A friend of mine and I were debating on the issue of same sex marriage the other day, and my friend made an appeal to the authority of LDS Apostle Dallin Oakes' recent conference address. I like Elder Oakes. I've always thought he was a pretty cool church leader, but I found his conference address to be just a little on the hypocritical side.
Oakes talked about "irrevocable laws" decreed in heaven, and how such laws are the predicates upon which blessings are obtained. His context was the love of parents toward their children, and acceptance (or non-acceptance) of behavior the church considers "incorrect." Okay, so far so good, but...
Lets take a look at three central tenets of LDS doctrine:
1. It is Satan's plan to require complete obedience and Jesus' plan to allow free agency.
2. God will not give different revelation to different people; all teachings of church leaders are subject to verification by "personal" revelation.
3. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights was divinely inspired, and served as part of the preparation for the "restoration" of the gospel.
The church's position on same sex marriage is to persecute gays and lesbians into the LDS version of "righteousness" by denying them the same rights and privileges available to opposite gender couples. To invoke the regulatory and police powers of government to impose LDS morality on those who believe differently than they do is closer to Satan's plan that Jesus's.
The church's position on same sex marriage is a very divisive issue, even among many devout Latter-day Saints. Many have left the church because of it, and many have questioned the church involvement in a political affair. I find it difficult to believe that all of the dissenters are so unrighteous that they aren't "feeling the holy spirit." Or should we conclude that the Lord is giving different revelation to different people? Or is it more likely that the LDS leaders have deluded themselves into thinking that their entrenched prejudices are "revelation?" It was not homosexuality that condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, but the mob's insistence in having its way with Lot's visitor. And I still question how "righteous" Lot was when he was pimping his daughters to the mob to protect an angel that could obviously take care of himself. Absent a confirming revelation, how can we know this is the revealed will of the Lord and not the preachings of bigots?
Finally, there is the question of the divinely inspired Constitution, with the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the First Amendment. You know, the one that reads, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof." Yet the church is using its muscle to impose a clearly Judeo-Christian ethic on those who believe differently by restricting rights under color of law. This is especially puzzling to me since the LDS Church couldn't exist without this protection; and they have, themselves been victims of having the morality of others imposed on them from without. Polygamy is okay? Homosexuality is not? And what about the LDS Eighth Article of Faith, "We claim the privilege of worshiping the almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all me the same privilege?"
Elder Oakes, who was once a Utah Supreme Court Justice, and was considered for the US Supreme Court, and presumably understands the First Amendment, invokes this bit of LDS scripture in his address:
Elder Oakes, by your own words, and by the scriptures you hold dear, you, and your church, "must remain filthy still." Oh, and you can consider this posting to be consistent with Elder Ballard's comment, “real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation—not acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior,” which you also quoted in your talk.
Oakes talked about "irrevocable laws" decreed in heaven, and how such laws are the predicates upon which blessings are obtained. His context was the love of parents toward their children, and acceptance (or non-acceptance) of behavior the church considers "incorrect." Okay, so far so good, but...
Lets take a look at three central tenets of LDS doctrine:
1. It is Satan's plan to require complete obedience and Jesus' plan to allow free agency.
2. God will not give different revelation to different people; all teachings of church leaders are subject to verification by "personal" revelation.
3. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights was divinely inspired, and served as part of the preparation for the "restoration" of the gospel.
The church's position on same sex marriage is to persecute gays and lesbians into the LDS version of "righteousness" by denying them the same rights and privileges available to opposite gender couples. To invoke the regulatory and police powers of government to impose LDS morality on those who believe differently than they do is closer to Satan's plan that Jesus's.
The church's position on same sex marriage is a very divisive issue, even among many devout Latter-day Saints. Many have left the church because of it, and many have questioned the church involvement in a political affair. I find it difficult to believe that all of the dissenters are so unrighteous that they aren't "feeling the holy spirit." Or should we conclude that the Lord is giving different revelation to different people? Or is it more likely that the LDS leaders have deluded themselves into thinking that their entrenched prejudices are "revelation?" It was not homosexuality that condemned Sodom and Gomorrah, but the mob's insistence in having its way with Lot's visitor. And I still question how "righteous" Lot was when he was pimping his daughters to the mob to protect an angel that could obviously take care of himself. Absent a confirming revelation, how can we know this is the revealed will of the Lord and not the preachings of bigots?
Finally, there is the question of the divinely inspired Constitution, with the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the First Amendment. You know, the one that reads, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof." Yet the church is using its muscle to impose a clearly Judeo-Christian ethic on those who believe differently by restricting rights under color of law. This is especially puzzling to me since the LDS Church couldn't exist without this protection; and they have, themselves been victims of having the morality of others imposed on them from without. Polygamy is okay? Homosexuality is not? And what about the LDS Eighth Article of Faith, "We claim the privilege of worshiping the almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all me the same privilege?"
Elder Oakes, who was once a Utah Supreme Court Justice, and was considered for the US Supreme Court, and presumably understands the First Amendment, invokes this bit of LDS scripture in his address:
The Lord declared: “That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still” (LDS D&C 88:35).
Elder Oakes, by your own words, and by the scriptures you hold dear, you, and your church, "must remain filthy still." Oh, and you can consider this posting to be consistent with Elder Ballard's comment, “real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontation—not acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior,” which you also quoted in your talk.
Comments