You didn’t think the Church would pass up an opportunity to fight gay marriage, did you?
The 2019 Come, Follow Me curriculum is now available on the Gospel Library app and on the Church’s website. As Dave B pointed out last week, the curriculum is home-based. Sunday School classes for youth and adults as well as Primary classes are meant only as supplements to home study. As such, Sunday School and Primary teachers are meant to first consult the home manual, Come, Follow Me–For Individuals and Families, prior to preparing their lessons. Gospel Doctrine and youth teachers then use Come, Follow Me–For Sunday School. Primary teachers use Come, Follow Me–For Primary. The lessons are all pre-scheduled, with study periods beginning each Monday (probably for Family Home Evening) and ending on Sunday.
For the week of May 13-19, church members will study Matthew 19-20, Mark 10, and Luke 18. In this lesson, we learn about marriage, the story of the rich young man, and the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. The marriage section in the home manual has two sections, one about marriage between men and women being ordained of God and the other about divorce. In that first section, the manual states, “You may know people who disagree with or oppose the Lord’s standards regarding marriage.” It then recommends a video to learn how to share your opinion and disagree respectfully. The video, “Everyday Example: When Beliefs Are Questioned,” shows arguments and tentative resolution between two women who disagree about gay marriage. In the video, one of the women specifically attacks the Church’s involvement in the public sphere on the issue.
The Sunday School version of the same lesson also covers gay marriage, though it is more explicit later in an additional resources section. In the main body of the lesson, you get something similar to what’s in the home manual (minus the video). First, a vague assertion, “Increasingly, the world’s views on marriage diverge from eternal truth.” Later it also covers the idea of sharing beliefs with those who disagree. “Consider inviting class members to role-play how they might explain our beliefs about marriage to someone who believes differently.”
The “Additional Resources” section, however, gets more specific. First, there’s an excerpt from 2014 instruction to Church members by the First Presidency following the temporary legalization of gay marriage in Utah. But that’s not the most interesting part. It’s when we get this:
The Lord expects us to show love and compassion to those who advocate or participate in something other than God’s plan for marriage, such as cohabitation or same-sex marriage (see mormonandgay.lds.org). True compassion includes doing our best to lovingly and patiently invite them to follow God’s plan, which is the only plan of true happiness. To embrace or endorse alternatives to God’s plan is more harmful than helpful.
So while the Church is encouraging “love and compassion” towards those who believe differently, we are to “lovingly and patiently invite them to follow God’s plan.” We invite cohabiting heterosexual couples to marry and married gay couples to divorce. Gotcha.
However, there’s a good chance most members will never see this last statement. It’s not in the home materials, and a Sunday School teacher could opt to focus only on the main marriage materials or stories like the rich young man or the laborers in the vineyard. Only if a Sunday School teacher pulls from the extra marriage material will youth or adults hear it. But it’s still in an official church publication, and that lends a certain weight.
What do you think about the way the Church has incorporated the fight against gay marriage into the new Come, Follow Me curriculum?
Wheat & Tares 
I had understood that it was acceptable for members to disagree with the church position on gay marriage. This will make it more difficult. No emphasis on divorce being forbidden?
V11 12 talk about those born as eunuchs might be interpreted as gays, and be interpreted as Christ putting them in a different category?
Can anyone clarify what those born as eunuchs meant at the time?
Sounds like the Church teaching long-standing doctrine and trying to be sensitive to those who disagree. This is precisely what I would hope for and expect from a Church publication.
“God’s plan for marriage” is an interesting locution. I might prefer knowing about God’s plan for me or for any particular child of God.
The “compassion” comments are inappropriate and condescending at least as to my same-sex married acquaintances. They do not want me to have “a strong feeling of sympathy and sadness for {their] suffering or bad luck” [Cambridge English Dictionary] at finding themselves in a same-sex marriage. Such an attitude would be at least condescending, possibly patronizing, and definitely offensive and not loving. It certainly would not be kind and civil as urged by the First Presidency message. The “true compassion” comment doesn’t recognize anything but “embracing” or “endorsing” as an option to unwanted purportedly loving preaching to these people that they should tear apart the families they have formed. It would seem that the appropriate exercise of patience, kindness, and civility would call instead for acceptance and keeping one’s mouth shut on the subject while embracing those involved as children of God. The “true compassion” comment functions also as a passive-aggressive defining of those who accept and welcome their friends’ and loved ones’ same-sex partners into their circle of friends and family as uncompassionate and therefore unChristian. The “true happiness” notion is a negative judgment on others’ joyful family relationships. The only plan referred to in that paragraph is “God’s plan for marriage.” So, is the Church back to recommending that gays find “true happiness” by marrying heterosexually? There can be no plausible pretense that this paragraph is a part of studying the New Testament; the New Testament says nothing about same-sex marriage.
When Todd Christopherson’s family embraced and accepted his lifestyle and partner was it “more harmful than helpful?”
When we can’t even be honest about our continued belief in current eternal polygamy, perhaps we should not claim to know everything about God’s plan on an individual basis.
Nope. I don’t believe it. God does not want my totally amazing gay friends to get divorced and leave their kids with a broken home. They have adopted 3 children from foster care and they.are a happy and legitimate family. I don’t feel sad, sympathy, compassion, or pity for them. My husband and I may be able to stick with our membership, but odds are my children won’t. To suggest that their gays friends can’t hold hands, date and enter into loving and committed relationships because it isn’t “God’s plan for marriage” strikes my children as an arbitrary and cruel God. The idea that there isn’t a place for these families in our pews because it isn’t part of God’s plan makes it seem as though God’s plan isn’t complete. It makes God seem small. I can guaranty you that these 3 children adopted from foster care by our friends are happier and more stable because they have a loving family.
Lois, I was going to write a snarky comment about God’s plan for marriage apparently being eternal polygamy too, but I resisted. I looked for it in the New Testament lesson.
The lesson seems to assume that the student and class will conclude (has already concluded) that same-sex marriage is wrong/sinful/apostate. It does not say anything about those who conclude differently. I would be interested in attending a SS class where the question of “How does your knowledge of the Father’s plan of salvation help you understand why marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God?” turns into a real discussion and not an echo chamber. Perhaps discussing the related question “How does your knowledge of the Father’s plan of salvation help you understand why same sex marriage is forbidden by God?” My positive answers to the first question do not lead me to the conclusions assumed by the second question.
I kind of liked the video (other than not being able to forget that this is scripted). The main “criticism” I had was that the video assumes that this kind of disagreement will be between members and non-members — between “us” and “the world”. In that kind of scenario, the conclusions about learning to live together in a pluralistic society are good conclusions. The next scenarios I would like to explore are when the person who disagrees with you is also a “believer” (because some of them cannot be members). Lois mentioned Tom Christopherson. Mitch Mayne was a prominent face among “believing homosexuals” for a time. I see accounts of others who believe in the Church and want to worship with members of the Church, but who disagree on this one issue. How does learning respect within a pluralistic society apply to our congregations?
It is a sad day when even the word “compassion” is spun into a negative attribute. Quick, someone go tell the Dalai Lama it is now a negative word! and FYI, the Christofferson’s never “embraced” a gay lifestyle. They treated their brother with compassion (oops, there is that word again) and loving-kindness. All fall short of the living in accord with divine law. But through the Savior’s grace, all weaknesses may be overcome.
Old Man, Please tell us what you think “compassion” means, especially in this context. I was simply going by a dictionary and my same-sex married acquaintances reactions. There could be other meanings. What’s yours?
If a church teacher chooses to read those portions of the materials, s/he might want to also read the following from Elder Renlund:
We can stand firm in our beliefs and have a loving relationship with those who hold differing opinions. For example, I believe drinking alcohol is a violation of God’s law. So what do I do when I am hosting friends who do not believe as I do? My wife and I arrange to go to a restaurant with them where they can order as they choose to. And when they order wine with their meal, I do not get in their faces and call them out as sinners.
Similarly, can I be friends with individuals who are living together without the benefit of marriage? Absolutely. And when I am with them, do I stand up in great indignation and call them to repentance, even though they are presently engaged in behavior I do not agree with? No, of course not.
We can stand firm in our beliefs and have a loving relationship with those who hold differing opinions. Let us not forget that the plan of salvation offers the love and mercy of our Savior Jesus Christ to all.
Well, Elder Oaks (aided by E. Bednar) just made it abundantly clear he has no intention ever of letting go of that ball! I fear (E. Rasband notwithstanding) for my, now adult, children in this institution. And I’m wondering does this lesson perhaps detail precisely where the Lord has made clear his position on gender and marriage, as laid out by E. Oaks, because I am not buying the Proc.
Oaks was definitely firm (especially that the Proc met the definition of revelation). The one caveat Oaks made in his talk was that his statements were based on our current knowledge. This technically opens up an out in the future in case things change and someone needs to pull a post-1978 McConkie (say that church leaders were working with limited understanding).
I thought Ballard was taking a more humble tone on LGBT issues in his November 2017 BYU devotional, but on reading through it again, I don’t know anything necessarily conflicts with the lesson material. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/m-russell-ballard_questions-and-answers/
I’m having a hard time with the specific direction not to embrace or endorse gay marriage, especially when it comes to friends and family members. This just doesn’t feel right to me. Maybe with the new every other week Sunday School, a lot of this material will get ignored. (I also found that video with the gay marriage arguments unconvincing when I first watched it years ago, and thought it odd they brought it into a home and family lesson.)
OldMan
“They treated their brother with compassion (oops, there is that word again) and loving-kindness…….and FYI, the Christofferson’s never “embraced” a gay lifestyle.
What is your definition of “embrace?”
The Christopherson’s put love above all else. Not only did they treat their brother with love and compassion–they treated his partner as a family member with the same love and compassion and mourned when Tom and his partner went their separate ways. (Tom had wanted to stay together with his partner albeit live as celibate roommates but his partner wanted to continue their relationship as it had been).
Even Boyd Packer backed off his October 2010 verbal claim that “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” “qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation.” In the version of his talk edited for print, that descriptive phrase was omitted, leaving the proclamation simply described as “a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow.” Perhaps the Brethren are not really in agreement as to what constitutes “revelation”.
I’m sure my tone here will show my exasperation. I’m so tired of the church preaching homophobia! It strikes me as especially egregious when I remember that Doctrine and Covenants section 132 proclaims polygyny as God’s plan for families. The Doctrine and Covenants is canonized scripture; the family proclamation is not.
To be clear: I’m not arguing for polygyny. I’m strongly against that. But I am expressing confusion as to why the church has picked this specific hill (heterosexual, cisgendered monogamy) as the one to die on.
President Oaks defines truth as the way things will be. Exaltation to him is the ability to be endless or eternal. I don’t know why they are bashful about saying it these days, but it is the ability to continue to procreate after death. In his mind, procreation amongst the Gods is very similar to the way we mortals procreate. (Sorry if I beat this drum a lot, it causes an immense amount of anger and depression in my wife’s view of heaven, so we discuss it quite often.)
In 1978 the first “test tube baby” was conceived using in vitro fertilization. That is not that long ago. Scientists can now create sperm and egg cells from skin cells or stem cells in mice. It is called IVG. It is possible that in the coming years, they will be able to do that in humans. This would allow them to conceive a baby from two women or two men. Can we please assume that God’s grasp of science might be a little more advanced than ours? If IVG babies were in fact conceived, it would be a major blow to the line of thinking that President Oaks bases his “TRUTH” on. It could be also that he is right. If that is the case, and he knows by concrete revelation that he is right, then he has a duty to say what he is saying. If he is just mostly sure he is right, he should pipe down a little.
It could be argued that spirit babies need both a mother and father because they need the role model of a provider and nurturer in their premortal lives to develop and mature properly as spirits before being born physically. I think that is a weak argument also. My wife readily admits that I am more of a natural nurturer than she is. Along with that, if polygamy really is practiced in heaven, I don’t know how much of a fathers influence they have. I don’t see much influence of a father in a lot polygamous families that I have read about, so that crushes this argument as well.
A lot of the problems the church is facing now would never have been an issue if Jesus just would have returned in 1930 or 1940. Damn you science. Oh, and damn the civil rights movement and the equal rights movement.
Sorry to be back on this post so soon, but I’m reading reactions of my orthodox friends on social media (to Oaks’ talk), and so much of it has the tone of “The Charge of the Light Brigade” — “Ours not to question why, ours but to do and die…”
But that poem is about enlisted men dying in battle because their role is to be followers. It’s about the futility of trusting too much in leaders.
The Sat AM meeting was ruined for my family by Oaks certainty in his right to exclude people from exaltation. Not only gays but those who don’t marry in the temple.
How many single women relative to single men in the church? 40 year old single woman in our family very hurt and none of us impressed.
Hate and ignorance claiming to be truth is Oaks version of the church. No love or compassion here. Notice he was congratulated by Nelson at the end of the meeting.
See if anyone can get the spirit of Christ back after that.
Just got back from watching the women’s session. 3 brief talks from women, the rest of the meeting we had the entire 1P hammering the proc and a horrific return to the gender essentialist narratives of the past. Yep, that’s over half the speaker time where men tell women what we are, what we WILL do, and use the proc as their authoritative reference. Outrageous.
The Women’s Session last night was the single worst church meeting I have ever attended. I can’t even begin to describe my level of anger. It is the mother’s divinely gendered responsibility to be the Gospel teacher in our home with this new home study program because I am the nurturer? Our women are marrying too old and having too few babies and wife and mother are our highest calling? My daughters, even the youngest, were just floored. There were sisters who got up and left crying. My infertile.sister texted that she had turned it off. Calling her a mother when she isn’t a mother was more than she could take. The pedestalizing of women is so paternalistic. Does Dallin H. Oaks have a single ounce of empathy in his body?
I expect a few people will get off the fence.
Zach writes: “This would allow them to conceive a baby from two women or two men.”
Why stop with that? Direct gene editing, designer life forms! Anything you want made to order. There’s no scientific reason such a thing is impossible.
“Our women are marrying too old and having too few babies and wife and mother are our highest calling? ”
Well, the missionaries aren’t getting the job done anymore. The church isn’t doing its job attracting converts. It’s up to the women to pump out those babies and energize those plummeting membership numbers.
Get off those computers and into the sack!
Happily, I can only vaguely remember menopause, it was so long ago. So I guess I can have the internet to myself.
So much about this makes me livid. (I have a litany of profanity I want to let loose, but it’s the Sabbath.) The things that bothers me most about this isn’t the Church pushing its homophobic views (though that bothers me A LOT). No, what bothers me most is that the church is missing the opportunity to drink deeply from the scriptures, settling for the mess of pottage that is the Proclamation.
Elizabeth St. Dunstan asks “I am expressing confusion as to why the church has picked this specific hill (heterosexual, cisgendered monogamy) as the one to die on.”
While I lack the powers others have here demonstrated to know the mind of Jesus I suspect it has something to do with this scripture:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the dearth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
If this is the hill the church has chosen to die on, so be it. It started with six persons it can end with six persons.
Great, just great. My youngest daughter’s teacher decided to watch a bit of our conference this weekend because my child gave her an invitation they created in primary. She ended up watching only Sister Franco and our 1st presidency on Saturday night because she was curious about the “women’s session”. That should have been a huge score for my cutie’s missionary efforts! However, her teacher said, “that was some strange theology” and she found it “very patronizing.” She asked me if we are “quiverful” fundamentalist/ keep sweet types. She said none of it really appealed to her. Missionary opportunity definitely lost.
Uchtdorf can’t give every talk. This is what the church is and wants to be, at least from the top down. I think the church is making it perfectly clear it has no interest in catering to its progressive membership. Members who don’t like this are going to have to choose what they want to do about it. Obviously the church isn’t coming to them.