Claim #6: I “attack” Dehlin’s work with homosexuals

  • I nowhere “attacked” Dehlin’s work, save to say that some of it is opposed to Church doctrine.
  • I cited Dehlin’s work on same sex marriage, which Rollo says he cannot see how I see this as representing an “attitude toward homosexual acts” that is “opposed to the Church’s standard.”

I assume Rollo is serious here. The Church has clearly been opposed to same-sex marriage—Dehlin’s advocacy in its behalf opposes the Church’s standard. And it is a bit embarrassing to have to point this out to someone who claims to be far more sophisticated and aware about such matters than I am, but–marriage also tends to involve sexual acts.

When I asked him if he would support the Church’s call for its gay members to refrain from homosexual activity, Dehlin declined to do so. He also opined that “I do not believe that sexual relations within the bonds of marriage are sinful,” which when applied to gay marriage is likewise contrary to the Church’s stance (3 March 2013, Facebook, 9:51 p.m.). He is claiming that if gay marriage were legal, married gay couples would not be committing a sin: but the Church strongly disagrees.

He likewise reports that “I am aware of wards where gay and lesbians in committed same-sex (sexual) relationships are allowed to remain in good standing with the church without penalty…with full knowledge of the bishops involved.” (Facebook, 9:50 pm, ellipsis in original). I also quote him in the paper as claiming that the options of chastity or heterosexual marriage are poor, inadequate options for gay members.

Advertisements