I had to read this article title regarding the church supporting same-sex rights twice

[Anonymous]

Here is an interesting article that shows the church is willing to support same-sex rights, while still maintaining its stance that same sex relationships are a sin:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-church-comes-support-same-222005071.html

[Anonymous]

I speculate that the church now knows that fighting to make it illegal for gay people to live together as spouses and have families makes the church appear mean spirited. Also, I imagine that they feel that the best way to help make sure that religious protections are included is to have a seat at the table.

Quote:

The faith opposes laws that would make it illegal for churches to not allow to same-sex couples to marry on their property.

I had to reread this sentence carefully. Essentially the church wants for it to be legal to prohibit same sex marriages on church property. I honestly don’t have a problem with that.

[Anonymous]

I came across this on a national news source, then read the Salt Lake Tribune article (The Deseret news seems to be all but ignoring it). There is an official church statement here, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement” class=”bbcode_url”>https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement and an excerpt:

Quote:

We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.

I think it’s a step in the right direction. From what I’m gathering the language in the amendment which seems to protect churches from being required to perform gay marriages is what turned the tide and gained church support. The sky-is-falling-battle-cry for anti-gay marriage churches has long been that they would be required to perform them. While this is not yet law, this is a step by the church. It’s also interesting that other anti-gay marriage churches don’t seem to be coming out in support or saying anything at all.

From another point of view, it’s about time the church stopped worrying about what non-members do.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Here is an interesting article that shows the church is willing to support same-sex rights, while still maintaining its stance that same sex relationships are a sin:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-church-comes-support-same-222005071.html

If you believe that the language in the bill will protect religious freedom, I’ve got a couple acres of ice in Antarctica that I’d like to sell you.

It seems like the Church is trying to strike a bargain here – they’ll back off from the legal issue if they are granted the religious freedom to not perform weddings they don’t want to perform.

But I think it would be naive to believe that the language in the bill will protect the Church on grounds of religious freedom. Based on what the cake-bakers had to go through to protect their religion freedom, it seems like the Church may be in for a similar battle.

[Anonymous]

InquiringMind wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Here is an interesting article that shows the church is willing to support same-sex rights, while still maintaining its stance that same sex relationships are a sin:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-church-comes-support-same-222005071.html

If you believe that the language in the bill will protect religious freedom, I’ve got a couple acres of ice in Antarctica that I’d like to sell you.

It seems like the Church is trying to strike a bargain here – they’ll back off from the legal issue if they are granted the religious freedom to not perform weddings they don’t want to perform.

But I think it would be naive to believe that the language in the bill will protect the Church on grounds of religious freedom. Based on what the cake-bakers had to go through to protect their religion freedom, it seems like the Church may be in for a similar battle.

I have no doubt that the church is not that naïve and would never support something like this if they weren’t sure, especially in light of all the anti-gay marriage bellowing they have done over the past few years under the guise of religious freedom.

[Anonymous]

I thought we had decided that StayLDS is not a place for political discussions.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

InquiringMind wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Here is an interesting article that shows the church is willing to support same-sex rights, while still maintaining its stance that same sex relationships are a sin:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-church-comes-support-same-222005071.html

If you believe that the language in the bill will protect religious freedom, I’ve got a couple acres of ice in Antarctica that I’d like to sell you.

It seems like the Church is trying to strike a bargain here – they’ll back off from the legal issue if they are granted the religious freedom to not perform weddings they don’t want to perform.

But I think it would be naive to believe that the language in the bill will protect the Church on grounds of religious freedom. Based on what the cake-bakers had to go through to protect their religion freedom, it seems like the Church may be in for a similar battle.

I have no doubt that the church is not that naïve and would never support something like this if they weren’t sure, especially in light of all the anti-gay marriage bellowing they have done over the past few years under the guise of religious freedom.

I speculate a few things. First, is the church stand on agency and the power and freedom of choice. All peoples have certain inalienable rights – which may not be empirically completed until one is an adult (Which seems to be physically about the age of 25 as the human brain reaches it executive function capabilities development). As long as individuals do not interfere with the right of others – especially children.

Second, I have long speculated that the church will someday no longer perform marriages in the temples. Rather the ordinance of the temple will remain a religious spiritual “sealing” of covenant between a biological man and biological woman according to G-d’s laws (which is a religious right). This would allow for marriage to be defined according to the laws of the land and later made religiously completed in the temples. I believe the Church is one step a head of what most are thinking.

Third, I speculate that the Church is attempting to position itself as an institution promoting compassion and kindness toward all. As a place of refuge for those seeking Christ and the notion that through repentance; sin can be overcome and a means to free those in bondage and captivity (be it an empirical or spiritual {spiritual being a religious defination} bondage and captivity).

[Anonymous]

InquiringMind wrote:

But I think it would be naive to believe that the language in the bill will protect the Church on grounds of religious freedom. Based on what the cake-bakers had to go through to protect their religion freedom, it seems like the Church may be in for a similar battle.

I would like to give my brief understanding of the cake bakers legal underpinnings:

1) Most businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on someone being a member of a protected class.

2) If I have a shop, I cannot say “whites only” even if my religion is somehow white supremist.

3) however, artists cannot be compelled to make art.

4) The cake bakers claimed that their cakes were works of art and that they should not be compelled to make art against their religious beliefs. This argument would also apply to photographers, videographers, maybe DJs and other sorts of performers etc.

Now religions as a whole have been given a significant exemption in the USA. For example a good number of churches have only male priests, pastors, ministers and this discrimination in employment is allowed because it is a church and the duties of the employee are religious in nature. Sometimes religion based schools practice discrimination for teaching staff and claim that the teaching staff are religious instructors.

I believe that for churches to be forced to officiate same-sex marriages on church property would most likely require a new constitutional amendment repealing the free exercise of religion clause in the first amendment to the constitution. IOW, it’s probably not going to happen.

But it does seem that the church has been worried about it (understandably so given the history with polygamy and the US government crack down) and they would like for as many protections and carveouts written into law as possible.

[Anonymous]

Watcher wrote:

Second, I have long speculated that the church will someday no longer perform marriages in the temples. Rather the ordinance of the temple will remain a religious spiritual “sealing” of covenant between a biological man and biological woman according to G-d’s laws (which is a religious right). This would allow for marriage to be defined according to the laws of the land and later made religiously completed in the temples. I believe the Church is one step a head of what most are thinking.

Yes, I could see this happen in my lifetime. This is also consistent with how it is done in many other countries. The marriage is a civil contract done down at the courthouse. The sealing is a religious ratification of that marriage.

Watcher wrote:

Third, I speculate that the Church is attempting to position itself as an institution promoting compassion and kindness toward all. As a place of refuge for those seeking Christ and the notion that through repentance; sin can be overcome and a means to free those in bondage and captivity (be it an empirical or spiritual {spiritual being a religious defination} bondage and captivity).

I concur. I think the church has gotten a bit of a reputation lately as an anti-gay church. Any steps away from that stance are welcome.

From the official church statement:

Quote:

We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.

[Anonymous]

[Admin Note]: InquiringMind made a good point. If this is not framed in terms of staying LDS and, instead, is merely a political post, it is not appropriate for this forum. If it is about staying LDS, and if is discussed in that light, it is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

[Admin Note]: InquiringMind made a good point. If this is not framed in terms of staying LDS and, instead, is merely a political post, it is not appropriate for this forum. If it is about staying LDS, and if is discussed in that light, it is appropriate.

Of course I agree Old Timer, and I advocate the same point of view consistently. While this topic could easily stray into the realm of political discussion, I do believe the topic of the church’s stance on gay marriage and treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals and families is very relevant to the mission of StayLDS. As substantiated by The Next Mormons Study, a main reason given by younger people for leaving the church is treatment of LGBTQ+ members. Almost everyone at this point knows someone who has struggled with this issue, either LGBTQ+ themselves or having a loved one or close relationship with someone who is. Anecdotally in my own ward, every young person who has left the church in recent years has cited LGBTQ+ treatment as one of the reasons. In one family, the only son in a family of four children came out as gay in college (not BYU) and left the church followed by all three of his sisters and two of their spouses. These kids grew up in the ward, at least semi-active (the young man was very active, including being an Eagle Scout when that was a thing), and their parents are good people. We all know them and we all know why they left the church (the parents remain mostly active but clearly struggle).

I think pointing out the church’s slight change of stance, which did make national news, and the reasoning is relevant to the mission and does not need to be political in the sense of us vs. them, one party vs. the other, etc. – and I don’t think it has gone there.

[Anonymous]

InquiringMind wrote:

[Based on what the cake-bakers had to go through to protect their religion freedom, it seems like the Church may be in for a similar battle.

I agree. In Canada, where I used to live, after the rights of the LGBTQ community were entrenched in law, they then started petitioning for special tribunals meant to address incidences of discrimination against gay people. The idea was that gays could level an accusation against someone free of charge. But the defendant had to pay to be defended in the accusation. In one school board in Toronto, they have a gay person come into the classes of early elementary school kids and tell them its OK to have gay feelings etcetera, and the parents didn’t have any say as to whether their child would sit in on that class.

If the experience in Canada is any indication, proponents of gay rights will likely keep pushing their agenda, and I personally feel that religious freedoms may well be sacrificed in favor of LGBTQ community rights.

[Anonymous]

[Moderator note] I feel like the term alphabet community is pejorative and not respectful. From this moment forward let’s try to keep comments focused ONLY on the new stance from the church described in the OP or maybe on the relationship between the church and LGBTQ people and organizations more broadly. If we cannot do that then the thread will be locked. Thanks. [End moderator note]

[Anonymous]

A couple perspectives on why this change in the church’s stance is important:

From Allison Dayton of Lift + Love (a website which supports LDS LGBTQ+ people and familieshttps://www.liftandlove.org/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.liftandlove.org/ ) whose gay brother committed suicide and who is the mother of an LGBTQ+ child:

Quote:

“It answers, once and for all, the question: ‘Can members of the church support same-sex marriage?’ The answer is yes, and the church does, too [as long as it’s outside of the faith]. This news is an enormous relief to families of gay children who can now comfortably shower their gay children with the same love and support they give their straight children who marry.”

And from Gordon Monson, Salt Lake Tribune:

Quote:

And while the doctrine proclaiming that marriage should be between a man and a woman exists still, for the time being at least, the church’s backing of the bill protecting same-sex marriage is enough of a tip for all Latter-day Saints to jump aboard the good wagon without regret.

What does that do exactly?

It allows faithful members of every Latter-day Saint congregation, every Latter-day Saint family to throw their legal support behind not just same-sex marriage but also LGBTQ individuals all around. They can accept and embrace everyone, without reservation.

No duh, right?

Well, what’s been plain to a lot of folks around the country and around the world hasn’t always been so obvious to Latter-day Saints, based on the church’s position. Its oft-touted and oft-taught family proclamation, the one that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, has hurt and divided more than a few faithful Latter-day Saints, some who have family members and friends who are gay and who want to feel fulfilled in this life, feel the same opportunity for love in all its manifestations as heterosexual folks feel.

The doctrine may not have changed, but the church’s support for protecting the rights of LGBTQ couples in marriage is far more than a footnote.

It is more a foot in the door.

It is permission, for those inside the church who need such approval, to support those who love whom they love, regardless of gender.

Not sure how often Latter-day Saints in the past have felt comfortable vocalizing that support. Now, according to the proposed and supported codification of same-sex marriage, they can, as they support what the church has supported.

It may be convoluted and contradicting, but it is a joyful step in a progressive direction for a faith organization that preaches love for all, love for neighbors of every sort, but that sometimes has a strange way of showing it.

Certainly, many Latter-day Saints — not all — are eager to not just accept their family and friends who are LGBTQ but also to outwardly and openly rejoice in their wedded happiness.

And maybe those Latter-day Saints will be unafraid to speak about it among themselves and in church meetings, remembering the faith’s push for the bill, hanging better hope on it, whether it’s God’s law or the law of the land that God’s church supported.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

[Moderator note] I feel like the term alphabet community is pejorative and not respectful. From this moment forward let’s try to keep comments focused ONLY on the new stance from the church described in the OP or maybe on the relationship between the church and LGBTQ people and organizations more broadly. If we cannot do that then the thread will be locked. Thanks. [End moderator note]

I went back and changed my post to the acronym commonly used. I didn’t realize people find the term “alphabet community” pejorative and not respectful. I used it because I couldn’t get the right letters together in my post since I’d never spelled the common acronym ever before and didn’t want to look it up. So I opted for an easier-to-quote expression for the LGTBQ community that I thought was also acceptable. So, this helps me so I don’t make a faux pas using that term in more high-risk situations. I searched on Quora and people were divided about whether it’s offensive — one gay man said it didn’t bother him, others thought it was a matter of intent, and others found it offensive. So, it wasn’t a slam dunk.

When I was in high school someone called me an “awky” in a friendly way. I thought that meant someone who was awkward in a “ribbing” sort of way. I then used the term to tease one of my high school friends in front of one of my teachers on a hiking trip. The teacher told me to stay behind the group and, well, unlike this situation here, raked me over the coals because one of the students within earshot was in the high school “Occupations program”. The Occupations program was a course of study meant to ready teens (who were not academically inclined) for occupational careers in their teens. The term, in this teacher’s mind, was spelled “Occ-y” and referred pejoratively to students in the Occupations program. At the time, I remember feeling a bit unjustly treated because I wasn’t aware the term I thought meant “awkward” was (in my teacher’s mind) referring to students in that program. I felt blindsided.

So, back to the topic at hand — I think the stance of the church on the issue in the OP will likely help some of the people who are disenchanted with the church StayLDS. This is due to its historical stance on being gay, the fact that some members (some even on this site, in the past), have children or relatives who are gay. There will be others who will think it doesn’t go far enough. It will be interesting to see what the church looks like 100 years from now given its interaction with political trends in society.

[Author]

Posts