Comments on: Guest Post: What Can LGBT Mormons Hope For?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:27:25 +0000

I certainly agree some people thought it was unchangeable. Typically this came by looking at only some evidence. It’s interesting as I recall Chauncey Riddle, who apparently did the research in preparation for the joint prayer on the issue by the 12, telling me how he had focused on the main texts (Journal of Discourses, Doctrines of Salvation, Gospel Doctrine and the other main texts of the era). He thought the evidence was overwhelming that they shouldn’t change the doctrine. When they did it was a shock – not out of a racist desire but simply because he thought the doctrine was established. He had to fast and pray about it and got a very distinct answer that it was right.

So it really was a shock to many people mainly due to the way statements by prophets tended to get treated at the time. However looking more carefully at history it’s clear that things weren’t as univocal as they appeared then. More importantly it tended to privilege a few writings above others.

With regard though to the issue of changing doctrine though, I think the history is quite different. For people for whom doctrine was what JFS/BRM said, then it really was a big shock I’m sure. But even Kimball when he was first called as President said it would just be a matter of time and he didn’t know when. So in a certain sense those surprised probably shouldn’t have been. Their conclusions much more reflected what texts they were privileging. Although to be fair, especially in the 1970’s, that reflected the main published books for most people.

By: JR

JR — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:43:16 +0000

Clark, That is right. However, what started this tangent was not a comment about unchangeable doctrine. It was a comment about what some people believed was unchangeable doctrine. There are some similarities between what some people believed about the priesthood doctrine/policy/whatever and what some people believe about the same-sex relationship teachings. There are also some major differences. Since D&C 137 contradicts D&C 76, for example, as to who may get to the celestial kingdom, it is not too much of a stretch for some to suppose that there may be more revealed someday with respect to gays than you will find in the D&C (namely nothing, except the supposition that what is found there applies to all humans). I currently prefer remaining a bit less sure than some that I/we fully understand the scheme of the hereafter or what God expects of all. Merely a current, personal preference, I suppose.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:32:09 +0000

I don’t want to derail things, but there’s multiple ways that could be read. I don’t deny what you outline is a popular one that McConkie held to. But it’s not the only one nor more importantly was it the only historic view in the church.

By: JR

JR — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:05:12 +0000

BY’s 1852 speech made it clear when (in his view) — not until after all other descendents of Abel had had the opportunity. For him it was not just a question of when. It was never in this life.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:03:55 +0000

JR, nothing is a guarantee of course. But there’s plenty of major figures who accepted the curse theory yet thought it would be open to them. That’s simply unlike the doctrines of chastity and marriage. Further even Young and McConkie thought they would be given the priesthood it was just a question of when. Now they were wrong, which is why McConkie said forget what they said. The doctrine was always there though.

By: JR

JR — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:49:26 +0000

Bryan, you may need a broader historical view to grasp Bryce’s reference to “what is believed to be unchangeable doctrine.” Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie and others taught that the blacks would never have the priesthood in this life. That continued to be believed by some to be unchangeable doctrine even after Harold B. Lee’s statement. While David O. McKay had described the no-priesthood-for-blacks issue as a policy and denied that it was a doctrine, a prior First Presidency had declared it a doctrine. Part of the problem is, of course, the often unnoticed fluctuating meanings of “doctrine.” BTW, one of the great things about BRM was his ability to publicly tell people he had been wrong and that they should ignore what he and BY had said on the subject. The doctrine/policy/whatever was not “guaranteed to change” in this life, despite differences of opinion among presidents of the Church, until it in fact changed.

By: Bryan in VA

Bryan in VA — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 23:52:15 +0000

@Bryce Cook
What exactly is the “unchangeable doctrine” that changed in 1978. When you have Harold B. Lee saying in 1972

“It’s only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we’re just waiting for that time.”

A better description would that of the doctrine (of perhaps policy) that was guaranteed to change.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 26 May 2017 14:08:28 +0000

By rules I mean the rules of the church. The issue isn’t whether they change but whether they are inspired.

By: Northern Virginia

Northern Virginia — Fri, 26 May 2017 02:58:38 +0000

Bryce, that’s an interesting way to approach it and I seem to recall just such a proposal somewhere on the bloggernacle before. But I wonder how well such a change in doctrine would go over with the rank-and-file membership. Not that revealed truth needs to be popular,, but I’m sure the Church would preder to avoid another schism if possible. Then again, perhaps I’m ascribing too much homophobia to the Saints.

By: Bryce Cook

Bryce Cook — Fri, 26 May 2017 02:50:59 +0000

Clark, what exactly are the “rules of marriage”? A simple review of marriage through history (and among different cultures) shows that those rules have changed tremendously over time – even in the short life of our own church.

By: Jason K.

Jason K. — Fri, 26 May 2017 01:12:55 +0000

Thank you for this beautiful post.

By: Clark

Clark — Thu, 25 May 2017 21:31:54 +0000

Bryce, I think there clearly are a lot of myths people have about gay issues. To the degree such beliefs are false we should correct them. There was an unfortunate tendency in much of the 20th century to believe false things because they didn’t think God would do something like make real homosexuality. Thus it had to be because of lust and other such false stereotypes. To the degree we understand others it’s important to get at the truth.

I think assuming that all the church’s teachings on chastity and marriage are wrong is going a bit far. Indeed it seems to make exactly the same mistake well meaning but wrong Mormons made who bought into the stereotypes. They thought homosexuality character must be freely chosen and in some sense not real because God wouldn’t do something like that. Now the difference is the rules of marriage can’t be real because God wouldn’t do that. It’s exactly the same sort of reasoning.

By: Bryce Cook

Bryce Cook — Thu, 25 May 2017 20:07:23 +0000

Northern – true, the analogy isn’t perfect. But the 1978 revelation serves as a model for how what is believed to be unchangeable doctrine can change. Also, the prohibitions that go back to OT times did not deal with same-sex marriage, because that is a very modern phenomenon, one that I hope modern-day prophets are more equipped to deal with than ancient scripture.

By: Northern Virginia

Northern Virginia — Thu, 25 May 2017 19:46:34 +0000

Bryce, while I find your comments intriguing, I believe the comparison to race is bit apples to oranges (though I admit maybe I’m just shortsighted). Sure, if the position on homosexuality were of relatively recent vintage, like LDS teachings on race, then I can see most members accepting the change as simply a correction of false teachings (I was born after 1978 so I don’t have firsthand experience on the removal of the race ban). But here, you’re talking about prohibitions that may go back to 1200 years or more before Christianity and are widely accepted in three major world religions. That’s a lot of history with which to contend, and I’m not sure how willing your average member will be to simply discount that history if the prophet announces ten years from now that homosexuality is no longer a sin and that gay couples can be sealed to each other (though I personally expect it to happen in stages over decades if it does come to pass).

By: Bryce Cook

Bryce Cook — Thu, 25 May 2017 18:46:00 +0000

John’s experience busts so many myths about gay marriage. It does not result in unhappiness and despair, it is not just based on lust and sex, it ennobles and edifies – in short, it provides all the blessings and benefits of heterosexual marriage. So what does this mean with respect to the church’s position on same-sex marriage? If the church’s current position was simply inherited from general societal and religious belief of past generations, then maybe it’s time to take a hard look at the current position to see how it squares with the reality that John and many other happily-married gay couples experience. Just as President Kimball had to finally acknowledge within himself that the church’s position on blacks and the priesthood may have been incorrectly perpetuated based on past belief and tradition,

I hope that a not-too-distant church leader will have the courage to ask similar questions with respect to the church’s position on same-sex marriage. This is a particularly pressing issue for the church because its position, which teaches gay people from the time they are young that a core part of their being – their desire for human love and companionship – is evil if expressed and must be forever extinguished, causes severe emotional and spiritual harm.