I’m sure most people have heard the news by now about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encouraging it’s nearly 1million members in California to do “all they can do” to support the initiative in November to over-turn the ruling supporting bay marriage.
If you haven’t heard about this, you can read the following blogs:
“California Saints To Get The Call”
“Envisioning a Politically Thoughtful Church Culture”
“California Mormons Won’t Be Cool With Acts of Protest At Their Chapels”
“Mormons in California Called to Defend Marriage by Top LDS Leaders”
The letter from the LDS Prophet and his counselors encourages saints to do “all they can do” to support traditional marriages, especially in California during the upcoming vote in November.
Someone told me of a friend of theirs who lives in California that contacted them and asked if they were supporting the Church’s call to “do all you can do” to support the ban on gay marriages. When my friend told the person they were not supporting it, the individual got upset and self-righteously said “aren’t you going to support the Prophet?” This in my mind is going too far and I feel that “doing all you can do” is objective and depends on the individual. If certain circumstances cause someone to believe in gay marriage, yet they still are believing Latter-day Saints, maybe doing “all they can do” is different than someone on the opposite end of the spectrum.
In addition, last December Elder Ballard said in an address to BYU students that the LDS Church takes a politically neutral stance. Yet, of all the issues the LDS Church decided to go back on that statement and get politically involved with the ban on gay marriage. Personally, I think it is fine if the Church encourages members to take a stand on what the Church feels is a moral issue, including gay marriage. Whether or not I decided to vote for or against it is a personal choice and if it’s a moral issue I can take it to the Lord in prayer and see what I feel.
Obviously, the two questions are:
1. What is your take on what it means to “do all you can do” to support the ban on gay marriage?
2. Should the church get politically involved? If it gets involved with this, do you think the Church should get involved with other issues? Why or why not?
Grace for Grace 
36 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 1, 2008 at 4:34 am
Sherri
Both good questions. And interesting to note Elder Ballard’s recent avowal of Church neutrality on political matters.
I think it’s a very slippery slope when the Church gets involved in politics. One of the significant founding principles of this country is separation of church and state. That important tenet is why the LDS church was able to be established in this country instead of somewhere else. I don’t see that the issue of gay marriage should be an exception on moral grounds. There are many important moral issues with political consequences. Why select just this one? And while we would feel fine if the US were governed according to LDS beliefs, how would we feel if we had to obey laws reflecting other relgions’ views ?
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Veruca
I could watch Schnlider’s List and still be happy after reading this.
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Chris
This isn’t the first time the church has come out and encouraged members to take a stand against gay marriage. While I agree that the church should shy away from most political matters, this is one where it is important to take a stand. Not only because of its moral nature, but because the church has repeatedly referred to the family as an eternal unit. The breaking down of traditional families weakens society and has eternal consequences. This in not just a social, political, moral issue. It is an eternal issue. Prophets and apolstles in Bible and Book of Mormon times also took political stances (Moses, Jeremiah, Alma, Ammon, Paul, etc.) with things of an eternal nature.
I agree that each individual has to ponder, pray, and truly seek to do what is personally right for them – and what “doing all they can do” means for them. When a Prophet speaks, it is up to each individual to find the personal meaning and spiritual witness of what has been said.
I can not judge another for how they respond to this message; I can only direct my own actions toward doing what is right for me.
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Steve M
I think it’s high time the Church takes its claim of political neutrality seriously. Since virtually any political question can be painted in moral terms, the moral/political distinction is unpersuasive.
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 3:01 pm
ama49
#1 and #3,
You both bring up good points about the Church taking a stand politically. Essentially one of the key factors leading to Joseph Smith’s death was the fact that he had power over church and state and people of other faiths felt threatened, as you suggest in comment #1.
However, I feel that the Church has the right (just as we do) to voice their opinion. On political issues though the Church needs to be careful and not “command” people to vote or take other political action. They can “suggest” just as they did in this letter. Then it is up to the individuals to act according to what they feel is necessary between God and themselves. The prophet and Church leaders are not infallible dictators that members have to follow blindly. Members have the right and privelege of hearing the prophet and then deciding how they want to act.
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 3:05 pm
ama49
#2 Chris,
I agree with you that if the Church believes in something they have the right to support it and voice their opinion about it, just as each individual has this right.
I don’t feel they over-stepped their bounds in this letter because they left it up for interpretation of the members to follow.
I also agree completely with what you said about how we each need to seriously pray and ponder about what God would have us do and humbly act in accordance to what God is telling us to do.
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Jay
The breaking down of traditional families weakens society and has eternal consequences.
Doesn’t any sin have eternal consequences? Why hasn’t the Church spoken out against laws that “encourage” other types of sin (prostitution, legalizing drugs, euthanasia, etc.). I don’t see how gay marriage is any different or has any more severe eternal consequences from an LDS viewpoint.
They can “suggest” just as they did in this letter.
ama49, I know that the letter was to encourage members to help support the ban on gay marriage and not a command about how they should vote. However, there are too many members (the majority of active ones) that will take that letter as a “Thus saith the Lord” statement. We are too quick to “follow the prophet” sometimes because we are afraid of not doing God’s will. I think personal prayer and spiritual confirmation is important as already stated. Unfortunately, most members will just do what the perceive they have been commanded to do, in other words vote against gay marriage.
I don’t like to use the words brainwashed because I think it’s too strong and not completely accurate, but members who just do what they are told loose their ability to think. I believe too many members have relinquished this responsibility to the prophet, secure in the fact that he will not lead them astray. Nonetheless, history shows that we can and have been lead astray by prophets on important moral issues in the past and the current issue of gay marriage may be no different. Californian LDS members should think hard about how they vote before that day comes.
Since virtually any political question can be painted in moral terms, the moral/political distinction is unpersuasive.
I would have to agree.
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Craig W.
To those who are unhappy with the church taking a stand on the marriage issue, how would you react if the church took the other side? My guess is that most would remain silent, or applaud the church’s stance.
This issue simply has too many long term implications.
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Kullervo
The following are all certainly moral issues:
-poverty
-international aid
-racism
-human trafficking
-care for the environment
-hunger
-war
-torture
Why doesn’t the Church read letters encouraging its members to do all they can to affect specific political change in these areas?
LikeLike
July 1, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Chris H
One of the key benefits of having the Lord’s Prophet at the head of his church is, as we like to use the analogy, he acts as a “watchmen on the tower” being able to see what is coming our way.
While there are many moral issues, as has been pointed out, that could be discussed, each of those have had principles taught in General Conference over the last 10 years that could guide the Saints to a higher moral action inside of their politics and I know many good Saints that have heard those lessons and have chosen to fight against, ie. poverty, racism, war, torture, hunger, etc. So what separates the acceptance of Gay Marriage from these other moral issues is what the “watchmen on the tower” sees on the other side of this acceptance.
Please, keep in mind also, that they are “watchmen in the tower” not “archers in the tower”. They aren’t telling people what to do and then looking to see who doesn’t do it so the can fling an arrow at them. Instead, they simply and peacefully give us counsel on what we can do to be safe from what they see ahead of us. And herein lies the difficulty for people until they know in their own hearts, that God does inspire his Prophets. We do not need more people who blindly follow the Prophet but the Lord does want each of us to know for ourselves, that He does lead, guide, and bless us through such Prophetic counsel.
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 1:45 am
Steve M
Ama49,
They can “suggest” just as they did in this letter. Then it is up to the individuals to act according to what they feel is necessary between God and themselves.
When you put the word suggest in quotation marks, what exactly were you quoting? Surely not the letter that was read in California sacrament meetings last Sunday. I’m afraid that it did more than merely “suggest” that members “act according to what they feel is necessary.” The letter’s exact words were as follows:
Although the letter did not “command” the Saints to take action, it certainly did more than “suggest” that they become involved. Further, rather than encouraging members to “act according to what they feel is necessary,” the letter specifically directed members to “do all [they] can,” “donat[e their] means and time,” and put forth their “best efforts” in support of the amendment. I’m afraid that your characterization of the letter is not particularly accurate.
As I hinted at in my comment in #3, one of my objections is that the moral/political distinction is a fallacy. Most political problems are also (or at least can be characterized as) moral issues. Therefore, despite its claim to political neutrality, the Church can essentially become involved in any political issue it chooses, so long as it paints it as a “moral” issue.
And that’s exactly what it has done for several decades now. In 1965, the First Presidency sent a letter to each LDS congressman, urging them to vote against the repeal of a right-to-work provision in the Taft-Hartley Act. President McKay saw this as a moral issue; he believed that right-to-work laws preserved workers’ free agency.
The letter was not universally welcomed by its recipients. Senator Frank E. Moss, a Democratic Senator from Utah, publicly responded to the letter: “I am rather surprised to learn that the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to speak on a legislative and political matter. . . . It has been my position, and I thought it was the position of the Church, that the Church should stand aloof in matters of political controversy where members of the Church disagree by reason of honest difference of belief as to what political or governmental action is desirable. . . . As a Senator, I will form my judgment and I will vote my honest conviction in accordance with my conscience” (Gregory Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, p. 326). Shortly thereafter, Senator Moss joined with four other LDS Democrats in Congress in sending a letter to the First Presidency, stating that they would not heed its counsel in this matter. The letter included the following statement: “While we respect and revere the offices held by the members of the First Presidency of the Church, we cannot yield to others our responsibilities to our constituency, nor can we delegate our own free agency to any but ourselves” (Ibid.).
When the Church chooses to speak out on a political issue, I think it is important that members keep Senator Moss’s polite yet firm response in mind.
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 4:45 am
ama49
#6 and #10
I think you make valid points and I agree with you that we should take the prophet’s counsel and think about it and pray about it and then act as we feel is in line with what the Lord tells us.
It was Joseph Smith himself who said he “teaches correct principles and let’s the people govern themselvse.”
I also remember reading somewhere that Joseph Smith’s fear was that the people followed him blindly, not acting according to their own conciences.
I believe we need to act according to what we feel is right between us and the Lord and not blindly follow.
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 4:48 am
ama49
#9
I appreciate your comments as well about the prophets looking out for the people. We do need to make sure we listen carefully to their words and more importantly, we need to make sure we’re close to the Lord’s Spirit so when the prophet speaks if we feel the Spirit we’ll know what they are saying is true. If we feel this confirmation, or if it feels right, then we should heed their counsel.
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 7:51 am
Cassie
I have prayed a lot about this issue, and although I believe that a good marriage between a man and a woman is ideal, I can’t bring myself to deny the civil protections offered by the law to gay people just because they choose a different path than I do.
When I prayed about this issue this was my own personal answer to my prayers… That I will not be supporting the ban on gay marriage.
The thing that finally helped me decide was that civil liberties should be denied to criminals, not to law abiding citizens. It just doesn’t seem fair that criminals can marry who they choose but decent law abiding gay citizens can’t.
I can appreciate what the church is saying, but I wouldn’t want someone to deny me rights because of what I believe is right for me and my family.
I just feel that freedom is more important. After all the war in heaven was all about free agency. If gay people are not hurting anyone then they should get the same civil rights and protections as every other law abiding citizens.
I know this is pretty simple, but it just seemed to make sense. I still believe that through love those that need and want to find the gospel will, and their hearts will be open to receiving it.
Many people in my ward feel the same as I do, but are a little afraid to express it.
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 9:48 am
tk
#6 Jay and #8 Kullervo,
I read your comments and I just wanted to clarify a couple of your points.
1.The Church has and continues to do much work for humanitarian and educational needs around the world; through the Humanitarian Funds and the Perpetual Educational Fund to name just a couple. We have repeatedly been asked to donate to these funds and give generously to the Fast Offering Fund. I’m sure you remember the special Fast that we had for the victims of Katrina.
Also the RS is heavily involved with humanitarian aid and has been from its inception. I’ll just list a few high points:
1848- Provided bedding cloth for the handcart Pioneers.
1857 – Raised funds for the Perpetual Immigration Fund.
1871 – Donated $14,000 to the victims of the Chicago Fire.
1921 – Established welfare for mothers and children; also donated $15,000 for the European relief fund. Also the R.S. was asked by President of the United States to Release Tons of wheat from storage for the relief fund.
1930 Started the Social Services to aid with Employment, Budgets and Professional Training.
During WWII – Sent 47,000 bars of soap and packages of food to Norway and Germany. Members of the Church in Swiss. sent clothing and food to Austria. The members in Holland sent potatoes to Germany and the members in Hawaii sent supplies to Japan.
1999 – The RS donated 31,000 hygiene kits, 31,000 sewing kits 2500 newborn kits, 2500 school kits, 4000 Button kits, 2000 leper bandages, 1200 surgical drapes and 132,000 quilts were sent to Kosovo, Turkey, Mexico, Armenia, Georgia and Ukraine
(These are just highlights from the R.S. this does not include what the Church does as a whole.)
When I was RS president, we had projects every quarter that included blankets, hygiene packets, school bags, literacy projects, donations to women’s shelters and the list goes on.
2. Also the Church has been involved in many moral/political issues. When I lived in Chicago the FP asked members to get involved in the issues surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment.
Also about 6-7 years ago we lived in New Hampshire and the FP sent letters to all of the wards to write our Senators to not support the legalized gambling law that was going before the state law makers.
I just want to clarify that the Church is involved with many moral/political issues; including poverty, education and other social services.
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm
ama49
#13
I appreciate you both sharing your examples. It shows how God works in your life personally.
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 3:52 pm
ama49
#14 TK
Thank you for the excellent examples of how involved the Church is. One great thing about the LDS church is how they usually do all of these things behind the scenes and not for public recognition. Every once in awhile though such as with this example, they make a big announcement and I think it shocks a lot of people sometimes! : 0 )
LikeLike
July 2, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Dan
A few rambling thoughts as I read the post and some of the comments to it:
1. I’ve already prayed to know if the church is true and if it is led by a living prophet. Having received an affirmative response to that inquiry, I don’t need to go and re-ask every time the prophet speaks, if anything has changed.
2. One thing that my non-member friends always tell me is how much they like our views on families. We are a family oriented church. Supporting a ban on gay marriage is not the same as saying that gay people should all be locked up or something. I see the church’s efforts as more of a pro-family statement, which is in line with the church’s teachings.
3. The church does speak out on other moral issues like drugs, gambling, immorality (which would include prostitution) etc. If these sorts of issues came up on ballots, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the church get involved.
Thanks for the post AMA.
LikeLike
July 3, 2008 at 6:58 am
m&m
I think part of life is to learn to make choices. The way we do that as members is to take what we are taught and seek God’s guidance and direction. We will answer to Him for those choices, and in most cases (minus a few situations where Church leaders have a stewardship to do something), those choices simply are ours and ours alone. No one knows our hearts and basically no one else can get that revelation for us (again, excepting the few people who might have stewardships that could also receive revelation about or for us).
In addition, what the Church leaders decide to do is not ours to judge, either. Personal revelation is just that — personal. God doesn’t give personal revelation that enables anyone to declare that the prophets are wrong. That is simply not our place. Anyone who claims that personal revelation told them the prophet is wrong doesn’t understand how personal revelation works, imo. And they risk inappropriately undermining counsel that could have impact on others.
We should always be sure that we don’t impose our personal revelation on anyone else, either in judging their choices, or in declaring that we know better than the prophets for everyone else. It simply doesn’t work that way.
LikeLike
July 3, 2008 at 3:02 pm
ama49
#18 MM
I agree with you completely. As you see by the variety of comments on this post, there are different “reveleations” that people have received. Some believe that simply knowing the prophet is called of God (as in comment #17) is enough to follow everything they counsel us to do. That is fine, but as we’ve seen throughout the Church’s history, the prophet hasn’t always given correct “revelation.” and also throughout history prophets have said not to blindly follow them.
Therefore, you hear comments from the other side of the spectrum.
I think it is important to consider the following:
1. Am I in tune with the Holy Spirit
2. If I feel differently than what the prophet counsels is it because I’m simply not wanting to go along with what they say, or I’m mad about an issue, or is it because I truly feel prompted by the Spirit?
If we’re living righteously and we feel guided to do something differently, I don’t think that’s wrong. However, one needs to be wary not to make it a habit of saying “the spirit told me so” and disregarding prophets’ counsel.
LikeLike
July 3, 2008 at 4:36 pm
m&m
However, one needs to be wary not to make it a habit of saying “the spirit told me so” and disregarding prophets’ counsel.
I think there is more to it. We should be wary, but if someone is willing to take their revelation and generalize it for everyone else (“I can’t feel good about what they say, therefore I think the prophets are wrong”) then there is a problem. Either the revelation to the person really wasn’t true revelation, or that person has misinterpreted it. The Spirit won’t tell us if the prophet is wrong for the Church, because it’s not our stewardship to get revelation for the Church. We can only receive PERSONAL revelation, guidance about what to do ourselves with regard to prophetic counsel.
It’s not just disregarding the counsel that could be problematic; it’s disregarding it for everyone else.
LikeLike
July 3, 2008 at 8:27 pm
ama49
#20
Good point. Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
July 3, 2008 at 9:21 pm
m&m
p.s. I don’t know how that winky smiley got in there, but it wasn’t supposed to be in there!
LikeLike
July 3, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Cassie
I’m not sure how the whole prophet thing got involved, but but I have to go on the answers to my prayers. As you know God has also told the prophets that we the members of his church should not kill, however he did command Nephi to kill Laben. Anyway, it’s not really personal revelation if all the person revelations are exactly the same… or exactly how someone, including the prophet says they should be. I really don’t believe it’s right to infringe on someone else’s right to free agency in their choice of a partner. What if we start voting to outlaw everything we don’t believe in? Like drinking, smoking, pre-marital sex, gambling, coffee? If people want to sin, well that is their choice. As long as their sins don’t affect me then I can’t justify denying them the same protections afforded any law abiding citizens. I do wish they would just call it a civil union though.
LikeLike
July 4, 2008 at 12:04 am
Cassie
I do agree with the point that we can’t make it a habit of saying, “The spirit told me so”. .. this could be used to justify a lot of “sin”. Still I don’t think it is a sin to allow people to have the same protections under the law as I do just because I disagree with them. I also understand the church has it’s stance. I guess what I am saying is that I won’t vote to deny a law abiding citizen their rights, just as I wouldn’t vote to ban drinking or any other sin that doesn’t affect me personally. 🙂 Everyone has to go with what they feel is right for them.
LikeLike
July 4, 2008 at 6:02 pm
m&m
As long as their sins don’t affect me
That is part of where people disagree — if this actually does affect others. I believe this will have a profound impact on our society in many ways if gay marriage truly becomes legal.
(p.s. gays already had rights in CA before the gay marriage thing)
Of course, everyone has to vote their conscience on things like this.
LikeLike
July 5, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Jay
m&m,
Please tell us how this affects our society? I just don’t see it. Who cares if the state recognizes gay marriage. If you believe God does not recognize their marriage why should it matter? Let them get married and then just leave them alone. I really don’t see what the big fuss is about. I know it is immoral to some people, but that’s their choice not ours.
LikeLike
July 21, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Arielle
I definitely believe that the saints should stick up for what we believe in- doing everything in our power to let the World know that Homosexuality is NOT correct and there should Never be a “Gay Marriage”! The people of our church need to have a little more courage and do something about this problem!
LikeLike
July 22, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Jay
Again, I don’t see where the problem is. Scriptural precedent was used to justify blacks not having the priesthood also. We eventually tossed that false doctrine off. Who’s to say homosexuality isn’t the same thing? Many homosexuals do not chose to be gay, they are simply born that way and to call them sinners is the same as calling blacks unworthy of the priesthood. They can’t change their black skin and homosexuals can’t change how they feel about the opposite sex.
LikeLike
July 22, 2008 at 9:31 pm
jack
#13, Cassie,
You make an excellent point. I am in agreement with you. This is an issue of what rights does a person have as a citizen of the United States. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not a Christian nation, but a nation that allows us to be Christians or Buddhists or Muslims or LDS–even FLDS. So, it’s difficult to make this issue a religious issue. I think the real question is: “Can we legislate morality?” Now, before anyone tries to equate this issue with issues such as abortion, abortion is murder, which is already against the law.
LikeLike
July 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm
ama49
#26 Jay
I can definitely see your point and you have a valid argument. I think that most people who believe in banning gay marriage say it affects society in that there in theory would be no society if everyone was gay. Granted people who are gay are a very small percentage of the population, but that’s the theory anyways.
This leads to the question: what do you think would happen if we allowed gay’s to marry and raise kids? How do you think that would affect society?
LikeLike
July 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Jay
ama49,
Gays already marry (in some instances) and raise children in our society. This hasn’t made anyone more immoral than they may have already been. In fact adopted children have found good homes where they are cared for and loved by committed gay couples. It is much more important for those that believe a marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal situation to simply live what they believe and let others live what they believe. Passing laws to exclude people because of something they can’t help is wrong. If Christian families believe strongly in man/woman marriage, they should teach their children what they believe is right and not worry so much if their neighbor is doing it. Our responsibility is our family not other people’s families.
If it is a matter of society affecting our families that is a valid concern, but why is this issue so much more important than others. What about rampant fornication between heterosexual couples? This is much more pervasive and in your face than homosexuality is (TV shows, commercials, friends, family).
A rational person would admit that our society is not going to become gay because we allow homosexual marriage. No mater how hard I try I will never be attracted to a man, the thought disgusts me. However, the exact opposite is true for many gay men. Their numbers will always be in the minority and I can’t see why Christians should be afraid that they will negatively influence their families if they are are actively involved with their children.
LikeLike
July 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm
ama49
#31
Jay,
You bring up an excellent point about the other sins such as fornication, etc. that the church doesn’t get politically involved with and why they pick the gay issue, I’m not sure.
That’s the good thing about free agency though and the point I was trying to make in the post. For some “doing all they can do” to support it is different than others. Some people don’t support it, so there’s nothing they will do and that’s “all they can do.”
Maybe someone else knows why the church picked the gay issue over many other issues they could have picked. Have you heard anything?
LikeLike
July 28, 2008 at 11:44 pm
ama49
#27
Arielle,
Thank you for stopping by and for your comments.
What exactly would you suggest that the saints should do?
Also, what would you say the main problem with homosexuality is and why should the church get politically involved?
LikeLike
July 29, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Jay
The only reason I’ve heard that the LDS Church will step into politics is on moral issues, but there are so many moral issues (as already pointed out) that the Church ignores.
Personally, I think the Church acts on the gay issue because it is low hanging fruit. In other words, it’s the easiest thing to fight against. Homosexuality hasn’t been completely accepted by our society yet and therefore enough support exists among the populous to make a difference. While actions like this may slow the acceptance of gays, ultimately I believe our culture will accept them without prejudice in the future as many other cultures already do. It will become a non-issue.
LikeLike
August 19, 2008 at 12:29 am
WestBerkeleyFlats
The LDS church acted in this manner in California and other states to organize opposition to gay marriage for the same reason that it organized opposition to the ERA among members in the 1970s in states such as Virginia and Utah using the same methods, namely because the LDS church is a socially conservative organization that is allied with other socially conservative religious organizations on these issues.
I think that both efforts were misguided from a practical standpoint, given that most LDS members in the US would probably prefer that LDS leaders express their views but not directly encourage any political action.
LikeLike