Once Again, Elder D. Todd Christofferson Said Mormons Can Support Secular Same-Sex Marriage Without Jeopardizing Church Membership Or Temple Worthiness

One would think that when a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles speaks out on Church doctrine and policy, that would put an end to the controversy. But apparently some local leaders don't always get the message -- as a member of LDS Freedom Forum points out.

barrattasu » Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:11 pm

I have a temple recommend interview on Sunday and I am having a serious internal dilemma. I have asked several people who serve in a bishopric if I can have a temple recommend and believe that gay marriage should be legal. I even asked a counselor in my current bishopric. He said that the bishopric talked about this specific question and they would not give a recommend to anyone that admits to supporting gay marriage. I have a friend who is a counselor in another bishopric and he went to the Stake President with this question. HIs Stake President said that you absolutely could have a recommed and support gay marriage. I did clarify with those who said I couldn't have a recommend if I support gay marriage, that it was simply agreeing with gay marriage that makes me ineligble. They said to refer to the question that states do you sympothize or agree with any individual or group.... I told them that the question/answer form that was given along with the statement to be read said that a persons membership is not in question if they support gay marriage. They said this is true but you can't have a temple recommend. My feeling is that there will be enough confusion that the Church will further clarify this situation. Has anyone run into this before or heard anything in regards to this in there local ward/branch?

It's already been clarified. In March 2015, during an interview by KUTV, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve spoke out on this issue. He made it perfectly clear that LDS members who support secular same-sex marriage will not sacrifice their membership or temple worthiness. Here's the video of the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XybDk3CEoHg



There's also a written transcript of the interview. Here's the key excerpt:

Reporter: Members of the LDS Church have been watching this too, around the the country, and it brings up the question as they’re dealing with these issues, maybe within their families, or trying to understand how maybe religious freedom applies to them within the church. Obviously the church has its doctrine, but can members of the church, say, support gay marriage or other things that are related to this bill [Utah SB 296] that the Church teaches against – can they support that?

Christofferson: Well there is a diversity of opinion among church members in that regard and you know that’s always been true I guess on many subjects over the years over the decades and we don’t have qualms about that. We urge people to take part, for example, in the political process and we don’t tell them how to vote or who to vote for but that they exercise their own good judgment and make their decisions. Obviously that’s different than when somebody attacks the church, you know per se, or tries to hinder its work. But anybody pursuing their view of what ought to happen in the community – that’s what we hope to see, frankly. In a way you saw it here in the legislature. The vast majority of legislators in Utah are members the LDS Church and you see a wide variety of opinions in them and among them as you do in our at the federal level in the US and in other countries. So if we’re trying to get everybody to sing the same song and say exactly the same thing we’re failing miserably, but you saw that in this case as in most I hope people do work to come together on what can be the best solution for everybody.

Reporter: I know that in one of the temple recommend interview questions it asks do you agree with elements that are against the church and I guess, I mean, could it be interpreted that if people supported gay marriage that would be agreeing with something that was against the church? [Ed. Note: The specific question reads "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"]

Christofferson: Well it’s not do you agree with a person’s position or an organization’s position – it is are you supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church.

Reporter: So would supporting gay marriage threaten somebody’s membership in the church if they went out say on Facebook or Twitter and actively advocated for it?

Christofferson: That’s not an organized effort to to attack our effort or attack our functioning as a church, if you will.

Reporter: So members can hold those beliefs even though they’re different from what you teach at the pulpit?

Christofferson: Yes. And we..you know, our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t, he said, you can’t use the Priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate. You can’t compel, you can’t coerce. It has to be gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned as the words are in the scripture.

As blogger J. Max Wilson later pointed out on June 28th, Elder Christofferson did NOT say that there is nothing wrong with Church members supporting same-sex marriage. He merely said that expressing personal support for same-sex marriage in social media would not be cause for discipline, so long as it wasn’t part of an organized effort to undermine the church. LDS members who support same-sex marriage are still out of harmony with Gospel principles. But the Church will tolerate their erroneous views in the hope that over time they will be persuaded to repent.

So if a bishop threatens to withhold a temple recommend from someone who has supported secular same-sex marriage, the best advice is to simply remind him that an apostle has ruled otherwise.

Glassell Park LDS Chapel Severely Damaged By Brush Fire In The Los Angeles Area

Screenshot from KTLA video

Two congregations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are temporarily without a sanctuary as the Glassell Park chapel located in northeast Los Angeles was severely damaged by a brush fire on July 7th, 2015. The most complete news stories are available from KTLA Channel 5 and MyNewsLA; this post summarizes the highlights.

It began as a quarter-acre brush fire at the intersection of the Glendale Freeway and North Verdugo Road, first reported at 2:38 P.M. But the fire burned uphill, spreading to the eaves of the chapel located at 3845 Fletcher Drive. A reported 185 firefighters were eventually involved in suppressing the blaze, and while firefighters initially appeared to have knocked back the flames, the blaze erupted in the building’s attic, sending heavy black smoke over the area. Flames then burned through the roof, a portion of which collapsed and sent firefighters scrambling for ladders to get off the top of the structure. Fire crews then went into a defensive mode, pouring water on the blaze to drown the flames. Some flames spread to nearby palm trees. Two hours and 14 minutes later, the fire was suppressed, and firefighters assisted local church leaders in recovering documents and valuables from insider the chapel. Two firefighters were injured; one's in good condition despite an arm injury and the other in fair condition after complaining of dizziness. The very steep pitched roof with tiles was cited as increasing the difficulty of suppression. The official cause of the brush fire has not been determined.

The Eastsider published a timeline of events relating to the fire and has some good photos.

Bishop Carlos Diaz of the Fletcher Ward said "It's really sad news. I grew up in here so I know this building really well. It's a real tragedy." James Jenks, a former bishop of the church, said most of the interior damage was confined to the kitchen and some of the classrooms. The chapel area was spared. He also stated that over 1,000 people attended services at the building (KTLA reported 400 people, but the MyNewsLA report seems more realistic). According to maps.lds.org, the resident congregations are the Fletcher Ward and the Arroyo Ward, both part of the Spanish-speaking East Los Angeles California Stake. The congregations will disperse to other nearby chapels to worship for the foreseeable future.

Update July 15th: On July 14th, graffiti was discovered on the remains of the Glassell Park chapel. It looks more like gang graffiti rather than any anti-Mormon tagging.

Screenshot from KABC video

Police confirm the graffiti is the work of a known tagging crew. The paint appears to be fresh and may have taken the suspects several nights to complete.

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.

A True Champion For Christ Passes Away: May President Boyd K. Packer Rest In Peace (1924-2015)

Less than five weeks after the passing of Elder L. Tom Perry, another champion for Christ has passed away, opening up a second vacancy on the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On July 3rd, 2015, President Boyd K. Packer died at home from causes incident to old age. He was 90 years old. President Packer was born September 10th, 1924, the 10th of 11 children, in Brigham City, Utah. He is survived by his wife, Donna, and their 10 children, one of whom is Elder Allen Packer of the First Quorum of Seventy. He is also survived by 60 grandchildren and 103 great-grandchildren.

Update July 4th: Funeral services will be held in the Tabernacle on Temple Square on Friday July 10th at 11:00 A.M. MDT. The funeral will be open to the public ages 8 and older. The Temple Square gates and the Tabernacle doors will open at 9:30 A.M. Those wishing to attend should be in their seats by 10:30 A.M. Overflow seating will be available in the Assembly Hall and the North Visitors’ Center on Temple Square. There will be no public viewing, and a private burial service will take place at the Brigham City Cemetery following the funeral.

-- See video of the funeral HERE.

President Packer was serving as president of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time of his passing, a position he held since February 3rd, 2008. Prior to that, he served as acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve since June 5th, 1994. He was ordained an apostle on April 9th, 1970, and served for over 53 years as one of the Church's general authorities. He was the fifth longest-serving general authority in LDS history; only David O. McKay, Heber J. Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Wilford Woodruff served longer as general authorities. As the senior apostle, President Packer was next in line to succeed President Thomas S. Monson should that have become necessary; with Packer's death, Elder Russell M. Nelson becomes the senior apostle, and will be set apart as the new President of the Quorum of the Twelve in the near future.

-- Timeline of President Packer's life.

-- A photographic look at President Packer's life and service.

President Packer was one of the foremost defenders of LDS doctrine. He took seriously the apostolic responsibility of a watchman; namely, to be on the lookout for trends that will take us where we do not want to go, teachings that seem harmless and appealing on the surface but will destroy the faith of our youth, and individuals who cannot take counsel nor get beyond ego, thus dragging themselves and others down. He raised alarms against immorality, the disease of profanity, bad music, the plague of pornography, and substances that interfere with the delicate feelings of spiritual communication -- coffee, tobacco, liquor and drugs. His direct approach earned him sharp criticism from anti-Mormons, some ex-Mormons, and even progressive Mormons who are uncomfortable with the LDS Church being populated with "peculiar people". But President Packer refused to skirt issues in order to save feelings; he said the Church could not change because some wished or wanted it, because the Lord's words are not to be adjusted by experiments or theories of men. In 1993, President Packer cited intellectuals, feminists, and gays as three great dangers to the Church; while the problem with gays proved to be over-stated, the problems with intellectuals and feminists continue.

The best summary of President Packer's life is an 8-page Deseret News article entitled "President Boyd K. Packer, champion of families, master teacher, resolute defender of LDS doctrine, dies at 90".

Tributes to President Packer poured in from numerous sources, to include Utah Governor Gary Herbert, Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, the Rt. Rev. Scott B. Hayashi, Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Utah, and Monsignor Colin F. Bircumshaw, administrator for the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.

It's unknown when the two vacancies on the Quorum will be filled. The First Presidency could choose to wait for the next LDS General Conference in October or name replacements in the intervening months. The last time the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had a two-man vacancy came in July 2004, with the deaths of apostles David B. Haight and Neal A. Maxwell. Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar were named in October that year as replacements. The First Quorum of the Seventy is often considered a Triple AAA farm club for the Quorum of the Twelve, but apostles have been selected from other sources. Elder Russell M. Nelson was a heart surgeon, and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who was ordained an apostle just weeks after Nelson, was a Utah Supreme Court justice.

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.