Why the Backlash against the LDS Church's Stance on Gays in the Church should Concern You

Why the Backlash against the LDS Church's Stance on

Gays in the Church should Concern You

Ever since the unofficial leak of an addition of policy clarifications to Book One of the Handbook of Instructions to leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone public there has been an outcry of condemnation against the Church.  To be fair, there has also been a significant amount of support on social media for the stance that the Church has taken.  Now, just in case you have been living under a rock during the past few days there were actually two policy clarifications.  The first clarification stated that gay members of the Church who are living together as married partners are in a state of apostasy and as such are candidates for Church discipline.  The statement does not say that they are to be excommunicated, though that is a possibility.  The second statement is the one that has probably caused the greatest amount of angst toward the Church.  This policy states that children living in gay households (households of same sex partners) are not to be blessed as children of record nor are they to be baptized at the age of eight but must wait until they are 18 (legal age of emancipation) and disavow same sex marriage.  Explanations for this policy have been given, which is not the focus of my comments here.  If you want to understand why then I invite you to research any of the Church-released news articles.

Comments on social media have been fast, furious, and numerous.  The comments have ranged from it's a cult anyway to disgraceful, hateful, and spiteful to how could a church that espouses love do such a thing to if you don't like their church don't be a Mormon to it's their church so they can make their own rules to if you disagree with it then you should find a church that teaches what you believe to three cheers for the Mormons for standing up for what they believe to finally, a church that follows the Bible.  There have been other comments that praise and condemn the Church, but you get the general idea of the range of comments here.

While I appreciate the kinder comments toward the end of the previous paragraph, there may be a few things lacking in those sentiments and most of them miss the mark.  It is not my objective here to persuade anyone to believe the way we as Latter-day Saints believe on the two issues that I have described above.  As I said, you can search those explanations out on your own.  But, there is so much wrong here that I am having a difficult time determining where to start.  Yeah, where to begin?

First, I guess, I would like to talk about the accusation that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being a cult.  I suppose that if those who banter that term around understood the meaning of that word that they wouldn't mean it as the offensive term.  Likewise, if it wasn't for the fact that Mormons understand the intent of the insult and the slight offered by those who call the Church a cult, perhaps we wouldn't get upset by the use of that term.   A cult is "a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous" (Merriam-Webster).  Using that definition, Christ's Church that he organized while in mortality could easily be called a cult.  It was a small religious group that was not part of a larger and more accepted religion and had beliefs regarded by many people as extreme.  I don't think it was regarded as dangerous (except to the adherents who were put to death) and I don't recall anybody referring to the LDS Church as dangerous (except for the martyrs of the Church).  And by the way, I'm not so sure that the Mormon Church meets the definition of small in the United States anymore since it is the third largest denomination in the country.

There now, I got that off my chest.

It seems that we live in an era of political correctness.  Indeed, there has been a fair amount of backlash against political correctness of late, but I fear that ship has already left the harbor and political correctness will be here to stay for a long time, perhaps forever.  But, I am wondering when political correctness is not necessarily correct.  Can something be politically incorrect and yet correct at the same time?  At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, if something has been black for eons, if we decided to call it white, will it magically become white?  Does gender reassignment change a person’s DNA?  If you refer to a cat long enough as being a dog, will it become a dog?  Is it possible that there are some things that won’t change no matter how hard one tries to change it?

It seems that there has been quite a bit of that lately.  For thousands of years and in virtually every culture in the world marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman.  Yet, it seems with the stroke of a pen we have changed that definition to include unions of a man to a man or a woman to a woman.  I suppose we’ve done that because we have come so far in our civilization and we are so much more enlightened than our ancestors were.  In some people’s rush to rewrite history it seems that a few things have been forgotten or purposefully left out.

I think that most people believe that Mahatma Gandhi was a fairly intelligent and wise man.  I think we could safely say that his wisdom was meant for the ages.  I recall years ago how he was venerated as all thoughtful, wise, caring, and knowing.  I’m sure that we’ve all heard about the seven deadly sins, but Gandhi had his own list of seven deadly sins.  As I reviewed them I am beginning to think that he was onto something and that we as a society are slipping into a deep chasm as we dismiss each of his listed deadly sins.

 Wealth without Work

Pleasure without Conscience

Science without Humanity

Religion without Sacrifice

Knowledge without Character

Commerce (Business) without Morality (Ethics)

Politics without Principle

             I am concerned that in these days we have taken upon ourselves to define God in our own image and not the other way around.  What I mean by that is that the notion of finding a church that fits your social agenda may not be in your best interests.  Last time I checked, God didn’t abdicate His position as “The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father” with the government upon His shoulder (Isaiah 9: 6).  Assuming that He is still “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Hebrews 13: 8), I’m thinking that the things that He identified as just plain wrong in the Bible are still wrong today.  Unfortunately, what I am seeing as people rush off to find a religion that fits their own lifestyle is that they are finding those teachers of religion that teach for doctrine the commandments of men (See Matt. 15: 9; Mark 7: 7; and Titus 1: 14).

            You know, there used to be a time in United States history that adultery was a felony.  Now in many states adultery is merely a petty misdemeanor if a crime at all.  Many people today engage in adultery without moral remorse at all.  A sin that was once considered second only to murder is now considered an indiscretion.  Has God rescinded the seventh commandment?  I don’t think so.  At least I have not seen any written evidence that He has rescinded it.  I’m pretty sure that it is still a grievous sin. 

            Therefore what, you may ask.  Why should the backlash against the LDS Church's stance on gays in the Church concern me? 

            I am reminded of Pastor Martin Niemöller who penned a little poem after being placed in a German concentration camp during World War II.  The poem comes as a result of his observations of the Nazis rounding up seemingly insignificant groups, beginning with incurable patients, then Jehovah’s Witnesses and eventually the Jews.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 I can’t help but wonder if those who are finding fault with the Church’s stance on gays in the Church, especially those who don’t believe the doctrine of the Church anyway, might have their own belief that they hold sacred.  And I wonder if their integrity would cause them to stand firm in the face of opposition.  I wonder if their honor would remain fixed in the face of changing social pressure. 

Then there is the issue of not allowing children of gay children living in those households to be baptized.  From the reaction of those outraged by this policy “change” you would think that it was an idea that was dreamed up in the executive washroom of the Republican National Committee.  (Again, it is not my intent to convince anybody that this was a good move.  The Church has published its rationale for this move and you can find it at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson?HP_FR_11-6-2015_dPAD_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-A_.  If you go to that website you will also be able to watch a short video news release by Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explaining the move.  By the way, I invite you to do a little homework and scope out Elder Christofferson’s personal background.)  To the contrary, this “change” is patterned after policies the Church has adopted for situations such as children of polygamous marriages.  This was not a decision made by one man, namely Thomas S. Monson, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This unanimous decision was made by 15 men who spent days in discussion after deep study and prayer.  This unanimous decision was made by 15 men who spend several months out of each year traveling the world talking to local Church leaders and ordinary members of the Church.  And then they talk.  And then they formulate a plan of action.  And then they take it to the Lord.  And they wait for confirmation.  And then they move forward.  If I had to guess I would suspect that this policy “change” was years in the making. 

A church that sends tens of thousands of young men and young women all over the world to proclaim the gospel and to bring converts into the Church does not sit around in their executive councils and ask what they can do to discourage people from joining the Church.  It does not fret so much about its growth that its leaders decide upon a plan to cull its membership down to a manageable size.  A church that proclaims to be the "stone cut out of the mountain" (Daniel 2: 45) doesn't say, "Oops! We're moving down the mountain a little fast and gathering too much momentum; it's time to stop this baby."  Church leaders don’t sit back and say to themselves, “Well, let’s see what we can do to shoot ourselves in the foot today.”  Rather, they sit back and ask what needs to be done to stay true to the faith.

But, isn’t this policy inconsistent with the Church’s own Article of Faith that states that we believe that we are punished for our own sins and not for Adam’s (note that it says Adam and not parents) transgressions?  Exactly.  Besides, I think that if you carefully study the scriptures that you will find that the consequences of parents’ sins frequently are visited upon their posterity.  That doesn’t mean that they are punished. 

I really don’t want to get into a discussion or debate about whether or not the Church’s position is right.  Borrowing from something that I’ve read a few times, I’m not blindly following.  I’m following because I see.

But for everybody else I would suggest that you be very careful about casting stones, especially if you live in a glass house and especially if you have a truth that you hold close as there will likely be a time in your life when political correctness will take a swipe at you.  Take a look around and see if there is anybody left to defend you.