Sunday, July 5, 2015

Reaction To The LDS First Presidency's SCOTUS Marriage Letter From The Airport Heights Ward

The pastoral letter on the SCOTUS gay marriage decision from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was read at my local ward, the Airport Heights Ward of the Anchorage Alaska North Stake today (July 5th), and there was little to no reaction from Church members.

Adult males (Melchizedek Priesthood) and females (Relief Society) met together, where the bishop personally read the letter. Young Men and Young Women met separately in a combined group and heard the letter from the first counselor. After the bishop read the letter, there was only one question posed. A ward member wanted to know where he could get his own copy of the letter. He was steered to the LDS website ( The bishop emphasized that we were not to mistreat any ward members who support secular same-sex marriage. The letter was not referred to in either Sunday School or in Sacrament Meeting. What was interesting is that during Sacrament Meeting, we went out of our way to show that the SCOTUS decision did not weaken our patriotism to the federal government by singing The Star-Spangled Banner (everyone in the chapel stood up for this) and America The Beautiful.

Other LDS members posting on LDS Freedom Forum reported similar reactions at their respective congregations, with one exception:

gkearney » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:48 pm
Bishop read it to the Priesthood YW/RS in their respective meetings. HE offered to let the quorums/classes discuss it following. None of them did. Very uneventful.

davedan » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:55 pm
We had our 5-min combined meeting with Relief Society, and Priesthood. The Bishop read the First Presidency Message and asked for questions. There were no questions. We separated for our usual lessons.

Bpalmer » Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:06 pm
Ours was read today in priesthood opening exercises and the RS had it read to them during their meeting. No response from anyone. The Bishop did say that if anyone had any issue they were invited to meet with him privately.

WikiUp » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:58 pm
Letter read today.

Bishop requested all in attendance (children, youth, adults, visitors) at Sacrament Meeting remain in the chapel at the close of Sacrament meeting.

After close of Sacrament Meeting, the 1st Councilor read the letter to all. Nobody departed from the Chapel before or during the reading. All were offered to come up to the front of the chapel and discuss any questions or concerns with the bishopric.

No questions or responses. Dismissed for Sunday School classes. Didn't hear any informal discussion afterwards.

Youth had discussion meetings with Bishopric during YM/YW time.

idahommie » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:32 pm
Bishop read the letter in priesthood meeting, RS and Sunday school with the youth, so the Aaronic Priesthood got a double dose. No questions were raised.

Indy » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:52 pm (this was the exception)
The adults were requested to meet today during the last 15 minutes of SS when the letter would be read. After reading the letter then Bishop gave a personal talk and followed up with Q&A. The questions were well thought out and the meeting went about 15 minutes longer then the allotted 15 minutes and ranged from BSA to not allowing the facilities in any way for receptions etc. for gay couples. There were several statements by members as to how this is not over, the Scotus had overstepped their bounds, and there were several legal steps that will be tried. I was impressed by the questions and responses. I did notice that the most liberal members declined to attend the meeting. The bishop said anyone that had personal issues that they did not want to express could meet with him in private.

The letter or the Bishop said that we still have freedom of religion, and the family proclamation is still the Churches stance on the subject. I am was grateful for the reassurances, but still feel this is going to be a fight in the near future -- gays wanting to be sealed, etc.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The fighting has begun. Jana Riess of Religion News Service, and who is LDS, did an article on her blog about a LDS lesbian couple who are wanting to be married in the Temple.

Another openly gay male member, Mitch Mayne, openly lives with a non LDS partner yet still has full fellowship, still has his Priesthood, still has callings.

I know people lie about relationships, worthiness, etc. to get a Temple recommend, or to be baptized into the church. At least Mayne does not hide that he does not obey the law of Chastity nor hide his homosexuality and relationships. I give him a little credit. But the leaders who know of homosexual members that are openly sinning, and not addressing the sexual sin, need to be disciplined themselves.

The church needs to get Bishops and Stake Presidents on the same page regarding these issues.

My daughter has a friend who had a baby out of wedlock. The friend is living with her boyfriend, the father of the baby, who is also a member. They have not married. They both were disfellowshiped. It is not right for them to be disfellowshiped when a lesbian and a gay are openly sexually active, and still hold callings, and have not been disciplined. Not living the law of Chastity is serious enough, but for homosexual members to not live the law of Chastity is worse. The church says homosexuals are to not engage in homosexual sex, or any homosexual relationships. Period!.

It is not right that a straight female gets disfellowshiped for breaking the law of Chastity, and homosexuals do not get disfellowshiped for same offence. Actually a worse offence.

All leaders, church wide, need to deal with it accordingly as the church mandates, when they find out about serious sinning behavior, or.......every leader ignore the sinning behavior. It isn't right that some get away with it and others don't.

With ward and stake leaders letting these open homosexuals who openly say they are engaging in homosexual sex is steering the church to become like any mainstream Christian church.

It is very disturbing.