On June 29, every LDS ward in California had a statement by the First Presidency read over the pulpit. In it, President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors asked members to “do all [they] can” to support a new proposed amendment to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The amendment would overturn the May 15 California Supreme Court ruling but uphold a 2000 prohibition on same-sex marriage.

The backlash reaction was almost immediate. While some members agreed with the statement or disagreed but chose to follow their Prophet, others became outspoken antagonists of the Church position. The latter, of course, caught wind with activists and the media, and resulted in an outpouring of news articles across California and Utah and blog postings that now circulate the globe. These individuals claim to be “active Mormons” and disagree with the Prophet’s counsel.

Regardless of their rationale for disagreeing, any “active Mormon” sustains President Thomas S. Monson as the prophet, seer, revelator and mouth-piece of God. “Active Mormons” raise their right hand during General Conference and sustain him and the other 14 apostles as the leaders of God’s church on the earth today. In sustaining, they are not voting for them or agreeing with their position, they are promising to support and listen to them.

Consequently, “active Mormons” know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over. No matter how diligently someone reads their scriptures, attends church or pays a full tithe, unless they sustain President Monson, his counselors and the other 12 apostles, they are not “active Mormons.”

But the biggest opposition to the First Presidency statement comes from those who argue, as one blogger put it, that “the Church does not expect its members to think, investigate, or use their minds to look into this issue.” They say the Church is robbing members of their agency, and cite Joseph Smith’s famous statement indicating the Church should “teach them [members] correct principles and they govern themselves.”

Well the correct principles are clear. The practice of homosexuality has always been seen as a sin by the LDS church. As the First Presidency letter stated, “the Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal,” and no increase in popularity or social acceptance will change that. This position is not robbing Church members of free-thinking; it’s asking them to stand up for what is central to their core doctrine — that man and woman are inherently and divinely matched for one another. No other combination will do.

But despite such an undeniably clear stance on this issue, the First Presidency and the Prophet still let men govern themselves; they still preserve the agency of every member of the Church.

The brethren never said that any member of the Church who voted against the amendment would be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. No record will be kept of how each Latter-day Saint votes and no member will be held accountable for how they vote. No one’s God-given agency is being removed, and no one is being told not to think for themselves. They are being taught and then left to make their own decisions, being held accountable only to their creator.

For many people, this issue may be one of epic, even faith-shattering proportions. But it shouldn’t be.

The brethren never told Church members to shun those with homosexual tendencies or view them as less than human. They called followers to defend a critical point of doctrine: the divinely ordained role of men and women within the family. This is not an issue the Church stance will evolve on; this is a fundamental part of Latter-day Saint doctrine endorsed by the Quorum of the Twelve, the First Presidency and the Prophet himself.

Any active church-going 6-year-old can sing “Follow the Prophet” and no seminary graduate or gospel doctrine teacher can recite a story in any of the standard works where contradicting the Prophet turned out to be a good idea. This is not the hill to die on, this not the battle to lose faith over. Every person has their agency, and all are counseled to use it wisely after evaluating both the secular and spiritual.

This editorial represents the opinion of The Daily Universe editorial board. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of BYU, its administration or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints



Copyright Brigham Young University 8 Jul 2008