LAPD officers stand watch at the LA temple Thursday evening.

This evening we had the pleasure to go as a ward family to the Oakland temple. We were fortunate to have only a lone protester standing outside the gate when we left at 8:30. Later at his house, Bishop Bain directed me to this talk. I am shocked by how apt it is to the current fervor over Proposition 8 and the current state of our country. Wise words 30 years ago, and still very insightful and thought provoking today.

The following is an excerpt from the talk

“Meeting the Challenges of Today”

by NEAL A. MAXWEL, Oct. 1978
(Emphasis added)

Discipleship includes good citizenship; and in this connection, if you are careful students of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions–especially when the First Presidency has spoken out–the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people, and causes, not candidates. …

But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.” (CR, April 1941, p. 123) This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.

We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

M. J. Sobran wrote recently:

The Framers of the Constitution . . . forbade the Congress to make any law “respecting” the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge “the free exercise” of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling [she continues] to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it.

[She continues:] What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And–I repeat–the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61]

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities–when faced with clear alternatives–would make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.

Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play–especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat’s burden, you see.

Am I saying that the voting rights of the people of religion are in danger? Of course not! Am I saying, “It’s back to the catacombs?” No! But there is occurring a discounting of religiously-based opinions. There may even be a covert and subtle disqualification of some for certain offices in some situations, in an ironic “irreligious test” for office.

However, if people are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would they be, anyway? Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?

If we let come into being a secular church shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hours of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education in school systems that are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?

It may well be, as our time comes to “suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5:41), that some of this special stress will grow out of that portion of discipleship which involves citizenship. Remember that, as Nephi and Jacob said, we must learn to endure “the crosses of the world” (2 Nephi 9:18) and yet to despise “the shame of [it]” (Jacob 1:8). To go on clinging to the iron rod in spite of the mockery and scorn that flow at us from the multitudes in that great and spacious building seen by Father Lehi, which is the “pride of the world,” is to disregard the shame of the world (1 Nephi 8:26–27, 33; 11:35–36). Parenthetically, why–really why–do the disbelievers who line that spacious building watch so intently what the believers are doing? Surely there must be other things for the scorners to do–unless, deep within their seeming disinterest, there is interest.

If the challenge of the secular church becomes very real, let us, as in all other human relationships, be principled but pleasant. Let us be perceptive without being pompous. Let us have integrity and not write checks with our tongues which our conduct cannot cash.

Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even these, however, must leave a record so that the choices before the people are clear and let others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, that others will step forward, having been rallied to righteousness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds–a majority which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves “summer is nigh” (Matthew 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat.

…

Neal A. Maxwell was a President of the First Quorum of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional address was given at Brigham Young University on 10 October 1978. He was ordained and Apostle three years later in 1981 where he served until his death in 2004. The complete speech can be read in the BYU archive.

For further reading on the separation of church and state I highly recommend the article Religion and Politics: The LDS Church and Proposition 8 by

I want to encourage my friends and family who support and sustain (or merely agree with) President Monson to speak out and be a voice in defense of marriage online, at school, and in the workplace. If we don’t speak out who will? Please do what you can for this important effort.

Feel free to use some of the comments I made as inspiration to post on other online forums or in speaking with your friends. I don’t purport to have all the answers but hopefully I will inspire you to speak boldly and with love. I also would encourage you to read President Monson’s Letter and remember that this is an assignment given to us from a Prophet of God.

Thank you for your faith.

Mormon challenge to gay marriage ban

By Rebecca Rosen Lum

Contra Costa Times

Article Last Updated: 07/07/2008 01:49:28 PM PDT

Some Mormons are rejecting their prophet’s call to campaign for a ban on same-sex marriage in California, suggesting the church leadership’s sway over the issue of homosexuality may be weakening.

In a letter circulated to all the state’s congregations June 29, President and Prophet Thomas Monson called on Mormons to “do all you can” to support the November ballot measure “by donating of your means and time.”

The church strongly supported a successful 2000 California proposition that prohibited same-sex unions. The state Supreme Court struck down the measure May 15, opening the door for same-sex marriages.

The intervening years have brought a more widespread acceptance of homosexuality.

“In the eight years since the state proposition we have all become more educated,” said Walnut Creek Mormon author and playwright Carol Lynn Pearson.

“Most people have realized they have a gay family member or a gay friend or people they work with who are gay. Most people are less quick to judge,” she said.

“The LDS church — any church — has the right to do whatever it wishes, but I applaud the California Supreme Court’s decision,” said Martinez resident Susan Randall, an active Mormon.

Church officials declined to comment, referring calls to the Sacramento coalition behind the ballot measure.

“As I understand it, they are being asked to volunteer in the campaign — walking precincts, phoning voters, putting yard signs up in their yards,” said coalition spokesman Jeff Flint.

A former Brigham Young University professor — Mormon, married and heterosexual — is circulating a letter of his own. In it, he says he does not believe people choose their sexual orientation and that denying them equal opportunities “is grossly unfair.”

“You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters,” Jeffrey Nielsen wrote.

Nielsen, who lost his job at the university two years ago after speaking out about gay rights, said he has received numerous positive e-mails from other Mormons — a sign of times, he said.

Even the leadership is shedding its former characterization of homosexuality, he said. The church once cast homosexuality as an evil choice due to faulty parenting but now suggests biology is the determining factor.

“I’m confident and hopeful we’ll make even greater progress,” Nielsen said.

The church says it counts more than 750,000 members in California.

Even in Utah, some question the mandate. An article on the church’s position in The Salt Lake Tribune drew several indignant responses. Some online posters said they resented being asked to contribute money for a political proposition on top of their required tithe.

“If the LDS church could give me one valid reason of how gay marriage is going to damage my marriage, I would probably jump on the bandwagon and start handing out pamphlets, but they simply cannot,” wrote one.

Another post read, “Now it is clear: The church does not expect its members to think, investigate, or use their minds to look into this issue.”

For one content Mormon, the directive simply underscores a church tenet. All families need a mother and a father — a man and a woman, said Elder Kent Archibald, a Utah resident working temporarily at the Oakland Temple.

“The prophet is very careful not to mix politics with the church except on matters that are fundamental to our beliefs,” he said.

The divide does not fall decisively along age or ethnic lines, although some say California Mormons tend to be more liberal than those in other parts of the country, particularly Utah.

In the Catholic and evangelical Protestant faiths, youths are more likely to part ways with elders over the issue. Not so in the Mormon faith, scholars say.

“I’m not sure this is generational so much as an interesting development of independence among the rank-and-file Mormons,” said Jan Shipps, one of the nation’s leading scholars on Mormons. “This is by no means the first time something like this has happened,” she wrote in an e-mail message. In 1932, the church president urged Mormons not to vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt, but Roosevelt carried Utah in the presidential election.

No faith is as monolithic as it may appear to outsiders, but dissent tends not to become public, said Connecticut College religious studies professor Eugene Gallagher.

“When you’ve got dissent intersecting with politics in a volatile election year, it gets harder to keep quiet,” he said. “We had an especially long democratic primary, a split within the evangelical camp over McCain. There are more folks who are thinking they are want to make up their own minds.”

Walnut Creek Mormon Clark Pingree, a gay man, found Prophet Monson’s letter “devastating.”

“For the first time, the society and the government were giving me the validation I deserved,” he said. “I wasn’t nine-tenths of a person, I was ten-tenths. Now they talk about taking away something that was very uplifting.”

However, he said he doubts most Mormons would question a dictate from the prophet.

“Judging from what I’ve read, I’d say the general public’s attitudes are changing,” said Terry La Giusa, a Mormon and member of Affirmation. La Giusa has lived with her partner for 21 years; the couple have two children. “But in the LDS church, what the prophet says goes.”

Polygamist Sects Are Not “Mormons,” Church Says
29 August 2006

SALT LAKE CITY — Many news outlets are reporting on the recent arrest of fugitive polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted list.

Some media outlets have been very careful to describe Warren Jeffs as a “fugitive polygamist sect leader.” Other reports refer to Mr. Jeffs as a “Mormon,” “fundamentalist Mormon,” or as the leader of a “Mormon sect.”

Some may debate what the definition of a Mormon is, but terms like “Mormon Tabernacle Choir,” “Mormon Temple” and “Mormon missionaries” are universally understood to refer to the 12-million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Quite simply, calling Warren Jeffs a Mormon is misleading and confusing to the vast majority of audiences who rightfully associate the term “Mormon” with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The following information may be helpful in further drawing the distinction:

Warren Jeffs Is Not a Mormon
Warren Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and never has been.

Mormons Do Not Practice Polygamy
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890.

(Read history.)

In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. …

“If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”

(Read full statement.)

There Is No Such Thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist” or “Mormon Sect”
The term “Mormon” is a nickname commonly applied to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as a “Mormon fundamentalist,” nor are there “Mormon sects.” A correct term to describe these polygamist groups is “polygamist sects.” The inclusion of the word “Mormon” is misleading and inaccurate.

Associated Press
The Associated Press Stylebook states, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”