LDS Church just shot itself in the foot
Image: Cookiecaper / CC SA 1.0

The new rules promulgated by the apostles of the Mormon Church amounts to a doctrine of animus against the gay and lesbian community, but logic dictates this new rule was not clearly considered. So we are going to consider now how the LDS Church just shot itself in the foot.

The doctrine—instead of addressing their real acrimony, same sex marriage—instead attacks potential membership in the church itself and the possible backlash from same-sex couples and the larger LGBT community. Same-sex couples and the LGBT community are a minority who generally have spendable cash and a strong financial base for the church to tap into.

“It is a duty which every Saint ought to render to his brethren freely—to always love them, and ever succor them.” —Joseph Smith, “History of the Church,” 2:229.

The rule is an obvious extension of frivolity, creating a limitation on membership in the church. What has the LDS Church really accomplished? And is this really how a Christian church is supposed to act? Are we not supposed to be forgiving and accepting?

In fact, this was an issue that was not even relevant in the times of Jesus and the authors of the Bible. There is really no reference to LGBT people in the Bible. So why is a Bible-loving religion so prejudiced to same-sex couples or gay and lesbian individuals in general?

Although I also disagree with the gay and lesbian right to marry, the Supreme Court for now has resolved the issue… temporarily. But that does not mean this issue will not be revisited in the future when more conservative judges are appointed.

The Supreme Court did not interpret law; it wrote law.

Why?

Because the states have failed to address this issue, which concerns a very large segment of our citizens. A Gallup poll conducted in October 2012 found that 3.4 percent of the U.S. identifies as LGBT; to make this amount clearer, of the 320,000,000 U.S. population 10,880,000 people identify as LGBT, although in reality that number may be much higher.

By passing laws forbidding conduct rather than addressing the real problem the gay and lesbian community faces, I believe a law recognizing civil unions would have accomplished everything the LGBT community had concerns about.

The new policies have been revisions of the Church Handbook of Instructions implemented Thursday (Nov. 4) and sent to leaders of local Mormon stakes. The revisions were approved by the LDS Church’s Council of the First Presidency and its Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; they are meant to clarify how stake leaders should proceed after recent decisions legalized same-sex marriage.

The new rules block all children, biological or adopted, of same-sex couples (living in a same-gender relationship) from receiving church blessings, begin training to become missionaries, or being baptized, confirmed or ordained without church permission.

So what has the church really accomplished? By alienating future members and causing division within existing LDS families, the LDS Church just shot itself in the foot.

Lest we forget, “It is a duty which every Saint ought to render to his brethren freely—to always love them, and ever succor them.” —Joseph Smith, “History of the Church,” 2:229.

RELATED ARTICLES:

LDS Church policy change pro-children

OPINION: Why the LDS Church’s new policy change is pro-children

I’ve heard and read a great many things these last few days about the new policy change concerning children of same sex marriages and…

3 COMMENTS

  1. Your article tends to examine church membership like a business would it’s customers: “Same-sex couples and the LGBT community are a minority who generally have spendable cash and a strong financial base for the church to tap into.” Since the church doesn’t really view it’s members as a revenue base, it doesn’t need to make it’s decisions based on their popularity. Instead, the “church” has a strict moral code defined by their proclamation on the family. Having made a claim, the church organization would need to stand by it. The proclamation, according to them, is scripture and it is binding on the church, though the doctrines are not new. The church is God’s church and His doctrines prevail. To become a member of that church, one would have to abide by it’s precepts not the other way around. However, the admonition you quoted from Joseph Smith can and does apply to the members as individuals, to each, according to their capacity.

  2. This is truly a complex issue. In theory, only a man and woman can produce another human being. So the construct of marriage outside of a religious perspective becomes clear from a biological standpoint. However, being gay in my opinion is genetic. Note – I said “my opinion”… A person that is gay is born that way and has no other choice. It is who they are… It is in their DNA. On that note, I understand how people see the institution of marriage in context to their own religious beliefs as a sacred tradition that should be left alone and not changed. For me, what gets in the middle of all this is love. Love conquers all – so the saying goes. How do you tell two people that love each other they cannot get married if marriage is what defines and celebrates their love? I don’t know the answer. All I know is that no matter what side you are on in regards to this issue, the answer is following your heart. There are no winners here, especially the children who will be singled out for special treatment. They are the innocents – and I am always on the side of children. How will they be affected? Or does that not matter? These are questions that will impact many lives for years to come. As two ancient sayings go… Veritas Dei vincit…. and veritas omnia vincit…. and what is truth – but LOVE. Even a fool can’t deny that… Sincerely Fool Can L. E.

  3. “I believe a law recognizing civil unions would have accomplished everything the LGBT community had concerns about”

    One problem with that assertion is that under US Constitutional law, separate is not equal. (Brown v. Board of Education).
    One law exclusively for one group, and another law exclusively for the other group, is not (and can never be) permitted to take hold in US law. The US tried that segregationist nonsense already and as everybody is well aware, it did not go so well, very nearly tearing the nation apart.

Comments are closed.