What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[Stormin' Mormon]

The intense discussions of LGBT issues this week (both here and on my personal Facebook feed) has highlighted in my mind the fact that I don't even know what LGBT advocates want the Church to do.

The Ordain Women movement had a very clear objective.  It was right there in the name.  The movement to get bishops to stop asking sexually intrusive questions of youth has a very clear end goal.  But I just don't know what it is that LGBT advocates want the Church actually to do or to implement.  In the last 20 years, the Church has made HUGE strides in outreach and understanding towards LGBT members.  At the risk of re-opening a closed discussion, an Apostle of the Lord last week said to this community"we love you, we need you in the Church, we recognize how crushingly cruel the world has been to you and we want you to know how much we love you." (paraphrasing a bit, despite the use of quotation marks).  And there were still hurt feelings of betrayal.  

I think as a Church we are making great progress in loving and including our LGBT brothers and sisters.  But we are still managing to hurt and offend them.  So what is it that the Church actually needs to DO here?  What is the end goal?  What changes would need to happen to avoid the types of miscommunication we saw this week?

Are advocates wanting the Church to authorize same-sex sealings in the temple?  Is the desire for the Church to rule that same-sex relationships within the bonds of marriage are not sinful?  Is the goal to permit youth who are dating in a same sex relationship to hold hands and kiss without fear of temple recommend revocation? 

This is an honest question.  Not picking a fight.  Just wanting to understand. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The intense discussions of LGBT issues this week (both here and on my personal Facebook feed) has highlighted in my mind the fact that I don't even know what LGBT advocates want the Church to do.

The Ordain Women movement had a very clear objective.  It was right there in the name.  The movement to get bishops to stop asking sexually intrusive questions of youth has a very clear end goal.  But I just don't know what it is that LGBT advocates want the Church actually to do or to implement.  In the last 20 years, the Church has made HUGE strides in outreach and understanding towards LGBT members.  At the risk of re-opening a closed discussion, an Apostle of the Lord last week said to this community"we love you, we need you in the Church, we recognize how crushingly cruel the world has been to you and we want you to know how much we love you." (paraphrasing a bit, despite the use of quotation marks).  And there were still hurt feelings of betrayal.  

I think as a Church we are making great progress in loving and including our LGBT brothers and sisters.  But we are still managing to hurt and offend them.  So what is it that the Church actually needs to DO here?  What is the end goal?  What changes would need to happen to avoid the types of miscommunication we saw this week?

Are advocates wanting the Church to authorize same-sex sealings in the temple?  Is the desire for the Church to rule that same-sex relationships within the bonds of marriage are not sinful?  Is the goal to permit youth who are dating in a same sex relationship to hold hands and kiss without fear of temple recommend revocation? 

This is an honest question.  Not picking a fight.  Just wanting to understand. 

 

 

Be like other churches for crying out loud. Other churches, not all, don't excommunicate someone that is in a same sex marriage but still teach that it is wrong and let those that attend maybe glean from their teachings rather than cut them off entirely. I listened to this Mormon Land podcast last night where this is mentioned. Plus, it speaks about the Catholic church owned schools that wouldn't keep students out that are same sex married. Yet they don't condone it. 

That's all that is needed basically, and I think the LGBTQ+ crowd will hopefully be able to live as you and I do, and not feel discriminated against, as if just being them is such a thing as to be condemned and shown the door. Stormin', I hope you listen to the podcast and see what I mean. I don't believe that LGBTQ+ are asking to be sealed in the temple. But for the sake of so many impressionable young LGBTQ+ out there, we need to stop the flow of suicides stat. And anything that will do that is the right direction. And it can be done, w/o allowing SSM couples to get sealed in the temple.

Here's is the heading and link: https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

How Jeffrey Holland’s talk on LGBTQ issues could have consequences for BYU | Episode 196

Latter-day Saint apostle Jeffrey R. Holland addressed Brigham Young University faculty and staff this week, urging them to be committed to the school’s “unique mission” and the church that sponsors it. He made headlines for criticizing faculty members who challenge teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including its stance on same-sex marriage. The popular apostle even questioned why a BYU valedictorian would choose his 2019 commencement address to come out as gay. If maintaining the faith’s policies on LGBTQ issues ends up costing the school some “professional associations and certifications,” Holland said, “then so be it.”On this week’s show, Michael Austin, a BYU alumnus and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Evansville, a Methodist school in Indiana, discusses the reverberating ramifications of the speech and how it could impact the Provo school’s academic research, professional ties, athletic alliances, classroom interactions and more.

[Fether]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Be like other churches for crying out loud. Other churches, not all, don't excommunicate someone that is in a same sex marriage but still teach that it is wrong and let those that attend maybe glean from their teachings rather than cut them off entirely. I listened to this Mormon Land podcast last night where this is mentioned. Plus, it speaks about the Catholic church owned schools that wouldn't keep students out that are same sex married. Yet they don't condone it. 

Can you show me where in church teachings this is done? From what I understand, we no longer do this.

 

right???

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The intense discussions of LGBT issues this week (both here and on my personal Facebook feed) has highlighted in my mind the fact that I don't even know what LGBT advocates want the Church to do.

I've wondered about that.  It's been going on for years.

What I think they want the Church to do is . . . capitulate.  Alter its doctrines so as to legitimize / endorse / ratify homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

The problem, I think, is that this expectation is . . . too much.  Hence we're left with what seems like deliberate vagueness, coupled with incremental demands, followed by shifting the goalposts and demanding more, and so on.  

Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons fame was perhaps a bit impatient with all this, as in 2018 he said this:

Quote

Another news item on Dan Reynolds:

Quote

The Mormon frontman of the Imagine Dragons rock band hopes the Sundance Film Festival documentary that follows his journey to becoming an advocate for LGBT Mormon youth triggers real change by his religion's leaders and puts an end to what he calls "shaming" of gay and lesbian kids in the religion.

Again, this is pretty dishonest.  "Shaming" here appears to be code for "teaching a code of sexual ethics and expecting members to adhere to it."

Quote

Singer Dan Reynolds said he and director Don Argott made the film "Believer" to put "a face to the faceless and a voice to the voiceless." His goal is to show leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that opposition to same-sex relationships is damaging the self-worth of gay, lesbian and transgender kids.

One could just as easily say "The Church's opposition to elective abortion is damaging the self-worth of women who have elective abortions."  Or "The Church's opposition to fornication is damaging the self-worth of individuals who have sex outside of marriage."  Or "The Church's opposition to polygamous marriages is damaging the self-worth of members who enter into polygamy."

And on and on.  What is Mr. Reynolds' limiting principle here?  Does he have one?  At all?  Any of the Church's teachings that in any way infringe on anyone's personal choices are presumptively bad and damaging to "self-worth," and must be abandoned?

Moreover, this is a doctrinal issue.  It is one thing to dispute the Church's implementation of the policy changes.  But he wants to challenge the Church's doctrine regarding same-sex marriage.

Well, no thanks.  Doctrine is not something to be determined by self-selected rockstars, even if they are famous.  I see no reason to privilege his personal opinion as to the Church's doctrines about marriage and the Law of Chastity.

...

Quote

The Mormon church supported the festival, praising organizers for bringing "people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God's children."

Church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement Tuesday that the religion's support of that festival was part of a message that's not new for the religion.

"We have repeatedly denounced cruelty, rejection, bullying, and the mistreatment of others," Hawkins said. "We lobbied in support of Utah's strong antidiscrimination laws. The church's message is one of hope, compassion, and understanding. We want our LGBT brothers and sisters to know that there is a place for them and their contributions in the church. There is more to do and we remain fully committed to these efforts moving forward."

I appreciate that the media here is letting the Church speak for itself.

Meanwhile, here's Mr. Reynolds' response:

Quote

Reynolds, 30, said in an interview this week that "platitudes" from church officials about love for LGBT Mormons and telling them "there's a place for them" isn't enough.

He has talked with church leaders about the issue and hopes to continue doing so but said the church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.

And there it is, folks.  There it is.  Doctrine by fiat of a self-selected famous rockstar.  Not revelation.

This is absurd.  Mr. Reynolds must know he is demanding the impossible.  And he's asking for the impossible while simultaneously publicly disparaging the Church ("platitudes are empty words").

Doctrine by fiat, and not by revelation.  That is what I think some folks want the Church to do.

34 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The Ordain Women movement had a very clear objective.  It was right there in the name.  The movement to get bishops to stop asking sexually intrusive questions of youth has a very clear end goal.  But I just don't know what it is that LGBT advocates want the Church actually to do or to implement.  In the last 20 years, the Church has made HUGE strides in outreach and understanding towards LGBT members.  At the risk of re-opening a closed discussion, an Apostle of the Lord last week said to this community"we love you, we need you in the Church, we recognize how crushingly cruel the world has been to you and we want you to know how much we love you." (paraphrasing a bit, despite the use of quotation marks).  And there were still hurt feelings of betrayal.  

I think as a Church we are making great progress in loving and including our LGBT brothers and sisters.  But we are still managing to hurt and offend them.  So what is it that the Church actually needs to DO here?  What is the end goal?  What changes would need to happen to avoid the types of miscommunication we saw this week?

Are advocates wanting the Church to authorize same-sex sealings in the temple?  Is the desire for the Church to rule that same-sex relationships within the bonds of marriage are not sinful?  Is the goal to permit youth who are dating in a same sex relationship to hold hands and kiss without fear of temple recommend revocation? 

This is an honest question.  Not picking a fight.  Just wanting to understand. 

A fair question.  I think we know what Dan Reynolds wants the Church to do, per the above article: The church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.

I'm just curious how widespread his expecation/demand is amongst those criticizing the Church.  I look forward to reading responses.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Fether said:

Can you show me where in church teachings this is done? From what I understand, we no longer do this.

 

right???

I thought they could be called in for church discipline. I'd even heard of someone being ex'd for it recently now can't remember where. But maybe it's a gamble and depends on the bishop? 

How about the church owned schools, do they allow SSM to enroll? 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Tacenda

[Fether]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought they could be called in for church discipline. I'd even heard of someone being ex'd for it recently now can't remember where. But maybe it's a gamble and depends on the bishop? 

How about the church owned schools, do they allow SSM to enroll? 

“Same-gender marriage by a Church member is considered a “serious transgression,” not “apostasy.” “

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

 

as for the school bit, I don’t think they are, but that is a different conversation than the church. Being a school that is funded by the church, I would say there is a good argument to be made to not pay for students that don’t follow the standards of the church

[Fether]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've wondered about that.  It's been going on for years.

What I think they want the Church to do is . . . capitulate.  Alter its doctrines so as to legitimize / endorse / ratify homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

The problem, I think, is that this expectation is . . . too much.  Hence we're left with what seems like deliberate vagueness, coupled with incremental demands, followed by shifting the goalposts and demanding more, and so on.  

Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons fame was perhaps a bit impatient with all this, as in 2018 he said this:

Doctrine by fiat, and not by revelation.  That is what I think some folks want the Church to do.

A fair question.  I think we know what Dan Reynolds wants the Church to do, per the above article: The church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.

I'm just curious how widespread his expecation/demand is amongst those criticizing the Church.  I look forward to reading responses.

Thanks,

-Smac

My questions to those with this desire is What IF the claims of the church are true? What IF there is a God? And what IF this is God’s church? What IF SSM and homosexuality is against the laws of God?

Would you still demand a change?

If “no”, then you admit that changing the stance of the church would mean the leadership of the church admitting it is all fake.

If “yes”, then they don’t understand the role of the church.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

My questions to those with this desire is What IF the claims of the church are true? What IF there is a God? And what IF this is God’s church? What IF SSM and homosexuality is against the laws of God?

Would you still demand a change?

If “no”, then you admit that changing the stance of the church would mean the leadership of the church admitting it is all fake.

If “yes”, then they don’t understand the role of the church.

Okay, I'll go with that. But I need an assurance that anything said against the LGBTQ+ will be stopped. Let the church handle it outside of general conference, devotionals, church talks, etc. It kills. 

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, I'll go with that. But I need an assurance that anything said against the LGBTQ+ will be stopped. Let the church handle it outside of general conference, devotionals, church talks, etc. It kills. 

What are you thoughts on this article: Is Latter-day Saint Theology Responsible for LGBT Suicides?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The intense discussions of LGBT issues this week (both here and on my personal Facebook feed) has highlighted in my mind the fact that I don't even know what LGBT advocates want the Church to do.

The Ordain Women movement had a very clear objective.  It was right there in the name.  The movement to get bishops to stop asking sexually intrusive questions of youth has a very clear end goal.  But I just don't know what it is that LGBT advocates want the Church actually to do or to implement.  In the last 20 years, the Church has made HUGE strides in outreach and understanding towards LGBT members.  At the risk of re-opening a closed discussion, an Apostle of the Lord last week said to this community"we love you, we need you in the Church, we recognize how crushingly cruel the world has been to you and we want you to know how much we love you." (paraphrasing a bit, despite the use of quotation marks).  And there were still hurt feelings of betrayal.  

I think as a Church we are making great progress in loving and including our LGBT brothers and sisters.  But we are still managing to hurt and offend them.  So what is it that the Church actually needs to DO here?  What is the end goal?  What changes would need to happen to avoid the types of miscommunication we saw this week?

Are advocates wanting the Church to authorize same-sex sealings in the temple?  Is the desire for the Church to rule that same-sex relationships within the bonds of marriage are not sinful?  Is the goal to permit youth who are dating in a same sex relationship to hold hands and kiss without fear of temple recommend revocation? 

This is an honest question.  Not picking a fight.  Just wanting to understand. 

 

 

Are the various self-appointed spokespeople that are making demands speaking for all the LDS LGBT community? I have gay friends who are on both sides of the issue.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

What are you thoughts on this article: Is Latter-day Saint Theology Responsible for LGBT Suicides?

This guy? He's an apologist. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/testimonies/scholars/stephen-cranney

What do you think of this article: https://www.ksl.com/article/50226317/combatting-suicide-in-lgbtq-youth-requires-a-change-of-mind-according-to-utah-mental-health-advocates

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This guy? He's an apologist.

I don't consider that a sufficient reason to dismiss his research. By the same standards, one could dismiss the opinions of Camlyn Giddins with even more ease. Unlike Dr. Cranney, Giddins is not employed in academia but is rather directly employed by an advocacy organization, providing the same variety of powerful conflict of interest which presumably invalidates "apologists," no? 

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What do you think of this article: https://www.ksl.com/article/50226317/combatting-suicide-in-lgbtq-youth-requires-a-change-of-mind-according-to-utah-mental-health-advocates

I looked through it and through the two sources offered as support. The primary research cited establishes the difference in suicidality but there's not too much by way of large-N studies on causality. Never mind that the practice of linking suicidality as the logical consequences of X behavior or phenomenon is a fraught practice, as Dr. Cranney points out. 

 

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, I'll go with that. But I need an assurance that anything said against the LGBTQ+ will be stopped. Let the church handle it outside of general conference, devotionals, church talks, etc. It kills. 

What does "anything said against LGBTQ+" mean? In my experience, it means "believing that it's a sin, regardless and outside of words and behavior." In other words, one is guilty of "saying things" against it or them when one believes in and teaches Church standards, but is nothing but kind and respectful towards all people. 

I'm at a new school in a different area since last year, but when I taught where I live for ca. 20 years, I had many students over the years ask me all the time why Mormons hate gay people. I asked them why they think Mormons hate gay people, and the answer was always doctrine and restrictions, not bad behavior or speech viz a viz gay people (there are examples of that, of course, but in my experience, they weren't referring to that). They all knew and liked me as a teacher, and knew that I treated them and all students with respect (and humor, and great wisdom  ). The fact that they asked me about it showed that they were comfortable with me as a person and knew I wouldn't be offended by the question. They knew I was LDS and a bishop (I was bishop of two different wards in that stake during that time, and had been relatively well-known through public firesides and school issues). When I asked if they had ever had the feeling that I hated gay people, they always answered, "No, of course not," but they wanted to know, essentially, why we believe and teach what we do, and how we square that with the values of tolerance and diversity in today's milieu. To them, initially, there could be no other explanation than that we "hate gay people," even though they had LDS friends and sometimes family. 

At a Q&A once, that same question was posed, and my answer was for everyone with gay friends and family to raise their hand. Almost all hands went up, and I told people to look around --- that was the answer to the question "Do Mormons hate gay people." The questioner was really asking why we teach and believe what we do, and how we square that with modern values of diversity and tolerance. 

My answer to them has always been the answers to the gospel question of "why law of chastity," in all its implications and forms, and that if these things are true, then people will never be enduringly happy living contrary to them. As it is in schools, there has been an explosion of self-identifying somewhere along the LGBT spectrum in the last several years, way outside of traditional demographics. Many of the kids experiment, imitate, and follow societal and media pressure (disproportionately girls, in my experience). In any given classroom you're guaranteed to have self-identifying gay teens, and they are often some of my best and most promising students. The hard part is often to make sure that other students on occasion aren't mean to them very often not LDS students). Students of any kind can tell when teachers really love and respect them, and that's important for all students. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

My questions to those with this desire is What IF the claims of the church are true? What IF there is a God? And what IF this is God’s church? What IF SSM and homosexuality is against the laws of God?

I don't think those of the Dan Reynolds line of reasoning are thinking along those lines.  I think they haven't really given much thought to the ramifications of what they are asking/demanding.

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Would you still demand a change?

If “no”, then you admit that changing the stance of the church would mean the leadership of the church admitting it is all fake.

If “yes”, then they don’t understand the role of the church.

The second one is, I think, the more common answer you will get.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Be like other churches for crying out loud. Other churches, not all, don't excommunicate someone that is in a same sex marriage but still teach that it is wrong and let those that attend maybe glean from their teachings rather than cut them off entirely.

I don't see how that is possible.

The physical act of homosexuality is a sin or transgression, a serious one, like adultery, fornication etc.
It doesn't matter if it's housed in civilly legal union or not, the actual act is still considered sinful in the Church.  Even if labelled as transgression instead of apostasy, it still breaks commandments.

If we excommunicate for acts of adultery I don't see how we can't excommunicate for acts of homosexuality.  We would have to pretend that the sin wasn't occurring or change our beliefs about the act.
It's one thing to be more accepting of those who have an attraction to someone of the same sex.  It's another to accept those who regularly participate in an act our religious beliefs considers serious transgression.

Edited August 27, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Eph2,8]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

"Be like other churches for crying out loud. Other churches, not all, don't excommunicate someone..."

Well, the vast majority of churches don't excommunicate at all. The system of membership, leadership, documentation, social settings, and whatnot of our church are pretty unique. The local baptism church down the street is not built like ours. They don't excommunicate because they don't really have... membership. If there are no standards you commit to when entering, you have no offenses that can merit you being kicked out. I would love to hear your belief about excommunication due to adultery, or other things. Should we get rid of excommunication altogether? Not accusing, legitimately curious. 

Excommunication is ancient, here is Paul talking about a Corinthian man who was excommunicated for fornicating. (The fornicator is the "old leaven", "leaven of malice", etc."

"6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

“Same-gender marriage by a Church member is considered a “serious transgression,” not “apostasy.” “

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

Transgression.
Sin.
Apostasy.

All labels for an action that is wrong to do.  The only difference is semantics and how Church policy chooses to address it.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

If we excommunicate for acts of adultery

We generally don't. My ex is still a member - which I think is for the best.

[Eph2,8]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see how that is possible.

The physical act of homosexuality is a sin, a serious one, like adultery, fornication etc.
It doesn't matter if it's housed in civilly legal union or not, the actual act is still considered sinful in the Church.

If we excommunicate for acts of adultery I don't see how we can't excommunicate for acts of homosexuality.  We would have to pretend that the sin wasn't occurring or change our beliefs about the act.
It's one thing to be more accepting of those who have an attraction to someone of the same sex.  It's another to accept those who regularly participate in an act our religious beliefs considers serious sin.

I concur

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

We generally don't. My ex is still a member - which I think is for the best.

Well, I am all for mercy and temperance in disciplinary matters.
I am very much not a hawk where other people's salvation is at stake.

If the Church chooses to allow those who've committed serious transgressions to retain their membership that's up to those who hold the keys of judgement.
But I don't consider mercy the same thing as failing to recognize the law that is being transgressed.  And that's the key issue to the OP.
Homosexuality cannot be considered acceptable by the Church at this time.  (Possibly never, we'll see what pressure is brought to bear).

So to answer the OP, I don't know what is really expected of the Church right now.  SSM and SS relationships cannot be approved.  They already show mercy.
What's left to make the LGBT community like the Church more?

[bOObOO]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think as a Church we are making great progress in loving and including our LGBT brothers and sisters.  But we are still managing to hurt and offend them.  So what is it that the Church actually needs to DO here?  What is the end goal?  What changes would need to happen to avoid the types of miscommunication we saw this week?

Are advocates wanting the Church to authorize same-sex sealings in the temple?  Is the desire for the Church to rule that same-sex relationships within the bonds of marriage are not sinful?  Is the goal to permit youth who are dating in a same sex relationship to hold hands and kiss without fear of temple recommend revocation? 

This is an honest question.  Not picking a fight.  Just wanting to understand. 

What the LGBTQ+ crowd really wants, and yes I do claim to really understand what they want, is a world where this kind of thing is considered normal and acceptable to everybody!

 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

We generally don't. My ex is still a member - which I think is for the best.

This has been my second-hand experience as well.  I personally know an endowed member who had multiple affairs over a few years time, while serving in leadership positions in the church, continuing to attend the temple, etc.  He was caught by his wife but was sincerely remorseful and began the repentance process.  He was not excommunicated but was instead disfellowship for a year (and had to do a few other things during that year) before he was again a member in good standing.

 

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

We generally don't. My ex is still a member - which I think is for the best.

The new handbook changes seem to me to seek to drastically reduce the number of excommunications and disfellowshipments (now termed withdrawal and restriction). They also, of course, are largely limited to just the stake presidency or bishopric.

It's for the best for some, but not for many others, in my opinion. 

I knew a stake president who had a policy of never applying formal discipline at all, no matter what. A sister in my ward's ex moved into his stake after he left his wife for his first cousin, and he never had anything at all done to him. 

Where it's most helpful/useful is for people who are hard on themselves, and need to know that they paid the uttermost farthing and that everything was on the table. I would be like that ---- if I transgressed, I would want to be excommunicated and rebaptized with restoration of blessings. A slap on the wrist or superficial probation period can be damaging and worrying to some people. 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

What IF SSM and homosexuality is against the laws of God?

I can't speak for others, but this seems to be the linchpin. And, as you say, if it is a sin, then it doesn't (shouldn't) matter what activists want. If it is not a sin, then we have some serious wrestling to do with the idea of prophetic fallibility (which is nothing new). Considering the multitude of different opinions -- many claiming some connection to God in coming to their opinion -- how do we conclude with absolute certainty that SSM is against the laws of God?

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If the Church chooses to allow those who've committed serious transgressions to retain their membership that's up to those who hold the keys of judgement.

Noting here that the framing of this hints that excommunication is common, if not the norm.  In my experience it is vanishingly rare.  I've never known anyone excommunicated for adultery nor has anyone I know ever mentioned they heard of it. I knew one brother who was disfellowshipped, however but it was decades ago.