"Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS Apostle reiterates"


Guest LiterateParakeet
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest LiterateParakeet

This both surprised me and made me happy.  

 

"An LDS apostle reaffirmed recently that Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships — even though the Utah-based faith opposes the practice.

In an interview Friday with KUTV in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be in trouble only for "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's."

Backing marriage equality on social media sites, including on Facebook or Twitter, "is not an organized effort to attack our effort," Christofferson said in the interview, "or our functioning as a church."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage

 

I'm posting this because I thought it would be of interest here.  But I have no desire to debate my personal opinion on the issue--so I'll just duck out now....  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the video:  

 


 

The discussion about members supporting stuff starts around 4:15-ish.  Elder Christofferson's comments:

 

"There is a diversity of opinion among church members in that regard, and 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 they exercise their own good judgement, and make their decisions.  Obviously that's different when somebody attacks the church 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 of the LDS church.  And you see a wide variety of opinions in them, and among them as you do at the federal level and in other countries.  So if we're trying to get everyone to sing the same song and say exactly the same thing, we're failing miserably."  

 

The interviewer then asks about the temple recommend question" "'Do you agree with elements that are against the church':  Could it be interpreted that if people supported gay marriage, that would be agreeing with something that was against the church?"

 

"Well, it's not 'do you agree with a person's position or an organization's position', it's 'are you supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church'. 

 

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

 

"No.  That's not an organized effort to attack our effort, or attack our functioning as a church if you will."

 

"So members can hold those beliefs even though they're different from what you teach at the pulpit?"

 

"Yes.  And we, you know, our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion.  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 gentle persuasion, love unfeigned (are the words that are in the scriptures)."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not surprised by this, as itisn't a change to anything I already knew about the church.  Go ask any bishop about what some of the inactive or 'do-not-contact' members believe, and you'll hear all sorts of things.  Yet they remain members of the church, and we all anguish over how to reach them and get them active again.  

 

This isn't a church of "we say so", this is a church of "here's what we believe and why, we invite you to figure it out for yourselves and join us if you agree".  

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were in favor of gay marriage, I would find this cold comfort; for a couple of reasons.

 

First, Elder Christofferson is not saying it's right to support gay marriage; he's just saying it's not wrong enough that the Church will impose discipline.  In other words, supporting gay marriage is in the same category as supporting gambling, or modifying zoning to allow the opening of a strip joint, or paste eating.

 

Secondly, the only real "safe harbor" Elder Christofferson seems to have set out here, is uncoordinated posts on social media--and even then, I've got to be really careful; because if someone baits me with a "but the prophets/Church have said x, and I reply with a discussion as to why the prophets/Church are wrong on this issue, I'm still subject to discipline.  And I certainly don't see him promising that people who donate financially, walk precincts, or serve on organizing communities, are going to be immune from Church discipline.  In fact, he seems to be hinting quite the opposite.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NeuroTypical beat me to it. Yes, what the Tribune said was technically correct: no one is going to lose out on a recommend for having no real beef with the politics of gay marriage. No one is going to lose out on a recommend for saying all legalities should be distributed equally.  In my view, promotions of gay marriage are not actually working against the Church.

 

But, yet, there is something about the Tribune article that feels off to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuff that may get you kicked out of the church:

* Spouse abuse

* Various serious felonies like murder or child molestation

* Becoming an ordained minister of another church

* Running an organization the purpose of which is to denounce, discount, or change the church from the outside.

* Some forms of sexual sin (like adultery or same-sex relations)

 

Stuff that probably won't get you kicked out of the church, but may keep you from a temple recommend:

* Smoking

* Drinking

* Extra-marital sex

* Some forms of sexual sin (like adultery or same-sex relations)

* Affiliating with organizations the purpose of which is to denounce, discount, or change the church from the outside.

* Supporting things the church doesn't support (like legalizing marijuana or same-sex marriage or gambling or brothels or what have you)

 

Stuff that won't get you kicked out of the church, which shocks some people:

* Being a Democrat.

 

None of this was really new to me.  (Except the Democrat thing - I'm shocked - SHOCKED I tells you!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were in favor of gay marriage, I would find this cold comfort; for a couple of reasons.

 

 

To be honest, I don't think this was meant to give comfort or to receive comfort. Unfortunately, we have a lot of members of our Church who are constantly scrutinizing others for their beliefs online and telling them that if they say X about gay marriage on social media, if they say they support it specifically, they could get excommunicated, etc. Elder Christofferson is simply clarifying that it is not the case, he is basically saying that they could write in HUGE capital letters on Facebook, Twitter, etc that they support Gay Marriage and they are not going to be subjected to Church discipline. Whether people like it or not, the Church isn't the Gestapo and we are FREE THINKERS.

 

I support gay marriage but I think everyone here knew that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that people tend to put way too much into whether one technically qualifies for a temple recommend or not, and whether one technically qualifies for excommunication or not -- as if these things are the key measurements of our standing before God and how we're doing on the path to salvation.

 

Just because the church won't kick you out for something and/or you can hold a temple recommend for something does not mean it's righteous or wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the church won't kick you out for something and/or you can hold a temple recommend for something does not mean it's righteous or wise.

 

 Actually, I agree. But I think we shouldn't try to read more than what Elder Christofferson said. He simply made a statement of fact or clarified a misconception that members of the Church cannot openly support gay marriage on social media because they could lose their membership. It is clear for everyone now (if any had any doubts or were told by others that they could be subjected to Church discipline that it is not the case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Actually, I agree. But I think we shouldn't try to read more than what Elder Christofferson said. He simply made a statement of fact or clarified a misconception that members of the Church cannot openly support gay marriage on social media because they could lose their membership. It is clear for everyone now (if any had any doubts or were told by others that they could be subjected to Church discipline that it is not the case).

 

Yes. I am, if I were thinking it through, probably reading into what others might be reading into Elder Christofferson's comments, rather than reading into his comments myself. Although, I do suspect my presumption is right. I expect there will be many times, moving forward, where someone will use this statement of his as proof positive that supporting gay marriage is acceptable, particularly made in response to an argument from someone like me, who might contend that supporting gay marriage is a bad idea, in spite of it not getting one excommunicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect there will be many times, moving forward, where someone will use this statement of his as proof positive that supporting gay marriage is acceptable, particularly made in response to an argument from someone like me, who might contend that supporting gay marriage is a bad idea, in spite of it not getting one excommunicated.

 

I see it being used if someone posts on Facebook that they support Gay Marriage and they get bashed by others telling them they shouldn't be posting things like that online, etc that  their membership is in jeopardy, etc etc etc. Even though what Elder Christofferson said isn't nothing new really, I'm glad he clarified the point for the few that felt the need to warn others about something that cannot happen.

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

It's interesting to me that some people say this is nothing new.  It's news to me--perhaps not news, but an important clarification.  Like Suzie, I believe gay people should be able to get married.  However, I dared not talk about it to anyone outside of my family (and they do not all agree with me, of course).  I didn't share my opinion partially because I didn't want to be ostracized by my fellow ward members, but also because I did not want to appear to be in any way speaking against what the church had said.  

 

I don't plan to go to any gay pride parades or join any groups...I simply feel more comfortable stating publicly how I feel, which I did not before.  And I'm grateful for that.  It's really about the conflict within myself more than anything.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have many friends and relatives on FB and IRL. Never -- not one time, ever -- have I heard or read anyone castigate someone else for being pro-homosexual-"marriage". Not once have I ever heard or read anyone question the membership status of the pro-homosexual-"marriage" crowd. Unsurprisingly, I have read and heard many castigations directed toward those who do not support homosexual "marriage" by their self-proclaimed "enlightened" brethren and sisters.

 

I disbelieve that such adverse judgment of the pro-homosexual-"marriage" crowd by other Latter-day Saints is common, at least in my circles of acquaintance. Very much the opposite is true. Those champions of "tolerance" are nothing of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Vort, I'm likely just being paranoid.  Part of my fear comes from Josh Weed's experience...remember his blog post "gay, married to a woman, and Mormon" went viral awhile ago.  Many members were supportive, but there were members who openly questioned if he should have a temple recommend.  And he didn't even talk about gay marriage!  He simply said, "this is an issue I live with" sort of thing.  

 

On the other hand...I also shared this article on Facebook and the only people that questioned me about it (and they were just curious not argumentative) were non-members.  So, thus far my experience so far has been more like yours than Josh's.  Maybe the heat comes to those who "go viral" simply because there is more attention, and more possible dissenting voices.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it being used if someone posts on Facebook that they support Gay Marriage and they get bashed by others telling them they shouldn't be posting things like that online, etc that their membership is in jeopardy, etc etc etc. Even though what Elder Christofferson said isn't nothing new really, I'm glad he clarified the point for the few that felt the need to warn others about something that cannot happen.

Granted; but again--all I have to do to drag a gay marriage supporter back onto (theoretically) unsafe ground is to say "Well, what do you think about the fact that all fifteen prophets and apostles of the LDS Church, without exception, disagree with you on this; and why should I be be persuaded by you rather than them?"

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted; but again--all I have to do to drag a gay marriage supporter back onto (theoretically) unsafe ground is to say "Well, what do you think about the fact that all fifteen prophets and apostles of the LDS Church, without exception, disagree with you on this; and why should I be be persuaded by you rather than them?"

 

But that's just it. Why would you need to "drag" a gay marriage supporter back onto "unsafe ground"? I mean, I don't see anything inherently wrong with your last two questions to be honest. The first one can invite/open communication between the two opposite sides on this issue and if done civilly, can become an interesting exchange of opinions (but we know it doesn't end up well most of the time online and offline)

 

However, the last question would indicate that the Gay Marriage supporter is trying to persuade you to support Gay Marriage just like he/she does but not every Gay Marriage supporter wants to go out there and "Preach" how everyone should accept it and persuade others to follow them. Some of us support Gay Marriage and we are perfectly okay with those who do not.  As a matter of fact, it doesn't anger me or bring any sort of emotion if you disagree on the issue.

 

Just like I respect your view ("your" generally speaking) I just expect the same courtesy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's just it. Why would you need to "drag" a gay marriage supporter back onto "unsafe ground"? I mean, I don't see anything inherently wrong with your last two questions to be honest. The first one can invite/open communication between the two opposite sides on this issue and if done civilly, can become an interesting exchange of opinions (but we know it doesn't end up well most of the time online and offline)

 

Well, remember, I'm entering this discussion from the standpoint of "would Christofferson's statements provide much comfort to me if I supported gay marriage?".  So the issue of why an interlocutor (including the real-life Just_A_Guy, who opposes gay marriage) would ask such a question in the first place, is a little beyond the scope of my observations.  I'm just pointing out that as soon as a gay marriage supporter wanders into "The church leadership is wrong on this matter because x, y, and z", I have gone beyond the shelter of Elder Christofferson's statement and I may hypothetically be subject to church discipline.  (Yes, in practice, I probably won't; but I thought the premise of this discussion was that gay marriage supporters were living in fear of Stasi-like, rat-out-your-best-friend-for-a-thought-crime environment.  If one doesn't believe that that is the atmosphere of modern Mormonism, then Christofferson's statement merits a "meh".  If one does believe that that is the atmosphere of modern Mormonism, then I don't see how Christofferson's statements are nearly enough.)

 

 

However, the last question would indicate that the Gay Marriage supporter is trying to persuade you to support Gay Marriage just like he/she does but not every Gay Marriage supporter wants to go out there and "Preach" how everyone should accept it and persuade others to follow them. Some of us support Gay Marriage and we are perfectly okay with those who do not.  As a matter of fact, it doesn't anger me or bring any sort of emotion if you disagree on the issue.

 

Just like I respect your view ("your" generally speaking) I just expect the same courtesy. :)

 

Maybe this goes into the fundamental differences as to how/why people communicate.  The idea of saying something just to "be heard" without at lest hoping that someone might agree with you, is absolutely foreign to my way of thinking.  If I communicate something, it's because I am hoping to persuade my hearer to my way of thinking (or else, why bother using all those words?  ;)  ) and--for better or for worse--I generally assume that other people's communications are similarly motivated.  :)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I'm just pointing out that as soon as a gay marriage supporter wanders into "The church leadership is wrong on this matter because x, y, and z", I have gone beyond the shelter of Elder Christofferson's statement and I may hypothetically be subject to church discipline.  (Yes, in practice, I probably won't; but I thought the premise of this discussion was that gay marriage supporters were living in fear of Stasi-like, rat-out-your-best-friend-for-a-thought-crime environment.  

 

Whoah! Just to clarify, that is not where I am coming from at all.  I realize it may appear that way to you (generally speaking), but trust me that is not what I had in mind in sharing this article.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share