LDS Church's options for gays

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hush.

case in point.

excuse me while I relieve myself.....

[Jeff Lebowski]

Thanks for that long post, BruinCoug. I enjoyed reading it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Bruincoug

yeah. reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (did i get the title right?) -- made me better understand how inter-Quorum politics work, and the way that one or two stubborn old men can forestall progress, even revelatory progress. of course, in this instance, we have a case of most of the 12 + 3 -- rather than just a handful -- being immovable. 1978 came a long time after, say, the armed forces were integrated. gays in the military may precede any acceptance of gays in the pews. and i think the former 5-10 years away.

While I'm not sure I fully agree with your characterization of those events, I do agree that God seems to raise up the right men for the right times. When his his intention came to have the ban removed, he raised up men who would do it, who lived in a time when it could be done.

I'm not sure what this means for the gay issue, though. The doctrinal questions are so much more difficult. One thing is certain: no one seems to think it's going away.

If the day comes that 30 states' laws are reversed, by whatever means, it may be that the church ends up being one of the last institutions standing who don't concede. That could be a very difficult day. Hopefully God raises up men equal to the challenge.

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by Bruincoug

yeah. reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (did i get the title right?) -- made me better understand how inter-Quorum politics work, and the way that one or two stubborn old men can forestall progress, even revelatory progress. of course, in this instance, we have a case of most of the 12 + 3 -- rather than just a handful -- being immovable. 1978 came a long time after, say, the armed forces were integrated. gays in the military may precede any acceptance of gays in the pews. and i think the former 5-10 years away.

Yep. By the late 1960's, it sounds like 14 of 15 (all but Harold B. Lee) were ready to change the doctrine/policy. But then Elder Lee became President Lee, and it took another 10 years to make the change.

Because of the way the church hierarchy is structured (demographic homogeneity, requirement of unanimity in decision-making, etc.), the church will always be 15 - 100 years behind the curve on social issues. The only debate is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

While I'm not sure I fully agree with your characterization of those events, I do agree that God seems to raise up the right men for the right times. When his his intention came to have the ban removed, he raised up men who would do it, who lived in a time when it could be done.

I'm not sure what this means for the gay issue, though. The doctrinal questions are so much more difficult. One thing is certain: no one seems to think it's going away.

If the day comes that 30 states' laws are reversed, by whatever means, it may be that the church ends up being one of the last institutions standing who don't concede. That could be a very difficult day. Hopefully God raises up men equal to the challenge.

You mean the Catholics will eventually acquiese (sp?)? And the Catholic Church is a huge institution.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Hazzard

Yep. By the late 1960's, it sounds like 14 of 15 (all but Harold B. Lee) were ready to change the doctrine/policy. But then Elder Lee became President Lee, and it took another 10 years to make the change.

Because of the way the church hierarchy is structured (demographic homogeneity, requirement of unanimity in decision-making, etc.), the church will always be 15 - 100 years behind the curve on social issues. The only debate is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Are you saying God ordains gay marriage and the Church leaders are behind the curve on this issue?

[BYU71]

This is something I have never understood about any of these issues.

If the Prophet is the prophet and he says gays can't marry, they can't. If you think he is wrong and is not the prophet, what do you want to be a member for anyway. I disagree with the Prophet on things over my last 41 years of life. None so profound though that I seek to have the "church" change it's view.

If I had a disagreement that profound with the church, I wouldn't go around trying to change their minds, I would just leave and join a church I believed in.

No one is forced to be a member.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

This is something I have never understood about any of these issues.

If the Prophet is the prophet and he says gays can't marry, they can't. If you think he is wrong and is not the prophet, what do you want to be a member for anyway. I disagree with the Prophet on things over my last 41 years of life. None so profound though that I seek to have the "church" change it's view.

If I had a disagreement that profound with the church, I wouldn't go around trying to change their minds, I would just leave and join a church I believed in.

No one is forced to be a member.

Father, I have sinned. I agreed with BYU71.

[Bruincoug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

This is something I have never understood about any of these issues.

If the Prophet is the prophet and he says gays can't marry, they can't. If you think he is wrong and is not the prophet, what do you want to be a member for anyway. I disagree with the Prophet on things over my last 41 years of life. None so profound though that I seek to have the "church" change it's view.

If I had a disagreement that profound with the church, I wouldn't go around trying to change their minds, I would just leave and join a church I believed in.

No one is forced to be a member.

you say that you've disagreed with the Prophet on small things -- just not any so profound that . . . . Probably, people who stay members, but disagree with their leaders on certain issues HAVE THE EXACT SAME MINDSET YOU DO: namely, even if the leaders are wrong, being wrong about a small number of things doesn't outweigh being right about more important ones.

My mission president said he put off joining the Church for years (his wife had been a member and he joined at 40+) because:
1. it was pre-1978 and he couldn't accept Blacks and the Priesthood policies
2. he couldn't accept Church leaders position on the Viet Nam War.

Sooner or later, he said, he decided that these issues were not important enough to deny himself and his family the blessings of being in the Church. So, over his objections, he still joined. The policy in 1 was changed (years later) and 2 became a non-issue with time.


As a dumbed-down illustration, consider bullshit ratio:
If the Church teaches 99% bullshit and 1% truth, i would probably start looking for a different church.
If it teaches 99% truth and 1% bullshit, I'd certainly stay.
But, where is the breaking point in-between?
(of course, most of what we hear in church is not necessarily BS and not necessarily truth, it's more like fluff -- but you get my point)

The BS ratio is drastically different in, say, General Conference (very little BS) than my home ward (mostly BS). Plus, we uniquely have an open canon, broad leeway for personal revelation and no official catechism or dogma. So, all things considered, I think it's very easy to remain in the Church and disregard a few bits of BS or fluff here and there. Plus, I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know everything -- I could be wrong or biased about certain issues I'm forced to "put on the shelf."

[Bruincoug]

Originally Posted by Hazzard

Yep. By the late 1960's, it sounds like 14 of 15 (all but Harold B. Lee) were ready to change the doctrine/policy. But then Elder Lee became President Lee, and it took another 10 years to make the change.

Because of the way the church hierarchy is structured (demographic homogeneity, requirement of unanimity in decision-making, etc.), the church will always be 15 - 100 years behind the curve on social issues. The only debate is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

WARNING: crackpot theory ahead. If you believe I'm apostate, stop now!

My takeaway (or crackpot theory) is that the Lord constrained David O. McKay -- who apparently dearly wanted to change the policy -- and other leaders from changing the policy BECAUSE if they had, Harold B. Lee would have reinstated it (a la Joseph F. Smith with his theories on "the Origin of Man" -- which the church officially disclaimed both before and after he was President of the Church). If Lee had done so, we would have been much worse off than by just waiting a few more years. Ultimately, the Lord provided a way for the 1978 Revelation.

from wikipedia:
". . . [the] First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (minus Harold B. Lee, who was traveling) voted to rescind the racial exclusion policy; however, that vote was reversed when Lee returned and called for a re-vote, arguing that the policy could not be changed without a revelation. [citing Quinn]

When McKay died in 1970 Joseph Fielding Smith became church president and Lee was called as First Counselor in the First Presidency. He continued to gain practical experience for what was expected to be a long presidency of his own, he being decades younger than Smith.

However, Lee's presidency proved one of the briefest in the history of the church, lasting from Smith's death in July 1972 to Lee's sudden fatal heart attack in December 1973."

If this were the old Testament or Book of Mormon, it would read:
1. In the year 1969, the word of the Lord came to the Prophets, Harold who was among them, hardened his heart against them.
2. In the year 1970, McKay died and was buried.
3. In the year 1972, Joseph Fielding Smith died and was buried.
4. In the year 1972 Lee ascended to Moses' seat and was smitten by the Lord so that he could not lead away his people.
5. In the year 1978, the word of the Lord came to the Prophets again.

(which is not to say that Harold B. Lee wasn't a good man or inspired in many other ways. We are all flawed. So was Joseph. So was Brigham. So was Moses. So was Lehi -- but they all made mistakes too!)