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 (LDS.org). 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.

Cohabiting Couples Can Apparently Be Baptized Into The LDS Church In The Philippines Without Getting Officially Married First

Normally, cohabiting couples who desire baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints face a soul-searching choice: They must either get married or else discontinue the sexual part of their relationship until marriage. The Church Handbook of Instructions, Volume 1 (16.3.11, page 145) states the following regarding cohabitation and baptism:

Persons Who Have Been Cohabiting out of Wedlock

A baptismal candidate who has been cohabiting out of wedlock with a person of the opposite gender must either marry the person or cease living with the person before he or she can be baptized.

So I was absolutely gobsmacked when I read on LDS Freedom Forum that LDS authorities in the Philippines are apparently permitting cohabiting couples to be baptized into the Church without discontinuing their cohabitation or upgrading it to official marriage. The source of the information appears unimpeachable -- it was published on June 2nd, 2015 by Elder Bradyn Balatico English, who is assigned to the Philippines San Pablo Mission. Elder English writes the following:

We have had more success in our work and our numbers are improving. The area presidency (currently Ian S. Ardern, President; Shayne M. Bowen, First Counselor; and Larry J. Echo Hawk, Second Counselor) recently released a new rule that as long as two people have been living together for 5 years or more, they are allowed to be baptized, just because it is really hard for people here to get married or to get a divorce. Which means that one of our investigators who has really been wanting to be baptized is now able to. It also means that we will probably be having about 5 baptisms this month. I think that I'm more excited for my companion than I am for myself, just because I still have so many memories from my first baptism.

There has been no confirmation of this published by LDS Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City. But even so, don't get excited, cohabiters. Special rules set forth by an area presidency apply only to that area. If you live anywhere else, you will still have to discontinue your cohabitation or upgrade it to marriage to get baptized.

Elder English is right about the exceptional difficulties facing Filipinos who want to get married or divorced. A June 25th, 2015 in The Atlantic entitled "Ending a Marriage in the Only Country That Bans Divorce" tells the story. Since divorce is illegal in the Philippines (except for Muslims), the only way to end a marriage legally is through annulment, which can be a lengthy and expensive process. An annulment ends a marriage, but differs from divorce in important ways. The parties, for instance, must prove that the marriage was never valid to begin with. Under Philippine law, reasons can include one or both parties having been below the age of 18 when they got married, either party having an incurable sexually transmitted disease, or cases of polygamy or mistaken identity. Infidelity and physical abuse are not the list of acceptable reasons for a marriage to be declared invalid under Philippine law. A petitioner seeking to leave a marriage for those or any number of other reasons has to try to prove that his or her spouse is suffering from psychological incapacity such as narcissistic personality disorder. Furthermore, annulment cases may drag on for 4 years or more, and court fees, which typically amount to nearly $400 just to file paperwork, can exceed the average monthly wages of Filipino workers, which a 2012 International Labor Organization study estimated at less than $300.

So why did the Area Presidency pick five years as the standard? Here's where the five-year rule comes into play.

Common law marriage, or common law cohabitation as it is called in the Philippines, is viewed by the law in terms of its effect on property relations and ownership. The Family Code expresses the guideline that a man and a woman who have lived together for at least 5 years and are not legally encumbered to marry are considered as husband and wife. This means, then, that all the properties that were acquired during the period of their union are considered as community or joint property, and are governed by rules on equal ownership. This also goes for wages and salaries earned by both or one party in the cohabitation agreement. If one or both parties however, are legally impeded, but are still living together, the law states clearly that only those properties or acquisitions where there was actual contribution made by both parties will be deemed as common property.

Since cohabitation of five years or longer is considered marriage for property and ownership reasons, this means the Area Presidency isn't prescribing an exception to the existing cohabitation rule, but is merely interpreting it more flexibly to reflect the unique circumstances prevalent in the Philippines. Undoubtedly the Area Presidency not only prayed about this in advance, but got permission from Salt Lake before implementing this interpretation. So the LDS Church is NOT relaxing their baptism standards.

LDS Church's First Presidency Issues Pastoral Letter On SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Affirms And Explains Present Doctrine On Marriage

On June 26th, 2015, after the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, invalidated all restrictions against secular same-sex marriages nationwide, the Church of Jesus Christ promptly issued the following statement to inform the world that the church will not change its doctrinal position on marriage:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

However, the LDS Church has followed up on June 29th by issuing a pastoral letter under the signature of the First Presidency that will be communicated to LDS congregations throughout the United States beginning on Sunday July 5th. Because the subject is considered unsuitable for children younger than 12 years old, the letter will not be read at Sacrament Meeting as is usually done with other pastoral letters, but will be read to adults, Young Men and Young Women in their various quorum meetings. The three parts of the letter are reproduced below:

Part 1: Introduction:

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

June 29, 2015

TO: General Authorities; General Auxiliary Presidencies; and the following leaders in the United States and Canada: Area Seventies; Temple, Stake Mission and District Presidencies; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

Enclosed is a statement by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in response to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. The statement also pertains to the situation in Canada. Local leaders are asked to meet with all adults, young men, and young women on either July 5 or July 12 in a setting other than sacrament meeting and read to them the entire statement.

Also included is background material which may be helpful in answering questions that arise.

Stake presidents are asked to see that bishops receive copies of this letter and the enclosures.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas S. Monson

Henry B. Eyring

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

What normally happens in my ward is that the High Priests Group and the Elders Quorum will meet together, during which time the pastoral letter will be read by a member of the Bishopric/Branch Presidency. Because Young Men are mentioned separately, the Aaronic Priesthood Quorums may assemble separately to hear it.

Part 2: Response:

RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION LEGALIZING SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES

June 29, 2015

Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. As we do, we encourage all to consider these teachings in the context of the Plan of Salvation and our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children.

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27‐28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and vital to eternal salvation.

A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. 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. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility -- even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same-sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite all to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths God established in the beginning, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.


THE COUNCIL OF
THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER‐DAY SAINTS

The three italicized paragraphs are the most important takeaways. First, the Church states that its officers will not perform same-sex marriages, and its facilities will not be used for any ceremonies or gatherings related to a same-sex wedding. Second, the Church reminds us that the gospel of Jesus Christ requires us to treat ALL people with kindness and civility, and that guaranteeing constitutional protection for gays in other areas is appropriate. Finally, the Church insists on its right to set membership standards and on the right of members to express religious convictions on marriage.

Part 3: Background Q & A:

Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents
On the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage

The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.

For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1, 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record. So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐ Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014).

Q: What is the Church’s Policy on Homosexual Relations?

A: “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. “If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

“While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2, 21.4.6).

Q: Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom?

A: Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April 1994 general conference). How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this matter unchristian? Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).

Q: What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?

“Members who...have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities.

“If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. “...Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).

Here's Why The LDS Church Continues To Counsel Young People To Marry Within The Same Racial Background

Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long left its Priesthood ban against otherwise worthy black males behind, there's a passage within one of its manuals that has been used as grist for the propaganda mills of anti-Mormons and that progressive Mormons have used to occasionally speak evil of the Lord's anointed. Counsel given in Aaronic Priesthood Manual #3, Lesson 31, makes it appear that the LDS Church opposes interracial marriage. The manual cites a 1976 devotional speech by Spencer W. Kimball, the same President Kimball who received divine authorization to lift the Priesthood ban just two years later:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

A post on Feminist Mormon Housewives by a biracial Mormon validates the wisdom of President Kimball. Kalani, who identifies as half Tongan and half Swedish white, writes of the challenges she's faced in being accepted, particularly by Tongans. Here's the critical excerpts of her post:

I suppose I should start by saying that I am half Tongan and half “palangi,” or “white” (specifically Swedish). In Tongan, they call biracial people “hafekasi” or “half cast,” and can I just say that being biracial is freaking hard?! Author Lani Wendt Young said it best in her novel "Telesa: The Covenant Keeper", when she said that the biracial lead character was “too brown to be white but too white to be brown.” It’s a very strange feeling to be an “insider” and an “outsider” at the same time. All my life, I’ve been told by the Tongan community that I am “too white to be Tongan.” I can honestly say that I’ve never felt uncomfortably different around any group EXCEPT for Tongans. It’s so weird and hard to explain. I feel like I can walk into a room full of people of all ethnicities and feel like I can fit in, but if I walk into a room full of Tongans I’m like a fish out of water. I’m different. And not “different in a good way.” Different in a “look at her...she doesn’t act right” kind of way.

{snip}

And so, when the time came for me to graduate from high school and venture into the big bad world all alone, I was very ill-prepared to deal with the incredible disapproval I received from the Tongan community because I “didn’t know how to act.” Being biracial felt a lot like walking through a mine field where other people knew where the landmines were, but they were not very forthcoming about that knowledge. Amongst Tongans, I’ve often felt “damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.” If I did or said the wrong thing, other Tongans talked about me and my family, and said I wasn’t taught right. If I asked what the right thing to do was, other Tongans talked about me and my family and said I wasn’t taught right because I had to ask. It felt like a lose-lose situation every time.

A commenter weighs in with a similar experience:

anonymous "palangi" says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:51 am

I can say that marrying into the culture I have never felt more inadequate or discriminated against then when I’m with my husband’s Tongan family. Luckily it’s becoming so much more common to be biracial so I’m not too worried about my kids trying to fit it. Plus my half white kids are way beautiful and that cannot always be said about full white or full Tongan kids…

For the record I believe in gender roles to a point, but to each their own.

This is exactly what President Kimball anticipated. And since people still experience this type of discrimination in 2014, it shows the wisdom of the LDS Church in continuing to caution young LDS members against interracial marriage. The intent is not discrimination, but awareness. Marriage and family can be challenging enough as it is without further cluttering it up with racial issues. But most important in the mind of the Church is for members to marry within the faith.

Too many young people find it difficult to distinguish between being in love and being in heat. In the same lesson, President Kimball gave some principles that should guide our selection:

“In selecting a companion for life and for eternity, certainly the most careful planning and thinking and praying and fasting should be done to be sure that, of all the decisions, this one must not be wrong. In true marriage there must be a union of minds as well as of hearts. Emotions must not wholly determine decisions, but the mind and the heart, strengthened by fasting and prayer and serious consideration, will give one a maximum chance of marital happiness” (“Marriage and Divorce,” p. 144).

In the final analysis, seek the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit, and let that Spirit be your guide.

LDS Member Condemns 4th Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision To Overturn Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban

On Monday July 28th, 2014, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote. Judge Henry Floyd, appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, was joined by Judge Roger Gregory (appointed by Bill Clinton) in the majority, while Judge Paul Niemeyer (appointed by George H.W. Bush) dissented. Not surprisingly, Judge Floyd played the 14th Amendment card, and cited the landmark 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which overturned the state’s law against interracial marriage, implied a fundamental right to marry that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms. In contrast, Judge Niemeyer noted that because there exist deep, fundamental differences between traditional and same-sex marriage, the plaintiffs and the majority erred by conflating the two relationships under the loosely drawn rubric of "the right to marriage".

The case resulted from a homosexual Norfolk couple’s lawsuit against the clerk of Norfolk Circuit Court after he refused to issue them a marriage license. The ruling upheld a federal judge’s earlier ruling that the clerk’s decision in accordance with a state constitutional ban against same-sex matrimonial unions violated the men’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, the court affirmed that the U.S. Constitution trumps the state constitution’s proscription against gay marriage.

-- Read the 98-page opinion issued in Case No. 14-1167, Bostic v. Schaefer (PDF format)

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Attorney General Mark Herring, and U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, all Democrats, acclaimed the court's decision. The Virginia clerks were expected to seek a stay of the decision, pending either a rehearing by the full circuit court, or consideration of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court. Byron Babione, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that represented one of the clerks, said they were considering their next steps. Among other media outlets reporting reaction was the Suffolk News-Herald, and the response of 48-year-old Annette Lewis, identified as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was included. Here's the excerpt:

Annette Lewis, 48, referred to marriage between two individuals of the same gender as an “abomination.”

“I don’t have anything against gay people,” she said, “but the Bible that I read says that it’s wrong.”

Lewis said she reads the King James Version of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“The court made a wrong decision, because it’s supposed to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Paul, and you can quote me on that,” she said.

The LDS Church officially defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, but has disavowed any intent to take disciplinary action against Church members who support legalizing gay marriage.

According to the Washington Post, as of July 28th, 20 states allow gay marriage, and bans against same-sex marriage have been ruled unconstitutional in 11 other states, including Virginia. Court challenges against gay marriage bans have been mounted in all other states.

LDS Church Officially Opposes Gay Marriage Bill In New Zealand

On October 26th, 2012, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement opposing New Zealand's march towards gay marriage and calling upon the public to defend and protect the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman.

The effort to redefine marriage began on August 29th, 2012 when New Zealand's Parliament passed a bill officially entitled the "Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill" by an 80-40 margin which would ultimately legalize gay marriage. However, this vote was merely the first of three affirmative votes which must take place before it can become law; after a grace period allowing written input from the public until October 26th, a second reading in Parliament is expected to take place in March 2013. If the second vote is also affirmative, the third and final reading could take place as early as April. Passage of the law would also allow gay couples to adopt children. Although polls at the time indicate that two-thirds of New Zealanders support gay marriage, opponents to the bill, organized by the conservative lobby group Family First, promptly presented a 50,000 signature petition to the parliament.

Immediately after the first vote, 70 different religious leaders issued a joint statement opposing the bill. On October 5th, as the deadline for written submissions in oppostion to the bill approached, the New Zealand Christian Network asked its members to write to the government in opposition to the redefinition of marriage, and urged pastors to speak out against it in their Sabbath sermons. As a result, on October 26th, Elder Michael Roberts, who is the Area Seventy for the Pacific Area, issued the following official statement:

The protection of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and humankind. We join with others to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for society’s good.

We also assert the existing rights of religious groups to solemnize marriage exclusively between one man and one woman according to religious tradition and individual conscience. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.

We also recognize the serious consequences of altering this time-honoured definition. One of these consequences – interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage” – warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. We believe that changing the definition of marriage would have far-reaching negative implications for the nation, both legal and social.

Therefore, we encourage all people of goodwill to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-ranging impact for religious freedom if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage.

Because our society includes many groups with differing views, we reiterate our desire for protection of marriage to be pursued in a respectful way, acknowledging society’s diversity.

Up To 60 LDS Members March Under The Mormons For Marriage Equality Banner At The Washington DC Gay Pride Parade

As many as 60 members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints marched in the Washington DC Gay Pride Parade held on June 10th, 2012. The only media documentation is a gallery of 200 photos (of the entire event) published by Metro Weekly; Mormon participation is documented on Mormon Mentality and on Teabelly's blog.

The Mormons marched behind the Mormons for Marriage Equality banner, surrounded by marchers from LGBT organizations, businesses and many other churches and groups of all varieties. They report they were greeted by loud, enthusiastic and prolonged cheering, and many expressions of gratitude. One commenter noted that no known LDS authority figures were present. Teabelly's blog is considerably more photo-rich, including some pictures of trannies and guys dressed in skimpy costumes (well, it was 90F outside). Teabelly also openly identifies as a Barack Obama supporter. The only photo I found truly disgusting was that of a small boy holding up a sign celebrating the fact that he had "two awesome moms"; nobody has more than one mother. It's sad when kids are used to push political propaganda.

Another organized Mormon group pushing for same-sex marriage is a Facebook group entitled "Mormons Building Bridges". They orchestrated the Mormon participation in the Salt Lake City gay rights parade which attracted at least 350 LDS members. MormonPride indicates that Mormons will take part in additional gay pride parades in Seattle, New York, Portland, Boise, San Francisco, Memphis, Cleveland, the Twin Cities in Minnesota, San Diego, and even Santiago, Chile.

Both Mormons for Marriage Equality and Mormons Building Bridges note that they are NOT lobbying for the LDS Church to start solemnizing gay marriages in their chapels or temples. But just to remind you that these people are in the minority, here's an LTE in the Salt Lake Tribune from Jill Wallace in South Jordan expressing the opposing point of view:

I was brought to tears when I read about members of the Latter-day Saint community supporting and marching in the Gay Pride Parade ("Mormons march in Gay Pride Parade to build bridges," Tribune, June 4): My tears were for how deceived some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really are.

We members of the LDS Church are taught to always stand in holy places and to stand up for truth and righteousness. We would not march in a parade supporting pornography, prostitution, fornication and adultery, just as we would not march in a parade legalizing drug use.

There is no difference: Sin is sin, and we must stand against it. While we certainly can have compassion for the sinner, we do not march in a parade that encourages immoral behavior.

Jill Wallace

South Jordan

Take a look at the comments appended to that letter to see some REAL intolerance.

For Those Of You Looking For "The Perfect Spouse", Read This Story Originally Entitled "The Husband Store"

After reading another litany of complaints against men and the so-called "oppressive" patriarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on a couple of the feminist blogs, I suddenly remembered a funny story I had read somewhere else on the Web. After a brief search, I found it, replicated by a number of sources. I chose this source as my reference. It's referred to elsewhere as The Husband Store:

The Perfect Man/Woman

A store that sells husbands has just opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates. You may visit the store ONLY ONCE!

There are six floors and the attributes of the men increase as the shopper ascends the flights. There is, however, a catch... you may choose any man from a particular floor, or you may choose to go up a floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building! So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband...

On the first floor the sign on the door reads: Floor 1 - These men have jobs and love the Lord.

The second floor sign reads: Floor 2 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, and love kids.

The third floor sign reads: Floor 3 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, and are extremely good looking. "Wow," she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

She goes to the fourth floor and sign reads: Floor 4 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, are drop-dead good looking and help with the housework. "Oh, mercy me!" she exclaims, "I can hardly stand it!"

Still, she goes to the fifth floor and sign reads: Floor 5 - These men have jobs, love the Lord, love kids, are drop-dead gorgeous, help with the housework, and have a strong romantic streak.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the sign reads: Floor 6 - You are visitor 400,363,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please.

Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store. Watch your step as you exit the building, and have a nice day!

Men don't get a free pass in this version:

Opposite the husband store, there is a similar store for Men, called the "wife store".

Floor 1 says "These wives know how to cook"

Floor 2 says "These wives know how to cook, and have big breasts"

Floors 3, 4, 5 and 6 have never been visited.

The bottom line: There ain't no Mr. Perfect or Ms. Perfect. So the best you can expect is Mr. Right and Ms. Right. Partnering with the Holy Spirit can keep it right.

LDS Church Reportedly Disbanding All LDS Student Wards Except For Those Serving Students Residing On College Campuses

On April 12th, 2011 the Salt Lake Tribune reports that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints intends to disband all of its student wards, except for those serving students who actually live on a college campus, and replace them with congregations for students and singles together in 12 to 17 new all-singles stakes. Bishops announced the move to congregants on Sunday April 10th and invited all the young people to a valleywide meeting at the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City on April 27th. One comment posted by Idahogirl to the story indicates that while the Tribune story only describes the Salt Lake area, the change may be churchwide; it has already been done in Pocatello, Idaho.

The LDS Church has not addressed this change officially on their website. The Church's motive appears to be to curtail "ward-hopping" by singles, in which they jump from one ward to another in search of the "perfect spouse". But by failing to land a fixed "spiritual home", they make it difficult for themselves to establish themselves, serve in callings which can promote spiritual growth, and to get temple recommends. Additional discussion of this story presented in the CougarUteForum and on LDSTech.

One single man who is a ward-hopper tells his story HERE. The unidentified blogger is a 32-year-old single male living in Salt Lake City. Since returning from his European mission twelve years ago, he's been ward-hopping, attending every LDS singles ward that has existed in the last decade from Provo to Ogden - and a few in Vegas, California, Washington and St. George. And he seems to be searching for the "perfect wife".

Mormon Messages: Elder Dallin H. Oaks Speaks Out On Marriage And Divorce; Divorced Members Are Not "Second-Class Saints"

While searching for some other information, I found this video in which Elder Dallin H. Oaks discusses marriage and divorce. Posted on July 6th, 2009, it consists of excerpts from an article published in Ensign Magazine in May 2007. It is just as relevant today as it was then -- perhaps even more so:



You can read the full address HERE. The address was originally delivered during the Sunday morning session of the April 2007 General Conference.

Highlights: Elder Oaks notes that the concept that society has a strong interest in preserving marriages for the common good has been replaced for many by the idea that marriage is only a private relationship between consenting adults, terminable at the will of either. The weakening of the concept that marriages are permanent and precious has far-reaching consequences; many young people, influenced by their own parents’ divorce or by popular notions that marriage is oppressive, either avoid marriage altogether or cohabitate without commitment.

In regards to eternal marriage, performed in our temples, Elder Oaks had this to say:

The kind of marriage required for exaltation — eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

Elder Oaks does recognize that some marriages become difficult. But rather than consider divorce the first resort, he wants us to consider it the last resort. Elder Oaks suggest that for most marriage problems, the remedy is not divorce but repentance. Often the cause is not incompatibility but selfishness. The first step is not separation but reformation. Divorce is not an all-purpose solution, and it often creates long-term heartache. Spouses who hope that divorce will resolve conflicts often find that it aggravates them, since the complexities that follow divorce—especially where there are children—generate new conflicts. A couple with serious marriage problems should see their bishop; if he can't help, he can steer couples towards those with greater expertise in counseling.

But Elder Oaks does recognize that some marriages do indeed become insoluble. When a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it. No one is expected to remain married to spouses who are chronically abusive or who persistently betray sacred covenants or abandon or refuse to perform marriage responsibilities for an extended period. And contrary to anti-Mormon propaganda, the LDS Church does not officially consider divorced members to be "second-class Saints", although an occasional overzealous or insensitive bishop or stake president may wrongfully infer so. Nearly any calling can be extended to a divorced member, except that of bishop or stake president.

In the final analysis, Elder Oaks suggests that the best way to avoid divorce from an unfaithful, abusive, or unsupportive spouse is to avoid marriage to such a person. If you wish to marry well, inquire well. Associations through hanging out or exchanging information on the Internet are not a sufficient basis for marriage. There should be dating, followed by careful and thoughtful and thorough courtship.

LDS Church Presiding Bishop H. David Burton One Of 26 Co-Signatories To A Letter, "The Protection Of Marriage: A Shared Commitment"

Leaders of some of the largest religious communities in the United States have come together to express their commitment toward the protection of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In an open letter released on December 6th, 2010, entitled “The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment,” leaders from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, Orthodox, Pentecostal and Sikh communities in the United States affirmed the importance of preserving marriage’s unique meaning.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, newly elected president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said “The broad consensus reflected in this letter — across great religious divides — is clear: The law of marriage is not about imposing the religion of anyone, but about protecting the common good of everyone”.

Representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was Presiding Bishop H. David Burton; the LDS Church also issued its own press release. In 2008, the LDS Church released a document called “The Divine Institution of Marriage”, which further explains the Church’s position on the sanctity of marriage. The full text of today's letter appears below:

Dear Friends,

Marriage is the permanent and faithful union of one man and one woman. As such, marriage is the natural basis of the family. Marriage is an institution fundamental to the well-being of all of society, not just religious communities.

As religious leaders across different faith communities, we join together and affirm our shared commitment to promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We honor the unique love between husbands and wives; the indispensible place of fathers and mothers; and the corresponding rights and dignity of all children.

Marriage thus defined is a great good in itself, and it also serves the good of others and society in innumerable ways. The preservation of the unique meaning of marriage is not a special or limited interest but serves the good of all. Therefore, we invite and encourage all people, both within and beyond our faith communities, to stand with us in promoting and protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Sincerely yours,

(Signatures of 26 different religious representatives)

The Presiding Bishop is listed as one of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, so he is empowered to make official statements on behalf of the Church. Consequently, this shows that the LDS Church remains irrevocably committed to the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman for the foreseeable future. But instead of sticking its neck up individually and risking getting it chopped off, the LDS leadership has wisely decided to merge its efforts to defend marriage with a host of other like-minded denominations. There is safety in numbers.

LDS Church Agrees To Pay California FPPC A $5,539 Fine For Late Reporting Of Proposition 8-Related Contributions To Protect Marriage Coalition

On June 8th, 2010, the Deseret News reports that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has agreed to pay a $5,539 fine levied by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for the alleged late reporting of some of the Church's contributions to the Protect Marriage Coalition to get Proposition 8 passed in 2008. Additional stories published by the Salt Lake Tribune, KTVX Channel 4, and KSL Channel 5.

As the state agency for interpreting and enforcing California's campaign finance rules, the FPPC identified 13 instances of non-monetary late contributions made and not timely reported — or the church failing to file daily reports detailing $36,928 in in-kind contributions, including the cost of staff time spent by church employees to help the "Yes on 8" committee. This issue is scheduled to be on the agenda for a June 10th meeting by the FPPC for final approval of the settlement.

In a statement issued by the LDS Church, they acknowledged sloppy bookkeeping, which is not infrequent considering the Byzantine complexity of campaign reporting requirements nowadays, but denied any attempt to deliberately misrepresent their contributions:

All institutional contributions made by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the Protect Marriage Coalition were reported to the appropriate authorities in California.

In the last two weeks leading up to the election, the Church mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement and instead reported those contributions together in a later filing. The Church appreciates the fairness and consideration with which the Fair Political Practices Commission has addressed this oversight.

Claims that the Church misrepresented its contributions to the Protect Marriage Coalition are false.

The Tribune reports that Fred Karger, who filed the original complaint with the commission, said that the fine validates his allegations that the LDS Church tried to cover up its role in banning same-sex marriage in California. "They have absolutely every right -- as any religious organization, any individual, any business owner, union, whomever -- to be involved," he said. "But they must comply with the law if they are going to be involved in politics. That's what they've been covering up." Karger then added, "My fervent hope is they will get out of this business and go help earthquake victims in Chile or something, but get out of peoples' lives and denying their happiness". Karger is the founder of "Californians Against Hate" and is himself a homosexual.

Joe Solmonese, the president of the homosexual-supremacist Human Rights Campaign, also accuses the Church of intentionally covering their tracks, saying "It's just not credible that a multibillion-dollar, sophisticated organization like the LDS Church didn't know or understand the election-law requirements. California requires early disclosure so voters know who's behind these referendum fights and, clearly, the Mormon Church worked overtime to keep their full involvement hidden from the people of California."

Once again, the LDS Church denies any intended "cover-up".

In 2009, the LDS Church said its total contributions to "Yes on 8" tallied $189,903.58 -- all non-monetary, in-kind contributions such as video production from its studios, church employee time and airfare and lodging costs for church leaders traveling to California for campaign efforts. In all, those contributions were a mere drop in the bucket, totaling less than one percent of the total of $43.3 million raised by Proposition 8 proponents. Opponents raised $39.9 million.

LDS Church Lauds California Supreme Court For Upholding Proposition 8, Defending Traditional Marriage And Protecting Voter Prerogative

Among those reacting favorably to the California Supreme Court's 6-1 decision to uphold Proposition 8, which defines marriage only as between one man and one woman, is an organization whose members had a major stake in the outcome. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement commending the Court for its decision:

Statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

SALT LAKE CITY 26 May 2009 Today's decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.

Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.

KSL Channel 5 news video embedded below (additional story on the Mormon Times):

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval, reaffirming Californians' right to change their constitution through the ballot box.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution." They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion, disagreeing that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution."

However, the estimated 18,000 gay marriages in California have not been orphaned or left in limbo. The court said it is well-established legal principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to apply retroactively, and there was no such clear indication in Proposition 8. Consequently, their marriages are still considered valid - for the moment. Of course, the court neglected to mention that they contributed to this problem in the first place by invalidating the original law.

Unofficial LDS reaction from the Bloggernacle now showing up on Mormon Inquiry, A Soft Answer, Mormon Matters (which includes a poll), and The Exponent. All except the Exponent agree with the Court's decision.

Perspectives On LDS Doctrine: Is A Marriage Truly Equal If The Husband "Presides" Over The Wife?

An interesting question was posed by two different bloggers in the Bloggernacle on May 6th, 2009. The question: Can a marriage be truly equal if, according to LDS Church doctrine, the husband presides over the wife? Two different answers resulted. Which of the two, if any, is right?

On Waters Of Mormon, the Baron gives his opinion, based upon a limited legalistic human perspective:

If men are called to “lead”, “rule” and/or “preside” over the family, then by definition the relationship is not equal. And if they truly are not equal, then why not just say so, without trying to cloud the issue through grafted-on, nice-sounding rhetoric about equal partners.

Or, on the other hand, if husbands and wives really are equal partners, then why introduce the abstract concept of "presiding" in the first place?

But on Blogger Of Jared, Michelle gives a different opinion, based upon a less limited and more divine perspective:

I also think that language is limited. This idea of presiding is a perfect example. In the dictionary, presiding means something and we pigeonhole doctrinal teachings by the dictionary, instead of considering that perhaps sometimes there could be different meaning in gospel context. e.g., the presiding thing. I really believe that presiding by definition in a marriage is essentially doing what is necessary to create a safe, consistent, Spirit-led environment where equal partnership can take place and where family life can thrive. Equal partnership simply cannot happen if a man is not willing to make that possible. For whatever reason, imo, that is a key part of the man’s duty in a marriage.

In her mind, Michelle believes that the husband must act as the "president" of the home in order to fulfill his equal obligations, and if he fails to do so, then he is not pulling his weight. Interesting concept.

Michelle then drives the message home later in the post by reminding us that in the Lord's perspective, marriage is supposed to be a cooperative relationship rather than a competitive relationship. With that in mind, "presidency" doesn't become oppressive or chauvinistic.

In the Doctrine & Covenants, the Lord, through His prophet Joseph Smith, took very short shrift with men who used "presidency" or "Priesthood" to wrongfully impose their will upon their wives. Section 121 contains the guidance, beginning with verse 36:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

As you can see, merely designating the husband to be "president" of the family is not, in and of itself, an unequal or oppressive act. It is only when the husband misuses that authority and exercises unrighteous dominion that it becomes an oppressive act. And at the very moment he begins to exercise unrighteous dominion, the Spirit abruptly flees, and the man's priesthood authority immediately ceases in spirit. At that point, the man has just exchanged "priesthood" for "priestcraft". Priestcraft is the Satanic counterfeit of priesthood, and Satan, having lost eternity because of open rebellion, prefers to insinuate and counterfeit in order to seduce and lead away the spirits of men.

Also take note of the use of the word "sharpness" in verse 43. "Sharpness" does NOT mean abusiveness, but means "clarity". Note that the reproval with sharpness is intertwined with the influence of the Holy Ghost. This prevents "sharpness" from becoming abusive.

Michelle clearly has a better grasp of the Lord's mind on this issue.