Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[originalsocal]

I saw this play out for almost 2 decades with a family member until he stopped believing what the church told him. I suppose his eternal salvation is now in doubt, but there is no question his mental health is better outside of the church.

I don't think any of us know that. Personally, I believe in a God that loves everyone and will allow us all to grow and progress...whatever that looks like.

[All-American]

https://people.com/music/david-archu...-out-as-queer/

Who saw this coming?

So, I know this is about the seventh or eighth most important thing about this article, and maybe I'll catch some flack for pointing it out above all the other far more noteworthy things, but it caught my eye nonetheless and I don't see anybody else commenting on it. So.

Three engagements? To three different women?

What does it say about LDS courtship that you can get that far along without it being a problem that one partner is not actually romantically interested in the other?

[Bo Diddley]

So, I know this is about the seventh or eighth most important thing about this article, and maybe I'll catch some flack for pointing it out above all the other far more noteworthy things, but it caught my eye nonetheless and I don't see anybody else commenting on it. So.

Three engagements? To three different women?

What does it say about LDS courtship that you can get that far along without it being a problem that one partner is not actually romantically interested in the other?

I saw that as a symptom of where his head was. He was obviously trying, but I think his struggles were subconscious for at least the first two engagements.

[Northwestcoug]

So, I know this is about the seventh or eighth most important thing about this article, and maybe I'll catch some flack for pointing it out above all the other far more noteworthy things, but it caught my eye nonetheless and I don't see anybody else commenting on it. So.

Three engagements? To three different women?

What does it say about LDS courtship that you can get that far along without it being a problem that one partner is not actually romantically interested in the other?

Well the dude is 30...

[Maximus]

this is where I come down on the church tbh. they KNOW that the hard policy causes suicidal thoughts and self hatred. It would pretty simple to accept them in the church as is, even without any change in doctrine. they are too homophobic to do so and dont care enough tbh. someone prove me wrong.

[All-American]

this is where I come down on the church tbh. they KNOW that the hard policy causes suicidal thoughts and self hatred. It would pretty simple to accept them in the church as is, even without any change in doctrine. they are too homophobic to do so and dont care enough tbh. someone prove me wrong.

How exactly does the church “accept them as is even without any change in doctrine”?

[Omaha 680]

I saw that as a symptom of where his head was. He was obviously trying, but I think his struggles were subconscious for at least the first two engagements.

I'm sure that's true. But maybe what AA was saying is how does a female heterosexual member of the church get that far into courtship without noticing (or caring) that there is a complete lack of desire from her potential spouse toward her? That does say some things, certainly not all good, about LDS courtship generally.

[Bo Diddley]

I'm sure that's true. But maybe what AA was saying is how does a female heterosexual member of the church get that far into courtship without noticing (or caring) that there is a complete lack of desire from her potential spouse toward her? That does say some things, certainly not all good, about LDS courtship generally.

Haha. Yep, for some reason that went over my head. Solid point.

[Northwestcoug]

How exactly does the church “accept them as is even without any change in doctrine”?

Law of chastity applied equally to all. Temple marriages aren’t offered to homosexual members but their civil marriages are sanctioned. Then you start with baby steps changing the doctrine. The lower 2 degrees are fabulous, and that’s where they go. Then in a hundred years when women have the priesthood and their main calling in eternities isn’t motherhood, the gays can be married in the temple. There’s your road map.

oh who am I kidding? There’s no space to accept homosexuality in the church currently, even keeping the doctrine intact. And the doctrine doesn’t countenance the existence of homosexuality in the eternities.

[Non Sequitur]

How exactly does the church “accept them as is even without any change in doctrine”?

They change the so-called doctrine. It's not like the Church doesn't have a history of changing the status of doctrine to outdated policy.

[clackamascoug]

Law of chastity applied equally to all. Temple marriages aren’t offered to homosexual members but their civil marriages are sanctioned. Then you start with baby steps changing the doctrine. The lower 2 degrees are fabulous, and that’s where they go. Then in a hundred years when women have the priesthood and their main calling in eternities isn’t motherhood, the gays can be married in the temple. There’s your road map.

oh who am I kidding? There’s no space to accept homosexuality in the church currently, even keeping the doctrine intact. And the doctrine doesn’t countenance the existence of homosexuality in the eternities.

If you're gay in 200 multi-versus - and hetero in 36,000,000 multi-versus - are you still gay when all your life experiences compile into a single identification when you die?

[All-American]

They change the so-called doctrine. It's not like the Church doesn't have a history of changing the status of doctrine to outdated policy.

Maximus suggested it is not necessary to change doctrine. I admittedly don’t see how that would work, but I am interested to hear what he thinks that would look like.

[Moliere]

Maximus suggested it is not necessary to change doctrine. I admittedly don’t see how that would work, but I am interested to hear what he thinks that would look like.

The doctrine would clearly need to change to allow for full fellowship of gay people. It wouldn’t need to change to extend increased empathy and hope.

The church’s current lesson manuals are overly focused on emphasizing that only heterosexual marriages are ordained of god and also the only marriages where sexual relations can take place without sin. That doctrine is absolutely black and white in the lesson manuals.

[Maximus]

How exactly does the church “accept them as is even without any change in doctrine”?

its like the same thing with BYU. you can accept them in full fellowship without changes in doctrine.

[Maximus]

The doctrine would clearly need to change to allow for full fellowship of gay people. It wouldn’t need to change to extend increased empathy and hope.

The church’s current lesson manuals are overly focused on emphasizing that only heterosexual marriages are ordained of god and also the only marriages where sexual relations can take place without sin. That doctrine is absolutely black and white in the lesson manuals.

once it changes it is outdated policy

maybe I am wrong doctrine wouldn't need to change. but doctrine like this has changed multiple times. heck, the doctrine on lgbt has changed already multiple times.

the root of my issue is leadership doesn't seem to care or be interested in doing what they can , without doctrine changes, on accepting them into the fold. Just look at how they reacted to BYU and the 3 week change in policy. I dont think they show much, if any, actual empathy and desire to make things better.