The New Face of LDS Missionaries

[Investigator]

https://www.facebook.com/100030251625836/videos/451994329152284/

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Investigator said:

https://www.facebook.com/100030251625836/videos/451994329152284/

 

Interesting.  I wonder what I means by "I am also openly gay."  I would assume he means "I am gay, but I keep the Law of Chastity as taught by the Church."  I can't help but wonder, though, if listeners might come away with a very different understanding.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, Investigator said:

https://www.facebook.com/100030251625836/videos/451994329152284/

 

While I don't see the church changing it's chastity policies in the near future, I would expect there to be a cultural change within the Church as we see more and more of these situations going along with societal changes.
It could very well be preparing the Church for a future drastic change in much the same way that worldwide missionary work and the civil rights movement prepared the Church for President Kimball's revelation.
I just don't see how the Church can continue firmly against something that is continually chipping away at them from within.  We've already seen minor policy adjustments like genealogical records to go along with the attitude changes of the membership.

[Duncan]

He isn't the first nor the last gay missionary, whether or not they come out. I had a gay companion from American "Fark" genuine pain in the oonka toonka, mostly because he didn't like "Seinfeld" or "Parker Lewis Can't lose"-he wasn't the worst comp or mine though, despite his dreadful taste in 1990s TV comedies

or mission president for that fact

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/the-journey-home-for-a-mission-president-who-was-excommunicated/

[Calm]

Technically “a new face...”, not “the new face...”

The missionaries here and elsewhere on official church publications are also missionary faces, and somewhat more ‘official’ being on the Church’s website.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/topic/missionary-program

Not intent on dismissing this young man as a missionary, but including all the other faces (in theory if not in reality).  Missionary work is a group effort.

Question:  can anyone tell if the FB page is through the Church or do they just do their own these days?

Edited March 3, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

While I don't see the church changing it's chastity policies in the near future, I would expect there to be a cultural change within the Church as we see more and more of these situations going along with societal changes.

Could you elaborate?  What do you think the contours of this "cultural change" will look like?

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It could very well be preparing the Church for a future drastic change in much the same way that worldwide missionary work and the civil rights movement prepared the Church for President Kimball's revelation.

I've wondered about that.  The Priesthood Ban was always rather on wobbly doctrinal legs.  The Law of Chastity seems quite a bit more firmly founded.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9.)  Is it possible that the Church will alter course and find a way to reconcile the Law of Chastity with homosexual behavior?  Will that be one of the "many great important things" that God will "yet reveal?"  For myself, I think the answer is no.  But I remain theoretically open to the possibility.

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I just don't see how the Church can continue firmly against something that is continually chipping away at them from within.

Well, the Sexual Revolution has been chipping away at the Church for 50+ years, and yet the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity remain substantively unchanged.  No adultery.  No fornication.  No homosexual behavior.

Substance abuse has likewise been chipping away at us, and yet the Word of Wisdom is still there.

Divorce.  Sexual and other types of abuse.  Malaise.  There are all sorts of things chipping away at us.

I sort of see the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity as being this generation's "Bread of Life" reaction seen in John 6.  

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We've already seen minor policy adjustments like genealogical records to go along with the attitude changes of the membership.

I think the Church is trying hard to accommodate the members.  To make the tent as big and open as we can.  But there are, in the end, limits on how far the tent can stretch.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Interesting.  I wonder what I means by "I am also openly gay."  I would assume he means "I am gay, but I keep the Law of Chastity as taught by the Church."  I can't help but wonder, though, if listeners might come away with a very different understanding.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was a bishop a long time.  I'd say that half the "gay" members of the Church were sticking to their covenants and living lives as best they could, including a bishop friend of mine. I think such a life is doable.  Happiness in marriage with children.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Technically “a new face...”, not “the new face...”

The missionaries here and elsewhere on official church publications are also missionary faces, and somewhat more ‘official’ being on the Church’s website.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/topic/missionary-program

Not intent on dismissing this young man as a missionary, but including all the other faces (in theory if not in reality).  Missionary work is a group effort.

Question:  can anyone tell if the FB page is through the Church or do they just do their own these days?

Sort of both.  They are not supposed to use a page they had before missions.  They are supposed to create a new page.  Leaders have passwords etc and the pages are checked by district leaders, zone leaders etc.  

Then, at least in my son's mission, someone creates a page for the area.  I am assuming it is a zone or similar to a zone.  They have missionaries in charge of putting content on there - some from the church and some from other missionaries and members.  This page is also checked.

The instagram is a new one to me.  I've not heard of any missionaries being there. Edit: just asked.  A number of missions are doing instagram now.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

While I don't see the church changing it's chastity policies in the near future, I would expect there to be a cultural change within the Church as we see more and more of these situations going along with societal changes.

Could you elaborate?  What do you think the contours of this "cultural change" will look like?

The more the general membership changes to accept homosexuality in their daily lives the more it will impact the Church.  Good and faithful recommend holders will continue to chip away at policies, push for inclusivity, and make decisions when they are called to leadership roles that are less firm than in decade prior.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

I just don't see how the Church can continue firmly against something that is continually chipping away at them from within.

Well, the Sexual Revolution has been chipping away at the Church for 50+ years, and yet the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity remain substantively unchanged.  No adultery.  No fornication.  No homosexual behavior.
Substance abuse has likewise been chipping away at us, and yet the Word of Wisdom is still there.
Divorce.  Sexual and other types of abuse.  Malaise.  There are all sorts of things chipping away at us.

Most of those things you mention are either not from within or not considered sinful.  I don't know people are asking the Church to accept drug use, abuse, or adultery as ok.
And divorce is an interesting example.  It used to be far more frowned upon in the Church than it is today.  But as it became more acceptable in society it became more acceptable in the Church and Brigham's teachings on divorce are no longer considered true (even though they match the Savior's).

I'm differentiating here between societal pressures from outside the Church which it is far easier to resist vs societal pressures among the members.  If 90% of members believed homosexual relationships weren't sinful, that gay marriage was completely the same as straight marriage, and that God was ok with that relationship how long do you think the remaining 10% Church would hold the line?  Especially once many of the 90% became Bishops, Stake Presidents, Seventies, or even Apostles?
That's what I mean by chipping away.  Every day faithful members of the Church change their view based on changes in society.  Eventually the entire Church may not agree with the Law of Chastity as it's formulated today.
It was already reworded once when plural marriage ended.

Edited March 3, 2021 by JLHPROF

[theplains]

When did bearded missionaries begin to get phased out?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

When did bearded missionaries begin to get phased out?

Probably eased in under President McKay.  But it was firmed up in the 70s.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

...................  We've already seen minor policy adjustments like genealogical records to go along with the attitude changes of the membership.

Minor policy adjustments are the heart and soul of the LDS faith, but major doctrinal change not so much.  It would be like seeing the RC Church allowing female priesthood, or Orthodox Judaism allowing female rabbis.  Ain't gonna happen.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Minor policy adjustments are the heart and soul of the LDS faith, but major doctrinal change not so much.  It would be like seeing the RC Church allowing female priesthood, or Orthodox Judaism allowing female rabbis.  Ain't gonna happen.

Is there a large push among Orthodox Jews to allow female rabbis?  Do most practicing Orthodox Jews believe there should be female rabbis?
That's my only point.  When the heart and soul of the membership move, especially when it becomes almost all of them, do doctrinal changes follow suit?

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably eased in under President McKay.  But it was firmed up in the 70s.

No beards in 1965 

[Kenngo1969]

People are what they are.  I have no problem accepting them for what (and for who) they are.  If the intent is to assure someone who might share that person's particular characteristic (sexual orientation, race, or whatever) that there is a place for them in the Church of Jesus Christ, whatever the characteristic might be, then I applaud that.  The only thing that gives me slight pause when someone says, "I am a [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] Latter-day Saint" or "I am a [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] Child of God" is the question whether, If the [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] comes before the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God," the characteristic might predominate or take precedence over the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God."  If the characteristic does predominate or take precedence, eventually, will the characteristic come to supplant the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God"?

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

People are what they are.  I have no problem accepting them for what (and for who) they are.  If the intent is to assure someone who might share that person's particular characteristic (sexual orientation, race, or whatever) that there is a place for them in the Church of Jesus Christ, whatever the characteristic might be, then I applaud that.  The only thing that gives me slight pause when someone says, "I am a [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] Latter-day Saint" or "I am a [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] Child of God" is the question whether, If the [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] comes before the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God," the characteristic might predominate or take precedence over the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God."  If the characteristic does predominate or take precedence, eventually, will the characteristic come to supplant the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God"?

Maybe it's just easier to touch those realities than it is to touch spirituality.  So that's the definition people lead by.  But I understand what you're saying.  Then again, I'm white and cis, we both are, so It's easier I think to say "hey lets just drop the identifier and simply identify as one."  I wish we all could.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there a large push among Orthodox Jews to allow female rabbis?  Do most practicing Orthodox Jews believe there should be female rabbis?
That's my only point.  When the heart and soul of the membership move, especially when it becomes almost all of them, do doctrinal changes follow suit?

To your point, the push for the Church to accept gay marriage is ONLY coming from either within the Church or from former members.  I have never ever heard any of my friends say that the Church should accept gay marriage.  They all just look at the Church as being a homophobic church that will probably never change.

Has anyone ever read an article pushing for acceptance of gay marriage in the Church that did not come from either a member or a former member?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there a large push among Orthodox Jews to allow female rabbis?  Do most practicing Orthodox Jews believe there should be female rabbis?
That's my only point.  When the heart and soul of the membership move, especially when it becomes almost all of them, do doctrinal changes follow suit?

Bear in mind that those Jews who want to change have left Orthodoxy, just as those Latter Day Saints who want change have long since left the Restoration, the largest such group being the Community of Christ (CoC), which was the RLDS Church.  There are female priests and elders within the CoC, just as there are female rabbis in non-Orthodox forms of Judaism.  The notion of fundamental change within Orthodox Judaism or within the LDS Church is a pipe dream.  I see no doctrinal changes in the past or future for either group.  There is no significant push for change within either group.  Those who leave may carp at the Orthodox, or form their own groups.  That is all.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The more the general membership changes to accept homosexuality in their daily lives the more it will impact the Church.  Good and faithful recommend holders will continue to chip away at policies, push for inclusivity, and make decisions when they are called to leadership roles that are less firm than in decade prior.

Relative to the Law of Chastity, I wonder how far this can/will go.  We're 50+ years into the Sexual Revolution, and yet adultery, fornication and homosexual behavior remain prohibited.

Quote

Quote

Well, the Sexual Revolution has been chipping away at the Church for 50+ years, and yet the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity remain substantively unchanged.  No adultery.  No fornication.  No homosexual behavior.

Substance abuse has likewise been chipping away at us, and yet the Word of Wisdom is still there.

Divorce.  Sexual and other types of abuse.  Malaise.  There are all sorts of things chipping away at us.

I sort of see the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity as being this generation's "Bread of Life" reaction seen in John 6.  

Most of those things you mention are either not from within or not considered sinful. 

I'm not sure wha tyou mean by "not from within."  Could you elaborate?

I mentioned 1) adultery, 2) fornication, 3) homosexual behavior, 4) substance abuse, 5) divorce, 6) sexual and other types of abuse and 7) malaise.

Of these, 5 and 7 are not per se "sinful."  The others, however, do seem to be so.

Quote

I don't know people are asking the Church to accept drug use, abuse, or adultery as ok.

I agree.  That's sort of my point.  We seem to recognize that there are some things that we collectively find outside the parameters of acceptable behavior for the Lord's covenant people.  Homosexual behavior seems to be something of a bone of contention, as some members of the Church seem to feel this is not, or should not be, a violation of the Law of Chastity (as compared to adultery and fornication, which - as you note - are not being advanced in the Church as being "ok").

Quote

And divorce is an interesting example.  It used to be far more frowned upon in the Church than it is today. 

"Frowned upon," yes.  But still allowed.  Brigham Young was divorced from ten of his wives.  My mother's parents were divorced, yet my grandma remained in full fellowship.

My understanding is that no divorces is a presumptive qualification for bishops.  I wonder if we may see that change in the future.  I would not be surprised.

Quote

I'm differentiating here between societal pressures from outside the Church which it is far easier to resist vs societal pressures among the members. 

That's fair.

Quote

If 90% of members believed homosexual relationships weren't sinful, that gay marriage was completely the same as straight marriage, and that God was ok with that relationship how long do you think the remaining 10% Church would hold the line? 

That's a pretty big "if."  But I think the more pertinent question would be "If 90% of members believed homosexual relationships weren't sinful, that gay marriage was completely the same as straight marriage, and that God was ok with that relationship, but if the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve continued to declare otherwise, what would happen?"  My surmise is that we would see a replay of John 6.  We may already be seeing this, just in slow motion.

Quote

Especially once many of the 90% became Bishops, Stake Presidents, Seventies, or even Apostles?

Well, I believe the doctrines of the Church are fundamentally based on revelation, not on the personal sociopolitical preferences of the majority of the members of the Church.  

As far as "hold{ing} the line," I think there will be some, likely many, who in the long run do not.  I think it would be unreasonable to not anticipate this.  The Parable of the Ten Virgins is about the Church, not the World.  When the Lord said "if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me" (D&C 98:15), I think He was warning us against what was coming.  I think there are solid reasons we have so many scriptures listed in the "Topical Guide" under the headings for "Endurance," "Adversity," "Obedience," "Perseverance," "Steadfastness," "Patience," "Forbear," "Long-Suffering" and so on.

Quote

That's what I mean by chipping away.  Every day faithful members of the Church change their view based on changes in society. 

And yet there seems to be a breaking point, where faithful members cease to be so when their personal views are no longer compatible with continued membership and activity in the Church.  We are seeing quite a few people leaving the Church over social issues.  So the "chipping away" is happening in that way.  

Quote

Eventually the entire Church may not agree with the Law of Chastity as it's formulated today.

I rather doubt it.  Again, I believe the doctrines of the Church are based on revelation, not majority rule.  It is the Lord's church, not ours.  

I posted this back in 2018 (referencing the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6) :

Quote

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Did His words hurt certain people?  Yes.

Did His words energize his remaining followers?  Yes.

Were His words true?  Aye, there's the rub.
...
Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  What "harm" means, and the fact that it happens, is not in and of itself indicative of whether the conduct precipitating it was moral or right.  That's far too subjective a measurement.  

I'm also quite okay with the Lord's servants doing the same thing (saying and doing things that are not well-received by the society around them).  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and enhancing the Church's reputation cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

He also said:

Quote

49 ¶ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Luke 12)

Years ago I used to be puzzled at the seeming inconsistency in the foregoing verses (the "Prince of Peace" coming to cause "division" amongst family members).  But I have come to believe that the conflict is arising from the increasing distance between God and His children, which distance is in turn being caused by the waywardness of His children.  Then the Savior comes and calls us to Him.  Some will heed the call, and some will not.  And from those disparate responses comes . . . division.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

So with actual and real respect to you, I disagree that what the Church is doing is causing "harm" in a problematic sense.  Following the mandates of God is always necessary, even when speaking the truth causes offense.

My dad and I were talking about these a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are not "bad fruit."  They are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when such counsel is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

I really hope my heart and mind are open to further light and knowledge from God.  I think such things are coming to us and will continue to, but re-structuring the Law of Chastity so as to legitimize / authorize / ratify / endorse homosexual behavior is, in my view, likely not part of the plan.  So the choice available to individual members who have a "the Law of Chastity's prohibition against homosexual behavior is a dealbreaker for me" mindset will, I think, not really be "Do I accept the Law of Chastity as it is taught, or do I try to alter it by using my calling in the Church to that end," but rather "Do I accept the Law of Chastity and continue to sustain the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators, or do I leave."

Quote

It was already reworded once when plural marriage ended.

It was?  Could you quote the previous version?

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  

However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.

I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

I am very sad to see friends and family leave the Church.  I continue to love them, and hope they return.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2021 by smac97

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

People are what they are.  I have no problem accepting them for what (and for who) they are.  If the intent is to assure someone who might share that person's particular characteristic (sexual orientation, race, or whatever) that there is a place for them in the Church of Jesus Christ, whatever the characteristic might be, then I applaud that.  The only thing that gives me slight pause when someone says, "I am a [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] Latter-day Saint" or "I am a [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] Child of God" is the question whether, If the [fill-in-the-blank-with-characteristic here] comes before the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God," the characteristic might predominate or take precedence over the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God."  If the characteristic does predominate or take precedence, eventually, will the characteristic come to supplant the "Latter-day Saint" or the "Child of God"?

They probably wouldn't have to label themselves if they were accepted wholly for who they were and for who they choose to love.

[Duncan]

I was talking to my Mom last night, she joined in 1967. She was saying, at least in Canada in her experience but homosexuality was never talked about, the end of the world and we're God's chosen people and BOM evidences was the main ideas floating around at that time. People got divorced, had terrible marriages, abuse, were gay but it was all elephant in the room type of stuff. People knew about it but didn't talk about it. Why would you care about someone else's sexuality or marriage if the world will end in 1972? 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Relative to the Law of Chastity, I wonder how far this can/will go.  We're 50+ years into the Sexual Revolution, and yet adultery, fornication and homosexual behavior remain prohibited.
I'm not sure wha tyou mean by "not from within."  Could you elaborate?

In this instance from within means the members don't believe the Church's position on the subject.  I don't know many members that believe adultery, fornication, or even substance abuse are ok.  I know an increasing number of members who believe homosexuality and SSM are fine.  Pressure from outside the Church can and has resisted.  Even smaller movements within the Church have been resisted (Ordain Women for example).
But when the body of the Church change their thinking that generates pressure from within.  As I said I'm differentiating here between societal pressures from outside the Church which it is far easier to resist vs societal pressures among the members. 

Quote

I really hope my heart and mind are open to further light and knowledge from God.  I think such things are coming to us and will continue to, but re-structuring the Law of Chastity so as to legitimize / authorize / ratify / endorse homosexual behavior is, in my view, likely not part of the plan.  So the choice available to individual members who have a "the Law of Chastity's prohibition against homosexual behavior is a dealbreaker for me" mindset will, I think, not really be "Do I accept the Law of Chastity as it is taught, or do I try to alter it by using my calling in the Church to that end," but rather "Do I accept the Law of Chastity and continue to sustain the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators, or do I leave."

Quote

It was already reworded once when plural marriage ended.

It was?  Could you quote the previous version?

I don't believe quoting temple covenants verbatim is permitted.  But prior to the 1920s the Law of Chastity allowed for plural wives and focused on priesthood authority.  It was changed in several ways around that time to allow for civil marriage and to remove the option for polygamy.  It was changed again in 1990.  The updated current version actually would make SSM easier to implement.  But as I said it has changed at least twice already.  If the MOD's want to give me a pass to quote all three versions I will since I don't consider the wording to need to be hidden and I think the compare/contrast is fascinating.

Edited March 4, 2021 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

As far as the church is concerned, I think it's been the recognition that people are actually born homosexual, and personally knowing people who are gay, that has changed the way we see the issue.  

And changing views provides us with the opportunity and insight to ask God questions about stuff we wouldn't have known to ask before.  That process can provide new understanding to old answers, which might look like 'change' from the old perspective.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In this instance from within means the members don't believe the Church's position on the subject. 

Okay.

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't know many members that believe adultery, fornication, or even substance abuse are ok. 

Same here.  And yet these behaviors are categorically prohibited.  

I think many members take some sort of "split the baby" approach, wherein they accept the doctrinally-based proscriptions for themselves, but do not necessarily find those proscriptions binding on non-members. 

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I know an increasing number of members who believe homosexuality and SSM are fine. 

"Fine" in what sense?  "Fine" as in (A) "acceptable for those not of our faith, not under covenant, etc." or (B) "acceptable even within our faith, and for those under covenant?"

I can see (A) as a workaround.  Honestly, I think pretty all of us are going to have to adopt that approach to some extent, whether it be (A)(1) an indifferent/passive "live and let live" approach, wherein the churchmember is not affirmatively/actively opposed to homosexual behavior and SSM (much as we may feel about fornication - it's an entrenched part of life, so get used to it), or (A)(2) a vive la différence! approach where the member, though not personally participating in such behaviors, nevertheless actively ratifies / celebrates / endorses homosexual behavior and SSM as pertaining to those not of our faith. 

I think (B) is unworkable.

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Pressure from outside the Church can and has resisted.  Even smaller movements within the Church have been resisted (Ordain Women for example).

But when the body of the Church change their thinking that generates pressure from within. 

A fair point.  But we've seen no movement to legitimize adultery or fornication as acceptable behavior in the Church, despite 50+ years of thinking in the Sexual Revoluation.  Do you anticipate a different course building amidst the members of the Church relative to homosexual behavior and SSM?  That there is pressure to have these legimitized as acceptable behavior in the Church?

I appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Fine" in what sense?  "Fine" as in (A) "acceptable for those not of our faith, not under covenant, etc." or (B) "acceptable even within our faith, and for those under covenant?"

I can see (A) as a workaround.  Honestly, I think pretty all of us are going to have to adopt that approach to some extent, whether it be (A)(1) an indifferent/passive "live and let live" approach, wherein the churchmember is not affirmatively/actively opposed to homosexual behavior and SSM (much as we may feel about fornication - it's an entrenched part of life, so get used to it), or (A)(2) a vive la différence! approach where the member, though not personally participating in such behaviors, nevertheless actively ratifies / celebrates / endorses homosexual behavior and SSM as pertaining to those not of our faith. 

I think (B) is unworkable.

B.
And I agree that it is unworkable right now because a huge percent of the church still see homosexuality as sinful.
But that huge percent shrinks daily.

Quote

A fair point.  But we've seen no movement to legitimize adultery or fornication as acceptable behavior in the Church, despite 50+ years of thinking in the Sexual Revoluation.  Do you anticipate a different course building amidst the members of the Church relative to homosexual behavior and SSM?  That there is pressure to have these legimitized as acceptable behavior in the Church?

Yes, I do anticipate a different course for SSM etc than for adultery and fornication.
There is no change of thought and acceptance among members of the Church.  Nobody thinks it's ok to cheat on their spouse etc.  What you call the sexual revolution isn't really relevant to the topic.  Members of the Church aren't really changing the way they view adultery.  I don't really think even society at large views adultery as good.
But the view of homosexuality continues to change daily and that includes with members.  I think you are making a false equivalency by comparing our reaction the two.
I don't hear members saying we need to "accept my child as worthy who cheats on his wife and his lover too".  I do foresee members saying in the near future we need to "accept my child and their same sex spouse in their faithful relationship as worthy".
I may not agree with them, but that's the way it will head.