Just and Holy Principles

Yesterday, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave what the Church is calling “a major address…on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

His speech to BYU-Idaho students is very interesting and important for every Latter-day Saint and every supporter of religious freedom to read. I urge you to read it. Elder Oaks reviews the historical and constitutional context of religious freedom, outlines current and potential threats to religious freedom (E.g., Proposition 8 backlash), and offers “five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.”

To help give you a flavor of what people are saying about the speech, I’ll post some links and a video below.

Elder Oaks: Religious Freedom
LDS Newsroom: Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened
Associated Press: Mormon leader: religious freedom at risk
KSL News: LDS apostle says religious freedom is under attack (video)
Fox 13 News: Mormon Leader: Religious Freedom At Risk (video)
Deseret News: Freedom of religion under increasing attack, LDS leader says
Salt Lake Tribune: LDS apostle under fire for civil-rights analogy

Here’s a video of Elder Oaks’s response to criticisms of his civil-rights analogy:
 

What do you think?

Related posts:

-Prop. 8 backlash: what would Jesus do?
-Let our voices be heard
-Romney, religion, and the presidency
-The Church on civil unions
-Gay agenda: not about rights

According to news reports, the next episode of HBO’s program “Big Love” will portray LDS temple clothing and ceremonies. This insensitive treatment of sacred practices will surely upset, and even infuriate, many Latter-day Saints. It should not.

This is not new. The aftermath of Proposition 8 is not new. Any person or group of people that stands firmly on eternal principles and divine doctrines in opposition to the world will be ridiculed, persecuted, and even murdered, as was Christ. But remember that we can choose how we respond to such treatment, and our response is likely a valid litmus test of our discipleship.

The mark of Christian courage
In the most recent General Conference, Elder Hales taught, appropriate to this occasion, that “Christian courage” is the “price of discipleship.” When accusations are made against true disciples who have Christian courage, they answer their accusers in the Savior’s way. Specifically, they

-”Love others in a tolerant and compassionate way”
-”Turn the other cheek and resist feelings of anger”
-”See opportunity in the midst of opposition”
-Are meek and “speak with quiet confidence, not boastful pride”
-Are concerned with “others’ welfare, not personal vindication”
-”Avoid being unduly judgmental of others’ views”
-Sometimes say nothing at all, which is strength, not weakness

They do not

-”Retaliate or give in to hatred”
-Feel they are better than their accusers. “Rather, we desire with our love to show them a better way—the way of Jesus Christ.”

Elder Hales said, “More regrettable than the Church being accused of not being Christian is when Church members react to such accusations in an un-Christlike way!” A Christ-like response will be unique in every situation and requires great “faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.”

In the case of “Big Love,” an official Church statement says that the Church “as an institution does not call for boycotts” but “individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose.” Most importantly, “Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.”

Act for yourself
The statement also says that rather than allow “critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought…the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.”

In short, the Church, and we as individuals, should choose to act rather than be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13-14). As Elder Bednar has said, “To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.” We can choose how we respond to any accusation or persecution that arises. We can choose to act rather than be acted upon.

What do you think?

Resources:
The Publicity Dilemma, Church Public Affairs, March 9, 2009
Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship, Robert D. Hales, 2008
The Truth of God Shall Go Forth, M. Russell Ballard, 2008
And Nothing Shall Offend Them, David A. Bednar, 2006

Do right and wrong exist? If they do, then what is right and what is wrong? And who decides which is which? Also, what role, if any, should right and wrong play in public policy?

Truth exists. There are two kinds–absolute truth and relative truth. Absolute truth is eternal and unchanging. No matter the time period, location, or opinion of men, absolute truths exist and do not change. For example, God either exists or He doesn’t, no matter what any person believes or says. His existence is independent of personal opinion.

Relative truth is the opinion of a man or woman at any given particular time. It is true to that person but not necessarily to anyone else. For example, I think Italian is the most beautiful language on earth. That is my opinion and therefore a truth relative to me.

A subset of truth is right and wrong, or morality. There are two kinds of morals–absolute morals and relative morals. Absolute morals are always right and wrong, no matter who you are, where you are, or when you live. Relative morals might be considered right or wrong to some people but not to others.

In America today, there are two general camps of moral beliefs–moral absolutism and moral relativism. The moral absolutists believe that some things, say, murder, pornography, homosexuality, gambling, and adultery, are always wrong, no matter who you are or where you live. The moral relativists believe that what is right and wrong depends on one’s opinion and individual circumstances. They might say, “who am I to decide whether or not a person should get drunk or be a prostitute? If they think it’s right for them, then it’s okay.”

This contrast between moral absolutists and moral relativists is becoming more acute as time goes on. Our nation is divided on moral issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and pornography. What role should right and wrong, or morality, play in public policy? Rather than bore you with my thoughts on the question, here are some interesting quotes from the Brethren:

Relativism involves the denial of the existence of absolute truths and, therefore, of an absolute truthgiver, God. Relativism has sometimes been a small, satanic sea breeze, but now the winds of relativism have reached gale proportions. Over a period of several decades relativism has eroded ethics, public and personal, has worn down the will of many, has contributed to a slackening sense of duty, civic and personal. The old mountains of individual morality have been worn down. This erosion has left mankind in a sand-dune society, in a desert of disbelief where there are no landmarks, and no north, no east, no west, and no south! There is only the dust of despair!

If all things are a matter of preference and nothing is a matter of principle, why not put Dracula in charge of the blood bank?
Neal A. Maxwell, “Some Thoughts on the Gospel and the Behavioral Sciences,” 1976

Some moral absolutes or convictions must be at the foundation of any system of law. This does not mean that all laws are so based. Many laws and administrative actions are simply a matter of wisdom or expediency. But many laws and administrative actions are based upon the moral standards of our society. If most of us believe that it is wrong to kill or steal or lie, our laws will include punishment for those acts. If most of us believe that it is right to care for the poor and needy, our laws will accomplish or facilitate those activities. Society continually legislates morality. The only question is whose morality and what legislation.
Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Values and Public Policy,” 1992

There seems to be developing a new civil religion. The civil religion I refer to is a secular religion. It has no moral absolutes. It is nondenominational. It is nontheistic. It is politically focused. It is antagonistic to religion. It rejects the historic religious traditions of America. It feels strange. If this trend continues, nonbelief will be more honored than belief. While all beliefs must be protected, are atheism, agnosticism, cynicism, and moral relativism to be more safeguarded and valued than Christianity, Judaism, and the tenets of Islam, which hold that there is a Supreme Being and that mortals are accountable to him? If so, this would, in my opinion, place America in great moral jeopardy.
James E. Faust, “A New Civil Religion,” 1992

Strong calls for diversity in the public sector sometimes have the effect of pressuring those holding majority opinions to abandon fundamental values to accommodate the diverse positions of those in the minority. Usually this does not substitute a minority value for a majority one. Rather, it seeks to achieve “diversity” by abandoning the official value position altogether, so that no one’s value will be contradicted by an official or semiofficial position. The result of this abandonment is not a diversity of values but an official anarchy of values. I believe this is an example of former Brigham Young University visiting professor Louis Pojman’s observation that diversity can be used as “a euphemism for moral relativism.”
Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” 2001

“Then say, what is truth? ‘Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o’er.
Though the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore.”
O Say, What is Truth?, verse 4

What do you think?

Backlash from the passage of California’s Proposition 8 has been widespread, aggressive, and, in some cases, deplorable. And it may be just the beginning. People have been protesting nationwide in front of government buildings and religious sites, and even inside churches.

How should one who supports traditional marriage react to all this? Here are a few questions and my answers. Let me know what you think.

1. Should I be worried about all these protests?
No, as long as they remain peaceful. Last Friday night, I was in downtown Salt Lake and stopped by to see the gay rights protest in front of the Church Office Building. I saw thousands of people chanting, yelling, waving signs and rainbow flags, and people in cars driving by honking their horns in support of the protest. My favorite sign was one that read, “Keep your doctrine out of my covenants.” Very creative. For the most part, the protesters were peaceful. They weren’t vandalizing property or harassing passersby, at least at that protest.

Same-sex marriage supporters have a right to protest, just as traditional marriage supporters, including the Church, had a right to speak out in support of Proposition 8. As long as they abide by the law, let them protest. Let them boycott Utah, businesses, and anything else they want to. Just hope they don’t cross the line of civility. As the Church has stated:

Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.”

Though activists have a right protest as they are doing now, I do think it’s unwise.

The gay rights movement has quietly, but in a very calculated manner, been advancing its agenda throughout the U.S. This sudden tantrum-like outburst may set it back. It may awaken the sleeping giant of the mostly heretofore silent majority of traditional marriage supporters. It may motivate them to coalesce and push back, maybe even hard enough to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Gay rights activists would be wise, for their own benefit, to return to their homes and focus on pushing their agenda through the courts and the media. This way, they can very gradually help change our legal structure and win over the hearts of the American people without us noticing or fearing their subtle progress (Hint: we shouldn’t let them do this).

2. Can the Church speak out on political issues like this?
Without a doubt, unequivocally, yes. At least for now. All non-profit organizations (501(c)(3)), including religious ones, have the right to speak out on any political issue provided that they don’t support any particular party or candidate. Given that the Church has maintained its tax-exempt status until now is pretty good evidence that its 501(c)(3) status is not in jeopardy.

3. How should I respond to the backlash?
With love, just as Christ would. We should stand firm and seek to preserve and encourage traditional marriage through legitimate democratic processes, but we should do it with respect, decency, and civility. When there are attacks on us, the Church, or other people or institutions we hold dear, we should “turn the other cheek” and press forward with faith and charity. “Charity suffereth long, and is kind, and…is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in inquity but rejoiceth in the truth…charity never faileth” (Moroni 7:45-47).

What do you think?

The Church just released a statement on Utah’s liquor laws. Both the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune are reporting that Gov. Huntsman’s office and others that back reforming Utah’s liquor laws find the Church’s statement to be supportive of reform. I’m not sure I agree.

To me, the Church’s statement says that liquor laws should limit the bad effects of alcohol consumption and that Utah’s current laws are doing a good job of that.

The statement says that “While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to avoid alcohol altogether, it acknowledges that alcoholic beverages are available to the public. The Church has always called for reasonable regulations to (1) limit overconsumption, (2) reduce impaired driving and (3) work to eliminate underage drinking. The Church will continue to focus on these public health and safety requirements.”

To me, this says that the Church’s general opinion on liquor laws is the same as it always has been. It seems that club laws and state regulation of liquor distribution could fall under this list of “reasonable regulations.” It goes on to highlight that “The positive consequences of Utah’s current regulations on alcohol consumption are readily apparent” by citing statistics that Utah has “the lowest percentage of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths in America” and “the lowest per-capita alcohol consumption.”

Sounds to me like the Church favors the current laws if the “positive consequences…are readily apparent.” Likely, most people are focusing on the part that says that the Church “believes that Utahns, including those who work in the hospitality industry, can come together as citizens, regardless of religion or politics, to support laws and regulations that allow individual freedom of choice while preserving Utah’s proven positive health and safety record on limiting the tragic consequences of overconsumption of alcohol.”

To me, this says that the Church is willing to take part in a dialogue about reforming the laws but that it wants to preserve the current laws that are “limiting the tragic consequences of overconsumption of alcohol.” It’s like they’re saying, “sure, we’re willing to talk about reform with you because we think public debate is great, but it’s clear that the current laws are doing what we want them to do.”

I could be wrong. It’s possible that I’m misinterpreting the Church’s statement. But it seems to me that Gov. Huntsman and other reform supporters are reading a little too far into this statement. Perhaps the laws can be reformed to allow more individual freedom of choice and still regulate alcohol in a way that protects people’s lives. It just seems to me that the Church is pretty satisfied with the laws on the books.

What do you think?

Read the Church’s statement

The Church’s recent letter on same-sex marriage in California has caused quite a stir. The typical gay rights supporters outside the Church oppose the Church’s position, but many latter-day saints have told me they don’t support the Church’s position and may even fight against it.

The conflict
These experiences raise an interesting, and very crucial, question: how should latter-day saints act when the Church’s policy positions conflict with their personal beliefs? This question is not a new one. Latter-day saints have posed it to themselves many times in the past.

For example, the Church supported laws prohibiting alcohol in the 1920’s and 30’s, but many latter-day saints opposed them. Utahns voted to ratify the 21st amendment in 1933 which repealed prohibition, despite Heber J. Grant’s plea to vote against it. During the 1970’s, the Brethren opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and though Utah did not ratify the amendment many latter-day saints still supported it.

For many years, the Brethren have supported federal and state marriage amendments that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and in 2007 Church leaders counseled Utah legislators to use a more compassionate approach with illegal immigrants. People have reacted to these positions in many different ways .

Typical reactions
I think there are at least five typical ways that latter-day saints react to official church statements on public issues.

1. Do nothing. People who do nothing are apathetic or ignorant or both. They might not care to think about government issues at all or might not care when the Church makes official statements on public issues. They might hear or read the statement and realize they need more information or understanding to act on it but don’t care enough to learn more.
2. Blindly obey. People who blindly obey are like marionettes attached to strings controlled by the prophet. They do whatever he says without even asking themselves why the Church might voice an opinion on the issue at hand.
3. Obey to understand. People who obey to understand choose to obey the prophet immediately whether they understand the reasoning behind the Church’s position or not. If they don’t understand or don’t agree with it, then they seek knowledge to understand as they obey.
4. Understand then obey. People who understand then obey choose not to act on an official statement until they understand the reasoning behind it. If they never understand or agree with it, then they choose not to obey.
5. Resist. People who resist may or may not understand the Church’s official position but don’t agree with it and choose to oppose it actively.

How do you react? Which reaction is best?

Is it official?
Many latter-day saints question whether the Church’s official statements are doctrine or just suggestions to follow. Even more people wonder what to do about counsel given in a conference talk or other speech that doesn’t explicitly present the Church’s official position but could seem to imply it. For example, the Church teaches us to incur as little debt as possible in our personal lives, and in 1993 Elder Maxwell said in a speech at BYU that through the national debt “we are robbing our children and grandchildren, however silently, of their economic freedom and future.” Does this mean it’s wrong for governments to incur debt? Are these teachings and statements official church positions on government policy or just counsel or personal opinions?

What do you think? Please comment.

Resources:
Church official statements on public issues
Sutherland essay on how LDS legislators use personal beliefs in politics
Another blog’s perspective on this issue

We Latter-day Saints need to be more active in public dialogue and debate. We need to vote more often and inform ourselves better as we do. We need to study the issues and voice our opinions to government officials, private institutions, friends, family, and neighbors. We need to stand for truth, righteousness, decency, honesty, freedom, and the family. If we don’t, then who will?

Elder Ballard said in 2003 that “we need to raise our voices with other concerned citizens throughout the world in opposition to current trends. We need to tell the sponsors of offensive media that we have had enough. We need to support programs and products that are positive and uplifting. Joining together with neighbors and friends who share our concerns, we can send a clear message to those responsible.”

Elder Ballard also recently said, “May I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration … you can start a blog in minutes and begin sharing what you know to be true. You can download videos from Church and other appropriate sites, including newsroom.lds.org, and send them to your friends. You can write to media sites on the Internet that report on the Church and voice your views as to the accuracy of the reports. This, of course, requires that you understand the basic principles of the gospel. It is essential that you are able to offer a clear and correct witness of gospel truths. It is also important that you and the people to whom you testify understand that you do not speak for the Church as a whole. You speak as one member–but you testify of the truths you have come to know.”

“Far too many people have a poor understanding of the Church because most of the information they hear about us is from news media reports that are often driven by controversies. Too much attention to controversy has a negative impact on peoples’ perceptions of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is.”

I know a lot of people who are heeding Elder Ballard’s counsel. They have blogs (my brother has about 7), avoid bad media, write letters, and do many other good things to spread the Gospel and defend truth. I think we can do much more. I know it’s difficult to find time to do these things. I have a hard time sometimes even though I’m very involved in government and politics and blogging. But we can’t sit idle while other interest groups shape the debate and public policy. We must let our voices be heard!

What do you think? Please submit comments about personal stories when you’ve let your voice be heard and made a positive difference. They will inspire us and give us ideas of what we can do to help.

For some time now, I have struggled to understand whether or not government should define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Church has very specifically counseled us to do all that we can to support constitutional amendments (state and national) that ban same-sex marriage. For me, an official directive from church leaders is enough to spur me to action because I know that Pres. Monson is a prophet of God. Protecting traditional marriage through the law does feel like the right thing to do. And yet, my rational mind and intense inner drive to understand everything cause me to continue to seek knowledge and understanding to help square my logic with my heart. I think this is what we are supposed to do–follow the prophet even if we do not understand everything, but do all we can to understand through study and prayer. Answers may not come when we prefer, but they come if we persist.

I still don’t completely understand the legal and moral reasoning behind banning same-sex marriage. It’s hard for me to accept any law that limits individual liberty. Freedom to choose is what makes America great. However, I’ve learned that marriage is less about the individual and more about the family–as ordained by God–and society. The purpose of public policy should be not only to help individuals find happiness, but also to help society progress as a whole.

Only the “natural family” (father, mother, and children together) can cause society to progress in perpetuity. Government should not sanction any type of relationship that runs counter to the natural family. Encouraging the natural family is not about civil rights; it is about encouraging and preserving the only institution that can promote progress and freedom.

A recent publication of the Sutherland Institute has helped me understand this reasoning better. It’s a dialogue between the Institute’s president, Paul Mero, and Stephen C. Clark, an attorney in the gay rights movement who is also in a same-sex relationship. Below are links to the dialogue’s three parts as well as some of Mr. Mero’s quotes that have helped me understand better why the law should prohibit same-sex marriage. The dialogue is fascinating, educational, and blunt. If you open the dialogue, be warned that, as you may imagine, it contains some sexually explicit language in order to debate the issue.

Here are the quotes:

“If a relationship requires the state to formally create it, then it is a creature of the state, and the antithesis of freedom … The natural family does not require the state to create it; it is prior to the state. State sanction in its case is only to confirm in public policy that society recognizes and encourages its ideal…

The ‘Friends’ characters are not a family. ‘Murphy Brown’ and her daughter are not a family. Unfortunately, the ‘Bundys’ are a family. The ‘natural’ seems to be the key to understand all of this. The state interest is in the natural family. It is quite patient with all sorts of atrocities in ‘natural’ families, and has zero patience for even minor glitches in ‘created’ families, because only in the natural family can the ideal be realized for human progress and freedom. ‘Created’ families exist as contracts with the state. In their formation they are pretend families. They play house. Their human emotions are real, but their family structure is fabricated. The state can recognize and legitimize a family structure. It would be impossible for it to even try to recognize and legitimize every human emotion. To do so would also be the antithesis of freedom…

I have some very wonderful friends, dear friends, I would die for them. I have cried with them, rejoiced with them, sacrificed for them, counseled their children as if they were my own — but we are not a family. All of my love for my friends is authentic; it is real. But all of this genuine sentiment and service does not make us a family … Nature created families; the state simply recognizes what nature created. If indeed you are truly insulted by my words, then take it up with nature (and ‘Nature’s God’)…”

What do you think?

Read the dialogue:
Part I
Part II
Part III

On Dec. 6, Republican candidate Mitt Romney delivered an address about religious freedom and the role of his faith in politics (watch it, read it). I agree with most everything he said, except for part of his view on the role religion should play in voting.

I agree with Romney, for example, that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” I agree that “a president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States” and that “no religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.”

Romney wisely said, “I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’” God did give us liberty and, most importantly, religious liberty. The United States was founded by God-fearing men who wanted to preserve for us all the right to worship according to the dictates of our own conscience.

For this reason, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from establishing a national religion and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In America, church and state operate in different spheres, but religion, along with science, philosophy, law and many other sources inform one’s political beliefs.

Romney said that when voters take into account a candidate’s religious beliefs they violate the Constitution; I disagree. He argued, “there are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution.” Here Romney refers to the Religious Test Clause in Article VI which says, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This clause does not prohibit voters from asking about a candidate’s faith, it merely prevents the government from requiring a candidate to practice, or not practice, any particular religion. In other words, an application to run for office cannot ask a question like “are you Baptist?” or “do you promise not to become Catholic?”

However, Americans can choose their president using any criteria they wish–religion, diet, intelligence, looks, or anything else. Voters may not be wise to use, for example, height or hairstyle as criteria, but they are free to do so if they wish.

I agree that “a person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith,” but the way religion influences candidates is important.

How a person’s faith informs their views on abortion, marriage, or stem-cell research is important to understand. Maybe even more important is whether or not their religion tries to help them develop good attributes like honesty, trustworthiness, humility, and kindness.

In the end, what matters most is not what a candidate’s religion teaches them but what their actual political views are and who they really are. Are they for legal abortion or against it? Do they treat people with respect and honor their commitments or not?

There’s only one way to see what effect religion has on any candidate for office: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit…Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt 7:15-20).

What do you think?

I wrote another op-ed for the school paper. This topic might interest some of you. I outlined four major misperceptions about Mormons and polygamy. Read the first paragraph below and click on the link to read the rest.

Polygamy raises misconceptions
MATTHEW PICCOLO
Staff Writer

In St. George, Utah, a jury convicted polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs of two counts of being an accomplice to rape on Sept. 25. Jeffs had performed an unlawful marriage between two first cousins, a 14 year-old girl and a 19 year-old man, who were the parties in the rape. The Jeffs case reveals troubling aspects of polygamous communities that should be brought to the public’s attention. But in doing so, the news media should not reiterate common misperceptions about polygamy and Mormons.

Continue reading…

What do you think?