Oaks on religious freedom

[Jeff Lebowski]

The church continued to grow post 1978. You think members didnt hold onto some deep seeded "religious" beliefs about blacks after the announcement was made? They did, but they remained.

Although the miracle of miracles, you never meet any of these people today. Everyone you talk to today wept and sang songs of redeeming love on that day in 1978. It seems that nobody is alive today that held onto any resentment towards blacks after that announcement. So refreshing.

I was 17 at the time. I don't recall a single person that reacted negatively to the announcement.

[creekster]

I was 17 at the time. I don't recall a single person that reacted negatively to the announcement.

Ditto for me. Except I might have been 18.

[myboynoah]

I was 17 at the time. I don't recall a single person that reacted negatively to the announcement.

Ditto for me. Except I might have been 18.

I had the same experience.

I think PU is on to something in that welcoming same gender relationships, including marriage, would require a major paradigm shift among the membership that would dwarf 1978. I don't see that happening anytime soon. What I do see happening is an acceptance of the status quo outside The Church once gay marriage is legalized which will negate The Church's perceived need to hold the line on traditional marriage in a legal sense. It will, however, maintain its stance that same sex intimate relations are a violation of God's law.

[LA Ute]

I was 17 at the time. I don't recall a single person that reacted negatively to the announcement.

Nor do I. I was 23.

[Moliere]

Nor do I. I was 23.

I wasn't born yet so the veil interferes with my recollection of the events.

My prediction is that some very orthodox believers would leave and start another FLDS type church while the majority would stay. In fact, I bet a good portion of the people would be relieved and shout for joy.

[Clark Addison]

If it does happen I will totally be spending the whole day on Cougarboard.

[byu71]

Although the miracle of miracles, you never meet any of these people today. Everyone you talk to today wept and sang songs of redeeming love on that day in 1978. It seems that nobody is alive today that held onto any resentment towards blacks after that announcement. So refreshing.

65-78 was a period of time where I served a mission, got married, had children and starting building a career. On my mission we were told not to teach the blacks the gospel unless someone came to us and basically begged us to. Basically the sense I got from the church was, the blacks weren't evil, they were just inferior in their valor in the pre-existence and thus had to wait to get the priesthood and fullness of the gospel. The feeling that there were those that were inferior to "us" was not a new or unique concept, except in how it applied to one race of people.

In 1978 I was living in Utah County, perhaps the area most representitive of the heartbeat of fundamental mormonism. I don't remember weeping and songs of joy, however I don't remember anyone who was upset with the revelation (decision). I would call it relief. By then, for me and a lot of my associates, the sitting on the fence concept had lost it's appeal and all of the other "reasons" just weren't that appealing either. It just made sense that blacks would get the Priesthood as we were always told the time would come.

I seem to remember there was a lot of relief for how it would affect BYU athletics also.

[Portland Ute]

I wasn't born yet so the veil interferes with my recollection of the events.

My prediction is that some very orthodox believers would leave and start another FLDS type church while the majority would stay. In fact, I bet a good portion of the people would be relieved and shout for joy.

What holds the majority to the Church following such a change?

How would a member reconcile such a huge change?

It would seem to be huge further evidence that the Church is just winging it as social pressures push it in one way or another and that it is not led by inspiration.

I suppose I'm speaking mostly to my own questions, but I believe they are valid concerns.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not exactly sure there that a fundamental shift in mindset would be required.

I would imagine everyone agrees that any such hypothetical change in policy is decades away (this is a hypo, remember). By that time, what will the rank and file membership of the Church believe regarding homosexuals?

Currently, we already see a fracture within the ranks between those that believe that homosexuality is a sin and those that do not. Clearly, the sin camp far outweighs the non-sin camp. But 50 years from now, as we become the old guard and our children grow up and raise their children, how will those ratios shift, esp as gay marriage continues to be legalized around the globe. Right now, the "scaremongering/what if" tactic used against gay marriage still has legs because gay marriage is relatively new. 50 years from now, crying wolf over the alleged destruction of society will ring more and more hollow as people reflect back on 50-60 years of legalized gay marriage without the apocalyptic results touted across the pulpit.

I wonder if the reaction to such a shift in policy will be more akin to the reaction that BYU71 described about 1978...relief at the abandonment of something that many didnt believe to begin with.

[UtahDan]

I'm not exactly sure there that a fundamental shift in mindset would be required.

I would imagine everyone agrees that any such hypothetical change in policy is decades away (this is a hypo, remember). By that time, what will the rank and file membership of the Church believe regarding homosexuals?

Currently, we already see a fracture within the ranks between those that believe that homosexuality is a sin and those that do not. Clearly, the sin camp far outweighs the non-sin camp. But 50 years from now, as we become the old guard and our children grow up and raise their children, how will those ratios shift, esp as gay marriage continues to be legalized around the globe. Right now, the "scaremongering/what if" tactic used against gay marriage still has legs because gay marriage is relatively new. 50 years from now, crying wolf over the alleged destruction of society will ring more and more hollow as people reflect back on 50-60 years of legalized gay marriage without the apocalyptic results touted across the pulpit.

I wonder if the reaction to such a shift in policy will be more akin to the reaction that BYU71 described about 1978...relief at the abandonment of something that many didnt believe to begin with.

I think that comment is right on the money. Gay marriage is going to move into the mainstream, become commonplace, the sky will not fall, and our children and grandchildren will look back at this era with the benefit of hindsight and wonder what people were so worried about. The thing that undoes so much of what is said on the other side of this right now is people actually knowing gay people, seeing that their relationships aren't hurting anyone and really feeling empathy for them. As more people have that experience, more of them will feel the disconnect between their own experiences and the predicted calamities which aren't materializing.

I think the shift in sentiment is well under way and will only become more intense. What I don't know, and what will be fascinating to see, is whether the church somehow accommodates this, and if not, what happens then? People leave? People just sort of ignore it the way Catholics ignore the counsel on birth control? There is a retrenchment?

[Portland Ute]

I'm not exactly sure there that a fundamental shift in mindset would be required.

I would imagine everyone agrees that any such hypothetical change in policy is decades away (this is a hypo, remember). By that time, what will the rank and file membership of the Church believe regarding homosexuals?

Currently, we already see a fracture within the ranks between those that believe that homosexuality is a sin and those that do not. Clearly, the sin camp far outweighs the non-sin camp. But 50 years from now, as we become the old guard and our children grow up and raise their children, how will those ratios shift, esp as gay marriage continues to be legalized around the globe. Right now, the "scaremongering/what if" tactic used against gay marriage still has legs because gay marriage is relatively new. 50 years from now, crying wolf over the alleged destruction of society will ring more and more hollow as people reflect back on 50-60 years of legalized gay marriage without the apocalyptic results touted across the pulpit.

I wonder if the reaction to such a shift in policy will be more akin to the reaction that BYU71 described about 1978...relief at the abandonment of something that many didnt believe to begin with.

I understand what you are saying, but it addresses individuals only, really. It says nothing of the Church. Blacks were essentially ignored by the LDS church prior to the lifting of the ban. Homosexual activity is NOT ignored by the LDS church. It's a very core belief. Sexual purity is a very high level doctrine and a large part of it is sex is only between a man and a woman.

It's not as if homosexuality is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about or address. That was the case, more or less, with the priesthood ban. Homosexuality is actually part of the room.

With blacks and the priesthood, it was recognizing blacks as priesthood holders. The priesthood stayed the same. It had the same functions. The teachings about the priesthood, it's government and it's functions all remained unchanged. People were just welcomed into that government.

However, with homosexuals, that isn't the case. Sure, accepting them in is part of it, but it would also require a major revision of the teachings of the Church.

I think that subtle difference is huge as it relates to the Church.

[TripletDaddy]

I understand what you are saying, but it addresses individuals only, really. It says nothing of the Church. Blacks were essentially ignored by the LDS church prior to the lifting of the ban. Homosexual activity is NOT ignored by the LDS church. It's a very core belief. Sexual purity is a very high level doctrine and a large part of it is sex is only between a man and a woman.

It's not as if homosexuality is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about or address. That was the case, more or less, with the priesthood ban. Homosexuality is actually part of the room.

With blacks and the priesthood, it was recognizing blacks as priesthood holders. The priesthood stayed the same. It had the same functions. The teachings about the priesthood, it's government and it's functions all remained unchanged. People were just welcomed into that government.

However, with homosexuals, that isn't the case. Sure, accepting them in is part of it, but it would also require a major revision of the teachings of the Church.

I think that subtle difference is huge as it relates to the Church.

I know this....less than 200 years ago, black people were chattel in this country (in some part justified by varying Biblical interpretations).

So apologies if I'm not persuaded by the notion that "this one is way different because the scriptures/leaders/etc say so."

The scriptures don't really discuss homosexuality much, if at all directly. Our viewpoints on this matter are a product of interpretation of scripture...years of indoctrination, not the scriptures themselves. And if our history has taught us anything, it is that interpretations can and often do change.

I do agree with most here that such a change is unlikely. We are only speaking hypothetically here. But speaking of those hypotheticals, I don't think that there is a leg to stand on when arguing for the "it will never happen" side.

[Moliere]

I understand what you are saying, but it addresses individuals only, really. It says nothing of the Church. Blacks were essentially ignored by the LDS church prior to the lifting of the ban. Homosexual activity is NOT ignored by the LDS church. It's a very core belief. Sexual purity is a very high level doctrine and a large part of it is sex is only between a man and a woman.

It's not as if homosexuality is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about or address. That was the case, more or less, with the priesthood ban. Homosexuality is actually part of the room.

With blacks and the priesthood, it was recognizing blacks as priesthood holders. The priesthood stayed the same. It had the same functions. The teachings about the priesthood, it's government and it's functions all remained unchanged. People were just welcomed into that government.

However, with homosexuals, that isn't the case. Sure, accepting them in is part of it, but it would also require a major revision of the teachings of the Church.

I think that subtle difference is huge as it relates to the Church.

If/when it happens I fully expect the prophet to deliver it as a revelation. We'll likely then have a hardcore opponent of homosexuality (probably someone who has spokenn out most on the subject....BKP would be a good one but he'll likely not be around) give a discourse on how the current prophet is more important than the dead prophets and so we should heed the words of the living prophet. The body of the church will then accept it and move on.

You are forgetting how the Mormon mind works. We can rationalize almost anything. I'd fully expect the correlation committe to quickly elminate any prior teachings against homosexuality from all lesson manuals, official publications, biblical footnotes, and any other such references. We'd then likely only allow that general conference addresses from that point forward be posted on lds.org.

[Paperback Writer]

As has been pointed out, there are differences between priesthood ban for blacks and same-sex marriage to many LDS. However, there are some similarities that need to be pointed out. The priesthood ban for blacks had very much to do with interacial marriage with Brigham Young at the helm. In the mid 19th century, interacial marriage was very much taboo and not legal in many states. But there were some cases of interacial marriages with the early saints. BY's teachings on banning the priesthood for blacks in effect would impede interracial marriages in Deseret.

That policy may have made sense in the 19th centruy but not so much as the 20th century progressed. Banning the priesthood for Blacks made little sense and caused some major problems in areas like Brazil where the LDS church was growing and interracial marriage was more common and existed for years. And the church rank-and-file were more ready to accept interracial marriage prior to 1978 than LDS church leadership.

In the 21st century, the same is true for same sex marriage. I see the rank-and-file of LDS accepting gay marriage and gay sex within marriage. The morality will simply be - does sex occur within the bounds of marriage. It might be difficult for AARP Orthodox LDS to accept but not younger LDS.

[Paperback Writer]

If/when it happens I fully expect the prophet to deliver it as a revelation. We'll likely then have a hardcore opponent of homosexuality (probably someone who has spokenn out most on the subject....BKP would be a good one but he'll likely not be around) give a discourse on how the current prophet is more important than the dead prophets and so we should heed the words of the living prophet. The body of the church will then accept it and move on.

You are forgetting how the Mormon mind works. We can rationalize almost anything. I'd fully expect the correlation committe to quickly elminate any prior teachings against homosexuality from all lesson manuals, official publications, biblical footnotes, and any other such references. We'd then likely only allow that general conference addresses from that point forward be posted on lds.org.

And don't forget about the happy, gay LDS couple - complete with family - on a future LDS commercial spotlighting LDS to show "we're just like everybody else". Bonus points if the gay couple is also interracial.