e: Android | Email | Google Podcasts | RSS | More
It’s not just the LDS Church that has had a difficult time dealing with gay rights. The Christian right is struggling with the issue as well. Dr. Greg Prince serves on the Board of Directors for a Methodist seminary near Washington, D.C.
Greg: The Methodists have a heap of trouble on this. In February of this year, they had what is termed a Called General Conference. They normally have general conferences once every four years. But they can have a special conference, and they did it for one issue, and that was LGBTQ. There were really three elements that they were considering during this conference. One is how do we deal with religious talk about gays? Do we brand them as apostates? Do we brand them as sinners? The second was, will we allow the ordination of gay clergy, and the third was, will we allow the performing of gay marriages?
The Conservatives prevailed, and that was primarily because of Africa. Forty-five percent of the delegates to the conference were from Africa, and that vote which was strongly homophobic, combined with the delegates from the American South prevailed, and it put the Methodist Church in a more homophobic stance than they had been prior to the conference. The other alternative that was put forward and voted down, was called the One Church proposal, and that was written primarily by the head of our Board of Governors. So, he was front and center in the debate, and he and other delegates from Wesley were just devastated with the outcome. It puts them in a much more difficult position, organizationally, than the LDS Church right now, because there’s a very real possibility of permanent schism, that the United Methodist Church might not wind up being very united anymore. They’re trying to work out some kind of a compromise that can avoid that, and when I went to the board meeting earlier this week, Tom looked at me and he said, “I never thought I’d see the day when the Methodists would make the Mormons look progressive.”
We discussed how the Christian Right deals with gay rights, and specifically discuss what happened in the Prop 8 battle in California.
GT: Okay, so, by November, the church with a coalition of the Catholic Church and some other organizations–now, one of the things that I found interesting last night was you said that that the Mormon Church combined with the Catholic Church and some evangelical organizations for some sort of a front organization, and then you said that they all said, “Well, we’re behind you,” but they weren’t.
Greg: This went back to 2000, and it was reminiscent of Lucy and the football.
GT: Okay.
Greg: I won’t lift up the football this time. And every time Charlie Brown fell for it, and every time she lifted up the football and he wound up on his back. So in 2000, the other churches said, “We’re in this together,” but the LDS Church wound up carrying all the water. In 2008, they said, “No, this time, we’re really in this together,” and the LDS Church wound up carrying most of the water. Because the money was given to a front organization, it’s very difficult to figure out how large a role church members played in financing Prop 8. The best estimates are at least 50% of the $40 million, that the Yes on 8 Movement collected came from Latter-day Saints. It could have been substantially more than 50%, but we know that much just from reverse engineering because the donors’ contributions were registered with the California Secretary of State, and a group of innovative church members looked at that list and started disseminating it to their network throughout the state, and identifying church members and then tabulating the amount of money collectively that hadn’t been given by them.
When the Nov 2015 policy was announced, many LDS Church members were hurt to learn that children of gay parents couldn’t be baptized, and gay couples were considered in apostasy. Fast forward to April 2019 and the policy was reversed, causing joy among some church members, and pain from other dues to the quick nature of the change. Still others were outraged at the reversal. Some church members may have felt a bit of revelatory whiplash at the sudden changes. Dr. Greg Prince will talk more about the pain caused by the Policy and its reversal.
GT: I know, some people made an interesting observation last night at your book signing, that there was not a single mention of that [in General Conference]. Why do you think that was?
Greg: I think that’s because they had good input from Public Affairs, that if you’re going to announce something like that, which is not real cheery news for the institution, because you’re erasing something that people thought was permanent, when you called it a revelation three years earlier. The way to do it, essentially, is what the government does when it has bad news, you announce it after five o’clock on a Friday afternoon, so that by Monday, people have pretty much moved on. By announcing it a couple days before General Conference, and then not mentioning it, it became non-news. I think that was a good move on their part.
GT: So, I know a lot of people, I know that I was very happy with the announcement. But I know a lot of people have been just as upset, and I think the main reason why is because there was no apology. I know Elder Oaks is often quoted as, “The church doesn’t apologize.”[1] Do you think it would have been a Public Relations win if the church had said we know there’s been some damage done here, or do you agree with Elder Oaks, “The church just doesn’t apologize.”
Greg: No, I don’t agree with that. I think they should apologize on multiple things, and it would have been a P.R. win, if they had said humbly, “We apologize for the damage that this has done,” because demonstrably it did a lot of damage. Families were ripped apart. I think there’s good evidence that more than a few people took their lives over this, and you can’t undo that by reversing the policy. That’s the real residual damage of this thing. It’s not like okay, we went there, now we’ve come back, now let’s go on and life goes on as it did before, but it doesn’t. You step in something and you step out of it, but you still got it in your shoes, and that’s where we are? How do you undo that kind of damage? It also creates a dilemma that may even affect the orthodox church member more than the progressive church member, and that is, “Wait a minute, you told us this was revelation, and now three years later, you’re saying it’s back to where we were?” That creates a real dilemma.
GT: I have actually seen some orthodox members say, “I think the church is now in apostasy.”
Greg: Yes. It’s an unforced error, but, nonetheless, it’s something that they’re going to have to deal with, and it has repercussions because it affects the whole brand of revelation. If people thought that something being called revelation conferred permanence to it, now it becomes much more relative, and it has a ripple effect beyond that particular revelation. It calls into a question other [revelations] and say, “Well, how unchangeable is the rest of it?” In my mind, changeability is bedrock for Mormonism, but it’s something that makes most church members really nervous. They will embrace the concept of continuing revelation, but they’re really hesitant to accept change. It’s a paradox.
[1] See https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2122123&itype=cmsid
What are some of the legal, science, and social reasons the LDS Church may have removed the Policy of Exclusion? Greg Prince answers these questions.
GT: I know in our last interview, one of the things that, what’s the word? The people that disagreed with you the most, I guess we’ll put it that way. Previously, we had talked, and I know it came up again last night, where you had said that it was a straw man, where people think that the government will now force gay marriages. You’d given an example, has a rabbi ever been forced to marry a Jew and Gentile and things like that? So, I know there are still some people, if you look at my comments, I have a few people from lawyers that say that your argument is a straw man.
Greg: I base my argument on two bits of data. One is that when the Hawaii decision was handed down, that invalidated the law, the Hawaii Supreme Court made it explicit, that under no circumstances would the LDS Church or any church be required by the state to perform any kind of marriage, that the authority to perform marriages resided in the state. It could be given to churches, and give them the privilege of performing marriages that would be legal, but there was no obligation that extended with that privilege. In other words, the state could not say, “Here’s how you have to do it. Here’s who you have to perform ceremonies for.” It was made explicit in that. The other data point is lengthy conversations with Bill Eskridge, who is a professor of law at Yale, is considered the top legal expert in the country on LGBTQ law.
And on the science front….
Greg: Decades ago, researchers started looking at twins to see if that gave them clues as to the cause of homosexuality. If it were strictly genetic, then identical twins would always be the same. If one were gay, the other would be gay, if one were straight, the other would be straight. Fraternal twins, because they don’t share the same genetic makeup would be expected to be different, like maybe not concordant at all. It turned out that it was a mixture of the two, that with identical twins, the concordance would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 60%–one twin is gay, then it would be likely that the other also would be gay, but not essential. Whereas with fraternal twins, it was maybe around 20%. So what that really said, although we didn’t realize the ramifications of it at that time was, genetics is part of it, but there’s something else that’s part of it, and we didn’t know what to call that yet. Eventually, that came to be known as epigenetics, which are factors that work on how the genes function, but they’re not the genes themselves.
We also talk about the recent policy change that allows Americans to get married civilly one day and sealed later without a one-year wait. Do you think this new marriage policy was a way to avoid court problems with same-sex marriage, or is the Church simply righting a bad policy? What are your thoughts regarding gays in the Church?
Wheat & Tares 
Nice work Rick..!!
I expected when gay marriage became legal in Utah, the church would realise they had lost the fight, and recognise gay marriage.
They damage their credibility by continuing to fight, even after they have lost.
I can not see any reason why gay marriage should not be treated just like straight marriage.
I’m told that because they require technical intervention to produce children they are less. Interesting that about 6% of the couples of child bearing age, need intervention to produce children, while about 5% of the population are gay.
There are no revelations about gay marriage, but Christ said we should love our fellow man as God does. Discriminating against groups does not fit well with loving them.
Sounds like a great discussion. I just started his new book, which I hope gets some attention in the broader LDS world.
Prince’s point that the sense of “revelatory whiplash” by the general LDS population may be the most far-reaching consequence. You can bet that the next time an LDS leader proclaims a new policy or rule to be “revelation,” lots of mainstream folks are going to be thinking (and a few might even say it), “Yeah, that’s what you said last time, and look what happened.”
Thanks for such an engaging and informative post, Rick B. So, my whole thing about this isn’t really about the struggles of some members of the Christian Right generally to become enlightened, empathetic and loving. That doesn’t seem to be their primary focus; they’re much more about exclusion, self-righteousness, etc., at least in my experience. So it’s no wonder they would struggle to actually show kindness and love to people who aren’t like them and instead elect to hold on to/justify their prejudices. No big surprise there. I think the more disturbing thing is how much damage is done by folks who embrace subjective, ephemeral feelings over actual, demonstrable facts/phenomena. It’s simply a fact that LGBTQ teens attempt suicide at almost 5x the rate of straight teens. It’s a fact that transgender women face more than 4 times the homicide risk than the general population of women. There are many other statistics that demonstrate the heightened health risks of being LGBTQ. So if the facts indicate that certain populations are more at risk, the Christian thing to do would be to help mitigate those risks. The non-Christian thing to do, it seems to me, would be to use vague “feelings” or “revelations” or other notoriously unreliable, subjective experiences to continue to discriminate against, exclude, speak out against, or judge a group of people who are already at heightened risk in our society. There is simply no plausible explanation or excuse for this kind of bigotry. And I wonder how on earth we (Mormons) can claim to be Christ’s disciples and still be so wrong on this issue. Truly incomprehensible.
The Law of Chastity, to my knowledge, hasn’t been rescinded. So, the Church can welcome single homosexuals into the Church if they follow that law. Heterosexuals must, after all, and it’s equal treatment.
Brother Sky, you wanna know what’s truly incomprehensible? A homosexual couple with a child who desire to see that child baptized into a church that they view as bigoted. “because I’m told that I can’t have it, I want it; and when I get it, I no longer want it”. Sadly, a lot of opposition operates with this attitude.
“The non-Christian thing to do, it seems to me, would be to use vague “feelings” or “revelations” or other notoriously unreliable, subjective experiences …”
Umm. Isn’t “the Christian thing” fully wrapped up in revelation? It seems this reduces Christianity to subjective ethics. Which is of course fine if you believe that. But it’s certainly not what Christians in general believe.
Relative to the OP, I think it odd that Prince attributes what isn’t genetic to epigenetics rather than just triggered gene expression. (Think of when a grasshopper becomes a locust as a classic example of gene expression) I suspect that affects a lot of his reasoning since epigenetic assumes it’s chemicals on the surface of genes that control gene expression in a gene like fashion rather than an environmental trigger. If your metaphor is gene expression – or even just the framing – then that shapes a lot of ones arguments.
Geoff, I’m not sure it’s completely fair to say there are no revelations about gay marriage. There’s rather significant sermons attributed directly to Christ about marriage that have historically shaped the debate. One can disagree over how to interpret them of course. But if you assume there’s nothing on the subject I think it leads you to misunderstand those you engage with.
Markagblog, I agree that the situation you describe is hard to understand. But I find it’s more useful to consider the inner boundary cases rather than the extremes. The inner boundary cases are the ones in the grey area, where folks are least likely to agree that a policy does or should apply. Several of these are spelled out in Julie Smith’s blog that came out soon after the original policy announcement.
https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2015/11/consequences-intended-or-otherwise-in-light-of-the-update/index.html
I know several people that are in some of these situations. Children of parents who have joint custody, one parent in a gay relationship, boys who could not advance in the priesthood or others who may not have been baptized depending on leadership roulette.
I know many people make a similar complaint to markagblog: why would ” A homosexual couple with a child who desire to see that child baptized into a church that they view as bigoted?”
The reason why is because these gay people went on missions, got married in the temple as good Mormons, because church leaders told them that marriage would “fix” them. They aren’t some outsiders trying to infiltrate the church. They believe. They are us. They followed the prophet and got married and had children. They want these children to have the same upbringing they had.
I know it’s hard for some people who want to otherize LGBT, but these are people who believe deeply in the truth claims of the church. That’s always been why they wanted their children to be baptized. I am truly grateful the awful policy was rescinded, because it never showed Christlike love and heaped the so-called sins of the parents on the children. The policy never concurred with our theology that men should be punished for their own sins.
And as for the Law of Chastity, if gays are legally married to their spouse, that should count as obeying the Law of Chastity, same as heterosexuals. Preventing same sex marriage forces gays to “disobey”, and is a circular argument.
Rick B writes “if gays are legally married to their spouse, that should count as obeying the Law of Chastity, same as heterosexuals.”
Law of Chastity, Revised: If the government does not care then neither does God. Your mileage might vary.
Michael 2 – the church has revised plenty of commandments, doctrines, policies, and ordinances. Why should the law of chastity be any different.
Sorry, that last sentence was meant as a question (when will we gain the capacity to edit comments?) – Why should the law of chastity be any different?
GEOFF -AUS writes: “I expected when gay marriage became legal in Utah, the church would realise they had lost the fight, and recognise gay marriage.”
What matters is whether GOD recognizes a particular marriage and what exactly “recognition” means.
“Christ said we should love our fellow man as God does.”
That seems reasonable. I suppose there’s some context as to the way God loves his fellow men.
I seem to remember hearing somewhere that the Law of Chastity entails having sexual relations only with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. That wording doesn’t exclude LGBT that are legally and lawfully wedded, and thus LGBT who are married can still live the Law of Chastity, just like heterosexuals.
Troy, certainly many things are revised. I think what’s problematic is the assumption something will be revised. Or worse, assuming it will and acting like it already has. What I find surprising is that people (both conservative and liberal) seem to assume God will be revising everything to meet their political views. Historically I think that a bad bet although everyone points to blacks and the priesthood as substantiating their claims.
Rick B, by extension do you think the Church should recognize African polygamy if it is legal in the country they live in? I’m not sure how your logic doesn’t imply that chastity is simply legality which seems deeply problematic. I fully agree that we don’t yet have a solution for these people and that to “otherize them” is deeply wrong. Yet simultaneously I’m not sure your solution works.
By the same measure I recall something that happened in a ward in Provo where a bunch of people went to Vegas, got married at one of the quickie chapels, had sex all weekend, then got divorced on Monday. When the Bishop and Stake President found out they treated it like fornication and I believe many were disfellowshipped. Was that wrong since they were legally married? There are lots of issues here.
The law of chastity in the temple said”to have no sex except with the person you are legally and lawfully marries”. The man and woman bit is very recent addition.
That was my point Michael, that as God has said nothing about gay marriage, but has said that we should love our fellow man perfectly, as he does, that is a commandment that can be applied to how we respond to gay marriage. That he creates 5% of his children gay, wheas he only creates .oo2% mormon. Does that mean he prefers homosexuals to mormons, to the power of 450?
As for why would they bring their children to church. Surely this is for them to decide, not for someone else to attribute some motives to them and then decide for them. I assume the pox applies to a very small number of people, so why did they do it?
I was also surprised when the pox was reversed, but even more surprised that they did not completely remove opposition to gay marriage at the same time. It has to come to bring the church into line with the gospel, why do they keep struggling. Their credibility is damaged every time they do this.
Clark, I think you know the answer but if we’re going to play the question game, was it ok for Joseph Smith to be sealed to teens Fanny Alger, Mary Elizabeth Rollins, and the Partridge sisters while hiding (or at least misrepresenting) these sealing to Emma? Was Joseph living the spirit of 132?
I will note that the RLDS have had an interesting history of allowing African polygamists to be baptized in the 1970s while officially condemning polygamy from the pulpit.
Geoff-Aus, Mormon Heretic, It seems your summaries of the temple version of the law of chastity are incomplete. The man/woman thing is not recent. Instead, it was recently reinforced in a rewording I cannot quote. Elsewhere on the net you will find (and my memory is the same)::
Pre-1990
“We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain. To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”
Post-1990
“We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity, which is that each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”
At the time of the 1990 change it was clear that to those responsible for the wording (and to at least US and US states’ legal vocabularies) “husband” meant a man married to a wife and “wife” meant a woman married to a husband. It would seem that your comments rely upon ignoring the pre-1990 language and upon subsequent cultural changes in the meanings of “husband” and “wife,” and on taking “legally and lawfully” to be a reference to the law of the land. “[L]egally and lawfully” in the temple wording of the law of chastity was not in earlier times or in 2019 intended or taken as a reference to the law of the land, but rather to the law of God. The church once approved of a polygamous marriages as consistent with the law of chastity even though illegal under the law of the land.
Whether I like it or not {not, actually — I have been known to makethe same argument Mormon Heretic makes], the church’s position has been and remains: “His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng
This comment is not a defense of the church’s position on chastity or same-sex marriage. It is a comment on what seem to me to be misinterpretations of the church’s various wordings of the temple covenant of chastity — without repeating anything from the temple that is not already publicly available on the internet and without repeating anything with respect to which there is any temple covenant not to disclose (despite some statements to the contrary).
If memory serves, the “legally and lawfully” was added as a counterpoint to polygamists who were marrying illegally and unlawfully. Monogamy was to be the standard, although I will note that most LGBT are fine with monogamy.
But your point is well-taken JR. The post 1990 language unintentionally opened up something for gays, since it no longer specified gender.
I recall reading somewhere that the “legally and lawfully” doublet was added to the covenant language to reinforce the Church’s early 20th century commitment to monogamy rather than polygamy. Perhaps a historian can confirm whether that thought is accurate or mere speculation. I have not found the 1877 text. However, there is at least some evidence from 1867 that the “legally and lawfully” doublet was already in use by the “president” of the Church in sealing polygamous marriages. See “Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism: Biography of Its Founders and History of Its Church : Personal Remembrances and Historical Collections Hitherto Unwritten” by Pomeroy Tucker, Appleton, 1867. If so, it would seem that at least in 19th century LDS parlance, “legally and lawfully” had little or nothing to do with civil law.
From page 272 of Pomeroy Tucker’s 1867 book:
“The president then says: ‘In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the holy priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife, for time and all eternity; and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection, with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, clothed with glory, immortality, and eternal lives; and I seal upon you the blessings of thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, and exaltations; together with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and say unto you, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity, in the day of the Lord Jesus. All these blessings, together with all other blessings pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, I seal upon your hears, and enjoin your faithfulness unto the end, by the authority of the holy priesthood, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” This is the ordinary marriago ceremony, and applies, with slight variations to suit the facts, equally in cases of polygamy or monogamy.”
The Morill Anti-Bigamy Act had been signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862. Church President Woodruff’s Manifesto on ending the practice of polytgamy came in 1890.
If Tucker was right (and current in 1867), then it seems the 19th century Mormon use of “legally and lawfully” in connection with marriage sealing did not refer to civil law. It may have also been used the same way in articulating the law of chastity, but I have not found the relevant text, first transmitted only orally, the first written text prepared in 1877.
Clark Goble: The Christian thing may be “wrapped up in revelation,” but its fundamental ethic concerns caring for others. And I don’t see how one can care for/love others when one is convinced of their moral inferiority, whether because of revelations, personal feelings, etc.. I’m perfectly happy to admit that my inability to see past that seeming contradiction is a flaw in my thinking or my faith, but so far, no one has been able to help me square that circle.
Additionally, I think Christianity is indeed very much based on, in fact, relies upon subjective ethics. The LDS Church itself acknowledges this when it teaches us that we can receive answers to personal prayers, specific questions we may have, etc. The personal, individual feelings or revelations or whatever you want to call them are, by definition, personal and therefore subjective. This is despite the fact that the church assumes that we’ll all get the same answers to the same basic questions. While there is an overarching, “objective” framework of Christ’s teachings, general tenets, etc., the whole “personal revelation” aspect of Mormonism provides, at least theoretically, plenty of room to maneuver. The question, again, comes down to what one is morally obligated to do when it becomes evident that institutional bigotry is harming a group of people. Should we just go with the institution because of its association with so-called revealed truths (which is an increasingly untenable position, I’d argue, esp. considering things like the lifting of the priesthood ban, the relatively sudden reversal of course involving the PoX, the Proclamation on the Family being conveniently “received” or written or whatever just when the gay marriage debate was really heating up, etc.) or should we go with loving and caring for marginalized groups (this, in my personal view involves securing civil rights including marriage, making certain laws involving inheritances, wills and trusts are fairly and equally applied, etc.) or should we work through these complexities to find some sort of middle ground? The issue is indeed complex, but I’d suggest that coming to some sort of conclusion regarding these matters as a Mormon involves a good deal of personal prayer, introspection, reflection, etc. In other words, subjective ethics, or at least subjectively arrived at ethics.
“[T]he church assumes that we’ll all get the same answers to the same basic questions.”. While this is generally true to the best of my perception, as to personal direction rather than general principle, it may not be:
“As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.”
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, May 1, 2005 Church Educational System fireside telecast from Oakland, California.
I know, for example, prayerful gays whose answers to prayers as to their own course of action are inconsistent with the church’s “general principle.” Elder Oaks did not go on to list all the rules to which he acknowledged there are exceptions. I’m not sure that would be possible on a general level. Maybe whether an exception can apply is itself a matter between the individual and the Lord.
“Elder Oaks did not go on to list all the rules to which he acknowledge there are exceptions.” Actually, he did not list *any* examples of rules for which exceptions are permissible. I think this is a case of exceptions being permitted in theory but not in practice.
In LDS discourse, the overwhelming message is Keep The Rules and Follow The Rules Your Leaders Teach. Those who try to claim or invoke an exception are generally (as in pretty much all the time) seen as lazy, sinful, and on the road to inactivity and apostasy. If they don’t feel that way to start with, the way they are treated by local leaders or fellow Saints will sometimes push them in that direction.
How does this relate to the original post? Maybe because “revelatory whiplash” will lead more members to see The Rules as rather more arbitrary than revelatory and thus be more inclined to carve out more personal exceptions for themselves. If the Rules aren’t viewed as God’s Rules anymore, they carry a lot less credibility.
Brother Sky writes “I don’t see how one can care for/love others when one is convinced of their moral inferiority”
I suggest that situation is precisely what the gospel of Jesus Christ is very much about.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you Matthew 5:44
It is easy to love your superiors (God being an example), it is easy to love your friends. What is difficult is loving those you consider inferior especially when they are laying down the terms of what exactly that means and what you must do to demonstrate your love.
In a real-world experiment, what do most here think of Republicans? Morally superior, morally inferior, or your equals? How difficult is it to love someone you consider morally inferior? Except for the grace of God probably impossible. for you to look past someone’s objectionable behavior to an eternal spirit hiding inside. BUT it might actually BE a wicked spirit so don’t let “love” steer you into unwise behavior or paths. God loves his enemies but that doesn’t mean he opens his house to them.
Dave B. That same talk by Elder Oaks did list explicitly the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as one to which there are exceptions. Otherwise, I think your comment is generally correct as to Church/ecclesiastical tolerance. It would seem, however, that there can be a difference between God’s acceptance of an exception and the Church’s not “disciplining” an exception. Perhaps Elder Oaks’ talk went as far as he could. His primary subject was dating. I doubt he actually thought of a broader list of general principles to which there might be exceptions, but by using one of the 10 commandments as an example, he did open the door to exceptions to more serious general principles than dating.
Great article. I think the church is coming to terms with the bigotry of the past and are slowing adapting to our modern sensibilities. Love is love. Period. We were commanded to love eveyrone.
We have a an active gay man in our ward. He has an adult partner already, but he’s been recently bringing a young Priest to church each Sunday that he met online. They hug and cuddle each other in Sacrament meeting. It’s a beautiful loving relationship and most of our Ward has become okay with it. Even the Bishop treats their relationship with love and respect.
So glad the bigotry of the past is finally falling away! 🙂
In reply to GEOFF -AUS
Thank you for replying and for being consistent in your viewpoints.
“That was my point Michael, that as God has said nothing about gay marriage”
The number of things God has not spoken about (or recorded as having spoken about) is nearly infinite. Instead, a small and finite number of things has been revealed; one can infer from those words everything else.
Let us consider the Turboencabulator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator). What is the significance of God presumably having not spoken about it? Is it forbidden? Or is anything not forbidden permitted?
Choose one:
1. Everything not commanded is forbidden (see T.H. White in book “Once and Future King”)
2. Everything not forbidden is permitted (or even required).
In my opinion neither of these extremes captures the optimum path to happiness. Some things are forbidden, some things are required, and many things are either encouraged (but not required) or discouraged (but not forbidden). You must exercise free agency and choose, moment by moment, day by day, what you are going to do. Your choices create a path in this life and the one to come (D&C 88). Your path is not my path; you probably don’t want mine and I probably do not want yours. Your path is better for you (hopefully) and my path is better for me (hopefully). Your destination is unlikely to be my destination.
“That he creates 5% of his children gay”
God created only one man, Adam. From that man, a woman; Eve; but her DNA is Adam’s DNA; so really he created exactly and only ONE MAN (on this planet; might be other populated planets). In the dark and dreary world he was probably not very gay.
All other children are created by their parents, hence the word “pro-creation”.
“Does that mean he prefers homosexuals to mormons, to the power of 450?”
It means whatever you want it to mean. I notice you use “he”, rather exclusively, with “God”. Why is that? I believe it is because some claims about God you accept, other claims you do not accept, and some you create for yourself. But his essential maleness appears to be without question.
“As for why would they bring their children to church. Surely this is for them to decide”
Church is (among other things) a society with existing members having quite a lot of say as to who joins the society. I suspect members of the church could in some cases be more tolerant, maybe even embracing of strangers but that’s not a thing that can be compelled.
“I assume the pox applies to a very small number of people, so why did they do it?”
Speculation alert: I believe two issues were on the table.
1. It seems likely that it was going to be used as a wedge issue; with persons who did not have sincere interest have their children (however obtained) baptized. The risk factors are not clear to me but I can see opportunity for mischief. I base that partly on the story of the 116 lost manuscript pages and thwarting a mischief by NOT re-translating those pages. Its a bit off topic but I would have preferred to ignore the mischief and re-translate those 116 pages.
2. It establishes a legal foundation to secure/activate/preserve (in the United States) First Amendment protections. It can be relaxed once that foundation is laid as otherwise an easement is created and later you cannot suddenly say that this or that is prohibited or against church doctrine.
As Markablog points out, the whole dispute seems misplaced. If you have faith in the leaders of the church then you accept whatever are today’s rules, and if tomorrow they change, accept the changes. Some will seem capricious and it may be exactly that. If you do NOT have faith in the divine guidance of the leaders, why are you seeking to have your wards baptized? I can think of several secular reasons but only where Mormonism is so dominant that to NOT be Mormon-on-paper might have economic or social consequences.
I can see where if the leaders of the church suddenly change a thing I consider unchangeable I might well decide they have lost the “mantle” and it is also Mormon doctrine, more or less, that once lost you cannot get it back as otherwise Catholics would be the only authorized Christian denomination.
“even more surprised that they did not completely remove opposition to gay marriage at the same time”
You impute vastly more power to “them” than actually exists to change the minds of 16 million persons.. While the church is not a democracy, it *is* kind of a big ship and does not turn quickly.
The church has not changed your mind; why do you think the church can change anyone’s mind?
“Their credibility is damaged every time they do this.”
Credibility is not an external object that can be damaged. It is your assessment, or judgment; which is personal and unique to you.
I believe it would mean the same and perhaps be more clear to write “My belief that God directs this church is lessened when the church does not do what I wish; because I know what God would do and they aren’t doing it.”
What are my thoughts regarding gays and the church?
In the future the doctrine of the church will be that sexual activity outside of marriage offends God and that complete fidelity within marriage is required for stable families. There will be no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. Before this revelation comes a few things must happen:
Acknowledgement that people are indeed born gay.
Acknowledgement that sex is primarily used to bind couples together and experience joy and that it is not primarily for procreation.
Acknowledgement that two parents committed to each are the ideal setting for raising a child. That roles within a marriage can be determined by the two parents and that they can together figure out who is better at what and compliment each other.
We have to get away from the ideas of spirit birth. The prophets have to stop talking about it all together.
Old people that hate gays have to die.
Most of these have happened or are happening. It’s just a matter of time folks.
I think Greg is doing amazing work. He is the Lester Bush of this issue. I’m amazed at my transformation on this issue over the last ten years. I’m also amazed at how many people come up to me at church and thank me for speaking up after I vocalize my disdain for homophobic rhetoric that is spewed by the McConkieites in the ward. The tide will shift fast with this new generation coming up. Open your mouth, that is what my mission president used to tell us all the time. Abra sua boca.
Zach, I wish I could upvote you ten times.
In the same way that there are young people who have no idea that Black Saints were ever denied the priesthood there will one day be young people who will have no idea the church once hounded gay Saints into suicides.
I’m too old to be around then but I welcome it with all my heart and hope it can only undo the suffering and despair that some people have forced on them today.
Michael 2. Not much point trying to communicate with you. I have trouble understanding whether your mind genuinely works as you write, or whether you just take things out of context, and twist them to look smart.
Beating the “legally and lawfully” and chastity covenant to death (for this discussion) but to put my earlier comments in a somewhat more thorough context:
Note: Pomeroy Tucker was a non/anti-Mormon from Palmyra (worked in the shop where the BoM was first printed), clearly relying on others’ accounts. A separate 1931 account also compiled by a non-Mormon includes what is essentially the same marriage sealing text using “legally and lawfully”. It varies slightly, primarily in prepositions and punctuation.
I found a Church-published Brigham Young use of “legally and lawfully” that clearly has nothing to do with civil law, though it is also not in connection with the law of chastity. Brigham Young: “Children born unto parents before the latter enter into the fulness of the covenants [endowment], have to be sealed to them in a Temple to become legal heirs of the Priesthood. It is true they can receive the ordinances, they can receive their endowments and be blessed in common with their parents; but still the parents cannot claim them legally and lawfully in eternity unless they are sealed to them.” Journal of Discourses, 16:186–87, September 4, 1873.
The non-Mormon 1931 account also purports to include the language of the law of chastity. Its “Redactor” acknowledged his report being a condensation of collected statements from Mormons and ex-Mormons. For what it’s worth his version is:
LAW OF CHASTITY FOR MEN
“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex except your lawful
wife or wives who are given you by the holy priesthood.”
…
LAW FOR WOMEN
“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will not have sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex save your lawful
husband, given you by the holy priesthood.”
If this is accurate [a major qualification], then it would seem those responsible for the wording had no conception of same-sex “sexual intercourse.” It is hardly possible to suppose they meant to exclude all forms of same-sex interpersonal behavior from the law of chastity.
I have found nothing to tell me when what was reported as the [immediately] pre-1990 version came into use. Perhaps David Buerger reported something on it in his “Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship.” It’s been a long time since I read it.
In view of such history as I have found, it seems to me useless to argue that the Mormon law of chastity is not broken by sexual activity between civilly legally married same-sex spouses and equally useless to argue that the Mormon law of chastity has not changed or could not be changed further.
Remember back when Joe Biden decided that same-sex marriage should be endorsed? When every other major Republican and Democrat (including two clients and Obama) were against it? Yeah, good times.
Funny story — apparently there are those who think that a new creation within the last decade must immediately displace the revealed wisdom, scripture, and doctrine of the Kingdom of God and if it doesn’t then they will…I don’t know…take their ball and go home?
There is always overwhelming hubris to say that I am right and the people God chose to lead His Church are wrong. But when the way you see God’s chosen leaders to be wrong is based upon a wholly new concept (less than 10 years old), that hubris rises to an astonishing level. Let’s be blunt to the point of nearly a tautology — if Exaltation is the joining of a man and a woman together for eternity (and we have no evidence, doctrine, or even a hint that this would apply to man/man or woman/woman) and if any eternity short of Exaltation ultimately leads us to a point where our eternal progression is stopped (damnation), then same-sex marriage is damnable. You can try to argue the premises — though there is no support for disagreeing with those premises beyond “I want!” — but you cannot argue the conclusion. It necessarily follows the premises.
And if same-sex marriage is damnable, and if the purpose of the Church is to assist God in His work and His glory bringing about the Eternal Life of man, then the Church absolutely needs to be standing in opposition to same-sex marriage. And those who are ready to rewrite God’s law seem to ignore that — the Church most certainly did not do anything to hint that same-sex marriage might be allowed soon or that the law of chastity would be changed before long. That is nothing more than their imagination at work. Nor should Dr. Prince get his special pleading — if I am genetically predisposed to anger or lust or anything else those behaviors don’t magically become acceptable because of that genetic component. The natural man is an enemy to God and appetites and passions are to be kept within the bounds the Lord has set. Homosexuality is not an exception to this general rule.
Serious question, if exaltation is so important, and exaltation is the joining of a man and a woman together for eternity, why did Jesus not mention it one time during his ministry? I get that the Catholics took it out of the Bible, but surely it would appear somewhere in the Book of Mormon. No, instead when Jesus came we got this:
31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.
3rd Nephi 11 : 31-41
I would dare say that our teaching on exaltation is declaring more than Christ defined his doctrine to be.
My point is that some take it as a given that eternal marriage, exaltation, becoming like God, eternal progression are all clear cut doctrine that have been taught by God’s prophets since the beginning of time and now these homo-lovers are coming to pervert the true doctrine. Basically we have two years towards the end of Joseph’s life and then 33 years of Brigham Young’s reign where this was all introduced. Believe me, it is not as clear cut as some make it appear.
Jonathan, I think there is in the teachings of some of the GAs of the restored church support for disagreeing with the second of your premises. At least as to progression between kingdoms. While Eugene England’s attempt to reconcile apparently contradictory GA teachings on that subject led in part to the major issue between him and Bruce R. McConkie, it is not clear that the issue has ever been resolved by declaration from the president of the Church, that presidents of the Church cannot change their minds, or that any of us have a complete understanding. In some ways, e.g., D&C 137 is inconsistent with D&C 76. Joseph Smith seemed to prefer to maintain an open mind. Some don’t want to. But there are certainly ways in which the scriptures and LDS GAs and others have used terms like save, salvation, and eternal life, that are not limited to exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, even if you are right that that is limited to man/woman pairs. I’m not a theologian or historian able to argue these points with you and this is not the place, but you may want to look into them.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “standing in opposition to same-sex marriage” — whether you mean to include opposition to its acceptance within the Church or to its legal acceptance for those in our pluralistic society who may choose it for themselves. Even by your premises and argument there is no necessity for the Church to oppose legalization of same-gender marriage in such a pluralistic society. There may also be no need to drive same-gender married persons out of the Church any more than it is necessary to drive out others who do not keep all of what we are taught are the commandments or who are adults not in heterosexual marriages. I’m glad I don’t have to make those decisions or to claim or imply omniscience on the subject.
Cheers.
@Zach:
“Basically we have two years towards the end of Joseph’s life and then 33 years of Brigham Young’s reign where this was all introduced.”
And the statements from Prophets and Apostles and the revealed temple ceremonies, etc. And even if there was ambiguity (and there are certainly gaps in our knowledge) it does not follow that any ambiguities or gaps are sufficient to discount what has, in fact, be revealed.
@JR:
Progress between kingdoms, to the extent that it is available, doesn’t argue against the second premise. Whether you can go from Telestial to Terrestrial to Celestial is a distinct question from whether you can partake of Exaltation without eternal marriage. And yes, terms are used ambiguously. Save, salvation, and eternal life are used in relation to not only Eternal Life but also salvation from physical death. But the terms are carefully defined as to Exaltation.
“There may also be no need to drive same-gender married persons out of the Church any more than it is necessary to drive out others who do not keep all of what we are taught are the commandments or who are adults not in heterosexual marriages”
This is correct, in that the argument that I make is solely that same-sex marriage is a sin and the Church should (and does) stand opposed to it. The most effective way to accomplish that mission is, thankfully, in the hands of people far more qualified than I am. My argument is specifically to those fooling themselves into believing that Church acceptance of same-sex sexual relationship is around some nearby or distant corner.
I started the legally and lawfully thing. I have been going to the temple for more than 50 years and have only heard that if you only have sex with the man or woman to whom you are legally and lawfully married, you are living the law of chastity. Nothing that would not include gays.
I live where mormons are a small minority. The church recognises marriages of non members.
With all this talk about legally and lawfully, are you suggesting that we do not recognise marriages legally performed, by the laws of the land.
So a legally married gay couple who are faithfull, are living the law of chastity.
I first went to the temple 10 years before the priesthood ban was removed, and there have been other teachings reversed. All have been as a result of the culture of the leaders being taught as gospel, until it becomes untennable to continue, and they are either quietly dropped, or a declaration is required, to remove them.
Pres Nelson recently met with the PM of New Zealand, who he praised as a great leader. I’m sure he was aware she left the church because of the churchs discrimination agains gays, and women
I see no gospel reason we should discriminate against gays, or women..
I will be surprised if we are still anti gay marriage in 10 years.
Geoff-Aus, I appreciate your sentiment. I wish matters were as you describe. However, if you went to the temple before 1990 and did not hear the limitation to man/woman marriage, then either you weren’t listening to what was actually said or the temple you went to used a different text from that used where I went.
Pre-1990:
“We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain. To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”
This clearly cannot include sexual intercourse within same-gender marriage as keeping the law of chastity, not even as the English meanings of “husband” and “wife” have changed with the advent of same-gender marriage.
The 1990-2018 wording clearly can include same-gender marriage as the English language has changed with respect to the meaning of “husband” and “wife”, but it seems to me equally clear that it was not intended to do so.
If same sex partners are a problem in the eternities, why are there no women in the Godhead?
Zach asks “if exaltation is so important, and exaltation is the joining of a man and a woman together for eternity, why did Jesus not mention it one time during his ministry?”
Exodus 21: 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Is that still the law? It is not; yet this was given by God. Many laws later to come were not revealed to the children of Israel.
Jesus brought new laws. The new laws do not cancel the old laws, but supersede them in a sense of being a higher road. If you are not on that higher road then the lower road still exists. It is called “tit for tat” and I’ve used that principle in the Navy to achieve some negotiation when my roommates simply are not on that higher road and appealing to a sensibility they do not have is thus pointless.
Some laws and principles were appointed to the last days and there may yet be more principles revealed.
There is no specific mention that Jesus was married, and yet, good arguments have been made that he must have been married. No contemporaneous records exist of Jesus’ life. None!
Mormon Heretic asks “If same sex partners are a problem in the eternities, why are there no women in the Godhead?”
I believe God is married. What you do in the next life is for you to decide. What is promised to the exalted is that the seeds will continue. For everyone else you can still go through the motions.
Troy Cline asks “Michael 2 – the church has revised plenty of commandments, doctrines, policies, and ordinances. Why should the law of chastity be any different.”
Laws exist on a hierarchy. This hierarchy enables choosing correctly which one to disobey when a conflict arises and you cannot obey both. Obviously you can choose to obey neither. I believe that male and female and reproduction is fundamental to this Creation: Male and female created he them; multiply and replenish the Earth. It is unlikely to be changed.
To the strongest forces in life go the strongest laws.
Michael 2, Interesting theory. What “motions” (“positions?”) did you have in mind?
I might have missed the point of Mormon Heretic’s question “why are there no women in the Godhead?”
I don’t know! As there’s basically no hope of finding out, short of asking God and maybe getting an answer that is only for me, I don’t worry about it much.
“We have to get away from the ideas of spirit birth. The prophets have to stop talking about it all together.”
The idea that we are literal children of God is a very important principle to me. He didn’t create us like pottery or a painting – we are literally a part of Him. Why must the religion I love abandon a basic belief in order to accommodate those that don’t accept it?
“Acknowledgement that sex is primarily used to bind couples together and experience joy and that it is not primarily for procreation.”
That statement is so false, it makes my head spin. Forget religion and God and morality – sex and sex organs are primarily for reproduction. That is a biological fact.
I ask this question, and have before, in all seriousness and with compassion. Why on earth do you belong to an organization that believes so differently from what you believe? If the LDS Church starts to focus on principles I do not accept or believe in, I will assume it is no longer of God and walk away, without a tear.
“Old people that hate gays have to die.”
When conservatives on this site make statements like that, they get jumped on.
Rick: Clark, I think you know the answer but if we’re going to play the question game, was it ok for Joseph Smith to be sealed to teens Fanny Alger, Mary Elizabeth Rollins, and the Partridge sisters while hiding (or at least misrepresenting) these sealing to Emma? Was Joseph living the spirit of 132?
Since D&C 132 hadn’t been revealed yet, was Joseph under its requirements? Not knowing what he had been told at the time it’s probably an impossible question to answer.
My point to my comment is indexing what’s legitimate to what is legal has deep problems and really isn’t something that could easily be done in general.
Mormon Heretic Why do you think our heavenly mother isn’t part of the godhead? I take that as a basic foundational doctrine. Erastus Snow wrote, “There is no Lord, there is no God in which the two principles are not blended, nor can be . . . but this Godhead composing two parts, male and female.” (JD 19:272) He taught this in numerous sermons. So far as I’m aware the only denial of this was George Q. Cannon, And Canon says this just because of the lack of explicit scripture on the subject.
Zach asks “What are my thoughts regarding gays and the church?”
I don’t know but I suspect I am about to find out 🙂
“Acknowledgement that people are indeed born gay.”
My daughter seemed unusually angry at having been born. If by gay you mean with homosexuality pre-determined, maybe in some cases. If you feel that is your case well then you’ve got a choice to make whether to be the tail that wags the dog.
“The prophets have to stop talking about it all together.”
That’s telling them!
“Old people that hate gays have to die.”
Everyone has to die. Just not today.
“It’s just a matter of time folks.”
Indeed. Then you’ll be one of the old people that hate something.
BY likened our creation to pottery:
Every kingdom will be blotted out of existence, except the one whose ruling spirit is the Holy Ghost, and whose king is the Lord. The Lord said to Jeremiah the Prophet, “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.” The clay that marred in the potter’s hands was thrown back into the unprepared portion, to be prepared over again. So it will be with every wicked man and woman, and every wicked nation, kingdom, and government upon earth, sooner or later; they will be thrown back to the native element from which they originated, to be worked over again, and be prepared to enjoy some sort of a kingdom.
Our spirits are eternal or they are not. You can’t have it both ways. I understand different prophets have said different things and BY was all over the board on the issue. JS was not. We are co eternal with God. I am happy for you if it makes you feel special to think that you were born spiritually and raised as a spirit and that it will be your eternal role as a woman to do likewise, but that does not make it true. It also does not appeal to a lot of women.
It’s a little silly to me to think that we have to be a part of God to be loved by him. People adopt kids all the time and love them. God loves his other creations and he created them somehow. Presumably it doesn’t take a man and woman sealed in the new and everlasting covenant to create a spirit for a cow.
As for sex. I have been married 16 years. On average my wife and I have sex twice a week. That means we have had sex 1,600 times and have only created a child 4 of those times. In my life, sex is primarily for joy. The brethren have taught in the past that sex is mainly for procreation, that birth control is of the devil, and that certain sex acts within marriage offend God. They have backtracked on every single one of those.
As far as old people dying, I am not hoping they die or arranging any hits on old people. It is just a matter of fact it takes time for biases and prejudices to go away. I hate to bring up racism, but it is the best example we have.
Listen, if God really has his hands tied here and it truly takes a resurrected exalted woman and a resurrected exalted man to join together and mingle their seeds to create life, then the gays are simply shit out of luck. If God has showed up and physically told any of his prophets that that is the way it is, then so be it. I just don’t believe he has. He talks to them the same way he talks to you and they are trying their best to interpret his will. I cut them some slack and do my best to sustain them.
I don’t leave this religion because I love it. It creates pretty good people. It treasures truth and is willing to change when it needs to.
Multiple thumbs up for Zack. If we were gay and single I would want to marry you.
Zach writes “He talks to them the same way he talks to you”
That’s good news! He speaks plainly to me. It is rare; but perfectly good English. Then again, maybe it wasn’t God Almighty that spoke to me. Could be my great aunt Elmira telling me to “change lanes now” and by so doing avoid a head-on collision that would have taken place moments later with a drunk driver on the wrong side of the road at high speed.
So if great aunt Elmira can speak to me, very likely so can God Almighty, but I presume he has more important matters to tend to.