First Presidency Statement Opposing Any Efforts To Give Legal Authorization To Same Sex Marriages

[JohnW]

What you are describing is a caricature of church leaders.

I'm referencing a number of things General Authorities have actually done and said over the years. Including the deliberate covert weaponising of members during Prop 8. Including talks about people "choosing" to be gay. Including policies being introduced that placed same sex attraction as liable for the same Church discipline as murderers and child sex offenders. Including advocating electro-shock therapy to cure "gayness". That's not me making a caricature, that's a list of actions that General Authorities have actually done.

Overall, I'm talking more about how we as members learn how to include others in a loving way and the LGBT community learning how to find a place in the church. That doesn't happen without people stepping on each other's toes. Yes, church leaders are involved in that process, but certainly not the only ones learning here.

In what way(s) do members set the tone, the agenda, the policy, the language, the programmes necessary to change the institutional church into something that can be classed as a welcoming environment for the LGBQT community? Members have been excommunicated for asking awkward questions, General Authorities have articulated that activism is evil when it's directed at changing the church. Members have been told not to write to the General Authorities, they're too busy. Talks have been given that make it plain that criticism of church leaders, even if that criticism is warranted, is apostasy. Again, that's not me making up a caricature, those are actual, real, examples.

My experience appears to be the opposite of yours. Either you are intentionally trying to mischaracterize the situation, which I don't think is the case, or our experiences with church leaders are just too different to have a meaningful conversation.

I completely agree. I've cited numerous real world examples of why and how General Authorities have been the driving force behind making the church a toxic environment for the LGBQT community. Even the most recent so-called endorsement of the marriage equality bill is not an an example of the church finding a way of including the LGBQT community in the church environment - they have made sure to protect the church's right to be exclusionary and discriminatory of the LGBQT community. Feel free to cite the examples I've missed where they, the General Authorities have driven inclusion.

From the quote from 1994 in the OP

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.

From General Conference April 2022

...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.

That's a member of the First Presidency speaking officially at General Conference to the membership of the Church. How can that be considered an effort at inclusion?

I think you may be viewing efforts by the church to ensure they are able to legally operate according to their beliefs as evidence that they hate gay people. This is, of course, incorrect. There are just as many general conference addresses that urge (practically beg) members to treat LGBT individuals with love and respect and to treat them as our brothers and sisters (which they are, both spiritually and in many cases literally). As I discussed above, there are at least two facets here. The church is a religious entity with a set of doctrines and beliefs. The church is also a legal entity that must operate in the world. There isn't just one answer here, the problem is multi-faceted.

[Marcus]

I think you may be viewing efforts by the church to ensure they are able to legally operate according to their beliefs as evidence that they hate gay people. This is, of course, incorrect.

Of course. It's just evidence that they hate that "sin" and want to be able to separate themselves from associating with those who engage in that "sin."

Of course, since that is legally defined as discrimination, they need to find a way to circumvent the law so that they can legally discriminate.

And of course they promise that Families Are Forever, but only if you're not gay or if you are willing to repress your gayness for an eternity. And are willing to refuse to associate with others who don't repress their gayness.

But sure, all of that just goes to prove how much they don't hate gay people. Of course.

[JohnW]

I think you may be viewing efforts by the church to ensure they are able to legally operate according to their beliefs as evidence that they hate gay people. This is, of course, incorrect.

Of course. It's just evidence that they hate that "sin" and want to be able to separate themselves from associating with those who engage in that "sin."

Who said anything about separating ourselves from the LBGT community? Everything I've seen says we are to extend the arm of fellowship and love. I'm not sure what you are referencing. Yes, the doctrines of the church are difficult to process for these folks. Some chose to leave; others chose to stay. In every case I'm familiar with, it was an extremely difficult choice for the person to make. Often people regret their choice after a few years and switch to the other option. They eventually settle into what works for them.

[IHAQ]

I think you may be viewing efforts by the church to ensure they are able to legally operate according to their beliefs as evidence that they hate gay people. This is, of course, incorrect.

Was Prop 8 because the Church felt love towards the gay community and wanted to help them obtain the same marital status as heterosexual people? You don't seem to be paying attention to what Oaks actually said at General Conference. He wasn't talking about protecting the Church's right to discriminate against members on the basis of sexuality. He was stating that it was the Church's and the members divinely given obligation to fight against same sex marriage for people who aren't members of the church.

This is, of course, incorrect. There are just as many general conference addresses that urge (practically beg) members to treat LGBT individuals with love and respect and to treat them as our brothers and sisters (which they are, both spiritually and in many cases literally). As I discussed above, there are at least two facets here. The church is a religious entity with a set of doctrines and beliefs. The church is also a legal entity that must operate in the world. There isn't just one answer here, the problem is multi-faceted.

I agree that General Authorities speak out of both sides of their mouths when they feel it expedient to put some shine on the pr spin. When Bednar proudly and defiantly stated that there were no homosexuals in the Church, in what way was that an expression of love and respect and fellowship? Oaks and Bednar are setting the example. Did you sustain Oaks at Conference, and therefore implicitly agree to support the Lord's exhortation to fight same sex marriage for non members wherever and whenever you could do so, legally?

Sustaining the Apostles also means “acting in faith” and following the direction of the Apostles because one believes the Twelve are communicating the counsel of God.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/8/15 ... stain-them

[cwald]

I wouldn't call it a lame excuse....with what you and I say and do here in this board. What the leaders of the church say and do isn't too different, except in the number of people they affect.

Really? I don't claim to speak for God. I don't think anyone on this board makes that claim? When you make the claim you are communicating directly with God, and it's your job and prerogative to tell the people what he says and wants us to do as a church, and no one has the right to question your authority or your statements or face discipline, you kind of need to do better and not make so many obvious mistakes.