Prop. 8/ Prop. 102

This posting is meant to be a catharsis for me as much as anything, please be aware that what I am about to say is being said in general terms, and should not be viewed as directed towards a certain individual or individuals unless I state otherwise.

Recently I've had what I'll call the opportunity to engage in some rather heated discussions concerning the Church's position on California Proposition 8 with some of my friends from the mission field (primarily with a former Zone Leader and a trainee of mine). They are quite upset with the fact that the Church has officially declared itself in favor of the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage, and they have been saying and/or promoting some rather derogatory and generally mean things about the Church and it's leaders because of it's stance. They feel that the Church is violating a longstanding "political neutrality" in this stance, and going beyond it's bounds with members.

This idea is silly, and I would like to take some time to express why.

Whether or not one feels that gay marriage or civil unions should be legal really isn't the issue here, and as such I won't address it. What is at issue rather is if the Church should promote certain legislation, and how we should react to it.

The idea that the Church is neutral on all legislation is a myth, plain and simple. Since at least March of 1911 when it advocated prohibition, and perhaps earlier, the Church has remained politically but not socially neutral. While it does not support candidates or parties, it does oppose certain parties and has endorsed social legislation as it feels necessary.

Elder Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court Justice and one of the best lawyers and Judges in modern America, said of legislating morality, "Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes." Source

In a democratic society where ideas and values come into conflict it is the civic duty of all citizens to weigh out their values and ideas, and vote for the legislation or people that will best protect those values. Any sincerely religious person would naturally have certain ideas and values stemming from their religious views, and these should not be ignored.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one of those values is revelation. We sustain certain men to be Prophets and Seers at the head of our Church, and we trust these men to receive revelation for the Church. Just as Prophets of old they receive revelation that applies not just to our spiritual well being, but our physical as well. They have every right to speak on behalf of the Lord, when they do so by the spirit and in their appointed position. The Lord, knowing all, has every right to counsel His children in what choices to make, and to urge them to make whatever choice He feels best for them. When He wishes to speak to His children as a group, He uses these Prophets to do so.

When our opinions and attitudes are at odds with the counsel of the Church it is our duty to bring our mind and spirit in line with what the revealed word is, not the Church's or leader's job to bring the Church doctrine in line with us. Some like to pull various quotes out of context that say that we shouldn't blindly follow leaders. Such is a true principle. However, in this case we are not talking about a lone Apostle speculating, we are talking about an established position of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and personal revelation will never contradict the direct counsel of those bodies. Those leaders who spoke of not blindly following continued those lectures by pointing this out (the law of witnesses), and urged the members to pray that the members would gain a testimony of the Churches actions and doctrines that they might be more fully committed to them, not whether or not they were expected to follow them.

It's easy to follow when leaders say what you want to hear, not so much when they do not. Whether or not we agree or disagree with the proposition and it's associated goals, the question is rather which value do we really believe in. It thus falls to every member of the Church, when placed in situations like these, to ask themselves what they really value most. Is the Church truly something they believe in, or it it just a nice socio-cultural institution that makes us feel included but which should not be heeded when it says things we disagree with? We are not expected to like everything asked of us, the Savior Himself prayed that if there were any other way rather than the Atonement that such might be done, but he knew that sometimes the bitter pills are the ones most important and went ahead to our benefit. May we all learn to be so wise.

In short, voting Yes on Prop.8 for the California members, as well as voting for similar bills in other States (such as Arizona), is the right choice for every self respecting member of the Church. We have our freedom of course to choose otherwise, but I am unaware of any recorded event where disobedience to the warnings of Prophets has worked out well for the Church or society. I find it doubtful that the results here would be any different.