Gay Marriage Debate Brings up Old Question & Dilemma
To no one’s surprise, the LDS church has come out in strong support of the passage of CA’s marriage amendment, which will be on the ballot in November. This open support for marriage puts the age old question back on the table for politicians and here in Utah for Mormons, “Which comes first: party/issue allegiance or personal faith and which one takes priority when they are in direct conflict?” It is not the first time this year this question has surfaced, it was an issue that prompted Mitt Romney to give a speech in TX regarding faith and politics.
So how does a Mormon (or a Catholic, Jew, etc.) resolve this political/faith dilemma? I know what it means for me and how the church’s statement informs my view on the CA amendment issue. What I still don’t know that I understand is the rationale of, “I’m Mormon and believe the church is true, that the prophet is called of God, and speaks his will, etc., but I just think the church/prophet is wrong on this issue.” (I am sure this post will prompt some interesting answers which I hope it does.)
For one reader of the DesNews, it was a pretty simple answer:
“Left-wing Mormons and gay/lesbian Mormons just need to recognize that the LDS Church is a right-wing organization with B.C. views on human sexuality.
“Now more than ever, I am glad to be among the growing number of intelligent, forward-looking people that consider ourselves ‘Post Mormons.’
“If your upset that the LDS church is taking this POLITICAL stand, remember that it’s First Presidency believes that it speaks the will of god. The LDS leadership’s view of this god’s will is what is perverse. And I stongly oppose this perverted view of history and humanity.”
Yet this seems overly simplistic and I know it doesn’t resonate with folks I have seen write about this topic, who I assume believe themselves to be faithful members of the Mormon religion. Perhaps my struggle is best summed up by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity where Lewis takes head on the argument/claim that Jesus may have been a great moral teacher but not the Savior of the world.
From Lewis:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.
I guess I see my belief system in the same light. If I believe President Thomas S. Monson to be who he says he is, then I’ve closed the door to picking and choosing what I wish to believe and support of his teachings as a prophet, a thought illustrated by these remarks from Henry B. Eyring (part of that “unintelligent, non-forward looking First Presidency”:
“Another fallacy is to believe that the choice to accept or not accept the counsel of prophets is no more than deciding whether to accept good advice and gain its benefits or to stay where we are. But the choice not to take prophetic counsel changes the very ground upon which we stand… Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception [or the political issue in this case], I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer [not blindly obeyed], and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety.”
So for Mormons what is the rationale for making an exception here when the instruction has been explicit?
Jobu said,
June 24, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Mormonism is an all-or-nothing proposition. Either it is 100% true, or it is a religion based on error. President Monson either speaks for God, or he is a liar. If you are faithful LDS, you have to accept President Monson’s words as if they came from God directly. If you don’t accept that, you are not living in accordance of the Gospel. Period.
Truths are subject to periodic revisions and updates. That’s why we need modern-day prophets and continuous revelation. For example:
- for several decades during the 1800s, Adam was the only God with whom we have to do, but now we are having to do with the status quo ante God. This may seem confusing to some, but our ways our not God’s ways. There are several possible explanations for this, such as God wanting to give Adam an opportunity to be God in an established world as part of his preparation for being a full-time God in his own world.
- Up until last year, Lamanites were the principal ancestors of native Americans. However, in recent years, God changed the DNA of native Americans to match the DNA of Asians. To reflect this development, the introduction of the Book of Mormon was also changed.
I bring this up because it is entirely possible that the LDS Church position on gay marriage may change in the future. It’s quite possible the homosexuals are not yet ready for marriage, just like Africans were not ready for the priesthood until 1978. However, this is not our call.
Jesse Harris said,
June 24, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
In a stake conference several years ago, Elder Richard G. Scott spoke and told us that the Gospel is not a buffet where you can pick out only what you like. It’s an integrated universal truth. Sometimes that truth can be very uncomfortable and requires change on our part. In my mind, members who are up in arms over this are the ones who aren’t willing to face the uncomfortable truth that they may very well be wrong.
I had my own moment of facing an uncomfortable truth when the First Presidency endorsed the federal marriage amendment. I had been opposed to such legislation previously because I believed it encroached upon state’s rights. Once the announcement in favor came out, I was hesitant to rally behind it, backing it somewhat reluctantly at first. I see now that they knew what was coming down the pike, what with events in Massachusetts and California being what they are. It was a confirmation that the President of the church operates with divine guidance and a kind of farsightedness we do not possess.
Lyall said,
June 24, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Jobu–
I appreciate your thoughts, but your two examples: huh? What are you talking about and what are your sources? Maybe you’re being sarcastic and I missed it.
John said,
June 24, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
God, with a capital G, loves all of his children. He has given commandments to help us be happy in the long run. He did not promise us momentary pleasure or that we would always like his counsel. He has given us A prophet as his spokesperson on earth. When the prophet speaks we can either follow him or break ourselves against the counsel given. Just as the law of gravity inflicts damage on those disregarding its effects, so the eternal laws related to obedience are in force.
Follow the prophet…he knows the way!
salt h2o said,
June 24, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
I enjoyed reading your post.
David said,
June 24, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
I wrote about a similar dilemma for Catholics two years ago. If anyone wants to look at it they might tell me if they see ways that the two dilemmas differ.
Reach Upward said,
July 1, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
LDS doctrine does not state that church leader — including those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators — are infallible. They are human. They can and do make mistakes. However, LDS doctrine does require that when the top councils of the Church create policy, members are to abide by that policy or else be considered in rebellion against the Lord.