by

I watched Elder Oaks’ Saturday afternoon remarks with great interest; being somewhat familiar with talks he has given over the last few years, I anticipated that he would address the issue of same-sex marriage, as he has done in the past. And while same-sex marriage was one of the subtexts that ran throughout his address, Elder Oaks’ topic was instead on the challenge of loving others and living with differences. He focused on a key question: why is it so difficult to have Christlike love for one another? He addressed that question and by so doing, offered counsel that was heartily welcome if not new.

The central point of Elder Oaks’ remarks is that differences of opinion and belief are a fact of life; we do not practice monastic isolation as a people [1] and our task of leavening the earth requires us to live amongst people who will not have the same values or beliefs as ours. And yet, Christ has issued the injunction against contention and has commanded us to love one another. In short, there’s no point complaining that we’re all different; let’s get to the task at hand and figure out how to show bona fide love for each other. This, Oaks posits, is one of the greatest challenges we will face as disciples of Christ. I’d like to look at what he says, make one huge detour, then come back to what he says.

Elder Oaks lays out what has been a common refrain in his remarks for the last several years: Latter-day Saints should not alter their beliefs to suit popular opinion. It is clear to Elder Oaks that the Church will always be at odds with society, saying:

The gospel of Jesus Christ and the covenants we have made inevitably cast us as combatants in the eternal contest between truth and error. There is no middle ground in that contest.

The next portion of his talk is devoted to the most obvious illustrations of this position, that of the Church’s fight against same-sex marriage and other “worldly values and practices”. He laments that followers of Christ are mischaracterized and pilloried for their stances against such things:

today when they hold out for right and wrong as they understand it, they are sometimes called “bigots” or “fanatics.”

Thus, the detour I mentioned above. As I have questioned earlier, perhaps this labeling is a matter of perspective, and those who fight against same-sex marriage may not be able to avoid this sort of label — possibly because it may be accurate. Taking a position against same-sex marriage and homosexual activity for religious reasons will be consistently viewed as bigoted and fanatical by some who think that you are wrong. This should come as no surprise, nor should it be cause for taking offense. If sexuality is central to human nature, and you reject (or view as sinful) the sexuality of homosexuals, I am not sure how you could avoid being viewed as bigoted by some.

This is not Elder Oaks’ point, however, nor is his point to reiterate his conviction against such practices. His point is this:

On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious. We should be wise in explaining and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. In doing so, we ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion. We encourage all of us to practice the Savior’s Golden Rule: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12). When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries. In any event, we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation.

This is remarkable and should be applauded as a reasonable way to approach matters of public discourse. Some will no doubt take the last paragraph to be a concession speech, offered as a too-late effort to regain goodwill from a public alienated by the scorched earth strategies of Prop 8 and other efforts. If that is the perspective to be rebutted, I am not sure what sort of evidence would suffice in that regard. The battle was not yet then over. Elder Oaks gave his talk two days before the Supreme Court denied certiorari to the same-sex marriage cases, essentially handing ultimate defeat to the Church and those who opposed same-sex marriage. I initially hailed Oaks’ remarks prophetic in this regard — I would guess that like most conservatives, Elder Oaks would have assumed that there would be 4 justices to grant cert, and the denial of the petitions were a great surprise to both sides. But if they were prophetic words, they were in no event novel. I would point out that at least since 2006, this has been the public mantra of the Church in all matters regarding same-sex marriage, not just in light of defeats but also during moments of victory. A couple of examples:

In 2006, after starting a coalition in favor of a pro-marriage constitutional amendment:

Because national campaigns on moral, social or political issues often become divisive, the Church urges those who participate in public debate — including its own members — to be respectful of each other. While disagreements on matters of principle may be deeply held, an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect is most conducive to the strength of a democratic society.

In 2008, after Proposition 8 passed:

We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other.

Whether or not all these statements are simply lip service is a matter open to debate, but the consistency of the message cannot really be questioned. Still, a good question to ask, if only to explain to non-members, is: why should we take at face value the Church’s calls for civility? Can you be civil while still rejecting same-sex marriage and homosexual activity? In other words, if someone you consider a bigot tells you he wants to be civil and that he loves you, can you ever believe him? These are questions that the Church must look to answer in the post-same-sex-marriage world. I am not entirely convinced that we have adequate answers to these questions.

Regardless of whether you want to question Elder Oaks’ bona fides, isn’t it better for someone to be civil than not-civil? Isn’t it better for the Church to teach tolerance and love than to teach their opposites? I recognize that to many who oppose the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage, Elder Oaks’ statements are hypocritical at best — but they are also the best statements that could be made at this time [2]. The Church needs to guide its membership through a world that has rejected its primary thrust in the culture wars over the last decade. If we are to not only survive as a religion but also leaven the earth with Christ’s teachings, an approach like Elder Oaks’ is the only realistic course of action available. I’d argue that those sorts of statements on rejecting persecution of all kinds and loving each other are precisely the sort of discourse we want to encourage. Elder Oaks is correct when he says that Jesus Christ’s commandments “includes loving our neighbors of different cultures and beliefs as He has loved us.” His call for brotherly love is consistent with being a disciple of Christ.

Ultimately, the proof will be in our actions. Will we make actual attempts to love each other? Or will we adopt the monastic approach that Elder Oaks has said is contrary to Christ’s injunction to leaven the whole earth? Time will tell, but there are reasons to be optimistic: we are the Church of Jesus Christ and we have the gift of the Holy Ghost. Surely God will guide us as we forge ahead in our efforts to love even our enemies as Christ loved us.

[3]

—————————–

[1] at least, not since statehood.

[2] unless there were to be a complete reversal in the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, which isn’t going to happen.

[3] I promised in the beginning that I’d come back from the detour, but I never did. Elder Oaks went on to cite a few examples of where LDS intolerance needs to stop, though, and even though an endnote is short shrift I’d like to applaud each of his examples: LDS families who forbid their kids from playing with non-members; bullying and insults among our youth; and the current language of politics. His statement that “the most important setting to forgo contention and practice respect for differences is in our homes and family relationships” is worth embroidering. I hope this means that teens will find more acceptance and love in their homes. We don’t need more homeless teens.