Church Instructs Leaders on Same-Sex Marriage

[pam]

Some statements from the church regarding the recent Utah activities regarding same-sex marriage.

Church Instructs Leaders on Same-Sex Marriage

[Just_A_Guy]

Interestingly, the statement maintains the definition of chastity as requiring a "legal and lawful" marriage. So it sounds like those of us uber-libertarian nutjobs who think the Church should just abandon civil marriage entirely, aren't going to get our way either.

[Palerider]

Enjoyed reading this.

[MarginOfError]

Interestingly, the statement maintains the definition of chastity as requiring a "legal and lawful" marriage. So it sounds like those of us uber-libertarian nutjobs who think the Church should just abandon civil marriage entirely, aren't going to get our way either.

Even if the Church discontinued performing civil marriages, I would be surprised to see this language change. 1) changing the Law of Chastity to require an LDS marriage would declare all non-LDS marriages sinful. Not a good move in the quest to convert families. 2) would we need to have a two-tiered system of LDS marriages to accommodate those who wish to be married but are not yet ready for the temple?

Maintaining the legal and lawful thing is both convenient and compassionate, so I don't see it going anywhere.

[Suzie]

From the statement:

The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution.

Some questions that come to mind: What about those members who either support gay civil marriage or those who are not for or against and they don't feel the need to fight against it? Do they also have the right to express their views on the matter free from retaliation?

[Just_A_Guy]

Even if the Church discontinued performing civil marriages, I would be surprised to see this language change. 1) changing the Law of Chastity to require an LDS marriage would declare all non-LDS marriages sinful. Not a good move in the quest to convert families.

It would be an issue, but not insurmountable. For example, in Brazil, lots of couples are married in the Catholic Church but never get a civil marriage. We were told, as missionaries, that they'd have to be re-married civilly before they could be baptized. The rhetoric we used wasn't "you're sinning"; but "God wants you to do it this way". The rhetoric could easily be adapted to require re-marriage in an LDS ceremony prior to baptism.

2) would we need to have a two-tiered system of LDS marriages to accommodate those who wish to be married but are not yet ready for the temple?

Seems to me that we already have that, though.

Maintaining the legal and lawful thing is both convenient and compassionate, so I don't see it going anywhere.

Perhaps. But then again, the Church formally decreeing that that some civil marriages are more acceptable than others--and that the unacceptable marriages are the ones solemnized for people who are members of a new constitutionally protected class--could be very problematic in the long run. As it did in the first half-century of its existence, the Church might again prefer the inconveniences of abandoning civil marriage entirely, to handing yet another weapon to a federal government that was determined to stamp out what it saw as an "unenlightened" view of family relations by any means that SCOTUS was disposed to allow.

Some questions that come to mind: What about those members who either support gay civil marriage or those who are not for or against and they don't feel the need to fight against it? Do they also have the right to express their views on the matter free from retaliation?

As far back as 2008, the Church was saying as follows:

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

That said: gay sex is sinful; the legal implications of making gays a protected class (or including them in traditional civil-rights legislation) are what they are; and (IMHO) neither the Church's statement yesterday nor the 2008 statement require us to tiptoe around those issues in the name of politeness.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

From the statement:

Some questions that come to mind: What about those members who either support gay civil marriage or those who are not for or against and they don't feel the need to fight against it? Do they also have the right to express their views on the matter free from retaliation?

You didn't include the sentence before that:

"Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it.

[Suzie]

You didn't include the sentence before that:

Hi Eowyn. Yes, I saw the sentence that says "Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it" and right after it says "The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution." I was wondering if the first sentence also includes members who do not oppose gay marriage.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Suzie

[Vort]

Hi Eowyn. Yes, I saw the sentence that says "Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it" and right after it says "The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution." I was wondering if the first sentence also includes members who do not oppose gay marriage.

Why? Do you think the Church would condone the deprivation of rights of those members whose opinions are out of harmony with God's will?

[The Folk Prophet]

Some questions that come to mind: What about those members who either support gay civil marriage or those who are not for or against and they don't feel the need to fight against it? Do they also have the right to express their views on the matter free from retaliation?

I guess it depends on what's meant by retaliation. In the context of the statement I think the answer to your question is, absolutely, yes. But if you stretch the meaning of retaliation to include any sort of oppositional response whatsoever, then I don't think so.

[NeuroTypical]

I may be answering a question Suzie is not asking, but here goes:

"The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution."

Site Rule #1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

So, if some random poster decides to say something like this:

The prophet is wrong, and the church's stance on gay marriage is wrong, and they need to change!

That poster is breaking Site Rule #1, and is subject to infractions, etc.

When a member breaks a site rule and is dealt with, that doesn't equal retaliation or retribution. People are free to express and advocate. But the folks who provide this website are not forced to provide them the arena in which to do it.

In other words, LDS.net is one of many, many places where there is not unfettered, uncensored ability for people to say whatever they want. If you think that's wrong, fine, but it's a private-property-vs.-1st-amendment-rights discussion, not a mormon-unjustly-gagging-another-mormon-in-violation-of-church-counsel discussion.

(Again, I'm not saying this is what Suzie is talking about. It's just what I was thinking about, and figured it's a fine question whether or not Suzie is actually asking it.)

Edited January 13, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[EarlJibbs]

I may be answering a question Suzie is not asking, but here goes:

So, if some random poster decides to say something like this:

That poster is breaking Site Rule #1, and is subject to infractions, etc.

When a member breaks a site rule and is dealt with, that doesn't equal retaliation or retribution. People are free to express and advocate. But the folks who provide this website are not forced to provide them the arena in which to do it.

In other words, LDS.net is one of many, many places where there is not unfettered, uncensored ability for people to say whatever they want. If you think that's wrong, fine, but it's a private-property-vs.-1st-amendment-rights discussion, not a mormon-unjustly-gagging-another-mormon-in-violation-of-church-counsel discussion.

(Again, I'm not saying this is what Suzie is talking about. It's just what I was thinking about, and figured it's a fine question whether or not Suzie is actually asking it.)

I think this applies to the question. Adding on to this, we are members of a Church Organization. As such we have agreed to not "affiliate with or support" any organization that is contrary to the beliefs of the organization that we are members of. If you "support" gay marriage, does this mean you are going to be retaliated against? No one is going to throw eggs at your door, but you could be breaking your membership rules and there could be consequences that reflect in your membership.

At one point we all will have a decision to make. Do we support our God, or the world. There will be no fence sitting in heaven.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think this applies to the question. Adding on to this, we are members of a Church Organization. As such we have agreed to not "affiliate with or support" any organization that is contrary to the beliefs of the organization that we are members of. If you "support" gay marriage, does this mean you are going to be retaliated against? No one is going to throw eggs at your door, but you could be breaking your membership rules and there could be consequences that reflect in your membership.

At one point we all will have a decision to make. Do we support our God, or the world. There will be no fence sitting in heaven.

It gets a bit iffy though when dealing with certain political issues. To support the idea of gay marriage as a right doesn't necessarily contradict the organization of the church which clearly teaches that we have the right to our own political views. We should support heterosexual marriage as the valid form. We should view homosexuality as sinful. But to allow something we see as sinful via law doesn't mean we're in apostasy, per se.

We can take something like drug legalization as an example. We can uphold the Word of Wisdom in all it's respects and yet still believe that the legalization of certain drugs would help to diminish crime. Many see gay marriage in the same sort of light. They may believe in traditional marriage, but they may politically see value in supporting marriage rights. The church allows for this, and with good reason. They may be right.

For the record, I am not a supporter of gay marriage in any way, but I can see that viewing it differently doesn't necessitate excommunication.

There is a reason that the church generally stays out of politics. And whereas the church has, in the past, specifically called for action against gay marriage, they changed their approach. We have to ask ourselves why. Unlike those who believe the church merely caves to political pressure, I believe that they examined the issue as it became more volatile, saw that there was a reasonably argument on both sides, and altered their advice accordingly.

I am, personally, fairly confident that legalizing gay marriage is the beginning of the end, and accordingly we should do all within our power to stop it. But there are good and faithful members who see it differently. And seeing it differently does not make them less good or less faithful.

Edited January 13, 2014 by church
typos

[Just_A_Guy]

Church, I agree with much of what you say but would make the following observations:

The church allows for this, and with good reason. They may be right.

Somehow, I don't think the Church commits itself to politically messy initiatives like Prop 8 (and the other campaigns in a litany of states that preceded it) with the thought that "you know, maybe the other side is right!" Nor, given the Church's history with same-sex marriage legislation, do I think Prop 8 elicited some kind of novel soul-searching on the Church's part.

And whereas the church has, in the past, specifically called for action against gay marriage, they changed their approach. We have to ask ourselves why. Unlike those who believe the church merely caves to political pressure, I believe that they examined the issue as it became more volatile, saw that there was a reasonably argument on both sides, and altered their advice accordingly.

Again, I think it unlikely that the Church has had some sort of epiphany on this issue. The change in approach seems to me more easily explained by the fact that the federal judiciary has taken the issue out of the realm of democratic action--maybe forever, depending on how SCOTUS holds. Until the Court speaks, the only "action" the Church could possibly call for here would be some kind of call for civil disobedience and/or armed rebellion--and that ain't gonna happen.

I am, personally, fairly confident that legalizing gay marriage is the beginning of the end, and accordingly we should do all within our power to stop it. But there are good and faithful members who see it differently. And seeing it differently does not make them less good or less faithful.

Well, let's not over-play the hand. I think we can all agree that there's no need to personalize the disagreement. But we need to be careful to avoid interpreting the Church's calls for civility as some kind of embrace of moral nihilism. When the last written record of this earth has been written and sealed, some of us will be recorded as having been on the right side of history and some of us will have been on the wrong side of it.

Now, to borrow Elder Packer's phraseology, the above is one of those "true" things that isn't terribly "useful", and is probably best left unsaid under ordinary circumstances. But if some LDS gay marriage advocate comes up to me and brings up the issue and says "I'm just as good a Mormon as anyone else", I'm going to be sorely tempted to say "no, you're not. Because three prophets, seers, and revelators (including President Uchtdorf, the darling of the Mormon Left) asked the Church membership to 'do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time', and you've been trying to undermine that. Now, would you care to return to discussing the merits of your position?"

[Vort]

I think we can all agree that there's no need to personalize the disagreement.

Many of those on the other side of the issue clearly don't agree with you on this.

[Just_A_Guy]

Many of those on the other side of the issue clearly don't agree with you on this.

I'd like to think they don't participate on LDS.net.

[The Folk Prophet]

Somehow, I don't think the Church commits itself to politically messy initiatives like Prop 8 (and the other campaigns in a litany of states that preceded it) with the thought that "you know, maybe the other side is right!" Nor, given the Church's history with same-sex marriage legislation, do I think Prop 8 elicited some kind of novel soul-searching on the Church's part.

I think we tend to view "the church" unfairly as some sort of individual. With some issues I think that's valid -- specifically, doctrinal issues -- but generally, "the church" is led by committee. It's the same as the way, say, a bishopric runs a ward. They make calls, see issues, make changes, discuss, debate, fix, etc... They do so with prayer and humility and follow the spirit as they can. With an issue like this, I can very easily see them concluding that it is in their best interest advocate support of a side, then upon seeing the results, determine that perhaps a more neutral approach is better. So they first tell people to explicitly support Prop 8, then in Hawaii they recommend studying the Family Proc and make your own choice. This is not outside the bounds of reasonable reaction to something unforeseen by the church's best-effort choices. And the alteration of approach plays in no way into the doctrinal stand of the church. I agree that it is not conclusive evidence that we can legitimately support a point of view that is clearly in opposition to the church's, but feel that it COULD be viewed that way by some of good conscience, and that we should rightly give them that benefit of the doubt.

My intent was not to imply a soul searching 360, as some would, but to accept that there is reasonable evidence that "the church" as we call it, is still finding it's footing in the political side of this issue somewhat. Time will tell where they politically land. My guess is they will land squarely where they began, and at that point opposing the pov will be apostasy. But at current, I don't reasonably see it as so black and white. That being said, apostasy, as we well know, is a slope, and being on it in any regard is dangerous.

I do not advocate views that contradict the church's obvious position. I'm only suggesting understanding them. And it is possible that the church could ultimately conclude that, legally speaking, gay marriage is fundamentally fair even if it is immoral, in the same way that we can justly say that allowing alcohol at some level is legally viable in spite of it's use being unquestionably morally wrong in the church's position.

Again, I think it unlikely that the Church has had some sort of epiphany on this issue. The change in approach seems to me more easily explained by the fact that the federal judiciary has taken the issue out of the realm of democratic action--maybe forever, depending on how SCOTUS holds. Until the Court speaks, the only "action" the Church could possibly call for here would be some kind of call for civil disobedience and/or armed rebellion--and that ain't gonna happen.

I agree. It doesn't take an epiphany to adjust an approach that has been potentially harmful in some ways -- specifically in public relations. The church is clearly highly interested in (and rightly so) maintaining a public image that is generally viewed positively. This makes sense with the mission to gather Israel. The church is very clearly maintaining it's stance on the morality of it, but isn't quite as adamant on the political side of it, which seems a reasonable response. I can easily see them changing tactics again when and if this approach doesn't work, and obviously when the efforts fail, as they are likely to do. The chances of gay marriage becoming universally legal are high, imo.

Well, let's not over-play the hand. I think we can all agree that there's no need to personalize the disagreement. But we need to be careful to avoid interpreting the Church's calls for civility as some kind of embrace of moral nihilism. When the last written record of this earth has been written and sealed, some of us will be recorded as having been on the right side of history and some of us will have been on the wrong side of it.

Now, to borrow Elder Packer's phraseology, the above is one of those "true" things that isn't terribly "useful", and is probably best left unsaid under ordinary circumstances. But if some LDS gay marriage advocate comes up to me and brings up the issue and says "I'm just as good a Mormon as anyone else", I'm going to be sorely tempted to say "no, you're not. Because three prophets, seers, and revelators (including President Uchtdorf, the darling of the Mormon Left) asked the Church membership to 'do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time', and you've been trying to undermine that. Now, would you care to return to discussing the merits of your position?"

I absolutely agree. To understand how others can view something doesn't mean accepting moral nihilism. I can see their point of view, understand it, and even see some validity to it, without discarding my understanding of the issue. I will maintain that any acceptance of homosexuality is detrimental to society. But I also accept that that is a hard argument to make, even within the church, and that there are good and faithful members who see and understand what is, ultimately, a logical argument. It cannot be proven (yet) that gay marriage is bad for society. I believe it is. But prove it? That's a tough order.

To be clear, I'm not saying or advocating on behalf of those who would argue for gay marriage solemnized in the temple and an abandonment of viewing it as a sin. There is no logical argument for that pov within the gospel and those who view it that way are clearly down the path of apostasy. But there are those who believe that, although still a grievous sin, it should be legally recognized as a valid state of marriage as far as the government is concerned, and some of these folk, though perhaps a bit misguided on their overall understanding of the scope of human existence and the varied histories of societies, etc., cannot legitimately be called apostate.

Edited January 14, 2014 by church
didn't proof well

[Just_A_Guy]

I think we tend to view "the church" unfairly as some sort of individual. With some issues I think that's valid -- specifically, doctrinal issues -- but generally, "the church" is led by committee. It's the same as the way, say, a bishopric runs a ward.

Sure; I had my own tactical disagreements back in 2008 regarding the way the Church was going about Prop 8 (which I kept largely quiet). But I was on board with the overall position that gay marriage should not be permitted, legally speaking. The Mormons I knew who opposed Prop 8 certainly weren't shy about echoing some of my own concerns (some of the entities we were allied with, and the fallacy of some of the shoddier arguments that were being made); but that wasn't what motivated their opposition. To a man (or woman), they thought gay marriage should be legal; and many of them thought gay sex wasn't sinful at all.

And it is possible that the church could ultimately conclude that, legally speaking, gay marriage is fundamentally fair even if it is immoral, in the same way that we can justly say that allowing alcohol at some level is legally viable in spite of it's use being unquestionably morally wrong in the church's position.

I'm not sure that the Church has ever made that kind of judgment re Prohibition, though. When Prohibition ended, President Grant was very much (and very publicly) of the opposite persuasion.

More generally, I think one of the reasons the Church is so loath to get involved in politics is because people start making the assumption that the Church's failure to oppose a particular position (or to punish those who embrace it) means that the Church thinks the position itself is, if not right, at least acceptable or defensible. To my knowledge the Church didn't oppose Naziism, either. (Paging Godwin. Dr. Godwin, please respond . . .)

I absolutely agree. To understand how others can view something doesn't mean accepting moral nihilism. I can see their point of view, understand it, and even see some validity to it, without discarding my understanding of the issue.

Agreed. Where I get a little concerned is when those "others" demand that I recognize that they are just as "faithful" or "good" Mormons, as another hypothetical Mormon who either a) argues in favor of the Church's position whilst they themselves argue against it, and/or b) has, through sincere prayer and study and complete submission to the Lord's will, received a revelation to which those "others" have blinded themselves by loudly insisting that God could never deviate from twenty-first century American progressivism.

. . . some of these folk, though perhaps a bit misguided on their overall understanding of the scope of human existence and the varied histories of societies, etc., cannot legitimately be called apostate.

From the standpoint of ecclesiastical discipline, you are no doubt correct. But, taking a longer view, you present an interesting question of how "wrong" someone has to be before they have ventured into the realm of "apostate".

I firmly believe that at some point, in this life or the next, some repentant gays will sit down with some left-learning Church members and say "You know, if our Lord's standards had been reinforced--gently, but firmly--by the law of the land; then I never would have committed to a same-sex relationship, I would have listened to your missionaries when they came to my door, and I would have received temple blessings that are now forever lost to me. Maybe I permitted myself to be deceived--but you sure weren't any help".

It will be, I daresay, a very uncomfortable meeting.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

From the statement:

Some questions that come to mind: What about those members who either support gay civil marriage or those who are not for or against and they don't feel the need to fight against it? Do they also have the right to express their views on the matter free from retaliation?

Outsider opinion/speculation: No! If a member chooses to advocate against, for example, the Law of Chastity, there would be consequences, within the church. The statement seems to be an application of the Article of Faith that calls for freedom of religious practice--something also guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. My speculation is that they have in mind people who are losing their jobs, being sued, and in some countries, being prosecuted--all for affirming their religious convictions against homosexual marriage and activity.

BTW, I agree. I should have the right to advocate my religious views, and I should not be required to embrace even those standards that are becoming public and government policy. I want to have my cake and eat it too.

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure; I had my own tactical disagreements ...

That's an interesting way to put it. I've had some tactical disagreements with the church's approach to things lately (mormonsandgays website and the latest on race and the priesthood) but generally keep those thoughts to myself. I tend to give the church the benefit of the doubt. Actually that's not accurate. I defiantly give the church the benefit of the doubt. And to me, that defiance is what keeps me safely away from the easy road to apostasy.

[Dravin]

And to me, that defiance is what keeps me safely away from the easy road to apostasy.

Did you mean deference instead of defiance Church? Looks like you might be a victim of auto correct/spell check.

[The Folk Prophet]

Did you mean deference instead of defiance Church? Looks like you might be a victim of auto correct/spell check.

No, I meant what I said. Though I may not have been as clear as I meant to be. I mean that I am defiantly defensive of the church against my own understand (when and if my own understanding conflicts with something the church has said). I am defiant against my own thinking. Deference would work too, but I was referencing the previous sentence.

[Vort]

No, I meant what I said. Though I may not have been as clear as I meant to be. I mean that I am defiantly defensive of the church against my own understand (when and if my own understanding conflicts with something the church has said). I am defiant against my own thinking. Deference would work too, but I was referencing the previous sentence.

Yes, I have often been in the position of defying my own supposed "wisdom" on some matter. Uncomfortable though it has been, such has always been a good experience for me.

[Suzie]

But if some LDS gay marriage advocate comes up to me and brings up the issue and says "I'm just as good a Mormon as anyone else", I'm going to be sorely tempted to say "no, you're not. Because three prophets, seers, and revelators (including President Uchtdorf, the darling of the Mormon Left) asked the Church membership to 'do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time', and you've been trying to undermine that. Now, would you care to return to discussing the merits of your position?"

JAG, I can make a list of things the Prophet asks each one of us to do and we do not do it, I suppose then we are not good enough because we undermining counsel or is your comment referring only to this particular issue? To be honest, IMO it would be very hypocritical and judgmental for any LDS member to think that another member isn't as good as any other just because they think differently. Do we really need that in the Church? Seriously asking.

[LittleWyvern]

Now, to borrow Elder Packer's phraseology, the above is one of those "true" things that isn't terribly "useful", and is probably best left unsaid under ordinary circumstances. But if some LDS gay marriage advocate comes up to me and brings up the issue and says "I'm just as good a Mormon as anyone else", I'm going to be sorely tempted to say "no, you're not. Because three prophets, seers, and revelators (including President Uchtdorf, the darling of the Mormon Left) asked the Church membership to 'do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time', and you've been trying to undermine that. Now, would you care to return to discussing the merits of your position?"

No "good Mormon" exists using this criteria. We all have things that the prophets have taught that we struggle with. No Mormon is especially bad if they struggle with an issue X that you happen to feel especially strong about. Not only is that notion completely wrong, it only serves to tear down others by suggesting you are "better" than them. We shouldn't be creating "-ites" like this.