the impasse I see.

 

 

I think you bring up the core of what many members are trying to balance in how they treat gay relationships.  Certainly I have seen my own family deal with this issue.  I am sure this very issue is what caused them to exclude me from any family functions for 15 years.  But eventually feelings changed.  I am not even sure what caused those feelings to change.  One day, my father was willing to meet for the first time, my partner.  That simple meeting snowballed rapidly to once again being able to have a relationship with not only him, but also my brothers and sisters.  I can't offer a lot of insight as to what caused the change. Perhaps talking to others that have been able to navigate that bridge would be helpful.  I do think that timing had a lot to do with it.  I think everyone thought that enough is enough.  They wanted me back in their lives.  Maybe they were just looking for a way to make that first step. 

I remember after my excommunication, I got a call from one of those who set in on that court.  While I knew most of the men in that room quite well, I didn't know him very well.  He asked if he could have lunch with me.  We met later that week.  He told me that his brother was gay.  It took 25 years for the family to navigate that same bridge you speak of.  I think his thoughts on the subject would really be helpful for others in the church.  

While I don't know what Bro Weed means by his statement, I do believe that we can respect the choices someone makes, even in romantic relationship without rejecting the Law of Chastity.  Neither family ever rejected the Law of Chastity to navigate that bridge.  You might be over reacting to what is actually needed to be more inclusive.  

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

This has been discussed before in this forum.  It seems to me that the proclamation was elevated to "revelation" long after the fact.

Yes, that tale has been passed around in certain circles. It has also been quite effectively rebutted.

When we go back and look at what the brethren have said about the Proclamation from the day it was first read to the women's session of Conference (it wasn't called that at the time, but that's certainly what it was) it has always been seen as revelatory. 

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

  Almost like a doubling down like was done with the November policy.  It also turned into a revelation after the fact.  I believe in an attempt to stem the rise of opposition.  

"After the fact" - only marginally later than the Proclamation was.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Those last two quotes that you represented as my words are not mine (they were quotes written by someone else).  Can you please fix that or clarify for anyone reading your post?

Well, they weren't "represented" as being your words; at least, not by me. However, since I inadvertently didn't atTRIBute them to their actual source, I've now done so.

So, how about a source for the claim that the Church's teachings are causing all those suicides? Preferably a credible source.

Thanks!

Edited January 30, 2018 by kiwi57

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe that when the apostles claim it was revelation that they are lying?

Sincere question, I don’t mean for it to sound like a gotcha. I’m just trying to understand how you reconcile a leader who says something was a revelation only to prevent opposition after the fact, with your views on their personal integrity.

With the November policy it was only one apostle that claimed it was a revelation, after the fact.  Also this was after the "policy" was modified. So which version would be the revelation?  The original version, or the one they modified after the public backlash.  Also, we need to keep in mind that it was called a policy at first.  If it was a revelation, then why didn't the prophet himself claim it as such?  Instead it was slipped into the handbook.  The Proclamation on the family was never claimed to be a revelation by the prophet.  Why?  In 2011, Boyd Packer’s gave a General Conference talk in which he  made a reference to the Proclamation as “a revelation” over the pulpit.  But this was later redacted in the official written and published version of the talk.  So apparently it wasn't a revelation when it came out, and it wasn't a revelation at the time of the 2012 General Conference, but now it is because Dalian Oaks says it is?  To me this seems to be a dubious history for something the is now claimed to have come from god.  

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, that tale has been passed around in certain circles. It has also been quite effectively rebutted.

When we go back and look at what the brethren have said about the Proclamation from the day it was first read to the women's session of Conference (it wasn't called that at the time, but that's certainly what it was) it has always been seen as revelatory. 

"After the fact" - only marginally later than the Proclamation was.

CFR that it has been "effectively" rebutted.  

[pogi]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I wanted to address this part of your post separately.  I think it deserves a separate response.  Again, I don't think you can make the blanket statement "as we know that leaving a faith increases risk of suicide" quite yet.  

You are right, I wouldn't ever want to make a blanket statement about this subject.  Suicide prevention should always be on an individual basis and approach.  I don't bring this point up from a defensive position of the church, but from the position of empathy and concern for those suffering with this heavy burden.  The study provides best evidence for effective suicide interventions among LGBT.  This is not a faith biased study.  While, I agree that every study has limitations, the findings are compelling enough to have important implications for clinical practice.  And the authors feel that the evidence is strong enough to even suggest interventions based on the evidence:

Quote

 

Conversely, parental beliefs and leaving the religion of origin were associated with a suicide attempt in the last year. This has important implications on clinical practice, as direct interventions that are focused on reducing suicide by diminishing feelings of internalized homophobia alone may be ineffective with this population. Further, this finding suggests that relationships (parental, and religious community) may be more impacting on deterring a suicide attempt than one’s own gay self-concept, and adds evidence for family-centered approaches such as those being explored by other researchers in the area (e.g., Family Acceptance Project; Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, Sanchez, 2010).

...There were two important clinical implications found in the current study. First, it may seem counterintuitive that when individuals choose to leave their religion in order to experience more self-acceptance that they inadvertently experience more risk for suicide. Clinicians should be aware that leaving one’s religion of origin may add additional stressors that ultimately place a client at additional risk for suicide. Further, the negative impact felt from leaving one’s religion due to conflict has a stronger impact than the positive indirect impact through a reduction in internalized homophobia. As many LGBT young adults often experience multiple levels of loss, clinical interventions should ideally entail a plan for enhancing supportive resources without risk of further isolation from communities of historical significance to the client (i.e., loss of community, potential loss of protective belief structure). 

 

That is compelling enough for any clinician, friend, or family member, who really cares about their LGBT loved one, to think twice before suggesting the "gut-feeling" advice to simply leave the church.  That might just be the worst advice he/she can receive in terms of suicide risk reduction. 

The big take away: "relationships (parental, and religious community) may be more impacting on deterring suicide attempt than one's own gay self-concept."  That is profound!  "FAMILY-CENTERED APPROACHES."  Yes!!! The good news is that these are all interventions that the church can implement.  We already have the foundation built, but for some reason homonegativism has overpowered the core doctrines and teachings of the church on the family.  That needs to change!  The shaming needs to stop!  LGBT kids need to feel accepted and loved by their families and faith communities.  We don't need to approve of a life-style to accept the person in love.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Here is what i can tell you.  I did have to get over the shame of being gay.  That took a long time but it happened within the confines of the church.  Do I think the church helped with that?  Possibly.  The church did teach me to have a more personal relationship with Christ and to never rely on the opinions or beliefs of others, including church leadership.  It does get better.  Maybe if gay youth could see more successful gay couples succeed in the church, that would help.  But we all know that is not going to happen.  Unfortunately not all gay youth see successful gays outside the church either.  So they feel like that is not a possibility.  Maybe I should start holding firesides about successfully navigating through life as a gay member.  Probably the first thing I would tell those youth is to start making friends with those gays that have found happiness and joy in this life.  It is possible for them as well.  If there is hope for happiness, there is less thinking that suicide is the only option. 

Yeah, I am probably going to get clobbered for this post.  But you asked.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.  I think fire-sides for gay youth is an outstanding idea actually!  "Hope for happiness" is a great message.  The only part that I would clobber you for is the successful gay couple modeling part, but other then that, I don't see anything wrong with this.   

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

You may believe these things and I respect that.  But you cannot "know" what will take place after we die.  I have faith in a life after death (and there is evidence of that being true), but it's still just a hope or belief.  Even from there, it's just belief and faith regarding what may or what will actually transpire. 

I actually believe that no one will be forced to be with another (as in living polygamy for one example) and that no one we love will be kept from being with us (if they love us too and want to be with us). 

I have hope this is true....but even I can't or don't "know" how things will be.  

Many misuse the word "know" when it's really just a "belief" or "having faith in" or "hope".

Sir, where is there any ambiguity in LDS doctrine that heterosexual marriage is required for exaltation? Where in all of LDS canon is homoseuxality not condemned? My reasoning upon the eternities are based squarely upon known doctrine. What “will be” is reasoned upon my knowing of what is and has been. God may reveal that homosexual marriage can get you exalted. I’m fine is He does reveal such a thing. I’d be very confused but fine. But the likelyhood of that happening is about as close to zero as you can get.

So, what I know are the doctrines of the Church. What I believe is based on what I know regarding the doctrines of the Church. I believe that marriage between man and woman will continue beyond the grave and that same gender marriage will come to an end beyond the grave. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Darren10

[SamuelTheLamanite]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Excellent post. 

California Boy,

Would you support marriage of the mentally ill? Or do you think the mentally ill should remain celibate for the rest of their lives? Do you think God wants some to remain celibate and single? Do you agree with the  Post article?

If God wants some to be single, then it probably means he also wants gays to be single. In the real world marriage and sex aren't for everyone California boy.

To the moderators:  I hope I am not making an inappropriate comparison, not my intention. To me it is just philosophy.

That you feel you have to say that tells me you know it is inappropriate. Poster removed.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, Spencer, just what are the relative merits? 

My thoughts (this is longish, so settle in...):

1. The Policy Changes are Largely Preventative Medicine: I have never characterized the policy changes as pleasant and joyful.  To the contrary, they are akin to the Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to discipline, up to and including excommunication.  These things are unpleasant, but also necessary.  It appears they were implemented to minimize or avoid harm, both to individuals and families and to the Church.  

The counsel and instruction given by the leaders of the Church, and found in the doctrines and scriptures of the Church, are largely inclusive and welcoming (hence our emphasis on being a missionary church).  Nevertheless, some boundaries are necessary.  We are a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  Without some boundaries, we aren't really a community anymore.  So the Church's "boundaries" are, as I see it, reasonable and understandable (and, in some painful instances - such as the November 2015 policy - painful but necessary).

A few years back I made the following remarks (regarding the Calderwoods, but applicable here, I think):

Quote

Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

I think that's the gravamen of the situation.  That's the rub.  I think the Brethren, in their extensive deliberations about this topic, probably kept arriving back at this key point.  To disregard same-sex marriage would be to disregard apostasy.  To disregard apostasy would be to substantially weaken the moral and spiritual cohesion of our community.

Don Bradley responded to the above comment this way (same link as above):

Quote

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 

 

What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.

 

...

 

When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. 

I think Don makes a very solid point here (the last paragraph) (and yes, I am a bit self-conscious at the self-referentialness of the above quote, but ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

If a Latter-day Saint went public with sordid details about his being in an ongoing adulterous relationship, and if his statements glory in these acts and declare his lack of remorse and desire to continue in these acts, and if the Church became aware of and did nothing in response to such public declarations, would any rational person be able to dispute the Church's stance as "disregarding" that person's sinful conduct?  Nope.  And then what would happen if members came to understand that the Church was disregarding such flagrant rebellion and disobedience?  On such neglect the contagion of "Well, he got away with it, so why can't I?"-style justifications and rationalizations for misconduct would quickly arise.  And the Church, having squandered its moral authority when it failed to address profound moral transgressions in the first instance, would be significantly hindered in its ability to address profound moral transgressions in the second instance.  And the third.  And the fourth.  And so on.

If we, as rational human beings, can discern what it means to "disregard" unrepentant adultery, then I think we can do the same with what it means to "disregard" other forms of rebellion, such as unrepentant apostasy (with the caveat that such determinations are the responsibility of priesthood leaders having stewardship of the person in question).  Put another way, the Church should not ignore unrepentant apostasy or play dumb when it arises.  It simply cannot.  It does not have the option to do so.  In this the Church has a clear mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."

I suspect the Brethren reviewed these (and many other) scriptural provisions as they deliberated about the policy changes.  Now, each and every one of these men are good and decent.  They are all husbands.  And fathers.  And grandfathers.  None of these men enjoy the prospect of meting out discipline.  But that's part of the job.  It's unpleasant, but somebody's got to do it.  Someone has to make the call for the Church.  

And they did.  As unpleasant as it was and has been every since, they made the call.  This is meritorious.  Which leads me to my next point...

2. The Policy Changes are Revelatory: The bottom line is that that policy was enacted by the Presiding High Priest, through revelation, after extensive thought and discussion and prayer, and sustained as such by the entirety of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  So accepting and following revelatory guidance is meritorious.

3. The Policies are Congruent, in Form and Function. with the Policies re: Polygamist Families: I again point to the Church's longstanding and nearly identical policy for children from polygamous families.  That policy has been in place and functioning since, according to this article, the 1920s.  The results have been . . . mixed (from the article):

Quote

As the Mormon community comes to terms with a new policy dealing with same-sex couples and their children, some with historical experience with a similar policy are sounding off about its potential impact.

Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with ties to polygamist families say they believe the policy, which excludes minor children from membership in the faith, is designed to protect children. But, they contend, it could also have negative consequences.

"Both policies are there to protect the faithful children and members from seeing that 'apostates' are real people capable of living meaningful lives despite their apostasy," said Anthony Mangum, 37, of Bountiful, who was raised in part of the Kingston polygamist family.

...

Mangum said he was baptized in 2002 at the age of 24 after getting a personal interview with LDS apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin.

During that interview, Mangum said, he was told the policy was "to prevent polygamist believers from coming into the church to get [temple] ordinances."

Sam Brown, 31, of Boise, also grew up in the Kingston family. He joined the church at age 20 after being interviewed by LDS apostle Richard G. Scott.

According to Brown, Elder Scott told him that there have been others who join the church with the intent of teaching its members the practice of polygamy. "Meeting with a general authority was a way to stop the spread of apostasy," Brown summarized.

Despite having to disavow the practice of polygamy, both Mangum and Brown said they were encouraged by the apostles to honor their parents. Brown said he was told to "repair and strengthen the bond I had with my parents but still acknowledge that they were wrong in practicing polygamy."

But others have had a less positive experience.

Melissa, who asked 2News to not use her real name, is 37 years old and lives in West Jordan.

Melissa was baptized into the LDS Church at age 18. After that, she said, she struggled with figuring out how to have a relationship with her parents who were members of the Apostolic United Brethren based in Bluffdale.

"[I wasn't sure] how to love them, despite what I was choosing to do," she said.

Looking back, Melissa said she feels getting baptized made her feel she was better than her parents because "what they did was wrong, and what I was doing was right. I was going to go to heaven, and they were not."

She now feels the policy creates an elitist, "us vs. them" mentality for members of the church. She worries the new policy regarding same-sex families will have the same effect.

I sympathize with Melissa.  And I share her concern about the risk of an "us vs. them" mentality.  Avoiding or minimizing those types of conflict appears to be one of the objectives of the new policy.  Such an objective is plainly meritorious.

Melissa said she felt "she was better than her parents" because she had been baptized.  The current policy reduces the risk of that sort of problem happening to children in same-sex parent households because the policy requires them to wait.  The family relationship is therefore faced with a reduced risk of such problems arising between children and parents.  Isn't that a potentially good thing?  Isn't that meritorious?

I also think Jess Durrant's assessment of the older policy, stemming from her experience of being exempted from it, is instructive:

Quote

But Utah resident Jess Durrant believes both policies protect children. In a Nov. 6 public Facebook post, Durrant related her experience of being an exception to the rule -- baptized at age 8 while still living in a polygamist household.

"Once I made the decision to be baptized, the parent that did not agree with my decision began to treat me as though I was a plague in their house," Durrant wrote. "I grieved the loss of a parent though they were living down the hall. It took years before that parent could stand to be in the same room as me."

Durrant said her childhood was not warm or loving, and though she chose to stick with the LDS faith, it made her life difficult and destroyed any chance she had to have a good relationship with her parents.

"These are not new rules, they are simply being broadened to accommodate the changes that are happening in this world," Durrant wrote of the new LGBT policy. "But I repeat and promise you with every ounce of my being -- This is to protect the children!"

That echoes what Christofferson said in his video interview as he defended the new policy: "We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the church are very different."

So to the extent the older policy has had problems, those problems seem to stem from individual foibles ("Looking back, Melissa said she feels getting baptized made her feel she was better than her parents...").  And yet . . . this sort of problem militates in favor of the new policy, does it not?  Melissa said she felt "she was better than her parents" because she had been baptized.  The current policy reduces the risk of that sort of problem happening to children in same-sex parent households because the policy requires them to wait.  The family relationship is therefore faced with a reduced risk of such problems arising between children and parents.  Isn't that a potentially good thing?  Isn't that meritorious?

4. The Policies Were Needed: Real harm was going to be done, with or without the policy.  With the introduction of the innovation of same-sex marriate into society, the Brethren had to act.  To not act would have been a dereliction of their duties.  Absent guidance from the Brethren, the Church's mandates and moral cohesion would have faltered or failed, and confusion would have prevailed in Israel.  I don't think any of us are in a position to say that the lack of the policy would yield better results.  It's too speculative. 

For example, children growing up in same-sex parent households feeling conflicted, that they have to choose one side or the other.  Loyalty to the Church and to God, or to their parents.  I don't think that choice is necessary, but I think minor children could easily think so.  And they would not be well-equipped to handle it.  This issue was explained by Elder Christofferson more than two years ago:

Quote

Speaking not only as an Apostle, but also as a husband, father, and grandfather, Elder Christofferson said the new policy originates out of compassion. “It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. … We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.”

For example, Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things—including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities. “That is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting, where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple.”

After the child reaches maturity, he or she can make an informed and conscious decision about their own Church membership, said Elder Christofferson. “Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

Elder Christofferson has presented the most comprehensive exposition to date regarding the need for the new policies.  From his remarks we can glean the following real or potential harms and other factors which the Brethren identified:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential factors as well (I can think of a few).  In any event, the points raised by Elder Christofferson are, in my view, meritorious.

5. Most of the Acrimony is not Arising from the Policies, but from Over-the-Top Reactions Thereto: As I have said many times, much (most?  virtually all?) of the acrimony about the policy is being fomented and maintained by critics and opponents of the Church.  That acrimony is also causing "real harm."

I have no "old paradigms" to reorient as to the issue of children of same-sex couples getting baptized.  I had not given the matter much, if any, thought prior to November 2015.  But then the policy changes came.  And a lot of vitriol with them.  Against men whom I trust to be good and decent, and experienced in seeking and obtaining revelatory guidance from God.  And then the vitriol continued.  And continues to this day.  And it calls for Latter-day Saints to pre-suppose certain things that are (or, in my mind, should be) pretty hard to pre-suppose.

There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  Essentially, "{t}he phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases."  A legal scholar,  Glanville Williams questioned this adage's usage in 1957, writing, "It used to be said that 'hard cases make bad law'—a proposition that our less pedantic age regards as doubtful. What is certain is that cases in which the moral indignation of the judge is aroused frequently make bad law."

I think the Brethren are looking at this policy issue in a "general law" kind of way, while participants here are looking at this issue in a "I personally know someone who has been adversely affected by this policy, therefore the policy is bad" kind of way.  In other words, I see a lot of "moral indignation" about the policy, but not a lot of leveled, civil, dispassionate reasoning about it.  But I'm in the process of reviewing additional resources, so that assessment may change.

At present, I remain convinced that most of the "hurt" stems not from the policy itself (which has fairly narrow application), but from public backlash and overwrought rhetoric about the policy.  By way of evidence, I point - again - to the remarkable lack of popular "moral indignation" regarding the Church's longstanding and nearly-identical policy as to children from polygamous families.

I acknowledge that the policy changes have resulted in some very real difficulties to some very good people.  However, the same can be said for many, many situations.  As long as the children of men sin, there will be consequences that follow.  And as long as those consequences follow, they will land, partially, on innocent parties.  My hope and faith is that such things will be sorted out by God in the end.  Meanwhile, we do the best we can with what we've got.  And what we've got is prophetic authority being exercised by good and decent men in very difficult circumstances.  I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

In the wise words of Evette Carter (see my sig line): "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." 

The Brethren didn't conform.  They did not knuckle under.  They did what they thought was right, regardless ofwhat everybody else is doing.  And for that I honor and sustain them.

Quote

Shouldn't that discussion proceed even now? 

Certainly.  But the vitriolic and hateful rhetoric needs to be toned down.  A lot.

Quote

For example, are the merits solely and only revelatory?  Or are there scientific and practical aspects to be considered? 

I think the Brethren have given extensive thought and discussion over to the practical / sociological / legal ramifications of same-sex marriage.  

I my view, the merits of the policy changes are ultimately, but not solely, revelatory.

Quote

In the case of granting of priesthood to men of Black African ancestry, ordination came via revelation, but only after a great deal of practical consideration and soul searching, i.e., the Brazil thing was coming to the fore on the heels of decades of intellectual inquiry.

Yes.

I am not opposed to discussion.  To the contrary, I very much value it.  But a lot of the rhetoric I am speaking of is not "discussion."  There is often a marked lack of decorum, and respect, and civility.  There is often a substantial lack of reasoned, dispassionate analysis.  Instead, the Church is being railroaded.  The Church is being presented by facially unreasonable, and unreasoned, demands.  From Dan Reynolds.  From Mr. Fisher.

Not cool.

Quote

Thus, is there a place to consider whether sin can be committed without intent? 

Sure.  Mosiah 3:11 contemplates that ("For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who ... who have ignorantly sinned").  So does 1 Timothy 1:12-13 ("I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief").  So does 3 Nephi 6:18 ("Now they did not sin ignorantly, for they knew the will of God concerning them, for it had been taught unto them; therefore they did wilfully rebel against God").

But willful ignorance can't last forever.  The Brethren have spoken extensively about the origins and purposes of the policy changes, and about the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity, and marriage, and so on.  

Quote

If gender preference is not actually a matter of free choice so much as it is genetic or a result of development in utero, then where is the "sin." 

The "sin" is in the conduct, not the "preference."

Temptation toward sexual sin is something lots of people face.  Hence the wisdom of the Church's counsel:

Quote

God has provided the plan of salvation, or plan of happiness, to help you receive the blessings of eternal life. This plan is set forth in the scriptures; men and women cannot rewrite it to accommodate their desires. God alone gives the reward of eternal life. Some of the greatest blessings promised by the plan, including eternal life, are not intended for immediate enjoyment. Eternity is long, and mortality is short. As you base your decisions on eternal principles rather than on earthly challenges or desires, you can have “peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come” (D&C 59:23).

These blessings are based on obedience to eternal principles. The importance of families is one of these principles. Heaven is organized by families, which require a man and a woman who together exercise their creative powers within the bounds the Lord has set. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this plan. Without both a husband and a wife there would be no eternal family and no opportunity to become like Heavenly Father.

Yesterday I had a discussion with a divorced friend regarding the Josh Weed issue.  She said she rather resented the apparent implication in his statements that a life without sexual activity cannot be full and authentic.  She said that she has a very rich and full and beautiful life, made all the more so by her testimony of, and adherence to the precepts of, the Restored Gospel.  She greatly values marriage, but she also recognizes that our progression is not confined to this life.  As noted above, "eternity is long, and mortality is short."  She, as a divorced person, believes things will be sorted out in the end.  Meanwhile, obedience to the commandments is the way to go, she said.  She's an amazing person.

Quote

Jesus was asked the same question about the blind man:  Did he or his parents sin that he was born blind?  Of course not.  Those with same-gender attraction may not like to be defined as congenital defects, but what if in fact that is what science shows?  Isn't that where the discussion should be?

The Church has been acknowledging for quite some time that the causes of homosexual orientation are far more than simply a matter of choice.  Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  

The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct.  I acknowledge that the amount of effort needed to comply with this standard varies per an individual's constitution, and circumstances, and priorities, and faith.  But that's pretty a common phenomenon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 30, 2018 by smac97

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Sir, where is there any ambiguity in LDS doctrine that heterosexual marriage is required for exaltation? Where in all of LDS canon is homoseuxality not condemned? My reasoning upon the eternities are based squarely upon known doctrine. What “will be” is reasoned upon my knowing of what is and has been. God may reveal that homosexual marriage can get you exalted. I’m fine is He does reveal such a thing. I’d be very confused but fine. But the likelyhood of that happening is about as close to zero as you can get.

Gay Marriage is as ancient as the pyramids of Egypt, but nowhere in the Bible is gay marriage ever approved. Proponents of gay marriage argue that marriage is a blessing available to everyone, but I would like to see how California Boy and the others answer my questions. God wants some of his children to remain single and celibate for the rest of their lives.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Brian - much to my chagrin - my son DOES say this about his weed...  But it is not a sentient being.  But in the case of SSM, the sentient being is not being disavowed either, it is the practice.  Likewise, my son knows I disapprove of his non-married relationships with his girlfriend which are intimate, yet he and his girlfriend are welcome to our home, and I treat them both with love.  They know how I feel about the relationship, and they don't push for my approval.  I know how they feel about each other, so I love them and allow them their agency.

“much to my chagrin - my son DOES say this about his weed...”

OK, that made me laugh out loud. It sounds like tou’re being a great parent for your son. 

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

California Boy,

Would you support marriage of the mentally ill? Or do you think the mentally ill should remain celibate for the rest of their lives?

Huh??? You mean, like, depressed people?  Do you realize how many mental illnesses there are?

I am genuinely curious as to how YOU would answer that question.

Edited January 30, 2018 by pogi

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church does see people in a gay marriage as akin to murderers in that they are both apostates who are to be punished by being  excommunicated.

I hated facebook and wanted nothing to do with it for about 2 1/2 years after I first tried it. But it was a message I recieved from an old aquaintance whose name escaped me when he first sent his message which was the primary reason I recosidered not using facebook and now I use it frequently. The message was “Darren? Darren Zechiel, is that you?” I had no idea who the person was but the name did have a bit of familiarity to it. Then it clicked! It was from a person in our old singles branch. I simply always addressed him by his nickname instead of his formal name thus the confusion (plus I easily get confused in general). This person was our singles branch in northeastern Illinois. He was a social giant in the branch, an absolute blast to hang out with. During my time in the branch he was excommunicated from the LDS Church because he had a same sex sexual relation. He truly thought everyone would hate him but nothing was further from the truth. It was his initiation to contact me which swayed me to use facebook and I’m very happy to have reconnected with him. I don’t know if he’s still gay and frankly don’t care. He’s still a lot of fun to communicate with.

Now, if his excommunication was because he murdered someone else, I still would not refuse to reconnect with him but I’d be much more cautious, even if all else were the same with him. There was a lady in our ward who remarried her exhusband who spent tine in jail for attempted murder. I always kept my guard up around him (they again divorced and he’s completely out of her life now). A bit psychotic he was but I would not have done so if his sin was thst he was gay for a while. While it is true that sexual sin is akin to murder stating it in a casual way and as an absolute matter of fact can blur the differences between being gay and being a murderer. 

Just my thoughts.  

[SamuelTheLamanite]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

Huh??? You mean, like, depressed people?  Do you realize how many mental illnesses there are?

I am genuinely curious as to how YOU would answer that question.

As described in the post article. Do you agree or disagree? Quoting myself for the link and context

39 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Would you support marriage of the mentally ill? Or do you think the mentally ill should remain celibate for the rest of their lives? Do you think God wants some to remain celibate and single? Do you agree with the  Post article?

If God wants some to be single, then it probably means he also wants gays to be single. In the real world marriage and sex aren't for everyone California boy.

To the moderators:  I hope I am not making an inappropriate comparison, not my intention. To me it is just philosophy.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

kiwi, please at least try to have a civil discussion here.  I'm sure you knew what this poster meant (I agree they could have been more clear)....but these are the types of comments that shut discussion down.  Most here are really trying to openly communicate (even if there are definite disagreements).

I found his post made some points in a fun way. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Darren10

[california boy]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

California Boy,

Would you support marriage of the mentally ill? Or do you think the mentally ill should remain celibate for the rest of their lives? Do you think God wants some to remain celibate and single? Do you agree with the  Post article?

If God wants some to be single, then it probably means he also wants gays to be single. In the real world marriage and sex aren't for everyone California boy.

To the moderators:  I hope I am not making an inappropriate comparison, not my intention. To me it is just philosophy.

Being gay does not mean someone is mentally ill.  Gay couples are perfectly capable of having healthy loving relationships.  And yes YOU ARE making inappropriate comparisons.  It is insulting.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Sir, where is there any ambiguity in LDS doctrine that heterosexual marriage is required for exaltation? Where in all of LDS canon is homoseuxality not condemned? My reasoning upon the eternities are based squarely upon known doctrine. What “will be” is reasoned upon my knowing of what is and has been. God may reveal that homosexual marriage can get you exalted. I’m fine is He does reveal such a thing. I’d be very confused but fine. But the likelyhood of that happening is about as close to zero as you can get.

So, what I know are the doctrines of the Church. What I believe is based on what I know regarding the doctrines of the Church. I believe that marriage between man and woman will continue beyond the grave and that same gender marriage will come to an end beyond the grave. 

The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price. FYI

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price. FYI

How about where it is both mentioned and not condemned (I agree that one can't assume there would be condemning if there is no mention, but the reverse seems true to me as well...no mention does not automatically mean no condemnation).

Edited January 30, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

................................................................................

• D&C 104:6-10 - "................. the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. .................................................
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."....................................................

They are all husbands.  And fathers.  And grandfathers.  ..............................

That they are husbands, fathers, and grandfathers is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  We assume that they are all good men, but good men can make mistakes -- as Pres Nelson pointed out at his recent news conference.  The real question is whether a particular act is a "sin."

Quote

Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage

...............................................................1 Timothy 1:12-13 ("I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief"). ......................

The "sin" is in the conduct, not the "preference."................................................

Of course, and we can demand that those afflicted with same-gender preference never act on that instinct -- as a religious commandment -- so long as we do not temporize on the matter.  The biblical law on same sex acts is abundantly clear.  However, let us not place a guilt-trip on them for feelings beyond their control, any more than we would blame the blind man for being blind.

Quote

The Church has been acknowledging for quite some time that the causes of homosexual orientation are far more than simply a matter of choice.  Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  

I don't believe that this is an accurate characterization of modern science, and that is something which should receive intense scrutiny by scientists within the LDS Church.  Indeed, why would Pres Oaks even raise the scientific issue if it had no relevance?

Quote

The Church, having taken this into account, holds all members of the Church to the same standard of sexual conduct.  I acknowledge that the amount of effort needed to comply with this standard varies per an individual's constitution, and circumstances, and priorities, and faith.  But that's pretty a common phenomenon..........................

Boundary maintenance is essential, as non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps has pointed out.  And the boundaries should be clear.

However, the one-size-fits-all approach is only valid if based on (1) revelation, and (2) substantive science.  If one or both of those key ingredients is missing, the finger-pointing will continue.  That is because we live in a day and age when we can know whether same-gender attraction is as instinctive as opposite-gender attraction.  If God prefers that we be subjected to that finger-pointing, despite mammalian science, then so be it.  We won't be the first group of God's people commanded to obey a law just because . . .

Edited January 30, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, the one-size-fits-all approach is only valid if based on (1) revelation, and (2) substantive science.  If one or both of those key ingredients is missing, the finger-pointing will continue. 

If (and people will disagree on this if) there is true revelation on it, then we don't have to wait for scientific consensus to back us up. I think thinking that these two will ever align is a fool's errand.

Quote

That is because we live in a day and age when we can know whether same-gender attraction is as instinctive as opposite-gender attraction.

This is a pretty optimistic outlook for the potential and ability to realize the potential for scientific consensus. Do you really think that we can (or will ever be able to) know "whether same-gender attraction is as instinctive as opposite-gender attraction?" Sure, there are those who think most things can be settled so that Al Gore can bellow "The science is settled!," but this isn't actually how it works for most people or for most issues. Germ theory, etc., yes, but this complex issue of nature vs. nurture, and the complex factors of genetics, socio-familial dynamics, etc.? 

I think this will remain as controversial within and between scientists as all other scientific issues. Science journals will continue to debate and argue, ad infinitum . . .

Quote

If God prefers that we be subjected to that finger-pointing, despite mammalian science, then so be it.  We won't be the first group of God's people commanded to obey a law just because . . .

I think this is the extent of the closure we will be allowed to enjoy, with respect to the tension with surrounding culture. To expect more or better than this is to set ourselves up for disappointment.

Edited January 30, 2018 by rongo

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

How about where it is both mentioned and not condemned (I agree that one can't assume there would be condemning if there is no mention, but the reverse seems true to me as well...no mention does not automatically mean no condemnation).

True, but that is not what he asked.  The only scriptures where homosexuality is condemned is the Bible, which is filled with other condemnations that the church doesn't follow such as divorce.  There is not a lot of scriptural support for this issue.  That doesn't mean that church leaders can not declare something doctrine, which they have.  But let's not pretend that the other three books condemn homosexuality when in fact they say nothing. They are neutral on the issue.  

Edited January 30, 2018 by california boy

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That they are husbands, fathers, and grandfathers is irrelevant to the issue at hand. 

With respect, I disagree.  One of the more prominent criticisms of the Church regarding the policy changes is that they are the result of animus.  Hatred.  Bigotry.  Ignorance.  Malice.  And so on.

The motives of the men who promulgated the policy changes matter in some sense.

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We assume that they are all good men, but good men can make mistakes -- as Pres Nelson pointed out at his recent news conference. 

I acknowledge that.  But my point was not "These are good men, ergo they cannot make mistakes."  Rather, my point was more along the lines of "These are good men, ergo I reject the accusations against them that they enacted the policy changes out of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, etc."

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The real question is whether a particular act is a "sin."

That is the seminal issue, yes.

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, and we can demand that those afflicted with same-gender preference never act on that instinct -- as a religious commandment -- so long as we do not temporize on the matter.  The biblical law on same sex acts is abundantly clear.  However, let us not place a guilt-trip on them for feelings beyond their control, any more than we would blame the blind man for being blind.

Well said.

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

The Church has been acknowledging for quite some time that the causes of homosexual orientation are far more than simply a matter of choice.  Elder Oaks has spoken of the ongoing debate about "evidence or theories suggesting that 'there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation,'" about sexual behavior being "profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live," and how all of this is part of a "highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy" and that "most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies."  

I don't believe that this is an accurate characterization of modern science, and that is something which should receive intense scrutiny by scientists within the LDS Church.  Indeed, why would Pres Oaks even raise the scientific issue if it had no relevance?

I think scientific understanding does have relevance. 

I'm not sure what "characterization" you find problematic.  

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Boundary maintenance is essential, as non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps has pointed out.  And the boundaries should be clear.

However, the one-size-fits-all approach is only valid if based on (1) revelation, and (2) substantive science. 

I'm not sure I can agree with that.  Science is a wonderful thing.  But our grasp of it is incomplete.  And finite.  And blinkered by biases and motives.  

To some extent, the same can be said of revelation.  So we are walking by faith.  That faith should be as informed as possible, which is probably why Elder Oaks presented scientific perspectives on this issue.

I believe that, in the grand scheme of things, "truth is ever in harmony with itself."  

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If one or both of those key ingredients is missing, the finger-pointing will continue. 

The finger-pointing will, I think, continue no matter what.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

True, but that is not what he asked.  The only scriptures where homosexuality is condemned is the Bible, which is filled with other condemnations that the church doesn't follow such as divorce.  There is not a lot of scriptural support for this issue.  That doesn't mean that church leaders can not declare something doctrine, which they have.  But let's not pretend that the other three books condemn homosexuality when in fact they say nothing. They are neutral on the issue.  

...  and at the same time, let's not pretend that the Brass/Bronze plates didn't have the Leviticus scriptures on them or that their contents were unknown to the Lehites and their hangers-on.  Or that in the XIXth Century American or British or Scandinavian Protestants weren't aware of what's in the OT and NT.

A silly argument.

Edited January 30, 2018 by USU78

[USU78]

Quaere:  Why do the participants hereabouts have to endure 3 separate, very active threads on homosexuality at the same time.

Overkill, n'est-ce pas?

[pogi]

10 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

As described in the post article. Do you agree or disagree? Quoting myself for the link and context

What do you mean by "as described in the post article"?  

Do I agree with what?  Did you read the article?  It makes no conclusions.

The issue is a matter of ability to consent, but even then the article states:

Quote

Surely that much, at least, is correct — in our desire to protect the mentally ill against potential coercion and exploitation, we shouldn’t consign all conservatees to sexless lives of a sort that most of us wouldn’t wish on ourselves.

Maybe you missed that part?

(The way that the article uses the term "mentally ill" is wrong, by the way.  Most people with mental illness are capable of consent.) 

Lastly, this has nothing to do with LGBT issues.  To try and extrapolate from this article God's mind on LGBT issues is...nuts!

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by pogi