Today marks the third anniversary of the church’s infamous exclusion policy, labeling same-sex couples apostates and denying children who have a parent in a same-sex relationship ordinances and full participation in the church. When the policy was publicly announced, I wrote a letter of objection to my local church leaders and a few days later decided to make it public, along with encouraging everyone who had a concern about the new policy to write their local leaders. If we care about the church and those who are being hurt by this policy, I believe we have a right and an obligation to respectfully inform our church leaders of our opinions and concerns. How else will they know of the pain and suffering occurring unless we let them know? Here is the letter I wrote to my local leaders.
********
Dear Bishop ______ and President ______,
I feel strongly that I need to voice my concerns to you over the recent policy change that so deeply hurt my family and many other people we know and love, and hope that you will convey this message to the higher authorities of the church. Please be assured that this letter is not to protest, criticize or resign my membership. I simply feel that as a member in good standing in this church that I have a right and an obligation to voice my opinion when I see so much damage being done both to the church and more especially to the “least of these” whom the Savior has commanded us to give special care to.
I know that many in the church would not agree with me and believe that we are to simply accept and follow everything our leaders say without question. I have never been comfortable with that line of reasoning and instead believe what Joseph Smith said on the subject:
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme.” (Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num. 38, pp.593-59)
So given that, I hope you will understand that I am approaching you with all due respect and sincerity of heart.
Like many others, when I first learned of the policy my first thought was disbelief – it couldn’t be real. When it was confirmed, something inside me sort of died. This did not feel right in my heart, this was not the church I knew and loved, this was not the Spirit of Christ; it felt like a horrible mistake that no amount of intellectual argument and legal wrangling could justify. And I am not alone in this feeling. For instance, just yesterday Brother and Sister Jones* approached me with real consternation and asked if I had heard of the policy. (You may not know this but they have a gay grandson whom they helped raise and who is in a same-sex relationship, and Sister Jones loves them both.) She could only ask “Why, brother Cook? Why would the church do this? I just don’t understand?” Brother Jones expressed exasperation as well. If a stalwart couple like the Brother and Sister Jones who have given their whole lives to the church feel this way, what does this say about the damage that is being done? And I know many others who are expressing similar sentiments, including some who have tendered their temple recommends or resigned their membership in just the last few days.
Given these feelings I want to be proactive and constructive in voicing my concerns with hopes that further damage might be avoided. Perhaps if someone in the Parowan and Cedar City stakes had had the courage to voice their opinion to their stake presidents in those fateful secret meetings back in 1857, the Mountain Meadows Massacre could have been avoided. Perhaps if others in the Willie and Martin handcart companies had joined their voices with Levi Savage who warned against the late travel (and was severely chastised for not having faith in his leaders), the resulting suffering and death could have been prevented. Perhaps if church leaders in Brigham Young’s day had stood up to the policy change he instituted that denied blacks the priesthood and temple blessings (and which the church now acknowledges was based on racist cultural attitudes of that age), our church could have avoided causing untold emotional and spiritual injury to thousands of black people – as well as to the white members who perpetuated harmful racist attitudes (even to this day) because of the false folk doctrines they were taught in an attempt to justify an increasingly unjustifiable policy.
This new policy has already begun to tear apart families, exactly the opposite of what the church stands for. Let me give you a few examples that I am personally aware of. I know a number of gay men who in good faith (and sometimes following the counsel of their church leaders) married women believing that through their righteous obedience and faithfulness, God would make it all work out. Sadly, as the statistics bear out, the marriage didn’t work out and the couples divorced. These men are on generally good terms with their ex-wives and have children ranging in ages from 5 to 19 (one recently went on his mission). Some of the men are now dating or in a relationship with same-sex partners. And some of them still have testimonies of the gospel and want their children to be raised in the church. They have these sweet innocent children who love their dads and who also love the church, who are now learning that they will not be able to live with their dads at some point if they want to stay in the church, and that they will have to disavow them. One young girl of 13 just loves going to the temple to do baptisms and now is in great fear that this privilege will be taken from her. The younger children will appear to be denied baptism and the protecting power of the Holy Ghost while all of their cousins and friends excitedly prepare for these steps. Are these the fruits of Christ’s gospel?
This policy is inconsistent with the current teachings of the church on LGBT issues. For instance, the church has recently taught families and church members to love and accept gay members even if they are in a same-sex relationship – which the new policy considers to be apostasy:
– “Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle…” (Elder Quentin Cook, [on former mormonsandgays church website])
– “The best case scenarios that I have dealt with are where families have been unequivocal about their love and compassion for a family member who is gay and who has decided that they are not going to live the standards of the Church.” (President Roger Carter, stake president, [on former mormonsandgays church website])
– …some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different [have same-sex attraction]. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. (Elder Jeffrey Holland, “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 2007)
– Public example of Elder Todd Christofferson, whose family loved and accepted his brother Tom and Tom’s partner as part of the family.
As the parent of two gay sons, I am left wondering whether my membership status will be called into question at some point. For instance, Elder Christofferson made public statements in press conferences in January and March 2015 that church members can support same-sex marriage and still be in good standing in the church. But the new policy states that same-sex marriage is apostasy. Having met many gay men, some trying to remain celibate and others who have entered into monogamous same-sex relationships, I have come to see that those in the latter category are, in most cases, much more emotionally and spiritually healthy than those who remain single and celibate (the church recognizes this as well with respect to heterosexual single adults and is constantly urging them to date and marry). So if parents consider a same-sex relationship safer and healthier for their children than forced celibacy, aren’t they supporting apostate behavior?
In addition, why are children born into same-sex marriages or relationships required to disavow such relationships and not live with that parent, while member parents who have a gay child in a same-sex relationship are not required to disavow the relationship of that child or prohibit him or her from living in their home? Should I worry that at some point the church will require me to disavow my child’s relationship with a partner, effectively making me choose between my membership and accepting my child? What if my child’s partner/spouse is like a member of the family whom we have come to love, no different than my other married children’s spouses (which was the case with Elder Christofferson’s brother’s partner in their family). What are the fruits of a policy that turns the hearts of the children away from their fathers and the hearts of their fathers away from their children?
As you know, we along with several other faithful members of the church, started a local support group called “ALL are alike unto God” (or ALL for short) for LDS LGBT people and their families and allies over three years ago. That little group has grown to 365 people at last count. One of the objectives of this group was to show our LGBT members (or former members) that they are loved and wanted by active members of the church, and that if they feel God calling them back to church there is still a place for them – even if they are in a same-sex relationship. You might be surprised how many have felt this pull; so many of them have such tender hearts and have always been sensitive to the Spirit. But with the new policy that objective has been wiped out. How I wish you could hear the stories of the people in our group, see the light in their eyes and discern the spirit they have. Just as Peter was surprised that Cornelius, a gentile, could feel the Holy Ghost, you might be surprised at the spirituality and Christ-like love of the LGBT people in our group. And now their hearts have been broken yet again by their church. How many punches can they – and their families – take and keep coming back?
I hope this message touches your heart. I’m sure the church has all kinds of legal-logical arguments for enacting such a policy, and I’m humble enough to admit that I could be wrong in my appraisal of it. But whatever the reasons, it affects real people and their families. They are not just abstract doctrinal concepts or difficult problems the church must deal with – they are children of our Heavenly Father and the “least of these.” And I wouldn’t count myself a worthy disciple of Christ if I didn’t at least share my feelings with you as my local leaders. The saddest thing for me would be to learn that the church leaders who enacted the policy actually do recognize the pain and loss the policy would cause but that they are deliberately casting off the LGBT segment of the church (which includes their families and all those who sympathize with them) because they fear that as apostates they will contaminate the church, so the church is better off without them. If that is the case, then I imagine I am part of the segment to be cast off because I don’t think I could identify with such an action. I fear that unless corrected, this policy could turn out to be a mistake of the magnitude of that made by Brigham Young so long ago, which had negative consequences for thousands of people across many generations.
In closing, may I plead with you to remember the “one” as you try to protect the ninety and nine? As you preach holding to the rod, following the prophet and defending the faith during this challenging period, please don’t forget to also preach compassion for those cast on the side of the road whom the Levite and priest passed by. Please don’t forget to speak of our covenant to bear one another’s burdens, to mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort. In the midst of all the heartache I have heard some inspiring accounts of leaders reaching out to their ward members who are hurting this last weekend: a Relief Society president who dropped off a cake with a message expressing compassion and sorrow to a family who has a gay son; a stake president who called a member of his high council who has a gay brother to give comfort and see how he was doing; a stake president who called a woman in his stake who has a gay son to mourn with her and give her comfort; a number of bishops who in ward meetings reminded their wards to be compassionate and loving to their fellow members who were particularly sorrowing over the policy. That is the Mormon church I know and love.
Kind regards,
Bryce and Sara Cook
_______________________
*Name changed to protect privacy.
Wheat & Tares 
This is a good letter. If only churches would actually prioritize caring for the least of these.
What response did you receive from this, if any?
Wonderful letter, Bryce. Thank you for sharing it.
What is especially heinous about the policy is that it seems calculated to ensure that Latter-Day Saints do not see the Holy Spirit at work in the marriages and families of married gay people. However, lived experience opens one’s eyes to the work of God among us, and God will do what he is going to do, despite the protestations and stern warnings of LDS leaders.
I don’t need the history of the church to be flattering or faith-promoting. I don’t need the Church to be “true.” I just need it to be good and to follow the teachings of the Savior. I can’t find Christ in the November 5 policy of exclusion, and I can’t find Christ in the homophobic rhetoric that I hear from certain leaders. When I can’t find Christ in God’s chosen apostolic vessels, then it becomes very difficult to want to continue sustaining them and the church they preside over.
Bryce: Good work (I have seen it before). In a similar vein, I like to keep putting my (somewhat shorter) letter out there:
8 November 2015
Dear Bishop _________:
I call your attention to policy changes regarding marriage between persons of the same gender. I have many thoughts, but for purposes of this letter just two things.
With regard to apostasy:
I am married and celebrate my wife, three children, and four grandchildren. If I were gay (by whatever combination of nature and nurture), subject only to finding a loving and companionable partner I firmly believe that I would also be married. I would choose to be married. I believe marriage is a moral and righteous choice, that it is good for me, for my children, and for society.
Perhaps this makes me apostate in my heart? So be it.
With regard to children:
I believe this policy is wrong, that it is contrary to scripture and gospel teachings. Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14) If I were (once again) a bishop, I would not, I could not in good conscience, implement this policy. I urge you to consider your obligations to the children in the same way.
Peace be with you,
Christian E. Kimball.
Fantastic letter and I admire you more than I can say for composing and sending it!
What was the response ?
If homosexual relationships are sinful (there is a mountain of biblical evidence and modern revelation that points to this), then marriage in such a relationship demonstrates a commitment to live in sin. If you accept that premise, then it is clearly apostasy, the same as joining another church. I understand that much of the objection to this policy is an objection to the premise, but the idea that this is some horrific policy aimed at hurting people is overblown.
[Bring on the downvotes, I suppose.]
Beautiful letters Brice and Christian. This policy is a large part of the reason I resigned my membership in the church. The articles of faith state that people will be punished for their own sins, but apparently not in this case 😥
“The mountains of biblical evidence and modern revelation on” homosexuality all rest squarely on Leviticus. Everything after Leviticus has been extrapolation based on the prohibition found there. The problem with this is that the original text contains a prohibition against incestuous male homosexual relationships. This implies that the earliest version of the text assumes other homosexual relationships are not prohibited. The later blanket prohibition seems to be a later addition made to assimilate Zoroastrian culture during the Babylonian captivity.
I don’t have a personal dog in this fight as no immediate members of my family are LGBT. But why should that matter? The right course is crystal clear to me. Bryce, I agree with every word.
Dsc, let’s assume for a moment that you are correct in your assertion that a commitment to a homosexual relationship is a form of apostasy. I disagree, but let’s just go with it. You still have not explained how it must then follow that a child should be denied baptism because of how his/her parents are living. Square that up with the scriptures for me, please. Point out to me in the revealed word of God where one of the requirements for baptism is that the baptismal candidate’s family members (not the candidate himself, but his FAMILY MEMBERS) must be abiding by the Lord’s commandment related to sexual purity. I have been asking that question for 3 years now and have not once received an adequate response. Not once. The writing of this policy required church leaders to turn a blind eye to scriptural mandate. Let that sink in for a moment. The so-called one true church of God ignored scripture in coming up with a policy. Acceptance of this policy asks church members to do the same. The church is out of line in acting in direct contrast to the scriptures.
Thanks for sharing this letter. I am saddened that the members of church who remain (even those who say they oppose this policy) have basically stopped talking about the November policy. As evidence I will just point out that in 2015 there were many posts as members processed the policy; in 2016 there were quite a few “one year on” look back posts; in 2017, there were a small handful of POX posts. This year? There’s this post.
Good members who oppose the policy, what are you doing currently to express your opposition?
We’re waiting for Nelson and Oaks to die, and hoping the next church president will show reverence for the scriptures and abandon this horrific, unchristian policy.
https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.js
I’ll never forget calling my parents and wife in complete disbelief when this was leaked. Unfortunately that feeling has not subsided.
I struggled to comment much on the previous posts about middle road Mormonism. There seems to be so much nuance in people’s beliefs and feelings. However, if there were a single recent defining moment in church history where I felt that the church really messed it up, it was this.
As they released the Nov 2015 policy it was as if the church was a police car, driving up and down the “middle road” issuing tickets for driving on a “prohibited” road and directing cars to either the full orthodox motorway or the highway to hell.
Thanks for all the insightful comments and kind words. I will respond to a few comments here.
Bro. Jones and Bellamy – The response? A short note back from my stake president letting us know that our family was loved. I didn’t expect a response beyond that and don’t know for sure if he forwarded it up the chain.
Cody – I wonder if the top leadership is even aware of the success stories. How do they explain the blessings and positive outcomes so many gay couples have received from loving, edifying marriage relationships? Certainly more and more of the members who have gay family and friends are seeing that, and it causes great cognitive dissonance.
Christian – I like your concise letter, beautifully stated with an economy of words that ensures the busiest leaders would read it without skipping to the bottom.
Dsc – You say there is a “mountain of biblical evidence and modern revelation” that says homosexual relationships are sinful. The reality is, there is zero biblical evidence that says homosexual committed marriage is sinful, and only a handful of verses that criticize homosexual relations (nearby verses also condemn a host of other things that we do not hold to today. Do you eat shellfish? If so, that’s an abomination). And let me ask you this, if you believe that homosexual marriage “demonstrates a commitment to live in sin” which is clearly apostasy, then why shouldn’t the church label heterosexual cohabitation outside of marriage apostasy as well? Or murder? Or rape? Or child abuse? Yet living in a committed, loving monogamous same-sex marriage makes someone apostate?
I would encourage you to read my article that was published in Dialogue last summer for a more in-depth treatment of what makes homosexual relationships sinful or not, immoral or not. It might give you a different way to see it. You can read it here: https://mormonlgbtquestions.com
Bryce, I see your questions to Dsc as an attempt to meet Dsc’s comment on its own ground. That seems a good approach, but it may also be appropriate to point out explicitly that Handbook 1 Sections 6.7.2 and 6.7.3 do not bring “a commitment to live in sin” into the Handbook 1 definition of “apostacy.” In fact, homosexual sexual cohabitation was added by way of clarification to 6.7.2 (not part of the “apostacy” definition) at the same time “[a]re in a same-gender marriage” was added to 6.7.3 defining “apostacy” only “as used” in that section on “When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory.” If there were care taken[1] in drafting the related policy changes, then same-gender sexual cohabitation, whether by private agreement or publicly sanctioned “domestic partner” or any other legal committed relationship however named (other than “marriage”), is excluded from the definition of “apostacy” for which a disciplinary council is mandatory. We would have to look outside categories of sin or “commitment to live in sin” to understand the limited-use definition of “apostacy” in 6.7.3.
Perhaps the addition of “in a same-gender marriage” was merely clarifying a special case of “[r]epeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.” After all, in the U.S. anyway, the fact of being married is public – either by marriage certificate or, where common law marriage is permitted, by its requirement that the couple be holding themselves out to the public as married. Such public opposition to the Church’s position opposed to same-gender marriage is repeated (in one sense) every day the same-gender couple fails to divorce or holds themselves out as married. Perhaps there is a larger problem with 6.7.3 than the November 2015 addition to it – a problem created by using a common English word “apostacy” to mean something other than what it means in common English.
In the end, however, it seems to me that the purpose of the change to 6.7.3 was to make perfectly clear that whichever of the Q15 sponsored the policy changes and got them into Handbook 1 by whatever means or for whatever reasons, the Church currently refuses to recognize a legal same-gender marriage as a marriage for Church purposes AND does not want to risk seeing same-gender marriage normalized within its congregations. It would also seem that this cannot be changed until certain of the Q15 are gone, just as the priesthood/temple ban could not be changed until certain of the pre-1978 Q15 were gone. After all, as noted and quoted in your article, “we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers…because we think we know the answers already.”
[1] Yes, I know no such care is evident in the drafting of the related Section 16.13 totally without regard to whether a child in question has any association at all with a parent living in a same-gender relationship.
BTW, I’ve read your 2017 article a number of times over the last year — well and faithfully done. Thank you.
The fastest way to end bias against same sex couples is to watch them in a committed relationship.
As a kid growing up, the only “gay” people I ever saw was the Gay Pride Parades on TV and shook my head at the debauchery on display and knew that it was all wrong.
Then I moved to Seattle and had some friends that were gay, normal, and just trying their best to be good people and devoted spouses. Literally overnight, my whole paradigm shifted and I changed my stance.
I worry that this idea may be a major driver behind the policy.
Bryce,
The “mountain” of evidence comes from both scripture and the teachings of modern prophets combined. It comes from explicit teachings on the subject, the proclamation on the family, and implications of the temple covenants and ordinances pointing to complementarity of the sexes. Comparing homosexuality to eating shellfish is a bad analogy, and I think you know that. I know there are a lot of arguments that the prohibitions in Leviticus dealt with ritual purity, and would therefore not be applicable in general today. But Paul never condemned eating shellfish. He clearly condemned homosexual activity. To say that committed same-sex relationships are not condemned is likewise a stretch of an argument. The very idea that two people of the same gender could be married and in a committed relationship was completely foreign to the people of the Bible. You’ll notice that there is likewise no prohibition in the bible of hard drug use, insurance fraud, and gambling, not because these things aren’t sinful, but because there just was no real concept of them, at least not in the modern sense. I will also note, hesitantly, that other sexual sins, such as bestiality, are also only mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that no one seems to question as sinful (that is, of course, not to say that homosexuality and bestiality or even on the same plane, but only to point out that some times something need only be mentioned once).
In your linked article, you say: “Perhaps with respect to some of these ancient laws there are underlying doctrinal concepts that are eternal even if the specific laws themselves were not.” And in this, I agree. But my understanding of modern revelation, deeper doctrinal questions, and my own spiritual confirmation lead to the conclusion that men and women occupy complementary roles both on earth and in eternity, and as a result, one is not complete without the other.
The other sins you propose as analogous for the purposes of apostasy are not analogous at all. Premarital cohabitation is sinful, and, depending on the circumstance, will likely result in excommunication if not rectified, but the sin there is in refusing to make a formal commitment, and thus is precisely the opposite of same-sex marriage. The sinner, in that case, does not perform a public act indicating a commitment to live contrary to the commandments. Likewise, murder, rape, and child abuse are heinous sins that will result in excommunication (and prison time), but they involve a single act contrary to the commandments, not a proclamation of intent to act contrary to the commandments for the rest of ones’ life. Apostasy involves an open rejection of gospel teachings and is not per se better or worse than some other sin.
Troy Cline,
As this is a policy decision, I wouldn’t expect an answer by looking to doctrine. I will note that it is disappointing that blogs like this one do not even want to acknowledge the Church’s explanation of this policy. I understand that there are valid arguments against these explanations, but it would be nice if people, when criticizing the policy, at least addressed the Church’s explanation:
“With same-sex marriage now legal in the United States and some other nations, the Church felt the need specifically to address such marriages in the Handbook to draw a firm line and encourage consistency among local leaders. In particular, Church leaders are concerned for children–whether biologically born to one of the partners, adopted or medically conceived. In reality, very few same-sex couples would bring children for the formal Church ordinance of naming and blessing, since this creates a formal membership record. But Church leaders want to avoid putting little children in a potential tug-of-war between same-sex couples at home and teachings and activities at church.
“This sensitivity to family circumstances is practiced elsewhere. For example, the Church doesn’t baptize minor children without parental consent, even if the children want to be associated with their LDS friends. A married man or woman isn’t baptized if the spouse objects. Missionaries don’t proselytize in most Muslim countries or in Israel, where there are particular sensitivities with family. In some African and other nations where polygamy is practiced, anyone whose parents practice polygamy needs special permission for baptism so they know that a practice that is culturally acceptable for many in the region is not acceptable in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
It has been 3 years now — and the really surprising thing is that there are so few stories (none that I have found) of gay married LDS couples that have been the subject of a church court and have been exed. Given the high profile of the policy and the leaning of the mainstream media, I’m sure we would see stories in the media if this were happening. The obvious conclusion is that local leaders are finding ways to *not* implement the policy. I’m sure that many gays have just turned their backs on the Church in the wake of the policy so local leaders can conveniently practice “out of sight, out of mind,” but still there ought to be lots of stories if bishops and SPs are actually following the policy. Nope, nothing. Same for not baptizing the kids — I haven’t seen any stories about this.
So the November Policy is a double loser for the Church: it generated a lot of bad PR and led thousands of active LDS to exit the Church or at least pull back; and it accomplished very little of what it was intended to do, at least in terms of formal discipline for gays and keeping their children out of the Church.
This whole policy thing has got me thing. I have a question for this group, and I am asking it in all seriousness. If the church were to reveres this policy, should we also bring polygamist families back into the fold also?
I do not think the church should excommunicate or exclude polygamist families. The reasons for the church’s policies vis-a-vis polygamist and same-sex marriages are entirely political.
@Scott J., there are a lot of reasons polygamy is illegal. I don’t think we should allow polygamists back into the church unless it becomes legal. And I don’t think it should be legalized unless some of the very real negative financial and emotional problems associated with it are overcome
That’s super super disingenuous. The LDS church’s reasons for not sending missionaries to those countries to openly proselytize have nothing to do with “particular sensitivities with family.”
“Special permission” is not the same as complete and total exclusion.
What did Jesus say about this?
Matthew 19:14: “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 10:34-35 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
MTodd,
What are the reasons that polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should not? Please exclude any arguments that rely on stereotypes (e.g., arguments that since polygamists have done bad things, polygamy must be the cause).
Kullervo,
“The LDS church’s reasons for not sending missionaries to those countries to openly proselytize have nothing to do with “particular sensitivities with family.” Do you have evidence of this?
“‘Special permission’ is not the same as complete and total exclusion.” From the same document: “Of course, there are always situations that fall outside general guidelines and principles, which is why local leaders may ask for guidance from more senior leaders in particular cases where they may have questions.”
Re Matthew 19:14: We have long excluded little children from baptism, so I’m not sure how applicable this verse is. Children in all circumstances are welcome at church, even if they have to wait for baptism.
Re: Matthew 10:34-35. You might want to be careful with this scripture. It can be used just as easily to undermine Brother Cook’s argument.
DSC,
You completely misunderstood my rhetorical questions to your first comment. I was not comparing homosexuality to eating shellfish, nor was I saying that the other sins were analogous to apostasy. The purpose of bringing up shellfish was simply to show one example of the many restrictions found in the Bible that we do not abide by today. And contrary to your repeated assertions, there is no “mountain of evidence” against homosexuality in the Bible – and zero evidence against same-sex marriage in the Bible. The same goes for modern revelation. There are church policies, teachings and political positions against same-sex marriage, but no claimed revelations unless you count President Nelson’s claim regarding the circumstances of the exclusion policy which has not been supported by any of the other brethren in that quorum and is inconsistent with other accounts of how it was passed. That’s your mountain of evidence. You can’t count the POF as a revelation because when Elder Packer called it that in his Oct 2010 conference talk, the word was edited out and replaced with “a guide.”
Regarding apostasy, I know many people who exhibit extreme antipathy towards the church, do not abide by its teachings and are highly critical of its leaders, but unless their views are made public to a wide audience they are left alone. Yet a loving gay couple in a legal, monogamous marriage, who may keep every commandment and exhibit faith and loyalty to the church, are labeled apostates and can be hauled into a church court based on the policy. There’s something wrong with this picture.
DSC, my understanding is that the LS church sends proselytizing missionaries to every country where legally allowed. Is that not the case?
DSC: “What are the reasons that polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should not?” If we’re talking about legality and the definition of marriage, I would give a few arguments against polygamy that don’t apply to same sex marriages. Preferencing some unions over others is done because of the tax implications and extension of partner benefits (e.g. family insurance). The US isn’t a single payer system, so how we define marriage matters to the economy. If we changed the definition to allow polygamous unions to receive these same partner benefits, it would be a more substantial change to the support systems and the economic support structure. Our entire system is based on two equal partners. In polygamous unions, the women are all married to the man, but not to each other. That’s a complex system requiring a prioritization of which wife has partner status and which ones do not. In Australia, it’s not the same kind of economic system we have, and as a result there are tax disadvantages to marriage, so many do not marry despite being fully committed and having children together.
Having said that, your question is silly anyway. The church’s stance is not about the nation’s definition of marriage but about the church’s stance which they would state is on moral grounds, not legal or economic grounds.
Bryce, You refer to “other accounts of how [the November 2015 Policy] was passed”, i.e. other than RMN’s January 2016 account. If possible, I would be glad to have directions as to where to find such “other accounts.” Thanks.
Bryce,
There’s a huge gap in the argument between pointing out that there are some prohibitions in the Bible that we don’t observe today and demonstrating that homosexual sex is one of them. I don’t know how you get from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 to “zero evidence against same-sex marriage in the Bible”, unless you are advocating for celibate same-sex marriages (which I don’t think you are). Jesus said very little about marriage in the New Testament at all, but when He did, He noted the complementarity of the sexes (Matthew 19:3). To say that there is “zero evidence” clearly overstates the case. But, even if you do take that position, there is “zero evidence” that any prophet at any time accepted same-sex marriage.
If you only accept canonized scripture as a source of evidence, then, no, there’s no “mountain” of evidence, but I think this is an untenable position to take if your goal is to convince most Latter-day Saints of your position.But again, taking that position, there is no revelation to back up your position, so I’m not sure that you move the ball down the field at all. And given tradition and “non-revelatory” statements of ancient and modern prophets, you have a long way to go.
“Regarding apostasy, I know many people who exhibit extreme antipathy towards the church, do not abide by its teachings and are highly critical of its leaders, but unless their views are made public to a wide audience they are left alone.” I think the key here is “public”.
DSC,
Here’s a good starting place to understand the issues with polygamy:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-problems-with-polygamy
Angela C,
I don’t think the “benefits” argument gets you very far. We already adjust taxes and provide other benefits with respect to children, regardless of how many children one has. There are already tax disadvantages to marriage in the United States. We don’t worry about numerical difficulty when it comes to providing health benefits to children, dividing estates, taxes, or any other legal question. I don’t see how polygamy would be any different.
I agree that this is a silly question, but it was in response to an equally silly claim.
It’s a red herring anyway. The church’s policies regarding polygamy and membership are only incidentally about legality.
MTodd,
The arguments in the linked article rest on stereotypes. The “we see problems when a few men control large numbers of women” comes close to a non-stereotyping argument, but doesn’t quite get there. If we assume a free society and that we won’t roll back women’s rights, no men will “control” any number of women. Further, the social ills would apparently derive from the entire society practicing polygamy, which is not inherent in the notion of recognizing polygamous marriages (which would presumably include both polygynist and polyandrist marriages). To illustrate the invalidity of that argument, imagine using that argument for same-sex marriage. If everyone did it, society would collapse. It’s not a good argument against same-sex marriage, so it’s not a good argument against polygamist marriage.
Does our dear prophet who says this policy comes from God have a moral leg to stand on? He condemns gay marriage that is lawful in this county as sinful. Yet, he himself lives a spiritual practice of polygamy. Something that probably 99% of American would call “sinful”. Such a paradox that he and the Q15 can define what is and what isn’t moral. I can see President Nelson and his wife, among all the great conversations they have on the up and coming changes, discuss how they will structure their mansion in heaven with rooms for him and hersss. This leads that they are living polygamy in real time. Very quirky indeed.
If the point of the POX is to protect children from a tug of war between church teachings and their parents‘ lifestyle, shouldn‘t that protection be extended to other lifestyle choices not in harmony with church teachings, like co-habitation or drinking alcohol? And children of gay parents can still go to church anyway and get indoctrinated anyway, so how does the POX even protect them at all?
Perhaps beside the point, but to my mind a better comparison of OT abominations than the shellfish = abomination/homosexual sex=abomination comparison is considering the following two selections from Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The invocation of the same extreme penalty for both homosexual intercourse and a man’s refusal to obey whatever irrational or unrighteous demands made by either of his parents makes such prohibitions equally suspect in the context of the gospesl and Matthew 23:9 “… call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” It is difficult to see why any of the prohibitions or abominations listed in Leviticus or Deuteronomy should be taken seriously in today’s context on the basis of their inclusion in the OT.
But if there were legitimate contemporary revelation as to which (and why) any of them and not others should be taken seriously in a contemporary context, that would be worth paying attention to. Given the changes in GA expressions about homosexuals/homosexuality from the 60s-80s to the present, I remain unconvinced that revelation has been sought or received on behalf of the Church as a whole about that subject or other OT abominations. What I see is a lot of change based on developing science and cultural attitudes and a some lack of change based on (a) a possibly prideful commitment to the notion of the completeness and accuracy and universality of what some understand to be God’s plan of happiness, and perhaps (b) an inability or unwillingness at this point to challenge the understanding and attitudes of those members of the Church or its political/legal allies aligned with the its efforts with respect to the so-called gay agenda. I suspect my perspective is affected largely by my frustrations with trying (mostly unsuccessfully) since the early/mid-70s to help gay Mormon friends and relatives deal in any healthy way with GA statements about them and the reality of their situations and by the somewhat parallel development and changes in GA expressions regarding the priesthood/temple ban from the 50s through the 70s. I guess I’m just unable to place much stock in isolated and unsupported claims of revelation such as RMN’s January 2016 speech and its reference to the 2015 Policy, any more than I could place much stock in claims of SWK or Hartmann Rector or others with respect to homosexuality or of many with respect to blacks of African descent prior to the 1978 change in the priesthood/temple ban. I don’t think any amount of pontificating on the subject or claims of personal spiritual confirmation by Dsc or others (other than a non-existent unanimous claim of revelation to each of the Q15 individually with respect to a non-existent Policy consistent with the NT and BoM gospel) would be likely to be something I could place much stock in, though I might be able to accept it, as I do the Policy and did with respect to the priesthood/temple ban, as a statement of the Church’s current administrative position.
JR:
I am going to have to disagree with your sallow and blatantly disingenuous reading of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. It does not help your statements to twist the meaning of scripture like that.
James:
I really doubt that 99% of Americans would call getting married after your first spouse died “sinful”. And if you asked most people who have done it they would say that they loved both spouses and would like to have some kind of afterlife relationship with them.
Scott J, I think you are blatantly reading something into Deuteronomy 21:18-21 that is not there (but probably should be). I doubt you know what disingenuous means.
18-21. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son—A severe law was enacted in this case. But the consent of both parents was required as a prevention of any abuse of it; for it was reasonable to suppose that they would not both agree to a criminal information against their son except from absolute necessity, arising from his inveterate and hopeless wickedness; and, in that view, the law was wise and salutary, as such a person would be a pest and nuisance to society. The punishment was that to which blasphemers were doomed [Le 24:23]; for parents are considered God’s representatives and invested with a portion of his authority over their children. (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
(18) If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son.—Here we are again reminded that the Law of Jehovah was also the civil and criminal law of Israel. The systematic breach of the first commandment of the second table of the Law, no less than of the first commandment of the first table, entailed the penalty of death. Manifestly this enactment, if carried out, would be a great protection to the country against lawless and abandoned characters, and would rid it of one very large element in the dangerous classes.
(20) Stubborn and rebellious.—The Hebrew words became proverbial as the worst form of reproach, sôrêr û-môreh. This word môreh was the one employed by Moses, when, speaking “unadvisedly” (Numbers 20:10), he said to the people, “Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock?” It appears in the Revised New Testament, in the margin of St. Matthew 5:22, for “thou fool.” But the Greek word there employed is true Greek, and has its own affinities in the New Testament. And the word môreh is true Hebrew. They may be idiomatically synonymous. They are not etymologically identical.
A glutton and a drunkard.—The same two words are found in Proverbs 23:20-22, “Be not among wine bibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags. Hearken unto thy father that begat thee; and despise not thy mother when she is old.” The context of this quotation seems to make it a distinct reference to the law in Deuteronomy 21
(21) Shall stone him with stones.—Rashi says that the Law cuts short the man’s career, anticipating what its close will be. When he has spent all his father’s money, he will take to the road, and become a public robber. It is better that he die innocent of such crimes than guilty. We can hardly adopt this view of the case; but it contains one feature that is terribly true.
(Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
“The invocation of the same extreme penalty for both homosexual intercourse and a man’s refusal to obey whatever irrational or unrighteous demands made by either of his parents makes such prohibitions equally suspect in the context of the gospel and Matthew”
The idea that parents can have their children killed for irrational and unrighteous demands is pure garbage. And you probably knew that when you wrote it.
Scott, you seem to have missed the fact that I was writing clearly of the problem of relying simply “basis of … inclusion in the OT”., not bible dictionaries or commentaries or other’s attempts to make more sense out of the received OT language than it makes sense on its own. The same methods of the dictionary writers and commenters applied to the OT proscriptions of homosexual activity have often led to interpretations of those proscriptions that do not match the use of Leviticus and Deuteronomy by those opposed to same-sex marriage. The point is the OT by itself is not enough. More is needed by anyone attempting to determine which OT proscriptions have any appropriate application to current knowledge, circumstances, and groups. More is needed than the OT (and for that matter the NT) regardless of which position one may take as to the sinfulness or acceptability of same-sex marriage. Get over it.
Dave B,
If you check out the “Ask a Mormon Lesbian” podcast on Rational Faiths you will find that it’s host, Laura Root, was excommunicated just this year for being married to a woman. There is your example of the policy being implemented! What a terrible injustice 😥
JR:
I’ll just quote Polycarp an early Church Father one generation after the apostles. He received his knowledge from people taught by the apostles, maybe even by the apostles, history is a little unclear.
“In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since “every lust warreth against the spirit;” and “neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God,” nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.”
Polycarp to the Philippians chapter 5
Teachings of the early church are consistent with OT, NT and modern teaching.
Polycarp was echoing Paul with respect to “arsenokoitai”. I am aware of arguments of supposed experts, of which I am not one, about the meaning of that word. Regardless of Paul’s meaning, Polycarp does not resolve the questions by echoing it. At best you have moved the subject from OT to NT and the fact that it takes more than the NT to determine which of Paul’s proscriptions have application today, e.g. 1 Corinthians 14 34-35 ” Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. “
I was a bishop when this policy came out (and incidentally still am) and I immediately went and saw my stake president to state my objections that while I support the law of chastity, the new policy went way beyond that, to the point of being hateful. I told him I wouldn’t enforce it in my ward. He took my case to the regional authority, who took it to SLC. About 2 months later it came down that I could keep my calling, and my stake president told me that I had no “black mark” next to my name. At the time some of the bishops in my stake were threatening disciplinary action to those who even put the rainbow filter on their social media accounts for supporting apostasy.
My LGBT friends wonder how thoughtful people can participate in a church with such hurtful policies and I sometimes wonder too. I hope that the gears of change will engage soon, but for middle wayers like me the wait is becoming long and discouraging.
Well it’s a good thing we have a larger volume of Scripture both ancient and modern, not to mention all the non-canonical writings we can draw on in this modern age, not to mention Prophets. Must suck some to be a Protestant and limited to just the bible.
Not to be a pedant, but it’s unlikely the quote about following leaders was authored by Joseph Smith. As far as I know, it first appeared after the Saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley and was written by a rank-and-file member. It’s still a great quote, however.
ScottJ, I think the protestants are doing just fine with “just the Bible.” The Bible teaches the gospel of Christ in its fulness and is sufficient for a knowledge of salvation through faith on the name of Jesus. My question for you would be how do you parse through all of the contradictory statements offered up by Mormon prophets over the years??
Thank you Bryce (and your wife also) for all your efforts on this front. I respect those that feel they have to separate themselves for their own emotional well being, but I am so glad there are those like you and Richard Ostler that are kindly and persistently working in behalf of others while staying in as faithful members.