prop 8

In order to understand the place a homosexual member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has in the Church, it is important to recognize what the Church teaches about this issue.

The Mormons take no stand on what causes homosexual inclinations. In general, the Church lets science take care of science, and the Church worries about those issues that affect our eternal salvation. For this reason, the cause isn’t important from a spiritual standpoint. What does matter is behavior. The Church teaches that inclinations are not a sin, nor is temptation. After all, the Bible tells us that Satan tried to tempt Jesus. That said, we are commanded to avoid giving in to temptations.

Is Homosexuality a sin?

A person who has homosexual tendencies or desires is not considered to be committing a sin as long as he doesn’t act on those tendencies or promote them as desirable. This is true of other types of tendencies that could lead to sin as well. For instance, a member might have been an alcoholic prior to becoming LDS. Even after giving up alcohol use, he may still have longings for alcohol. This is not a sin. However, if he allows those temptations to win out and begins to drink again, he is then sinning. But unless this occurs, he is not considered to be doing anything wrong and is a member in full fellowship.

What about treatment?

The Church does not recommend any specific types of treatment and doesn’t determine whether or not a person should seek treatment. This is between himself and whatever counselor he might choose to see, if he chooses to see one.

What about marriage?

In an interview, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a high-ranking church official, said:

”President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity – that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.”

Some might consider this unfair since it requires lifelong celibacy. However, members of the Church are counseled that celibacy is required of all who don’t marry. Therefore, many heterosexual church members who fail to find a mate also remain celibate. Mormons consider this lifetime to be a very small portion of our eternal lives, and sacrifices made here are only for a short time. Since Mormons believe marriage is forever, and that homosexual tendencies are removed when we die, members faced with this challenge will have opportunity to marry in the next life (with temple covenants performed for them by proxy), since there was no opportunity for them to do so here on earth.

Treatment of Homosexuals in the Church

The Church advocates treating all people with respect and has made specific comments to this effect regarding those with homosexual tendencies. As discussed earlier, one who has the tendencies but chooses not to act on them or to promote them as good is no different from any other church member in good standing-after all, everyone has trials. Even in the case of one who chooses to violate the laws of God, the Church separates the sin from the sinner. Church members are still under obligation to treat the person with respect and kindness, while not condoning the specific behavior. Tolerance does not mean one must accept any behavior a person chooses to engage in.

A person with homosexual tendencies is a full member in good standing if he doesn’t act upon those temptations or desires. He can hold any church position open to someone with his gender and marital status. He can serve a mission, teach classes, and hold leadership positions that don’t require marriage. Gordon B. Hinckley, a previous president of the Church, said, “We love them (referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

The Church’s focus is on belief and behavior. Each of us has trials we must face and overcome, and this trial is like any other. We must face it with faith and courage and turn to God for help.

Next: Attitude Toward Trials

The law in the United States does not allow churches to endorse candidates. It does, however, allow churches to speak out on issues. Therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) was well within its legal rights in speaking out on this issue. It should be noted members were not ordered to vote in a specific way. Voting is always private, and while the church requests that members participate in an issue that involves a core part of the gospel, it does not force such participation, nor does it accompany members to the polling place to supervise their vote. It is the job of a church to teach its members what God expects of them and then to allow them to decide whether or not they want to do what God has asked them to do. This is called agency, and is an important part of Mormon teachings.

This was the specific instruction sent to church members. You can read the entire letter as well. “California and Same Sex Marriage.”

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

As you can see, they explained they would be working with a coalition of other churches, so members would know what was about to happen. Then they used request language to ask church members to participate. They asked, not commanded, and said members would receive information on how they may help, not on how they must help.

“Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

Even though the democratic process can be demanding and difficult, Latter-day Saints are profoundly grateful for and respect the ideals of a true democracy ” Church Responds to Same Sex Marriage Votes

Even if the church had never specifically asked members to participate in this particular issue, there would be no question as to where the Mormons stood. After all, they have always talked about the divinity of marriage and about the church’s teachings on homosexuality. The advantage of having participated is that some members discovered the church did not oppose civil unions or other legal rights for homosexuals. In addition, it may be that some members were not aware that being homosexual is not considered a sin, but that the sin is limited only to practice, not inclination. This gave the church the opportunity to clarify its teachings to its own members, as well as to the general public. They also took opportunity to strongly teach members to treat those with differing views or lifestyles with respect.

Morality is a critical aspect of religion. It would make no real sense to say churches cannot speak about any morality issue that might come up for election or become part of the political process. This places serious limits on the free practice of religion, since it would stop them from teaching their complete doctrine.

It’s also important to remember that every law in existence is based on someone’s idea of morality or value. It is always illegal to kill people today, because there are some who believe murder is immoral. However, there is a minority that does not believe this, and we don’t protect their minority rights. We imprison them if they violate what the nation has chosen as immoral. (This has not always been the case-it was once legal to murder Mormons in one state.) In some towns, it is illegal to park your car on your lawn. This is a law because of the personal beliefs of certain people who believe cars should be parked in driveways. It makes no difference if another person feels it’s immoral to dig up God’s grass to put in a driveway-the morality of the majority is official, and anyone who chooses to park on the grass will pay a penalty.

All laws are based on values of some sort. Where a person obtains his values should not matter. Whether he gets them from his church, from his political party, or from his pocketbook, they are still valid personal values. All personal values are real, and subject to a vote when they affect others. No source of values should be eliminated from the political process. If a person’s political party can force its values on others, as all political parties try to do, then churches should also be free to put their values to a public vote. While a nation cannot decide all Catholic, Baptist, or Mormon values will automatically be honored, each individual value can be placed into the public arena, as can each individual value of the Republicans or Democrats. Separation of church and state does not mean religious people are banned from the political process. It only means the government can’t force people to belong to a single religion or promote that religion. Religious people have the same constitutional rights as all other people to vote according to their beliefs.

Churches must be free to have a say in religion, as long as those beliefs are put to a vote to the general public and not automatically made into law. The United States came into being due to religion, and the protection of religion is one area that makes our nation a protector of freedoms.

There are those who have tried to declare that the battle to preserve marriage is bigotry. They argue that people need to be tolerant, and people should be allowed to do whatever they want. This, of course, completely negates the need for government. The United States does not allow people to do anything they want, nor do they guarantee happiness. Even in the realm of marriage, the United States has always had rules about who can marry, and gay rights activists have generally not complained about these. For instance, polygamy is illegal, and even today, people are being arrested for practicing polygamy. We also don’t allow people under a certain age to marry and we don’t allow adults to marry children or younger teenagers. We require licenses and tests before  marriages occur in most places.

We, as a nation, have always had a vested interest in deciding what constitutes an appropriate marriage relationship, and few have felt it was discriminatory. It’s simply setting standards. There are, for example, no scientific reasons for listing the age of eighteen as the age of adulthood or for deciding adults should not marry children. This is a decision we make as a society, and it is, in fact, a recent decision. In Texas, thirteen-year-olds could marry until a few years ago. Today, we’ve randomly chosen eighteen as the age of adulthood and applied it to marriage. The age could just as easily have been twenty-five or thirty, but we chose eighteen and don’t consider it discriminatory towards seventeen year olds. And so, society has always considered it in their best interest to make rules about marriage, because marriage is really never just between two people. The circumstances of any given marriage affect all of society, and this issue is no different than any other standard the nation has set for marriage. It is simply society’s choice as to how they want marriage defined.

 The Church has stated: “Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” The Church has said they don’t oppose any other rights or civil union decisions. Their entire focus is on the word marriage, which is a sacred institution. Marriage was ordained by God and therefore, as the creator of the principle, only He can make the rules. This is the religious standpoint. From a non-religious standpoint, there are other arguments based simply on semantics and tradition.

Even many gay rights activists often feel marriage should be left alone, and the focus should be on civil unions for them. Elton John, a very well-known gay singer, has spoken in favor of leaving marriage be. His voice, joined by others in the gay community who have said the same thing, demonstrate it is not bigotry, but simply a definition of terms, and a definition many homosexuals are quite comfortable with. Just as we use specific terms to designate those who are gay and those who are not, we can use specific terms to describe types of relationships. It is merely defining terms from a legal standpoint.

This is commonly done in government. A homeschool is legally defined differently than a public school and this is not discrimination—it’s a definition—and the two types of schools are treated entirely differently by the government—something most liberals support. A foster child is legally defined differently than an adopted child, even if the foster child stays with the same family his entire life. He will not, for instance, automatically inherit, but must be specifically named in a will by his foster parents. In our legal system, people are consistantly defined in very specific ways, not in a desire to discriminate, but in a desire to define.

Some have argued civil unions don’t carry the same protections as marriage. This is a problem with the civil union laws and not with the marriage laws. People who use this as their argument need to go to work strengthening the civil union laws so they are equivalent.

There is nothing discriminatory in setting standards, something every nation must do, or in defining terms and setting limits for each definition. Nations, including the United States, have always defined terms and applied laws to those terms, and this is nothing more than defining the terms of marriage and civil unions.

In the Bible, we read of several situations where people, even prophets, had more than one wife. Abraham (Genesis 16), David (2 Samuel 2), and Jacob (Genesis 29) are three examples. The Lord even gave instructions for the caring of multiple wives in some Bible verses. However, in others, he specifically instructed his people not to take multiple wives. There were times when God allowed it to serve a specific purpose, and other times when he did not allow it, because it wasn’t needed at that time. It is a principle to be instituted only under direct instruction from God.

This is not the case with homosexuality. Nowhere in the Bible does God give his blessing to homosexual behavior, and He very specifically condemns such behaviors. This makes it clear there can be no connection between the two. When the Mormons allowed polygamy, it was for a very brief time when God ordained it, presumably to bring into the world enough children to ensure the Church’s survival during the times it was legal to murder Mormons. God, knowing everything, knew polygamy would eventually be outlawed, and being able to control the world to meet the needs of the great plan He created, timed everything so the goals would be accomplished before the Church was forced to abandon it.

It should be noted that they did abandon it, more than one hundred years ago. Those who practice polygamy today are not Mormons, since practicing polygamy is punished by excommunication from the Church.  One hundred years ago is a very long time and is hardly a logical argument for today. To say that because a people practiced polygamy a century ago means they have to support gay marriage today would create serious problems if people were held to that argument. Let’s look at political parties, as an example.

In 1840, the Democratic Party opposed government intervention in the spread of slavery. Were we to force them to hold to their original platform, not only would they support slavery, but they would also have to support small, local government with limited power. These last items are currently the territory of the Republicans. So, just as they expect America to accept that they’ve made changes in their organization over the years, they must also accept that religions also make changes over the years. In the case of the Mormons, change comes about through revelation, but whether the choices are made by revelation or human decision, the point is that we don’t hold people, groups, political parties, nations, or religions to what they did one hundred years ago, particularly when the arguments are completely unrelated.  Nor would we want to do this, unless we prefer we all live in primitive conditions without the benefits of modern knowledge and culture.

While the Mormons make their choices based on revelation, and governments make theirs based on political need, the right to make choices—and to live differently today than we did yesterday—is a right that comes with democracy. At a national level, the source of the decision isn’t what’s important. It entirely comes down to what kind of country Americans want to live in. Democracy allows us that freedom, and Mormons, like many other Americans, believe in Democracy and the right of and ability of Americans to make those choices.