To My Fellow LDS Friends: Why I Marked “YES” on the AUSTRALIAN MARRIAGE LAW POSTAL SURVEY

A very, very dear person said to me on Facebook recently, “I'm thankful for your courage in your various posts about marriage equality. It's not easy being open on social media - I know I'm a chronic ‘people pleaser’ and will often forsake my views for more harmonious interaction with other people.”; I'm not feeling courageous; in fact I had a panic attack earlier, contemplating how to put all these rambling thoughts that are bouncing around my Cranium together. I also feel uncomfortable with the possibility of having less than harmonious interaction with other people. I guess it's just that I've become so weary and tired of seeing people I love and respect get hurt, from both sides of the “marriage equality” argument, but also continue to see the spread of half-truths and outright lies from both sides.

So this has been hard, and I'm still none too confident I'm going to be able to articulate my thoughts on why I, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or “Mormon”, have landed on the side of the “Yes” campaign regarding marriage equality. I will openly admit that I'm a pretty poor example of what an LDS member is (it's funny; our church has managed to accumulate almost as many “names” as the LGBTQQIAA(!) community has); I do not blame my parents for this, and believe they actually did well to “raise [me] up in the way I should go”. But I, like everyone else, have my failings, caused both inwardly and outwardly, and thus I can easily be dismissed as “barely a Mormon” anyway. That would be hurtful, but possibly fairly accurate; I certainly castigate myself with the same self-accusation. But I think there are some redeeming features that drag me from the bottom of the unredeemable sinner pile. I would like to think that, at least occasionally, I endeavour to remember that “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…” The ol’ Golden Rule: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself” (the positive or directive form), or, “One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (the negative or prohibitive form).

So, one thing I'd like to clear up first; I fear that many church members somehow missed a fundamental shift the church has made concerning “Homosexuality”. I grew up with the writing and talks of Spencer W Kimball and Bruce R McConkie, with statements  concerning Same-Sex Attraction such as

"God made me that way," some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. "I can't help it," they add. This is blasphemy. Is he not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be "that way"?’,  “homosexuality (along with a long list of other things; Bruce R McConkie was quite exhaustive in his ‘Sex Immorality’ section in his thankfully now out of print ‘Mormon Doctrine’) (is) condemned by divine edict and (is) among Lucifer's chief means of leading souls to hell” “But it can be corrected and overcome.”

Alas, there are still many members who believe that this is still the church's stance, that it is a choice, that can be cured. Homosexual Conversion Therapy is still bandied about in certain ignorant quarters. It is not a Choice, and nor does the Church continue to hold that belief. On the official Church website https://mormonandgay.lds.org we read:

“Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. Elder M. Russell Ballard stated:

“Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction]’” (“The Lord Needs You Now!” Ensign, Sept. 2015, 29).

While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments. The parent of a child who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay should choose to love and embrace that child. As a community of Church members, we should choose to create a welcoming community.”

“For someone who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay, counseling may help the person approach his or her sexuality in healthier, more fulfilling ways. However, counseling and therapy are not needed by everyone.

While shifts in sexuality can and do occur for some people, it is unethical to focus professional treatment on an assumption that a change in sexual orientation will or must occur. Again, the individual has the right to define the desired outcome.” (emphasis mine)

And where once family-banishment seemed commonplace upon learning of a child's “unnatural” sexual orientation, the church offers wonderful guidance, pleading the opposite reaction (see https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/ten-tips-for-parents .)

So, we as a church have come a long way concerning something that affects roughly 10% of the world's population; roughly the same number who are left-handed. Think about that for a moment. Think how many people in your local congregation are left-handed. (I'm waving my left hand wildly!) Statistically, we also have in our congregation the same amount of people who, whether you, or they, like it or not, don't sit in the pew marked “heterosexual”; repeating Elder M. Russell Ballard's words, “‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people”.

And then, “The attraction itself is not a sin…” - and here is where God's law, and civil, law-of-the-land law diverge - “but acting on it is.”

That's tough. Here you are, a member of what you believe to be the Church of Jesus Christ, but you've been born with desires that you cannot act on without offending God. Those limitations are also placed by God upon everyone else, but everyone else has an option to act on those desires; they can get married. Not so those with Same Sex Attraction. These brothers and sisters who do sit amongst us are mighty strong who choose a life of celibacy, and have my awe-filled respect.

All that (and yes, it was a lot) being said, what of those not of our faith? What right do we have to deny the right of civil union of two consenting adults, who are already, legally allowed to act on that “complex reality of same sex attraction”. What right?  

One of the other axioms that I have endeavoured to live by, is also one of my favourite pieces of modern day scripture; this is scripture that we believe has been given by God through modern day prophets. It is actually one of our "Articles of Faith", a concise listing of thirteen fundamental doctrines of Mormonism composed by Joseph Smith as part of an 1842 letter sent to "Long" John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, and first published in the Latter Day Saint newspaper Times and Seasons. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), later canonized the articles as scripture in 1880. Article of Faith 11 reads:

We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Holding to this has resulted in friendships through my life with (amongst many others) Baptists, a few members of the Salvation Army, a Jehovah's Witness, a couple of Pentecostals, a bunch of agnostics, a nonconformist conglomerate of atheists, and a wonderful Muslim Turk who made the best Kebabs in Fairfield, NSW- just don't call them souvlaki!

Article of Faith 12, just out of interest, reads:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

(So if you see a “good Mormon” doing sixty through a school zone, they are not only breaking the law, they offend God in the process!)

Which brings me to a scripture that has a great deal of meaning to me, that in a lot of ways intertwine these two articles of faith. I'd say that second only to Doctrine & Covenants 89:12-13 (Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.) one of the most ignored of all modern day scripture seems to be this: it's found in The Doctrine and Covenants (a book of modern-day revelation), contained in a section excitedly called 134. Within the Section’s preface, we read: A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835.

The whole section is not very long, and well worth a read, and can be found here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.4

The verse in particular that does the intertwining of Articles of Faith 11&12 in Section 134 is verse 9:

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

And therein lies the rub.

And it's a rub that cuts both ways, to mix metaphors, amplified even more so with the hypothetical claims of certain Anti-Equality camps; that of the “slippery slope” that could well allow demands by some for the legal acceptance of polygamy.

Because we, as LDS, are a people built on the back of polygamy.

From the LDS church’s webpage “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage” (again, well worth a full read to grasp more fully the parallels our gay friends and family members currently face):

“For much of the 19th century, a significant number of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage—the marriage of one man to more than one woman. The beginning and end of the practice were directed by revelation through God’s prophets. The initial command to practice plural marriage came through Joseph Smith, the founding prophet and President of the Church. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church.

The end of plural marriage required great faith and sometimes complicated, painful—and intensely personal—decisions on the part of individual members and Church leaders. Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was a process rather than a single event. Revelation came “line upon line, precept upon precept.””

To quote from the manifesto itself, canonised as scripture:

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

(Emphasis added by me)

My first rhetorical hypothetical (seeing as we seem happy enough to predict hypothetical outcomes) question for you all is this:

You're a kind, loving, Christian, non-LDS US family in the late 1800s, living next door to a nice, very large Mormon family that's currently practicing polygamy. Would you be one of the sixty millions of people opposed to them continuing? If a voluntary postal survey was dropped off via Pony Express, with the question:

Should Mormons be allowed to continue practicing plural marriage?

□ Yes                         □ No

What box would you tick, do you think?

Let me ask a second, rhetorical hypothetical question:

You're a kind, loving, Christian, LDS Australian family in the early 2030s. Marriage equality between two consenting adults had already been made legal a decade previously. The slippery slope has been slid, and in a surprising and somewhat controversial move, the Prophet of the Church requests its members to request of the government the right for Church Members and other faiths that have traditionally practiced plural marriage to do so in this country. Extensive polling shows 70% approval by the Australian populace, but the Government of the day can't do what they're paid to do, learnt nothing from the voluntary non-binding postal survey fiasco, and there, in front of you, delivered by a completely privatised Australia Post Drone, is a voluntary non-binding postal survey, with the simple question:

Should consenting adults be allowed to practice plural marriage?

□ Yes                         □ No

Be aware that there is strong and vocal opposition to this, no matter the polling. Which box would get your tick this time?

Yes, this is all hypothetical, and I certainly don't wish to know the answer to these two questions. I just want you to think it over, and identify how you feel.

I reiterate Doctrine and Covenants Section 134:9

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

So what of The Family: A Proclamation to the World? If you had managed to drag yourself away from this gripping essay, and read the full Section 134, the next verse perhaps answers that question:

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

And the fear of the impact on children? I am honestly not being flippant, but how much of these terrifying statistics is the result of same sex marriage? My admittedly very small experience with same-sex couples raising children have put my own nurturing efforts to shame.

All this I say from the very blinkered perspective of one who believes he will never see a same-sex marriage performed within an LDS chapel, let alone a Temple, and will defend the Church's (and all Churches) right to take that stand. Just as strongly as I will continue to fight for the rights of two consenting adults - including many wonderful, loving, caring, shy, terrific friends and family - outside of the church to be able to have a civil marriage in Australia. Because it strikes me as totally and ridiculously bizarre that, because I am legally married, I can in this country break one of the Big Ten and (God-Forbid) legally commit Adultery, when so many of my friends and family can't, because they can't legally be married to those they love!

DISCLAIMER: I’m no expert in nuffink except writing long, poorly punctuated ramblings. I represent no one, and no party, in said rambling. I suffer from mental disorders severe enough for you all to completely discredit this rambling, carte blanche. Any offence caused by said rambling is completely unintentional. Minds far superior to mine could probably poke holes the size of Kerberos through any of my statements. That being said, I never said this was my argument; just the reasons why I, as a Mormon, marked the yes box on my voluntary, non-binding, non-vote, evilly divisive postal survey, that even when over will leave us all back where we started.  Thank you for getting to the bottom of this; if you did, and actually read it all, ask me for a hug. It will take me even further out of my comfort zone, but you'd deserve it.