Specific and Contemporary: LDS Church Counsel

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued letters stating specific policy regarding support for two popular legislative measures from different areas in the US.

LDS Church leaders sent letters to members in Colorado expressing opposition to legalizing assisted suicide, as in Colorado Proposition 106.

Letters were also sent to Church members in California, Arizona, and Nevada encouraging them to oppose legislative measures which would legalize marijuana use.

"The church maintains a firm belief in the sanctity of human life," the First Presidency letter said, "and opposes deliberately taking the life of a person even when the person may be suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Life is a sacred gift and should be cherished even in difficult circumstances."

"While the church opposes physician-assisted suicide, members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life through means that are unreasonable. Decisions in such cases are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer."

A growing number of scientific studies show that marijuana use disrupts brain development, according a review of the literature published by the American Psychological Association. Findings suggest structural and functional brain changes, and one decades-long longitudinal study showed an average loss of six IQ points among persistent users, similar to damage from exposure to lead.

Reiterating: Legalizing - Bad Idea

Supporters of a certain candidate in the current political campaigning have been talking up the issue of legalization of illegal drugs. Some of these self-identified "libertarians" scoff about comparing the potential harmful effects of marijuana against the known evil consequences of alcohol abuse.

We are compelled to make that comparison, obviously, because it is useful.

How could we reasonably expect that legalized marijuana would have a more benign social impact than legalized alcohol?

At one time, the people of this society supported a ban on alcohol. But it proved to be unpopular for reasons other than the fact that the consumption of alcohol has serious negative consequences. I suggest that the biggest reason prohibition failed is because it foiled Satan's purpose to ensnare us in evil habits.

In any case, it seems rather specious to argue for legalization on the basis that marijuana might prove somewhat less harmful than legalized alcohol.

Let's also not pretend that legalizing this stuff is a new idea. I was listening to the same arguments before I was in high school, and they were not new then.

There is always a running debate about whether civil law should attempt to "legislate morality". The root of this argument is itself suspect, since laws must be based in moral values, or they aren't worth much.

Creating laws that proscribe socially costly or damaging behavior has no effect on free agency. Free agents always have the ability to make their own choices. In the case of behavior that is illegal, those making a choice have added incentive toward legal alternatives. But they can still choose for themselves.

A free society does not exist in a moral or legal vacuum. In a perfectly ordered society, perfectly preserving personal freedom, everyone would voluntarily obey the laws, because we would all have the knowledge and understanding that these laws are based on correct principles.

I find the argument that legalized marijuana might be somewhat less damaging than alcohol to be less than compelling. I could argue with just as much enthusiasm that legalized machine guns would inflict less damage than legalized tactical nukes. Not a convincing rationale, either way.

I think the facts are unmistakably clear. Substances containing drugs with side-effects that alter perception or impair judgement are not suitable for legalized unrestricted consumption. We're all fully aware that the most damaging social impact from alcohol consumption has nothing to do with livers or stomachs.

As I see it, there are two obstacles which must be overcome in order to legitimize marijuana use. First, to prove that the net benefit is greater than any possible negative impact and social cost. And second, to insure that control and marketing of marijuana products don't follow the same track as, say, historical tobacco products.

A bit of additional appropriate sermonizing...

Quoting from Glenn L. Pace,"They're Not Really Happy," Ensign, Nov 1987, 39

Activities always forbidden by the Lord and for many years frowned upon by society are now accepted and promoted by that same society. The media serves up these activities in such a fashion as to make them look very desirable. Add to acceptability and desirability the power of peer pressure, and you have an extremely explosive situation.

Lehi’s vision of the tree of life is appropriate for our day. In that vision, he saw a great and spacious building, which represents the pride and temptations of the world:

“And I … beheld … a great and spacious building; …

“And it was filled with people, both old and young, … and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who … were partaking of the fruit” (1 Ne. 8:26–27).

Even though you have a testimony and want to do what is right, it is difficult not to be drawn to the great and spacious building. From all appearances, the people in the building seem to be having a great time. The music and laughter are deafening...

They look happy and free, but don’t mistake telestial pleasure for celestial happiness and joy. Don’t mistake lack of self-control for freedom. Complete freedom without appropriate restraint makes us slaves to our appetites. Don’t envy a lesser and lower life.

An interesting side note -- In today's news it was announced that the Church officially supports a measure proposing to remove certain alcoholic beverages from the list of those approved for sale at grocery and convenience stores, "that the sale of distilled spirits....should be restricted to state liquor stores." Commentary in the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune.

Even more interesting in light of current events.  Several states have embarked on the legalization experiment.   Some of them have approved "medical use".  The consequences are largely unknown.

Marriage amendment vote fails

Another attempt at considering an amendment to the US Constitution failed in the House vote.

The amendment, just like its predecessor, sought to define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman and was a priority for many family-values groups in and out of the Beltway.

This was the third vote in the American Values Agenda, which House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) introduced last month to minimal fanfare. After the amendment fell short yesterday, the Speaker criticized Democrats who opposed the measure and said a majority of Americans support the ban.

“Be assured that this issue is not over and that we will continue to send a message to the American people that preserving and protecting marriage is a priority,” Hastert said in a statement.

House Democrats condemned the marriage vote as a partisan political maneuver after the Senate rejected a similar amendment on a procedural vote last month that prevented leaders from bringing it to a vote.

A lot of the comments I see considering this issue seem to miss the real point. The underlying issue is a semantic question: What does “marriage” mean?

The Family Proclamation answers this, succinctly and unequivocally. I believe the official church interest in this matter is driven by prophetic inspiration, which forsees a developing crises involving of much greater scope than concerns about “alternative” fringe interests.

The final clause of the Proclamation is clearly politically directed, recognizing that legally defining marriage is rightfully a political issue, notwithstanding the sophistry of those who wish to simply disappear the problem by asserting that it is not.

LDS Church leaders urged public support from members in a letter sent to US Church units, to receive a mixed political reaction from supporters and detractors.

Some have suggested that from an LDS perspective, forcing others by law to live by correct principles is what Satan tried to impose. As I understand it, the proposal by Lucifer was that we would not have the option to exercise our own volition. He would dictate our actions. This arrangement would have had little in common with human government and laws which attempt to direct the choices we make under human agency. Under “Satan’s Plan”, there would be no choices.

We are instructed that all beings are endowed with fundamental insight into what constitutes the basis for morality. As moral beings it is our obligation to acknowledge that insight, and to attempt to codify it into a government structure and a legal system that reflect a positive disposition toward things which are “good” and a negative posture toward things which are “bad”. That our laws are an imperfect reflection of the ideal is axiomatic and acceptable, as long as our collective voice agrees that we are pointed in the right direction.

This is the real basis for the “definition of marriage” controversy. Now we experience discord in discussion of these issues because minority interests object to general rules which frame an advantage for others, but fail to address their specific minority concerns. Of course the ideal would be to implement laws which give no unfair preference to any single group, but there appears to be no way to serve that ideal perfectly. The acceptable compromise has long been that general rules which best serve the greatest number should prevail.

To propose to discard rules to which any minority finds marginal objection falls down the slippery slope toward anarchy.

The other day I listened to some ideas from a college student about the sanctity of room-mate relationships, as a strange parallel to the "gay marriage" rationale. It made me laugh. I have actually been campaigning to gain legal sanction for my loving relationship with my 1995 Toyota 4-Runner. For some reason, most refuse to take me seriously. ;-)

I agree that any focus on “gay” interests in considering this issue is off base, even to the point of being ridiculous. The attendent arguments are subterfuge to sidestep the most substantive question regarding the protection of the cultural definition of marriage, which affects vastly greater numbers than any “gay” actions ever will.

Perhaps it would be an acceptable (and infinitely more entertaining) solution, to designate a new government office regulating “gay” interests. Let us create an entire Federal bureaucracy exclusively for serving self-designated “gays”. It would prove once and for all that there aren’t really enough of them to warrant such a fuss.

Again, in my perception all of the discussion of peripheral issues effectively bypasses the vital point.

Perhaps it is more appealing for people to ignore the danger to real marriage, the issue that more directly concerns the vast majority, and instead focus on fringe, virtually inconsequential issues. Like whether “gays” are as good as normal people. Or whether polygamy should be legal.

In proper perspective, these are doubtless legitimate concerns, but should hardly rightfully occupy the top-of-the-list priority for the majority of us.

Very few will ever suffer any negative repercussions if the questions surrounding “gays” are never settled. This thread unravels into the surreal. As one who aspires to be a true disciple in the restored gospel, I try my best to understand direct statements from the First Presidency and to follow their counsel. Ideas forwarded by some in this discussion have thoroughly confused me. I cannot see how such thinking can possibly reconcile with the intent of the official statement.

In this context I can see how President Hinckley gets the impression that things might be as bad today as in the evil society of Sodom and Gommorah. While the Lord’s spokesman warns us that the traditional family is under heavy attack, some of us respond by hoping for more fully funded social welfare programs. The damage that accrues from problems with conventional marriages negatively impacts so many countless lives. As the problems multiply it becomes progressively more rare to find a “normal” family untroubled by problems with conventional marriage. Many of these problems are obviously inventions of our contemporary culture, and we could presumably discover effective means to correct them, if we only tried. Yet we are always distracted from the task by hand-wringing about “gays”.

I have wondered if just the open discussion of such trivia perhaps serves a bit of latent prurient interest.

(Speaking first for myself, of course. ;-)

Further discussion of BYU actions against "gay" protesters demonstrating on campus here and here.


I would observe that although it might be so inferred from certain comments on the internet, I would suppose that neither BYU nor the church has any independent civil authority to arrest protesters, or to so act in any other matters under the jurisdiction of civil laws. Offenders would be arrested by law enforcement officers, and answerable for legal violations directly to officers of the court, not BYU staff or officials.

Strangely, we also find homosexual apologists within the church actually looking to the Book of Mormon for proof-texts to represent the righteousness of accommodating homosexual activist demands. It makes little sense -- would we argue that because there is no Book of Mormon passage which explicitly forbids same-sex marriage, then it should be okay?

Indeed, as far as I know, there is no specific mention of proscriptions against homosexuality in the Book of Mormon, but there is explicit recognition of strict cultural observance of the Law of Moses. The Brass Plates apparently contained texts similar to our Old Testament, which offers condemnation for all kinds of sexual perversions in the most specific and unequivocal terms imaginable..

This Old Testament passage characterizes the law under which Book of Mormon society operated.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. (Leviticus 18:22-25)

I strongly suspect no specifics were ever mentioned explicitly in the abridged histories of the Book of Mormon because the editors considered the topic of such abominations too disgusting and degrading to mention. Because they lived with and accepted this law, they already recognized how evil and awful the consequences of sexual immorality, therefore it needed no further elaboration.

Defenders of sexual deviance are ever wont to point out that such perversions have ancient historical roots and have existed in all societies from the beginning of time. This assertion, even if true, hardly constitutes a rational defense or justification for evil practices.

The real threat...

Difficult to predict where attempts to legitimize homosexual marriage will lead. Though there currently seems to be very strong popular opposition, it seems like such issues have a way of being forced upon us without being ratified by the majority. If we have legalization of homosexual marriage, then homosexual marriage would no longer be a subset of a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

This is one of the points that can be confused, because as of today, church policy is based on the "legally and lawfully married" standard. I believe there are even church members who have set their hopes that the church would be forced to recognize and even perform such marriages, under the law of the land. I think this will never happen. If what is legal and lawful under civil laws becomes something that is obviously contrary to the laws of God, a change in policy would be needed to draw the obvious distinction.

I think the arguments for homosexual marriage are contrived, but then I also feel that this whole discussion passes by most everything that really matters. If homosexuals wish to attempt false emulation of the true order of marriage, so what? They cannot through rule of law or by practice become something that they are not. They will simply be like the false priests of pharaoh who aspired to the priesthood, though it was denied to them (cf Abr 1:27). Counterfeit marriage, like a counterfeit priesthood, will never be recognized or blessed by Heavenly Father.

I am certain that even if it were legal, homosexual relationships would never achieve the kind of importance in the structure of social relationships that traditional families do.

Of course, the real matter of importance is how such issues reflect on traditional marriage. The move to legitimize perverted sexual relationships is just one facet of this problem. Traditional marriage, is weakening in many other areas, some of them with much greater significance.

The normalization of widespread divorce and illegitimacy, to name two items, are real threats to social stability. As these problems escalate, we are effectively performing a huge experiment with human populations that far transcends the potential impact of global warming. In the space of one or two generations, every human life will be a product of this experiment. There are no controls or predictions on possible outcomes. Unlike global warming predictions, there are few scientists that even seem to recognize that any such threat exists, let alone to create theories and computer models and argue at conferences.

With us, unlike the rest of the world, we have the witness and warning from inspired prophets. They have foreseen the calamities of the last days. Perhaps some of the worst trials are for us yet to face, if the time comes that we cannot even promote true moral values and correct principles to children.