If you were in church today, did your ward read the 1st Presidency statement against same-sex marriage? Just wondering if this actually happened in wards across the country. Please report if you know. Thanks.

<not a likely group to survey, IMHO>

Not here they didn't.

Not in my ward

Presidency statement? Is it on line? Link?
If so, why would they read it? Couldn't they just tell the congregation to read it on line? Print the link in the program for today?
Nevermind, I found the link.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2014 04:51PM by verilyverily.

"...Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established."

Reading that made me cringe-- did they seriously forget that God changed his mind about polygamy?

More evidence they have no shame. They will submit to social and legal precedence, but have no shame in getting there. They have their living prophet with perfect hinsight for the business needs of the corporation.

I don't think it will ever be required for them to provide church sanctioned same sex marriages. I do think that the issue of punishing acting sexually within a same sex civil marriage, but not punishing acting sexually within an opposite sex civil marriage will create some ethical, moral, and doctrinal issues for them.

Nah, they'll figure something out to satisfy the drones. Hard to fail when you are The One True Church.

Um sorry hello.

Polygamy was never an "Eternal commandment"

I refer you to Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, where the Lord himself said "not by way of compulsion."

Oh. Wait.

Hmm. Yeah. Scratch that.

went to two sacrament meetings (ugh) and both did. I am in Utah.

Here in OKC they did not read the letter, but the sacrament talks were about the family proclamation and the threat of SSM was central to the talks.

Same-sex marriage puts them in a very strange position. In the temple, you make a convenant to have sexual relations only with a spouse to which you are legally and lawfully wed.

A same-sex couple can answer, "Well we are legally and lawfully wed."

Their Articles of Faith also state that they believe in being subject to the laws of the land.

So what are they to do with this one? They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Keep sending their drones out to fight for the "higher law" even though they'll inevitable lose. Leaders will keep face this way as prophets, seers, and revelators.

The evil, worldly, government will eventually win. "Woe is us," say the leaders. "We're in evil times," say the leaders. Blame the world and the government.

Everybody adapts. The church leaders stop their crusade. In fact, they start downplaying or erasing the fact they were even involved. Current members go along because they don't want to battle their church (aka their way of life).

Younger members and/or new converts go along with the new way, thinking their church is virtuous and innocent.

Old members who fought for the old policies are vilified and called liars and are said to have bad attitudes. They're sold down the river.

Summary: members are sent into a losing battle, then later vilified for fighting that battle. The church feigns innocence and moves on.

Yes, that's exactly what I've thought for a long time.
How they'll get round this I don't know, it's fair enough that they won't be forced to perform same sex marriages but will they refuse to recognise them and how can they if it's a "legal and lawful"marriage?
It will be interesting to see.....

They aren't required to accept all things that are legal as being moral.

Drinking alcohol is legal. Smoking is legal. Coffee and tea are sure legal. Yet the church can still deny people entrance into the temple for partaking of any of them.

The church still has the right to consider gay marriage as against their morals. I can't imagine why gay couples would want to be a part of such a church, though.

You're exactly right. It's like they are still acting as if the lies they told to pass Prop 8 are true. The 1st amendment already protects religions from doing anything that conflicts with their doctrine. No one is going to force TSCC to marry gays and lesbians in their temples or chapels. Nor to admit coffee drinkers to their temples either. And yes, no self-respecting gay or lesbian would want to have their ceremony in a Mo' chapel or temple.

in Riverton ut..... not here. At least not in sacrament meeting. Don't know about ss or pm or rs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2014 05:11PM by closer2fine.

I'm in Riverton too. Our ward building was across from the Riverton Hospital. Always looking for others near us.

Looks like we're neighbors ;)

"hausfrau"

I was in the Rose Creek Crossing ward. I've resigned so no longer on the roles. If you want to message me, here's a fake email account I use for these purposes: stevejonesion@gmail.com.

I'd love to be there when they ask a couple to come to the alter to volunteer as the witness couple and it's a SS couple. It could happen any day now because two people with temple recommends could easily be worthy to enter the temple according to the church rules. If they have their endowments and were married recently outside the temple they are still married and allowed to participate in the temple. Just wait. This will happen. I'm single and never been married but I've been asked to participate as one of the witnesses in the witness couple. There is no way they know if I'm gay or not.

That's an easy little rule to change.

"Reading that made me cringe-- did they seriously forget that God changed his mind about polygamy?" God also changed his mind about black people even though they "sinned" in Heaven to become black in the first place. YIKES! God is so indecisive!

"Stuck between a rock and a hard place for eternity." -this should be the LD$ motto.

Jujube - why 2 sacrament meetings? Are your trying to make yourself sick to get off work or something? One is enough to make me puke for at least one year.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2014 05:30PM by verilyverily.

we combined with another ysa ward in another building. I went because my friend needed a ride and to see the guy I'm crushing on.

no

I was there and they did read a letter. Did not know it was about SSM though, as I tuned it out completely after the first few sentences.

Didn't read it in my ward.

Not a word about it here.

No idea. I went fishing.

I wonder why some wards read the letter and others didn't? I'll wager it's cuz there are more NOM bishoprics than the COB would like to admit.

SSM has been legal in many other states. Why make a formal statement now that it's legal in Utah?

Would it not be pointless to read it out in areas where sum is already legalised?