Umm, yeah, wouldn’t happen in my part of Texas, either.

Sadly, I feel like the slow hemorrhage of liberal members leaving option is more likely than the Oakland stake (or one like it) to break off.

Here’s the problem: liberals who vote with their feet by leaving go inactive, while conservatives who leave start their own church. Leaders would rather have apostates or inactive members than full-blown schisms. Thus, the leadership is much more troubled by the prospects of conservatives leaving the church than liberals.

When the view of mainstream Mormons is that homosexuals are “sexual deviants” there is no tricky path for the leaders. The sad (and disturbing) fact is that Packer’s talk was actually well to the left of the opinions of many mainstream Mormons. Thus, the very clear path of the leadership is to double down and you wait for things to either (a) blow over, or (b) gradually change among the members. Thus, real change in the church’s stance on homosexuals will not occur until well after the mainstream membership is comfortable with it. The parallel to black and the priesthood ban is very illustrative.

As I said in another thread, if you’re looking for modern revelation that is either modern or revelatory, then look somewhere else.

The last significant schism of which I am aware was the Third Convention in Mexico. http://www.orsonprattbrown.com/MexicanMission/third-convention.html That schism was healed during the administration of George Albert Smith. When I served as a missionary in Mexico 35 years ago, I met many who had been a part of the Third Convention, and who were currently serving in significant leadership role in our Church.

I doubt there could be a schism in the LDS Church in the USA like schisms in many protestant faiths because ours is a top down structure, rather than bottom up. I suppose the membership of an entire ward could decide to leave the LDS Church, but the LDS Church still would own the ward building. Moreover, because wards are structured geographically rather than by preference of individual attendees, I doubt one could find any ward in which all members were of one mind on the issue of homosexuality or anything else.

I don’t think the Brethren are in unanimity about sexual orientation, other than in their opposition to same sex marriage. I think some of them support the approach of the Oakland stake or of the stake in upstate New York that cosponsored a performance Facing East. I think some are very opposed.

I think the Church’s position on homosexuality is not as out of step with society and religions as was its position in the 1960s and 1970s on race. The Church survived that period without any major schisms. I do not know why today should be any different.

Eh, I don’t think it is common enough in the church for people to take that kind of independence from church leadership. The bloggernacle is a heavily weighted sample that creates an illusion of a trend, but there is no trend. The Oakland stake is a fluke, and largely due to the work of Carol Lynn Pearson.

Also, annegb, were you serious about the GLBT thing? Not sure if that was sarcastic, since the acronym is so ubiquitous now, but here’s the explanation anyway:

GLBT = Gay – Lesbian – Bi-sexual – Transgendered

I’ve seen it also written as LGBT, and sometimes LGBTQ (don’t know how Queer is distinct in that usage). I’m not sure which version is more politically correct or if it even matters. My guess is that putting the L first is probably a statement against patriarchy.

DKL, I don’t believe that kind of concerted effort would ever happen.

There seems to be a slight change in what Elder Oaks said a year or two ago about homosexuality and what Elder Packer is saying now. Packer is saying that people aren’t born with gay tendencies and Oaks was saying people can be born gay (if I’m remembering correctly). Is there a schism in the Twelve?

I don’t think we’ll hit a point with this issue that full stakes are suddenly becoming RLDS. What I do think is in those more liberal areas you’ll see people leaving the church in droves. In more conservative areas people that disagree will quietly tell their children and family that they disagree with that particular teaching and they’ll slowly drift away along with their children (which is what seems to be happening to a member of my family and one of our neighbors). I guess we’d probably all disagree on whether those two things happening is good or not.

Did this every happen during the civil rights era? Did wards or stakes ever speak out against the Priesthood ban?

If I didn’t care so much about the church it would be exciting to watch, because it could be a big change. Instead it just makes me sad.

“They think the church is wrong, but it will eventually be fixed, probably fifteen years after it’s the norm in most other Christian churches.”

That assumes that most other Christian churches will change. I doubt that the conservative wing of protestantism will change anytime soon, and I doubt that the Roman Catholic (or Orthodox) Churches will change in this millenium. I think the inertia against change on such an issue is much stronger in those churches than in ours. (See, e.g., birth control, on which the LDS stance has liberalized but RCC’s stance is unchanged (although rarely observed by the lay membership)).

Remember as well that this is a worldwide church and most of the membership is outside of the United States. There are counterpoints that could be made to that point – but where church growth is happening most is not in those places where gay marriage and gay rights are a high priority.

Much of the world is still very conservative on these kinds of issues.

The idea that same-sex marriage is more important to some people than their relationship with God is pathetic and depressing. Ironically it’s one of the things keeping my Catholic husband from looking more seriously into the LDS church.

Was there a negative uproar when the Priesthood announcement was made? I know there were people like my wife’s grandparents that were unhappy about it, but they didn’t leave the church. Once we’ve hit the point were one or two generations have died off is there really going to be a mass exodus? As far as I know there wasn’t in 1978.

John,

I think that the RLDS church is is a demographic death spiral right now. The reason for this is the liberal attitude towards feminism and gay issues. I think the RLDS exp. on these 2 topics since the 1980′s serves a powerful reason NOT to “go liberal”. esp since there are now thousands and thousands of formerly RLDS folks in splinter groups across the Midwest who left over the liberalization of the RLDS movement. Its pretty powerful test case and mirrors the US Anglican exp almost to a T.

I don’t want you to use Mormon Mentality to attempt to convert LDS people to RLDS. So have a good day :)

MFM — Good point. I probably should not have used the word “liberal.”

Bbell — I certainly will respect your requirements. I will say that I mention this not to “convert” people — I don’t consider this movement to be conversion. I wasn’t converted. I replied to the thread because I believe this idea is on-topic to the original post (schism and reform) and the responses.

Whereas I agree that the Community of Christ is definitely having serious problems, I don’t agree with your interpretation of why it is having problems; I think there are other long-term causes that have been more important. However, even if this were the primary cause of the decline, I don’t agree that this is an argument against making moral reforms in the LDS Church. Regardless, the reality is that if even a tiny proportion of thousands and thousand of people who leave the LDS Church (or who, like me, left long ago) were to join the Community of Christ, the demographic problem you mention would be quickly solved in a win/win scenario. (I think the same thing would be true, if liberal US Catholics transferred their membership to the Episcopalian Church rather than simply evaporating away.)

At the end of the day, gay people are a tiny minority. Although I do think that the LDS Church is morally compromised by its anti-gay stance, for me the most important issue to reform is and remains sexism.

John,

I deleted some of my comments and some of yours in reply. I do not like to get snarky with people so sorry.

Bbell — No problem and no offense taken.

http://www.rlds.org/directory/activedirectory.asp

I found this. Let’s pretend I would consider it. The pickings for a New Yorker are not impressive.

http://www.rlds.org/directory/states/newyork.asp

I tend to annegb’s thinking; if you think the church is true, you think it’s true (and imperfect, etc, etc). I think in time, we’ll have a greater understanding, but now seems to be a time of testing, confusion, etc.

While I’m not wild about how the Church is approaching SSA/gay marriage issues, I certainly have a hard time reconciling the Plan of Salvation and Biblical teaching with the full embrace of same-sex relationships. I’m not sure how it happens, short of a revelation. And then what? A revision of Biblical teaching? I don’t see legal polygamy all that far off post-federalized gay marriage (in a relative sense), and then what is the church’s stance? I am quite sympathetic to the view that people are “born gay,” but what the church would have to do to accept the gay lifestyle as acceptable and moral behavior seems pretty extreme. I could be completely wrong, I suppose. Revelation is revelation. Alas, how it all fits into the PoS is beyond me.

I also agree with the statement above that same sex relationships are not necessarily going to be embraced by more conservative churches, which wouldn’t leave us in a racist Priesthood Ban kind of scenario.

If one who is not gay leaves the church over a disagreement with SSA or gay marriage issues, I suspect that isn’t the only reason leading them away.

I think John Hamer’s point is valid and worth considering. While I have no intention to change to CoC, if enough like-minded, progressive-thinking LDS who are faithful, believing LDS but conflicted to their core over the issues of sexism and the stance on homosexuality began to attend CoC rather than just going inactive (or worse, to various megachurches), that would hasten change. Time will create change in the church on both sexism and the stance on homosexuality, just as time is changing these norms in society at large. That kind of move is probably the only way to hasten change.

Make no mistake, change will still be slow. But what that would do is demonstrate that there is legitimacy to the issue, and that those who left were not easily-dismissed apostates but would-be active, believing LDS people who couldn’t contribute in the current environment. Of course, that kind of shift would constitute a massive brain drain for a while. The LDS church would swing to the right as it did after the September Six excommunications. But change could come in 15 years instead of 30.

I should add the caveat to #33 that I think it extremely unlikely that it will ever happen. What I think is more likely is that only those with a real dog in this fight would go to those measures. Sympathizers probably would not.

Danithew (#29): I can’t address your question without explaining the idea, which is clearly too much like advocating the idea.

Obviously, bbell brought this up as a hypothetical, so I shouldn’t thread-jack the thought-provoking original post by talking about my own particular, practical thoughts on this hypothetical scenario. I’ll write about my idea in a place that is more appropriate.

DKL: Thanks, much.

The CoC might actually be a great place for people to go if they want to continue to identify as Mormon but cannot accept the flaws of the “Mother Church.” I hate to see people leave, but I like to see people happy, and that might be a place where they can be happy.

Elder Packer is one of my favorite apostles, though also one of the most misunderstood. I have contended for years that Elder Maxwell’s vision of Christian discipleship was more arid and demanding than Elder Packer’s, but because it’s all buried in flowery phrasing with recondite words people smile and say, “Isn’t that nice?”

Whereas Elder Packer is much more blunt, though often the bluntness gets people so angry they don’t really try to understand what he’s saying, they just fly off the handle (“fly to pieces like glass” in Joseph Smith’s memorable phrase).

I have noticed in the past few conferences that Elder Packer has had some difficulty delivering his conference messages; he appears much more frail to me. So I would wait until I could carefully and prayerfully ponder his words, especially the written version, before I condemned or criticized what I *thought* he said.

So far as the gay issue goes, I feel like there is a lot that we can do as ordinary Latter-day Saints to help people dealing with these issues feel more loved and welcome in the Church. However, I am quite convinced that this does not require us to compromise our principles, or receive a new revelation, in doing so. I do have a testimony that the Church leadership is doing the right thing about these issues, painful and controversial as they are. It’s something I deal with in the environment I am surrounded with every day.

As an aside, I thought this notion of historical inevitability has been discredited by now? If Hegel’s and Marx’s failed predictions about the inevitable march of history haven’t convinced you otherwise, maybe Fukayama’s “End of History” would?

Where human agency is involved, nothing is inevitable, either politically or morally. There are moral retrenchments and political reactionary movements. If the pendulum swings in one direction, it can swing back in the other.

#16–you’re exactly right. My very conservative 30-year-old cousin wrote me an email on this subject this morning. She told me she was “stunned” by Elder Packer’s words. It’s more of a generation thing than a conservative/liberal thing. And the church wonders why it’s losing so many young adults…

Unfortunately, Elder Packer’s words on this subject undid a lot of the good that other general authorities have worked hard for.

Is anyone else bothered by the underlying assumption in this thread that the church would make a decision on the issue of homosexuality based on the opinions of its members and not revelation through the prophet?

This has been an interesting topic to follow, and I feel that there are a few points here that need attention. With all these, I’m going off my best knowledge, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

First, has there ever been a time where homosexual behavior has been approved or accepted by the Lord? (Note I’m not arguing tendencies or inclinations, but the behavior itself.) As I understand it, throughout scripture and modern prophets, it has been quite specifically condemned. There have been no exceptions for that behavior (for example, in marriage, like there is in a heterosexual relationship). So if this has never been not only not accepted but specifically condemned, why are some so convinced that this will suddenly change just because it’s becoming socially acceptable today?

Second, I don’t really see this issue as comparable to the blacks and the priesthood issue. There was never a specific revelation teaching that blacks were not to be given the priesthood; that came from societal pressure and became habit until it took a revelation to undo it. The whole root of that came from man, not God. Because of the difference in the roots, I don’t see a big civil rights equivalent happening in the church regarding its stance on homosexual behavior.

Third (as an aside brought up above), like my first point, has there ever been an instance of the priesthood in scripture or from modern prophets giving the priesthood to women? I do believe that men and women have specific, separate rolls that are supposed to compliment each other and work together, not supplant or dominate. A lot of unrighteous dominion has been brought out of this, but that is the fault of man, not God.

viv, those are mostly questions that relate to how we explain the change in the doctrine. It’s worth noting that none of the popular explanations for the priesthood ban have been endorsed by the leadership since the ban. The official church line is effectively “no comment.”

Perhaps the lifting of the priesthood ban was not unprecedented. I’m good with that. Continuing revelation is necessary because of the need for unprecedented doctrines to enter the church.

predthesis: “Is anyone else bothered by the underlying assumption in this thread that the church would make a decision on the issue of homosexuality based on the opinions of its members and not revelation through the prophet?” E. Packer’s approach is far more strident and condemnatory than his fellow apostles. He even outdid E. Oaks, quite a feat. Is it revelation or opinion when the apostles disagree? Is it doctrine or policy?

viv: “has there ever been an instance of the priesthood in scripture or from modern prophets giving the priesthood to women?” There has never been an instance of them specifically being excluded; there was an assumption it was men only, then that was clarified to non-black males only. As to women & priesthood, there are examples of women healing by laying on of hands in the early church, and one could very easily argue that all endowed women are priestesses. There are different “priesthoods” to consider: offices, ordinances, and functions. I think the argument for women having priesthood functions is strongest. Performing ordinances is less strong, and holding priesthood offices is not there at all. Personally I think restricting priesthood to men is done to create stronger reliance on one another in marriage through distinct roles; that makes it a social convention in my book.

DKL: “Continuing revelation is necessary because of the need for unprecedented doctrines to enter the church.”

Which unprecedented doctrines have entered the church to date since 1830?

DKL – I don’t know that my view of common consent falls under either of the categories you give. I see it as a way for members to express their support of their leaders, and when necessary and appropriate, a way for us to express concern about a particular call. I wouldn’t consider one of the ways that God speaks to the prophet.

This is why the idea of popular opinion driving doctrines on homosexuality or even the priesthood ban seems so wrong. Our leaders tell us again and again that the ship is being steered by revelation. I don’t see how they can say that and at the same time allow member opinion to drive decision making.

hawkgrrl – We have a long history of apostles disagreeing with one another (Ezra T. Benson & Hugh B. Brown, etc.) on certain matters. That being said, I don’t see disagreement among the apostles on the morality of the practice of homosexuality. While the tone of their remarks may vary, the substance on this point has been very consistent

Is the Community of Christ prepared to run a sustained missionary campaign among the more liberal areas of the LDS Church? Is C of Christ prepared to offer LDS members a viable worship and community experience alternative, complete with great music and Relief Society meals?

I was solidly against the MX missile project years ago. Luckily the prophet agreed. But if he didn’t and somebody on my “team” said “Let’s go start our own church” I’d tell them to go take a very long hike.

predthesis, here’s the story on the priesthood ban: You have Harold B. Lee, an inveterate racist who’s embarrassing actions included advocating segregation to the extent that he objected to admitting black students into BYU in 1960 and included objecting to a scholarship being given to a black student in 1965. In 1969, the Quorum of the Twelve voted to rescind the priesthood ban while Lee was traveling. When Lee returned, he had the vote itself rescinded because of his own racist beliefs. So the truth is that if it weren’t for the racism of LDS church leaders, the priesthood ban would have been lifted 10 years earlier.

Do you really think that the church would have stopped excommunicating people who talk about female ordination and Heavenly Mother if it weren’t for the fact that the internet made it commonplace? Or did God speak to the quorum of the 12 and say, “You should allow people to discuss this.” Do you believe that the previous policy to excommunicate scholars who delved into such issues was driven by God saying, “You would excommunicate people for discussing this.”

From Emma’s complaint about tobacco leading to the Word of Wisdom to the continued disaffection of Mormons with the priesthood ban, revelation is always driven by the membership.

That depends on what you mean by “know.”

John Hamer, you are welcome here anytime.

From Emma’s complaint about tobacco leading to the Word of Wisdom to the continued disaffection of Mormons with the priesthood ban, revelation is always driven by the membership.

DKL, I’m going to use that as a springboard to pimp my own post from a few months ago on that very subject.

As a member of the Oakland Stake, I’m pretty excited to learn that we’re causing a schism. I should go to church more regularly to see if people are hatching plots to overthrow the patriarchy.

Basicly what I am hearing is that the social/political environment in the Bay Area is so opposed to the churches teachings that compromises are being made in an effort to get along with the outside community?

That is think is probably a step or 2 down the path of apostacy and sounds similar to the NT apostacy

Or we could turn this around and look for ways in which the church in Texas has made too many compromises with a religiously conservative culture and is now a step or two down the road to apostasy. I mean, what’s with all the watering down of doctrine in an effort to convince evangelicals that we’re Christian? ;)

Really, as exciting as it would be, I see no evidence that the church in the Bay Area is going rogue. It’s not as if we’re proclaiming new doctrine and forbidding GAs from speaking at stake conference. And like MFM in #49, I’m not clear as to why engaging in conversation with the GLBT community is apostate.

Thank you, Clay. I really didn’t know that.

#44. I’m kind of bothered.

Lynette, thanks for your input. I wonder if this perceived problem is more a matter of perception—I know that’s a dumb way to put it. But sometimes publicity isn’t reality. Like the media made a big deal out of the Iphone problems and I haven’t gotten any calls from people complaining.

If somebody came to me and said “Let’s leave the church and go to the CoC because we’re both mad about this or that” I’d say “what are you nuts?”

I’m really mad at my stake president but I prefer to think bad thoughts and give him dirty looks over leaving the church. Good grief. It’s true. Things will work out.

Proud Daughter of Eve: DKL, what’s your source for that story about the Quorum rescinding the ban? That’s the first I’ve heard of it.

Vol 2 of Michael Quinn’s books on the Mormon Hierarchy.

Proud Daughter of Eve: I don’t see how anyone could think the CoC would be a viable alternative to the LDS church

To add to what John says, I think that whenever any active Mormon considers other Christian faith traditions from a distance, they’re always going to judge them with Mormon-centric criteria. The fact that the CoC comes up short in your analysis is no surprise. Which religion would you recommend as a viable alternative to Mormonism?

Proud Daughter of Eve: …not if they’re just looking for “gay ok LDS.” Obviously having some kind of testimony of them is different from just saying “Hey, I want a church with Joseph Smith’s priesthood, the Book of Mormon, modern revelation and the Plan of Salvation — oh, and same-sex marriage too.”

The Community of Christ is not derivative of the LDS church. It is an entirely separate faith tradition that is related to Mormonism through a shared history and a common founder. It’s not just some trivial embodiment of liberal LDS thought — it challenges believers on its own terms, and those terms are well worth any student’s effort, whether she plans to join them or not. We ask non-Mormons to learn about our church, and I think it’s a shame that Mormons don’t spend more time studying other Christian traditions, especially other manifestations of Joseph Smith’s restoration teachings like the Community of Christ, from whom I believe we could learn a lot.

annegb: If somebody came to me and said “Let’s leave the church and go to the CoC because we’re both mad about this or that” I’d say “what are you nuts?”

Isn’t that the same thing that most converts would’ve said if you’d have asked them “Hey, why don’t you leave your current church and go to the Mormon church” before they learned anything about it. It seems to me that you’re imagining a transition to the CoC church in the least favorable light possible. Isn’t that more than just a bit silly, annegb? Seriously, there’s a reason why LDS missionaries don’t lead with a line like that.

To those commenting on the CofC: I’d recommend looking into it. Over the past few years, largely because of comments from folks on this and other blogs, I’ve actually visited their website and ordered a number of books about and by their church. There are many things I really respect in their denomination.

I like the fact that they continue to receive canonized revelation, adding to the D&C, much like in the early days of “our” Church (ie. LDS).

I like the fact that a vote for church leaders is actually a vote for church leaders like in the early days, and not merely a perfunctory sustaining.

I like the respect they have for women and less subservient role like in the early days of our church.

I like the attitude they have toward the WofW which is how it was given and interpreted in the early day of our church.

While there have been comments about the CofC being “liberal LDSism”, there are many, many ways that the CofC is actually closer to what Joseph Smith restored than the modern LDS Church today. I have a great deal of respect for the interactions I have had with members of the CofC and have learned a lot from them.

David, I do see it in the least favorable light possible! I believe iin the church. If you joined, it’s none of my business, but I would regard that as a rather drastic option. Because it would mean I no longer believed in the church and that’s pretty unfavorable to me.

I have appreciated many of the comments on this thread, particularly, John Hamer’s and DKLs comments. And IMO Mike S’s observations in #74 seem spot on.

I will say that I am intrigued by the Community of Christ invitation extended by John Hamer. One of the most troubling issue for me personally has the reality that Mormons, of which I have been an active member now 56 years, are perhaps the most “hawkish” pro-war, patriotic of any faith in our nation. I find it very revealing and in fact from my perspective a denunciation of the gospel of Christ and even our canons of scripture. I contrast Pres. Hinckley, BKP, Elder Holland (who recently told the troops that both of our invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan were “just wars”–huhh?) with that of President Veazey (sp?) of the Community of Christ who clearly denounced war and proclaimed peace (DC 98) and followed the words of Christ therein not to mention the words of Christ in the NTand BOM as it pertains to conflict.

So “by their fruits shall ye know them” is the standard? If so, then our leaders have provided bitter fruit as contrasted to the sweet fruit of the gospel as offered by the Community of Christ on this very important issue to me personally.

Makes one wonder….

And DKL IMO articulated so well what I believe is very lacking among us LDS and, that is, the seeking of “common consent” and not bullying and top down dominion….

Please verify Holland speaking of a just war in Iraq, etc.

BBell, you seem to have a very strange view of what the Church is doing with regard to homosexuality. To my understanding, the position of the Church is that someone is not at fault for “same sex attraction”, as the Church calls it, but that those who “suffer” with SSA need to keep the same standards of chastity as everyone else, i.e. no sexual relations outside of marriage. And since the Church is publicly opposed to gay marriage, this means that gay members are to be committed to a life of chastity, never experiencing sexual release or intimacy with someone they love in a manner considered morally acceptable by the Church.

Do you disagree that this is the Church’s position?

I happen to think that Elder Packer might have been misunderstood in his comments at the recent General Conference. It seems to me that he was NOT saying that God would not create people as homosexuals, as many liberals and conservatives alike seem to have taken away. Rather, doesn’t it seem likely that, given the Church’s position on homosexuality mentioned above, that he actually was saying that God wouldn’t create someone who can’t resist the temptation to act contrary to God’s will, even taking all external factors (i.e. including biology) into consideration? I think this is what he was saying and that it was just very poorly articulated — due to his frailty and difficulty with speaking, and perhaps inartful drafting of his talk from which he was reading.

In this sense, a defense of Elder Packer does NOT entail, as your post here seems to, an implicit endorsement of treating homosexuals as evil merely by virtue of their claimed homosexuality. To reiterate, the trend in General Authorities’ statements in the last years seems to be an admission that homosexuality might indeed be genetic or have substantial biological contributing factors, meaning that to have the gene or to have been subject to such biological factors does not by itself make one morally culpable. Rather, only engaging in homosexual sex makes one morally culpable. This is the orientation/action distinction and even though Elder Packer expressed himself poorly, I am not convinced that he was not respecting this distinction.

By the way, in your comment # 14 you state

I also agree with DKL there is a real danger of schism from conservatives in the LDS faith if the church ever changes its stance very much on Gay issues.

I see in this statement a hint that you, bbell, are making an implicit threat that you, as a self-identified and proclaimed “conservative in the LDS faith”, would leave or consider leaving the Church if it ever changes its stance very much on gay issues.

If this is the case, then so much for living prophets and continuing revelation, right? Or are you only in favor of “continuing revelation” if it’s something you agree with politically? If a stunning Official Proclamation came down at the next conference in which President Monson declared that it had been revealed that women would be given the priesthood, or that gay members who are keeping the commandments can be married and sealed together after all, would you follow the prophet as demanded by Ezra Taft Benson in his 14 Fundamentals talk?

In any event, I find the hint of leaving the Church if it should wander from conservative American suburban political trends to be disturbing. If someone you describe as a “liberal” made the comment you made in # 14, then you would take that as evidence that the Bloggernacle is a net negative on the Church and you would pray for its destruction. Why does this not hold for “conservatives” considering leaving the Church based on such a development?

82.
Prop 8 was not political. It was a popular expression of morality. People from both sides of the party were for and against it. The members were not asked to support one party or another. The only people who make/made it political are those who were already political zealots on both sides of the issue. Plenty of democrats voted for it. Now if you want to say of course it was political, well then all things are political, which reduces the meaning of politics. You might say it was civil activism? I compare this to Argentina (I believe) where the church did not get involved because the gay marriage fight was going on through the political parties via the political powers in the legislature. I would assume if it was left to an a-political popular sovereign vote the church would have been involved.

Your next point, that someone who is opposed to gay marriage, or opposed to public endorsement of homosexuality does not believe you should be nice to gay people is hardly worth address. Yes, there are some yahoos calling for not being nice to gay people. But they have quite a bit more to work on when it comes to their discipleship don’t they? I don’t see any of that here… unless you want to point it out to me.

I think we do this a disservice by dividing it among conservative/liberal. It’s a moral/immoral argument. Plenty of democrats, who do not depend on speaking out of both sides of their mouths depending on the audience, are opposed to gay immorality. The same could be said about republicans with the double speak.

What’s strange to me is that so many church members, identify their political ideological opponents and immediately take up the opposing side because they must naturally be opposed to each other. Why not preach, exhort, and persuade with doctrine instead of going straight to the heart of political ideology, which is the wrong heart altogether to attack anyway.

It would seem you’d be better off preaching love and not politics. I’ve prayed often to love my brothers and sisters more. It’s something I’m starting to get a little bit better at, and it’s all too easy to slip back into the natural man’s way of looking at things. Yes let’s love them. Let’s look on their mistakes the way we hope the Lord looks on ours. But loving them, being kind to gay people, serving gay people who are suffering or in need, does not mean we need to give them the platform to advance their worldview of morality on us. It does not mean we need to endorse their lifestyle. I could be wrong here, but I think this is the mindset of the brethren, and I think reflects the Lord’s mindset on how to approach the issue, based on my observation and study of what the prophets say, and my own spiritual confirmation as I try to live up to those two values of virtue and charity. Charity can not rob Virtue. Virtue can not rob Charity either!

However, I believe that special circumstances exist right now to allow for a positive, productive reform schism to occur in Mormonism. All three counterpoint issues can be addressed if the schism makes use of an existing institution within Mormonism — by far and away the largest and best-established independent (i.e., not LDS-owned) institution in Mormonism — the Community of Christ, the former RLDS Church.

As it is currently a denomination in complete collapse, rapidly shrinking and in the midst of its own schisms over progressive trends in it, I can’t see it as a very long term solution.\

DKL, you need to do some more reading about the early Nauvoo era.

I’d also just add that within the church, it’s not like were consigning people to fire and brimestone, eternities of suffering. The Lord looks on the heart and knows if you’re a good person. I hope beyond the resurrection those who struggle with issues of sexual morality will have some kind of path laid out for them to follow. But what is the person of the church as the kingdom of God on the earth? Is it to win everyone an entrance ticket into heaven? No, it’s to teach and administer the ordinances unto salvation and put the members on the path to exaltation.

Surely many who think they are saved will not be and many who we think of as damned may actually be closer to exaltation when we are resurrected. No matter what, those who are good people will have better than what they have now in the end. But the church is dealing with helping people to become joint heirs with Christ. There is a very specific list that we must follow in becoming that. I think it very possible that some who are unable to be a part of that program in this life, may very well be able to be on it beyond the veil according to the desires of their heart and the extent to which they used their agency here in this life. Something I’m not at all equipped to judge. Signing out the “debate” for now… but rather if you have a view point of how things would play out or what you think the ideal (or as close to it as possible) situation should be I would be interested in reading your thoughts.

#83 c

You state: “It’s a moral/immoral argument” as opposed to a liberal/conservative argument.

The problem with this is that that really isn’t what this country is founded upon. Laws are supposed to be just, not necessarily “moral”, because the definition of “moral” is so different for different people.

In the LDS Church, we currently prohibit alcohol in all forms, yet it is still legal. We are taught that pornography is immoral, yet it is still legal as well. At various times in the past, we were taught that birth control was immoral, yet it was still legal.

And not too long ago, we were on the opposite side of the issue. The majority of the country felt polygamous marriages were immoral while we were taught that they were essential for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. We argued that we had the right to marry however we wanted. We fought for the right to polygamy in court. We promised we’d stop yet secretly still had marriages performed.

So your argument that it’s a “moral/immoral” issue doesn’t really work in my opinion.

C #83.
think you should have given Elder Packer’s talk since I think that is ultimately what he was TRYING to say.

Errr… Mike we’re talking about the church’s position here. As related to a split in the church who feel one way or another on the issue. Prop 8 exposed those rifts, but I was not even attempting to make a civil argument, but rather looking at how we approach the dialogue with each other as church members.

In a civil sense, I think the concept of moral and justice is not so stark as you suggest. Moral deals with right and wrong, justice deals with fairness. I think both components are important in society, and the devil is in the details -and- up to society to decide. Societies can and should decide what societies deem appropriate. And the individuals in society should be able to apply their individual help principles in determining their position. But that’s a whole ‘nother issue is it not?

c., the orientation/action distinction is not difficult so it is not clear what your confusion is.

The point is that one is not morally culpable or under condemnation for “simply being gay”. Statements from General Authorities acknowledge that the basis for homosexuality is not well understood and may well be inborn. Being born gay is no more immoral than being born left-handed (which, you might be surprised to know, actually was considered immoral or at least morally suspect up until the nineteenth century).

However, engaging in homosexual sex is immoral just like engaging in heterosexual sex outside of marriage is immoral.

This is the orientation/action distinction. If you “suffer” from “same sex attraction”, as I have heard the Church refer to it, then that in and of itself is not something that is immoral. It is only if you act on it that you are acting against God’s will.

For this reason I am aware of people who confirm that they are gay but who nevertheless are considered worthy and hold callings, etc., because the orientation/action distinction is being respected by their local leaders.

Also, I think that what we take from Elder Jensen’s statements and actions with regard to gay Mormons is that we as a body of saints (certainly this is the case with Elder Jensen) should have tremendous sympathy for our gay brothers and sisters because they have this characteristic but are not ever able to act on it, i.e. to experience an intimate, loving relationship with the partner they would choose if they were at liberty to follow their hearts, meaning a person of their own gender. So given that they must obey the law of chastity, which Elder Jensen believes precludes homosexual intimacy, they are in many ways held to a higher standard than straight members of the Church, who can marry and have such an intimate relationship with the partner of their choosing. So our gay brothers and sisters find themselves obliged to commit to a program of “super chastity” as my friend J. Max Wilson has termed it, and they truly deserve our sympathy because it is a long, lonely road for them.

I think the Church has moved well away from trying to advise homosexuals to marry heterosexually in an effort to “overcome” homosexuality.

It seems that the emphasis is on overcoming temptation to commit sexual sin, i.e. to break the law of chastity, and not on “overcoming” homosexuality.

Boy, am I sorry to be late to this party.

bbell–are you really proposing that an entire ward or stake is “going rogue?” While I am not personally familiar with that corner of the vineyard, I have a hard time believing it is not chock-full of Republicans, Utahns, and standard conservative (politically or socially) LDS just like every other stake in the US. On a different thread, someone identified the Oakland stake and my own stake as being similarly liberal. It makes me laugh. If only! While we do have liberal (in many senses) members in leadership positions, we also have many more moderate and conservative members among us who, undoubtedly, roll their eyes at us and our silly Sunday School comments, shake their heads at our bumper stickers, and quietly wish they went to Church in TX with more like-minded people.

We are not near Schism. Frankly, it is kind of offensive to think that the testimonies of these devoted Saints (and heck, aren’t we all devoted? It’s not the easy thing to be Mormon in most places) is being questioned, that they are being labeled apostate or halfway apostate, or on the road to apostasy because they are concerned about the people around them. When I heard President Packer’s talk I, for one, thought “oh, he just doesn’t have a personal relationship with anyone who identifies as gay;” if he did, I doubt he would talk like that. Hence, the generational divide others have mentioned. Maybe the same could be said of you, bbell: do you not know any faithful and socially liberal LDS? If you did, would you talk about them like this?

For one thing, in our Church, in established areas, there is no way to develop a cult of personality required to make such a jump. Charismatic leaders are always balanced out by dull bishoprics or loud complaints to Area Authorities. No one has the chance to be in office long enough to be really radical, IMO.

FWIW, there is a CoC meetinghouse about 10 minutes from where I live. I have been. Their local leader is a former LDS and RM. I don’t know his story, but I do know he took OUR missionary discussions last year and has attended OUR meetings in a neighboring ward, where he was considered an investigator.

Aside from that information, I am guessing any local congregation would be kind of happy to see a small group of LDS show up and want to join them, but if they become a large group, wouldn’t that be kind of a drag? Yes, it would. They would want to conduct meetings and follow agendas and have rules and put everyone to sleep.

annegb–I too believe in the Church. That is why I am a Mormon.

98
People in the church marry for sex all the time. That isn’t necessarily a recipe for a successful marriage. I’ve seen countless gays with FRIENDS of the opposite sex and friendship is a much better foundation for a marriage than sex anyway. A successful marriage is built on unselfishness and honestly striving to make the spouse happy. You don’t need to lust after someone to want to make them happy. In fact, if you are lusting after someone, you probably are more interested in them making you “Happy” (eyebrow waggle)
I for one would not object to a former lesbian daughter-in-law. Her choices in the past don’t matter nearly as much as her choices in the future. That’s what the Atonement is for.

And Anne,
I do believe the church is true and that is why I’m still a member.

I am deeply impressed and heartened that there’s an active gay Mormon serving on the high council. I think this is the correct way for the issue to be handled. IF the church is wrong about homosexuality, this will be corrected in time. Rebelling or forming another church isn’t the solution.

If God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove; IF Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, then membership isn’t optional. I know as much as anybody—more than most!—that the organization of the church is imperfect. Human beings being what they are and all.

The Church of Christ—and they sound like very nice people—-simply doesn’t have the authority. Don’t mind my grammar.

This is kind of an aside. But I think a lot of our members are very un-Christ-like in their behavior. They rigidly cling to doctrine, or what they think is doctrine, and hide behind scripture and fail to love. So they can be doctrinally right, yet spiritually wrong. This is what I think happened in California. They got carried away into hate in the process of defending their beliefs. They got carried away in fear.

I don’t know why Mormons are so prone to this rigid judgmental attitude; so prone to exclude the different, but I sure see it, and experience it regularly. You wouldn’t believe how many people are afraid I’m going to rub off on them. I’m pretty sure my visiting teacher calls her name into the temple and has her husband give her a blessing before she enters my house. And assigns herself to me because she’s afraid I’ll influence other sisters. To leave the tea party or something. The shock I’m feeling from people when I say “Obama is pretty cool, I read his book” you wouldn’t believe. That moment of silence.

The other thing that occurred to me is, are Catholics experiencing a schism? What about the Black Baptists who supported prop 8? Are there parts of their congregations who are talking about forming their own church sympathetic to gay marriage? Mormons weren’t alone in their opposition to gay marriage. Maybe that group should all band together in a church called Californians in favor of gay marriage and believe in God.

Bill’s old school and for him, this is a no-brainer. He didn’t even notice Elder Packer’s talk. I’m a little more liberal than he and less easily shocked.

But you know, I love that show “Modern Family”—I think it’s the funniest new show out there. Last week they had an episode called “The Kiss” where the gay couple deal with one partner’s reluctance to express affection in public. They did share a discreet peck at the end of the show and then were shown cuddled up on the couch eating popcorn and watching TV. I was mildly grossed out. And bothered. And at the same time, intrigued, curious. And I wondered, “is this the part where first we laugh, then accept, then embrace?”

I wish God were much more specific here because I’m confused. In the meantime, I’m holding on to the Iron Rod, even though it galls me, considering my stake president
STILL WON’T LET WOMEN OPEN A MEETING IN PRAYER IN OUR STAKE!!!! Boy, would I like a “thus saith the Lord” on that one.

John F.

I am a pretty big admirer of Elder Jensen and see him as being on a short list at least in my head for a call to the Quorum of the 12. I actually can think of a couple of my comments in the past few years where I sing his praises. Esp when the naccle was digesting the PBS piece on the church.

This post is not about him. Its about what I have been posting about. Namely are we seeing the environment in Oakland that could lead to schism at some distant point?

So do you sustain Elder Packer? Much of the bloggernacle is highly critical of him. See how this starts in regards to schism? GA’s with certain leanings start to get followings of likeminded folks

Ann,

On of my YM is currently serving a mission in Oakland. I sent him an email asking him what he is seeing on the ground there.

@98 Trevor – So you’re saying that gays have less agency than everybody else? That they have less free will, and are ‘forced’ into their lifestyles?

Can you ‘choose’ to find joy is fasting, even though you are hungry? Of course, people do it all the time. You can change what you ‘like’ or what ‘attracts’ you, but it requires honest evaluation and effort. It requires commitment and sacrifice.

An addiction is an addiction. Whether it’s substance-based or behavior-based, it’s still an addiction. If somebody were to claim that they are hooked on pornography and they just can’t help it, would you tell them to simply embrace the fact and enjoy their porn? Or would you suggest they get help to counter their addiction?

To answer your question, I wouldn’t want my son or daughters to marry somebody who was a former alcoholic. I wouldn’t want them to marry somebody who was a former thief, or a former murderer. I want the best for my kids, and that means somebody who has sought and maintained temple worthiness throughout their life. Somebody who has engaged in homosexual practices obviously has serious issues with the law of morality (either understanding it or obeying it), and I would not want my children in a relationship with somebody that has that type of track record.

I firmly believe that God does not give us any test that He does not also provide a solution for, and that He does not force us into sin. We have been told by prophets ancient and modern that homosexuality is a sin. In faith with that, we must then believe that the Lord’s Atonement provides a way for those ensnared by it to repent and build lives worthy of exaltation. Everybody has a choice as to how they will live their lives. By claiming that ‘they can’t help it’ and ‘it’s just who they are’, you absolve them of their agency, and deny them the blessings of the atonement. You treat them as animals who are slaves to their passions and instincts, rather than children of God who are capable of becoming more than they are. Perhaps they have genetic weaknesses for certain behaviors, but that does not mean they are powerless to make themselves better.

We are never ‘trapped’ until we give up looking for a way out.

bbell, do you believe Elder Jensen was going against the wishes of the church when he attended that meeting? If the church believed it was any sort of schism, would they have let him go to do anything other than gently reprimand the leaders for letting it happen?

BBell,
Where in the world are you getting your information? ‘Bearing witness’ of their relationships? That wasn’t what it was about–but I admit I’m not even sure how you bear witness of your relationship other than show up together and hold hands, or wear wedding rings or something. That may have been the case, and if so, where’s the problem?

ESO,
It’s a big assumption on your part that Elder Packer does not know anyone gay–and thus speaks. Are we to assume then that the only way we can relate to anyone in this life, have compassion and watch our words is if we directly know someone in every given situation? Are you saying the only reason you don’t use language Elder Packer does is because you do know someone who is gay?

mmiles–yeah, of course, I have no idea who Elder Packer knows and does not. I think it is pretty clear from my comment that that was MY thought when I heard him talk like that. Without exception, the people I have known who have spoken callously about homosexuality have not had thought they had personal relationships with someone who identified as gay. When someone in their family or circle of friends comes out, there is generally an increase understanding or compassion. Because it is more socially acceptable to be out now, younger people are much more likely to have a relationship with someone who identifies as gay. I think that is the source of the “generational divide” on this subject that others have described. Also in my experience, those who harbor racial prejudice, and particularly those who articulate it, are generally people who have no personal relationships with people of races not their own. When that changes, often their attitudes, or their willingness to share them, also changes.

Please can we stick to the post?

This post is not about the Jensen meeting. Its about schism and apostacy and what steps it takes to get there. My source for the meeting in Berkeley is none other then Johanna Brooks

“And on July 6, 2010, the Berkeley LDS ward (congregation) hosted a community meeting featuring GLBT people from a number of faith traditions sharing their testimonies of faith and stories of their marriages as a form of “spiritual practice.””

The full article can be found here.

John F my personal ministry is in line with current LDS teaching on SSA. In fact last year we devoted an entire 45 minutes to the current understanding. And spent some time on the orientation vs action issue

ESO, the Pete Knights of the world who have homosexual relatives and don’t agree or sympathize with them just get beat with the other end of the same stick.

palad #111:

I agree with Trevor. Comparisons of SSA to addictions like alcohol or porn or behaviors we all agree are illegal or destructive are completely inapposite and unhelpful, and not for the reasons you seem to think.

You get addicted to alcohol and porn by experiencing alcohol and porn. One is not “born addicted” to such things, and if there is a genetic component to addiction (as indeed there may be) you might never know it because experiencing alcohol and/or porn is completely voluntary. If you choose to avoid these things, as our church teaches you should, then even a genetic predisposition to addiction would pose no problem for you.

Sexual attraction is not like that. You cannot avoid all contact with people, nor are you expected to. We are taught to have friendships and other casual relationships with people. During these contacts it normally becomes obvious that we are attracted to some of the people we come in contact with. Heterosexuals are sexually attracted to some members of the opposite sex. Not all members. Just some. Homosexuals are attracted to some members of the same sex. Again, not all, just some. These attractions are not “addictions.” They are not evil in themselves. They are just a part of people’s normal interactions. Our Church does not condemn people for having homosexual attractions, nor should it, because one does not choose this. Whether it comes as a result of biology or environment or a combination of both, it just is what it is.

For heterosexuals, our Church encourages marriage and sexual activity with a person to whom one is attracted. For homosexuals, our Church does not allow any hope of ever having any sexual relationship with anyone to whom one is attracted. Please note that even if one could somehow ignore or get rid of one’s attraction to some members of the same sex, that does not mean that one could somehow learn to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. So no marriage or full relationship to someone you are attracted to is possible, even though you are expected to interact with and associate closely with people every day, some of whom you may be attracted to.

Please understand how it sounds to someone in this position when you liken them to someone who is addicted to porn or alcohol or violence or some other illegal or immoral thing. They are not in the same position as those people. Many have engaged in no sexual behavior at all. Many are very young when they realize they have these feelings. Your rhetoric is destructive and hateful to them. Change it please.

MCQ, I’ve made the comparison between the genetic tendency to alcoholism and homosexuality before and I do believe it can be a fair comparison. If someone has an inborn tendency toward any behavior we believe is wrong (be it alcoholism, homosexuality, promiscuity, rage, or whatever), we do not believe that gives them the free pass to do it. It absolutely gives a person a bigger challenge in that area, but it’s still expected that the person will work on controlling it and not just embrace it, give in, and say they cannot help it. Just because it’s part of their genetic makeup does not mean agency regarding behavior has been removed or absolved.

viv: MCQ, I’ve made the comparison between the genetic tendency to alcoholism and homosexuality before and I do believe it can be a fair comparison. If someone has an inborn tendency toward any behavior we believe is wrong (be it alcoholism, homosexuality, promiscuity, rage, or whatever), we do not believe that gives them the free pass to do it. It absolutely gives a person a bigger challenge in that area, but it’s still expected that the person will work on controlling it and not just embrace it, give in, and say they cannot help it. Just because it’s part of their genetic makeup does not mean agency regarding behavior has been removed or absolved.

viv, comparing homosexuality to addiction is pretty disgusting. Being an alcoholic, even an high-functioning alcoholic, keeps a person from leading an healthy, productive life. Homosexuality does not.

Telling homosexuals that they’ll be straight in the afterlife is like telling blacks they’ll be white in the afterlife. In other words, it’s patently offensive, and worse: It undermines the strength of a person’s identity and it destroys the self-worth of individual

Sigh,

2nd threadjack

Tom O, I think that’s a scary important question. It had never occurred to me before.

Bbell, sorry but that cracked me up.

Interesting distinction between messages and decisions (ie doctrine?).

God makes mistakes. It’s true. Some people are born with both sets of sex organs. What about my friend’s baby born without a brain only to die later? If we say no he doesn’t and that was meant to happen to teach my friend something, then there’s still the acknowledgement that the baby differed substantially from the norm.

So if he doesn’t make mistakes, how do explain all the inequities in the world? It’s a kind of doublespeak and I don’t have the answer. But I think the Oakland stake president has found a finite solution. For now.

Which will prevent a schism in the Oakland stake.

DKL – I agree that equating homosexuality with addiction is off the mark-but so is equating with race.

viv,

MCQ and DKL have already addressed your most recent comment and have pointed out useful distinctions. In short, if you have an genetic predisposition towards alcoholism yet never take a sip then you’ll not spend your life yearning for alcohol. Do you see the difference?

“MCQ, I’ve made the comparison between the genetic tendency to alcoholism and homosexuality before and I do believe it can be a fair comparison”

That’s the statement I was taking issue with, viv. It’s not a fair comparison. For the reasons I stated, it’s a destructive, hurtful and offensive comparison. Whatever reasons you have for making it are insufficient when it causes harm and hatred in our brothers and sisters.

MCQ, I get your point insofar as your argument against it, but I still maintain you’ve missed my point. Like I posted to ARJ, substitute alcoholism with a different behavior that may have genetic roots, then. I still believe the comparison is a fair one in terms of the point I’m trying to make about there being no free pass on behavior. I went with alcoholism initially because it’s one of the more well-known ones that has a genetic component, not because of the addiction aspect. Note I always pointed at the genetic tendency for the comparison, not the addiction. All analogies/comparisons break down beyond a certain point, and I was never trying to argue that alcoholic addiction and homosexuality are the same.

viv, we can agree that there is no free pass for behavior. No one is saying there is, least of all me. It seems that both you and Palad are assuming that if someone states that SSA is at all biological in origin, then we are allowing or excusing those who decide to participate in homosexual sex. That is emphatically not the case.

Also, those who talk about the possibility of changing sexual attraction through the spirit would be wise to shut up about it unless they’ve actually done it. i do not deny it as a possibility, but I know enough of others experiences to know that if it can happen, it is a desperately difficult and lengthy process.

It is akin to saying to a quadriplegic, “Your inability to walk is not immutable. The Spirit can change your heart and make you able to walk and run like everyone else. You just need to quit putting your faith in excuses and admit the power of God in changing people.”

I am not the one devaluing people and equating their feelings with sin and self-destruction, Palad, you are doing that. I find it hard to imagine the Savior saying the things you’re saying. That’s because he didn’t and neither does the Church say those things. I wonder why you’re saying them.

I don’t think so Stephen, because the compulsion to overeat is not discovered unless one overeats to the point of self-destruction. My point is that SSA is a fact of life for some and is discovered in the normal course of life without their necessarily engaging in any sin or destructive behavior whatsoever.

Why do we have to compare it to an addiction? It really isn’t one. Quit trying to fit the sqaure peg in the round hole.

MCQ, compulsive eating disorders are discovered the moment one eats and are a fact of life. They become destructive only when enough food is available. Anyway, I’m not saying it is an addiction, I was just pointing out that there are addictive behaviors that fit the model.

Noting of course the difference, twelve step programs like AA or OA work, I’ve yet to see one for SSA that was effective.

Mark D., I’m pretty sure no one was talking about their sex lives. There is more to marriage–even gay marriage–than sex, you know…

Arggh! I can’t go to bed now because “someone on the internet is wrong.”

bbell, you say that an SP in Texas would never hold a meeting like the Berkeley stake, but I think you’re wrong. It would simply take a situation causing as much controversy regarding an issue that Texan members were passionate about. What if the Church came out and decided to support stringent gun control and environmental policy? (Certainly not the same level of controversy as gay marriage…)? If you had significant members of your stake at each other’s throats, your SP might hope for some meeting that allowed people to talk about their feelings (without changing the Church’s stance).

To take queuno point a bit west of Texas, what if a SP brought Latino members together with supporters of Arizona’s recent immigration laws? I don’t see any difference between that and what happened in California (other than the church doesn’t care about illegal immigration and would probably be trying to calm down the people that supported it).

omg,you evil gays, no matter how you rationalize it being a fag is not allowed in the church and it will never be! no prophet will ever say it was a glitch and it will be ok one day! if that would ever happen we’de be way worse off then sodom and gomora or the days of noah when God destroyed the people because of their wickedness and cause the lusted after strange flesh and when angels visited (who were men)a biblical figure tried to offer up his daughter but the gays wanted the men, thats one of the main reasons they were destroyed, when we get to a point where it is normal to be gay we are ripe for distruction. Being gay will never be ok so stop waiting for the day if you want to be gay so bad weight until you go to hell and the devil will get you from behind cause thats the only action youll get!