Breaking a three-month silence, the LDS Church issued Tuesday its second statement endorsing constitutional amendments to define marriage.
But LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley and his counselors stopped short of endorsing Utah's Amendment 3, leaving their meaning - and their timing - open to interpretation.
"We are not elaborating on the First Presidency statement issued today," said spokesman Michael Purdy.
While expressing "understanding and respect" for gay people and the "loneliness" of their lives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency concluded marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.
Based on "doctrinal principle," "sacred Scripture" and the practical realities of procreation, church leaders said, legitimizing any other sexual relationship would only "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 relationships," reads the statement issued exactly two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.
Supporters of changing Utah's proposed amendment see Tuesday's statement as a de facto endorsement.
"The church favors measures that do not confer legal status on any sexual relationship other than a legal man-woman marriage. I believe that Amendment 3 is in full harmony with the church's stated position," said Yes on 3 coalition co-founder Monte Stewart. "It is wonderfully clear to me."
Opponents note that the statement does not mention Amendment 3. Don't Amend Alliance Director Scott McCoy points out the church endorsed by name amendments and initiatives in California, Hawaii and Alaska.
"It leaves open the possibility that active, LDS people in Utah can believe in the goal of protecting traditional marriage, but at the same time, choose not to do it in a hurtful way like Amendment 3 does," McCoy said. "Utahns have minds of their own and consciences."
Utah's amendment is written in two parts. The first sentence defines marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman. The second sentence - which has been criticized by politicians, family law attorneys and unmarried couples alike - states "no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."
A Salt Lake Tribune poll late last month found that 62 percent of Utahns plan to vote for the amendment. Support among LDS voters is even higher - 73 percent say they will vote to change the Utah Constitution.
Given that backing, the First Presidency's statement raises questions of timing.
Church leaders issued a more general statement July 7 endorsing marriage amendments just before members of Congress voted on a proposed federal marriage amendment.
Besides Utah, similar marriage amendments are on the ballot in 11 other states.
Despite the concerns raised about Utah's amendment, LDS Church observer Jan Shipps figures the lack of an endorsement is a deliberate choice. The First Presidency's statement can be read over the pulpit in congregations in Ohio and Idaho interchangeably. Depending on political circumstances in their states, some Mormons may interpret it as an endorsement of the amendments, some may believe the statement is a general statement of conservative principle.
"They already had a position. This is clarifying and making more conservative the position that they had. They really are taking a very tough stand on sexuality," said Shipps, an emeritus professor of history and religious studies at Purdue University in Indianapolis. "If they had mentioned Utah's amendment by name, this would have been an indication that this is a provincial church."
Whatever the reason for the timing, Brigham Young University political science professor Kelly Patterson says the statement was also a matter of timing.
"Now is the time when voters start paying attention to initiatives and paying attention to campaigns," Patterson said. "Statements like this from trusted institutions and different elites matter in ballot campaigns. People don't have party affiliation to guide them when making those decisions."