The New Face of LDS Missionaries

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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 think there is more momentum now; i.e., the "rate" of change hasn't been a steady line over those 50+ years. Exponential change more recently, in other words, not linear.

One canary in the mineshaft is masturbation. I think that most members lean or solidly believe that it isn't wrong --- especially when compared with past generations. A lot of this is driven by a desire to help men not be wracked with guilt, and some of it is due to shifting social morals. And some of it, too, comes from people who don't want things like this discussed at all between priesthood leaders and members. 

I can see the "Overton Window" shifting with more serious law of chastity items, just like it has among almost all other Christian churches (even evangelicals). I think that JLHPROF is right; we're not there yet, but we're trending that way. I also agree with him that when a large enough group of active members, including leaders, personally believe differently than what the Church has taught, then it provides tremendous pressure to change. Just like with birth control, conservatism in sex practices, and (I would argue) the tendency with masturbation. 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Hmm.  I think it's unworkable because it contravenes the commandments.

John 6 comes to mind.

Quote

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. 

I think it is.  It caused a massive shift in broad social mores pertaining to sexual (mostly hetero) morality.

We are now seeing a similar massive shift in thought pertaining to homosexual behavior and SSM.

I think members of the Church are a lot more, shall we say, "complacent" in their attitudes about fornication.  It's simply too commonplace to get worked up over.  And yet despite that we acknowledge that it is wrong for those under covenant, even though the rest of society has been departing from that line of thinking for 50+ years.  That complacency has not translated to fornication making inroads into the Church.  

Quote

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.

Perhaps not "good," but not categorically bad, either.  

And views on fornication have clearly shifted a lot since the Sexual Revolution.

Quote

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'm proposing an analogy, not equivalency.  A comparison of two otherwise dissimilar things.  What they have in common is that both adultery and homosexual behavior are prohibited under the Law of Chastity. Same with fornication.

Quote

I don't hear members saying we need to "accept my child as worthy who cheats on his wife and his lover too". 

Nor do I.  And I don't hear members saying we need to "accept my child as worthy who's tomcatting around every weekend," either. 

That's rather my point.  Adultery and fornication have become more "acceptable," or less condemned, as compared to generations past, yet the Church still teaches these things are wrong.  There is no movement in the Church pushing for an alteration to the Law of Chastity so as to accommodate these behaviors.

I wonder if there will, nevertheless, be some sort of "push" to legitimize homosexual behavior and SSM.  And if and when that push fails, I think we'll have a repeat of John 6.  And after OD-2.  Schism.  I think it's already started.  It's just happening more gradually.

Quote

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.

We've seen some of that already.  But I think there will not be a "movement" as much as an exodus.  I think it's already started.  People who have this sort of thing in mind are not saying "we need to 'accept my child and their same-sex spouse ... as worthy.'"  They are simply leaving the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if there will, nevertheless, be some sort of "push" to legitimize homosexual behavior and SSM.  And if and when that push fails, I think we'll have a repeat of John 6.  And after OD-2.  Schism.  I think it's already started.  It's just happening more gradually.

We've seen some of that already.  But I think there will not be a "movement" as much as an exodus.  I think it's already started.  People who have this sort of thing in mind are not saying "we need to 'accept my child and their same-sex spouse ... as worthy.'"  They are simply leaving the Church.

I'm not as convinced.  I think you are correct that right now the action is to leave.  I think we will reach a point where the great majority of active members will accept homosexual relationships as not sinful and they won't leave the Church over it.

Instead you will have Bishops, Stake Presidents, Area Authorities, Temple Presidents, etc who will approach those in such relationships in a far more accepting manner than policy will currently allow.
And back to the start of our conversation, I see this going far more in line with the membership thoughts that led to the end of the priesthood ban in 1978 and the changes to the temple endowment in 1990.  When the membership are no longer comfortable with the Church's position on a matter of morality, that official moral code will be eroded.  In much the same way that the death of Harold B. Lee opened the door for President Kimball to address member concerns.  It's no coincidence that it came on the heels of the Civil Rights movement.  People's thinking had been changed first.  It's being changed right now on homosexuality. 

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I think there is more momentum now; i.e., the "rate" of change hasn't been a steady line over those 50+ years. Exponential change more recently, in other words, not linear.

One canary in the mineshaft is masturbation. I think that most members lean or solidly believe that it isn't wrong --- especially when compared with past generations. A lot of this is driven by a desire to help men not be wracked with guilt, and some of it is due to shifting social morals. And some of it, too, comes from people who don't want things like this discussed at all between priesthood leaders and members. 

I can see the "Overton Window" shifting with more serious law of chastity items, just like it has among almost all other Christian churches (even evangelicals). I think that JLHPROF is right; we're not there yet, but we're trending that way. I also agree with him that when a large enough group of active members, including leaders, personally believe differently than what the Church has taught, then it provides tremendous pressure to change. Just like with birth control, conservatism in sex practices, and (I would argue) the tendency with masturbation. 

I grew up with the idea that all sin needs to be confessed to the Bishop, regardless. Now, I see that the leaders are saying serious sin needs to be confessed, with serious sin being anything that can affect your standing in the church, so abuse, adultery, fornication etc. Our MP told us that masturbation isn't sinful, not a good to do but it isn't anything that affects your standing in the church, so don't call him at 4am in the morning. if someone had that issue, counselling could help? my current Bishop is an architect, I doubt he has training to deal with possibly compulsive behaviour, could he tell what is a bad habit vs. addiction? I would seek his opinion on arches before his opinion or views on masturbation just because he would have his own perspective which may conflict with someone else's? i.e 'so, you did it again that's a DC and you can't take the sacrament for 8 months let's say', 8 months!!!!!!!!!! for this?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not as convinced.  I think you are correct that right now the action is to leave.  I think we will reach a point where the great majority of active members will accept homosexual relationships as not sinful and they won't leave the Church over it.

I think my point is that the Church will not alter the Law of Chastity to accommodate homosexual behavior or SSM (absent a revelation from the Lord, which I doubt will happen), and that some members are leaving as a result.  There will be a sort of schism, like what we saw in John 6 and after OD-1 (I previously said "OD-2," which was a mistake).  We'll eventually reach a sort of 
détente, with those members who have stayed finding a way to accommodate their acceptance of homosexual relationships "as not sinful" with their continued membership and activity in the Church.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Instead you will have Bishops, Stake Presidents, Area Authorities, Temple Presidents, etc who will approach those in such relationships in a far more accepting manner than policy will currently allow.

How do you think that will play out?  Do you envision bishops officiating in same-sex marriages?  In temple presidents allowing same-sex sealings?  These seem . . . unlikely.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

And back to the start of our conversation, I see this going far more in line with the membership thoughts that led to the end of the priesthood ban in 1978 and the changes to the temple endowment in 1990.  When the membership are no longer comfortable with the Church's position on a matter of morality, that official moral code will be eroded. 

I respectuflly disagree.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any scriptural provenance, and was likely an error ab initio.  The changes to the temple endowment have been an ongoing thing since the inception of the Church.

Ratifying homosexual behavior and SSM is, I think, a vastly different proposition.  

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

In much the same way that the death of Harold B. Lee opened the door for President Kimball to address member concerns.  It's no coincidence that it came on the heels of the Civil Rights movement.  People's thinking had been changed first.  It's being changed right now on homosexuality. 

Thinking can and will change.  But I don't think think the Lord will ratify homosexual behavior and SSM.  That just seems like wishful thinking.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thinking can and will change.  But I don't think think the Lord will ratify homosexual behavior and SSM.  That just seems like wishful thinking.

Not my wish, just to be clear.  I just see parallels to history.

[Duncan]

Our temple president's brother, BIC, RM, sealed in the temple to a woman, later divorced but he died of AIDS in the 1980's At his funeral, apparently, his father-who was the patriarch, shared some spiritual story that his son was taken care of and not to worry. I think people need to know that while life isn't fair, the church doesn't need add to life's unfairness. God doesn't love me more than this deceased brother who died years ago, he will take care of him just as he will take care of me , with all of nonsense. I know missionaries in the past were told not to proselyte to gay people, well, if they weren't allowed to choose God here why would they ever choose God in the next life? the church is for everyone or it isn't, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people means everyone in those nations, who speaks that language and everyone in the borders of the country. We need to give people reasons not to choose Christ, as per Alma 4:10. I fully trust that this deceased brother will be taken care, however that may be but I should give hope to those who aren't a RM, BIC, temple president brother, would a gay person choose Christ as a result of me? I hope so 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

Thinking can and will change.  But I don't think think the Lord will ratify homosexual behavior and SSM.  That just seems like wishful thinking.

Not my wish, just to be clear.  I just see parallels to history.

Understood.  I should have been more clear.  

I see parallels regarding my guesstimates also.  We'll see what happens, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you think that will play out?  Do you envision bishops officiating in same-sex marriages?  In temple presidents allowing same-sex sealings?  These seem . . . unlikely.

I think it would first start with bishops granting temple recommends to people he knows are in a sinful relationship (gay or straight). Or a temple president who strongly sympathizes with this standpoint using his influence to put pressure on the system (within a larger milieu of mass acceptance). The Church largely doesn't discipline people any more unless the person pretty much pushes for it (by confessing and making it clear that they want to pay the price). Church discipline of inactives is extremely rare; known fornicators and adulterers are mostly just left alone, with no discipline. 

The Church already stepped back from mandating discipline for gay marriage. It is now up to the stake, but I'll bet most now choose to "let it ride." There has always been a degree of "leader roulette" that leads to some outrageous differences in "enforcement." We had a guy in our ward who left his wife for his 1st cousin, whom he was "helping" to prepare for American Idol (talk about a mess of pottage). His stake president had a policy of no excommunications in his stake, no matter what, worlds without end. No matter how egregious (to my knowledge, his resolve on this was never tested with murder one or anything like that). This didn't sit well with his ex-wife and the young kids, but they have moved on, and she remarried in the temple. 

I think one net result of the overhaul in disciplinary councils is that far fewer take place now, and that they are less formal and weighty affairs (my opinion). As society continues to degrade over decades, if (for the sake of argument), the Church effectively drastically reduces its discipline in cases of fornication, adultery, etc., that alone will cause a normalization (or at least much less stern attitude) towards law of chastity offenses. From there, it's not very far until they carry no sin weight at all, just like with most other Christian churches --- even evangelical ones. 

None of that requires the frog jumping right out of the boiling pot and bishops performing same-sex marriages "rogue." It leads to a place where the Church itself would welcome and implement the change. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by rongo

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 I know missionaries in the past were told not to proselyte to gay people

Were they at any point told this, though? I know that missionary work among gay people is a hard sell, to say the least, but we've always worked with them and offered what the Church does have to offer. For most, what the Church requires is more than they are willing to pay, and I admit that it is a lot to ask (celibacy for life, etc.). 

The first gay people I met in my life (that I knew of) were on my mission, and they weren't just a few, either. We did teach them, and it was hard sledding. 

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Were they at any point told this, though? I know that missionary work among gay people is a hard sell, to say the least, but we've always worked with them and offered what the Church does have to offer. For most, what the Church requires is more than they are willing to pay, and I admit that it is a lot to ask (celibacy for life, etc.). 

The first gay people I met in my life (that I knew of) were on my mission, and they weren't just a few, either. We did teach them, and it was hard sledding. 

I know Elder Scott told a friend of mine's mission and I remember being at stake priesthood mtg and this question was asked to the SP and he said no, but I don't know what the elders in my ward would say if I asked them

[Scott Lloyd]

23 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.

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.

If 90 percent believed homosexual relationships weren’t sinful, that 90 percent would be wrong.

[rongo]

Just now, Duncan said:

I know Elder Scott told a friend of mine's mission and I remember being at stake priesthood mtg and this question was asked to the SP and he said no, but I don't know what the elders in my ward would say if I asked them

Wow. 

Germans asked probing Socratic questions. Questions like, "What's wrong with being gay (schwul)?" Or, "Why would sex outside of marriage be a sin?" It was really valuable experience thinking about the answers to questions like those, that you might get from anyone on the street or at the door (gay, straight, skeptic, etc.). I've had gays say, "I'm gay, and you think I'm going to hell. Why should I listen to you?", and I've had them let us in (sometimes) when we said we have good answers to these good questions, could we come in and talk about it. Some slammed the door, and some would talk with us for hours at the door. 

I really feel bad for modern missionaries who don't get the tracting experience. I know that social media is just different, and we find people through that, too, but there are some experiences many won't have. 

Are you still the WML, @Duncan?

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If 90 percent believed homosexual relationships weren’t sinful, that 90 percent would be wrong.

They absolutely would, but if it ever came to that, the disconnect between the overwhelming orientation of most members and doctrine/tradition would be a very bad situation. What concerns some of us is that member sentiments about the law of chastity (I think easing attitudes on straight problems are more of a problem than gay problems in the Church, to be clear) within the Church are trending that way. We're not at 90% yet, but I don't know that it has to hit 90% before there is a problem. 

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it would first start with bishops granting temple recommends to people he knows are in a sinful relationship (gay or straight). Or a temple president who strongly sympathizes with this standpoint using his influence to put pressure on the system (within a larger milieu of mass acceptance). The Church largely doesn't discipline people any more unless the person pretty much pushes for it (by confessing and making it clear that they want to pay the price). Church discipline of inactives is extremely rare; known fornicators and adulterers are mostly just left alone, with no discipline. 

The Church already stepped back from mandating discipline for gay marriage. It is now up to the stake, but I'll bet most now choose to "let it ride." There has always been a degree of "leader roulette" that leads to some outrageous differences in "enforcement." We had a guy in our ward who left his wife for his 1st cousin, whom he was "helping" to prepare for American Idol (talk about a mess of pottage). His stake president had a policy of no excommunications in his stake, no matter what, worlds without end. No matter how egregious (to my knowledge, his resolve on this was never tested with murder one or anything like that). This didn't sit well with his ex-wife and the young kids, but they have moved on, and she remarried in the temple. 

I think one net result of the overhaul in disciplinary councils is that far fewer take place now, and that they are less formal and weighty affairs (my opinion). As society continues to degrade over decades, if (for the sake of argument), the Church effectively drastically reduces its discipline in cases of fornication, adultery, etc., that alone will cause a normalization (or at least much less stern attitude) towards law of chastity offenses. From there, it's not very far until they carry no sin weight at all, just like with most other Christian churches --- even evangelical ones. 

None of that requires the frog jumping right out of the boiling pot and bishops performing same-sex marriages "rogue." It leads to a place where the Church itself would welcome and implement the change. 

Exactly.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If 90 percent believed homosexual relationships weren’t sinful, that 90 percent would be wrong.

That's true.  But what would the repercussions likely be within the Church?  The 90% we are speaking of in this hypothetical instance are active members, many in leadership positions.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

They absolutely would, but if it ever came to that, the disconnect between the overwhelming orientation of most members and doctrine/tradition would be a very bad situation. What concerns some of us is that member sentiments about the law of chastity (I think easing attitudes on straight problems are more of a problem than gay problems in the Church, to be clear) within the Church are trending that way. We're not at 90% yet, but I don't know that it has to hit 90% before there is a problem. 

I can think of several hypothetical ways this would manifest.  Not sure it's worth speculating on but when your Bishop has a son in a SSM who is in every other way a believing saint?  Or your Stake President has a sister in a SSM who wants to be active in the ward?  These situations are going to continue to crop up again and again.
Right now there is clear division, strict policy in place.  And in general practicing homosexuals aren't seeking to partake of Church blessings and callings.  But members will increasingly stop seeing a problem if they do.  The young man in the original OP video is a priesthood holder and serving the mission presumably because he remains single and celibate.  What when he returns and falls in love?

Edited March 4, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Wow. 

Germans asked probing Socratic questions. Questions like, "What's wrong with being gay (schwul)?" Or, "Why would sex outside of marriage be a sin?" It was really valuable experience thinking about the answers to questions like those, that you might get from anyone on the street or at the door (gay, straight, skeptic, etc.). I've had gays say, "I'm gay, and you think I'm going to hell. Why should I listen to you?", and I've had them let us in (sometimes) when we said we have good answers to these good questions, could we come in and talk about it. Some slammed the door, and some would talk with us for hours at the door. 

I really feel bad for modern missionaries who don't get the tracting experience. I know that social media is just different, and we find people through that, too, but there are some experiences many won't have. 

Are you still the WML, @Duncan?

it makes you think! like Pres. Uchtdorf said, the whys of life can open up revelatory experiences, IIRC! sadly I am not! I have been EQP for almost 4 years now

Edited March 4, 2021 by Duncan

[rongo]

Just now, Duncan said:

it makes you think! like Pres. Uchtdorf said, the whys of life can open up revelatory experiences, IIRC! sadly I am not! I have been EQP for almost 4 years now

Out of the frying pan, and into the fire, eh?

My heart goes out to you. Combo-quorums, and ministering. Four years is a long time, but they said they wanted EQP to be like bishopric in tenure.  

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's true.  But what would the repercussions likely be within the Church?  The 90% we are speaking of in this hypothetical instance are active members, many in leadership positions.

I think it would depend entirely on how they chose to comport themselves. If they pushed the matter and found themselves rebuffed, we could see the mass exodus that Smac suggested might occur. His application of John 6 is very well placed in this instance. I would invite anyone to review it, as I just did. 

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Out of the frying pan, and into the fire, eh?

My heart goes out to you. Combo-quorums, and ministering. Four years is a long time, but they said they wanted EQP to be like bishopric in tenure.  

yes! it's SO BIZARRE! We have ex Stake Presidency members, ex Bishops, 2/3 of the Temple Presidency. It's funny, we have two people in the quorum who like to meddle so to speak.............and it's been brought up in ward council, like how do you deal with these older experienced brethren that they don't make these decisions anymore? It's funny too one of them is the Bishop's FIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! have fun with that conversation!

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it would depend entirely on how they chose to comport themselves. If they pushed the matter and found themselves rebuffed, we could see the mass exodus that Smac suggested might occur. His application of John 6 is very well placed in this instance. I would invite anyone to review it, as I just did. 

Well there are prophecies of a very small group of members that will be left when all is said and done.  Perhaps 16 million is about as high as we'll get before the "mass exodus".

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, rongo said:

They absolutely would, but if it ever came to that, the disconnect between the overwhelming orientation of most members and doctrine/tradition would be a very bad situation. What concerns some of us is that member sentiments about the law of chastity (I think easing attitudes on straight problems are more of a problem than gay problems in the Church, to be clear) within the Church are trending that way. We're not at 90% yet, but I don't know that it has to hit 90% before there is a problem. 

John 6 still applies, regardless of the hypothetical percentage. I still think a mass exodus would obviate any fundamental accommodation by the Savior’s Church. 
 

I rely on the Lord not to allow His Church to be hijacked by sin and apostasy. Not this time around. Too much is at stake. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quote

How do you think that will play out?  Do you envision bishops officiating in same-sex marriages?  In temple presidents allowing same-sex sealings?  These seem . . . unlikely.

I think it would first start with bishops granting temple recommends to people he knows are in a sinful relationship (gay or straight).

And when that is found out, do you think the stake presidents will collude and cover up such things?  What happens if the Area Authority finds out?  A Seventy?  One of the Twelve or the First Presidency?  Do you think they'll just ignore it?

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Or a temple president who strongly sympathizes with this standpoint using his influence to put pressure on the system (within a larger milieu of mass acceptance).

"Put pressure on the system."  I'm not sure what that would look like.

And it really doesn't sound like a movement toward Zion.  

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church largely doesn't discipline people any more unless the person pretty much pushes for it (by confessing and making it clear that they want to pay the price).

Well, not really.  I think excommunications are rare, but there's still plenty of discipline.

And in any event, a bishop or stake president or temple president heading toward apostasy would, I think, get some attention.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Church discipline of inactives is extremely rare; known fornicators and adulterers are mostly just left alone, with no discipline. 

Right.  But there isn't ratification and endorsement of adultery and fornication.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church already stepped back from mandating discipline for gay marriage.

Yes.  The Church blinked.  I'm glad of that.  I think the Brethren are really trying hard to accommodate the members as much as possible.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is now up to the stake, but I'll bet most now choose to "let it ride."

Yes.  But refraining from discipline is a far cry from ratifying/endorsing homosexual behavior or SSM.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think one net result of the overhaul in disciplinary councils is that far fewer take place now, and that they are less formal and weighty affairs (my opinion). As society continues to degrade over decades, if (for the sake of argument), the Church effectively drastically reduces its discipline in cases of fornication, adultery, etc., that alone will cause a normalization (or at least much less stern attitude) towards law of chastity offenses. From there, it's not very far until they carry no sin weight at all, just like with most other Christian churches --- even evangelical ones. 

I dunno.  Again, I keep looking at adultery and fornication.  We're already 50+ years into the Sexual Revolution, and yet the Church still teachese that these are serious transgressions.  "No sin weight at all" doesn't seem to be the case.

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

None of that requires the frog jumping right out of the boiling pot and bishops performing same-sex marriages "rogue." It leads to a place where the Church itself would welcome and implement the change. 

If the Church were a political construct, where the preferences of the electorate hold sway, I think you would have a point.  But there are plenty of ways in which the Gospel is "uncomfortable."  There are plenty of times the Lord has laid something out that was not popular nor well received.  The Bread of Life sermon in John 6.  Polygamy.  Tithing.  Substantial constraints on sexual behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And when that is found out, do you think the stake presidents will collude and cover up such things?  What happens if the Area Authority finds out?  A Seventy?  One of the Twelve or the First Presidency?  Do you think they'll just ignore it?

"Put pressure on the system."  I'm not sure what that would look like.

And it really doesn't sound like a movement toward Zion.  

Well, not really.  I think excommunications are rare, but there's still plenty of discipline.

And in any event, a bishop or stake president or temple president heading toward apostasy would, I think, get some attention.

Right.  But there isn't ratification and endorsement of adultery and fornication.

Yes.  The Church blinked.  I'm glad of that.  I think the Brethren are really trying hard to accommodate the members as much as possible.

Yes.  But refraining from discipline is a far cry from ratifying/endorsing homosexual behavior or SSM.

I dunno.  Again, I keep looking at adultery and fornication.  We're already 50+ years into the Sexual Revolution, and yet the Church still teachese that these are serious transgressions.  "No sin weight at all" doesn't seem to be the case.

If the Church were a political construct, where the preferences of the electorate hold sway, I think you would have a point.  But there are plenty of ways in which the Gospel is "uncomfortable."  There are plenty of times the Lord has laid something out that was not popular nor well received.  The Bread of Life sermon in John 6.  Polygamy.  Tithing.  Substantial constraints on sexual behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would add to that a supposedly little thing like insistence on not removing the name of Christ from the name of the Church. I see a lot of resistance to that. But insofar as I can tell, President Nelson is not relenting. And the Church, institutionally at least, seems to be following his leadership in that matter.