Latter-day Commentary

In 1978, civil war broke out in Nicaragua, just after I left the country. My Mission President went from Costa Rica to Managua to help the missionaries get out of the country.  As he was literally leaving the chapel where he had told the missionaries to gather, the Sandinistas came running in from the other door and stopped them.

Demanding to know what side of the conflict they were on, President Muren responded with the phrase, “tonos de gris,” which means shades of grey.  He did not stop but kept going right out the door and was able to get that group of Elders out of the country.  Gratefully, all the missionaries eventually made it safely out.

Social or Cultural Mormons

Can a person be a member of the LDS faith and not believe some of the doctrine or accept the official story of the history?  Absolutely!  We call them social or cultural Mormons and there are countless numbers of them within the church.  Many of these kinds of members come from multi-generation pioneer LDS families.

If you survey an average congregation in the LDS faith, you will find that there are a surprising number who just don’t care about some of the doctrine and care even less about the history.  They are there because it is their family tradition and they derive satisfaction from the social interaction among good people that they know.

Looking for the middle ground

They feel uncomfortable when they hear statements from their leaders that the LDS church is either the kingdom of God or it is nothing.  When someone says that Joseph Smith was either God’s prophet or he was a great fraud, they feel unfairly pressured to have to put their view of the man in such black and white terms.

Isn’t there some middle ground where good people can participate in the Mormon faith without having to take sides about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the idea of angels visiting Joseph and the concept of priesthood keys and authority?  There is so much good in the church.  Why does it have to be classified as true?

The American Mormon culture

There are many members of the LDS church who do not fit the stereotypical image of conservative, orthodox, Republican, white-collar, all-American family.  The church membership is actually quite diverse, especially as one travels outside the confines of the Intermountain West where the church flourished and is the strongest.

Culturally, as a church and a people, we seem to have become stagnated in the mindset of the 19th century view of Mormonism that still conflicts with the outside world.  The church is growing beyond the Mormon corridor but is experiencing a sort of consolidation in the traditional strongholds of the faith – the center of Zion.

The one true church

Many good people who recognize this cultural myopia and parochialism that exists within the LDS faith have expanded their views and horizons beyond the mores and restraints of the traditional, orthodox Mormon worldview.  There are so many good people out there that are doing great things to serve their local communities.

Because these progressive thinking people have expanded their views they have come in contact with different ways of thinking about the religious experience and about their own Mormon upbringing.  The idea of belonging to the one true church has come to be offensive and difficult, if not impossible to defend in their minds.

God’s chosen people

They see and are embarrassed by what appears to be a contest of right and wrong between our zeal as a missionary church and the good people who are not already a part of the elect kingdom of God.  Whereas previously they were uncomfortable with a perceived exclusivist approach, they now are adamant that we are wrong.

We are judgmental, they cry.  Why can’t we accept everybody else just the way they are?  Why are we trying to convert people when they are already happy and doing much good in their own faith?  The idea of rules for membership becomes chafing.  Why does the church have such high standards that drive people crazy?

Pointing out the flaws and faults

A large percentage of the LDS membership either does not know or does not care about some of the troubling issues of our early history and growth as a church.  It is frustrating to progressive thinkers that so many within the faith are not as well versed as they are on these issues and the supposed quandaries that they present.

So they become more vocal and strident in pointing out the flaws and faults of the church and its leaders, both historical and current.  Their frustration increases when their audience either shrugs its collective shoulders or ignores their efforts to educate them on the problems that they see in the church.  How can they not care?

Many faithful members do know

While there are many who don’t know and don’t care, there are just as many who are very knowledgeable in the issues and problems that are troublesome to our liberal minded members.  It’s just that we have found answers within our own hearts and minds many years ago that satisfy the potential cognitive dissonance.

We quietly go about our lives, secure and confident in the knowledge that we have found answers for the most important elements of our faith.  We invite others to taste of the peace that comes from knowing that there are answers and that there are many solid and bedrock truths upon which we can build our lives and our faith.

Raise a warning voice

For some reason, when we try to share our certainty about the truths we have found, we are sometimes misunderstood to be arrogant or presenting our faith as superior or more complete than theirs.  Yes, if you invite someone to share in your happiness then you are presenting what you have found to be of great worth.

This is a difficult task to perform.  We are commanded to raise our voices to let the world know of the events pertaining to the founding of our church.  We have been asked to be bold in declaring that God has called prophets in our day and that he has sent angels to ordain and teach truths that have long been lost from the world.

Some truths are not relative

And thus we arrive at the heart of the conflict between orthodox conservative Mormons and progressive liberal Mormons.  What is truth?  Can one say with any degree of certainty that they have found the best and most complete source of truth without excluding the many other sources of truth that are found in the world?

Truth is reality. Some kinds of truth can only be received through revelation. I have never seen God or Jesus. I was not there when Joseph received the First Vision. So for me to be able to know those facts, they have to be revealed to me by the Holy Ghost.  Some truths are either revealed of God or they remain unknown.

Truths received by revelation

The five pillars of the LDS testimony require revelation: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, the Savior called Joseph as a prophet, the Book of Mormon was brought forth by the gift and power of God and the church that Joseph established is authorized of God to administer the ordinances of salvation that God requires.

Without revelation from the Holy Ghost we can’t say that we know these things. It’s just not logical. I have studied the Book of Mormon and the Church that claims to be God’s only church authorized to administer the ordinances of salvation. With revelation from the Holy Ghost I can say I know they are what they claim to be.

Summary and conclusion

In some things in life, it is wise to take a position characterized by my Mission President’s response to the Sandinistas – shades of grey.  We do not always know all the facts of some situations and should withhold judgment until a later time.  However, in some critical matters, we must take a position and know for ourselves.

It takes work and determination to obtain knowledge about the five pillars of an LDS testimony.  But I, and millions of others over the years, can say with great certainty that God does reveal knowledge about himself and his prophets to those who diligently seek it.  This revealed knowledge does not come in shades of grey.

From the September 2008 First Presidency message, we read what President Eyring has to say about unity: “The Spirit puts the testimony of truth in our hearts, which unifies those who share that testimony. The Spirit of God never generates contention (see 3 Nephi 11:29). This Spirit never generates the feelings of distinction between people which lead to strife.”

I was deeply impressed when I first read that last sentence. I was also struck by the contrast in definitions of the word distinction. I usually view distinction in a positive manner, as in one who receives honors for outstanding work done in an academic or professional environment. In this case, it appears that distinction is an undesirable thing in that it causes inequality and contention.

But wait! Could it be that it is not distinction itself which is the bad thing, but some undesirable feelings that can be associated with the word? Yes, I believe that is what is meant in this case. In other words, distinction can be both good and bad, depending upon the feelings it produces. I would like to point out some ways in which we are a distinct people, hopefully all for the good.

We are a peculiar people

The Latter-day Saints are a peculiar people. The Lord said so himself. “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” Of course one could argue that this declaration from the Old Testament was referring to the house of Israel and I won’t disagree.

In First Peter 2:9 we read, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Peculiar here means chosen of the Lord. So obviously the Lord uses distinction when referring to those who he has called to follow Him and minister to others.

And yet, we read in Acts 10:34-35 that the Lord is no respecter of persons. “…in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” So from this I surmise that we can all be chosen. Anyone can be a part of the peculiar Kingdom of God. It seems that it is a mutual choice. He calls us and we choose him. That’s what makes the distinction here.

We are not a weird people

So what happens when we are called out of the world and choose to follow the Lord? The distinction between us and the rest of the world becomes obvious and clear, or at least it should be if we are trying to follow the Savior as we should. And therein lies the problem. We become a peculiar and distinctive people. Yes, we are called strange, weird, unusual and different.

President Hinckley made an effort in his media interviews and conference addresses to point out that we are not a weird people. His 1995 interview with Mike Wallace was a culmination of a life-long effort for him to change the way the world views us. I very much appreciate what President Hinckley has done. I do not feel weird or different in a bad way because I am LDS.

And yet, I do feel peculiar. Why? Although they used to be the norm, my views on morality, marriage and family are becoming more and more distinctive from the rest of the world. In particular, my advocacy for defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman has come under fire from those who claim that such views are bigoted, hateful and divisive.

Distinctive views on marriage

So what do I do with this statement from President Eyring that teaches the importance of harmony by avoiding contention and strife caused by feelings of distinction? I feel strongly about this issue and feel the need to stand up and make my views known. I am not alone. Most, although not all LDS churchgoers feel as I do about marriage even if they do not speak out.

The proposed amendment to the constitution of the state of California, where I was born and have lived all my life, will, in the view of those opposed to it, deny them their civil rights. My distinctive views have become a cause for strife. As I write about this issue in an effort to persuade others to understand my point of view, contention becomes a part of the dialog.

So again, how do I reconcile what is happening as I write about the definition of marriage and what President Eyring has said, that the spirit of the Lord never generates feelings of distinction between people which leads to strife? Is it my distinctive stance on marriage that is the cause of the strife? Those opposed would have me abandon my position as being wrong and intolerant.

We should seek distinction

I believe that we should seek distinction or honor from the Lord. By that I mean that we should strive to live our lives in accordance with the will of the Lord and thus receive his approbation. Does the Lord bless and favor those who seek to obey his commandments? Of course he does. But he is no respecter of persons, meaning that anyone can seek and obtain those same blessings.

Although we do not strive for appointment or advancement in the Lord’s church, we do seek to excel in doing our duty in helping to accomplish the Lord’s purposes here on the earth. I feel that it is an admirable character trait to be zealous in advocating and promoting something that the Lord has made clear through his prophets is both important and deserving of our best efforts.

As we seek to do the will of the Lord, and in particular to follow the counsel of the prophet in this issue of defending marriage, we are obviously drawing a distinction between us and those who do not believe as we do. There are many besides the LDS people who feel just as strongly about this issue, but it seems that it is the Mormons who are taking it to the door of the people.

Distinction without contention

We are not out to contend with others about this issue. We simply want to know if they are aware and how they would vote if the election were held today. Later in the campaign we will probably go door to door again in an effort to persuade. And finally, we will most likely be asked to visit our neighbors once again in the final days before the election to get out the vote.

Will some be angered by our efforts? Of course they will. Will some want to argue with us and tell us that we are wrong and should not be doing this? It has already happened all across the state. We do not contend in that we do not argue in a manner that causes feelings of distinction. By that I mean we focus on the importance of the definition of marriage and not civil rights.

We are not out to take away the civil rights of anyone. If you have studied the issue you know that same-sex domestic partners in California are guaranteed by law all the same rights as a married couple (Family Code 297.5). Yes, we are making a distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman and are making an effort to get that added to the state constitution.

Summary and conclusion

You may be tired of reading about this issue by now. I am fairly certain that we will be reading a lot more about it in the weeks to come. I only write about it because when I began this blog, I felt a desire to comment on issues that are signs of the times and a part of the Latter-day events. Yes, the definition of marriage as a social event is one of the signs of the times of the last days.

I have concluded that there is no conflict between what President Eyring is trying to teach us about unity and harmony in his First Presidency message. I agree that we should avoid feelings of distinction from economic or educational accomplishments, class envy, pride or superiority that would stand in the way of unity and harmony, especially among members of the church.

We can be distinctive as a people by seeking to adhere to the standards the Lord has set for us. One of those standards is in the definition of marriage. The Lord established and defined for us what marriage is when he brought Adam and Eve together. Therefore, let no man divide asunder or change this definition. Marriage is sacred because it has been defined by the Lord for us.