Category Archives: Same-sex marriage

They will not go away

Posted on by

The outrage of the gay community over Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to pray at the inauguration illustrates that this issue of same-sex marriage is not going away. Apparently the radical gays hate conservative Christians like Rick Warren almost as much as they hate the Mormons who helped pass Proposition 8 in California last month.

The advocates of the GLBT lifestyle are becoming more vocal and the media has embraced their cause wholeheartedly. Their demands for full acceptance in our society grow more strident each day. Traditional Christian values of morality and marriage have become the current battleground in the fight between good and evil.

Many of those pushing the gay agenda have said that all they have to do is wait until those of my generation die out. They have made it clear in their online communications that they hate us because we are the only ones who stand in the way of letting them reach their goal. They want their sin declared acceptable.

Using the web to communicate

I find it very interesting that the gay community, which, according to the Family Research Institute is less than three percent of the population, is so angry with the Mormons, another group of individuals who are also less than three percent of the population of the U.S. Who will exert the greater influence in this ongoing battle?

It doesn’t take much digging to find those who support and encourage the efforts of the gays to achieve full recognition and acceptance. One of the most visible is Pam’s house blend. On there, you can find the writings of Chino Blanco, a former Mormon who has done an amazing job of documenting the recent Prop 8 battle.

I confess that I learned more about what was going on in the trenches of the campaign by reading Chino’s regular postings than I did from the official Prop 8 sources. It may not be a fair comparison, but I’ve got to give the man credit. He’s a diligent researcher and I wonder how he finds the time to write all that he does.

The Digital Network Army

But I’ll bet you don’t know much about those quietly working to sway public opinion in opposition to people like Chino Blanco. We are the Digital Network Army, a group of bloggers and others who actively write and comment in various online forums where we hope to clearly communicate our views to the public.

We met online last night at Rad Dad’s blog. I was amazed at the number of bloggers who showed up to say hello and discuss some of the difficulties of our online efforts to provide a clear voice in support of traditional marriage and family. We are also united in that most of us are recipients of comments from Chino Blanco.

Not all members of the DNA are Mormons. That’s a great thing. We are so pleased to work together with those who believe as we do that the traditional family is in need of our united efforts to uphold. This is an especially difficult task here in California where all three branches of the government are against us.

The word of living prophets

One of the arguments used by those who are in favor of homosexuality and gay marriage is that the Bible forbids a lot of things that we do not follow today. The great advantage that we have as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the word of modern prophets and apostles in addition to the Bible.

When the First Presidency sent the letter to all the bishops to be read in California congregations on June 29th, they did not have to explain why joining the campaign to pass proposition 8 was important and necessary. We have been taught clearly over the years that marriage was ordained of God to be between man and woman.

We have also been clearly taught that same-sex attraction is a temptation while homosexual behavior is a sin. That’s why one can be gay and be an active and faithful member of the LDS Church. For example, read the blog of Samantha, who blogs about her same sex attraction or that of Clint Martin, a gay Mormon blogger.

Making a choice

Just like in the world you will find all kinds of attitudes towards gay people, you will find the same thing in the church. There are those who are intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. Yes, bigot is the right word. Then there are those who know that some struggle with this attraction and are compassionate towards them.

Finally, there are those who are either gay themselves or who have gay family members. For them, this issue has become explosive in the past six months. They have been forced to decide on which side they are on – that of the world or that of the church. What used to be gray has become black and white. That can be hard.

Because of the church’s stand on the issue, some have chosen to leave the church. We are saddened that they do not feel accepted and loved here, but we honor their choice. Seeing the attacks by the more radical elements of the gay community, some of us had become more determined to stand up for traditional marriage.

Meet the DNA

Although I already have a number of them on my blog roll, I have tried to compile a more complete list of all those who participated in our meeting last night. Many of them asked to have their blogs highlighted and added to lists of other members. I have included links to many of the DNA member blogs at the end of this essay.

However, I just have to mention a couple that have done an outstanding job and should be visited by all. First is the Kingfisher column. Even with less than a month of activity, the blog has become the definitive source for information about the defense of traditional marriage and family. I thoroughly recommend it.

Another very active DNA blog is the Beetle Blogger. I’ve written about her before. There are less than three months of archives, yet there is a world of helpful information there to educate those who are serious about this issue. Like me, she has received some serious opposition in the comments from avowed enemies.

Summary and conclusion

I know from experience that there is no way that I can write about this topic without offending someone. It has happened on every previous essay on the subject. In some cases, the dialog was helpful in bringing me to a better understanding of things. In other cases, the comments were meant to hurt.

The title of this piece is meant to refer to the radical element of the gay movement. They are not going to go away because they are fighting for something that they want – full recognition and acceptance of a lifestyle that we believe God has repeatedly condemned and forbidden. In like manner, we of the DNA are not going away.

While I hope that the ongoing dialog on this subject both on this blog and on the blogs of other members of the DNA will be civil, I do not hesitate to affirm that we will continue to proclaim the words of modern prophets in this matter. We will not and we cannot change. A living God has confirmed this to leaders of His church.

——————————————–

A limited selection of the DNA bloggers:

01. Kingfisher column
02. Beetle Blogger
03. Latter-day Commentary
04. Rad Dad
05. Pomegranate Apple
06. Akina’s for Prop 8
07. California Crusader
08. Pearl Diver
09. Secular Heretic
10. Article VI blog
11. Journalista Chronicle
12. Preserving Marriage
13. A Guy for Marriage
14. Make My Vote Count
15. Stand for Marriage
16. Keyser Causes
17. Busy With Conviction
18. Thinking the Wright Way
19. Wendy’s weblog
20. Rickety
21. Left Coast Conservative
22. Joy’s blog
23. Good Sense Politics
24. Dead Seriously

It’s not bigotry – it’s a moral issue

Posted on by

Apostles and prophets don’t need me to defend them. But I want to explore how I feel when I read others describe them as racist bigots. Those are two very hateful terms, yet they seem to be used freely these days in the ongoing dialog about the First Presidency letter of 29 June 2008.

In my simple mind, I define a racist to be someone who feels, believes or acts as if being born into a particular race provides an individual with inherent superiority over others not of that race. Racial discrimination is the act of denying basic rights to individuals based solely on their race.

A bigot, of course, is defined as a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. A bigot is also defined as one who regards or treats the members of a group – racial, ethnic or any other kind of group or class – with hatred and intolerance.

Proposition 8 is a moral issue

Some in the dialog about the letter of June 29th have defined the current opposition to same-sex marriage as bigotry. They have further argued that Prop 8 support is very similar to the policy of the church that excluded blacks from participating in the priesthood prior to the 1978 revelation.

While I have not yet written my own essay about the blacks and the priesthood, I have tried to make it clear that these two issues are not related. The exclusion of blacks from the priesthood was based on a policy. Our stand against same-sex marriage is based on morality, not policy.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a religious obligation to raise its voice on issues that affect the moral fabric of society such as same sex marriage. To quote Lee Benson of the Deseret News, “Every third-grader knows that. It’s what churches do.” It’s a moral issue.

It is not bigotry – we do not hate

I don’t know why some have backed away from facing this issue head-on. Sure, Proposition 8 is about restoring or making clear the definition of marriage as originally intended, but let’s face it – we are involved as a church because we believe that homosexual behavior is wrong and a sin.

I believe that it’s way too late to attempt to persuade anyone reading this essay why we should support the First Presidency in what they have asked us to do here in California. Most members made up their mind long ago and have been participating to ensure the passage of the initiative.

I just want to be clear that this is not bigotry. There is no hatred involved. We are simply trying to defend what the Lord put into place long ago. I have written previously about the definition of tolerance. The Lord does not condone homosexual behavior. Tolerance does not mean condone.

Same-sex marriage is not a right

Some have commented on previous essays I have written on this subject by claiming that by supporting proposition 8, we are trying to take away the right to marry. I don’t see marriage as a right. To me, it is a privilege granted first by God and then recognized by society through laws.

True, the Supreme Court of the State of California in effect granted this right by overturning the law that the people voted into place in 2000 with Proposition 22. The vote on proposition 8 will ensure that it is the voice of the people that grant this right, not through a judicial review process.

As I have commented to others on this blog while dialoging about the subject, this vote will give us a clear indication how the people of the State of California really feel about homosexuality. If proposition 8 fails then it will be clear that the majority of society embraces same-sex marriage.

Honor and sustain the First Presidency

I hope that no matter what the outcome of the vote that we will be very careful about the way we write about the Lord’s anointed. Calling apostles and prophets bigots is just not something that a faithful member of the church would want to do, especially if we have covenanted not to do so.

These are men who epitomize the pure and unselfish love of the Savior to me. I was so very impressed with the recent conference address of Elder Robert D. Hales on Christian courage. We do not retaliate. We do not give in to hatred. We see opportunity in the midst of opposition.

The Lord knows the hearts of our accusers and how we can most effectively respond to them. As true disciples seek guidance from the Spirit, they receive inspiration tailored to each encounter. And in every encounter, true disciples respond in ways that invite the Spirit of the Lord.

Summary and conclusion

I know some who read this will disagree with what I have written. You may feel strongly that I am denying what you see as black and white. As one visitor wrote on a previous essay, “I don’t care what you call it. To me it is hate when you try to take away my rights. That’s bigotry.”

Try to see the bigger picture. We are a society of millions of people who see homosexuality and same-sex marriage in varying degrees of acceptance. Isn’t it wonderful that we live in a society in which we agree to be governed by laws and by a constitution that we have all voted on?

I honor and sustain the First Presidency as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. I appreciate their courage in speaking out on this issue. I am so amazed at the results from one single letter. Their example in restraint is amazing when they are called evil for encouraging that which is good.

—————————

Note: For the story on the picture, visit Messenger and Advocate

California Prop 8 goes church-wide

Posted on by

Tonight all California Mormons have been invited to their Stake Centers to view a satellite broadcast from Salt Lake City on the subject of Proposition 8. Elders M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook of the Twelve and Elder L. Whitney Clayton of the Seventy will address the doctrine of marriage and why the church is involved in the Protect Marriage Coalition.

However, the big news is that the Church is organizing and making arrangements for California student citizens at Institutes of Religion throughout the United States to assist with phone calls back to California voters. Although it does not appear that non-California citizens are being enlisted, it would seem logical that willing out-of-state members could be allowed to participate.

Yes on 8 ahead in the polls

For the first time since the polls began, likely voters in favor of proposition 8 have pulled ahead by about five points. This is reflected on both official websites for and against the proposition. The CBS/Survey USA released 6 Oct showed that Yes on 8 is leading by a margin of 47% Yes to 42% No. The 7 Oct Lake Research Partners poll shows Yes on 8 leading 47% Yes to 43% No.

Another amazing fact is that fund raising by Yes on 8 has exceeded the No on 8 by $10 million. Supporters of the initiative have raised $25.4 million, while opponents have raised $15.8 million. The number of contributors to the Yes on 8 campaign numbers over 61,000, the majority with small donations under $1,000. Some have estimated that LDS Members have contributed 43%.

New ads are effective

Although they have been dismissed by the opposition as being erroneous, absurd and full of lies, the new ads seem to be having an effect. Rather than embed them, which can be annoying (the embed, not the ads), I will just provide links here in case you haven’t seen them. This is what the financial contributions have been buying – short, to the point and hitting at the gut level.

Ad #1 – It’s already happened
Ad #2 – 4 Men in Black
Ad #3 – Whether you like it or not
Ad #4 – Finally the truth
Ad #5 – Everything to do with schools

Video – Robb and Robin’s story
Video – Why California needs Proposition 8

Summary and conclusion

Since the church asked us to give of our time and means to the coalition I have written a dozen articles on this subject, You can find them on my sidebar under “Essays on Marriage.” This has been an interesting journey for me. I recently changed my position about same-sex attraction. I used to believe that it was 100% choice. I now believe that some may indeed be born with it.

However, that doesn’t change my belief that homosexual behavior is a sin nor my position on same-sex marriage. Even if the Yes on 8 ads are misleading or overstating suppositions as facts, as the opposition claims, I am still convinced that we need to be involved in protecting traditional marriage. Prophets have asked us to take a stand and I am convinced they know a lot more about this than I do.

Update

The broadcast was well attended in our stake. The chapel was full, almost to overflowing. Besides great explanations of why we are involved in promoting proposition 8, they introduced a new website, PreservingMarriage.org. Elder Ballard was especially focused on helping our young people understand the need to get involved and to have the materials they would need.

Both of the videos on the new website were shown in the broadcast. They are excellent. I especially liked Elder Bednar’s discussions with the college age kids. They asked some great questions about how to answer their friends who may perceive our efforts as intolerant. I think this is the biggest complaint we get. I have written about that previously in this essay.

——————————————

YouTube links: Proposition 8 Questions and Answers:

1. Will same sex marriages hurt others?
2. Sick and tired of intolerance?
3. Are others supporting Prop 8?
4. Will courts overturn it again?
5. Didn’t we already vote on this?
6. Don’t others deserve the same happiness?
7. Will existing rights disappear?

Excommunication is just not worth it

Posted on by

I can’t think of anything that would be worth jeopardizing my standing in the LDS church, which I consider to be the kingdom of God on the earth. I value my membership too much. It means the world to me and provides me with benefits and blessings that I can receive in no other way. I don’t care how much I disagree with someone about some course of action, I would not risk it.

But then, I’m not Andrew Callahan. In case you aren’t aware of Flatlander’s actions, he is the man behind the anti-proposition 8 website, Signing for Something. I know that this is probably a waste of space and that I am just giving undue attention to Andrew, but I want to make a point. Apostasy is just never a good idea, no matter how passionately you feel about your cause.

I suspect it is too late for Andrew to change his course. He has made it abundantly clear that he wants to get excommunicated and he wants his case to draw public attention. Besides having the website created, he has made a couple of YouTube videos that explain his position and leave the church no choice really other than to grant him his desire. Does he realize what he is giving up?

Joining the ranks of the apostates

I know I am opening myself up to rude comments from the ex-Mormons and others who feel that Andrew is courageous for opposing the church on this issue. But I feel the desire to speak out on this as being something that is not worth giving up your membership in the church. Although I can’t verify his claim, like Andrew, I have served in Bishoprics and on a High Council.

If Andrew served for any length of time on the High Council, he would have been a participant in a disciplinary council where a former priesthood holder desired to re-obtain his membership in the church. I wish every member of the church could witness such a proceeding. Then again, I wish that disciplinary councils where church membership is removed never had to be held.

Maybe Andrew never witnessed such an event. If he had, he surely would not be pursuing the course of action that he has been involved in for the past few months. It would help if he could hear the brother who desires to return explain how he was deceived and how miserable he felt for kicking against the pricks, telling of the loss of so many blessings because of stubborn behavior.

Evidence of deception

In Andrew’s letter to a General Authority he stated that, “…in the not too distant future gay marriage will be the law of the land, and that sometime after that, the Church will offer the hand of full fellowship to practicing homosexuals.” I can’t believe that a man who has served in local leadership positions in the church could ever make such a statement about homosexual activity.

I’m sorry Andrew, but you just don’t get it. For someone to be a practicing homosexual means that what they are doing is contrary to the law of chastity. I know this is obvious but to make such a statement as you have is just plain ludicrous. The church will never change the law of chastity. There is no way that a practicing homosexual can be a member in full fellowship.

If you believe that will ever happen then you are very deceived in your thinking. What evidence can you provide that the church has ever indicated that the law of chastity will no longer be a requirement? Wait…are you using the argument that once gay marriage is legal then there is no breaking of the law of chastity involved because they are married? Surely you don’t believe that.

Laws of the land – laws of the Lord

Andrew makes the point that many have brought up in discussing this issue. He states that the church was wrong in denying the priesthood to blacks for so long and defines it as bigotry. He then claims that opposing marriage for homosexuals falls into the same category. I disagree. I still do not yet fully understand why we denied the priesthood to blacks but this issue is different.

The laws of the land have nothing to do with the laws of the Lord. I have written extensively about legislating morality and the importance of government but I can’t believe that the church is ever going to budge in any way toward the direction that Andrew is suggesting. The laws of the Lord do not change based on the way a few judges decide to overrule the voice of the people.

I realize that in the early days of the church there were apostles who gave up their membership because they felt so strongly about not giving up plural marriage. Some have reasoned that this issue is going to be similar to that. They claim that the church is going to come under pressure to change because we teach that homosexual relations are contrary to the law of the Lord.

The law of chastity is eternal

There are some who have struggled with the idea of plural marriage and the law of chastity being compatible. The Lord explained it clearly in section 132, specifically in verse 61. I know some do not accept it, but I have no problem with the idea of plural marriage being a holy and pure institution when it is authorized and commanded of God. But this essay is not about that subject.

My point is that the law of chastity is eternal. It will not change. It cannot change and the Lord cannot change it or he would cease to be God. The church will never change the law of chastity. This law states that sexual relations are only authorized between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. Civil marriage recognizing same-sex partners is not the same.

So just to state the obvious, those participating in same-sex marriage cannot be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Obeying the law of chastity is a requirement for membership in this church. Same-sex marriage does not qualify as marriage in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, he specifically commands that homosexual relations are a sin and an abomination.

Fighting against the Lord

Those who are opposed to gay marriage are called bigots, intolerant and many worse things. You can call us all kinds of names but in effect, you are fighting against the Lord and His ways. Marriage is between a man and a woman in the eyes of God and cannot be defined in any other way. It never has been and it never will be. Any other arrangement is simply not a marriage.

This essay addresses those who are in support of Andrew’s activities in opposing the position of the church in support of proposition 8. You may argue that this is a political issue and that the church has no right to be involved in politics, but I am going to turn the tables and use one of your favorite phrases. This is a moral issue and you know deep down in your heart that it is.

If you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are in favor of gay marriage then you are opposed to the work of the Lord. You are fighting against the Lord and his plan for the happiness of his children. The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to produce children and to provide them with a stable and secure environment in this world.

Summary and conclusion

This is a volatile issue. Emotions run high when people write about this subject. You may feel that I am totally wrong in the things I have written and I expect many of you will tell me so. It happens every time I write about it. I appreciate those who write with intelligent arguments and points of view. It is unfortunate that essays on this subject bring out the emotionally immature.

You are welcome to comment and disagree. I respect your opinion. I trust you will expect mine and refrain from personal attacks. I think what I have stated is in line with the teachings of the LDS Church. In particular, I doubt that I have gone out on a limb by stating that those who are part of a same-sex marriage can never be members of this church, unless they fully repent.

So is it worth it to be excommunicated over the issue? I guess if you place no value on your membership than you may think so. If you do not believe in the divinity of this church or in the inspiration of the leaders then you will probably have no problem. But if you have any thought that just maybe there might be some truth in this church, then please, please be very careful.

Tolerance does not mean condone

Posted on by

Last week The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posted a position paper in the online Newsroom entitled, “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” In the section on Tolerance an attempt is made to define the word and contrast it with the way the world uses it today – to condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship.

Tolerance does not mean condone. As a gospel principle, tolerance means love and forgiveness of one another, not tolerating transgression. Just because someone practices tolerance does not imply that they accept sinful behavior. Acceptance of an individual does not necessarily mean that we approve of their behavior. We do not accept sin.

The definition of tolerance has changed over the years by those who use it in their efforts to change attitudes and prohibit practices that they define as discrimination. It has come to mean acceptance of sexual practices and orientations that are contrary to fundamental beliefs of society. We can be a tolerant people and yet not accept certain behavior.

Prophets have helped define tolerance

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained, “Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”

Elder Russell M. Nelson taught, “…there is a difference between tolerance and tolerate. Your gracious tolerance for an individual does not grant him or her license to do wrong, nor does your tolerance obligate you to tolerate his or her misdeed. That distinction is fundamental to an understanding of this vital virtue.” We do not tolerate wrongdoing.

“An erroneous assumption could be made that if a little of something is good, a lot must be better. Not so! Overdoses of needed medication can be toxic. Boundless mercy could oppose justice. So tolerance, without limit, could lead to spineless permissiveness. The Lord drew boundary lines to define acceptable limits of tolerance.” He made the rules.

Certain behavior is prohibited as sin

Many who advocate tolerance also declare that there is no sin. We as a church believe and teach otherwise. We disagree and speak out against both homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage on moral grounds. We also do not believe that it can be considered “hate speech” to make our position known. We are simply teaching God’s laws.

We have a right to identify and clearly teach what God has defined as sin. God has made it clear that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. We teach that marriage is ordained of God, that it is sacred, with the purpose being to bring children into the world. What God has ordained in marriage, man does not have the right to redefine or change.

We do not condemn those who feel the pull of same-sex attraction. We do not know why some struggle with this temptation. But we do teach that it is just that – a temptation. The Lord clearly identifies adultery and fornication as sin, so too is homosexual behavior. The inclination or temptation itself it not sin. It is only the behavior that becomes sin.

God judges behavior and so do we

In addition to being accused of intolerance and discrimination, we are often accused of judging, as if it is something wrong. God is the judge of all human behavior and has made it clear that he will not accept certain kinds of behavior in his kingdom. We follow his example and make judgments on behavior. There is nothing wrong with doing this.

We all must judge for ourselves what is good and what is evil. In fact, God commanded it. In John 7:24 he told us to judge righteous judgment. Nowhere in scripture does it say, “Thou shalt not judge.” The Joseph Smith translation of Matthew 7:1 reads, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.” What a difference.

“I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ…But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil…” (Moroni 7:16-17)

Opposition to same-sex marriage

The opposition of our church to same-sex marriage is not hostility toward homosexual men and women. Our objective is to protect the definition of marriage as only being between a man and a woman. We do not condone any kind of hostility towards those who identify themselves as homosexual. We love them as sons and daughters of God.

We feel that the recent court decisions in Massachusetts and California to allow same-sex marriage constitutes a serious threat to marriage and the family. Such a trend weakens the institution of marriage and will result in negative consequences for both adults and children. Traditional marriage is essential to society and especially to our children.

It is within the family that traditional moral values are propagated and protected. There is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. The people in California voted on this issue just eight years ago. Over 61% of the voters decided that marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman. This is a great moral issue.

Summary and conclusion

The statements in this essay were either taken from the position paper of the church or are derived from teachings of modern day apostles and prophets. We contend that this is a moral issue, which is why the church has taken a position and had asked the membership to become involved in advocating that position. I agree with the position of the church.

We do not accept the definition that some use for the word tolerance to mean approval or acceptance of behavior. We love and accept all individuals as children of God, regardless of their actions, but we do not condone certain kinds of behavior that God has defined as sin. Our opposition to same-sex marriage should not be construed as discrimination.

Despite my authoritative tone in this essay, please remember that I do not speak for the church, but have attempted here to restate the position of the church on this issue as I understand it. This is simply an attempt to use my best efforts to support the coalition of churches and other organizations to preserve and protect traditional marriage – Yes on 8.

Why the church is involved in Prop 8

Posted on by

In the priesthood session of the October 1999 General Conference, President Hinckley answered the question, “Why does the Church become involved in issues that come before the legislature and the electorate?” I was amazed as I re-read his answer this morning how appropriately it fits again as we approach another vote on this same issue here in California in 2008.

“…we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society.

We are not alone in this effort

“Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues.

“Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution.

Marriage is ordained of God

“God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God. Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality.

“Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

We do not hate gays

“Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group.

“As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.

Give of our time and means

“I commend those of our membership who have voluntarily joined with other like-minded people to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. As part of a coalition that embraces those of other faiths, you are giving substantially of your means. The money being raised in California has been donated to the coalition by individual members of the Church.

“You are contributing your time and talents in a cause that in some quarters may not be politically correct but which nevertheless lies at the heart of the Lord’s eternal plan for His children, just as those of many other churches are doing. This is a united effort…I have tried to explain why we do some of the things that we do. I hope I have been helpful.”

Source: Why we do some of the things we do, Ensign Nov 1999

Additional Information:
LDS Newsroom: California and same-sex marriage
Volunteer or donate: ProtectMarriage.com
Defending and preserving traditional marriage

Can we legislate morality?

Posted on by

In between family reunions last Saturday and this Saturday, Carol and I visited several of our favorite bookstores in Utah. I know. What a crazy thing to do on a vacation. We also go to the main Church Distribution Center since the California stores are small. In the past, I have liked to visit Sam Weller’s Zion Bookstore. A new one for us this year is the Deseret Book Outlet store in South Jordan.

Although we already have a huge library and keep lamenting that it seems to grow larger by itself, Carol picked up a few bargains there. Most books are overstocks available at one third the price. I resisted everything I saw until this one caught my eye: The Sex Industrial Complex, America’s Secret Combination – Pornographic Culture, Addiction and the Human Brain. What a title!

As usual, I read the back cover of the dust jacket and saw an endorsement from Marie Osmond. That caused me to open it and read the inside front of the cover where I saw something else that caught my eye – the Lighted Candle Society. Where had I seen that before? Oh yes, it was one of those organizations I listed in the additional resources in my previous post on porn addiction.

The Survival of the Republic

A scan through the book looked like it would be interesting reading but what got me to buy it was the last chapter. I confess that I read it first. It is entitled, “The Survival of the Republic.” There are some amazing quotes there that resonated with me as I read them, especially in light of my recent post about the founding fathers and a long dialog with Crusty about freedom.

Benjamin Franklin said at the conclusion of the Constitutional convention in 1789, “This Republic, which we have given you with this constitution, will end in despotism, as other forms of government have done before it, when the people become so corrupt that they are incapable of any other form of government.” Was he speaking with a foreknowledge of coming events?

John Locke, the English philosopher said, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law.” We need laws to be governed and to live in peace.

Successful government and moral values

George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these finest props of the duties of men and citizens.” Moral values are required for a Republic to endure.

Referring to the Constitution, James Madison said, “We base this whole experiment on man’s ability to be governed by law.” Our Republic can only continue as envisioned by the founding fathers as long as we as a people believe in the rule of law. It takes personal conviction in the value of law and willingness to submit to it that allows a people to be governed and yet free.

Can we legislate morality? Yes, we can and we have and it is a good thing. Morality is about right and wrong, and that’s what laws put into legal form. The only question is whose morality should be legislated? Thomas Jefferson answered that when he wrote, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Standards of morality come from God

Our Declaration of Independence gives us the direction we should look for defining standards of morality and conduct in our Republic in order for all citizens to be free. The source for morality and therefore the source for our laws is God. Our founding fathers understood this and gave us a platform for defining our laws – the word of God. Yes, we were founded as a Christian nation.

John L. Harmer, the author writes, “Today, our nation is under an attack by a combination of forces that if they prevail, will effectively destroy the basis upon which this nation’s freedom and liberty were conceived and founded. The entire fabric of our government is based upon the commitment of the American people to standards of dignity, integrity and virtue.”

“We believe very strongly that the greatest threat to our political freedom is the loss of moral values. To put it in a positive sense, the most vital factor in the preservation of our freedom and liberty is the individual citizen’s respect for moral values and their commitment to them.” As moral and ethical virtues erode in our people, hedonism will replace government and freedom.

Summary and conclusion

Although the book is about fighting against pornography, I found the insights into the connection between freedom, government and morality to be most enlightening. I have seen examples of this loss of freedom in many individuals. Because they do not adhere to moral standards that have been well established by God and his prophets, they find it very difficult to be governed.

As more and more members of our society refuse to accept and live by moral standards, the effect is a rejection of a government that is based on those standards. Not content to live above the law, they advocate changing the law or abolishing the law to suit their rejection of morality. The day will come when they will attempt to create laws proclaiming that morality is punishable.

There is a battle being fought in California today in the form of an amendment to the state constitution that demonstrates how this rejection of morality is a rejection of government. Our nation has a history of laws that are based on morality as defined by God and his prophets. A rejection of this amendment is a rejection of God and his right to set the standards of morality.

Additional Information

Four Simple Things to Help our Families and our Nations, Gordon B. Hinckley

Religious Values and Public Policy, Dallin H. Oaks

Personal Morality, David B. Haight

Let our Voices be Heard, M. Russell Ballard

Defending and preserving traditional marriage

Posted on by

Yesterday, in some wards in our stake here in California, a letter from the First Presidency was read. In the letter, it was requested that we do all that we can to support the proposed constitutional amendment on preserving traditional marriage here in California. In particular, we were asked to donate of our means and time to assure the passage of the ballot measure.

My wife reports that the letter was read in our home ward, while the bishop of the ward in which I serve had not yet received it. I have read reports that the letter was read in other states beside California, along with commentary that members in those states should support the efforts here. As far as I can determine, nobody got up and walked out in protest like some had suggested.

This invitation is to members of the church to become active in what some describe as a political issue. The church has made it clear over the years that this is a moral issue. That is why back in 2000 we were asked to place signs on our lawns in support of proposition 22. Carol and I walked the precincts with many others in our stake to distribute information to our neighbors.

A moral and a social issue

When the First Presidency of the church asks the members to do something, it deserves careful attention. Why is the legal definition of marriage in the State of California a moral issue? Those who are against it argue that it would not change our society at all. As a church, we disagree. We believe that marriage is ordained of God. No society has ever tried to redefine it until now.

There is great material available on the subject that explains why this is both a moral issue and a social issue deserving the participation of the church. It can best be found in the Amicus brief that the Church filed with the State of California awhile back. If you open the PDF of the link in the previous sentence, skip down to page 27 for the beginning of the argument.

I believe that we owe it to our testimonies and our faith in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to consider carefully what the prophet of the Lord is asking us to do and to respond accordingly. I know there are many members of the church who have family members or friends who identify themselves as gay. This issue is not about that. It is about preserving traditional marriage.

The position of the Church

From the brief: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination with approximately 800,000 members in California. Marriage and the family are central to the Church’s doctrine and beliefs. The Church teaches that marriage between man and woman is ordained of God and that the traditional family is the foundation of society.”

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” Source – The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

“The Church believes that marriage and family supply the crucial relationships through which parents and children learn to live basic moral norms and acquire public and private virtue. The Church opposes changing the traditional male-female definition of marriage because of the harm such a change will cause to marriage and the family.”

The argument of the church

[The church has] “a powerful interest in the institution of marriage. We are deeply concerned about the happiness and welfare of our members, especially our member children. Through millions of hours of counseling and ministry, we have seen at close range the enormous benefits that traditional male-female marriage imparts. We have also witnessed the substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements.”

“Since no same-sex marriage can produce children from both spouses, the close cultural linkage between the institution of marriage and the begetting and raising of children will be weakened. Whatever the choices of individual couples, children will no longer be central to the social meaning and purpose of marriage. What plaintiffs advocate is in fact an enormous change in California’s most important social institution.”

“California’s definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is entitled to profound judicial respect. Even in jurisdictions around the world known for being highly solicitous of gays and lesbians, the democratic judgment of nearly all such jurisdictions remains that marriage should be reserved exclusively to male-female couples, with the legitimate needs of homosexuals being addressed through other protections and institutions. Judicial deference to the people’s democratic judgment on this issue is appropriate.”

Summary and conclusion

In other words, we do not believe it is appropriate that the judges have overturned the vote of the people of the State of California in 2000 in which 61% of the voters upheld traditional marriage. The opponents of traditional marriage are wondering if the people will turn out in the same numbers to support this amendment. We expressed our voice then. We can do it again.

This proposed constitutional amendment deserves our support as a church and as a people. I am impressed that the First Presidency has been consistent over the years on our position in this matter. Carol and I fully support the Prophet in this moral issue and pledge to do our part in contributing our time and means to advocate the passage of the proposed amendment.

Some have accused members of the LDS Church of being brainwashed in a culture of obedience. Nothing could be further from the truth. We use common sense, good judgment and the intellectual capacity with which God has blessed us to determine for ourselves that the prophets are right on this issue. We stand with the Lord and the prophet in defining traditional marriage.

For more information:

1. ProtectMarriage.com
2. Alliance Defense Fund
3. Family Leader network
4. Campaign for Children and Families
5. Family Research Council
6. Alliance for Marriage
7. Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
8. World Congress of Families