On the Children of Same Sex Couples

The Church's update of its policies regarding people in same sex relationships really caught me off guard.  Not the clarification that a disciplinary council is possible for someone sexually cohabiting in a same sex relationship.  Or that a council is mandatory for someone in a same sex marriage.  There is nothing unusual about those changes to me. They are completely consistent with what Church leaders have been teaching for as long as I can remember.

The change that caught me off guard is that children of same sex couples can't join the church until they're of legal age, move out of the house, and get approval from the first presidency.  My first thought was: "This can't possibly last."  And my second thought was: "Why take it out on the kids?"  When the Lord requires His people to exclude someone from church membership, it is generally because of something the individual did - not because of something their parents did.  A good example is in Mosiah 26 when a sizable group of people come of age, reject the church, and persuade many church members to ignore the commandments.  Alma wanted to know what to do with the church members who disregarded the commandments but still wanted to be part of the church.  He went to the Lord with the question.  The Lord's response was that "as often as my people repent, I will forgive them their trespasses against me."  But "whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people."

Like the church members in Mosiah 26, it makes sense that our individual choices can exclude us from association in God's church.  But at first glance, it doesn't make sense that an otherwise willing and accountable person would be excluded from membership solely because of the choices of others.

As I've mulled this over and read how people, including many of my friends, feel about the change, I came to the conclusion that I had been thinking about this wrong. 

First, a group of very educated men who, for the most part, leave highly paid and prestigious professions, completely forego retirement, and devote themselves to the service of others until they finally die of old age - all for the sake of an assignment they never sought after or asked for - deserve the benefit of the doubt.  Those who have seized on this policy change to try and paint church leaders as attempting to stand between children and Jesus are detached from reality, and are anxiously seeking to be offended.  To paraphrase Barney Frank, attempting a conversation with someone who courts offense so ardently is like attempting a conversation with a dining room table.  No - in order to understand the policy, we need to recognize that it comes from a good place.  For those who insist on believing that church leaders are out to get gay people (and their kids!), there can be no understanding. 

Second, it is important to understand that the policy does not exclude the children of same sex couples from participating in the church.  Church participation as a teenager is immersive.  Between daily seminary classes during the school year, mutual activities, basketball, dances, camp outs, conferences, and then actual church meetings - teenagers will come into contact with the church institution almost every day.  And children of same sex couples are welcome to participate in all of those activities.  Teenagers who are not members of the church routinely participate in those activities all over the world - it is completely commonplace.  For teens who wish to participate but can't get baptized yet, the policy will have very little practical impact on their participation and association with friends and leaders.

Finally, this policy is not a new creation.  It fits squarely within policies that have been in place for many years.  Proponents of same sex marriage that are equally devoted to advocating for polygamous marriage likely know this already.

Anyone who wants to get baptized must satisfy the basic doctrinal requirements explained in DC 20:37.  But over the years, church leaders have carefully placed policies on top of these doctrinal requirements so that even people who satisfy the requirements may not be able to be baptized.

One group of these policies falls under the category of safety.  For example, the church is very cagey about letting Muslims get baptized because their baptism could get them killed or jailed depending on where they live.  So even a willing and devoted Muslim may be denied baptism in certain circumstances.  (A similar policy likely applies to people of other religions or in certain countries for the sake of their safety - but I don't know of any others.)

Another group of these policies falls under the category of family integrity.  The family is more fundamental than the church.  That is, the church is meant to serve the family - not the other way around.  For this reason, the church will not baptize one spouse without the consent of the other spouse.  Nor will it baptize an underage child without the consent of the parents.  And more to the point, it will not baptize the child of a polygamous marriage until the child has reached legal age and left the house.  The new policy on the children of same sex couples falls squarely into this category.

To me, this is sign of respect both to the parents and to the child.  Like the other policies in the "family integrity" category, it strikes a balance between enabling a willing and worthy person to get baptized, and maintaining family unity.  Additionally, it spares a kid from fully grappling with the conflict between God's commandments and his or her parents' relationship until he or she is old enough to face that kind of dilemma.  Covenanting with God and joining the LDS church is a big deal, and of one reasons for the family integrity category of policies is to try and keep that decision from rocking the family boat too hard.

In addition to teaching that children are the kingdom of God - Matthew 19:14 - Jesus also taught that we should completely disregard our family if it means following His gospel - Luke 14:26.  There is a vigil planned under the pretense that church leaders have ignored Matthew 19:14, but for some reason there is no vigil planned under the pretense that they have ignored Luke 14:26....

In my opinion, the key to understanding the new policy is believing that it comes from a good place, understanding that it does not actually exclude kids from participation in church activities, and appreciating how the policy fits within existing policies.  Declining to baptize the children of same sex couples until they are older and out of the house is, in my mind, both protecting the child from being put in a very difficult place, and a token of respect for the right of same sex couples to raise their kids as they see fit.

(NOTE: This is a blog post, not a book, so I'm aware it doesn't cover everything that could be said about this subject. The requirement that kids of same sex couples renounce same sex marriage as a morally acceptable relationship brings up interesting questions about protecting church culture.  And requiring the first presidency, rather than a lower level official, to sign off raises interesting questions about church governance.  Additionally, the fact that the church does not have a similar policy for the children of cohabiting heterosexual couples raises its own interesting questions.  The discussion above simply shows how I personally have come to understand the new policy.)   

 

Why I Am Still a Mormon - Book of Mormon Edition

Many who leave the LDS church often explain that their disillusionment with the Book of Mormon is what spurred their departure, and often suggest that a close look at the book - its origins and text - requires any serious person to reject it. For me, the exact opposite is true. The more closely I examine the Book of Mormon, the more convinced I am that it comes from God.

There is more to God's plan than being a good person.

I'm a good person (most people are).  However, I am also a (1) believer in Jesus Christ, and (2) an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  I distinguish those things from being a good person because one can certainly be a good person without being either (1) or (2).  And one can, of course, believe in Christ without (2).  

The Book of Mormon is what moves me, personally, down the road that leads to both (1) and (2).  After reading it, it was not enough for me to just remain a good person. I felt compelled to embrace the belief that not only is Jesus alive and the Biblical account of His mortal life is true, but that God has again chosen a prophet in our modern times and restored His church to the earth.  By taking the road that leads away from simply being a good person, I have found peace, happiness, and answers.  Because I want other people to enjoy the same satisfaction I have, and I know the Book of Mormon will lead them to it, I have and will continue to invite others to read the Book of Mormon for themselves.

The Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

The Book of Mormon claims to be the religious record of people who lived anciently on the American continent and worshipped Christ.  Its writers made the record and passed it down through many generations so that the record could eventually be unearthed on a future date.  The book tells of a people who worshipped Christ, looked forward to His coming, were visited by Christ personally after His resurrection, and then eventually rejected Christ’s gospel and were destroyed.  The book’s writers were prophets, knew about the impending destruction of their people, and made the record so that eventually the Book of Mormon could emerge in modern times and corroborate the Biblical account of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

The Book of Mormon's skeptics agree that this is what the Book of Mormon says about itself, but conclude that the book, nevertheless, is the product of a modern person’s imagination.  They often point to some of the themes within the Book of Mormon, see that many of those themes were topics of discussion in the 19th century religious culture of the United States, and conclude that Joseph Smith, or perhaps Sidney Rigdon, must have written the book as a ruse.  In my opinion, there are several problems with this conclusion..

First, the Book of Mormon is ridiculously complex.  It is semitically accurate, contains hundreds of different characters, and introduces more than a dozen words to the English language. Additionally, there is often more than one narrator controlling the story at any given time, and the book is replete with uses of a complicated nonlinear narrative.  Overall it is nearly 600 pages long and has 239 chapters.

Joseph was not stupid, but he was not sophisticated.  His earned a living as a laborer, he had no significant formal schooling, and was only 23-24 during the time that he translated the book.  During that time he was kept busy with hard labor, moving from place to place, and he and his wife lost their first baby.  Once he obtained the golden plates upon which the ancient people had kept their record (the plates’ existence is corroborated by the testimony of 11 sworn witnesses and that of his wife, Emma, who could feel the plates under their covering as she dusted around them), he was constantly harassed by people trying to steal them.  To me, it is ridiculous, frankly, to conclude that Joseph sat down and just wrote the Book of Mormon from beginning to end.  I don’t think any competent skeptic who has read the book honestly believes that (note that most skeptics have not read it).

Second, the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is merely the product of some modern person’s imagination defies the historical account of how we got the Book of Mormon. By all accounts of the people close to Joseph during the translation process, Joseph dictated the text of the Book of Mormon to various scribes.  Dictated.  In about 90 working days.  Have you tried to dictate anything, lately?  His wife Emma, who served as one of his scribes, said that he could dictate for hours as she wrote, and then after breaking for meals or other reasons, he would pick up - to the word - right where they left off without the need to review her written manuscript.  Two of his other scribes, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, relate essentially the same experience.  Though Cowdery and Harris would later grow disaffected with Joseph and leave the church, they never repudiated their accounts (despite invitations to do so) - nor their certainty that the Book of Mormon came from God.

To conclude that Joseph or someone else simply wrote the book, one must dismiss the actual historical account as the result of some strange conspiracy, and then invent a new historical account out of whole cloth.  That is, one does not reject Joseph's simple explanation because of the historical account, but in spite of it. Many skeptics have accepted the fact that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon (since there is virtually no indication, otherwise), but insist that Joseph must have been reading from a manuscript that none of his scribes knew about. That’s an interesting theory - without any evidence.  This and other theories attempting to reconcile the Book of Mormon’s complexity with its unsophisticated translator, is borne from a prejudiced refusal to believe the historical evidence - not the necessary result of an examination of the historical  evidence. (I should note that Joseph’s lack of sophistication adds to the credibility of his story - but my conclusion would not be any different if Joseph had been a brilliant academic.  No human, no matter how intelligent, can dictate a book like the Book of Mormon out of their own imagination - let alone do it in about 90 working days).    

A third problem with the skeptics’ theories: none of them account for the entire book.  Those who insist the Book of Mormon is a modern invention point to seemingly modern themes, ideas, or general plot lines - but so what? Criticizing a few individual brushstrokes does not discount a painting composed of thousands of brushstrokes. That criticism assumes that ancient people were too simple to grapple with ideas that the critics arrogantly insist only “modern” people are smart enough to think about.  But more importantly, identifying general themes and plot lines does not explain how an unlearned laborer sat in a little house in rural New England and dictated nearly 600 pages of “heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity” that, since that time, has changed the lives of millions of people throughout the world. (Jeffrey Holland, Oct 2009 General Conference).

One final problem with the skeptics’ conclusions that I’ll note here.  The skeptics assume Joseph and his contemporaries were liars trying to trick people into following them - but the problem is that they didn’t act like liars.  While the publication of the Book of Mormon and the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints brought immeasurable spiritual fulfillment to Joseph and the church’s early members, those things also brought an enormous amount of physical and emotional suffering.  The early members were often under the threat of mob attacks - mobs that killed, robbed, raped, burned, destroyed, and terrified.  Joseph spent much of his life on the run, was beaten, tarred and feathered, falsely imprisoned in deplorable conditions, and routinely named in frivolous lawsuits - all before he and his brother were eventually murdered by a mob of cowards.  After Joseph’s murder, the church members were turned out of their homes and forced into the frozen night while their temple burned.  Eventually, the church members fled the United States for Mexican territory because during the 15 years of awful persecution, local, state, and national political leaders turned a blind eye - refusing to protect the deplorable “Mormons,” and in some cases joining in with the efforts to destroy them.

The question is: why would Joseph and others lie to their death about the Book of Mormon if doing so would not lead to any discernible economic or political benefit? If doing so would, instead, result in awful suffering and persecution - not only for Joseph, but thousands of other men, women, and children?  As Joseph and his brother Hyrum (and others) sat in Carthage Jail waiting for their imminent deaths, they read from the Book of Mormon for comfort.  Jeffrey Holland aptly asks “whether in this hour of death these two men would enter the presence of their Eternal Judge quoting from and finding solace in a book which, if not the very word of God, would brand them as imposters and charlatans until the end of time? They would not do that! They were willing to die rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.” (Oct 2009 General Conference).   

Simply put, the most reasonable explanation for the Book of Mormon’s existence - as a historical, economic, sociological, and logistical matter - is that Joseph dictated the words of the Book of Mormon as they were revealed to him by God.  

One of the Book of Mormon’s primary purposes is to validate the Bible.

Mormon, the editor in chief of the Book of Mormon, flatly stated that “this [the Book of Mormon] is written for the intent that ye may believe that [the Bible]; and if ye believe that ye will believe this also.” Therefore, he says, “repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus, and lay hold upon the gospel of Christ.” (Mormon 7:8-9).

Nearly one thousand years before Mormon wrote, the Lord spoke through Nephi and anticipated that when the Book of Mormon was unearthed, many would say “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.” (2 Nephi 29:3).  The Lord, however, reasoned: “Know ye not that there are more nations than one?...because I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another...because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words.” (2 Nephi 29).  Therefore, the Lord concludes, “murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another?...when the two nations shall run together, the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.” (2 Nephi 29:8).

The Book of Mormon is proof that the divinity of Jesus is not a cultural construct created by a persecuted group of religious zealots.  The account of His life and resurrection in the Bible is true. We know this, in part, because He didn’t just visit the area surrounding Jerusalem.  Shortly after His ministry recorded in the Bible, He visited his “other sheep” here on the American continent. (John 10:16).  He appeared to a large group of people, and this happened:

And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying: Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come. (3 Nephi 11:13-15)

Jesus is who He said He was - the Book of Mormon is a second, independent account by a completely different group of a people an ocean away from Jerusalem.  Now, just as Ezekiel prophesied, the record of Judah (the Bible) and the record of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) - have come together and they are one in our hand.  (Ezekiel 37:15-17).

Dichotomy.

If anything is good, then it comes from God. As Mormon teaches, “every thing which inviteth to do good...is of God.”  But the devil “persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one....neither do they who subject themselves unto him.” (Moroni 7).  So if something is truly good - God is its source, not Satan.  And people who have subjected themselves to Lucifer’s deceptive practices cannot advance true goodness.  In other words, “a man being evil cannot do that which is good” for the same reason that “a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water.” (Moroni 7:10-11).

Because of its extreme claim, the Book of Mormon is either what is claims to be, or it is a lie.  There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith and the people near him fabricated the Book of Mormon (even though they went to their deaths insisting that they didn’t), then they participated in an evil plot that would make Joseph, in a particular, an awful person.  If that is the case, then they were working for Lucifer - not God.

The difficulty with concluding that the book is a lie is the fact that the Book of Mormon is absolutely bursting with goodness.  As Nephi remarks, it “teach[es] all men [and women] that they should do good.” (2 Nephi 33:10).  And Moroni adds that the book “is of great worth” to the world.  (Mormon 8:14).  

Moroni, not surprisingly, turned out to be right.  The book has fundamentally changed the lives of millions of people throughout the world over the course of nearly 200 years.  People of different ages, races, religions, nationalities, and socioeconomic statuses - all kinds of people who are thoughtful enough to study the book with open minds and hearts.  They find in the book what Truman G. Madsen called a kind of “white light.”  A warm, inspiring, goodness.

Even the skeptics who have actually read it are forced to acknowledge the moral force of the book’s teachings.  Which leads to an obvious question with an obvious answer: how could people advancing a deception produce a book filled with such genuine goodness? They couldn’t.  

It is simply not possible for Joseph to have been divinely inspired to foist a massive lie on the human race.  He was either enabled by God to unearth and translate the Book of Mormon, or he was working for Satan to perpetuate a lie.  And the deep goodness found in the book conclusively indicates the former.   

So what?

I’ve described what the Book of Mormon is and its main purpose. But I would like to further explain why it matters to me personally, and why I think it should matter to everyone else.

The Judgment is real.

Isaiah warns those who “call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).  I alluded above to the way Mormon explained how we can discern good from evil “as the daylight is from the dark night.”  Things which encourage us to come closer to God are good, those that encourage us to distance ourselves from Him are evil.  And then he warns, similarly to Isaiah, that we “take heed, my beloved brethren [and sisters], that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.” (Moroni 7:14-15).

The way we apply this discernment to the Book of Mormon matters - because the book claims to be one of the books out of which we will be judged at the final judgment. (2 Nephi 29:11).  That is, when the time comes for us to stand before God and account for our lives, He is going to want to know how we responded to the existence of the Book of Mormon.

In fact, two of the book’s writers promise us that we will meet them personally at the judgment bar.  Nephi reasons that “if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me.”  Nevertheless, he warns, “if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.” (2 Nephi 33:10-11).

Much later, Moroni, in his final words before burying the plates, assures us that “I speak it according to the words of Christ; and I lie not.”  And then he warns us: “I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?...And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true.” (Moroni 10:27-29).

When I read those words - I believe them.  I cannot imagine Joseph Smith conjuring them up out of thin air (as I point out above, why would he do that?).  Like everyone else, I am free to respond to the Book of Mormon however I choose.  For me personally, one of the main reasons I believe in and strive to learn from the Book of Mormon is that I fully expect to have to explain myself to both God and the book's writers.

God’s actual church.

A fundamental tenant of the LDS church is that we “claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”  (Article of Faith 11).  We believe that most churches/traditions are good, and inspired by God.  But the LDS church is not like other churches or faith traditions.  While other churches/traditions are human-made attempts to do what God wants - the LDS church is God’s actual church.

Since the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, it means Joseph Smith was the prophet he claimed to be, and therefore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what Joseph claimed it to be: God’s actual church, uniquely authorized to administer God’s plan of salvation.   

When Jesus visited the people living on the ancient American continent, one of the many things He told them is that the Book of Mormon’s emergence in modern times would be a “sign” that the “work of the Father hath already commenced unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto the people who are of the house of Israel.” (3 Nephi 21:1-7).  God’s promise to gather Israel is being fulfilled - and the way He is gathering Israel is through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  

One way to think about this from the LDS perspective is to imagine the world’s religious traditions sitting in a room, thoughtfully trying to decipher God’s will by prayerfully studying ancient texts.  This is good. But then suddenly God, Himself, walks into the room.  The Book of Mormon is God's way of announcing that He has just walked into the room.   

Again - by divine design, all people are free to respond to the Book of Mormon however they choose.  For me, the book matters because it confirms the LDS church’s unique claims.  The book means that Thomas Monson is just as authorized to speak on God’s behalf as Moses was.  So for me, that means I should follow President Monson for the same reason the Hebrews followed Moses.   

Conclusion

I could go on.  The Book of Mormon means a lot to me.  It anchors my conclusion that God is real, and Jesus is who He said He was.  To me, it shows that God has done in our modern times what He always did anciently: chosen a prophet, distributed His authority, and established a living link with humanity.  But to borrow Levar Burton's immortal invitation: you don't have to take my word for it. 

Why I Am Still a Mormon

Our mainstream culture is increasingly dismissive of religious belief - especially the beliefs taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  To a certain extent, this mainstream dismissal thrusts Mormons into the counterculture: suddenly those who value so-called traditional moral norms are the odd ones out, attracting widespread criticism. Disagreement is suddenly hate, a different opinion is suddenly bigotry, and devotion is suddenly intolerance.  The result is that, like fish swimming against the mainstream, the Church and its individual members are under significant pressure to relent and go with the flow.  

For example, the coolest of the cool seem to consider some version of either atheism, agnosticism, and/or moral relativism as the only true trademark of intellect, imagination, and spirituality.  From this perspective, organized religion - especially the LDS Church - is a refuge for the small-minded, small-souled, and unimaginative.  This sensibility is reflected in the fact that the most common verbiage people use when they leave the LDS church is that they have outgrown it.  As in, their minds, souls, and imaginations are too big now to fit into the Church’s smallness.

It is now routine for me to learn that people near me have deliberately left the Church (as opposed to just falling out of the habit of participating).  This is always tragic news.  My hope, however, along with that of anyone in the Church of whom I’m aware, is that those who have left will eventually find their way back.  The door is always open.  As the church’s recent Easter video reminded us: because of Him, we can start again, and again, and again.

I, however, am still a Mormon.  I feel the pressure to leave - like most of us do.  But I won’t - and I wanted to briefly explain some of the reasons why I’m a stayer.  

First, I believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are real people - and really are the force behind our life and existence.  It is more reasonable to believe that our existence is part of some great plan than it is to believe that it is part of some great accident.  The scientific study of how life and existence emerged does not explain why it happened - or who is responsible for it.  There is every reason to keep learning more about the big bang and life’s emergence on earth - but it is wrong to conclude that the current scientific theories on those subjects requires the conclusion that God does not exist.  The laws of nature govern the universe - and learning about them does not somehow disprove the existence of the God who wrote those laws.    

Second, as demonstrated by my first reason, Mormons don’t care where truth comes from.  All true knowledge is good and comes from God regardless of the medium by which it arrives - whether from a prophet or a scientist or an artist or a philosopher or even (gasp) a politician.  As Brigham Young put it (in a couple different places): “[e]very art and science known and studied by the children of men is comprised within the Gospel...No matter who has it...There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel.”

Not only do we believe that truth comes through all kinds of mediums, God has actually commanded us to search out truth wherever it is found. As President Uchtdorf said in October 2009, quoting a scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants: “education is not merely a good idea—it’s a commandment. We are to learn ‘of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad.’”  See DC 88:78-79.  

I absolutely love that, for Mormons, searching out truth is synonymous with exercising faith in Jesus Christ.  As Mormon (the prophet) taught, “there were divers ways that [God] did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ...and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.” See Moroni 7:19-24. In other words, the way we exercise faith in Jesus Christ is by finding anything that is good, and hanging on to it.  To seek out truth, wherever it is found, is to become Christlike.

Another aspect of my second reason for staying is that we believe truth actually exists.  God knows what it is, and He wants us to know what it is.  It is fashionable to dismiss the concept of truth, entirely.  Some speak of learning to live in the unknown, or live in the gray.  This sensibility has become so rooted that the mainstream dismisses any claim to answers about life’s big questions as intellectual immaturity: “if only these religious people were courageous enough to grapple with the unknown like we do instead of claiming that they have the answers, then they, too, would grow out of their small minds.”    

Jeffrey Holland subtly addressed this point in April 2003 when he declared that “a skeptical mind is not a higher manifestation of virtue than is a believing heart.”  And he more directly addressed it with the following in April 2013: “Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not!...Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But...don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.”  In short: being a cynic is not more virtuous, intellectually honest, or morally courageous than being a believer.  

Third reason: Mormons don’t think that people who disagree with us will burn in hell.  This sounds kind of stark, but it is a justified concern lots of people have with many organized religions.  Instead, thanks to modern prophets, we have a much, much broader conception of God’s plan for His children.  There is not enough room for the all the details of the plan in this post, but these are the principles that stand out to me: (1) everyone - even the worst among us - will come back to life and receive a perfect body that is immune from physical/emotional/mental ailments; (2) no one will be judged on information they did not receive; (3)  everyone will have a complete and full opportunity to embrace everything God has to offer - whether that opportunity comes in this life or later on; (4) virtually everyone will eventually inherit some kind of glorious salvation; and (5) we are genuinely in control of our own destiny - God will impose nothing on us against our will.

This wider view of God’s plan enables us to more fully understand God and His children.  God is much, much more merciful and patient than any of us would ever be.  The love reflected in His plan enables me to see that I must view and treat those around me just as generously as He does.  Otherwise, how could I possibly feel comfortable living with Him?

The fourth reason I’m still a Mormon is the Book of Mormon.  Even though the Book of Mormon is the keystone to our theological claims - in particular our claim to authority - one of my favorite things about it is that I can fully embrace it without rejecting any of the truth and goodness found anywhere else.  This is the very thing the Book of Mormon teaches.  As I explained above, we want truth - whoever has it - and we exercise faith in Christ by laying hold of truth and goodness when we find it.  Since the Book of Mormon teaches to do good, it comes from God.  And since the Book of Mormon comes from God, it validates the LDS Church’s theological claims.  It really is that simple.  

This is the logic Nephi hoped future readers would grasp.  In 2 Nephi 33, Nephi saw that in the future, many would “esteem” the Book of Mormon as a “thing of naught.”  But he hoped that others would recognize that his words in the book really do come from Christ because they “persuadeth [people] to do good” and “teach all men they they should do good.”  For, as Mormon confirmed nearly 1,000 thousand years later in Moroni 7: “every thing which inviteth to do good...is of God.”  But the devil “persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one.”

Ultimately, I am still a Mormon because the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is taught in its fullness only in the LDS Church, enables me to see myself and those around me more clearly than any other system of belief - sacred or secular.  The goodness of the Book of Mormon confirms the Church’s theological claims.  And by believing the claims, I enjoy the benefits they provide.  For example, a crystal-clear explanation for the existence of the earth and our purpose for living on it; clarification of my relationship with God and his other children; the proper perspective towards truth and my responsibility to find it wherever it is; and the guidance of living prophets who, like Moses in his time, can provide God’s guidance for us in our unique moment in history.

Basically, I’m not going anywhere.  To join the mainstream, I would have to give up the deepest and most expansive explanation for our existence available, and deny the basic goodness of the Book of Mormon.  Why would I do that, when I can stay in the Church and still embrace all of the goodness and truth the mainstream has to offer?  

Why Same Sex Marriage Will (Literally) Divide the LDS Church

I think that same sex marriage will compel some of its LDS supporters to start a new church.  It would not be the first time either external or internal pressures caused members of the Church to break off to form their own church: both the Book of Mormon and the New Testament contain several examples.  And more specifically in this dispensation, there have been at least two times (there are others) when major shifts resulted in LDS break-offs.  First, Joseph Smith’s death and the resulting succession confusion led to the formation of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now called the Community of Christ).  And second, around the turn of the 20^th century when the Church enforced its new prohibition against plural marriage, many members believed Wilford Woodruff had led the Church astray and left the Church to form the kind of organizations now widely known as being part of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 

I believe that the fact that same sex marriage is so deeply incompatible with the Church’s doctrine, and the fact that many faithful members feel so strongly about it, will eventually collide on a massive scale  – and the collision will cause some of those faithful members to leave the Church and start a new church. 

Degrees of Dissent

I think that members’ feelings about same sex marriage can probably be measured on a scale.  (As a note, for the purposes of clarity, the “Church’s political position” is that same sex marriage will be bad for children and society.)

An (0) on the scale of dissent might be that the member agrees both with the Church’s political position on same sex marriage and the Church’s decision to put its support behind measures like Prop 8.

A (1) might be that the member generally agrees with the Church’s political position on same sex marriage but doesn’t think the Church should support measures like Prop 8.  In other words, the Church should stay out of the dispute about the meaning of a legal designation.

A (2) might be that the member does not agree with the Church’s political position on same sex marriage and, by extension, does not think the Church should support things like Prop 8.

A (3) might include not only the (2) level of dissent, but also the belief that the Church’s internal doctrine concerning marriage is wrong and should be changed to accommodate same sex relationships – including temple sealings for same sex couples.  

So that I am very clear, I think that most faithful members who feel strongly about same sex marriage probably register on the (1) or (2) level.  I do not think the (1) or (2) level of dissent can cause the formation of a new church. 

I think only the (3) level type of dissent is what can cause members to break off and start their own church – and only if the number of members that hit the (3) level reaches some kind of critical mass.

Enforcement Will Be the Tipping Point

We can only keep the belief that the Church is led by an actual prophet, and the belief that characterizes level (3) type dissent, in our hearts at the same time for so long.  Eventually, one of them has to give way.  That is because opposite sex marriage is absolutely fundamental to the Plan of Salvation.  Elder Bednar’s April 2013 General Conference talk on the law of chastity is an excellent refresher course on the centrality of opposite sex marriage and opposite sex marital intimacy to all LDS doctrine.   

If (3) develops in the hearts of just a few members, then wins the battle over the belief that the Church is led by an actual prophet, those few might just leave the church and join the vogue ranks of the spiritual but not religious crowd – or perhaps join an ordinary Christian denomination.  However, if (3) develops in the hearts of lots of members and then wins the battle, I think it is pretty likely they’ll form a new church.

The first reason I think this is because I think the members who develop (3) and let it win out over their belief in the prophet will be sincere and otherwise devout.  They’ll probably believe much of the doctrine the Church teaches and have a belief in the veracity of the Book of Mormon.  I think those sincere people will want to worship in a church that, for example, both studies from the Book of Mormon and recognizes same sex marriages as legitimate in the eyes of God.  In other words, I think they’ll want to essentially remain Mormon, but will simply believe that President Monson (or whoever the prophet will be) has led the Church astray – just as members of the FLDS organization(s) generally believe that Wilford Woodruff led the Church astray.

The second reason I think a schism is coming is because same sex marriage will eventually be legal in every state and be widely accepted.  Once that happens, two things will probably occur: the number of members whose dissent has reached (3) will dramatically increase, and as a result, the Church will have to more often enforce the already existing requirement of “sustaining the prophet” as a condition of full fellowship. 

I think a really interesting example of the Church enforcing the requirement of sustaining the prophet as a condition of full fellowship was reported by Joanna Brooks, and later by the Salt Lake Tribune.  The Tribune conspicuously fails to explain the crucial nuance described in my “Degrees of Dissent” above (and that Emmett C., himself, describes in his interview with Brooks), and presents Emmett’s story as if his dissent is simply (1) or (2) rather than (3) – but that isn’t my topic.  The reason I link to the story is to show the difference between (1) or (2) and (3) at the place where the rubber meets the road: our temple recommend interviews.

If members whose dissent level is (3), like Emmett’s, are as courageously honest as Emmett was (who seems like an extremely sincere guy), they’ll know that they can’t honestly say that they sustain the prophet as an actual prophet.  And the member of the stake presidency interviewing them will know that he cannot give the member a temple recommend unless the person lets the belief that the Church is led by an actual prophet prevail over (3). 

I think that as the number of members with (3) increases, scenarios like the one Emmett experienced will begin to occur at the ward and stake level throughout the world.  And I think that the scenario will occur often enough that the members who experience it will want to get together and form an LDS church that does consider same sex marriages as legitimate in the eyes of God.

Again, just to be clear – I don’t want the schism I’m describing to happen.  I just think it will.  There is  no reason to think that the modern Church is somehow exempt from the kind of schisms that have happened in the past. And I think same sex marriage is weighty enough of an issue to cause the same kind of schism that has happened before.

A Primer on Protesting: Pants Edition

The recent Wear Pants to Church facebook event got me thinking about how to challenge Church culture.  There is a difference between (1) challenging non-doctrine-centered cultural norms within the Church’s membership and (2) criticizing the Church’s official teachings.  To do (2) is to attack the Church’s prophetic leaders and is not often indulged in by people who consider themselves devout members of the Church.  But to do (1) is the bread and butter of establishing Zion.  In fact, (1) is the primary reason members regularly gather together to review and learn the Church’s official teachings: we want to close the gap between our cultural practices and the Church's teachings.

I think that the Pants event was part of an effort to do (1) - not (2).  But the event was framed much too broadly.  And if it wasn't supposed to be about pants, it shouldn't have been titled Wear Pants to Church Day.  Because the event was framed so broadly, several people hijacked it to fuel their own agendas and reinforce their own prejudices.  Lots of journalists (and pseudo journalists) took advantage of the opportunity to report on how silly organized religion is, in general - and especially how silly the LDS Church is.  Others jumped at the chance to prove, once again, that LDS men hate and oppress LDS women.  Still others couldn't wait to point out that people who consider themselves LDS feminists just aren't fully persuaded that God loves them.  It was a free for all - and it was a bit of a blood bath.  Essentially, the event was eaten up by the discussion of whether the event was an attempt to do (1) or (2) - rather than a discussion of any actual issues.

In my opinion, we can be more successful in our attempts to do (1) - whether through a blog posting, Facebook discussion/event, Sacrament Meeting talk, Sunday School comment, etc - if we make clear from the outset that we're not trying to do (2) (assuming we truly are not trying to do (2)).  We might need to be ready to persuade people (especially, perhaps, those outside the Church) that we're not trying to do (2).  In which case, we simply need to be able to explain whether the Church has an official teaching on the topic and what it is.  As a rule, the Church's official teachings are not obscure.  The more public, unanimous, and current it is - the more official the teaching.  The Proclamation on the Family is a good example of an official teaching.  That thing somebody's seminary teacher said one time, is not.  

To be fair, the Wear Pants to Church Day event pointed out in its description that the Church does not require women to wear dresses.  But I think the point that the event was not an attempt to do (2) could have been made much more forcefully.  And I think a more specific purpose would have helped protect the event from hijacking, as well.  In the effort to bring non-Priesthood-related gender roles within Church culture in line with actual Church doctrine about gender roles, it would probably be easier to take one thing at a time.  If someone is in a ward where only men give the final talk in sacrament meeting (I honestly can't remember the last time I was in a ward like that, but I hear from all sides that they exist), maybe host an event where people invite their bishop to start having women speak last for a change.

Ultimately, I think the Pants event was good.  And I think it helped draw attention to some of the false traditions in the Church regarding gender roles.  But I think a greater degree of clarity would have both helped protect it from hijacking, and increased its likelihood of accomplishing real change.  The same goes for all of our efforts to bring Church culture into line with Church doctrine.

The prophet is not a local legislator...

In a conversation the other day, I was trying to help a friend understand the Church's health policy.  I explained that the basis of the prohibition against tea and coffee is not caffeine - it is revelation.  That is, the prophets have officially interpreted the phrase "hot drinks" in Section 89 to mean tea and coffee, and that is why we don't drink tea or coffee. If Section 89 prohibited cheese (or something), that would be a good enough reason for us not to eat cheese.

He didn't get it (granted, I probably expressed myself more eloquently here than I did to him).  But what's the rationale behind the policy, he kept asking.  And I kept responding (in one way or another) that revelation is the rationale.  It must have been difficult for him to understand my willingness to defer so completely to someone I consider to be a prophet.  And I can understand his confusion.

Western society has been borne out of and fed on the John Lockeish like philosophy that our authority figures are accountable to us and can't tell us what to do unless we let them.  One of the arrangements foundational to the British/American form of governance is that the nation's authority figures must be able to articulate a good reason to make the law, or the law has no force or meaning.  So when I tell my lawyer friend that I am willing to recognize another human being as a prophet, and do what he tells me to even if he doesn't give a reason for me to do it, my friend just doesn't follow.  And he probably starts imagining something along the lines of David Koresh or Jim Jones.

But from a (Abrahamic) theological perspective, deferring to and following a prophet is as old as God's relationship with the human race.  That's how He does stuff: He chooses and authorizes a prophet and then, through the prophet, tells people what He wants them to do.  The only reason the writings in the Bible are considered authoritative is because, presumably, one of God's authorized representatives wrote them.  The source of tension in virtually all Biblical stories is the extent to which a person or group is willing to obey a prophet (that is, obey God).  In my opinion, believers who read the Bible should be wondering the same thing as Roger Williams (a prominent theologian) did in the 17th century: where is God's prophet?  The following quotes are attributed to Williams:

The apostasy has so far corrupted all...that there can be no recovery out of the apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.

There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.

I'm not even close to being a Roger Williams historian (more like an expert Wiki-browser), but it seems like a person who makes these kinds of observations is the kind of person who has read the Bible and recognizes the basic truth that prophet-authorizing is the method God uses to guide His church.

The LDS Church's claim to be led by a duly authorized prophet is what distinguishes it from every other church or organization.  If the Church's members consider the prophet to be less like Moses and more like the leaders of other churches or religious bodies, then the members stop belonging to the LDS Church and become members of an ordinary church.  And to the extent the Church's members consider the prophet to be less like Moses and more like their local legislator, the more the Church becomes just another civic organization.

It can be difficult for people who are not members of the Church to understand members' willingness to follow a prophet - especially when the prophet's teachings are unpopular or their basis is not clear.  But for me, this is the most basic kind of faith.  I believe God authorized the prophet, I recognize that prophet-authorizing is the way main way God tells me what He wants me to do, so I follow the prophet.  When it doesn't make sense to me, I remember what Isaiah (a prophet!) said in Isaiah 55:8-9, quoting God:

For your thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

A Note on Political Correctness

Several years ago, some sociologists at UNC-Chapel Hill studied the spiritual beliefs held by American teenagers.  They conducted thousands of interviews and used the term "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" to tie together many of the common themes they discovered.  One of the many beliefs they found to be common among the teens can be characterized as follows: "Yes, there is a God somewhere, and He wants us to be nice to each other, and we're nice to each other by not challenging each other's religious beliefs."  In other words, God is different for everybody and it would be rude to say otherwise.


I think this kind of belief is related to the civil doctrine of political correctness.  That is, it is uncivilized (bigoted? hateful?) to express religious beliefs if expressing those beliefs requires that we communicate (either directly or indirectly) that what other people believe is wrong.  


But one of the basic principles of the LDS Church is that we should invite other people to learn about our church because it has more truth than any other church.  To adhere to this basic principle - or to even say it out loud - violates both the teenage belief mentioned above and the doctrine of political correctness the belief is associated with.  That means LDS people have to choose.  What do we value more: avoiding offense at all costs, or adhering to one of the Church's basic principles?


George Albert Smith was the Church's prophet back around the turn of the 20th century, and I think he provided some helpful insight.  He taught:       

It is not the purpose of this Church to make statements that would hurt the feelings of those who do not understand things. This Church is not one that goes about criticising [sic] and finding fault with others, but in the spirit of loving kindness and the desire to be helpful, its representatives carry the Gospel message to the nations of the earth...As representatives of the Church we have the responsibility to go among them with love, as servants of the Lord, as representatives of the Master of heaven and earth.

But then he noted that

They may not altogether appreciate that; they may resent that as being egotistical and unfair, but that would not change my attitude. I am not going to make them unhappy if I can help it. I would like to make them happy, especially when I think of the marvelous opportunities that have come to me because of membership in this blessed Church.

I think some people use the doctrine of political correctness to try and de-legitimize political activity that is motivated by religious belief.  There are plenty of people who honestly believe that a viewpoint informed by religious conviction should not be expressed in civil society not necessarily because of the content of the viewpoint, but because it is informed by religious conviction.  They'll often make arguments that end up sounding like: "we don't have any room in our tolerant, open-minded society for people who think the way you do."  Well, I think our tolerant, open-minded society has plenty of room for people whose opinions are informed by religious conviction.  And nothing about our constitutional order should be misconstrued to suggest, otherwise.


When it comes down to it - members of the LDS Church should follow President's G.A. Smith's teachings on how we express our beliefs: be Christlike, but know that no matter what, someone will be offended - and don't let that offense (even if it gets loud and unpleasant) change our attitude.