I remember from as early as 4th Grade looking at the front page in the local Ogden, Utah newspaper and seeing the red stoplight in the upper-right corner indicating a red burn day. At that age, I had a hard time understanding what red burn days were for and was puzzled to see some of my friends with asthma issues stay in at recess on such days. At eight years old, kids usually have a hard time drawing the connection between having a fire burning in their fireplace and their friend's health. It wasn't many years later, however, that I realized that when inversion settled in over the Wasatch Front, even I developed a wheezy cough even though I thankfully haven't had any asthma issues and if I paid attention to others around me, I would hear the same chronic cough.
Unfortunately, it seems like many Utahans, and often Mormons in the US generally, have either not made or have refused to make the connection between the exhaust being cranked out by the hundreds of thousands of cars milling around Salt Lake City and the surrounding communities and kids' breathing and coughing. Many communities in Northern Utah get ranked consistently as having some of the poorest air quality in the country, ranking up with cities with enormous industrial activities where people expect to see smoke stacks spewing toxic pollution. Most people probably don't think about Logan or Salt Lake City or Bountiful, Utah when thinking of pollution-ridden communities, but yet these Utah communities rank beside cities like Pittsburg. And it's not just driving cars that leads to this extreme air pollution situation. The State's air pollution standards for industrial activities encourage high emitting companies to pass along the externalities of air pollution to the public to pay for and deal with.
But air pollution isn't the only issue where many LDS folks seem to show a surprisingly small regard for sustainable land management. It has been largely LDS members of the Utah legislature that have been pushing for years for State and National Parks to be privatized so as to allow oil exploration, mining, and private land ownership, which could lead to some of the most treasured parts of the State be closed to the general public. I hear from my US Forest Service colleagues stationed on districts around Utah that their recent work geared around restoring habitat and protecting streams and fish populations have been strongly opposed by most local residents, being much more in favor of the old forest management techniques of clear cutting and channelization of rivers.
The LDS faith, as an organization, strives to be as politically neutral as it can be, believing that its members should make their own decisions in matters of politics. However, it is enlightening to see the consistent opinion that Church leaders have voiced in terms of stewardship for the Earth.
“The earth is very good in and of itself, and has abided a celestial law, consequently we should not despise it, nor desire to leave it, but rather desire and strive to obey the same law that the earth abides,” said President Brigham Young, the LDS Church's 2nd Prophet in modern times.
More modern leaders of the LDS faith have been even more clear in God's expectations for wise stewardship of the natural resources available to us.
“We ought to take care of Mother Earth. She groans under the weight of our actions,” said Elder Vaugh J. Featherstone of the Quorum of the Seventy.
Elder Marcus B. Nash, a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy further describes our role as stewards of the Earth. “Behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.”[20] Nevertheless, LDS doctrine is clear: all humankind are stewards over this earth and its bounty—not owners—and will be accountable to God for what we do with regard to His creation" (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-nash-stegner-symposium).
Elder Nash's explanation of what our relationship to the Earth's resources really is based on--stewardship not ownership--is the crux of the issue. Stewardship implies taking care of something owned by someone else. The scriptures are very clear about who really owns the Earth. "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof . . ."(Psalms 24:1).
I'm not going to go into further arguments about this except to encourage everyone to read Elder Nash's talk at the 18th Annual Stegner Center Symposium quoted above. He outlines the argument much better than I ever could. And really, the purpose of this blog is not to convince people that a liberal view is the correct view to have, but rather, to explain that being Mormon and having a left leaning view on things is totally acceptable. When it comes to how we should be taking care of the Earth, conservation of natural resources is not just something that the Democratic Party adopted into its platform in the 1960's when it became popular to be concerned about saving whales. LDS theology from the beginning has espoused the idea of us being held accountable for how we take care of the Earth.
For me, my faith and political views often run hand in hand. I've been a strong advocate for environmental activism and natural resource management from a very early age, starting out speaking at city council meetings against building huge parking lots in the foothills for fear of flooding to meeting with US Congress members advocating for climate change legislative measures. Feeling the way I do about the Earth--that it is God's creation and a gift for us with expectations for wise management--has motivated my liberal view on the environment. I can't see how allowing mining practices that not only denude huge swaths of former forest and leach out deadly chemicals can be seen as wise stewardship, nor can I see how it could please God in anyway to see His creations be exploited in anyway.
I know that many well-meaning folks get turned off of modern environmental management practices when they see the extreme view being shouted in the public arena that nature should matter more than human life. For most people, the lives of their children are more of a priority than a frog in the Amazon. But when it comes to local environments, which concerns everybody because everyone is a part of some local environment, environmental concerns can be very impactful on the very children who parents consider top priorities.
I was getting a check up in a Dentist's office when my dental hygienist starting talking about two of her children. She expressed her great concern about the air quality's impact on her children. I told her I was interested in working for a government agency that addresses those concerns and she pulled the tool she was using on my teeth out of my mouth and looked at me with startling intensity. She said, "When you get into those agencies, you fix this for my kids." She said this with eyes close to tears. Beyond it being somewhat awkward consoling anyone with half of my mouth numb and the other half having apparatuses protruding out of my mouth, I promised her I would do my best. I've never forgotten that experience and it has motivated me to stick with the sometimes maddening protocols of the federal government. That dental hygienist, I'd imagine, is a staunch Republican. She probably nods her head when she hears Rush Limbaugh demonize the EPA's efforts to regulate air toxins. But this woman unknowingly bridged the concern of poor air and her kids health. That's why I keep going into work: because environmental health leads to human health. My religions back up this belief and even adds a commandment for us to take good care of the Earth. That's why I am happily a Mormon and Liberal.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Navigating Same Sex Marriage
I served a LDS mission largely in the downtown area of San Francisco, the city with the highest percentage of LGBT couples (according to the Williams Institute: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Same-Sex-Couples-GLB-Pop-ACS-Oct-2006.pdf) and covered the Castro District which has an even greater concentration of LGBT individuals than even the general San Francisco population consists of. And I was blessed to teach a few of these individuals. And at that time (10 years ago), the "Mormon Culture,"--the residual societal side effect of having too many like-minded individuals living too close together for too long without questioning or considering outside views that has resulted in some pretty off-base ideas that certainly are not always in alignment with the official doctrine of the LDS faith--was trying to convince, largely conservative folks, that one's sexual orientation was a choice or nurtured into people and had no biological basis.
But one night while I was speaking with a fellow interested in learning more about the LDS faith, who was also openly gay and was at that time in a relationship with another man, said something that has stuck with me ever since. He said in a quiet, intense voice, "I'm feeling like this faith is true, but I don't know if I can bear the thought of being alone for the rest of my life." I didn't have a good solution for him then, and I don't think I've discovered one since. I know a very select group in the LGBT community have entered into heterosexual relationships and have raised families, but I've seen that this isn't a solution or a viable option for very many people. So, I will never say that I know how challenging that prospect must be for a member of the LGBT community interested in the LDS faith. But I think I might have a bit truer perspective despite the fact that I'm heterosexual given my experiences working at such an intimate level with many of these incredible individuals.
It's from this context I wish to describe how I've navigated a way to be true to both the doctrine of my faith as well as my political ideology. It is clearly defined from the Old Testament and every canonized book that the LDS faith accepts as being scripture that marriage between a man and a woman is of great importance. The LDS faith holds that God himself married Adam and Eve and told them to raise a righteous posterity. In more recent times, the First Presidency (apostles who work closely with the current prophet) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (a group that works in tandem with the First Presidency in leading the affairs of the LDS faith) have signed their names behind a document entitled, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." This document further defines roles of men and women and reaffirms the importance of marriage between a man and a woman for the establishment of families.
In fact if we draw attention to the very first sentence of this proclamation, it states, "We the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children" (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation). The LDS faith is a very family-centric organization. Nearly all of its efforts are designed to help families learn how to develop faith in Jesus Christ, accept commitments that we believe will lead us to being prepared for greater happiness in this life and new opportunities to learn and develop in the next life as families. In fact, my faith believes that in the next life, there won't even be a need for a church organization at all, but rather families will progress together through the eternities.
In order to be in a position to take advantage of these great opportunities in the next life, my faith believes that we need to be married under the proper authority. We call it "sealing power." Essentially, sealing is an act where people who have been given the authority to bind what is done on Earth in such a way that it can be accepted in Heaven (as we read about in the book of 1 Kings 17-18 where Elijah seals up the heavens so that no rains come for three and a half years) bind a couple together so that the marriage contract extends beyond the bounds of death.
Given this piece of doctrine I think it makes sense that the LDS faith takes marriage very seriously. It's more than just a legal agreement. It's more even than a religious rite that commits a couple to live under certain guideline for a lifetime. We're talking about a religious ceremony that we truly believe has the power to bind the heavens to accept the contract forever. So given all of this extreme gravity given to the principle of marriage between men and women, how can I possibly say I've found a way of navigating this principle with my liberal political view?
Religious belief is a choice we make as individuals. We may, as was the case with me, grow up within the construct of a certain religious faith or we might discover faith later in life, but regardless of when or how we discover it, we choose to believe. I'm certainly not going to say that parents don't put pressure in the form of punishment and reward on their children to encourage them to believe what the parents believe. My parents certainly rewarded me with praise when they saw me living under the standards they had chosen to live and with expressed disappointment when they saw me break away from those standards. I know my own parents did this because they believed it would lead to better decision making which would lead to greater happiness. But ultimately, and certainly now that I'm 31 years old, having one parent decide not to continue in the LDS faith, and living nearly 800 miles away from both parents, I've chosen to believe in the LDS faith. My faith has grounded me in a similar fashion to the way a ground for an electrical appliance protects me from having the electrical current leak out of the wiring. I believe it not only protects me by providing me with parameters but it also makes me more useful to people around me just in the same way that an appliance is more useful turned on and plugged in than otherwise. But I am very aware of the fact that not everyone agrees with my religious point of view. And in the United States of America, this diversity of religious belief is not only tolerated but celebrated as it absolutely should be. My right to worship in LDS temples and other meeting houses is protected just as much as someone's belief in spirits of the Earth and a belief in no divinity whatsoever are.
Given this wide variety in belief system, the U.S. Government does not pick winners or losers nor does it establish any state religions because doing so would make other faiths be marginalized, undervalued, or threatened. The Government's role in marriage in the United States is merely and yet significantly a legal contract. Enforcing contracts is one of the most vital and fundamental roles our Government plays. Just as in entering into a contract with a retailer for the retailer to provide a good or service and the consumer to provide payment for that good or service, a marriage contract provides couples with certain rights and benefits and certain obligations. There is much debate about the perceived benefit to society that comes from having individual bind each other to these legal marriage contracts. But beyond these controversies, there is one thing that I think stands clear: the Government shouldn't choose winners and losers or side with one religious faith's interpretation of marriage. If two people are interested in entering into a legal contract that binds them together and holds them to certain parameters and provides certain perceived benefits then the Government is a suitable broker of that agreement so long as the said agreement doesn't infringe on another's rights or do harm. I use the phrase "two people" very specifically. The Government shouldn't determine the morality of the union between two men or two women or one woman with one man. It should focus on enforcing the contract that is agreed upon between the two people.
Having said all of this, it is important to distinguish between a legal, civil marriage contract and a religiously-based marriage. There's a reason why couples are made to get a marriage certificate on top of the religious rite of the marriage ceremony. If a couple enters into a marriage contract with the State, they are legally married. If the same couple wishes their marriage to be sanctified by a certain religious custom or by God, they enter into a religious contract with other responsibilities and believed benefits. In the case of a LDS couple wishing to be sealed together by that believed authority that Elijah used to seal the heavens, there are certain expectations, only one out of the many of which is that the contract can only be entered into by a man and a woman. Some of the other obligations include fasting, donating 10% of their income to the building of God's kingdom on Earth, being completely faithful to their spouses, keeping their trust and faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet vibrant, fulfilling Church assignments such as leadership roles and teaching other members of the congregation, and many, many other things. If a couple is living in accordance with these principles and are willing to commit to continue to do so together as a family unit, they can enter into this additional contract which my faith believes binds the couple with God forever. If they are not living according to these obligations or if they are not interested in keeping these commitments moving forward as a family, then they don't have to enter into this addition religious contract. Religions do and should seek for people to enter into these additional agreements if the said religions make it as a part of their doctrine that marriage is an important part of life which needs to include certain ceremonies for couples to receive what these religions believe will help them progress, but if people choose not to believe in a religious view, they are not obligated to enter into any addition contracts other than the one offered by the State which legally binds couples together through the State's contract.
I know all of this talk about contracts and sealing is fine and good, but I realize I still haven't answered my friend from San Francisco's concern of his facing a life without companionship. I don't know why, according to my faith's theology, God established that marriage can only be sealed between a man and a woman. And again, I have no way of understanding the depth of difficulty that must come in accepting a religious doctrinal set that establishes that LGBT individuals can't be intimate with a partner in this life. I know it might seem callous of me to put this matter on the shelf in a similar fashion to how I approach the unanswered portions of issues with abortion I explained in my previous blog post. But my shelving components of issues does not correlate with my amount of concern about the issue. I spent many sleepless nights feeling some degree of the sadness my friend in San Francisco may have felt when contemplating joining with the LDS Church. I put these issues on the shelf because I realize I don't have all the answers at the current time, but these questions don't stop me from believing what makes up the core of my religious conviction: that God lives and loves us; that Jesus Christ lives and established a Church; and that same Church has been restored today through Joseph Smith. I know that many of my friends disagree with these three core beliefs as much as they disagree with my faith's stance on same sex marriage, but I'm so grateful to live in this country because I can believe these principles, some of my friends can disagree with these principles, and neither I nor they need fear retribution or marginalization for believing either way. That's why I can say I'm a Mormon and a Liberal.
But one night while I was speaking with a fellow interested in learning more about the LDS faith, who was also openly gay and was at that time in a relationship with another man, said something that has stuck with me ever since. He said in a quiet, intense voice, "I'm feeling like this faith is true, but I don't know if I can bear the thought of being alone for the rest of my life." I didn't have a good solution for him then, and I don't think I've discovered one since. I know a very select group in the LGBT community have entered into heterosexual relationships and have raised families, but I've seen that this isn't a solution or a viable option for very many people. So, I will never say that I know how challenging that prospect must be for a member of the LGBT community interested in the LDS faith. But I think I might have a bit truer perspective despite the fact that I'm heterosexual given my experiences working at such an intimate level with many of these incredible individuals.
It's from this context I wish to describe how I've navigated a way to be true to both the doctrine of my faith as well as my political ideology. It is clearly defined from the Old Testament and every canonized book that the LDS faith accepts as being scripture that marriage between a man and a woman is of great importance. The LDS faith holds that God himself married Adam and Eve and told them to raise a righteous posterity. In more recent times, the First Presidency (apostles who work closely with the current prophet) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (a group that works in tandem with the First Presidency in leading the affairs of the LDS faith) have signed their names behind a document entitled, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." This document further defines roles of men and women and reaffirms the importance of marriage between a man and a woman for the establishment of families.
In fact if we draw attention to the very first sentence of this proclamation, it states, "We the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children" (https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation). The LDS faith is a very family-centric organization. Nearly all of its efforts are designed to help families learn how to develop faith in Jesus Christ, accept commitments that we believe will lead us to being prepared for greater happiness in this life and new opportunities to learn and develop in the next life as families. In fact, my faith believes that in the next life, there won't even be a need for a church organization at all, but rather families will progress together through the eternities.
In order to be in a position to take advantage of these great opportunities in the next life, my faith believes that we need to be married under the proper authority. We call it "sealing power." Essentially, sealing is an act where people who have been given the authority to bind what is done on Earth in such a way that it can be accepted in Heaven (as we read about in the book of 1 Kings 17-18 where Elijah seals up the heavens so that no rains come for three and a half years) bind a couple together so that the marriage contract extends beyond the bounds of death.
Given this piece of doctrine I think it makes sense that the LDS faith takes marriage very seriously. It's more than just a legal agreement. It's more even than a religious rite that commits a couple to live under certain guideline for a lifetime. We're talking about a religious ceremony that we truly believe has the power to bind the heavens to accept the contract forever. So given all of this extreme gravity given to the principle of marriage between men and women, how can I possibly say I've found a way of navigating this principle with my liberal political view?
Religious belief is a choice we make as individuals. We may, as was the case with me, grow up within the construct of a certain religious faith or we might discover faith later in life, but regardless of when or how we discover it, we choose to believe. I'm certainly not going to say that parents don't put pressure in the form of punishment and reward on their children to encourage them to believe what the parents believe. My parents certainly rewarded me with praise when they saw me living under the standards they had chosen to live and with expressed disappointment when they saw me break away from those standards. I know my own parents did this because they believed it would lead to better decision making which would lead to greater happiness. But ultimately, and certainly now that I'm 31 years old, having one parent decide not to continue in the LDS faith, and living nearly 800 miles away from both parents, I've chosen to believe in the LDS faith. My faith has grounded me in a similar fashion to the way a ground for an electrical appliance protects me from having the electrical current leak out of the wiring. I believe it not only protects me by providing me with parameters but it also makes me more useful to people around me just in the same way that an appliance is more useful turned on and plugged in than otherwise. But I am very aware of the fact that not everyone agrees with my religious point of view. And in the United States of America, this diversity of religious belief is not only tolerated but celebrated as it absolutely should be. My right to worship in LDS temples and other meeting houses is protected just as much as someone's belief in spirits of the Earth and a belief in no divinity whatsoever are.
Given this wide variety in belief system, the U.S. Government does not pick winners or losers nor does it establish any state religions because doing so would make other faiths be marginalized, undervalued, or threatened. The Government's role in marriage in the United States is merely and yet significantly a legal contract. Enforcing contracts is one of the most vital and fundamental roles our Government plays. Just as in entering into a contract with a retailer for the retailer to provide a good or service and the consumer to provide payment for that good or service, a marriage contract provides couples with certain rights and benefits and certain obligations. There is much debate about the perceived benefit to society that comes from having individual bind each other to these legal marriage contracts. But beyond these controversies, there is one thing that I think stands clear: the Government shouldn't choose winners and losers or side with one religious faith's interpretation of marriage. If two people are interested in entering into a legal contract that binds them together and holds them to certain parameters and provides certain perceived benefits then the Government is a suitable broker of that agreement so long as the said agreement doesn't infringe on another's rights or do harm. I use the phrase "two people" very specifically. The Government shouldn't determine the morality of the union between two men or two women or one woman with one man. It should focus on enforcing the contract that is agreed upon between the two people.
Having said all of this, it is important to distinguish between a legal, civil marriage contract and a religiously-based marriage. There's a reason why couples are made to get a marriage certificate on top of the religious rite of the marriage ceremony. If a couple enters into a marriage contract with the State, they are legally married. If the same couple wishes their marriage to be sanctified by a certain religious custom or by God, they enter into a religious contract with other responsibilities and believed benefits. In the case of a LDS couple wishing to be sealed together by that believed authority that Elijah used to seal the heavens, there are certain expectations, only one out of the many of which is that the contract can only be entered into by a man and a woman. Some of the other obligations include fasting, donating 10% of their income to the building of God's kingdom on Earth, being completely faithful to their spouses, keeping their trust and faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Prophet vibrant, fulfilling Church assignments such as leadership roles and teaching other members of the congregation, and many, many other things. If a couple is living in accordance with these principles and are willing to commit to continue to do so together as a family unit, they can enter into this additional contract which my faith believes binds the couple with God forever. If they are not living according to these obligations or if they are not interested in keeping these commitments moving forward as a family, then they don't have to enter into this addition religious contract. Religions do and should seek for people to enter into these additional agreements if the said religions make it as a part of their doctrine that marriage is an important part of life which needs to include certain ceremonies for couples to receive what these religions believe will help them progress, but if people choose not to believe in a religious view, they are not obligated to enter into any addition contracts other than the one offered by the State which legally binds couples together through the State's contract.
I know all of this talk about contracts and sealing is fine and good, but I realize I still haven't answered my friend from San Francisco's concern of his facing a life without companionship. I don't know why, according to my faith's theology, God established that marriage can only be sealed between a man and a woman. And again, I have no way of understanding the depth of difficulty that must come in accepting a religious doctrinal set that establishes that LGBT individuals can't be intimate with a partner in this life. I know it might seem callous of me to put this matter on the shelf in a similar fashion to how I approach the unanswered portions of issues with abortion I explained in my previous blog post. But my shelving components of issues does not correlate with my amount of concern about the issue. I spent many sleepless nights feeling some degree of the sadness my friend in San Francisco may have felt when contemplating joining with the LDS Church. I put these issues on the shelf because I realize I don't have all the answers at the current time, but these questions don't stop me from believing what makes up the core of my religious conviction: that God lives and loves us; that Jesus Christ lives and established a Church; and that same Church has been restored today through Joseph Smith. I know that many of my friends disagree with these three core beliefs as much as they disagree with my faith's stance on same sex marriage, but I'm so grateful to live in this country because I can believe these principles, some of my friends can disagree with these principles, and neither I nor they need fear retribution or marginalization for believing either way. That's why I can say I'm a Mormon and a Liberal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)