75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.
79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.
Discussion
This scripture seems more applicable now than ever before. While Satan has always had his power to influence and deviate those away from the true principles of the gospel, it seems that there are more and more members that I come across that have views or beliefs that are in stark contrast to church teachings.
For example, a large movement in the US and in many countries around the world has made a push for adopting same-sex marriage for "equality." Even a casual reading of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," the scriptures, and other teachings of the prophets makes it clear that acting on same-sex desires is a grievous sin. It has been clarified more in recent years that having those desires is no different that the carnal desires one might have towards the opposite sex or to use illicit substances. The sin comes from acting on those impulses or allowing them place in our minds.
The church as a policy does not get involved in politics and allows members to support whatever political affiliation they choose. Civic duty is encouraged. It is interesting to note that one of the few and rare circumstances that the church did get involved with the political scene was when it encouraged members in California to oppose the adoption of same-sex marriage in that state. Again, the church's (and by the church we can also say the Lord's) position on this topic has been clear.
Yet there are many active church members who support same-sex marriage. I came across one person who stated that they did not believe that the Family Proclamation was true revelation by a prophet. My response, you had the First Presidency and the entire Quorum of the Twelve get together and sign a document of one accord and send it out to the entire world...there not going to do that unless it is revelation.
It's sad to see even faithful members of the church get caught up in the wiles of the devil and his craftiness. I know that they are good people, even "honorable" as the scripture above states. But we all need to look to the Prophet in all things and hold strong to the iron rod.
The Proclamation may be true revelation, but that doesn't mean we should base legislation on it. After all, the Proclamation makes it clear that children have a right to two parents. Should we make it illegal to be a single parent? Have we fought to make it illegal to get divorced? Many members see the importance of Free Agency as a guiding factor in what laws should be made. My morals are for myself and my family; I feel no need to use law to force them on to others. I support legalized same-sex marriage because I believe in free agency.
ReplyDeleteThe gospel has also taught me the importance of marriage and family- in this life and the next. Not just to create an eternal family unit but because it helps make us better people in this life. A desire for an intimate, committed relationship is encouraged in heterosexual members for many good, valid reasons beyond the need to procreate. I don't necessarily mind saying a set of members will need to be celibate in this life, but I have deep reservations about saying that a set of righteous members should deny their own desires for the joys and growing experiences that come out of an honest, loving, committed relationship in this life.
The church HAS made changes on their stance (huge, notable changes) and it's not unreasonable to hope for more changes. After all, church policies today are VERY different from what they were in Joseph Smith's time, which are different from George Albert Smith, which are different from... etc
You'll note the church has stepped back again from the political sphere since Prop 8- many, including a few high-up in the church, view the church's involvement there as a mistake that did grievous harm to some members and to the church's primary mission of bringing people unto Christ. In the years since prop 8, GAs have acknowledged same-sex attraction is not a choice (a huge reversal from earlier "revelation") and have refrained from getting involved in politics again. A study of church history shows a surprising amount of reversals of policy/revelation (or what was understood at the time to be revelation and was later showed to be GAs speaking as mortals, with opinions, prejudices, and biases from the culture of the time). As a matter of fact, a study of church history makes it rather hard to view GAs as infallible mouthpieces of the Lord but rather good men, guided by the Lord, but also a product of their upbringing and times, who can be influenced by mortal concerns. Which is fine, because I, as a member with the Holy Ghost, can pray and find revelation for myself to guide my actions as they pertain to the things within my stewardship.
Many of the historical changes in policy would never have been made if there hadn't been a change of heart among the members first- we must show ourselves ready to receive new church-wide revelation. Much of that is in line with being a church that believe in modern revelation- both church-wide AND personal. We must pray and seek confirmation of principals.
If I've prayed and fasted over the issue of same-sex marriage, and feel strongly that God has shown me what the most Christ-like position is on the topic, am I not obligated to act accordingly? It is one thing to be "blinded by the craftiness of men" and another to follow your heart and the spirit to take a position that differs from what previous generations have believed.
From LDS Sunday School Teacher - @LDSssTeacher
ReplyDeleteJennifer, you have such a great way with words! What you wrote is much in line with what I think.
One aspect for me to expound on is the role of civil government and the appropriate overlap with the church.
The church, as a standalone private organization, can and should set the rules for belonging to it. We who willingly agree to belong to a predominantly top-down organization, agree to the established rules (within the context articulated by Jennifer). If at some point we decide that we can no longer abide by the rules, we are free to leave.
Civil government is something entirely different. The government is a bottom-up organization, where the by-laws accept the equal worth of every individual, with the President being the First Among Equals. In setting the rules of the organization, the govt, via elected representatives, i.e. We The People, attempts to find the common ground found amongst all the members. These include those rules that codify shared morals. This is a moving target, evidenced by that at some point We The People were just fine with slavery, child labor, whippings, male only suffrage, same race marriage, etc. As time moves on, We The People adjust our shared moral values. In every instance of these shifts, there are those who are deeply offended by the change, who have strong personal/religious feeling that X should not happen. However, in every one of those instances, the Govt deems that the action more closely resembles the shared values, and is a more pressing concern than offending the shrinking group of people who hold the opposing value.
In the case of marriage equality, we have an increasingly visible societal movement in this direction. The church is not moving in this direction, and is well within its right to maintain that marriage is only between one man and one woman (wink wink, nudge nudge), and if you want to belong to the organization, you agree to abide by the rules. However, as it becomes increasingly clear that society is moving a different direction, the church can’t impose its own moral code on others, simply because it believes it is the better code. It may well be, but that’s irrelevant. The church serves a different function than government.
Church members can and should participate in the public dialogue of whether marriage equality is beneficial to the nation. But that dialogue, if it’s to be productive, should focus on why the change would be good/bad for society, for the entire nation. It is of limited social utility to say “We The People should not do this because my small subset of The People don’t allow that as part of our own internal rules”, because the government is not trying to set rules for the that small group, but rather for the entire nation. The two differing rules can happily coexist. For example, our church rules include no smoking, drinking, extra-marital sexual activity, etc., while civil society allows those activities.
In the instance of marriage equality, I’m convinced they can likewise coexist. From a civil society point of view, I see the positives far outweigh the negatives of this change, so I fully support it. As far as the church position, I accept that it is currently not allowed. But I also believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.