...and a revelation was announced in which those in same-sex relationships were offered full membership in the church, short of temple sealings and endowment for not-already-endowed members, and were to be given all the same callings anyone else in a non-temple marriage could have, I don't think it would have any bearing on whether I 'went back to the church'. I mention that scenario because I think it's the most likely eventual (WAY down the road) change in acceptance of same-sex couples, if any. But even if they started sealing same-sex couples and calling men and women in such pairings to apostleship (since surely women would be given the priesthood by that point, too, which incidentally I consider possibly more likely than my first scenario), I can't imagine that changing anything where the church is concerned. I've always believed that, but it's become increasingly clear to me.
I know this doesn't help any 'cause' of trying to pressure the church into changing its position or policy so gay people will come back to it in droves or so that current gay members who don't want to leave will have a cozier home in the church. What it would do is make it easier for me to just go and enjoy the community and positive principles, free to date guys and marry one if I met someone who was right for me, and play along for the sake of family and friends who might feel more comfortable if I were going. But I'm just saying...these are two separate--though obviously interconnected or related in certain ways--issues, and my views of the veracity of the church's collective and individual historical or doctrinal claims, let alone those of the Bible, don't hinge on it. *shrug*
4 comments:
Well, the transformation will make the LDS church no different than any gay-affirming church, with the exception of cultural influences, so that's one incentive there, if you like seeing gay couples act like their cutesy, kitschy straight counterparts in 2010 Mormonism.
Although the church's position on certain issues (blacks and the priesthood, etc.) have shifted over time, changing the core doctrine of salvation would be outright impossible. It would be easier IMO to change biology and make it possible for homosexuals to reproduce naturally. Without a testimony or a fundamental knowledge of the plan of salvation, that statement may sound offensive, but I mean no offense. I'm really quite surprised you'd make such a conjecture or suggest it was even a possibility.
Ideally, it would be nice if we could all find a cozy home in the church. But I believe if that's what you're looking for when you enter into this community, you're in it for the wrong reason. I know I feel like a total alien in my ward just for being a bit more "liberal" in my social views, but I don't go to church to fit in. What it sounds like you're considering is this "New Order" style of Mormonism is a convenient way to try and get the temporal blessings that the community provides without having to sacrifice much in terms of pride or behavior. What irks me most about this sort of lifestyle is how disingenuous it would be, putting on airs just to appease others. Is that really something you would want to promote?
BLB, I don't think that change would change the LDS church's uniqueness much at all, actually.
Impossible K, if I understand you correctly, I think you largely missed the point of my post. There would be no change in core doctrine involved, at least not any more so than allowing a single mother who adopts children to hold callings. Mind you, I don't think the change is likely, at least not within the next several decades, and maybe beyond that. But the general membership of the church, and many of its authorities, used to think blacks not holding the priesthood was doctrinal and eternal. But then, you and I have already discussed that I don't think the two issues are directly comparable.
As for finding a cozy home, that's never what it was about for me. That's exactly what I'm saying here. It was about believing it was true. Which is why it's particularly irritating when people imply that I've left like some sort of child throwing a fit because the church wouldn't conform to fit my experiences and perceptions. Although I do have say I now see how extraordinarily prideful it sounds to hear someone talk about the "convenient way to try and get the temporal blessings that the community provides without having to sacrifice much in terms of pride or behavior," as if someone who is in a gay relationship doesn't still have to "sacrifice much" in the same way everyone else does. People used to say this to black people who believed they would one day receive the priesthood, despite it being taught over the pulpit that would never happen in mortality. They were just trying to get what they wanted instead of humbling themselves before their leadership and playing by the rules. Heck, fundamentalists who still practice plural marriage are thoroughly convinced mainstream Mormonism is one big copout, watering down doctrine to appease popular demand rather than standing firm in a principle even if it meant limiting the church's size. Watch your paradigms closely because though I almost completely agree with you, I see hints of something deeply flawed in your logic. But then, you seem to think the same of me, so maybe we'll agree to disagree.
The short version of my post, in case it's not crystal clear by now, is: I wasn't in the church for its culture or comforts, and I'm not leaving it because of them, either, so even if it's painful to lose what it did offer, why would I go back to it for them?
Oh, and I'm in a hurry, so I didn't say what I meant about the single mothers comparison and that it's not a direct comparison either because in the eyes of the church, that's different from being in a sexual relationship with a man without being married. But what about non-sexual, romantic companionships between men who would otherwise be single anyway? It's not wrong for a single mother to be in a relationship with a man and not marry him. After time, there might be doubts as to whether they're still non-sexual, etc. Anyway, there's a lot more to it than I can go into (gotta get back to other matters). But yes, right now, no, it wouldn't be the same. I'm just saying I could maybe see it becoming so without altering core doctrine.
Post a Comment