- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If someone has already linked to this, let me know and I’ll delete. Grant Hardy lays it out succinctly:
https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/rifts-mormon-family-what-just-happened Quote:Earlier this month, on Nov. 5th, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints quietly changed a handbook that is available only to church leaders.
The changes stipulated that any Mormons in same-sex marriages were to be considered apostates, which would likely result in their excommunication. In addition, their minor children were to be denied naming blessings, baptism, confirmation, and priesthood ordinations (universal for adolescent males), which would likely result in their alienation from the faith.
When the new policies were leaked, there was an immediate outcry from Latter-day Saints on social media, including those who accept the church’s categorization of homosexual behavior as sin, but who nevertheless feel the new rules punished children for their parents’ choices.
On Nov. 6th, one of the Twelve Apostles gave a hastily-arranged interview to explain the changes to the faithful, noting that the new policies followed the precedent of dealing with polygamists, and that the intent was to protect minor children from religious conflict in their homes.
The current controversy stands in contrast with the events in June (2015); after the Supreme Court struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, the First Presidency sent a letter to all local church leaders in the United States reiterating the church’s position that while same-sex marriage was now legal, it was still prohibited for Latter-day Saints. Mormon bishops were forbidden to perform such marriages or allow church facilities to be used for same-sex weddings or receptions.
Leaders were instructed to read the letter to all adults and teenagers in Sunday meetings, and because the letter was in line with what most Mormons already believed, it was taken in stride.
However, the recent, non-public change to the leaders’ handbook continued to cause turmoil as many pointed out that Mormon children are often raised by parents who are not keeping LDS standards—resulting in religious tension at home—and that most of those affected by the new policies would be children in joint custody situations.
The First Presidency responded in a statement on Nov. 13 indicating that the rules were only to be applied to families in which the same-sex parents were the primary caregivers, and thus would apply to far fewer children.
The next day, Nov. 14th, a rally was held in Salt Lake City at which some 1500 Latter-day Saints were reported to have resigned their membership, the largest such protest in the history of the LDS Church.
More troubling to top church leaders, however, is that many of those who expressed concerns were active, believing Latter-day Saints, including some of the local leaders charged with implementing the new policies. This is nearly unprecedented in Mormondom.
What changed between June and November?
The new regulations, intended to prevent the normalization of same-sex families in church settings, represent a significant shift in how gay and lesbian Mormons interact with other church members. The regulations also appear to set basic doctrinal principles at odds with one another.
For instance, core tenets of Mormonism include agency, the innocence of children, and the rejection of original sin. Withholding baptism from the children of willing parents is virtually unheard of. And to suggest that some teenagers will do just fine without the gift of the Holy Ghost—which is conferred at confirmation—does not square with standard LDS teachings.
It’s true that the LDS Church employed stringent policies to stamp out polygamy in the early 20th century, but same-sex marriage today is quite different. One practice was illegal and scorned; the other lawful and increasingly accepted. The children of polygamists are often socialized to become polygamists, while children of same-sex marriages are overwhelmingly heterosexual.
Given the history of polygamy in early Mormonism, those who cling to the practice claim higher religious authority and are often part of an underground movement. In other words, they are apostates. By contrast, the decision to marry someone of the same sex cannot be supported with quotations from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.
Apostasy, in Mormon thought, entails a direct challenge to church authority and requires mandatory disciplinary councils, along with murder, incest, and child abuse. Other sins, even serious sins, do not rise to the same level, and disciplinary councils are left to the discretion of local leaders.
Many LGBT Mormons accept the church’s high valuation of marriage and children, yet labeling same-sex marriage as apostasy makes a lifetime, legally-binding commitment between gays or lesbians a more serious sin than gay promiscuity.
Furthermore, the mandatory disciplinary councils suggest that same-sex marriage is worse than attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, or spousal abuse, all listed in the Handbook as sins for which “formal church discipline may be necessary” (emphasis in the original).
It should be noted that although LGBT issues have roiled many American denominations in recent years, the stakes are higher for Latter-day Saints. Salvation in Mormonism occurs at the level of families rather than individuals. The highest degree of heaven is reserved for husband and wife pairs, with a promise of eternal procreation, just as all humankind began as spirit children of a Heavenly Father and Mother.
Family members must be sealed to each other through ceremonies in LDS temples. The loss of any family member from the faith breaks this chain, yet it is not at all clear how gays or lesbians would fit into the grand family scheme of heaven.
At this point, there is no theology for how to integrate LGBT siblings or children into the church other than lifelong celibacy. And if Mormons are forced to choose between church and family, many will choose family.
Another area of contention concerns church authority. While there is some flexibility in policy-making, fundamental doctrines are revealed, it is believed, not only in scripture but also to modern prophets and apostles.
However the distinction between doctrine and policy is not always sharp, and despite an assumption that the highest church leaders are not infallible, there is a sense that it is disloyal to point out any potential mistakes. It has also been troubling to some faithful LDS that changes of such significance seem not to have been well thought out beforehand.
So gay and lesbian Mormons, whether married or not, are upset; extended families of LGBT Latter-day Saints are upset; some devout members are upset at policies they perceived as draconian or doctrinally problematic; conservative Mormons are upset with fellow congregants who questioned the wisdom of the changes or the inspiration of leaders; and senior church leaders are undoubtedly upset at how all these decisions were rolled out. That’s a lot of unhappiness over a few lines in a handbook.
For Mormons, anxiety over the changing definition of marriage is not simply a matter of conservative prejudice; it is an issue with deep theological consequences which appear to contradict God’s plan for eternal families.
Yet many LDS families in the here and now are feeling keen discomfort, and the Mormon community as a whole, which operates more like a world-wide family than most other denominations, has discovered rifts that go beyond the old distinctions between active and inactive members.
I read it yesterday. I am really hoping someone in the top PR or leadership will read it. Grant is a standard blogger, to have it laid out so well by a man who has been in Stake Presidencies and is considered pretty TBM might go along way. I will keep my fingers crossed. I want to mention that we had a wonderful sacrament meeting. A sister, who is as sweet as can be, stood up and said (paraphrasing), “I know this might upset some, but I am deeply hurt by the policy change and I have found that I have to just ask Christ to hold that pain for me as I realize in my heart my desires stem from love.” It had me almost to the point of tears running down my face. I was considering not going as I was worried someone would say in SS or Priesthood, “believe it 100% or we don’t want you faithless people here” and I would explode it a bit of anger over it. mom3 wrote:I read it yesterday. I am really hoping someone in the top PR or leadership will read it. Grant is a standard blogger, to have it laid out so well by a man who has been in Stake Presidencies and is considered pretty TBM might go along way. I will keep my fingers crossed.
I have lots of respect for him. I think he’s also passionate about the Book of Mormon and sees it partly as a call forinclusion. He and his wife have worked hard in their sphere to invite. Our sacrament meeting yesterday was a call to arms. I couldn’t have disagreed more with people I couldn’t love more. I can’t tell if it’s strengthening or weakening my connection to the church.
I’m seeing that Hardy’s article is also appearing in The Atlantic. Unfortunately now, more than one article pops up when I put in the search terms: Mormon, draconian.
Thanks for posting. These type of articles / blogs helps me articulate and sort out my own feelings. On the doctinre / policy point. I recently attended a meeting only for high level local leaders; virtually every bishop and member of the stake presidency supported a hard stance about this policy and not much compassion. The statement was made by several that if they hear a member oppose this policy or support SSM that they are not supporting the prophet and they will pull the members temple recommend. Very disappointing. If leaders at the top are surrounded with attitudes like this, this could be a slow-to-die policy.
For me there are so many inconsistencies that I don’t see how you *can’t* be conflicted by the policy.
Roadrunner wrote:On the doctinre / policy point. I recently attended a meeting only for high level local leaders; virtually every bishop and member of the stake presidency supported a hard stance about this policy and not much compassion. The statement was made by several that if they hear a member oppose this policy or support SSM that they are not supporting the prophet and they will pull the members temple recommend. Very disappointing. If leaders at the top are surrounded with attitudes like this, this could be a slow-to-die policy.
I hope that there were conflicted individuals there but just did not have the courage to speak up. In our history, we have done some truly horrible things in the name of following the prophet. Everyone wants to display their loyalty. Someone decides to go one step further and threaten to yank TR’s from members who support SSM (never mind that we have been given specific permission to follow our conscience on this matter from an apostle). Now it would be even harder for a struggling bishop to express a dissenting opinion. Round and round it goes. Hopefully, cooler heads and reasonable discussion can prevail.
I hope we can learn from the debacle of Sidney Rigdon’s “Salt Sermon.”
Has there been any clarification on this issue?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.