The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[Solon]

LA - do you think the LDS church will/should come out with a stronger statement about cases when its members support gay marriage?

My wife (a devout LDS) is convinced that the leadership of the church would have no problem with her supporting gay marriage as a political position, not a religious one (which she does; she doesn't believe the church needs to start marrying gay people, although I assume that she would be in favor of that).

I have told her that I'm not so sure, but I do agree that someone in her shoes is very unlikely to receive any kind of correction or rebuke, unless it's from a local bishop or whatever, and even then I mostly doubt it.

Is there room in the LDS Church for someone to disagree with the officially established viewpoint on this, yet still remain in good standing?
Certainly, there's room in an individual's local church (lower-case 'c'), but with regards to The Church, I'm not so sure.

Ma'ake's initial post in this thread opens the door to a change in doctrinal position, but is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under the current situation?

The last General Conference had some fairly generalized reminders that "there is no middle ground in that contest [between truth and error]" and "The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God’s standards, but these don't exactly have the force of "if you support gay marriage, you are an opponent of The Church and committing an act of disobedience or even apostasy."

(and, before it comes up, the Dehlin circumstance is an outlier; I'm interested in an ordinary, reasonably devout, non-podcasting member)

So, to re-state, is there a way for a devout member to support gay marriage under current circumstances?

during these perilous times, life will not be comfortable for true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. But we will have His approval.
[. . .]
There is no such thing as a part-time disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus invites anyone who wants to be His disciple to take up his cross and follow Him (see Matthew 16:24;Mark 8:34; D&C 56:2; 112:14). Are you ready to join the ranks? Or will you be ashamed of the gospel? Will you be ashamed of your Lord and His plan? (see Mormon 8:38). Will you yield to voices of those who would have you join them on the popular side of contemporary history?
No! The youth of Zion will not falter! I believe you will be courageous and proclaim God’s truth with clarity and kindness, even when His truth is politically unpopular! Paul set that pattern when he declared, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16; see also 2 Timothy 1:8).
Disciples of the Lord are defenders of traditional marriage. We cannot yield. History is not our judge. A secular society is not our judge. God is our judge!
[. . .]
God is the Father of all men and women. They are His children. It was He who ordained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage was not created by human judges or legislators. It was not created by think tanks or by popular vote or by oft-quoted bloggers or pundits. It was not created by lobbyists. Marriage was created by God!
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2015/08/...L2-4_&lang=eng

If disciples of Jesus "are defenders of traditional marriage", I suppose that Elder Nelson considers opponents of traditional marriage not to be disciples of Jesus.
Not exactly haul-yer-butt-into-church-disciplinary-court stuff, but a stinging rebuke nonetheless for believing LDS who support legalized same-sex marriage.

[concerned]

I realize his has been said many times before and doesn't affect the way anybody thinks about it, but it just astonishes me that the Church that practiced polygamy for a century more or less (above ground and below ground), and changed the doctrine so that Utah could become a state (so outsiders assert), purports to follow the immutable laws of God that have not changed for millennia, and does not succumb to pressure of evanescent political fads. You could argue that polygamy is as radical a departure from traditional marriage (Christian, anyway) as is gay marriage.

[LA Ute]

I realize his has been said many times before and doesn't affect the way anybody thinks about it, but it just astonishes me that the Church that practiced polygamy for a century more or less (above ground and below ground), and changed the doctrine so that Utah could become a state (so outsiders assert), purports to follow the immutable laws of God that have not changed for millennia, and does not succumb to pressure of evanescent political fads. You could argue that polygamy is as radical a departure from traditional marriage (Christian, anyway) as is gay marriage.

I'd respond, but I can't find a pole longer than 10 feet.

[SeattleUte]

I realize his has been said many times before and doesn't affect the way anybody thinks about it, but it just astonishes me that the Church that practiced polygamy for a century more or less (above ground and below ground), and changed the doctrine so that Utah could become a state (so outsiders assert), purports to follow the immutable laws of God that have not changed for millennia, and does not succumb to pressure of evanescent political fads. You could argue that polygamy is as radical a departure from traditional marriage (Christian, anyway) as is gay marriage.

Christianity was all about eradicating polygamy. Augustine dealt with it as a serious issue--not unlike the way same sex marriage is addressed today. Eradicating polygamy is one of Christianity's great contributions to civilization. Of the various ancient roots that underlie our current civilization, today Classical, i.e., Greco-Roman civilization is the most influential. Those ancient civilizations had a lot of problems, and I think we're better. But it's interesting that the Greeks and Romans never practiced polygamy. Polygamy has always been prevalent among peoples who lived outside the Greco-Roman orbit--Bedouins, barbarians, etc.

[Scorcho]

SALT LAKE CITY — The LDS Church confirmed Thursday that children living with same-sex parents or guardians will not be allowed membership in the church until reaching "legal age" and the individual "disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage."

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid...s_cid=topstory

this is a head-scratcher for me

[SeattleUte]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid...s_cid=topstory

this is a head-scratcher for me

Photo shopped?

[Sullyute]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37248288&nid...s_cid=topstory

this is a head-scratcher for me

What. The. Heck?!?!?!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Jarid in Cedar]

"Umm, nevermind."-Oaks

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

The path just got a lot clearer. Away from the church. This new instruction has left me extremely uncomfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Now they have to excommunicate the kids who are already baptized of same sex parents. If not, why not! I demand an explanation for this illogic!

[Scratch]

The path just got a lot clearer. Away from the church. This new instruction has left me extremely uncomfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

It just doesn't makes sense? What about part member family homes? Does membership cause discord? Homes with parents who consume alcohol, or watch football on Sunday, or participate in any one of the hundreds of church sanctioned "violations" there are to chose from? So if a kid spends every other weekend with his gay dad and husband, is that enough to make them ineligible for baptism?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jarid in Cedar]

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

Time to scratch this one from the Canon.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

Time to scratch this one from the Canon.

Is this where the Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve quote comes into play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Is this where the Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve quote comes into play?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could revise the quote thusly: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions; and we believe that children will be punished for their own, as well as their parents' sins, but not for Adam's transgression.
Women will continue to be punished for Eve's transgression, as well as their own. Now shake that pretty little Fanny back to the kitchen and make me a sammich".

[SeattleUte]

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

Scratch, I don't follow your logic. Discord because one same sex spouse may want it but the other may not? Why is there not as much risk of this happening in straight marriages? Discord because the child wants it but the same sex parents don't? Why is there not as much risk of this happening in straight marriages? Is this a plausible scenario? Is the premise that all same sex couples would oppose their child's baptism?

[NorthwestUteFan]

This may be all about 'the children', but not in the sense Scratch intends. I believe they do not want all of the rest of the children to see that Heather (who has two mommies) is perfectly normal, as happy, and as well-adjusted as they are. The church thrives on establishing Us vs. Them dichotomies, and when those lines of division break down they outpunt their coverage and get exposed.

To be honest this development should be the least shocking bit of news with respect to the church on this front. This is perfectly true to form. One could argue this is a logical extension of the Proclamation on the Family. I guess I am only shocked because it is so bold, and because it will further damage so many people.

[SeattleUte]

This may be all about 'the children', but not in the sense Scratch intends. I believe they do not want all of the rest of the children to see that Heather (who has two mommies) is perfectly normal, as happy, and as well-adjusted as they are. The church thrives on establishing Us vs. Them dichotomies, and when those lines of division break down they outpunt their coverage and get exposed.

That's part of it but it runs deeper than that. They don't want these children to appear as accepted components of "families", because the same sex "families" must be non-entities in LDS eyes. If the children come to church with same sex parents and are recognized as members in good standing--being baptized, ordained deacons and such--even though the parents aren't, the same sex families begin to take root as a form of LDS family. These same sex families are therefore Untermensch in LDS eyes--in the same way that Jews, Roma, Slavs, blacks and even Asians were labeled Untermensch ("under man") by the Nazis. This policy is ultimately grounded in hate.

[jrj84105]

It's going to be interesting to see how schism looks in the Mormon church in this era. I can only imagine the skin crawl that I'll get from the reformed Mormon version of Joel Osteen.

[Scorcho]

last conference, Elder Holland told the story of the struggles of a gay LDS Missionary. That story led me to believe that the LDS Church was evolving and more compassionate towards those with same sex attraction. Yesterday's announcement feels more like a line drawn in the sand by some hard liners declaring you are either with us or against us.

[LA Ute]

Yep, made me uncomfortable. The more I think about it the more I think it's about preventing discord in these homes. There's no other explanation, as the church had to know what the PR reaction would be.

I can only guess at the rationale. For the reason you state -- discord in the home -- children under 18 can't be baptized under any circumstances without parental permission. Are children in polygamous or otherwise apostate families allowed to be baptized before the age of 18? I honestly don't know.

[mpfunk]

This policy is indefensible.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

It's pretty clear this is a pre-emptive defense against litigation, which is understandable.

But the PR damage from this will be pretty high.

I'm sure this wasn't the intent of the handbook change, but in the longer mosaic of time and evolving understanding, this will be a pivotal event. This will probably sharpen millennial's doubts about the authenticity of the church.

"Since when did God begin speaking through lawyers?"

(Again, this is just my opinion. I have no dog in this hunt, which is a nice position to be in.)

[Mormon Red Death]

It's pretty clear this is a pre-emptive defense against litigation, which is understandable.

But the PR damage from this will be pretty high.

I'm sure this wasn't the intent of the handbook change, but in the longer mosaic of time and evolving understanding, this will be a pivotal event. This will probably sharpen millennial's doubts about the authenticity of the church.

"Since when did God begin speaking through lawyers?"

(Again, this is just my opinion. I have no dog in this hunt, which is a nice position to be in.)

I've always found it ironic that the church has a ton of lawyers in Leadership and yet Jesus hated Lawyers.
Luke 11:46
46 And he said, Woe unto you also, yelawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

[Mormon Red Death]

Fake LDS Newsroom ‏@FakeLDSNewsroom 1h1 hour ago
A few questions from the mailbag: Yes, children of pedophiles, rapists, felons, murderers, and Bruce Jessen can still be baptized.

Fake LDS Newsroom ‏@FakeLDSNewsroom 10h10 hours ago
Of course...OF COURSE...gay couples and their kids are still MORE than welcome to shop at City Creek. Just don't bring them to church.

Quick update to the scriptures... "Suffer little children to come into me. Unless their parents are gay. Then screw them."

[SeattleUte]

It's pretty clear this is a pre-emptive defense against litigation, which is understandable.

But the PR damage from this will be pretty high.

I'm sure this wasn't the intent of the handbook change, but in the longer mosaic of time and evolving understanding, this will be a pivotal event. This will probably sharpen millennial's doubts about the authenticity of the church.

"Since when did God begin speaking through lawyers?"

(Again, this is just my opinion. I have no dog in this hunt, which is a nice position to be in.)

Ma'ake, not trying to draw you into the hunt. Just wondering what kind of litigation you think they fear. I don't follow.

[SeattleUte]

I can only guess at the rationale. For the reason you state -- discord in the home -- children under 18 can't be baptized under any circumstances without parental permission. Are children in polygamous or otherwise apostate families allowed to be baptized before the age of 18? I honestly don't know.

One of the most interesting things about this is that they won't give a reason and it won't matter to some LDS.

[SeattleUte]

I'm next to certain this was prompted by same sex parents presenting their kids at the Bishop's office with big smiles and saying, "Please baptize our child! And we look forward to seeing you in curch."

[UTEopia]

I can only guess at the rationale. For the reason you state -- discord in the home -- children under 18 can't be baptized under any circumstances without parental permission. Are children in polygamous or otherwise apostate families allowed to be baptized before the age of 18? I honestly don't know.

I can't get my head around this. All children under the age of 18 need parental permission for baptism. Why carve out a special condition for children of same gender relationships?

The more troubling issue to me is that children raised in a same gender parent family are required to "specifically disavow the practice of same gender cohabitation and marriage." I don't really know what is required to "specifically disavow", but this special requirement certainly flies in the face of Elder Christofferson's statement that you can be a member in good standing and not oppose gay marriage.

We have a family in our Ward. The man and woman had a son. They divorced. The woman is gay and is now in a same gender relationship. The man remarried. The man and woman have joint custody and the boy lives with both families on alternating weeks. He was baptized after his parents split. He is now a Deacon.

[LA Ute]

Ma'ake, not trying to draw you into the hunt. Just wondering what kind of litigation you think they fear. I don't follow.

I'm speculating, because I don't understand the policy either. What gay married couple would want their child blessed, baptized, ordained, etc., in a church that won't allow them to be members? Seems like it would be a very small number. Some might do it just to make trouble, and maybe the church leaders don't want to allow them an opening. I'm not offering a defense, again -- just speculating.