An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree, bluebell.

So what is wrong with the church accepting families involved in a SSM as a part of their congregations?  (Honest question).

As I posted above, I know of at least one active gay couple who is greatly welcomed and loved in their ward and who contribute greatly.  But, if they marry....they risk being excommunicated. 

I honestly don’t know what’s wrong with that. 

My guess is that church leaders believe that God does not condone any appearance of acceptance of sin and that welcome SSM couples into the church would promote such an appearance. 

From what I know of the church, embracing sin is when the discipline gets harsh. Is there anyway to welcome those who are actively engaged in SSM without appearing to condone the embracing of sin?

[Avatar4321]

21 minutes ago, Sky said:

Talk more openly about this topic in General Conference and in church meetings in general.  

Tell certain members to stop being judgmental, know-it-all a**holes.  

Be wiiling to listen and emphasize with a gay person when they tell you their story, instead of trying to correct them or say why the church is always right.  

I’m actually tired of hearing about it at general conference. I don’t think they can get any clearer than they already are.

and I suspect it won’t bring the judgmental A$&@@ to repentance any more than early talks did. Many of them will still be demanding the Church conform to them rather than considering they need to conform to the will of the Lord

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This has already been done.

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

There are many types of families within the church.  Some never marry, but have children (or don't have children and remain single for this life).  There are many single parent households (involving divorce).   So, IMO....this does not eliminate those in a legal SSM (who may or may not have children in their home), as not being recognized as a "family".

Do you believe a couple in a SSM, who are committed to each other and who may be raising children together, are not a family?

(I've got to get off of here for an appointment....so I can't respond maybe until tomorrow....just didn't want to appear rude, if someone directly responds to me!)

Edited January 27, 2018 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the church should accept legal marriages between two people who are committed to being faithful, loyal and loving to each other.  Acceptance of those who are in marriages that are committed to having a family together and being responsible parents to any children involved.  If they are unfaithful to each other (cheat on their spouse with another person), they should be treated just as any member of the church would be if they did the same to their spouse.

But, they should not be labeled apostates and excommunicated for their desire to commit to one person for life and to love them and be loyal to them.  They should not be punished for a desire to form a family together.

I understand your position, but that would mean by extension that any other exclusion which might make people feel badly enough to commit suicide should also be accepted and included.  How could the LDS Church be so cruel as to exclude sincere people who are just practicing non-traditional marriage?  This would, of course, have to include polyandry, polygyny, etc.  Naturally, a church which had once practiced polygamy (and still claimed it to be holy doctrine) could not exclude that practice, unless based on hypocrisy.  The Brethren must simply make a policy change in order to accommodate those who are now excluded, without any nonsense about revelation or doctrine.  A socio-political move.  Right?

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

smac...you are trying to trap me and make me and my feelings about all of this a joke and invalid. 

No, I am not.  I am doing nothing of the kind.  I was politely asking for your opinion.  That is all.  I said nothing to tease or mock or criticize.  

23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is how I feel anyway.  I have lots of reasons,,but they will be snubbed and shamed with how you feel and other posters will add on.  I don't want to feel lesser than.  A Larson above has stated pretty much what I think the church should do...and what I think God wants them to do.

As you like.

You are, of course, at liberty to ignore or gloss over difficult issues.  The General Authorities, however, are not.  They have been asking themselves these difficult questions, and addressing them.  I am not persuaded that their critics have.

Armchair quarterbacking and faultfinding is the easiest thing in the world.  Actually grappling with and addressing the tough questions takes real, substantive effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I think the sequel and aftermath of not answering the letter show that this was wise. I think Brother Fisher would have paraded around whatever "polite, kind, sensible" letter had been sent. 

That’s not a fair accusation.  He’s the last person we should be attacking or criticizing here.  I’m not sure how anyone can read their letter and know if their loss without it touching their heart.  

Edited January 27, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Sky said:

Talk more openly about this topic in General Conference and in church meetings in general.  

Tell certain members to stop being judgmental, know-it-all a**holes.  

Be wiiling to listen and emphasize with a gay person when they tell you their story, instead of trying to correct them or say why the church is always right.  

Ah.  I was looking for a civil discussion.  Not this.

I'll leave you to it, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Anijen]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are many types of families within the church. 

 So, IMO....this does not eliminate those in a legal SSM

I do not believe you are correct here. The Proclamation to the Family specifically states between a man and a woman. The very first paragraph of that proclamation states; "between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children." I believe Ksfisher is right on point with his post.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Anijen

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I do not believe you are correct here. The Proclamation to the Family specifically states between a man and a woman. The very first paragraph of that proclamation states; "between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children." I believe Ksfisher is right on point with his post.

So, single parents and their children are NOT a family?  How about divorced parents and their children?  Also NOT families?  How about the single adult who lives with an aunt or another family member?  NOT family?

I agree those are the not the average or even considered those “central” to God’s plan.  But there are definitely acceptions made and all different combinations of people that are still considered to be “families”.  They can be a part of God’s plan even if not “central” to it.

Edited January 27, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I really don't want this to get derailed with a discussion regarding polygamists. 

It's not a derailment.  It's very relevant.

With respect, I think people like you are taking lazy potshots at the leaders of the Church.  They have been asking these difficult questions, and seeking answers to them.  People like you, on the other hand, are essentially making demands with no thought of the potential ramifications of them. 

Moreover, people like you almost always refuse to identify any sort of limiting principle.  You want the Church to accommodate same-sex marriages in the Church, but not polygamist marriages?  Why?  How do you differentiate between these two on moral/doctrinal grounds?

What about people who are just living together and have kids together?  Do you think the Church should exclude such people from membership in the Church?  If yes, then then how do you rationalize the line-drawing here?  Why is the Church justified in excluding fornicating couples but not same-sex and polygamist couples?

And what about group marriages?

What is your limiting principle?  At what point do you think the Church should demarcate boundaries as to marriages, living arrangements, and the Law of Chastity?  And why is your limiting principle superior to the one promulgated by the General Authorities?

Quote

I think that's a more complicated topic because it involves living with many women who are not your legal wives and also it involves their children. 

With respect, that's a big cop-out.  The Church's position on polygamy is not about "legal wives."  It is not secular law that is determinative.

But let's go with it.  If polygamy was legalized, do you think the Church should welcome polygamists into the Church?

Quote

In order for them to "repent", the church leaders would have to advise dissolving or splitting up families. 

I've been making this point for the last two years, as part of the apparent rationale for the 2015 policy changes.  Same-sex couples are situated in the same way as polygamist families: joining the Church would necessarily involve "dissolving or splitting up families."

Quote

I honestly do not believe they should be excommunicated though.

I assume you are referring to polygamists here, yes?  If so, what is the basis for not excommunicating them?

Do you likewise oppose excommuniation for other serious transgressions?  Again, what is your limiting principle here?  Do you even have one?

Quote

We are talking about marriages between just two committed people who want to be completely faithful to each other.

We could just as easily talk about "marriages between just three committed people."  Or four.  Or five.  

Could also just as easily talk about unmarried couples who are nevertheless committed to each other.  So is this type of fornication okay with you?  Should it be allowed in the Church?

Again, what is your limiting principle?  

Quote

Can we please keep this discussion focused on that and also on the information in the OP?  I don't want a derail with a discussion on polygamists.

It's not a derailment.  The Church's policies as to polygamy are directly relevant to the Church's policies on same-sex couples.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think this is relevant considering the discussion on the other thread (regarding the Weeds).  I'm not a fan of anyone accusing the church leaders or the Mormon church of "murder".  IMO, that is definitely the wrong word to use.   I didn't see that used in what Josh Weed wrote (in reference to any accusation against the church).  

But is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Here's the link to an article published in the SL Trib yesterday discussing a letter written to the First Presidency (from the parents of a gay young man who committed suicide):

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/26/commentary-the-mormon-church-needs-to-find-a-place-for-lgbt-children/

Some quotes from the article:

 

I love how simple and heart wrenching this open letter is.  It’s touching and I hope does some good for people who are suffering and has some influence on the church.  

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, single parents and their children are NOT a family?  How about divorced parents and their children?  Also NOT families?  How about the single adult who lives with an aunt or another family member?  NOT family?

JulieM, I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. I was only responding to ALarsons post in which he was responding to Kfishers post.

Of course they are families.

 

Quote

I agree those are the not the average or even considered those “central” to God’s plan.  But there are definitely acceptions made and all different combinations of people that are still considered to be “families”.  

I agree 100%

 

Quote

They can be a part of God’s plan even if not “central” to it.

IMO everybody is part of "Gods plan."

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Anijen said:

JulieM, I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. I was only responding to ALarsons post in which he was responding to Kfishers post.

Of course they are families.

 

I agree 100%

 

IMO everybody is part of "Gods plan."

Good, I’m glad we agree that acceptions are made. Sorry if I misunderstood. 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think this is relevant considering the discussion on the other thread (regarding the Weeds).  I'm not a fan of anyone accusing the church leaders or the Mormon church of "murder".  IMO, that is definitely the wrong word to use.   I didn't see that used in what Josh Weed wrote (in reference to any accusation against the church).  

But is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Here's the link to an article published in the SL Trib yesterday discussing a letter written to the First Presidency (from the parents of a gay young man who committed suicide):

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/26/commentary-the-mormon-church-needs-to-find-a-place-for-lgbt-children/

Some quotes from the article:

 

Could you source who said Josh said the Church is guilty of "murder", using that word specifically?

Thanks.

[Anijen]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Good, I’m glad we agree that acceptions are made. Sorry if I misunderstood. 

Not a problem at all, in fact I take the blame my post was hardly  understandable to who I was posting about another posters post.

"A nation will rise no higher than the strength of its homes. If you want to reform a nation, you begin with families." ~Gordon B. Hinckley

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not a derailment.  It's very relevant.

With respect, I think people like you are taking lazy potshots at the leaders of the Church.  They have been asking these difficult questions, and seeking answers to them.  People like you, on the other hand, are essentially making demands with no thought of the potential ramifications of them.

Moreover, people like you almost always refuse to identify any sort of limiting principle.  You want the Church to accommodate same-sex marriages in the Church, but not polygamist marriages?  Why?  How do you differentiate between these two on moral/doctrinal grounds?

What about people who are just living together and have kids together?  Do you think the Church should exclude such people from membership in the Church?  If yes, then then how do you rationalize the line-drawing here?  Why is the Church justified in excluding fornicating couples but not same-sex and polygamist couples?

And what about group marriages?

What is your limiting principle?  At what point do you think the Church should demarcate boundaries as to marriages, living arrangements, and the Law of Chastity?  And why is your limiting principle superior to the one promulgated by the General Authorities?

With respect, that's a big cop-out.  The Church's position on polygamy is not about "legal wives."  It is not secular law that is determinative.

But let's go with it.  If polygamy were legalized, do you think the Church should welcome polygamists into the Church?

I've been making this point for the last two years, as part of the apparent rationale for the 2015 policy changes.  Same-sex couples are situated in the same way as polygamist families: joining the Church would necessarily involve "dissolving or splitting up families."

I assume you are referring to polygamists here, yes?  If so, what is the basis for not excommunicating them?

Do you likewise oppose excommuniation for other serious transgressions?  Again, what is your limiting principle here?  Do you even have one?

We could just as easily talk about "marriages between just three committed people."  Or four.  Or five.  

Could also just as easily talk about unmarried couples who are nevertheless committed to each other.  So is this type of fornication okay with you?  Should it be allowed in the Church?

Again, what is your limiting principle?  

It's not a derailment.  The Church's policies as to polygamy are directly relevant to the Church's policies on same-sex couples.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the difference is that polygamists could be accused of committing adultery (sex outside of a legal marriage).  SSM is legal, so it does not involve adultery.  Also the breaking up of a family for repentance of that adultery (polygamists).  That’s different too, I think.  

(Sorry Alarson,  I know you don’t want to go this direction on your thread.  I won’t comment further.)

Maybe start a new thread SMAC if you want to continue discussing polygamists vs SSM?

[Darren10]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, single parents and their children are NOT a family?  How about divorced parents and their children?  Also NOT families?  How about the single adult who lives with an aunt or another family member?  NOT family?

I agree those are the not the average or even considered those “central” to God’s plan.  But there are definitely acceptions made and all different combinations of people that are still considered to be “families”.  They can be a part of God’s plan even if not “central” to it.

Of course there are exceptions but in the end an eternal marriage must compose of a man, at least one woman sealed to that man, and their respective children, correct? When has it been accepted that a man could be sealed to a man? Note also, Josh makes no acknowledgement of the priesthood or sealing ordinances of the temple when it comes to eternal families. To him it's about love keeping a family together for eternity. That's nice sentiment but when has that ever been a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; which is the obvious source for Josh believing in the very concept of eternal families?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think this is relevant considering the discussion on the other thread (regarding the Weeds).  I'm not a fan of anyone accusing the church leaders or the Mormon church of "murder".  IMO, that is definitely the wrong word to use.   I didn't see that used in what Josh Weed wrote (in reference to any accusation against the church).  

But is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Here's the link to an article published in the SL Trib yesterday discussing a letter written to the First Presidency (from the parents of a gay young man who committed suicide):

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/26/commentary-the-mormon-church-needs-to-find-a-place-for-lgbt-children/

Some quotes from the article:

 

I’m heartbroken for the loss of this young man and his family’s grief.  

I’m sad that Josh and Lolly’s marriage is going to end.  

And I’m upset that the church will likely face more bad publicity for the Dan Reynolds’ film. 

But, I’m grateful for this letter, for the blog post, and for the movie.  I’m hopeful that they will continue to encourage discussion and drive us as a church to pray more for guidance on this issue. 

[provoman]

From the letter:

Harry had a choice between marrying a person he was not attracted to, leaving the Mormon church or living alone. These are choices that you, the leaders of the Mormon church, don’t present to heterosexuals or to yourself.

 

Yet, many hetrosexuals face the same choices.

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the difference is that polygamists could be accused of committing adultery (sex outside of a legal marriage).  SSM is legal, so it does not involve adultery.  Also the breaking up of a family for repentance of that adultery (polygamists).  That’s different too, I think.  

(Sorry Alarson,  I know you don’t want to go this direction on your thread.  I won’t comment further.)

Maybe start a new thread SMAC if you want to continue discussing polygamists vs SSM?

Then take Smac's challenge:

Quote

But let's go with it.  If polygamy were legalized, do you think the Church should welcome polygamists into the Church?

 

 If polygamy were to be legalized, would you be OK with the LDS church accepting them into full membership? What about accepting polygamists from nations where polygamy is perfectly legal?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think this is relevant considering the discussion on the other thread (regarding the Weeds).  I'm not a fan of anyone accusing the church leaders or the Mormon church of "murder".  IMO, that is definitely the wrong word to use.   I didn't see that used in what Josh Weed wrote (in reference to any accusation against the church).  

But is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Here's the link to an article published in the SL Trib yesterday discussing a letter written to the First Presidency (from the parents of a gay young man who committed suicide):

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/26/commentary-the-mormon-church-needs-to-find-a-place-for-lgbt-children/

Some quotes from the article:

While I empathize with the motivation or writing an open letter, I don't think by design there is a social contract to answer them. Nor do I think the recipient must possess a compelling, corresponding motivation to answer them. In this instance, answering it would presume the need for public involvement and for validating a single perspective on a complicated issue. The Church's councils are for her members, not the public at large. Noting the last quote, which seems to clearly express the crux of the issue, it seems to me that the local councils would be the place to discuss how wards treat their members.

[Darren10]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

From the letter:

Harry had a choice between marrying a person he was not attracted to, leaving the Mormon church or living alone. These are choices that you, the leaders of the Mormon church, don’t present to heterosexuals or to yourself.

 

Yet, many hetrosexuals face the same choices.

not only that but both heterosexuals and homosexuals face the *exact same* choices when it comes to living moral standards. Granted some choices may be much more difficult to make for some over others but they are still the exact same choices. And I think that's exactly how it should be.

[provoman]

“f polygamy were legalized, do you think the Church should welcome polygamists into the Church?”

 

A very United States of America centric question - not faulting you for it. Hasn’t the topic of polygamist in other countries been discussed recently? I believe the dicuss was regarding polygamist joining the Church without required divorced. If I recall correctly Scott L provided a well reasoned response.

Edited January 27, 2018 by provoman

[juliann]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think this is relevant considering the discussion on the other thread (regarding the Weeds).  I'm not a fan of anyone accusing the church leaders or the Mormon church of "murder".  IMO, that is definitely the wrong word to use.   I didn't see that used in what Josh Weed wrote (in reference to any accusation against the church).  

But is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Here's the link to an article published in the SL Trib yesterday discussing a letter written to the First Presidency (from the parents of a gay young man who committed suicide):

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/01/26/commentary-the-mormon-church-needs-to-find-a-place-for-lgbt-children/

Some quotes from the article:

 

I had to ask myself what I would do if I had a child who was suffering (setting aside whether it was right or wrong.) Realistically, I think as a parent I would have to choose between the church and my child. If it was the difference between a child killing themselves or my stepping away from one of the triggers, what is the priority.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree, bluebell.

So what is wrong with the church accepting families involved in a SSM as a part of their congregations?  (Honest question).

They are welcome to attend, but they have to adhere to the same standards as the rest of us.

Unmarried couples are likewise welcome, though they too cannot hold membership.

Polygamist families are welcome, though they too cannot hold membership.  

These restrictions are not, I think, punitive.  The thing they all have in common is the Church's teachings about A) marriage, B) families, C) the Law of Chastity, and D) repentance.

The Church works hard accommodating members who struggle with various church teachings.  But same-sex marriage is intractably incompatible with continuing and full membership in the Church.  So is polygamy.

Adultery and fornication are likewise incompatible with continuing and full membership in the Church.  But here's the thing: these things can be repented of without destroying a family.  The same cannot be said of same-sex or polygamous marriages.

I think the Brethren have hashed all these things out, and much, much more.  I don't think the critics and opponents of the Church can say the same thing.

Quote

As I posted above, I know of at least one active gay couple who is greatly welcomed and loved in their ward and who contribute greatly.  But, if they marry....they risk being excommunicated. 

Perhaps because repentance would, at that point, necessitate a divorce.  Destruction of a family unit.  The Church, it seems, is concerned about family cohesion, even when the form of that family contravenes God's plan.  

I don't get it.  The Church is bending over backwards to accommodate and work with people who are not living the standards of the Restored Gospel in so very many respects.  And yet it gets painted as bigoted and hateful because it has drawn a line at some behaviors which are manifestly incompatible with membership in the Church.

Meanwhile, the critics and opponents of the Church do nothing but complain and gripe and make demands and bear false witness and in general badmouth the Church, while simultaneously failing to address the ramifications of their demands or otherwise present any coherent set of limiting principles.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2018 by smac97