What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

 

 

Of course I don't. It's my opinion, based on my observations. 

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

So just to confirm, your faith and your beliefs are the ones that have "noble faith.'  The rest are just mislead and wrong?  Even though many came to their conclusions likely is similar ways you did for yours?

I doubt they came to the conclusion in similar ways.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

Not really. They don't like "embarrassing reversals" (nobody does --- they're embarrassing), but this issue would be DEFCON 5 compared to the priesthood ban, I think. There's embarrassing, and then there's embarrassing. I think it would be very hard to act like prophets, seers, and revelators are meaningful if literally anything and everything can be overturned. Plus, we've pretty much burned our ships on the shore as far as gender and sexuality being essential characteristics of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. 

It's not just the embarrassing aspect, though that factors into risk-aversion and extreme caution. 

Nah, it would be easy. Further light and knowledge. The Lord has revealed new information held back for this dispensation yada yada.

I am saying that from a cynical point of view of course. If it is actual revelation than even easier.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Of course I don't. It's my opinion, based on my observations. 

Ok.  Perhaps you could remove the quote marks from your post so it doesn't appear that you're quoting him.

[california boy]

I have been thinking about this issue and I am wondering how members in particular feel about certain issues.  Wondering which ones you would be ok with and which ones you don't think should be allowed.  Love to hear your feedback.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt they came to the conclusion in similar ways.

Really?  How come?  How do you know? Watching those of other faiths give witness or testimony their methods sound the same.  Just like an LDS testimony meeting in many ways.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In the context of the rest of the speech this quote is so out of place. Hoping all will try to avoid language symbols and situations that are more divisive than unifying while simultaneously talking about musket fire to combat the flag waving and parading is laughable. But this kind of comment is common for the brethren. They regularly say that all are loved and we should treat them with dignity and respect but then go and do otherwise. Stating that people should be treated well in no way recognizes that he(they) may not have it all figured out. It seems more like recognizing the pain caused in peoples lives as inevitable because God has spoken.

Rather than seeing it as out of place, I find it's useful as a tool to help us understand the whole of the talk.  As in, how should I understand what Elder Holland is trying to say when I take into consideration that paragraph.

But it seems like, unless they come to the same conclusion that you have, you won't budge on your perceptions of them, no matter what they do or say.

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about this issue and I am wondering how members in particular feel about certain issues.  Wondering which ones you would be ok with and which ones you don't think should be allowed.  Love to hear your feedback.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?

I think the Church's stance towards LGBT relationships is downstream of two concepts.  (I'm going to avoid using the word "doctrine" in this post because I don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole).

1. Spirits are gendered.  Our male and female natures were part of our pre-mortal identity and will continue with us into the eternities.

2. To become like our Father in Heaven we must be eternally bonded, male to female, as he is.  It is only in such a pairing that spirits can engage in the creative works of eternity.

Downstream of these two concepts is the conclusion that in order for a person to reach their full potential in the eternities, they must be bonded (or sealed) to a person of the opposite sex.  If sin can be defined as any behavior or attitude that hinders us from achieving that full potential, then homosexual relationships must therefore be classified as sinful.  

In order for the Church to declassify gay relationships as sinful, one or both of those concepts would have to be altered in some way.  The first concept, as far as I know, is not found in canonized scripture.  It is most prominently taught in the Proclamation on the Family.  However, the second concept is so wrapped up in nearly two hundred years of practice and teaching related to temple sealings, the Abrahamic covenant, and exaltation, that I see very little chance for that concept to alter much, if at all.  

Perhaps one path forward is for the Church to continue to acknowledge these two concepts (and the uncomfortable conclusion that they lead to), but to push Church practice and policy towards treating this particular sin no differently than other common sins (like the non-payment of tithing or violations of the Word of Wisdom, either of which are still serious enough to keep one out of the temple, but not serious enough to merit disciplinary action).  The Church might also step back from classifying "homosexual behaviors" as sinful and only treat "homosexual sexual relations" as sinful.  That would allow for a more permissive approach to gay dating, hand-holding, or PDAs. 

Whether or not that is a satisfactory arrangement, I don't know. 

(On a related note, another teaching that is downstream of the two concepts outlined above is the existence of our Heavenly Mother.  Teachings about our Mother in Heaven can exist without those concepts, but the above concepts logically REQUIRE that such a being exist.  If one or both of those concepts is weakened, I wonder what would happen to these beliefs (folk or otherwise) concerning her?  Not immediately, but over time.  Without those concepts, would the Church of 50 years from now still have common folk teachings concerning our Mother in Heaven?)

[rongo]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about this issue and I am wondering how members in particular feel about certain issues.  Wondering which ones you would be ok with and which ones you don't think should be allowed.  Love to hear your feedback.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?

Attend church services? Of course. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?

Yes, or possibly disfellowshipment or formal probation or no action, depending on circumstances, including the attitude of the people involved. The same exceptions that hetero law of chastity offenders get would apply (i.e., we don't formally discipline all, or in many cases, even most or sometimes even any, so whatever considerations factor into action or inaction in those cases would apply to those). 

I was a bit of an outlier, in that I sought much more to help people through formal discipline than most others, and it appears to me that the Church is going in the direction of far fewer disciplinary councils. If it does, I'm convinced that the Church wouldn't single out homosexuality or gay marriage, but not anything else. That was part of the reversal of the November 2015 policy. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?

What does "allowed to" mean in practice? I'm not aware (nor do I believe such exists) of any wards that would actively demand (as in insist that they leave and call police if necessary) that any people not hold hands. I think it is exactly like mask enforcement in wards. People will see and judge, and possibly even say something, but if the couple chooses to continue holding hands, I don't think anything would actually come to a head. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?

Thank you for the "appropriate place" bit!  I don't like PDA at church from anyone, hetero or not (I have no problem with hand-holding or arm-holding or putting an arm around someone, but I don't like things that go beyond that). As far as not at church or in public? I personally think that kissing is problematic, and I know that many who also feel that way would never want to admit that because it sounds like a double standard (is, in fact, a double standard, I admit). But, you ask some good questions here, and I feel like you deserve frankness and openness, if only from me.  

3 hours ago, california boy said:

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?

No, and for the same reasons Elder Paul Johnson laid out in his response to the gay dating uproar at BYU. For active, believing gay Mormons, gay dating is not going to get them where they need to be, and will 100% take them away from it (from the orthodox LDS point of view). People who don't believe the Church's stance is God's will may (to them) act contrary to that in good conscience, so we may see some cafeteria Mormonism on this in the future.

If the normative Church concedes that gay dating is okay as long as there is no sex, I think that dam unavoidably breaks, leading to homosexuality not being considered a sin at all. 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?

The same ones that already reign, viz., stay celibate if heterosexuality is impossible. As long as one is celibate, then one is in full fellowship with the Church. 

I know that gays and gay advocates don't like the comparison, but I think it is a valid and good one. Increasingly, many straight LDS adults have no prospects of marriage, and they are in a similar position with similar expectations (minus a big one: the potential to someday be able to). I think the disappointment, anguish, etc. is just as real, though, because many are increasingly looking at the (not very satisfying, no matter how much one tries) cold comfort of "in the next life." Many LDS adults are just as much in this boat as gay members, and it's only getting worse. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about this issue and I am wondering how members in particular feel about certain issues.  Wondering which ones you would be ok with and which ones you don't think should be allowed.  Love to hear your feedback.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?

Since the church does not recognize the validity of the marriages in regards to the Law of Chastity or compliance with the gospel, it really don't see a difference in the eyes of the church between a married gay couple and an unmarried gay couple.  So with that.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?   Gay couples, married or not, should be allowed to attend church services just like anyone else.  I am sure polygamist can attend church as well as long as they are not causing problems.  Pretty much anyone living any lifestyle can attend church services.

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?  Since the marriage does not matter, they should be treated as a unmarried gay couple or heterosexual couple.   The level of compliance to the Law of Chastity would probably be a determining factor of being exed.

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?  I see no reason why they should not.  Holding hands for an unmarried heterosexual couple is not a violation of the law of chastity,.

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?   No different for unmarried heterosexual couples in terms of kissing.   I don't see a big problem.

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?  Dating is just going out.  Dating does not have to be romantic or anything sexual.  Don't see a problem.

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?  Same restrictions as applied to unmarried heterosexuals.   The fact that the government allows gays to be married has no bearing on the how the law of chastity and how it is applied.  God does not alter his laws to fit court decisions. 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/27/2021 at 2:43 PM, Duncan said:

so, mourn with those that mourn and love thy neighbor is no good to you ?

the just past Mission President here gave a talk once and he said that the Church has to go the way of the world otherwise it'll be irrelevant,. The Church is updating itself, getting rid of practices, rooting out dumb ideas etc. 

 

On 8/27/2021 at 2:47 PM, OGHoosier said:

I hope to high heaven that this is a paraphrase. 

And a bad one, at that. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think the Church's stance towards LGBT relationships is downstream of two concepts.  (I'm going to avoid using the word "doctrine" in this post because I don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole).

1. Spirits are gendered.  Our male and female natures were part of our pre-mortal identity and will continue with us into the eternities.

2. To become like our Father in Heaven we must be eternally bonded, male to female, as he is.  It is only in such a pairing that spirits can engage in the creative works of eternity.

Downstream of these two concepts is the conclusion that in order for a person to reach their full potential in the eternities, they must be bonded (or sealed) to a person of the opposite sex.  If sin can be defined as any behavior or attitude that hinders us from achieving that full potential, then homosexual relationships must therefore be classified as sinful.  

In order for the Church to declassify gay relationships as sinful, one or both of those concepts would have to be altered in some way.  The first concept, as far as I know, is not found in canonized scripture.  It is most prominently taught in the Proclamation on the Family.  However, the second concept is so wrapped up in nearly two hundred years of practice and teaching related to temple sealings, the Abrahamic covenant, and exaltation, that I see very little chance for that concept to alter much, if at all.  

Perhaps one path forward is for the Church to continue to acknowledge these two concepts (and the uncomfortable conclusion that they lead to), but to push Church practice and policy towards treating this particular sin no differently than other common sins (like the non-payment of tithing or violations of the Word of Wisdom, either of which are still serious enough to keep one out of the temple, but not serious enough to merit disciplinary action).  The Church might also step back from classifying "homosexual behaviors" as sinful and only treat "homosexual sexual relations" as sinful.  That would allow for a more permissive approach to gay dating, hand-holding, or PDAs. 

Whether or not that is a satisfactory arrangement, I don't know. 

(On a related note, another teaching that is downstream of the two concepts outlined above is the existence of our Heavenly Mother.  Teachings about our Mother in Heaven can exist without those concepts, but the above concepts logically REQUIRE that such a being exist.  If one or both of those concepts is weakened, I wonder what would happen to these beliefs (folk or otherwise) concerning her?  Not immediately, but over time.  Without those concepts, would the Church of 50 years from now still have common folk teachings concerning our Mother in Heaven?)

Thanks for your thoughts,  i guess I am exploring what is possible and what is not possible to ease tension between the Church and those within the Church who feel that gay members are not being treated fairly.  I bolded the paragraph that addresses what might be possible.  I don't think anything can change in your or the Church's  other concepts as long as the Church holds on to those beliefs.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Since the church does not recognize the validity of the marriages in regards to the Law of Chastity or compliance with the gospel, it really don't see a difference in the eyes of the church between a married gay couple and an unmarried gay couple.  So with that.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?   Gay couples, married or not, should be allowed to attend church services just like anyone else.  I am sure polygamist can attend church as well as long as they are not causing problems.  Pretty much anyone living any lifestyle can attend church services.

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?  Since the marriage does not matter, they should be treated as a unmarried gay couple or heterosexual couple.   The level of compliance to the Law of Chastity would probably be a determining factor of being exed.

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?  I see no reason why they should not.  Holding hands for an unmarried heterosexual couple is not a violation of the law of chastity,.

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?   No different for unmarried heterosexual couples in terms of kissing.   I don't see a big problem.

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?  Dating is just going out.  Dating does not have to be romantic or anything sexual.  Don't see a problem.

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?  Same restrictions as applied to unmarried heterosexuals.   The fact that the government allows gays to be married has no bearing on the how the law of chastity and how it is applied.  God does not alter his laws to fit court decisions. 

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing your beliefs.  It gives me a feel for how members view this issue.  I hope others will also respond.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about this issue and I am wondering how members in particular feel about certain issues.  Wondering which ones you would be ok with and which ones you don't think should be allowed.  Love to hear your feedback.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services? Of course. Anyone is welcome to attend and I'd find it highly inappropriate for a ward or ward (busybody) member to question otherwise

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions? My gut generally shrinks from that one. Technically a bishop, based on current policies would have a right to do so. But I think it also needs to be strongly balanced by whether or not the member(s) were willing/wanting to attend, that may affect their attendance, and if they were willing to differentiate not being ex'd with assumed condoning of said relationship. I would assume what limits that would entail (temple recommends, priesthood actions, etc) could also be talked about with the bishop informally and leave the matter at that. I would think it could be similar to part member families that are coming back to church where the one spouse is more like "spouse" due to complicated legal restraints (that's fairly common in some countries with rigid divorce laws). There's a bigger benefit in fellowshiping and incorporating them into the ward as much as possible than there is in disfellowshipping and putting them through disciplinary procedures.  

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building? Yeah, if a married couple could comfortably do it, they should be able to

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place? same answer as above. I've never seen much more than small kisses from married couples in churchy place in general so I can't see why that shouldn't be afforded gay members that as well.  

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex? Yeah, that's a personal choice I shouldn't get to dictate. I also think it's important to really know what they want. I know for some gay members having that time to explore and experience same sex relationships was important for them to decide, more decisively, whether they can live church standards or not or where/how much they wanted to participate in church. I know that may mean they leave for (long) periods of time. But we're asking a heck of a lot of gay members if they choose full activity with our current understanding of doctrines and certain policies. I've also seen members that kept acting out in super unhealthy ways (gay or straight) because their choices were more than nudged by social pressures to be "normal" than it was by a true conversion to the Gospel. That's not sustainable. Whatever choices they make I would hope it was made from a truly authentic space and represented a balance of their own beliefs and convictions....not borrowed from mine or coerced by others. 

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay? Similar to married people...or single depending. Excommunication may need to be on the table if there's an affair...just as it is when it's a straight couple (fun fact I do know a gay man who did have I think a couple affairs that the bishop knew about, before they decided it was probably best to excommunicate....though I don't doubt that there were other bishops less mercy oriented or more homophobic who hear same sex anything in the manner of the sin and let their own biases weigh heavier than it should on such decisions). When it's a concern of belief more than actions I would hope it showed some key markers of actual apostacy than simply "I believe in marriage equality." As in they didn't differentiate that belief from a religious stance and started preaching or condemning others based on their beliefs. But I would hope either way excommunication was rare, a last resort in stickier situations (repeated affairs or unrepentant stances, etc), or a collaborated solution to spiritual concerns. 

 

 

Edit to add: For a basic rundown of my current beliefs with lgbt things in and out of the church - ok with civil gay marriage or at least civil unions with equal rights for gay people (whichever works best for the country in question). Work actively with gay members in particular in coming to healthier terms with their sexuality....their usual descriptor for me is something along the lines of safe or non-judgy. I took a lot of training to make sure I was that way and regularly check myself in sessions (gay or straight) to make sure it's not my own person beliefs coming out too much. This is tied heavily to some gospel related experiences and beliefs: namely we're all on our own journey, we all deserve dignity and respect and have infinite worth, most people have good intention even when they royally screw up, and my job is to help, witness and support. Dictating what someone should do should be super super rare....99 times out of 100, that is not my stewardship. Church specific, I believe there is something very important in both men and women and that it likely has eternal weight/balance to have these in union/harmony. I feel we could use a better understanding of heaven that better incorporates the experiences of those who are not married in general and LGBT specifically. I assume we still have a ways to grow on this. Both in culture, custom, policies, and clarification on doctrines...I hope that I'm apart of that in my own small ways. I also don't think the end picture will be having same-sex marriages be sealed in temples....but I will humbly repent if I'm wrong on that one.   

'

Got distracted again from work...and again...

With luv,

BD

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by BlueDreams

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

And a bad one, at that. 

he's from Utah, so maybe I misheard his accent

[The Nehor]

I think what most of the believing lgbt people want is to know what their destiny is.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

he's from Utah, so maybe I misheard his accent

Or maybe it was confirmation bias. 

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about this issue and I am wondering how members in particular feel about certain issues.  Wondering which ones you would be ok with and which ones you don't think should be allowed.  Love to hear your feedback.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?

1. Absolutely

2. Only for the same reasons as a non-gay person. I’m not even sure what gets a person excommunicated these days. 
 

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. Same restrictions as someone who is non-gay. Live the law of chastity. Sexual relations only within marriage whether gay or straight. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Peacefully

[HappyJackWagon]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Since the church does not recognize the validity of the marriages in regards to the Law of Chastity or compliance with the gospel, it really don't see a difference in the eyes of the church between a married gay couple and an unmarried gay couple.  So with that.

1.  Do you think married gay couples should be allowed to attend church services?   Gay couples, married or not, should be allowed to attend church services just like anyone else.  I am sure polygamist can attend church as well as long as they are not causing problems.  Pretty much anyone living any lifestyle can attend church services.

2.  Do you think married gay couples should be excommunicated from the Church.  Any exceptions?  Since the marriage does not matter, they should be treated as a unmarried gay couple or heterosexual couple.   The level of compliance to the Law of Chastity would probably be a determining factor of being exed.

3.  Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to hold hands in a church building?  I see no reason why they should not.  Holding hands for an unmarried heterosexual couple is not a violation of the law of chastity,.

4. Do you think married or unmarried gay members should be allowed to kiss as long as it is in an appropriate place?   No different for unmarried heterosexual couples in terms of kissing.   I don't see a big problem.

5.  Do you thinks single gay members should be allowed to date someone of the same sex?  Dating is just going out.  Dating does not have to be romantic or anything sexual.  Don't see a problem.

6.  What restrictions, if any,  do you think the Church should place on someone who is gay?  Same restrictions as applied to unmarried heterosexuals.   The fact that the government allows gays to be married has no bearing on the how the law of chastity and how it is applied.  God does not alter his laws to fit court decisions. 

I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

But it blows my mind that whether a gay couple is married or not really makes no difference in the eyes of the church. It would seem to me that the church would/should value family relationships/marriage for gays in the same way they value hetero marriage as an ideal, even if not all people are able to marry. Committed, loving relationships are good, right? I understand that people can be in committed relationships without marriage, but for the church, it seems like they would really value a gay committed relationship over a more "single" lifestyle. Logically, the fight against SS marriage, for a church that values marriage and family, just doesn't make any sense.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

But it blows my mind that whether a gay couple is married or not really makes no difference in the eyes of the church. It would seem to me that the church would/should value family relationships/marriage for gays in the same way they value hetero marriage as an ideal, even if not all people are able to marry. Committed, loving relationships are good, right? I understand that people can be in committed relationships without marriage, but for the church, it seems like they would really value a gay committed relationship over a more "single" lifestyle. Logically, the fight against SS marriage, for a church that values marriage and family, just doesn't make any sense.

It's because it isn't the marriage that is the problem, it's the homosexuality. If it were just a matter of remedying the unmarried, condition, then you're right, that would solve the problem as far as the Church. 

I think the Church (officially, or as individuals) can acknowledge that gay marriage is better than gay singlehood, without conceding that gay marriage removes the serious sin from the act. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's because it isn't the marriage that is the problem, it's the homosexuality. If it were just a matter of remedying the unmarried, condition, then you're right, that would solve the problem as far as the Church. 

I think the Church (officially, or as individuals) can acknowledge that gay marriage is better than gay singlehood, without conceding that gay marriage removes the serious sin from the act. 

I don't think they do.

If they did, why would they fight so much against gay marriage?

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think they do.

If they did, why would they fight so much against gay marriage?

Not openly, no, but the fight against gay marriage is all in the past, isn't it? All the Church does now is fail to acknowledge the marriage ecclesiastically, but I think the handbook changes have the (intended) effect of drastically reducing disciplinary councils related to homosexuality or gay marriage (mileage varies locally, but I think most leaders welcome that they don't have to ferret it out if they don't want to). 

I don't see the Church fighting against gay marriage any more, unless still teaching and believing that it is a sin constitutes fighting. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not openly, no, but the fight against gay marriage is all in the past, isn't it? All the Church does now is fail to acknowledge the marriage ecclesiastically, but I think the handbook changes have the (intended) effect of drastically reducing disciplinary councils related to homosexuality or gay marriage (mileage varies locally, but I think most leaders welcome that they don't have to ferret it out if they don't want to). 

I don't see the Church fighting against gay marriage any more, unless still teaching and believing that it is a sin constitutes fighting. 

Elder Holland just mentioned it again in his now infamous speech at BYU within a broader context of LGBTQ issues and musket fire needed to defend the faith. They may not be fighting any legal battles since they have already been lost, but I think they are still fighting against acceptance of SSM. To me, they do not appear to have accepted defeat graciously in the slightest.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Elder Holland just mentioned it again in his now infamous speech at BYU within a broader context of LGBTQ issues and musket fire needed to defend the faith. They may not be fighting any legal battles since they have already been lost, but I think they are still fighting against acceptance of SSM. To me, they do not appear to have accepted defeat graciously in the slightest.

Was it SSM in his speech, or did Holland mostly focus on the gay issues on campus (protests, friction, Matt Easton, etc.)? 

The only (and it's not insignificant) thorn gay marriage still is for the Church is if there is a groundswell of support within the Church for gay marriage being seen as rendering homosexuality "law of chastity approved." The issue in that case would still be homosexuality, not gay marriage per se. 

I don't think anyone in Church leadership thinks that the inertia can be reversed, and the genie be put back in the bottle, with gay marriage in society at large. 

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

but the fight against gay marriage is all in the past, isn't it?

In the USA maybe. The maps on the Same-sex marriage wikipedia page shows that there are still plenty of places where it still isn't legal.

Edited September 1, 2021 by JustAnAustralian