The following is NOT an official LDS Church announcement.
<start of hypothetical announcement>
Brothers and sisters. It’s a strange feeling to speak in this empty Conference Center today while feeling the love and warmth of millions of you watching and listening over television, satellite, internet, and radio broadcasts. I pray that we feel connected with each other as I speak today.
The Lord has a pattern of revealing his truths to his servants on Earth. I am a humble custodian of that role, and I feel the weight of it. I seek the Holy Ghost on a daily basis to know which truths the Lord wants to reveal to his people.
I speak now in matters related to our understanding of our dearly loved LGBT Latter-day Saints and the unique challenges they face.
We are in a transition period in understanding God’s will for his LGBT children. We previously understood homosexuality as a temptation or a perversion of heterosexual attraction. In generations past we assumed through repentance, an LGBT child of God could change the gender they were naturally sexually attracted to. And that God’s desire and commandment for all his children to be traditional heterosexual marriage with no exceptions. We understand now it’s a very complicated issue with no obvious answers.
We announce today a policy change related to gay marriage and the Law of Chastity. In a previous policy change published in the now publicly available Handbook of Instructions, it was clarified that gay marriage would no longer be considered apostasy. We announce today that the Law of Chastity will be clarified that sexual relations are proper only between two married people in a marriage recognized by their local government. A marriage of two gay Latter-day Saints recognized by a married couple’s local government will now be officially recognized by the Church. Abstinence of sexual relations before marriage and outside of marriage is required to obey the Lord’s Law of Chastity.
LGBT members who are in a gay marriage and are worthy by this new clarification of the Law of Chastity and worthy in all other ways may obtain a temple recommend and be qualified to serve in callings. To qualify for consideration for the office of bishop, certain stake callings, and general church callings will require all temple ordinances including eternal marriage.
I speak with humility and honesty and vulnerability here as I share with you the wrestle I personally have had and the other humble men and women I serve with in the First Presidency Quorum of 12 Apostles and general leadership councils. We have sought to know the will of the Lord on this subject for many years.
The revelation that led to this policy change was powerful and felt by all of us in those councils. Now let me clarify. This revelation has no bearing on the Lord’s definition of eternal marriage. We have received no revelation to reverse our current understanding of the doctrine of eternal families. Our understanding of eternal marriage is that God has always instructed that eternal marriage is between a man and a woman. The Proclamation on the Family sets forth the Lord’s standard. The ideal environment for a child to be raised is in an eternal family with a father and mother who are sealed for eternity and lead their family, emulating Jesus Christ and following the principles of the Gospel.
While this is the ideal, there are situations where this is not always possible. In some instances, studies show a person who self-identifies as gay can marry heterosexually and have a successful, joyful marriage. But for many LGBT Latter-day Saints this seems impossible and not advisable. What about them? Life long celibacy is another option. We do not provide specific counsel on this at this time. It us up to each LGBT Latter-day Saint to seek personal revelation on which path is best for him or her. But we now reveal the Lord has approved another path for our beloved LGBT members, which is a temporal, legally authorized gay marriage.
Our revealed understanding of the Law of Chastity has changed over time. It was once understood that only sexual relations which intended to produce offspring were considered appropriate. We now understand sexual relations to be an important and appropriate part of sharing love and intimacy within a legally authorized marriage, regardless of whether it’s expected or intended that a pregnancy immediately result or whether that marriage is a temple marriage.
Latter-day Saints are good citizens. We uphold the laws of the countries where we operate. Marriage laws of the United States and other countries where Latter-day Saints live have changed. And as this happens, God’s Church has always updated policies on temporal matters.
Some of us will receive this policy change with gladness. Some of us will receive this policy with confusion or even hard hearts. I invite all of us to bury past misunderstandings and biases on this subject and move forward together in love. I testify to you that Jesus Christ is at the head of this church and that his servants speak for him even in these latter days.
<end of hypothetical announcement>
So, is this possible?
Wheat & Tares 
Based on the reactions I have seen in more conservative circles to the whole BYU/CES honor code language thing, this is unlikely. The conservatives I have seen talk about this have all insisted — like Elder Johnson does in his letter — that same sex romantic behavior is completely against the law of chastity and the prinicples of the Church and CES. If Elder Johnson’s sentiments represent the sentiments of those above him, and they seem to accurately reflect the sentiments of the conservative side of the Church, then we (as a Church) are not, yet, ready to accept even basic same-sex romantic behavior. We certainly are in no position to accept and endorse same sex marriage.
Anything is possible. Word of Wisdom made optional, priesthood for women, the law of consecration made a requirement, or even a reversal of the 1978 revelation on race and priesthood. Is it PROBABLE? Nah.
Yeah this is not happening anytime soon, if ever, unfortunately. In the meantime, I’d like to see an edit from A man and A woman to ONE man and ONE woman but even that is highly unlikely.
I’m more interested right now in a revelation about professional janitors equipped with appropriate sanitation equipment cleaning ward meeting houses. Given the aging demographic of congregations, let’s put some of that $100,000,000,000 to work keeping Saints alive.
Possible. Inevitable, I think, eventually. But probably not soon.
I think there are still a number of the Q15 – possibly even a slight majority – who still believe that it’s a choice.
That hypothetical definition of marriage opens the door to polygamists in Africa, for instance. Do we really want to go down that road? Also, I agree with the consensus opinion that the odds of this type of announcement in April 2020 are slimmer than the odds of COVID-19 being eradicated within the same time frame.
Your post is well written and in my opinion describes a scenario that will take place some day. The question is, is that day close or far? My guess is it’s post-Bednar in its time frame. I think you know what I mean.
It is my opinion that there is a great deal of anxiety among the Brethren on how to deal with the progressives and how to deal with the conservatives in the Church. Don’t change = losing the progressives. Change too fast = losing the conservatives. So keep that in mind. Another thing to keep in mind is that this is largely a generational issue. Today’s youth are the future adult leaders of the Church. And they are mostly (not unanimously) in favor of gay marriage, gay rights, etc. So when they are in charge, it is much more likely that they will throw away the homophobic policies of the Church like we threw away the racist ones.
It’s a bridge too far to think there will ever be eternal gay marriage. Even progressives like me have doubts about that in the next life. But recognizing marriage, any marriage, in this life isn’t a huge stretch.
Too fantastic to be believable. Too corporate to be desirable.
Josh H: You’re right about the generational aspect to this. The question is, will any of today’s youth be around when the old guys are gone? They’re much less willing to put up with a racist, homophobic, sexist organization.
Still makes LGBT relationships second-class. Certainly this would be better than the current situation and perhaps more likely to occur than LGBT temple sealings (I think that would require officially ordaining women to the priesthood) since it doesn’t require change in the “doctrine” of the heteronormative nuclear family … But because of that it doesn’t actually address the root of the problem which is the insistence on divine gender roles, obsession with nuclear family, homophobia, etc. which has literally nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. So sorry to say not far enough for me. I mean, I’d be happy about it, but would want more.
I expect this will be announced within 10 years, and sealings at the same time. It is fast becoming totally unacceptable to express homophobia, or sexism, outside the USA.
I doubt they would make an announcement explaining how much they have been wrong in the past, just how they have recieved revelation to make the change.
You know something? – life goes on & forward with or without the LDS Church. We are approaching the kind of cultural unimportance reserved for rattlesnake & strychnine cults and UFO churches, or countries like Saudi Arabia: rich but completely irrelevant. At one time this was a missionary church. What the hell happened? Our messaging today alienates & estranges. THIS IS A LEADERSHIP ISSUE!!!
I very much doubt that such a policy change – or revelation, for those who see it as such – will be announced within the next ten years. After that, I think it becomes much more likely.
The Q15 require unanimity to do this sort of thing. These are people who were born between 1924 and 1958; the upshot of it is that their opinions trail those of mainstream America by several decades. When the liberals legalized same-sex marriage they had to go through the courts because it failed everywhere it went up for a vote, even in California, as recently as 2008. Granted, it would almost certainly pass now, but for that change of attitudes to reach the upper echelons of the LDS church will take a long time.
The recent change in which civil marriages are accepted, followed by a temple sealing, sets the stage for your revelation. Since the Nauvoo revelations, we’ve been taught that civil marriages, while legal, have no eternal significance. So, gay marriage Would be on the same level — the same eternal inconsequence — as straight civil marriages. The Church could permit gay sealings since all kinds of nonhusband-wife sealings already occur. So the standard that marriage (a recognized temple marriage) Is between a man and a woman remains in place. No doctrinal change required. Furthermore, President Oaks (of all people) recently acknowledged that some questions about eternal arrangements will have to be left to Heavenly Parents, as in the case of one man (like President Nelson) being sealed to two women. So, let’s leave it to the Parents to figure out the eternal arrangements for gay couples. The change will be made without much fanfare: we’ll obey the law of the land and accept all legal marriages. No big doctrinal deal, and there will be rejoicing in Zion.
As a gay member, this is the strangest OP I have ever encountered on Wheat and Tares. It’s as though you’re saying, “Well gay people, given the recent events at BYU, we’re pretty sure you are never going to have equal access to all the blessings of the Gospel, but if you were, this is what the revelation would sound like.” Are you serious???!!! I find this to be very condescending and patronizing….and actually offensive. I’m not sure what the intent was, but why do this to the gay community? Not good…
Geoff Aus: “It is fast becoming totally unacceptable to express homophobia, or sexism, outside the USA.”
If only. Unfortunately there are several African nations, the Middle East, South America and also Russia where this is simply not the case. Recent related news from Russia: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51719764
Laws outlawing any such relationships in many African nations date back to British colonial rule it would seem.
There’s a reason people are allowed to claim refugee status based on these issues:
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/lgbti-people-56a7a9164.html
Skdadyl I’m sorry, and I agree that this OP could be perceived as not being super empathetic to the LGBT community. I’m taking a pragmatic approach here and trying to put forward some logic that could appeal or persuade those LDS that are not currently favoring making any policy or doctrinal changes to accommodate LGBT members. Also, the Wheat and Tares blog is a collection of independent bloggers who have a wide range of religious and political perspectives. Please don’t judge the other bloggers on the team or the blog site in general for my own personal perspective. It’s OK to judge me. But I hope you can see the purpose for what I was doing and maybe that can help soften the effect this had on you.
Churchistrue…no, this has not softened my feelings about the OP. Why throw salt in already open wounds by creating a hypothetical revelation? The LGBTQ members have endured enough…why dangle a carrot in front of them by pretending? In my opinion, it’s in poor taste. I stand by that.
Hedgehog said: “Unfortunately there are several African nations, the Middle East, South America and also Russia where this [acceptance of homosexuality] is simply not the case.”
That’s the White Man’s Burden all right! Just leave it to us wealthy folks from the first world to tell the other races what their morality should be….
I predict that the church will never accept gay marriage in my lifetime (I’m 40), so the next 40 or 50 years.
churchistrue,
I think you would find that orthodox members would be more amenable to this change if it was part of a grand revelation that expanded our understanding of Celestial life. OP comes across as pandering to the world, something for which orthodox members have little stomach. Like I said, it’s too corporate to be desirable.
When I stopped attending the LDS church, I spent the better part of a year studying ecumenical Christianity under a young Presbyterian pastor. No, I didn’t become a Protestant, but I did gain some of their perspective on Mormon theology. Much of the “plain and precious” bits that were restored were concepts that were determined to be heresy way back when – sometimes for sound reasons, and other times for corrupt reasons.
“As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become” is a profound blasphemy in mainstream Christianity. The procreative aspects of the gods (with a little “g”) is at the crux of the Church’s argument that non-heterosexual relationships can’t produce the spirit babies required for an eternal increase. Add in gender issues and we’re all aflutter with “this can’t be”.
The Church’s stance is that the mortal life is patterned after the eternities. In reality, we don’t/can’t know enough about the eternities to make that claim – so we (as humans) pattern the eternities after earth life. We are making god in our own image. A confusing, contradictory, painful mess. And we seek to impose the pattern on everyone else in the name of God.
Continuing revelation is the ultimate trump card: you can claim anything and change anything. You don’t have to reconcile past teaching and practices because today we have more truth and light. And tomorrow we’ll get some more. All the while, we’re so damn certain we’ve got it right. Speaking of theology, I’ve heard it said that Mormons bring Jello to a gunfight.
All of the LGBT+ issues center around what “must be” or “can’t be” as seen through a very murky glass. I think we’ll all be surprised when we finally hear what’s up from God Himself. What will we learn about the diversity of His “children” and their/our purpose in the eternities?
Yes – I think the scenario in the OP will ultimately play out. It will come as an unsatisfying and un-affirming half-measure that can be rationalized.
Will never happen. Adversary spreads contention through false doctrine. This all false doctrine.
Law of Chastity will be clarified that sexual relations are proper only between two married people in a marriage recognized by their local government.
Ridiculous standard… Interracial marriage would be against the LoC in some instances.
That’s a good point. The only youth that will stay to eventual leadership are the ones that tow the same message
It must be awful to believe but have your eternal salvation regulated by staunch’s who have no idea what it’s like to be discussed in such a way. So sorry.
I believe it’s possible but not probable any time soon. I’m at a point where I believe that many teachings that are very LDS specific are a hot mess. Our teachings of temple covenants become even more complicated if made to fit for same sex couples? Where one time I accepted them as a rather odd and uncomfortable practice I now believe that temple rituals were formulated to control secrecy surrounding plural marriage. My other stumbling block. It’s crushing to have a faith crisis – one that’s been percolating for 30 odd years. And LGBTQ issues have brought this forward to me even more profoundly. I think the gospel of Christ should be more simple and for all. A gospel where there are no ‘others’ and all are invited to the table – how did it get so complicated?
Lesbian couples would have no Priesthood in the home…look for women to hold the Priesthood first.
What 2 consenting adults do, regardless of their sexual orientation, within the confines of their own homes is nobody’s business, so why does society obsess about who sleeps with who? I could not care less if it is 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 1 woman.