Saturday, February 21, 2015

The future of the Mormon church -- Not what you think.

Just working a comparison to see if it makes sense without oversimplifying. I tend to simplify.  It's the primary teacher in me.  

If the Catholic Church says it is not right to speak ill of ones neighbor, and is outspoken about it in the media, are they taking away any one's agency to gossip? I think most would say no. The pontiff may not be happy with your blog on Brenda's bad hair color, but it is your choice just the same.

Do the Catholics still have the right to speak out against speaking ill towards ones neighbors?  Do they have the right to say no to that on principal?

How about the gossipers or one who reserves the right to say what he wants about Brenda's hair color. Do they have the right to protest the churches stance on gossiping? 

This isn't really working, is it?  It's to simplistic. Of course I am trying to make the comparison to the LDS church and their stance against Gay marriage in the church.

Right off the bat one could say that no one is trying to affect laws that would dis-allow gossip. It is considered free speech -- free speech that some would not take part in -- but free speech all the same. In a similar fashion the LDS church is not currently pursuing any same sex marriage legislation after prop 8.  

From what I saw, once the courts disallowed the vote based on constitutional right, the church followed article of faith nine and accepted the law of the land.

The LDS church says that they don't believe that gays should be allowed to marry. 

  • They have the right to speak out. 
  • Others have the right to protest their opinion. 
  • Mormons have the right to not allow gays full fellowship in their organization. 
  • Others have the right to choose their religion and there are many that don't even have full fellowship in their vernacular. 
LGBT people can be Mormon and be in full fellowship by following the standards of the church. Lately, it seems, LGBT people who do not adhere to the standards of the church can more and more retain their membership depending often on the covenants they have made in the temple -- covenants to remain morally clean. 

It seems to me that there are few possible scenarios for the future.

1) The LDS church changes its doctrine and allows gays to marry in the temple. This would involve instruction from the Head of the Church. The real Head of the Church. Mormons believe in revelation from the Lord. For a doctrinal change the line of authority would be followed. This would be monumental.

2) New knowledge would be received and taught to the church leaders and then directly to the general membership that would make plain current doctrine . Mormons believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Is there more information available concerning gay marriage? 

3) The LDS church is forced by US law to allow gay marriages. This seems to be the doomsday church leaders reasonable foresee - the reason I believe that there is a push for religious rights to be acknowledged and maintained.  But before this scenario could happen, members would be required to marry civilly and later get sealed in the temple. Hanging by a thread, anyone?

Article of Faith 11: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


  1. The Catholic Church does not allow divorce and will not marry people who have divorced. The government allows divorce and allows divorced people to be married again, but it has never forced the Catholic Church to sanction divorce or perform marriages for those who have divorced. Why would it be any different for same-sex marriages? The government is not going to force any religion to perform marriages that they do not want to, and the precedent for that has already been set with Catholics and divorce.

    Question for you - are same-sex couples who are married to each other and who are monogamous, are they morally unclean? Are they really any different from straight married couples who are monogamous?

    If the issue is moral cleanliness, is it not better to allow all people (gay or straight) to express physical love in marriage? Is it realistic to ask anyone to remain celibate and alone their entire lives with no hope or chance of loving someone in every sense of the word? Even straight members who are single have the hope that they might meet someone to marry. Women who were single for a long time have even ended up marrying apostles! One could even marry a non-member and still remain an LDS Church member in good standing.

    The Church does not completely ban straight members from expressing physical love, it just asks that they wait until marriage. It even allows divorce and multiple marriages. Until the same kind of thing is fairly offered to gay LDS members (whether in the temple or not) the vast majority of LGBTQ members will separate from the Church (and rightly so).

  2. Thank you for your response. Forgive me if I jump from point to point.
    Laws are created by legislators who represent the people. The people, to my knowledge have not rallied against the Catholic Church for their stance on Divorce.

    If the LDS church establishes marriage as between a man and a woman, then yes, a same sex couple are not obeying the law of chastity. I understand the dilemma and the argument. I am a gay man and a member of the church. According to the LDS church it is different for a hetro couple.

    The issue, as I understand it, is not moral cleanliness as per man but as per the Law of Chastity which Mormons believe is a law that God established for his people. It would solve many problems today to allow all people to express physical love in marriage, but if we believe the law came from a higher power then we would look to him for more information/explanation/clarification/change.

  3. Item number 3 is based on an unfortunately popular bit of misinformation. Churches will not be forced to solemnize gay marriages. There is simply no mechanism under federal law for doing that. See, e.g.,

    1. Sorry, the link was incomplete. Corrected:

    2. Thank you for the info. I will read up.