October 2019 General Conference

[CardiacCoug]

Guys, Elder Christofferson addressed this issue directly back in 2015:

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.p...74&itype=CMSID

Nice for the Church to make sure that important doctrinal clarification is right there on archive.sltrib.com for anybody to read and reference if they need help understanding the new TR questions.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Fair. If I go online and support trans rights in the church (i.e priesthood and temple blessings).

I think that would depend on your tone and methods.

[Green Monstah]

The church is against trans people having rights? That's new to me.

Fair. If I go online and support trans rights in the church (i.e priesthood and temple blessings).

[Moliere]

that's a good question, but based on the D. Todd quotes lebowski posted, you're still golden.

now, the question is, is every SP or Bishop out there on the same page - are they aware or do they remember he said that? would you have to pull that quote out of your back pocket if you "fail" the interview? "but, president, DTC said this..."

Yep, the ambiguity in the question and the fact that few leaders know about the quote bring us back to leadership roulette. However, I’d never answer “yes” to that question so I won’t have an issue but I can see others having an issue. Why make the TR process harder than it needs to be.

[Uncle Ted]

If one can vote for Trump and keep a TR, there should be not problem with Beto.

So my employer will match like 3-to-1 my donations to a lot of different LGBTQ organizations. So maybe I should find one that is pushing for dropping the tax-exempt status of non-profits that are against same-sex marriage... this should help get BYU into a P5 sooner rather than later.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What about my LDS friends that donated to the Beto campaign? Does the bishop need to take away their TRs?

If one can vote for Trump and keep a TR, there should be not problem with Beto.

[smokymountainrain]

What about my LDS friends that donated to the Beto campaign? Does the bishop need to take away their TRs?

...

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

[Uncle Ted]

Guys, Elder Christofferson addressed this issue directly back in 2015:

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.p...74&itype=CMSID

What about my LDS friends that donated to the Beto campaign? Does the bishop need to take away their TRs?

[smokymountainrain]

Hmm, does donating cash to and voting for and hoping that a candidate that supports gay marriage rise to the level of support?

If gay marriage were in the ballot in TX, I’d probably support it with a political sign in my yard. I wonder if that would cross the line.

that's a good question, but based on the D. Todd quotes lebowski posted, you're still golden.

now, the question is, is every SP or Bishop out there on the same page - are they aware or do they remember he said that? would you have to pull that quote out of your back pocket if you "fail" the interview? "but, president, DTC said this..."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Guys, Elder Christofferson addressed this issue directly back in 2015:

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.p...74&itype=CMSID

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."

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

[Moliere]

support means to take action in some way. unless you are actively campaigning for gay marriage, giving financially to gay marriage advocates, etc, you're golden.

agree with and support are two entirely different things.

Hmm, does donating cash to and voting for and hoping that a candidate that supports gay marriage rise to the level of support?

If gay marriage were in the ballot in TX, I’d probably support it with a political sign in my yard. I wonder if that would cross the line.

[smokymountainrain]

Yeah, that is another one makes we scratch my head. I do support same sex marriage and have been to a few of those weddings for friends. So does it come down to giving up my friends?

I do like they dropped the "wearing garments night and day" temple covenant. I don't recall agreeing to that anyway.

support means to take action in some way. unless you are actively campaigning for gay marriage, giving financially to gay marriage advocates, etc, you're golden.

agree with and support are two entirely different things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If I get on Facebook and overtly support trans rights, do I run afoul of this question? I didn't with the old question, but I think I'm firmly in the gray area now.

The church is against trans people having rights? That's new to me.

[Uncle Ted]

I haven't kept up with the discussion.

I may be wrong on this, but I always thought the "affiliation" TR question was really just to smoke out the polygamists. As it was applied, I think the scope of enforcement was limited. A Snufferite, an FLDS, or someone who joined a group that is overtly antagonistic to the Church would find themselves in deep do-do.

It will be interesting to see how the new rule is applied, I suppose. I could see the scope of its influence being roughly the same, but I think it has potential to go far beyond application of the old question.

If I get on Facebook and overtly support trans rights, do I run afoul of this question? I didn't with the old question, but I think I'm firmly in the gray area now.

Yeah, that is another one makes we scratch my head. I do support same sex marriage and have been to a few of those weddings for friends. So does it come down to giving up my friends?

I do like they dropped the "wearing garments night and day" temple covenant. I don't recall agreeing to that anyway.

[Green Monstah]

I haven't kept up with the discussion.

I may be wrong on this, but I always thought the "affiliation" TR question was really just to smoke out the polygamists. As it was applied, I think the scope of enforcement was limited. A Snufferite, an FLDS, or someone who joined a group that is overtly antagonistic to the Church would find themselves in deep do-do.

It will be interesting to see how the new rule is applied, I suppose. I could see the scope of its influence being roughly the same, but I think it has potential to go far beyond application of the old question.

If I get on Facebook and overtly support trans rights, do I run afoul of this question? I didn't with the old question, but I think I'm firmly in the gray area now.