I left the Community of Christ for the opposite reason. I felt the church was pressuring me to support same-sex marriage.

The solution to the problem for LDS appears to be to leave the LDS church and join the Community of Christ. I can’t join the LDS church because I don’t believe in polygamy–when I joined the old RLDS church, I had already passed the LDS Church by.

George

Can you point me to some reference materials as to how you acquired this interpretation. I’m not saying its wrong and the scriptural account is indeed vague. How do you know its not just a bunch of Sodom’s residents hanging out at the entrance of the bathhouse. If they wanted to humiliate them by male-on-male rape, would there really have been any need for discussion about it, as the visiting party was presumably out-numbered?

Re: “these cities violated the expected norms of hospitality toward strangers”

This may also be true, but there isn’t much hospitality toward strangers (or even kinsmen) in the OT, so there should have been many more cities destroyed if this was the sin in question.

Re: Joseph Smith’s own preaching, in which he said that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “failure to heed the prophets,” as opposed to what you presume

Some prophets have spoken against homosexual acts, so failure to heed the prophets in this sense could be consistent with the traditional view of Sodom and Gomorrah, but it would be only one of many prophetic warnings that were disregarded, as in the days of Noah. I haven’t reviewed this JS preaching to review the context, would like the source as well.

Re: “In the past, LDS leaders directly encouraged gay men to marry, thinking it would magically make them straight.”

Nope, that doesn’t work. My secular education, on the other hand, encouraged those who experienced attraction to the same sex to embrace it. Not only did they encourage it, but they taught that there was really nothing else one could do but go with it. Arguing against this by those who attempted it brought quick condemnation by the authorities of the curriculum. Embracing it may be the quickest road to greater peace and joy for some individuals, but that advice oversimplifies the internal conflict for those in the more bisexual realm. As the rights are extended to same-sex couples, will the right to speak
about benefits of adopting a heterosexual lifestyle despite bisexuality be condemned? Once same sex union is legal, then it is indeed equal in rights and civic value and teaching that it is better in some instances to suppress a homosexual side of one’s sexuality could become discriminatory.

As for what I said about your assumptions, I wrote: “Your post suggests that you’re making some assumptions about me.” Please note the usage of “suggests,” which implicitly acknowledges that while your post gave me that impression, I could be wrong. My understanding of your post led me to believe you were making certain assumptions. If I was wrong, I’d be happy to hear what your real thoughts were.

Your post suggests that you’re making some assumptions about me. You seem to assume that I chose to come out of the closet, and as a result, somehow needed to decide the LDS church was not what it claimed to be, in order to “justify” myself. I don’t really blame you for making that sort of assumption, since as a member of the LDS church you’ve repeatedly been told that when people leave the LDS church, it’s usually because they’ve chosen to “sin,” and need to rationalize it. Frankly, I’m sure there are individuals who fit this scenario.

The truth, however, is that my situation was much more complicated than that. While I never cared for some of the polemical games of FARMS and FAIR, I was once (as you note) a staunch defender of Mormonism. Due to my strong, sincere belief in Mormonism, I spent many years trying to fit the “married with children” model which the LDS church teaches. I invested a great deal of energy in hiding my personal feelings and deceiving others into thinking I was something I wasn’t. In short, I stayed “in the closet,” and endured a very difficult marriage, because I truly believed at the time that deity expected that from me.

I will note, however, that for many years, I drew a distinction between Mormonism (i.e. the religion taught by Joseph Smith) and modern LDS-ism (the religion taught by the LDS church). I felt that the LDS church had departed in many unfortunate ways from what Joseph Smith taught, but I also believed that the LDS church was the only church which continued to hold the keys which Joseph purported to hold. In this sense, I was similar to what you’ve described. I saw significant flaws, but was willing to set those aside for the “bigger issues.” This was essentially a balancing act. On the one side, I had a strong belief in Mormonism, with LDS-ism as the closest approximation of that faith. On the other side, I had some immensely powerful personal feelings. For many years, my belief weighed more heavily than my feelings. Looking back, I think my staunch defense of Mormonism at the time was at least partly an effort to bolster my own motivation to deny my own needs and desires.

Three main things changed that balance. First, I saw changes in the LDS church which began to tread beyond what I felt was “enough like” Mormonism. Most of these had to do with what I perceived as LDS efforts to become (or appear) more like mainstream christianity. Some had to do with ordinance changes which finally went beyond what I could tolerate. My belief in Mormonism had reached the point of counteracting my confidence in the LDS church. Things went beyond what I could excuse as “continuing revelation.” Second, my own historical research led me to the point where I continued to respect Joseph Smith as a religious genius, but I became less and less convinced of the truthfulness of Mormon origin stories. I didn’t rule everything out, but my confidence level in many particular historical claims was reduced. Third, my views became more universalist in nature, and I became increasingly uncomfortable with the traditional LDS/christian view of sin and atonement.

Between these factors, the balance simply tipped. My deep, personal feelings finally trumped my religious faith. I made some very different choices in how I lived my life, and my own result has been much greater peace and joy. That’s not to say everyone will share the same experience. There are many aspects of Mormonism that I still hold as personally important to me. The trouble is, very few of those continue to hold any place in the modern LDS church. As for Joseph Smith, I don’t see him the same way that most active LDS do, but I still consider him one of the great spiritual leaders in world history. I figuratively hang his portrait next to those of Moses, Jesus, Confucius, Mohammed and others. At the same time, I no longer have to worry about some authoritative figure watching over my shoulder, with the power to punish me. I can say what I believe to be true now, when it comes to the LDS church, or any other religious organization.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to really address your assumptions. I hope I’ve helped you to understand that my reality is more nuanced than you had thought.

Funny how now, everything you seem to be saying is all bent around one issue, and that is homosexuality. If you weren’t a homosexual and trying to now be an apologist/defender of homosexuality, it is doubtful that you would saying what you are saying now about the LDS Church.

You know, I realize that the Church doesn’t have all the answers for everything, but I know that it is the one organization on earth with God’s authority to perform the saving ordinances, and that the leaders of it are led in whatever they have to do to make sure that all of God’s children one day have the opportunity to recieve those, dead or living. Beyond that, it doesn’t matter much to me what they do, because I know that is their true purpose, and everything they do centers around all that. Whatever amount of truth they have is really only to push forward that great cause, and I think that you have lost sight of that in your quest to promote your cause and putting on the newly found hat of being the homosexual activist that you are.

When I joined the LDS church in 1979/80 (I had to be rebaptized in 1980, due to a clerical error), the scriptural injunction to stand independent of other churches was interpreted quite literally. As far as I ever noticed, ecumenical humanitarian efforts seemed to begin largely with the LDS response to Ethiopian famine. I still remember many LDS being surprised when the LDS church donated fast offering funds through Catholic Charities for this purpose, and leaders had to explain that Catholic Charities was not only reputable, but already had a firm infrastructure in place, so the method made sense. Another “milestone” was a much-publicized, sizeable donation by the LDS church to restore the Cathedral of the Madeline in SLC. The same was done with respect to a local Jewish synagogue.

Following this humanitarian cooperation, LDS members like Robert Millett seemed intent on convincing both LDS and evangelicals that their respective theologies had more in common than not (generally watering-down Mormonism in order to force the similarities). The natural outgrowth seems to be political alliances, which has centered primarily on efforts to promote anti-gay legislation. Monson is often touted as a driving force in these ecumenical efforts. If true, we may see this sort of thing amped up even further. Let’s hope he focuses on the humanitarian cooperation aspect, rather than the right-wing political lobbying.

FWIW, I too agree with Ray (on lots of things it would seem) - very pro civil union and gay rights, but not pro-marriage per se

Personally, I’m concerned that same-sex couples be afforded precisely the same legal rights and responsibilities that opposite-sex married couples have (something that can’t presently be done, no matter how much you pay lawyers for contracts, wills, etc.) I’m much less concerned about what label is attached to that legal status, though I’ll note that our country already should have learned that “seperate but equal” isn’t equal.

FWIW, I too agree with Ray (on lots of things it would seem) - very pro civil union and gay rights, but not pro-marriage per se (gay or otherwise–JK in case my husband is reading this).

I really should do a full article or discussion sometime, showing how changes in LDS rhetoric on the subject have tracked (as in “exactly followed soon after”) identical changes in evangelical “ex-gay” and anti-gay rhetoric. I suppose someone could argue that deity is specifically telling LDS leaders to watch and follow the example of “apostate” christian churches on this issue. To me, it would take some significant mental gymnastics to reconcile that idea with Mormon teachings on the “great apostacy” and continuous revelation.

In a similar vein, Ezra Taft Benson’s unfortunate 1960s rhetoric against the civil rights movement also closely mirrored the public statements of Billy Graham and other evangelicals. Fortunately, those views were strongly opposed by other members of the 12 and First Presidency, and you’d search far and wide today to find an LDS member who considered those statements “inspired.”

It’s one thing to simply suggest that both groups condemn homosexuality, but does this really explain the use of identical terminology, identical “legal” arguments, etc.?

You know where I stand on this issue (fully in support of civil unions and general gay rights), so this is not an “anti-gay” comment in any way. I’m just saying that some things might simply be based on a narrowly defined, shared belief (no gay marriage), even when the actual positions on homosexuality within Mormonism and the evangelical community now are different. No conspiracy; no broad-based persecution; just opposition to one specific movement with which they don’t agree.

The current leadership of the LDS church, however, would argue that they are speaking out on a “moral” issue, rather than a political one. This distinction seems to simply fall wherever it’s convenient on a particular issue. After all, one would think that elective abortion was a more serious matter than whether two men can legally marry one another, and the LDS church explicitly declines to comment one way or another on proposed abortion legislation.

When I look at this situation, I see two very telling facts. First, we know that the rhetoric used by LDS leaders on this subject is quoted nearly verbatim from Evangelical anti-gay efforts. Second, we know from Mitt Romney’s interview with Christianity Today that Hinckley was holding meetings with the likes of Jerry Falwell, wherein they conspired to defeat at least one state’s proposed gay rights initiatives. When I see these factors, I can’t help but believe that LDS leaders have identified the persecution of GLBT persons as a “bridge-building” opportunity, where they can forge stronger ties with other christian churches–something that enhances the LDS church’s christian image and aids in missionary work.

In any case, gay marriage has become law in Canada, Spain, and it’s coming to a State near you. I don’t necessarily agree with it or like it, but that’s democracy, so put up a good fight, realize that you’re probably going to lose and get over it.

Note to Others: The practice of declaring one’s personal, albeit entirely uninformed, opinions as “good common sense” is extremely dangerous, and should only be attempted by those who have studiously mastered the precaution of ignoring science, history, and logic. Don’t try this at home!

No its not. It’s still homo-ism, but aint what the scripture is saying, so says I.

Good heavens, George. Is English your first language? Your response barely makes any sense at all. As for what “you says” the Bible is saying, I don’t think that’s really the standard for interpretation. Rather than off-the-top-of-your-head exegesis, you really ought to spend at least a little time learning about the cultures the Bible describes, so you don’t look ignorant in public.

RE: “Apparently the LDS deity thinks offering your virgin daughters to become victims of a gang-rape is WAY better than supposed homosexuality, since the LDS deity saved Lot and his kids, right?”

Apparently you never read the JST version did you:

Apparently you’ve never studied the history of Joseph Smith’s translation, including the fact that he said he wasn’t finished enough with it to allow publication. Likewise, apparently you’ve never studied Joseph Smith’s own preaching, in which he said that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “failure to heed the prophets,” as opposed to what you presume. Joseph Smith was quite capable of speaking on the topics of sexual sin, and did so frequently, yet he never once supported your idiosyncratic view.

YEP

RE: “Your example citing select inhabitants of Sodom, who threatened to engage in a then-common practice of humiliating one’s enemies by means of male-on-male rape (a different matter than homosexuality, btw)”

No its not. It’s still homo-ism, but aint what the scripture is saying, so says I.

RE: “Apparently the LDS deity thinks offering your virgin daughters to become victims of a gang-rape is WAY better than supposed homosexuality, since the LDS deity saved Lot and his kids, right?”

Apparently you never read the JST version did you:

9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him.
10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.
11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.
12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.
13 And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes;
14 For God will not justify his servant in this thing; wherefore, let me plead with my brethren, this once only, that unto these men ye do nothing, that they may have peace in my house; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
15 And they were angry with Lot and came near to break the door, but the angels of God, which were holy men, put forth their hand and pulled Lot into the house unto them, and shut the door.

Please tell us, George, which behavior is worse:

(1) Your example citing select inhabitants of Sodom, who threatened to engage in a then-common practice of humiliating one’s enemies by means of male-on-male rape (a different matter than homosexuality, btw)

or….

(2) Lot’s response, which was to offer up his own virginal daughters, as preferable rape victims?

Gen 19:6-8
“And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”

Apparently the LDS deity thinks offering your virgin daughters to become victims of a gang-rape is WAY better than supposed homosexuality, since the LDS deity saved Lot and his kids, right?

BTW, you’ll find that for this reason and others, legitimate religious scholars reject the theory that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. Rather, these cities violated the expected norms of hospitality toward strangers.

Gen. 19: 5
“And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

Nick, your being absurd. My original post was sufficiently clear to absolutely distinguish between the practice of homosexuality and the tendency toward homosexuality to absolutely make it clear that you know this is certainly not what I’m saying.

You certainly know if you have half a brain (which I know you have a whole one, so stop playing games) I’m saying that the practice of homosexuality (as opposed to the tendency thereto, either by nature or nurture) both on the level of temporal natural selection and spiritual natural selection, gets selected out, and is adverse to the health of the species temporally and spiritually, and is therefore gets selected out.

If that’s the case, then the LDS faith has been working against it’s own deity for years. In the past, LDS leaders directly encouraged gay men to marry, thinking it would magically make them straight. Now they (officially) don’t give that advice anymore, but their teachings certainly still hold up heterosexual marriage as the ideal for gay men. Either way, the LDS church ends up thwarting their deity’s evolutionary plan by promoting gay men to breed offspring!

Quick! Repent, and cease to fight against your own god!

And in not one of them has it helped the species reproduce. It actually takes away from the gene pool and makes it more shallow by sucking away people from it into unproductive relationships.

RE: “never once stated until the horrible Oaks & Wickman “interview””

And truth just keeps getting more and more revealed!….

RE: “Neither does sex between heterosexual partners, where one is infertile”

Sure it does, because heterosexual partners are keeping the commandments when they do it, which gets them further along the path to exaltation where they will procreate, worlds without end.

Actually I’m mistaken. I admit now that I’m actually mistaken and I just realized it. Homosexuality is actually a principle of nature. It is nature naturally selecting out undesirable features in the population. Homosexual relationships do not perpetuate the species, and therefore naturally select out the undesirable features therein.

Exaltation is a further manifestation of survival of the (spiritually) fittest, and natural selection. Only those keeping the commandments are selected in to the gene pool to perpetuate themselves. The rest are selected out. The practice of homosexuality contrary to those commandments, therefore ensures that the individuals are selected out.

So actually, I admit you are right that it is natural. It totally enables those practicing it to be naturally selected out of existence as far as their genetic legacy goes.

I am saying that it is repulsive because it isn’t natural.

The argument that homosexuality is “not natural” has pretty much gone by the wayside, since homosexual activity has been observed in over 400 species. Of course, it doesn’t mean much to most religionists to say that it’s natural, as they’ll just turn that around to say that being “natural” is being evil (especially LDS, through a strained interpretation of “the natural man is an enemy to god).

I’m saying that it is an urge that is telestial because it will only exist here.

To which I would say that “doctrine” was never once stated until the horrible Oaks & Wickman “interview” (the one that says you should ostracize your gay child’s partner, among other things). Oaks invented that “doctrine” out of whole cloth. He’s not even the person who holds the LDS keys to determine LDS doctrine. In any case, it’s not doctrine until it’s sustained by the membership of the LDS church in a general conference. I doubt that will happen, since it creates a number of problems, including direct contradiction of The Book of Mormon.

It certainly doesn’t serve a purpose of procreation, even if you try to get around that by adopting.

Neither does sex between heterosexual partners, where one is infertile, yet nobody would ever consent to banning marriage for infertile heterosexuals. Some have recognized the logical problem here, and resorted to the inane argument that infertile heterosexual couples function as a “symbol” of procreation. LOL.

However, there have been several cultures in which homosexual relationships were perfectly acceptable. (ie the Greeks- except for Athens). I mean Thebes had a whole military organization made up of pairs of gay lovers. Yet none of these societies ever considered marriage as being applicable to these liaisons.

The thing is that to a traditional understanding of marriage, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. It’s like saying “a harmful blessing”. Marriage is between male and female by definition.

It’s only in the modern concept of marriage that same-sex marriage becomes comprehensible. Since Mormons doctrinally are biased in favor of a traditional concept of marriage it is not at all surprising that Mormons oppose same sex marriage.

Being that your name is “Kari” I would assume you are female, and I suppose that would explain your crafty little trick to try to use turn-around logic on me with this one, since historically women usually are the ones to oppose the principle.

* Does the LDS church influence its members to oppose same sex marriage?

Yes.

* Is the influence explicit from top leaders, explicit-but-rogue from local leaders, or is it a cultural perceived thing from members? (Any arguments that it is explicitly taught would best be supported with actual quotes.)

It is primarily cultural, and by personal example. It is also implicit from the First Presidency’s letters that they want us to encourage our political leaders to oppose same sex marriage.

* If it is a cultural thing, is there a reasonable basis for a member to perceive that voting to oppose same sex marriage is considered equal to choosing good over evil, in an LDS perspective?

Yes, I believe so. The modern world view of marriage is as a legal contract between two consenting adults that legitimize their sexual relationship to society. Doctrinally, Mormons view marriage as an institution predating government and established by God for the salvation of man, and the procreation of children. It follows that philosophically Mormons hold to the older traditional view that Governments have then recognized this pre-existent arrangement and given it legal recognition and preferences because marriage is beneficial to society as a whole, primarily through the legal protection of a proper home for the rearing of children.

A Government changing marriage to include two people of the same sex is outrageous- first because it nullifies the only reasonable justification for government involvement in marriage, second because it aids in the reduction of marriage to approval of sex and then grants that approval to something that is not approved of by society- resulting in division and anger. But more importantly to any believing Mormon, the Government is literally attempting to remake an institution created by God and instituted by Him starting with Adam into an institution granting societal approval to acts of sodomy, which all Christian scripture agrees is repugnant to God and condemned by Him. (Sorry but there is no way around it unless you want to claim that Paul is a false apostle). Bluntly, I don’t see how a believing Mormon can reconcile the Scriptures with support of same-sex marriages.

* Perhaps tangential, but do you feel there is more or less latitude for a member to support civil unions as opposed to SSM, since civil unions do not impinge upon the concept of the sanctity of marriage?

Yes. Depending on the linkage between marriage and civil unions. If civil unions is just another name for marriage then no. However, most of the legal benefits of marriage are available outside of marriage, it is just extremely difficult and bothersome to get them applied. Civil Unions could be presented as a way of simplifying those arrangements into a package form. Civil Unions would then be legally separate from marriage, allowing the common law on the two to differ. Permitting marriage to return to it’s focus on children. Such an arrangement would be satisfactory to Mormons from a doctrinal viewpoint.

However, I doubt such an arrangement will be satisfying for gay couples, as what they really want is the societal approval associated with marriage. Sadly, it’s all meaningless anyways, because society will not give approval just because the government calls them married. If we did, well than we would be like the Corinthians- maybe even worse cause even they would never have thought to equate their boy-love with marriage. We know that story would end: Death, Chaos, Destruction, with balls of flame streaking down from the sky. Not a pretty picture.

Nick was using the phrase you quoted to point out generally what is said by others, not your language specifically.

I am saying that it is repulsive because it isn’t natural. I’m saying that it is an urge that is telestial because it will only exist here. I’m saying its always sinful when practiced, always. I’m saying its something that homosexuals are called on to bridle and never participate in. There, does that clarify it for you? I have my head around the fact that homosexuality involves love. I certainly understand that. I’m saying its out of bounds and it always will be. It certainly doesn’t serve a purpose of procreation, even if you try to get around that by adopting.

Substitute polygamy for the homosexuality in this statement (actual and implied) and you’ve got it right.

I’m sorry you read that into my comment. Where did I say lust? Where did I say animalistic? Show me a quote from my comment.

Actually yes, that is what marriage is for, to legitimize sex, yes, to legitimize heterosexual sex so that people can procreate according to law, and strengthen their marriage emotionally and physicall. And yes, love is one of the things that makes sex desireable. I never said lust was involved in homosexual sex always, and that love wasn’t. I’m saying that it is love that is out of bounds. I’m saying that it is sex out of bounds. There’s the part where I’m using condemnatory language.

I am saying that it is repulsive because it isn’t natural. I’m saying that it is an urge that is telestial because it will only exist here. I’m saying its always sinful when practiced, always. I’m saying its something that homosexuals are called on to bridle and never participate in. There, does that clarify it for you? I have my head around the fact that homosexuality involves love. I certainly understand that. I’m saying its out of bounds and it always will be. It certainly doesn’t serve a purpose of procreation, even if you try to get around that by adopting.

So, George, do you believe that heterosexual marriage serves no other purpose than to legitimize “straight” sex?

And I cant imagine what homosexuality is for other than to have gay sex, or to have the desire for it, or to have a desire toward the same sex.

So, do you believe that heterosexuality is only for having “straight” sex, or to have a desire for it, or to have a desire toward the opposite sex?

I’m not just trying to be obnoxious here, George, but rather to point out that committed homosexual relationships exist for the same reason that committed heterosexual relationships do—love and companionship. It’s disappointing that many (not you, as I think you hint at the love aspect later in your comment) can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that homosexuality involves more than just sexual intercourse. You see this in condemnatory language that classifies all homosexuality as “lust” and “animalistic,” completely ignoring the point that two men or two women just might happen to share the same kind of loving bond that a man and a woman can.

So certainly it is a difficult order to expect of homosexuals in the church to be celibate entirely and have nothing to do with any man. But it is, nevertheless, essentially the commandment they are commanded to adhere to at this time, and if they don’t, then that is immorality, just as if a man with polygamous tendencies goes beyond the current bounds the Lord has set, he is being immoral.

Your statement is certainly true insofar as it applies to LDS members, following an LDS understanding of the will of the LDS deity, George. In a pluralistic society, several million others might see things differently.

I would like to say that I was angry somewhat in my posts earlier this week, and I’d like to apologize to all for my anger and my unkind remarks.

Now, to address the above quote. Nick, I can’t imagine what purpose homosexual marriage would be for than to legitimize gay sex. And I cant imagine what homosexuality is for other than to have gay sex, or to have the desire for it, or to have a desire toward the same sex. And even if same sex marriage were a celibate relationship, it would still only be an attempt to legitimize a relationship between two people who love each other. Celibacy doesn’t just mean avoiding inappropriate sexual relationships. Its also about avoiding inappropriate relationships of any kind. The Church clearly teaches against homosexual relationships of any kind, and that true celibacy would mean not having a relationship even if one has the feelings (i.e. not even having a “boyfriend.”)

Since I have a tendency toward polygamous feelings, I’m called upon to be “polygamously celibate” at this point in time in spite of D&C 132. I can only have a relationship with my wife, and no other woman. My natural man polygamous tendencies must be constantly checked and bridled. I am unable to pursue a girlfriend of any kind outside my wife or open my heart to any other woman. I’m commanded to cleave only unto my wife. Admittedly it would be very difficult to be with no woman, and certainly I cannot concieve of it.

So certainly it is a difficult order to expect of homosexuals in the church to be celibate entirely and have nothing to do with any man. But it is, nevertheless, essentially the commandment they are commanded to adhere to at this time, and if they don’t, then that is immorality, just as if a man with polygamous tendencies goes beyond the current bounds the Lord has set, he is being immoral.

You’re not keeping up on the news, Jeff. A recent appellate case in New York found that a same-sex marriage entered into by a couple who, at that time, had been Massacussetts residents, must be recognized in New York. Further, the attorney general of Rhode Island recently issued an advisory opinion that the state of Rhode Island will recognize Massachussetts-performed same-sex marriages of Rhode Island state employees, for employment benefit purposes.

Also, we have a slightly older book called the Bible that seems to prohibit same sex unions.

“Seems to?” The Bible doesn’t comment one way or another on whether two persons of the same sex can marry one another. You’d have to really stretch the Eden story to come up with a prohibition on marriage equality, Jeff. Besides, when did the Bible become the law of the United States? Unless Huckabee becomes POTUS, with his frightening “reconstructionist” views of changing the Constitution to match (his interpretation of) the Bible, that’s not going to happen.

“Jeff, most of this paragraph is untrue. Marriage equality exists currently under the laws of several countries, as well as the Commonwealth of Massachussetts. Ergo, it is untrue to say that marriage equality “is not now or ever has been legal.” Further, I would suggest you consult an interesting book, titled Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. While the book is unfortunately written in a very dry style, it presents considerable evidence to question the claim that marriage equality has never been legal.”

Sorry, but what the rest of the world does has no bearing on the US and its constitution. They only exception may be at this time Massachussetts but those marriages are not recognized anywhere else in the US. Also, we have a slightly older book called the Bible that seems to prohibit same sex unions.

Let me end my participation in this discussion this way. The church is not the only organization in the US which supports a constituional amendment on marriage. Because of the wide spread support for this amendment, it is not the LDS Church “seeking to impose its doctrine.” It, like you, has a right to its opinion, backed in large part by its membership.

that’s it, I’m done.

If marriage equality were to exist and if a couple were to be legally and lawfully wed, how could the Church view their relations as a sin? Would temple recommend questions change? Would the wording of certain covenants
change? Wouldn’t contradictions then exist?

It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) but current church policy is that if a polygamist African is converted to LDS teachings and desires baptism, he is required to put away (divorce) all but one wife before baptism can occur. If the church can require this of marriage(s) that are legal and lawful in certain African countries, then they can certainly continue to view same gender sexual activity as a sin, whether in marriage or not.

In many countries of the world, such as Great Britain (where I served my mission) it is considered sinful for a legally and lawfully married couple to have sex after their legally required civil marriage ceremony but before their temple ceremony. Church leaders did (in the late 80’s, and by report still do) require couples to travel and lodge separately if the temple ceremony is a day or two later.

I don’t intend this as a threadjack to discuss these particular policies, just as an example that the church can define sin anyway they want. It wasn’t too long ago that certain leaders would ask couples about specific sexual activity they thought was sinful. It’s one of the reasons why we have an “official structured” temple recommend interview now.

If we allowed SSMs, then for those couples the TR interview could certainly add “Do you engage in sexual activity with your spouse?” I know certain heterosexual couples who aren’t sexually intimate, so it’s not hard to imagine a same-sex couple who are willing to stay celibate for the church, but get married for the benefits of being a married couple. Just like my hetero male cousin who married a woman so she could stay in the country. They even lived together (same apartment, different rooms), without sexual intimacy.

Nick (who Hinckley would call a “so-called” gay person, and who believes in what Hinckley calls “so-called” marriage equality)

I can think of ways the LDS church could adjust temple recommend questions and the temple covenant wording in response to legal marriage equality, but I’m not sure they would do so. Does anyone know if that has happened in nations where marriage equality is the law? I’m pretty sure there are LDS temples in some of these countries, and I know a few countries with LDS temples are getting quite close to legalized marriage equality.

What do you think?

If marriage equality were to exist and if a couple were to be legally and lawfully wed, how could the Church view their relations as a sin? Would temple recommend questions change? Would the wording of certain covenants
change? Wouldn’t contradictions then exist?

I know you probably don’t personally care about what happens in the Church, but I am trying to see how the Church would react if marriage equality were to be realized.