The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[Ma'ake]

(Apologies up front to any Mormons who may be offended by what I say below. My intent is certainly not to offend, but to offer my views on how there can be a path for LDS homosexuals within LDS theology.)

Religion and religious thought evolves over time. Today, we no longer believe slavery is sanctioned by the Bible, and Mormons believe that race and skin color have nothing to do with one's heritage, ability to achieve certain levels of atonement/salvation, current levels of righteousness, etc, but those issues were seen quite differently in the past.

In the past 10 years, we've seen a sizable movement in understanding on the issue of homosexuals, both in society at large and within LDS thought. Top leaders (perhaps excluding Boyd Packer) have expressed that we don't fully understand homosexuality, but it's likely that some people are born with a different orientation, though that doesn't change the commandments we've been given, etc.

Here's how I think the homosexuality issue could play out over the long term in Mormonism, but it may take multiple decades, and we might not be around to witness it (and hopefully Utah football is still in existence at that point.)

Without a doubt, there would have to be very, very big changes in the Mormon theology for homosexuals to be able to be sealed in a marriage in the temple. The role of gender in LDS theology is central, and procreation within marriage is at the very core of LDS belief.

(Quick sidebar: In talking with a devout Catholic who is pretty discouraged about the situation with very good young men avoiding the Catholic priesthood because of the requirement for celibacy, we both agreed that Mormonism has an enviable ability to evolve and change. I told her to cheer up, that the new Pope has the potential to help the Catholic church make long needed adjustments, and that we may see a Vatican III.)

Anyway, for homosexuals to get to full acceptance within Mormonism, a mostly forgotten point has to be re-visited and changed: Women and the Priesthood. If men and women can both hold priesthood callings and perform priesthood ordinances, then the role of gender is more equalized, and the path toward same gender relationships becomes "within reach".

After some amount of time after that sizable change, it becomes more conceivable that LDS thought could evolve, revelations could be received, etc, to facilitate an equality for homosexuals within LDS theology.

Something like, "we don't fully understand why some couples cannot have children and some do, although we know the Lord loves all his children and wants them to be happy and travel the road to eternal salvation. Accordingly, we have received a revelation that all worthy members are eligible to be sealed to the loved ones of their choice, as revealed and confirmed by the Holy Ghost, and to fully partake in the blessings of the gospel and temple marriage".

Again, my intent is not to be disrespectful of Mormons, or mock or otherwise diminish their beliefs. Completely on the contrary, the LDS lifestyle has much to offer, Mormonism has (arguably) a much more attractive message of hope and redemption, among the Christian religions (specifically, that there is no vicious hell awaiting non-believers).

I'm no prophet, I'm no oracle. I'm just a guy who's seen a lot of life over 5 decades, and as I look back at how things have evolved and changed, I believe there is reason for LDS homosexuals to have hope that things will be seen quite differently in the future, though it may be quite a ways out.

I work with a remarkable young woman from Springville, Utah, who is bi-racial and very, very bright. (She just got a PhD from a joint program in Boston between MIT and Harvard.) She is devout LDS, her father was Nigerian, her mother is of LDS pioneer stock. She told me her father joined the LDS church *before* the 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood, and it really didn't bother him. As she got older and asked her dad about how he could join a church that overtly denied him the blessings of the priesthood, he told her "truth is truth, and just because some humans are getting it wrong doesn't dissuade me from following the truth".

Think whatever you want, that was a man who had faith and had hope that some (then) current mistakes would be corrected, and they were. For LDS homosexuals, I think there's reason to hope things will evolve in the future.

(For those who are truly offended by my speculation/hunch, I'm drinking my second cup of coffee as a write, and I haven't paid tithing in decades, so you can easily surmise I don't have the spirit guiding me and I really don't know what I'm talking about, if it helps bring some peace back to a Saturday morning. )

[Scratch]

Thanks for the thoughts. However, I just don't see it happening because of how far the core doctrines would have to change for it to happen. I see it compared to racial issues (you brought up biblical slavery and pre-1978 priesthood) all the time. While there are certainly some similarities, the race-related issues just didn't have any relationship on the truly core doctrines of the church. Having every race hold the priesthood didn't require any major doctrinal changes. Frankly, the same would be true for women holding the priesthood, which is why I think there's a decent chance that could happen in some way at some point in the future (not predicting it, just saying it's a possibility).

Same sex marriage, on the other hand, would require a complete overhaul of the very core doctrinal principle of eternal families (and eternal progression through families). Quite simply, LDS doctrine is that the highest levels of exaltation and progression cannot be achieved without eternal (as opposed to temporal) reproduction. This is also why it is irrelevant if heterosexual couples can't procreate in this life. LDS doctrine pretty clearly teaches that they will be able to procreate in the next life.

I suppose that you could argue that there could be some sort of celestial spiritual adoption could occur, or that spiritual procreation is asexual, but that would also contradict a lot of pretty thoroughly disseminated teachings.

[Ma'ake]

No question it's a bigger jump from Women & the Priesthood to Homosexual Celestial Marriage, and there is no comparable change that big in LDS theological history, but if you look at how much has changed over time in Christian - or even Jewish - theological thought over the centuries, I think it's a gap that can be bridged, but it will certainly take time and evolution in thought, unattainable by the current generation.

The Creation Story, the Great Flood, most of the stuff in Leviticus, are seen quite differently today by many, many people than they have been historically. Nobody is stoned to death, we eat hot dogs without a second thought.

Then when you consider the new gospels being found that were (presumably) thrown out at Nicea, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (which is not at all incompatible with LDS theology, but is completely sacrilegious among other Christians), and the movement on a larger mosaic of evolutionary belief becomes feasible.

IMO, it would be an easier jump within Mormonism to work homosexuals into full equality than it would be for Christians everywhere - LDS included - to accept the main, highly provocative, highly disruptive concept in the Gospel of Judas, ie, that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was a set up, an agreement between the two of them.

A bigger jump in LDS thought would be to consider the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture containing truths and wisdom and not necessarily as literal history, but that gap has been bridged before in the minds of many, in the Great Flood story and the Creation story, in the Theory of Evolution. Does the story of the Stripling Warriors lose it's importance as a lesson if it didn't actually occur?

I think the BOM-as-not-being-actual-history view could become more widely accepted in LDS thought in the future (as it becomes clearer the text doesn't line up with archeological and other scientific evidences), but that would be a massive jump, larger than homosexual marriage, IMO.

If you took any given Mormon from the 1840s and plopped them down in today's Mormon church, they would have a massive, massive paradigm change to navigate. Jesus didn't return by the 1880s, blacks have the priesthood, white people are mixing with blacks in marriage and not getting the death penalty, etc. I see a similar thing among many current LDS who have real difficulty reconciling the early polygamy issues, even when it's coming from a faithful source, such as Bushman.

Who's to say that the paradigms of the future won't be similarly radical, to us?

[Ma'ake]

I don't think it would be as massive as all that. I mean, they would have to get used to cars and toilets and TVs and modern stuff, but as far as churchy stuff goes, it wouldn't be such a huge transition.

Uhh.... I beg to differ, just a bit. Joseph Smith prophesized that the 2nd Coming would definitely occur by some time in the 1880s. I believe the explanation on why that didn't happen was that prophesies can be conditional, and whatever the condition was that needed to happen, didn't, but I think most LDS from the 1800s would be surprised that the 2nd Coming hasn't happened yet.

This is a really minor point, but instructive. When I moved into my current neighborhood, in 2000, we got the usual reception from the neighbors, who quickly learned I was a fallen away Mormon and my wife was black Baptist, and they began a positive engagement with her, and also with me. In an informal discussion, my wife was asking about the different levels of the priesthood, and I recited from my youth the three Aaronic levels and the three Melchesidik(sp?) levels, (Elder, Seventy and High Priest), to which my neighbor corrected me that they no longer have Seventies, within wards, like they did when I was a kid. No biggie, I was out of circulation, and it was a minor difference.

But the neighbor was noticeably nervous making this correction, I suspect feeling vulnerable to counter arguments over the assertion that the gospel never changes.

Back in the 1800s the notion of using revelation for all kinds of things, both spiritual and temporal (depending on the level of authority you have) was more prevalent, and I think most LDS truly believed their leaders could not be wrong on issues, since they were being directed by the Almighty.

The history of the Dream Mine in Utah County makes for an interesting read on the topic of personal revelation, along with the School of the Prophets that the Lafferty Brothers were engaged in when they got the revelation to kill their sister in law. Even when I was a teenager, the people across the street prayed about whether to invest in a financial scheme one of the Bishopric members was offering, and they got a positive answer, announced their decision, and invested. Later, as the pyramid scheme crashed, the neighbors lost their house and the Bishopric member went to federal prison for fraud. Today there is lots of caution about exercising discretion when getting offers from fellow ward members, and to really study things out before asking for revelation.

We were under the distinct impression (from Sunday School, Seminary, etc) in the 70s and 80s that the President of the Church would go up in to the Holy of Holies and have literal conversations with Jesus about what day-to-day decisions needed to be made, etc. We definitely believed the Q12 and FP were infallible. Definitely not the view of today.

The press release from a couple of years ago that admitted previous leaders were wrong on issues of race would be a big shock to a Mormon from the 1800s. In 1949 the First Presidency issued a clarification on whether the priesthood ban was policy, stating it was not policy, but a direct commandment from God. Beyond the 1978 revelation, in 2012 the PR department more or less threw the First Presidency from 1949 under the bus, which I think would be a shock to LDS from the 1800s.

So, back to my original point, things change, interpretations change, we move forward. Brigham Young stated the consequence for a man mixing his seed with the seed of Cain would be death, so there's another reason I'm personally grateful that whole topic has changed. In the 1980s, had I still been a practicing Mormon, I might very well have not married my wife, there would have been good reason to hesitate, based on (then) near history.

To buttress that last point, a young woman I work with, who went to BYU in the early 2000s, said one of her best friends was a beautiful young black woman from France, and all the guys in the student ward were enamored by her, but they hesitated to date her. When my friend pressed them on why they were so enthralled by her but wouldn't ask her out, the response from multiple guys was "she's very beautiful, but I couldn't take her home to my mom". Things change, sometimes more slowly than we want, sometimes more rapidly than we want (eg, gay marriage).

[LA Ute]

Another interesting piece. Peggy Fletcher Stack linked to this on her Facebook page:

Gay, Christian and … celibate: The changing face of the homosexuality debate


Yes, Peggy and I are Facebook friends. I've known her for 30+ years. I haven't been summoned to any meetings as a result.

[mUUser]

Yes, I understand this isn't a story about homosexuals and the church, but, the closest fit is with this thread....

Fascinating story.....

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...signing?page=3

[Two Utes]

I don't think it would be as massive as all that. I mean, they would have to get used to cars and toilets and TVs and modern stuff, but as far as churchy stuff goes, it wouldn't be such a huge transition.

You clearly need to read more church history. If Brigham Young were reincarnated right now he would absolutely flip.

[LA Ute]

Gay support group issues challenge: Read Book of Mormon daily

Interesting. I like it.

[LA Ute]

If I were a baker I'd sell wedding cakes to anyone. If I were a physician/fertility specialist I'd help anyone. But I think it's important to recognize that the question, What should the government be able to force you to do that violates a deeply-held religious conviction, and under what circumstances? is not easy to answer. If you think it is easy, you haven't really thought about it.

[Two Utes]

Meh. What does absolutely flip mean? I'm sure he'd be surprised at a few things. He'd be far more surprised at changes in society, technology, transportation, medicine, etc that he would at any changes in LDS doctrine or operations.

Wrong. Go read church history.

[Solon]

I believe that women will hold priesthood offices in the LDS church in my lifetime (within the next 50 years, say). There is really no doctrinal reason to prevent women from exercising priesthood offices. In fact, the only decent argument anyone has ever presented me with is, "Well, that's never been done before."

If one believes the LDS narrative, then one can identify the overall trend of inclusion throughout history. Old Testament Hebrews were all about exclusion. Jesus commanded Peter to take the gospel to the unclean Gentiles (although LDS believe that this idea of inclusiveness shows up in the Book of Mormon hundreds of years before Jesus). Similarly, the restored LDS gospel went to all peoples, and the highest orders of covenant-making in the LDS church went from an elite circle, to everyday membership, to everyone who has ever lived (i.e., vicarious ordinances). In the same vein, the injunctions of D&C 132 that allow only those in polygamous unions to attain the highest orders of exaltation initially were offered to only a select few, then to a wider group, then (with the abolition of polygamy) to every worthy member.

Yet another example is the extension of priesthood to all worthy males, regardless of race/ethnicity/skin color.

I see the inclusion of women in this same long-term trend. Regardless of how much any of us might accept the notion of "Restoration," it is a church with strong American roots and strong American sensibilities / culture. Just as the USA has extended civil rights and liberties to more and more of its own population, so the church has invited more and more of its membership into the folds of leadership, priesthood, and authority. It's just a matter of time.

Similarly, we will see the same thing with same-sex marriages. There really is no doctrinal massaging that needs to happen in order to have this come about. Very little of that talk about family, gender, etc. is grounded in actual scripture. All that has to happen is for the leadership to decide (or receive revelation, if that's your persuasion) that it's okay for homosexuals to get married. Nothing serious would change. The world wouldn't fall apart. It would just be two more people getting married. Not a big deal, despite the hysteria that this idea threatens the very fabric of society.

Did you even see Just Visiting? The original Les Visiteurs was better, but it's the same idea. They actually adjust pretty well, and they are from far further in the past than what we are talking about.

I liked this movie. On va festoyer!

[LA Ute]

Interesting point of view:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectiv...-just-cant-gay

[Ma'ake]

We're in a fairly early phase of evolution of thinking, within the LDS community, on the topic of homosexality. It wasn't long ago that SSA was viewed as a fundamental moral failing, like perhaps 10 years ago?

I think in general with our connected world things change more quickly, and institutions - in this case, religions - are under a lot of ideological pressure to moderate historical views on some topics. But changing doctrine involves more time, kind of like the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment.

I was having friends with a black LDS friend, and explaining why I left the church, back in the late 70s, primarily on the issue of race (even though I'm white). He asked what we were taught previously about the priesthood ban, and I conveyed the explanations I was taught... less valiant in pre-existence, some unspecified lineage deficiency issue, Ham, etc.

Then it occurred to me one fundamental belief - not just Mormon, but in Judaism & Christianity, in general - had changed since the 1970s, at least in my exposure to religious thinking: the notion that specific lineages were either blessed or cursed. "The Jews are God's chosen people." What does this really mean, anymore? "Descendants of Ham are cursed." This idea is definitely in the dumpster. Nephites & Lamanites exchanging the good guy / bad guy role, largely an exercise of assigning good/bad to entire groups.

Now the "sins of the father are not sins of his children" thinking is much more predominant, a more individualized world view, an opportunity for anyone to rise above their circumstances without prejudice of their lineage.

Back to homosexuality, even though thinking evolves more quickly in our connected world, I think it will be multiple decades before homosexuality is fully accepted by the LDS church.

Using the evolution of thought on the topic of slavery as an example, when the abolitionist movement first arose, the overwhelmingly dominant religious view was that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. There were four Quakers in 1688 who issued their opposition to slavery, which in hindsight was stunningly forward thinking, but it wasn't until much later in the debate that the religious thinking disavowed the view that the Bible made slavery OK.

Today, nobody thinks the Bible supports slavery, except perhaps a certain rancher in southern Nevada.

One significantly beneficial part of today's evolved thinking in the LDS world is it is letting some parents of gay kids know it wasn't their moral failing that led to the child becoming gay. The two large families on my street who've had multiple kids come out of the closet have had a nearly unbearable struggle reconciling their role as parents and the reality that their offspring have gone so wildly off track, but I think they've received some comfort that it wasn't because they weren't good enough parents.

In 10 years, I think we'll see more & more smaller, Protestant Christian churches de-emphasize Biblical edicts against homosexuality as being important for that time period, but like bans on eating pork, things have evolved. In 10 years I think we'll see significant movement in the thinking among LDS on the topic of women & the priesthood, and on homosexuality.

I'd be very, very surprised if we see doctrine changes in 10 years. *Maybe* 20.

[LA Ute]

This also seems to fit here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...e-sex-marriage

It's interesting. The church seems to be drawing a theological line in the sand.

[concerned]

and then there is this. Don Gale wrote and gave the editorials on KSL for years and years. I assume he is a devout member in good standing.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...tices.html.csp

Sort of suggests that the current generation of leaders is drawing a theological line in the sand.

[LA Ute]

and then there is this. Don Gale wrote and gave the editorials on KSL for years and years. I assume he is a devout member in good standing.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...tices.html.csp

Sort of suggests that the current generation of leaders is drawing a theological line in the sand.

Not 100% sure but I don't think he'd describe himself as devout. Anyway, thought-provoking piece. I'm sympathetic to his views on polygamy and the WOW. On gay marriage I think we'll continue to see softening and accommodation from a tolerance standpoint but not doctrinally. E.g., we're not going to see same-sex weddings in Mormon chapels or performed by Mormon bishops anytime soon.

[LA Ute]

Seems to fit here:

Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage

Salt Lake City —

Media outlets are reporting that in an informal press gathering Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid made comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay rights.


As the Church has said before, elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.


On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the Church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.


Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.

What Reid said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4240125.html

[wuapinmon]

Seems to fit here:

Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage



What Reid said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4240125.html

I think some cardiologists in Salt Lake may get some business if Reid keeps talking that way.

[LA Ute]

Interesting observations, Ma'ake. I wonder if there is any faith tradition whose followers from a prior century would not be at least a little surprised by the current practices. Not disputing your point; you've simply raised an interesting question.

[UtahsMrSports]

(Apologies up front to any Mormons who may be offended by what I say below. My intent is certainly not to offend, but to offer my views on how there can be a path for LDS homosexuals within LDS theology.)

Religion and religious thought evolves over time. Today, we no longer believe slavery is sanctioned by the Bible, and Mormons believe that race and skin color have nothing to do with one's heritage, ability to achieve certain levels of atonement/salvation, current levels of righteousness, etc, but those issues were seen quite differently in the past.

In the past 10 years, we've seen a sizable movement in understanding on the issue of homosexuals, both in society at large and within LDS thought. Top leaders (perhaps excluding Boyd Packer) have expressed that we don't fully understand homosexuality, but it's likely that some people are born with a different orientation, though that doesn't change the commandments we've been given, etc.

Here's how I think the homosexuality issue could play out over the long term in Mormonism, but it may take multiple decades, and we might not be around to witness it (and hopefully Utah football is still in existence at that point.)

Without a doubt, there would have to be very, very big changes in the Mormon theology for homosexuals to be able to be sealed in a marriage in the temple. The role of gender in LDS theology is central, and procreation within marriage is at the very core of LDS belief.

(Quick sidebar: In talking with a devout Catholic who is pretty discouraged about the situation with very good young men avoiding the Catholic priesthood because of the requirement for celibacy, we both agreed that Mormonism has an enviable ability to evolve and change. I told her to cheer up, that the new Pope has the potential to help the Catholic church make long needed adjustments, and that we may see a Vatican III.)

Anyway, for homosexuals to get to full acceptance within Mormonism, a mostly forgotten point has to be re-visited and changed: Women and the Priesthood. If men and women can both hold priesthood callings and perform priesthood ordinances, then the role of gender is more equalized, and the path toward same gender relationships becomes "within reach".

After some amount of time after that sizable change, it becomes more conceivable that LDS thought could evolve, revelations could be received, etc, to facilitate an equality for homosexuals within LDS theology.

Something like, "we don't fully understand why some couples cannot have children and some do, although we know the Lord loves all his children and wants them to be happy and travel the road to eternal salvation. Accordingly, we have received a revelation that all worthy members are eligible to be sealed to the loved ones of their choice, as revealed and confirmed by the Holy Ghost, and to fully partake in the blessings of the gospel and temple marriage".

Again, my intent is not to be disrespectful of Mormons, or mock or otherwise diminish their beliefs. Completely on the contrary, the LDS lifestyle has much to offer, Mormonism has (arguably) a much more attractive message of hope and redemption, among the Christian religions (specifically, that there is no vicious hell awaiting non-believers).

I'm no prophet, I'm no oracle. I'm just a guy who's seen a lot of life over 5 decades, and as I look back at how things have evolved and changed, I believe there is reason for LDS homosexuals to have hope that things will be seen quite differently in the future, though it may be quite a ways out.

I work with a remarkable young woman from Springville, Utah, who is bi-racial and very, very bright. (She just got a PhD from a joint program in Boston between MIT and Harvard.) She is devout LDS, her father was Nigerian, her mother is of LDS pioneer stock. She told me her father joined the LDS church *before* the 1978 revelation on blacks and the priesthood, and it really didn't bother him. As she got older and asked her dad about how he could join a church that overtly denied him the blessings of the priesthood, he told her "truth is truth, and just because some humans are getting it wrong doesn't dissuade me from following the truth".

Think whatever you want, that was a man who had faith and had hope that some (then) current mistakes would be corrected, and they were. For LDS homosexuals, I think there's reason to hope things will evolve in the future.

(For those who are truly offended by my speculation/hunch, I'm drinking my second cup of coffee as a write, and I haven't paid tithing in decades, so you can easily surmise I don't have the spirit guiding me and I really don't know what I'm talking about, if it helps bring some peace back to a Saturday morning. )

Women holding Priesthood office could happen. I don't know that its likely but it could happen. The LDS church relaxing their stance on gay marriage to the point that they don't fight it when it comes up in votes, could happen. Gay marriage performed in LDS temples will never happen. You bring up interesting points, though and as always, I enjoy your posts.

[LA Ute]

You bring up interesting points, though and as always, I enjoy your posts.

No! Don't encourage him!

[LA Ute]

Not sure where to post this. Today's press conference on religious freedom in the context of the marriage rights debate:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...=4015167009001

This is pretty unusual.

EDIT: Here's one Deseret News article about the news conference:

LDS leaders reemphasize protection of religious freedoms, support for LGBT nondiscrimination laws

And here's the Tribune's article:

In major move, Mormon apostles call for statewide LGBT protections

The church seems to calling for a live-and-let-live approach. What's not to like about that?

[Sullyute]

The church seems to calling for a live-and-let-live approach. What's not to like about that?

I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.

[LA Ute]

I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They seem to support every equality, except marriage equality was explicitly missing. This has to be from design.

So in other words they said nothing at all that was new.

[Sullyute]

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.

Ok, so I will try and be as diplomatic as possible. I know that these same points have been brought up in numerous debates, so I agree it gets old rehashing them.

I would have liked to see the church call for anti-discrimination laws, period, without adding the religion rights reservations. It comes off as very disingenuous. It is like they are jumping on a sailing ship (one they fought hard to keep in port) and once onboard still think they can bargain for their accommodations.

I think the claimed infringement on religious rights is a mountain being made out of a mole hill. People, pastors, and parochial institutions are simply being held responsible for the rhetoric that is preached from their pulpits and prayers. Society is slowing shifting away from organized religion because of the historical hate and bigotry that has been taught, directly and indirectly, from its hallow grounds. This is not a legislative or constitutional issue, but a popular opinion issue.

I really wish that the church would just back away from all of these political issues and simply focus on service and love of our fellow beings (what religion does best).

[UTEopia]

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure what to make of this press conference. On its face, it seemed like an effort was being made to support non-discrimination of LGBT. However, the more I listen, the more confused I become. If you read the 4 main principals listed by Elder Oaks, it appears that they are not really advocating non-discrimination.
"1. We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.
2. We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.
3. We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.
4. We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation.”

No. 1 clearly takes the position that constitutional protection of religious freedom trumps everything, including other constitutional and legal protections, unless it harms the health and safety of others.

No. 4 stops short of rejecting discrimination.

Personally, I don't believe that there is anything in my religious practice of mormonism that requires or encourages me to discriminate against any person. However, I know too many who will read this to mean that because I believe God opposes LGBT conduct it is my religious obligation to oppose all efforts to legitimize LGBT conduct. More disturbing is the argument that those expressing anti-LGBT opinions should be protected from the consequences of such expressions. If a shopowner refused to sell to Mormons, should I be prohibited from picketing that business owner? No. If a CEO of a large public corporation expresses anti-Mormon opinions should I refrain from seeking to have that person removed? No.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the church did anything to address the issue of discrimination and may in fact have tacitly supported the position that if your actions are based on religious belief you should be allowed to discriminate so long is it doesn't harm the health or safety of others.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I for one am happy to see the church officially support the 11th Article of Faith...

I wonder whether Mitt Romney had anything to do with this.

While apparently trying to circumvent #12 at the same time. Interesting strategy.

I had a whole diatribe going and erased it as I was writing angry. Lets just say that I disagree.

I can honestly say that angry diatribes are always better to read than happy ones. Color me disappointed in your editing.

It's been interesting following the #fairness4all on Twitter. (Seriously, can divine inspiration please step in this brainstorm next time?) It seems that both sides are getting exactly what they want with today's news conference. The faithful get a nice message of "yes we should love everyone" with a mix of "please let us worship how, where and what we may." And by worship, we mean conduct our work duties. (Did they really want to give pharmacists the freedom to pick and choose what drugs their willing to pharm?!?!) Of course the non-believers got another entertaining, albeit frustrating, moment in church history of "do what we say, not what we do."

[Rocker Ute]

Maake, I just read two interesting biographies that cover much of what you talked about, both were excellent and help put some of this stuff in perspective, or at least they did for me.

The first is David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. That one was written by two LDS people, although I believe one is not a practicing Mormon.

The second is Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet written by John G Turner, who is not LDS, but I believe has full access to church historical records, and is viewed as the authoritative resource on the subject.

The McKay biography covers much about the blacks and the priesthood and is a fascinating insight. There was definitely a rift among the first presidencies at the time and the Twelve, and that might help you with why one thing was said in 1949 and another later.

The Brigham Young biography really emphasized to me the change in the church from JS to BY in the valley. I might maintain that JS would be much more amenable to changes today than BY would be. I also might maintain that BY was the man for the job of settling the west and surviving than JS would have been, or JS would have undergone a significant personality change himself. After reading this biography I have been fascinated by how much BY is still prevalent in the church today. The most prominent is the unquestionable authority of the leaders. That wasn't there, at least at BY levels when JS was prophet, and not even for a number of years with BY at the helm.

Now if you want to see contrasts in the church today versus times of old, my conversations with midnightversion would indicate they his brand of Mormonism (laying aside the whole polygamy thing and speaking about the day to day versus the nuances of the doctrine - but even some of those things) is much closer to the BY years than the mainstream LDS church is.

By the way, he is not one of the FLDS, but belongs to The Work, which is based in Centennial Park AZ.

I'd be interested to see what a non-believer thinks of these books versus my views as a believer. For me the were both challenging but also affirming to me, but then again I was never taught any of these men were infallible nor unquestionable.

For me, seeing human beings do very human things and have many shortcomings, yet doing extraordinary things was faith inspiring and should be for any person who live flawed lives (meaning everyone).

That outcome may not be the same for all or maybe most, but I think even Turner came away with a measure of respect for a man he probably initially believed was a charlatan.

I think today the challenge is that believers need to be able to think. Faith might be easier and less fulfilling if we can view people from afar and see them as infallible and unquestionable and mark things up as the 'mysteries of God'. Faith becomes much more difficult but also more fulfilling and personal when we seek out things more ourselves and to see in reality that God can make prophets out of stones.

[LA Ute]

This is not a perfect fit for this thread, but it's close:

Australian Prime Minister Offers Christian and Moral Defense of Gay Marriage

Kevin Rudd is the prime minister of Australia. In a recently televised Q & A, Rudd offered a response to a question about why he changed his position on gay marriage. His response is both philosophical and theological....

It's a very interesting bit, and I admire very much Rudd's promotion of a respectful dialogue on the issue. That's rare, unfortunately.