The negative reaction of those listening to brother P.’s “a man and a woman” was not to reject the Church’s marital doctrine, but to express disapproval that the national consensus of respect for diversity was being breached, to convey apprehension that visitors might perceive Mormonism as prone to discrimination even of non-members, and to show empathy toward LGBT brothers and sisters who had to endure another sting.

It’s always easy to twist what is being said, as if this post attacks church doctrine or calls to be “in line with society”. Such polarization makes a discussion quite difficult and tends to draw a sharp line between “good members” and other equally good members who just want to be sensitive to the needs and feelings of doubters and of non-members. Such polarization has often been a main problem in strict religions.

If one substitutes “latter-day saints” and “church members” by “Muslims” in Sasha’s comment, “church” and “gospel” by “Islam,” and “God” by “Allah,” one would read the exact kind of text one reads in blogs of fundamental Muslims who can’t understand how good fellow Muslims would plead for respect and diversity in order to live in peace with their Christian, Jewish, LGBT or whoever neighbors.

We do ourselves a disservice when we view the church as primarily a social community or extended family of friends who meet for mutual support. While this is an important aspect of the church, the church’s existence isn’t necessary if it’s a social community or extended family. The church is justified philosophically when and only when it is seen as something unique from God, a tangible manifestation (however imperfect) of His will for His children that differs substantively from any other organization. If we claim that the church’s teachings are relevant and applicable only to its members, and not the will of God for people generally, then we might as well claim that God only cares about members (of course patently false).

The OP lists “the right of believers to display disapproval of other people’s lawful conduct” as a relic of the past, something bad that society has thankfully grown out of. Is God likewise bereft of the right to display disapproval of people’s conduct? If everything a country’s law approves of is automatically approved by God, doesn’t that put the country above God? The whole point of religious teaching is to explain how God would have us conduct ourselves, and if it’s not different from what society already does than it isn’t needed. Thus, religion is inherently going to disapprove of some societal conduct and teach alternate conduct and the beliefs that back it- that’s what religion is for.

Hopefully this lengthy rant is at least somewhat clear- OP’s message is wrong to suggest that it’s harmful and antiproductive to express or give voice to church teachings that are at odds with social zeitgeist. The way in which we present the gospel message is important, and of course should be done as wisely and lovingly as possible, but if propriety and political correctness are be valued above the gospel itself then you might as well not have the gospel. The points of difference between revealed teaching in the church and general consensus in society at large are precisely what make the gospel from God and not from man.

And yes, the Scriptures, the Book of Mormon in particular, identify what can cause the breakdown of a society. Analyses confirm: poverty, social injustice, lack of education, and broken homes. Add to it current wars and atrocity based on devious religious convictions.

It remains incomprehensible that some people assert that LGBT marriages will lead to societal disintegration and are willing to turn the matter into a burning crusade — based on comparable devious religious convictions. While such marriages do not affect them in the slightest way and actually reinforce the concept of family.

When a church claims its “religious right” to limit outsiders in their lawful conduct, or even in their human rights, the image of religion as a threatening power is reinforced. It is not surprising that many people distrust religion, meaning, in fact, conservative institutional religion, because of its historical trail of discrimination and oppression.

In countries where a church has the backing of the state (or where the church has power over the state), we see the consequences, for example in some East-European countries. Mormon missionary work is still greatly hampered by national orthodox churches that foster legislation against foreign “cults.” Our church has always enjoyed the most freedom to preach and worship in fully secularized democratic nations, meaning those nations requiring a strict separation of church and state. That’s why I spoke, tongue-in-cheek, of heaven-sent secularization when the power of the Catholic church over Belgian society was finally broken (and we owe that to the socialist and liberal parties).

About the word “secular”: again, as mentioned before, terms have different connotations according to the context. In the U.S. “secularism” is often understood as a world “without God.” When church leaders decry “secularization” and “secularism” as the enemy, many members in other countries don’t really understand why the church would be against it. A democratic secular society gives the assurance of religious freedom.

Doesn’t the Book of Mormon instead identify where this societal disintegration comes from without mentioning a single word about homosexuality or gay marriage? The downfall of various societies depicted in the Book of Mormon are linked to massive income inequality, division into strong and exclusive and discriminatory social classes, the poor’s lack of access to chances for learning, and priestcraft.

“There was a time, however, when the Belgian Catholic church had a different view on religious freedom and used it, for example, to deny service to Mormons. Catholics, indeed, had the God-mandated duty to stop heresy. Older Latter-day Saints in Belgium still remember the years when the Catholic church tried to obstruct Mormon inroads and Catholic priests told their parishioners not to rent to Mormon missionaries. From the 1960s on, however, heaven-sent secularization broke this religious power to discriminate. What brother P. was implying, at least in the eyes of some, was a return to the past – the right of a church to set its standards for everyone and the right of believers to display disapproval of other people’s lawful conduct.”

This is such an extremely important point. Why do we act as though we are not aware of this? Why do we not give gratitude to God, day in and day out, for the secularity of the state that makes religious freedom possible and which protects us, as Mormons, from the legislative intentions of religious majorities against us?

Frank (57), yes, there are various definitions of the word “compromise.” That’s what I tried to convey in the sentences preceding and following the one you cite. Indeed, words have different connotations, even in the same country according to the context. Agreed, I should have included more nuances when comparing Europe and the U.S. The problem of connotation can also be multiplied when we communicate from different languages and cultures. English is my third language, so it’s not always easy to correctly embody a concept in the best form in a quickly written comment.

So, no, I don’t espouse “colonialist rescuer ethics.” By the way, that’s how some people view Mormon missionary work. Definitions are indeed a question of context and perspective.

You’re talking about two different definitions of compromise. Ethically, religion aside, to compromise your standards is a bad thing. Learning something that changes your standards is not having them compromised. Anywhere (not just smarter Europe), reaching an agreement by compromise is considered a victory, evidenced by the recent bill endorsed by the Church for non-discrimination laws in Utah.

I don’t even want to touch the colonialist rescuer ethics you seem to espouse that has been the rationale for almost every war in the last half of the 20th century.

ji (51), I understand your point, certainly if viewed from within the U.S. where one can hope that “majorities will always be kind-hearted to minorities” and not allow discrimination when it pertains to basic principles and human rights. Also, as Clark (52) points out, the U.S. has a mechanism to ensure that protection.

But what about other countries? Would you agree that “democracy”, such as in Nigeria or Uganda, can uphold a law that sends people to jail, or worse, for homosexuality? Or some Muslim countries where “democracy” subjects women to severe limitations? One could multiply the examples, also including countries that vote “democratically” to forbid or impede missionary work (that is the real issue of “religious freedom”, not the baker or florist who etc.).

It is one of the challenges of our posts that most readers view matters from the US perspective, which is understandable. Thanks to T&S for allowing people like Walter and me to try to broaden the view :)

The truth cuts its own path. If that means it runs parallel with protestantism for a couple of “farsees” then so be it.

It is ironic, nonetheless.

Kristine (42) I am somewhat sympathetic to that view. The problem is figuring out what is an ethical demand and thus applicable to all and what isn’t. So I think it’s more complicated than you make out.

Some try and thread this needle by contrasting doctrine with ethics via some public grounding like Utilitarian. But I don’t think that ultimately works either. For instance I think adultery is a public harm. I think it a horrendous act. But I think it should be legal even though I consider it far, far, worse than many acts that are illegal. Why do I think selling heroin should be illegal even though I think adultery is worse? These are complicated things to work out. Regardless of what conclusions we end up with I think we’ll always fall prey to the criticism of projecting doctrine on others.

No. This means the people’s will is valid only if it conforms to “higher principles.” Right or wrong, the majority has to prevail through whatever process the majority has agreed to follow. If not the majority, then who? The king? The elite? In the matter of same sex marriage, where state or national legislatures proclaimed it legal, it should be law of the land. And in locations where state or national legislatures proclaimed it illegal, it should be illegal. Individuals should vote and act according to their consciences, and civil societies will reward or punish whom they will, and God will punish or reward whom He will — these are separate matters. In our civil societies, minorities are dependent on the favor of the majorities — this has always been true. I hope majorities will always be kind-hearted to minorities.