Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)

[PressingForward]

Welcome to the LDS church, only-slightly-future version.

It does remind me of the pre-1978 change in Priesthood for all worthy males. Previous to that time, at least one bishop just took the matter in his own hands, and ordained an African-American. I THINK he was ex-communicated at the time, but shortly thereafter, the church changed it's policy.

What will the average church member do if/when the church changes its policy on homosexuals?

This member will resign his membership, and encourage all that I know to do the same.

[Sunain]

Welcome to the LDS church, only-slightly-future version.

It does remind me of the pre-1978 change in Priesthood for all worthy males. Previous to that time, at least one bishop just took the matter in his own hands, and ordained an African-American. I THINK he was ex-communicated at the time, but shortly thereafter, the church changed it's policy.

What will the average church member do if/when the church changes its policy on homosexuals?

I will resign my membership if that ever happens because the leaders of the church will have supplanted revelation from God to dictate their own policies for the church instead of the Plan of Salvation blueprint that was setup before this world began. Basically the Second Coming will come before this happens.

I personally believe this whole tolerance and making a website for the Gay's is going a bit too far for my liking. We need to be hardline on the issue otherwise we get bishops/SP like this one. Homosexuality is a sin.

[BeNotDeceived]

I recall reading a prophecy where the devil will reside in the new temple. Prolly somewhere in Prophecy Key to the Future by Duane Crowther. Anyone have a copy?

[Mark]

Welcome to the LDS church, only-slightly-future version.

It does remind me of the pre-1978 change in Priesthood for all worthy males. Previous to that time, at least one bishop just took the matter in his own hands, and ordained an African-American. I THINK he was ex-communicated at the time, but shortly thereafter, the church changed it's policy.

What will the average church member do if/when the church changes its policy on homosexuals?

This member will resign his membership, and encourage all that I know to do the same.

This is just silly. What ifs are non productive and basically a waste of time. What if Pres. Nelson became a Moonie? What if Finrock wasn't a contrarian? What if Amonhi became part of the 144,000? All these things aren't ever going to happen so it's dumb to play that what if game.

[Thinker]

I will resign my membership if that ever happens because the leaders of the church will have supplanted revelation from God to dictate their own policies for the church instead of the Plan of Salvation blueprint that was setup before this world began. Basically the Second Coming will come before this happens.

I personally believe this whole tolerance and making a website for the Gay's is going a bit too far for my liking. We need to be hardline on the issue otherwise we get bishops/SP like this one. Homosexuality is a sin.

I guess I’m not the only one who worries about the church succumbing to homosexual manipulative pressures. For many, the one place, once a week that feels like a respite - a sacred place - is church. If that is taken as it was for that ward, where will be such a place? If it comes down to a world overtaken by sexually confused people who demand compliance and cruely force their harmful ways on others while calling out victim - what hell! I and many I know have been hurt various ways by those practicing homosexuality - but these bullies and abusers haven’t made amends - but instead play victim & demand others be responsible for their problems.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions but I think you are right about the direction things are going & it’s concerning. I suppose we can still make our own pieces of heaven - by strengthening ourselves, praying always - especially for others who we can support and derive support from. I realize more & more clearly that apathy is no longer an option - and studying things out along with spiritual guidance is absolutely imperative.

[BeNotDeceived]

I predict this bishop won’t be one for long. He mis used his authority in giving a platform(however innocently) to beliefs that are not consistent with church teachings
It’s a fine line between loving the sinner but hating the sin. Tolerance of evil, no matter how loving it seems, will be ones downfall.
The Sabbath day belongs to the Lord. This bishop was way out of line.

That, or this is a lead-up to: The Son of Perdition Sitting in the Temple... ...

[Fiannan]

Ever notice how empathy is often the best way to get people to question everything from disciplining children to accepting Gospel truth?

[Michelle]

I will resign my membership if that ever happens because the leaders of the church will have supplanted revelation from God to dictate their own policies for the church instead of the Plan of Salvation blueprint that was setup before this world began. Basically the Second Coming will come before this happens.

I personally believe this whole tolerance and making a website for the Gay's is going a bit too far for my liking. We need to be hardline on the issue otherwise we get bishops/SP like this one. Homosexuality is a sin.

I guess I’m not the only one who worries about the church succumbing to homosexual manipulative pressures. For many, the one place, once a week that feels like a respite - a sacred place - is church. If that is taken as it was for that ward, where will be such a place? If it comes down to a world overtaken by sexually confused people who demand compliance and cruely force their harmful ways on others while calling out victim - what hell! I and many I know have been hurt various ways by those practicing homosexuality - but these bullies and abusers haven’t made amends - but instead play victim & demand others be responsible for their problems.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions but I think you are right about the direction things are going & it’s concerning. I suppose we can still make our own pieces of heaven - by strengthening ourselves, praying always - especially for others who we can support and derive support from. I realize more & more clearly that apathy is no longer an option - and studying things out along with spiritual guidance is absolutely imperative.

The Sunday after gay marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court, our Sunday Relief Society lesson was skipped. The teacher invited her lesbian friend to come and educate us on how things are going to be now.

I remember praying to know if I should say something. The Spirit constrained me to stay silent. I prayed to know if I could/should leave. The Spirit constrained me to stay put. It was uncomfortable.

The poor bishop was informed after the meeting had started and spent the remainder of the meeting in the doorway listening. The next week we again skipped the normal Relief Society lesson. The bishop came and apologized for the week before. He explained the proper procedure for inviting speakers to our church. He said that even as bishop, if he wanted to invite a speaker from outside the ward, he would have to get approval from the Stake President as well as the bishop of the speaker. We then had a special lesson on the family from the Gospel Doctrine Manual.

It was kind of a big deal for a lot of people. I had a lot of sisters who were my friends come and visit that week to just talk about the experience. I shared the impression I had during the lesson. The Spirit said to me that church was no longer a "safe place" and that those who use to protest from outside the building (like at General Conference) would now protest from inside the building. That didn't mean I was suppose to stop going to church, but that I must be even more careful in measuring all that was said against the Lord's standard as found in the words of the prophet, the scriptures and the Holy Ghost. I was so sad to lose church as a refuge from the world. I am grateful that we still have the temple.

I have taught my children the same. When they are at church and they hear something, even from a teacher, they are to ask the Lord if it is true and measure it against the words of the prophet, the scriptures and the Holy Ghost. I explained that we love our fellow church members and hope that they are doing their best to teach truth. We accept their offering of service lovingly, but measure all things against Heavenly Father's standards.

[yjacket]

I guess I’m not the only one who worries about the church succumbing to homosexual manipulative pressures. For many, the one place, once a week that feels like a respite - a sacred place - is church. If that is taken as it was for that ward, where will be such a place? If it comes down to a world overtaken by sexually confused people who demand compliance and cruely force their harmful ways on others while calling out victim - what hell! I and many I know have been hurt various ways by those practicing homosexuality - but these bullies and abusers haven’t made amends - but instead play victim & demand others be responsible for their problems.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions but I think you are right about the direction things are going & it’s concerning. I suppose we can still make our own pieces of heaven - by strengthening ourselves, praying always - especially for others who we can support and derive support from. I realize more & more clearly that apathy is no longer an option - and studying things out along with spiritual guidance is absolutely imperative.

It's bad enough that I worry about screening LDS videos from my kids. I never thought I'd have to worry about The Church, but considering this Bishop, and the several youtube videos the Church has out there . . . I worry for the future.

[yjacket]

The Spirit said to me that church was no longer a "safe place" and that those who use to protest from outside the building (like at General Conference) would now protest from inside the building. That didn't mean I was suppose to stop going to church, but that I must be even more careful in measuring all that was said against the Lord's standard as found in the words of the prophet, the scriptures and the Holy Ghost. I was so sad to lose church as a refuge from the world. I am grateful that we still have the temple.

Bingo. Growing up I never thought I would lose church as a "safe place". I always thought no matter what happened in the world, the fiber, the moral character of the members of the Church, that would prevent it from becoming a place I have to guard myself about.

It has taken me several years, but the LoveLoud pronouncement earlier this year was the last straw. I now see church as a place where I must be very careful and cautious, b/c many things are being taught that are contrary to God's laws. The saddest thing is that I will end up teaching my children differently than I was taught growing up.

The Church is Jesus Christ church upon the earth, but you've got to be very, very careful b/c not everything that is being taught is of God. Always stay with His Church, but always be on guard for false, deceptive, even wicked doctrine being preached from the pulpits and it's leaders.

[gardener4life]

This is why moderators are a bad thing.

Love you too, buddy

moderators.jpg

In all honesty, handling ambiguity and fielding complaints is a thankless task. My humble thanks goes out to those who are still patient with us while we figure out what the heck we're doing

LoL. The banned member pic is awesome lol. I had to laugh at that.

[gardener4life]

Why was the thread about the pro-gay Riverton Bishop deleted?? There was zero contention on the thread - no forum rule had been broken - and it was an important topic to be discussed.

What an odd place LDSFF is turning out to be - endless threads by people promoting many things AGAINST the LDS Church, and the apostles (such as all the MANY Amonhi, Robert Sinclair, et al, threads) are left up and are allowed to continue for page after page after page. Yet a thread bringing to light something that we all need to be made aware of (because it's coming to all our wards and stakes eventually, you can count on it) gets deleted. Utterly bizarre. Nothing "free" about a "freedom" forum that censors indiscriminately like that.

I "deleted" it, because someone reported it. Brian and iwritestuff are currently reviewing it, as there is still a record that can be used to restore the topic if needed. Basically, the person who reported it thought it was here-say about a bishop (who is not a public figure like Julie Rowe), we don't have all the information, and he could just be doing his best. Thus, the person argued that it was against forum policy and was not kind to discuss him like that, even if he had an agenda.

I could've simply scrubbed the names, but that wouldn't have done any good, as his name was already publicized.

It's not hearsay though, it's public knowledge. The Bishop and his wife are very open and public about their pro-gay stance. Anyone who is on Facebook can look them up and read everything they've written - including what was said at that Sunday meeting. So we DO have all the information.

I'd be curious if the person who report that thread, and who thinks it wasn't "kind" to discuss the Bishop, also thinks it isn't kind to throw trash at all the apostles and prophet, which is done on COUNTLESS threads on LDSFF on a DAILY basis.

This is an interesting point. I 've also felt this. I'm glad people are hearing it from more than just me. It feels a bit uncomfortable that the pro-gay bishop got protected and others didn't. Glad you all spoke up.

[ebenezerarise]

Clearly, this topic is sifting us.

[gardener4life]

OK, first off I'm sorry I've offended people here a few times. I'm not sorry for sayin what I thought was right though. So I care about not having people led astray but I'm sorry if I made anyone feel bad in the past. It's sometimes hard to not offend people but stick up for what you think is right, especially when you don't always see others sticking up, or they are at work or short on time.

OK here's what I found...and I haven't gone through the whole thing. Partly its' just a huge thread on another site that I don't really use. But according to this other thread its heading line is that he invited pro LGBTQ speakers for the 2nd and 3rd hours of the block. It would be entirely inappropriate to appoint non-member 'leaders and teachers' for a meeting block, even if its a one time deal. Its also worse than telling people how to vote by a long haul.

Here's the heading line;

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/701 ... ur/?page=6

So here are some scriptures and things to think about in regards to it;

Jacob 1:19 And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day. Now can you see why I worry about sticking up for what's right?

Mosiah 23:14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments. And verse 17 of the same chapter also applies; 17 And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:5
5 We believe that all men are bound toasustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside (applies to church as well, also this issue is WHY we sustain our leaders and ward callings...so people can't just come in and do a hostile takeover), while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and crebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.


Official Declaration 2
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative. (Even when a decision is right if there's potential to cause harm we sustain the people so they are acknowledged as 'rightful authority' compared to 'wrongful authority'. We also sustain through peaceful methods, not by war, nor money, nor popularity even. (Sometimes doing wrong can be popular). It must be sustained by the body of the priesthood and sometimes by the membership in general depending on the situation.)

Official Declaration 1
One case has been reported (misconduct example quoted by Wilford Woodruff, response was just and swift to make sure others weren't led astray. In response, protection had to be made for the victims. It's for that we have to remember how and why there will be a response, even if we feel regretful that its heavy.), in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Also in that case yes he was clearly wrong but I don't think its good to quote addresses because there may be innocents at the household such as young children or others that can't support themselves temporally. I don't think it's good to drag them into this.

My comments above are merely to show there's reasons and examples in the scriptures of WHY they did certain things but not to be critical of leaders. I hope this helps in rooting out confusion and indecision but only influences things the way it should be done anyway. Also I wanted to find more time to show more quotes on 'sustained before a priesthood body or the membership body, but I was low on time. If you think for a minute, you will recall at Stake Conferences we sustain key callings, and priesthood organizations such as Melchizedek etc. To prevent THIS from happening is why.

3 Major Issues; 1) Their sins be upon us if we don't teach them right. 2) Must be called of God through worthiness and standards. 3) Sustained before the membership local wards, and if applicable stakes of Zion in order to operate in those stakes and wards. When someone baptizes a relative in another ward they have to get a letter or referral and this is why.....subnote; It is up to those leaders over that Bishop to confirm what to do with him, not me. But it doesn't look good.

[gardener4life]

Sub note; Did some more thinking... what I said above is true and is right. We are the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. We're not the church of money, or the church of fellowshipping gays, nor any other thing that people like in this life. Those people do have concerns and need to be loved, there's no doubt about it. But its not the job of the church to have our focus on Christ suddenly flipped on its end and turned to some other group. If this can be done where there are pro gay meetings then we could have the NRA or other groups or even pro Koran come demand to meeting time too.

[sushi_chef]

[
"48. Near the time of the end, many of the General Authorities will become quite old. Troubles will start when three leaders will die in close proximity to one another. The new replacements will not be able to hold the Church together. (many of us on other groups have talked about this one. The 3 we see would be currently: Pres. Hinckley, Bro. Haight and Pat. Smith all in their 90's)

49. In the end there will be a great apostasy in the Church. A rift in leadership will cause many members to leave. Something will happen to make members congregate in and around the churches, and at various other locations to discuss and ponder the great disturbing changes occurring. This will mark the commencement of the time of problems for the Church, as well as the time of apostasy. (this will be interesting to see what causes it. It has happened before in the early days and will happen again.)
"
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/dreammine.html

#49 getting close?! ....prophetic, indeed!!

[ebenezerarise]

[MODERATOR EDIT]

I venture to guess that many of you aren't close to anyone who is gay or really know anyone who has contemplated suicide -- or committed suicide -- due to whatever their circumstances caused by their sexual orientation. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it's real.

Likewise real is the fact that these are Father's children.

MY faith, my opinion, my belief, my situation -- declares homosexuality immoral and a grievous sin. I abhor it.

But it is not my place to abhor those who struggle with it or who disagree with me about that. That is between them and the Lord and while this is not my issue, believe me, I have plenty of issues of my own with scarlet sins.

I read the Bishop's talk. And only the Bishop's talk. I saw nothing wrong with it. NOTHING.

The fact he invited members of Affirmation and other and THEY said things contrary to church doctrine does not bother me. I feel better knowing they can come into one of our buildings and peacefully express themselves, however wrong, and then be gently exposed to Gospel teaching.

We are not going to win these our brothers and sisters back with hellfire and damnation. We're not going to win them back by bludgeoning them over the head with the weight of their sin and error. They will only learn as we all learn -- line upon line. We feed them what light they can absorb and digest and their intelligence and genuine attraction to GOD will cause the heart to change.

We deny God this miracle over and over. And yet we have seen it happen in the scriptures, in our family histories and in our circles ALL THE TIME. It is a work of faith.

It is not a work of faith to sit behind your Internet identities and use words like "homos" in speaking of them or blanket condemning them for merely being homosexual.

How dare you! Have you learned nothing of Christ? Have you never seen how he dealt with those immersed in sin? Did He do what you are now doing?

Those of you who aren't getting this are not only part of the problem you are the bigger part of the problem.

Reaching out to those who merely misunderstand gospel truth does not mean you endorse their falsehood. It means you're exercising your faith. I would urge GREAT caution in condemning both the Bishop in this case and those who were there in this meeting.

[h_p]

I read the Bishop's talk. And only the Bishop's talk. I saw nothing wrong with it. NOTHING.

He may have walked the line in the meeting (I don't know, didn't read the whole thing yet). But read the rest of his FB page. He links to articles justifying and glorying homosexual behavior and gay marriage. There are two ways to struggle with this issue: one is seeking to understand how to align ourselves with God, the other is seeking to align God with us. I think this bishop makes it clear which one he's doing.

[Fiannan]

How dare you! Have you learned nothing of Christ? Have you never seen how he dealt with those immersed in sin? Did He do what you are now doing?

Well, that depends on what role we assign Jesus in the Old Testament.

[Fiannan]

Just a note, I actually do believe in being kind to people who are attracted to the same sex. However, I have noticed that a lot of talk has been focused on gay teen suicide. Yes, that is tragic. However, how much focus do we give to all the heterosexual men out there who commit suicide after a divorce? Bet a lot of people on this forum know of at least one instance of this.

[AI2.0]

But, with the thread deleted, we really can't look into it to see if he really had an agenda or if that was simply rumor and false reporting.

But that is exactly why I said in my comment that I don't consider the bishop to be a public person. I cannot access his facebook page, since I'm not in fb. The deleted thread was the only place where I had heard of him. So, is he a public or private person? What are the criteria when it is okay to name people here?

If a bishop is promoting practicing Gay actions, including gay marriage, on a public forum like FaceBook, he should be excommunicated, because it is public.

So, what actually happened at this meeting? I see a lot of people making assumptions, but do we know as a actual fact that this bishop was having a meeting in order to change the doctrine of the Church and he made statements or taught ideas to the effect that homosexual marriage is OK and the Church shouldn't ban it.

Honestly, I see people who are so anti-gay that just showing compassion, understanding, or giving gay people any type of voice at all, is viewed as apostate/heresy etc.

So, if someone has posted the actual content of the meeting (minutes from a clerk, video, transcript, etc.), can you please point me to it. If it hasn't been posted yet, can someone please post actual, factual data regarding this meeting. I am not interested in interpretations/analysis/assumptions or antyhing of the sort.

-Finrock

This happens so rarely, but I completely agree with Finrock. Was anyone at the meeting? Does anyone know what was actually said? Maybe we could wait for proof before demanding this Bishop be released, ostracized, exed and cyberly drawn and quartered.

[AI2.0]

So, its your belief that by allowing a person who is pro-gay marriage to speak at a meeting at church constitutes apostasy for the bishop?

Did the bishop, at any time in the meeting, say "I support gay marriage. I believe gay marriages should be sanctioned by the Church. I believe that the Church is wrong for being against gay marriage. I think it is OK to be a practicing homosexual." Or anything to that affect?

Again, just speaking in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong with simply allowing people of opposing views to share their experiences, talk about their views, or express their opinions. We should be mature enough to be able to handle listening to people who don't agree with our perspetives and in affording them the respect and right to believe how they wish. Doing so doesn't constitute condoning or support. I think allowing for such dialogue, although rare (unfortunately), is a good thing and shows an individual who is quite comfortable with their beliefs, their views, and their religion. Being defensive and disallowing an opposing view in my mind is immature and shows insecurity.

-Finrock

I agree. So to be proactive, and show that I am loving and kind and open to those with opposing beliefs, I am going to invite my LDS friends and relatives who are living in adultery (and I know quite a few) to come speak at Church. Change the word "gay" above in your post to "adultery". If you don't, then you are being insecure and immature and defensive for disallowing an opposing view. In your mind, of course.

First of all, your comparison is a false comparison. You can't change the words as you suggest and my post remain logically or meaningfully consistent. Secondly, changing the word "gay" to "adultery" in my post above would turn logical/reasonable statements in to nonsensical constructs. Thirdly, I would not be opposed to allowing someone who supports "adultery marriages" (whatever that means), to at least speak. In doing so I wouldn't be condoning "adultery marriages" neither would I be supporting them.

-Finrock

First, you post nonsense about what EmmaLee posted.
Second, that is what the Bishop has done here, he is promoting, sanctioning and encouraging sin. The sin of same sex sexual relations.
And third, if you have pro adultery speakers it is indeed to promote adultery.
dc

Were you at the meeting? Do you know that he was 'promoting, encouraging' and urging the members or 'participate in sin'?? What I see is a lot of conjecture, rumour and assumptions used to fan the flames of fear and mistrust of our Church leaders.

What I've observed on this thread is that some ex-LDS, nominal, critical and fringe dwellers have been taking advantage of the rampant speculation on this thread and used it to sew seeds of dissension and worry among the others.

Inho actually read some of what was posted and did not feel the Bishop was trying to undermine the church's stance against Homosexual behavior and Gay Marriage in what he was sharing. If we actually sustain our church leaders, we will also trust their judgment, that if this Bishop was doing anything not in harmony with Church teachings, he'll be called out on it and set in order.

If we truly believe that our church leaders are good, righteous leaders who want to do the Lord's will and are careful to keep the doctrines pure and the members on the strait and narrow path, then we won't jump to thinking the worst of our leaders any time someone attempts to provoke us into grabbing the cyber pitchforks and knives and going after our own.

To those in among us who are fearing for the church, for it's leaders and that the son of Perdition will take over the temple, the leaders will sell us for money and political correctness and we're going to have to be bridemaids/groomsmen and buy gifts for all the lesbians and gays in our wards...let's just step back a bit and remember this is the Lord's church. He leads it through his Prophet, his apostles and the other men and women they call, through inspiration, to serve and teach us. Let's trust them that if there's a problem with someone they've called, they will take care of it. They are't out of touch or not in the loop, especially in this particular situation.

Why don't we wait and see if there's anything to actually be concerned about before calling for this Bishop's removal and excommunication.

[AI2.0]

Oh, great. Why does every thread have to devolve into some whackjob's bogus dream? ...

Thank you for taking the time to actually read the Bishop's talk. I think this has been blown way out of proportion. While there may be a couple of bad apples, I don't think this Bishop deserves these attacks. I think he sincerely and prayerfully planned something that he felt inspired to share with his ward. Was it perfect and everything go off as planned? Maybe not. But, I think that as members we should have charity for others and not automatically jump to the negative conclusions that some on this forum love to fan and encourage. As you pointed out, Sushi chef (aka 'ex' sushi chef) gleefully shared a dream of apostasy in the church. He knows that some on the forum can be swayed by that and are also fearful of the church being compromised. Others(who also have an agenda) started stoking the flames of fear that the church will capitulate on Same sex marriage if we give just a little of our cloak of charity to those who struggle with Same Sex attraction. Honestly people, what is WRONG with us? Do we not trust our church leaders who lead and guide this church to trust they will not be swayed by politics, social media, peer pressure and plain old satanic temptation in keeping the church headed on it's proper course--to become more of a Zion people, more prepared to meet our Savior when he returns?

I trust them. I listen to their words in General Conference. They are not giving a centimeter when it comes to sin, but they are attempting to help us be more Christlike and less judgmental. Let's be smarter than letting ourselves be divided and manipulated by those who would undermine our faith and sow seeds of discontent among us.

[Arenera]

I was going to recommend that AI2.0 use her detective sleuth capabilities and get the real answer. Since the real answer is no harm, no foul, there are 2 points. 1) Some people definitely have issues with LGBTQ folks. 2) Is this fake news...

[BringerOfJoy]

I was not comparing being black with being homosexual. I was comparing a bishop's way of dealing with an increasingly unpopular stance in the church: Just force the issue.

I agree that defending the family is an important thing to do. I just have lost all confidence that the church will continue to do that based on history. I've already been shocked at the changes that have occured since the Prop 8 efforts in CA. And as younger members who favor gay marriage increasingly take the reins in the church, the church will follow will drift with that change. I think--had Hillary won the last election--the issue (as well as the women and the priesthood issue) might have been forced upon the church sooner rather than later, but there is a short spell of reprieve here. We may get to see just how important 501(c)(3) status is.