The LDS Church, circa 1943

My only remaining grandparent (my dad's father) passed away on April 2nd this year, about thirteen months after his wife passed away. I now have no grandparents - and I feel cheated. My dad and his siblings have been sorting things out as far as who gets what, trying to clear my grandpa's house so that it can be sold.

Yesterday I noticed a pocket-sized book that looked pretty old, but in fairly good condition, sitting on one of the counters in our kitchen. It is about the size of a pocket-size LDS hymn book, with the title in black against a brown cover. I don't know why I glanced at it, but I did. (I suspect that it's because I have a mild interest in old editions of literature, such as my mom's nursing textbooks from the late 1970's/early 1980's.) Anyway, I flipped open the cover and in my grandma's distinctive cursive handwriting was written "Marlene Oliver." The title page indicated that it was published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1943, and a preface was written and signed by The First Presidency at the time, which consisted of Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay.

This book is simply titled "Principles of the Gospel."

It is topically-based, much like the "Mormon Doctrine" book, and obviously the first thing I looked for started with the letter "H" - homosexuality. But this topic was not present in the book. So I just flipped through the book, browsing until I came upon the subject heading "Church and State" on page 246.

I read all that was written under this subject heading, and I will present it here - with my added italics. (Copyright to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints):

"Church and State

The Church stands for the separation of Church and State. The Church has no civil political functions. As the Church may not assume the functions of the State, so the State may not assume the functions of the Church. The Church is responsible for and must carry on the work of the Lord, directing the conduct of its members, one towards the other, as followers of the lowly Christ, not forgetting the humble, the poor and the needy, and those in distress, leading them all to righteous living and a spiritual life that shall bring them to salvation, exaltation, and eternal progression in wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and power. ***

"The State is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church, itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for.

"Nevertheless, as a correlative of the principle of separation of the Church and the State, themselves, there is an obligation running from every citizen or subject to the State. This obligation is voiced in that Article of Faith which declares: 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.'

"For one hundred years, the Church has been guided by the following principles:

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

"We 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.

"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion.

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

"We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker. ***

"We believe *** that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed. (D & C 134:1-6, 8; Message of the First Presidency, April, 1942)"

This stunned me! I hope it stuns you, too! It stunned me because this is in stark contrast to what the Church now voices in regards to the separation of Church and State, as well as in regards to politics in general.

I actually agreed with the majority of what was written in this section. I still have questions and thoughts, but this pretty much sums up what I feel in my heart. If I had read this in 1943 and was not a member of the Church at the time, I probably would've joined! It just aligns so well with what I feel has been conveyed to me by the Holy Ghost.

So, the question is: what happened?! What changed?! Why is the Church now voicing different principles? I don't understand, and I probably never will... Sigh.

I am disappointed and confused by my childhood faith. But at the same time, I am just overjoyed that I was led to see this passage in this book! I believe that everything happens for a reason, and I was meant to see this passage at this time. It has given me some clarity, some confidence, and some ground to stand on. I am truly blessed and grateful!

Mixed Message from the "Kingdom"

We've all heard the news about the Church supporting Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance that would add "sexual orientation" protections to the list of protected statuses in the city's areas of employment and housing...

I don't know about you, but when I hear of news about the Church and its political support of anything, my ears perk up and I frantically search the internet to see if the media have picked it up yet.

I first heard word of the Church's actions from the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group on Facebook; a message was sent out to members of the group telling of how "well-placed people inside the Mormon Church" contacted others who were involved with Reed Cowan's documentary to let them know that the Church planned a statement and that they needed to "Watch what we [the Church] are about to do. You will be pleased."

At that point the media hadn't picked up the story yet, and I began to ponder about whether or not I believed the message sent to me by the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group. Honestly, the thought came into my mind that whoever sent the message was trying to rile people up with a sensationalized message - this person proved me wrong!

How do I feel about it? Honestly, I am confused and don't really know, but I will explain my feelings as best I can.

I am upset that the Church got involved, for several reasons. My primary reason for disagreement is because I don't like it when any Church gets involved in politics - period! Even when the Church and I agree on an issue (such as this ordinance), I don't think it is appropriate or ethical for any religion to get involved in politics. It shouldn't happen unless there is an issue that directly or specifically addresses religion.

I don't like the Church being involved in this specific issue because once it is involved a precedent is set. It is said about Utah politics that, "When the Church says 'jump,' those on Capitol Hill say, 'How high?'" So the legislature will, begrudgingly, refrain from challenging this ordinance. The precedent that is set is that the gay community now becomes dependent on the Church for any legislation that affects our community. One could argue that that's the way it already is, but the Church sends enough mixed messages that this ordinance could very well end up being challenged and revoked, which leads me to...

The way the Church handled its press release was, to me, not good enough. If we look back at Prop. 8 and the way the Church announced its support of that measure, it came in the form of a letter written and signed by the First Presidency that was read in every California ward's sacrament meeting. Compared to that, some "Joe Blo" from PR reading a statement written by the PR department carries little to no weight. He wasn't even an official spokesperson! (Those would be Kim Farrah and Scott Trotter). Admittedly, Prop. 8 and this ordinance bear little resemblance in "weight" themselves, but after the fiasco that was Prop. 8, a letter from the First Presidency read in Salt Lake City's wards should've been the least the Church could do.

The way in which the Church announced its support is the reason why people and groups still disagree with the Church on this ordinance. The Sutherland Institute, which is based on LDS principles, issued a statement disagreeing with the Church. The Utah Eagle Forum, which thinks it's based on LDS principles, also disagrees with the Church's stance on the ordinance. The reason why it's "okay" for them to disagree with the Church, but it wasn't "okay" for people who disagreed with the Church on Prop. 8, was because of the reason stated above: this time the statement didn't come from the First Presidency or the Prophet, it came from "Joe Blo" in PR. (The fact that certain people and groups still choose to disagree with the Church is not evidentiary of their "apostasy" - it is evidentiary of their being homophobic.)

And this is not a mistake. The Church does not issue anything - anything - publicly until it has been reviewed, revised, and "okayed" by the highest leaders of the Church. And since Prop. 8 - hell, since the beginning of friggin' time - the Church has been extremely careful with its PR. No one can convince me that everything about this announcement was not thoroughly thought out, or revised, or considered. I guarantee you that even this PR guy's tie was thought out in detail.

In short, the Church knows that an announcement doesn't carry as much weight when it is not delivered in a Church setting by its highest leaders...

Besides, the fact that the Church came in at the last minute to "save the day" when the city knew the ordinance would already pass is beyond disingenuous. I've heard comments from several people, including some MoHo's, with the general consensus being that, "We must thank the Church for doing this for us." To them I say, "I am not going to thank the Church for this; I am going to thank Salt Lake City and Mayor Ralph Becker for this."

Furthermore, the fact that Reed Cowan's documentary is coming out in the next few months has not gone over the Church's head. And that's what I believe this is all about - the Church having some backup, some "ammo" in its arsenal, to address coming criticism once "8: The Mormon Proposition" is released.

I would say the one reason why I am so confused about the Church's actions is because its statement read that this ordinance provides "common-sense rights that should be available to everyone" when just weeks ago Elder Oaks referred to gay rights as "alleged."

Oaks also said, "Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights."

Well, are they "common-sense rights" or "alleged civil rights?" This is one of those Mysteries of the "Kingdom." Can you blame me for being confused?!

One of the reasons the Church supports the ordinance is because it allows for religious freedom and exemption from the ordinance...

Oh, that's nice - especially when the Church owns half of the property in Salt Lake City. The exemption not only protects strictly religious property - such as churches, or temple grounds - but it applies to everything the Church owns. That means that the multi-billion dollar ($1.5 - $8 billion is estimated) City Creek Center being built by the Church, with not only its mall stores (and the stores' employees) but its high-end apartments and condominums, will be exempt from the ordinance. You won't find any dirty gays working for Macy's or Hot Dog On a Stick! Now, I'm not saying that this is inappropriate. In fact, as long as the Church does not accept any federal or state tax monies it is completely appropriate. But I am offended when the Church acts like it is doing us a favor. Please, I'm not a "petulant tween!"

If it's religious exemptions the Church wants, then why did it oppose gay marriage in Maine, which, in its legal form, allowed for religious exemptions? Call me confused... again.

In general, there have been two types of responses from members: those who disagree (like the Sutherland Institute and the Utah Eagle Forum) and those who agree with the Church. Some who agree with the Church are engaging in revisionist history, saying that the Church's position nor doctrine has changed. Huh?! Wha?! The Church itself called the announcement, "an historic statement." If nothing has changed, why is it so historic?

It confuses me when people say, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever." To them I say: "God may be unchanging, but the Church sure isn't." The mere fact that the Church has made this leap compared to twenty years ago (when people were excommunicated just for having gay feelings) is evidence. If it is okay to support a public policy position such as this today, now, then why wasn't it okay twenty years ago? Why is it okay for a person to have gay feelings today and not be excommunicated when twenty years ago it was different?

Having made all my complaints, and despite all my misgivings and hesitancy to send the Church a "thank you" card, I ultimately feel that if the Church's support helped in any way to save someone's life, then it is worth it.

I just wish I understood more what the Church really feels. I'm getting sick of the mixed messages.

Call me confused. And cautiously optimistic.