Because of several things that have happened over the past couple
of weeks, the issue of same-sex marriage has been discussed at great length in
the media, on social media sites and in everyday conversations between family
members, friends, co-workers, etc. Because of the amount of discussion, I
felt it would be helpful for myself (and hopefully for others) to write out an
explanation of my beliefs on the matter. There are three things that I
want to make perfectly clear at the outset:
- This is not intended to be an
attack on those who experience same-gender attraction or those who share a
different opinion than me on the matter. Rather it is meant to be as
complete an explanation as possible for what my beliefs are, where they
are derived from and why I hold those beliefs. It naturally includes
a basic overview of some of the fundamental tenets of my faith.
- Part of living my religion
requires me to love all people. This includes an effort to try to understand
people. Part of understanding is trying to allow others to hold
their own beliefs without me attacking them for it. However, love
for others does not supersede God’s laws. In other words, I cannot
allow my love for people to interfere with standing for and living God’s
laws.
- “The experience of same-sex
attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is
not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to
have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (www.mormonsandgays.org ,
accessed 12/28/2013)
- I feel that homosexuality is
not describing a condition, disease, or illness, but rather feelings or
behaviors. It is important that we do not define ourselves or our
existence only by our sexuality. We are complex beings that are made
up of many different hopes, dreams, desires and abilities. We sell
ourselves short if we define ourselves only by our sexual orientation.
We don’t need to make that aspect of our lives the all-consuming
aspect. My thoughts will come from an ultimate desire that we all
understand and define ourselves by the most simple and powerful aspect of
our lives: that we are all literal sons and daughters of a loving
Heavenly Father.
- Please understand that I am not
claiming to be performing a comprehensive work on issues of same-gender
attraction and marriage. As long as this discourse is ;-) I couldn’t
possibly do a comprehensive discussion of it with my limited knowledge and
abilities. Hopefully something in here will be of some meaning to
some people.
- What
is written here is my opinion and is not the official statement or view of
the LDS Church.
I would ask that if you feel that you want to respond to this that
you do so in a respectful manner. I believe strongly that we may disagree
with one another while still remaining civil. As we respond to one
another in respectful ways there can be more understanding; and although we may
not convince one another of our beliefs, we can still treat each other with
kindness and respect. Forgive the length of my “treatise”, but despite
the length, I hope that you will take an opportunity for an honest read.
Please note that I will reference four different books that are recognized
as he canonized scripture in my faith. They include the Holy Bible (the
King James Version), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the
Pearl of Great Price. Access to each of these as well as any footnotes
can be found at www.lds.org under “scriptures.”
My feelings towards the legalization of same-sex marriage are
rooted in my religious faith. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints. The most basic tenet of my faith is that we are ALL
children of a loving Heavenly Father. This knowledge has brought me
great strength and has helped me to understand that NOTHING can separate us
from God’s love (Romans 8:35-39). I believe this to be as important a
piece of knowledge as we can obtain in this life and essential for those who
are experiencing same-gender attraction to understand.
Our Heavenly Father has a plan for us to come here to Earth and
exercise our freedom of choice. We are free to choose His way and His
teachings or to choose the opposite. This plan was first revealed to us
in an existence prior to this one.
Our souls are comprised of both a body and a spirit. The
spirit is what gives us life. These spirits were begotten by Heavenly
Parents in a pre-mortal life. In this pre-mortal life we were instructed
of God’s plan and we had the opportunity to accept or reject that plan.
Those of us who accepted
the plan were sent to Earth to
undergo trials and tests to see if we would
do everything that God asks of us (Proverbs 8:22-31, Job 38:7, Jeremiah 1:5,
Abraham 3:22-25, Alma 12:24, Alma 34:32-34). There were a third of God’s
children who rejected God’s plan and were cast out of heaven along with Lucifer
(Satan). The account of
this “war in heaven” can be found in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Revelation 12:1-11.
This account is demonstrative of the truth that God’s love
does not supersede His commandments or His plan, an important truth to
recognize when discussing the complex issues of same-gender attraction.
God’s desire is
that we all follow His plan and receive everything He has. Families are
an essential part of that plan and essential to receiving all He has. In
addition to providing families, God established eternal laws that help us to
come closer to Him and to become more like Him. With each law there is an
associated punishment or consequence if it is broken (2 Nephi 2:8-13).
Understanding that we would each break His divine laws, our Father provided a
Savior for us who would suffer the punishment for our sins and thus give us the
opportunity to avoid that punishment (DC 19:16-19). The Savior chosen at
that time is known to the world today as Jesus Christ. Jesus atoned for
our sins and misdeeds and this Atonement allows us to be forgiven and cleansed
so that we can be made clean and pure as we turn to Him.
As we turn our lives over to Jesus Christ, He makes us better than
we could be otherwise. His grace and mercy lift us and purify us and fit
us to return to live with our Heavenly Father in a state of never ending joy
(Isaiah 53, 2 Nephi 2:25, Mosiah 2:41, Mosiah 3:3-8). Our Heavenly Father
offers to us all that he has (Romans 8:16-17, Revelations 3:21, 2 Corinthians
3:18, Galatians 4:7). The ONLY way that we can receive all of these
blessings is through Jesus Christ and His grace as he saves and changes us
through that grace. I have felt His grace and His power in my life and
know of its reality.
In order to teach us about His plan, God established a church on
the Earth led by prophets. Beginning with Adam, God has called prophets
to reveal and to teach His word and His truth to His children here on the
Earth. God explained what these prophets were intended for when He told Moses,
“thou shalt speak unto him (meaning Aaron, Moses’ brother), and put words in
his mouth: and I (God) will be with thy (Moses) mouth, and with his mouth, and
will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the
people: and he shall be, even he (Aaron) shall be to thee instead of a mouth,
and thou (Moses) shalt be to him instead of God (Exodus 4:15-16).” (Names/terms
in parentheses added)
In other words, a prophet is meant to be God’s mouthpiece to all
of God’s children on the Earth. Amos explained further that, “surely the
Lord God will do nothing but He revealeth His secrets unto His servants the
prophets (Amos 3:7).”
God reveals the truth to these prophets and then the prophets
teach that truth to us. We are free to accept or reject their words.
When a greater portion of the people rejects the prophet’s words, a
period of darkness and un-enlightenment ensues, referred to as an Apostasy.
This comes as a natural consequence to human decisions. Whenever
this happens, God will, in His time, send another prophet to restore the light
and truth of His word to His children to ensure them an opportunity to receive
all He has to offer to them. For instance, when Adam’s posterity
generally rejected God’s truths, God sent Enoch to restore the light of God’s
word. When another apostasy occurred after Enoch, God sent Noah to
restore. Prophets such as Abraham and Moses were also “restorers”.
This process or pattern is taught by the Savior in the parable of the
husbandmen in Matthew 21:33-43.
After Israel fell away from God’s truths, God sent His Only
Begotten Son Jesus Christ, not only to restore the truth, but also to perform
the ultimate sacrifice for all of God’s children as He suffered in the Garden
of Gethsemane and again on Calvary for all of our grief’s, our sorrows, our
sins, so that He (Jesus Christ) could know how to help each one of us in our
difficulties and so that we would not have to suffer the punishment for our own
sins (Isaiah 53, Alma 7:11-13, Alma 34:8-10, D&C 19:16-19). Not only did Jesus’ Atonement give us the
ability to overcome sin and death, but because He personally experienced each individual’s
personal sorrows, grief’s, sicknesses and disappointments, He knows perfectly
well how to help each individual on this Earth. This is also an essential
truth to understand in regards to the many complex issues faced by those with
same-gender attraction.
When Jesus was on the Earth, He established a church. He
built it on the foundation of apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20).
These apostles and prophets were meant to help perfect the saints, to
keep people in the right way and to keep them united in faith and doctrine
(Ephesians 4:11-14). We can see these efforts in action with Paul’s
epistles as well as the epistles of Peter and James.
Eventually the persecution of the Christian faith became so severe
that all of the church leaders were killed and the church began to lose the
ability to stay united in faith and doctrine. Paul warned of this in Acts
20:28-30. He also warns of it again in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 where he
explains that before the second coming of Christ there will be a “falling away”
from the truth and the church. This prophecy of a falling away was
fulfilled throughout the dark ages as men and women experienced a famine of
hearing the word of the Lord. Many searched for the truth but couldn’t
find it (Amos 8:11-12). The darkness of the “dark ages” epitomizes what
happens to our lives when we reject the Savior, the Light of the World.
No matter what our reasons for rejecting Him, we cannot have all of the
light and joy that we could have if we do not turn to Him and follow Him.
Despite the darkness and despair of this time period, prophets had
promised a restoration of all things in the fullness of times (Acts 3:21,
Ephesians 1:10, Matthew 21:33-43). The fulfillment of this promise began
as reformers started to recognize the need for change in Christianity and made
their best efforts to try and recreate the truths they saw in the Bible in
various Christian faiths. The fulfillment of the promise culminated in
the spring of 1820 when Joseph Smith saw a vision of God the Father and His Son
Jesus Christ in upstate New York in response to a prayer he offered. The
process that Joseph Smith went through to find the knowledge for himself is the
process that we must all ultimately experience if we want to know the truth for
ourselves; particularly the truths regarding marriage and family that are
involved with this issue of same-sex marriage or same-gender attraction.
Joseph had been experiencing confusion over religion due to the
many different churches that were all claiming to teach God’s word but were
offering very different views on the Bible. He felt a desire to join with
a church but was confused as to which to join because of the varying opinions
on Biblical teachings. His inquiries led him to a study of the Bible,
where he read James 1:5, wherein James invites all to ask God when you lack
wisdom. Joseph explained in His own words what happened when he read this
verse:
“Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the
heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force
into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that
if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and
unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the
teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of
scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question
by an appeal to the Bible (Joseph Smith History 1:12).”
This process of feeling God’s power to testify of truth is the way
that we can know when something is true and/or real. It is called the
power of the Holy Ghost and is described elsewhere in scriptures as a feeling
of love, joy or peace (Galatians 5:22-23), or as a burning in our hearts (Luke
24:32). Because of this inspiration, Joseph determined to do as James
instructs and to ask God. He went into a grove of trees near his home in
upstate New York and prayed vocally to God. He describes the vision he
had in these words:
“I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the
brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me…When the
light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all
description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling
me by name and said, pointing to the other – This is My Beloved Son. Hear
Him!”
God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph that
day and in answer to his question of which church to join informed him to “join
none of them, for they were all wrong.” They instructed him through the
process of restoring the same Church that Christ had established in His earthly
ministry as they sent angels, authority, revelations and another book of
scripture to assist him in reestablishing God’s church on the earth.
(Joseph Smith History)
The other book of scripture is called the Book of Mormon and is a
record of God’s dealings with some of the peoples of the ancient America’s.
It is a witness and testimony that God speaks to all nations and that
Jesus Christ was revealed to additional groups of people besides those in the
area of Jerusalem. The church that was established as a result of this
heavenly vision is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Joseph Smith was called as a prophet to lead God’s church and to restore
His truth, similar to prophets in the past such as Moses and Abraham.
Today the church is led by a prophet (Thomas S. Monson) and twelve
apostles, patterned exactly after the New Testament church.
Similar to how Joseph felt God’s power testifying of the truthfulness
of James’ words in the New Testament, I have also felt God’s power witnessing
to me of the truthfulness and reality of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Book of
Mormon and the Bible, and of all of the truths that have been restored through
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Having explained where my opinions are derived from now let me
state clearly what my views are in regards to same-sex “marriage”. In
doing so, my invitation to everyone who reads this is to study out the issues
and go to The Lord in prayer and ask Him of the truthfulness of any and all
things. I am confident that through the power of the Holy Ghost, He will
reveal to you the truth of all things (Moroni 10:3-5, Luke 24:32, Galatians
5:22-23).
In the beginning of the Bible (the book of Genesis), the first
marriage was performed. God himself performed the marriage between Adam
and Eve and instructed them to “multiply and replenish the Earth (Genesis
1:28).” In essence, God our Father was inviting Adam and Eve to start a
family and to have children. This is the definition of marriage – between
a man and a woman. The definition was given by God, not developed or
“allowed” by any political entities. Marriage between man and woman was
the commonly accepted practice in the beginning as shown in Genesis 4:16-26 and
Genesis 5. This definition has been so generally accepted that Webster’s
dictionary gave the definition of marriage as follows:
“The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal
union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and
religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and
fidelity…marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing
the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and
for securing the maintenance and education of children.” (www.webstersdictionary1828.com, accessed December 24, 2013)
Understanding that not all people accept the Biblical account,
allow me to offer an alternative perspective to establish the same point.
At whatever point that humanity came to be (whether through creation or
evolution), a sexual relationship had to exist between a man and a woman had to
exist in order to propagate the species. The creation of children is not
possible between partners of the same gender and it is readily apparent from
the historical evidence that we have that opportunities such as in-vitro and/or
artificial insemination did not exist at this point, and even should those have
existed, the fact remains that the male and female contributions to the
creation of a human life must exist and there is no other possible way for
humanity to reproduce and continue. The hope is that the mere sexual act
did not define either the male or the female, but that the physical merger also
led to a merger of hearts, dreams, hopes and lives. That is what marriage
is intended to be. That what we symbolically give physically moves into
all parts of our lives and that our spouses in a very real sense become a part
of us. The purpose of the marriage was meant to be completely unselfish
on all counts.
God wanted His children to come to Earth and receive a physical
body. Our Heavenly Parents had already begotten our spirits, but God
wanted a safe and secure environment for us to receive physical bodies and to
be taught and loved. To allow this to happen, God gave His children the
ability to procreate. He gave His children a power much like His and then
gave them guidelines on how that power was to be used and how it was not to be
used. T
It is here that I want to make something clear. God gave His
children the sacred power of procreation and also gave specific guidelines on
how it was to be used. Any sex outside of the bounds that God has set is
considered sinful behavior and will certainly produce consequences – both in
this life and in the life to come. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is an
example (Exodus 20:14). In the first marriage relationship, Adam and Eve
were told to cleave to each other and none else (Genesis 2:24). To use a
more modern explanation, the First Presidency of the LDS Church released a
letter in November of 1991 stating specifically the views on sexual sin when
they said, “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful
marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only
between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage.
Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual
and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”
I bring this up simply to point out that in the matters of sexual
sins, I do not discriminate. Sexual sin is wrong, whether it is
homosexual or heterosexual – any sexual intercourse outside of the bonds of
marriage is wrong. One of the primary reasons why it is so important to
God that we use this power correctly is because it is the power to create life.
It is not simply a physical appetite to feed, but inherently provides an opportunity
for a new life that is quite literally a part of you.
Sex outside of marriage is gambling with human life…in the sense
that you can give a new life! If God wants all of His children back with
Him, He is certainly very concerned with making sure that each person that
comes into the world is raised in the optimal situation. A stable
heterosexual marriage relationship has proven to be just that. While I
understand that there are most certainly difficulties and problems in many
heterosexual marriages, these problems should not prevent us from pursuing the
ideal. There are inherent differences between man and woman that
contribute to the heterosexual marriage relationship being the optimal to raise
and nurture children.
Marriage and children were unselfish for parents because, as the
dictionary definition explains, a husband and wife are meant to provide a place
for the maintenance and education of children. Heterosexual marriage was
intended to be unselfish because it is meant to be an institution where a husband
and wife give themselves completely – not only to each other, but also to the
raising and nurturing of their children. We focus on the well-being of
the children we mutually create and that are a part of us, not just on
ourselves. A homosexual “marriage” relationship lacks the ability to
focus on the unselfish aspect of raising a family, because it is not possible
to conceive children in this relationship. Ultimately a homosexual
relationship is focused on the sexual aspect. It is focused primarily on
sexual attraction and other aspects of the relationship are subservient to that
desire for physical gratification. A quote to elaborate on what I am
attempting to explain is appropriate:
“Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to
ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage
and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to
become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage,
throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed
marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and
perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed
as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every
culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their
relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A
husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any
other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order
to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and
family.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children,
either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage
is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of
procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation
under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of
marriage.”
(http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage,
accessed December 24, 2013).
Please understand that I am not inferring that all those who
choose to be in a same-gender relationship are completely selfish and terrible
people. I have good friends who have been in same-gender relationships
and know that they are ultimately good and kind people. My point is
simply that inherent in their choice of a same-gender relationship is a focus
primarily on sexual gratification. Other considerations are not given the
same consideration that this selfish physical desire is given.
You may ask why I care about the legalization of same-sex marriage
because you may say that it won’t really affect me. Let me explain why that
is a grave misunderstanding! If you take a term and an institution such
as marriage and completely redefine it legally, there are several different
repercussions that will affect me directly.
First, the redefinition of marriage will of necessity require a
change in school curricula. Wherever the term “marriage” is used in
history books, in English classes, in biology texts, etc., there will now have
to be changes to allow for this new definition of “marriage.” Public
education systems that are supported by my tax dollars will now be teaching as
accepted fact behavior that I consider to be immoral and unacceptable.
Thus while preaching about freedom of choice in the matter of same-sex
“marriage”, the efforts to legalize it also institutionalize it and force it
upon young minds as an accepted way of life, and eliminate a parent’s choice on
what sexual matters are taught as right and wrong to their children at school.
You may wish for water to be wine all you like, but legally changing the
definition does not change what it really is, and redefining it legally simply
confuses the up and coming generation to where they won’t understand the core
differences that could prove fatal to their lives and happiness.
Water (like a stable family situation) is necessary for life,
while wine (like the legalization of same-sex marriage) can produce dangerous
results when placed in settings without restraints. I might make a
personal addition here that I don’t feel that sexual issues or marriage issues
ought to be discussed in great length in a school setting anyway (whether
hetero or homosexual in nature). These issues ought to be discussed in
the confines of a home in an open and loving manner to ensure understanding by
each child. The public schooling system has no place to teach these issues.
There are already examples of this in other states that have legalized
same-gender marriage. States like California and Massachusetts have
already implemented curricula in regards to “normalizing” these relationships and
teaching about them to students. Included in these discussions are often
graphic descriptions of both hetero and homosexual intercourse. How can
we say that schools that my tax dollars support (of no choice of my own might I
add - even if I homeschool or send my kids to a private school my tax dollars
still support the public education system) teaching things that are so contrary
to my religious beliefs is not a violation of my first amendment religious
rights?
In addition to that, the issue will likely continue to move
towards requiring religious institutions to allow same-sex marriages in their
mosques, temples, synagogues and churches. In a country where free
exercise of religion is supposedly a top priority, legalizing same-sex marriage
would ultimately be incredibly detrimental to religious freedoms.
Redefining marriage from being between a man and a woman to being between
two men or two women places religious institutions and the state on a path to
serious conflict. The historically accepted definition of marriage needs
to be maintained in order to preserve the religious freedoms of others outside
of the homosexual community.
There are already examples of this happening. Faith based
adoption agencies that refused service to same-sex couples based on religious
beliefs have had to close down because of their refusal to offer adoptive
services to same-sex couples even though the refusal was based on religious
beliefs. Private schools have been sued for not being accepting of
homosexual relationships, even though their reasoning for not allowing those
relationships in their school is due to their deeply held religious beliefs and
principles. Doctors have been sued for refusing in vitro fertilization to
same-sex couples although their reasons for refusal were personal and religious
in nature. The same goes for family therapists and psychologists.
It seems that while we are demanding “tolerance” for “other” ways of
life, we are completely intolerant of those whose views are based in their
faith - whether it be Jewish, Christian, Muslim or other. It is now not
too far-fetched to wonder if religious organizations will be allowed to teach
that homosexuality is a sin. Some have already been threatened because
they teach this. Where is freedom of religion in all of this?
The next reason why I am diametrically opposed to same-sex
marriage has much to do with the maintenance of society. One of the
things that must be considered is the impact that the legalization and
normalization of same-sex marriages will have on the population. It is not difficult to see that (among
several other important reasons); homosexual relationships have contributed to
the population problems in European nations.
Countries in the Eurozone that have legalized same-gender marriage for
quite some time are seeing the impacts in problems with maintaining a balanced
population. In other words, many
countries are not supporting their populations due to declines in the birth
rates. This causes problems in many
ways, including economic strains because of the lack of workforce compared to
the retired populations. The increasing
trend of so-called “social safety nets” (aka welfare states) in combination
with the declining birth rates are causing sustainability problems. Either the welfare states have to decline or
the birth rates need to increase.
Same-gender marriage obviously contributes to this decline in birth
rates. I am not advocating welfare
states or social safety nets, I am simply pointing out issues that arise in
society as a natural result of increasing numbers of same-gender marriages.
Another problem with the maintenance of a civilized society is
that taking away the historically accepted definition of marriage essentially
opens the definition of marriage to endless possibilities. From a simple
legal standpoint we have to ask ourselves what we will do with proponents of
pedophilia, bestiality and other “alternative lifestyles”. I don’t intend
to bring all of these relationships onto the same grounds, but when the definition
opens, that is exactly what we end up doing! Where will we decide that the
definition stops and how many legal cases will it take to normalize and
legalize these other sexual deviancies?
One of the primary arguments for why we should allow the same-sex
marriages is because people are “born that way.” I could try to dive into
that argument about the science behind this premise (and there are certainly
scientists on both sides of the issue), but the issue of whether or not they
are “born that way” really isn’t the point. The point is this: do
we legalize things simply because people are “born that way”, or have certain
tendencies?
If a baby is born with an addiction to illegal drugs (even if it
is because of a mother’s drug abuse, and decisions), does that mean that we
legalize heroin and crack cocaine? If a man is born with violent
tendencies, do we go ahead and make allowance for that in the law? Do we
allow the pedophile to act out his or her sexual inclinations towards children
simply because they were “born that way”? I could go on and on, but I
hope that the point is made. If you legalize an unnatural, deviant sexual
behavior, you open the door to legalizing all sorts of other unnatural, deviant
sexual behaviors that will infringe on personal rights and liberties in an even
more direct manner. (Please note that I am not condemning the tendencies,
but rather the actual behaviors). Will same-gender marriage supporters
also support the rights of pedophiles to marry because they are “in love” or
“born that way?” Are they
willing to give the same rights to those who desire multiple partners? I highly doubt it! Once you start down
the slippery slope of legalizing immorality it is extremely difficult to regain
any moral footing! Where will we draw the line? Or will we even draw one?
My next point plays off of my last one. Every person in the
world today has “tendencies” or desires to participate in immoral or unethical
behavior. “We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans
3:21)”, Paul says, but we must all recognize that we cannot justify immoral
behavior simply because we have a desire to do it. A man may have a
desire to be a millionaire (which is not inherently wrong), but if he reaches
his goal of being a millionaire by lying, cheating or stealing (which all
infringe on the rights of others), then do we make lying, cheating and stealing
legal simply so that some individuals can reach their goal of being
millionaires? While the goal of having a strong, stable, secure marriage
relationship is certainly worthwhile and desirable, we cannot legalize the
process of getting there if it infringes on the rights of others.
In other words, we cannot legalize immoral relationships simply
because someone wants to act on their tendencies.
Sexual appetites, just like any other desires for immoral or
unethical behavior, must be controlled and limited in order to avoid mass
problems. We cannot condone a sex addicts acting out with many partners
at the expense of others simply because that is where their desires take
them. At the same time that I do not
want marriage to be redefined and taught in schools, I also disagree with HOW
sex education is taught in many schools (heterosexual or not). Instead of
teaching abstinence and restraint, we teach promiscuity and purposelessness.
We have already been seeing the consequences of such a lack of restraint.
A Hedonistic approach to sex leads to skyrocketing numbers of divorces,
sexually transmitted diseases and single parents (especially mothers), leaving
many innocent children devastated in its perverse wake. These problems
will continue to get worse unless we can reestablish a basic moral foundation
to guide society. The foundation of where to start with that morality has
everything to do with preserving the family and treating with reverence and
respect that sacred act in which a human life is created. The results of
what will happen are well explained
in the LDS Church’s statement, “The Family, A Proclamation to the World”:
“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who
abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will
one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration
of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the
calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government
everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the
family as the fundamental unit of society.”
I want to express my love and appreciation to all of my brothers
and sisters here on Earth. We are all God’s children and we are all in a
struggle to find peace and joy in this life and in the life to come. I
love people regardless of their religious, sexual, or political preferences. However, this love for people
includes an aspect in which certain actions cannot be condoned. I believe
that tolerance is the order of the day for all of us. To respect each
other and the opinions of all is essential to maintaining a harmonized society.
However, this tolerance for the beliefs of all cannot extend to tolerance
of the actions of all, as Elder Dallin H. Oaks explains:
“Our tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs does not
cause us to abandon our commitment to the truths we understand and the
covenants we have made…We are cast as combatants in the war between truth and
error. There is no middle ground. We must stand up for truth, even
while we practice tolerance and respect for beliefs and ideas different from
our own and for the people who hold them.
While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their
beliefs, including their constitutional freedom to explain and advocate their
positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior.
Our duty to God and to truth requires us to seek relief from some
behavior that is wrong. This is easy as to extreme behaviors that most
believers and non-believers recognize as wrong or unacceptable. For
example, we must all deplore murder or other terrorist behavior, even when done
by extremists in the name of religion. And we must all oppose violence
and thievery.
As to less extreme behaviors, where even believers disagree on
whether or not they are wrong, the nature and extent of what we should tolerate
is much more difficult to define. Thus, a thoughtful LDS woman wrote me
about her concern that “the world’s definition of ‘tolerance’ seems to be increasingly
used in relation to tolerating wicked lifestyles.” She asked how the Lord
would define “tolerance.”
President Boyd K. Packer gave an inspired introduction to this
subject. Speaking to an audience of Institute students three years ago he
said:
“The word tolerance does not stand alone. It requires an
object and a response to qualify it as a virtue. . . . Tolerance is often
demanded but seldom returned. Beware of the word tolerance. It is a
very unstable virtue.”
This inspired caution reminds us that for persons who believe in
absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin.
Tolerance or respect is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on
the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being
conscious of both sides.” (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/-truth-and-tolerance-elder-dallin-h-oaks , accessed 12/28/2013)
That we will all be conscious of both sides is my hope and prayer!
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of change! Not one of us on this earth is free of things
that the gospel asks us to change.
Regardless of what those things are that we have to change, we all have
the power to overcome or at least cope with our desires and tendencies. We may not be able to overcome all of our
thoughts and feelings completely in this life, but there is a distinction
between those thoughts and feelings and our actual behaviors. The hope is that we can learn to control our
thoughts and actions in the way that God has asked us to. As we accept Jesus’ invitation to come unto
Him, we will find that our burdens will be lightened and that we will receive
strength to do all that He asks of us (Matt. 11:28-30, Ether 12:27, 1 Nephi
3:7). As we do this, we can find the “peace
of God, which passeth all understanding” (Phillipians 4:7).
To end, I want to mention one last thing which ties in to why I
gave an explanation of the roots of my religion at the beginning of this.
The bottom line for us is that prophets are God’s mouthpieces here on the
Earth. When they invite us to stand up for truth, right and morality, we
would do well to heed their words and do all in our power to follow their
instructions. Although I recognize that my written views and opinions are
not official church doctrine, the links below are links to official church
positions and doctrines. I hope that all of us can come to recognize the
reality of God’s prophets living on the Earth today and follow their counsel.
This path will lead to peace, safety and joy for us, for our families and
for the world!
While most of the words are my own, many of the ideas that I
expressed in this post come from doctrines that I have studied in my faith.
Below are some of the links to where many of these thoughts come from.
Let me be clear though that I do not represent the church or its official
views. What was expressed in this post is completely my opinion.
Below are links to official church statements and doctrines:
No comments:
Post a Comment