The Mormon Church is in the news, and it's not favorable press. Two Mormons have been told to appear in Salt Lake City before the church for a trial, and that they face excommunication for openly challenging the beliefs of the church. John Dehlin, from Logan, UT, runs a website that advocates for full inclusion of LBGT individuals within the Mormon Church. Kate Kelly, a D.C. lawyer, has openly advocated for women's ordination within the church and led protests in Salt Lake City at the last national leaders' convention.
As you can guess, the media generally characterizes the trials and threatened excommunications as the bullying tactics of an oppressive religion with an all-male, top-down hierarchy out of touch with basic human values like acceptance, equality, and freedom of expression.
I'm no fan of Mormonism. As one who views the Bible as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God I find the teachings of Mormonism heretical. They deny the unique deity of Christ, they teach that salvation is dependent on our works, and add a complex system of rules to the life of freedom and grace the Bible presents. (For example, failure to tithe is also grounds for discipline.)
But here I'm in full agreement with the Mormon Church.
One of the Mormon leaders who declined to speak specifically to these two cases pointed out that Mormonism is not and has never been a democracy. Adherents are free to opt in or out. If they choose to join that church they (should) know the standards of that religion, or at least that there are standards to which they're expected to conform, and that failure to conform will bring disciplinary action of one degree or another.
If the church teaches one thing and a member believes and advocates for another it can go down a couple of different ways. Not that long ago leadership positions were restricted to white males. After pressure from a variety of sources inside and outside the church, Mormonism opened its leadership positions to include African American males. They made that change at the top ("The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles") and it immediately became authoritative. We may shake our heads and wonder why it took them over a century to get with the program, but as a non-governmental voluntary organization they have the right, within the law, to conduct themselves however they choose. Restricting leadership positions to White males broke no laws.
If the church teaches something that runs counter to a member's convictions and the church says, "This is the way it is and the way it's gonna stay" that member can a) leave the church, or b) continue to advocate for change. If they choose option b) they should understand and accept the consequences.
It's not that tricky, so why is it so newsworthy in this case? The answer is easy: because the issues involved in these two trials are currently hot buttons in our society. If it was a requirement re. wearing long dresses or beards (women and men respectively) nobody would pay it a bit of attention. In fact, our culture would admire them as quaint throw-backs to an earlier, more romantic time, cf. the Amish. (Incidentally, the Amish have a system of rules, regs, and punishments that puts the Mormons to shame.)
I'm also in agreement with the Mormon Church on the substance of this issue. Anyone who reads the Bible (and considers it authoritative) will quickly realize it teaches that the sexual act should only occur within marriage and between a male and a female. Leadership in the home and in the church is the duty of men. (Note: rather than a misogynistic system, the biblical servant-leader paradigm is quite the opposite. Paul said, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.")
Here, too, the media shake their collective head in disbelief. A top-down governance that rejects sex outside of a husband/wife marriage and views men as the proper head in home and church is just more than they can fathom. But I'm OK with that. I long ago grew up enough to realize I could not and should not let others set my standards. If I'm destined to be an anachronism, so be it; I embrace my non-conformity if it means remaining true to my convictions. But I'll go a step further.
A prophet stood in the city square from morning to night preaching against the wicked practices of his fellow citizens. A visitor to the city noticed the prophet, observed that he was thoroughly ignored, and ventured to ask, "You see they pay you no heed. Why do you continue to preach? You'll never change them."
The prophet replied, "I preach so they won't change me.
No comments:
Post a Comment