You mean, a raising of the bar for missionaries and converts?

“A cowboy who wants to turn a stampeding heard can ride neither in it nor counter to it; he must ride at the edge. Happy sounds are generally better than cursing… but there are times when he must maybe swear a little and swing a whip or lariat to round in a stray or turn the leaders. So don’t lose yourself, and don’t ride away and desert the outfit. Ride the edge of the herd and be alert, but know your directions, and call out loud and clear. Chances are, you won’t make any difference, but on the other hand you just might.” (Juanita Brooks attributed this to a relative, as I recall.)

Levi Peterson said:

“I fancy that if I were excommunicated by a Church court on a weekday, I’d be back sleeping in sacrament meeting on the following Sunday. Presumably I’d be relieved of my duties as home teacher and occasional instructor of the high priests group. Presumably I’d not be called on to pray or preach. But those are petty losses. I’d continue to partake of the sacrament unless I were expressly forbidden to do so. In that case, I’d attend meetings from time to time in a ward where I wasn’t known and would partake of the sacrament there. Certainly I’d join lustily in singing hymns, and I’d attend church socials and chat as always with my friends after meeting. And of course, out on the battlefront of liberal Mormonism, I’d go on doing whatever it was that had got me excommunicated in the first place.

“Though as a corporation the Church may be owned by its legally constituted officers, as a moral community Mormonism is beyond ownership. You and I belong if we choose to belong. I for one do choose to belong. I’ll not let another human being, however highly placed, drive me from Mormonism. I’ll not let an archaic doctrine or practice drive me out. I choose to stay where my heart is and to vent my disapproval of uncivilized beliefs and practices through a quiet but unrelenting resis¬tance. There’s a place within Mormonism for the loyal dis¬senter, and I for one intend to occupy it.”

Of course the church could become divided over the political recognition of gay marriage. I’m sure that general authorities have contemplated this possibility, and I’m very doubtful that they welcome it as a salutary “weeding out” process. But I think it’s important to ask why this division would arise. Perhaps it could arise because people are disappointed that the church isn’t moving fast enough, or isn’t moving at all to a 1978 as it were with respect to acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage within the church. In this case it’s a matter of saints tragically being committed to the Kingdom in general but rejecting an important part of church doctrine, in the patient antipication that it will be changed. If that’s the case then it seems that vigorously teaching the doctrine, in the same loving way we should teach every doctrine, is the best course. Refraining from teaching the doctrine, beause some don’t believe it or expect it to be soon superceded by revelation, is a bad idea, for the simple fact that doctrine exists and won’t go away by ignoring it.

Of course the division could be over something else–that many Saints accept the church teaching on the family, but disagree with the church’s political strategy. They think that there’s no danger to the church presented by gay marriage, and that it’s actually damaging for the church to fight against it. At most they think the church could be violating its own principles regarding religious participation and religious freedom. This kind of division is a problem, but I doubt that most members who really differ with the church over strategies would for this reason alone become seriously disaffected. On the side of the church authorities themselves, I don’t think they regard respectful, humble disagreements over political strategy as especially damaging, as evidenced by Elder Oaks’ response to Harry Reid’s disagreements with the federal marriage amendment.