Hi, it's Jake. You may not know me, but some of you have been claiming so in very recent weeks. You see, I am a Mormon - an ardent follower of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
No, seriously, all play aside, my common associates and I have been getting a pretty hard rap from some folk (more so than usual). I understand why, or at least...I think I understand why. Better yet, I really try to understand why. Do I know the feelings of being told the love I hold for another human being is not respected by my government as is the love of another couple? I'm no fool. I know I can't claim it, nor would I want to give you the disservice of doing so.
However, let me launch into the initial purpose of this post. I hope to stay on task. I invite all to be gentle, as this is my goal as well. Let me ask, do you know the feeling of what I committed to in my sacraments processed within the LDS Church?
As so much emotion passes between groups and individuals, here is why I believe the hierarchy of our church encouraged individual church members to act as they did and why some members of my church may have responded to their askance.
Members of the church I belong to (I'll refrain from using the common slang Mormon and use Saints or fellow Saints in referring to them - I will not recognize the slang term in this discussion). When we covenant to be followers of Christ, we worship our Heavenly Father as both a kind and loving God but also a being who understands and follows the laws of the Universe as He understands them. Considering the common belief that God understands everything, we may share an understanding as to why anyone would want to follow heavenly advice. He knows everything, right? If we believe he wants us to end up in heaven, then it may pay to ask for and follow such concepts.
For Saints, the idea of coming in line with both God's doctrine and covenants goes deep ... very deep. We actually believe God has a plan of happiness for all of his children, you and me, her and him. We want to follow this plan like directions to any desired destination. In this plan, we believe the classic nuclear family is central to his purposes of rearing children in righteousness and making the world a better place. In fact, we hope and believe that our families can be perpetuated beyond the grave, or, as we even sing in a children's song, that families can be together forever. Mothers and fathers continuing in such familial roles for eternity, like Him. This can be reached if we are willing to operate under the same laws which God goes by. We often rudimentarily call these laws commandments.
I won't attempt to smooth coat such laws as of now. The temptation for proper p.r. urges me to do so, but, rather, I whole heartedly admit that living the commandments can be viewed as difficult, demanding or restricting. I do not feel they are restricting, just as I don't feel the laws of science are restricting. Rather, I feel that by understanding the laws God gives through his spokesperson, I can more readily conduct my daily affairs. Gravity is not a restriction to me. It is something I strive to understand, work within its consequences or use as a tool towards enjoyment.
Saints supporting the campaign of Proposition 8 did so of their own free will, what e'er you may claim of the LDS Church's administrative system. You may say they blindly obeyed (oh, how the suggestion of such insults the intelligence I've been blessed with). You may do so. But they were merely holding with their well-thought out commitment to support and build up the Kingdom of God, as we see it.
So, in keeping with following the counsel of our Church leaders, we actively believe we are following the counsel of our Heavenly Father. He ultimately and intimately understands the roads we all travel on, through and around. Why not trust His driving directions? He does this in much the same way your parents told you not to stick your finger in the electricity outlet.
In striving to follow the guidance of our Father in Heaven, you may say the Saints active campaign for Proposition 8 took away someone else's rights. And I see where you're coming from. Rights on both sides of the aisle were at stake. Supporters of the proposition were trying to protect a right they thought they possessed from a previously population majority backed law from eight years ago. That law was very recently repealed by a very small number of judges who overruled that law as unconstitutional. Prop 8'ers vigorously went about to support a (thus far ruled) constitutionally enabled change to the constitution. There are currently those who support the notion that the protesting, ridicule and abasement my church and some members are receiving is fair 'up-and-comin's' for what we peacefully did. I read one blogger's remark about how saying 'pretty please' never got any movement anywhere and so the few radically acting individuals (I believe it is a minority) against this legislation are justified in their actions. Saying pretty please seemed to work OK for us. You may also try it.
When it comes down to it, there are really two major points as to my approval of a policy that myself and 94 percent of Latter-day Saints are geographically ineligible to even vote for. I make these statements knowing it could alienate myself from good friends.
The first is, as previously explained, we promise to follow the counsel of a prophet we know receives the word of God from God himself, not only previously recorded messages saved for our time. He makes a connection with him the likes of which is not matched since the days of Moses, Peter and Joseph Smith. My good friends, I want you to know I take no partiality about my religious beliefs. I am far from perfect. Who isn't? But I do believe my Church is true. I force no one into doing what I do or believing what I do. I'm glad I'm incapable of doing that. And though there appears conflict in that and denying marriage terms to kind homosexual couples, I believe Thomas Monson's (The LDS Church President) designated teachings, when he claims it so, are the mind and will of God. And so, I accept it as the morally right thing to do.
Seems pretty backwards unless you have a grounded trust in the heavenly calling of the Church's leader. He's human and is not authoritatively representing the Lord of the world with every breath; just as a hospital CEO is not running his organization when he is with his family. We, not the Saints but you and I, can hardly blame a people for doing to the best of their knowledge what they believe is their Makers, and should He choose it, their Destroyer's, belief is best for all humanity, His children.
And at the best of humanity is our families. Governments have come and gone; many are likely to follow suit. But, so long as there is a son and a mother, a daughter and a father, there is guaranteed to be the ingredients of a family on the earth. One of the church's leaders, Jeffery Holland, teaches, "Of all the titles He has chosen for Himself, Father is the one that He declares, and creation is His watchword. Especially human creation, creation in His image." And so it is that I believe every child deserves to be raised in a family following the commandments of our Maker as closely as can be arranged. This includes a kind mother and father whose roles are neither confused or substituted for nontraditional options.
Which brings me to my final point and then I shall recall my fingertips. The family is also central to the goals of God in bringing about our mortal living and eternal joy. What child does not ask the attention of their parent in times of need, of which there are many? Our God, my god and your god, has given us advice through His church leaders on how we may follow a path in regards to our families that leads to eternal joy and thanksgiving. The church long ago issued a statement on God's concern for the entire worlds families. We call it A Proclamation to the World and it is available in the link provided. Those words say much of what I hope to embody in my (yet) future family. Yup - single boy pinch hitting for the family's team here.
I guess, to answer the question as to why I, a politically involved and religiously dedicated 'Mormon,' am bothering to offer a potential explanation of Church members' actions, is that I understand and appreciate that my personal beliefs are deeply rooted in the foundation of my faith. That foundation is built upon what I feel is the Church of Christ. There is no other name by which it should be called because it is His church.
I want to protect marriage as God sees it and I see it. My homosexual friends and acquaintances may not agree with me. I respect their right of non-concurrence. But I will endeavor to explain my views in a manner so that like believing individuals may think, "Now that is why I act." I ask you to try to see it as I see it: The great task I am in charge of, and as I am under my word to follow the Prophet.
Until more, here is my belief.
5 comments:
Bah.
I have so many issues with what you have said... So many. But I think most of my Mormon (I will use the term, because I am no longer a "fellow Saint" nor do I think LDS church members are saints... :D) friends are sick of me expressing those views. So I guess my offer is: I'll bite. I'll have this discussion/debate/whatever with you. And I'll be civil and logical and nice.
But you're gonna have to invite me to do so. Because I'm sick of people starting these kind of discussions and then getting mad when an opposite view is expressed.
So were you just putting your view out there, or do you wanna talk about it?
As one of your friends who disagrees with you on this issue, I do appreciate you outlining your point of view. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with your point of view on this issue but I respect your ability to reach that opinion and appreciate the opportunity to see how you make your decisions. However, I think you missed the point.
My major issue with the LDS church during the Proposition 8 campaign wasn’t their stance but their activism. The church and the government are two separate entities with separate purposes. You may believe that, for religious reasons, a family consists of a husband and wife. But when that definition bestows certain privileges, outside of the religious realm, upon some Americans but takes away those very same privileges from other Americans, it violates my beliefs as an American.
The LDS Church and its members, as well as many other interest groups, jumped from advocating for a certain belief structure within their church to pushing for political change in the public sector. If an entity, in this case the LDS Church, is going to play a role in the public sector, it needs to accept the consequences. In this case, those who disagree with its stance have made it public that they disagree. If the church wants to use its political muscle to express its opinion on a political matter, it can't call foul when the other side uses its political muscle to express its opinion as well.
I strongly believe that one can hold a certain private religious belief, in this case believing that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and hold a different public political belief, that if a man and a woman receive certain benefits from being married then two men or two women should enjoy the same benefits. This is because the church and the state are located in different spheres and serve different purposes. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints is charged with governing those who have joined that church and have chosen that belief. The government of the State of California or of the United States of America is charged with governing all who live within its boundaries, no matter their personal beliefs. I think that is an important distinction that people of all beliefs need to remember.
Mark,
It's my appreciation of our ability to approach even hard political and theoretical discussions in the manner we do that continues to affirm our friendship.
You're certainly right that any person or organization expressing a public opinion needs to expect the laws of action and reaction, for which common understanding I am whole heartedly appreciative of. I realize I didn't quite make that statement, although I hold to that. 'Be prepared for gravity if you plan on jumping.'
My only 'poke' back was in that there is a difference in how that political muscle is being used by those receiving adverse effects from the passage of proposition 8 and those people being outright targeted and abused (political effects, careers and others) because of expressing their constitutional vote. The church is made up of individuals, I highlighted. These individuals were not in fear of losing their jobs if they didn't follow ecclesiastical direction but are now because of an intolerant public!
Since you brought in political muscle and the term 'foul,' let us liken our discussion unto a game of basketball:
I see a HUGE difference in using cooperation to put a point on the score board compared to shouting, attacking and, yes - to use the term, 'fouling' the opposite team. Having played in a Mormon Church Basketball game or two, where fouls are not always called by the referee, I see no problem in the LDS church calling fouls as they see them not being called by others.
In regards to my missing the point, I feel I understand the point you are making very well. But, it was not the matter I wished to place on my blog. Should a group try to constitutionally voice its opinions and recruit persons to their way of thinking? I'll offer my own belief by the prewritten blog. But the issue I most desired to address is the one you touch upon in your final graph, in that it was (for those using my same thinking) next to impossible for us to exercise any political belief contrary to what our leaders, and thus we believe - God, without personally unsubstantiating the foundation of our religious beliefs at the same time. That's all I was trying to say.
I was trying to say it for those of you, you and my other good political friends in mind, who know I think well of equality in consideration of my unique beliefs. I also respect our miraculous way of life as Americans. I wanted to be able to say, "Hey, you probably already know how I would have voted on this. This is why."
I hope I accomplished that in some way or another. I really believe we had a small but important mandate de Dios. As such, it's hard for me to go against it even though I have friends who would be adversely affected by it, some you know and others you don't.
well said jake
Living in Utah and being an active member of the LDS church - I appreciate Jake's in-depth declaration of belief and echo it whole heartedly, recognizing that my belief is not shared by some of my family members whom I love and respect - and that my choice to live the LDS faith has caused complete strangers as well as close friends to accost me and vandalize my personal property.
I respect the right to opinion and the right to gather, collect, and form a force to vote and voice those opinions. I think it sad and deplorable that 'some' (not all) would curse, hate, and violate others and their property for doing the same which I allow them to freely do.
Post a Comment