Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

[Paperback Writer]

I recently heard somewhere (maybe it was your podcast ) a middle way for the church to accept gay members within the gospel framework. It had to do with the lower 2 degrees of heaven, and allowing gay members official fellowship and even marriage, but relegating them to the lower degrees since they wouldn't be able to have eternal progeny. I mean it still is not full fellowship, but it would be a start.

Just for clarity, you mean gays will be potentially barred from the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, not the kingdom itself since Baptism is the required ordinance for the CK. When I read "lower 2 degrees of heaven", I associate that to the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms which are reserved for the non-believers, the wicked, and U. of Utah fans.

[Moliere]

I recently heard somewhere (maybe it was your podcast ) a middle way for the church to accept gay members within the gospel framework. It had to do with the lower 2 degrees of heaven, and allowing gay members official fellowship and even marriage, but relegating them to the lower degrees since they wouldn't be able to have eternal progeny. I mean it still is not full fellowship, but it would be a start.

Or we could let them get married/sealed and have a family and admit that celestial sex likely isn’t how we are going to have eternal progeny so if you are eternally married to a same or opposite gender person it doesn’t matter.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't think that would go well

The current view is that anyone, including LBGT, can receive Celestial glory, so any sort of announcement that they are "relegated" to lower glories would create a firestorm of biblical proportions.

To be clear, I am not advocating this pathway. But I think it's an interesting concept given how the 'in my father's house are many mansions' statement is treated in the church.

The one obvious solution, allowing full fellowship and blessings in this life to gay members, is a non-starter in the current framework of the gospel. Major changes to doctrinal and scriptural interpretations would be required. It's not happening anytime soon. But if the church were to look for some concrete baby steps, it could sanction gay marriage and fold it into the existing framework of lesser degrees of celestial glory. Not full fellowship obviously, but it could be packaged as a one of those many 'let god sort it out in the afterlife' issues that already exist. As in, gay members are held to the same chastity requirements as straight members until they are married, which will now be formally sanctioned by the church. And god will figure out exactly where they go in the next life, understanding that the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is reserved for couples to procreate.

Yeah that's not going to happen anytime soon either. But an interesting thought nonetheless.

[Eddie]

Or we could let them get married/sealed and have a family and admit that celestial sex likely isn’t how we are going to have eternal progeny so if you are eternally married to a same or opposite gender person it doesn’t matter.

Honestly, in a train-wreck, people-are-fun-to-watch kind of way it would be interesting to see the fallout and what would happen if the church were to make this statement. I doubt that it would bring back anyone who has left the church due to LGBTQ issues, but I could see there being a pretty large exodus among some groups.

[Moliere]

Honestly, in a train-wreck, people-are-fun-to-watch kind of way it would be interesting to see the fallout and what would happen if the church were to make this statement. I doubt that it would bring back anyone who has left the church due to LGBTQ issues, but I could see there being a pretty large exodus among some groups.

This will be the major issue of my kids generation (I’m a broken record saying this). My kids don’t see any reason why gay people are sinful if they are in a gay relationship. The real question is at what point do we stem the tide of disaffection and ignore the exodus of older, more strident and literal members that might leave. I also think the exodus would be smaller than we think mainly because those people truly believe Près Nelson speaks with god. So if he comes out and says gays can now get married in the temple because god told him so, they willl mostly fall in line and justify the older teachings as more policy than doctrine.

[Northwestcoug]

Or we could let them get married/sealed and have a family and admit that celestial sex likely isn’t how we are going to have eternal progeny so if you are eternally married to a same or opposite gender person it doesn’t matter.

Well sure. That solves a lot of problems. But they still get to have eternal sex right?

[Moliere]

Well sure. That solves a lot of problems. But they still get to have eternal sex right?

Sure, but no polygamy.

[Eddie]

This will be the major issue of my kids generation (I’m a broken record saying this). My kids don’t see any reason why gay people are sinful if they are in a gay relationship. The real question is at what point do we stem the tide of disaffection and ignore the exodus of older, more strident and literal members that might leave. I also think the exodus would be smaller than we think mainly because those people truly believe Près Nelson speaks with god. So if he comes out and says gays can now get married in the temple because god told him so, they willl mostly fall in line and justify the older teachings as more policy than doctrine.

Yeah - no offense to President Nelson, I love the man as much as anyone here with maybe one exception. But those people who think President Nelson speaks with God are telling him to mind his own business when it comes to masks and vaccines and saying that it's just his opinion.

The pendulum has swung quite a bit in the last 10 years. And it will swing quite a bit more in the next 10. I don't disagree that this is a major issue for the upcoming generation. They are struggling with it right now.

We will continue to lose the younger generation if things don't change.

But thinking we won't lose a bunch if they do is, I think, not seeing the whole picture. Then again - some of those are the crazies, and maybe we won't miss them all that much.

[Northwestcoug]

This will be the major issue of my kids generation (I’m a broken record saying this). My kids don’t see any reason why gay people are sinful if they are in a gay relationship. The real question is at what point do we stem the tide of disaffection and ignore the exodus of older, more strident and literal members that might leave. I also think the exodus would be smaller than we think mainly because those people truly believe Près Nelson speaks with god. So if he comes out and says gays can now get married in the temple because god told him so, they willl mostly fall in line and justify the older teachings as more policy than doctrine.

I agree. But if my kids are representative of their generation at large, they are just more liberal on most issues, with LGBT people being one of them. Hell, if you guys think I'm a commie, you should ask my daughter about ACAB and workers' rights!

[Clark Addison]

I agree. But if my kids are representative of their generation at large, they are just more liberal on most issues, with LGBT people being one of them. Hell, if you guys think I'm a commie, you should ask my daughter about ACAB and workers' rights!

Ha. My 22 year old uses ACAB on occasion (I discourage it as much as I can), and blames "Capitalism" for 98% of societal ills. Sometimes for fun I will ask her what is it about Capitalism that caused whatever it is she is decrying. Having said that, we agree in general on a lot of things so we don't argue much.

Maybe I am a starry-eyed dreamer, but I think the church will change quicker than you think. There isn't going to be an announcement next year saying that temples will now be open to weddings at all levels of fabulousness, but there will be incremental change every year which will equate to significant change over the next 20 years (how old is Bednar again?).

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree. But if my kids are representative of their generation at large, they are just more liberal on most issues, with LGBT people being one of them. Hell, if you guys think I'm a commie, you should ask my daughter about ACAB and workers' rights!

You ARE a commie.

[old_gregg]

for the record, aacab

[Northwestcoug]

Maybe I am a starry-eyed dreamer, but I think the church will change quicker than you think. There isn't going to be an announcement next year saying that temples will now be open to weddings at all levels of fabulousness, but there will be incremental change every year which will equate to significant change over the next 20 years (how old is Bednar again?).

I will take the over on that. But will be happily surprised if you're right.

You ARE a commie.

Sure, more of a Gorbachev level. But my daughter is full on Lenin.

[smokymountainrain]

I recently heard somewhere (maybe it was your podcast ) a middle way for the church to accept gay members within the gospel framework. It had to do with the lower 2 degrees of heaven, and allowing gay members official fellowship and even marriage, but relegating them to the lower degrees since they wouldn't be able to have eternal progeny. I mean it still is not full fellowship, but it would be a start.

just get on board with allowing them to be married outside the church and not consider them sinful within the church. that would be an easy compromise for the church to make and would go a looong way to making them feel loved and accepted.

[Clark Addison]

just get on board with allowing them to be married outside the church and not consider them sinful within the church. that would be an easy compromise for the church to make and would go a looong way to making them feel loved and accepted.

This is the sort of thing I was talking about with my 20 year remark above. Will the temples be performing gay sealings in 2040? Probably not (though it wouldn't surprise me that much). But I am pretty confident we will be in a situation similar to what smr describes here.