Church policy change on same sex marriage


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/5/2019 at 6:59 AM, MormonGator said:

@Vort/ @Just_A_Guy-If I was a single man living with my girlfriend out of wedlock, would I be excommunicated? Honest question, not a challenge. 

First, I think when it comes to your girlfriend, there would be a massive outpouring of compassion and concern at her really poor taste in partners.

Second, when it comes to your excommunication, any reason will suffice. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am dense, but I just now recognized an important distinction made by Elder Oaks between: 1) the status of being legally married in the eyes of the state, and 2) the immoral conduct between homosexual couples married or otherwise.

It is the first, and not the second, that saw a change in policy from "apostasy"  to "serious transgression" (rather than sin). 

This makes sense since homosexual couples being granted a marriage license from the state isn't, in itself, immoral (certainly not sexually), and though it is a pretense or a shame in the eyes of the Church, it doesn't drop to the level of sin. 

What is, and always has been at issue, is the homosexual conduct, which the church views as immoral regardless of state marriage licenses.

I don't know what difference in results there may be with the change in policy expect the unlikely or very rare instances of same-sex marriages without homosexual conduct.

In such rare cases, will the "serious transgression" result in disciplinary action? We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, wenglund said:

This makes sense since homosexual couples being granted a marriage license from the state isn't, in itself, immoral (certainly not sexually), and though it is a pretense or a shame in the eyes of the Church, it doesn't drop to the level of sin. 

What is, and always has been at issue, is the homosexual conduct, which the church views as immoral regardless of state marriage licenses.

Can I throw another permutation in this? It has been mentioned, but what about the married but not sexual same-sex couples? I am aware of a few same sex couples who, while not officially married, have lived together as roommates for decades, held temple recommends, and so on. The couples I know never sought official marriage licenses, but, if "common law" marriages could be applied to some of these couples, it seems to me that they would meet the criteria for being declared married in every way but the official marriage license and the sexual relationship (assuming we believe them when they say they do not relate to each other sexually).

I'm not asking for judgement of individual cases, because I know that is outside of our stewardship. I'm asking about the general idea. If obtaining a marriage license is not sinful -- only the sexual behavior that is presumed to accompany the marriage license is sinful -- how do we feel about same sex couples who are married (with or without the official license) but celibate?

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Can I throw another permutation in this? It has been mentioned, but what about the married but not sexual same-sex couples? I am aware of a few same sex couples who, while not officially married, have lived together as roommates for decades, held temple recommends, and so on. The couples I know never sought official marriage licenses, but, if "common law" marriages could be applied to some of these couples, it seems to me that they would meet the criteria for being declared married in every way but the official marriage license and the sexual relationship (assuming we believe them when they say they do not relate to each other sexually).

I'm not asking for judgement of individual cases, because I know that is outside of our stewardship. I'm asking about the general idea. If obtaining a marriage license is not sinful -- only the sexual behavior that is presumed to accompany the marriage license is sinful -- how do we feel about same sex couples who are married (with or without the official license) but celibate?

If they aren't violating the law of chastity, then they should be welcomed into the church with open arms, given callings, temple recommends, and treated just like a regular, celibate heterosexual. 

In fact, a celibate homosexual should be praised for their sacrifice and self control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Can I throw another permutation in this? It has been mentioned, but what about the married but not sexual same-sex couples? I am aware of a few same sex couples who, while not officially married, have lived together as roommates for decades, held temple recommends, and so on. The couples I know never sought official marriage licenses, but, if "common law" marriages could be applied to some of these couples, it seems to me that they would meet the criteria for being declared married in every way but the official marriage license and the sexual relationship (assuming we believe them when they say they do not relate to each other sexually).

I'm not asking for judgement of individual cases, because I know that is outside of our stewardship. I'm asking about the general idea. If obtaining a marriage license is not sinful -- only the sexual behavior that is presumed to accompany the marriage license is sinful -- how do we feel about same sex couples who are married (with or without the official license) but celibate?

That seems to me though, the same as an unmarried, unrelated man and woman living together. I've seen people denied recommends for that, even when they claim there is no sexual relationship involved. You would be putting yourself in a hugely, tempting situation if you were attracted to the same sex, married someone of that sex, and lived together. Is that truly any different from my earlier example? To me it seems like being an alcoholic and keeping an open bottle of whiskey you can sniff occasionaly, but swearing you'll never drink it. Some might be able to do it, most will fail.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Can I throw another permutation in this? It has been mentioned, but what about the married but not sexual same-sex couples? I am aware of a few same sex couples who, while not officially married, have lived together as roommates for decades, held temple recommends, and so on. The couples I know never sought official marriage licenses, but, if "common law" marriages could be applied to some of these couples, it seems to me that they would meet the criteria for being declared married in every way but the official marriage license and the sexual relationship (assuming we believe them when they say they do not relate to each other sexually).

I'm not asking for judgement of individual cases, because I know that is outside of our stewardship. I'm asking about the general idea. If obtaining a marriage license is not sinful -- only the sexual behavior that is presumed to accompany the marriage license is sinful -- how do we feel about same sex couples who are married (with or without the official license) but celibate?

Interesting. 

One of the unintended consequences of irrationally redefining significant terms like "marriage" and "family," is it tilts towards chaos and away from order. The issue of "common law" as it relates to same-gender roommates is a case in point. Marriage between same-gender siblings or other close family members is another.  Etc. The mind-boggling and frustrating permutation continue to unravel 

As things now stand,  there are 16 states with common law marriages, several of which have already recognized same-sex common law marriages.  There are four general requiremements (note that sexual relations is not included among them):

Quote
  • You must live together, although the amount of time required varies by state;
  • You both must have the legal right or "capacity to marry," meaning you both must be of legal age, sound mind, and not already married to someone else;
  • You both must intend to be married; and
  • You both must hold yourself out to friends and family as being a married couple, like using the same last name, referring to each other in public as "husband" or "wife," or sharing joint bank accounts or credit cards.

What makes this more challenging, is that although only 16 states recognize common law marriages, most all the states recognize the marriages of other states (including common law). So, if a couple moved from a state where they qualified as a common law marriage,, they should legally be recognized as such in the new state of residence. (ibid)

Taking this one step further, a case in South Caroline  ruled that the common law status applied retroactively (prior to same-sex marriage being legalized in the state)(ibid)

As for the Church, it doesn't recognize common law marriages, and as for same-sex roommates, I suppose it depends upon the last 2 general requirements, if not also sexual relations. 

Thanks, -Wadse Englund-

 

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If they aren't violating the law of chastity, then they should be welcomed into the church with open arms, given callings, temple recommends, and treated just like a regular, celibate heterosexual. 

In fact, a celibate homosexual should be praised for their sacrifice and self control. 

It may depend upon whether they "intended to be married"  and/or "hold themselves out as being a married couple, use the same last name, refer to each other as husband or wife, and share a bank account and credit cards." 

If they do, it may not be all that different from receiving a marriage license from the state. It would be considered as a serious trangression--though I am not sure exactly what that means in terms of Church discipline.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

As for the Church, it doesn't recognize common law marriages

Are you sure this is so? If a man and woman have been living as husband and wife for thirty years in a common-law state and the state recognizes them as married, you are saying that the Church would not so recognize them, and would demand that they formally marry before a minister or justice o' the peace before they could be baptized? This sounds unlikely to me, but it's a sincere question. I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

It is the first, and not the second, that saw a change in policy from "apostasy"  to "serious transgression" (rather than sin). 

I dispute that "transgression" in this case means something other than "sin".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I dispute that "transgression" in this case means something other than "sin".

You may be right. I stated it that way to avoid potentially getting embroiled in an unproductive  semantic battle; when, in terms of Church discipline in relation to the issue at hand, the terms may constitute a distinction without a meaningful difference. To me, it isn't the label attached to the offending action, but the consequences that matter.

I believe that Elder Oaks wisely used the term "transgression" because it would be, on several levels,  less controversial than calling "legally obtaining a state marriage license" a sin.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

That seems to me though, the same as an unmarried, unrelated man and woman living together. I've seen people denied recommends for that, even when they claim there is no sexual relationship involved.

Yet another permutation. I have not encountered opposite sex roommates being denied recommends like that. An interesting twist on the theme -- though I wonder what the justification is for denying a recommend in those scenarios. Probably something specific to the individual/couple that swayed a leader's opinion.

I'm not sure which prior example you are referring to. I don't believe that sex is an addiction, so comparing it to an alcoholic and whiskey feels overstated -- I might have seen it more like a dieter who keeps a box of donuts around (though sugar/food addiction is also a hotly debated topic). These kinds of examples like examples of stupid or unwise behaviors, but I don't usually think of stupid behaviors as sinful behaviors. When does doing something unwise like this become sin? Especially when talking about the Savior's temptations in the wilderness, we will usually assert that it is not sin to be tempted. Is it sin to knowingly expose yourself to temptation? Sometimes it seems like there are gray areas in these rather than stark lines between black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

Are you sure this is so? If a man and woman have been living as husband and wife for thirty years in a common-law state and the state recognizes them as married, you are saying that the Church would not so recognize them, and would demand that they formally marry before a minister or justice o' the peace before they could be baptized? This sounds unlikely to me, but it's a sincere question. I don't know.

I haven't looked into the matter that deeply. I just supposed that the Church would consider it as "shaking up," and that they didn't have state-specific policies. All would be considered as out of wedlock regardless of state law. But, I could be wrong.

Let's both research this further and see what we come up with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

That seems to me though, the same as an unmarried, unrelated man and woman living together. I've seen people denied recommends for that, even when they claim there is no sexual relationship involved. You would be putting yourself in a hugely, tempting situation if you were attracted to the same sex, married someone of that sex, and lived together. Is that truly any different from my earlier example? To me it seems like being an alcoholic and keeping an open bottle of whiskey you can sniff occasionaly, but swearing you'll never drink it. Some might be able to do it, most will fail.

Simply sharing the same house is usually not sufficient to be denied a recommend.  But how believable is it when we hear "We're just roommates"?  Credibility with that statement is the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wenglund thanks for the overview of common law marriages. It is interesting how the letter of the earthly law might bump up against something like this. I seem to recall that the Church's 2015 version included language like "married or in a relationship that looks substantially like marriage", which seems to be what the letter of the earthly law is also trying to do. Of course, the Church tends to shy away from the kind of legalese that is so prominent in earthly legislation, so the interpretation of individual scenarios is left up to local priesthood leadership.

Though maybe we don't need to get too bogged down in the legal details. With the new policy is a statement that we are putting homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same footing. So are we going to be more tolerant of same sex public displays of affection (holding hands, hugging, kissing, etc.)? In some ways, sharing a home/address is just one more step along the continuum. Just like heterosexual couples have long wrestled with the question of when do displays of affection become sexual, how will homosexuals face the same choices? As @Midwest LDS 's example shows, there is precedent for not accepting heterosexual roommate situations, perhaps that simply extends to case by case consideration of same-sex roommate scenarios?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Yet another permutation. I have not encountered opposite sex roommates being denied recommends like that. An interesting twist on the theme -- though I wonder what the justification is for denying a recommend in those scenarios. Probably something specific to the individual/couple that swayed a leader's opinion.

The Church has frowned significantly on the notion of coed housing, and even went to court over the matter in relation to BYU, though I don't know what disciplinary issues there are absent immoral activity. 

While at BYU, I lived on one side of a duplex with men, and on the other side there were women.  The duplex was disqualified as approved BYU housing because of males and females "living under the same roof," though my Bishop didn't have a problem with it. I don't know if the same would hold were men and women living on the same side of the duplex.

It would be interesting to find out. Either way, it is a move away from simplicity and order and towards chaos. The Jews attempted to avoid the potential chaotic  forces of immorality creep by "building a wall around the Torah."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mores said:

But how believable is it when we hear "We're just roommates"?  Credibility with that statement is the key.

After years in a sexless [heterosexual] marriage, I find it easier to believe than others might. Maybe I should, like MormonGator suggests, be more willing to praise and celebrate our sacrifice and self-control rather than seeing our marriage as flawed and broken. It would sure be nice if I could. Maybe some day I will get there (along with all of my LGBT brothers and sisters who are less than enthusiastic about a lifetime of celibacy).

Of course, credibility like that is ultimately decided case by case, but most of us will not be the ones in the leadership positions tasked with making the judgements. So how are we as rank and file going to deal with Adam and Steve when Steve is made a counselor in the EQ presidency and Adam is SS president? Are we going to be comfortable with that?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

With the new policy is a statement that we are putting homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same footing. 

Not exactly. the new policy speaks only to treating "immoral conduct" the same.  In other words, regardless of the legal status of homosexual relations, the sexual conduct will be treated the same as non-married heterosexual relations. The change is silent about non-sexual conduct.

It is another way of saying that the Church doesn't recognize the states legalization of same-gender marriages. It is just that they aren't going to treat those marriages as apostasy, but rather as serious transgressions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

With the new policy is a statement that we are putting homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same footing.

There it is again.  This was already addressed.  And you keep repeating it.  Look at what Wade has said above.  Do you not see the difference?

13 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Of course, credibility like that is ultimately decided case by case, but most of us will not be the ones in the leadership positions tasked with making the judgements. So how are we as rank and file going to deal with Adam and Steve when Steve is made a counselor in the EQ presidency and Adam is SS president? Are we going to be comfortable with that?

You answered your own question.

As with all sins, we're not supposed to be the ones who judge.  It's the bishop's job.  And if we disagree with it, then we keep it to ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Either way, it is a move away from simplicity and order and towards chaos. The Jews attempted to avoid the potential chaotic  forces of immorality creep by "building a wall around the Torah." 

But, is moving towards chaos sinful? The concept of "hedges about the law" is an interesting one. Yes, they were put in place to help avoid sin. I find it very interesting that the Savior, during His mortal ministry, seemed less than enthusiastic about some of the hedges about the law that were in place at the time. Are hedges about the law inherently good things? Is it sinful when someone chooses not to respect/obey/observe a hedge about the law?

 

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It is another way of saying that the Church doesn't recognize the states legalization of same-gender marriages. It is just that they aren't going to treat those marriages as apostasy, but rather as serious transgressions.

This feels almost like we are back to the beginning -- is it sinful to obtain a marriage license? Is it sinful to be in a celibate same sex relationship that otherwise looks an awful lot like "committed, long-term" marriage/relationship? If we truly believe that it is only the sexual behavior that makes a same-sex relationship sin/transgression, then do we have a place of full fellowship for those who claim to have celibate same-sex relationships?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mores said:

Simply sharing the same house is usually not sufficient to be denied a recommend.  But how believable is it when we hear "We're just roommates"?  Credibility with that statement is the key.

I agree that's fair. It just seems to me that avoiding the very appearance of evil is important as well, and avoiding dangerous situations like Joseph did when he was tempted by Potiphars wife. If you are in a tempting situation, far better to flee than place yourself in danger trying to prove how strong you are.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Adam and Steve when Steve is made a counselor in the EQ presidency and Adam is SS president? Are we going to be comfortable with that?

If Adam and Steve are in a state-legalized marriage (common law or otherwise), they would be in "serious transgression," and thus unlikely to be called to those positions.

However, if they are merely unmarried celibate roommates or friends,  it is unlikely they would be called as bishop, but as an older single celibate (though heterosexual) man who now serves as Elders Quorum Secretary, I can't see a problem--in large part because  my sexual orientation ought not be and issue,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Yet another permutation. I have not encountered opposite sex roommates being denied recommends like that. An interesting twist on the theme -- though I wonder what the justification is for denying a recommend in those scenarios. Probably something specific to the individual/couple that swayed a leader's opinion.

I'm not sure which prior example you are referring to. I don't believe that sex is an addiction, so comparing it to an alcoholic and whiskey feels overstated -- I might have seen it more like a dieter who keeps a box of donuts around (though sugar/food addiction is also a hotly debated topic). These kinds of examples like examples of stupid or unwise behaviors, but I don't usually think of stupid behaviors as sinful behaviors. When does doing something unwise like this become sin? Especially when talking about the Savior's temptations in the wilderness, we will usually assert that it is not sin to be tempted. Is it sin to knowingly expose yourself to temptation? Sometimes it seems like there are gray areas in these rather than stark lines between black and white.

I agree that temptation alone does not constitute a sin, and your example of the Lord in the wilderness shows that. But I believe it is a sin to purposesly put oneself into a tempting situation. While Same Sex attraction is no sin, purposesly putting yourself in a situation where you are going to face urgent and daily temptation to break the LOC seems like it would be. Also the church did not say Same Sex marriage was no longer a sin, they said it was no longer apostasy there is a difference. I think in our lives we should strive to avoid the gray areas rather than seek them out to justify potentially sinful behavior.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

I agree that temptation alone does not constitute a sin,

Depends, methinks.

If I have the raging desire to murder you consuming my thoughts -- but in the end I don't act on it -- am I really free of sin?

The idea seems ludicrous to me. I don't know how it is that this idea is so common.

If our very thoughts will condemn us, maybe it's time we move past the notion that only action on things matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share