I recently saw 8: The Mormon Proposition. While absolutely none of it surprised me, I thought the film's explanation of why the Mormon Church is so strongly against homosexuality and same-sex marriage was a bit lacking. According to 8, the Mormon Church is against same-sex marriage because it is contrary to their doctrine of eternal marriage and progression in the eternities. This is correct but I believe it is incomplete. I believe that the real reason that the Mormon Church does not want same-sex marriage to be legalized is far more simple and far more pragmatic; it would be a public relations nightmare.

Consider what would happen if a majority of states legalized same-sex marriage. It stands to reason that more Americans would accept same sex marriage as normal and it follows that more Americans would view any anti-gay organization (church or otherwise), as intolerant, bigoted, prejudice, and hateful.

For its part, the Mormon Church as already clearly established itself as an anti-gay entity. It did so emphatically and very recently with its official declaration and mass publication of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." In this document marriage is defined as, "[only] marriage between a man and a woman." The Mormon Church does not often issue official declarations like this, but when they do, it is understood that these declarations are to be treated as official doctrine. Were this not true, a similar declaration issued in 1978 that allowed blacks to hold the priesthood would not today be considered doctrine.

According to gallup polls, a majority of Americans already favor legal gay marraige* and it logically follows that more Americans will perceive the Church to be a hateful intolerant establishment as same-sex marriage becomes increasingly commonplace.

This puts the Church in between the proverbial rock and hard place. What do they do? Do they a) hold the course at the risk of loss of future baptisms as they are increasingly perceived as backward and intolerant. Or do they b) recant and relax restrictions, mainstreaming the church, but backtracking on their own doctrine which might cause long-time members to become disillusioned and question the truthfulness of their teachings?

I think the only answer and only choice the Church has is is c) pour millions of dollars into swaying public opinion and try to stop Americans from being tolerant of same-sex marriage. Because if they do, A or B will be the only choices left, and either will cause a significant loss of attendance, true believers, and revenue.

The motivator is as it is always--money.

* http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

the obvious jealousy and jockeying for position (no pun intended) among the "priesthood" with gay spouses having a double-whammy of priesthood power. Talk about a booster rocket to the stake presidency!

The opposite would also be true. Two faithful gay women married to each other would be lacking the preisthood. They could have all the other Mormon blessing of faithful members but no priesthood. The priesthood is what Mormons cement all their authority on including sealings. They may be able to attend the temple, but they would have no priesthood power to cement their relationship. The remedy would be to extend the preisthood to women. What a can of worms that would turn out to be for TSCC!

The temple ceremony is based on the priesthood holder calling his wife-property through the veil. If the spouses are equals, who calls who? Equality is the reality of many modern marriages. A man is as likely to be the stay at home parent these days, the woman might be the higher wage earner, both are expected to contribute to the upkeep of the home and taking care of the children. TSCC is still in the prior century when it comes to this. Just what would a temple ceremony where the woman was the equal of the man look like? Until they wrap their heads around equality between heterosexual spouses, they won't be able to comprehend the innate equality between homosexual spouses.

C) is 'sort of' the same course they took with polyg...
FIGHT IT as far as $ goes; when/if the 'other side' wins, then Cave In.

now I'm a Prophet!: this will happen here with SSM. they'll (they are Now) fighting it; but with Polyg, they had a Safety Valve; 'sort of' say it "Doesn't Apply" "Not Doctrinal" etc etc.

IRL, they won't 'have to' accept SSM... unless there's some Quirky legal case, etc.

"A Wink is as good as a Nod to a Blind Horse"... if u catch my drift!

Besides: SSM is a Good Place to park the BLAME for failure of LDS marriages! YES, THEY BELIEVE THAT!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2011 06:51PM by guynoirprivateeye.

They resisted as far as they could until it meant loss of $$$ (and accountability by filing a tax return due to loss of tax exempt status)?

I’ll think that as you see in other industrial and science advanced societies, homosexuals coming out. Why should in the USA less homosexuals than in other societies?
As you see in other nation’s homosexuals and woman rights are on the rise. And I think as an old heterosexual couch potato “It’s about time”.
As you see in Europe, homosexual find peace in God and with Churches. No big deal anymore if the couple that shows up is male/male, female/female or female/male.
We are in the 21st centaury and world views out of the 16 hundreds are out.
Churches adjust all over the world. Ad even TBMs have to recognize the LDS does too. Slowly but they do.
Sure today is still a discussion in the US society if the son of Chair is a male and should participate in Dancing with the Stars.
The Church has constantly revelations and we learned as soon the society pushes the church African American all of a sudden became the priesthood.
The same will happen with homosexuals. Today’s homosexuals have to hide in the church.
I predict, and I am not a prophet, that in 30 years from now the US society changes like in other high developed nations around the globe. Feminist and homosexuals will be accepted in the US too. The LDS have to change or to disappear. The LDS in Europe for example almost get not a foot on the ground and the ward getting older too.
I’ll think that their book of Abraham will be dropped quietly because it is a well known joke anyway. Women’s become more and more rights and homosexuals will be as normal in the church as anywhere else. The Temple teachings will change slowly and become a place like Cathedrals in the Catholic Church.
Yes it takes time. But when I look over the Church doctrines and development in the last 30-40 years they change drastically. Slow for sure but as the Christina US tankes his moves, the Mormons are always somewhat right behind it.

Buddy Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The LDS have to change or to disappear.
> The LDS in Europe for example almost get not a
> foot on the ground and the ward getting older
> too.

My experience too. In which countries are you familiar with TSCC? I haven't been to church for years, but I did in several countries, big cities and small towns, and EVERYWHERE people would reminisce with teary eyes about the heyday of their wards. Most people go inactive as soon as they pay their own bills, that is, when they leave their parents or their husband.

Americans have no idea just how fast TSCC is dying out in these parts! Activity rates of 25% my donkey!

Oh yes, compared with, say, 25 years ago, it all looks so good on paper. More wards, more temples, more missions, more mishies. But in absolute numbers, such as active priesthood holders and real tithing money (adjusted for inflation), we are back in the 1970s. Take out the American mishies, expats, military and exchange students, and all the illegal aliens that try to feed off of them, and all you have left fits in two wards. And I don't mean church wards. I mean a geriatric ward and a psychiatric ward.

ROTFL at the last paragraph. You are so right.

Because if Tommy Monson and Russ Ballard got married it would really flip peoples' shit?

Interesting post, but probably incomplete. I am not sure that the Church's gay marriage stance is entirely explained by either the "PR Theory" you espouse, or the "Eternal Marriage Theory" in the Prop 8 film. A big factor, I believe, is polygamy. Polygamy is currently illegal in all states. If, however, same sex marriage is legalized in most or all states, and if the Supreme Court continues to make liberal rulings on sexual freedom issues, legalized polygamy is a real possibility. Legal polygamy would create a real doctrinal problem. The premise of the Church's renouncement of polygamy in the last century was that it was illegal. In order to comply with the law, polygamy was no longer practiced. However, Section 132 and numerous prophetic statments continue to emphasize that polygamy is an eternal law. Legalized polygamy, therefore, would create a huge problem for the Church. The commandment to live polygamy would presumably now be in force.

No doubt this is true as well. In both cases it puts the Church in a position of either becoming more mainstream (which history makes me suspect they will do), essentially forcing them to backtrack on their own doctrine. Alternatively they can circle the wagons and fight it.

I wonder if in a generation or two in a Gospel Doctrine class somewhere, little Johnny Goodygood will be surprised when he reads on the 15g internet chip installed in his brain that the Church at one time was against homosexuals. He won't believe it of course, "the Church was always tolerant of all people, including gays, prostitutes and democrats!" he will think. "I know it's true because I felt it from the internet brain chip." And then he'll go back to triple x rated sites that nobody can see but him.

I think that the LDS church will continue its vitriol on same sex relationships and marriages. It might tone down some of the rhetoric because of the backlash from Prop 8.

The LDS church has some strong allies in Christendom, particuarly the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical wing of Protestantism. They will continue to protest alongside these groups of Christians.

Since marriage is a civil institution in the US, it will not be up to the churches to decide which way the wind will blow. Gradually each state will open up its Justice of the Peace offices to include anyone who wants to get married, no matter the gender.

Down the road? I don't know if there will be a future "1978" proclamation coming out of SLC that frees up a whole class of people to marry who they want. But it wouldn't surprise me that if the public opinion became strong enough and instituionalized for gay marriage, there might be a new revelation.

Roger,

I think you meant to write, "revelation." :)

Steve

rogermartim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that the LDS church will continue its
> vitriol on same sex relationships and marriages.
> It might tone down some of the rhetoric because of
> the backlash from Prop 8.
>
> The LDS church has some strong allies in
> Christendom, particuarly the Roman Catholic Church
> and the Evangelical wing of Protestantism. They
> will continue to protest alongside these groups of
> Christians.
>
> Since marriage is a civil institution in the US,
> it will not be up to the churches to decide which
> way the wind will blow. Gradually each state will
> open up its Justice of the Peace offices to
> include anyone who wants to get married, no matter
> the gender.
>
> Down the road? I don't know if there will be a
> future "1978" proclamation coming out of SLC that
> frees up a whole class of people to marry who they
> want. But it wouldn't surprise me that if the
> public opinion became strong enough and
> instituionalized for gay marriage, there might be
> a new revelation.


I agree re: the allies. I think too often people forget about the power of the allies with the LDS Church against prop 8. They are big, and they are solid. May not be as vocal, tend to be more quiet about it, but it's there. I've seen some programs that show they are as adamant as the LDS are.

I do not agree that there will ever be any revelation that would accept gay marriage, just as I don't think the Catholic Church will ever make such an announcement.

The doctrine in the LDS Church is so solid, I doubt it will ever change.

> The doctrine in the LDS Church is so solid, I
> doubt it will ever change.

Oh gosh, where can I start? Adam-God doctrine, polygamy, blood atonement, blacks and the priesthood, the endless revisions of the temple ceremony and the Book of Mormon. Puh-leez! The solid doctrine of the LDS church is like unto Jell-O nailed to the wall!

Gay couples also can't (biologically) have children = less future tithe payers

Homosexual relationships do not produce offspring! I would argue that for the vast majority of people who are religious, they were born into that religion. Religions want people to have babies! Babies are a religion's easiest converts. Teach a doctrine where it is OK to have sex without the possibility of making a baby and the number of your adherents will start to decline rapidly! Why do you think the Catholic church is so against birth control? Declining number of followers equals declining number of donations.

I disagree to a certain point. Well – yea homosexuals can not have an offspring. Even the Catholic Church, at least in Europe, takes there a different few point. They start to say that adopted children that are raised in homosexual Catholic environment are not so bad at all.
They justify it by the greater good for the orphan children.
Here we go and all of a sudden, her we go, there are the new payers.
I wonder sometimes how much the Jewish people paid to Jesus for his teachings.

The US in this new smaller world is more and more attracted to socialistic few points. The society in the US ist shiftig torwards feminist and homosexual rights.
Rhe US in 25 years is a different society than today. No question.

They have the maternal and paternal instincts that everyone else has and they manage one way or another to build their families, although I personally hope they don't raise any tithe-payers!

I recognize that gay people can and do have children through heterosexual intercourse. I was not arguing that they don't or cannot. In fact when they do create a child with someone of the opposite sex they are behaving in a manner that the church approves.

I was arguing that a religion is unlikely to endorse a sexual behavior that does not produce offspring because such behavior limits their primary source of growth potential. For the same reason, but to a lesser extent, is masturbation preached against.

It is not the person religion is against, it is the behavior. Lover the sinner, hate the sin.

Not only gay marriage, but in the past the hateful religious that claim to hate the sin and love the sinner tried to pass legislation reminiscent of the Nuremberg Laws restricting the rights of the SINNER and denying them fair access to employment. (The Brigs initiative is one example)

No, the "love the sinner hate the sin" line serves one and only one purpose, to try to wrap hate with the appearance of virtue.

Oh, yeah, and all that gay bashing done mostly by the religious is an expression of hating the sin and loving the sinner, yeah, right.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 04:40AM by MJ.

We have seen the head of the LD$ church convey the "will of God" when polygamy was instituted by JS, and then later ceased (sort of) in 1903. We saw the same thing in 1977 when blacks were again allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.

With this approach, it does not matter what the D&C says, or what the latest family Proclamation states.

God obviously changes his mind sometimes. So if you're TBM, look to Tom Monson (or whoever succeeds him) for the current policy.

And I agree with whoever says that whatever policy allows them to maintain/increase their financial strength, will ultimately be "the will of God."

Hate, prejudice, bigotry, intolerance of differences, it goes by many names but it boils down to fear and hate of that which is different.

The Church has successfully painted itself into a corner on this one. It says marriage can only be between a man and a woman (ignoring the fact that they actually believe it can be between a man and several women) and so same-sex arrangements are against God's will.

There is no doubt that same sex marriage will become a widely accepted institution, if indeed it hasn't already in some places around the world.

Once again the Church will be forced to follow, like a petulant 6 year old, or be ostricised. When tithing dwindles enough gay money will be as good as hetro money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 06:49AM by Stumbling.

is the opposition is more closely linked to a fear that if gay marriage is legalized, polygamous marriage won't be too far behind. If that happens the church will be forced to face it's own history. The Woodruff Manifesto was quite clear that the central reason for discontinuing polygamy was the law of the land. If the law of the land no longer opposes it, the question begged will be why should it not be re-instated?

Is Bednar expected to ascend to the throne because of his relative youth? Wouldn't it be a hoot if he turned out to be a raging sex fiend who was dreaming of the day he could re-instate celestial marriages here on Earth?

"I'm the Prophet! "Don't tell me that PR is more important than doctrine! "Polygamy is back baby!"

Then he starts asking bishops for their teen-aged daughters and all Hell breaks loose.

Yeah, that'd be cool. Maybe then my wife would finally develop a crack in her testimony.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2011 11:27AM by Stunted.

The Bible condemns it in both the Old and New Testaments. And they believe in the Bible.

like you can sell your daughter into slavery, you can't eat shellfish, women can't pray or teach in church, disobedient children should be put to death, divorce is forbidden. What about those things?

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."

-- Lynn Lavner, lesbian comedian and musician.

a nonny mouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> like you can sell your daughter into slavery, you
> can't eat shellfish, women can't pray or teach in
> church, disobedient children should be put to
> death, divorce is forbidden. What about those
> things?
>
> "The Bible contains six admonishments to
> homosexuals and 362 admonishments to
> heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't
> love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more
> supervision."
>
> -- Lynn Lavner, lesbian comedian and musician.

Only divorce is condemned in the New Testament. And most Christian churches still condemn divorce as a bad outcome. The rest is all Old Testament and done away with. That's why I included the New Testament in my previous comment. A lot of Christians simply can't get around the teaching of the Bible. And the Mormon Church is the least of the bunch in some respects because it is so small. Gay marriage, etc., won't be accepted by Christian churches in general until the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox accept it. They swing the big clubs. Mormonism will follow their lead.

It's polygamy. TSCC is terrified of polygamy. I had a long talk with my TBM brother a few years back. His view is that polygamy is an "Eternal principle". I know for an almost certainty that his wife would leave him if he tried that. TSCC would lose almost half of it's tithe payees almost overnight. The only way polygamy will return is if they do it secretly in the temple as they did when it was first adopted. After ten years or so of it happening covertly, it will be less of a shock to the sensibilities to the TBM women who would be unable to deal with it overnight. They will slowly admit to it going on, and in about 20 - 30 years, it will be acceptable again.

My feeling is that if the church switched to accepting same-sex marriage, they would lose far more members than they would gain. Simple math...and we all know how the church loves the numbers.

Furthermore, how many gay couples are going to go "Yay!" with the idea that they are now free to pay 10% off the top for the privelege of sitting in a 3-hour meeting block packed with kids and silent judgment?

xophor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My feeling is that if the church switched to
> accepting same-sex marriage, they would lose far
> more members than they would gain. Simple
> math...and we all know how the church loves the
> numbers.
>
> Furthermore, how many gay couples are going to go
> "Yay!" with the idea that they are now free to pay
> 10% off the top for the privelege of sitting in a
> 3-hour meeting block packed with kids and silent
> judgment?

That's not just true of the LDS Church. I believe it is fair to say that every church that has accepted gay marriage has splintered over it and lost members. The ELCA and Episcopal Church are good examples of that reality.