Background – the Movie

In 2014 a notorious film was released with no small amount of controversy. The movie told the story of a charismatic pop journalist who was invited to give an exclusive interview with the Supreme Leader of the Peoples Republic of North Korea, Kim Jong-un. True both in the movie and in real life, there have been widespread rumors that the people of North Korea live in abject poverty and fear under the oppressive rule of this totalitarian despot. The Supreme Leader has chosen this journalist to try to set the record straight and show to the world that he is simply misunderstood and that the stories of oppression and poverty in his country are lies.

The journalist and his producer eagerly accept the offer and upon arriving in North Korea are given highly supervised tours that give the appearance of a culture of abundance and adoration of the Supreme Leader. The leader himself, Kim Jong-un, eagerly develops a friendly rapport with the pop journalist leading up to the interview and the Journalist starts to agree that the terrible stories he had heard about North Korea were nothing more than propaganda. He starts to believe the message that is presented to him by the Supreme Leader without looking critically at his motives and evidence which would dispute what is presented.

It is only later, when the journalist starts to pay attention to the actual candid statements of the Supreme Leader that he begins to think that his trust in the picture that was painted for him may not have been founded. He looks closer at the grocery store only to find that it was a sham meant to be a deceptive facade. He and his producer start to listen to the people who actually live under the rule of the Supreme Leader and discover that they are all living in fear despite the assurances that Kim had given.

When it comes time to conduct the interview, it starts just as the Supreme Leader expects it to – with softball predetermined questions for which he has prepared answers which paint him in only the best light. The interview was a setup by the Supreme Leader to manipulate the feckless journalist into being a tool for propaganda.

I won’t spoil the ending, but will just observe that the movie demonstrates that when we listen to leaders give answers in the media, whether in politics or in religion or business, we have to keep in mind what the motives and incentives of the subject of the interview are. In all of these examples distortions, obfuscations, omissions and out-right lies have been employed during interviews in the past. Being an informed and critical public means that we have to examine closely exactly what is said, what is left out and the context and background of the leader and the issue to tease out the truth.

KUTV Interview with Elder Christofferson

LDS Apostle Elder D. Todd Christofferson recently gave a remarkable interview with KUTV on the subject of the recently passed SB 296 which addressed freedom of religious expression and anti-discrimination based on sexual orientation. During the discussion the LDS Apostle answers some pressing questions on topics including the political involvement of the church behind the recent legislation, the added understanding of the brethren on LGBT issues and the ability of members to have differing opinions and open advocacy of those views without having their membership threatened.

The Actual Interview

The Transcript

Key Questions

Question: Can Members Support Gay Marriage?

Reporter: … can members of the church, say, support gay marriage or other things that are related to this bill that the Church teaches against – can they support that? Christofferson: Well there is a diversity of opinion among church members in that regard and you know that’s always been true I guess on many subjects over the years over the decades and we don’t have qualms about that. We urge people to take part, for example, in the political process and we don’t tell them how to vote or who to vote for but that they exercise their own good judgment and make their decisions. Obviously that’s different than when somebody attacks the church, you know per se, or tries to hinder its work. But anybody pursuing their view of what ought to happen in the community – that’s what we hope to see, frankly. In a way you saw it here in the legislature. The vast majority of legislators in Utah are members the LDS Church and you see a wide variety of opinions in them and among them as you do in our at the federal level in the US and in other countries. So if we’re trying to get everybody to sing the same song and say exactly the same thing we’re failing miserably, but you saw that in this case as in most I hope people do work to come together on what can be the best solution for everybody.

There are several important questions that are asked and answered in this interview, and upon first glance the responses appear to be a new direction for the LDS leadership – one of tolerance, long-suffering and humility. As with Kim Jong-un – you have to dig deep and closely examine and parse the language that is used and your knowledge of the background that the interview subject is coming from to put together the real picture. While the questions covered several topics, we are going to focus only on those questions and answers which address the headline that has most often been put forth from this interview – the idea that Church members are now free to publicly support gay marriage.

This pleasant sounding response would seem to the world to be a refreshing new tone for the brethren. To people generally unfamiliar with LDS teachings, the statement is encouraging. There are a couple of things to keep in mind about what he specifically said. Elder Christofferson carved out an exception to people having differences of opinion by stating “Obviously that’s different than when somebody attacks the church, you know per se, or tries to hinder its work.” In order to understand the full measure of this exception, you have to understand what the Church teaches that “its work” is.

What is the work?

In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson concisely declared the mission and work of the church in the Spring General Conference:

“The Church will continue its opposition to error, falsehood, and immorality. The mission of the Church is to herald the message of salvation and make unmistakably clear the pathway to exaltation. Our mission is to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. As the world drifts further away from God and standards of virtue and honor, we may expect opposition to the work of the Church. We may expect to see the time, as the Book of Mormon forecasts, when “multitudes … among all the nations of the Gentiles [will gather] to fight against the Lamb of God” (1 Ne. 14:13). The power of God and the righteousness of the Saints will be the means by which the Church will be spared (see 1 Ne. 14:14–15).”

(“A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”, lds.org)

Here Benson, speaking as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, makes it clear that the work and mission of the Church is to prepare people for the coming of the Lord and to do this by preaching the Gospel and making it “unmistakably clear” what the pathway to exaltation is. Mormons know that exaltation requires marriage between a man and a woman – it is an integral part of the endowment ceremony and temple wedding that each worthy member has been taught is an essential saving ordinance without which no exaltation is possible. For the church to tolerate members agitating for more tolerance of homosexuality even to the point of gay marriage is exactly what Benson was warning about “the world drift[ing] further away from God…” and that the gentiles will “fight against the Lamb of God”. He is talking about the people outside the church trying to call “evil good.” The Prophet Spencer W. Kimball also warned of this:

“The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. …The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict. Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled.”

(“President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality” Ensign, Nov. 1980, lds.org)

The fact that homosexual behavior and marriage are completely inconsistent with the teachings of the church is alluded to later in the interview when Elder Christofferson responds to the reporter asking if there is a possibility that the church would move in the future to support something like monogamous homosexual relationships:

“we talk about the plan of salvation as we as we call it and take into account the pre-mortal existence, this current existence and what comes here after. Marriage between a man and a woman, the family that grows out of that – all that is so fundamental to what has happened, what needs to happen here and what comes here after that without it it falls apart. So I don’t think we can take away the cornerstone without everything else coming down.”

Elder Christofferson is simply restating what is in the Proclamation on the Family:

“Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. …Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

(“The Family: A Proclaimation” lds.org)

Make no mistake about it. The church believes that homosexuality is incompatible with the pattern of families which are part of God’s plan. It unambiguously falls into the category of immorality that the church stands against. In the October 1983 General Conference, President Benson pointed out that such behavior is inconsistent with the basic Mormon tenet of virtue:

“A priesthood holder is virtuous. Virtuous behavior implies that he has pure thoughts and clean actions. He will not lust in his heart, for to do so is to “deny the faith” and to lose the Spirit. (See D&C 42:23.) He will not commit adultery “nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6.) This means fornication, homosexual behavior, self-abuse, child molestation, or any other sexual perversions.”

(“What Manner of Men Ought We to Be?” Ezra T Benson, General Conference Oct 1983, lds.org)

Any effort to extend marriage to homosexual couples fits the very definition of “disintegration of the family” that the proclamation warns against. President Benson placed homosexual behavior in the same category as child molestation and other sexual perversions. Supporting equal rights for this category of sinners cannot keep you in good standing with any church leader who pays attention to the brethren’s consistent instructions on chastity and morality extending back to the organisation of the church and even ancient scripture.

The Family is at the center of the Work of the Church. Any activity which promotes or champions tolerance of homosexuals or promotes rights of marriage for them has always been condemned by the church and would unequivocally be considered an offense.

Unchanging standard of morality

If you support LGBT marriage rights, then you support something which stands in direct opposition of the mission and work of the church. You are at odds with the “unchanging standard of morality” that the church describes in the official Mormon Newsroom article on “The Divine Institution of Marriage”:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God has established clear standards of morality for His children, who are accountable before Him for their behavior. Such standards cannot be changed by the reasoning, emotions, personal interests, or opinions of mortal beings….Many advocates of same-sex marriage argue that traditional standards of sexual morality have changed and that “tolerance” requires that these new standards be recognized and codified in law. If tolerance is defined as showing kindness for others and respect for differing viewpoints, it is an important value in all democratic societies. But as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”… In addition to using the argument of tolerance to advocate redefining marriage, proponents have advanced the argument of “equality before the law.” No mortal law, however, can override or nullify the moral standards established by God. Nor can the laws of men change the natural, innate differences between the genders or deny the close biological and social link between procreation and marriage.”

(“The Divine Institution of Marriage” mormonnewsroom.org)

Singing the same song

Elder Christofferson playfully says that “if we’re trying to get everybody to sing the same song and say exactly the same thing we’re failing miserably.” Actually that is exactly what the Church teaches. If the church fails at this, then that may be considered a defect of the members – they haven’t yet achieved the unity that the church has told them to aspire to. Consider what is listed under the entry for “Unity” in the Gospel Topics section of the official church website:

“The Lord has said, “If ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). We can seek and promote this standard of unity in our families and in the Church. If we are married, we and our spouse can be unified in purpose and action. We can allow our unique qualities to complement one another as we face challenges together and grow in love and understanding. We can also be unified with other family members and with members of the Church by serving together, teaching one another, and encouraging one another. We can become one with the President of the Church and other Church leaders as we study their words and follow their counsel. As the Church grows throughout the world, all Latter-day Saints can be united. Our hearts can be “knit together in unity and in love one towards another” (Mosiah 18:21). We appreciate cultural diversity and individual differences, but we also seek the “unity of the faith” that comes when we follow inspired leaders and remember that we are all children of the same Father”

(“Unity” Gospel Topic, lds.org)

Furthermore, Mormons are taught that it is by aligning their choices and actions with the teachings of the church (and by inference God), that they can attain the injunction of perfection that Christ taught in the scriptures (Matt 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12:48). The metaphors that church leaders use all promote a single unity of purpose and righteous choices among members of the church: “hold to the iron rod,” “straight and narrow path,” “hearts knit as one,” etc. David O McKay taught in the 1967 fall general Conference:

“It is the principle of unity that has enabled the wards, stakes, branches, and missions of the Church to progress and to accomplish the purposes for which the Church was established. It could not have been done by dissension and hatred. There have been difficulties. Each member of the Church has his own ideas. Sometimes they are not the same as those of the bishopric, and not the same as those of the presidency of the stake, and not the same as the Presidency of the Church; but each has had to submerge his own ideas to the good of the whole, and in that united purpose we have achieved something that is wonderful.”

(“Unity of Purpose” David O McKay, 1967 October General Conference, byu.edu)

Mormons are taught by their leaders that obedience is the first law of heaven. In Mormon scripture, God says “…whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” ” and so to Mormons obedience to church leaders is the same thing as obedience to God.

So does the Church want its members to “sing the same song?” On issues of morality and marriage the answer to that is a resounding YES!

Question: Temple recommend interview?

Next, the reporter observed that there is a potential conflict between members who support gay marriage and what is asked of any member who is interviewed prior to receiving a Temple Recommend.

Reporter: I know that in one of the temple recommend interview questions it asks do you agree with elements that are against the church and I guess, I mean, could it be interpreted that if people supported gay marriage that would be agreeing with something that was against the church? Christofferson: Well it’s not do you agree with a person’s position or an organization’s position – it is are you supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church.

The reporter tells the apostle that the temple recommend interview addresses whether the member “agrees” with groups that are opposed the church – but he is corrected by Elder Christofferson and told that it’s not “do you agree” but rather “do you support” those organizations.

Checking the interview questions

Lets see what the actual official text of the specific temple recommend question is:

The question of interest is #7

“7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

(Temple Recommend Questions, not available online)

Here it is clearly established that the reporters initial question accurately represented the actual question that will be posed to members who are interviewed by their Bishops. By telling the reporter that he was wrong and posing an alternative, false wording for the interview question, Elder Christofferson was misrepresenting what members will actually face.

Doctrinal purity test

It should be noted that members are not simply interviewed with these questions when it comes time for them to renew their Temple Recommend. Bishops use these questions as a sort of doctrinal purity test any time they find any reason to suspect members of any form of heterodoxy. I have heard from many current active members who are struggling with issues of church history and doctrine who have been called into an ad hoc interview with their bishop who uses the Temple Recommend questions as a tool of interrogation to detect thought crime in the church.

Elder Christofferson’s pleasant sounding distortion of the Temple Recommend questions will not stop this practice and it will not serve as sufficient cover for members who are faced with local leaders who are diligent in applying the Church’s standards on morality and unity with the brethren.

Question: Support and advocacy – kosher?

The reporter gets more specific and presses Elder Christofferson with some specific scenarios

Reporter: So would supporting gay marriage threaten somebody’s membership in the church if they went out say on Facebook or Twitter and actively advocated for it? Christofferson: That’s not an organized effort to to attack our effort or attack our functioning as a church, if you will. Reporter: So members can hold those beliefs even though they’re different from what you teach at the pulpit? Christofferson: Yes. And we..you know, our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t, he said, you can’t use the Priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate. You can’t compel, you can’t coerce. It has to be gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned as the words are in the scripture.

The Apostle is answering the specific question that the reporter is asking, but he is not answering what the reporter intends to ask. The reporters wants to ask if it is okay for members to support and advocate for gay marriage and do so without being disciplined. That is not what he asked, though. He just asked if members can hold those beliefs. The answer is yes. Members can also believe that women should hold the priesthood and support and advocate for that – but that doesn’t mean they wont be disciplined and excommunicated. It all goes back to the unique Mormon take on free agency.

“Free” to Choose

When Mormon church leaders say that members can choose to support one cause or another – that is not the same thing as saying that there will not be negative consequences for doing so. The issue of free agency is one that is frequently invoked in Mormon circles. It was one of the key elements in the plan of salvation – according to Mormon theology in coming to this earth each of us was given a gift to be able to make choices – good or bad, but we do not get too choose the consequences of those actions. This is declared in the Book of Mormon:

“27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.”

(2 Nephi 2:27 lds.org)

The Youth Standards publication of the church states it this way:

“While you are free to choose your course of action, you are not free to choose the consequences….true freedom comes from using your agency to choose obedience; loss of freedom comes from choosing disobedience.”

(“For the Strength of Youth” lds.org)

You see, in all these pieces of counsel the individual is always given the free option to choose, but that freedom is followed by a threat of consequence for choosing anything other than obedience to God’s commandments, which are given to you by the Church. This is where Elder Christofferson is very careful in his language. He acknowledges that people have the freedom to choose – but he doesn’t bother to point out that consequences will follow those choices. Yes, members can choose to be vocal in their support of Gay Marriage – but if a local leader actually pays attention to the teachings of the LDS prophets on homosexuality, marriage, the family and government, it is no small leap for them to come to the conclusion that supporting gay marriage is equivalent to hindering the work of the church. Remember that such hindrance was the exception that Elder Christofferson carved out of the exception for members supporting things that hinder the work of the church. Gay marriage will always be in that category.

“False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.”

(“Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers” M Russell Ballard, Oct 1999 General Conference, lds. org)

Remember from the temple recommend question that “supporting” and “agreeing” with any group that teaches things contrary to what the church teaches is a violation and would prevent a member from receiving saving temple ordinances and being in good standing with the church. Even if it wouldn’t meet the standard for excommunication, the member would pay a price for supporting or advocating gay marriage.

Question: What to tell members

The reporter wraps up his questions and just before terminating the interview one of the spectators in the room interrupts and asks one of the most important questions of the exchange. If there was any doubt that the caveats and misrepresentations that I have covered in the preceding sections were not intentional, Elder Christofferson’s reply resolves them.

Spectator: So, just listening to your answers here, one thing that comes to mind is this has been a divisive issue in all of society but I think also within the church. That people are still trying to sort out exactly how they think and feel and how to act. They don’t like feeling like they’re in opposition to the church but they may, in their heart, feel like marriage equality is something that they have a personal conviction of. What would be your message to those individuals within the church that are trying desperately to stay within the church but feel like because they’re so at odds with what is publicly stated that they no longer feel like they might fit? What would be your message to them? You know, the church has done a lot with the “I’m a Mormon” campaign to emphasize the diversity of the backgrounds and perspectives within the church. On this issue specifically, I think people sometimes feel like it’s in or out.

I was so impressed by the bravery of whoever asked this question. They went directly to the heart of the matter and did so in a manner that respected the pain and difficulty that members have experienced while not shying away from a respected authority figure. Let’s examine the Apostles response:

Christofferson: Well, it’s not an easy thing and I believe we recognize that. Our hope is that over time, as we stay together and worship together and search for inspiration together, that ways open up for people of all persuasions to come to feel that they’re comfortable here. While they don’t know the eventual outcome and what’s going to happen in the near term, I should say what’s going to happen in the near term, they know the end result can be happiness. A state of happiness, a state of fulfillment. Something that God desires for all. And we firmly believe no one is predestined to a second class status in heaven. No one who is faithful to the commandments and the principles that we teach – even though that may involve some very significant sacrifice in the short term – even all of mortal life if you can call that short term, is all worth it in the end because nothing is denied anyone who is faithful. We don’t see all how that comes together, but we have the faith that it does because we have a God who created us all, loves us all and is gonna give everyone who tries and who is loyal to him everything that he has to give.

Break it down

Elder Christofferson is actually giving a sermon on Mormon theology and asking people to put the struggles of this life in the context of the eternities. He starts with the theological carrot – happiness. He assures us that God wants everyone to be happy and that state of happiness and fullfillment is available to all, implying that it would come to both gay and straight alike. This sounds good and reasonable. It puts us at ease. Anything he would follow that statement with is just designed to help us be happy!

Next, he points out that no one is predestined to a second class status in heaven. Anyone familiar with the record of the church on the issue of race would recognize that he just stepped into some murky waters. The church taught for decades that black men and women were predestined to greater adversity in this life and second class status in heaven as a result of less valiant actions in the pre-existence (see The Mormon Ring of Power). They do not have a good record in this area, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt and take this statement in good faith.

He continues by explaining that in the short term, no one who is faithful to the commandments and principles the church teaches will be denied everything God has to give. That just sounds so comforting and reasonable.

Oops, he does go ahead and mention that by short term he really means “all of mortal life” – and then he doesn’t bother to remind you that on the issue of homosexuality, the “commandments and principles” of the church are that it is 1) an immoral sexual perversion 2) something which can be eliminated through the process of repentance and 3) completely in conflict with the sacred institution of marriage and as such can have no tolerance or acceptance among the righteous.

So in essence, he is saying to gay men and women that as long as you just sacrifice for the short term (your whole life) and abstain from the full expression of your innate sexual identity, don’t marry any object of your natural affection and also refrain from other teachings on morality (i.e. masturbation) – then this aberration of your existence will be healed in the after life and you can be married to an opposite gender spouse after death to receive the full measure of God’s blessings.

This is not a new teaching in the church. Since 2012, the Mormons and Gays website put out by the church has had the same teaching:

“We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.”

(“An Eternal Perspective” MormonsAndGays.org)

In other words, Elder Christofferson responded by inviting people to keep coming and fellowshipping and worshipping and paying tithing with the saints all the while affirming exactly what the church has been teaching for years on the matter: Homosexual people should be celibate, unmarried and full of hope that their disease will be cured after death.

Status Quo.

Conclusion

In politics, you shouldn’t listen to what the politicians say a new law is intended to be used for, instead you should read the specific language of the bill and try to determine what a law could potentially be used for assuming the most expansive and liberal application of the language used to define it. In a similar manner, when listening to a General Authority describe what freedoms members have to publicly express opinions and support causes that contradict the teachings of the Brethren – you have to examine the language closely to see what the most confining interpretation might be. The church is programmed to guard its doctrinal and cultural borders. You can only effectively do this by cutting off anything or any one who tries to weaken or flex those boundaries. When one person is excommunicated and has all their ordinances and sealings revoked for stepping too far for their local leader to tolerate, the other members get the message and self-censorship is reinforced. That is how discipline is used to silence dissent within the church. That is how it has happened since the days when Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated and we see it today when the likes of Kate Kelly and John Dehlin get cut off.

While it is endearing that Elder Christofferson uses language that would suggest tolerance for dissenting views on issues such as gay marriage, it must be remembered how the church universally responds when asked about the discipline proceedings of an individual member of the church for any reason:

“The decision as to whether to hold a disciplinary council, when and for what reasons rests with the local leader who knows the individual best. Local leaders operate under general principles and guidelines of the Church.”

(“Church Responds to John Dehlin’s Public Comments” mormonnewsroom.org)

What a low ranking apostle says in a secular interview is not part of what instructions local leaders are given when they look for guidance on issues of discipline. When there is ever any ambiguity or apparent conflict between instructions, the leaders are directed to follow the guidance given in the Handbook of Instructions. If an apostle got up and said that it was okay for members to secretly continue the practice of polygamy – local leaders would still excommunicate members caught in active plural marriage, because the guidelines are set forth in the Handbook of Instructions which has the endorsement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. An offhand interview doesn’t set church policy.

The current Church Handbook of Instructions which is the authoritative manual on church policy provided to every local leader states:

That is what Bishops and Stake Presidents will use as a guide in determining the consequences of the open expression of conscience on matters of gay marriage in the church. Any member who becomes vocal of their convictions after seeing this interview should be aware that Elder Christofferson will not be the one standing at the head of the council that is convened for your very own “Court of Love”

P.S.

To reinforce the issue for people who are not familiar with how doctrine and policy are set in the church – The voice of a single low level apostle is not official or defensible, say in a court of love. This was articulated in the spring 1972 General Conference when President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

“Now, brethren, I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord. An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.”

(“Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside” lds.org)

So even though some may interpret Elder Christofferson’s statements as a green light to support gay marriage – until the First Presidency and United voice of the Twelve declare it to be so – then it is just opinion and not official church policy.

P.P.S

My suspicion is that the church realized that the writing was on the wall for anti-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. That was going to become a reality no matter what. By accepting this, they decided that they could attach religious expression protections to a law granting the inevitable anti-discrimination provision and in doing so they win a PR victory for appearing progressive in dealing with LGBT issues all the while adding a layer of protection for themselves. The wording of the law deserves a post all on its own (it seems that now you can’t fire a zealous Mormon for proselytizing on work premises, during work hours)