Is there a middle ground? The Church and gay marriage

[Lizzy60]

On another thread, one member here said that we should be considering a middle ground on the issue of gay marriage and the Church. He rightly said that some people don't want to give even an inch toward acceptance of gay marriage, and that those who are practicing homosexuals should be excommunicated, or they should leave of their own accord. Other members of the Church believe they have received revelation from God that gays marriage is just as valid and holy as straight marriage, and that we should accept our gay-married members just like any other members, with callings, temple recommends, etc.

So the LDSFF poster said that those of us who see this as black and white should try to imagine a middle ground.

If you can imagine one, what would that middle ground look like to you?

Disclaimer: I have known, and still know LGBTQ people. My friend who died of cancer married a man after she turned 40, and only confided her attraction to women to a very few close friends, and pretty much passed away still in the closet (about 10 years ago). My gay nephew has left the church and moved to New York where he can live as a gay man and work on his career in design. My niece is in a mixed orientation marriage, and she went into it eyes wide open. Her husband told her of his attraction to men, but that he wanted to marry a woman in the temple, before they started dating seriously. Their story is on North Star, they have children, and so far it seems to be working.

I don't know anyone personally who is LGBTQ and is lobbying for the Church to change their doctrine on marriage and chastity. I only know what I read online about people with this point of view.

Is there a middle ground that will avoid an eventual fracture in the Church? My first instinct is no, there is not.
What say y'all?

[mahalanobis]

I've seen churches that say "we believe what is in the Bible, but we preach grace for all". This is to say: "it's a sin, but we're all sinners, come worship with us and there will be no judgement coming from our clergy". This church is on the same street where I live.

I suppose a middle-ground is something like that. Where all are welcome to attend and join the community, even be gay-married on the church records without disciplinary action, but no sealings. The problem with that is the worst of all worlds: we'd be saying "let's give everyone the light and knowledge, including that it's a sin, but not expect anything". They'd be better off never knowing the gospel so that they won't be held accountable for their knowledge. We would be damning them, causing so much more damage than mere hurt feelings. Where much is given, much is required. Repentance is so central to everything we believe. Not to mention the scriptures about not taking the sacrament unworthily. So refraining from preaching repentance might feel good, but it won't do any good.

I can't think of another version of middle ground. If it involves changing the law of chastity, it's not in the middle of the ground, not even close.

[justme]

What if a person has just a slim glimmer of hope or light or attraction to be involved even if it is just to come sit in the church with us periodically. Shouldn't we be joyful for at least that much. I keep thinking of the ninety and nine. Do we say at the door we are glad they want to be there but go away until you are fully repentant? Isn't there a way to keep in some level of fellowship in the mean time. True it would be great if we were all perfect right now, but we are not. And sometimes repentance may be years or decades or longer down the road. But in the sense of the eternities that is just a blink of the eye. Can't we take people where ever they are at and welcome them, let them sense where we are at hope that their glimmer gets brighter with time. I know I am rambling and in no way am I saying that we change our standards or our doctrine or our temple boundaries, But can't we love everyone where they are at as we nudge them further down the path to the gospel?

[Lizzy60]

What if a person has just a slim glimmer of hope or light or attraction to be involved even if it is just to come sit in the church with us periodically. Shouldn't we be joyful for at least that much. I keep thinking of the ninety and nine. Do we say at the door we are glad they want to be there but go away until you are fully repentant? Isn't there a way to keep in some level of fellowship in the mean time. True it would be great if we were all perfect right now, but we are not. And sometimes repentance may be years or decades or longer down the road. But in the sense of the eternities that is just a blink of the eye. Can't we take people where ever they are at and welcome them, let them sense where we are at hope that their glimmer gets brighter with time. I know I am rambling and in no way am I saying that we change our standards or our doctrine or our temple boundaries, But can't we love everyone where they are at as we nudge them further down the path to the gospel?

I agree that no one should be turned away from attending our meetings. However, just as we would be respectful of the customs and beliefs of another religion if we visited their meeting (taking off our shoes, kneeling when asked to, head coverings, etc) I would expect an LGBTQ to show the same respect. So, no PDA with their significant other, no teaching children and youth that the Church doctrine is wrong, no taking over the microphone on Fast Sunday to broadcast their personal revelation that the leaders have got it wrong.

I don't know of any LDS congregation who would chase out someone for being gay or trans, UNLESS they were displaying or talking about doctrine contrary to current church doctrine. I wouldn't be allowed to talk about the beauty of rebaptism, no matter how much I might believe in it (I haven't been rebaptized, but I'm not opposed to the idea). Heck, I can't even bring a pot of coffee to share with everyone at the Ward Pancake Breakfast. Not that I would want to, but just an example.

However, this isn't really middle ground for the people at Mormons Building Bridges. It's hardly one step onto the bridge in their view.

[ori]

What if a person has just a slim glimmer of hope or light or attraction to be involved even if it is just to come sit in the church with us periodically. Shouldn't we be joyful for at least that much. I keep thinking of the ninety and nine. Do we say at the door we are glad they want to be there but go away until you are fully repentant? Isn't there a way to keep in some level of fellowship in the mean time. True it would be great if we were all perfect right now, but we are not. And sometimes repentance may be years or decades or longer down the road. But in the sense of the eternities that is just a blink of the eye. Can't we take people where ever they are at and welcome them, let them sense where we are at hope that their glimmer gets brighter with time. I know I am rambling and in no way am I saying that we change our standards or our doctrine or our temple boundaries, But can't we love everyone where they are at as we nudge them further down the path to the gospel?

This sounds like where the church is now. IMO. We already welcome all to our regular Sunday worship services. No one is turned away. We invite all to come and worship with us.

The problem is, homosexuals just won't like what we have to say about their sins. And that's ok, they can keep coming to church no one is stopping them.

[justme]

What if a person has just a slim glimmer of hope or light or attraction to be involved even if it is just to come sit in the church with us periodically. Shouldn't we be joyful for at least that much. I keep thinking of the ninety and nine. Do we say at the door we are glad they want to be there but go away until you are fully repentant? Isn't there a way to keep in some level of fellowship in the mean time. True it would be great if we were all perfect right now, but we are not. And sometimes repentance may be years or decades or longer down the road. But in the sense of the eternities that is just a blink of the eye. Can't we take people where ever they are at and welcome them, let them sense where we are at hope that their glimmer gets brighter with time. I know I am rambling and in no way am I saying that we change our standards or our doctrine or our temple boundaries, But can't we love everyone where they are at as we nudge them further down the path to the gospel?

I agree that no one should be turned away from attending our meetings. However, just as we would be respectful of the customs and beliefs of another religion if we visited their meeting (taking off our shoes, kneeling when asked to, head coverings, etc) I would expect an LGBTQ to show the same respect. So, no PDA with their significant other, no teaching children and youth that the Church doctrine is wrong, no taking over the microphone on Fast Sunday to broadcast their personal revelation that the leaders have got it wrong.

I don't know of any LDS congregation who would chase out someone for being gay or trans, UNLESS they were displaying or talking about doctrine contrary to current church doctrine. I wouldn't be allowed to talk about the beauty of rebaptism, no matter how much I might believe in it (I haven't been rebaptized, but I'm not opposed to the idea). Heck, I can't even bring a pot of coffee to share with everyone at the Ward Pancake Breakfast. Not that I would want to, but just an example.

However, this isn't really middle ground for the people at Mormons Building Bridges. It's hardly one step onto the bridge in their view.

I am in complete agreement with the respectful conduct.

And when we lived in Texas it was common for people to bring Iced Tea to the elders quorum pot lucks.

[mahalanobis]

What if a person has just a slim glimmer of hope or light or attraction to be involved even if it is just to come sit in the church with us periodically. Shouldn't we be joyful for at least that much. I keep thinking of the ninety and nine. Do we say at the door we are glad they want to be there but go away until you are fully repentant? Isn't there a way to keep in some level of fellowship in the mean time. True it would be great if we were all perfect right now, but we are not. And sometimes repentance may be years or decades or longer down the road. But in the sense of the eternities that is just a blink of the eye. Can't we take people where ever they are at and welcome them, let them sense where we are at hope that their glimmer gets brighter with time. I know I am rambling and in no way am I saying that we change our standards or our doctrine or our temple boundaries, But can't we love everyone where they are at as we nudge them further down the path to the gospel?

This sounds like where the church is now. IMO. We already welcome all to our regular Sunday worship services. No one is turned away. We invite all to come and worship with us.

The problem is, homosexuals just won't like what we have to say about their sins. And that's ok, they can keep coming to church no one is stopping them.

There are some who are activists who have an agenda so they keep coming for what appears to be the wrong reasons. There is one in my ward. This person is actually quite active on MBB and they have been quoted on this forum. Anyways, this person successfully got the entire ward walking on eggshells out of fear.

I actually have no qualm with this person. I've known gay people on my mission, several of my childhood friends ended up coming out as gay. College buddies too. If you look up my old posts you'll see I had my own struggle, for which I've been healed. The interesting thing is that this particular person in my ward (the activist) was the first or second person I met when I moved here. I knew nothing about them and had no idea they were openly LGBT. But I could tell that here was something off in their countenance. After meeting me, not more that 4 words were exchanged and this person did NOT like me. I'm not talking about "gay-dar" (play on the word radar), this was something else. It was like oil and water with our personalities and our spirits. It was literally months later before I learned any details about this person's orientation. This is going to sound callous and judgemental - I assure you I'm not trying to be like that: I'm convinced this person has unclean spirits about them. What's strange is I've seen the same thing or similar thing in the countenances of several others in the ward, but I don't have any details of their lives, nor do I have leadership stewardship over them. It's interesting.

[cab]

The finding of a middle ground is difficult with this topic because of the pressure being applied by the other side (MBB etc) and the power such groups wield in creating an environment such as the one we're seeing now...

What if there was a powerful and influential and societally favored organization that lobbied for the normalization of, let's say, pornography..... Their argument could he that every man in the world is predisposed to being attracted towards pornography (some more than others), but due to the fact that they are "born that way" and due to it's availability, we shouldn't treat it as sin due to the guilt and hurt feelings we're inducing in countless, otherwise good, men who are trying their best. And that our treating it as sin makes hundreds of thousands of men feel less than adequate (at best) or may even lead to suicide (at worst)....

You get my point... We don't have to seek a "middle ground" on the issue of pornography, because we don't have to deal with the unequivocating demands of powerful lobby groups and the public opinion resulting from them...

IDK, it's tough.

[tdj]

I say there shouldn't be a middle ground on the issue. No compromising AT ALL. A shakeup in the church isn't necessarily a bad thing. Jesus said himself that in the last days, there be a separation of sheep from goats. Wheat from tares. Why in church today is there the attitude of avoiding confrontation at all costs?

[nightlight]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.


-----------------
Bible > KJV > 2 Corinthians 6

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

[nightlight]

By all means....come unto Christ, just don't think to bring your world with you.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Is there a middle ground that will avoid an eventual fracture in the Church? My first instinct is no, there is not.
What say y'all?

"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31)

That pretty much says it all. It is very black and white with no middle ground. But we'll add a little bit from Nephi.

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.
And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
(2 Nephi 28:7–8)

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.
(2 Nephi 28:22)

They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.
(2 Nephi 28:14)

Pay particular attention to the highlighted part in verse 22. I have a copy of a survey conducted by the Barna Group in which LDS were asked if they believed Satan was a real personage of spirit who tempted and influenced people. An astonishing 41% of LDS said no, they did not believe that.

Now, look at the highlighted part in verse 14. This applies specifically to the Latter-day Saints. They err because they are "taught by the precepts of men." That describes those who think that sodomite marriage is OK, among other false ideas and worldly concepts.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That means he does not change. Homosexuality was wrong from the days of Adam and it is still wrong today. Nothing has changed except for the satanic ideas of modern man. There is not now and never will be any middle ground.

[oneClimbs]

Agreed; there is no middle ground. This ideology is a weapon being used to attack the plan of salvation which we fought to come to earth for. Where is the middle ground on fornication, on adultery, on bearing false witness, on bestiality, on pedophilia?

Just because something is popular in the eyes of the world, and Hollywood and the entire media complex get behind something and push it on to the people, doesn't mean that we should trample God's plan.

It is sad to me to learn of anyone struggling with anything in their lives. No matter what we are struggling with, we should have compassion and love for those who need it. The one thing you never compromise on is love for people. Love doesn't mean that you agree to absolutely everything a person does, we must stick to the truth even if people refuse to hear it.

The great and spacious building is mocking in full force. Will we be ashamed of the doctrine of Christ? Will we seek to compromise with a world that loathes our existence?

[Serragon]

A middle ground serves a useful purpose in a society full of different cultures and beliefs. It has no place in a religion meant to represent God's word and will on the earth.

Organizations are created for specific purposes. When those purposes are compromised the organization can no longer do what it was created to do.

[Durzan]

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That means he does not change.

Not necessarily. All that really says is that God doesn't appear to change from our limited mortal frame. Assuming that God doesn't change is presumptuous; likewise, assuming that He does change is also presumptuous.

A day for God is as 1000 years for us, so any change that God may or may not experience is so little and so slow compared to our own changes that He appears to stay the same throughout potentially millions of years worth of human history. God's scale and perception of time is so vast that we cannot comprehend it, so He speaks to us in the simplest of terms that we can understand.

[Dave62]

No.

[cab]

Though I don't agree that's there's much middle ground on this topic in the Lord's eyes, I do question the Church's ability to discern (in general) where it should or should not seek
middle ground... Perhaps many of us may someday find ourselves on the unexpected end of church discipline if the church decides to wield a zero compromise policy in other areas over what it considers to be sinful behavior or apostasy (that may or may not actually be sinful behavior or apostasy in the Lord's eyes)...

[Robin Hood]

No middle ground.
In fact no ground at all, irrespective of location.

[drtanner]

If a gay couple comes to church IMO they should be treated just like a heterosexual couple living together who shows up to church. Although the end goal may be different the kindness and charity should be the same. We also wouldn’t conform or shy away from teaching the correct doctrine of marriage and the law of chastity when those discussions and opportunities arise.

[Sunain]

There is no middle ground. We can love these people like anyone else who is a sinner and help them return to good standing through repentance.

I sincerely hope that these new temple recommend questions will help sift out the tares from the wheat for those that are on the fence in the church with promoting and supporting gay marriage.

[GaelicVigil]

I agree that no one should be turned away from attending our meetings.

I disagree. There are many in the LGBT community, like MBB, that are at church to be activists for their cause. They are wolves deliberately trying to lead the sheep astray.

Paul teaches that church is for the "believers". Christ calls his sheep to "Follow Me". Its not a place for people who are unrepentantly living every vice imaginable to sit among the membership proselytizing their lifestyle. It's not a circus for godless freaks.

[GaelicVigil]

1 Corinthians 5

"9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

[mahalanobis]

I agree that no one should be turned away from attending our meetings.

I disagree. There are many in the LGBT community, like MBB, that are at church to be activists for their cause. They are wolves deliberately trying to lead the sheep astray.

Paul teaches that church is for the "believers". Christ calls his sheep to "Follow Me". Its not a place for people who are unrepentantly living every vice imaginable to sit among the membership proselytizing their lifestyle. It's not a circus for godless freaks.

Non-believers should be welcome if they are seeking understanding and belief in good-faith and if they are not antagonistic.

Wolves in sheep's clothing and activists should not be welcome. This isn't controversial: apply the rule to any other religion or Native American tribal traditions or even "safe spaces" and leftists will agree right away. We have freedom of association and private property so this is a no brainier legally. The problem is that this can't be practically enforced with our church buildings or even temples. Even hypothetical poligraph tests at the front doors will not work when dealing with sociopaths.

[GaelicVigil]

I agree that no one should be turned away from attending our meetings.

I disagree. There are many in the LGBT community, like MBB, that are at church to be activists for their cause. They are wolves deliberately trying to lead the sheep astray.

Paul teaches that church is for the "believers". Christ calls his sheep to "Follow Me". Its not a place for people who are unrepentantly living every vice imaginable to sit among the membership proselytizing their lifestyle. It's not a circus for godless freaks.

Non-believers should be welcome if they are seeking understanding and belief in good-faith and if they are not antagonistic.

Wolves in sheep's clothing and activists should not be welcome. This isn't controversial: apply the rule to any other religion or Native American tribal traditions or even "safe spaces" and leftists will agree right away. The problem is that this can't be practically enforced with our church buildings or even temples. Even hypothetical poligraph tests at the front doors will not work when dealing with sociopaths.

This is why I believe the church is moving away from church meetings and focusing on home study. The activist sociopaths pushing this sewage are using our good will against us in our buildings.

On the other hand, Jesus literally overturned tables and whipped people desecrating the temple. So that certainly shouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for us in dealing with these people.

I've always said, the bishopric should be wrestling these testimony meeting activists out the door by their hands and legs.

[iWriteStuff]

I thought this quote from Neal A. Maxwell to be appropriate:

"True, the enemies and the critics of the Lord’s work will not relent; they only regroup. Even among the flock, here and there and from time to time, are a few wolves, wearing various styles of sheep’s clothing—ironically, just before the shearing season! A few defectors and “highminded” traitors (2 Tim. 3:4) even go directly to the “great and spacious building” to hire on (1 Ne. 8:26). There recruits are celebrated and feted until—like their predecessors—they have faded into the dark swamps of history. As President Heber C. Kimball said, divine justice will eventually require that they “pay all the debt of [all] the trouble that they have brought upon the innocent” (in Journal of Discourses, 5:94)."