Surprised not been brought up yet on this forum
My take:
10 years ago - no.
Today - yes. I think it’s the right move for the Church. For me, sustaining the Church leaders is reason enough.
Practically speaking, Church sometimes needs to make adjustments (sacrifice positions/practices) so the work can go forward as unencumbered as possible.
Absolutely the right move. The church could not sustain entire families leaving in mass over being forced to choose between their children/family members vs. the church doctrine.
This was never an issue for us. We love our son equally along with our other children. It never was an issue. Many families have not been so lucky. They may choose to disown a gay child, the consequence is the child, feeling broken, ends their life or the entire family supports the child and just leaves the church. Either way is tragic and common. For the past 6 years my wife and I have SUFFERED, feeling more “outside” looking in then feeling welcome and a part of the church family. It is a great day
We need to dig deeper here. The Church doctrine has not changed. The statement from the Church states that marriage is still between a man and a woman and the Proclamation is still valid. So, why did the Church agree to this? We will see if there are changes to administration and callings. The reason for accepting this law is actually simple. The law still gives religious freedom for Churches as we do. There will be no sealings of men to men or women to women or trans to trans. There will be no bishops marrying LGBTQ’s either.
To me, this may just make things more complicated. Now, we will have gays questioning even more why they cannot be sealed in the Temple. We are for sure getting closer to the Second Coming…
I read the headline on MSN on my internet homepage. Typical of MSN to post a misleading headline. The church statement was they still consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. They support the bill because it protects
religious freedom concerning marriage. If it did not it would go against the first amendment and would almost surely be challenged in court. I didn’t see anything in the church’s statement that indicated the church endorses same sex marriage.
The problem I foresee is that somebody, at some point, will make an issue of the fact that same sex temple marriages are prohibited. There will be a lawsuit with a lot of negative publicity. The church would most likely win in the Supreme Court but the liberal press would have a field day with it. We already have seen florists and bakers sued over refusing their services for same sex weddings. They always win in court, but at the cost of being put out of business and paying thousands of dollars to attorneys.
I don’t disagree with the church based on their statement as to why they supported the bill, but to say the church now supports same sex marriage is a bit of a leap. The church can’t win on this one. The church’s position won’t satisfy the LGBTQ people and now the evangelicals will hate us even more. I had to think about this awhile before posting about it.
Reed, don’t play the word game. The church does not endorse same sex marriages, it does support Same Sex Marriages as of this statement as do most LDS members and That is a very big olive branch for many of us.
Perhaps this article will provide some light
How opposition to Prop 8 led Latter-day Saints to back Senate’s same-sex marriage bill (msn.com)
I read the church’s statement on their website. They said the doctrine that marriage between a man and a woman hasn’t changed. They supported the law just passed because it contained protections for religious freedom.
That is what I based my post on. Like you say it was an olive branch.
As with most bills, the devil is in the details. There are 2 parts to this bill:
- Same-sex is protected as a secular institution as for the liberals separation of church and state.
- Religious institutions can decide how they will deal with same-sex issues when it comes to church laws, not government laws.
The question as I see is will marriages inside and outside the temple be subject to government laws like this one? If they are, then Bishops and temple marriages will cease and marriages will be performed by the government civilly. And Temple sealings will continue uninhabited.
1 Like
As I mention in a post, secular marriages will no longer be performed by church clergy in or out of the temple. This happens in other countries already. Regulations always complicate everything…
Reed,
The church is already moving towards the eventual scenario you mentioned. Since a lot of other countries requires civil marriages and not what we call temple marriage.
The church is moving towards the temple only does “seatings” and not marriages. This way, it remains a first amendment right and no one can argue that.
I heard a talk a long time ago, that the church will not be the same as what was at the time the talk was given. 5, 10 15 years ago, could you image having church only 2 hours on Sunday? or that “Home teaching” would be changed so drastically?
The primary focus of teaching the children has been brought back to the family and not classes.
I think Fish laid out the perfect explaination for why the church supported the bill.
Here in Utah they worked with Gay community and other groups to come up with a balanced bill for marriage rights a few years ago,.
This is nothing new, however I see some people questioning the Prophet on the decision…
1 Like
Can’t disagree with anything you say on this, but I see the church’s position as more of an acceptance of same sex marriage rather than embracing it. I think there is a big difference.
2 Likes
Well, when we see Bishops called that are in a same-sex marriage relationship, then the Church has accepted same-sex marriage. There really isn’t a difference of acceptance and embracing it. But, it’s Trump’s fault, right?
What is going to happen when the Feds declare that the Church and all churches who “discriminate” against same-sex marriage and/or females (priesthood) and other (dem championed) complaints will have their tax-free status discontinued?
The “genie” has been let out of the bottle and will not rest until churches will be nothing more than places people can go to meditate.
The Church’s statement is a political move that will not stem the tide, in the end.
When I was a missionary in 1970, I read a Time article that predicted that President Benson would have a prophecy granting the priesthood to blacks. The Church, inch by inch, has been adjusting so that the clamor against them by special interest groups could be tamped down, at least to some degree. The Church members of the 1800s would not recognize the religion as practiced today. Yes, I know, there are plenty of excuses, including that I don’t know what I am talking about. Given another 100 to 150 years (or less) the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS will mirror the Catholic Church of today - a religious and political mismatch depending on where on the globe a person resides.
BTW, I also have a homosexual child whom I love and with whom my wife and I have a great relationship.
Now that these political steps have been taken, there will have to be more and more of them.
Meanwhile, the Constitution of the USA is being torn and ripped. But we Americans love to have our wordish arguments ad naseum with very little behavioral action. Again, I know that there are many excuses. But it’s ok, all is well in Zion.
Good Man!
When My son came out (long story) my wife puts her finger in my chest and says, “we’re going to treat him just like the other children, RIGHT?!” I said, “can I think about this?”, she said, “NO”. It took me four years to understand because I am a hetero man, hard wired. I will go to my grave not understanding why we have gay people but what is 100% clear to me is that my wife was right. We just love our children and will let God sort it out.
Heard a great 60 minutes piece last week on why there is so much division in America today. Experts say that under 10% of people fall under Ultra Conservative or Ultra Liberal, the rest of us just want understanding and find ways to get along and solve problems. It is those 10% on either side that keep the rest of us divided and at each other’s throats using social media etc.
Why do I bring this up? For over 100 years Blacks could not have the priesthood, brought on by a Hardliner, Brigham Young. Joesph Smith initially gave Blacks the priesthood. Not a hardliner.
Spencer W. Kimball, very much a Unifier. As Arkiecoug points out
Gay people are only special interest groups if we allow them to be categorized as such. For me, this is simple, It works for us to include our gay children in everything we do as a family and could not understand why the Church did not do the same. Now it appears that the Church has made it clear that they support us and agree.
Sorry guys, I’ve written about 40 paragraphs and deleted them, this is complicated, and I certainly don’t want to offend anyone. But here are a few facts::
Outside of that 10% or so flamers, the vast majority of gay people just want to live their lives like you and me. They are NOT trying to recruit anybody or push their lifestyle. They do want to have a family life with a spouse that supports them through thick and thin.
I’m not opposed to treating gays or straights with respect. God is the only one who is not a respecter of men. If he was, he could not judge righteously or fairly. With that said, three things I would not mind a response to:
- The Brethren did not approve of same-sex marriage and/or homosexual acts. They clearly state this that nothing has changed doctrinally. They agreed to this bill because it gives religious freedom for Churches with respect to gay marriage.
- If LGBTQ just want to live their lives like everyone else, then they should stop the gay pride parades, shoving their stuff to 5 year olds in schools and just be who they are in society.
- There is no equivalence between the issue with blacks and the priesthood and homosexual behavior. Blacks were allowed the Priesthood before they weren’t. Homosexual behavior has never been allowed. With that said, we can accept them in our meetings and events we put on for fellowship. But, not callings if they are currently active in the sin. Callings come from God, not man. I too have a gay child, more like bisexual.
As verbs the difference between embrace and accept is that embrace is to clasp in the arms with affection; to take in the arms; to hug while accept is to receive, especially with a consent, with favour, or with approval.
Big difference between the two words.
Good points. The Church approved the bill to further religious freedom. Same-sex marriage was already the law of the land. The bill does nothing more for same-sex marriage. Of course, during Bill Clinton’s administration a law was passed to protect marriage only between a man and a woman. So, this too could be short lived as well. Fortunately, freedom of religion is spelled out in the Constitution.
1 Like
Despite any laws, freedom of religion will continue to be culturally and legally eroded.
We are witnessing, in the USA, an eroding of everything that has to do with a representative republic.
I don’t believe stats from organizations. I don’t believe most research. My reason is that there is too much at stake (monetarily and reputationally) these days to mar stats and research.
Hard to have a conversation when logic and reason is based on facts whether given or proven theories. Without facts, emotions take over.
Facts do show the eroding of right over wrong. That’s been happening for a long time now. It’s like “if it feels good then do it” belief of secularists. Today, that’s on steroids!