Gregory A. Prince’s Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences (Univ. of Utah Press, 2019) came out a couple of months ago. It is required reading for anyone who is gay or Mormon. I could probably stop right there, but I’ll add a few extra thoughts.
Gay rights and gay marriage have emerged as the issue of this Mormon generation. You don’t really have a choice in the matter. History is like the weather, it just happens, and the LDS battle over gay marriage is what happened to us. Polygamy was the issue for a couple of Mormon generations in the 19th century. Racial equality and civil rights was the issue for the Mormon generations spanning the 1950s to the 1970s. One might have expected female ordination or the role of women in the Church to be the issue of our day, but it didn’t turn out that way. LDS leadership has made small but steady adjustments since the 1970s, expanding the role of LDS women within the Church. Those moves diffused some of the pressure or tension on that set of issues. But that didn’t happen with gays and gay marriage. The Church dug in its heels, so that became the great doctrinal battle of our time.
You might think that because the Church lost that battle, the issue is now in the rear view mirror. Not so. Instead, the battleground now moves from broader law and society to the internal battle or struggle or discussion within the Church. That will continue for another generation or two, in the same way that the “blacks and the priesthood” issue simmered for 40 years after the 1978 policy change until events (the Randy Bott episode) forced the Church to make a formal public statement disavowing all that Mormon folklore related to the issue that had continued to circulate within LDS culture and (embarrassingly) within the Church Educational System. So you need to read the book because gay rights and the gay marriage issue will continue to be a live one within the Church for another 40 years.
The book itself features 31 bite-size chapters, which makes for easy reading. Most chapters feature excerpts from interviews the author conducted with dozens and dozens of key players and participants in the events. The highlights are probably the chapters on Prop 22, Prop 8, and Obergefull v. Hodges. But you obviously need the other chapters to understand how the LDS Church ended up taking the position and actions it did on the Prop 22 campaign in California in 2000 (“How did it come to this?”), to understand why things turned out so differently after Prop 8 in 2008, and to understand what the Church did before and after the U.S. Supreme Court case definitively decided the issue in 2015.
One particularly helpful discussion in the book is in Chapter 27, on transgender and transsexuality. Prince recounts LDS policy evolution on this topic and relates it to Lester Bush’s analysis of the LDS policy evolution in regard to birth control. The general schema for an emerging issue goes like this: (1) few or no cases presented, so no policy; (2) as cases begin to arise, local leaders and GAs who are consulted provide ad hoc guidance that varies from one case to another; (3) as more cases arise and the issue becomes more pressing, the senior leadership formulates a churchwide policy, which is invariably conservative and harsh; and (4) over time, the initial harsh formal policy gets walked back, even to the point where the Church abandons comment on the issue (as has happened with birth control). Perhaps in the long run that will be the policy arc that gay rights and gay marriage follow within the LDS Church.
One surprising discussion was Chapter 16, “Backlash 2.0,” which recounted how LDS leaders were entirely unprepared for the strong and prolonged negative public reaction to deep LDS involvement in the Prop 8 campaign. If there’s one thing that LDS leaders hate more than homosexuality, it’s bad publicity. But that’s what it takes to change hearts and minds in the 21st century Church, it seems. To change the “LDS Church are the bad guys” narrative, the Church has since taken a number of conciliatory and even supportive actions toward the gay community. You can read the details in the book, but Prince summarizes it as “a changed relationship between the LDS Church and the LGBT community” (p. 173).
The book went to press before the Church’s retreat from the November Policy was announced, which is unfortunate but a reminder of how recent these events are. The whole November Policy episode, part of the Church’s evolving response to Obergefell v. Hodges, will need to be examined at a later date, when things have played out a bit more. The book is an exercise in contemporary history, a field that is always a challenge because recent events are never well understood. They always look different with the benefit of a few decades or a few centuries. The events covered in the book will look almost certainly look different in twenty years and in fifty years and a century from now. One can only imagine what a book on the subject written in 2119 will make of conversion therapy, of the Family Proclamation, of the LDS role in Prop 8, and of the November Policy.
One of the strength’s of Prince’s book is that he doesn’t do a lot of editorializing or speculating. He sticks with the facts and ties them together. He offers comments and quotations from many people who were involved with events narrated. But, unlike just about every other person who comments on the issue, he doesn’t exaggerate or sensationalize the facts or events. That is one of the reasons that Gay Rights and the Mormon Church will be relevant for many years to come. So hop over to Benchmark Books or Amazon (but not, apparently, Deseret Book) and get your copy.
Wheat & Tares 
I am really hesitant to read some articles on Wheat and Tares because many of the posts have slight of hand criticism towards the church and/or the brethren. Of course, that is a slippery slope and not a healthy dose of questioning authority as many like to hide behind. I doubt my comments will even be “understood” because so many like to keep their warm and fuzzy feelings that come from criticizing others all the while cloaking themselves in virtue signalling that they are protecting marginalized humans.
We don’t need leaders to remind us what has been restored and considered basic doctrines (homosexuality), yet here we are questioning if the church should take a different stand. And here we are pointing out the church’s “troubled” history with groups that have felt marginalized (racism) hoping this is the benchmark to make changes with other issues. Women’s rights have always reflected societal changes and even those of us who are wife’s and mother’s and want the protection of a patriarchal society are considered heretics because our modern counterparts are clamoring for the right to replace men!
Racism is inherent with every culture. At the turn of the century, there were 4 million Evangelicals registered with the KKK. Joseph Smith had already baptized and conferred the priesthood on black male individuals. I think we can safely say there were bigoted members along with the rest of the country, but withholding the priesthood (while still granting membership) is small compared to burning people at a cross or hanging them from a tree. We probably will never know Brigham Young’s motivations or reasons bar blacks from the priesthood. It is cleared up/changed now and we have to let go and move forward. These sins are not “ours” today (unless you are participating in them) and are not endorsed by any leadership that I know of. They are learning experiences from history and nothing more. We have missions in Africa, we have inner city welfare programs, we send missionaries to the four corners of the earth and somehow we are still considered racist? We can never win this accusation especially when it is rampant in the daily news “how to gain political points”….heck, let’s use it on the Mormons! Anything to silence the voice of the church.
Homosexuality isn’t about doctrine but the need to strike down doctrine. Before you think “This women will never understand what gays experience…” you couldn’t be more wrong. I have a gay son. He served a mission. He does amazing things and will continue to do amazing things. He is among the pure in heart. He has a partner now. Somehow I feel more love towards him because of this struggle. I have read plenty, fasted plenty, and even received a vision as to his path. I am settled with it all because I accept what Christ has done with my heart. I have no need to change any doctrines. I have no need to silence the voice of the church. My son is doing exactly what he wants in this life. This is between him and God. Who are we to interfere with God’s doctrines or his relationship with his children or unseen forces? We are to love and be the Savior’s arms and hands. Leave the brethren alone. They are doing what they have been called to do. If we can’t handle it, we should be taking our struggles to the Lord and letting him change our hearts to his desires.
As for women’s rights, that is just like other “rights” Satan uses to stir up the hearts of men. He is using our gift of “agency” against us. It’s my right to choose. It’s my right to free healthcare. It is my right to marry who I want….(fill in the blank). Yep, in a secular society, you can choose, you can even kill others if everyone votes to make it “right” (just like abortion). Yet, it bleeds into the very doctrines put in place to keep us safe.
As a woman, I have never been subjected to cruelty by men in this church. I have never felt like women were second class. In fact, I may be considered a heretic because I expect from my husband for him to fulfill his role in facilitating our family life. I love the protections that come from his hard work, influence, and priesthood power (by humility) and I am not offended in the least that my divine nature is not his divine nature. The last thing I need in my busy schedule is a calling in the priesthood! I was given motherhood to teach me to serve.
There has always been “perceived” inequality throughout history, but I have heard/read too many times “modern” women who describe and paint a picture of bleakness for women throughout the generations to justify their own thirst for rights for women and that is simply not the case. Women have been and are much stronger than that. Although there were times when women could not own property or vote, women had rights that protected them. They have been admired, respected, protected and loved throughout the generations because they were fulfilling their role as women. Today many women want to be pro-creators and providers and leaders in the community and see men as second class. That’s not women’s rights. All of those rights have been bestowed on women today and they still appear to be unhappy. The church has remained steady in protecting women in their divine calling and it is easy for “modern society” to pick at a few faulty men, or to see womanhood/motherhood/wifehood as subservient when nothing could be further from the truth. Those simple truths found in the Family Proclamation will exalt women.
These won’t be the only issues that will trouble our hearts. I can’t think of anything that is sacred that Satan won’t turn the tables on us in logic and feelings. It is evermore urgent for us to live holy lives so that we may hear the Holy Ghost. D&C 45:57 – The 5 wise virgins took the Holy Ghost for their guide. There you have it. The secret to living in the end times.
Observer: This post is a BOOK REVIEW, not an OP (opinion piece), so your critique of the site and implied criticism of Dave B is unwarranted as regards this post. As to the rest of your comment, I see nothing there worth responding to. Congratulations on being happy in your perceived state. I’m convinced. Enjoy fighting Satan.
I wonder ,when my Baby Boomer generation dies, who will be left to discuss homosexuality and the church or the church and anything. I suspect that, in addition to the exodus of tens of thousands or maybe a hundred thousand since the church launched its war on gay people, there is a whole generation waiting to not have to break our hearts by telling us they’ve had enough. And then I suspect there’s another generation who will simply do something else with their lives because the church and the attitudes it projects are simply alien to them..
The church’s position on homosexuality is so unloving and so unChrist-like and so odious that even they couldn’t always face it and hid behind a screen pulling strings that caused families to fracture and young people to kill themselves. Far worse than the misogyny that claimed Mormon women weren’t ‘t unhappy with their second class status. And we’ll never know how many women simply left the church rather than keep up a fight where there didn’t seem to be anything to “win” by fighting it or perhaps even not so very much to lose by leaving it.
If the church was unprepared for the backlash their policies engendered, what does that tell us about how out of touch they are with the membership? And that, as much as anything else, is what’s happening now and will continue to while they remain insulated and isolated making policies that strike at the heart of basic human decency and justice.
Angela C: I totally saw the BOOK REVIEW and all throughout were the slight of hand criticism towards the church/brethren/policies that act as dog whistles to others who are struggling with these issues.
I was the chairperson for our stake during Prop 22 which preceded Prop 8. I was in the trenches and knew how things were handled and observed first hand how things went. Not once did we present ourselves or the door-to-door canvassers as anti-gay but pro-traditional marriage. There was not one advertisement that used the words gay/homosexual during the campaign. The whole movement was to be partners with the Catholic church (from their invitation) and hold back the tide of society wanting to change the definition of traditional marriage.
Of course the LDS Church has broad shoulders. The backlash came later with Prop 8. The corruption of our judicial system stripped the citizens of their wins to keep the definition of marriage between as a man and a woman. The citizens WON both times. It was the black vote when Obama was running for president that pushed Prop 8 over the winning line. At the time, Black communities then did not embrace the homosexual lifestyle, nor did they like the gay community likening their struggle of civil rights with gay rights. In the end an openly gay judge Scott Walker threw out both pieces of legislation that was voted on legally with millions of dollars and hours served.
Why the Catholic church wasn’t attacked like the LDS members were is a mystery. Why the elected representatives who are to uphold the law (like Prop 8 just voted in) wasn’t upheld by the Governor or the State’s Attorney General is a clear evidence of modern day secret combinations.
Yeah, go ahead and think my focus on the semantics of the authors real intent had nothing to do with the book when all along…I knew by his dog whistle which side of the apostate fence he is whistling from. The same goes for your comment too.
“Not once did we present ourselves or the door-to-door canvassers as anti-gay but pro-traditional marriage”
If you were using “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” in your canvassing, you were indeed pushing an anti-gay agenda. The whole point of the church developing that proclamation was for the church to gain standing with the courts in its pursuit of preventing gay marriage. Dog whistle indeed.
Not true Dave C.
We did not use the Proclamation. We were canvassing for the term marriage not to change its meanings. It was even okay to support civil unions, but it was the term marriage that was being defended. If you were around in 1995 you probably were confused as to why the church even had to make such a proclamation. Now we know.
I honestly don’t think the church thought there was “more to it” than an invitation from the Catholic church to join them in defending the definition. The brethren are defending what they know to be the word of God. You have your choice too.
Thanks for the review. I have the book up on my shelf and am looking forward to reading it. It sounds like it is classic Gregory Prince. I have loved his other books for just what you mention. An active member (or at least if they don’t have a huge persecution complex) can read his books and come away educated and still believing. I don’t get the sense he has much of any agenda than to do his best to get the info out with very minimal drawing lines between data points.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Observer, you seem like just the kind of person who would learn a lot about this issue by reading Prince’s book. You seem stuck in some sort of time warp, as if this was 1985. As noted in the book and in my post, since the Prop 8 mess, the Church has moved on to a fairly conciliatory and even supportive position regarding gay issues like legal protections for housing and employment. I think your views need to catch up with current Church positions. From some of your other comments, you should probably go and read the Race and the Priesthood essay as well. All are alike unto God, even the people you don’t like and who vote for different candidates.
Dave C., you are correct that the Family Proclamation came out of LDS involvement with the Hawaii gay marriage ballot issue and court cases in the 1990s. The question for the future will be whether the Proclamation will continue to be held out as a guiding document for LDS doctrine and practice, or whether, once the gay marriage issue goes away in a couple of decades, the Proclamation will go away as well.
alice, you are right that the generational thing is the real danger that is looming on the horizon. By the time the Church gets around to making a substantial accommodation on this issue, the younger members who would care about the change may no longer be around. In thirty years, LDS chapels could look like the Catholic churches I saw in France on my mission, half-full (or less) of older parishioners with no one under 40 in attendance.
I’ll leave Observer’s comments alone. The whole reason, of course, that the leaders were surprised at the backlash against Prop 8 is because they could not understand that which was so obvious to others: that their beliefs were nothing more than naked bigotry. This, of course, is the problem with so-called true believers. If you imbibe and express your bigotry as a part of your faith then of course you aren’t likely to see it as bigotry. And of course you would be stunned at people’s reactions to your bigotry if you don’t see it as such. But the plain fact of the matter is that it is bigotry; a particularly insidious bigotry because it’s faith-based and therefore a foundational belief of the Mormon (and other) Church. That foundational belief, of course, also prevents true believers from seeing terms like “traditional marriage” and “family values” as dog whistles because those terms have become part of conservative Christianity’s lexicon. So it’s a bigotry that is, to the true believer, disguised and hidden, meaning that many people who are true believers will continue to associate their faith, indeed, their vision of Christ, with bigotry and exclusion. That’s what makes it so insidious. I’m with alice that the coming generations will simply leave the church alone and the number of active members will continue to shrink. In some sense, the church is already being left behind because it’s so far behind the curve of sociology, politics and empathy that it’s simply becoming irrelevant. IMHO, the church’s lack of relevance in people’s lives isn’t due to society changing or the supposedly corrupt moral frameworks of the 21st century or the Beatles’ long hair; it’s due to the church’s own inability to see its limits and its problems. It’s alienating itself.
I always really enjoy and resonate with Brother Sky’s comments!
Thanks, Happy Hubby! Right back at you.
I appreciate Dave B’s review of Greg Prince’s very valuable book, but felt a couple statements deserved comment. Dave B: “If there’s one thing that LDS leaders hate more than homosexuality, it’s bad publicity.” For me the word “hate” gets thrown around in such discussions much to liberally. But particularly when the object “homosexuality” is not defined. As I told Greg, I felt the book could have been more explicit or consistent about the communication/ideation problem that has contributed over the years to both significant misunderstanding and apparently to significantly wrong and/or misapplied teachings. The problem arises from the use of ““homosexuality” indiscriminately to mean either (or both) same-gender orientation and homoerotic behaviors (sometimes, but not always including same-gender sexual intercourse). SWK and other church leaders of that period seem not to have been able to grasp the possibility of a same-gender orientation that was chaste and not a homoerotic behavior. (Neither could Pope John Paul II in his 1993 visit to Denver. Neither could many others.) Later the church attempted to deal with the confusion by using the term same-sex attraction, but got a lot of push back from offended gays. We still in 2019 have occasions when American gays, as well as others, use the term “homosexuality” to refer to behaviors and not only to orientation. In discussing a Church that now distinguishes clearly between mere orientation and acting on that orientation, it would seem advisable to be very careful to explain what is meant each time the term “homosexuality” is used, or to be consistent in usage and to explain at least once. Maybe that happened somewhere in the book; maybe I didn’t see it. I will likely read again looking for that.
Dave B: “He [Greg] sticks with the facts…” I think I would have suggested he made a valiant and largely successful effort to stick with the facts — at least as I have heard from a couple of his sources and as I have observed to the extent I already knew some of the facts. However, as I also pointed out to Greg, on page 296, we read “…the church announced the Policy, which labeled as ‘apostates;’ any same-sex couples who lived together, whether legally married or not.” As I read it, the Policy did no such thing. But I have had others point to the “clarification” letter asserting that it expanded Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 to include those addressed in November 2015 in number 6.7.2. It seems to me the “apostate” label was reserved for those “who are in a same-gender marriage” (and others previously included in number 67.3) and did not include the homosexual relations (without marriage) included in number 6.7.2. I don’t think the “clarification” letter changed that. It did state: “The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.” Whether one reads “warrants” to mean “justifies” or “necessitates” (both within ordinary definitions, though very different), it does not appear to expand the “apostate” label. Handbook 1, number 6.7.2 on “When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary Serious Transgression” included “… homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation)” but did not mention apostasy (not even “as used here” as the term was restricted in number 6.7.3) and did not expand the disciplinary actions instruction to those who “lived together” without “sexual cohabitation” or “homosexual relations” (whatever was meant by that). Unless I missed something that makes the page 296 statement accurate, it may have been better to stick to the Policy as written or explain the possible ambiguity or to qualify the page 296 statement as one understanding of the Policy. I have seen this sort of inaccurate summary description of the Policy stated by others, e.g. “gay couples were considered in apostasy” but In my view, there is nothing to be gained by and no need to describe the Policy as worse than it was or to assume the worst of the possible ambiguity created by a single sentence in the “clarification” letter.
I was rather disappointed with Observer’s comments because, while her comments on the Proposition 22 campaign line up fairly well with the comments I’ve heard from others who participated in it directly, they do not recognize the very significant differences between the legal posture of Propositions 22 and 8 and the very significant differences in the Church’s involvement in those two campaigns. Unfortunately, I found Observer’s apparently accurate comments* so buried in rhetoric that could be taken for hate-mongering that they did not seem likely to be taken seriously. In the meantime, I wondered if Observer had read even the preface to Greg’s book in which he notes frustration of his attempt “to engage voices from all sides of the issues” — frustration by lay Mormons who advocated for Prop 8 but were not “willing to go on the record and talk about their motivations and actions” and by the Church’s decision “to not offer anyone directly affiliated with the Church to be interviewed.” As Greg noted “Readers who see an imbalance in the narrative should understand that the church’s absence was their decision, not mine.”
*E.g, Observer: ” It was the black vote when Obama was running for president that pushed Prop 8 over the winning line.” This was the conclusion drawn by some from voting exit polls back then. As I remember reading about those polls, many of the black votes for Prop 8 were from people who had never previously voted and who acknowledged voting only because Obama was on the ballot. This doesn’t seem to have been given much attention since that poll. Perhaps it is politically incorrect. If I recall correctly Greg mentioned something about it, but it is not really the subject of his book. I wonder if anyone has found and evaluated that polling data.
Apostate Dog Whistle is a great band name.
Book sounds fascinating. Thanks for the review.
Observer, sometimes my homophobia gets so pent up that I just can’t contain myself when these liberal bloggers who think that they’re really Mormons start spouting off about how great the gays are. Even when they just devote a post to a book who talks about how great the gays are I can barely control my impulse to write a book-length comment in response to tell them how great the gays aren’t and how they need to stop squirming while tied to the post waiting to be burned alive because that squirming hurts the freedoms of the religious, especially the really sensitive, easily offended really conservative ones.
Note to the mods: if there is an comment or set of comments that would be appropriate to put in moderation, I think I’ve found a few on this post. Hint, hint, wink, wink.
““clarification” letter asserting that it expanded Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 to include those addressed in November 2015 in number 6.7.2. It seems to me the “apostate” label was reserved for those “who are in a same-gender marriage” (and others previously included in number 67.3) and did not include the homosexual relations (without marriage) included in number 6.7.2. I ”
Honestly?
JR said:
I was rather disappointed with Observer’s comments because, while her comments on the Proposition 22 campaign line up fairly well with the comments I’ve heard from others who participated in it directly, they do not recognize the very significant differences between the legal posture of Propositions 22 and 8 and the very significant differences in the Church’s involvement in those two campaigns.
(HEREIN lies the deception. There was no legal posturing by the church.. If the church had to do it all over again, they would skip the invitation. From my meetings, the church got involved because the church had a moral obligation to defend things of a moral nature, not a political one. Again, to defend the legal definition of marriage – old school of thought. Why is that bigotry? This is what churches are supposed to do. It resulted in a street fight with the new age liberal barking dogs screaming inequality and was stopped by corruption anyhow. Why is it so hard to give the church credit for wanting to defend marriage? Why be so critical of well intended leaders? Why are you refusing to give them the benefit of the doubt? By the way, these questions are not aimed at you, but the posters on here whose need to criticize the leaders is showing. )
Unfortunately, I found Observer’s apparently accurate comments* so buried in rhetoric that could be taken for hate-mongering that they did not seem likely to be taken seriously.
(RHETORIC? Seriously, the facts are on the table, my own personal feelings are exposed, and as hard line as they may appear, there is no sugar coating the facts surrounding this. It doesn’t matter anyhow. People want to call the leaders and some members unloving, un-Christlike, bigots and yet they can’t even see the marks they put on their own spirit with name calling and criticizing the brethren.)
In the meantime, I wondered if Observer had read even the preface to Greg’s book in which he notes frustration of his attempt “to engage voices from all sides of the issues” — frustration by lay Mormons who advocated for Prop 8 but were not “willing to go on the record and talk about their motivations and actions” and by the Church’s decision “to not offer anyone directly affiliated with the Church to be interviewed.”
(I HAVE NOT read his book. I was responding to the posters review and the slinging around of hot button issues like racial inequality, role of women, gay rights/marriage and the church digging in its heels. I can smell the apostate whistles from here. I love the Savior, his gospel, his doctrines, the brethren he has called to defend truth, and no it’s not always a clean job, but in the end, it is the path to exaltation. No one is forcing others to abide and yet the screaming at the church leaders appears as if they are forcing others to get in another line. Sorry, but it is always about our own choices with the knowledge we have been given. Misplaced compassion has no place on the straight and narrow path.)
As Greg noted “Readers who see an imbalance in the narrative should understand that the church’s absence was their decision, not mine.”
(I OPENED MY post with I hesitate to reply…because I have read post after post on this forum and it is apparent that it provides a forum for people in a nice way to criticize the church. For what purpose? Don’t like men leading it? Don’t like them defending the doctrines? Don’t think it is a restored gospel with men called to define doctrines even if it is politically incorrect? Heaven forbid you would call someone a bigot for doing so.)
*E.g, Observer: ” It was the black vote when Obama was running for president that pushed Prop 8 over the winning line.” This was the conclusion drawn by some from voting exit polls back then. As I remember reading about those polls, many of the black votes for Prop 8 were from people who had never previously voted and who acknowledged voting only because Obama was on the ballot. This doesn’t seem to have been given much attention since that poll. Perhaps it is politically incorrect. If I recall correctly Greg mentioned something about it, but it is not really the subject of his book. I wonder if anyone has found and evaluated that polling data.
(EVEN WHEN THE NUMBERS come out, no one will attack the black communities like they did the Mormons or the brethren. Heck, even the Catholic church got a free pass. And…here you all are dog piling the brethren like you have figured out a way to circumvent what is doctrine by calling them out, calling others bigots and flat out refusing to accept what was done in love to defend the traditional definition of marriage.)
John W. bwahahahahaha…thanks for the giggles. No worries, they are throttling me now. Refusing to allow rebuttals, etc.,
Observer, Do you realize there were similar measures to Prop 8 in other states after that fiasco and THE CHURCH DID NOTHING? Where was the moral obligation then? They’ve been over all of the place in regards to “the gays.” Seriously, your comments show that you have only a very narrow understanding of events. Times have changed. And the church has changed with it. Once “the gays” were an abomination, practicing or no. Now, at least, the church admits they exist. You clearly are passionate. Maybe a Saul to Paul conversion is on the horizon for you!
*after that fiasco
Observer (“If the church had to do it all over again, they would skip the invitation”) reminded me of another minor nitpick with Greg’s book. The title “Gay Rights and the Mormon Church” is a minor, unintentional misnomer. The book is about “Gay Rights in the US and the Mormon Church.” E.g., it does not address the Church’s post-Prop 8 involvement in Mexico. But in any event that limitation is obvious from the book itself. I may be the only person on the planet who could have been misled by the title into thinking the book concerned the Church’s involvement in gay rights issues wherever they had arisen.
I guess I didn’t accomplish anything good by commenting on Observer’s earlier comment(s). Someday I may learn when to quit — or not start; still working on that! 🙂
I was also in Calif during prop 8 and 22 and my experience was very different from Os. The reasons why Mormons were blamed was because we were blatantly forward to the point of being obnoxious about our support. My ward members had a nightly competition with the opposing side blanketing our town in signage while removing the others. Not to mention the phone calls, door-to-door canvassing, high-pressure requests for donations, etc. No body but ourselves to blame for a backlash.
Good review. Greg Prince’s books are excellent at sticking to the facts and waiting until history plays out to determine what happens next. I am not as good at sticking to only the facts. I like guessing as to what will happen next ;).
I think the Church will eventually, in a few generations need to change their stance, or risk federal funding/tax exempt status- as a Church, or maybe only as an educational institution. It would only take a few adminstrations to wear at the current protections.
I see the 1978 priesthood ban as an example. One impotus for the removal of the ban was a lawsuit filled against the BSA, with the Church tied into it. It was filed by Rev. France Davis and others. Basically, being a Scout leader is often tied to a priesthood role like young men’s presidency. Since black men could not have the priesthood, no scout leader calling. The Church ducked out of this one because, as Prince points out, bad PR is the plague. Rev. Davis spoke about this, he viewed it as “forced revelation.”
I wonder how many lawsuits in the many years ahead will make the change. Could be interesting to see the updates in various editions of this book in years to come.
lehcarjt, I’m curious whether you saw the behaviors you describe in the Prop 22 campaign as well as in the Prop 8 campaign. Some have reported a significant difference in their wards/stakes, but I have no reason to suppose that each ward/stake behaved like the others.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I was in California for Prop 22. The SP invited some of the stake’s high rollers to his home where he solicited sizable contributions to the campaign. The ward held an off-site meeting to hand out call sheets and coordinate phone calls and canvassing and sign distribution. Yes, they were careful to not do the politicking in an LDS building. But yes, they were highly involved in the campaign. Nothing illegal about that — Mormons can participate in politics just like anyone else. But there is also a high degree of transparency to that participation and sometimes consequences. I agree with lehcarjt: the Church has no one but itself to blame for the backlash.
But the backlash was a good thing for the Church. Nothing but bad publicity gets the attention of leadership and forces change. The backlash was good for the Church. God works in mysterious ways.
My main issue with the thoughts that Observer shared stems from the lack of empathy Observer has for gay Mormons who have not adjusted as well as her son has. To watch my vibrant, confident, middle-school gay daughter be decimated during her high school years from constant messaging of local and general authorities (yes, even “ prophets, apostles and revelators”) that she was a mistake , she was broken, and her life was doomed to misery…to see her now continue to need counseling and therapy as she tries get through college with so much self doubt….I will forever regret not getting her and our family out of the church years earlier before the harm was done.
Observer, you validate my feelings that Mormons are not kinder nor more Christ like than the general public. There is nothing special going on there to create better people than what is going on elsewhere. You care about you and yours like most people. I get it.
Side note: my experience in the trenches for Prop 22 was much different than yours. We had explicit instructions to try to speak about the prop that would not reveal our true desire to never see gays marry legally. It was so Mormon: say and present one thing that looks so nice, but mean something much different to “those who know”.
“One can only imagine what a book on the subject written in 2119 will make of conversion therapy, of the Family Proclamation, of the LDS role in Prop 8, and of the November Policy.”
I imagine that the doctrines of the church and the prophecies of her leaders will be totally vindicated over the next 100 years, and the disintegration of the family will be the catalyst for the demise of western societies.
Dear Deseret Defender_
Who told you that gay Americans and gay Mormons don’t have families that they love and support? Many married gay couples adopt kids who are challenged and considered “unadoptable” and work very hard to change the prospects of their lives and give them loving stable families. Gay people have jobs that contribute to the economy and our culture. They are often on the vanguard of people improving properties and reclaiming entire neighborhoods.
I have to assume that you don’t actually know any gay people or you couldn’t fall into that silly trap of thinking that they are any less productive and responsible than you and I are. Anyone who does count gay people among their friends knows that they are among the very best folks and make life a better experience.
Love,
alice
That should have been “unadoptable” but spellcheck doesn’t seem to think so…
Thanks for the comments, everyone. But please keep it civil and don’t get nasty with other commenters. If one of your comments was deleted … try again using nicer words.
Obviously, those who are gay or who have gay children or siblings are more engaged with this issue and can get quite emotional. It’s a tough issue. I certainly applaud gay Mormons who work out a way to remain in and remain active in the Church. I also understand why many fall out of activity or exit the Church entirely. Differing opinions on political issues (and gay marriage is certainly a political issue) should not divide us on Sunday — even if the Church itself has used gay marriage as an internal wedge issue.
Whatever your views on the issue, you’ll be better informed and more understanding if you read the book.
Alice,
Despite your glowing review, my experience with gay people is that they are very much like all other people — laudable in some respects, sinful in others — but that’s neither here nor there. It is the societal rejection of familialism that will bring the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets, not gay individuals.
p, Yep. Have you read those sections of the Handbook? Incidentally, as of March 2019 no change had been made to the online Handbook 1 to reflect any of the change announced in the “clarification” letter. One of the criticisms of the policy was its making disciplinary councils “mandatory” for those in same-gender marriages by pulling them into the definition of “apostasy” “as used in 6.7.3.4” while such councils merely “may be necessary” under 6.7.2 for those engaging in “homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation).” The difference may not be much in result, if the policy were actually applied, but the application of “apostasy” to same-gender marriage put those who marry in the same class (as to mandatory disciplinary councils) as those who commit murder, incest, or sexual or physical abuse of a child. But those in homosexual cohabitation without marriage were not drawn into that special Mormon-speak definition of apostasy but were classed with other “serious transgressions” for which a council “may be necessary”, e.g., “attempted murder”. Of course, I am not the person to ask how this makes sense, though there is a possible argument that the addition of same-gender marriage to 6.7.3.4 was a special application of a part of the special definition of “apostasy” that had been there long before November 2015. It seems no one has wanted to make much of that argument.
DD, Yes, familial disintegration is a concern. But it seems like you’re arguing against gay families, which ARE NOT hurting your family unit or male-female marriages in general. That’s a boogie man argument. Plenty of other factors are destroying marriages. Let’s not attempt to hide your true feelings and motives here!
“Observer’s” representation of the LDS Church involvement in Prop. 22 and Prop. 8 are factually incorrect. I served as a missionary in California during the Prop. 22 period and I went door to door under the explicit direction of our mission president the area president Elder John.B. Dixon to “fight the gay agenda and homosexuals.” I heard Elder John B. Dixon use these terms in two separate meetings during 2000. On another front, if she wants to know the truth about the Catholic Church/Mormon alliance in the Prop. 8 situation I suggestion she ask Elder L. Whitney Clayton, Cardinal William Lavada and Archbishop George Niederauer who unfortunately is dead now about the deal the Church made for the Rome Temple in exchange for Prop. 8 assistance and most importantly financial support. It was all tied together and those are facts. She can say or respond however she chooses, it doesn’t make any difference to me, but she does not know what she is talking about when it comes to the facts of the Prop. 22 or Prop. 8 situations. Perhaps she should read Greg’s book?
Brian,
Please don’t accuse me of insincerity. I advocate familialism comprehensively, meaning that all anti-familial trends worry me. Among those trends are increases in divorce and fornication, decreases in family size, delays in family creation, false definitions of marriage, and the promotion of “alternative lifestyles.”
The root of anti-familialism is the mix of liberalism, individualism, and materialism that undergirds modern American culture, frames our options, and surreptitiously influences our decisions. That is the enemy, not gay individuals or couples.
Deseret Defender “and the disintegration of the family will be the catalyst for the demise of western societies.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
Haha! I suppose it’s a good thing if it implies the Lord’s imminent return. Otherwise, I would prefer my grandchildren be raised in an ascendant society.
DD, I’m not accusing you of insincerity in regards to family. It’s that you couple it with discussion of the church and its treatment and history of gay people–as per your comment on Prop 8 and the Nov Policy and the Church being vindicated. I mean, you wrote that. Perhaps, you didn’t really mean that the way it reads. But the way it reads is that you do, indeed, blame gay marriage as a significant factor in the breakdown of the family unit. Which it isn’t.
Brian,
The government issuing marriage licences to gay couples is a major step in the march toward family disintegration. It is a political rejection of the idea that the union of a man and a woman, committed to each other and their offspring, is a unique and uniquely good relationship deserving of special protections and privileges. But make no mistake, there were many steps before, and there will likely be many to come.
DD. “The government issuing marriage licences to gay couples is a major step in the march toward family disintegration.” So there you are! A “major step,” you say? Well, well. Also, you are wrong that it somehow rejects “the idea that the union of a man and a woman, committed to each other and their offspring, is a unique and uniquely good relationship deserving of special protections and privileges.” But, hey, believe what you what. Finally, I’m quite certain, (as I’m sure you belief you are in your beliefs) that I’m not making a mistake here. Like, say, the policy reversal. We’ll be sure to tell all the gay people out there that are getting married that you believe they are destroying western civilization in their desire to commit to someone they love, but that, hey, you still love them and stuff.
Thank you for protecting the delicate sensitivities of the orthodox believers. Anything that could be construed as remotely “uncivil” said toward them should be deleted no matter how backwards their comments are. It seems very fitting for a blog that promotes very liberal gay-friendly views and steadily seeks change within the LDS church. Orthodox literalists should be handled very delicately and given special treatment. It is unthinkable for us to delete their comments and tell them to get lost.
Brian,
Despite my repeated clarifications, you continue to insinuate that my concern over anti-familial policies necessitates animus toward individuals benefiting from those policies. It does not, I assure you.
I think the thing is, Deseret Defender, you’re telling us and telling us and telling us what you’re telling us. But when we read what it is you have to say it comes out gay people are responsible for the degradation of society.
It’s not the fact that it’s becoming extremely difficult for people to support themselves if they don’t already have established careers. Or that we have a President who is setting one segment of society against others. Or that businesses from textbook publishers to college loan agencies and credit card companies are going after kids just trying to get an education as though they’re red meat. Or that developers are buying up scarcer and scarcer farmland. Or that only huge agribusinesses can actually make ends meet by producing our food using huge amounts of toxic agents and trademarking seeds. Or that our government is so bolloxed up that 62 US Senators represent 25% of the population and can and do effectively hold most of the country hostage.
No. Apparently, it’s gay citizens of the United States having the same right to marriage as their straight fellow citizens.
alice,
“I think the thing is, Deseret Defender, you’re telling us and telling us and telling us what you’re telling us. But when we read what it is you have to say it comes out gay people are responsible for the degradation of society.”
Since I have explicitly said that is not the case, I take no responsibility for your misinterpretation.
Where are you moving, DD, since the US is definitely not a first world country and can scarcely be described as ascendent, unless military power is your sole criterion? Or perhaps I’m mistaken and you live outside the USA.
Hawk, do you think that kind of response is prone to win someone over?
Not the kindest approach to a woman who loves her gay son.
Dave,
Does the book address the legal matters in CA that likely caused Kirton McConkie to propose this policy?
John W., go back to BCC if you want more censorship and echo chambers. What’s the problem with you and others engaging with ideals you don’t agree with.
This thread seems to be running short on civility, but I applaud all folks for trying to have this extremely difficult conversation. For the folks who believe that gay marriage somehow represents the degradation of society and that a gay marriage (and I’m assuming, according to your beliefs, children adopted or born via surrogate into a gay marriage) isn’t a family, that claims is unsustainable on several fronts. First, as a few folks have already pointed out, someone else getting to marry the person they love doesn’t lessen/weaken your marriage. Nor does it compromise your rights in any way. Civil rights aren’t the same thing as beanie babies at Christmas; it’s not like there are only so many rights and they’ll run out and then your rights will be compromised. Someone else being given the (federally mandated, btw) right to marry just means more people are able to have those rights. Second, no family arrangement is pre-ordained or approved by God. Just as straight people choose who they marry, how many (or whether) kids to have, etc., it’s all based on the individual choices of people. So really, the issuing of marriage licenses to gay people is simply leading to the creation of more families. They might not look exactly like yours, or a 19th century Mormon polygamist’s, or an elderly childless couple’s or a single person’s, but they are still a family. It’s really just that simple. And honestly, there is literally no logical way around the fact that if you believe gay marriage is a threat to society and that gay people aren’t deserving of equal rights, you are a bigot. That’s, like, the textbook definition of bigotry. So I’m sorry if your faith or listening to Rush Limbaugh or your embracing of (s0-called) conservative principles or whatever else might be preventing you from seeing your own bigotry, but that’s part of what you are bringing to the table in these discussions if you lead with “gay marriage is destroying family/society/whatever. Mods, please feel free to edit or remove this post if you feel it’s over the line. Just thought a few points needed to be made.
What stands out to me about this conversation is that this is the first time in a really long time that I’ve heard someone say anything remotely like “The government issuing marriage licences to gay couples is a major step in the march toward family disintegration.” It used to be a standard toss-out idea in church classes and it’s pretty much disappeared from my ward.
jpv, this isn’t about hearing “different viewpoints.” Orthodox clowns come on here, hijack the discussion, spew homophobia, go on conservative/reactionary tirades, and liberals like me are expected to tiptoe around these folks and treat them “civilly” and any sarcastic jab or retort we may have at their deliberately provocative remarks then gets deleted? As if the onus is only on the liberals to act “civilly” while the orthodox are free to engage in whatever clown behavior they please. How about depriving them of a platform to air their ridiculous views? The mods have it backwards in which comments they’re choosing to delete.
Oh wow! I’m a gay Mormon and I can’t go near this. Unless you are an LGBT member who has experienced life in the LDS Church, you will never know what we face. You can write books and speculate and try to make sense of it, but you cannot come close to expressing what this religion does to gay people. Sorry…thanks for trying, though. Like one former gay member put it…’they beat you until you bleed and then beat you even more for bleeding.’
Thanks for your comments, everyone.
SD, thanks for weighing in. Read the book. As I noted above: “It’s a tough issue. I certainly applaud gay Mormons who work out a way to remain in and remain active in the Church. I also understand why many fall out of activity or exit the Church entirely.”
John W,, there are two nasty “orthodox” comments that I depublished and one of yours. So it goes both ways. And I depublished not because of opinion or viewpoint, but only those comments that got personal with another commenter. You can say what you want about gay marriage, but you can’t throw shade on someone personally. That’s how we make the forum (the comment section) welcome to all, by prohibiting intra-commenter attacks. That’s a fairly low hurdle for civility. Don’t take it personally that you had a comment depublished. It’s like getting called for a penalty in football. It happens to everyone.
Everyone else, carry on.
“The government issuing marriage licences to gay couples is a major step in the march toward family disintegration”
What constitutes a family?
Families come in all shapes and sizes.
When a father dies, leaving behind his wife and children, is that not a family?
Who are we, rather than the family members to judge what constitutes a family?
When children lose a parent do they no longer have a family?
Children do best when they have unconditional love, emotional, physical, economic support and stability.
Zach Wahls explains what family is to him before the Iowa Senate:
Dave B., with all due respect, why should I read the book when I’ve lived the narrative? There’s a big difference between reading about it and living through it.
Everyone else, carry on.
SD, I know nothing about your personal experiences, but I will briefly note that I am also a gay Mormon, and I read the book and found it to be quite useful. Some chapters I was disappointed with because, as you note, having lived through it, there wasn’t that much new information. But other chapters brought new insights. I appreciated learning more about how the Church’s position ebbed and flowed. And I agree with the OP that the value in the book is primarily that this issue isn’t actually going away. I am sometimes involved in the Church, sometimes almost entirely uninvolved, but simply by virtue of being in Utah and continuing to have predominantly Mormon friends and family, I feel like it is important to understand more thoroughly where the Church has been on this issue and where it’s likely to go in the future. This book accomplishes that goal well.
“You might think that because the Church lost that battle, the issue is now in the rear view mirror. Not so. Instead, the battleground now moves from broader law and society to the internal battle or struggle or discussion within the Church. ”
I don’t think the Church is done fighting the legal and societal changes accompanying gay rights. Looking at articles in the Deseret News church leaders are still beating the drum of “religious freedom,” to defend discrimination against gay people in various settings—examples wedding cake makers etc.
Do you have tv shows like “batchelor”, and “married at first sight” and still think gay marriage is what is undermining marriage.
The soonerwe the church treats everyone, including gays, and women as equals the better.
In the Netherlands we have SSmariage for two decades now. There are no societal changes that I have noticed. And no consequences for the church here as far as I can tell. I think in the US it is much ado about nothing.
Hey I don‘t agree with most of what Deseret Defender has said either, but people – let‘s not be so harsh. And be accurate if you are going to criticize.
The argument that gay marriage is an attack on the „family“ is nothing other than ludicrous. In my church circles however, the arguments you hear (if at all because it‘s a non-issue in my part of Europe) are 1) it‘s not natural. Marriage is for children and a homosexual couple can’t procreate and 2) only traditional marriage is ordained of God.
Lots of things hurt families and and ruin traditional marriages, but gay marriage is most certainly not even close to being one of them.
No other arguments against gay marriage make sense to me either.