Church Handbook 1: Revisons and Reactions

I am not one to say "I told you so", but I honestly believe these prancing parading advocates encouraging our loving embrace of openly homosexual behavior are the ones who have precipitated the recent Church action of revisions to Handbook 1 regarding same-sex behavior.

As it turns out, this group of marchers and those they presume to support WERE actually engaging in a sort of "bridge-building".  Just not the bridges they were anticipating.  They at least partially have themselves to blame for the changes in Church policy.  Life is full of such surprises.

I can also say that this clarification of Church policy regarding same-sex relationships and Church membership is an answer to my own fervent personal prayers.

It helps resolve my concern that the Law of Chastity was being revised for the benefit of a certain interest.  My understanding was always that everyone is required to live by the same set of rules, and no personal circumstance exists that would allow exceptions.

Though I am certain that there have been people praying for other solutions to this problem.  I know that there have been.  Their prayers have been answered too - just not the way they were expecting.

I understand that some are angry, hurt, disappointed and offended by the Church position.  But from my point of view, this was a change waiting to happen.  I can see that some advocates can make a case for their position with regard to certain aspects of these issues, but the arguments seem of little merit because their whole rationale begins with a false premise.  It is vain to protest that a rope is sound except for a fatal weakness at the top of the line.

As has been the case with so many other such actions from the Church, this implementation of new administrative policy was a response to current events.  And inspired Church leadership acting under Divine direction.

The developing situation had obviously left local leaders, the bishops and stake presidents, with an unfair burden on their judgement.  I can imagine being personally conflicted and torn by the many impassioned pleas for justice.  Especially in the face of such a shift in the legal scene.

Now that burden has been shifted.  I have little doubt that local leaders have made their own decisions about how to act in cases affected by this concern.  Perhaps some of them will be all the more troubled by this course of action.  But it was really the only way to resolve the conflict.

I am personally impressed that the policy change reflects the collective wisdom and experience of those who guide the Church with their prophetic calling.

And I am mightily relieved that I don't have to make such impactful decisions regarding people's lives.  In retrospect, I see that the drive to give legal status to same-sex marriage was the impetus for this seeming new policy.  In reality, there is nothing particularly new about it.  The policy simply extends administrative rules and oversight to Church doctrine that has long been in place. What is actually "new" is any hope or expectation that immoral behavior will be tolerated or accepted by the Church.  Indeed, the scope of acceptance and practice throughout the world shows a surprising degree of diversity, from countries that legally embraced same-sex relationships decades ago, to those who still cling to some vestiges of traditional morality.

Plenty of pubic sorrowing, agonized hand-wringing stories and demonstrations are now being staged.  As if advocates and those fully engaged in this behavior are shocked and surprised that anyone would ever think to disapprove of their choice to act in open defiance of eternal commandments, so presumptuously to spoil their blissfully happy homosexual relationships.  If you were among those so posturing, I'm honestly sorry to disappoint you, but rather pleased that you're not quite so in charge of things as you might have been led to believe.

All popular opinion to the contrary, it turns out that there really can be no such thing as "Mormons for Gay Marriage".  It is a total contradiction in terms.

My focus is not distracted.  As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.  Not that I am claiming to be perfect in any particular aspect.  But striving nonetheless.

April 2013 General Conference: We Believe in Being Chaste

Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered the definitive address on the Lord's law governing chastity.

He asserts that this is a spiritual law, and that the eternal significance can only be understood within the context of Heavenly Father's Plan of Happiness for His children.  Human beings, male and female, are created in the image of God.  We each have a divine nature and destiny.  (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Our mortal life is to provide experience.  A physical body is part of that provision.  (1 Nephi 19:6; Alma 7:12–13).

Man and woman are intended to complement each other.  The unique spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females is necessary to fulfil Heavenly Father's plan.  “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11).
 
God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force today. Thus, marriage between a man and a woman is the authorized channel through which premortal spirits enter mortality.  Complete sexual abstinence before marriage and total fidelity within marriage protect the sanctity of this sacred covenant.

Rules that are part of God's plan are spiritual in nature, and are intended to guard from misuse of the procreative power that is entrusted to us by God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Quoting from Elder Dallin H. Oaks -

The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given his children. Its use was mandated in the first commandment, but another important commandment was given to forbid its misuse. The emphasis we place on the law of chastity is explained by our understanding of the purpose of our procreative powers in the accomplishment of God’s plan. …

Outside the bonds of marriage, all uses of the procreative power are to one degree or another a sinful degrading and perversion of the most divine attribute of men and women. (“The Great Plan of Happiness").

The Church follows one uniform rule guarding this procreative power.  For every individual, man or woman, the standard for sexual morality dictates that sexual intimacy is proper only within legitimate marriage as provided in God's plan.

Such relations are not merely a curiosity to be explored, an appetite to be satisfied, or a type of recreation or entertainment to be pursued selfishly. They are not a conquest to be achieved or simply an act to be performed. Rather, they are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential and a way of strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.

To some extent, the 'natural man" characterized in the Book of Mormon is a part of each of us.  As President Spencer W. Kimball described, "...The ‘natural man’ is the ‘earthy man’ who has allowed rude animal passions to overshadow his spiritual inclinations".

As children of our Heavenly Father, we inherit divine capacities.  But we must also govern our natural passions and appetites in favor of our inclination toward selfless benevolence and temperance.

We live in a fallen world, and the very elements from which we came are corruptible, and leave us subject to sin and death.  That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities, and to bridle all of the passions of the flesh.

The devil, Lucifer, desires to frustrate God's "Plan of Happiness" and to make the sons and daughters of God confused and unhappy, to interfere with their eternal progression.  This constitutes rebellion and defiance against the plan of God.  Lucifer seeks to limit our progression by tempting us to use our bodies improperly.

Disciplining the natural man in each of us makes possible a richer, a deeper, and a more enduring love of God and of His children. Love increases through righteous restraint and decreases through impulsive indulgence.

Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God (D&C 121:45).

Sin is as a "spiritual wound" that some need to repent of.   From the Atonement of the Savior arises the comforting power that can heal our spiritual wounds and remove guilt. However, this can only be applied through the principles of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, and consistent obedience.

The bishop holds the key to repentance to assuage our guilt.   The extent and intensity of your repentance must be equivalent to the severity of your sins. Serious spiritual wounds require sustained treatment and time to heal completely and fully.

Morality: Purity, Chastity, Virtue

The East Glacis of the
Great Salt Lake Temple

Some mistakenly believe that these ideals have the connotation the world assigns to the same values of sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On the one side, morality is values-based. It deals with our reason and rationale for altruism. We sacrifice self-interest because we have been created with the ability to recognize that it serves a higher purpose to forward the righteous needs and desires of others over our own.

On the contrary, the natural man is an enemy to God, and represents everything that persuades and entices abusive force, brutality, selfishness, satiation, excess, and worse, to exclude gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned.

Virginity is not the same as chastity or virtue. Nor does a loss of virginity of necessity signify any attendant sacrifice of virtue, chastity, or purity. Much of the world confuses these terms, and the dictionary is no longer useful, because common usage reflects that misunderstanding. Heavenly Father and myself are the ones to whom I account for my own morality. It is of little interest or account to the rest of the world. Most of the rest do not agree with me on what it means anyway, so why share my status and just spread confusion?

There are two special exceptions that exist at present, as there are often policy exceptions. One is if I happen to be married, and the other is my bishop. Both are confidential, and should never divulge or discuss with others any details of personal matters except under very rare circumstances.