Over at MDDB, commenter Analytics posted about this First Presidency Statement. This statement was made in 1994.
Have "the principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us" changed since then?
First Presidency wrote:The principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.
We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.
There isn't a key issue or doctrine that has not undergone significant change, and in many cases continually, since the Church was organized 192 years ago.
But that's okay, because we Mormons are taught to follow the living prophet, not the dead prophets.
"There is no path to happiness. Happiness is the path.”
Everybody Wang Chung, the doctrinal position outlined in that 1994 statement was publicly and officially reinforced as recently as April 2022. A member of the current First Presidency, Elder Oaks, stated this from the pulpit at General Conference:
That is also why the Lord has required His restored Church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, to oppose changes that homogenize the differences between men and women or confuse or alter gender.
The Church is speaking from both sides of its mouth, simultaneously. Endorsing the recent bill that gives recognition to same sex marriages is, according to the First Presidencies of 1994 and 2022, a victory for Satan.
One has to feel a little sorry for all those members who donated a lot of time, a lot of money, and who put a lot of effort supporting the Church’s exhortations on Proposition 8. Given the current U-Turn statement will the Church be reimbursing those members from the hundreds of billions of dollars they have stashed in interest bearing investments accounts? Will the Church apologise to them for putting them through that fight only to now be throwing the towel in?
I’m guessing the current Church Leaders lack the character and integrity to do either of those things.
There isn't a key issue or doctrine that has not undergone significant change, and in many cases continually, since the Church was organized 192 years ago.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, communism could no longer be used as the universal villain which would force civil rights down the throats of the Saints. A new villain to rail against needed to be created and so the Brethren decided to inaugurate its war against the LGBTQ community.
It was a losing bet, sort of like Elon Musk running Twitter into the ground. Turns out members would find commonality with Mankind and buy into their philosophy of being kind and accepting. Thus they fled from the LDS Church.
Being able to see the folly of the LDS war against LGBTQ policy, and doing a needed about-face is to be praised.
This is a difficult enough topic that there are probably different opinions among general authorities and within the same individual across time. I don't think there is a difference of opinion in how to approach this topic doctrinally but how to approach it civilly. There are various topics in which church doctrine is clear regarding members, but the church is left to decide whether they want to influence non-members in the country or world as a whole. It may be easier to see this back-and-forth internal and external tug-of-war in play for a different topic the church struggled with 100 years ago.
I am not a historian, but my understanding is that the church was very much for prohibition and heavily encouraged members to vote to maintain prohibition. (As an aside, this time period had a big influence on the church more strictly enforcing the Word of Wisdom across the board.) The church was trying to influence the country for good. When debating the repeal of prohibition, people made the argument that the economic consequences of prohibition and its effects on crime were not worth the benefits of prohibition. The church disagreed. I even seem to recall the story being told that after Utah voted as the tipping-point state which repealed prohibition, members had a very direct and stinging chastisement in general conference afterward.
If prohibition were to come up for a vote again, would the church put any efforts toward persuading members to get rid of alcohol and push it underground again or to vote in such a way to keep it above ground? Maybe they would be neutral. I doubt the church will change it's policy on alcohol regarding its members any time soon, but the mental exercise is how much influence would they use in the wider country or world. These decisions have to be made in the context of society at the time. Leading up to prohibition, there was a view that much good could come from getting rid of alcohol. During prohibition, there was a view that maybe people didn't see the negatives that come from pushing alcohol underground.
Regarding LGBT issues, societal opinion has changed dramatically and quickly from the 90s. It seems possible to me that the church saw the negatives from legalizing same-sex marriages in the 90s and wasn't as familiar with the negatives from restricting it. Twenty years later, we see the church taking a more moderated view which balances the fact that the church would like to regulate what they see as a spiritually consequential issue among their members and institutions while at the same time seeing that simply banning same-sex marriage across the country causes more harm to people than it helps. In my opinion, the church is spot on with how they are handling this tricky issue. Importantly, I'm sure I would have agreed with the church in the 90s or the 00s as well. At the time, I didn't fully appreciate all the damage that can be done to people regarding LGBT issues. I didn't know anyone in that community at the time. Now that I am much more familiar with the community, I can see the harm they have suffered. I understand their perspective just a little better.
Some might say, "Why didn't God just make church leaders understand all this in advance?" I don't know the answer to this. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the last 20 years is God helping us, as members of the church, understand this issue. I find that God rarely just tells us stuff, he teaches us stuff. Whether individually or as a community, teaching involves putting things into practice, making mistakes, and us growing over time. That certainly looks like the last 20 years on this topic to me.
Over at MDDB, commenter Analytics posted about this First Presidency Statement. This statement was made in 1994.
Have "the principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us" changed since then?
First Presidency wrote:The principles of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.
We encourage members to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender.
According to smac the law of the land trumps inspired rhetoric from the geriatrics “leading” his church. And by “leading” what I mean is reacting to broad social convention.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Some might say, "Why didn't God just make church leaders understand all this in advance?" I don't know the answer to this. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the last 20 years is God helping us, as members of the church, understand this issue. I find that God rarely just tells us stuff, he teaches us stuff. Whether individually or as a community, teaching involves putting things into practice, making mistakes, and us growing over time. That certainly looks like the last 20 years on this topic to me.
To me, it just looks like a bunch of human beings reacting to changing social attitudes both outside and inside their group.
I know that you take the existence of your deity as a given, so for you it is normal to assume that the entity you worship has some role in events of the kind we are discussing. But if your deity did not exist, which features of what we know to have happened would be inexplicable?
I rather suspect that the answer would be 'None'.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I find that God rarely just tells us stuff, he teaches us stuff. Whether individually or as a community, teaching involves putting things into practice, making mistakes, and us growing over time.
God immediately told the Israelites not worship other gods and to keep the Sabbath Day holy, as you know the punishment for breaking the commandments was death.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
Some might say, "Why didn't God just make church leaders understand all this in advance?" I don't know the answer to this. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the last 20 years is God helping us, as members of the church, understand this issue. I find that God rarely just tells us stuff, he teaches us stuff. Whether individually or as a community, teaching involves putting things into practice, making mistakes, and us growing over time. That certainly looks like the last 20 years on this topic to me.
To me, it just looks like a bunch of human beings reacting to changing social attitudes both outside and inside their group.
I know that you take the existence of your deity as a given, so for you it is normal to assume that the entity you worship has some role in events of the kind we are discussing. But if your deity did not exist, which features of what we know to have happened would be inexplicable?
I rather suspect that the answer would be 'None'.
I actually agree here. I don't think I'm trying to say any of this can be used as evidence for or against the existence of God or the truthfulness of the church. If I didn't believe in God or the truthfulness of the church, then yes, all this would look like reaction to social changes. The two of us will look at the same set of circumstances and come to two different conclusions as to what is happening behind the scenes. This is normal. I personally think these circumstances fit either of our perspectives.
