Did the LDS Church Just Normalize Same Gender Marriage?

[_Aristotle Smith]

In the latest announcement that children of gay parents will no longer be barred from baptism Dallin Oaks also said the following:

Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

This is a really oddly worded statement that could be taken in any number of ways. Does this mean:

• The LDS church still holds that all homosexual relations are sinful. But, there is a category of "apostate" that it is no longer in. But because it's still sinful all homosexual relations will still be subject to disciplinary procedures. The end result being that all persons in homosexual relations will be excommunicated, meaning that not being "apostate" is simply a rhetorical game and this statement is therefore meaningless.
• The LDS church still holds that all homosexual relations are sinful, but because it is no longer "apostacy" it is now no longer an offence which will require excommunication. Thus while one may hold a church court on a homosexual married couple, excommunication is off the table.
• The LDS church is playing on its differing definitions of "transgression" and "sin". As is often explained in LDS doctrine, Adam and Eve trangressed, they did not sin. Hence what Adam and Eve did can be in some sense admired and celebrated, even though it is a direct disobedience of a previous commandment. On this reading, homosexual married couples are disobeying something, but it's not that bad since there is something good that is coming out of it.
• The LDS church is saying that homosexual marriages are not necessarily sinful. This would be one way of making sense of the phrase "the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way". How could they be treated in the same way unless there is some way for homosexual relationships to be moral? Presumably there is immoral and moral conduct in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, otherwise why include the phrase?
• The LDS church is saying that it made a mistake in the past but is issuing vague statements to allow for individual interpretation at the local level. On this interpretation bishops in areas with high populations of homosexual individuals might interpret this as full acceptance of homosexual marriage, while those in more conservative areas would be free to maintain the status quo. This would effectively be the Mormon version of "conscience clauses" that are tried from time to time in Protestant denominations. These clauses allow local clergy to only perform marriages that they feel are right, but different local clergy can come to differing conclusions.
• The LDS church, though populated with gaggles of lawyers, can't issue a clear and unambiguous statement to save their lives and this will be clarified later.

Some are obviously more likely than others. But, I never would have expected them to retract their beloved revelation after a little over 3 years, so I'm not as confident predicting this as I would have been previously.

[Guest]

mind-blowing. Really mind blowing. It's now the same as the law of tithing, and so good and bad depending on how you look at it.

What it means is, you get the same question everybody else gets: "do you live the law of chastity?"

For a married straight person doing anything more than mish for the purpose of procreation after first praying not to enjoy it, the answer is "no". A married gay person then is only allowed to do slightly less than a married straight person, which happens to be nothing. But just as most married people and most semi-tithe payers are on their honor, and lie about it, so will the married gay couple do whatever they want and just interpret the law of chastity however they want and/or lie. In this scenario, those who suffer are those who are prone to guilt. But the bishop has just been informed: don't ask don't tell.

let's face it, the old-fashioned values of the ossified leadership is in serious tension with their lust for money. A gay person's money is as good as anybody else's. This is also a door for openly married gay men to rise up in priesthood rank.

ETA: I wonder how the homophobic industry of Mopologetics will treat this issue. If they insist on interpreting it in such away as to be as exclusive as possible, and if such exclusion is perceived to in conflict with recouping lost tithing dollars by opening the tent door wider, then they may one day soon find themselves in a disciplinary council.

EETA:

The LDS church is saying that it made a mistake in the past but is issuing vague statements to allow for individual interpretation at the local level. On this interpretation bishops in areas with high populations of homosexual individuals might interpret this as full acceptance of homosexual marriage, while those in more conservative areas would be free to maintain the status quo. This would effectively be the Mormon version of "conscience clauses" that are tried from time to time in Protestant denominations. These clauses allow local clergy to only perform marriages that they feel are right, but different local clergy can come to differing conclusions

yes

[_Doctor Scratch]

mind-blowing. Really mind blowing. It's now the same as the law of tithing, and so good and bad depending on how you look at it.

I agree: this is huge. One of the most important events of the year--there can be no question about that.

What it means is, you get the same question everybody else gets: "do you live the law of chastity?"

For a married straight person doing anything more than mish for the purpose of procreation after first praying not to enjoy it, the answer is "no". A married gay person then is only allowed to do slightly less than a married straight person, which happens to be nothing. But just as most married people and most semi-tithe payers are on their honor, and lie about it, so will the married gay couple do whatever they want and just interpret the law of chastity however they want and/or lie. In this scenario, those who suffer are those who are prone to guilt. But the bishop has just been informed: don't ask don't tell.

let's face it, the old-fashioned values of the ossified leadership is in serious tension with their lust for money. A gay person's money is as good as anybody else's. This is also a door for openly married gay men to rise up in priesthood rank.

ETA: I wonder how the homophobic industry of Mopologetics will treat this issue. If they insist on interpreting it in such away as to be as exclusive as possible, and if such exclusion is perceived to in conflict with recouping lost tithing dollars by opening the tent door wider, then they may one day soon find themselves in a disciplinary council.

The situation parallels some of the other things we've been discussing--i.e., the lack of specificity in certain matters of LDS policy and theology. As for the Mopologists, my prediction is that for the time being, they won't say anything: they will completely ignore this, or, rather, they will act as if this is not on their radar for as long as they can (or until someone directly questions/challenges them on the issue). I'm sure that Scott Lloyd and/or others over on the MDD board will take this up. But the Mormon Interpreter crowd? That seems doubtful. At least: the old-guard Mopologists won't touch this with a ten-foot pole. Someone like Smoot or Rappleye might speak up, but I predict radio silence from the old school people (Gee, Midgley, DCP, etc.). And I will point out that Sic et Non has a vast repository of posts arguing that same-sex couples should be treated as second-class citizens (or rather, that religious people should be allowed to treat them that way), along with many, many posts arguing that heterosexual marriage is the only valid form of marriage, and that any recognition of same-sex marriage would fundamentally undermine the "true" definition of marriage. So, the Mopologists--all of them--will not be able to hide from this forever. A reckoning is approaching.

So, yes: this is an actual, very huge change in LDS Church doctrine and policy. I would even argue that this is approaching a level of significance that's on a par with the lifting of the priesthood ban--that's how big of a deal this is. It will be very interesting to see how the Mopologists (and I can't help but remember how Scott Lloyd went out of his way to eat at Chik-fil-a after the company's homophobic public scandal) will try to spin this.

Want to wager a guess as to how they'll approach this?

[_Kishkumen]

Mind blown. I am greatly relieved. Happy, in fact. That policy was simply awful. It had to go. It was one of the, if not the, worst mistake of 21st century Mormonism.

[_The Dude]

They still consider same gender marriage to be a "serious transgression". What is the disciplinary response to same gender marriage? It is not clarified at all in the quoted passage.

"The immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

So they will continue to justify discriminatory policies with the canard that they are only punishing the behavior. Still not accepting that for some people, this is the way they are.

Nothing has changed, really.

Mind blown. I am greatly relieved. Happy, in fact. That policy was simply awful. It had to go. It was one of the, if not the, worst mistake of 21st century Mormonism.

Calling "Mormon" a victory for Satan was definitely the worst. I can't wait until they go back on that.

[_The Dude]

duplicat

[_I have a question]

No. Like a petulant child that’s been made to make amends, it cannot resist getting a swipe in despite being made to hand the other kids toys back. Same Sex marriage is still “immoral”, still the equivalent to adultery and fornication. But the Church has been a bit mealy mouthed and obtuse. If you’re a Bishop, you won’t be able to tell from this announcement what you are supposed to do in the event a couple in your ward enter into a same sex marriage. Do you disfellowship? Do you excommunicate? Do you put them through the new marrieds program? Do you let them take the Sacrament? If a gay couple start attending Church, then what? Etc.

What will now happen is that Bishops will make differing decisions in those kinds of circumstances. Gay couples mileage will vary from ward to ward, from stake to stake.

In begrudgingly being forced to correct their own mistake because they’ve cost the Church a lot of members, Leaders are stopping short of actually putting things right. They’ve put a sticking plaster back on a patient that needs open heart surgery, thinking that will be enough pacify the membership and because they can’t eat all that crow in one sitting.

They remain a pathetically incompetent bunch of uninspired Apostles leading the Church down wrong roads so they can finally identify the right ones, with their hands off the tiller of a dented and sinking boat whilst they run around unable to cope to with two balls at once.

And Wendy wants you to pay more than 10% tithing.

What an unholy mess they’ve made of the restoration.

[Guest]

You know, as I sit here this morning, enjoying a slice of pan seared tiki masala pizza, topped with two free-range eggs donated by our blue ribbon brahma hen, sipping a 'Double Ristretto Venti Half-Soy Nonfat Decaf Organic Chocolate Brownie Iced Vanilla Double-Shot Gingerbread Frappuccino Extra Hot With Foam Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended (of course), I couldn't help but muse over a recent trip to Denver I took with my wife on board the Amtrak, California Zephir train (family room option because who wouldn't).

The snow covered high deserts of Utah and Colorado, really the heart of Mormondom, served as a backdrop to an epic that has now played out over a 170 years, give or take an apostasy or two. The landscape struck me as stolid, despite the little men who have chosen to make their homes in its hollows, valleys, and benches. These little men have introduced an odd, yet remarkable religion that has endured many, many changes over the years.

Blacks are ordained as members of the Mormon priestcraft, then not, then yes again.

Polygamy is practiced in secret, then openly, then in secret again, then banned, but practed openly through temple marriage.

Homosexuals can be baptized, perform in drag openly as one of Brigham Young's sons did, then are quietly tolerated, then aren't, then kids of homosexual parents are denied Christ's atonement, then they aren't, and homosexual marriage is promoted then demoted from apostasy to whatever sin according to Bishop roulette.

As such, I decided to seek unto the highest authority in the Mormon church, the one that all good members who need answers to vexing moral questions these days, and of course clicked on Sic et Non, Daniel C. Peterson's authoratative blog about lifestyle, Mormon doctrine, and spats with people who don't believe in dowsing.

I find it interesting Mr. Peterson made five posts yesterday, none of which addressed either issue of kids of homosexuals parents being baptized or Gay marriage being tolerated. His spate of fevered Sunday School pablum surely reminded me of the inpatient at a detox facility who might make wristbands out of gum wrappers as deeper issues compel them to rock back and forth gently, knowing that at some point they're going to have to make sense of their topsy turvy reality.

Oh, to be a Mopologist in 2019! Or is that Churchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintologist? That's a mouthful! How could the most important person in Mormonism not have noticed this worldbreaking event? Instead of inspired guidance helping faithful Internet Mormons navigate this reversal of God's will, God speaking as a man as it were, we were given folksy thoughts about life and death and a passing nothingburger over some New Testament yawner.

Tsk tsk tsk. Tosh tosh.

I, for one, am glad to see the LDS corporation adjust course on this issue. I mean, it's unfortunate their decision-making process caused hundreds of people to shoot themselves in their heads splattering their brains all over their rooms that their families had to pick out of the carpet, tie nooses around their necks and hang themselves as their windpipes were crushed and their vertebrae snapped, overdose on medication causing terrible and painful organ shutdowns resulting is horrific and excruciating deaths, or slit their wrists causing a hypoxic state ushering a death, not as movies depict where they dreamily ease off into the hereafter, but rather a concious death married with panic, suffocation, and sheer terror.

But. Hey. Who am I to say that the cojcolds (the j is silent, of course) who toed the line for this venal, vicious, mean, heartless policy and doctrine couldn't be bothered to offer a sincere heartfelt and repentive apology to all the loved ones who suffered the deaths of family members who felt God had rejected them, fundamentally, from November 2015 to April 2019?

- Doc

[_I have a question]

Doc...

This is a pretty big news item:
“Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents, updates handbook regarding ‘apostasy'”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc...

This is a pretty big news item:
“Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents, updates handbook regarding ‘apostasy'”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

Oh, you mean this:

“Looking in caves to verify a Book of Mormon-era famine”
APRIL 4, 2019 BY DAN PETERSON
17 COMMENTS

Denardo David Whitmer grave marker
David Whitmer had been out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for many decades when he died in Richmond, Missouri. But he wanted his testimony about the Book of Mormon to be heard even beyond his death. Note the two books (presumably the Bible and the Book of Mormon) carved atop his grave marker and the words carved into its side.
(Photograph by Tom Denardo, from Wikimedia Commons)


“Looking in caves to verify a Book of Mormon-era famine”



***



This is a pretty big news item:



“Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents, updates handbook regarding ‘apostasy'”



***



A very inspiring thirteen-minute video:



“This week on social: Watch this inspiring video from Elder Holland’s Facebook on overcoming grief”



***



“How a Latter-day Saint convert from ‘the slums’ became Utah Valley University’s first female president”



I first met Astrid Tuminez years ago, when I was a fairly new member of the BYU faculty and she was a student. Later, I had some limited dealings with her with regard to an event in New York City when she was on a Church committee there.



I don’t know her well — not even close — but I’ve always found her impressive.



***



What an enormous change they made!



“Why 3 Amish Families Risked Everything to Join the Church”



***



William E. McLellin was chosen as one of the Twelve Apostles in 1835, but was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1838. However, he never abandoned his faith in the Book of Mormon, and one of the pillars of his faith rested upon his early, searching interviews with the witnesses to that book. He was a highly intelligent man (and, it seems, a rather irascible one), and he was very careful and intent upon getting at the truth. He left a number of statements on his investigations. This one comes from a previously unpublished manuscript that he wrote between January 1871 and January 1872. I find it fascinating:


In 1833, when mobbing reigned triumphant in Jackson Co. Mo. I and O. Cowdery fled from our homes, for fear of personal violence on Saturday the 20th day of July. The mob dispersed, agreeing to meet again on the next Tuesday. They offered eighty dollars reward for any one who would deliver Cowdery or McLellan in Independence on Tuesday. On Mond[a]y I slipped down into the Whitmer’s settlement, and there in the lonely woods I met with David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery. I said to them, “brethren I have never seen an open vision in my life, but you men say you have, and therefore you positively know. Now you know that our lives are in danger every hour, if the mob can only only catch us. Tell me in the fear of God, is that Book of Mormon true? Cowdery looked at me with solemnity depicted in his face, and said, “Brother William, God sent his holy angel to declare the truth of the translation of it to us, and therefore we know. And though the mob kill us, yet we must die declaring its truth.” David said, “Oliver has told you the solemn truth, for we could not be deceived. I most truly declare declare to you its truth!!” Said I, boys I believe you. I can see no object for you to tell me false <hood> now, when our lives are endangered. Eight men testify also to handling that sacred pile of plates, from which Joseph Smith <read off the> translation that heavenly Book.

One circumstance I’ll relate of one of these eight witnesses. While the mob was raging in Jackson Co. Mo. in 1833 some young men ran down Hiram Page <in the woods> one of the eight <witnesses,> and commenced beating and pounding him with whips and clubs. He begged, but there was no mercy. They said he was <a> damned Mormon, and they meant to beat him to death! But finally one then said to him, if you will deny that damned book, we will let you go. Said he, how can I deny what I know to be true? Then they pounded him again. When they thought he was about to breathe his last, they said to him, Now what do you think of your God, when he don't save you? Well said he, I believe in God–Well, said one of the most intelligent among them, I believe the damned fool will stick to it though we kill him. Let us let him go. But his life was nearly run out. He was confined to his bed for a length of time. So much for a man who knows for himself. Knowledge is beyond faith or doubt. It is positive certainty.

I in company with <a> friend, <I> visited one of the eight witnesses <in 1869>–he only one who is now alive, and he bore a very lucid and rational testimony, and gave us many interesting particulars. He was a young man when he had those testimonies. He is now <was then> sixty eight years old, and still he is firm in his faith. Now I would ask what will I do with such a cloud of faithful witnesses, bearing such a rational and yet solemn testimony? These men while in the prime of life, saw the vision of the angel, and bore their testimony to all people. And eight men saw the plates, and handled them. Hence these men all knew the things they declared to be positively true. And that too while they were young, and now when old they declare the same things.



These paragraphs come from Mitchell K. Schaefer, ed., William E. McLellin’s Lost Manuscript (Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2012), 166-167. The editorial marks (and McLellin’s curious misspelling of his own name) and the occasional omitted word are all faithfully reproduced and double-checked.



The witness whom McLellin visited in 1869 must have been John Whitmer, who died in 1878.

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to post your link in the manner you did when in reality DCP hotlinked a DN article, buried in a blog post of his about some nonsense that no one is going to read?

- Doc