On Mormonism, Homosexuality, and Krikava’s Views

There seems to have been quite an unusual amount of discussion on these topics lately (not Krikava’s views, but the other two), and I feel to add my two bits.  I do not represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints position on this matter.  If you want those views, go to www.lds.org and read what’s in there on the topic.

I am, however, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (from here on, referred to as the Mormon church); and as such, it is my hope and desire to align my beliefs with that of the Church.

To understand me in specific, and Mormons in general, you have to accept (for the sake of argument) a few basics. 

I believe in what Mormons call the “13 Articles of Faith”.  These are basic beliefs of the Mormon faith that Joseph Smith wrote up in 1842 for a Chicago newspaperman who later published them.

Among those basic beliefs are that there is a God (article of faith #1), there are sins (article of faith #2), there is repentance (article of faith #4), and (important to the discussion of this essay) there are prophets (article of faith #6) who are called of God (article of faith #5) to preach the Gospel (article of faith #5) as revealed by God (article of faith #9).

These are among my basic beliefs.  Anything that follows in this essay is founded upon these principles: namely, that God has defined right from wrong, communicates those things through prophets both ancient and modern, and that when we find ourselves askew of those teachings, we may repent and find forgiveness through the divine miracle of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (article of faith #3), our Savior from sin and unhappiness.

(And if you can’t accept those basics for the sake of argument, stop reading now.  There would be no point in reading any further.)

It is unqualified Mormon (and I would add, Biblical) doctrine that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Note that I used the qualifying term “behavior”.  It is also unqualified Mormon (again, Biblical) doctrine that adultery is a sin.  So is thievery, lying, murder, covetousness, etc.  Many are familiar with the Mormon health code known as the “Word of Wisdom”.  In the Mormon faith, it is sinful to harm our bodies (gifts from God) by taking harmful substances into it such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. 

These standards originate from God.  The prophets teach them, the scriptures record them, and the Mormon church accepts and adheres to them.  If you do not accept them, there’s not much to discuss on these points.

These are all sinful ACTIONS to take.  It is not a sin, however, to be tempted.  It is not a sin to have weaknesses.  Indeed, Mormons are familiar with the expression found in the Book of Mormon “if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness.  I give unto men weakness that they may be humble….”  Another verse in the Book of Mormon comes to mind: “I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.”

We all have spiritual weaknesses and shortcomings.  Why I have some, and you have others, I don’t know.  To be a believer in God is to be one who recognizes that He (God) knows more than we do, and that there must be a purpose in the weaknesses we have.  I have my challenges, I have my weaknesses, and I certainly have those things “which do so easily beset me.”

The question I have to ask myself as I look myself in the mirror, or, as I kneel before my God and say my prayers at the end of the day is, “did I act on any of those temptations?”  If so, I need to exercise some faith and discuss those things with God, undertake the repentance process, and pray and work so that some day those weaknesses become strengths.

I do not, however, turn to my wife and ask her what sins she committed today.  Nor do I accost co-workers, neighbors, or fellow parishioners about their sins.  My wife’s, co-worker’s, neighbor’s, or fellow parishioners’ sins are a matter between them and their God (and/or ecclesiastical leaders, if their church operates thusly) – not me.  I am to love and support my wife as she grapples with her weaknesses, just as she loves and supports me as I grapple with mine. 

How do I love and support a friend who is grappling with the spiritual weakness of homosexuality?  I would suggest some of the items noted in a talk given by a Mormon Apostle, Jeffrey Holland.  There are a number of positive things a person can do to help a friend who is grappling with any spiritual weakness.  I would note that the best way we can support our gay friends is the same way we support any other friend with any other spiritual weakness – we love them and encourage them to read their scriptures, pray with God, counsel with their ecclesiastical leaders, and to avoid acting on temptations.

It borders on the absurd to me, then, to march side-by-side with someone in a “pride” parade as a sign of support.  This logic simply escapes me.  Do we march beside a friend who has committed adultery in an “Adultery Pride” parade?  Or in a “I-stole-money-from-my-office Pride” parade?  Or in an “I-abuse-my-children Pride” parade?

So how much sense does it make to march side by side with someone in a Gay Pride parade?

Participating in a -pride parade clearly demonstrates that you haven’t accepted that your spiritual weakness IS a spiritual weakness.  It shows that you think your weakness is an exception to the “God has defined right and wrong” principle I mentioned earlier.  

And for those who walk side-by-side in those pride parades to support folks, I applaud your misguided (although, surely heart-felt) desire to help your friends.

However, one picture from the scriptures just won’t leave my mind alone.  I recall the “woman taken in adultery” and “in the very act.”  We all know the story found in John.  The Pharisees and scribes wanted to stone her.  Indeed, she did commit the sin.  However, Christ did what we should do with our sinful friends.  He: 1) protected her from the stoning in the public square; 2) rebuked her in private (commanding her to “sin no more”); and 3) encouraged her to do better. 

But I don’t remember Him walking with her and other adulterers in an Adultery-pride parade later on in the afternoon.  Something to think about.

Republican Presidential Primary

I made my first donation to any political campaign the other day.

In the past, the one guy who I would have donated to readily and freely was the one person I wasn’t allowed to, by law, donate to. That was my boss, Gordon Smith. I was forced into early retirement by the voters of Oregon in 2008, and found myself unexpectedly sympathetic with former Congressman Dick Tuck who said on the night of his re-election loss, “the voters have spoken, the bastards!”

There have been other worthy candidates to donate since then, but I never felt to donate. Why?

Well, to answer that, I must first present my political manifesto:

I believe that “no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

I believe that politics (or, political campaigns) are the means to that end.

I believe that in supporting and voting for politicians to achieve those ends noted above, we must select good, honest, and wise representatives.

I believe that there are good men and women on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as dirt bags on either side.

I believe there are honest men and women on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as dishonest on either side.

Where the wisdom lies, of course, depends on the political philosophy one adheres to. I am conservative. For reasons why, see my July 15, 2010 blog. I see more wisdom in conservative thinking than I do in liberal thinking.

So, in the great contest of the 2012 presidential primary, I will, for the time being, limit my thoughts to the Republican candidates. Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. How do these four candidates rate in the “good, honest, wise” calculation (while not entirely possible, for the sake of discussion I will treat the three characteristics as mutually exclusive)?

Newt: For reasons that have been splashed all over news, and have been circulating for many years now, I believe he is neither good nor honest, but does possess wisdom – yielding Newt a net +1.

And while I don’t want to dwell much longer on Newt, I must draw attention to something Peggy Noonan highlighted a few weeks ago. “What is striking is the extraordinary divide in opinion between those who know Gingrich and those who don’t. Those who do are mostly not for him, and they were burning up the phone lines this week in Washington.”

Ron Paul: Candidly, I don’t know much about Ron Paul because I can never get past the 3^rd sentence of any set of remarks he makes. He seems like a decent man, and I don’t know that he’s ever been known to be brazenly dishonest. Score him +2.

But good gravy, his solutions to problems are so breathtakingly unwise, he is disqualified from my calculus even though he seems to have the 2 other critical traits.

Mitt Romney: Good, honest, and wise = +3. The guy is squeaky clean. You may not like his disciplined (aka boring) approach to politics, you may not appreciate his lack excitement or visible passion, but when did a presidential primary become MTV’s Real World or Survivor? This is a serious and sober business, and we need a serious and sober candidate.

Rick Santorum: Ditto to everything above about Mitt Romney. Good, honest, and wise = +3.

My answer to all the Paul-ites out there is to refer you to my August 30, 2010 blog.

Newt, Newt, Newt. As you’ve read, he got +1 because he seems neither good, nor honest. But, wisdom is something he possesses. He understands government, its weaknesses, limitations, and perhaps strengths. But in his zeal to get the nomination, he lost sight of the important principle that the ends don’t justify the means, as he layed waste on the capitalist economic system in an effort (an apparently successful one, at that) to damage Mitt Romney.

The capitalist economic system is the most effective means in society today to “secure to each individual … the right and control of property.” And because Newt assaulted one of my big three functions that government must deliver on, he not only caused me to scratch him off my list of prospective candidates, but he also drove me to contribute to his rival’s campaign.

Mitt Romney is my guy, anyway (for how I reconcile the “flip flop” accusation, see my February 7, 2008 blog). So he got the loose change from my pockets. He doesn’t need my donation, but he got it because of “Newt being Newt.”

(One might ask, why not Santorum instead of Romney? Santorum is a little bit further to the right than Romney, though, not as much as he likes to portray. I like Rick, and think he’d be a righteous Veep pick for Mitt because he’s got great street cred with the party, pretty decent with foreign affairs, and he knows the Hill and can be a good envoy for Mitt. But, being further to the right he’ll have a tougher time grabbing the middle in the general election, he’s less knowledgeable on the pressing issue of the day, the economy, and senators rarely make good presidents because of a general lack of managerial skills that Governors have.)