Quotes from the Brethren
Russell M. Nelson–
If civil law were altered to recognize so-called “same-gender” marriage, you as believers in God, and keepers of His commandments, would then be regarded as exceptions to the rule. Your conscientious convictions would then be regarded as discriminatory. If you were a Christian school teacher, you could be charged with bigotry for upholding the Lord’s law of chastity. In truth dear brothers and sisters, if you lose marriage, you also lose freedom of religion. Atheistic moral bedlam and religious repression go hand in hand. At stake is our ability to transmit to the next generation the life-giving and inseparable culture of marriage and the free exercise of religion. (Speech to young adults in Boston, MA, June 10, 2010)
Elder Dallin H. Oaks–
(On why a constitutional amendment is necessary)
Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land. (see news release)
Letter from the First Presidency–
Letter from First Presidency of the Church to Church Leaders in the United States
We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.
We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.
In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.
In that proclamation we said: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–
We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship. (see news release)
Gordon B. Hinckley–
There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.
Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 52 )
Gordon B. Hinckley–
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.
We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, Nov 1998)
Quotes from the Founders
Speeches and Other Resources
- Church statement in response to HRC, Oct. 12, 2010 (0r here)
- Boyd K. Packer, Cleansing the Inner Vessel, Oct. 2010
- Keith B. McMullin, Evergreen International Conference, Sep. 21, 2010
- Bruce C. Hafen, Evergreen International Conference, Sep. 19, 2009
- Official Church Statement on SLC Nondiscrimination Ordinances, Nov. 10, 2009
- Official Church News Release on “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” Aug. 13, 2008
- Letter sent to California members on CA marriage amendment, Jun. 30, 2008
- Interview w/Elders Oaks & Wickman
- Official Church News Release on Marriage Amendment, Jun. 5, 2006
- Official Church News Release on Marriage Amendment, Oct. 25, 2006
- M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest,” 2005
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” 1999
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, Nov 1998
- Oaks, Dallin H., “Same Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 1995
Latest comments