[kljackman]

Our ward split this over two weeks—the youth the first week, then the adults (RS and PH done separately) in the second week. The stated concern was that the youth were particularly “at risk” of being beguiled into accepting marriage equality as okay both inside and outside the church.

The discussion in priesthood began with anger about “those people” redefining marriage, progressed to the horrible oppression Church members would now experience (it’s already started on Facebook—I was unfriended when I told someone their rainbow flag-overlaid profile image was immoral), to a discussion of Elder Christofferson’s statement that no one would be excommunicated for supporting the SCOTUS ruling. The bishop sat quietly (he had deferred to a counselor to read the letter), and let the counselor lead the discussion.

I expected most of the reaction; I live in an extraordinarily conservative ward. But I was surprised when one brother suggested that Elder Christofferson’s statement that no one would be *excommunicated* should be very narrowly interpreted as meaning that while actual membership in the Church was not at risk, that any person accepting the SCOTUS ruling should be rightly shunned, watched more closely, and potentially removed from positions of responsibility or authority. His stated view was that agreeing with that clarification of civil law amounted to “going against the prophet” and thus made one apostate in principle. Again, the bishop remained silent and the counselor agreed that such peoples’ righteousness was suspect.

When I chatted with the counselor afterward (mentioning that I believe the SCOTUS ruling was correct from a civil standpoint—equal protection is precisely what permits the Church free exercise of its own doctrines and practices, after all) I asked him outright if someone like me would be treated by the leadership with full fellowship. He said so long as I didn’t carry a sign in a parade or actively support such things in a public way, that he saw no problem. I asked if he agreed with Bishop Paredes that Harry Reid could not be a good Mormon while concurrently being a leader in the Democratic Party and he laughed. The conversation ended abruptly when he was called into the bishop’s office.

I understand the momentary overreaction (even if I disagree with its basis); I just hope this response is more bluster than policy.

[kljackman]

What the letter seems to clarify is that despite the legal (civil) recognition of marriage equality, the Church still considers homosexual sex to be a sin. Thus, your legal same-sex marriage does not now justify intimate physical relations in the Church’s eyes.

The letter simply reiterates current policy for LGBTQ people: you can believe what you must, just don’t act on it—even within a legally sanctioned relationship—because the definition of chastity is reserved for opposite sex couples and any other sexual relationship is still considered morally unacceptable and is subject to normal Church discipline.

Quote:

His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Religious liberty is the legal justification (and ongoing defense) for how the Church can recognize the (civil) legality of marriage equality while still (religiously) condemning homosexual sex as a violation of the law of chastity (the same reasoning that permits the prohibition of alcohol despite its legality). It has nothing to do with the principles of faithfulness, fidelity, or monogamy; it’s a clarification that the Church considers homosexual sex itself to be a sin in any context.

In other words, absolutely nothing changes. Move along; there’s nothing to see here despite what you may have heard.

[Author]

Posts