An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

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.

Oh for heaven's sake. A 6th grader could see the difference between being able to openly have girlfriends and boyfriends and know that marriage is always a possibility.  This is sooooo tired. Just stop. 

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

If you are saying, the child threatens self if parent attends church and live the Gospel; then I would say the child is well being a child and selfish.

If you are saying parents mistreats the child. And the parents claims the mistreatment is in accordance with Church standards, then I think most will accept that the parent is wrong.

I know several families witha gay person in the family, in which the parents or siblings attend Church witnout family feuding about gay v Church. So my experience is that if there is conflict, someone is in the wrong.

Edited January 27, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the difference is that polygamists could be accused of committing adultery (sex outside of a legal marriage).  

Well, not always.  In some countries polygamy is legal, yet polygamists are not allowed to join the Church.

So it's not about secular notions of "adultery."  It's about the parameters of marriage as defined by the Church.

Quote

SSM is legal, so it does not involve adultery.  

But it presumably does involve homosexual behavior, which is also a serious violation of the Law of Chastity.  Do you dispute this?

Quote

Also the breaking up of a family for repentance of that adultery (polygamists).  That’s different too, I think.  

Actually no, there is a similar concern for same-sex couples.  Repentance for them would also require "the breaking up of a family."  Do you disagree?

Quote

(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?

These concepts are profoundly relevant to each other.

Elder Christofferson said this back in November 2015 (regarding the policy changes affecting same-sex couples and their families) (emphases added):

Quote

“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,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“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, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

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.

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 said the Church policy is analogous to policy for children born to polygamist families.

Just as has been Church policy regarding polygamist families, children of parents in a same-sex relationship will need to assent to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service, he said. They are “not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice,” he emphasized.

I suspect some folks don't want to address the correlated concerns that arise from polygamous and same-sex marriages because a thoughtful and thorough examination of them just might end up with the General Authorities' assessment and decision being reasoned and rational after all.  And then there's the whole "revelation" part of it...

I am curious as to what your proposed limiting principles are.  Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 27, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think the elimination of the policy (that has caused a great deal of pain for gay members and their families from my own personal observations and experience), would be a huge step towards healing and towards opening up more communication and acceptance.

I also believe that the leaders should acknowledge a SSM as a "real marriage" (an actual commitment to be exclusive and faithful to the person you love and a desire to spend your life with them and have a family).  

I'm not asking for the leaders to allow temple sealings for those in SSM.  I really doubt that will ever happen.  

But, allow gay members to marry and continue attending (not excommunicate them, but welcome them) and allow them to be a part of the church with the families they may have (children, etc.).   Right now, I personally know of a gay couple (not married) who are welcomed in their ward and greatly loved.  But, if they marry....they risk excommunication.  How does that make sense?

I know you disagree....but you asked.

As far as changing policies and teachings, if sexual relationships are disciplined only when the partners are not civilly married, then same-sex civilly married couples would be eligible for a temple sealing. However, the teaching is that the only moral family unit is that founded upon the relationship between a man and a woman. Reasonable people can believe such a thing  (or not), no matter how justified it seems to those who do not.

However, I know you want to discuss how the Church can reduce the number of suicides attributable to feeling left out due to one's sexual orientation.

[Darren10]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. A 6th grader could see the difference between being able to openly have girlfriends and boyfriends and know that marriage is always a possibility.  This is sooooo tired. Just stop. 

Stop? I didn't start it. And don't count out 4th or 5th graders too. They're onto this whole marriage possibility thing as well.

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

How about watching a child slowly kill himself with substance addiction?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, provoman said:

If you are saying, the child threatens self if parent attends church and live the Gospel; then I would say the child is well being a child and selfish.

If you are saying parents mistreats the child. And the parents claims the mistreatment is in accordance with Church standards, then I think most will accept that the parent is wrong.

I know several families witha gay person in the family, in which the parents or siblings attend Church witnout family feuding about gay v Church. So my experience is that if there is conflict, someone is in the wrong.

I think it bears further emphasis that some real introspection is in order on both sides of this issue.

The Church has made significant effort to improve how it interacts with LGBT folks.  However, to be blunt, I think the other side of this issue has not reciprocated these efforts.  To the contrary, I think the Church is being treated very poorly.  

From my previous post:

Quote

I wonder if a similar question can be asked of the LGBT folks and their "allies" who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church.

Perhaps they could stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

And stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

And stop with the efforts to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

And stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy 

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

And stop working to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

And perhaps they could give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

And also give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

How 'bout it, folks?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How about watching a child slowly kill himself with substance addiction?

That isn't the topic. I'm asking what I would do if I knew my child was slowly going under and one means of keeping her on solid ground was to leave the church so as to distance her from its policy on her, what would be my priority? 

Rather than debating the policy as if it were an administrative detail, maybe this is something we should all be asking ourselves and answering before making judgments for others.

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Don't say you are an inclusive church when you are not.  

Please show us specifically how "the church" is doing this from lesson manuals, conference talks, etc.  The only "change" is extended to ALL members == following the Lord's  law of morality.

"wickedness never was happiness" applies to everyone  -- no free pass.

Edited January 27, 2018 by cdowis

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

That isn't the topic. I'm asking what I would do if I knew my child was slowly going under and one means of keeping her on solid ground was to leave the church so as to distance her from its policy on her, what would be my priority? 

Rather than debating the policy as if it were an administrative detail, maybe this is something we should all be asking ourselves and answering before making judgments for others.

I have six children.  I love them all dearly.  I hope they remain active in the Church, but I will do all I can to love them if they choose another path.

That said, I simply cannot fathom a situation in which resigning from the Church is something God would want us to do.  I also cannot articulate any situation in which I, as a parent and a Latter-day Saint, would find it appropriate to counsel my son or daughter to resign.

Family is extreme important.  In a very real sense, membership in the Church is familial.  Moroni 7:19 states that we should "search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."  The "Guide to the Scriptures" even has an entry for this concept: Children of Christ:

Quote

Children of Christ 

See also Begotten; Born Again, Born of God; Jesus Christ; Sons and Daughters of God

Those who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ.

• Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child is greatest, Matt. 18:1–4.
• Believe in the light that ye may be the children of light, John 12:36.
• Put off the natural man and become as a child, Mosiah 3:19; 27:25–26.
• Because of the covenant ye shall be called the children of Christ, Mosiah 5:7.
• If ye will lay hold upon every good thing, ye certainly will be a child of Christ, Moro. 7:19.
• As many as received me, gave I power to become my sons, D&C 39:4.
• Fear not, little children, for you are mine, D&C 50:40–41.
• Thou art one in me, a son of God, Moses 6:68.

And, for that matter, another relevant topic: Bridegroom:

Quote

Bridegroom 

See also Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is symbolized in the scriptures as the Bridegroom. The Church is His symbolic bride.

• Ten virgins went forth to meet the Bridegroom, Matt. 25:1–13.
• He that has the bride is the Bridegroom, John 3:27–30.
• Blessed are they who are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb, Rev. 19:5–10.
• Be ready at the coming of the Bridegroom, D&C 33:17.
• Make ready for the Bridegroom, D&C 65:3.

 

From these I perceive that our individual relationships with the Church are, in very real sense, familial.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[strappinglad]

Some are under the impression that if everyone just accepted any and all orientations/lifestyles/behaviors  that the suicide rate would drop to negligible . I wonder if there is a place in the US where such acceptance is more obvious than San Francisco and yet we have this :

https://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/attempted-suicide-rates-among-sfs-lgbt-youth-could-grow-advocates-say/Content?oid=2461846

As has been mentioned, suicide is a complicated issue , and we do a disservice to suggest that Church policy is a major contributor. Access to prompt and effective help with emotional/mental health problems should be the priority.

[bluebell]

Getting back to the OP and ALarson's question, one thing that I think the church could do is to openly recognize that the teachings of the church right now make it hard for most gays and lesbians to have hope in a happy and abundant future (and hopelessness is a huge contributor to suicide).

And then church leaders could tell those people suffering that they are actively striving for revelation that will help them to give more hope to that community (in whatever form or shape Heavenly Father dictated that hope to be)

Validating that sense of hopelessness coupled with actively seeking a solution for that specific hurt would go a long way. It would still not be long enough for many, but for those who want to stay and want to be at peace in their life as well, and can't see a way to do either, knowing that someone got it and was actively looking for divine intervention to help them, maybe that would provide enough hope to hang on.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

For starters...eliminate the 2015 policy.

Eliminate the 2015 policy and not long down the road there’s a good chance there will be a number of very well-publicized news articles featuring young men and women who are outraged and broken-hearted that before their baptisms at age 8 they weren’t warned they were about to join a church that was going to poison their minds against their own parents. These inflammatory and destructive articles will then be followed by inflammatory TV news stories that will decry the “hateful Mormons” who brainwashed innocent young children.” Then we can look forward to the proliferation of the multi-million dollar lawsuits claiming young and impressionable children were irreparably harmed by a church that callously alienated them from the affections of their own loving parents.

Meanwhile the articles and TV specials will likely never once focus on the reasons why the parents allowed their children to be baptized. But if the parents are questioned they will simply claim ignorance. All it would take is for just one such sensational story  to surface and the Church would receive tremendous harm, making miserable the lives of millions of innocent LDS Church members.

The Church leaders are truly inspired and very wise because if such young men and women do join at 18 years of age it will be by their own fully-informed choice. Thanks to our inspired leaders there will be no opportunities for the enemies of the Church to charge that  innocent children were lured into a supposed web of injurious psychological manipulation. 

[pogi]

This is a very interesting study regarding the relationship between religious beliefs, their conflicts with sexual identity, and how that relationship effects suicide behaviors among the LGBT population.  

Generally speaking, religiosity is shown to have a positive mental health outcomes on young adults and protective against suicidal behaviors.  However this study did find a relationship between LGBT sexual identity, religious conflict, and suicide.  This is both expected and very troubling!  The question is, what do we do about it?  Is it realistic to expect the church to change direction regarding long held, deeply engrained doctrines by uprooting the plan of salvation and burning the Proclamation on the Family?  No, this is not realistic.  If we really care about these LGBT youth, we need to take more realistic approaches at intervention.  We need to turn our attention away from the church and directly on the youth - that is where our efforts will have the most impact.  This is not just a Mormon issue.  We can't realistically expect to overhaul all of religion. 

So, lets look at some interesting information that we can take from this study.  Intuition would suggest that if we encourage these children to leave the religion that is causing the internal conflict, this would effectively reduce suicidal rates.  Counterintuitively, this is not the case.  LGBT people who leave their religion due to internal conflicts are actually found to be at a much higher risk for suicide then those who stick it out.  The highest rate of suicide risk is among the youth, older LGBT people who stick it out are found to have resolved internal conflicts with a substantially reduced suicide risk.  

Quote

Of the entire sample, 31% reported resolving this conflict, and 12% reported an unresolved conflict. A t-test for comparison of means indicates that of those who report experiencing conflict, individuals who have resolved the conflict (M=20.19, SD=2.016) are significantly older on average (t(889)=2.891, p=.004) than those reporting unresolved conflict (M=19.99, SD=2.023). 

What can we gather from this?  Leaving is the worst thing you can do!  We need to push the "it get's better" message.  Studies demonstrate that it is true!  From the study:

Quote

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.

Quote

After consideration of internalized homophobia, the relationship between leaving one’s religion and suicidal thoughts was significant.

But that is not enough.  What else can we do as a church and a community?  We can encourage stronger parental and family support for LGBT youth.  Strong correlation there! We can also encourage stronger community support and non-judgment approach.  Very important! One very interesting aspect that the study found is that suicidal behaviors are more strongly linked to internalized homophobia then to religious conflict itself. In fact, once you account for internalized homophobia, the link to religious conflict mostly disappears.  From the study:

Quote

Further it appears that religious conflict, as indicated through parental beliefs, has a limited direct impact on chronic suicidal thoughts, as internalized homophobia fully mediated this relationship. This finding suggests that although parental religious beliefs are independently associated with suicidal thoughts when taking into account internalized homophobia, the relationship between parental beliefs and chronic suicidal thoughts are best accounted for by the level of internalized homophobia.

That is profound and worthy of further exploration.  What interventions can be used to reduce internalized homophobia without requiring the uprooting of church doctrine?

It is my belief that family and community centered approaches are the most important and effective interventions that the Church should focus on.  I believe the Church has an opportunity to really shine in this area.  I think we have started the ball rolling, but more obviously needs to be done. 

Quote

Approximately 48% the sample that matured in a religious environment reported having difficulty discussing their sexuality with their parents due to their parent’s anti-homosexual religious beliefs.

We can do better then that!

Edited January 28, 2018 by pogi

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if a similar question can be asked of the LGBT folks and their "allies" who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church.

In other words, is there ever going to come a cime when the other side of this debate will call for introspection as to their own conduct?

Thanks,

-Smac

How many heterosexual members of the Church have committed suicide because of the worlds acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage?

[Jane_Doe]

42 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

As has been mentioned, suicide is a complicated issue , and we do a disservice to suggest that Church policy is a major contributor. Access to prompt and effective help with emotional/mental health problems should be the priority.

How come you and I are the only ones I've seen talk about seeking / making available mental/emotional/physical help for people?

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

How come you and I are the only ones I've seen talk about seeking / making available mental/emotional/physical help for people?

The writer of the letter in the OP was reaching out for  emotional support from the First Presidency. The problem seems to be they ignored his letter. Completely.

The challenge with, in particular younger, gay members of the Church is that they feel unable to reach out because the Church has positioned them as unnatural, unholy, people for whom the Church will bar their children from membership etc. To reach out for help means exposing their ‘unholy gayness’ to their families and friends and ward members. A lot of whom react in awful ways.

Look at SMAC’s first response to the letter mentioned in the OP. Would you reach out to him?

Edited January 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Bob Crockett]

15 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

How many heterosexual members of the Church have committed suicide because of the worlds acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage?

At one time I read a lot of Freud.   Suicide, depression and mental affliction go hand in hand with being homosexual, irrespective of religion.  I have a friend, active in the church, married, holds church positions.   What he wants to is go into the public restroom down the highway where the casual encounters occur to have sex with a stranger in a men's restroom. That's all he thinks about at times.  But he doesn't do it.  He is stressed and tempted and probably would like his existence to end.  

I've read some of James Dobson, "Focus on the Family." He writes of one of his highest ranking executives, who struggled for years with being gay. lost it and begged to come back and was admitted back.  

I say these things to point out that a large segment of churched society has homosexual desires, knows it is against God's commandments and tries to conform. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Eliminate the 2015 policy and not long down the road there’s a good chance there will be a number of very well-publicized news articles featuring young men and women who are outraged and broken-hearted that before their baptisms at age 8 they weren’t warned they were about to join a church that was going to poison their minds against their own parents. These inflammatory and destructive articles will then be followed by inflammatory TV news stories that will decry the “hateful Mormons” who brainwashed innocent young children.” Then we can look forward to the proliferation of the multi-million dollar lawsuits claiming young and impressionable children were irreparably harmed by a church that callously alienated them from the affections of their own loving parents.

Meanwhile the articles and TV specials will likely never once focus on the reasons why the parents allowed their children to be baptized. But if the parents are questioned they will simply claim ignorance. All it would take is for just one such sensational story  to surface and the Church would receive tremendous harm, making miserable the lives of millions of innocent LDS Church members.

The Church leaders are truly inspired and very wise because if such young men and women do join at 18 years of age it will be by their own fully-informed choice. Thanks to our inspired leaders there will be no opportunities for the enemies of the Church to charge that  innocent children were lured into a supposed web of injurious psychological manipulation. 

If this is the rationale behind the policy than the Brethren should be honest and stop saying that we welcome LGBT members.  If we don’t want their children here because we know we are going to “poison their minds against their parents” than we ought to say that. 

[rockpond]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Getting back to the OP and ALarson's question, one thing that I think the church could do is to openly recognize that the teachings of the church right now make it hard for most gays and lesbians to have hope in a happy and abundant future (and hopelessness is a huge contributor to suicide).

And then church leaders could tell those people suffering that they are actively striving for revelation that will help them to give more hope to that community (in whatever form or shape Heavenly Father dictated that hope to be)

Validating that sense of hopelessness coupled with actively seeking a solution for that specific hurt would go a long way. It would still not be long enough for many, but for those who want to stay and want to be at peace in their life as well, and can't see a way to do either, knowing that someone got it and was actively looking for divine intervention to help them, maybe that would provide enough hope to hang on.

Another thing the church could do is take Josh and Lolly Weed’s blog post from this week and respond to each point they made. 

[Marginal Gains]

55 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Eliminate the 2015 policy and not long down the road there’s a good chance there will be a number of very well-publicized news articles featuring young men and women who are outraged and broken-hearted that before their baptisms at age 8 they weren’t warned they were about to join a church that was going to poison their minds against their own parents. These inflammatory and destructive articles will then be followed by inflammatory TV news stories that will decry the “hateful Mormons” who brainwashed innocent young children.” Then we can look forward to the proliferation of the multi-million dollar lawsuits claiming young and impressionable children were irreparably harmed by a church that callously alienated them from the affections of their own loving parents.

Meanwhile the articles and TV specials will likely never once focus on the reasons why the parents allowed their children to be baptized. But if the parents are questioned they will simply claim ignorance. All it would take is for just one such sensational story  to surface and the Church would receive tremendous harm, making miserable the lives of millions of innocent LDS Church members.

The Church leaders are truly inspired and very wise because if such young men and women do join at 18 years of age it will be by their own fully-informed choice. Thanks to our inspired leaders there will be no opportunities for the enemies of the Church to charge that  innocent children were lured into a supposed web of injurious psychological manipulation. 

Do you have a view on why the Church will baptise the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t members, who don’t live the standards of the Church, aren’t required to be married, may be alcohol consumers, smokers, drug users etc even though the Church will poison their mind against their parents lifestyle choices?

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you have a view on why the Church will baptise the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t members, who don’t live the standards of the Church, aren’t required to be married, may be alcohol consumers, smokers, drug users etc even though the Church will poison their mind against their parents lifestyle choices?

Because they see one as an apostate marriage tradition like polygamy. We can debate whether they should treat polygamists and SSM people that way, but the similarity is quite strong. Clearly Pres. Nelson believes this was commanded by revelation.

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Because they see one as an apostate marriage tradition like polygamy. We can debate whether they should treat polygamists and SSM people that way, but the similarity is quite strong. Clearly Pres. Nelson believes this was commanded by revelation.

Isn’t living together as a couple but not being married, an apostate situation?

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Don't say you are an inclusive church when you are not.  Talk to your members and see where they stand and why...ask what the spirit has told them.  Don't tell a gay person you love them...and then try to change them. 

The Church is not inclusive.  The Celestial Kingdom is not inclusive.  Once one sets standards, certain people will fail to live up to those standards and be excluded.

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think the elimination of the policy (that has caused a great deal of pain for gay members and their families from my own personal observations and experience), would be a huge step towards healing and towards opening up more communication and acceptance.

I also believe that the leaders should acknowledge a SSM as a "real marriage" (an actual commitment to be exclusive and faithful to the person you love and a desire to spend your life with them and have a family).  

I'm not asking for the leaders to allow temple sealings for those in SSM.  I really doubt that will ever happen.  

But, allow gay members to marry and continue attending (not excommunicate them, but welcome them) and allow them to be a part of the church with the families they may have (children, etc.).   Right now, I personally know of a gay couple (not married) who are welcomed in their ward and greatly loved.  But, if they marry....they risk excommunication.  How does that make sense?

I know you disagree....but you asked.

I agree with about the policy.  I think the Church should just treat gay married couples the same as gay couples that are not married.   Though the government may recognize these marriages, the Church does not have to.   Gay couples can attend.  As to membership,  if they are violating the law of chastity, they should be treated the same as two heterosexual couples that are not married but violating the law of chastity.   I really is simple.  Us the same standards that existed before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.  Justice Kennedy does not get to decide the path the Church goes.

Edited January 27, 2018 by carbon dioxide