Excommunication is just not worth it
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.
You know what else Deuteronomy says? It says you should not marry Canaanites. Does that mean black people? It also says that drinking alcohol is fine. Also, check out Chapter 14 and make sure you don’t eat anything that is forbidden. I hope you’ve never eaten, or even touched the carcass of, a pig…that’s a sin. Have you ever eaten a catfish, trout, or shark? I hope not, because that would be a sin also. Are you keeping up on your feasts? Did you observe the month of Abid and keep your passover? I hope you’re not a female who has worn clothes of a man (pants?)…that’s an abomination. Have you ever stoned someone who you knew was fornicating? I hope you didn’t allow them to remain living. You DO believe in the death penalty, don’t you? If so, you need to administer it to spiritualists and anyone who has ever cursed their mother or father.Now tell me that God’s laws are the same yesterday, today, and forever. God may be the same, but his laws definitely are not. If you’re going to reference part of the Bible (or even Deuteronomy), as support for your argument, then you should be ready to live by everything else in the Bible.I’m not saying homosexuality is not a sin. It may be a sin. I believe anything that causes negative natural consequences is a sin (including eating that plate of brownies, which was blessed to nourish and strengthen your body, at the last church get-together). I’m just saying that referencing the Bible, and especially Deuteronomy, is a horrible way to support anything, other than the fact that God’s laws are ever-changing.
Crusty
October 24, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Yeah, I’m going to go with you Crusty, even though that may appear as if I’m contradicting my own essay. You’re right in that the Law of Moses was fulfilled with the atonement of Jesus Christ. So all that crazy stuff you mentioned went out the window after the crucifixion and the resurrection. Besides, we know that a lot of it was based on health concerns that are overcome today partly because of modern refrigeration.So I can’t argue that the law of chastity and moral behavior, including homosexual behavior was unchanging because it was given back in the day of Moses. And you are also right that God can and does give laws and revoke them. He specifically said that in reference to polygamy, didn’t he?I think the right source for the law of chastity is from modern revelation. Therefore, the best source for me that homosexual behavior is contrary to the law of chastity is from modern prophets and apostles. We have a ton of those from which we could quote so I don’t think we need to go there.I also wanted to respond to your question about the possibility of the LDS church going apostate and therefore not deserving of my loyalty. Didn’t you and I dialog about Daniel 2:44 previously? I don’t remember if you agreed that the kingdom that would never be destroyed is the LDS Church. I know I have heard many General Authorities state that.I like your point that our loyalty and highest concern should be our relationship with God and Christ. I seem to recall a General Authority teach one time that the church is really nothing more than the scaffold and would in time be replaced by the true form of organization recognized by the Lord – patriarchal order. In the meantime, the sealing power is contained within the LDS Church so I’m sticking with Pres Monson.Crusty, I think I already know the answer, but did you read that little diatribe I shared about legislating morality? Oh, maybe I didn’t share it in the comments on this essay. Well, here it is:”The entire purpose of law is to impose moral standards on the surrounding populace. From the most heinous crimes like murder to the more petty like curfew, laws have always been established for the purpose of enforcing standards upon its people. Who says murder is wrong? Who says being out late when you are young is wrong? Who says abortion is wrong? Who says anything is wrong? The people have the right to declare what they believe is right or wrong and make laws that enforce those ideals and beliefs.”You’re right that I would be a little upset if the majority voted that Mormonism was illegal, but I think the constitution precludes that. Wait, didn’t that come real close to happening when the church was disenfranchised in the late 1800′s over plural marriage? Anyway, if we the people can’t decide on what the law should be then we aren’t living in a true Democracy. Besides, it’s not just the Mormons that think same sex marriage should not be legal.
Tim Malone
October 25, 2008 at 6:17 am
YOU NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHY IS DENYING BLACKS THE PREISTHOOD DIFFERENT? You know, if you’re going to write on this stuff, you should at least be cogent and coherent. You just look foolish and foolhardy. You don’t care about people. It’s abundantly obvious. You only care about your obsession which is this church. It’s people that matter, not corporations like the LDS church. Get some humanity.
Kalvin
October 26, 2008 at 10:19 am
Hi Kalvin,Sorry for not being explicit. The denying of the priesthood to the blacks was based on a policy, which some early leaders tried to justify with references to some scriptures. I think Papa D clarified it best in his comments. Elder McConkie told us to forget everything he and others taught about this subject with limited light and knowledge.Correct me if I’m wrong but our stand against same sex marriage is based on the doctrine that homosexual behavior is a sin. Note that I do not say that homosexual tendencies or feelings are a sin. That was the whole premise of my essay – those who fight against the church on this are fighting against a fundamental doctrine that we believe is ordained of God – that marriage is only between a man and a woman.Kalvin, you don’t know me well enough to determine my feelings about people as opposed to the church. Yes, I confess a tremendous loyalty to the LDS Church and the men who lead it, but I hope that every member and leader in this church is clear that the purpose of the church is to lead us unto Christ through obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel.I apologize if I come across as uncaring and inhuman. I confess that I am rather stubborn and adamant that the church is right on this issue and stand with e First Presidency in what they have asked us to do in giving of our time and means to ensuring the passage of Proposition 8. It is obvious that there are many members of the church who do not agree.I like what Nick Literski said. Nick is a well-known commenter on LDS blogs, but who is very vocal in seeking the defeat of this amendment. He said that we need to look forward to the time when this election is over and the proposition has either failed or passed. How will we treat each other then? Will we still be able to treat each other with kindness and respect? I hope so? That’s what I am shooting for on my blog.
Tim Malone
October 27, 2008 at 5:22 am
Black people are born black. Gay people are born gay. God does not care whether Gays are married or not. This is especially true when you believe that the only true marriage is one between a worthy man and woman in an LDS temple. Proposition 8 is about fear, and fear only.
Bobby Teenager
October 29, 2008 at 7:55 am
Bobby,Most Mormons support proposition 8 for several reasons – because the leadership of our church asked us to do so and because prophets of God have said that God is opposed to homosexual behavior. Same-sex marriage is all about gaining social acceptance for what God has called sin. You write as if you speak for God when you say he doesn’t care whether gays are married or not. Sorry, I’ll go with what a prophet has said on this one. Proposition 8 is not about fear or hate. It is about clearly defining marriage in the constitution of the State of California – only between a man and a woman as originally intended.
Tim Malone
October 29, 2008 at 8:33 am
bobby teenager Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Uhhh; probably a bad thing don’t you think?
KingOfTexas
October 31, 2008 at 2:45 am