Brethren toning down political opposition to gay marriage?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The Church took a lot of abuse for its prominent role in the Prop. 8 fight in California a few years ago. I've noticed since then that the Church has been much less visible in this particular fight (nowadays when a state is considering whether to recognize gay marriage, not much more is done than to read a letter from the FP in sacrament meeting reminding members of the Proclamation on the Family), but I just recently noticed the apparently toned-down language in the latest Handbook on the topic. Here is what the current version (2010) of the Handbook states:

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly affirms defining marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

See Handbook 1 (Section 17.3.10); Handbook 2 (Section 21.4.10).

Now, compare the above with the statement in the last version (2006) of the Handbook (the words in bold are those omitted from the more recent version above):

Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The Church accordingly opposes same-gender marriages and any efforts to legalize such marriages. Church members are encouraged "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." (First Presidency letter, Feb. 1, 1994).

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman who are lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.

While opposing same-gender marriage, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

See Handbook Book I (pp. 187-88).

Note also that the new statement removes the "powers of procreation" clause from the old version, probably in recognition that many marriages do not involve "procreation" for one reason or another.

[_Drifting]

God is the same today, yesterday and forever.

But He reserves the right to tone down or completely reverse the doctrine.

[_harmony]

I think it's interesting that they refer to Heavenly Father as "the Creator". Makes me wonder if some NA blood is showing up.

When they refer to marriage as "divinely created", it makes me wonder if anyone inside the COB knows the historical background of marriage... and how it wasn't "divinely created", it was divinely co-opted.

I wonder if bcspace caught the doctrinal part: "as based on the scriptures".

They likely took out the "powers of procreation" clause because it simply sounds too stupid, going with the much more mundane "sexual relations" clasue.

[_Buffalo]

I prophesy in the name of the Lord than within a generation gay couples will be sealed in LDS temples for time and eternity.

[_Drifting]

I prophesy in the name of the Lord than within a generation gay couples will be sealed in LDS temples for time and eternity.

I concur except I will say that gay couples will be sealed in LDS temples before the last days are over...

[_Sethbag]

The term "powers of procreation" sounds flowery and all, and I know LDS thrive on that sense of linguistic holiness, however it also offers weasely excuses for people. For example, one might argue that one is only using the "powers of procreation" when one is engaging in sex where procreation is a possibility, so that oral, anal, levi, or other forms of non-procreative sex aren't covered.

When I went through the temple for the first time, we covenanted not to have sexual intercourse but with our legally and lawfully wedded spouse. Now the covenant is sexual relations. I would bet dollars to donuts that people accused of breaking this covenant argued in church courts or whatever that their oral sex, or mutual masturbation or whatever didn't count because it wasn't intercourse.

It does sound as if the official rhetoric has been toned down. I think what may have happened is that some years have gone by, thousands of gay couples have been married in various places, and Mormon families did not suddenly explode. The sky didn't fall down. Caligula was not elected President of the United States. Maybe, just maybe, members are feeling a tiny bit sheepish as they realize that this was never quite as big a deal as they imagined it to be.

Or maybe the church is worried about accusations that it's involved itself politically in ways that jeopardize its tax-free status.

[_Equality]

I don't see any toning down. In fact, they are ratcheting it back up. Exhibit A is this letter that the Presiding Bishop signed last week:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/Marriage-and-Religious-Freedom-Letter-Jan-12-2012-4.pdf

Exhibit B is the call to action that Mormons received from their leaders in Minnesota to try to pass the anti-marriage-equality measure that is on the ballot in that state this year: http://www.keylimepiety.com/?p=31

Exhibit C is Boyd Pecker's latest ravings at the Seminary anniversary shindig the other night: http://seminary.LDS.org/history/centennial/?cid=lds-home-feature

[_just me]

I don't see any toning down. In fact, they are ratcheting it back up. Exhibit A is this letter that the Presiding Bishop signed last week:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/Marriage-and-Religious-Freedom-Letter-Jan-12-2012-4.pdf

Exhibit B is the call to action that Mormons received from their leaders in Minnesota to try to pass the anti-marriage-equality measure that is on the ballot in that state this year: http://www.keylimepiety.com/?p=31

Exhibit C is Boyd Pecker's latest ravings at the Seminary anniversary shindig the other night: http://seminary.LDS.org/history/centennial/?cid=lds-home-feature

This.

I wish the OP was correct, but I am just not seeing it.

[_bcspace]

The whole point of PR is to dodge bullets. Do not confuse a more pleasant face with a change in doctrine. Ain't gonna happen, especially on this issue. The doctrine on plural marriage never changed. The doctrine on the priesthood ban never changed. LDS doctrine, while changeable as part of our systematic theology, doesn't actually change much in reality.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't see any toning down. In fact, they are ratcheting it back up.

You certainly may be right; I was simply being hopeful.

Exhibit A is this letter that the Presiding Bishop signed last week:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/Marriage-and-Religious-Freedom-Letter-Jan-12-2012-4.pdf

Yep, that was disappointing. I read that letter to focus more toward the effects on churches and church-related services if gay marriage were to become legal (rather than the usual tripe such as "the world will end because gays are bad for society"). I know some states that are currently trying to approve gay marriage are specifically trying to carve out any effect on religion or religious doctrines to overcome this objection by churches.

Exhibit B is the call to action that Mormons received from their leaders in Minnesota to try to pass the anti-marriage-equality measure that is on the ballot in that state this year: http://www.keylimepiety.com/?p=31

This was precisely what I was referring to when I mentioned a FP letter read in sacrament meeting, which is far less involvement than occurred with Prop. 8.

Exhibit C is Boyd Pecker's latest ravings at the Seminary anniversary shindig the other night: http://seminary.LDS.org/history/centennial/?cid=lds-home-feature

Typical Packer -- there is no way to control this "gorilla" (a word Dallin Oaks used many years ago to describe Packer).

All we can do is continue the good fight for equality ....