I don't want to be a Mitläufer[1]. What Can I Do?

1. Nothing. Most of the time when I disagree, I choose to keep my head down and soldier through. After all, my individual opinion doesn't change anything; there's nothing I can do that will have a direct effect on Church policy. 

But this time is different. And there are actually quite a number of things I can do.The available options and my choices depend on circumstances and position, my sincere beliefs, how cautious or daring I feel like being . . . 

2. Speak up, with my friends, with my family, in Sunday School class, in casual discussions. Let people know my views. “Come out” as an ally. 

3. Reach out to gay people in my ward. Reject the common distinction between active and inactive. Reject the cultural practice of shunning the apostate or excommunicate. Befriend and welcome and make them part of my life, including my church experience. Thinking militantly, defy the Church's apparent effort to exclude married gay people and their children from the active life of the Church.  

4. [If I hadn't already] Turn in my temple recommend and be noisy about it. Tell my bishop why. Tell my friends. And stay in the pew on Sunday. Take a little scarlet letter for myself, in solidarity with my gay friends and neighbors who are asked to wear a large one.

5. [If I had one] Don't turn in my temple recommend, but in the next TR interview insist on being open and specific about my support for gay members, for marriage, for whatever I feel strongly about. Force my bishop and stake president to confront the questions.

6. When asked to speak, insist on using Matthew 19:14 and/or Moroni 8:8-15 as my text. Which may mean I'm not asked to speak or teach, but that's a form of dissent by itself.

7. If I am part of a disciplinary council in any role, speak the truth as I see it. Do not stay quiet or go along with the majority. If that means decisions aren't unanimous, the world won't come to an end. Or maybe a little part of it will, and we'll all be better for it.

8. Advocate with my bishop that he not follow the new policies. He probably will anyway, but don't let him be passive or casual about it.

9. If I have a decision-making role, choose to not follow the new policies.

10. Consider carefully and honestly who and what I "sustain" the next time there's a call to sustain, in a general meeting or an interview. 

11. Resign, but rather than a simple letter of resignation, make it noisy. Talk with my bishop, confront my stake president, tell them why and how I feel. It may not change anything immediately, but the hearts and minds of the bishops and stake presidents are an important field for advocacy.

12. Write up a list like this and post it.

---

[1] Mitläufer is “fellow traveler” or “hanger on” in English. The German word was used after World War II to refer to people who were not charged with Nazi^(a) crimes but whose involvement with the Nazis was considered significant.

^(a)              Notwithstanding Godwin's law ("As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1") the term Mitläufer was used by a German friend almost immediately after the LDS Church’s new policies regarding same-sex couples and their children became public. It has been on my mind for the last week.

In matters of support and advocacy for marriage for same-sex couples, is there a "bridge too far" for the church?

1. I vote in favor of marriage? I vote for candidates that favor marriage?
2. I give money in support of campaigns and advocacy for marriage?
3. I argue a case in a state or federal court in support of marriage?
4. I advocate among Mormons that they also do 1, 2, or 3?
5. I recommend to a gay couple that they get married?
6. I acknowledge that if I were gay (and found a loving companionate partner) I would get married?
7. I lobby that the church make room for homosexual persons? For married same-sex couples and their families?
8. I lobby that church policies that exclude homosexual persons and their families be changed?
9. I lobby that church policies that exclude homosexual persons and their families not be followed?
10. I refuse to hold a disciplinary council for a same-sex person who is married? I baptize the 8-year-old child of a parent living in a “same-gender” relationship?

Reactions to Policy Changes by the LDS Church
3 of 3

Dear Bishop:

I call your attention to policy changes regarding marriage between persons of the same gender.[1] I have many thoughts, but for purposes of this letter just two things.

With regard to apostasy:

I am married and celebrate my wife, three children, and four grandchildren. If I were gay (by whatever combination of nature and nurture), subject only to finding a loving and companionate partner I firmly believe that I would also be married. I would choose to be married. I believe marriage is a moral and righteous choice, that it is good for me, for my children, and for society.

Perhaps this makes me apostate in my heart? So be it.

With regard to children: 

I believe this policy is wrong, that it is contrary to scripture and gospel teachings. Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14) See [http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/05/60188/] for further explication. If I were (once again) a bishop, I would not, I could not in good conscience, implement this policy. I urge you to consider your obligations to the children in the same way.

Peace be with you,

Christian E. Kimball.

 

---

[1] Many LDS sources, including the Handbook of Instructions, use the term “same-gender marriage” or “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage.” These are all incorrect. In the legal systems I know about, including in the United States, there is no separate category marriage for same-sex couples. In every case that I know of, the correct term is simply “marriage.” This is worth calling out because it is a distinction. or non-distinction. at the very heart of litigation and legislation regarding marriage.

 

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.