Law of Chastity and SSM

Good question and I’m glad you asked it. I was thinking of mentioning this exact same thing in the “What a leader should say…” thread but the admin warnings to keep the discussion ultra-focused on just what a leader should say prevented me from doing so.

I’m sure the position of the church is that a same sex couple that is sexually active but legally married is not living the law of chastity. I know it’s apples and oranges but I see the caveat for abortion in the TR interview as setting precedent. Abortion is legal but the church still considers it “a most serious matter” in all but a few named instances. I believe that question exists to remove any ambiguity that legalized abortion might create. I’d expect a similar clarifying question in the case of same sex marriages. I’m guessing that the church would still expect the couple to remain celibate, despite being married.

We’ll Nibbler, I guess you found the answer. I never thought of the abortion comparison, but it was an appropriate one before you found the link. Thank you for clarifying. I think perhaps they may also tweak the verbiage in the endowment also. A simple change to man and woman from husband and wife would clarify it in all situations.

It’s not on the official list of TR interview questions but I’ve been asked that question from time to time.

It is definitely on the list of baptism interview questions. It’s probably the case of some leaders inadvertently blurring the lines between the two sets of interview questions.

Can a homosexual who says he or she is living the law of chastity, even though they may not have in the past, be baptized?

I don’t know why they wouldn’t be able to be baptized. Do they ask if you have SSA in the baptismal questions? There are many, many people who have not lived the law of chastity in the past and then they change their behavior and are baptized. (Okay, there are probably some who don’t change their behavior and are baptized). Not to mention the numbers of couples who are living together and then get married just so they can get baptized.

If a person has not been raised LDS, I don’t really see the draw to a religion that says they can be who they are if they don’t act on it physically. I haven’t heard of many gays or lesbians knocking down the doors asking to hear the discussions. But I have been known to be wrong on more than one occasion.

That brings up another related question – can legally married homosexuals be baptized? (My guess is no.) Can a homosexual who says he or she is living the law of chastity, even though they may not have in the past, be baptized?

I just read the following excerpt from Desseret News:

This was the case for John Gustav-Wrathall, Affirmation senior vice president, who returned to church after decades of not attending. Having married a man and being excommunicated, he was worried he might be turned away.

“Live as much of the gospel as you can and I’m here to support you in living as much of the gospel as you can,” he said his bishop told him. He added that although he could not be baptized while in a gay relationship, his bishop let him know that he belonged in the ward.

This seems to indicate that if you enter into SSM then you will be excommunicated (at least at one time – no word on if that has changed in the intervening “decades”). It further seems to indicate that if the gay relationship stopped baptism would be an option (followed by excommunication if the relationship resumed?).

That brings up another related question – can legally married homosexuals be baptized? (My guess is no.) Can a homosexual who says he or she is living the law of chastity, even though they may not have in the past, be baptized?

I baptized a gay man on my mission. He was not married or in a relationship at the time but he still had to get approval from the SP and MP.

I think the easy answer to that question is that same-sex marriage is not valid marriage in God’s eyes and that therefore sexual activity in such relationships is immoral.

And if someone believes that same-sex marriage is acceptable to God, then they are not only declining to accept official Church teaching on the subject but also disbelieving what the Bible says on the matter. In other words, this isn’t simply a matter of what the Church teaches but also what the Bible pretty clearly teaches on marriage and homosexuality.

OK, I am fine with that. In the end the church, church leaders, and the scriptures are not THE most important to me. It is my relationship with God and me doing what he said. I have seen church teachings change so much and scriptures get twisted and put against other scripture that I feel I must rely mainly on the holy ghost to confirm to me of the truthfulness.

It is not my job to correct where I see the church is off-base – that is for the leaders. I don’t look for places to get on a megaphone and spout my personal feelings. I heard it put well by brother Armand Mauss in his discussion with Bill Reed on mormondiscussionpodcast.org (currently released as a premium subscriber podcast, but usually those are released later). He stated that he felt the church was wrong on it’s stand with the blacks and the priesthood. He said he could point to what he saw the affects were of this policy, but it was not his place as a member to tell the brethren they needed to change. Eventually he was vindicated in his stance, but he felt he never ventured into actions that were improper.

Like many things, it is easy to have a theoretical stance/agreement on something. When you have someone close affected in a serious way, such as the high number of LDS gay youth committing suicide, it can have a dramatic change in your beliefs.

Have a great Sunday!