Reactions to Policy Changes by the LDS Church
2 of 3

Analysis, in calmer moments . . .

An Imaginary Conversation

Note: I do not know any names or details. I know something about how decisions are made, and how groups and institutions make choices. Everything below is credible and consistent with public information, but by no means the “truth.” I use “gay marriage” for shorthand, although the adjective form is technically incorrect because the marriage is identical; as a legal matter what changes is the parties, not the marriage. Some important parts of this conversation are contrary to what I believe, except in the sense that this is all what I believe about what others believe.

Obergefell has been decided and same-sex couples will be married under civil law in the United States This is already happening in a number of states within the United States, and in a number of other countries.

So what are we going to do about this? 

Q: Do we continue to object, to fight in the courts and legislatures, to oppose civil laws regarding gay marriage?

A: We’ve been down that road with polygamy. It does not end well. Best to concede the law is what it is.

Q: At the other extreme, do we perform marriages of same-sex couples?

A: No. Absolutely not.

Q: How do we treat same-sex couples who do get married?

Option 1: Like civil marriage generally—neither explicitly approve nor disapprove? Continue to preach the importance of the sealing ordinance (and do not provide it to same-sex couples) but leave all civil marriages on essentially the same footing. A “respect” or “don’t ask don’t tell” position?

A: No. We believe that marriage is for one man and one woman. We don’t have any room in our doctrine or beliefs to treat any combination of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, as “marriage” no matter what the law says. Besides, if we were to respect civil marriage in that way, we would be in a difficult position when laws (more likely in countries other than the U.S.) try to force us to perform those marriages.

Option 2: Case-by-case leaving it up to bishops and stake presidents?

A: It’s tempting. This works well in most cases. Our bishops and stake presidents are wonderful. When there are exceptional cases that get referred up, we can handle them on a case-by-case basis. However, marriage is a public matter, everybody will know about it, it’s an “in your face” defiance or violation of Church norms. It is hard to ignore. People will talk and compare notes. 

Option 3: Apostasy?

A: Seems like the best fit, and really the only viable option. Marriage is open defiance of the Church, of Church teachings, as well as suggesting regular and ongoing sexual activity which is prohibited. 

Q: Apostasy means excommunication. What about the spiritual, emotional and physical welfare of the individuals involved?

A: We feel for them. This is a really difficult situation with no good options and we have no answers. We can even understand that marriage and out of the Church may be happier than single in the Church, in this life. That doesn’t make it right and we cannot condone. The real point, is that however unfair and unfeeling it may sound, once we conclude that they are apostate our concern for the community, for the Church, supersedes our concern for the individual. They rest in God’s hands, but not in the Church’s.

Q: What about their families and children?

Option 1: No change, no effect. We will not “visit the sins of the fathers” on the children.

A: This seems right, doctrinally and in human caring terms. However, gay marriage is an area of concern where there is a lot of confusion, in society, among members, within families. The secular change in support for gay marriage is alarming in its speed and extent, seeming to reach all levels of society but including the young fastest. Within the Church, the families of gay members seem to be moving in support of gay marriage faster and more outspokenly than anybody else. 

Option 2: Deliberate and careful screening.

A: The analogy isn’t perfect, but this seems more like the end of polygamy than anything else we’ve dealt with. The Church has a strong position, but there are differences of opinion among Church members, including differences of opinion about having an opinion. This is a fractious issue which represents danger to the body whole. We have a careful screening process with respect to polygamy and it has worked fairly well. Let’s start with that same process here.

Q: The polygamy-precedent screening process isn’t perfect in itself, and isn’t a perfect fit to the gay marriage issue. Family structures are different. The number of people involved and the dispersal through the Church is different. These are different times, including the way things are publicized and criticized. Individuals, including most notably innocent children, will feel injured immediately.

A: All true. However, the polygamy model is the best we’ve got. It has worked pretty well. It’s a reasonable starting point. Our bishops and stake presidents are truly thoughtful and caring people and where there are difficult situations they will tell us about it, will ask for exceptions, will quietly modify the rules to fit individual circumstances. If we see a pattern, we can use it to refine the process rules.

Q: In form this is all confidential, basically a communication between us and the bishops and stake presidents. But in fact there are many thousands of Church leaders with access to these instructions, the internet is available and hungry for rumor and scandal, and there is very little that can be kept confidential any more. What if this all hits the press and looks bad and people are angry?

A: Damn.